Peter Joseph (creator of Zeitgeist) believes that I'm mentally ill because I disagree with him. You can read all about it on his forums (linked from this forum post), with a blog-based rebuttal here. You better not disagree with him, or you'll be labeled insane next. Perhaps I'm crazy for pointing out his forum post?
Luckily for me at the time of writing this Zeitgeist, the movie provided their web site with a verbatim transcript of Part I of the movie. I will use this as my source for their claims. If they say something in the film not included in the transcript, I will insert it in red. As you can see below, their claim is indented, and below it I will correct anything that is inaccurate. As I said on the main page, some things are true, such as that the zodiac exists and that Horus was an Egyptian god, so I will not touch things like this. I should note that just because it contains grains of fact, does not make the movie factual.
Note: This section does NOT address things that are in the companion guide for the movie. If you want information on that, please see the companion guide page.
This is the sun. As far back as 10 thousand BC., history is abundant with carvings and writings reflecting peoples respect and adoration for this object. And it is simple to understand why as every morning the sun would rise, bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adorned object of all time. Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars. The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn catalogued celestial groups into what we know today as constellations.
The first part is fairly accurate, but when he begins talking about stars, there is something I would like to call into question. He claims that they "catalogued celestial groups", while this is true for some civilizations, others such as the Inca, actually categorized the dark spots, not the stars themselves[1a].
This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.
The above statement implies that constellations and the zodiac have always been connected -- and that there have been just twelve. While the zodiac's exact origins are unknown, the oldest known zodiacs do not have exactly 12 signs and thus conclusions drawn to this cannot be trusted. For example, the Babylonian zodiac originally consisted of 18 signs [1b] and the Mayan Zodiac consisted of 20 . While the Egyptian and Greek zodiacs do contain 12 signs, I thought it important to mention that the 12 signs are not some undeniable truth that can easily be recognized by all civilizations. In fact there are actually 13 constellations the sun passes through, the missing one is Ophiuchus, which is not counted by modern astrologers, for some reason[2b].
In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. The sun, with its life-giving and -saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god. It was known as "God's Sun," the light of the world, the savior of human kind. Likewise, the 12 constellations represented places of travel for God's Sun and were identified by names, usually representing elements of nature that happened during that period of time. For example, Aquarius, the water bearer, who brings the Spring rains.
The sun was not the creator god in all cultures, but rather only a few. While the sun was widely worshipped, more often than not, most religions believed the earth was given birth to (along side the sun and moon) by a different god, or even in one case the Earth is the back of a giant turtle. This is hardly something that can be seen through most religions, and is a bit of a stretch[2c]. The whole purpose of saying "God's Sun, the light of the world, the savior of human kind", is to setup for a comparison for Jesus, and as I will explain later on in this article, is completely inaccurate.
And something else further makes little sense here, if the sun itself is God and the creator, why would they refer to it as "God's Sun", implying that the sun is not the God? Also as I mention at the bottom of this article, there was a a segment cut out that said "God's Sun = God's Son", and this is also inaccurate, because they are similar only in English -- and the bible was not written in English. I feel like this part is still a setup because it is still implying that God's Sun is the same as God's Son, even though the connection is impossible.
This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night. And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.
At this time, he was the god of the sky, and Ra was the god of the sun. Perhaps inevitable, since he was the sky, eventually the moon and the sun were considered his eyes. At this point he was known as Heru-khuti, and by-and-by he was combined with Ra as the god "Re-Horakhty". While there was a battle between Set and Horus, it was hardly every night. In fact, the battle really only happened once, and had more to do with testicles and semen than night and day.
In fact day and night in Egyptian Mythology was much more complicated than the film suggests. The goddess of the sky was called Nut (or Nuit), her name also means "night". At dusk she would swallow Ra, the son god, and he would stay in her uterus until morning when he would be reborn. She wore a blue dress that was covered in stars. Set was the God of the desert, primarily because Horus cut off one of his testicles and he became "infertile like the desert". At this time, Set was not considered evil, it was not until around 100 A.D. that the Romans in Egypt turned Set into a demonic figure.
Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected..
Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days", which does not even take place in December on the modern or ancient calendars, but rather between August 24th and 28th, but in terms of the rising of Sirius (August 4), they are July 30th through August 3rd. His mother was also not a virgin. Horus's father was Osiris, who was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus.
I, as well as several others, as well as several Egyptologists you can find on the Internet, know of no reference anywhere to a "star in the east" or "three kings" and "new-born savior"; it is simply made up. I cannot find any source or information proving he was a "teacher when he was 12 years old", that he was "baptized at age 30", that he "walked on water" (but on the Internet, I did find several places that suggest he was "thrown in the water", but I have no direct source at this time for that). More so, I cannot find any evidence he was referred to as "The Truth", "The Light", Lamb of God", "the Good Shepherd", etc.
Also lacking is any evidence that he was betrayed by Typhon. In fact, Horus never died, at any time, he later merges with the sun god, Ra -- but never dies and certainly never is crucified, and therefore could not have been buried for 3 days and resurrected. If you want to look it up yourself, you can find documentation of Horus and Isis and Osiris here  and here .
Zeitgeist, the movie did not make this up originally, you can find several places on the Internet that make such claims, but there are no sources or suggestions as to where this information came from. It is highly possible all this originates from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold - If you read the Amazon reviews, you can find that a lot of people who point out how the information is completely unsourced . I went to Barnes and Nobel and actually found this book in the Christianity section. Needless to say it was completely unsourced and was like reading much the other "Christianity Conspiracy" books out there. So, if these claims all originate from this book, there's absolutely no evidence for it . I should note that this book is used as a "source" in Zeitgeist, the movie . And it is worth pointing out the title is only one word away from the title of this part of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" vs "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
Horus did not have 12 disciples, rather he had four semi-divine disciples called "heru-shemsu" (followers of Horus) [11 - 1.491]. He did have 16 human followers [11 - 1.196]. One can also find reference to an unnumbered group of followers called the Mesniu (blacksmiths) who accompanied Horus into some of his battles, but no where can 12 of anything be found [11 - 1.475f].
These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure.
Well, as read above, these attributes really are not original. It seems kind of obvious to say that such myths would permeate many cultures of the world -- generally because the claims made by the film, such as a sun god, good and evil, and so forth are things most cultures have believed in.
The film goes on to describe other Gods and Goddesses with similar backgrounds. We will talk about these one at a time.
Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.
This explanation is not only over simplified, but inaccurate. Attis was not necessarily born of a virgin (because it does not say whether or not his mother is a virgin), in fact Attis was born of Nana after she ate the fruit of an almond tree which had been grown from the blood of either Agdistis or Cybele. Attis was worshipped as the god of vegetation, responsible for death and rebirth of plant life. It was thought that each winter he died and in the spring he was reborn. Each spring his resurrection would be celebrated. It goes without saying that spring does not take place in December, nor is the change of seasons a crucifixion, there is no mention of any tombs anywhere, and seeing how he is dead all winter, it goes without saying that winter is longer than 3 days .
Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.
Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives Krishna's birth date (Janmashtami) as 19th or 21st July 3228 BC. Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. . According to references in the Bhagavata Purana and Bhagavad Gita it has been interpreted that Krishna died around 3100 BC . There is no mention of a star in the east signaling his birth in the literature, nor was not resurrected upon his death. There is, however some evidence in various tales that he did perform miracles, but that's it.
Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected.
He was not born to a virgin, his mother was a mortal Semele (daughter of Cadmus) and his father was Zeus. We know that Zeus had other male children so Dionysus is also not his "only begotten son" . Similar to the story of Attis, Dionysus died each winter and was resurrected in the spring. Again, this is hardly December, much less the 25th of said month . He did, however perform miracles, mostly things involving wine, because he was the god of wine -- naturally he could turn water into wine. The titles listed above, such as "King of Kings" and "The Alpha and Omega" are not sourced in the movie, nor can I find any evidence that these titles ever applied to Dionysus, but for good measure, I did find "The Alpha and Omega" referring to god of Christianity .
Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.
The myths and legends of Mithra are numerous in amount and span several different cultures. I ran into a brick wall of sorts trying to track down any of this information. I cannot find any evidence of his "birthday" being December 25th, the only dates that correspond to him are his festival on October 8th and another on September 12-16th, and a cattle pairing festival October 12-16 [25 - 59]. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that he had 12 disciples or 12 of anything for that matter -- no Mithraist scholars seem to know about it . He was not born to a virgin, but rather out of solid rock. I guess you could say a rock is a virgin, but that seems like a long shot. Also, for the sake of further information, he was born fully grown [25 - 173]. There is no evidence of a resurrection or that Mithra has ever died . Roman Mithraic evidence dates to at least a century after the time of the New Testament. As stated earlier, the history of this god is highly complex and covers a lot of area . It is true that Sunday was a sacred day for Mithra, but only to Romans .
The fact of the matter is there are numerous saviors, from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics. The question remains: why these attributes, why the virgin birth on December 25th, why dead for three days and the inevitable resurrection, why 12 disciples or followers? To find out, let's examine the most recent of the solar messiahs.
Well, as you have read above, there are no real general characteristics between these Gods and Goddesses. The only real connections that can be made between them are connections that can be made between most gods and goddesses. None were born on December 25th, none of them had 12 disciples or followers, none were dead for three days, though a couple do recursively die and come back to life. It seems as though the film maker was trying speaking in such a way as to bring about a certain set conclusion, regardless of facts, and of course the real facts state the opposite of his conclusion.
At this point the film goes in the direction it set itself up for. The film maker begins to compare and contrast Jesus and the gods listed above, as well as various astronomical connections. We will discuss them one by one.
Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary on December 25th in Bethlehem, his birth was announced by a star in the east, which three kings or magi followed to locate and adorn the new savior. He was a child teacher at 12, at the age of 30 he was baptized by John the Baptist, and thus began his ministry. Jesus had 12 disciples which he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, he was also known as the "King of Kings," the "Son of God," the "Light of the World," the "Alpha and Omega," the "Lamb of God," and many others. After being betrayed by his disciple Judas and sold for 30 pieces of silver, he was crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.
While this is generally true, a problem arises with Jesus' birthday. The fact is that December 25th was set as his birthday by the later Roman Catholic church, around 300 years after Jesus' death, with the intent of putting it on a pagan holiday. Before that it was generally celebrated January 6th . In the Bible, it describes Jesus' birth actually taking place in the late spring or early summer, because of the shepherds in the fields .
First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise -- the birth of the sun.
Aside from the fact he was not actually born on December 25th, much less winter, there is no evidence of anything stated above. You can go back and check records of the sky over Bethlehem on December 24th (adjusting for the calendar change, that would actually be the 12th of December) . These stars do not line up at all, and they are not even in the sky before or at sunrise, in fact the last time they occur in the sky is 5 hours before sun up. This date was checked with all the years Jesus may have been born, 4 BC through 1 AD and there is no evidence of the above stated . There is no evidence of the three stars on Orion's Belt being called the "Three Kings" outside of certain Christian legends, and surely not in history . In fact, the Bible does not say how many wise men or "kings" there are, it only lists the gifts received .
The red was cut out of the final version of the film by the maker:
The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin. Virgo in Latin means virgin. The ancient glyph for Virgo is the altered "m". This is why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis's mother Myrrha, or Buddha's mother Maya begin with an M. Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread, and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to "house of bread". Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on Earth.
Since when is the Virgin Mary the constellation Virgo? I fail to see why such a connection has been made. Indeed, Virgo means virgin in Latin, but it also means "young girl" and "maiden", as they really didn't have a word that meant both "young girl" and "girl who hasn't had sex yet" . The film claims connections between the names, but a problem arises in the mere fact that not every language on earth is written with the Roman Alphabet (the one English uses). In fact the name Mary in Hebrew is written מרים (Maryaam meaning excellence) and in Greek is written Μαρια . It claims the symbol for Virgo is an altered M (but later contradicts this claim with the following), while it may look like an M, it is actually depicting the arms of a maiden holding a sheaf of wheat .
It goes on to say that like other virgin mothers such as Myrrha and Maya they begin with an M. The main problem with this is that Myrrha was not a virgin, as Adonis was conceived after Myrrha had committed incest with her father King Theias . Maya was also not a virgin, she had been married for 20 years, but did not conceive until a night where she had a dream about an elephant sleeping by her side . Maya's name begins with the letter "म" not M, though it is a similar sound . So, while they may start with similar sounds, except for Myrrha, for thousands of years they were not written with the Latin or Greek letter M. As such, because the Virgo symbol resembles the letter M, this does not mean it is related to M, and therefore no real connection can be made this way.
By far one of the strangest claims is that Virgo is also referred to as the "house of bread". I went through several astrology books, searched the Internet, and I cannot find a source for such a claim. Bethlehem does indeed mean "house of bread" in Hebrew, however seeing how Virgo is not referred to as the "house of bread", there is no real connection here. It seems as though a large jump was made in order to claim "Virgin Mary" means "Virgo" and of course following their claim that Virgo is also "House of Bread", Bethlehem is really a reference to that. The film maker cannot seem to make up his mind as to whether Virgo really means Mary or Bethlehem. Regardless of this, Bethlehem is a real place and it was at that time as well, therefore a claim that it is "a place in the sky, not on Earth" coupled with the other evidence, holds no water.
There is another very interesting phenomenon that occurs around December 25th, or the winter solstice. From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the days become shorter and colder. From the perspective of the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move south and get smaller and more scarce. The shortening of the days and the expiration of the crops when approaching the winter solstice symbolized the process of death to the ancients. It was the death of the Sun. By December 22nd, the Sun's demise was fully realized, for the Sun, having moved south continually for 6 months, makes it to it's lowest point in the sky. Here a curious thing occurs: the Sun stops moving south, at least perceivably, for 3 days. During this 3 day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation. And after this time on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree, this time north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and Spring. And thus it was said: the Sun died on the cross, was dead for 3 days, only to be resurrected or born again. This is why Jesus and numerous other Sun Gods share the crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection concept. It is the Sun's transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation.
Saying the winter solstice occurs around "December 25th" obviously is implying that somehow that day is special. I will clarify the situation by saying it occurs December 21st or 22nd, not the 25th . Each day the sun changes position in the sky slightly, though it does not stop in the sky for three days; though the film maker it adds the word "perceivably" . The reason they use such language is obviously to imply that there is some kind of connection with Jesus (who wasn't born on December 25th as I have shown), the other gods listed before (same applies here), and "three days". It is also impossible that the Southern Cross could be involved, considering the Southern Cross can only be seen via the Southern Hemisphere [42-1] and Bethlehem is in the Northern Hemisphere[42-2].
The film maker goes on to attempt to draw connections between death of the sun, a crucifixion, being dead three days, and coming back to life. The problem, again, none of the other gods aside from Jesus were crucified. This could be an attempt to make a connection between Jesus, the crucifixion, and the other gods; however this attempt does not work because of what I have already shown. The reason the cross represents Christianity and by extension Jesus, has little to do with the sun "resid[ing] in the vicinity of the southern cross" and more to do with the fact Jesus was crucified by Romans on a cross . The evidence shows, there is no connection between Jesus, sun gods, the crucifixions, three day deaths, and resurrections.
However, they did not celebrate the resurrection of the Sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring equinox, the Sun officially overpowers the evil darkness, as daytime thereafter becomes longer in duration than night, and the revitalizing conditions of spring emerge.
Like mentioned above when discussing the birth date of Jesus, the day of Easter was intentionally put on a pagan holiday. Just like with Christmas, this was done to help more easily convert observers of pagan religions to Christianity, this is no secret. Again, here we see the film maker attempting to make a very vague connection between the sun and Jesus, but with the mountain of evidence in the other hand, he is fighting uphill.
Now, probably the most obvious of all the astrological symbolism around Jesus regards the 12 disciples. They are simply the 12 constellations of the Zodiac, which Jesus, being the Sun, travels about with.
On what evidence are such claims based? Many traveling Rabbis in ancient Israel had disciples -- 12 was probably selected for Jesus because there are 12 Jewish tribes , and not because of the zodiac.
In fact, the number 12 is replete throughout the Bible. This text has more to do with astrology than anything else.
Yes 12 is, but also the numbers 3, 6, 7, and 20 are considered holy and are repeated throughout the Bible.
Coming back to the cross of the Zodiac, the figurative life of the Sun, this was not just an artistic expression or tool to track the Sun's movements. It was also a Pagan spiritual symbol, the shorthand of which looked like this. This is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. This is why Jesus in early occult art is always shown with his head on the cross, for Jesus is the Sun, the Sun of God, the Light of the World, the Risen Savior, who will "come again," as it does every morning, the Glory of God who defends against the works of darkness, as he is "born again" every morning, and can be seen "coming in the clouds", "up in Heaven", with his "Crown of Thorns," or, sun rays.
The history of the cross has very little to do with the zodiac, and therefore using a term such as "cross of the zodiac" is highly inaccurate at best. The cross is one of the world's oldest symbols and is in every known culture from the Neolithic era and on. Therefore it is quite obvious why pagans would use such a symbol. Making a claim such as "this is not a symbol of Christianity" is also very inaccurate. This is a very recognized symbol of Christianity, primarily because Jesus was crucified on a cross. Just because pagans used it before Christianity, does not mean that it is automatically not a Christian symbol -- especially when it has been used for two thousand years .
The film claims "this is why Jesus in early occult art is always shown with his head on the cross", this is not the case. While it may be sometimes a cross of sorts, it is not the sun, rather it is a halo. Halos were very common for deities and other holy people around the 3rd and 6th centuries. Many other gods (and just regular holy people) that have no connection to the sun can be seen with similar details . After it makes the claims I have already debunked, the film maker attempts again to make connections between Jesus, the sun, and so forth, primarily by talking about good conquering evil and using "darkness" to literally mean "darkness", instead of evil.
Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scripture there are numerous references to the "Age." In order to understand this, we need to be familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient Egyptians along with cultures long before them recognized that approximately every 2150 years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the Zodiac. This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the Earth maintains as it rotates on it's axis. It is called a precession because the constellations go backwards, rather than through the normal yearly cycle. The amount of time that it takes for the precession to go through all 12 signs is roughly 25,765 years. This is also called the "Great Year," and ancient societies were very aware of this. They referred to each 2150 year period as an "age." From 4300 b.c. to 2150 b.c., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 b.c. to 1 a.d., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 a.d. to 2150 a.d. it is the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius.
Now that the film maker has lead the watcher into a certain mindset, it is time to kick it up a notch. The film maker claims there are many "astrological-astronomical metaphors" in the Bible, but provides no evidence to back this up. He then goes on to talk about how age is really a metaphor for the astrological ages such as Aries and Pisces. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such, and we will discuss this further in a bit. It makes various claims about the zodiac and the length of ages, while these claims are not necessarily inaccurate, they prove very little when discussing the Bible.
Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through 3 ages, while foreshadowing a 4th. In the Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull calf. In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each other in order to purify themselves. Most Biblical scholars would attribute this anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, or something to that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. This is why Jews even today still blow the Ram's horn. Moses represents the new Age of Aries, and upon the new age, everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology.
The film maker discusses that Moses came down from Mount Sinai with this 10 commandments and smashed them because he saw his people worshipping a bull, but in reality that bull was Taurus. According to the film, Moses represents the new age of Aries, and that's why Moses was angry. It goes on to say that because Moses represents Aries the ram, that is why Jews blow the ram's horn. It is far more likely that the reason Jews use the ram's horn is because they raised sheep, and a horn can be easily made into an instrument . These claims cannot be substantiated with history either, primarily because the movie says the age Aries was from 2150 BC to 1 AD, however the earliest dates given by scholars for Exodus does not place it until over 650 years after the Age began , a little late for Moses to start a new age and get angry that nobody else had caught on.
Now Jesus is the figure who ushers in the age following Aries, the Age of Pisces the Two Fish. Fish symbolism is very abundant in the New Testament. Jesus feeds 5,000 people with bread and "2 fish." When he begins his ministry walking along Galilei, he befriends 2 fisherman, who follow him. And I think we've all seen the Jesus-fish on the backs of people's cars. Little do they know what it actually means. It is a Pagan astrological symbolism for the Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces. Also, Jesus' assumed birth date is essentially the start of this age.
Just like with Moses we run into various problems with the claims stated in the film. The Age of Pisces is represented by two fish, but the film maker chooses his words carefully. He gleefully mentions that Jesus fed 5,000 people with 2 fish, but he chooses not to mention the amount of bread. The passage in the Bible says "We only have five loaves of bread and two fish".  The reason he does not mention the amount of bread is so that the parallel between the zodiac and the bible fits. It also is not out of the ordinary that fish is mentioned, it was a very common food staple in the region. Therefore, if someone were to have food, it would have probably been bread and fish.
It goes on to say that the fish symbol on the back of people's cars is actually a pagan astrological symbol for the "Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces". However, the true meaning behind the fish does not fit the parallel with the zodiac they are trying to make. The fact is the ancient and classical Greek word for fish is "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which is also an acronym for "Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ" or "Jesus Christ God's Son is Savior" .
At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next passover will be after he is gone, Jesus replied: "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water... follow him into the house where he entereth in." This scripture is by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references. The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius, the water-bearer, who is always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water. He represents the age after Pisces, and when the Sun (God's Sun) leaves the Age of Pisces (Jesus), it will go into the House of Aquarius, as Aquarius follows Pisces in the precession of the equinoxes. Also Jesus is saying is that after the Age of Pisces will come the Age of Aquarius.
The film talks about a passage in the Bible and claims it is "by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references." The problem here is it does not reveal anything except that the film maker has completely misquoted the Bible. While the reply from Jesus is correct, the question the disciples ask is not. The film maker claims that the man bearing the pitcher that Jesus is talking about, actually symbolizes the Age of Aquarius. Luke 22:10 is accurately quoted , but let's take a closer look at the disciples' question.
Like 22:7-9 states the following: "Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed . And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, 'Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.'  They said to Him, 'Where do You want us to prepare it?' ".
As stated above, the disciples are not asking about where the next Passover will be, but rather where they would be eating that night. Aside from that though, the symbolism put forth by the movie is also inaccurate. The movie describes Aquarius as "always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water", however in the passage from the Bible, the man is not pouring the water, but carrying it. If is the symbolic reference that the movie claims, why is the symbolism incorrect?
Now, we have all heard about the end times and the end of the world. Apart from the cartoonish depictions in the Book of Revelation, the main source of this idea comes from Matthew 28:20, where Jesus says "I will be with you even to the end of the world." However, in King James Version, "world" is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations. The actual word being used is "aeon", which means "age." "I will be with you even to the end of the age." Which is true, as Jesus' Solar Piscean personification will end when the Sun enters the Age of Aquarius. The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Let's tell that to the approximately 100 million people in America who believe the end of the world is coming.
The movie makes claims that the King James Version of the Bible has many mistranslations, such as the word "world" is really "aeon" which means "age". If the King James Version is so incorrect, why are they using it? The only possible reason would be to make a more general attack on the reliability of the translation or so that they can spin words and "mistranslations" however they please. While the word for "world" actually is the word "aion" it is the Greek word "αιων"  which actually means "eternity", not "age", which is something like "παλαιώνω" . So, essentially it is communicating the general idea correctly "even to the end of the world", "even to the end of eternity".
I think it is interesting how the film maker dismisses the Book of Revelation as "cartoonish depictions", even though it contains the majority of the end time predictions. It is no doubt because he could not draw a parallel between the zodiac and Revelation, only with Matthew 28. All of the film maker's Biblical arguments work this way, he selects what agrees with him, but ignores everything else. The film maker also claims that Matthew 28 is the "main source" for Christian knowledge of the end times. Passages in Matthew 24 , 2nd Thessalonians 2 , the book of Daniel [62-1], and of course Revelation [63a] are far better sources, but they do not contain the parallels that the film maker wanted to make, so they are ignored. Let's not forget that the King James Bible has 31,102 verses in it[63b], and yet only a few are about the astrological connections between Jesus, God, the Zodiac, and so forth? If the book is an astrological document, one would figure there'd be more.
Furthermore, the character of Jesus, a literary and astrological hybrid, is most explicitly a plagiarization of the Egyptian Sun-god Horus. For example, inscribed about 3500 years ago, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt are images of the enunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth, and the adoration of Horus. The images begin with Thaw announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration. This is exactly the story of Jesus' miracle conception. In fact, the literary similarities between Jesus and the Egyption religion are staggering.
As I debunked earlier in the Jesus section of this page, I showed that Horus and Jesus had very little in common. I also debunked the ideas of Horus's life revolving around virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection. The stories may have a few similarities, but such conclusions could be drawn between most gods, even ones completely unrelated. Therefore, the above paragraph is absolutely false.
And the plagiarism is continuous. The story of Noah and Noah's Ark is taken directly from tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with over 200 different cited claims in different periods and times. However, one need look no further for a pre-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in 2600 b.c. This story talks of a Great Flood commanded by God, an Ark with saved animals upon it, and even the release and return of a dove, all held in common with the biblical story, among many other similarities.
Indeed, there are many similarities between the story of the Ark and various flood stories that have appeared in nearly every culture and religion in history. I do not deny the similarities here, by all accounts the story of the ark is probably heavily influenced from a Babylonian tale or a direct copy. This, however, does not imply anything, other than the idea of the entire world flooding and one man saving all animals is a popular story. If the Bible is on trial for plagiarism of the story of the Ark, why doesn't the film maker mention the other stories as forgeries?
And then there is the plagiarized story of Moses. Upon Moses' birth, it is said that he was placed in a reed basket and set adrift in a river in order to avoid infanticide. He was later rescued by a daughter of royalty and raised by her as a Prince. This baby in a basket story was lifted directly from the myth of Sargon of Akkad of around 2250 b.c. Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife.
Like most claims made by the movie, it could apply to many others. In fact, the story is similar, but it is not directly lifted. The similarities are that Sargon was put in a basket and thrown into a river and raised by someone else, but that is where the similarities stop -- unless Sargon being a gardener is the same as Moses becoming a prince. This story is similar to others as well, such as Karna, Oedipus, Paris, Telephus, Semiramis, Perseus, Romulus, Cyrus, and many others .
Furthermore, Moses is known as the Law Giver, the giver of the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law. However, the idea of a Law being passed from God to a prophet on a mountain is also a very old motif. Moses is just a law giver in a long line of law givers in mythological history. In India, Manou was the great law giver. In Crete, Minos ascended Mount Dicta, where Zeus gave him the sacred laws. While in Egypt there was Mises, who carried stone tablets and upon them the laws of god were written.
I imagine a lot of ancient people used tablets to write laws, considering they couldn't get poster board and markers at their local Walgreen's. The fact of the matter is that Moses probably got the laws from his father in law Jethro, a priest of Midian .
And as far as the Ten Commandments, they are taken outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the Dead phrased "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal," "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill," "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bare false witness" and so forth. In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth and resurrection, crucifixion, the ark of the covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, the great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover, and many many more, are all attributes of Egyptian ideas, long predating Christianity and Judaism.
This is an interesting claim, considering even the video shows there are over 40 "commandments" before it fades to the next shot. I think it goes without saying that nearly any moral code would speak against murder, stealing, and lying. It highlights the "original" commandments that the Ten Commandments are copied from, but it skips over many others, such as number 15 "I have not laid waste to ploughed land" and number 35 "I have not cursed the king". As you can see, only the matches are talked about, and the others are completely ignored. This could be applied to nearly any religion with a written and set moral code, not just the Ten Commandments. The above was edited out of the final version of the movie.
As shown by all the evidence we have talked about, Egyptian religion is not even close to a likely basis for Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, and final judgment exist in nearly all religions, as to miracle births, resurrections, various festivals, and so forth. As I noted there is no evidence of crucifixion in Egyptian mythology, or much else. While there may be a few similarities between Egyptian mythology and Judeo-Christian beliefs, there are far more inconsistencies.
Justin Martyr, one of the first Christian historians and defenders, wrote: "When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem Sons of Jupiter." In a different writing, Justin Martyr said "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus." It's obvious that Justin and other early Christians knew how similar Christianity was to the Pagan religions. However, Justin had a solution. As far as he was concerned, the Devil did it. The Devil had the foresight to come before Christ, and create these characteristics in the Pagan world.
Despite all the other evidence that the film maker has put forth, he still feels the need to offer more evidence. Unfortunately for the movie these quotes are taken out of context and do not communicate what the film maker is trying to say they do. I had to track down where he took these quotes and I found them in Chapters 21 and 22 of the First Apology. If you read these chapters you will find that he is not saying these gods are the same as Jesus, lived and died in similar ways, rather he is saying that even though they are both gods and are held highly by the people, he will prove Jesus is superior . When he says "we propound nothing different", he is not saying the stories the same, because as you have seen, there are no gods that died in exactly the same way as Jesus. Rather he is basically saying "we're not saying your gods aren't great, but ours is better".
[ Correction: Originally I had said here that "Perseus" was actually "Ferseus," but I was grossly mistaken and had misread a typo making myself way wrong on that statement. Thanks to the person who actually emailed me about it instead of whining on a forum that I don't read and pretending that my not correcting it was a part of a vast conspiracy. Thank you, Eric M. ]
The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. In fact, the aspect of transference, of one character's attributes to a new character, can be found within the book itself. In the Old Testament there's the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prototype for Jesus. Joseph was born of a miracle birth, Jesus was born of a miracle birth. Joseph was of 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples. Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Brother "Judah" suggests the sale of Joseph, disciple "Judas" suggests the sale of Jesus. Joseph began his work at the age of 30, Jesus began his work at the age of 30. The parallels go on and on.
Firstly, I doubt the connection between Joseph and Jesus. Joseph was not born of a miracle birth, the bible essentially alludes to the fact that Jacob, his father, was in his 70s or perhaps a little older . This is hardly a miracle birth, as even artist Pablo Picasso had children into his early 70s . Men can create children until the day the die, so it is hardly a miracle birth. It bares mentioning that Jacob had one other son after Joseph, his name as Benjamin, so why didn't the film maker mention this as the miracle birth since it happened even later? It is probably because Joseph was the best parallel for Jesus in the film and not Benjamin.
The film maker tries to use tricky language by saying that "Joseph was of 12 brothers" and uses this to compare to Jesus who had 12 disciples. The problem with this kind of tricky logic is that the film maker does not count Jesus among his disciples like he does Joseph among his brothers. He does this so the numbers match up, but if we compare them with Joseph separate from his brothers as Jesus is separate from his disciples, we get a different story. Joseph had 11 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples, these numbers hardly match up when compared correctly. .
Indeed, Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, but not by Judah alone, rather his "brothers" participated, however it doesn't say which ones. His brothers want to murder Joseph, but Judah asks his brothers what kind of profit they could make by murder alone, so instead they sell him. Sale of humans is not only a popular topic in the Bible, but in the ancient world as well . Also, Judah may have "suggested" selling Joseph, however Judas did not suggest it, instead he secretly was bribed with 30 pieces of silver to turn Jesus in .
Joseph did not "begin his work" when he was 30, the Bible only mentions that he stood before the Pharaoh at age 30. Even if it is the case that age 30 he begins his work, this is hardly a parallel with Jesus, especially due to the fact that I have already debunked the other so-called "similarities" . The film maker then says "the parallels go on and on", but they do not.
Furthermore, is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one". The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth.
You would think that a guy who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed the wealth of miracles acclaimed to him would have made it into the historical record. It didn't because once the evidence is weighed, there are very high odds that the figure known as Jesus, did not even exist
There are several non-Biblical historical pieces on Jesus, however the film maker later calls these into question. Indeed, there are several people who are just like Jesus, in fact Apollonius of Tyana is a very famous one, which the film surprisingly does not mention . Of course the known historical accounts of Jesus are pretty vague and do refer to him as "Christus", which does mean "anointed one" in Greek, so this isn't a real piece of undeniable proof. However, Lucian who lived shortly after Jesus, does mention him directly . The film also shows a list of other known historians of the time that do not mention Jesus or Christianity, that seems pretty obvious because at the time nobody knew who Jesus was, and his followers were a very small group.
Saying that the fourth source of Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years" over simplifies the situation, and is wrong. Josephus mentioned Jesus twice, the first time is too pro-Christian to be original work and it is obvious it was changed by Christians at some point, however the second time Josephus mentions Jesus, he mentions him in a negative way. Therefore, while the first time may have been changed by Christians and can be discarded, the second time was likely not changed, and cannot be discounted . However, it may come down to a situation where belief in Jesus and his life is an act of faith, and regardless of the situation, the above paragraph as stated by the film maker, really has nothing to do with the rest of his claims. It appears as though he just wants to prove badly that Jesus didn't exist.
The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. By 325 a.d. in Rome, emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud. And for the next 1600 years, the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold on all of Europe, leading to such joyous periods as the Dark Ages, along with enlightening events such as the Crusades, and the Inquisition.
The reality is that Jesus was not a solar deity as I have already debunked. There is little comparison between Jesus and older gods such as Horus, even though an attempt was made to link them, when one actually looks at the real history, the opposite is true. The film goes on to say that it was a political motive that moved Christianity and Jesus into the historical arena in order to create social control. The film maker claims that the Council of Nicea established various "Christian Doctrines [...] and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud". The problem with this is that the Council of Nicea did not establish anything, instead they merely set in stone the doctrines that had been practiced by the various churches as the official position of the whole church .
Let's talk about a major math problem here, if the Council of Nicea was in 325 AD and had a vicious strangle hold for the next 1600 years, that would have an end date of 1925 AD. How did they maintain that control with the Protestant Reformation ? What about how France dominated the Church for over 70 years and made them relocate to Avignon, France ? The Pope and the Church were not what we think of them today until 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church was created when it split from the Eastern Church . So, talk of the "Vatican" maintaining control during all these events is completely incorrect. It seems like the the film did not research the church well enough. In fact there are even more problems with the film maker's claims.
The first problem with blaming the church for "the Dark Ages" is that it occurred from 476 AD until 1000 AD , during the Church's weakest period as we discussed above. Second, modern historians tell us that the term "dark" is inaccurate, this was a term used by historians during the "enlightenment", chiefly due to the fact that the "dark age" era was the opposite of said age of "enlightenment". Generally today it is referred to as the "early middle ages". The so-called Dark Ages contained more than Christianity, it was also the failing Roman society, invading barbarians, and Christianity's struggle to organize and establish itself. So, in all, the claim that Christianity brought the Dark Ages is historically false .
The crusades was a much more complex situation, in fact crusades is a broad term for a series of battles over the span of nearly 300 years. It also bears mentioning that crusades that were not initiated by the Church, but rather a Muslim leader who destroyed a large Christian church in Jerusalem, so the blame cannot be square on Christianity . The Inquisition is also a broad term used for many events, and it is interesting to note that some Inquisitions were not by the Roman Catholic Church at all, however the film would have you believe that it is responsible for all of them . The crusades and the Inquisitions are far too complex to discuss here, but they did happen, but not always in the name of the Vatican.
As shown, the situation is far more complex the the film maker implies it is, and Christianity cannot be used as a scapegoat for all of Europe's woes. True evil has been done in the name of the Church, but for the most part not within the last 500 years. I am not a Christian Apologist, or even a Christian, but I do realize that the film is simply blaming the Church for all of Europe's problems. This is obvious a last ditch effort to affirm that Christian is an evil religion used for social control that is ripped off from other traditions -- we have shown these accusations are completely false.
Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It served to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish
This conclusion is obviously trying to bring the viewer to a final point. After the film maker has proven to you that all of the religions have stolen from each other, chiefly Christianity, he then goes on to lead you to the conclusion that religions are evil and support all these horrible things. While it's true religion can be bad, it can also be good for some people. If religion was created to control people and their opinions, then how can one view a film which is full of absolutely false statements about mythology, religious history, Judaism, and Christianity itself?
The first time I watched this film, there was a part where the film maker was trying to prove a connection between Jesus and the Sun by suggesting "God's Sun = God's Son", however since I watched it again, I have not seen this. However, since I saw it, I will debunk it.
The Hebrew word for Sun is "השמש" and the Hebrew word for Son is "בן". Hence, no relation. Although they may sound similar in English, before English was to the point it is today, the word for Son was "Sunu"  and the word for Sun was "Sunne", so this is why they sound similar, but they are completely different words..
Next is the page on 9/11 and a potential conspiracy: Next Page