My friend told me that this is his new philosophy in a nutshell, so I watched it even though the rest of my friends said it was bull. It has as much valid philosophy as the average youtube video. The religion segment was the dumbest thing I've ever heard ever. Saying that the word 'sun' was misinterpreted as the word 'son'. Well, there's one obvious problem with that- English wasn't a language back then! There would have been no confusion about those two words at all. And he has not studied the Bible but he uses what he claims are biblical references constantly, the facts of Egyptian religion are completely wrong.

No historians doubt that Jesus existed, and no historical evidence is used at all in the video- look at his references, they are all unqualified to speak on the subject. It's just pure fiction.

Vancity89 Vancity89 22-25, F 6 Responses Feb 8, 2010

Your Response


Oh, okay, thank you! :D


Yeah, I'm not an expert on anything, but Peter Joseph has no experts cited in his sources and he states all these debatable ideas as fact, as well as making many errors and unapologetically making things up that have no supporting evidence. Very manipulative.

It's debatable that the sun rose through the Crux, but even if that did happen, it was known as part of the Centaur, not as the Crux. And true, no one even knows when Jesus was born, I think Dec 25th is just an educated guess.


The Zeitgeist Part 1 is about how all religions stem from the same lie, or something to that effect. It seems more like a project for AV class, because it's kind of unstructured with a lot of unsupported or very weakly supported evidence pieced together from cult doctrines and discredited conspiracy theories, and a few lucky coincidences. No historian or religious expert gives it any weight, but some take it as gospel, unfortunately.

Many of the points you touch on are debated among scholars of the time period. Just like the opinions in the movie, they need to be taken with a grain of salt as anything not obviously true should be.

For example, I don't think any of the scholars claim anyone was 'born' on 12/25. However, they claim the 'sun' rose through the crux on that date. I know what you said about the sun never approaching the crux, but honestly speaking, to know whether you or the researchers are right, I'd have to become an expert on it myself and prove to myself one way or another. I must say that at this time, I see it as a very plausible scenario (the sun crossing the crux, not that Jesus is based on Ra or anyone else) based on the info I've reviewed.


The Egyptian info and Jesus parallels are ALL wrong, it's just fabricated.

1) Horus is not a sun god, that's Ra

2) His mother was definitely not a virgin

3) He was not born December 25th, there is absolutely no evidence of that!

4) He never died OR rose again, he is still alive

I DID find that in Old High German (dating back to the 8c), 'sun' means 'son', but they had another word for the sun in the sky. Many languages have 'son' or 'sun', but is this evidence of a conspiracy? The other astro facts are wrong or misleading and irrelevant. Peter Joseph claims the sun was in the constellation Crux when Jesus was born. VERY untrue- those stars were not visible from Jerusalem as per his claim, and they were not called Crux until 1679, and the sun never, ever approaches Crux!

I'm all for independent thought, but this guy needs an edumacation.


my brain

Good pints; however, the Sun/Son comparison is interesting. Start with Horus, then trace his parents back. Also, it makes you wonder about certain symbolism popping up. For instance, why in my church does the cross have a circle in the middle of it, where the two poles meet? Even if it is not representative of the Zodiac, wouldn't my church's protestant founders have known it looked -just- like it? The intermixing of Pagan symbolism and tradition within Protestantism is a well-known part of history. That doesn't mean we're all being tricked into worshipping the Greek Sun God. No, hardly.

That being said, I do agree - much of what the film portrays is as any biased fear mongering conspiracy theorist film. It takes certain facts and twists them into untruths.

Many young and otherwise uneducated, mostly bitter, people will embrace this film. I'm watching its popularity grow within those groups that value appearing smart more than actually being knowledgable. It gives them something to talk about and -sound- educated. The only problem is, they only sound educated to the uneducated.

...Um, what's the Zeitgeist exactly? :D