"The tragedy of common sense
it that it is not
very common."
(Albert Einstein)

"Politically correct Christianity
is tolerated but despised.
Full Gospel Christianity is
respected but persecuted."
(Unknown)

"If you marry the Zeitgeist
you will soon become widow."
(Goethe)

"To reach the source of a river
you must swim upstreams."
(Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

"I note that all those,
who are positive to abortion
already are born."
(Ronald Reagan)

Zeitgeist — the movie

I have over the last six months received a number of emails from young people, asking me to look at and comment on a movie called Zeitgeist ("Spirit of the Time" or "Spirit of the Age"). The easiest way to find it is to Google on "Zeitgeist movie". The film, which lasts just over two hours, is very well made and also translated into several different languages (which of course includes English).

One of the purposes of the movie (perhaps the most important) seems to be to disprove the Christian faith (to do so appears to be highly popular at the moment — even the Church of Sweden leadership gives the impression of working overtime to deny the faith they claim to represent). As I understand it, the film is made by basically one single person, which really is an impressive achievement. That is, impressive in terms of the work performed. Unfortunately, the movie is not as impressive in terms of factual content, objectivity and scientific validity. It simply constitutes one of the many conspiracy scenarios that abound on the Internet.

Obviously I can only comment on the section of the film that I have watched (I didn't manage to see the whole movie as it felt like a waste of time), but I am convinced I have seen enough to dismiss the film as being uninteresting, unserious and strongly biased, and even a lie (the film appears to be produced in several different variations, so it may well be that some of what I say below does not apply to the variant the reader has seen — but this hardly affects my overall conclusions).

After a dramatic introduction, showing famous film sequences, e.g. planes flying into World Trade Center, U.S. troops in Iraq, images from the Vietnam War etc, a public statement is made. In a fateful voice it is proclaimed that the religious institutions are behind all evil in the world, and that during thousands of years they have controlled and manipulated humanity. The film shows, through a cartoon illustration depicting God with a white beard on a cloud, how ridiculous it is to believe in an "invisible man" up in the clouds, who has decided what is right and wrong and who also seems to be incredibly greedy. The Church is all about money, money, money, according to Zeitgeist. The picture of God illustrated here is not the Christian image of God. It is the filmmaker's own misconception of the Christian image of God. Regarding greed, there are certainly Christians who are greedy (just as there are greedy atheists). But if you by Christian mean "a follower of Jesus" (that is the Bible's meaning of this word), the talk of greed becomes grossly incorrect (you are not a Christian just because you are a member of a Christian communion and call yourself a Christian — you are a Christian if you are a disciple of Jesus and obey his teaching). Mother Teresa was hardly greedy (although she needed money for her charity work). There are countless of examples of Christians, who may not be as well known as Mother Teresa, but who are directed by the same vision, i.e. to help the poor and the sick. Large parts of the health care and school system in third world countries are run by Christian organizations.

Anyway, after this dramatic opening the movie describes how the ancient peoples took interest in the annual seasons, the signs of the zodiac and solar and lunar eclipses. It is illustrated how the sun, in early times, received a kind of god-status and how the zodiac signs seemed to show symbols of the past, the present and the future, and how it all evolved into today's religions. The formulations are general in nature and don't really say much about anything. It is, however, true that many ancient cultures worshipped the sun and that they tried to read future events in the stars. Whether this, as the movie states, led to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism etc is quite another story. We know nothing about this with any certainty. There are other equally possible scenarios. The Bible claims, for example, that from the beginning Man believed in one God, but eventually fell away from that faith and began to believe in and worship just about anything. celestial bodies, rocks, trees, Idols etc.

The really intriguing part starts when the movie gets on to alleged similarities between a number of different "religious founders/gods" and Jesus of the Bible. They claim that Horus, Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, Mithura etc (a total of 20-30 different gods — I could not count them) have many mutual characteristics. Even if all of them don't share all common attributes, many of them are associated with Jesus in that they were born by of virgin on December 25, their birth was foretold by a star in the east, they had 12 disciples, performed miracles and healed the sick. Many of them were crucified and were resurrected on the third day. And as if this wasn't enough, they were named "alpha and omega", God's son, God's lamb etc, epithets that in the Bible applies to Jesus. The film claims a.o. that Dionysus (the Greek wine god) was called "alpha and omega". I have never ever read this, and Wikipedia does not mention it either. I would be very surprised if it's true. Dionysus was hardly one of the greatest of the Greek gods. Why then would he be called "alpha and omega"? These are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and symbolize the beginning and the end. It could possibly be applied to the highest god in any particular religion (e.g. Zeus if we talk about Greek mythology), but hardly the god of wine (here the reader will find a detailed critique on the movie's assertions about Dionysus).

One important thing that is claimed is that Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) on December 25, i.e. the date when the various gods were born (according to the film), is aligned to the three stars in Orion's Belt (I will return to this later). The movie makes a big deal out of this, and suggest that, gathered from this and similar arguments, it can be concluded that all religions have their background in the primitive cultures' fascination with the starry sky.

They don't waver in the slightest when enumerating the similarities between the different religions, instead they sound very definite, as if they were piling up scientific facts. I must admit that I felt a little affected myself for a short while (this is exactly what characterizes all carefully and skillfully prepared conspiracy scenarios).

The message in the film is therefore that all religions are based on the same concept and have their origins in the ancient peoples' worship of the sun and superstitious interpretations of zodiac signs etc. That Jesus (and his peers) had 12 disciples (followers) is, e.g., linked with the 12 zodiac signs.

When the film goes through the various "gods", it begins with a fairly detailed account of the Egyptian god Horus, who was the humanized image of the sun. The sun's enemy, Set, fought every morning and evening against Horus, and in the morning Horus was the winner (and the sun started to shine) and in the evening it was Set who won (which made the sun disappear). This was how day shifted into night and back again, all according to the old Egyptians. So far it's correct (that is, not astronomically, but it agrees with the Egyptian belief). But then the above mentioned assertions appear, that Horus was called God's son, God's lamb, had twelve disciples, was born by a virgin etc. Admittedly, there is a reservation when they say that "…these claims about Horus, whether they are true or not, affected…" "whether they are true or not" is odd in itself. Horus is a fictional god — at least according to the filmmaker, because he is obviously an atheist — so these claims can of course, at least from the filmmaker's point of view, hardly be true in any real sense. I assume that what he means is "whether this is an accurate picture of the ancient Egyptian religion or not.." which makes the reasoning a bit difficult to interpret, not to say absurd. It is like saying "whether Hamlet loved Ophelia or not". Neither has anything to do with the real world and when we discuss God we discuss whether his existence is true or false in an absolute sense. Anyhow, I do not believe that what the filmmaker says here is true.

Let me start by mentioning a general difficulty in refuting this kind of argumentation. To verify all the claims put forward about the various gods (Krishna, Horus etc), would probably require a lifelong work. You would no doubt need tens of expert groups, working for decades. You would need cooperation from scientists who are experts in Egyptian, Greek, Sanskrit etc and then let them work for years and years to check ancient manuscripts, to see if what is said in the film has any substance. Moreover, experts in all those fields, i.e. in the various basic languages and cultures, have already analyzed all known documents without reaching the same conclusions as those in the movie! It is possible though that something may be true in some single claim (usually a successful lie always has some basis in the truth to make it look more credible), but that all these claims should be historically proven, according to the scientific community, I do not for a second believe.

In the movie there are puns on Set (the sun god) and the sun, benefiting by these two words merging as "Sunset" (it was when Set defeated Horus=sun, that the sun went down, i.e. sunset). However, this is hardly convincing. Puns in English usually don't work in the Egyptian language and vice versa, or in any other language for that matter. It would be an amazing coincidence should these puns work in multiple languages. I does not work in e.g. Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, German, French, Spanish or Portuguese (as far as I know).

The sun and the son are also linked together in the movie, which works in English (these two words have about the same pronunciation but different spelling). That the Son (Jesus) died on a cross, is linked to "the Sun died on the cross". In the film it is specifically stated that the sun is "in the vicinity of" the Southern Cross constellation between December 22-24, that is during three days (the sun on the cross). According to the movie this is the origin of the myths that Jesus and other "sun gods" died on a cross and were resurrected after three days. How they relate this to the death of Jesus is difficult to understand, because Jesus died during Passover (Easter), i.e. at least three months later. Moreover, the sun is not in its closest position to the Southern Cross either at Easter or on December 22-24, but around November 1. A few seconds after having claimed that the sun is in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, they show a picture with the sun exactly in the middle of the Southern Cross (see picture below), i.e. the picture gives the viewer the impression that "in the vicinity of" means "nearly directly above". This is total nonsense. A blatant lie!

In the language of the Incas the Southern Cross constellation was called "Chakana", which literally means "stair". So this Zeitgeist word game with sun and cross does definitely not work in this language. It would allude to the "Son on the stair". Perhaps an imaginative expression, but void of any real meaning and in no sense related to the Christian faith.

 

This is how the movie depicts how the sun ("the Sun" equal to "the Son") is "crucified", i.e. how the sun is positioned directly above the Southern Cross constellation. Although the expression "in the vicinity of" is used a few seconds earlier, this picture is shown, giving the viewers a completely wrong impression (compare with the next two photos).

 

The sun's path on the firmament (sky) is called the ecliptic. The twelve Zodiac signs are located along the ecliptic. The Southern Cross, which today cannot be seen from high northerly latitudes (Sweden, England, Canada and most parts of USA) is positioned far from the ecliptic (look at a star chart — on which usually two curved lines are drawn, the celestial equator and the ecliptic — or look at the two pictures below), which indicates that the sun never ever comes in the vicinity of the Southern Cross constellation. If you have no greater expectations than this on the expression "in the vicinity of", you could basically take any constellation at any time and link it with the sun. This claim is a consummate lie! That it could be a question of ignorance seems highly unlikely, since it's quite easy to check and verify.

 

And here we see how it really looks. The sun follows the gently curved line (upper white arrow), at the top of the picture. This curve is called the ecliptic (on Wikipedia you find a very good illustration of this). As we can see, the sun is not even close to the Southern Cross (lower white arrow), whether at any particular time or ever at all. Please note, approximately by the upper arrow, the sun has its closest location to the Southern Cross!

 

The picture above shows the entire sky on November 1 as seen from latitude 5 degrees North. The upper arrow (roughly in the center of the picture) shows the location of the sun on this date (actually, it is Venus you see in the picture, but the sun is hidden behind it). The bottom arrow shows the Southern Cross. Thus, the sun is not closest to the Southern Cross on December 25, but around November 1. The picture gives an overall image of the sky and it clearly indicates that it can in no way be alleged that the sun is ever "in the vicinity of" the Southern Cross (either on December 25, November 1 or any other date). The gently curved line (by the upper arrow) is the ecliptic (the sun's path in the sky).

 

As to the claim that most of the gods in the list were "born" on December 25, we find no evidence that Jesus was born on this day. It does not say so in the Bible. On the contrary, it is unlikely that it happened around that date. The reason that this day still stands as Jesus' birthday, have many possible explanations. One of them may be that there was a Pagan holiday or feast that day (it may therefore be true that some religions celebrated something on December 25 — perhaps having something to do with this date being the darkest day of the year in the northern hemisphere) and the Church thought it a good thing to replace this day with a Christian holiday (as no one knew the date of Jesus' birth, it really did not matter which day was chosen to celebrate his birth). The date December 25 has no significance whatsoever to the basic principles of the Christian faith. It being an important day for Christians is not because of the date December 25 itself, but because it is the day chosen to celebrate and commemorate the birth of Jesus.

I find it very difficult to believe that all these figures, listed in Zeitgeist (Horus, Krishna etc, etc), should be attributed with the same birthday, being born of a virgin and having been crucified and resurrected on the third day. Etc, etc. I simply don't believe it. The problem with this kind of loose statements is that the person making these claims, expects me to refute them, which is virtually impossible to do. Even if I could cite a number of books depicting Krishna, that do not mention him being crucified and resurrected on the third day etc, the filmmaker would just retort that I did not read the right section or the right book or that there is a secret conspiracy against the truth etc, etc. "You have not looked deeply enough into the sources". And no matter how long I search, he would continue to say the same thing, as long as the sources I partake of don't confirm what's been alleged in the movie. The conclusion is already decided and what remains is to adjust the facts so they fit the end result (this is how ideology works and the opposite of how real science works).

I am more inclined to think that a person declaring this kind of startling allegations, has the burden of proof. What strongly argues against these allegations is that I have not read any of this anywhere, and I have certainly read a lot in this area, especially about the Egyptian religion which I have taken great interest in since I visited the Great Pyramid of Cheops a couple of decades ago. I doubt if it's at all possible to identify Horus' (who never existed in reality, he was just a made-up figure) date of birth. Perhaps tradition set a date, it can't be excluded. Another possibility is that these various divine figures borrowed from each other (just like the Quran borrowed a lot of things from the Bible). There are probably several different traditions as well, indicating other birth dates for the various gods (if such data is given). It is also conceivable that modern Hinduism has been influenced by Christianity. The ancient Egyptian religion survived long after Europe was Christianized, so it may likewise have been affected. Even if there should exist Hindu traditions today, claiming that Krishna was born on December 25, crucified etc, this may have been taken from the Bible. The film does not specify which variant of Hinduism etc is referred to. It is also quite curious that all professional theologians/historians/linguists I've read, and the ones I personally know and have discussed this with, seem to be completely unaware of what the film proclaims. Should what the Zeitgeist movie says, be true, this would indeed be a theological/historical sensation, as it would clarify so much. The theological/historical literature would be full of references to this intriguing fact, and all theologians and historians collectively would acknowledge it. The argument that theologians do not want the truth to come out, won't hold. Most Western theologians today are atheists and have no interest whatsoever in defending the Christian faith. Reality seems to prove rather the opposite, as most theological treatises aim at refuting the statements of the Bible.

Moreover, Jesus is a real person. Not even atheistic theologians and historians doubt that he really existed. There is a stark distinction between claiming a fictional figure being born at a certain date by a virgin, and then crucified and resurrected, and proclaiming the same things about a historical person. The first case has no historical origin, it's just a fictional story. But when it comes to Jesus there are a huge amount of manuscripts etc that verify the Bible stories (read more about this here).

Something absolutely unique about Jesus was that he (according to the Christian faith) was both God and Man to 100 percent and that he died for our sins, and that we, through this, are exempt from the consequences of our sins (if we accept what Jesus did). In the Christian perspective, the crucifixion and resurrection become logical and meaningful events. Without this perspective, as in the cases of Horus, Krishna etc, the crucifixion and resurrection become miraculous — but totally senseless episodes. A supernatural god doing miracles to impress people and nothing more. The miracles made by the God of the Bible are made out of love and not to impress simpleminded people!

Every month I receive several mails, referring to movies, books, websites etc, stating that now the Christian faith has finally been refuted. This film is just one of many examples. Interestingly, all these scenarios are mutually contradictory. So all of them can not be true. It's also intriguing to note that it seems to be very important for the atheists to disprove the Christian faith. Can this have its ground in that they fear it might actually true?!

A very relevant question is why Islam is not explicitly mentioned in Zeitgeist (at least not in the section I've seen, which is about religions)? Why don't we see Allah sitting on a cloud, counting out money? Islam, Allah and Muhammad are as good as never mentioned in these critical contexts, and if it happens it's done very carefully and the formulations are full of humility so as not to hurt the feelings of one single Muslim. With regards to the God of the Bible, and even Jesus, there is no limit to the insulting epithets — vicious sadist, psychopathic child murderer, despot, etc. etc (quoted from Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion). The well known Swedish atheist Lena Andersson called, in a infamous radio program in July 2005, Jesus an adulterer, egoist and manipulator and a bloodthirsty tyrant. It makes you wonder why no similar references are made to Islam when it comes to criticizing religions. Why does nobody dare to call Allah a bloodthirsty tyrant? This would be far more appropriate than to say such a thing about the God of the Bible or Jesus Christ. Could it be cowardice (it is hard to believe that these atheists sympathize with Muhammad while at the same time hating Jesus)? All religion haters (very often, but of course not always, it's about hatred) know that Jesus commanded his disciples to turn the other cheek when they were attacked. Jesus also said: "Love your enemies". Muhammad, who was a warrior leader, didn't deliver quite the same message (today's or perhaps this year's understatement).

Statements in the natural sciences are usually much easier to examine and evaluate than historical ones. We noted above that the assertion in Zeitgeist about the sun and the Southern Cross is incorrect. I therefore decided to check the other astronomical statement made in the movie, according to which Sirius is in line with Orion's Belt on December 25. Said and done, I started my astronomy program and set the date to December 25 and began searching for Sirius and Orion's Belt (see picture below). To my great horror, I saw that the statement was right and it felt like the ground began to sway under my feet. But for a brief moment only. I have worked with, and taught, astronomical navigation, and I suddenly remembered that Sirius is always found in the extension of the three stars in Orion's Belt. All day, all year round, around the clock, and this goes on year after year after year! In basic astronomy courses, this is how you learn to find Sirius in the sky. In one of my textbooks on astronomical navigation for ship's captains (Lärobok i Navigation 1956 by Bolling/Holm, pp. II-26 — this book was used during many years at the Swedish Merchant Marine Academy in Stockholm, where I was a teacher for 7 years) we read, "If you extend the [Orion's] belt in prograde direction [i.e. clockwise along the celestial equator], you encounter one of the brightest fixed stars in the sky, Sirius". Stars are called fixed stars, as they do not move in relation to each other (if you watch the night sky a couple of hours you will see that the stars move together rather fast, but this is due to the Earth's rotation around its axis — one complete rotation takes about 23 hours and 56 minutes). Planets on the other hand are sometimes called wandering stars, as they move relative to the (fixed) stars and one another (wandering star is an old name, established before it was known that planets are of a different nature than stars and are positioned much, much closer to the Earth).

 

The picture shows Sirius' position in the extension of Orion's Belt (the star at the right end of the Belt is called Mintaka). Sirius is always in the extension of the Belt. The curved line that runs right next to Mintaka is the celestial equator (that divides the celestial sphere into the Northern and Southern celestial hemispheres, also called the Northern and Southern skies).

 

Thus, the stars do not change their relative positions in the sky, that is Sirius is constantly positioned in the extension of Orion's Belt, around the clock and all year round. Now, the stars also have their own motion, that is, they move in relation to each other (it can be 100s of km/s or much, much more), but because of the vast distances, this motion is only noticeable in a long time perspective. During many thousands of years in the future, the stars will slowly change their positions in relation to each other, and the Big Dipper, for example, will not look quite like it does today in 10,000 years. But 2,000 years ago, Sirius' position (just as today) was in the extension of Orion's Belt (I have verified this in an astronomy program, where you can re-create the starry sky as it appeared or will appear at any one time (past, present or future), as seen from a given location on Earth).

The two false/misleading claims that the sun, between 22 and 24 of December is "in the vicinity of" the Southern Cross constellation, and that Sirius on December 25 is in the extension of Orion's Belt, make the film fall altogether flat to the ground. And that's exactly how this type of film and arguing work. It's not about seeking the truth, but about propaganda, where all means are permissible. Sadly, quite a few people will fall for it. Many (the more ambitious) might check with an astronomy program (there are lots of them to download for free) and when they discover that the assertion of Sirius matches December 25, they will probably not check other dates and times. And so they feel deeply impressed and buy the whole message of the movie.

Sure, Zeitgeist is a very well-made film, both from a visual and content point-of-view (at least in the sections I have watched). But while it is cleverly and skillfully made, there is no guarantee that the content is correct. The Nazi propaganda films were indeed extremely well made. But they hardly contained any truth. A movie, assisted by direct lies to sell its product, can hardly be regarded as a decent advertisement. It rather counteracts its purpose. The dishonesty that characterizes Zeitgeist, combined with many atheists' aggression, scorn, contempt, and almost hatred towards the believers (mainly the Christian believers), hardly speaks to the advantage of atheism.

Below the reader will find a link where the theological assertions in Zeitgeist are discussed in more detail (more can be found by Google):

First Plumbline Apologetics

---

Back to Problems and contradictions in the Bible