Zeitgeist - The Greatest Story Ever Told

[DiRNiS]

I am not entirely sure if Zeitgeist, the movie has been covered much in these forums. I came across it a while ago and found interesting to see their account of how religion and christianity in particular originated. Of course, I took it all with a grain of salt and I was wondering if you guys had any comments on how truthful this section of their movie is.

My apologies if this has been covered before. I can't really be bothred to dig into the forums to find it. BTW, ignore all the conspiracy stuff that follows it. I would just like to focus on the first part (Religion). A lot of the stuff in there seems to make sense, especially their account of people in ancient times relating the ages to the constellations in the sky and how Jesus is supposed to be the Sun, how Christmas originated, Easter, the similarities between Jesus Christ and other ancient deities, etc.

While I do not think all of it is accurate, it does raise some interesting thoughts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgRUpDDrb0

[Tiberius]

Zeitgeist has no truth in it whatsoever. None.

[leo-rcc]

With just a little research I found that the similarities as claimed with Horus and Mythras are very much exaggerated. The people behind Zeitgeis clearly didn't do their homework.t

[tavarish]

Dammit, where's my tin foil hat?

[DeistPaladin]

I'm rethinking my whole debate strategy on Jesus.

For a while, I was fascinated by the idea that he never existed at all. The dearth of evidence, contradictory claims by different early Christians and the inability to square the Gospels with known history made me wonder if Jesus was the greatest urban legend ever told. I'm still curious about 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7, verses where "John" rails against false Christians who thought Jesus wasn't a physical being.

After spending a few years debating with Christian apologists, I've grown tired of what I've come to call "The Scholars-Say Shuffle". Apologists are quite skilled at this dance of ducking and weaving, hiding behind claims (whether true or not) of scholarly consensus. Repeated demands for evidence are dodged until they finally bring up Josephus and Tacitus. Tiresome wrangling over whether the TF of Josephus is "partially authentic", the "Jamesian Reference" and the merits and flaws of the Annals of Tacitus ensue. Pointing out the flaws of all these pieces of "evidence" is met with a smug "well, the scholars don't agree with you".

I'm still not convinced that a historical Jesus ever existed. However, I think that debating this point is precisely the argument that the apologist wants to have. They're more vulnerable when discussing the contradictions of the Bible, the wild supernatural claims and how science has debunked the Christian worldview (evolution = no Adam and Eve = no fall = no need for Jesus). By focusing only on the historicity of the alleged ministry of Jesus, they can try to paint the skeptic as a crackpot and shove the burden of proof away from them.

My new strategy is going to be "assuming Jesus existed, what can we know about him and how likely are the Christian claims?".

[DiRNiS]

Yest, I do realise most of their claims may be untrue and quite frankly after watching both their videos, it seems they have an agenda to follow. I too have done a little research of deities like Horus and Mithra and found the similarities are grossly exaggerated. However, similarities aside, the stuff about ages, Jesus representing the age of Pisces, the similarities between Jesus and Joseph of the Old Testament, the 12 constellations of the zodiac, the three stars in the east representing the three kings, and all the astrological myths they somehow make fit into the story of Jesus are well put and they almost make a case.

One thing I can definitely agree with Zeitgeist though is that Christianity and religions in general are bullshit, based on myths created by people of the time who did not know any better and they are no longer relevant, regardless of how they originated.

[Eilonnwy]

Haven't seen it, but I've heard from many people whose opinions I trust that it says some basic okay stuff about religion and then strings it into utter bullshit.

[Tiberius]

One thing I can definitely agree with Zeitgeist though is that Christianity and religions in general are bullshit, based on myths created by people of the time who did not know any better and they are no longer relevant, regardless of how they originated.

That is no reason to create a film filled with lies and propaganda. The maker had an agenda that was anti-religious, anti-American, and anti-tax. People could get into serious trouble if they watched that film and took it's advice seriously. I watched the entire thing once, and I seem to recall the third section of the movie makes the claim that you don't have to pay taxes.

[DeistPaladin]

That is no reason to create a film filled with lies and propaganda. The maker had an agenda that was anti-religious, anti-American, and anti-tax. People could get into serious trouble if they watched that film and took it's advice seriously. I watched the entire thing once, and I seem to recall the third section of the movie makes the claim that you don't have to pay taxes.

Oddly enough, I feel the same way about 9/11 Truthers as I do about the Jesus-Was-A-Carbon-Copy-Of people.

Bush did lie us into a war in Iraq but saying 9/11 was an inside job is a crazy claim that only discredits close examination into the run up to the Iraq War.

There's a lot that is fishy about the Jesus story and much probably was borrowed from other myths and legends (Christianity always has been particularly synchratic, just look at Easter and Christmas). However, to say he was an exact carbon copy is going too far and discredits close examination of where Christians got their ideas from.

[Skeptisma]

If you're curious about Zeitgeist - this site has it all skeptically-evaluated.

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/