“Horus was born on December 25th”  — According to Egyptian mythological history, Horus’s birthday is celebrated in the season of Khoiak, which runs in the months of October and November, not December 25th. Furthermore, the date of December 25th is never mentioned in the Bible as the date of Jesus’ birth and thus has no relevance to the account of Jesus’ life. So right away, the claims of “plagiarism” look completely baseless.

“Horus was born of a virgin”  — There are two accounts of Horus’ birth. The most famous by far, was that Horus was born from his mother Isis, who was not a virgin, but rather a widow of the slain Osiris. Through sorcery, Isis, assembled the body of Osiris and was impregnated with his phallus. Clearly this was a sexual union and not a virgin birth. The “Hymn to Osiris” which records this account states: “[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [phallus] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [DNA material], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus].”

“Three Wise Men Came to Adore the New Born Savior”– No source is provided by the documentary for this claim. Additionally, the Bible does not say “three wise men” came to see Jesus. It never tells us the number of wise men. And they did not come at Jesus’ birth in a manger. They came to his family home when he was a toddler.

“Horus was a child prodigy teacher at 12”

“Horus had 12 Disciples” — Historian Glen Miller writes: “But again, my research in the academic literature does not surface this fact. I can find references to FOUR “disciples”–variously called the semi-divine HERU-SHEMSU (“Followers of Horus”) [GOE:1.491]. I can find references to SIXTEEN human followers. And I can find reference to an UNNUMBERED group of followers called mesniu/mesnitu (“blacksmiths”) who accompanied Horus in some of his battles [although these might be identified with the HERU-SHEMSU in GOE:1.84]. But I cannot find TWELVE anywhere…]”

Additionally, some of have said the 12 signs of the zodiac are the “disciples” of Horus. Even if this were the case, they are just stars and not actual people who followed Horus, preached about him or recorded his life. This is another empty and false claim.

“Horus was crucified. Dead for three days. And Resurrected” — There is no historical record in any credible Egyptian mythology of Horus being crucified. Additionally, crucifixion was a method of execution invented by the Roman Empire thousands of years after the time of the Horus myth. Whereas the accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion exist in thousands of manuscripts from the century after his death. Additionally, as we detailed in our article “Did Jesus Really Exist? Proving Jesus without The Bible” there are many secular historical sources that record His crucifixion as described in the Bible.

If you are wondering how Zeitgeist could make such wild claims, that have no real historical evidence, they benefit from the Skeptic’s Fallacy: in short, when it comes to attacking the credibility of the Bible it is assumed that the skeptic is completely credible. So the Zeitgeist creators know most people will not research their attacks and just take it as factual (just as Dan Brown did with the numerous inaccuracies of the DaVinci Code). If one takes the time, they will also notice that Zeitgeist gets almost all of its information from one source, a book called “The Christ Conspiracy” by a woman named Acharya S. (we will address her later).

Was Jesus a Copy of Mithras? 

Ancient art depicting Mithras being born out of a rock.

Zeitgeist continues as do the skeptics with the idea that Christianity itself is a copy of the cult of Mithras, which was popularized in Rome in the 1st to 4th Century AD (note that it sprung up in Rome after the death of Christ and centuries after the Old Testament prophecies of the Coming Messiah). The movie states:

“Mithras was born of a virgin” — There are almost no early writings about the cult of Mithras and most of what is known is based on artwork (as opposed to Jesus Christ, of whom thousands of ancient manuscripts exist that describe His life, death and resurrection in detail). But according to historians, Mithras was born from a rock, not from a virgin or from a person at all.

“Mithras was born on December 25.” — Once again, the date of December 25th is not mentioned in the Bible and thus holds no significance to the story of Jesus Christ.  Additionally, in Mithraism there is no date of Mithras’ birth.

Mithras with “shepherds.”

“Mithras was attended to by Shepherds” — This claim is based on the relief above. The earliest existing account of Mithras’ birth is found in a relief depicting him emerging from a rock with the assistance of men who certainly appear to be shepherds (which is interesting considering his birth was supposed to have preceded the creation of humans!). Such a blatant inconsistency should show a serious flaw in Mithraism research, but the Zeitgeist team again overlooks this.  Furthermore, this relief dates to 4th century A.D., well after the Gospels had been written and distributed over most of the known world.

Mithras and his “12 disciples.”

“Mithra had 12 disciples.” — This is based on the carving above which shows Mithras surrounded by 12 signs of the Zodiac. There is no reason to conclude that signs of the Zodiac are “disciples.” Remember, there is no written record of Mithra’s existence from the 1st to 4th centuries when the cult thrived. The earliest writings are from outsiders recording their observations. So most of the wild assertions of Zeitgeist are just being based on this piece of art. Franz Cumont, considered the first great researcher of Mithras claimed that the disciples in the relief were actually people dressed up as Zodiac signs, showing how ludicrous the effort to link Mithras to Jesus can get.

“Mithras was crucified. Dead for three days. And then resurrected.” — This charge in particular reveals the insincerity of the claims of plagiarism against Christianity. In Mithraism, Mithras never dies. He completed his earthly mission and returned to the skies in a chariot (ironically similar to the story of the Prophet Elijah in the Bible’s Book of 1 Kings, written 800 years earlier). In Mithraism there is no historical mention of crucifixion, burial or resurrection in any artwork or text. In a critique of this theory, researcher Ronald Nash writes:

“Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” In his book Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World, Richard Gordon writes that there is “no death of Mithras,”  and thus there is no resurrection of Mithras.

• Dr. Edwin Yamauchi states: “We don’t know anything about the death of Mithras…We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection.”

It is also important to note that for all of the research Franz Cumont did on Mithras, his overriding conclusion was that unlike Jesus Christ, who was a real person, Mithras did not exist.   Thus a basic examination of the factual evidence shows that the Bible did not plagiarize from the story of Mithras.

Was Jesus Christ an Imitation of Dionysis?

Dionysus the Greco Roman god of wine.

Dionysus (also known as Bacchus) was a Greek and Roman god of wine. One of the boldest claims of Jesus being a copy of Dionsyus was a book called ‘The Jesus Mysteries’ which featured the amulet pictured below. on its cover. The authors claimed that the amulet was a depiction of the god Dionysus on a cross, and thus, they concluded, Christianity must have copied the crucifixion account from the Greek god. However, upon basic scrutiny, the claim falls apart.

Dionysus pictured on a cross.

The authors of “The Jesus Mysteries”  Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy had their sources for their information critiqued:

When dealing with ancient sources they are even more blatant. On the basis of some third century pictures of crucifixions, the authors claim Bacchuus [Dionysus] was crucified and Christians copied the idea. This is their piece de resistance and they even put one of the pictures on the cover of their book. But suppose there existed an earlier source who stated categorically that no pagan godman was crucified. That would destroy their case and reading the Jesus Mysteries you would assume that neither Freke or Gandy knew of such a source even if it existed. You would be wrong.They quote from Justin Martyr many times about his concerns that pagans and Christians had some similar rituals (they did and modern scholarship is totally unsurprised by this). He is a second century writer who therefore predates all the pictures of pagan godmen being crucified and he writes:

“But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” Justin Martyr ’s First Apology LV.

No honest scholar would simply fail to quote this vitally important contradiction to their thesis. Gandy did attempt to explain away this passage when it was presented to him but failed utterly and certainly could not say why he ever felt he could simply miss it out of his book. (source)

Even if the amulet was real, it’s dated to over 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ. By the 4th century tens of thousands of New Testament manuscripts were in circulation all over the world and the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion. So the story of Christ’s crucifixion was very well-known. Thus the idea that a 4th century amulet was the inspiration for the Crucifixion in the Gospel’s makes no sense. We cited the Roman historian Tacitus who in 115 AD wrote:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (source)

So again, the account of Jesus’ crucifixion at the orders of Pontius Pilate, just as the Bible details, was well-known even in non-Christian circles.

“Dionysus was born of a virgin” — Again, this blatantly flies in the face of mythology surrounding this pagan god. The two most common stories of Dionysus’ birth involve the god Zeus, his father, either impregnating the mortal woman Semele, or impregnating Persephone (the Greek Queen of the underworld).  In either instance, it is not a virgin birth (and it also gives allusion to the Bible’s description of fallen angels impregnating human women, something written in the book of Genesis 2,000 years before the myth of Dionysus).

“Dionsysus was born on December 25th” — Once again, there is no pre-Christian manuscript or evidence of this. And of course the date of December 25th is not significant since it’s not in the Bible.  Some point to Dionysus’ ability to create wine as a sign that Jesus was a copy (since Jesus turned water to wine at a wedding) but Dionysus was the god of wine. Jesus was the Son of God and humanity’s Savior. And while there is non-Christian evidence and proof that Jesus existed, there is none to support that Dionysus was a real person who actually existed.  And Jesus Christ was clearly not a copy of Dionysus.

Was Jesus Christ a Copy of Krishna?

The Hindu God Krishna.

As the Devine Evidence blog states:

In Hinduism, Krishna is believed to be the eighth avatar of Vishnu, the second aspect of the Hindu trinity. Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths. Though his works have been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched (Source), many still ignorantly refer to his arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts.

Zeitgeist Debunked

“Krishna was born of a virgin named Devaki” — The basic story of Krishna’s origin makes this claim laughable: In mythology researcher Joseph Campbell’s book, Occidental Mythology, he writes of Krishna’s origin:

“In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior’s mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant’s niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison, where he murdered their first six infants as they came.”

So from the basic origin story of Krishna, his mother had seven children before he was born, so she was clearly not a virgin. Additionally, the book of Isaiah, which prophesied that a virgin would give birth to the Messiah of the Bible, was written 700 years before Christ and at least 100 years before Krishna.

“There was Infant massacre in all the land at the time of Krishna’s birth” – In the Gospel accounts, King Herod, upon hearing the Jewish Messiah has been born, orders all Jewish male infants to be killed. Skeptics claim a similar occurrence happened with Krishna but as the account above shows, only his six brothers were killed.

“Krishna was crucified. Died for three days. And was resurrected.” – This again is just a blatant mistruth in the face of Hindu mythology. The explanation of Krishna’s death is stated clearly: ”

“A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.” Mahabharata, Book 16, 4

Not only was Krishna not crucified, his story sounds much more familiar to the account of the death of Achilles in Greek mythology than the account of Jesus’ crucifixion.

There are later Hindu texts that do draw more close parallels between Jesus Christ and Krishna. But these texts were written centuries after the New Testament. In fact, the Bahagavad Gita, one of the main Holy Books of Hinduism, is now thought by Hindu scholars to have been drastically changed in 800 AD. The present day Bahagavad Gita has 700 verses. The original, called Gita had 84 (imagine the documentaries and books that would be made if it were discovered that the Bible went through such a drastic re-write!).  In the book, The Gita As It Was: Rediscovering the Original Bhagavadgita, the author, Dr. Phulgenda Sinha, writes:

Around 800 A.D. , the original Gita was interpolated and ended up having 700 verses. The name was changed from Gita to Bhagavad Gita. The concept of one single Almighty God, or Supreme, Bhagavan, was introduced to Indian society.
Till then, before 800 A.D., Indians believed in God. But they believed in polytheism. They were also nature worshippers. They worshipped earth, stone, trees, rain, wind, fire, sun, moon etc.

Jesus is clearly not an imitation of Krishna and the Bible did not plagiarize pagan gods.  Unlike the New Testament, which has been verified by manuscript evidence to be the most reliable and substantiated document in antiquity, the holy book of Hinduism went through drastic changes centuries after it was written. But of course, the Zeitgesit producers, Acharya S. and Dan Brown ignore all of this just to try to attack the credibility of the Bible. Why? Because they hate the Bible and want to push a Satanic agenda.