• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Zeitgeist

Free episodes:

SPX

Paranormal Maven
I'm sure this film has been discussed to death, but I just recently watched it for the first time in a couple of years.

Regardless of how you feel about the material and theories that are presented, you have to appreciate it on a technical/filmmaking level. I find it to be incredibly well put together and a true work of art. Everything from the narration to the animations to the pacing is just fantastic.

As for the actual material, it's at least thought-provoking. As a former Christian I was particularly interested in Part I. I know a lot of people believe this info to already be debunked, but after doing some extra research it seems that there may be some truth to it.

Part III is also quite interesting and, perhaps, the most iron clad in terms of the way it ties everything together. A lot of it is pretty damning.

Anyway, thoughts on Zeitgeist? Anyone else find it to be a very powerful film?
 
Good film.I find the first part to be very informative to those who dont understand how far back the same stories of so many religions go.I think its very important to understand that these stories have been there for as long as man has been recording his beliefs.
 
The first part in particular has come under fire. And to be fair, even most secular scholars do not agree with the conclusions presented in Part I.

Most of Part I was derived from the works of "Acharya S.", who served as a technical advisor on that part of the film. I am currently reading her book "The Christ Conspiracy." It's interesting, but I think you can't just accept what she says uncritically. The biggest problem seems to be that she has a tendency to regurgitate ideas from a number of 19th century authors and lacks primary sources to back up some of what she says.

Still though, I think that at least a significant portion of her ideas have historical backing. The astrotheology concept is pretty fascinating.
 
The first part in particular has come under fire. And to be fair, even most secular scholars do not agree with the conclusions presented in Part I.

Most of Part I was derived from the works of "Acharya S.", who served as a technical advisor on that part of the film. I am currently reading her book "The Christ Conspiracy." It's interesting, but I think you can't just accept what she says uncritically. The biggest problem seems to be that she has a tendency to regurgitate ideas from a number of 19th century authors and lacks primary sources to back up some of what she says.

Still though, I think that at least a significant portion of her ideas have historical backing. The astrotheology concept is pretty fascinating.

I give the first part of the film an 8 out of 10 for accuracy (I was a scholar in this area), but there are some problems with what she has to say I have to admit.

As for the astrological theory in it that is very self evident if you have an understanding of the early church.

Now for the rest of the film you can say the same that it is not a 100% accurate in what it has to say, but what the film has done is get people to talk and for that I give them full marks.

Peace

Stonehart
 
Stonehart,

One thing I can give them credit for is publishing a source guide that gives further info and sources for most of what's in the film. I still haven't had time to get all the way through it, but what I've read so far is pretty interesting.

I think it's interesting you say that you'd give part I an 8 out of 10 in terms of accuracy. Most of what I've read give it no credit it all and say it's almost exclusively fantasy. Can you elaborate on your "score"? And can you tell us more about your scholarly credentials?
 
Meh.

Some of the info is interesting and legit IMO. Other parts, not so much. The whole series of movies morphed into some Commie type of movement where we have no money as a society. No thanks.
 
Got to get the wife from work but I will be quick for now.

I spent four years at Canterbury University in the study of Philosophy and Religion.
In that time my are of study was Buddhism and Christianity (latter with I became very interested in the historical background)...

I agree that the film is not 100% but its not all that far off the mark.

Will post more tonight as I have to drive across town.

Peace
 
Hey SPX

For a start I will say that this topic is very old ground and caused a nasty rift to form between members here so I am not going to get into a debate on this subject again (burned once so I will not be burnt again), I also think the Paracast moderators will be very happy if we don't create a new shit storm. :)

The points in the film that I find are very good are the inter-religious correlations that they draw on, but this in and of itself is an area of high debate even among secular scholars. The strongest argument over all that they present is the astrological one, as believe it or not the early church was very much into astrology and you find astrological symbols every where.

But for your interest and further study here are some things to look into.

1. Constantine and in particular Eusebius. Have a good look at their involvement in the formation of the early church.
2. The relationships between the myth of Jesus and that of many other Messiahs and Gods that preceded him.
3. The astrological connections are very blatantly those of sun worship when you look at the symbolism so look at the Vedic texts, the cult of Mithra and Zoroastrianism (Or early Iranian fire worship and add that to the Egyptian mythology's).
4. Take a good look at the practices in Christianity such as the transubstantiation for this is in fact a Mithraic practice that was recycled so to speak into the Church ritual practice.
5. Art and architecture of early Christianity and again the astrological connections. In particular the Sun symbolism and the astrological symbolism built into the early cathedrals... Chartres Cathedral is possibly the best example of this but the Hagia Sophia has a very sun symbolic layout and is of course the first Christian Temple of its kind. However this was converted into a Mosque so it is far from its original condition. (also look at the Vatican and its geometric layout).
6. A very good area to look into is the Buddhist connections, as far as the cult of saints and the story's in the Sūtra's and their relationship to the parables of Jesus.
7. The formation of biblical text in and of itself would be a life time study.. but here are some things to look into. The Codex Sinaiticus is a good starting point and but again the involvement of Eusebius in the production of the early New Testaments c336CE.

All of this will help you draw your own conclusion as to the validity of the the argument the film makes.
Keep an open mind and dig deep.

Peace

Stonehart
 
For a start I will say that this topic is very old ground and caused a nasty rift to form between members here so I am not going to get into a debate on this subject again (burned once so I will not be burnt again), I also think the Paracast moderators will be very happy if we don't create a new shit storm. :)

Ha ha, fair enough.

Do these threads still exist by chance or have they been removed from the forum?


The points in the film that I find are very good are the inter-religious correlations that they draw on, but this in and of itself is an area of high debate even among secular scholars. The strongest argument over all that they present is the astrological one, as believe it or not the early church was very much into astrology and you find astrological symbols every where.

I assume you're aware of Acharya S's work. Do you have any thoughts on her books?

I think the big thing here is to trace down these claims. It just seems like too often the primary source's don't exist to back everything up.


But for your interest and further study here are some things to look into.

1. Constantine and in particular Eusebius. Have a good look at their involvement in the formation of the early church.
2. The relationships between the myth of Jesus and that of many other Messiahs and Gods that preceded him.
3. The astrological connections are very blatantly those of sun worship when you look at the symbolism so look at the Vedic texts, the cult of Mithra and Zoroastrianism (Or early Iranian fire worship and add that to the Egyptian mythology's).
4. Take a good look at the practices in Christianity such as the transubstantiation for this is in fact a Mithraic practice that was recycled so to speak into the Church ritual practice.
5. Art and architecture of early Christianity and again the astrological connections. In particular the Sun symbolism and the astrological symbolism built into the early cathedrals... Chartres Cathedral is possibly the best example of this but the Hagia Sophia has a very sun symbolic layout and is of course the first Christian Temple of its kind. However this was converted into a Mosque so it is far from its original condition. (also look at the Vatican and its geometric layout).
6. A very good area to look into is the Buddhist connections, as far as the cult of saints and the story's in the Sūtra's and their relationship to the parables of Jesus.
7. The formation of biblical text in and of itself would be a life time study.. but here are some things to look into. The Codex Sinaiticus is a good starting point and but again the involvement of Eusebius in the production of the early New Testaments c336CE.

Much obliged. I've had a hard time knowing where to start, but you have given me something to go on here.

Let me ask you, why is it that these points are hotly debated by scholars? Is it that difficult to make the connections? I know that Bart Ehrman just released a book where he argues against the mythicist position.


Keep an open mind and dig deep.

Will do.

Do you have any interest in discussing this over PMs?
 
Can be. I am just sick that there seems to be a few sacred cows in the world and religion is one - despite their being no logical reason flaws and fallacies in religion should not be challenged.
 
Hey SPX I am happy to chat in public on this subject but the only thing is to keep it civil.
There is nothing like religion to divide people who would otherwise get along fine.

To be honest I never really looked to hard at Acharya S's work so I am not the person to answer questions on it.
I made my own mind up on a body of information that I read over the years that to be blunt set the BS alarms going off in my head in regards to Christianity.
I was a Christian when I started my study into religion and I was an Atheist by the time I stopped.

I think the big thing here is to trace down these claims. It just seems like too often the primary source's don't exist to back everything up.

That is half the problem I agree when trying to get to the bottom of this particular subject.
Can be. I am just sick that there seems to be a few sacred cows in the world and religion is one - despite their being no logical reason flaws and fallacies in religion should not be challenged.

Well said goggs.
 
I agree Stoney, that things need to be kept civil. I acknowledge the fact that religious debates often deteriorate into name calling but I wonder why? Most people can keep it civil and I wonder if the very reason some people cannot is the fact that religion is a sacred cow? Someone has been conditioned to think you do not question religion and when someone does - it rubs them up the wrong way?
Just a thought.
 
I agree Stoney, that things need to be kept civil. I acknowledge the fact that religious debates often deteriorate into name calling but I wonder why? Most people can keep it civil and I wonder if the very reason some people cannot is the fact that religion is a sacred cow? Someone has been conditioned to think you do not question religion and when someone does - it rubs them up the wrong way?
Just a thought.

No I think you have the right of it there goggs
 
I agree Stoney, that things need to be kept civil. I acknowledge the fact that religious debates often deteriorate into name calling but I wonder why? Most people can keep it civil and I wonder if the very reason some people cannot is the fact that religion is a sacred cow? Someone has been conditioned to think you do not question religion and when someone does - it rubs them up the wrong way?
Just a thought.

But !! It's really not just religion guys, there is a LOT of other issues on this very forum that very rapidly degenerate into name calling including conspiracies theories and climate change/global warming once two opposing views occupy the same space, religion is a leading issue. I think it's mostly because once you attack a persons belief system...regardless of what that belief is...then you are basically attacking the person directly. Beliefs are a very personal issue.
 
Can be. I am just sick that there seems to be a few sacred cows in the world and religion is one - despite their being no logical reason flaws and fallacies in religion should not be challenged.

Well you've confused me. I took your original post as sarcasm.

In any case, I actually was at one point very much a Christian believer. Now I'm a bit ambivalent on the subject. I can be pretty outspokenly AGAINST religion, but if I find people being unfair or closed-minded and angrily attacking religion or religious people then I will turn into its defender.

At the end of the day, I understand religious belief and respect it as long as its grounded in some logical thought. The religious community has produced some pretty great thinkers, like C.S. Lewis, Soren Kierkegaard and Thomas Merton. But with that said, I personally think there may be some sort of God and some sort of spiritual reality, but I don't think any of our known religions are inspired in the way they claim to be.
 
Back
Top