Zeitgeist (The 1st third)

[WhorsieJMD]

What do you think of the movie Zeitgeist? Namely the first third of it. I think it needs further exploration because even if the Jesus parallels to other cultures are all granted it is still completely ambiguous. For example, God could have arranged nature in such a way, as explained in Zeitgeist, to herald in the most focal point in history: the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. C. S. Lewis comes close to saying this in his analysis of Paganism.

I recommend Dr. Gary Habermas to counter the points made in the 1st part of Zeitgeist.

[tonyswan]

I would say you are correct.  Section 1 is too brief.  Section 2 did an OK job on the 9/11 "conspiracy" but again staggers in comparison to most other pure 9/11 films.  Part 3 is the absolute reason to watch this film.  It exposes EXACTLY how the globalist elite CAME INTO POWER - Unlike and much better than ANY other filim I"ve seen before (Feel free to prove me wrong with any links).

[Sane]

I personally think the belief that jesus never existed is borderline absurd.  however the movie overall breaks down how religion can be abused as a tool for control of the mind and reality.

As fas as the jesus thing, I think ring of power [immagine the intensity of zeitgeist for over 5 straight hours] present much more compelling arguments that satisfy my belief of jesus as a saviour, a king, and oone of the first "truthers" on the planet.

Another article that presents other compelling information is:

Jesus is an Anarchist:
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is--otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

by James Redford
The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can't be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

But you read correctly, and I will demonstrate exactly that. At this point you may be incredulous, but I assure you that I am quite serious. If you are a Christian and find the above title at all hard to believe then you of all people owe it to yourself to find out what the basis of this charge is, for if the above comes as news to you then you still have much to learn about Jesus and about the most vitally important struggle which has plagued mankind since the dawn of history: mankind's continuing struggle between freedom and slavery, between value producers and the violent parasitical elite, between peace and war, between truth and deception. This is the central struggle which defines mankind's history and, sadly, continues to do so. As Christians and as people in general, what we choose to believe and accept as the truth is equally as vitally important, for ultimately it is people's beliefs about the world that will shape and determine what outcomes transpire in the world. If the mass of people believe in political falsehoods and deceptions then mankind will continue to repeat the same gruesome mistakes, as it does presently, and the aforementioned struggle will continue to be no closer to a desirable resolution. Genuine change must first come by changing one's mind, and if what one had believed before was in error then one cannot expect good results to proceed forth from it. And all change starts with the individual. You can help change the world by simply changing your mind. All I ask of you is to believe in the truth--know the truth and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).

It is the purpose of this document to demonstrate the above claim, and if you are a Christian then I submit that it should be your task to honestly consider what is presented here, for if the above claim comes as a surprise then I will show that what you thought you knew about Jesus was not the whole story: Jesus is far more radical than many would have you believe, and for good reason--it threatens the status quo. For the consequence of this truth becoming understood and accepted by even one-tenth of the population would be quite dramatic indeed: governments would topple like so many dominoes. For as the 16th century Frenchman Étienne de la Boétie observed in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (http://www.blancmange.net/ tmh/articles/laboetie.html), all governments ultimately rest on the consent of the governed, even totalitarian dictatorships. Now this "consent" does not have to be in the form of active promotion and support of the State, it could simply be in the form of hopeless resignation, such as accepting the canard "nothing's as sure as death and taxes." All governments can only exist because the majority--in one form or another--accept them as at least being inevitable. They believe in the deception that even though government may be evil that it is nevertheless a necessary evil, and therefore cannot conceive of a better alternative. But if such were true then Jesus Christ's whole message is a fallacy. But such is not the truth, there is an alternative: liberty. And I will show that Jesus has called us to liberty, and that liberty and Christ's message are incompatible with government.

[WhorsieJMD]

I would not be surprised that a strong argument can be made that Jesus had anarchistic tendencies. I mean, he spoke to women, tax collectors, leapers, and other out castes of society, which clearly shows that he was trying to go against the status quo. He fought the elite of his time, however, I think his message is more spiritual than political. The correct way to politically act may end up being close the anarchistic/libertarian, but I don't think that was the point of what Jesus did and said.

However, my main concern is that people who wishfully think or are on the fence on the issue of Christianity will be swayed by this powerful film, which is more-so coherently convincing than it is foundationally convincing. For example, they make some powerful parallels to the life of Jesus, but they don't do much at all to attack the actual historical existence of the life of Jesus. They briefly mention non-biblical sources, and do a very poor job attacking them (probably because they ARE in fact good sources, as Dr. Habermas explains when he uses only what the most critical historians all him).

Also, I dispute those parallels in the first place.I don't think they go quite as deep as Zeitgeist would say they do. For example, Dr. Habermas had a debate with a man from a skeptic magazine and did quite well arguing against him on the issue of Jesus parallels with respect to other cultures' myths. The debate can be found here http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm under the section "Dr. Habermas  Debates Skeptic Tim Callahan Comparing the Resurrection to Ancient Mythology". And even if I do grant ALL of the parallels they end up being completely ambiguous, as I said earlier.

I hope Alex addresses this subject on his show because I worry about people being swayed too easily by this deceptively powerful section of Zeitgeist.

[tonyswan]

I would say that due to all the historical examples all over the world that one could just as easily say that Jesus had to exist: only his real name may have not been "Jesus".  His name could have been Horus or any of the other names.  Though it would be nice for all to have valid proof of his real name, this is not at all important.  What was important about Jesus was his message and his actions.

[username]

download below

[Amishism]

I don't know what truth is even in the satanic copy & paste garbage, Zeitgeist. I did watch it and spotted several inconsistencies in part one. Satanist don't actually believe in a literal satan, rather practicing they kabbalah the twist scripture.

Anyway, the claims about religion in this satanic NWO c&p drop were debunked before it was ever released. Obviously this producer knew this. Were they just trying to start debate or being deceptive. Whoever produced this NAZI NWO religion c&p film did a dis-service to the truth movement.

They are all compared at this site:
The Jesus copycat myth

Jesus vs. Adad (aka Hadad) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Adonis - Greek
Jesus vs. Aesculapius - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Apollo - Greek
Jesus vs. Apollonius - Greek
Jesus vs. Artemes - Greek
Jesus vs. Attis (aka Atys) - Asian, Greek
Jesus vs. Baal - Semetic, Syrian, Persian
Jesus vs. Bacab - Mayan
Jesus vs. Balder - Norse
Jesus vs. Bali - Indian
Jesus vs. Beddru (aka Beddin) - Japanese
Jesus vs. Bel Merodach (aka Marduk) - Mesopotamian
Jesus vs. Bremrillah (aka Bremrillahm) - Druid
Jesus vs. Buddha - Indian
Jesus vs. Cadmus - Greek
Jesus vs. Caesar - Roman
Jesus vs. Chu Chulainn (aka Cuchulain) - Irish
Jesus vs. Crite - Chaldean
Jesus vs. Dahzdbog - Russian
Jesus vs. Deva Tat - Siamese
Jesus vs. Dionysus (aka Bacchus) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Elvis - American (humor)
Jesus vs. Fohi (aka Fu-Xi, Fu-Hsi) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Frey (aka Freyr, Fricco) - Norse
Jesus vs. Gentaut - Mexican
Jesus vs. Hercules (aka Alcides, Heracles) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Hermes - Greek
Jesus vs. Hesus - Celtic
Jesus vs. Hil and Feta - Mandaite
Jesus vs. Holy One of Xaca - Chinese, Indian
Jesus vs. Horus - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Hyacinthus - Greek
Jesus vs. Iasion - Greek
Jesus vs. Ieo - Chinese
Jesus vs. Indra - Indian, Tibetian
Jesus vs. Inanna - Sumerian *NEW*
Jesus vs. Ischy - Asian
Jesus vs. Ixion - Greek
Jesus vs. Jao - Nepalese
Jesus vs. Jupiter (aka Jove) - Rome
Jesus vs. Krishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Lao-Kiun - Chinese
Jesus vs. Marsyas - Greek
Jesus vs. Maximus Christos - Israelite
Jesus vs. Melkarth - Greek
Jesus vs. Mikado - Japanese
Jesus vs. Mithra - Persian, Roman
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Mithra stories?
Hardly. Before reading this list, a little background on the Mithraic religion is in order. Mithra was a Persian god dating back to roughly 1400 B.C. It later sprang up in Rome after Christian times, with a severely different story to it. Here is the list given, with my responses:
1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

There is no support for the idea that Mithra was born of a virgin. And since nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was born on December 25th, this could not be called a comparison. Also, Mithra was formed within a solid mountain, not within a cave. While, logically, a cave was left behind once Mithra dug himself out, saying he was born in a cave is wrong. There are texts suggesting that shepherds were present at Mithra’s birth and helped dig him out of the mountain, but these are Roman texts dating to no earlier than the 2nd century A.D., and thus were most likely influenced by the New Testament writings, instead of being an influence upon them.

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

First of all, any religious figure could logically be described as a great traveling teacher and master. However, this label does NOT seem to apply to Mithra. Great and Master, perhaps. But nowhere in his story does he travel or teach.

3. He had 12 companions or disciples.

In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The source for this claim seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times anyways, so if they WERE meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

The earliest references to Mithra’s followers being promised immortality date to around 200 A.D. So again, this was likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

5. He performed miracles.

This is true, and claims of Mithra’s miracles do date to the pre-Christian Persian versions. But miracles themselves date to far earlier (Noah story, anyone?). So the idea that Jesus’ miracles were inspired by Mithra’s miracles is rather ridiculous. Since Mithra never did anything which equates to Jesus’ miracles (such as walking on water or raising the dead), this could not be called a significant comparison.

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

Mithra slayed a bull. He was not a bull. He did not slay himself or sacrifice himself in any sense, and the slaying of the bull wasn’t for world peace. For that matter, Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t for world peace, either, but for salvation for those individuals who choose to follow Him.

7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

There’s no references in any Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being resurrected. There are some external sources suggesting that Mithra died (though how he died is not made clear), but these date to the 4th century at the earliest. I’d say that this would mean they were inspired by Christianity, but since they don’t mention any burial in a tomb or resurrection, I’d say we couldn’t call it ‘inspired’ at all.

8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Again, no resurrection.

9. He was called "the Good Shepherd"and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

Mithra was never called ‘the good shepherd’ or identified with any lamb. He was identified with a lion, but since the lion is associated with Judeo-Christianity all the way back to the book of Genesis, this hardly suggests that Jesus’ lion was inspired by Mithra’s lion. And besides, any references to lions in Mithraic literature date to post-Christian times, making this even less significant.

10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

Mithra was never called any of these things, even in the Roman version of Mithraism

11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

Mithraists did not appoint Sunday as Mithra’s day until post-Christian times.

12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.

Mithra had several special days, but all were in September or October. Mithraists did apparently celebrate the beginning of each season, so there was a celebration at the beginning of spring, but this wasn’t any ‘principal festival’, and the celebration was only for the season itself, not for Mithra.

13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

The closest thing the Mithraic religion has to Jesus’ last supper is the celebration of a meal Mithra had with the sun god after slaying the bull. But nowhere is this called a ‘eucharist’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’, and since it happened AFTER Mithra’s ‘sacrifice’ and not before (as Jesus’ was), it’s hardly a comparison. As for the quote, the earliest quote along these lines in Mithraic texts dates to post-Christian times and, besides that, wasn’t said by Mithra, but by Zarathustra.

14. His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration.

First, Mithra’s sacrifice was not of himself, but of a bull. I’m not sure why the skeptics are using the word ‘annual’ in here, since it only happened once. And the sacrifice did not happen on any sort of Passover, nor was it an atonement of anything.

15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

So why hasn’t Golding allowed anyone else to see these texts? Are they the pre-Christian Persian texts, or the post-Christian Roman texts? Until Golding opens these texts up for scrutiny, we can do no more than take his word for it. My best guess is that, if these texts exist, they were inspired by 1 Cor 10:4, not the other way around.

16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conducted by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia apparently does say these things. But what the critics fail to mention is that it’s describing Mithraic services conducted after Christian times, and thus services and figureheads likely inspired by Christian services and figureheads. The mention of the ‘chief of fathers’ always living at Rome is pretty clear evidence that it’s referring to only Roman Mithraism. Why would the Persian Mithraists have a figurehead in Rome?


Jesus vs. Mohamud - Islamic
Jesus vs. Odin (aka Wodan) - Norse
Jesus vs. Osiris - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Perseus - Greek
Jesus vs. Prometheus - Greek
Jesus vs. Quetzalcoatl - Aztec
Jesus vs. Quirinus - Roman
Jesus vs. Sakia - Indian
Jesus vs. Salivahana - Indian
Jesus vs. Samheim (aka Samhain) - Druid
Jesus vs. Sammonocadam (Aka Sommona-Codom) - Siamese
Jesus vs. Sandan of Tarsus - Greek
Jesus vs. Serapis (aka Asar-Hapi, Zaparrus) - Egyptian, Greek
Jesus vs. Shang-Ti (aka Chang-Ti, Tien) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Sun/Zodiac
Jesus vs. Sybillene Universal Monarch
Jesus vs. Tammuz (aka Dumuzi) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Thor - Norse
Jesus vs. Virishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Wittoba (aka Vithoba, Withoban) - Bilingonese
Jesus vs. Zalmoxis of Thrace (aka Xamolxis, Xaniolxis)
Jesus vs. Zoar of the Bonzes - Asian
Jesus vs. Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) - Persian
Jesus vs. Zulis (aka Thulis, Zhule) - Egyptian

[STEALTH]

It was very wrong to do a documentary mixing 9/11 with religion.

The religion aspect of it was terrible.

I would not recommend this to anyone.

[Max]

It was very wrong to do a documentary mixing 9/11 with religion.

The religion aspect of it was terrible.

I would not recommend this to anyone.

How so?. It would be interesting to hear your points explained or outlined. Personally I thought it was a superb video confirming much of what I have already researched over 20 years. The thesis presented was quite cogent and coherent and made it fairly clear that it would be absurd to consider events which affect society as much as 9/11 without considering the social context they occurred in or the chain-reaction of events which precipitated them. Far too many people are willing to accept the "shit happens" theory of history when, in truth, there is very little in the way of the random or chaotic amongst the broader brush strokes of human events.

[Shrike]

It was very wrong to do a documentary mixing 9/11 with religion.

The religion aspect of it was terrible.

I would not recommend this to anyone.

Stealth, I think you miss the point. Zeitgeist proposes to dispel the intention that we're being lied to by
multiple bodies of authority. The film isn't "mixing" God and 9/11. The film is exposing to you that you're
being taken advantage of by those seeking ultimate power over people. Religion is not immune from such
issues and to think otherwise is both gullible and foolish.

I found Zeitgeist to be a very interesting film, if not disturbing. I will say, however, that no matter what
they say about Jesus, I'll never deny what came of it. The teachings of Jesus are, in my opinion, essential
to our civilization, as are the similar efforts pursued by Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. We all want the same
thing. Peace.

Bottom line: I recommend this film.

Shrike

[Amishism]

Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Sun/Zodiac stories?
This is an interesting one.  It claims that the story of Jesus is based on the sun and zodiac itself.  For some reason, these lists always point out the similarity of Jesus being the 'son' of God, showing this parallel to the word 'sun'.  Of course, this homonym exists only in the English language which wasn't around in the 1st Century, so this one can be easily dismissed.  As for the others:
1.  The sun 'dies' on the 22nd of december, the winter solstice, when it stops it's movement south, to be born again three days later on 25th december when it resumes it's movement northwards.  This period was originally in the star sign of VIRGO, hence the....born of a VIRGIN.

First of all, the sun doesn't move.  The Earth does.  Okay, so clearly the critic here is referring to the movement of the sun IN RELATION to the Earth.  In that case, it never stops moving because the Earth never stops moving.  There is no three-day period when the sun's movement in relation to the earth stops altogether.  It may appear to slow for those three days, but since the slowing of the movement is a gradual thing, one could argue that it 'stops' for the one, two, four, five, or six days around the winter solstice as well (it depends on how slow you consider 'stopping').  And besides all of that, Jesus' birth happened in the spring, not in December.  As for the period being 'originally in the sign of Virgo', Virgo is from August 23rd to September 22nd.  I've never heard of the winter solstice happening in the fall.
22 more sun points:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusSun.html

[Amishism]

It was very wrong to do a documentary mixing 9/11 with religion.

The religion aspect of it was terrible.

I would not recommend this to anyone.

How so?. It would be interesting to hear your points explained or outlined. Personally I thought it was a superb video confirming much of what I have already researched over 20 years. The thesis presented was quite cogent and coherent and made it fairly clear that it would be absurd to consider events which affect society as much as 9/11 without considering the social context they occurred in or the chain-reaction of events which precipitated them. Far too many people are willing to accept the "shit happens" theory of history when, in truth, there is very little in the way of the random or chaotic amongst the broader brush strokes of human events.

and what truth did you find in it


zeitgeist satanic new world order religion copy & paste droppings

Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy part 1of 2
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=4360800110742625275

Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy part 2of 2
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3797889292300937848

The Occult History of the Third Reich Adolf Hitler
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3014581497309209211

Satanism: Satan's Bloody Teaching
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-7264206937159538355



Zeitgeist Refuted
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12787

Jesus a copycat myth
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

I call the film satanic because satanist don't actually believe in satan, they worship themselves as an animal, the earth and sun, all leading back to kabbalah practice.

[ConspiracyCentral]

This is the greatest documentary out there right now period!
The reason they can't find a record of a man named jesus was because his name was Emanuel, the teachings of this man are ALL true.

[Azariah]

Parts 2 and 3 were good. but i don't know, is it a good idea to mix religious blasphemy with 9-11 truth? i'ld think that would be a huge turnoff to the 'average
joe'. i wouldn't be pushin this movie, especially next to Alex's or Ron Paul's name, cuz they're both Christian...

[MindFork]

This film is pure brilliance.  So much evil has been done in the name of Jesus, so much mind control still exists in his name, yet NOBODY bothers to question if *maybe* some of the facts of Christianity might have been altered slightly in 2,000 years of translation and editing.  Since Christians rail vehemently against the idea that the bible  has ever been manipulated, it's no wonder there is total melt down about the idea that Jesus is an amalgamation of myths and legends.

The fundamentalists cry “it's SATAN at work” for anything that's not Christianity or that DARES to question the “truths” of the Bible.  THINK about it with detachment:  Given all the manipulation and lies of our current time, isn't it possible and in fact PROBABLE that the same mind control has been at work for thousands of years? 

Hindus don't worship Jesus or even think much about him.  Same with Buddhists, and both of those religions are much older than Christianity.  Their not believing in Jesus as savior doesn't mean the DEVIL is controlling their minds.  Such an absurd concept, really.  The devil is just the ultimate boogie man...a false flag terrorist used to control people with fear of eternal damnation.  God requires you to follow his laws and if you don't, GOD (not the devil) will send you to hell where you will be tortured and burned for all of eternity with no hope of escape.  But he loves you!  ABSURD.

By THAT twisted logic, when a child disobeys his parents, his parents should lovingly torture him.  Sounds absurd to me.

Anyhow, I know I'm waisting my time and energy here, so I will leave off with a quote from Acharya S. who's work was cited in the first part of Zeitgeist from an interview here: http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/acharayas.html

SF: I work with Evangelicals, and they can be very difficult, not to mention irrational. Is there any argument that will work with them, or should I just smile, point to the Sun, and walk away?
AS: By Jove, I think you've got it! There is little point in having any discussion with them on this subject. You can give them all the evidence in the world, and they will simply allow it to go over their heads. Their behavior becomes robotic - and sometimes quite hostile and unpleasant. In fact, when they can't "sweet talk" you into their brainwashing, they start in with the insults and threats. Very nice faith, that! When I have such discussions, I'm often asked how I know Jesus Christ is a myth. How do I know? I'm a mythologist, an expert on myths. If I'm an expert on grass and point out a patch of grass, do you question how I know it's grass? I wonder why such expertise is valued so little - is it because everyone is taught that he or she knows "the truth," simply by believing what someone else has told him or her? How is that possible? Regurgitated fables are "the truth?"
Have you spent hours upon hours contemplating the nature of the cosmos? Have you studied the world's religions and mythologies in depth? Is it even conceivable that you could wrap your noggin around many of the profound philosophical concepts? No, just because you have a head with brain matter in it does not make you an expert on religion, belief, spirituality or mythology. As in everything else, expertise in religion and philosophy must be earned. Then again, someone can be spiritual without having studied a thing - a simple old woman living in a cabin in the woods, for example. Or a small child. Spirituality is a whole different issue. But I find little to be spiritual about organized religion. And, certainly, believing what others have told you about Jesus Christ or some other "savior" is not a spiritual experience. Nor is having a "vision" of what you believe to be Christ. Millions of people in the past have had visions of countless other gods - none of these experiences has made those gods "real people." If they did, then the Egyptian Osiris and Isis would have to be considered the God/Goddess of the cosmos, because it is of them, arguably, that the majority of human beings who have ever lived had had the most visions. Moreover, "feeling" a god or goddess "in your heart" may constitute a "spiritual" experience, but it provides absolutely no evidence that the god or goddess ever walked upon the face of this earth.

[WhorsieJMD]

You're addressing what evangelicals tell you everyday, which are straw men. Try addressing Dr. Gary Habermas' data. It's the best out there: www.garyhabermas.com. Check his audio and video.

[itwasntme]

I fully agree with you mindfork. Zeitgeist is one of the best documentrys out there, it breaks it down well, it may have small flaws in it, but its got facts in it. How many versions of the christian bible we got ??, fifty something ??, so what version do we go off, the king james the 1st etc etc..., and wasnt it the piso family in italy that wrote the 1st version, in the 2nd century AD ??, adding to this, all the trouble it as caused, especially all the in-fighting here in the UK over the past 1000 years or so, aswell as the spanish inqusition etc..., it as fetched nothing but death and control/servitude to the masses, its always been the elites of the past who selt the religions to the masses, for their own interests of being served by the serfs, our head of the church here is the queen, so everything goes through her 1st before it goes to this so-called god. Its just another (very clever) form of mind control. I dont dismiss the jesus story, he may have lived, he may have got crusified (the romans did crusify), however, i feel he didnt die for our sins if this did happen.

I am christened, but i dont follow it, and i havnt christened any of my children, i believe its just a pagan ritual that doesnt equal to much, i am not pulling christians beliefs down here, its my belief, as yours is yours, this is my opinion (and freedom of speach), so please dont bash me.

I will add though that the morals in the bible what jesus (apparantly) preached are good and honests ones, so if christianity, and other religions preach peace and harmony, why shouldnt people go along with it if thats their belief, as long as they dont shove it down peoples throats, and demand they believe their beliefs.

[Sane]

Amishism, you have some serious depth of knowledge concerning this one documentary.  I think the point of it was to show that most of the stories we are taught are total BS.  But it is absurd that JC did not exist at all.  I prefer the documentary ring of power and welcome your thoughts on that one.  In the 5 hours I think it gives much more information that Zeitgeist just brushes over. 

I also feel that the 1st third helps to shatter the matrix that continues our enslavement.  But like Dogma, Da Vinci, Stigmata...this movie has been targeted by the Vatican as cine non grata.  Anyone with an ounce of faith can make up their own minds on how to interpret things for themselves.  This does not seem to be an NWO film, but just an arrogant opinionated film.

[perfectstrangers]

The Sphinx was the age of Leo and the pope is fish heads, fish heads, rolley polley fish heads.

Most of the real stuff is from John the Baptist. Jesus was a Rabbi who preach John's teachings. John got killed by the authorities, not Jesus. John just got it from his ancestory. And I doubt he put people in water. Maybe just as a party thing. It's when you get the message, and yo brain won't do bad stuff no more. Baptising babies is like giving them a Bar or Bas Mitzva. Go ahead, but I doubt they get pregnant. You have to BE baptised. Going for a swim won't get you into heaven.

Anyway, they taught Passover as New and Rosh Hashonah as Creation. Not Passover as being the Exodus and the other being New Years. This stuff does still exist in some Judaism. But oddly not in Christianity? Rosh Hashonah is the Sol(Star of David from Babylonian Torrah/Talmoud). Passover is the Cross. Then comes Mohammad and the judgement and end times. The Cresent and Five Point Star. They were all decendants from Elijah and Mt Carmel. That's the Israel the Pharoh said he laid her seed to waste. I guess not. Someone got away.

I'm sure no one cares so have a nice Ashkenazi day.... only three easy payments of $19.99! Act now!

[mikekey.com]

I'm sick and tired of hearing how the Jewish Zoinist rule the world. That makes truthers sound like white nazi supremest.

[joebogarde]

Zeitgeist merely, logically points out the "copy and paste" element of christianity.
The fact that pagan religions held the belief that the "sun" would rise three days after it's death. As well as  the parallels between dozens and dozens of pre-christian astrological pagan religions and christianity definitely deserves more study, in the same way that 9/11 deserves study. The truth is more important than belief. The inclusion of christianity in the film was entirely appropriate. The film was about myths. 
Organized religion and eschatology fit neatly in that section. Questioning long held beliefs (the resurrection, 9/11 as a 19 man hijacking with no proper instrumentation, or Belief that the US government is infallible) as "absolute truths" in an academic way without prejudice could lead to understanding. There are many inconsistencies in the bible, mistranslations, this does not mean however, that Jesus as a philosopher has not influenced western culture in many positive ways. The lessons of the philosopher, teacher, carpenter will be remembered for another 2 millenia and beyond.
Love one another. And lessons of civil disobedience, leading to his life being taken by the state, would foster fear of the state within christians. I'm just curious which bits of his philosophy were discarded by the early councils? And how the editorial process seems to oddly encourage contributions "tithe" to a local philosopher to maintain his home, and feed himself. As a libertarian, I believe this as a voluntary process is fine, except not to tithe would be stigmatized. I just don't believe we should mandate charitable giving to the said philosopher, and would encourage positive charitable giving in general to worthy causes.
I believe a man should live by the sweat of his brow. Having poor folk hand over their means "give till it hurts folks" to unproductive philosophers who want us to subsidize their (albeit austere) lifestyle. This is effectively a pew tax. If it were a philosopher who explored his beliefs as a labor of love, not seeking donations constantly, I would feel more receptive. I could not see handing a hypocrite my money, so he could gaze judgingly at me every time I attend church, or making blanket political judgments in church. I could never support 1. blind submission 2. blind trust 3. subsidizing the man who's bad with money, and don't have a real job.

[Rufus Shinra]

Zeitgeist is one of the best documentaries ever made. By far.

I'd warmly recommend it to anyone. 

[other one]

THe first third of this movie distorts not only Christanity it distorts the Pagan religions as well so as to be able to dump them all in the same bag........   It's a shame it's included in the movie, for it will stop both Christians and Pagans from paying attention to the last two thirds of the movie because of starteing with such false beginings.

If you try and use this in the 9/11 movement you'll be hindering yourself and hurting those you are trying to convince.

If you're taking a stab at Christanity that's fine with me, but you put the 9/11 message at risk with this movie, for we need all those Christians and Pagans to understand and stand with us if we are to defeat this monster........   and that is why Alex doesn't get the fact that he is a Believer all tied up in his fight.   I'd suggest you follow his example and not get Christian bashing involved either.

[perfectstrangers]

I'm sick and tired of hearing how the Jewish Zoinist rule the world. That makes truthers sound like white nazi supremest.

No it doesn't. But the list of signatures on the PNAC documents, owners of the media, Larry Silverstein... makes Jewish Zoinist sound like white nazi supremest.

[mikekey.com]

Actually it simply lies with no real facts given.

For those unfamiliar with the Horus story, Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris. There actually appear to be multiple dieties named 'Horus', but the one who is the son of Isis and Osiris is the one the critics claim influenced the Jesus story.  For a quick and unbiased debunking of this story, go to any search engine and find a site on Egyptian mythology and read the Horus story for yourself (I've provided some links at the bottom of the page), or check the mythology section at your local library (go ahead, I dare you!). Acharya S's book "The Christ Conspiracy" is the apparent source of this list, but the author provides evidentiarly footnotes for only five of the claims, and those footnotes frequently disagree with her own claims!

Here are the claims of parallels between Jesus and Horus, with my responses:

1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage.  Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived.  Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband.  So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Also, she was just "Isis", not "Isis-Meri".  Acharya's footnotes don't provide evidence for the claim of Isis being a virgin or for "Meri" being part of her name.  Only Christ-mythers make the claim that "Meri" was part of her name.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger.  Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . "  Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it.  Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part.  And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

3) He was of royal descent.

This one’s true!  But it's not really a comparison to Jesus.  When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king.  Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized.  Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.

11) Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

No, he was not.

12) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

13) He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

14) He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.

He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories.  Acharya S.'s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called 'the fisher' or having any association with a lamb or lion.

15) He came to fulfill the Law.

There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.

16) Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."

He was never referred to by either of these titles.  "Krst", in Egyptian, means "burial", by the way.  It wasn't a title.

17) Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."

No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.

Links:
Encyclopedia Mythica: Horus
Egyptian Mythology: Horus
The Eye Of Horus
Horus: He Who Is Above
Wikipedia: Horus
Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris

[Rufus Shinra]

No, he did not.

The Sun walks on water, every time you happen to look at a lake or the sea at sunset or sunrise... to the 'ancient' humans it must've been a very magical and/or frightening experience, since they didn't have any high-tech Hubble telescopes and stuff to help them understand things.. well, not that you really need Hubble to understand that the Sun is just a star, but whatever.

When you don't understand how stuff works, it usually helps to create your own 'reality' based in fantasy, to ease the pain of the true reality and to hide from the fear of the many unknowns that may exist, instead of confronting them and trying to learn.


The only (or main) thing thing we have to fear is fear itself.
The dark ages were scary, and sadly many people are still in their own dark age...

But now the human race is really getting ready to face up to truth and cast off fear and superstitions, especially after the New World Order Crime Syndicate has been defeated and the TRUE New World Order will be established by the human race itself. An order of Truth, information and justice.   

It will happen, one way or another.

The only question is how much blood will be shed.

If possible, let's not water the tree of liberty with too much blood from our own side.

[DCUBED]

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage.  Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. 

You cant claim the Horus' mother was not a virgin because she was married. Mary was married to Joesph at the time of Jesus birth. Yet she was considered to be a virgin....  I dont know what really happened thousands of years ago (and neither do you) So I wouldnt get caught up in claiming to know the truth. History can get skewed over time and there can be hundreds of different interpretations. Just read 1984, everything is thrown down the memory hole and history is rewritten to suit the Ruling Party. And the Ruling Party today is no doubt evil. After watching Zeitgeist, I became very curious and wanted to know more about it. And did discover that some of it is true. Certain stories in the Bible do follow the zodiac, there is no debating that. Some facts were also unprovable. I would compare part 1 of Zeitgeist to that of Loose Change. In that there are errors in it and some things are unprovable. But the overall story is compelling and should get you questioning things that you once thought to be true. People do lie and in this day and age nothing is as it seems. Think about this, why does George Bush go to church and claim to be a Christian Conservative? We know that isnt true.
People do incredible evil in the name of religion. I used to go to church every Sunday, but havent for years now because I realized I was being manipulated and lied to. The last two pastors we had were kicked out of the church. The first for cheating on his wife and the other is in a mental institution for threatening to kill his wife when she cheated on him. And in another church in my town, just a few months ago the pastor was arrested for bringing children from the church to his house, drugging them, then sexually molesting them. So something is going on with religion. I dont believe everyone at the hierarchy of the church, Christian, Catholic, etc.. is bad, however people are taking advantage of others trust and ignorance. When ever anyone questions religion, they always get the same answer... "faith". To me faith is not evidence. I would rather think for myself and not believe what others tell me to believe.

[Sub-X]

This is the greatest documentary out there right now period!
The reason they can't find a record of a man named jesus was because his name was Emanuel, the teachings of this man are ALL true.

i have also heard that Jesus wasnt the name of a person but a title and that there were many people with the "title" Jesus at that time.

[Amishism]

There is a false religious system in Rome that in the past has been responsible for ALL the wars, revolutions, Inquisitions, crusades, as well as banning the Most Holy Bible, creating the Illuminati and most secret societies that have plagued the world today with atheistic communism. As well this beast system in Rome is responsible for the pagan ideation of atheism thru their United Nations/UNESCO, Rockefeller funded Findhorn Foundation and Lucis Trust Theosophy Society.
http://www.lucistrust.org
http://www.findhorn.org/about_us/display_new.php

[joebogarde]

http://elearningrandomwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/zeitgeist-movie.html

This has some interesting comments on zeitgeist. Alex says the first part about Jesus had been debunked.

[Rufus Shinra]

Alex says the first part about Jesus had been debunked.

Of course he says that - He's religious...     

[mikekey.com]

Some of you watched to much Star Trek.

[other one]

You cant claim the Horus' mother was not a virgin because she was married. Mary was married to Joesph at the time of Jesus birth. Yet she was considered to be a virgin....  I dont know what really happened thousands of years ago (and neither do you) So I wouldnt get caught up in claiming to know the truth. History can get skewed over time and there can be hundreds of different interpretations. Just read 1984, everything is thrown down the memory hole and history is rewritten to suit the Ruling Party. And the Ruling Party today is no doubt evil. After watching Zeitgeist, I became very curious and wanted to know more about it. And did discover that some of it is true. Certain stories in the Bible do follow the zodiac, there is no debating that. Some facts were also unprovable. I would compare part 1 of Zeitgeist to that of Loose Change. In that there are errors in it and some things are unprovable. But the overall story is compelling and should get you questioning things that you once thought to be true. People do lie and in this day and age nothing is as it seems. Think about this, why does George Bush go to church and claim to be a Christian Conservative? We know that isnt true.
People do incredible evil in the name of religion. I used to go to church every Sunday, but havent for years now because I realized I was being manipulated and lied to. The last two pastors we had were kicked out of the church. The first for cheating on his wife and the other is in a mental institution for threatening to kill his wife when she cheated on him. And in another church in my town, just a few months ago the pastor was arrested for bringing children from the church to his house, drugging them, then sexually molesting them. So something is going on with religion. I dont believe everyone at the hierarchy of the church, Christian, Catholic, etc.. is bad, however people are taking advantage of others trust and ignorance. When ever anyone questions religion, they always get the same answer... "faith". To me faith is not evidence. I would rather think for myself and not believe what others tell me to believe.

I've studied the egyptian religions for a long time and I never heard the claim that Horas's mother was a virgin.....   she was pretty cool in putting her husband back togher after set cut him into pieces....   well at least long enough to get pregnant.

Joseph and mary were not married when Jesus was conceived.....  pretty big difference..... and neither Jesus nor Horas was born on December 25th.


All this is just background stuff and I'm just trying to let you know that if you use this movie for the truth movement, It is going to drive people away from what you are saying......   I could care less about the movie, but I do care if people join this movement or not......     and if you push this movie you will hurt the truth movement, for it's first third is not truth.

Like christanity or not is not a big deal to me.......   that's between you and Jesus, and if he wants you in his fold, He'll seak out a way and it's relly none of my business or my affairs unless he tells me to get involved in your spiritual life..... (I'll let you know if by some chance that might happen).

But pushing this movie through the truth movement is not a good idea.

[Ready4truth]

I don't know what truth is even in the satanic copy & paste garbage, Zeitgeist. I did watch it and spotted several inconsistencies in part one. Satanist don't actually believe in a literal satan, rather practicing they kabbalah the twist scripture.

Anyway, the claims about religion in this satanic NWO c&p drop were debunked before it was ever released. Obviously this producer knew this. Were they just trying to start debate or being deceptive. Whoever produced this NAZI NWO religion c&p film did a dis-service to the truth movement.

They are all compared at this site:
The Jesus copycat myth

Jesus vs. Adad (aka Hadad) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Adonis - Greek
Jesus vs. Aesculapius - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Apollo - Greek
Jesus vs. Apollonius - Greek
Jesus vs. Artemes - Greek
Jesus vs. Attis (aka Atys) - Asian, Greek
Jesus vs. Baal - Semetic, Syrian, Persian
Jesus vs. Bacab - Mayan
Jesus vs. Balder - Norse
Jesus vs. Bali - Indian
Jesus vs. Beddru (aka Beddin) - Japanese
Jesus vs. Bel Merodach (aka Marduk) - Mesopotamian
Jesus vs. Bremrillah (aka Bremrillahm) - Druid
Jesus vs. Buddha - Indian
Jesus vs. Cadmus - Greek
Jesus vs. Caesar - Roman
Jesus vs. Chu Chulainn (aka Cuchulain) - Irish
Jesus vs. Crite - Chaldean
Jesus vs. Dahzdbog - Russian
Jesus vs. Deva Tat - Siamese
Jesus vs. Dionysus (aka Bacchus) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Elvis - American (humor)
Jesus vs. Fohi (aka Fu-Xi, Fu-Hsi) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Frey (aka Freyr, Fricco) - Norse
Jesus vs. Gentaut - Mexican
Jesus vs. Hercules (aka Alcides, Heracles) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Hermes - Greek
Jesus vs. Hesus - Celtic
Jesus vs. Hil and Feta - Mandaite
Jesus vs. Holy One of Xaca - Chinese, Indian
Jesus vs. Horus - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Hyacinthus - Greek
Jesus vs. Iasion - Greek
Jesus vs. Ieo - Chinese
Jesus vs. Indra - Indian, Tibetian
Jesus vs. Inanna - Sumerian *NEW*
Jesus vs. Ischy - Asian
Jesus vs. Ixion - Greek
Jesus vs. Jao - Nepalese
Jesus vs. Jupiter (aka Jove) - Rome
Jesus vs. Krishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Lao-Kiun - Chinese
Jesus vs. Marsyas - Greek
Jesus vs. Maximus Christos - Israelite
Jesus vs. Melkarth - Greek
Jesus vs. Mikado - Japanese
Jesus vs. Mithra - Persian, Roman
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Mithra stories?
Hardly. Before reading this list, a little background on the Mithraic religion is in order. Mithra was a Persian god dating back to roughly 1400 B.C. It later sprang up in Rome after Christian times, with a severely different story to it. Here is the list given, with my responses:
1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

There is no support for the idea that Mithra was born of a virgin. And since nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was born on December 25th, this could not be called a comparison. Also, Mithra was formed within a solid mountain, not within a cave. While, logically, a cave was left behind once Mithra dug himself out, saying he was born in a cave is wrong. There are texts suggesting that shepherds were present at Mithra’s birth and helped dig him out of the mountain, but these are Roman texts dating to no earlier than the 2nd century A.D., and thus were most likely influenced by the New Testament writings, instead of being an influence upon them.

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

First of all, any religious figure could logically be described as a great traveling teacher and master. However, this label does NOT seem to apply to Mithra. Great and Master, perhaps. But nowhere in his story does he travel or teach.

3. He had 12 companions or disciples.

In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The source for this claim seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times anyways, so if they WERE meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

The earliest references to Mithra’s followers being promised immortality date to around 200 A.D. So again, this was likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

5. He performed miracles.

This is true, and claims of Mithra’s miracles do date to the pre-Christian Persian versions. But miracles themselves date to far earlier (Noah story, anyone?). So the idea that Jesus’ miracles were inspired by Mithra’s miracles is rather ridiculous. Since Mithra never did anything which equates to Jesus’ miracles (such as walking on water or raising the dead), this could not be called a significant comparison.

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

Mithra slayed a bull. He was not a bull. He did not slay himself or sacrifice himself in any sense, and the slaying of the bull wasn’t for world peace. For that matter, Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t for world peace, either, but for salvation for those individuals who choose to follow Him.

7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

There’s no references in any Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being resurrected. There are some external sources suggesting that Mithra died (though how he died is not made clear), but these date to the 4th century at the earliest. I’d say that this would mean they were inspired by Christianity, but since they don’t mention any burial in a tomb or resurrection, I’d say we couldn’t call it ‘inspired’ at all.

8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Again, no resurrection.

9. He was called "the Good Shepherd"and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

Mithra was never called ‘the good shepherd’ or identified with any lamb. He was identified with a lion, but since the lion is associated with Judeo-Christianity all the way back to the book of Genesis, this hardly suggests that Jesus’ lion was inspired by Mithra’s lion. And besides, any references to lions in Mithraic literature date to post-Christian times, making this even less significant.

10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

Mithra was never called any of these things, even in the Roman version of Mithraism

11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

Mithraists did not appoint Sunday as Mithra’s day until post-Christian times.

12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.

Mithra had several special days, but all were in September or October. Mithraists did apparently celebrate the beginning of each season, so there was a celebration at the beginning of spring, but this wasn’t any ‘principal festival’, and the celebration was only for the season itself, not for Mithra.

13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

The closest thing the Mithraic religion has to Jesus’ last supper is the celebration of a meal Mithra had with the sun god after slaying the bull. But nowhere is this called a ‘eucharist’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’, and since it happened AFTER Mithra’s ‘sacrifice’ and not before (as Jesus’ was), it’s hardly a comparison. As for the quote, the earliest quote along these lines in Mithraic texts dates to post-Christian times and, besides that, wasn’t said by Mithra, but by Zarathustra.

14. His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration.

First, Mithra’s sacrifice was not of himself, but of a bull. I’m not sure why the skeptics are using the word ‘annual’ in here, since it only happened once. And the sacrifice did not happen on any sort of Passover, nor was it an atonement of anything.

15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

So why hasn’t Golding allowed anyone else to see these texts? Are they the pre-Christian Persian texts, or the post-Christian Roman texts? Until Golding opens these texts up for scrutiny, we can do no more than take his word for it. My best guess is that, if these texts exist, they were inspired by 1 Cor 10:4, not the other way around.

16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conducted by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia apparently does say these things. But what the critics fail to mention is that it’s describing Mithraic services conducted after Christian times, and thus services and figureheads likely inspired by Christian services and figureheads. The mention of the ‘chief of fathers’ always living at Rome is pretty clear evidence that it’s referring to only Roman Mithraism. Why would the Persian Mithraists have a figurehead in Rome?


Jesus vs. Mohamud - Islamic
Jesus vs. Odin (aka Wodan) - Norse
Jesus vs. Osiris - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Perseus - Greek
Jesus vs. Prometheus - Greek
Jesus vs. Quetzalcoatl - Aztec
Jesus vs. Quirinus - Roman
Jesus vs. Sakia - Indian
Jesus vs. Salivahana - Indian
Jesus vs. Samheim (aka Samhain) - Druid
Jesus vs. Sammonocadam (Aka Sommona-Codom) - Siamese
Jesus vs. Sandan of Tarsus - Greek
Jesus vs. Serapis (aka Asar-Hapi, Zaparrus) - Egyptian, Greek
Jesus vs. Shang-Ti (aka Chang-Ti, Tien) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Sun/Zodiac
Jesus vs. Sybillene Universal Monarch
Jesus vs. Tammuz (aka Dumuzi) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Thor - Norse
Jesus vs. Virishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Wittoba (aka Vithoba, Withoban) - Bilingonese
Jesus vs. Zalmoxis of Thrace (aka Xamolxis, Xaniolxis)
Jesus vs. Zoar of the Bonzes - Asian
Jesus vs. Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) - Persian
Jesus vs. Zulis (aka Thulis, Zhule) - Egyptian

Thank you for that! Sheesh, I have some reading to do.

I thought the movie was very deceptive. It baits you in by plagiarizing others work and by using popular conspiracies. But I believe it's aim is to dispel religion and Jesus altogether.  I would say based on what you have posted that the producer has made up his mind about God and feels he has the end all answers to religion. Plus I find it somewhat cowardly and suspicious that he remains anonymous. This way when he is proved wrong he can hide behind the scenes never knowing who he, or they, are.  Again, if you're a Christian, be careful with this one as it is highly deceptive and using conspiratorial bait to draw you in. (mostly the kind we all agree on)

At least that's my opinion.

[Ready4truth]

I'm sick and tired of hearing how the Jewish Zoinist rule the world. That makes truthers sound like white nazi supremest.

I empathize to a point. While I don't believe it is an all exclusive Zionist conspiracy, there is no denying their complicity. If and when a situation develops where we should point out Zionist complicity than we should never back down for fear of being labeled. Make the point that you by no means are a supremacist, (hardcore Zionists are though!) but that you disagree with Zionist policies. Evil is evil no matter who perpetrates it. 
 
 

[Amishism]

The Pope is to be the global fascist dictator under the new world order. It is not as some are saying the end of the Roman Empire, when comparing the United States, they are erecting the fourth reich of the Roman Empire under the Pope.

EU leaders sign constitution under triple crowned pope

[Amishism]

The Vatican's Crest: the 'snake-/dragon' as displayed in the Vatican Museum



The meaning of the word 'Vatican'...
The word 'vatican' comes from Latin and is a contraction of two words in the following way:

'Vatis' = 'profetic' or 'diviner'
'Can' = 'serpent/snake'
These two words combined make:

'the profetic- or made devine serpent'
The Vaticaan is a place, so you may say, that 'Vatican' means 'the place of the profetic- and worshipped serpent'.

Trying to translate 'divining serpent' into every-day-English I would say it means:
'A spiritual serpent that is worshipped as god'.

And we know from the Bible who that 'demonic serpent' is...the devil !. So 'the Vatican' is the place of the devil.

Revelation 13
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Jesuit Crest

Isis
Horus
Seb


Professor Walter J. Veith (not an atheist) exposes paganism within the Church including Christmas, Easter Satna Clause, Saint Nicholas ect..Mithraism, Babylonian Sun wheels Sun cult ect. much more.
Total Onslaught - 219B - The Wine of Babylon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5984697336567580439


Prof.Veith refers to bible verse re.Saint Nicholas:
Rev.2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

[Ready4truth]

Nonsense, how is the Vatican running anything? And the Pope? Show me where he runs the Federal Reserve Board. Show me one Jesuit that is a neocon. Do the Jesuits run the media? Who about the MIC? Where is their secret hand.

I call bunk on this whole Vatican/Jesuit conspiracy, yet another diversion. I would only venture to say they have a small hand in it and a dimunitive role.

[galiana]

Love, the IHS in the "Jesuit crest" - which does not solely belong to the Jesuits - stand for the three consonants in the Latin spelling of Jesus: IHESUS. (There is no "J" in the Latin language. The real name of Caesar was spelled Iulius, not Julius.) On many medieval Latin (non-Jesuit) inscriptions, you will see the name abbreviated IHS.

Seriously, if you're going to engage in conspiracy theories, please make them historically plausible.

[Amishism]

Nonsense, how is the Vatican running anything? And the Pope? Show me where he runs the Federal Reserve Board. Show me one Jesuit that is a neocon. Do the Jesuits run the media? Who about the MIC? Where is their secret hand.

I call bunk on this whole Vatican/Jesuit conspiracy, yet another diversion. I would only venture to say they have a small hand in it and a dimunitive role.

Remove the blinders first, ready......., We have a pretty good idea who runs the Fed and they are all backed by the Vatican Bank thru the banker Rothschilds. The Rockefeller ran CFR has full political control over the United States and Israel, Rockefeller is under the Rothschilds. Many of the politicians were educated at Jesuit universities. Rupert Murdoch is a papal knight, the rest of the media as well controlled thru the CFR.

The Vatican has a long history of fascism.