Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

reply to post by racasan


Jesus is not the sun, virtually all scholars, even atheist, agree Jesus really did exist. Like I said, it got turned into that later. If you just want to say, Jesus didn't exist. There's no reason to debate all this stuff and go through all the hoopla. There's nothing stopping you. Don't know why you're mad and don't care. If you just wanna say Jesus wasn't real, okay go for it, post it and leave?

You could run down the street of your city screaming it for all I care if you really want people to know! That's not really what we're debating here. We're just debating the inaccuracies of a film. It's not like we're on some kind of mission to prove Jesus was real to you or anything. We are on a mission to point out that not everything in Zeitgeist is correct.


And the video also covers the procession of the equinoxes and debunks that and how the division of the ages is even a modern concept of the 20th century and wasn't relevant to people back then. The video covers all this stuff. You're really behind. You just keep bringing up crap that the video has already debunked. I suggest you actually just go ahead and watch it and get up to speed on the topic and discuss it honestly, or just leave.

We already know you don't believe in Jesus. Okay, congrats! You win nothing!. That's not even what we're debating about.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Hmm ok I see what you are saying. Or I think I see what your saying.....lol

I've been listening to people talking about the Annunaki and watching vids about it and it seems like the story in Zeitgeist about the 'Epic Of Gilgamesh' is a rip off of the Sumerian stories of the Annunaki. That's interesting!

I watched some youtube vids about a guy on Coast To Coast AM radio talking about this and it makes sense as to what he is saying about it. See vid 1



Vid 2



Vid 3



Vid 4



All very interesting stuff. Unfortunately there is not a part 5 but still quite captivating about what he is saying about the Annunaki. Maybe Zeitgeist should have researched this more as well!!

Originally posted by tinfoilman
And the video also covers the procession of the equinoxes and debunks that and how the division of the ages is even a modern concept of the 20th century and wasn't relevant to people back then. The video covers all this stuff. You're really behind. You just keep bringing up crap that the video has already debunked. I suggest you actually just go ahead and watch it and get up to speed on the topic and discuss it honestly, or just leave.

Job 38:31

Canst thou bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season? Or canst thou guide the Bear with her sons

en.wikipedia.org...

bible god talking to job about the Mazzaroth
Mazzaroth=zodiac

en.wikipedia.org...

The division of the ecliptic into the zodiacal signs originates in Babylonian ("Chaldean") astronomy during the first half of the 1st millennium BC, likely during Median/"Neo-Babylonian" times (7th century BC),[3] The classical zodiac is a modification of the MUL.APIN catalogue, which was compiled around 1000 BC.

Some of the constellations can be traced even further back, to Bronze Age (Old Babylonian) sources, including Gemini "The Twins", from MAŠ.TAB.BA.GAL.GAL "The Great Twins", and Cancer "The Crab", from AL.LUL "The Crayfish", among others.

Babylonian astronomers at some point during the early 1st millennium BC divided the ecliptic into twelve equal zones of celestial longitude to create the first known celestial coordinate system: a coordinate system that boasts some advantages over modern systems (such as equatorial coordinate system or ecliptic coordinate system).

The Babylonian calendar as it stood in the 7th century BC assigns each month a constellation, beginning with the position of the Sun at vernal equinox, which, at the time, was the Aries constellation ("Age of Aries"), for which reason the first astrological sign is still called "Aries" even after the vernal equinox has moved away from the Aries constellation due to the slow precession of the Earth's axis of rotation.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...
The Age of Taurus - Taurus symbolizing the bull
About 4300 BC and ended in ca. 2150 BC
an example of worship at that time is Apis (god)
Worshiped approximately from 2890 to 2686
en.wikipedia.org...
or

When Moses was said to have descended from the mountain with the ten commandments (c. 17th - 13th century BC, the end of the Age of Taurus), his followers were worshipping a golden bull calf, he instructed them to kill each other in order to cleanse themselves. This represents Moses "killing" the bull and ending the Age of Taurus, and ushering in the Age of Aries, which he represents.

The Age of Aries
2150 BC and ended in ca. 1 AD
en.wikipedia.org...

Hermes the good Sheppard
en.wikipedia.org...

So it looks like someone in the Middle East has been keeping track of such things for at least a 1000 years before Christ


The Age of Pisces
Started AD 1

Mark 1:17: "Come after Me, and I will make you become fishers of men."
Matthew 12:40: "...Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." bullet Matthew
14:17: "And they said to Him, 'We have here only five loaves and two fish.'"
Luke 5:6: "And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking."
Luke 24:42: "So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb."
John 21:6: "And He said to them, 'Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.' So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.
1 Corinthians 15:39: "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another of birds."

Next up
Age of Aquarius
A man carrying a pitcher of water
www.visualstatistics.net...
Luke 22:10 - He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters.

Mark 14:13 - And he sent(A) two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him,

its my understanding that It would be an odd thing to see a man in that area at that time fetching water, so is the writer of these passages signalling the initiated about something else?

reply to post by racasan


Hey sorry, had to do something real quick. Anyway back now. Anyway like I've said throughout the thread, but that a lot of people just don't get no matter how hard I try to explain it. I'll try to explain it again.

I never said sun worship was definitely not involved in Christianity at all. I never said astrology wasn't involved because that is a component in virtually all, if not all religions. I never claimed there were NO similarities between religions, and I'm not saying that Zeitgeist is wrong about everything. Never claimed any of that.

All I'm saying is that the Zeitgeist people, along with that, also made some outrageous claims that weren't true to convince people of their theory in a dishonest way using false hype and when pointed out, still continued to mislead people. And that needs to be debunked. It's not okay for them to tell a bunch of lies to people just because they get one thing right.

I'm not saying there's nothing to the age story AT ALL, but the evidence that the Zeitgeist people used to get there just wasn't accurate and their final conclusion isn't all accurate either. And we don't need to be replacing myths, with other myths. We need to be replacing myths with TRUTH.

If they would just explain it truthfully, that the real reason they moved his birthday to the 25th. Yes it was to mix Christianity with pagan sun worship, but there's no reason to lie about it like they do and claim Jesus was born on the 25th. They can just say the truth, that he wasn't born on the 25th at all, but that the reason they moved it to the 25th, was still pagan related.

Or that all these gods were virgin births when they weren't. They weren't virgins, they were perpetual virgins, which means something entirely different and they don't even bother to explain that. A perpetual virgin can have sex as much as they want, and still be a virgin. Mary in the Bible couldn't do that. She wasn't a perpetual virgin. She was just a regular virgin, until she had sex. That's what the Bible said originally anyway.

They don't have to lie about stuff like that. Sun worship was banned in Judaism and Christianity. They could just explain that the ideally they were started to be anti-sun worship cult, but they got turned into sun worship cults anyway.

And how a big thing in the sun worship cults was this perpetual virginity crap about how the sun goddesses could still be virgins even after they've had children.

And explain that, that is not how it worked in the Bible. That Mary was different than the sun worship religions and wasn't a perpetual virgin. It was just claimed to be a virgin birth, and then Mary had more kids and wasn't a virgin anymore. Unlike the other perpetual virgins that are always virgins.

But then later the Catholic church came along and tried to turn Mary, did turn Mary, into what they call this perpetual virginity thing because they wanted to turn it into sun worship and make Mary out to be just like all the other sun goddesses and mothers and stuff. That they took it over. But that's still not the same, they just claim Mary never had sex her entire life, which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible says.

It says in the Bible that Jesus has siblings and the Bible makes no claim that she was still a virgin after that. That was made up later when it was taken over by sun worship. The Bible doesn't say that.

Do you see what I'm saying? That instead of making stuff up, they could just use well documented evidence to show the same thing, that it was all taken over by sun worship. There's no reason for them to keep lying about the details. Just tell the truth about the details and tell the story as it really happened.

reply to post by stevcolx


Ah your links got messed up, but I know I've seen some of that as I have read about the Annunaki. Anyway the reason I went over all that was again to express that in my religion, God isn't really described or defined well and the start of the Bible is very cryptic.

So that "god" if you will and your Annunaki could be one in the same. Or the Annunaki could be what the Bible describes as the Devil or the Serpent, or the Annunaki could have been one of the other gods that the Bible talks about like Baal or something that was an enemy of the Bible's god.

From the OT/NT point of view you're not going to know much of anything about other gods or anything like the Annunaki if they really existed because believers weren't to talk about other gods at all. Even the Bible's own god tells us hardly anything about himself in enough detail to know his nature well enough to answer that question from that point of view.

You would have to come across that information from some other source, like the Sumerian or something. Bible believers just aren't given enough information to go by in their religion.

Remember we're sheep right? lol, definitely not told everything.

reply to post by racasan


racasan thank you for the reply and the Link. that was very nice of you

reply to post by windword


So, I did research on the Dogon people. I can't find any info on them prior to a thousand years ago. It seems to me as though they ripped off bits of Christianity and Judaism; they even circumcise their children.

Furthermore I can't find a source for this part of the wiki page:

"The Nommo divided his body among men to feed them; that is why it is also said that as the universe "had drunk of his body," the Nommo also made men drink. He gave all his life principles to human beings." The Nommo was crucified on a tree, but was resurrected and returned to his home world. Dogon legend has it that he will return in the future to revisit the Earth in a human form.

It could be possible that they absorbed Christian theology from missionaries, but I'm not even sure that's true. It reaks of BS. I can't find a single source making this claim aside from Bibliotecapleiadies and their ilk. Check out this quote again verbatim on meta-religion.com:

The Dogon tells the legend of the Nommos, awful-looking beings who arrived in a vessel along with fire and thunder. After they arrived here - they put out a reservoir of water onto the Earth then dove into the water. There are references in the oral traditions, drawings and cuneiform tablets of the Dogons, to human looking beings who have feet but who are portrayed as having a large fish skin running down their bodies. The Nommos were more fishlike than human, and had to live in water. They were saviors and spiritual guardians: "The Nommo divided his body among men to feed them; that is why it is also said that as the universe "had drunk of his body," the Nommo also made men drink. He gave all his life principles to human beings." The Nommo was crucified and resurrected and in the future will again visit the Earth, this time in human form. Later he will assume his amphibious form and will rule the world from the waters. Dogon mythology is known only by a number of their priests, and is a complex system of knowledge. Such carefully guarded secrets would not be divulged to friendly strangers very easily.

As I said, this REEKS of BS

reply to post by stevcolx


Could you give a link to the video? It's not working.
For future reference: to post a video only copy and paste the numbers after the = sign

reply to post by kallisti36


Yeah sure I'll post the links as just links rather than trying to embed the vids!

www.youtube.com.../u/2/_TdKCpJEbUc This is part 1 of 4. On this guys page you can see the rest.

reply to post by stevcolx


Ah, more Sitchin stuff. It's interesting, but the scholarship is pretty sensational and bad. Regardless, the connection between ancient deities who enslaved humanity for resources and made hybrid demi-god children and aliens is a tenuous one. For one thing, humanity knows incredibly little about UFOs and aliens. I had a friend who's even seen a UFO and still has no idea what they are, hence the name Unidentified Flying Object. There are people who claim insider information on the Aliens, but such an inclusive field gives rise to more charlatans than you can shake a stick at. We have Colleen Thomas and Nancy from Zetatalk who are clearly insane and on power trips, but have a big enough soapbox to effect the pool of information UFO followers attain. On top of this, the concept of UFOs came out of the 50's and is so subjective that you can't tell would-be-fact from the growing mythology.

I stand by my theory that the Annunaki and the Grigori are one in the same, YHVH is who He says He is (I AM) and isn't an amalgam of Enki, Enlil, or a UFO; and that the gods of the Sumerians and many ancient cultures are the Grigori who corrupted mankind and set themselves up as gods.This isn't a new theory, it is a well over 2,500 year theory among the Jews and later the Christians (St. Justin Martyr writes extensively on this).

By making the claim that the Sumerians knew what they were talking about 6,000 or so years ago and that the Hebrews were too stupid and ignorant to be able to accurately describe a "space ship" is operating on an anti-Judeo Christian bias. To address this matter, I will draw your attention to the parallels between the story of Utnapishtim and Noah. We can agree that both stories likely chronicle an actual deluge since it is attested to in so many cultures around the same time, but which is more accurate? Firstly, the Hebrews had very strict rules on transcribing scripture and would often throw out an entire scroll if they messed up. Prophets were expected to accurately prophesy or they would be stoned. The contrast can be seen between the Genesis flood and the epic of Gilgamesh, by how accurate the information is. The measurements of Utnapishtim's ark don't work, it would have been a square and wouldn't have fared at sea. It has been suggested that his ark was actually a coracle ( a circular canoe), but a coracle is only capable of supporting a single person or else it would capsize, thus it could not be an ark. Noah's ark by contrast is nautically ideal; a collossal barge capable of sustaining a large family and a zoo of animals at sea. Furthermore, Abraham was called out of Sumer by YHVH, and today the Sumerians and their religion are long dead and the worship of YHVH the living God endures. This isn't a new theory, it is a well over 2,500 year theory among the Jews and later the Christians (St. Justin Martyr writes extensively on this).

reply to post by kallisti36


While I agree and disagree from what you just said, unfortunately I cannot trust the supposed theories of Justin Martyr. First of all he was a Christian, that in itself promotes a biased view on the Bible and the concept of God.

His parents were pagans. He tells us (Dialogue 2-8) that he tried first the school of a Stoic philosopher, who was unable to explain God's being to him. He then attended a Peripatetic philosopher but was put off because the philosopher was too eager for his fee. Then he went to hear a Pythagorean philosopher, who demanded that he first learn music, astronomy and geometry, which he did not wish to do. After this he was drawn to Platonism, until meeting an old man on the sea shore who told him about Christianity, and he converted. He was influenced in this by the fearless conduct of the Christians facing execution.

He obviously got his information and ideas from someone else.

Doctrine Of The Logos:

While the English translation of Chapter 128 suggest the appellation of "God" when referring to Christ, the rest of the chapter confirms the beliefs held by Martyr are not in line with this translation:

1. The pre-human Christ is called an Angel, or messenger of God.
2. Christ's existence is the same as that of other angels, separate from God and unique - "numerically distinct".

In fact, in Chapter 128 of his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin directly refutes the trinitarian explanation, later offered by Tertullian, that Jesus is connected to the Father in the same manner as a sunbeam is to the sun. Justin instead believes Christ's relationship to his Father, God, is more like that of fire. The source fire (God) retains it's size and glory, and the offspring fire it creates (the Son) is an entirely new fire, separate and distinct.

Aha! The sun. But that sentence sounds more symbolic to me.

en.wikipedia.org...

Actually, after reading the information provided by Wikipedia on Justin Martyr's life, faith and writings it looks like Justins teachings and philosophy are just a copy and paste version of what he has read and heard before.

So as far as trusting a copycat Christian goes? Nope..........He is not a reliable witness to the existence of God.....

Actually the statement in Zeitgeist about Justin's teacjhings being false or a forgery looks to be correct. So that is at least 1 part of Zeitgeist that cannot be refuted!!

How can one refute an authors subjective worldview... a zeitgeist is just that !

see:
Zeitgeist ) is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups...

Zeitgeist: Definition from Answers.com -
n. The spirit of the time; the taste and outlook characteristic of a period or generation:

any zeitgeist is one persons outlook of the world they live in... it is not and cannot be a 'movement'

unless we are all Borg

reply to post by stevcolx

I've been listening to people talking about the Annunaki and watching vids about it and it seems like the story in Zeitgeist about the 'Epic Of Gilgamesh' is a rip off of the Sumerian stories of the Annunaki. That's interesting!

Actually, the way I read it, Gilgamesh was a Sumerian, and half Annunaki. So the real rip off was when the Church took the original Gilgamesh Epic and rewrote it into Noah's Flood. Have you ever had the chance to read the "Epic?" it is out in book form for a few years now.

reply to post by autowrench


I can understand you making the claim that the Hebrews ripped of the Sumerians and rewrote the Deluge story, but how can you say the Church altered the stories 1,000 years before it existed?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by stevcolx

 

I've been listening to people talking about the Annunaki and watching vids about it and it seems like the story in Zeitgeist about the 'Epic Of Gilgamesh' is a rip off of the Sumerian stories of the Annunaki. That's interesting!

Actually, the way I read it, Gilgamesh was a Sumerian, and half Annunaki. So the real rip off was when the Church took the original Gilgamesh Epic and rewrote it into Noah's Flood. Have you ever had the chance to read the "Epic?" it is out in book form for a few years now.

No not had a chance to read it. It's title is just 'Epic'?

Originally posted by stevcolx

He obviously got his information and ideas from someone else.

Doctrine Of The Logos:

The Logos isn't a church doctrine like the homousious nature of the trinity; a lengthy explanation and formula. The Logos is straight from John 1 www.blueletterbible.org...

While the English translation of Chapter 128 suggest the appellation of "God" when referring to Christ, the rest of the chapter confirms the beliefs held by Martyr are not in line with this translation:

1. The pre-human Christ is called an Angel, or messenger of God.
2. Christ's existence is the same as that of other angels, separate from God and unique - "numerically distinct".

In fact, in Chapter 128 of his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin directly refutes the trinitarian explanation, later offered by Tertullian, that Jesus is connected to the Father in the same manner as a sunbeam is to the sun. Justin instead believes Christ's relationship to his Father, God, is more like that of fire. The source fire (God) retains it's size and glory, and the offspring fire it creates (the Son) is an entirely new fire, separate and distinct.

Aha! The sun. But that sentence sounds more symbolic to me.

Yep: metaphor. The nature of God is beyond human comprehension and what we do know is confusing. The only way to describe something like there being three persons in one in the Godhead is to use trite metaphors like a beam from the sun. Mundane, but it gets the point across. Also, you appear to have run across Jehovah's Witness "research. Heres some quotes straight from the dialogue with Trypho:

Dialogue with Trypho; (ca. 150 a.d.) 1. XI "There will be no other God, He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. 2. CXV Our Priest, who is God, and Christ the Son of God. 3. CXXV Christ is called God, He is God and Appeared to the Patriarchs. 4. CXXVIII The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance. 5. CXXVI He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God indivisible and inseparable from the Father. 6. CXXVIII Begotten from the Father but not by abscission (cutting off). 7. LXII When God said, “Let Us make”, God conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being. 8. LXII (In Gen 1), there are persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. 9. LXII This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him. 10. LXIII (God speaking of the Son,) “Your holiness have I begotten Thee from the womb, before the morning star.” 11. LXIII (God calls the Son, God,) “Thy throne, O God is forever,” 12. LXIII (God calls the Son, God,) “Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness.” 13. LXIII (Jesus), Deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ 14. LV The true God, God who made all things, is Lord alone. 15. XXXII The Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit, Our Lord Jesus Christ. 16. XXXVI Who is this King of glory? 'And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, `The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.' For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, `Who is this King of glory? 'And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, `The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.' Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,'(3)--does this not declare to you(4) that[He was] from of old,(5) and that the God and Father of all things intended Him to be begotten by a human womb? And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted,[he says]:'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. "Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee."(1) For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God -- both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.

As you can see by the bold lettering, he didn't know if the trinity was the best explanation, but he was sure the Yeshuah was God. Orthodoxy wasn't well established at this point and there were a number of heresies popping up. The fact that Justin managed to grasp the basics of the trinity at all without a universal declaration of faith shows how evident the "doctrine of the Logos" is and how the Trinity can be extrapolated from that.

Actually the statement in Zeitgeist about Justin's teacjhings being false or a forgery looks to be correct. So that is at least 1 part of Zeitgeist that cannot be refuted!!

There is no evidence that Justin Martyrs dialogue was forged. For one it is maintained Orthodox doctrine and non-Orthodox together. By the time the Orthodox Church was established, the only great heresies left were Christological. If the Church forged his letters they would have removed ambiguities. This tact of claiming everything is a forgery is intellectually dishonest and way too easy. No one was there and we don't have conflicting manuscripts of the dialogue so, "the entire thing was forged by teh evil church after Constantine came to power and and and edited tah bible and gots rid of the Gnosticses who were all new agey and cool"

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by autowrench

 

I can understand you making the claim that the Hebrews ripped of the Sumerians and rewrote the Deluge story, but how can you say the Church altered the stories 1,000 years before it existed?

Please, read what I said again:

the Church took the original Gilgamesh Epic and rewrote it into Noah's Flood.

reply to post by stevcolx


No, it is named: The Epic of Gilgamesh: An English Verison with an Introduction

Here is another version....haven't read it, but would love to:
An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic

It is a very good read, Gilgamesh went through a great deal of hardship trying to get to the abode of the Gods, and what he was almost there, a snake stole the flower from him.

reply to post by autowrench


I did not misunderstand you. You claim that the story of Noah's Flood was ripped off or "rewritten" from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Church didn't write the Noah's Flood story, the Hebrews did. The Prophet Abraham came out of Sumer, the Hebrews have roots in Sumeria so the parallels make perfect sense, but one story is wrong. One story chronicles the Watchers as fallen Angels who dominated mankind. Another story describes the Annunaki as our creators and masters. I wasn't there 6,000 to 10,000 years ago so I wouldn't know for sure, but if there is one story with God behind it, it is the one in practice.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by autowrench

 

I did not misunderstand you. You claim that the story of Noah's Flood was ripped off or "rewritten" from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Church didn't write the Noah's Flood story, the Hebrews did. The Prophet Abraham came out of Sumer, the Hebrews have roots in Sumeria so the parallels make perfect sense, but one story is wrong. One story chronicles the Watchers as fallen Angels who dominated mankind. Another story describes the Annunaki as our creators and masters. I wasn't there 6,000 to 10,000 years ago so I wouldn't know for sure, but if there is one story with God behind it, it is the one in practice.

edit on 31-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

I am sorry Kallisti36 but the God story was way after all the business with the Annunaki. The Fallen angels are biblical terms for the Annunaki. Then of course as per the Book Of Enoch the Watchers are another term for the Annunaki.

I think in actual fact we were created by the Annunaki and the God story was put in place later to cover up the fact that the Annunaki created us. What a great way to control people. 'You will worship God'.

Looking at all the evidence past and present, All the stories, all the religious books that have had a few thousand odd years to dream up more exaggerated stories and lies, all the complicated thee thy thou texts all over the place, all those different people from all walks of life putting a hand in to add more stories then all the offshoots of biblical beliefs like the Qur'an it's easy to say and think that this God story is FABRICATED.

The Annunaki created the Human Race. Most of the evidence for this has been methodically destroyed by them and by their human slaves of higher stature such as Government and Church Leaders.

If u wish to believe in the one true God then that is up to u. I was a Christian until my late teens. Then I grew up. There's nothing there. There's no Heaven and there is no hell. There is no God and there is no Devil. It's all based on Symbolism and false stories.

Granted Zeitgeist is full of flaws. But there are also truths. Those truths are what make Zeitgeist interesting to watch. And they for me have helped me to the learn part of the truth of our origins. Not God.