Love for Life

Zeitgeist The Movie Part 1 - Here is a logical refutation of Zeitgiest Part 1
Zeitgeist Part 1

Zeitgeist Part I
From CTWiki

This page is incomplete. More information will be added.

Part one of the internet film Zeitgeist makes the argument that Jesus, who is the central figure of the world's largest religion (Christianity), is not only just a religious myth but is also a composite figure made up of several other religions and religious practices. The narrator, presumably Peter Joseph, also states, "Christianity, along with all other belief systems, is the fraud of the age," seemingly implying malevolent motives behind the very existence of religion in general, but Christianity in specific. The entirety of the first third of the Zeitgeist movie appears focused on Christianity, tying other religions both past and present to it as a sort of central hub of religious manipulation.

The film itself uses astrology as the basis for all religions, primarily using modern astrological symbols and constellations (and modern definitions) in order to tie myths to astrological symbols. Of course, the film does so by excluding many contradicting facts-- most notably that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of different astrological schools of thought in antiquity-- and focusing instead on the modern usage of astrological symbols and definitions to support its thesis.

This seems to tie into the overall theme of the movie in all three parts, in that there is an unseen, unheard, and (most importantly) unknown conspiracy that has blinded most people and keeps them from... well, whatever it is humanity would do in the absence of such conspiracies. The alternative is not necessarily fleshed out in any significant fashion within the film, so attributing any specific motivations behind the claim would be speculative, at best. However, motivations aside, there is ample room for pointing out the many factual errors of claims made within the film and pointing out numerous areas where false pretexting seems to undermine the overall validity of the thesis this movie attempts to put forth.

Contents

1 Zeitgeist Part I
1.1 Dubious Tactics Used Throughout the Film
1.1.1 Personalization and Personal Attack
1.1.2 Claims of Secret or Hidden Knowledge
1.1.3 Use of Misleading Language
1.1.4 Lack of Independent Verification
1.1.5 Use of Confirmation Instead of Proof
1.1.6 Slow or No Progression of Evidence
1.1.7 Vague and Untestable Criteria
1.2 Claims of Historical Correlation
1.2.1 Horus and Jesus
1.2.2 (Old Testament) Joseph and (New Testament) Jesus
1.2.3 Other Mentions
1.2.3.1 Adonis
1.2.3.2 Dumuzi
1.2.3.3 Issa / Isa
1.2.3.4 Tammuz
1.3 Claims of Thematic Correlation
1.4 New Age Subject Matter
1.4.1 Modern Astrology
1.4.1.1 The Number 12
1.4.1.2 The Southern Crux (Cross)
1.5 Misc
1.5.1 Correlation as Causation
1.5.2 'See What Sticks' Methodology
1.5.3 Mixed Signals
1.6 Note About This Page
1.7 Notes:

Zeitgeist Part I

Dubious Tactics Used Throughout the Film
While the film itself does not make any claim of being scientific in its presentation, it should not be ignored that the film uses numerous sources and attempts to present itself as a scholarly work in some manner resembling scientific study-- providing along with the film a transcript complete with citations to numerous books, several (though a limited number of) authors, and quotations to support its thesis[1]. As such, it is appropriate to evaluate the level of scholarly and scientific method followed within the film to determine whether it meets standards that would qualify it as having merit in its presentation or whether it is presented in, at best, the format of a pseudoscience and thus misleading or possibly flawed in order to judge the validity of its arguments[2] [3].

The following are tactics presented in the film that lends reason to question the validity of Zeitgeist Part I.

Personalization and Personal Attack
On the website of the film, the following pre-emptive dismissal was issued by the author of the film: " Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist."[4]

This claim is needlessly inflammatory in that it immediately dismisses questioning the veracity of the film as having done insufficient research or utilizing only biased sources. The assumption that an opposing view would most likely be a product of ignorance or bias is a fallacious appeal to the audience in two ways:

It encourages the audience to not be ignorant and instead be knowledgable by way of the argument made in the film. This fallacy is common enough (known as the "appeal to consequences"[5]), but it is misleading in that it assumes the opinion on the issue is an indicator of knowledge of the subject, rather than knowledge of the subject being discernable by its own right.

It pre-emptively labels any conflicting data or disagreeing statements as biased, thus placing a false burden on dissenting information to prove otherwise. This is a direct personal attack ("ad hominem"[6]), insisting that the dissenting view be disregarded because of the person expressing it, not because of the degree of validity of the view itself.

Claims of Secret or Hidden Knowledge
From the quote listed above from the film's website, the author (Peter Joseph) states that the claims made in the film are "not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet" or that "online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist." However, on the film's website fourteen of the twnety-six sources listed-- (one more than) half of the sources-- have website links attached to them[7]. Additionally, fourteen of the works-- including material from Carpenter[8], Churchward[9], Cumont[10], Doane[11], Frazer[12], Irvin & Rutajit[13], Massey[14] [15] [16], Maxwell[17] [18], Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S)[19], Rolleston[20], Wheless[21], and even the Christian Bible[22]-- are not only easy to find through online searches but in some cases have copies in more than one location on the internet. In fact, of the fifteen authors cited in the list of sources-- some authors are cited more than once for different books they have written-- a full eleven of the authors used in citations have their work freely accessible online (more if works not cited are counted). The more notable authors-- Campbell, Carpenter, Cumont, Frazer, and even Massey, Rolleston, and Wheless-- all have material freely accessible in electronic format as well as print. To imply that the information in the movie was somehow hidden, in any capacity whatsoever, is blatantly false.

Use of Misleading Language
The most obvious use of misleading language in the movie is the correlation of "son" to "Sun" as if the similarity in pronunciation in Modern English is significant in some way, even though early Christian writings were written in Greek (son=huios, Sun=Helios), Latin (son=fili, Sun=Sol), and Hebrew (son=ben/bar, Sun=Shemesh), where over-simplistic vowel replacements would not change one word into the other. This rhetorical linguistic misdirection muddies the presentation in that the film never establishes a basis in fact for the audience to accept this, it simply treats it as a given.

The film also goes into misleading language in the form of descriptions, as well as using pseudoscience jargon like "astro-theological literary fold hybrid" in its assessments. Throughout each description, the wording of things being described as corrolative use leading terms (conflating '"aeon", which means "age"' with Jesus' Solar Piscean personification and Age of Aquarius) and treat innocuous phrases ("there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water"[23]) as if they are groundbreakingly significant ("The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius") as if such an assertion were an accepted given and no explanation for such an association need be made outside of stating it.

Lack of Independent Verification
While the transcript to the film does make citations to books and occassionally notes passages that make the same claims as the film, the film does not actually provide evidence pointing to texts that would prove those claims. This is not independent verification, this is repeating the claims of others and (in the case of the film) it does little or nothing to establish the validity of the claims themselves. For example: nearly all the Horus-based claims, despite the number of authors cited by Peter Joseph in the film, tend to trace back to either Gerald Massey or James Frazer. Massey tended to not include the actual translations he was working from to come to his conclusions, and Sir Frazer in his later abridgements even states himself that his work does not represent "a whole system of mythology"[24].

The film quotes the books by Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S) most heavily, who herself uses the others listed as references (like Massey) in her work. This is a closed system of cyclic referencing and it does not actually present to the viewer much in the way of actual evidence, only a recitation of similar claims (which are similarly unverified or unproven). The process of independent verification, which is not present in the film or within any of the source materials used, is used to establish veracity outside of what can be called "me too" piece[25]. Independent verification would also serve to bolster these claims that tend to be a radical departure from the more conventional schools of though, which would make the need to be sure of veracity even greater[26]. It is for this reason that the cyclic referencing within the sources-- the Zeitgeist film citing Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorothy Murdock), who in turn cites Massey or Frazer, both of hainvg their own challenges in veracity (depending on the claim)-- cannot be considered independent review or verification.

Use of Confirmation Instead of Proof
Similar to the above section, the film's tendency to make circular reference citations to previously published claims borders on tautology. Describing things in a similar manner does not necessarily make those things similar, and repeating a claim previously made by another author without adding new information or supporting the claim with actual evidence itself (and not simply the other author's words) does little to establish the validity of a claim. Considering the nature of the claims made in Zeitgeist it would seem reasonable to expect actual proofs stemming from actual culturally and historically relevant evidence, as opposed to quotes of multiple authors making similar claims (and rarely supplying evidence) or misleading language that foregoes cultural and historical context? The burden of proof is upon the film Zeitgeist to make its case, not on this site or any other source to disprove, since it is the film that has made the claims and supported it primarily with confirmations instead of actual evidence.

Slow or No Progression of Evidence
The entire film, understandably, is in a presentation format in order to make the concepts it conveys more accessible. However, within the presentation the film assumes the hypothesis as a given before leading the viewer through the process of evidence to progress the viewer toward the same conclusion as the movie's hypothesis. While attempting to guess why would only be speculation, the importance of having a clear and concise progression of evidence by which the claims can be followed, revisited, and verified outside of the film would have been key in supporting the films claims. Yet it fails to engage in this activity with the viewer, instead explaining everything with an assumed sense of authority and credence that, from the onset of the film, had yet to be earned from the viewer (or reader).

Vague and Untestable Criteria
The film makes very little attempt to establish a measurement by which its claims of correlation can be measured, and even by the vague list of properties given in the film the lists of correlations are inconsistent and often unverifiable. In many of the sources for the first section, usually quoted, paraphrased, or flashed on the screen quickly, are often themselves poorly sourced and lacking in sourcing to original materials from the religions and cultures that they are commenting on, instead offering their own interpretation of events. This is a problem in that, were someone willing to attempt to follow the claims through to the original cultures and religions to see the evidence for themselves, there is no path of evidence for that someone to follow left by those authors. Stating whether this was an intentional omission or an honest mistake on the parts of some of the authors would be speculation, but pointing out the difficulty in being able to clearly and independently verify the claims due to lack of clearly sourced originating evidence is significant throughout the Zeitgeist film as well as its sources.

Claims of Historical Correlation
One of the main alleged evidences of the Zeitgeist movie is that possible correlations between different mythologies between religions is representative of either direct or indirect influence. To present substance to this claim, the film attempts to link Christianity to practically every other religion that has existed throughout history. This "see what sticks" technique, while able to bring up either vague or random similarities, never bothers to actually provide any actual proof of such claims, neither in the film nor in the sources provided within the transcript. Stating that something is true because someone says something you wish to agree with-- as is the case with a large percentage of the sources provided by the film-- is no different in methodology than religious apologetics, which are exactly the kinds of techniques the film claims to be speaking out against as fraud or wanton deciet. This hypocrisy aside, Some of the alleged claims are listed below:

Horus and Jesus
Before we begin examining Horus, it should be noted that the name "Horus" in Egyptian mythology and literature stood for many things[27], but mostly stood as a reference to the sitting pharaoh's divinity[28] [29] [30]. Basically, Horus was an invocation used to connect people (like the pharaoh) and things (like the sunrise and sunset, or the importance of a place) to divinity, having many different meanings depending on on the context of the reference to the name. This should be kept in mind when references to Horus are made, especially when claims connecting Horus to other gods are made, because "Horus" was a fluid anthropomorphosis of a divine aspect and not a single, static character within Egyptian mythology.

The claims made in the film regarding Horus are all of either questionable or outright lacking credibility, or are made up of mistranslations or deceiving interpretations of the mythologies involving Horus within Egyptian literature or other archaeological evidence. The main source for these claims tend to be Gerald Massey or Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S), who in turn relies on Massey's claims as her evidence. Unfortunately, Massey never provided actual textual or literal citations for independent verifications of his claims, and searching through the texts he claims to have been working from (the Ani Papyrus and several tomb writings, for example) turn up no evidence to back up his interpretations.

More information can be found on the Horus-Jesus_Correlations sub-page.

(Old Testament) Joseph and (New Testament) Jesus
Unlike the majority of the other correlations brought up in the film, this one is actually a valid one. However, the correlations mentioned within the film are somewhat superficial and flimsy, while the more academic correlations are ones that are quite valid. Joseph, the son of Jacob[31], is an Old Testament midrash that can be found in Genesis chapter 37[32] through Genesis chapter 50[33]. The film mentions the following parallels as significant "proof" of the movie's claims:

Miracle birth: Indeed, both the circumstances of Joseph (born of Rachel[34]) and Jesus (born of Mary[35])could be interpreted to have been miraculous. However, only in the story of Jesus is the birth by a virgin and is the child considered divine.

12 Brothers / 12 Disciples: Unfortunately, the narrative in the Zeitgeist film plays word-games to trick the viewer into believing there is an exact parallel. However, Joseph was one of twelve brothers[36], which means he only had 11 brothers, while Jesus had 12 disciples. Jesus was not one of the number of disciples, while Joseph was one of the number of brothers.

Sold for 20 / 30 Pieces of Silver: Once again, unfortunately, the narrative to the film is playing word-games to try to create a parallel. Judas Iscariot (Hebrew: יהודה איש־קריות‎ Greek: Yəhûḏāh ʾΚ-qəriyyôṯ) did not sell Jesus, he betrayed him for a price according to the New Testament gospels[37]. Joseph, on the other hand, was sold as a slave[38]. This may seem like a small distinction, but it is an important one if someone is wanting to take an honest look at the two stories from a comparative point of view. Comparative religious study can be interesting, but without intellectual honesty a presentation (like the film) quickly shows an underlying agenda that is less interested in accuracy than it is in its own interpretation of events.

Judah / Judas Suggests Sale: As previously pointed out, Judas Iscariot did not sell Jesus. In the story of Joseph, Joseph is sold as a slave; in the story of Jesus, the loyalty of Judas is sold for a price. Again, this may not seem like a huge distinction, but ignoring the distinction is yet another sign of intellectual dishonesty to portray aspects that are not the same as if they were in order to make a point. Such behavior is not scholarly nor is it condusive to those who are looking for any kind of honest assessment.

Work at Age 30: The narrator in the Zeitgeist film states that both Joseph and Jesus "began their work" at the age of 30 years, but this is completely false. Jesus did indeed begin his ministry at the age of thirty, according to the New Testament. Joseph "began" his work of predicting things through interpretations of dreams at age seventeen[39], not 30. If Joseph's own dreams are not counted in the "work" of Joseph, then the age he began is still not age 30, but instead age 28[40]. Two years after he first began his interpretation of dreams for others is when he arrived before the pharaoh of Egypt[41]. Again, the narrator and the film use deceitful word-games in the attempt to convince the viewer.

Other Mentions

Adonis

Adonis, being a Greek import from its conquered Middle-Eastern territories (around modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Israel), was allegedly based on the Hebraicized version of "the Lord" (Adonai, Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי) and the story of the Mesopotamian (Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian) god Tammuz[42]. The film only lists Adonis in a quick scrolling of names, some of which are duplicates of each other, and offers no actual explanation of why he is listed.

Adonis' mythology consisted of many different versions of stories, with varied and quite different accounts of his death and what happens afterward[43]. He represented eternal youth that dies and returns annually, but even this recurring rebirth story is seen as ending with a final demise[44], so it is unclear how the mythology of Adonis is meant to connect to Christianity, unless the viewer of the film (or, indeed, the reader of its sources) is expected to disregard the aspects of the Adonis myth that contradict alleged connections with Christianity, and only assume the one or two aspects that seem only partially similar.

Dumuzi
Dumuzi is another name for Tammuz. See Tammuz for more.

Issa / Isa
This claim is taken direct from Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S): "The Arabian Issa purportedly lived around 400 BCE in the western Arabian region of Hijaz, where also existed places called Galilee, Bethsaida and Nazareth, a town that was not founded in Palestine until after "Jesus of Nazareth's" alleged era. The similarities between the Arabian Issa and the Palestinian Jesus are many and profound."[45]

Unfortunately, this claim is made without citation or any evidentiary material through which independent verification can be performed. The only similar claims to the ones made by Ms. Murdock have come in the form of claims that Jesus (or at least the story of Jesus) allegedly travelled through India and Tibet in the "lost years"[46], which tend to actually contradict claims (by Ms. Murdock and by the Zeitgeist film) that Jesus is a fictional or non-historic figure[47]. It would be highly unlikely that Ms. Murdock is referencing this Issa (or Saint Issa), however, because these references are talking about the very same Jesus that is described in the Christian Gospels. However, with no actual historical reference with which to compare and contrast, no proof of such a claim exists.

Speculation: This could also be a case of mistranslation on the part of Ms. Murdock or others, mistaking the name 'Issa' with one of the following:

The god Assur, who may have been the personification of the city Assur of Assyria, and was later absorbed into both Sumerian and Babylonian mythologies and mixed with existing gods of those respective pantheons[48]

The goddess Ishara, who to the Sumerians was a goddess of love and to Anatolians and northern Syrians was a goddess representative of the underworld[49]

The god Isum, who was a popular but minor god in Sumer, often associated with the underworld[50]
Once again, however, it should be noted that none of these possibilities match the story and myth of Jesus, so these names may not be the basis from which Ms. Murdock or any other source for the Zeitgeist film came up with their claims. These possible references are being pointed out not to argue that they were the inspiration for the unsupported claims made by the film or the writers it sources, but to show that the most likely possible historical candidates fitting the same or similar name are not, in fact, supportive of the hypothesis put forth by Zeitgeist or its sources.

Tammuz
The mention of Tammuz (of Akkadian, Sumerian, and Babylonian origin) is an interesting one, mostly because the film's list states that Tammuz was a "savior god worshipped in Jerusalem." This is a blatant example of misinterpretation. Tammuz (Hebrew: תַּמּוּז) was called "Lord" which, in Hebrew, is the word "Adonai" (אֲדֹנָי). It is often cited that the name "Lord" used for Tammuz was likely later borrowed by the Jews when speaking about their god (YHWH, Hebrew: יהוה), whose name is forbidden to be pronounced aloud. Tammuz was probably worshipped in Jerusalem, but not any time even close to the Roman Empire and not by the Jews. This was a Babylonian god and, as of around 600 years Before Common Era (BCE), Jerusalem and Israel were conquered by Babylon.

While it is clear that Tammuz is states as a template for the Semitic-Hellenistic myth of Adonis[51], the best that the list flashed by in the film offers in correlation with Christianity is that Tammuz was worshipped in Jerusalem-- as many gods were at different points in history, which does not connect to anything-- and that Tammuz is somehow considered a "savior." However, the "savior" story of Tammuz deals explicitly with Inanna (also known as Ishtar), for whom he travels into the underworld to trade his own soul for the release of Inanna[52].

In all intellectual honesty, the only connection Tammuz has with Christianity is the use of the name "Lord" (Adonai or אֲדֹנָי) for both Tammuz and the Hebrew god. In this, it seems they only share a title ("Lord" or "Adonai") in common, which barely even qualifies for a tenuous correlation.

Claims of Thematic Correlation

New Age Subject Matter

Most of the astrological references made in the film are based on modern astrological concepts, used together in modern forms of astrology (New Age), and reminiscent of only parts of older traditions from various points in history, though not all of them come from antiquity.

Modern Astrology
The film continually references constallations and astrological terms as they are presented in modern astrological use, even though modern astrology is exactly that, modern, and that ancient forms of astrology differed depending on the culture, part of the world it was practiced, and location in relation to how the stars would be seen in the first place.

The Number 12
The film states: "In fact, the number 12 is replete throughout the Bible. This text has more to do with astrology than anything else." However, what the film doesn't specify is which astrology this has to do with, even though the description that follows is clearly a variant of modern New Age astrology. Ancient astrologies were not only replete with the number 12, but also the number 18 or variances of the numbers six or three[53] [54].

But what does this mean in relationship to numbers used in the Christian Bible? The film isn't clear on the precise nature of such an alleged relationship, except to state that both have the use of the number 12 in common with one another. That's all well and good for proselytizing New Age astrology, but it doesn't necessarily coincide with the many different types of astrological computation methods that existed in the Middle East before Christianity or the Common Era. This is another example where the film (and many of its sources) are conflating modern astrology with aspects of ancient mythology and structure.

The Southern Crux (Cross)
The Souther Crux, which is called "the cross of the Zodiac" in the Zeitgeist film, is described in the movie as reflective of the sun while traversing the sky over the span of the year. It appears that not much research took place in the course of adding this to the production, since if the makers of Zeitgeist had checked into this constellation they would have found that it is a modern discovery[55] [56].

It is evident that this claim made in the film mixes up ancient astrologies with more modern versions in order to make its dubious case. How do the makers of this film justify this mistake? The simple way: they don't. Despite the fact that the Southern Crux only appears in the lexicon of astrology 1600 years after the beginning of the Common Era and more than a millenium and a half after the beginning of Christianity, the film attempts to use this constellation as a 'proof' in a tautological fashion.

Misc

Correlation as Causation
It seems that most of the claims of correlation made within the film are presented in a manner to suggest that the creation and evolution of the Jesus mythology over the years have been taken primarily from these other myths. Leaving aside the questionable integrity of the claims or their mixed levels of validity, the fact remains that similarities alone would not necessarily imply any sort of causative relationship between the religions. Just because two religions have a deity or hero who is reborn does not necessarily imply that one of the two religions took from the other, or that they even developed their rebirth stories from the same source or context. This is a tactic used quite often in linguistic pseudoscientific claims, that similar-sounding words[57] imply some sort of originating relationship between languages, but this claim has been addressed on numerous occassions, both in dealing with individual words[58] and in dealing with phrases[59], and such claims are almost exclusively shown to be of dubious or questionable veracity. This is a good example of how the arguments of correlation as causation should be viewed with a reasonable amount of skepticism when direct connections are not described, and in the case of the claims within the Zeitgeist movie the claims are typically of questionable accuracy or validity on their own, not even counting their intended use as correlative conditions.

Correlations are not a completely useless method of determining a relationship between different things, but only if such correlations can withstand scrutiny and can display some sort of actual connection to suggest a relationship. Unfortunately, the Zeitgeist film not only fails to present correlations that can withstand scrutiny-- in fact, the majority of the claims are incredibly inaccurate or misleading-- but it also fails to establish any type of relationship between the various mythologies it presents in contrast to Christianity to imply sufficient reason to belileve that a relationship, causative or otherwise, actually existed.

See What Sticks' Methodology
As evidenced in the sheer number of claims for correlation listed by the film itself, along with the random mixture of similarities in attributes listed by the film[60], the narrator of the film (and its sources) seem to take the figurative approach of tossing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks in order to support their foregone conclusion, instead of using the evidences they present to actually build the conclusion from the ground up. Once again, even ignoring the mistranslations and misdirections made in the list of correlations, there still don't exist sufficient evidence that any one of the listed names stand up to a one-to-one comparison for correlations, and are instead quickly flashed across the screen in the movie without much exposition, expecting the viewer to take for granted that the claims of similarities are already proven instead of actually providing evidential information that gives credence to the claims.

This 'see what sticks' methodology is highly questionable at the very least, and is a red flag to the dubious level of intellectual honesty taking place otherwise.

Mixed Signals
A quote from the zeitgeistmovie.com website:
"That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized."[61]

Unfortunately, this hope has not been realized. Moreso, Mr. Joseph himself seems to be promoting his film as an "awakening" and a "revolution"[62], which seems to send a mixed message. If this film isn't meant to be taken as truth, then what exactly makes it revolutionary or cause for an awakening? That certainly seems like a question whose answer may be helpful to understand not only how this film should be taken, but why it seems to be presented in such an authoritative fashion even though the "not take what is said in this film as the truth" disclaimer is plainly made. Until such a clarification can be made explaining otherwise by Mr. Joseph regarding the level of authoritativeness of the claims in the film, the only recourse is to take the claims seriously and address them as the historical, allegorical, and logical fallacies that they actually are.

Note About This Page

This page, while a refutation of the dubious claims made in the interet film Zeitgeist, are neither an essay on apologetics in favor of any religion (including Christianity) nor a page supporting statements against any religion. This page is meant to clarify a number of fictitious or misleading claims that exist, as disseminated by an internet film on conspiracy theory. This page is not a theological document, and is not meant to direct a reader in any direction in terms of whether they should or should not have faith in a given religion. Such decisions are personal choices that are probably better dealt with by the individual themselves, or with whatever counsel that individual chooses to seek of their own accord. Regardless, those matters are beyond the scope of this page and this statement is making clear that no religions are being defended or chastized here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit]Notes:

↑ Film transcript

↑ "Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues" (1998) by J. A. Cover and Martin Curd (pages 1-82)

↑ "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer (page 16 of Part 1: Science and Skepticism) "Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some things, such as water dowsing, extrasensory perception, and creationism, have been tested and have failed the tests often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other things, such as hypnosis, lie detectors, and vitamin C, have been tested but the results are inconclusive, so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science."

↑ Zeitgeist website

↑ LogicalFallacies.info - Appeal to Consequences

↑ LogicalFallacies.info - Ad Hominem (personal attack)

↑ Zeitgeist source page

↑ Pagan & Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning by Edward Carpenter at Sacred-Texts.com

↑ The Origin and Evolution of Religion by Albert Churchward at Google Books

↑ Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans by Frans Cumont at Sacred-Texts.com

↑ Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by Thomas William Doane on Google Books

↑ The Golden Bough by Sir James G. Frazer at Adelaide.edu; also at Bartleby.com; also at Project Gutenburg

↑ Astrotheology And Shamanism by Jan Irvin and Andrew Rutajit on Google Books

↑ "Ancient Egypt - The Light of the World" by Gerald Massey at Theosophical.ca part 1 and part 2; also at Google Books (Vol. 1)

↑ Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta by Gerald Massey; also at Google Books

↑ The Historic Jesus and the Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey; also at Google Books

↑ That Old-Time Religion by Jordan Maxwell, Paul Tice, Alan Snow at Google Books

↑ The Naked Truth on Google Video

↑ The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorothy Murdock)

↑ Mazzaroth by Frances Rolleston at Philologos.org

↑ Forgery In Christianity by Joseph Wheless at Infidels.org

↑ BibleGateway.com - 50 different versions of the Christian bible; BlueLetterBible.org - 'Several English translations, plus the Vulgate, and interlinear Hebrew OT and Greek NT'; Bartleby.com - American Bible Society's KJV Bible

↑ Luke 22:10

↑ "If in the present work I have dwelt at some length on the worship of trees, it is not, I trust, because I exaggerate its importance in the history of religion, still less because I would deduce from it a whole system of mythology; it is simply because I could not ignore the subject in attempting to explain the significance of a priest who bore the title of King of the Wood, and one of whose titles to office was the plucking of a bough - the Golden Bough - from a tree in the sacred grove." Sir James G. Frazer in the preface of "The Golden Bough" (1922), ISBN 1853263109

↑ Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas, (PDF) compiled and presented by Tracey Brown; Page 8 describes questions that should be asked of the work, one of which asks: "Is it a 'me too' paper; is it 'salami slicing'?"

↑ Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas, (PDF) compiled and presented by Tracey Brown; Page 11 states: "The justification given-- that findings were ground-breaking or of too great a public interest to wait for peer review-- might seem reasonable ... However, it could be looked at another way: if a research claim is so significant that it might transform our understanding, for example about what is a cause of illness, or influence regulation or behaviour, then it is all the more important that they research is on sound foundations tested by peers. The time taken to review research is frustrating, but must be considered against the potentially enourmous costs to science and to society of promoting research findings that turn out to be scientifically weak or contain serious errors."

↑ Encyclopedia Mythica: "The name "Horus" is a general catchall for multiple deities"

↑ "Live Horus, divine in manifestation; the Two Ladies, divine in birth; Horus of Gold, who has become manifest; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khakaure, the Son of Re, Senwosret (III), given life like Re forever." From the 12th Dynasty (Senwosret III) on the Berlin Stele document, found in Letters from ancient Egypt, Wente, Edward Frank, 1930-, Meltzer, Edmund S. Scholars Press, c1990 ISBN 1-55540-472-3 (p 24)

↑ "Thereupon he (Muwatallis) sent his messenger with a letter in his hand bearing the great name of My Majesty, sending greetings to the majesty of the palace, l.p.h., of Re-Harakhti, Mighty Bull, beloved of Maat, the sovereign who protects his army and is energetic with his strong arm, a bulwark for his soldiers on the day of battle; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Usermare-setepenre; the Son of Re, the lion, possessor of strength, Ramesses (II), given life forever." From the 19th Dynasty (Rameses II) in a Kadesh poem, found in Letters from ancient Egypt, Wente, Edward Frank, 1930-, Meltzer, Edmund S. Scholars Press, c1990 ISBN 1-55540-472-3 (p 29-30)

↑ "This is a missive to inform One (the king) at the Palace, l.p.h., "Beloved-of-Maat," the two horizons in which Re is: Turn your face to me, you shining sun who illuminates the Two Lands with your beauty, you solar disk of humankind, who has banished darkness from Egypt." From the 19th Dynasty (Merenptah) in the P. Anastasi II document, found in Letters from ancient Egypt, Wente, Edward Frank, 1930-, Meltzer, Edmund S. Scholars Press, c1990 ISBN 1-55540-472-3 (p 34-35)

↑ Jewish Virtual Library description of Joseph

↑ Genesis CH 37 - beginning of the story of Joseph

↑ Genesis CH 50 - the end of the Joseph midrash

↑ Genesis CH 30:22-24 - the "reproach" mentioned in the passage was her inability to bear children to Jacob

↑ Matthew CH 1:18, Luke CH 1:26-38: both New Testament accounts of Mary's conception

↑ Genesis CH 35:23-26 - list of the sons of Jacob

↑ Matthew CH 26:14-16 - Judas agrees to take 30 pieces of silver for "deliver[ing]" Jesus to the priests

↑ Genesis CH 37:26-28 - Joseph is sold by his brothers and brought to Egypt

↑ Genesis CH 37:1-11 - where Joseph dreams his future through through interpretive symbols

↑ Genesis CH 40 - Joseph interprets the dreams of the Egyptian pharaoh's two servants

↑ Genesis CH 41:1-13 - the pharaoh's dreams, where Joseph is then called before the pharaoh

↑ Oriental Mythology: The Masks of God by Joseph Campbell (p 39-40)

↑ Aphrodite and Adonis - multiple versions of Adonis stories concerning Aphrodite. Note that none of them list a virgin birth.

↑ "Where a normal child needs to be born only once to liberate himself from the mother, Adonis, as puer, continually returns to the mother and so must be born again and agin. His final death is simply his permanent rather temporary return to her." From Theorizing about myth by Robert A. Segal (p 110-111)

↑ "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" (1999) by Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorothy Murdock), page 124, ISBN 0932813747

↑ "The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ" by Nicolas Notovich (1890), ISBN 141798127X - "The Earth trembled and the heavens wept, because of the great crime committed in the land of Israel. For there was tortured and murdered the great and just Issa, in whom was manifest the soul of the Universe; Which had incarnated in a simple mortal, to benefit and destroy the evil spirit in them; To lead back to 'peace, love and happiness, man, degraded by his sins, and recall him to the one and indivisible Creator whose mercy is infinite." (page 155)

↑ "Lost Years of Jesus" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet (1987) ISBN 091676687X - "Scholars discussed whether Jesus was a man or a myth or some of each; whether he came to establish a new religion or if he was an eschatological figure -- a herald announcing the end of the world. They debated whether there was a rational explanation for the miracles, whether Jesus was necessary to the development of Christianity, whether the synoptic Gospels were historically more relevant than the Gospel of John, and even if there was anything to be gained by further study. The scholarship was so intense and the writings so profuse that entire libraries on the subject of the historical Jesus could be assembled. Scholars are now virtually in agreement that Jesus did in fact exist, but because of a scarcity of historical information no biography of his life, in the modern sense of the word, can be drawn. The earliest writings about Jesus fall into two categories : Christian and non-Christian. The non-Christian records, written by Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius about sixty to ninety years after the crucifixion, are so brief that they do little more than help establish his historicity. The Gospels, probably written between A.D. 60 and 100, are the principal source of information about Jesus. Although of immense historical value, scholars contend they were never intended to be biographies -- a judgment that must be reconsidered in light of the fact that we do not necessarily have the writings of the Evangelists and the apostles in their original, unedited form." (pages 7-8)

↑ "Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia" (2003) by Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, ISBN 0292707940, (pages 37-38)

↑ "Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia" (2003) by Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, ISBN 0292707940, (page 110)

↑ "Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia" (2003) by Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, ISBN 0292707940, (page 112)

↑ Oriental Mythology: The Masks of God by Joseph Campbell (p 39-40)

↑ sacred-texts.com - The Descent of The Goddess Ishtar Into the Underworld From The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, M. Jastrow, 1915

↑ Ancient Jewish Astrology: An Attempt to Interpret 4QCryptic (4Q186) by Francis Schmidt - this document describes in some detail Jewish astrology of antiquity, from which significant numbers such as 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36 are derived according to their lunar (not solar) calendar.

↑ Free-Vedic-Astrology.com - "Indian Astrology is based upon nine planets; they are the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and the two Shadow planets are Rahu and Ketu. Out of these the first seven are material planets and can be seen with naked eye, the remaining two are imaginary points formed by the intersection of the paths of the earth and the moon. There are other planets also in the space namely the Uranus, Neptune and Pluto but they do not find any place in Indian Vedic astrology. The reason is that they were not discovered at the time of Parashar, the father of Indian Vedic astrology or the planets are far away from the earth to give influence upon human beings."

↑ Overview: Letter of Andrea Corsali 1516-1989 - "After rounding the Cape, Corsali observed the curious behaviour of an unrecorded group of Stars (the Southern Cross) which he described and illustrated." - the Southern Cross was discovered in the Sixteenth Century, and this letter is one of the first mentions of it.

↑ Windows to the Universe at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research: "Because it is not visible from most latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, Crux is a modern constellation and has no Greek or Roman myths associated with it. Crux was used by explorers of the southern hemisphere to point south since, unlike the north celestial pole, the south celestial pole is not marked by any bright star."

↑ List of similar sounding words (incomplete list)

↑ Zompist.com; How likely are chance resemblances between languages? by Mark Rosenfelder - "The reader may well conclude that with the appropriate choice of parameters, any number of matches is possible!" The document goes on to provide a more robust and specific conclusion as well.

↑ LDS-Mormon.com; Book Of Mormon "Wordprints" Reexamined by D. James Croft - the study deals specifically with the Book of Mormon, but the methodology and detail applies to many forms of "wordprinting" claims

↑ zeitgeistmovie.com: "List of Gods which share such attributes as virgin birth, born on/near Dec.25th (the winter solstice), born in a cave, was baptized, worked miracles, was called the "Savior", had Eucharists, was hung on trees or crucified, had disciples, were resurrected and returned to heaven, ect. [Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited , 1999. Page 106-107]"

↑ zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm - a statement made by the maker of the film (presumably Peter Joseph).

↑ ZDay - an event that seems to be in the works by the makers of the Zeitgeist movie.
Retrieved from "http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Zeitgeist_Part_I"

This page has been accessed 423 times. This page was last modified 07:17, 17 February 2008.

Link to this article: http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Zeitgeist_Part_I