It is currently Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
"Acharya should right a point by point primary source rebuttal to the detractors of Zeitgeist Part 1"

Okay, she pretty much already has. Acharya S/Murdock has written several books totaling nearly 3,000 pages of material including over 7,456 footnotes/citations to primary sources and the works of highly credentialed and respected authorities in relevant fields of study from a wide variety of backgrounds, including many Christian scholars, adding up to over 2,314 bibliographical sources. Her books also include 456+ images thus far. She works hard to substantiate her claims with credible evidence and sources specifically due to the fact that this subject is so contentious.

ZEITGEIST Part 1 & The Supportive Evidence

The Real ZEITGEIST Challenge

blissentia, we're happy to help out but give us some feedback to work with, please.

The con-sci crowd have blatant extreme biases and prejudices in their anti-ZG1 and Acharya rhetoric. It seems to me like a waste of time trying to work with them as they show no signs of sincere objectivity whatsoever. All we can do is continue to prove them wrong. They seem to be as delusional as Xian fundamentalists.

BTW, from the FAQ's Do atheists disagree with Acharya's basic premise?

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:53 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
I apologize

Yes, much of what you supplied has been very helpful. I have been aware of it for a while, but I forgot about it, and have only returned to the project of addressing R's claims about a week ago.

And you're right - it helps to scope out some of the objections, but there is a difference between that and copying/pasting mindless crap.

I'll be more helpful in the future.

you asked for some of the comments I received. Here is an abridged version of my exchange with the owner of that site many months ago.

Because this has already been quoted, here is the exchange:
Me:
Quote:
you might want to check this out: http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/in ... _Ever_Told

It provides a surprising amount of substantiation for part 1's claims (as apparently does "Christ in Egypt", receiving myriad endorsements as shown here: http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/c ... egypt.html)

I'm looking through Acharya's "Suns of God" and nowhere do I see her equate "Sun" with "Son". So perhaps you could show me where she does this.

I also assume that you've listened to "Zeitgeist Undebunked", regarding the book "Christ in Egypt"

I'd also like to refer you to Acharya's article "The Real Zeitgeist Challenge": http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/z ... lenge.html


R:
Quote:
Seen it, 90% of the sources are DM Murdock, Acharya S, or Gerald Massey, and also Jardon Maxwell. The first two are the same person who actually took most of what she knows from Massey, who simply made things up -- for example he claims to be quoting Plutarch but if you read the source he quotes it says the opposite of what he claims. Jordon Maxwell is just a liar.

I've seen that as well, basically it comes down to her acknowledging whether or not you're right, so can simply ignore you and that's what she does with many of her critics she speaks to directly on forums.


Me:
Quote:
Reading "Son's of God", I see that some of your assertions are false, though I won't go into detail about that until I am done with that and "Christ in Egypt"


R:
Quote:
Are you serious? Why don't you check some primary sources instead of trusting a woman who still claims "God's Son = God's Sun" in Hebrew and Greek. I won't trust any source that's Acharya S, DM Murdock, Jordon Maxwell, or Gerald Massey as being anything other than loaded with garbage.

I especially like in The Zeitgeist Companion Guide where she talks about something that's supposedly in the Book of the Dead, and if you go look yourself nothing remotely close to what she claims is in there.


Me:
Quote:
Where does she say "God's Son = God's Sun"?


R:
Quote:
The Christ Conspiracy, and she even alludes to it in Sons of God with things like "Sun gods are sometimes called 'carpenters' and in Egypt you can see 'sun of the carpenter'." The comparison is 100% irrelevant and illogical, she does it over and over again. All claims that Horus is the Sun god or that he was born on December 25th are untrue, yet she repeats them throughout Sons of God.

Let's not forget the title itself, being "Suns of God" (in my last email I spelled it "son" twice on accident, damn homophones) implies "Son of God" "Sun of God" as well.

If you want to really find influence of Christianity, check out Zoroastrianism and the Babylonian religion, both Judaism and later Christianity borrowed heavily from each. Also check out the debate here:

Code:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1141085-13/


Aron-Ra is much more versed in comparative religion than I and he also think Acharya S is completely wrong.


Me:
Quote:
That's fair, and I will look at both. Regarding the Book of the Dead, although there are a lot more confessions than just 10, similar commandments do exist. Refer to pg. 193 in Chapter CXXV of this translation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6458510/Budge ... todown=pdf


R:
Quote:
Most of the concepts of the 10 commandments common to most religions, the Egyptian list is even longer. Further the numbering, which commandment is independent of another, and the exact context varies. They're very different from Judaism to Christianity, and almost completely different in Islam. Well, different, but they cover the same topics.

The origin of the ten commandments is still debatable, but it's likely Moses got them from his father in law Jethro, but who knows where he got them, it's definitely possible he took them from Egypt, but failed to include a lot of what is in there, and made some major changes, such as no idolatry. My feeling is that Jethro likely got them from the Code of Hammurabi... well Jethro or whoever wrote Exodus.


Me:
Quote:
Again, that's a fair assertion. Regarding "Son" = "Sun", in your critique of Zeitgeist, you assert that the first version stated such a thing. But here: http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skept ... geist.html Acharya says that the first version was prior to her consultation. Therefore, we can assume that she has distanced herself form the "Sun" = "Son" idea. I will look into "The Christ Conspiracy" to confirm that she made such an assertion.

It should be noted, however, that it appears that her first book was intensely criticized, and that she developed her work off of those criticims. Thus, I assume "Christ in Egypt" is a completely different beast from "The Christ Conspiracy".


R:
Quote:
The fact that she would make such erroneousness accusations in the first place makes me very skeptical of her work.


Me:
Quote:
But she does seem to have distanced herself from such assertions.

Regarding Son vs. Son, I could not find the part of Acharya's book
"The Christ Conspiracy", where she makses such a claim. Perhaps you
could give me the page number.


R:
Quote:
Page 154 is one: "Thus, /the son of God is the sun of God/." be sure to read the passage before it.


Me:
Quote:
Alright, but it's not like you say it is. She isn't trying to say that
the words for sun and sun were equivalent, but rather, tries to build
a case for traditional deities beling solar messiahs

here is the excerpt, and while I don't quite follow her logic, I also
can clearly see that she is not saying that the words were equivalent,
but that the ATTRIBUTES were:

"Within the Sun Book or Holy Bible was incorporated by such
priestcraft the most consolidated version of the celestial mythos ever
assembled, the story of the “son of God.” First, we have seen that
“God” is the sun. Second, in Job 38 the stars are called “sons of
God”; hence, one star would be a “son of God,” as well as the “son of
the Sun.” Thus, the son of God is the sun of God."

I'd have to read the book for context, and then decide if it's bunk.
However, it doesn't match the severe accusations of error I've seen
tossed at "Astrotheologians"

If that's the epitome of the debunking effort, I don't think it holds
water, since her later books were responses to criticisms of the
first, and developments of many of the first book's themes.


R:
Quote:
Here's another example, she claims Horus is the sun god (which is wrong anyway) but he's also the Son of God. How can he be both the father and the sun/son?


Me:
Quote:
On the other hand, as far as religious origins are concerned, this might be a better work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacalypsis


R:
Quote:
"Among the many unusual theories presented in this book is that both the Celtic Druids and the Jews originated in India - and that the name of the Biblical Abraham is really a variation of the word Brahma, created by shifting the last letter to the beginning: Abrahma. "

... =\


Me:
Quote:
I know it seems odd, but you can get it here: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=anacalypsis and judge for yourself.


R:
Quote:
I'm not sure if I need to read it, with genetics and linguistics already on my side that none of the claims in the quote are true. The Abraham thing is especially unusual, in ancient Hebrew and Armaic, it was Abram/Avram (meaning exalted father), and a simple letter shift doesn't make the name. Brahma comes from the sanskrit verb "to grow" implying his nearly-infinite nature.

It seems that on page 111 of that book, he makes the connection that because Abraham is the father of the Jews, and also the "founder of the Persians" then there's a connection. He isn't considered the founders of the Persians, he's considered instrumental in the establishment of Islam, not the Persians, whose history goes back even further. He then goes on in page 166 to make comparisons between Jesus and Brahma. Is Abraham or Jesus a copy of Brahma? If you read about Brahma, I'd bet 90% of the aspects of him match neither Abraham or Jesus.


So that is a pretty polite exchange. I guess my outrage cam from checking the site a week ago when I decided to resue debunking efforts.

Your posts (Freethinkaluva22) have helped immensely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Edward Winston wrote:
"...took most of what she knows from Massey, who simply made things up -- for example he claims to be quoting Plutarch but if you read the source he quotes it says the opposite of what he claims."

Actually, she cites over 1,600 sources throughout her 5 books to date. And Massey has been verified as accurate throughout her work. Edward clearly has no clue on just how peer reviewed by top Egyptologists of his day Gerald Massey was, as explained in Christ in Egypt. Here's Acharya's excerpt Who Is Gerald Massey?

Regarding the Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One, much of it does come from Acharya's books and her sources, however, it is also just a few of the PRIMARY SOURCES that many critics claim doesn't exist, further demonstrating that they don't know what they're talking about and mostly just have extreme knee-jerk reactions anytime Acharya's name is mentioned. And given Ed's record of understanding this issue, he probably screwed up the Plutarch point too but since Ed fails to cite the specific quote in question it's not easy for the average person to check.

I couldn't find a link to the quote at the top of this post but, here's what Ed says on his ZG1 page
Edward Winston wrote:
"Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days"[3], which does not even take place in December on the modern or ancient calendars, but rather between August 24th and 28th, but in terms of the rising of Sirius (August 4), they are July 30th through August 3rd[4]. His mother was also not a virgin. Horus's father was Osiris, who was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus[5]."
Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

In regards to Plutarch, Edward must be whining about the part in ZG 1 where Peter Joseph says:

"Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri."

Well here's Gerald Massey citation from [S14]

And here's Edward's source for Plutarch which he isn't specific so I have to assume Ed is talking about 65 where it says "...about the time of the winter solstice she gave birth to Harpocrates..." BTW, Harpocrates is the Greek name for baby Horus.

"This term “Harpocrates” is a Greek word, which in the original Egyptian is “Her-pa-chruti” or “Heru-pa-Chrat,” etc., meaning “the morning sun.” - CIE page 84. One may read more on these issues concerning Plutarch in Christ in Egypt, pages 83 / 84.

Now, where is Massey wrong? Is it because Plutarch didn't mention "Dec 25th"? -that would be really dumb since the Gregorian calendar wasn't implemented until 1582 by Pope Gregory. What's significant is the winter solstice regardless of any calendar used. Or, is it due to calling Isis a virgin? Because that would equally demonstrate an utter ignorance on the subject as well.
Quote:
"The Pyramid Texts speak of “the great virgin” (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)" ...

"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares:

"I am the great virgin."

"The Egyptian goddess who was equally ‘the Great Virgin’ (hwnt) and ‘Mother of the God’ was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus]."

- Dr. Witt, an Egyptologist

- Christ in Egypt, page 152

* The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old. The Isis-Meri issue is very thoroughly covered in Christ in Egypt as well.

And, as if that's not enough, here's a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus. And, at 5:30 you'll see a stone carving of Isis as she hovers over Osiris in the form of a bird to receive the divine seed (notice there's no 'member') of Osiris. Mojsov then says, "It's a miraculous birth of the savior child."

There's just no reason to take Ed and his militant atheist friends seriously.

Edward Winston wrote:
"so [she]sic can simply ignore you and that's what she does with many of her critics she speaks to directly on forums."

LOL, that's easily proven false as we address critics right here (Acharya included) as we are in this very thread. However, she is more likely to ignore those who have low integrity, character, lack of objectivity and bouts with arrogance and conceit - such as the case with Edward and his fundamentalist atheist pals. They are an embarrassment to all decent atheists and freethinkers everywhere. Edward and his atheist pals bring down the level of discourse wherever they post their malicious spew. They help theists make a case against atheism and actually repel people from wanting to become atheists.

Still, she shouldn't be expected to respond to every snot-nosed punk who comes along with a critique of her work - work that most critics like Edward haven't really read. Edward, nor his fundy atheist friends deserve a response to their juvenile critique. Ask them what credentials they have that give them any kind of authority whatsoever.

Edward Winston wrote:
"God's Son = God's Sun" in Hebrew and Greek."

Provide the source where she makes that claim, please. If Edward knew anything about her work he'd already know that his claim was not only false, but that she has addressed it long ago before Ed ever created his website. It was addressed in the Sun of god video at 30 seconds.

As well as in the FAQ's:
Quote:
"The assertion that the "Son of God" is the "Sun of God" is frequently raised as another strawman argument that detractors like to knock down. Like these other criticisms, I have already addressed this one, but like sauerkraut it keeps repeating.

The complaint about this assertion stems from the impression that I and others are claiming the words "son" and "sun" are interchangeable and that, according to mainstream etymology, these two words in fact constitute "false cognates."

In the first place, the phrase comparing "son" and "sun" is usually meant to be a PLAY ON WORDS, not to suggest that the two words are etymological cognates and are interchangeable. Hence, this complaint represents a strawman argument. I for one am well aware that, according to mainstream etymology, the two words are not cognates and are not related. Using this PLAY ON WORDS to make a point is perfectly allowable, but one that is evidently lost on the critic.

- Acharya S.

Read more...The Son of God is the Sun of God

Edward Winston wrote:
"The Christ Conspiracy, and she even alludes to it in Sons of God with things like "Sun gods are sometimes called 'carpenters' and in Egypt you can see 'sun of the carpenter'." The comparison is 100% irrelevant and illogical, she does it over and over again. All claims that Horus is the Sun god or that he was born on December 25th are untrue, yet she repeats them throughout Sons of God."

If Edward knew what he was talking about maybe he'd better understand the carpenter issue and how it is quite relevant. And how does Ed know that all claims of Horus being a sun god are false? And how does Ed know that Horus wasn't born on Dec 25th, can he read 4,400 year old Egyptian hieroglyphs? Is he an expert Egyptologist and linguist now? No, Edward has no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever:
Edward Winston wrote:
"...my name is Edward L Winston, I am a 20-something software engineer with an affinity for astronomy, history, politics, and crazy theories. While I do have a college education, it was not at Yale or anything like that, just some community college."
Code:
conspiracyscience.com/site/about/

The above quote came from Edward's "about" section, which he has since changed.

Edward Winston wrote:
"If you want to really find influence of Christianity, check out Zoroastrianism and the Babylonian religion, both Judaism and later Christianity borrowed heavily from each."

Acharya does that too - where does this "Aron-Ra" claim Acharya is wrong? I could find no mention in the 5 or 6 pages I went through.

Edward Winston wrote:
"Here's another example, she claims Horus is the sun god (which is wrong anyway) but he's also the Son of God. How can he be both the father and the sun/son?"

Thank you Ed for inadvertently admitting that you don't have a clue. We are talking about MYTHS not real historical people. Horus most certainly IS a sun god and he is the son of Osiris.
Quote:
Egyptologist, Dr. Meltzer remarks, “Horus the falcon was predominantly a sky god and a sun god.”

- Christ in Egypt page 48

The falcon represents the SUN moving (flying) across the sky. Get it? It's quite simple & obvious too. Children don't seem to have a problem getting it. Solar Mythology Lesson # 1
Quote:
blissentia "On the other hand, as far as religious origins are concerned, this might be a better work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacalypsis"

Acharya does cite Higgins' book Anacalypsis quite a bit.
Quote:
Ed "The Abraham thing is especially unusual..."

As per usual Edward doesn't know what he's talking about. Who was Abraham?
Quote:
blissentia "So that is a pretty polite exchange"

You did a great job.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 7:53 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
Yes, a lot of what these people do is combine appeal to popularity and appeal to authority, in short, stating that academic consensus = truth. The following is from the beginning of my piece debunking R's work, where I deconstruct some of these illusions about academia:

...(NOTE: formerly I posted a comment that was very long and irrelevant to this thread. So I decided to delete it. It will, however, appear in my treatment of R's site that I am currently working on).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Wowzers, that was really long and I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread but, I do have a couple threads that specifically address academia as it relates to religious studies/courses that may be of some service for your project, here:

Religion and the PhD: A Brief History

The Mythicist Position thread has a few relevant posts within it that you may find useful.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:21 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
It's about demolishing the combination of appeal to popularity an appeal to authority that R and the people at Con-Sci frequently employ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 10:00 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
Sometimes these pseudo-skeptics try to say that some of the claims originate from H.P. Blavatsky. But as you said in the thread about Keith Falsehood:

Quote:
No, Acharya doesn't get her information from Blavatsky, but KT is so incompetent and so poorly educated he doesn't seem to be able to follow citations. If KT actually knew anything about Acharya's work - which he falsely and dishonestly pretends to know - he would know that in her follow-up book "Suns of God," Acharya goes into great detail about where the contention about Krishna's mother comes from - and it has NOTHING to do with Helena Blavatsky. Also, KT makes some stupid comment about Blavatsky "deliberately misspelling Krishna's name," showing his utter lack of education. Blavatsky is using a TRANSLITERATION of Krishna's name that was COMMON in her era. She didn't make it up. But, again, being utterly incompetent and poorly educated, Keith wouldn't know that fact. This particular transliteration of "Christna" was used in several publications decades before Blavatsky and, again, was the common form of the word, such that Blavatsky was probably force to use it so her readers to know who she was talking about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:01 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
I am going to link to this in my brief treatment of Acharya's work in my project. I wonder if you could address one particular section we have not addressed yet, concerning the Bible and the Zodiac. You have helped immensely thus far. From:
Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/ 


Zeitgeist wrote:
Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scripture there are numerous references to the "Age." In order to understand this, we need to be familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient Egyptians along with cultures long before them recognized that approximately every 2150 years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the Zodiac. This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the Earth maintains as it rotates on it's axis. It is called a precession because the constellations go backwards, rather than through the normal yearly cycle. The amount of time that it takes for the precession to go through all 12 signs is roughly 25,765 years. This is also called the "Great Year," and ancient societies were very aware of this. They referred to each 2150 year period as an "age." From 4300 b.c. to 2150 b.c., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 b.c. to 1 a.d., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 a.d. to 2150 a.d. it is the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius.


R wrote:
Now that the film maker has lead the watcher into a certain mindset, it is time to kick it up a notch. The film maker claims there are many "astrological-astronomical metaphors" in the Bible, but provides no evidence to back this up. He then goes on to talk about how age is really a metaphor for the astrological ages such as Aries and Pisces. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such, and we will discuss this further in a bit. It makes various claims about the zodiac and the length of ages, while these claims are not necessarily inaccurate, they prove very little when discussing the Bible.


The Ages

Zeitgeist wrote:
Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through 3 ages, while foreshadowing a 4th. In the Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull calf. In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each other in order to purify themselves. Most Biblical scholars would attribute this anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, or something to that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. This is why Jews even today still blow the Ram's horn. Moses represents the new Age of Aries, and upon the new age, everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology.


R wrote:
The film maker discusses that Moses came down from Mount Sinai with this 10 commandments and smashed them because he saw his people worshipping a bull, but in reality that bull was Taurus. According to the film, Moses represents the new age of Aries, and that's why Moses was angry. It goes on to say that because Moses represents Aries the ram, that is why Jews blow the ram's horn. It is far more likely that the reason Jews use the ram's horn is because they raised sheep, and a horn can be easily made into an instrument [51]. These claims cannot be substantiated with history either, primarily because the movie says the age Aries was from 2150 BC to 1 AD, however the earliest dates given by scholars for Exodus does not place it until over 650 years after the Age began [52], a little late for Moses to start a new age and get angry that nobody else had caught on.


Jesus Fish

Zeitgeist wrote:
Now Jesus is the figure who ushers in the age following Aries, the Age of Pisces the Two Fish. Fish symbolism is very abundant in the New Testament. Jesus feeds 5,000 people with bread and "2 fish." When he begins his ministry walking along Galilei, he befriends 2 fisherman, who follow him. And I think we've all seen the Jesus-fish on the backs of people's cars. Little do they know what it actually means. It is a Pagan astrological symbolism for the Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces. Also, Jesus' assumed birth date is essentially the start of this age.


R wrote:
Just like with Moses we run into various problems with the claims stated in the film. The Age of Pisces is represented by two fish, but the film maker chooses his words carefully. He gleefully mentions that Jesus fed 5,000 people with 2 fish, but he chooses not to mention the amount of bread. The passage in the Bible says "We only have five loaves of bread and two fish". [53] The reason he does not mention the amount of bread is so that the parallel between the zodiac and the bible fits. It also is not out of the ordinary that fish is mentioned, it was a very common food staple in the region. Therefore, if someone were to have food, it would have probably been bread and fish.

It goes on to say that the fish symbol on the back of people's cars is actually a pagan astrological symbol for the "Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces". However, the true meaning behind the fish does not fit the parallel with the zodiac they are trying to make. The fact is the ancient and classical Greek word for fish is "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which is also an acronym for "Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ" or "Jesus Christ God's Son is Savior" [54].


Passover

Zeitgeist wrote:
At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next passover will be after he is gone, Jesus replied: "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water... follow him into the house where he entereth in." This scripture is by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references. The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius, the water-bearer, who is always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water. He represents the age after Pisces, and when the Sun (God's Sun) leaves the Age of Pisces (Jesus), it will go into the House of Aquarius, as Aquarius follows Pisces in the precession of the equinoxes. Also Jesus is saying is that after the Age of Pisces will come the Age of Aquarius.


R wrote:
The film talks about a passage in the Bible and claims it is "by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references." The problem here is it does not reveal anything except that the film maker has completely misquoted the Bible. While the reply from Jesus is correct, the question the disciples ask is not. The film maker claims that the man bearing the pitcher that Jesus is talking about, actually symbolizes the Age of Aquarius. Luke 22:10 is accurately quoted [55], but let's take a closer look at the disciples' question.

Like 22:7-9 states the following: "Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed [56]. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, 'Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.' [57] They said to Him, 'Where do You want us to prepare it?' [58]".

As stated above, the disciples are not asking about where the next Passover will be, but rather where they would be eating that night. Aside from that though, the symbolism put forth by the movie is also inaccurate. The movie describes Aquarius as "always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water", however in the passage from the Bible, the man is not pouring the water, but carrying it. If is the symbolic reference that the movie claims, why is the symbolism incorrect?



Zeitgeist wrote:
Now, we have all heard about the end times and the end of the world. Apart from the cartoonish depictions in the Book of Revelation, the main source of this idea comes from Matthew 28:20, where Jesus says "I will be with you even to the end of the world." However, in King James Version, "world" is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations. The actual word being used is "aeon", which means "age." "I will be with you even to the end of the age." Which is true, as Jesus' Solar Piscean personification will end when the Sun enters the Age of Aquarius. The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Let's tell that to the approximately 100 million people in America who believe the end of the world is coming.


R wrote:
The movie makes claims that the King James Version of the Bible has many mistranslations, such as the word "world" is really "aeon" which means "age". If the King James Version is so incorrect, why are they using it? The only possible reason would be to make a more general attack on the reliability of the translation or so that they can spin words and "mistranslations" however they please. While the word for "world" actually is the word "aion" it is the Greek word "αιων" [59] which actually means "eternity", not "age", which is something like "παλαιώνω" [60]. So, essentially it is communicating the general idea correctly "even to the end of the world", "even to the end of eternity".

I think it is interesting how the film maker dismisses the Book of Revelation as "cartoonish depictions", even though it contains the majority of the end time predictions. It is no doubt because he could not draw a parallel between the zodiac and Revelation, only with Matthew 28. All of the film maker's Biblical arguments work this way, he selects what agrees with him, but ignores everything else. The film maker also claims that Matthew 28 is the "main source" for Christian knowledge of the end times. Passages in Matthew 24 [61], 2nd Thessalonians 2 [62], the book of Daniel [62-1], and of course Revelation [63a] are far better sources, but they do not contain the parallels that the film maker wanted to make, so they are ignored. Let's not forget that the King James Bible has 31,102 verses in it[63b], and yet only a few are about the astrological connections between Jesus, God, the Zodiac, and so forth? If the book is an astrological document, one would figure there'd be more.


Alan Watt's book "Cutting through, Part III" provides some interesting insight into Revelation, that is nonetheless irrelevant to this piece. However, I'd appreciate it if you, Freethinkaluva, who has spent such time investigating this, could help me out here.

R also makes the following claims (again, these are claims we have not addressed, so I urge you not to delete them and instead to consider them):

Zeitgeist wrote:
Furthermore, Moses is known as the Law Giver, the giver of the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law. However, the idea of a Law being passed from God to a prophet on a mountain is also a very old motif. Moses is just a law giver in a long line of law givers in mythological history. In India, Manou was the great law giver. In Crete, Minos ascended Mount Dicta, where Zeus gave him the sacred laws. While in Egypt there was Mises, who carried stone tablets and upon them the laws of god were written.


R wrote:
I imagine a lot of ancient people used tablets to write laws, considering they couldn't get poster board and markers at their local Walgreen's. The fact of the matter is that Moses probably got the laws from his father in law Jethro, a priest of Midian [65].


Ten Commandments

Zeitgeist wrote:
And as far as the Ten Commandments, they are taken outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the Dead phrased "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal," "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill," "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bare false witness" and so forth. In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth and resurrection, crucifixion, the ark of the covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, the great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover, and many many more, are all attributes of Egyptian ideas, long predating Christianity and Judaism.


R wrote:
This is an interesting claim, considering even the video shows there are over 40 "commandments" before it fades to the next shot. I think it goes without saying that nearly any moral code would speak against murder, stealing, and lying. It highlights the "original" commandments that the Ten Commandments are copied from, but it skips over many others, such as number 15 "I have not laid waste to ploughed land" and number 35 "I have not cursed the king". As you can see, only the matches are talked about, and the others are completely ignored. This could be applied to nearly any religion with a written and set moral code, not just the Ten Commandments. The above was edited out of the final version of the movie.

As shown by all the evidence we have talked about, Egyptian religion is not even close to a likely basis for Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, and final judgment exist in nearly all religions, as to miracle births, resurrections, various festivals, and so forth. As I noted there is no evidence of crucifixion in Egyptian mythology, or much else. While there may be a few similarities between Egyptian mythology and Judeo-Christian beliefs, there are far more inconsistencies.


Jesus Christ is a Myth

Zeitgeist wrote:
Justin Martyr, one of the first Christian historians and defenders, wrote: "When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem Sons of Jupiter." In a different writing, Justin Martyr said "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus." It's obvious that Justin and other early Christians knew how similar Christianity was to the Pagan religions. However, Justin had a solution. As far as he was concerned, the Devil did it. The Devil had the foresight to come before Christ, and create these characteristics in the Pagan world.


R wrote:
Despite all the other evidence that the film maker has put forth, he still feels the need to offer more evidence. Unfortunately for the movie these quotes are taken out of context and do not communicate what the film maker is trying to say they do. I had to track down where he took these quotes and I found them in Chapters 21 and 22 of the First Apology. If you read these chapters you will find that he is not saying these gods are the same as Jesus, lived and died in similar ways, rather he is saying that even though they are both gods and are held highly by the people, he will prove Jesus is superior [66]. When he says "we propound nothing different", he is not saying the stories the same, because as you have seen, there are no gods that died in exactly the same way as Jesus. Rather he is basically saying "we're not saying your gods aren't great, but ours is better". Also, I feel I should mention the second quote does not say "Perseus", it is actually "Ferseus", who was someone completely different [66].


Judah and Judas

Zeitgeist wrote:
The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. In fact, the aspect of transference, of one character's attributes to a new character, can be found within the book itself. In the Old Testament there's the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prototype for Jesus. Joseph was born of a miracle birth, Jesus was born of a miracle birth. Joseph was of 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples. Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Brother "Judah" suggests the sale of Joseph, disciple "Judas" suggests the sale of Jesus. Joseph began his work at the age of 30, Jesus began his work at the age of 30. The parallels go on and on.


R wrote:
Firstly, I doubt the connection between Joseph and Jesus. Joseph was not born of a miracle birth, the bible essentially alludes to the fact that Jacob, his father, was in his 70s or perhaps a little older [67]. This is hardly a miracle birth, as even artist Pablo Picasso had children into his early 70s [68]. Men can create children until the day the die, so it is hardly a miracle birth. It bares mentioning that Jacob had one other son after Joseph, his name as Benjamin[70], so why didn't the film maker mention this as the miracle birth since it happened even later? It is probably because Joseph was the best parallel for Jesus in the film and not Benjamin.

The film maker tries to use tricky language by saying that "Joseph was of 12 brothers" and uses this to compare to Jesus who had 12 disciples. The problem with this kind of tricky logic is that the film maker does not count Jesus among his disciples like he does Joseph among his brothers. He does this so the numbers match up, but if we compare them with Joseph separate from his brothers as Jesus is separate from his disciples, we get a different story. Joseph had 11 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples, these numbers hardly match up when compared correctly. [69].

Indeed, Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, but not by Judah alone, rather his "brothers" participated, however it doesn't say which ones. His brothers want to murder Joseph, but Judah asks his brothers what kind of profit they could make by murder alone, so instead they sell him. Sale of humans is not only a popular topic in the Bible, but in the ancient world as well [71]. Also, Judah may have "suggested" selling Joseph, however Judas did not suggest it, instead he secretly was bribed with 30 pieces of silver to turn Jesus in [72].

Joseph did not "begin his work" when he was 30, the Bible only mentions that he stood before the Pharaoh at age 30. Even if it is the case that age 30 he begins his work, this is hardly a parallel with Jesus, especially due to the fact that I have already debunked the other so-called "similarities" [73]. The film maker then says "the parallels go on and on", but they do not.


Jesus and Others Like Him

Zeitgeist wrote:
Furthermore, is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one". The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth.

You would think that a guy who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed the wealth of miracles acclaimed to him would have made it into the historical record. It didn't because once the evidence is weighed, there are very high odds that the figure known as Jesus, did not even exist.


R wrote:
There are several non-Biblical historical pieces on Jesus, however the film maker later calls these into question. Indeed, there are several people who are just like Jesus, in fact Apollonius of Tyana is a very famous one, which the film surprisingly does not mention [74]. Of course the known historical accounts of Jesus are pretty vague and do refer to him as "Christus", which does mean "anointed one" in Greek, so this isn't a real piece of undeniable proof. However, Lucian who lived shortly after Jesus, does mention him directly [75]. The film also shows a list of other known historians of the time that do not mention Jesus or Christianity, that seems pretty obvious because at the time nobody knew who Jesus was, and his followers were a very small group.

Saying that the fourth source of Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years" over simplifies the situation, and is wrong. Josephus mentioned Jesus twice, the first time is too pro-Christian to be original work and it is obvious it was changed by Christians at some point, however the second time Josephus mentions Jesus, he mentions him in a negative way. Therefore, while the first time may have been changed by Christians and can be discarded, the second time was likely not changed, and cannot be discounted [76]. However, it may come down to a situation where belief in Jesus and his life is an act of faith, and regardless of the situation, the above paragraph as stated by the film maker, really has nothing to do with the rest of his claims. It appears as though he just wants to prove badly that Jesus didn't exist.


Again, thank you so much for the assistance you have provided. If you can hep to address the following claims, you have pretty much debunked the site. I am busy and have limited time, and am also mainly focusing on the other aspects of the site, so I don't have time to read through >1000 pages of literature. As I said, you have been immensely helpful, and I will mention you as a source of assistance when I complete the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 2:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Edward Winston wrote:
"The film maker claims there are many "astrological-astronomical metaphors" in the Bible, but provides no evidence to back this up. He then goes on to talk about how age is really a metaphor for the astrological ages such as Aries and Pisces. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such, and we will discuss this further in a bit. It makes various claims about the zodiac and the length of ages, while these claims are not necessarily inaccurate, they prove very little when discussing the Bible."

As usual, Ed didn't look for any evidence of "astrological-astronomical metaphors" in the Bible, or he would've found them. But let's just be honest, Edward has no interest in demonstrating ZG1 correct. His only interest is anything anti-ZG1 and anti-Acharya S. Edward should just stick to his software engineering because he lacks the objectivity, among many other things needed, to be any sort of comparative religion expert. His critique of ZG1 and Acharya's Companion Guide is just a livid tirade demonstrating knee-jerk reaction after knee-jerk reaction more than anything else. Again, one would think intelligent atheists would be embarrassed by this type of approach. In fact, it's really difficult to understand why anyone is paying any attention to this utterly unqualified nonscientific non-expert.

If Edward and his militant atheist friends knew or actually read Acharya's work they'd already know about the "astrological-astronomical metaphors." Here's a brief excerpt to show a few of them:

Jesus as the Sun throughout History

Here's just one example from the above excerpt:
Quote:
"In the book of Job, traditionally considered one of the oldest texts in the Bible, we find God reiterated as the power behind the sun, as at 9:7, which refers to him "who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars..." Job contains other astronomical, astrological or astrotheological knowledge, as in the discussion of the "Mazzaroth" or Zodiac at 38:22:

"Can you lead forth the Maz'zaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children?"

Strong's Concordance (H4216) defines mazzaroth or mazzarah as "the 12 signs of the Zodiac and their 36 associated constellations." The "Bear with its children" refers to the constellation of Arcturus or Ursa Major and the three stars in its tail. (McClintock, 381)"

In Acharya's first book, The Christ Conspiracy, beginning on page 128 is an entire chapter titled, "Astrology and the Bible." Edward might learn something if he were to actually read it rather than continuously rant in utter ignorance of the subject and Acharya's work.

Here's the King James Version using "end of the world".

Matthew 28:20 NIV "I will be with you even to the end of the age."

The Ages

Edward Winston wrote:
"The film maker discusses that Moses came down from Mount Sinai with this 10 commandments and smashed them because he saw his people worshipping a bull, but in reality that bull was Taurus. According to the film, Moses represents the new age of Aries, and that's why Moses was angry. It goes on to say that because Moses represents Aries the ram, that is why Jews blow the ram's horn. It is far more likely that the reason Jews use the ram's horn is because they raised sheep, and a horn can be easily made into an instrument [51]. These claims cannot be substantiated with history either, primarily because the movie says the age Aries was from 2150 BC to 1 AD, however the earliest dates given by scholars for Exodus does not place it until over 650 years after the Age began [52], a little late for Moses to start a new age and get angry that nobody else had caught on."

I enjoy the part in the bible where Moses climbs the mountain to have a conversation with the ETERNAL BURNING BUSH - I would consider the sun. And when he comes down, Exodus 34:29-35 mentions Moses' "skin of his face shone" - otherwise known as a sunburn. That Exodus scripture is not unlike Matthew 17:2 where Jesus' "face did shine as the sun."

The bull was often symbolic of Taurus in ancient times as exemplified via Mithraism around 2,000 BCE. And we know that the OT biblical stories were oral traditions before they were actually written down. And Moses is another mythical character, not a real historical person. So, Edward is wrong on all counts regarding "history." Plus, the 2150 number is simply an average. There is no clear perfectly equal number of years between the "ages," it varies. Again, Edward is showing us more anti-ZG1 rhetoric than anything else. He certainly fails utterly in proving ZG1 or Acharya S false, but he does show us once again that his knowledge of the subject is very poor and shallow.

Jesus Fish

Edward Winston wrote:
"Just like with Moses we run into various problems with the claims stated in the film. The Age of Pisces is represented by two fish, but the film maker chooses his words carefully. He gleefully mentions that Jesus fed 5,000 people with 2 fish, but he chooses not to mention the amount of bread. The passage in the Bible says "We only have five loaves of bread and two fish". [53] The reason he does not mention the amount of bread is so that the parallel between the zodiac and the bible fits. It also is not out of the ordinary that fish is mentioned, it was a very common food staple in the region. Therefore, if someone were to have food, it would have probably been bread and fish.

It goes on to say that the fish symbol on the back of people's cars is actually a pagan astrological symbol for the "Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces". However, the true meaning behind the fish does not fit the parallel with the zodiac they are trying to make. The fact is the ancient and classical Greek word for fish is "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which is also an acronym for "Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ" or "Jesus Christ God's Son is Savior" [54]."

Ed must have missed pages 79, 163/4, 224, 312, 360, 416 and more in Christ Conspiracy. LOL, even Wikipedia has an article on Ichthys.

Of course, Edward just shows his true colors with comments such as:

Ed "The reason he does not mention the amount of bread is so that the parallel between the zodiac and the bible fits."

LOL, really? And you know this is a fact, HOW? The fact is that the fish-and-bread issue existed in Egypt long before Jesus was thought of. Read Christ in Egypt pages 276 about the fish and page 288 about the bread of life.

Quote:
"...For example, one of the favorite miracles in the gospels is when Jesus multiplies the loaves of bread. (Mk 6:41; 8:6) Like Jesus, however, Horus too miraculously brings forth bread, making this johnny-come-lately Christian miracle mundane and derivative. Bread, in fact, plays a major part in the Book of the Dead (e.g., BD 53), in which the Osiris says, among other things, “I eat bread from the house of the Lord of offerings.”2 Indeed, bread was so sacred to the Egyptians that at PT 508:1113c-1117, the deceased, essentially as Horus, “propitiated” the gods with it.3 Also, at PT 338:551d/T 148, reference is made to the “bread of Horus” or the “wheat bread of Horus,” by means of which the Osiris will not go hungry.4 At PT 468:905a-b, the Osiris receives bread and beer from Horus,5 like Jesus presenting the disciples with bread and wine (Mt 26:26-28).

In the gospels of Matthew (15:34, 36; 16:10) and Mark (8:5-6) much is made about Jesus multiplying the seven loaves of bread. Meanwhile, centuries to millennia earlier, a similar fuss occurred over the “seven loaves” in the Book of the Dead, as in chapter 53b:

"There are seven loaves in Heaven at Heliopolis with Ra, and there are seven loaves upon earth with Seb [Osiris’s father], and there are seven loaves with Osiris."

"As we can see, this motif of a savior god with seven loaves of bread is very old and pre-Christian, emphasized in important Egyptian texts, such that a significant number of people undoubtedly had it in mind by the time Christianity was created. Moreover, the Egyptian gods also out-miracle the Christian godman, as in the Pyramid Texts (PT 437:807a/P 31; PT 675:2006b/ N 410), in which the god offers the deceased “thy thousand (loaves) of bread…”6

- Christ in Egypt, page 288/289

So, in the ancient Egyptian myth everyone gets 1,000 loaves of bread of their very own when they pass on.

While Matthew 14:17 does mentioned the 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, Matthew still mentions 7 loaves of bread in the very next chapter, Matthew 15:34-37 and 16:10, mentioning "seven loaves" 6 times. Funny how both Edward and Wikipedia fail to note the six accounts mentioning "SEVEN loaves of bread" just by Matthew alone!!! Should I follow Edward's line of reasoning and assume the worst since Ed didn't mention the 7 loaves of bread and should I invent some ulterior motive for that omission, as he has done with Peter Joseph? You decide.

The fact is that the symbol of Pisces is the image of the 2 fish as mentioned in Matthew 14:17-20. While the number of fish and loaves of bread is irrelevant, the point is that we have other pre-xian stories, legends and myths discussing fish, bread, wine and beer long before Jesus or Christianity. Christianity clearly borrowed them and that point is obviously lost on this critic.

Ed must have missed page 197 in Christ Conspiracy where Acharya addresses both the 5 & 7 loaves of bread. These complaints from people like Edward are utterly pathetic. It is also a waste of my own time to have address them. Most of these complaints could easily have been cleared up by actually reading Acharya's books - something people like Ed REFUSE to do. Instead, they dishonestly misrepresent both the issues and the author, take things out of context, and then some critics even have the temerity to demand to be spoon-fed from the very books they themselves refuse to read. I know several Christian critics who have far more integrity and character than that. This atheist guy Ed is not to be trusted at all. He needs to stick with computer issues because when it comes to religion, he just doesn't get it at all. His critique of Zeitgeist Part 1 and of Acharya's work is more like Fox News: "fair and balanced."

Passover

LOL, there's nothing to address here beyond some nitpicking. Ed claims "the film maker has completely misquoted the Bible" and then later says "Luke 22:10 is accurately quoted."

Ed "the passage from the Bible, the man is not pouring the water, but carrying it. If is the symbolic reference that the movie claims, why is the symbolism incorrect?"

LOL, everything seems to go over Ed's head doesn't it? First of all, one cannot constantly be pouring out water or one will run out of water. 2nd, it's not time for the water to be poured out because the Age of Aquarius won't start for another 2150 years or so. Still, we are talking about myths here. And Ed sounds like he gets his info from Xian apologist clowns like JP Holding - again, an utter embarrassment for atheists.

Quote:
Luke 22:10 "This famous yet enigmatic passage refers to the "house" or age of Aquarius, the Water-Bearer, and Jesus is instructing his disciples to pass over into it..."

- Christ Conspiracy, page 146

Revelation and the Ages
Edward Winston wrote:
The movie makes claims that the King James Version of the Bible has many mistranslations, such as the word "world" is really "aeon" which means "age". If the King James Version is so incorrect, why are they using it? The only possible reason would be to make a more general attack on the reliability of the translation or so that they can spin words and "mistranslations" however they please. While the word for "world" actually is the word "aion" it is the Greek word "αιων" [59] which actually means "eternity", not "age", which is something like "παλαιώνω" [60]. So, essentially it is communicating the general idea correctly "even to the end of the world", "even to the end of eternity".

"If the King James Version is so incorrect, why are they using it?" So, Edward doesn't even know that the KJV is well known to be very flawed? Are you getting it yet that Edward doesn't know what he is talking about? Even a basic seminary student knows this fact. Also, why wouldn't we use it? It's the most commonly used version among evangelical Christians. Are we supposed to use a version, say, written in Indonesian?

Concerning the word "age," once again Edward doesn't know what he is talking about, although it may be understandable why his blather is impressive to people who are even more ignorant. He is a classic "encyclopedia surfer" who looks something up quickly and then thinks he knows all about it.

Edward's "scholarship" is so bad he apparently hasn't even heard of Strong's Concordance, where he could've found the following definition of "aion" or αἰών, which is Strong's G165:

Quote:
αἰών

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

2) the worlds, universe

3) period of time, age

And we can also check the Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary (p. 10), which says:

αἰών = "space of time, duration, period; age, lifetime; eternity; one's destiny"

As we can see, "aion" most definitely means "age."

If Edward actually knew anything about the subject - which he so clearly doesn't - he would also have known to look up the different Bible versions for scriptures using the word "aion," such as Matthew 28:20. Here he would have found several translations of the word as AGE. But, of course, he knows better than the translators of those Bible editions, such as:

Quote:
NKJV - teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Emph. added.)

NLT - Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

NIV - and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

ESV - “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

NASB - teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

RSV - teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

YNG - teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days -- till the full end of the age.'

DBY - teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, *I* am with you all the days, until the completion of the age.

HNV - teaching them to observe all things which I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Oh, and the word παλαιώνω means "stale" or "age," as in "to grow old." It has nothing to do with the connotation of "age" as we are discussing it. :lol: Obviously, Edward doesn't know Greek at all. Acharya reads Greek fluently, because she studied it in college and did post-graduate work as an archaeologist student in Corinth, Greece where the apostle Paul supposed was. She also reads about 10 other languages to various degrees.

Looking at Ed's sources, it's obvious all he is doing is plugging in words in some cheesy online dictionary and then thinks he knows everything about Greek. Acharya's been studying Greek since the mid-70s -how old are you, Eddy? I'm thinking that Acharya has been studying Greek since before you were born. And you'd know how well she knows Greek - and these others subjects, if you actually read her work. Are you afraid to actually read her work or are you just another misogynist, Eddie?

Apparently, Edward thinks we are as dumb as his mindless followers who believe all the bogus comments he's made and that we won't actually check on his nonscientific and unscholarly claims. The rest of Edward's "scholarship" is pretty much just as bad and dismissible. He has a very shallow grasp of the subject matter and is no expert, as we've shown here over and over again.

Now, he needs to be a man of integrity and acknowledge his many errors and apologize to Acharya and Peter Joseph.

"I think it is interesting how the film maker dismisses the Book of Revelation as "cartoonish depictions", even though it contains the majority of the end time predictions...."

Here's a factoid, as was already posted in another thread:
Quote:
Basic factoids concerning Zeitgeist Part 1:

Zeitgeist Part 1 is only 25 minutes long and was never created to serve as a scholarly documentary. The transcript and subtitles have been translated into nearly 3 dozen different languages and has been viewed over 100 million times worldwide. All one has to do is read the Q & A at the Zeitgeist website to see how ZG came into existence:
"Zeitgeist came into existence as a personal project which was shown in New York as a free public awareness expression. After the event was over, "The Movie" was tossed online with little thought given to a public response. Within a month, the film was getting record views. Months later, the "Final Edition" was completed. In total, the views for "Zeitgeist, The Movie" have exceeded 50,000,000 on Google video alone. Considering the other posts in different formats, along with public screenings, it is estimated that the total world views are well over 100 Million."

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm

Zeitgeist Part 1 was never intended to serve as a comprehensive point by point dissection of the entire bible. Of course, the critics find it convenient to ignore that point. They cry and whine about what's in ZG1 and they cry and whine about what's NOT in ZG1 - cry yourself a river and then, grow up. Maybe take a comparative religion course.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Ten Commandments

Ed has nothing to offer here beyond juvenile nitpicking so I'll skip to here:
Edward Winston wrote:
"As shown by all the evidence we have talked about, Egyptian religion is not even close to a likely basis for Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, and final judgment exist in nearly all religions, as to miracle births, resurrections, various festivals, and so forth. As I noted there is no evidence of crucifixion in Egyptian mythology, or much else. While there may be a few similarities between Egyptian mythology and Judeo-Christian beliefs, there are far more inconsistencies."

LOL, we've demonstrated quite handily that Ed doesn't know what he's talking about. Edward is utterly oblivious to the Egyptologists, some of whom are Christians, who admit that Christianity borrowed much from the Egyptian religion.

Quote:
"Over a century ago, renowned British Egyptologist Sir Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934), a Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum, as well as a confessed Christian, remarked that a study tracing the "influence of ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and mythology on Christianity" would "fill a comparatively large volume."

- Christ in Egypt, Preface

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

BTW, there's no credible evidence for Jesus' court case, crucifixion, life or death or resurrection outside of the New Testament. Nobody here has claimed that Christianity is an exact copycat or carbon copy of any religion - that is a straw man argument conveniently used by both theist and atheist critics. But Egyptian religion definitely influenced Christianity and had pretty much all of the concepts found in Christianity and it is precisely those CONCEPTS that we're talking about. Get it?

The "copycat" straw man has already been addressed in the FAQ's:

"...If Pagan religions worldwide were basing their religious ideas around natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations i.e. astrotheology, then, there are going to be plenty of similarities. The differences tend to be related to environment, culture, era etc. Add to that all of the competition and borrowing of ideas between them. Still, the CONCEPTS have their foundations in astrotheology. And that's what we're talking about, borrowing similar concepts based in natural phenomena. If one is unaware that the myths were based on natural phenomena it will seem odd, mysterious and supernatural. When you know what you're looking for it becomes obvious...."

The "crucifixion" of Horus and a bunch of other gods has already been addressed many times, but, it's lost on the curmudgeon critic, Edward. Plus the fact that he refuses to actually read Acharya's works, so he really isn't an expert on her work - or on the subject at all.

Was Horus "Crucified?"

Jesus Christ is a Myth

Edward Winston wrote:
"Despite all the other evidence that the film maker has put forth, he still feels the need to offer more evidence. Unfortunately for the movie these quotes are taken out of context and do not communicate what the film maker is trying to say they do. I had to track down where he took these quotes and I found them in Chapters 21 and 22 of the First Apology. If you read these chapters you will find that he is not saying these gods are the same as Jesus, lived and died in similar ways, rather he is saying that even though they are both gods and are held highly by the people, he will prove Jesus is superior [66]. When he says "we propound nothing different", he is not saying the stories the same, because as you have seen, there are no gods that died in exactly the same way as Jesus. Rather he is basically saying "we're not saying your gods aren't great, but ours is better". Also, I feel I should mention the second quote does not say "Perseus", it is actually "Ferseus", who was someone completely different [66]."

LMAO!!! This guy is the WORST researcher I have ever seen in my life! Wow, wow, wow He doesn't even seem to have the most basic research skills. His analysis is utterly laughable, like the rest of his absolute junk we've exposed. But here Ed's incompetence reaches a new low. Despite the fact that he can regurgitate, Ed's nonexpertise reveals itself once again.

In the first place, Edward sounds like a Christian apologist, trying to tell us what Justin Martyr really meant, when what he said is clear enough: Christians propound nothing different from pagans when they are making supernatural claims. And we know that that "interpretation" of what Martyr said is accurate based on knowing ancient mythology. Educated scholars don't make these kinds of ridiculous "what he really meant" arguments, because they know Justin is describing the mythology of the day as it was. So, that's just lame. But it gets even worse.

With his nose-in-the-air erudition, Ed proudly proclaims: "Also, I feel I should mention the second quote does not say 'Perseus', it is actually 'Ferseus', who was someone completely different [66]"

Edward cites Early Christian Writings as his source - and the page does in fact say "Ferseus" - but Eddy is so unfamiliar with the subject matter and obviously hasn't read it anywhere else to know that the real quote actually does say "Perseus," as it should because THAT's the myth: Perseus is the son of the virgin Danae and the god Zeus. Ed knows nothing about this myth - as he knows pretty much nothing about the rest of the subjects he blathers on about. And he also is so incompetent that he doesn't know that the "Ferseus" on this website is a TYPO, a scanning error, in fact. It IS Perseus, and there is no other "completely different" god named "Ferseus." :lol:

While this "conspiracy nonscience" guy spews libelous comments at Peter Joseph and Acharya, he himself just makes up "facts" on the fly about subjects he clearly knows nothing about! What a disgrace - and so are all those who are citing this absurd non-expert who doesn't even seem to have the most basic scholastic skills. And he doesn't even check his sources, this great researcher! Busted again. How utterly embarrassing.

So, "Ferseus" is a scanning error, but Ed is so ignorant of the subject and couldn't even figure that out, that he just makes up "someone completely different" on the spot! Where's your primary source for Ferseus, Edward? I demand the primary sources for Ferseus - what is his story? Come on, you're the expert!

Yeah, he is "someone completely different," all right - because you just made him up! From now on, let's call this guy Edward Winston, "Captain Ferseus," because he doesn't deserve to use the word "science" on his website.

And none of Ed's brilliant militant atheist friends who know so much about this subject have caught one single bogus thing he's pulled out of his ass? He makes the Christian apologist cyberstalking creep Keith Truth look like a rocket scientist - even he's not that stupid to just make crap up like that. We're gonna have to put Edward in the "ya can't fix stupid" category.

How dare he even pretend to know what he's talking about.

This guy Edward Winston - i.e., Captain Ferseus - has a lot of nerve specifically creating a website for the sole intent and purpose of smearing Zeitgeist Part 1 and Acharya S, when he is so completely incompetent, unscientific and unscholarly. So he deserves a taste of his own medicine thrown right back at him, along with his militant atheist cheerleader buddies who foolishly follow him like he's some kind of leader or "captain." He needs to be held responsible and accountable for the utter trash he has posted on his website. It's a disservice to humanity, and an embarrassment to decent atheists and freethinkers everywhere.

:evil:

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:44 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
Excellent work.
there is also this:

R wrote:
Zeitgeist wrote:
The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. By 325 a.d. in Rome, emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud. And for the next 1600 years, the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold on all of Europe, leading to such joyous periods as the Dark Ages, along with enlightening events such as the Crusades, and the Inquisition.


The reality is that Jesus was not a solar deity as I have already debunked. There is little comparison between Jesus and older gods such as Horus, even though an attempt was made to link them, when one actually looks at the real history, the opposite is true. The film goes on to say that it was a political motive that moved Christianity and Jesus into the historical arena in order to create social control. The film maker claims that the Council of Nicea established various "Christian Doctrines [...] and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud". The problem with this is that the Council of Nicea did not establish anything, instead they merely set in stone the doctrines that had been practiced by the various churches as the official position of the whole church [77].

Let's talk about a major math problem here, if the Council of Nicea was in 325 AD and had a vicious strangle hold for the next 1600 years, that would have an end date of 1925 AD. How did they maintain that control with the Protestant Reformation [78]? What about how France dominated the Church for over 70 years and made them relocate to Avignon, France [79]? The Pope and the Church were not what we think of them today until 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church was created when it split from the Eastern Church [80]. So, talk of the "Vatican" maintaining control during all these events is completely incorrect. It seems like the the film did not research the church well enough. In fact there are even more problems with the film maker's claims.

The first problem with blaming the church for "the Dark Ages" is that it occurred from 476 AD until 1000 AD [81], during the Church's weakest period as we discussed above. Second, modern historians tell us that the term "dark" is inaccurate, this was a term used by historians during the "enlightenment", chiefly due to the fact that the "dark age" era was the opposite of said age of "enlightenment". Generally today it is referred to as the "early middle ages". The so-called Dark Ages contained more than Christianity, it was also the failing Roman society, invading barbarians, and Christianity's struggle to organize and establish itself. So, in all, the claim that Christianity brought the Dark Ages is historically false [82].

The crusades was a much more complex situation, in fact crusades is a broad term for a series of battles over the span of nearly 300 years. It also bears mentioning that crusades that were not initiated by the Church, but rather a Muslim leader who destroyed a large Christian church in Jerusalem, so the blame cannot be square on Christianity [83]. The Inquisition is also a broad term used for many events, and it is interesting to note that some Inquisitions were not by the Roman Catholic Church at all, however the film would have you believe that it is responsible for all of them [84]. The crusades and the Inquisitions are far too complex to discuss here, but they did happen, but not always in the name of the Vatican.

As shown, the situation is far more complex the the film maker implies it is, and Christianity cannot be used as a scapegoat for all of Europe's woes. True evil has been done in the name of the Church, but for the most part not within the last 500 years. I am not a Christian Apologist, or even a Christian, but I do realize that the film is simply blaming the Church for all of Europe's problems. This is obvious a last ditch effort to affirm that Christian is an evil religion used for social control that is ripped off from other traditions -- we have shown these accusations are completely false.


It strikes me as odd that he made that statment about the Dark ages. Perhaps he has not heard of Gibbon's work. I am also reminded of this:



The Christian death toll is addressed here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3241

The rest is addressed here, here, here, and here.

Also see the lower 2/3 of this: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ition.html

Freethinkaluva, I thank you very much for your assistance and will definitely credit you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 9:17 am 
Offline
Bast
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:45 pm
Posts: 132
Location: Norway
Dear Belse

I will link you a site provided by West Chester University of Pennsylvania. I suggest you read from this article posted. It will give you a easy introduction to this subject that are somewhat complex in structure and size.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/astr-hel/#SH2d

Here you will find information showing the linear evolution and close connection between ancient philosophy, religion, astrology, astronomy and science. You will also see how these subjects were seen upon in close relationship to each other.
And how they in time started to separate from each other, evolving from its common origins. Today these things are seen as separated and not connected, even close to "enemies". The ability to understand past and present in context is not exactly something "average Joe" is known to have.

_________________
Eyvitar firna - er maðr annan skal, þess er um margan gengr guma; heimska ór horskum - gerir hölða sonu - sá inn máttki munr.

Never place blame on man, because it happens to all. No matter how wise, a fool he becomes, when love steals his powers.

Hávamál


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 12:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Judah and Judas

More whiny nitpicking.

Jesus and Others Like Him

Edward Winston wrote:
"There are several non-Biblical historical pieces on Jesus, however the film maker later calls these into question. Indeed, there are several people who are just like Jesus, in fact Apollonius of Tyana is a very famous one, which the film surprisingly does not mention [74]. Of course the known historical accounts of Jesus are pretty vague and do refer to him as "Christus", which does mean "anointed one" in Greek, so this isn't a real piece of undeniable proof. However, Lucian who lived shortly after Jesus, does mention him directly [75]. The film also shows a list of other known historians of the time that do not mention Jesus or Christianity, that seems pretty obvious because at the time nobody knew who Jesus was, and his followers were a very small group."

Is Ed aware that Apollonius of Tyana is a mythical story? It doesn't seem like it.

Apollonius, Jesus and Paul | Men or Myths?

So, Lucian is the best defense of Jesus' historicity Ed can find ahh? Why does that not surprise me?
Quote:
"Lucian of Samosata (2nd century)—who doesn't even mention Jesus Christ by name- far too late to serve as evidence of anything other than a tradition established by that time."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ), page 97

Lucian of Samosata, born c. A.D. 125 – died after A.D. 180

Edward Winston wrote:
"Saying that the fourth source of Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years" over simplifies the situation, and is wrong. Josephus mentioned Jesus twice, the first time is too pro-Christian to be original work and it is obvious it was changed by Christians at some point, however the second time Josephus mentions Jesus, he mentions him in a negative way. Therefore, while the first time may have been changed by Christians and can be discarded, the second time was likely not changed, and cannot be discounted [76]. However, it may come down to a situation where belief in Jesus and his life is an act of faith, and regardless of the situation, the above paragraph as stated by the film maker, really has nothing to do with the rest of his claims. It appears as though he just wants to prove badly that Jesus didn't exist."

Edward Winston makes a far better Christian apologist than he does an atheist. Once again, it is blatantly obvious that Ed has no idea what he's talking about.
Quote:
"The Jewish Antiquities" by Josephus, 18.3.3:

It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius in the early 4th century. Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Regarding "The James passage" 20.9.1:

Dr. Lardner: "Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery."

"Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem personage called James, and a Christian reader thought he must have meant James the "brother of the Lord" who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem church about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: "James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ", and a later copyist took this as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely this way. Of course, this will be a more plausible hypothesis if there are positive reasons for doubting authenticity. One such is that in Josephus's entire work the term "the Christ", meaning the Messiah, occurs only in two passages where mention is made of Jesus, with no attempt to explain what it means to the pagan readers to whom Josephus was appealing..."

- The Jesus legend by G.A. Wells, Page 53

"One argument for the authenticity of the Testimonium as a whole contends that, since it is present in all existing copies of Josephus's Antiquities, it must have been in the original. This assertion sounds good, until it is realized that there are no extant Greek copies of the Antiquities that predate the 9th to 11th century (depending on the source), that all of these copies were made by Christians, and that all of them evidently were based on a single text."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ), page 89

Josephus Untangled, thread

Quote:
Jesus famed far and wide:

"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the following:

Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55;

Mark 1:28, 10:1;

Luke 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25, etc."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ) by D. M. Murdock page 85

Quote:
"Additionally, even though many times in the gospels Jesus was claimed to have been famed far and wide, not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value. Nor is there any valid scientific archaeological evidence demonstrating the gospel story to be true or even to support the existence of Jesus Christ. Despite this utter lack of evidence, Christian apologists and authorities make erroneous and misleading claims that there are "considerable reports" and "a surprisingly large amount of detail" regarding the life of Jesus and early Christianity."

- WWJ page 257


LMAO!!! Even Christian scholars cannot agree on so-called "evidence for Jesus."
Quote:
"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."

- Merrill C. Tenney

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 85-86

* Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

Quote:
"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

- John P. Meier

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, page 86

* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor

Quote:
"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6,83)
- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 84

Quote:
"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" (163) founder of the modern evangelical movement

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) page 84

Quote:
"The gospels are in fact anonymous"

- Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

- WWJ, page 60

Quote:
"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan

- WWJ, page 24

* Dr. Crossan is a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual and higher criticism. He is especially vocal in the field of Historical Jesus studies

Quote:
"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.

2. Meier, II, 536.

3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? page 259


Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.
Quote:
"The Canon: A Second-Century Composition

"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

1. Ur-Markus (150)
2. Ur-Lukas (150+)
3. Luke (170)
4. Mark (175)
5. John (178)
6. Matthew (180)

"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."

- "Who Was Jesus?" pages 82-83

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ contains commentary from the following Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars:

* John Ankerberg
* Craig L. Blomberg
* F.F. Bruce
* William Lane Craig
* John Dominic Crossan
* Bart Ehrman
* Norman Geisler
* Gary Habermas
* Josh McDowell
* John P. Meier
* Bruce M. Metzger
* J.P. Moreland
* Ronald H. Nash
* Lee Strobel
* Merrill C. Tenney
* Ben Witherington
* Edwin Yamauchi
* And more!

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ also includes a Foreword by Dr. Robert M. Price!"

Who was Jesus? (WWJ) is perfect for the believer and non-believer alike!

The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

Josephus Untangled, thread

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus

The "Historical" Jesus?

The Origins of Christianity - free E-Book

The Jesus Challenge

Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy?

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 9:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Peter Joseph “Other symptoms of what appear to be a pathological mental illness in this regard, is by creating a means which avoids having to research anything thoroughly. A statement such as 'Acharya S has been discredited by the academic community, therefore we don't have to followup on her sources.' is another variation.”

Muertos "This is another conspiracist attempt to deflect credibility criticism. It's closely related to the inability of conspiracy theorists to distinguish credible sources from spurious ones. Acharya S. (true name D.M. Murdock) is a pseudo-historian whose works have been discredited by the academic community. One of her major sources is the mysterious "Madame Blavatsky," .... In the peer-review process, your assertions are assumed to be a pack of lies until and unless you prove that what you say has factual support. This is why graduate students have to defend their dissertations in front of a panel of their peers."

Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/

LMAO! And what the hell would Edward Winston or Muertos know about defending a dissertation? NOTHING!!!

Muertos has nothing to offer beyond lies regarding Acharya and her work. H.P. Blavatsky is NOT and never has been a major source. Once again, Muertos relies very heavily on lies that originate from Christian apologists. This one was spread around by Keith Trash. Is Muertos another keith trash/chris white/JP Holding wannabe? There's not a relevant credential between them.

H.P. Blavatsky is cited by an assortment of highly respected scholars to this very day but our very confused atheist curmudgeon, Muertos, wouldn't know anything about that. Never mind the fact that HP Blavatsky was only cited ONCE in ZG1. Muertos harps on it like a xian fundy grasping at straws.

Acharya's work has NOT been discredited by the academic community. In fact, the 5,700 footnote citations and a bibliography of over 1,600 across 5 books to date show otherwise. Just check her Truth Be Known website homepage to see the reviews listed there by people such as Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology, Dr. Robert M. Price, Dr. Robert Eisenman, Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, Earl Doherty and others.

Where is Muertos' scholarly masterpiece published by what scholarly publication?

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:21 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Here's a very reasonable comment at TZGM forum by Ouroboros.

Now back to Muertos from the con-sci website:
Quote:
Muertos "...the reason Acharya S. never got out of the starting gate as a respected scholar is because her theories are bullshit."

And what "theory" would that be? Does Muertos even know what he's talking about? She has been doing quite well for a decade and a half now. Christ Conspiracy is still one of the best selling books at AUP. She actually has several positive reviews of all of her books by an assortment of scholars and other professionals. As well as private e-mails from priests, ministers, preachers, pastors, Bishops etc.

Preachers, priests quietly embrace the Christ myth

I am wondering how much of the smearing of Acharya and her work has to do with misogyny at websites like Edward Winston's. Here's a quote from a review of Who Was Jesus? from David Mills:
Quote:
"...D.M. Murdock/Acharya S, like all authors on controversial subjects, has many critics. But they all share one commonality: They don't know what they're talking about. Murdock understands many languages and has a breadth of knowledge her critics cannot match. This fact irks the uninformed. Having given a fair hearing to some of her online detractors and their "rebuttal" videos, I have detected not only a lack of knowledge on the part of her critics, but also, in some cases, a thinly disguised misogyny...."

- David Mills
Author of Atheist Universe

Full review here

Image

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support