Why the movie Zeitgeist, Part One, Is Nonsense

Millions of people have now seen the movie Zeitgeist, mostly on YouTube.  Part One purports that Jesus never existed and his whole story was based on astrology.  Parts Two and Three expose purported flaws in the official 9/11 story and talk about other conspiracies. 

This immediately makes no sense.  Why would Part One be anti-good and then Parts Two and Three be anti-evil?

What the general population does not realize is that there are two versions of Zeitgeist.  The original version has no anti-Jesus section.  Only the fake version that has been spread everywhere on the internet has the anti-Jesus section. 

For proof, read the reviews of Zeitgeist at http://www.imdb.com/.  Notice that the International Movie Data Base refuses to list the original version and only acknowledges the fake version.  If you read the comments, you will see at least one individual explain that there are two versions.

Isn't it obvious why the fake version was done?  If not, I'll tell you:  The satanists saw their 9/11 plot being unraveled and tacked on an anti-Jesus section to "make the best of a bad situation" for them, to attempt to make millions to doubt or lose their faith.  Of course satanists love astrology, which is forbidden in the Bible, so that is another fingerprint they have left on their deception, since Part One is all about astrology.

The general population doesn't have the sufficient knowledge to see that the quick stream of anti-Jesus "facts" they show are about 99% fiction.  The narrator pretends that many pagan Egyptian gods had a virgin birth and rose from the dead after three days, for example.  If you're not an expert on Egyptology, you will not realize that they're making 99% of it up.

In case you have already watched Zeitgeist Part One, here is a brief rebuttal:

If Jesus "never existed", then why did he appear in ancient non-Biblical written sources?
Tacitus mentioned Christians in the first century A.D.
Suetonius wrote about Christ (Annals 15.44).
Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus in his Antiquities.
Julian Africanus quoted Thallus discussing Christ in Extant Writings, 18.
Pliny the Younger wrote about Christ in Letters 10:96.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) talks about Jesus.
Lucian of Samosata wrote about Jesus in the second century A.D.
Mara-Bar Serapion wrote about Jesus.
The Gnostic writings all mention Jesus.
Eliezar wrote of Jesus' return.

And if Jesus didn't exist then why did his disciples choose to be tortured rather than deny their faith?  Would they endure torture to support someone who didn't exist?  Would you?  Of course not.

Thirdly, if Jesus doesn't exist, then why do satanists hate him and spend billions of dollars a year in anti-Christian/ pro-satanic propaganda?

Fourthly, while "Sun" and "Son" sound the same in modern English, they did not in ancient times, so all accusations that "the Son" is derived from "the Sun" because they sound the same are false.

Fifthly, the Bible does not say that Jesus was born on December 25th, in fact the Bible does not mention the date of Jesus' birth at all, so all arguments that Jesus' birthday was based on mythology are false.

Including a Jesus section that is demonstrably full of lies does not exactly lend credibilty to the accuracy of the subsequent sections either.

There is far more proof than this that Zeitgeist Part One is incorrect.  If you require more proof, go here:  http://www.gotquestions.org/zeitgeist-movie.html
and here:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1166827/goofs
and here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7GgWOi4SQM

In conclusion, Parts Two and Three of Zeitgeist are excellent, but Part One is falsified disinformation.
For a good 9/11 documentary, you can watch Loose Change and skip Zeitgeist entirely. 
This is the 2007 version of Loose Change in its entirety.  (You can watch the update, "Loose Change: The Final Cut", but it's in 12 pieces):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM.

By the way, to the satanists reading this:  Happy Imbolc, I mean "Groundhog Day", tomorrow.  Yeah, we're on to you.