Zeitgeist

[Carlos Tevez]

Just saw this documentary and I must say it's very persuasive. Somebody will probably turn round and tel me it's all bollocks, though. What did you think?

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Without wishing to sound flippant, it's bollocks.

[biggytitbo]

The Jesus segment is alright, since Jesus never existed either as the son of god or a real man. But from what I remember the other segments were pretty much bollocks

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Jury's still out on the existence of Jesus. And from what I understand, the first part of Zeitgeist (about how Jesus was nicked from a load of pagan gods etc) is total bollocks too.

Essentially, the film is just a regurgitation of other conspiracy docs that have long since been debunked, but mixed together with jazzy visuals and snazy music.

[chand]

From what I can gather, the first part takes the basic premise of 'Jesus is bollocks' but over-elaborates on where the myth came from, including a bunch of dubious 'facts' along the way. I haven't watched it though, because after watching Loose Change and realising that for every minute of film you need to do about an hour's reading, after which you find out it's bollocks, I can't be bothered subjecting myself to that trauma again.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Jury's still out on the existence of Jesus. And from what I understand, the first part of Zeitgeist (about how Jesus was nicked from a load of pagan gods etc) is total bollocks too.

I've not seen this movie, but is it not essentially true that the mythos of a Divine Christ has aspects half-inched from myriad syncretic sources (haloes taken from the Sol Invictus cults, stables/caves from Mithras worship, resurrection from Osiris, etc. etc.)

[biggytitbo]

I agree the Jesus section is not totally immune to dodgy facts, but its more or less correct as far as I'm concerned. The only jury that's out on whether Jesus existed or not is a wrong jury who are almost certainly Christians

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

I agree the Jesus section is not totally immune to dodgy facts, but its more or less correct as far as I'm concerned.

What? It doesn't matter if it's factually correct, as long as it suits your preconceptions?

The only jury that's out on whether Jesus existed or not is a wrong jury who are almost certainly Christians

Not at all. There's debate on all sides of the 'theological spectrum'. And hey, I'm a full-on without-God atheist.

[Jemble Fred]

Me too, a fully apopleptic religion-hater – but it's just far too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that there was no historical Jesus. Same with any legend – it's just far more logical to presume that there's a non-fictional root to the story. The Nativity story and much of the mythology of Jesus' life are obviously as cribbed and botched together as any JK Rowling book, but I certainly find it very hard to believe that Christianity wasn't sparked off by one crucified historical preacher in first century Jerusalem.

[biggytitbo]

Me too, a fully apopleptic religion-hater – but it's just far too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that there was no historical Jesus. Same with any legend – it's just far more logical to presume that there's a non-fictional root to the story. The Nativity story and much of the mythology of Jesus' life are obviously as cribbed and botched together as any JK Rowling book, but I certainly find it very hard to believe that Christianity wasn't sparked off by one crucified historical preacher in first century Jerusalem.

Where's the evidence though? Less than half a dozen vague references to someone who may or may not be Jesus Christ, most dating from well after his death and some of them proven forgeries? It seems the vast majority of the historians working at the time and in the area had never heard of him, which is a bit odd.

[Jemble Fred]

Where's the evidence though?

Well, that cuts both ways, doesn't it? There's overwhelming suggestion that he existed in some form, simply due to the existence of Christianity. The likelihood of a religion being built around an entirely fictitious character seems incredibly remote (to me at least). As is the likelihood of any contemporary historians giving their attention to one preacher among thousands. It just seems more logical that a group of people in Jerusalem liked the teachings of this one 'Jesus' bloke, and so created a cult around him in his absence. I don't hold great store in the ability of the ancients to create something out of nothing, basically.

A leap of faith is required either way, just as with the decision to be theist or atheist. But I personally believe that the vast majority of legends, be it Jesus, Arthur, King Lear or whoever, come from the lifestories of real people being handed down from generation to generation, and embellished by superstitious minds.

[Still Not George]

a religion being built around an entirely fictitious character

AHEM.

[biggytitbo]

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows jesus was an amalgam character made up of lots of other older religious characters, so yes, heavily embellished but from some very obvious precedents. I just don't see how there's any element of a real singular person involved here and even if there were the bits that did relate to one historical man would be so minor and generic as to be totally worthless.

[papalaz4444244]

Same with any legend – it's just far more logical to presume that there's a non-fictional root to the story.

Sorry, there is nothing logical about that type of presumption.

What are the non-fictional roots of Norse or Greek mythology?

[Jemble Fred]

Ooh, Michael Wood's gonna fuck you up.

It's certainly safe to hypothesise that all these legends have their very basic roots in genuine, non-fantastical prehistoric events – and besides, it's certainly a million times more interesting than presuming that they were dreamt up from nothing by the caveman equivalent of Roald Dahl. And seeing as there's no evidence either way, and it is a question of presumption until archaeological evidence is found, you can choose to either be boring, or agree with me.

As I said before, I just don't personally believe that our distant ancestors had the intelligence to invent characters and plots from scratch – story-telling, in my opinion, began as nothing short of overblown gossip. Even something as daft as the idea of an angel quite probably emanates from feather-festooned prehistoric shamans, nomadic weirdoes who would visit a tribe and impart their knowledge before moving on. The descendants of that tribe would retell the story however they saw fit, but they didn't invent it.

[biggytitbo]

What you say may well be true but I don;t see what it has to do with this idea that Jesus was a specific historical person who bore any significant relation at all to the idea we have of Jesus that exists now. I don't think there's any evidence to believe that.

[Jemble Fred]

Well no, I agree. But define 'any significant relation'. It seems pretty clear to me that the Nativity story was nicked from Mithras etc, the miracles have all the hallmarks of spin, and the idiocy of the resurrection idea obviously goes without saying. But I just don't buy the image of the early Gospel writers getting together to draw up a character like a 1st Century EastEnders scriptwriter conference.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

There's a school of thought that suggests there were quite a few Jesusesque holy men wandering round Israel at that time and that the Jesus we know and love from the Bible is a amalgam of some of them.