Defending the Theistic View

The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Part 6

After Zeitgeist, the movie makes several easily disputed claims (which I have refuted) about how similar pagan gods are to Jesus the film then goes on to list attributes to Jesus and then attempts to show that he is astrological. The point of listing them is to show further on that Jesus is no different than Horus, Dionysus or Mithras.

jesus

As attributes of Jesus, Zeitgeist lists that he was born of the virgin Mary on December 25 in Bethlehem which event was announced by a star in the east. He was then visited by three kings who adored him, was a teacher at twelve years of age, baptized at thirty years, traveled and performed miracles, was betrayed by Judas for 30 silver pieces, was crucified, placed in a tomb tor three days and then resurrected.

The film also mentions he was called “Alpha and Omega,” “King of Kings,” and the “Lamb of God.

A lot of what is listed here is true, but several of the assumptions made in the film are based on popular assumptions that have no basis in fact. The movie then also makes the claim that Jesus’ birth is astrological.

After showing the alleged “similarities” between Jesus and pagan mythological deities the film then poses a question: “Why these attributes? Why the virgin birth on December 25th? Why dead for three days and the inevitable resurrection? Why twelve disciples or followers?”

Several of these questions in previous posts have already been shown to be moot since there is no evidence found that any of them were born on December 25th, were dead for three days nor even had twelve disciples. However it is necessary to point out that a lot of what Zeitgeist, the Movie says depends heavily on Jesus being born on December 25th. — If it can be shown that he was not, then a good 50% of its claims are irrelevant, though I still plan on going into them. The truth is the Gospel of Luke indicates that Jesus was born during any season but winter (much less December 25). Luke 2:8 mentions that the same night he was born shepherds were out in the fields caring for their flocks. If this were winter they would have been sheltered away from the elements.

However, not taking this fact into account, the film claims,

The birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion’s Belt. These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings “follow” the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise — the birth of the sun.

As I have just shown, Jesus was not born on December 25th, but there are details in this statement that have to be addressed. — It is true that Sirius is called the “star in the east” and that three stars in Orion’s belt are the “Three kings.” However it is not true that that’s what they were known as in ancient times. The earliest information available in which they are called the “Three Kings” is from the 17th century AD and is therefore about 1,700 years to late to be of any relevance. (Click here)

Even if they were known as such in ancient times it would still be irrelevant for two reasons: 1) They are called “magi,” not kings. And 2) Matthew (the Gospel that tells the story) never specifies their number. Also, it is untrue that Orion’s Belt and Sirius point to the sun’s travel route (Click here).

However it doesn’t stop here. Zeitgeist then claims that for three days when the sun reaches its lowest possible position in the sky it then stops moving or “at least perceivably so.” These three days are December 22, 23, and 24. Then on the 25th it apparently begins to rise again. Therefore it becomes the death of the “Sun” for three days and resurrection. The film then tries to tie this in withJesus’ death for three days and resurrection. However, there are problems with this: The earth always follows the elliptical orbit and therefore the sun doesn’t stop moving in the sky. (Click here)

Next, it claims,

During this three day pause, the sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation.

This claim which is to legitimize the Date of December 25th as Jesus’ day of birth is completely unfounded and its use of the southern cross to link it to Jesus’ death by placing the “Sun” in the vicinity of the constellation of the Southern Cross is factually inacurate. The fact of the matter is that the sun is in the vicinity of Saggitarius which has no significance at all to Christianity. For it to reside in the southern cross, our planet Earth would have to turn over by 40 degrees. (Click here)

There’s another fact that damages Zeitgeist’s case for linking the “Southern Cross” constellation (or the “Crux”) to the birth and death sequence of Jesus. Academics show  that the connection is impossible (click here),

Because it is not visible from most latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, Crux is a modern constellation and has no Greek or Roman myths associated with it. Crux was used by explorers of the southern hemisphere to point south since, unlike the north celestial pole, the south celestial pole is not marked by any bright star.

The “Southern Cross” constellation is a new discovery made in the 16th century AD and therefore cannot have anything to do with Jesus. — Zeitgeist gives the impression that the Southern Cross was well known in ancient times but that is known not to be the case.

Another claim the film makes is about the virgin Mary and the Constellation of Virgo,

The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin. Virgo in Latin means virgin. The ancient glyph for Virgo is the altered “m”. This is why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis’s mother Myrrha, or Buddha’s mother Maya begin with an M. Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread, and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to “house of bread”. Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on Earth.

It claims that Mary represents the constellation of Virgo because Virgo is Latin for virgin. It is true that Virgo means virgin, but it also means a maiden or a young girl. (Source) Also, it is far more likely that Virgo stands for Astraea, Zeus’ young virgin daughter who was chased away by the what she was offended by in the Bronze Age (Source) According to Greek Mythology, Zeus placed her among the stars and she became Virgo and, except for being a young virgin, has absolutely nothing in common with Mary.

The film here also indicates that Myrrha (Adonis’ mother) and Maya (Buddha’s mother) were virgins when their children were born and also ties them to Virgo. The problem is that this is not true. — Myrrha committed incest with her father and that her son was “conceived in sin.” (Text link) — Also as for Maya, she and her husband, King Suddhodhana, were married for twenty years when the soon-to-be Buddha was born so it is not likely for her to have been a virgin at his birth. (Source)

Also, the argument that the “M” like symbol for Virgo stands for Mary, Maya and Myrrha as virgins because their names start with M is moot because the film doesn’t take into account that Hebrew, Hindi and Greek do not use our Alphabet, though Greek is the closest.

Next, the film tries to tie Virgo to Bethlehem where Jesus was born saying that they both indicate “house of bread.” It is true that Bethlehem, in fact, does mean “house of bread,” (Bible Dictionary Vol. 8 Commentary Reference Series page 136) however there is no evidence that “Virgo” has any such meaning.

As for Jesus’ twelve disciples, Zeitgeist claims,

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. In fact, the number 12 is replete throughout the Bible. This text has more to do with astrology than anything else.

The claim is that Jesus’ twelve disciples are the same at the twelve constellations of the Zodiac.  — All through the film Zeitgeist uses a play on words to connect Jesus to the Zodiac by saying that “‘Sun’ of God” is the same as “‘Son’ of God.” This is an attempt to show that Jesus is a solar deity (i.e., a Sun god.) Of course the hardest piece of evidence is this particular play on words which only works in English.

The trouble is that “SUN” and “SON” cannot be equated. In Hebrew “Son” is pronounced as ben and “sun” is shemesh. In Greek “son” is huios and “sun” is pronounced as helios. (Bible Dictionary Vol. 8 pgs. 1033-50) — Given that the two terms are only similar in English but not in the original Biblical languages, the most important piece of evidence that supposedly identifies Jesus as a Sun god and as the center of the Zodiac is superficial.

With these facts taken into account, it turns out that the number twelve is only a coincidence. The most likely reason why Jesus would have 12 disciples is because of the twelve tribes of Israel. — Also, as the film says, it is true that the number twelve is “replete throughout the Bible.” But so are many other numbers such as 3, 7, 30, and 40. There is no indication that 12 is any more sacred than the others.

Not satisfied with its distortions, the film mentions the cross and tries to link it to the Zodiac,

This is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. This is why Jesus in early occult art is always shown with his head on the cross, for Jesus is the Sun, the Sun of God, the Light of the World, the Risen Savior, who will “come again,” as it does every morning, the Glory of God who defends against the works of darkness, as he is “born again” every morning, and can be seen “coming in the clouds”, “up in Heaven”, with his “Crown of Thorns,” or, sun rays.

This claim is just as dependent on the falty assumption that “Sun = Son” as the last, so that detail needs no further refutation.

It is true that the cross is also a pagan symbol, but apparently what the film maker doesn’t know is that “all the historical examples of actual “Celtic Crosses” are from indisputably Christian contexts.” (Link) — Also, as pointed out by Steven Walker, a Celt,

Ironically, the Pagan Roots of the Celtic Cross is essentially a Christian legend in its development. It is only in the last quarter of the 20th century that the “Christians stole it” spin of the story has become widespread, promoted mainly by those who make no secret of their distrust of Christianity. But there is more irony yet. The negative version of the story is also spread by some Christians, who unaware of the Celtic Revival version, believe the Neo-Pagan version of the story as true and feel compelled to spread the alarm, lest their fellow Christians unwittingly offend God by use of a pagan symbol.

The film claims that because of the Zodiac, Jesus’ head in art depictions (like the one above) is on the cross with the sun in the back. — It is true that this circular shape was used by pagans before the Christians adopted it. For example, the Greeks used it to portray their gods (especially the Sun-god). After then, the Romans adopted it.

Besides the fact that this symbol of the Halo has nothing to do with the origins of Christianity, the first Christians found the symbol unattractive because of its pagan origins and therefore they did not use it. However they started to use it in art by the sixth century AD to depict, not just Jesus, but the virgin Mary and other saints. (After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity, pg. 297)

Not only is the adoption of the halo in the 6th century too late to bear any relevancy to Christianity, I cannot find any reference that ties it to the Zodiac. Also, the claim that Zeitgeist makes that Jesus’ crown of thorns is a representation of “sun rays” has no real basis and hangs on a very thin thread.

To make a long story short, the supposed “evidence” that Zeitgeist, the Movie gives to show that Jesus is a solar Sun god that is based on the Zodiac is either superficial or completely incorrect. Since his evidence of Jesus representing the Zodiac is based of the superficial coincidence that “sun” and “son” are pronounced the same in English (but not in the original Biblical languages) there is no reason to believe that his 12 disciples are to be equated to the 12 constellations.

The claim that that Jesus’ birth sequence is only astrological is based on falty claims that any investigation  can refute. Since Jesus was not born on December 25, a lot of the arguments presented in Zeigeist (which are dependent on that date) are worthless. — The attempts to tie the Virgin Mary to the constellation Virgo are also flimsy at best. The film maker shows a lot of ignorance of the facts, too much to make a movie that supposedly refutes the origins of Christianity.

Advertisements

13 responses

  1. Pingback: The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Part 7 « Explanation

  2. Metro State Atheists

    Excellent post! The arguments made in Zeitgeist never sat well with me, but I was never motivated enough to research the arguments. Thank you for all the useful information.
    – Chalmer, VP

    December 10, 2008 at 11:14 pm

  3. krissmith777

    Chalmer

    Thanks, and you’re welcome. 🙂

    December 10, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  4. Flavio

    I agree with Chalmer. In my case, Zeitgeist didn´t cheat me but i have to say that it´s a lie very well told. If you are thirsty of new revelations you can easily swallow it and make it your beliefs… what a shame
    Greets
    Flavio, Argentina

    December 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm

  5. Jim

    The southern cross was visible in the sky for centuries. Back in the time of the Egyptians on up to christ’s time and was visible as far north as ancient greece until 1000bc. The earth wobbles. The stars in orions belt were named after 3 kings by the Egyptians and the pyramids depict their postion/ratio to each other almost perfectly.

    No one says the sun quits moving, duh. It only rises so high during those 3 days, its lowest point in eliptical orbit. And it was in the vacinity of the southern cross in ancient times.
    Arabic for Virgo is Al Adhra al Nathifah (the innocent – or pure – maiden) and the “virginesque” quality predates by 1000’s of years any greek mythology, where do you think the stories of that mythology came from.

    Almost all ancient religion and mythology is an extension and building upon of Ancient Sumerian mythology, (in Iraq, near the supposed Garden of Eden in case you didn’t know.) The Egyptians also had an Ark, look it up, it looks almost just like the ark of the covenant.

    You shouldn’t just do some light surfing on the web and repost the same old debunkers crap that is total void of fact. Do the research yourself. Download a celestial program and figure it out for yourself. I’ve read every one of the arguments you posted some where else and they are all lame. Zeitgeist isn’t perfect, but its awfully close, and makes the entire birth scenario of Christ seem just a bit coincidental. Do you know who wrote the book of Mark? And where was he when he wrote it? (it wasn’t Mark). And where he was, what was the ancient mythology of that place.

    March 15, 2009 at 12:49 am

  6. krissmith777

    Jim

    About what you say about the Southern Cross, I linked two academic sources to prove my point. Now give your sources to back up yourself.

    The southern cross is a new constellation. — If you have proof to the contrary, then show me your sources. — You onviously have not chacked my source. I’ll link it again. Here it is:

    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/the_universe/crux.html

    It says:

    “Because it is not visible from most latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, Crux is a modern constellation and has no Greek or Roman myths associated with it. Crux was used by explorers of the Southern hemisphere to point south since, unlike the north celestial pole, the south celestial pole is not marked by any bright star.”

    It’s a modern constellation. Get it?

    Also, give the sources for the rest of your claims. I exclusively linked academic and unbiased sources. What are yours?

    You say:

    “You shouldn’t just do some light surfing on the web and repost the same old debunkers crap that is total void of fact.”

    This shows you have not read my post well enough, or that you have not checked my sources. Follow your own advice, and stop repeating “crap” from long refuted conspiracy theories from Acharya S and others.

    You also say:

    “No one says the sun quits moving, duh. It only rises so high during those 3 days, its lowest point in eliptical orbit. And it was in the vacinity of the southern cross in ancient times.”

    The Sun is NEVER in the vicinity of the Southern Cross. If that were true, it would be a sign of the Zodiac.

    Honestly, don’t preach to me about doing research when you obviously have not done any of your own.

    You say:

    “Do you know who wrote the book of Mark? And where was he when he wrote it? (it wasn’t Mark). And where he was, what was the ancient mythology of that place.”

    You cannot say that it wasn’t Mark. There is no way to positively identify who wrote it, nor does it matter. It matters not to its authenticity.

    As for when Mark was written, most scholars agree it was no later than 73 AD.

    March 16, 2009 at 6:05 pm

  7. krissmith777

    Lastly

    “Back in the time of the Egyptians on up to christ’s time and was visible as far north as ancient greece until 1000bc. The earth wobbles. The stars in orions belt were named after 3 kings by the Egyptians and the pyramids depict their postion/ratio to each other almost perfectly.”

    I did pretty well in astronomy class. You apparently would flunk. — I know there is a wobble, but it doesn’t wobble that much. Such a thing would be catastrophic.

    As for the stars in Orion’s belt and the Giza pyramids matching up, I already know that. But that fact is irrelevant.

    As for saying that the Egyptians called the three stars “the three kings,” cite a source for that! — The earliest reference to them being called “the three kings” is from 1,700 years AFTER Christ. — DO THE MATH!!!

    Even if they were called the “three kings” by the Egyptians, it wouldn’t matter, because there are no three kings in the story of the birth of Jesus. — They are “Magi,” or magicians.– Very different from kings. And there number isn’t three. It could hve been two, it could have been 12.

    I’ve already answered most of what you bring up in my post.

    I guess I was right in assuming you have not read it or checked my sources.

    March 17, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  8. Inara

    Excellent post. I was just thinking about how they intricately weaved different myths and unreliable hear-say and delivered it as fact. It’s preposterous to believe something that can be debunked so easily. Thank you for the refutation.

    March 30, 2009 at 11:11 am

  9. Krissmith777,
    You better study harder astrology. The procession of equinox is also known as the wobble of the earth. The earth wobbles in the opposite direction of the earth rotation at a rate of one full rotation approximately every 25,500 years. The 12 “ages” of the Zodiac are based on this rotation. Each time the earth enters a new era by its wobble, we enter a new age. Each age is approximately 2,125 years long. We are entering the “age of aquarius” as the song suggests. Jesus’s supposed birth was at the beginning of the age of Pieces. That is why you see Jesus represented by the sign of the fish. This wobble is the basis of much of the ancient pagan sun worship.One consistent thing I find on blogs is religious people making false statements to justify their beliefs. I don’t think it is malicious, but it is frequent. I have made the study of man and religion a hobby of mine for over 30 years. By the way, the 3 stars of Orion’s belt have been the called “The Three Kings” for at least 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus. The stars were even referenced as this on the Luxor Pyramid. Please do some research before you make all these false claims, it makes Christians like bad. The bible even references the changes in eras. It says at the end of the age of “Jesus”, or Pieces, you should walk into the room of the man pouring water from a bucket. This is referencing the age of aquarius. The bible was mis-translated to indicate “the end of time” instead of “the end of the age”. This is another fact if you go back to the original Hebrew bible, and it is also well known by religious scholars. The symbol of aquarius is a man pouring water from a bucket. The bible is full of astrological references. Read it again with an open mind and look for them. Also, do some research, it is irrefutable !

    Thanks

    May 17, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    • krissmith777

      D Surman says:

      “You better study harder astrology. The procession of equinox is also known as the wobble of the earth. The earth wobbles in the opposite direction of the earth rotation at a rate of one full rotation approximately every 25,500 years. The 12 “ages” of the Zodiac are based on this rotation.”

      Telling me to study what is already common knowledge? Hmmmmm, nice.

      “Jesus’s supposed birth was at the beginning of the age of Pieces. “

      Actually, even though the Zodiac is old, the concept of “Ages” in this sence is actually a modern concept. That is an indesputable fact.

      “That is why you see Jesus represented by the sign of the fish.”

      You are in error here. I have already explained the origin of the Christian fish. Christians used it because in Greek its letters were “ΙΧΘΥΣ” which stand for “Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ.” — This translates as “Jesus Christ, God’s Son is Savior.” This is why it was used, not because of paganism.

      I have already explained this fact in part 7 of my refutation of Zeitgeist which you can read here: https://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/the-myth-of-jesus-a-refutation-of-the-zeitgeist-part-7/

      “One consistent thing I find on blogs is religious people making false statements to justify their beliefs. I don’t think it is malicious, but it is frequent.”

      I’ve made no such false statement in any place on my refutation of Zeitgeist. — I’m willing to bet my eternal salvation with God on that.

      “By the way, the 3 stars of Orion’s belt have been the called “The Three Kings” for at least 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus.”

      This is only a partial truth. They were named “The Three Kings,” but long after Jesus existed. Aroung the 1700s, I think. — This fact is already addressed in this very blog post which makes me suspect that you haven’t read what I wrote very well. BTW, my source which shows that the “Three Kings” were named long after Christ isn’t even from a Christian source.

      Even if the three stars in Orion’s belt were caled “The Three King’s” before Christianity, it would not matter because there are NO three king’s in the Jesus story!!! — Don’t believe me?? Then read the Bible for yourself.

      “The stars were even referenced as this on the Luxor Pyramid.”

      Give me your sourcecfor that claim, please.

      “Please do some research before you make all these false claims, it makes Christians like bad.”

      I have. That’s how I know Zeitgeist’s claims are false. The vast majority of my sources are neutral and are not even Christian on this topic. What I said is 100% true.

      “The bible even references the changes in eras. It says at the end of the age of “Jesus”, or Pieces, you should walk into the room of the man pouring water from a bucket. This is referencing the age of aquarius.”

      I know what verses Zeitgeist cites to prove its point. (Luke 22:10). If you had read the Bible verses, you would realize the context gives no such indication that Zodiac ages are being alluded to. — In part 7, I have already refuted this claim.

      “The bible was mis-translated to indicate “the end of time” instead of “the end of the age”. This is another fact if you go back to the original Hebrew bible, and it is also well known by religious scholars.”

      This is yet another good indication that you have not read my complete refutation of Zeitgeist. The term does indeed mean “Age,” but it also can indicate “the universe,” or even “the world.” — So there is no reason to believe that the Bible translators got it wrong. — I have already covered this in part 7 of my refutation.

      Again, click here: https://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/the-myth-of-jesus-a-refutation-of-the-zeitgeist-part-7/

      “The symbol of aquarius is a man pouring water from a bucket. The bible is full of astrological references. “

      Again, this is refuted in part 7, as are most of the points you have brought up. In the context of the verse, there is nothing that indicates such a thing. The is actually no man “pouring water from a bucket” in the verse you are citing. (Luke 22: 10) He is carrying a jar of water, not pouring it. And even if he was pouring it, there is nothing in the contect that indicates this is pointing to astrology.

      Besides, 2,000 years ago, there were many servants that carried water in jugs because there was no indoor plumbing at the time!!!! — Are we to assume that al of them point to Aguarius?? No! That would be ridiculous.

      “Read it again with an open mind and look for them. Also, do some research, it is irrefutable!”

      I did. And the claims made by Zeitgeist are extremely refutable.

      May 21, 2009 at 1:54 am

  10. Carey

    The pionts and information you have used to back up your cliams are true, but as you have also said, some of what the zietgiest makers have said are true, and there is evidence to back both of these agruements up. With that in mind, you can not disregard the fact that it may possibly be based on the representation of the sun, even with the differences for either side. But the subject at hand here is the truth about everything, what the universe is and what we are. Now this is off-topic compared to whats been discussed on this refutation, but the biggest and utmost important in reality is consciousness. Now I’m not a religious person and in truth am an atheist. But im a athesit for a good reason, due to personal expereince of divineness ive encounted within oneself. For consciousness is God; in the words of bill hicks the comedian for simplicity is as follows, “We are all one consciousness, expereincing itself subjectivetly, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of each other.” I am going to attach a few links of which I think are very important videos on making people awaken from this perception of matter and see it for what it truly is, a vibration of conscious energy manifesting itself through the thoughts and beliefs it possesses. I have also written a book on the nature of consciousness from a sceintific veiw piont and am currently trying to get it published. Here are the links, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bVd3BspIQ

    there are 5 parts for this link, please just click on the side bar for the other parts required, they are easy to find.
    This last link is something I found interseting when i saw it due to the belief that some people hold that aliens tampered with our d.n.a through genetic engineering thousands of years ago, and due to the incredble technology they had, the ancients saw them as gods. But they designed humanity to be slaves for them, to serve and mine the planet of all its gold etc. You may of heard of the annunaki, the nephilim etc, and about the 10th planet nibiru or otherwise known as planet x, there have been carvings into the wall one of the pyramids of the solar system containing this knowledge. You very well know what im on about. Anyway here are the other links. I suggest watching them in-order, this first one is a 6 parter of which just like the other one, the follow on can easily be found in the side bar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zErIEyIECTk&feature=related

    Im just trying to open some up some eyes on a new persepective of who i think we are.

    September 15, 2010 at 6:56 am

  11. Eric

    Your research is wrong. I’ve studied this for decades. I stopped being a Christian when I found it all to be true. Jesus is the Sun period. You are cherry picking the facts that suit your side of the argument just like I did at first. But it’s true. Take all you have studied and add this. The book is literally called the Sun book. Thats what holy bible means. Its taken from the Greeks Helios Biblia or books of the Sun.

    August 26, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    • krissmith777

      I’m just going to call your bluff. I did too much research to fall for your bs. We both know you did no research.

      September 24, 2017 at 6:38 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s