Taking On the Anti-Christian Propaganda

Do you remember the suggestion to watch that film. Well, here was my reply...Maybe I should go back for another degree in Egyptology. I really enjoyed learning about it.

Okay, where do I begin with this film? The obvious thing is that it is anti-Christian, anti-US government, nothing but propaganda to play on the emotions. And in fact, I really appreciated their tactfulness in replaying people jumping out from the WTC building as it was burning. I remember what it was like to watch that on TV live and what it was like when we couldn’t find my aunt who worked on the 92nd floor of the first tower. I also remember the people who put their lives on the line, including my mom that was part of rescue response, so, I’m not even going to get involved in the 9/11 aspect. My entire family is military personnel and some have given their lives for a country they love, by their own choice. No matter if the US government cause the events that brought them to that place, remember, they still chose to go...and I support their decisions. I didn’t watch that aspect because I know I'd probably be enraged by it. So, I won’t even go there.

So, let’s talk about the film. Let’s first look at how it was made and the material used and this is why it is not a credible source.
1. Like I said before, this isn’t an investigative piece as one would find a historian or scientist conducting. This is a man who wants to disprove something. He has decided what the end product would be. He takes information and fits it to support his own ideas. True research starts out with a question and seeks out primary and secondary sources, on both sides (and more sides) to understand and then piece together to come to a conclusion. (Even more so, should the director look at both sides if this is supposed to be a persuasive piece).
Further, what are his sources? Many voiceovers and secondary sources. Secondary sources include Massey (dated 1850s); a woman who is trained in the Classics, but Ancient Egypt normally is not included in this field, so is she reliable? There are a few others, but the point is that the filmmaker only cites others' work that fit into his disconjointed puzzle.
Where are his interviews with credible historians on these subjects? They are all secondary published works with the exception of the King James Version of the Bible, which I highly doubt that he has full read it completely. (And I do realize that the filmmaker has included audio, however, he has not given proper citation for this audio sources, therefore, it is questionable right off the bat).
2. This leads me to my next point. The filmmaker would try to persuade one that the Bible and Jesus’ life is based off of astrology. The Bible actually condemns astrology. If he has read the Old Testament then he would know that God actually condemns the worship of stars. God tells His people in Deuteronomy not to worship stars and actually calls for the death sentence if people worship the stars (creation) rather than the Creator. Therefore, the filmmaker uses the Bible to try to prove his point, but the Bible contradicts what he says. By taking the Bible into account, the filmmaker disproves his very argument!
3. Although, the filmmaker says it doesn’t matter which story came first, it actually does. The filmmaker claims that the number 12 in the Bible comes from the 12 zodiac signs. To quote the narrator, “the reality is…” that the zodiac signs and star division didn’t come into history until 4th or 5th century BC. Historians have dated Genesis around 1,000 BC, but yet, they still believe that the event occurred earlier than that as far back as 4004 BC. God promises the Messiah (Jesus) way before astrology comes into play in Babylon. Therefore, how can early scripture, be connected to something that comes 500 or 600 years LATER?It apparently he doesn’t have his historical facts straight.
3. Further, the Bible does not claim Jesus was born on December 25th. We don’t know. And frankly, it shouldn’t matter. Who cares if he was born on 12/25 or July 6th. (I for one am in favor of moving Christmas to July, by the way). The point of it, as we can see from the Bible, that God likes people to remember things He’s done. That’s why He sets forth days of remembrance in the Old Testament. And if, according to the Bible, God is unchanging, and wants His people to remember events, then it fits that we choose a day to remember Jesus’ birth.
4. On to more misrepresentation of historical facts. I studied Egyptian mythology in Cairo and Luxor, Egypt almost 3 years ago. Let me see what I can recall and compare it to the filmmaker’s claims:
a. My first issue was that the filmmaker called Isis, “Isis Mary.” Huh?!?! This title/name does not exist when looking at primary sources. Therefore, someone has fabricated this. b. Isis was also a god. There is no reference in Egyptian mythological history that she was a virgin. Again, fabricated. All accounts of Horus birth state that he was conceived between Osiris and Isis. At least that’s what they’re teaching not only at the graduate level in Cairo, but in their museums as well.
Not to mention that Horus was born as a falcon and flew away….where are those three kings that visited him? (And yes, I know the filmmaker refers to them as the stars…but how do these stars catch up with a falcon?)
c. Horus as “savior?” Again, there is no Egyptian myth to prove this. Nor did Ancient Egyptians have a concept of “Savior.” Product of his imagination as best.
I could go on and on about the historical inaccuracies of this film, but this is coming up on 3 pages, I’m tired, and frankly, it's getting old...fabrication after fabrication without credible support. But, I’ll leave you with this:
Not one reputable source cites that Horus was ever baptized (which, by the way is a purely Christian term). Not one reputable source claims Horus was a “teacher.” Not one reputable source gives us his age along with events. Horus was never resurrected, in fact, I believe his body was cut into 12 or 14 pieces and scattered over Egypt and that’s why there are so many temples dedicated to him. However, I do remember that Horus resurrected Osiris…please correct me if I’m wrong on that.
And just so you don’t say this is all about my beliefs in Jesus…I used to practice Hinduism in high school. Krishna was the 8th son of Devaki…which makes Devaki not a virgin…which clearly makes Krishna not born of a virgin…
So, what do you do with all these historical inaccuracies? Can this be a credible source? Can it be used to make one think further? I’d say no, solely based on the fact that it’s unreliable as a source.
You seem to be supportive of this film. What do you do about the credibility of the filmmaker?

--- In Tainan_bulletin@yahoogroups.com, "wrote:>> I will gladly add a thought or two to your questions, but first I would > strongly advise you to watch ZEITGEISTMOVIE. You can watch in online on > Youtube, or you can go to www.zeitgeistmovie.com and watch it live > online. All for free. The intro of 10 minutes or so is a bit heavy, but > than it gets much better. In order not to overload your brain (its a 2 > hour watch!)I would advise you to first watch the first hour, and later > watch the second. The first hour is about religion mostly. the second > hour is about the new world order and the truth behind 9/11 in the > greater scope of history.> > Tell me when you watched the first hour, and I'll gladly get back to > you then.> > Stan>