Now that we have familiarized ourselves with the names which the makers of Zeitgeist have dropped, as well as the stories behind them, we are finally ready to test the claims of Zeitgeist for substance. By exploring each area that Zeitgeist claims was copied from ancient religions by the Christian faith individually (birth, life, death, crucifixion, etc) we’ll see if the assertions are accurate, if there are any differences, and if so what could be learned from them.
THE DAY THE GODS WERE BORN?
The first claim that is set forth by the film is that all of the above Gods (except Krishna) were born on December 25th. This is either a failure to check their sources or it is an out right lie.
December 25th was a day of great importance in the ancient world, and a day when many of these gods had festivals celebrated in their honor. However there is no record that I could find anywhere saying any of them were BORN on December 25th, not even Jesus.
Though our culture by and large believes December to be Jesus’ birth month that just is not the truth. There is not a passage in the entire Bible that indicates Jesus was born on December 25th. Where then did this idea come from? It was brought over into the Christian heritage around the 3rd century. At that time the church and emperor Constantine the Great mingled Greek, Roman, and Christian beliefs in an effort to use religion to grant power and unity to government.
Jesus was not born on December 25th and neither were any of the other deities mentioned, therefore the common birth day is lost.
DO ALL GODS COME FROM VIRGINS?
As you read through the above stories you will find that a few of the gods have virgin births and some do not. In Zeitgeist however, they profess that ALL of the gods they list were born from Virgins. This just is not true. Beginning with Horus let us make our way down the list and see what history really has to say.
(click on the name to jump to the section on this page)
A. Horus
B. Attis
C. Krishna
D. Dionysus
E. Mithra
G. Perseus
HORUS
Even though it may be true that Isis was a virgin when she had Horus, I would like to point out that it is not a major point in the accounts of the story. Actually it seems to not be a point at all, for it was never explicitly mentioned in any of the texts I’ve read about the birth of Horus.
Also there is a couple major differences between the births of Horus and Jesus. First, Horus was a complete god. He was not a mixture of mortal and divine as Jesus and some others were, he was a full fledged god. The highly revered Isis and Osiris, both full gods and major deities in ancient Egypt, being his parents.
Secondly, Horus was the child of a “dead god”, something unique to all the deities here mentioned. Osiris had been dead some time when the essence of his power impregnated Isis, either by association (as with the tamarisk tree in whose roots he lodged), or by her summoning it from his dead form by magic.
Thus Horus was not born because of a father gods’ divine plan (as in the case or Jesus and Krishna), nor was he a product of heavenly lust (as in the cases of Zeus), but rather he was created by the strength of Osiris’s fertility and the will of another for the reasons of love and revenge.
Back to the Top
ATTIS
Next we come to the birth of Attis which I would call “mystical” rather than “miraculous”. Tough it is true some accounts say Nana, Attis’s mother, is a virgin, how seriously are we supposed to take this claim when we are aware of how the story says she was impregnated? It was not by ANY divine mind having ANY sort of influence upon the womb of a mortal or immortal (as in the case of Horus). The birth of Attis is due to the mystical power of an almond tree which began as the penis of a transgender demon which the gods cut off! There is really no serious or worthwhile comparison which can be made between the birth of Attis and that of Jesus.
Back to the Top
KRISHNA
As we come to the life of Krishna we actually find some commonality with the birth of Jesus. Both Krishna and Jesus were sent to earth to relieve the sufferings of humanity by their life upon it. Both of them were a mixture of human and divine. Also each of them had to flee from a tyrannical king who sought their life after they were born, and who killed hundreds of children in the effort. Each of them stayed a while among the children of men and taught in hopes of bettering their new brothers. Finally, each of them ascended into heaven after their “death”, a term used loosely so as to apply to both figures.
Though this sounds real impressive I think that it is unwise to cry plagiarism and copying merely because two things have a great deal in common. An illustration of this can be found by comparing the Beatles and AC/DC. Both of these bands use guitars, both of them have drums, both of them have singers, both of them play rock, both of the groups are wealthy, both have gold records, etc. Does that mean that AC/DC is just a copy of the Beatles, a group who merely repeated the glories of a more ancient time? Of course not! The differences between the two bands are great and many. Each are as distinctive when compared without motive as night and day.
This is just one example, there are a great many which could be used (me and you, man and woman, dog and cat, etc). How things are similar is important but it is often emphasized to the neglect of how they are different by those who have something to prove and little evidence to do it with.
Returning to the point of this section, do all gods come from virgins; is Krishna born of a virgin as Zeitgeist says? Once more I must say that either the makers of the film forgot to check the source of their sources or some other mistake occurred for I hate to think them to be lying. Before Krishna came into the world Devaki had already had 6 children and one egg fertilized that was then transferred to Rohini. She was clearly not a virgin. After this they say that a star accompanied the birth of Krishna and arose from the east. While it is true that stars are mentioned in both accounts the reason and importance of there mentioning differs.
In the Srimad Bhagavata Canto 10 Chapter 3 in the first few verses it says:
| “Thereafter, at the auspicious time for the appearance of the Lord, the entire universe was surcharged with all the qualities of goodness, beauty, and peace. The constellation Rohini appeared, as did stars like As’vini. The sun, the moon and the other stars and planets were very peaceful. All direction appeared extrememly pleasing, and the beautiful stars twinkled in the cloudless sky.” |
The stars here are mentioned as an indicator of the Astrological condition of the universe, that is all things throughout space were indicating the great goodness which was about to come. This is not only obvious but it is explicitly stated by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. In chapter 3 of his book KRSNA it reads:
| “When the time was mature for the appearance of the Lord, the constellations became very auspicious [promising success, prosperous, favorable]. The astrological influence of the star known as Rohini was also predominant because this star is considered to be very auspicious. Rohini is under the direct supervision of Brahma [one of the three main gods of the Hindu. faith]. According to the astrological conclusion, besides the proper situation of the stars, there are auspicious and inauspicious moments due to the different situations of the different planetary systems. At the time of Krsna's birth, the planetary systems were automatically adjusted so that everything became auspicious.” |
Before leaving this consideration I would like to point out that neither the Srimad Bhagavata or the Swami who introduced Krishna to the Western world mention anything at all about any of these stars originating in the east.
When we compare this mentioning of heavenly bodies with that of Matthew regarding the birth of Jesus the first thing that we notice is that in Matthew there is only ONE star that is of interest. As we then examine this star further we have to wonder if it is even a true celestial body at all. For it goes ahead of them until it comes to the house where Jesus is at and then it stops over top of it to indicate where the young child was at. Consider also that this star led the magi in a westerly direction from their home to Jerusalem, then made almost a ninety degree turn south so that it could hang over Bethlehem. The fact that stars only move from east to west due to earth’s rotation and the final position of the “star” places it beyond doubt that what the magi followed was not your common star. More than likely it was angels who are compared throughout the Bible to stars (Revelation 1:20,compare to Job 38:7,Isaiah 14:13,)
Though there are some similarities between the births of these godmen, of the only two commonalities mentioned by the film-makers one is wrong and the other is highly unlikely at best. In regards to the other shared elements , would it be at all surprising that two kings who both perceived they could lose it all and who both had bad characters would commit the same act of cold calculation, in the same circumstance, when they both seen error as an unaffordable option? No, the complete destruction of all babies of a similar age to their target issued by Herod and Kamsa.
Secondly, it is not an amazing thing that two religious leaders have reported in the texts about them that God sent them forth at times of earth’s need. If Divinity is as described by these two religions then Deos cares and would send as many as needed to help us poor humans. Indeed such is the case in Hinduism for an avatar of Vishnu seems to show up to help man right when the need it. It is also true that Yehova sent many prophets and teachers to humanity to aid them in the darkest times.
Finally it is not surprising that two massive teachers and heros in their respective culture should be spoken of as part Divine. When a figure is loved deeply many, and the many are trying to make his teachings more authorities it is not surprising they should claim divine origin for that figure. I would like to add also that merely because this is claimed for both that is doesn’t mean that one or both really was not part divine. That is a whole different point of consideration and one that I think should be made sincerely due to the ramifications it has for those within and without the systems of these great figures.
Back to the Top
DIONYSUS
As we examine the birth of Dionysus we have to question how one could use the word “virgin” to describe his mother. This question looms large because the term virgin is not one that the writers of the stories themselves saw fit to apply to Semele. Obviously her chastity was never a consideration; after all she was having an erotic relationship with a married god. Compare this with Yehova who was neither married, humanlike, or committing an act of lust when he caused Mary to conceive. Jesus was implanted by an act of divine creation, while Dionysus was implanted by divine intercourse.
Beyond this Dionysus was not really born from Semele more left by her as she evaporated due to the consuming glory of Zeus, who then put the child IN HIS THIGH till he was mature.
The ideal that Dionysian myth had anything to do with the story of Christ’s birth is ridiculous. In either account be it the one where Dionysus is emerging from Zeus upper leg, or the one where he is made out of another child’s heart, the only thing they share is the concept of being part divine and part human which is common to many stories and does not mean “borrowing” has occurred or is the only explanation.
Back to the Top
MITHRA
This figure, despite being worshipped in the empire of Rome during the formative years of the Christian faith, has little resemblance to Jesus in regards to how he came to be. Though Mithra is said by the makers of the film to be born of a virgin he neither found his beginnings in the womb of a virgin, nor was he any part human. Mithra was “born” from a ROCK which is symbolic of Universe. Also Mithra was fully divine and claimed no mortal blood as his own.
The idea that the birth of Mithra was somehow a blue print for the birth of Jesus just doesn’t bear the weight of evidence. The only aspect that the two even share is the presence of some shepherds at his birth. Again however this doesn’t mean that one is a copy of the other because both of these faiths find their root in the Middle East where the herding of sheep has been a common task for thousands of people for thousands of years.
Back to the Top
PERSEUS
The final birth which we will be comparing will be that of the godman mentioned by Justin Martyr. The only real similarity between these two births is that they both are said to come from a human mother and a divine father. Both the actual appearance of Zeus and the reason for it was very unlike the way Yehova made known his dealings with Mary but typical for the king of the Greek pantheon.
Zeus was drawn to a beautiful young lady for the sake of “conquering” her. Thus he manifested inside her small prison and poured upon her as a golden stream resulting in her impregnation. Yehova’s actions were in harmony with a well thought out plan crafted for the betterment of humanity and brought about by the same essence with which he made the world.
Back to the Top
Observations
We have seen how many of these stories from other faiths predate the Christian religion by several hundred years and yet all contain the idea of a Human/Divine figure, should we be skeptical that Jesus is said to be part human and divine?
I do not think so because Christianity is not a new faith really. Jesus had no intention of making a new religion. He was a devoute Jew, a teacher of the faith of Abraham, and a upholder of the laws and ordinances of Yehova which sprinkle the Old Testament. Thus his life and the entirety of pure Christian doctrine stem from the roots of the Old Testament and are really a continuation of it. If one will then search these books with that in mind they will see that the promise of a savior who is divine in origin weaves itself from Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament) back to the very start of the Genesis (the first book) which was wrote around 1500 B.C. Therefore the idea of a god/man is something that is inherent in the doctrinal sources from which the followers of Jesus get their beliefs. It need not be considered a borrowing since the Old Testament and the ideas canonized in it are just as old as any other god/man idea.
Back to the Top
Part Five: The Lives of the Gods
