Anti-Religious Movie Loses Punch When You Realize that Son and Sun Are Homophones Only in a Language Born Centuries After Religious Events

Updated throughout: Man, as someone who went bananas over Erich von Däniken's ancient space travellers when he was a teen, this would similarly make me go "Oh, Hallelujah, the truth is finally out!!"

Except... I am older and wiser now...

A few contradictions, you ask for?

Sure, easy.

1) How about the fact that, to quote Joe Kovacs, 'the Bible [itself] never does assign December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth, and "three kings" or "three wise men" are never mentioned in the related gospel accounts.'

Even if later church fathers added those details (Dec 25, 3 wise men, etc…) to the original story (for whatever reasons, including choosing them from pagan sources), this hardly has any bearing on the original story…

If, say, you found out that George Washington's chopping down the cherry tree was exaggerated or outright false, that would hardly be a reason to dismiss the man's accomplishments — especially if the cherry tree story were authored (as it was) not by George Washington but by someone else… And should someone find out that President's Day is not the birthday of Bill Clinton or of (either) George Bush or of Abraham Lincoln, does that mean those presidents did not exist?

2) How about one of the central "arguments", if not THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT, in Zeitgeist:
Did the ancients in Armenia, Persia, and India speak the King's (or any other kind of) English (a language which hardly existed even in the year 500)?

I didn't think so.

Well, it just so happens that "son" and "sun" are not homophones in most languages, including living languages today...

...In some languages the words for SON and SUN may look (somewhat) alike (søn/sol in Danish, Sohn/Sonne in German) — and all these languages seem to antedate the foundation of Christianity and of the other religions — but in many they do not and rarely if ever (except for English) are they pronounced alike.

Imagine using the "international" language that, historically, preceded English (French); how well would this video work if the filmmakers had to use the words FILS and SOLEIL? And how about the language that preceded French (Latin); how well would this video work in the language used in Roman times — i.e., in Jesus's time — if the filmmakers had to use fili- (the root for son) and sol- (the root for sun)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this SUN/SON connection (in the modern language of English alone) not the MAIN and/or the BASIC argument of this video?

Come to think about it, if any person or any people or any culture should want to choose a homophone for the word "sun" (in their language), i.e., the sun-god, wouldn't it rather (than "son") be "God" (in their language) or, if using a word linked to the family relationship, "father" (idem)?

In any case, as it happens, people studying linguistics are taught to watch out about getting excited about words looking alike that are really unrelated. For instance, the word for woman in two different languages is Donna and Onna. You might conclude that they share the same root until you realize the former is Italian and the latter Japanese.

3) Similarly, how about the ancient glyph (in what language?!) for the constellation Virgo being an (altered) M (7:15) and this being related to virgin mothers such as Mary and Myrra and Maya?

Again, the triple-pronged SYMBOL "M" from Latin is linked in the modern West to the SOUND (that WE know as) "Mmm", but how is that supposed to necessarily mean anything in languages (and cultures) where the letters were totally different and where the "Mmm" sound could be represented by a symbol looking entirely different?!?!

How does that mean anything in a culture in which the constellation (that we know as) Virgo is not recognized as anything to do with a woman (virgin or otherwise), but — insofar as it is recognized as anything at all — is linked to something completely different — say, a (well, Peter Joseph's video is kind enough to provide one that — I am sorry to say — has little if anything to do with a virgin) "house of bread", a snowmobile, or a butler slipping on a banana peel?!

In any case, Siddhārtha Gautama, aka the Awakened One (or the Buddha) — like Jesus — was a real person, and so was his mother. If his mother's name was Maya, cannot that be attributed to a coincidence? (Again, did the Indo-Aryan language use a three-legged symbol looking like the "ancient glyph" — again, in what language, this glyph? — to symbolize virgins and had its speakers, similarly to those in the West, chosen the constellation Virgo to represent a virgin?)

As somebody who minored in religious studies, I certainly don't remember that Buddha's mother was supposed to be a virgin; indeed, Māyādevī does speak of dreaming of being entered by a white elephant with six tusks on the night Siddhārtha was conceived, but as far as I know, that doesn't mean that Suddhodana (his father) did not do the (ahem) work. As for Adonis, I understand that not only was his mother hardly a virgin — far from it — but Myrrha actually got pregnant by coupling with her father (Theias) in the darkness. Untold numbers of similarities between the religions, as you can see…

As I watched the documentary, I was wondering about the unnecessary (and inappropriate?) music and the drumbeat... And I wonder if doesn't seem to have a deadening effect on the reasoning part of the brain.

Once again: Take the conclusion linked to observations of the winter solstice: "Thus it was said [sounds religious!], the SUN died on the cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again; this is WHY [idem!] Jesus and numerous other SUN gods share..." bla bla bla…

Regarding the "death of the SUN" and "the SUN's demise" "in the vicinity of the Southern Cross" and all the "THEREFOREs" and all the "THIS IS WHYs" and all the "THUS IT WAS SAIDs":

Remove the (modern) language of English — one of the few in which the words SON and SUN look or sound alike — and tell me if I am wrong if the whole "theory" (at least this, the main part, of it) doesn't seem to collapse...

In any case, you realize that you have to take with a grain of salt someone who mocks religious people as gullible and superstitious while pretending to be looking exclusively at cold, hard facts when Peter Joseph (a pseudonym!) turns out to be a… truther! (see last 45 seconds in movie's third part, edited to look like the two planes hitting the World Trade Center are no less than 10 explosions)…