ZEITGEIST RESPONSEZeitgeist Response SOURCESZeitgeist Response LINKSMisconceptions Concerning God: Contents, Parts I & IIMisconceptions Concerning God: Part IIIMisconceptions Concerning God: Part IVMisconceptions Concerning God, Part VMisconceptions Concerning God, Part VIMisconceptions Concerning God, Epilogue
A Response to the Anti-Christian Movie "Zeitgeist'

THE DEBUNKING OF ZEITGEIST MYTHOLOGY

Copyright 2008: R. Christopher. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (for example: electronic, downloading, cutting and pasting, photocopying, recording, etc.), without the prior written permission of the author.

Email: "Your web site contains one of the best and most understandable Zeitgeist responses out there!  And I've read most.  There is not a single claim made by Zeitgeist you do not completely eviscerate.  And Christian I'm not." Jos., Dallas, TX.

Email: "Zeitgeist is leading millions of our children away from God.  The film is nationally and internationally acclaimed.  It is one of the most popular draws in the history of Internet.  It is fodder for the impressionable, unsuspecting mass gathered at the trough of poisoned feed lots for academic ignorance...."  Anne P., Chicago, IL.

Email: "I just want to express my sincere appreciation for your dedication to bringing out the truth.  I was crying as I wasted 2 hours of my day watching that propaganda.  I am embarrassed to say that I found myself feeling stripped of everything I knew to be true.  I'm so thankful to you for your well educated and intelligent response to the lies expressed.... Thank you for being the voice of reason in my moment of weakness...."  Julie S.

Email: "I just wanted to thank you for your post debunking the zeitgeist movie. When I watched it I found it disturbing to my soul only because I could see how a baby Christian's faith might be completely snuffed out after watching this movie."  Lawson Winfield W.

-----

Completion Date:  March 1, 2008.

Last Emendation (on this article):  July 15, 2008; FINAL.

Hits:  From March 1, 2008 to July 23, 2008:  Over 52,000 / 70 Countries (Statistics via web.com).

----

PRELUDE

The film Zeitgeist is the most profound anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-American government piece of propaganda I have ever witnessed.  I find Zeitgeist difficult to counter without a tremendous amount of time, study, expense and faith.  As one of my sons stated in a letter, Zeitgeist challenges every single notion we hold as true and dear.  Hence, I forewarn the nominal Christian.  For the rest, do not despair.  The analysis below meets Zeitgeist head-on.

One may access the film Zeitgeist by simply clicking on www.zeitgeistmovie.com .  Once there, please printout the video's transcript and bibliography.  This will be necessary in order to understand and evaluate my findings.  With the gravest of warning, I recommend watching the film before proceeding.  The film is in three parts.  I will only address the first part dealing with anti-God/Christ rhetoric.  I just hope the authors of Zeitgeist do not alter their transcript (without changing the movie) after challenges have been posted.  If this becomes an issue, please request Zeitgeist forward you a copy of the transcript and bibliography as it was on December 1, 2007. 

A LETTER TO MY SON

Dear Ron:  Of immediate concern is Zeitgeist, Part 1.  Since governmental conspiracy theories are a dime-a-dozen, the rest of the film is only mildly captivating.  The video's transcript and bibliography will be used to investigate Part 1 (See Source A).  It is within this initial segment that there are a myriad of points to which anyone can respond.  A thorough study of Zeitgeist material would require months if not years to complete.  Since it is too costly to purchase and review each and every Zeitgeist bibliographic reference, only a few select sources have been purchased and analyzed.  It should be just as obvious that neither can I forward you my library.  Hence, the next very best thing has been accomplished: Source Material has been added in hopes to direct you to online supporting data.  I do this so you may access background information at no cost.  Please be advised Source Material echoes similar sentiments expressed within the books in my library.  As you may recall, my library covers both sides of most every religious debate.  Hence, references are as unbiased as can be.  In addition, and purposefully, a majority of supporting data is secular in nature rather than religious.  This should speak volumes in our quest to explore the claims of Zeitgeist.

Before beginning, it is important to note Zeitgeist uses the same form of biased media reporting they so readily denounce within the film and public arena at-large.  In other words, they are guilty of the very thing they exclusively attribute to others—the slanting and marketing of ideas using the pen, screen or ‘tube’, as they so summarily espouse.  They do so knowing a majority of the populace cannot or will not study opposing views.  They neither have the time or money.  Zeitgeist's knowledge of this fact is ever present within the film.  But in this regard, they are right.  We are indeed a society, it seems, forced into obtaining our information ‘fast food’ style.

It is also important to realize that all thoughts or ideas are mere suppositions.  Even science itself sets out to prove its own theory or hypothesis, not so much the contrary.  This is verifiable when we look at the ritual involved in the Scientific Method.  In addition, when it comes to reason, it is only human reason with all its frailties.  When it comes to logic, an unsound premise only results in an unsound conclusion.  Therefore, reason and logic do not always provide a ‘reasonable’ or ‘logical’ explanation.  They do not consistently exemplify absolute truth or reality as we think we know it.  When it comes to mathematics and human beings, its boundaries are neither perfect nor limitless.  Hence, we find ourselves enveloped in a sea of faith built upon human definitions and constructs no matter where we turn.  Even when we look at the historical record, we find ourselves at the discretion of what others write.  ‘What if’ one wanted to change the present by altering the past?  Back to The Future, you ask?  Perhaps.  And this thesis can be applied equilaterally.

So it is in this marketplace of motive, record and ideas we find ourselves.  If we are bold and seek the truth, as much as we may know it, we may ask: "What is Zeitgeist's motive?" "How accurate are their assertions given the record, historical or otherwise?" and, "Are the conclusions posited representative of a majority of academic acclaim?"

MOTIVE

When motive is undeclared, it is left to the imagination of those to whom motive and intention are directed.  Such is the case with Zeitgeist.  But the clues, the forensic evidence, are in.  The film is replete with the same.

The definition of Zeitgeist is "Time Spirit" or prevailing cultural wind (Source B).  In the video Zeitgeist, the author employs a postmodern view of the Wizard of Oz as the proverbial "Man behind the curtain" who is responsible for everything wrong in the cosmos, particularly America.  But this interpretation is based on conjecture, not necessarily fact.  In the original writing by Frank Baum, 1899, The Wizard of Oz had little or nothing to do with an all-encompassing master architect.  While it is clear associative similes can be interpolated, the fact remains, Zeitgeist's authors only wish to replace Baum's interpretation of the original Wizard of Oz with their very own version of the same.  It is at this juncture we must ask, "What man, whose man, is behind the curtain... this time?"  What is the motive of this new wizard?  Zeitgeist makes it abundantly clear the object of the film is to rip at the very fabric of current social, political, cultural and religious convention—all without an alternative offered by the same.  It goes without saying it is always easier to be critical of something than it is to offer a solution.  So, why should we be surprised by Zeitgeist's bellowing?  We should not.  And neither should we fear. 

Again, if I may, Zeitgeist's intent is one of provocation: the authors seem resolute in the demolition and restructuring of the norm.  They are busy imploding the current socio-religio-economic structure and are starting on the new.  Only the debris from the first needs carting off, at least in their mind.  But the new construct will reside on the same ground as the world does today, within the hearts or soul of its people.  The footing was initially poured in the Garden of Eden.  The cornerstone was laid during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.  The walls went up in 1859 with Darwin's On The Origin Of The Species.  The roof was tacked on in 1933 when the Humanist Manifesto was penned.  This manifesto decrees the desires of only a few, the elite—the so-called intellectual community—the self-elect body of the divine.  It speaks of a world without God, without religion, without the metaphysical—a world guided for all, but only by a few.  And its adherents number more than just a handful of Nobel Laureates.  To be so educated (please note I did not say intelligent), they are so arrogant and ignorant of their own canted tirades.  While they deny and decry the world's present-day proscriptions, they merely seek to replace them with their own.  Can it be asked, "Who elected them savior?"  Who is this new messiah, this "Man behind the curtain?"  In the opinion of this author, it is the secular humanist.  All one has to do to lend credence to this view is to read Humanist Manifestos I, II and III (Source C).

In concluding this introductory segment on the film, it is important to note the majority of Zeitgeist's bibliographic references are not confirmation of facts, whatsoever.  This does not reflect badly upon sources but rather Zeitgeist, in that referential content contains little more than 'points of view.'  In other words, they prove very little, if anything at all.  Zeitgeist's bibliographic references are mere reflections of stated opinion, not facts.  And conjecture alone is without substantive process.  

HOW ACCURATE ARE ZEITGEIST'S ASSERTIONS, GIVEN THE RECORD—HISTORICAL OR OTHERWISE?

Film Lead-Ins

Zeitgeist Front Page / Picture / Nativity Scene, portions highlighted.
My Response: Highlighting sets the stage for areas Zeitgeist will soon attack.  

Zeitgeist Lead-in Quote: "They [Christians] must find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."
My Response:  What makes Zeitgeist the authority on all truth, themselves; just another ordinary group of human beings who think themselves God?  Again, these people merely desire to replace the current structure with their own.  Zeitgeist's views are certainly not the views of the majority of academics over the last two millennia.  This statement answers one of the most pressing questions we began with, “Are the conclusions [of Zeitgeist] posited [herein] representative of a majority of academic acclaim?”  The answer is a resounding no.

Zeitgeist Mediums: Sound, music, multiple pictures of war, terror and bloodshed—particularly using children.
My Response: Uses emotionalism (a logical fallacy) to set the stage for anti-God/government rhetoric.  This segment incites revolt against present day convention and mores.

Beautiful Views of Earth and the Cosmos:
My Response:  Inclusive of those within Green Peace (one of the film's proponents) and the environmental movement as a whole—as if only a systematic change can preserve the same.

Oceans, Cell Reproduction and Transitional Species:
My Response:  Promotes the theory of evolution, presumed and promoted to have precedence over creation.  Zeitgeist assumes this ‘Theory’ has become ‘Fact.’

Picture of Holy Bible with Draped Flag:
My Response:  This is an indoctrination attempt by Zeitgeist to tie the natural fear of death exclusively to Judeo-Christian (religious) beliefs and patriotism.

9-11, World War Events, Soldier Crying while Saluting the American Flag:
My Response:  Again, Zeitgeist continues in their brainwashing effort to tie war and the natural fear of dying to Judeo-Christian (religious) faith and patriotism.

Zeitgeist's Use Of The Comedian George Carlin:  Used as an opening to degrade religion and God.
My Response:  The means of employing a comedian to reinforce the petitions of those supposed scholars involved in serious debate is both base and ineffective.  To ‘Appeal to the Mass or Senses’ or to stoop to ‘Humor and Ridicule’ in the course of argument is to enter into logical fallacy, once more.

Zeitgeist Assertions, The film, Part 1

Please note that the film's transcript is not verbatim.  Words, terms, phrases are added or omitted when compared to the film.  It is also true lecture segments are not contained within the transcript.  Please cross reference Source A (Zeitgeist's transcript) with paragraph and sentence denotation below.  I will only address major points of concern.  For topics I do not address, I either agree with Zeitgeist or am indifferent to the same.

Note: Zeitgeist paragraph and sentence denotation will be listed as "P," "S" or "Part."  P = the Paragraph # within Zeitgeist’s transcript; S = the Sentence number within the paragraph; Part = a number of sentences or claims within the paragraph.  Anything I have to say about Zeitgeist's claims will be listed as "My Response."  Refer to Source A, the film's transcript and bibliography, when scrutinizing.

P1, S5: "These realities made the sun the most adored object of all."
My Response:  There is only one videotext reference listed in Zeitgeist's bibliography for this statement and it has nothing to do with substantiating the claim the sun is "the most adored object of all."  When a conclusion is in no way verifiable, it is to argue from the logical fallacy of ‘Meaningless Claim.’

P1, S7-8:  "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."
My Response:  Because P1, S7-8 is located within the same paragraph as P1, S1, the contextual implication is constellations were known some ten thousand years ago.  While no doubt early man began to correlate certain stellar patterns with seasons and later months, there is no archaeological evidence supporting Zeitgeist's statement until approximately 1300 BC.  Obviously, this is less than ten thousand years ago. (Source D.)

P2, S1:  "This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in history."
My Response:  Zeitgeist's "cross" is also known as "Crux" or more recently, as it emerged from its precession within sixteenth century AD, as the constellation "Southern Cross."  It was then used as a celestial reference point in guiding early European explorers southward.  Crux is difficult if not impossible to see from latitude twenty-five degrees, north.  Since Crux was not named a constellation until some 1500 years after Christ's death, it is hard to understand how the constellation became part of the pre-Christian Zodiac. The first known archaeological record of the Zodiac appears in 5th century BC but again, this particular constellation was not known or named until 16th century AD.  This, by deduction alone, makes it hardly "One of the oldest conceptual images in history." (See also P15, S8 and 10 below and Sources E and Q.)

P3, S2:  "The sun, with its life-giving and saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god... ‘God's Sun [implication: God's Son], the light of the world [implication: Jesus], the savior of human kind [implication: the Messiah].'"
My Response:  Zeitgeist lists only one reference that surmises Plato's and Socrates' interpretation of the sun and god (cf. The Book of the Sun (De Sole), Marsilio Ficino, chapter XIII, year 1494).  And this particular reference does not reverberate the assimilated notions of Zeitgeist.  Hence, there is no bibliographic evidence substantiating Zeitgeist's claim.

Note:  For the sake of time and expense, I will only address one god, Horus, in detail.  The reasoning behind this is twofold.  First, secular academia points to the African continent as being the place for man's origins.  In this regard, no other religious belief system could be as old.  Second, Zeitgeist uses the North African province of Egypt as well as its hieroglyphics to draw a parallel to Christianity. Thus, to address the false deity of Horus, as the film suggests, is to address the rest.

P4, S3:  "He [Horus] is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky."
My Response:  Early Egyptian mythology records Horus was a sun god, not the sun.  In fact, only Horus' right eye symbolized the sun while his left eye typified the moon.  It can also be posited that Horus' name did not represent the sun's movement through the sky but rather was a name reflecting Horus' nature.  The names and assimilations supposedly involving Horus are as numerous as the precession of Zodiacal constellations themselves.  In brief, the names and characteristics of the sun god Horus can be seen changing every time a preceding story is found to be false or contradictory by the cavalcade of pagan societies or leaders that followed.  Over protracted periods, the sun god Horus is embellished by a plethora of names—each name representing varying characteristics.  Such names include: Horus, Harmerty, Har-Si-Ese, Heru, Heru-ur, Heru-khuti, Harsiesis, Har-Wer, Osiris, Ra, Atum, Atum-Ra, Ra Herakhty, Neferhor, Nekheny, Mekhenty-er-irty, Khenty-er-irty, Har-Behedti, Ihy, Bebti, Heru-sema-tawy and many others.  Again, each and every one of these names moves from one myth to another—all supposedly the same god, but different gods, with different traits.  Confused?  No doubt.  Given the ever-changing names and traits of Horus, it is not difficult to imagine how one can pick and choose whatever they want concerning this sun god or any other god.  And Zeitgeist wants to denigrate Christianity for borrowing from a procession of thought.  But the ‘facts’ herein do not bear this out. (Sources F, I and J.)

P4, S4:  "From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah."
My Response:  Webster defines ‘M’essiah as:

"1. The anticipated deliverer and king of the Jews. 2. Jesus Christ. 3. messiah, a liberator and deliverer."

In the above statement, Zeitgeist is guilty of anthropomorphizing the mythological, ridiculously imagined character of Horus—the same thing they accuse Christianity of with Christ Jesus.  Zeitgeist's behavior is not only contradictory but the statement itself is downright misleading given the literal definition of Webster.  Horus was not a solar messiah to anyone, particularly Egypt's people.  The metaphorical Horus, as the legend goes, led Lower Egypt in battle against Upper Egypt in 3000 BC.  The problem comes in attributing “messiahship” to one who neither won in battle nor saved his people from the same. (Sources F, I - J.)

P4, S5:  "For instance, Horus being the sun, or light..."
My Response:  Again, Horus was not the “sun” or the “light” but rather a sun god (see Sources F, I and J).  In the hieroglyphic depicted within the bibliographic reference of Zeitgeist, Horus sits on a throne with a separate and distinct image of the sun above him.  According to Egyptian interpretation, this illustration represents Horus as the sun god, not the "light" or anything else for that matter.  To exclusively interpret and characterize Horus as the "light" is to draw a parallel between Christ and Horus that just does not exist.

Note: There are several critical claims made by Zeitgeist in Paragraph 5.  However, we must keep in mind throughout our analysis of this paragraph that it begins with a warning.  Zeitgeist admits they are just "Boldly speaking" about the information that follows.  This statement or warning from Zeitgeist is to be taken quite literally.  It is assimilation (transformation), once again, by the few.

P5, S1 (Part 1):  "Boldly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th..." [Emphasis added.]
My Response:  Throughout the film, Zeitgeist attempts to draw parallels between pre-Christian religions and Christianity.  In other words, Zeitgeist endeavors to show Christianity is nothing more than a by-product of earlier belief systems.  In this particular example, Zeitgeist wishes to show the Christian celebration of Christ's birthday on December 25th is nothing more than a replication of Horus' birthday.  But is this allegation true?

Facts of the Matter:  Only a few pre-Christian gods' birthdays were celebrated on December 25th, certainly not all, or even most.  Horus, Ishtar and Mithra to name the minority.  But this is understandable given the celestial realities of the pagan.  To these individuals and communities, December 25th represented the winter solstice—a day in which shorter nights and longer days could be anticipated.  It was their primary annual festival.  But December 25th does not equate to Christ's birth either biblically or outside the early Catholic church.  Christ's birthday cannot be ascertained, period.  The Bible is non-specific.  The date is not mentioned and thus unimportant.  In fact, it is more likely Christ was born in March rather than December, for whatever it's worth.  The earliest reference to the Christian celebration of Christmas is found in the Calendar of Filocalus, a manuscript compiled in Rome in AD 354.  It is recorded the Christmas jubilee was created and installed on December 25th by the early Catholic church in order to entice Roman pagans to convert to Christianity.  This particular act was to ensure pagans that a complete and immediate abandonment of the winter festival was not a prerequisite to accepting Christ. (Source G.)  The early Catholic church assigned this date, not the Bible.  Zeitgeist brings charges against Christianity for employing the same date as pagans but again, this charge is misguided.  Christianity is far greater and more extensive than any of its parts, for example, any particular denomination or sect.  Thus, Zeitgeist's inference may be rejected.

P5, S1 (Part 2): "... Of the virgin Isis-Meri."
My Response:  The bibliographic references within Zeitgeist do not lend credence to the view Horus was born of a "virgin."  It is imagined and marketed in order to deride Christianity.  The prevalence of the ever-changing names and characteristics of mythological gods over time make it easy to select from a smorgasbord of desires for each and every entity (see P4, S3 above).  The thought that Isis ‘may’ be a virgin is only idealized—not always realized (Source I).  One can establish Zeitgeist's deception by looking at their very own bibliographic reference.

"It is often argued that Isis was not a virgin because, in one version of the myth, she impregnated herself using the severed phallus of Osiris [the envisioned father of Horus] after he was killed and torn to pieces.... A ‘miracle conception.'" [Emphasis added]

Note: There is no mention of Isis as a “virgin” in this bibliographic reference.  It is also just as true Zeitgeist defeats its own purpose by admitting: "It is often argued that Isis was not a virgin." As if this is not enough, Zeitgeist goes on to introduce the idea of an "Immaculate Conception" as well.  This is a further attempt to set the stage for anti-Christian propaganda.

In the next Zeitgeist bibliographic reference, it is recorded:

"However, in another version of the myth, Frazer points out that Isis was impregnated with Horus: While she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the crops of her dead husband... a ‘virgin conception'"

Note:  How does Frazer or anybody else for that matter deduce from this bibliographic reference Isis was a virgin when impregnated?  And this is the passage Zeitgeist wants to use in validating Isis as a virgin?  And how is it Frazer, Massey and thus Zeitgeist conclude Horus' birth was "a virgin conception"?  This incorrectly derived conclusion ‘Tilts the Table’ or ‘Leads the Witness’ to dubious ends.  Zeitgeist's use of redaction is truly a reduction in truth.  Its methodology is treacherous, bogus and unscholarly.  But the aim and the target remain undaunted—Christ and His followers. (Sources F, G, H and I.)

P5, S2 (Part 1):  "His [Horus’] birth was accomplished by a star in the east..."
My Response:  Again, Zeitgeist wishes to devalue Christianity by suggesting it is no more than a reflection of earlier religious accounts.  While the above Zeitgeist claim may apply to an imaginary Horus, the culmination of the star Sirius during the winter solstice had nothing to do with leading the magi to Christ's birthplace.  First, Christ's birth was not merely announced by a "star in the east."  His birth was prophesied thousands of years earlier beginning in Genesis 3:16 and throughout the rest of the Bible.  But in keeping with the New Testament understanding of the nativity, Christ's arrival is scientifically inexplicable given astronomy or within the pseudo-science of astrology.  Both Massey and Zeitgeist make the claim three kings or magi used the Dog Star Sirius to guide them—as if Sirius was some anomaly in the sky raising the magi's suspicion and guiding them to the birthplace of Christ.  The problem with the redactor's assumption is evidentiary.  Sirius is observable from almost any place on earth most of the year.  Sirius, at times, is even visible during the day.  Its helical zenith comes during the summer solstice, June 21.  Its declination comes around the "then perceived" winter solstice of January 1.  In other words, the sight of Sirius particularly to the magi who are presumed astrologers or astronomers was not a bit more out of the ordinary than any other winter solstice.  So why would the magi have thought the star Sirius represented any significant event whatsoever?  Sirius was, and remains, visible as the brightest star in the sky.  It goes against all odds of probability Sirius was the vehicle leading magi to Christ's birth.  Second, it is also true Zeitgeist lists only one bibliographic reference for this entry and again by the un-acclaimed Gerald Massey.  This particular citation is from Massey's book, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ.  Since Massey's works are continually utilized within the indoctrinations of Zeitgeist, it is proper to review the man.  For, to counter solid academic support against Massey’s work would be to argue in vain. (See also Source H(2) and Zeitgeist’s bibliographic entry.)

Note:  It is the logical 'Fallacy of Genetic' to criticize referential sources.  That is why it is imperative to investigate the author and his works.  Understanding Massey's dissertations were formulated mostly on assimilation and conjecture, it easy to see why this 19thcentury author's works were and are considered by most to be objectionable.

Gerald Massey

Gerald Massey was born in Herfordshire, UK, in the year 1828.  Massey grew up in poor, gloomy, stressful and deprived conditions.  It is the opinion of this author Massey's childhood could not help but to affect him throughout the rest of his life.  His outlook and eccentricity in later years was made obvious through his emotive poetry and rebellion from the religious norm.  Massey was: 1) a Modern Spiritualist, 2) an evolutionist and 3) the ‘chief’ of the Most Ancient Order of the Druids from 1880 to 1906—a non-Celtic, secret pagan society.  His associations included both the scholarly and the not so scholarly regarding his 4) frequent ties to Freemasonry.  After spending years as a poet, Massey truncated to deciphering Shakespearian sonnets as many voiced their distrust for Massey's interpretations.  Knowing Gerald Massey was self-taught did little in the way of promoting his cause.  Massey later migrated to the field of Egyptology where most of his works continued to be a matter of dispute amongst learned Egyptologists and a matter of intrigue for those desiring a godless cosmogony.  It is here Massey's subterfuge persisted as he ineptly attempted to tie Egypt's symbology to the story of Christ and Christianity.  Indubitably, Massey's writings, books and lectures were designed for the few, both then and now.  Massey's continued impoverishment seemingly forced and channeled his narrative effort.  This, apparently, was to bring attention to his work and thus the financial support he so fervently sought.  Massey died in 1907.  And the likes of Freud, Marx, Nietzsche and the resulting humanist movement followed.  (Sources H(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).)

Note:  Please carefully examine Source H(5).  It is imperative in understanding the ulterior motive of the postmodern movement.  No matter how much redactors misinterpret original texts, they cannot obtain the results desired—a direct link between pre-Christian and true Christian beliefs.

P5, S2 (Part 2):  "... Which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior."
My Response:  First, even Gerald Massey is certain Zeitgeist's assumed metaphor depicted in the hieroglyphic are not kings at all but rather mere representations of stars within the astronomical constellation Orion (see Zeitgeist’s source).  While it is true much of Massey's work was criticized for its inaccuracy, it may be that his circumscribed efforts here are far better than the redactors of Zeitgeist.  If there is a simile here, it may be more of assimilation by Zeitgeist than anything else.  Second, concerning Zeitgeist's claim regarding the presence of three kings who came to "Adorn the new savior": there were no "Three Kings."  Biblically speaking, there were only "magi" and the number of them is not specified within the Holy Writ (See also P12, Part 2.) 

P5, S3 (Part 1):  "At the age of twelve, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30..."
My Response:  Zeitgeist does not list one single bibliographic reference noting that he, Horus, "At the age of twelve... was a prodigal teacher....".   And neither do Sources F, I or J.  This pronouncement by Zeitgeist is a contraction of the evidence submitted via their very own bibliography.  It is, by all congenial means, a mere Zeitgeist assimilation of another assimilation—and another assimilation—and another assimilation, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  This method consistently presents an endless, doubtful display of the known arti-‘facts.’  There is no mention of Horus being a "prodigal teacher" in Massey's summary; none whatsoever.  And the only bibliographic semblance of Horus being "twelve" and having any relevancy at all is that Massey points out it was ‘about’ this time in Egyptian mythology a child passes from adolescence to adulthood.  But then Massey goes on to contradict himself in the same notation by submitting it was ‘about’ the age of thirty in Egyptian folklore that a man became a ‘real’ adult.  Confused?  No doubt.  In concluding this montage on the Zeitgeist announcement, there is no bibliographic data suggesting Horus began any sort of ministry at all, much less at the age of thirty. (See Zeitgeist’s bibliographic entries on this matter.)

P5, S3 (Part 2):  "... He was baptized by a figure known as Anup..."
My Response:  Sources F, I and J do not mirror this allegation.  A review of Zeitgeist’s bibliography on this matter indicates an amplification of what the Egyptian glyph chronicles.  As Massey himself hyperboles, Horus pleads with the gods, supposedly, for exaltation and forgiveness.  The Egyptian glyph has Horus at the boat of Anup, supposedly, asking for edification and propitiation in the place between “two sycamores.”  The two sycamores typify, in Pharaonic language, the two gates of the Egyptian afterlife—east and west.  'Baptism by Anup' is never depicted and thus, never mentioned.  It is simply a product of ad lib or "add-thereto."

P5, S4:  "Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water."
My Response:  Sourcess F, I and J do not reflect this claim, whatsoever.  Nowhere in my studies is it even implied Zeitgeist's statement is anything more than an assimilation of the twelve astrological signs into that of "disciples."  This is further clarified, and more appropriately so, in P17 and P18 below.

P5, S5:  "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."
My Response:  This is a sad testament to Zeitgeist’s lack of scholarship.  Zeitgeist lists two bibliographic entries in support of the above statement.  However, there is no support.  In the first bibliographic entry, the author lists attributes of Osiris—not Horus, the subject of discussion (see P29, Part 2 below).  Also within this same work, the author does not list one single footnoted reference mirroring one single “gestural” name listed above.  In the next bibliographic entry, the second author excludes any footnoted material whatsoever.  In other words, we may only deduce the statement above is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

P5, S6:  "After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected."
My Response:  Sources F, I and J do not reflect his claim.  There is not one single “Crucifixion, 3-day death and resurrection” allegory within the pantheon of pre-Christian gods—not one.  Most legends predating historical Christ focus on the death and re-birth of vegetation or other ethereal notions—not a real historical being. (Source N(2).)

P6:  "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."
My Response:  Here it is in a nutshell:  Zeitgeist admits the renderings made herein are not necessarily from the original text.   Obviously, this may very well alter names, characters, traits or anything the author wishes.  Zeitgeist, as well as other postmodern redactors, assimilate or adjust interpretations to fit their own needs.  In the case at-hand, Zeitgeist seemingly wishes to eradicate Christianity—at least the Christ story. 


Note:  Zeitgeist makes little distinction between the mythological god Horus and the historical reality of Jesus Christ.  This, I believe, is done with ulterior motive.  Zeitgeist attempts to draw a correspondent where none exist.  Now Zeitgeist wishes to take this one step further by stating: “Many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure.”   It uses the gods below in a sinister effort to further extirpate the Christian.  I will only make an abbreviated comment per each god and then point out particular Sources.  One can readily see there is nothing in common between these mythological gods and Jesus of Nazareth.

P7: Attis: A mad mythological deity who cut off his genitals.  The genitals were buried and reproduced as an almond tree.  The apparent death of this almond tree resulted in the formation of an evergreen pine, supposedly Attis.  Where is Christ’s story in this imagined simile? (Source K and N(2).)

P8: Krishna:  Initially, merely one of the ten avatars of Vishnu (the imagined supreme deity).  Krishna was first worshiped as a deity in approximately 900 BC.  Renditions were migrated to Greek, Jan, Buddhist and Baha’i faiths.  However, theological frameworks were not developed until eleven centuries after the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This is when Krishna's death, burial and re-birth (not resurrection) scenarios were first intimated—most probably a result of Christ's story.  So who borrowed from whom? (Source L and N(2).)

P9: Dionysus of Greece:  A mere Hellenic-Greek extension of the mythological Egyptian god, Osiris.  This imagined Greek character was supposedly a god of the winepress who was dispelled from his kingdom and thus went about instructing people on the growing of grapes and the extraction of intoxicating ecstasy.  But Osiris (A/K/A Adonis, Eshmun, Melqart, Asclepius or Giza) was a dead and gone god—not a risen one.  He never returned to earth or life.  Where is the "crucifixion, 3-day death and resurrection" scenario in this story?  (Source M and N(2).)

P10: Mithra of Persia:  An Indo-Persian concept meaning "Covenant, contract, oath, treaty or friend."  This concept was later anthropomorphized as a deity in Zoroastrianism, Arianism, within the Vedas, Manichaeism and the Achaemenid dynasty.  There is no evidence Mithra influenced the Gospel writers whatsoever.  In fact, it was not until the 2nd century AD Mithra was even known in the Roman world.  The New Testament had long been completed by this date.  Again, who most likely borrowed from whom?  (Source N(1) and N(2).)

P11, Part 1:  "The fact of the matter is there are numerous saviors, from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics."
My Response:  The above sentence is objectionable because it misleads the populace by introducing analogies by way of assimilation (transformation via opinionated analysis).  This is done in an effort to draw a distinct parallel between most pre-Christian mythological religions and Christianity.  Segments of the sentence that are misleading include: 1) "The fact of the matter," 2) "Numerous saviors" and, 3) "Which subscribe to these general characteristics."  First, there is no "Fact of the matter."  This is personal conjecture based on nebulous premises.  When conclusions are based on false or opinionated premises the conclusion itself cannot be true.  Second, in Zeitgeist's case, the phrase "Numerous saviors" is based on a personal interpretation of the word "savior"—not a literal rendering of the same.  Since sentiment is part of Zeitgeist's calculation, its adjacent result cannot be true.  Third, "Which subscribe to these general characteristics."  This segment is also an opinionated conclusion and thus false once more.  The writer has not given credence to any part of the above claim whatsoever.

P11, Part 2:  "The question remains, why these attributes..."
My Response:  If a simile exists between pre-Christian and Christian concepts of God, then it might stem from man's limitations to think and to speak of the metaphysical.  There are only so many ways in which to define the physical, much less to analogize the unknown.  It is man’s sinful nature and commensurate mortality that instigates inquiries unto God, life, death, and the possibility of an afterlife—to and including judgment.  It is the way God designed us, as it should be (Rom. 1).

P11, Part 3:  "... Why the virgin birth..."
My Response:  It has been evinced within this writing that the so-called "virgin birth" of Horus is an abridgement of the truth.  (See P5, S1 (Part 2) above and Sources F, I, J, K, L and M.)

P11, Part 4:  "... On December 25th, ..."
My Response:  It has been shown December 25th is the pagan celebration of the winter solstice and that the early Catholic church, not Christianity (per se) or the Bible (specifically), acknowledge this day as the scriptural day on which Christ was born. (See P5, S1 (Part 1) above and Sources G and N(2).)

P11, Part 5:  "... Why dead for three days..."
My Response:  In reference to the gods mentioned in Zeitgeist, and Zeitgeist’s insistence they were dead for three days, there is not one single Source or personal study echoing this claim.  Again, this is strictly ad lib or "add-thereto."  Please see P15, S11 below where this issue is addressed at length.

P11, Part 6: "... And the inevitable resurrection..."
My Response:  There is no "inevitable resurrection."  Again, Osiris was a dead and gone god—not a risen one.  He never returned to earth or life (see Source H(5), page 11).  Attis' genitals were cut off, planted and resurged as an evergreen pine tree (Source K).  Eleven centuries after Christ, Krishna all-of-a-sudden took on death, burial and re-birth (not resurrection) scenarios (Source L and N(2)).  And the list and the fabrications go on.  Please reference Sources on other gods.

P11, Part 7:  "... Why 12 disciples or followers?"
My Response:  I have not been able to uncover a ‘twelve disciple following’ in any of my studies regarding pre-Christian gods.  It is Zeitgeist's homogenization and misapplication of ancient astronomical and astrological mythologies into that of Christianity (viz., the twelve astrological signs).  A more extensive discussion on this matter occurs in P17 and P18 below. (Sources D and E.)

P11, Part 8:  "To find out, let's examine the most recent of the solar messiahs."
My Response:  Zeitgeist's premise is wrong and thus its conclusion.  Jesus was no "solar messiah."  This is to ‘Lead the Witness’ in attempt to arrive at a desired conclusion.  To characterize Christ as a solar messiah is simply to draw a heretofore un-evinced parallel between pre-Christian and Christian beliefs. (See also P4, S4 above.)

P12, Part 1:  "Jesus Christ was born of a virgin Mary on December 25th..."
My Response:  Again, Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th.  The Bible is non-specific.  The Christmas jubilee was created and installed on December 25th in order to entice Roman pagans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter observance and thus, their festival. (See P5, S1 (Part 1) and Source G.)

P12, Part 2:  "... 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..."
My Response:  First, Christ's birth was not merely announced by a "star in the east."  This issue has already been settled (Please review P5, S2, Part 1 above).  Second, concerning Zeitgeist's statement regarding the presence of three kings who came to "Adorn the new savior," there were no "Three Kings."  Biblically speaking, there were only "magi" and the number of them is not specified.  (See also P5, S2 above and Sources O(1) and O(2).)

P12, Part 3:  "... He was a child teacher at twelve..."
My Response:  In Luke 2:46, it is clear Jesus was not assuming the role of a teacher at the age of twelve but rather that of a respectful, inquisitive student.  To falsely claim that Jesus was teaching to the elders, as in the mis-promulgated theory regarding Horus (see P5, S3 (Part 1) above) is to enter into questionable antics.  The reason for this is obvious: Jesus actually began to teach in the synagogues around thirty years of age (cf. Luke 4:15 and P12, Part 4 below).

P12, Part 4:  "... At the age of 30 he was baptized by John the Baptist, and thus began his ministry...."
My Response:  The exact year in which Christ was born is unknown.  It is widely recognized that Jesus' birth could have occurred from 7 BC to AD 6.  This would mean Christ began His ministry anywhere from twenty four to thirty seven years of age.  The disciple Luke simply states it was "about" (Greek, Hosei) the age of thirty years when Jesus was baptized (see Luke 3:1-23).  Since Zeitgeist failed in their first premise regarding Horus beginning a ministry at the age of thirty (see P5, S3 (Part 1) above), a conclusion that Jesus and Horus had similar ministerial beginnings is of necessity, false.  In other words, Zeitgeist's logic is frayed.  A valid conclusion cannot be derived from a false, presumptive or unproven premise.

P12, Part 5:  "Jesus had 12 disciples...."
My Response:  The Scriptures also record Jesus had seventy disciples who were sent out two by two performing miracles (cf. Luke 10:1 and 17).  Thus, any attempt to tie Jesus' twelve disciples to twelve astrological signs is simply misguided.  This matter is further clarified in P17 and P18 below.

P13, S1:  "First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological."
My Response:  Zeitgeist has not submitted one single piece of evidence to validate this assertion.  It is strictly bunk, as this document reveals. (Sources D, E and H(5).)

P13, Remainder of S1:  "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 three bright stars are 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 24th.  This is why the Three kings 'follow' the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise-the birth of the sun."
My Response:  First, as even Massey conveys, the three stars do not represent “Three Kings.”  They simply represent the three stars in Orion’s Belt.  Second, the celebration of Christmas on December 25th is not a biblical truth.  This date was initiated by the early Catholic church to persuade pagans inundated in myth to surrender to Christian doctrine (see P5, S1 (Part 1) above).  Third, there were no "Three Kings" at Christ's birth.  Biblically speaking, there were only "magi" and the number of them is not specified within the Bible (see P12, Part 2, above).  Fourth, the alignment of Sirius and the three brightest stars of Orion was an annual event.  Why then would the magi (thought to be astrologers or astronomers) think any more of this particular winter solstice than ever before?  Once again, it is the aim of Zeitgeist to draw parallels where none exist. (P12, Part 2 above.)

P14, S1:  "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...."
My Response:  First, there is no supporting evidence "The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo."  To make such an unsubstantiated claim is unscholarly, slanted and vindictive.  Second, Virgo represents a constellation of stars—not a particular person.  Only in Zodiac iconography do we see the constellation Virgo symbolized by a female, and certainly not the "Virgin Mary."  Third, the astrological sign for Scorpio is also an altered 'm.'  The particular astrological sign for Scorpio is the scorpion.  In astrological myth, Scorpio represents water or the elements as well as the "Killer of Orion."  Orion, in conjunction with the alignment of Sirius, is the belt of stars Zeitgeist uses in attempt to bring legitimacy to the claim it was this object, or group of objects, leading the magi to Christ's birthplace (see P12, S2 above, where this postulate is completely dismantled).  If 'm' can represent Virgo or Scorpio, then it is just as likely Scorpio represents the killer of Zeitgeist's "star of the east" theory as it does anything else.  Talk about unmitigated hypotheses!  Fourth, out of the thousands of gods that have been worshipped over time, Zeitgeist can only come up with a total of two names that begin with a transliterated English 'M'.  Talk about "Making a mountain out of a mole hill!"  Unbelievable.  In so doing, Zeitgeist falls victim to the logical fallacies of non sequitur, dismissal, false analogy, invincible ignorance, irrelevant conclusion, meaningless claim, provincialism, hasty and sweeping generalization, unaccepted enthymeme and wishful thinking.  (Sources P1 and P2.)

P14, S2 and S3:  "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.”
My Response:  The single, Zeitgeist bibliographic reference given for these two sentences do not address the claim.  In fact, the reference openly admits to the potentiality of distortion and misguided, ulterior motive.  The reference records:

"The meanings of the signs of the Zodiac are to this day largely interpretive and the subject of various conjectures.... it is intended in this work to prove that far higher and more important records, those of the the only true wisdom of man, are contained in the emblems of the constellations."  [Emphasis added.]

After this bibliographic reference, does anymore have to be said?  Does anymore need to be written?  It is just as true neither do attached studies support Zeitgeist's claim that "Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread."  (Sources P(1), P(2), D, E, and H(5).)

P14, S4 and S5:  "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."
My Response:  In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Greek word Bethlehem is defined as:

"Of Heb. or. (1036); Bethleem (i.e., Beth-lechem), a place in Pal.: Bethlehem."  In the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary portion of Strong's, #1036 is defined as: "from 1004 and the fem. Of 6083 (with prep. Interposed); house to (i.e., of) dust; Beth-le-Aphrah, a place in Pal.: house of Aphrah." 

To insist the word Bethlehem is a reference to the constellation Virgo is to form a conclusion based on two questionable, if not three false, premises (review P14, S2-S5 above).

P15, S8 & S10:  "…During this three day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation….  And thus it was said: the Sun died on the cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again.”

My Response:  First, any secular astronomer would be the first to admit the sun never ‘pauses’ for any length of time—much less for three days (see also P2, S1).  Second, throughout most of the Roman world in which the Gospels were written, the sun does not reside anywhere near the Southern Cross on or around December 25th. (See also P2, S1.)  Third, as a colleague of mine just wrote, if the winter solstice is truly on December 21, would this not negate Zeitgeist’s three-day death and resurgence analogy?  Obviously, I agree.  Fourth, “Said” by whom?  The Zeitgeist videotext reference for this statement reassures the reader Zeitgeist will employ almost any means to conjure up more ludicrous so-called analogies.  Zeitgeist’s very own bibliography unveils their deception and continued use of a Trojan horse:

"Interpretations vary in regards to the Cross symbolism, as different and different traditions supply different information and thus interpretation." [Emphasis added.]

Again, here it is in a nutshell: The whole of pre-Christian dogma is a product of evolving myth.  In other words, most pre-Christian belief systems evolved over time.  These systems, more than likely, became a reflection of the real Christ story, not the originator of the same.

P15, S11:  “This is why Jesus and numerous other Sun Gods share the crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection concept.” 

My Response:  There is not one single “Crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection” allegory within the pantheon of pre-Christian gods—not one.  Most legends that predate the historical Christ deal with the death and re-birth of vegetation or other ethereal notions—not a real historical being. (See Attachment N(2).)

P15, S12:  "It is the Sun’s transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing spring, and thus salvation.”

My Response:  No doubt, ancient civilization perceived spring as a time of renewal.  The long winter had taken its toll on their ability to harvest vegetation.  But Zeitgeist continually uses keywords derived from the Bible.  In this case, “salvation.”  The reason for this is obvious—to attempt to disenfranchise the Christian from spiritual sustenance.  

P16, S1 and S2:  “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….”

My Response:  First, who are “they”?  Nowhere in Zeitgeist’s bibliographic references are “they” defined.  Second, Zeitgeist lists more than one date in which “they” supposedly celebrated the resurrection of the sun (the word “resurrection” being a misnomer to say the least).  However, if we were to literally apply Zeitgeist’s use of the term, it could be said the sun resurrects every day rather than just solely at spring.  But this is not the intent of Zeitgeist.  It is my opinion they wish to speak with ambiguity and thus cause confusion.  Zeitgeist does this when they desire to draw parallels between pre-Christian and Christian thoughts and practices.  For example, the two dates given in the above claim are: “…until the spring equinox, or Easter.”  The spring equinox occurs around March 21 (Source R).  Easter can occur from March 22 to April 25 or even as late as May given the Eastern Church (Source S).  Re-reading Zeitgeist’s P15, they attempt to market the notion that a death, burial and resurrection equivalent exists between the winter sun’s declination and Christ’s resurrection.  There are problems with this attempt at analogy:  a) Given the ever-shifting “then perceived” date of the winter solstice, how can Zeitgeist attribute specific days to the death and/or resurrection of anything?  They cannot.  But they use whatever date convenient to their purpose.  b) In the above claim, Zeitgeist negates their very own 3-day resurrection assimilation by stating: "They did not celebrate the resurrection of the Sun until the spring equinox, or Easter."  This presents an incontrovertible dilemma for Zeitgeist.  The number of days between the sun’s winter solstice and Easter is some sixty to eighty-five days—far greater than Zeitgeist’s imagined three-day resurrection scenario.  Third, to use the phrase “The Sun officially overpowers the evil darkness” is to enter into the Dark Ages once again.  There is no inherent evil in darkness, though Zeitgeist’s ambiguity can be reckoned.

P17:  “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.”
My Response:  This statement can be refuted based on Zeitgeist’s very own bibliographic reference:


Concerning the 12 Disciples and Mithraism, Zeitgeist’s bibliography records:

“It is that of the twelve gods, as the Christian followers of Mithra had their twelve apostles.” 

First, the phrase "Christian followers of Mithra," is a misapplication of terms.  The two words are contradictory and thus, self-defeating.  There is no such thing as a "Christian" who follows Mithra or any other religious belief system for that matter.  Second, the introduction of Mithra into the Roman world did not occur until 2nd century AD. (Source N(1).)  This shows a merging of some belief systems long after Christ’s death—often via the Gnostics.  Hence, we may say with some certainty that it was Mithraism’s induction of Christian beliefs rather than the reverse. (See P6, “Mithra of Persia” above and Sources N(1) and N(2).)  Third, Jesus' selection of 12 disciples was not without historical, biblical precedent.  The 12 disciples mirrored the 12 tribes of Israel, not 12 astrological signs.  The 12 tribes of Israel existed long before 5th century Zodiacal worship.  (See P2, S1 and P18.)


P18:  “In fact, the number 12 is replete throughout the Bible.  This text has more to do with astrology than anything else."
My Response:  First, Zeitgeist has not submitted one single piece of evidence the biblical text "has more to do with astrology than anything else."  This comment is outlandish and an embarrassment to those who consider themselves educated.  Second, it is just as irresponsible to select one number out of the Bible when there are a myriad of other numbers to which interesting accounts exist.  This is to enter into the logical fallacy of  ‘Concealed Evidence.’  For example, Zeitgeist conceals evidence when they make no mention of other significant numbers and their occurrence within the Bible—some of which far exceed the use of the number 12.  Other biblical numbers might include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40, 42, 50, 51, 65, 70, 120, 153, 200, 290, 400, 430, 490 and 666.  Third, Jesus' selection of 12 disciples was not without historical, biblical precedent.  The 12 disciples mirrored the 12 tribes of Israel, not 12 astrological signs.  The 12 tribes of Israel existed long before 5th century Zodiacal worship.  (See P2, S1 and P17.)

P19:  “Coming back to the cross of the Zodiac, the figurative light of the Sun [implication Son], this was not just an artistic expression or tool to track the Sun’s movements.  It was also a Pagan spiritual symbol…. 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….”

My Response:  The film Zeitgeist fails at another attempt to tie the mythological to the realty and historicity of Christ's Crucifixion.  First, the cross of the Zodiac and the Cross on which Christ died are dissimilar.  The Zodiac cross is shaped like a + (plus sign) with four equal points.  The Cross on which Christ died is shaped more like a T.  Hence, this does not reflect Christianity’s use of Zodiac iconography for Christ’s Crucifixion.  Though Constantine altered the appearance of the Cross in 312 AD, this change never mirrored the Zodiacal cross. (Source T.)  Second, note Zeitgeist's use of the term "early occult" rather than a term identifying the early Christian.  This, unwittingly, removes early Christendom from any of Zeitgeist's charges.  Third, it is also just as true art did NOT "always" depict Christ with an evenly dissected cross in the background.  This occurred, as Zeitgeist (again, unwittingly) concurs, when "occult" practices began a number of years post-Christ.  In fact, in early Christendom, Cross symbollism was seldom if ever used.  This was due to the Christian's fear of retribution.  It would have identified the persecuted Christian to Roman authorities and thus end in the Christian's demise—their own crucifixion.  Crucifixion was one of the most horrifying forms of punishment and death a person could experience.  From about 400 BC to AD 325, Romans used the method of crucifixion to carry out the death penalty.  No artist or art form for the first couple of centuries after Christ utilized the Cross in replicating Christian symbolism.  Again, this was for fear of being executed.  This is evident through second century AD—within the catacombs, frescoes, mosaics, manuscripts, and within early Christian sculpture. (Source U.)  Later, much later, as Zeitgeist confirms, some artists influenced by Gnosticism and paganism (“the occult”) began to incorporate an evenly dissected cross behind the head of Christ.  However, the fact remains: the Cross of Jesus, from day one and hundreds of years afterwards, was never a product of the Zodiac or other pagan practices.  It is here where Zeitgeist falters.

P20:  “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’….”

My Response:  First, in accordance with Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the term “age,” in either Hebrew or Greek, carries little or no weight outside the fact it represents the chronological or numerical value of a person, place or thing.  It certainly does not take on the meaning of an era as Zeitgeist professes.  Second, while it is certain such phrases as “last” (days), “end” (times), etc., bring to mind the thought of an end to an age or era—it is just that, the very end of all things on earth, not a continuance of the same.  In other words, “age” as Zeitgeist deciphers has nothing to do with “astrological” periods within the Bible.  They just do not exist.  (See also P22, below.)

P21:  “Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through 3 ages….” [Emphasis added.]

My Response:  First, there is that similar expression again: “broadly speaking.”  This warns the viewer of Zeitgeist anything following within this segment of the film cannot be taken literally.  We have seen this before (see P4, S5 above).  Second, amongst most theologians, there are two, perhaps four dispensations—rarely, if ever, three.  Zeitgeist simply attempts to correlate the 2,150-year cycle of the Zodiac without knowledge of dispensational views.  Once again, they fail to make the grade because they fail to understand the Scriptures and thus make the link they so zealously desire.

P22, S1:  “Now Jesus is the figure who ushers in the age following Aries, the Age of Pices the Two Fish….”

My Response:  Due to the “precession of equinoxes,” Tropical or Western astrologers are inaccurate when it comes to periodic cycles of the Zodiac.  For example, if we back up to P20 above (see the film’s transcript), Zeitgeist makes the following statement:

“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 Pices, the age we’re still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new Age of Aquarius.” 

However, the precession of equinoxes or ‘wobble’ of the earth on its axis mathematically displaces Zodiacal ages at the rate of 1 degree for every 71.5 years (50 seconds of arc per year).  If we begin Zeitgeist’s clock at the 4300 BC mark, add 2,008 years to it, we end up with a total of 6,308 years / 71.5 years for a total shift of some 88.22 degrees in the Zodiac.  In other words, at thirty-degree segments, we’re almost three ages removed from where Western astrologers would have us believe.  Obviously, given this scenario, Jesus did not bring us into the age of Pices. (Source V.)

P22, S2:  “…Little do they know what it [the Christian fish symbol] actually means.  It is a Pagan astrological symbolism for the Sun’s Kingdom during the age of Pices.”

My Response:  Yes, the Christian fish symbol is borrowed from paganism—on purpose—as a common device that would arouse less suspicion than that of the Cross (see P19 above).  The fish symbol could be used to mark meeting places, burials and when Christians met other Christians in public.  It is not so much what a symbol is but what it represents and how it is used.  What one symbol means to one does not necessarily reflect what it means to another, particularly over time.  For example, perhaps to Zeitgeist the fish symbol represents the “Sun’s [finite] Kingdom.”  To others, it may represent the Son of all kingdoms—finite and infinite.

P22, S3: “Also Jesus’ assumed birth date is essentially the start of this age.”

My Response:  First, the proclamation that Jesus' birth date had anything to do with "the start of this age" is illconceived (see P22, S1 above).  Second, Zeitgeist finally admits Jesus’ birth date is “assumed.”  In other words, December 25th is not a date carved in stone—as has been “assumed” all-along by the author(s) of Zeitgeist.  I have tried to make this point on numerous occasions.  Third, on the subject of “ages,” the matter has been previously adjudged.  There is no correlation between Zodiacal ages and the Bible (see P20 – P22 above).

P23:  “At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next Passover will be, Jesus replied: ‘behold when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a picture of water… follow him into the house where he entereth in’….”

My Response:  First, read the entire paragraph within Zeitgeist’s transcript.  The above excerpt represents only a portion thereof.  Second, never before has Zeitgeist so openly and flagrantly displayed such biblical ignorance.  Luke 22:10 deals with preparation for the Jewish Passover.  Passover was the name given to the most critical of the three great historical annual festivals of the Jews.  It was kept in remembrance of the Lord’s passing over the houses of the Israelites (Exodus 12:13).  It was incorporated in ceremonial law (Leviticus 23:4-8)—long before Jesus of Nazareth arrived on the scene.  The word Passover also came to note the Lamb slain at the feast—Jesus (Mark 14:12-14; 1 Corinthians 5:7).  Christ was simply instructing His disciples as to where to conduct this feast by giving them a sign no outsider could recognize since the authorities were already looking to destroy Him.  Thus Passover, or the man bearing a picture of water, has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of Zodiacal “ages”—as I have already demonstrated (see P20 – P22 above).

P24:  “Now, we have all heard about the end times and the end of the world…. 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 the King James Version, ‘world’ is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations.  The actual word being used is ‘aeon,’ which means ‘age’….”

My Response:  What one sows, one reaps.  If we sow or study in shallow soil, our results will be shallow as well.  “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown….” (Matthew 13:19.)  Herein, is the problem with Zeitgeist.  Their research is imbued with biblical and academic ignorance, multiple layers of assimilation and hearsay and biased, ulterior motive.  Regarding the term “world” in Matthew 28:20, the following can be recorded:

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

Strong’s # 165:  “aiōn; from the same as 104; prop. An age; by extens. Perpetuity (also past); by impl. The world; spec. (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world began, without end).”

Strong’s # 104:  “aĕi; from an obs. Prim. Noun (appar. Mean. Continued duration); ‘ever,” by qualification regularly; by impl. Earnestly:--always, ever.”

It is not terribly difficult to see with a little study the term “world” or the end thereof means forever, always, eternally—certainly not an age as Zeigeist propounds.

P25, S1:  “Furthermore, the character of Jesus, a literary and astrological hybrid, is most explicitly a plagiarization of the Egyptian Sun-god Hourus.”