The source for 99.9% of the comparisons betweeen deities in Zeitgeist is taken from just two victorian writers over a hundred years ago called Gerald Massey and Albert Churchward, who were amongst other things, trying to prove Theosophy. There are NO other references to these supposed comparisons in any egyptian, buddhist or hindu text, only in Massey and Churchwarden's work. Churchwarden even went to the extent of inventing characters to make a comparison with, such as 'Anup the Baptizer' (indicating a connection with Jesus and John the Baptist), who supposedly baptized Horus. There is no Anup in the Horus story at all, and he was never baptized... Now, read the below on the source of all the material for part one of Zeitgeist, and even the term 'astrotheology' itself - from just one person, 'Acharya S'. The following is written by Acharya herself) http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2007/08/rense-zeitgeist-nod-to-acharya-s.html </BLOGITEMTITLE> "...Just thought I'd steer your attention to the nod I recently received on the Jeff Rense radio show by both Rense and Peter J., who created the movie Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist features my work significantly at several points and in the overall thesis of the first part regarding the astrotheological origins of religion. Peter J. has read both my books The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God - readers of my work will recognize the parts in the Zeitgeist movie that reflect the thesis I have expounded upon in those tomes and elsewhere. In fact, I consulted with Peter J. shortly before the final cut was released. It should be noted that I was involved in only Part 1 and take no responsibility for any of the rest of the material in the movie; nor do I necessarily concur with any or all of it - but that is the subject for another blog." END QUOTE Note that Acharya herself does not agree with the conclusions derived in Zeitgeist or that it follows on logically from her work. This is a bio of Acharya from 'Eye on the Future Radio' http://www.eyeonthefutureradio.com/past_shows_2004.htm : QUOTE: "...Acharya S, classically educated at some of the finest schools, multilingual, trench master on archaeological excavations and one who has gained mastery in several religions, as well other esoterica and the supernatural. She is founder, International Church of Astrotheology, has a number of students and devotees and is the author of several books..." http://www.truthbeknown.com Currently Archarya S - whos real name is D. Murdock- is reworking the same tales I wrote about in the first paragraph and adding her own ideas into them. Murdock is part of "..a fringe group of atheistic and New Age writers who rely heavily on Nineteenth-century sources such as Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907), and Thomas Inman..." She has been involved in various internet debates concerning the validity of her work, but tends to suddenly withdraw when the going gets tough and she has to prove her facts. http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/acharya.html The term astrotheology means as far as I can find: <study> Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies. Sooooo..we've got someone who is an atheist who starts an anti-christian church that's based on astrology???? And she accuses christianity on her site of being backward and stupid...what a woman... A key point she uses in her books is that Krishna was crucified, but she has never been able to show exactly where this information is in any of the texts she quotes. In fact, the only place that you'll find the allegation that Krishna was crucified is again within Theosophy. Anyone who supports the idea that the content of part 1 of Zeitgeist is accurate supports Murdoch's work. It's almost entirely her ideas, which are based on Theosophy and Massey and Churchwarden. The challenge is this: if everything she says in Zietgeist about Horus, Krishna and Buddha is correct, then it will be very easy for anyone here to find the original texts proving it. Murdoch and Zeitgeist list about 200 supposed similarities, there should be at least one that's true from the originals. In addition though I'd like to offer a $100 prize to the person who can show the original (not modern deriratives) text where either Horus, Buddha, or Krishna was crucified. To help you along, here are links to all the original source material. Murdoch says that she used to find out about Krishna (she says she used "the Gita and 'other Brahmanical works'", so I've given a link to all such works here: Hinduism (Krishna) - including the Vedas and Upanishads): http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/ http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/upanishads.htm http://sanatan.intnet.mu/ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/index.htm Here are sites containing all the main Egyptian texts: http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptexts.html http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/egyptian/index.html And another 3 containing all major Buddhist texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BTEXTS.HTM http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/texts.htm All are searchable, so get your Zeitgeist fact list and find me one or two provable facts from it! Come on guys, it should be so easy...supposing any of it is true of course... MelT
I was suspicious of part one. Not because I believe in god (because Im undecided) but because I had never heard of any the mythology that part 1 was based on. 12 Apostles, 12 signs of the zodiac, I can see that connection but it is not particularly damning. It was the direct connection between the stories that I was concerned with. I did not hear any citations in the documentary so I was wondering where this info came from. Now I know. Its almost impossible for any of us to prove that something does not exist, it is the burden of the claimant to prove that it does exist. It seems that zeitgeist has fallen a little short of the burden of proof. Hopefully one of you can prove their case, I would love to believe that the whole world was a conspiracy against me. Life is a lot easier when you can blame all the bad things on a conspiracy, just like life is a lot easier when you have faith that you are under gods protection. Floating in the middle sucks.
Nice work man. A lot of people are to quick to believe everything in that movie when most of it isn't true. Personally i'm tired of talking about it, but I gotta give you props for doing your research.
When you do, just pause it at the very first screen where it gives initial information and check out their facts. Not one word on that page is true. MelT
I don't personally have the time or motivation to answer your challenge, but I hope someone does or at least can show how the director came to these incorrect conclusions, and I hope that sources page helps that person. It's all about knowledge.
"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." Personally, I think its easy to see how they've blown things way out of proportion. In addition, the validity of the information is questionable - for good reason. The part which makes the most sense to me is the one that deals with the astrological connection. Anyone who gazes at Orions belt and Sirius in the night sky and doesnt make that connection is missing something. Regardless of all the other dieties and their connections to Jesus, and all the other information in the film at large, Zeitgeist is good for one thing... Waking people the fuck up. I dont think the film would have had the same profound effect if it didnt use some heavy distortion of the "truth". The people that watch it and buy it for what it is, they are ultimately missing the biggest point the movie was trying to make. The people that pick it apart and hunt for the truth... well... there you have it.
It's impossible to excuse this film as being a simple wake-up call for people to find the truth for themselves. It was created to deceive and sell the BS that Archarya and her fellow right wing anti-jewish authors write. As will be obvious from the tens of forums the film is mentioned on, very few people realise that the film is entirely lies, so if it was really a perverse attempt at getting people to look for the truth it failed miserably. If a film boldly states 'fact' after fact as though it's the truth, can that really be a viable way of making people search for themselves? How much does it do for the truth when thousands of people world wide buy into the total rubbish it tries to sell as factual? How many generations of knowledge will it taint? There are NO excuses for what it has led people to believe. MelT
True. I definitely don't believe the movie but Zeitgeist will forever be that critical turning point in my life when I started looking at the world for what it really is.
It is sad, because I cannot really fault the movie on its points, but how it goes about "proving" those points is dishonest and sad. Seriously, the truth is good enough, no need to fucking lie. Assholes.