I'm looking for Christian rebuttals of the movie the Zeitgeist, anyone???

Yes I agree with you. I wish I could say to the guy who made the film; "Just because theres similarities throughout history in different cultures doesn't mean they're all false, and it definitely doesnt mean Jesus never existed."

Jesus as a man did exist. Even if he never healed a single person, there was a man with a group of followers that the story is based on.

If the entire story of Jesus is just the SUN being hung on the "cross" of stars in the sky for 3 days then popping up higher into the sky, why go to such extreme detail to describe this story and its characters? that would be so stupid, such a waste of time.

Face it, Jesus pwnz everyone in this thread!
I will zap that ass with Jesus power!

It's funny though, these people who claim Zeitgeist and Loose Change are word for word truth, yet they dont realize how right in front of their face, someone is trying to slip something, an idea, into their soup! Their soup of 9/11 Truth, someone is trying to add "Jesus didnt exist" crackers to the soup and im just saying people EAT IT UP! I bet kids across the nation have a new found dislike in Jesus. A whole new generation of 13yr old atheists who "know that Jesus never existed".

Blah blah ..

[edit on 9/15/2007 by runetang]

Hi,

I know that I’m going to come across as a ‘Clearskies stalker’, but as much as Clearskies is a proponent of Hislop, I am a detractor. If you are interested in Hislop and his work please look at both proponents of his work and criticisms of his work.

As you may have guessed, I’m happy to provide some examples of the criticisms. Here are some sites that offer a bit of insight. Four of the five sites listed are NOT Catholic sites. One may be.

Below the urls is the text from a book review of The Two Babylons (not very scholarly, but readable).

www.ukapologetics.net...
www.geocities.com...
homepages.paradise.net.nz...
www.thechristadelphians.org...
www.tektonics.org...
Throughout this book, Hislop makes an attempt to show that the Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than a re-constitution of ancient Babylon. One way that Hislop attempts to demonstrate this is by documenting numerous references to the similarity of words between the ancient Chaldee and Hebrew languages due to their close phonetical relatedness (see I.H.S. example below). Other similarities and generalizations were used to basically debunk the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. These similarities were used by Hislop to show how pagan Babylonian beliefs infiltrated the ancient Hebrew culture and that these pagan beliefs were adopted into the sacraments, doctrines, and general practices of the Roman Catholic Church. There are other portions of the book where this same basic logic is used, but it does not seem to be consistent with the argument that is posited and unsubstantiated generalizations are made. For example, on page 164, in relation to the letters that are found on the Catholic eucharist wafer, Hislop argues that the letters I.H.S. do not signify 'Jesus the Savior of all men' (in Latin) but instead these letters signify "'Isis, Horus, Seb,' that is, 'The Mother, the Child, and the Father of the gods," - in other words, 'The Egyptian Trinity.'" Hislop provides no footnoted documentation for this assertion and it seems to be a logically inconsistent and broadly generalized statement without any historical or literary evidence to support it. Another problem is that the actual letters that are used on the wafer would only be meaningful to a person that is familiar with the English or Latin alphabet. The ancient worshippers of Egypt were not familiar with this alphabet, because it was yet to be invented. Thus, it is a chronological impossibility that the ancient Egyptians would have been able to come to the conclusions that the letters on the wafer represent their false trinity.
Note: In reality, it is a faulty Latin transliteration of the Greek contraction "Jesus", and was later rationalized to Iesus Hominum Salvator = Jesus Saviour of Men (mankind). This would also fit with Catholic transubstantiation doctrine that regards the wafer as becoming the body of Christ. -- JPH, with thanks to a reader)
Another example of this type of inconsistency can be found in chapter three, page 99, where Hislop is discussing the eighty-fifth psalm. Hislop states that the eighty-fifth Psalm was written soon after the Babylonian captivity and because of the captivity, they were inspired to write the eighty-fifth psalm. Conservative Christian scholars hold that the majority of the Psalms, including psalm eighty-five, were written about the tenth century B.C. So, if psalm eighty-five was written at least 400 years before Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, how is it possible that this tenth century B.C. Psalm was written after the Hebrews came out of Babylon? Unless Hislop held to a later date for the writing of the Psalms or a much earlier invasion and subsequent deportation of the Jews to Babylon, this seems to be an irreconcilable inconsistency in Hislop's scholarship. (truncated due to lack of space)

Eric

What cracks me up more than anything is the end of the movie. The idea of "one world" or "one world currency" is actually a fundamentalist Christian end-time interpretation of passages in the book of revelation.




Also, the whole section on "RFID" the ability to track individuals is also considered to be a "mark of the beast" by some fundamentalist Christian's interpretation of another passage in Revelation





So I don't get it... The beginning tries to disprove Christianity, but the movie inadvertently finishes by supporting some very Fundamentalist Christian interpretation of end time.

You know if you think about it, you'll figure out who created us. If we're created in their(yes god refers to itself as us in genesis)
image then they have a head, 2 arms, 2 eyes a penis etc and if you believe God is a spiritual being then obviously he didn't make us unless you think god has a a head, 2 arms, 2 eyes a penis etc It's clear to me who made us

Most all of those sites quote each other and they mainly only try to disprove about three points. (from THOUSANDS!)
Many people see the connection between religions, Hislop spells it out.
If , for instance the IHS on the catholic monstrances, wafers, etc.. is indeed the egyption trinity, why do you think it can only be written in heiroglyphics???
In Revelation 17 it says"I will show unto thee the judgement of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters."
It goes on describing the roman church, READ IT...."MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." There are many true christians within the church, but God says "Come out of her My People".

I think it would be detrementally vital to produce a "rebuttal" movie, because this zeitgeist film is all over the net and people are believing it, citing, it, and living by it with out doing fact checks. And I'm only talking about the 1st part of the film, which has 3 parts.

I don't necessarily disagree with parts 2 and 3, but I just thought it was funny that they try to discredit the existence of Jesus in the 1st part, in that way to descredit the Bible, but then go into theories of whats going on behind the scenes of the US Government and Illuminati, all of which is supported by end times prophecy in the Bible, (i.e. 1 world government, 1 currency, barcode/microships implanted, and so forth) all of which the movie says is the ultimate goal of the Illuminati.

So while they try to discredit Jesus as a myth, they completely (perhaps unknowingly) support other sections of the Bible.

reply to post by dominicus

---

The illuminati is talked about in the bible? Where please. Don't tell me you actually understand revelations, it was written by a madman...

well peaople have speculated revelatons since it's inception. It seems as if the majority of interpertations point to a one world government when it talks about all the beasts and 7 headed dragons.

ATS convo on this here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

or Google: "bible 1 world government" make sure u choose respected reputable sites.

Well, HALF of 'them' would! The other half would have..err..something else!

Zeitgeist has created quite a stir across the net on Christian forums. It is regularly pointed to and quoted as the most sensible reasoning of all for not believing in God, or Jesus, or the bible.

But of all those people who hold it up as truth, none have won the Zeitgeist Challenge.

All they require for anyone to take their money is proof that the things stated in Zeitgeist are true.

If you believe you can, here is the link.

Good luck!

Here is a rebuttal clip from one of the writers (DM Murdoch) upon who's work Part One is partially based. It's likely worth watching for any who are interested in the debate about the validity of the religion part of the movie (regardless of which side you take).

I believe this video was only recently released, on May 09, 2008.

YouTube Link

Here is one additional link to a post in her blog about the same subject:
Blog

Just adding this for your consideration...

reply to post by dominicus

---

Hmmm...the link you gave us led to the movie - but little or no mention of 'christ' at all that I could discern. Are you sure this is the one you mean?

J.

Thanks for that - fascinating stuff, although I've read much of it before, it's still great to see the real story behind christianity finally coming to light. And not a minute too soon either!

J.

But it IS true To prove it, just get your hands on credble, authoritative SCHOLARLY works on the subject matter, and anyone can collect that money....

J.

reply to post by jimbo999

---

Not so, the claims made by this movie are not backed up by the manuscripts and teachings of the other religions they claim to be taking from. They just say something like "Krishna was crucified", but they fail to mention that in the actual pre-christ story of Krishna, he was shot in the foot with an arrow by a hunter because he had a peacock feather on his head. They equate having an arrow through your foot with crucifiction. This is how they twist these stories etc to try and fit the life of Christ. I actually had a good chuckle watching Zeigeist, to me it showed signs of desperation on their part. Like one of the previous posts said, if you can prove the claims in that movie true, you can win money, but the money is still up for offer....

reply to post by Elijio

---

Revelations was written at a time when Christians were being persecuted. It was written in code.

I have a love/hate relationship with Zeitgeist. The first third of the movie really wrecks the 2nd and 3rd act of the movie's credibility.

Come on! Did they really think they were going to convince a bunch of Christians that Christ never existed? Seriously? What the hell was Peter Joseph (writer/director) thinking? This is not the way to start a revolution.

Not to mention Zeitgeist screams anti-seperatism but immediately sticks it's foot in its mouth by slamming Christians. Everybody needs to be aware of this NWO and that includes everyone: Republicans, Democrats, Hindus, Christians, Athiests, ETC.... (not that there is a difference in Republicans and Democrats)

The first 40 or so minutes would have been better spent covering the occult behind the government rather than trying to debunk Christianity... OR.... by covering the fact that the New World Order was prophesied in the book of Revelations!

The "first third" simply wrecked the entire movie. It sucks too, because this is a movie I want everyone I know to watch but can't. The second and third acts nail it straight on! It gets an B+ in my book.

Well I did watch it some time ago, I did find some parts to be accurate and other parts to be false.

The truth verses perception is like saying 1+1=11, instead of 2.

The part that I know to be true is that the cross was imported from pagan ideals into christianity, as well as some other belief structures.

I believe that about 75% percent of the movies is correct, but 25% is false.

The Christ was real, and the son of God, he, not GOD came to the earth and died for mans sins. So when they challange that, their story is false, no matter how good or logical it sounds. I have researched this for many years, one movie isn't going to change my faith.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Blue_Jay33]

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Blue_Jay33]