Debunking Zeitgeist

Mikey 21 comments
  • Documentary
Debunking Zeitgeist

This morning I was made aware of a site that challenges the Zeitgeist phenomena. The email I received contained the phrase: "The promotion of Zeitgeist the movie, without looking at opposing views, is both naive and unscholarly".

I disagree that the promotion of any film is a bad thing (unless it's Die Hard 4), but looking into alternative theories before commitment is always nobel. So with that you can have a look at "The Debunking Of Zeitgeist Mythology" for some alternative views regarding the documentary in question.

Not a Member!

Jim-Just a Guy

Thursday 20th March 2008 | 12:36 AM

As some one who believes in God and Jesus and as some one who has watched the news and as someone that sat down and watched Zeitgeist in it's entirety, I feel fairly certain that the opposing arguments for the movie have been well documented for many years when it comes to religion. The media has done a good job giving us the lie of 9/11. The Federal Reserve has been hiding what they are doing for many years. I think Zeitgeist was the first piece to tackle all 3 in one shot.

I would argue that not watching Zeitgeist is both naive and unscholarly. I may not agree with part one of the film but I have no problem with some one doing the research and presenting their argument in an intelligent manor. From what I remember the first part of the film was not insulting towards people of faith and I never felt like I was being attacked for having my faith by the film makers.

Not a Member!

Jim-Just a Guy

Thursday 20th March 2008 | 12:39 AM

Oh and I forgot. If you are going to let Zeitgeist shake the very core of your faith then I guess your faith is not that strong.

Not a Member!

Kim OJ

Thursday 20th March 2008 | 01:10 AM

2 ounces of common sense should be enough to debunk Zeitgeist, but if you want to devote a website to it knock your self out!

Not a Member!


Saturday 12th April 2008 | 01:26 AM

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? NOT!

"...When the subject matter is examined scientifically and in depth, there continues to be no credible evidence for the existence of the gospel character named Jesus Christ, and the preponderance of scientific evidence points to him being as mythical a character as the Greek god Hercules and the many other deities of the Roman Empire of the time.

While people who take such a position are widely subjected to ridicule and derision, based on all the evidence this conclusion is demonstrably the most reasonable and logical. Furthermore, in a truthful world where we should not be compelled to reside in BLIND BELIEF, this perspective should be allowed to exist without its holders being derogated and abused, as well as dunned with impossibly high standards of proof, while claims in the religious arena require little to no proof at all! "

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book

Zeitgeist part 1 video toward the bottom -

Pass it around

Not a Member!


Thursday 26th March 2009 | 03:51 AM response to this comment by Aziz. I know the religion part of it can be debunked. Christianity existed before the start of any organized church. In the bible it states that in fact the great beast is the Catholic Church. However I can't find anything that debunks the movies claim against the government. It’s a really powerful movie; I have no clue why the Government wouldn’t respond. So America "my home is slightly tainted” in my eyes now.

Not a Member!

Tell me

Wednesday 27th May 2009 | 10:22 AM response to this comment by Kim OJ. Tell me the two ounces of common sense that debunks zeitgeist... I would like any one of you to prove to me Jesus Christ Existed... and secondly debunk for me the fact that all religion is opinionated... Because if we could prove a god there would only be one religion... funny how common sense totally destroys the idea of a god...

Not a Member!


Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 10:03 PM

Because Ra was the God of the Sun, Horus was later on in in the history of Egyptian gnostisism merged with Ra, but was not himself the Sun God. And if the Sun = God, why is it referenced the following way "God's Sun" meaning God is not the Sun directly but has ownership over it? One point must be used, logically, to prove one point of truth or reasoning at a time. Either it God was the Sun and that logic should be used to prove some point or reason; but to not have proved anything by stating as much but contradicting itself by saying God's Sun, implying ownership is merely a setup to build connections between gnostic religions and Christianity in order to make it seem merely 100% fiction.

Furthermore, God = Sun and God's Sun are made in mere jest in a realm of logic held within the similar sounds within the english language between the two words. Either God is the Sun and the Sun is God. Or God has another name, which must be named in order to be reality and used to prove the logic or poit to be some sort of relevance.

Example being if God is the Sun then he has a name, for instance Ra.

This can be taken as a point because it is historical, and logically proven within the sentnece.

Merely saying the Sun was God or God was the Sun.

Is a simplified statement used as a setup for the conenction between the sounds between Son and Sun used later in the movie. For we are not saying: That God's name was "Rx" and he was beyond the Sun (not the sun) because the Sun was God's, as used in the sentence in the moive God's Sun.

Not a Member!


Sunday 2nd May 2010 | 12:30 PM

Email and response re Zeitgeist


Dear Ray:

Thank you for your teaching. I have been disturbed for some time that
God's name and character is blasphemed by the Hell Fire Doctrine but was
confused by some of the scriptures which seemed to validate it. Thanks
again for clearing these things up. I am greatly comforted.

One other item is really bothering me. It seems to be undermining the
whole foundation of my faith and it is really important for me that this
gets cleared up with valid documentation and evidence, if it is even
possible. You seem to have a clear thinking, analytical mind and I'm
hoping you can clear this up for me. I do not want to be so faithless
but I am very concerned.

I have studied scripture for many years and
used to be religious but no longer have any affiliation with any
religion. I love God and still study scripture and read articles from
spiritual writers at times. I have been reading your articles for a few
months now. Over the last few years I have learned that many of the
doctrines and stories found in the Christian Bible and the Jewish
scriptural texts actually preceeded these same books by hundreds,
possibly even several hundred years. That they actually came from Egypt,
Babylon and other Pagan societies and religions and that the Jewish and
Christian texts borrowed and copied from them. If this is true, it
makes me feel that after a lifetime of belief and study that the
foundation of my faith has been ripped out from under me and that I
possibly shouldn't even trust the validity of the Bible or anything in
it. I really don't want to believe this. But now every time I think of
or read or even quote something from the Bible it feels like a spiritual
earthquake is shaking me off of my foundation.

I have prayed that God
show me the truth about this very important matter. I do still believe
in God but He is about the only thing I feel sure of any more. I know
that the scriptures say to "Prove all things " but after thousands of
years and so much confusion in history and pre-history how can we know
that our scripture is any more valid than any other religious texts. For
that matter how can we know that any religious texts are valid. They
could all have been passed down and written by men who wished to control
other men. Please help me with this if you can. I need something as
concrete as your other teachings, if it is possible.


Dear Darlene: You obviously have listened to "Zeitgeist." Am I correct?

This video is deceiving millions for sure. You are not suggesting (I hope) that
I can explain this video and its theories in an email. I am considering writing
something on it in the future, if there is a future for me. Presently I am battling
stage IV terminal prostate cancer and metastasized bone cancer. The Cancer
Center at Providence Hospital in Mobile, gave me six months to live. That was
back in 2008. Also, I presently have two thousand, eight hundred and twenty-two
unanswered emails ahead of yours.

I am trying to finish a paper entitled: "HELL Is a Christian Hoax" along with
a critique of Bill Wiese's book: "23 Minutes in Hell." I am now on page one
hundred and nine.

Zeitgeist is a long and involved topic. The man obviously hates the very idea of
a real God, an inspired Bible, and a Messiah who died for our sins It could take
a long time to cover properly the material on this video. After all, I am sure it took
Peter Joseph (the author, producer, director, editor, music production,
and distributor) several years to put together, so it isn't likely that one can go
through it point by point to debunk it in a short time.

Let me just say this for your present spiritual dilemma: There is NO solid documentation
regarding the many outlandish statements regarding Jesus being merely the resurrection
of much earlier myths of the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.

The Zeitgeist movie makes these claims about the Egyptian god Horus:
• He was born on December 25 of a virgin (Isis Mary)
• A star in the East proclaimed his arrival
• Three kings came to adore the new-born “savior”
• He became a prodigious teacher at age 12
• At age 30 he was “baptized” and began a “ministry”
• Horus had twelve “disciples”
• Horus was betrayed
• He was crucified
• He was buried for three days
• He was resurrected after three days

But when we look for historical documentation for any of the above ten supposed
similarities between Horus and and Jesus, they can't be found. I spent a long time
writing my Lake of Fire Installment on: "The Origin of Everlasting Torment." I studied
Egyptian history and the Egyptian gods. I even purchased several advanced books
on Egyptology.

Historically, the birth of Horus is put sometime in October-November, not Dec. 25th. And
since Jesus wasn't either born on Dec. 25, this wouldn't be a parallel anyway.

There is no "star in the east" which proclaimed the birth of Horus.

As for the "three kings" who came to adore the "new-born savior," it is an embarrassment
to Joseph's scholarship seeing that he has squalled the traditional nativity scene of
Christendom, not being aware that the wise men came into THE HOUSE to see the young
BOY, years after His birth.

There is no historical record of Horus becoming a great teacher at age 12.

There is no record in Egypt that Horus was "baptized" and then began a ministry.

Horus had four demi-gods as they are called, for friends, but not twelve disciples.

Maybe Horus was betrayed. Thousands of historical figures have been betrayed, but I know
of no historical documentation that says Horus was betrayed.

Zeitgeist puts the birth and death of Horus at around 3000 BC, yet crucifixion was unknown
until many many centuries later.

Horus was cut up into fourteen pieces by his enemies, and spread on the Nile River, but
I have never seen where he was buried for three days. Likewise, there is nothing to
substantiate the he was 'resurrected" after three days.

It is also claimed that Horus was born of a virgin mother Isis-Mary in a cave manger, etc.
Actually Isis was married to Osiris and was not a virgin. Isis of Egypt did have the title
"Mr-ee" which means "beloved," given to her, but that's a far stretch from saying her
"name was Mary." And as for the "cave manger," Jesus wasn't born in a cave, and Horus
was born in a swamp.

There are also many other claims of similarities between Horus and Jesus, but NOT ONE
of them is substantiated by any story, myth, or history in Egypt. Can you now begin to see
how many distortions of the truth are presented in the rest of this Zeitgeist deception?

Such unscriptural doctrines as "Everlasting Torment" in some fiery hellhole of pain and
suffering, actually do come from places like Egypt. But the Scriptures know nothing of
such a teaching. It has been forced into some Bibles (like the King James, NIV, etc.),
but certainly not all translations. Examples that do not carry the words "eternal," "hell,"
etc., would be, The Concordant Literal Old and New Testaments, Rotherham's
Emphasized Bible, Young's Literal Bible, The Emphatic Diaglott, etc.

Look: Here's what I would tell a person who tells me that he fears death because when
he puts his head under water for more than a minute, he can't breath, and panics. My
advice? DON'T PUT YOUR HEAD UNDER WATER!! Don't read faith-destroying
material. These deceivers and smart and they are clever, and they understand human
nature. They know how to deceive. We need to heed the admonition of the apostle

Paul: "Neither give place to the Devil" (Ephesians 4:27).

It looks like Peter Joseph was pretty much in charge of this whole deception:

Zeitgeist Addendum
Directed by Peter Joseph
Produced by Peter Joseph
Written by Peter Joseph
Music by Peter Joseph
Editing by Peter Joseph

Very few Christians on earth are able to take on people like Peter Joseph. These
deceivers will eat you for lunch. The same goes for trying to take to task a learned
Christian theologian. I think that I can hold my own with the best of them, but then
again, God has been working with me and showing me His truths for many years
now, though I still have much to learn. It is hard to build a huge and enduring structure
without a solid rock foundation. It is your very foundation that is coming into question
for you right now. I will try to do something with Zeitgeist in the future, God
willing, but I'm afraid it is not a priority at this time. Hope you understand, and I hope
this reply will sustain you until I can write a more detailed answer to Zeitgeist.

God be with you,


Tyler V

Tyler V

Sunday 2nd May 2010 | 01:31 PM
16 total kudos

Yeah, sorry to the atheistic and anti-theistic blog-o-sphere, but Zeitgeist has been thoroughly panned by actual scholars in the fields that it attempts to enter into. While it has a cult-following (ironic since it tries to diffuse religious sentiment) anyone who actually believes it is a scholarly work or anything less than an exercise in propaganda, ideological axe-grinding, and the ability to twist information to prove a point, is just ignorant.

I mean there is some good scholarly work in this area. Why fall for the extremism of things like this when you can just read the scholars on it - laziness I guess.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!

Henk V

Sunday 2nd May 2010 | 02:33 PM

Zeitgeist is a crock. There is no content in the movie that is not poisoned by absolutely incorrect assumptions.

Its embarrassing that atheists would actually consider this a worthwhile documentary.

Whilst the basic assumption may be arguable, the astrology/astronomy is completely incorrect (you only need to hang your head out at night and adjust back one star sign to the time of Augustus and one more to the purported time of RA... from a scientist that should be enough to kill off the supporting material.

The mythology is woeful as well as the adoptions of the Mediterranean gods from the ANE and the Persian gods do not fit well with the mythical Jesus. Life and crucixion? so what? Resurection? these concepts were as common as potatoes in the region since 3000 BCE when folk could write about it.

Any crucifixion in judea at the time was real. Resurrections were as cheap as dirt in the folklore of the people who lived there.

The movie should have concentrated on who jesus could have been and who Paul invented him to be, the rise of what we now call the "q" sources and the establishment of Nazareth @ 60CE. This would have been a far more credible approach than "JUST MAKING IT UP".

What astoundingly awful mythology. The movie relies on the viewer to be absolutely pig ignorant of science, have a workable knowledge of stars being in the sky and... where the corn chips are. Any paper handed up to a lecturer (even an atheist one) will get a -50 for bone lazy and mental agility if it contains a single shred of that promptly made up tripe.

Tyler V

Tyler V

Sunday 2nd May 2010 | 04:02 PM
16 total kudos

Henk, I cant believe it, we agree on something... for the most part. Well, we agree anyway that the movie should have brown eyes it was so full of it.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Wednesday 6th April 2011 | 10:30 AM

For all your belly-aching, you still haven't debunked the movie at all.. nor has anyone else... point to some real scholarship that truly negates what Z is suggesting, or clam up.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 6th April 2011 | 10:33 AM response to this comment by Gina . Just because you haven't found the information, doesnt mean its not out there...
try google-booking 'astrotheology'

There are a slew of books and material dedicated to the idea that Christianity comes from pagan roots... its not a new idea, and its not exclusive to the movie. Funny that a popular movie would get you all so inflamed, while the research has been around for millenia.

Not a Member!

Henk V

Wednesday 6th April 2011 | 04:46 PM response to this comment by sisterlover. thats not the argument here Sisterlover (unless Gina has thrown something unusual in). The crux of the matter is the the amount of blindly quoted sheer tripe is untenable.

This movie had my teenage kids laughing because they have been exposed to mythology and science all their lives. some of the things in the part were tripe. The rest of the move was trash.. Who cares if the guy may have got one real score?

He was totally full of shit for the most.

I would advise that if you want to discuss mythology with reference to jesus, there are plenty of university courses that will lead yo on a good line of access. Yep, the theology schools produce a hell of a lot more Dale Martin's than Tyler Vela's.

Really, to spend 5 minutes on bad astronomy to argue rubbish was a hoot. Clearly this guy never looked out of a window. Same sky mind you!

Not a Member!

Henk V

Wednesday 6th April 2011 | 04:58 PM

Gee I am happy to, type up claim after claim and I will respond sisterlover. But dont get out of sequence or miss any... it would ruin the joke ...

Sorry that you will have to watch the movie with a pen this time. You will to argue your points..Time in movie and claim. without missing the prior claims..

Not a Member!

Henk V

Wednesday 6th April 2011 | 05:05 PM

Its critical that you present the bolstering dialog that establishes those claims too.

You may wish to verify your claims of the author/producers veracity first. Has he cherry picked the out there claims or passing conversations of others..

That makes for good fantasy.

No, I am this horrible to everyone around here. I shoot Spangled Pariahs of Paradise for a living.

Not a Member!


Friday 3rd June 2011 | 12:59 AM

Part 1 on religion of the original Zeitgeist movie has been completely substantiated by professional scholars. All the anti-Zeitgeist part 1 "debunkings" and "refutations" have been addressed and rendered obsolete. They will have to start all over. The new sourcebook below addresses the criticisms of the original sources in Zeitgeist part 1.

The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

Other criticisms are addressed here

Enjoy the Mythicist Position video and be sure to read the links in the info box too

Not a Member!

Zeigeist FTW

Wednesday 31st August 2011 | 11:52 AM response to this comment by Chrostopher. WOWOWOWOWOW!!!! Really? Dude you need to go back to school and learn about fucking religion in general. Are you a fucking catholic or something? If you can offer 1 piece of evidence that falsifies i would be astonished. BTW you claiming that christianity is the oldest reformed religion is straight up false. And if you honestly want people to even consider the fact that christianity is a feesable religion, you might want to try offering reasons that aren't based out of a plagerized book. I could name at least 4 or 5 religions that came before christianity.

Guess what? You worshipping "God" or "Jesus" is actually in reality completely paganistic. I hope that one day "Jesus" does come because I would be the first person to join the antichrists cause.

Not a Member!

Super Smert Person

Wednesday 31st August 2011 | 11:59 AM response to this comment by Kim OJ. LoL everyone wants to 'Debunk' this video... yet... YET... NO ONE... not one of you will download their 'companion guide' ... THERE ARE CITATIONS... PROOF that all of the information in the video... is TOO LEGIT TO QUIT! :) when everyone is done trying prove that Christianity is the only religion... and stop to realize how many 'religions' there are... MAYBE... just MAYBE... most/all of them are related to what we call 'Mythology' DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE CLAIMING YOU CAN DEBUNK SOMETHING :)

ps... The absolute truth hurts.......

Doesn't it...

pss... watch the video... and DO YOUR OWN research... and then tell me you want to debunk the absolute truth :) Learn more about our history before blindly posting bullshit about your stupid religion... I mean CULT :) ya... look up the definition of the word Cult... it fits in with ANY religion :)

lastly... Life is more than giving yourself to the invisible man in the sky... the bible say's "god is in you" ... why not focus on that god... instead of what your pastor/priest's tell you :)


Not a Member!


Wednesday 31st August 2011 | 05:34 PM

I downloaded them;

after all is said and done, the crux of the jesus mythology section relies on a fact. Sadly the fact is wrong. All extrapolations from that fact is wrong.

I m not defending any religion here as I am totally areligious. I have however checked my material before going to publication. If I was going to rely on some really dubious interpretations, I would have verified them.

The y werent verified and all you have to do is look up to disprove the entire premise of that section of the movie. The other sections werent as funny as the first. Getting religion wrong is ok, everyone does it (including every religious person you are likely to communicate with). Breeding hate is another.

Sadly, that is the premise of documentary. Propose something odd and stick to your line. No matter how ludicrous you defend a proposition, defend it to the death.

When you do science as a profession and folk continually say "it must be right, I saw it on a documentary" you quickly get a that your only reference?.

In this case the reference is preposterous. The writer has an anti science and anti religious position. That makes him a zealot of some sorts.

The religious section of the movie is about as credible as creationism from a scientific view.

Sorry to bust


Not a Member!


Wednesday 31st August 2011 | 05:54 PM

its not surprising that the posted letter counter that G posted 2 may 2010 is as stunningly insufficient as zeitgeist itself.

Zealotry is a bit like that..

Add a comment

Login to Rusty Lime

Not registered? | Forgot your Password? Cancel Login