"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1"

[Dave31]

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

What are your thoughts after reading this companion guide? Part 1 of the Zeitgeist movie is based largely on Acharya's work. Acharya has nothing to do with parts 2 or 3. Here's what professor Schoch said about the companion guide ...

"The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist, Part 1, by Acharya S is an absolute must for anyone who wishes to fully understand the significance of the movie."

"Well-referenced, with numerous quotations from renowned Egyptologists and classical scholars, Acharya's penetrating research clearly lays out the very ancient pre-Christian basis of modern Christianity. Those who espouse Christianity beware! After digesting the evidence, you will never again view your religion in the same light."

Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D.
Professor of Natural Science at Boston University

[maccy]

Dave31

I believe you are just repeating what you did here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3463525#post3463525

Accordingly, I've reported your OP.

[Drudgewire]

"The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist, Part 1, by Acharya S is an absolute must for anyone who wishes to fully understand the significance of the movie."

So is this:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bong.gif

[Brainster]

Schoch is something of a woo himself (http://www.robertschoch.com/):

Studies in the modern laboratory, employing rigorous methodology and peer-reviewed oversight, have conclusively detected statistical anomalies suggesting the presence of some not yet understood faculty of the human mind. In The Parapsychology Revolution, Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D.—a scholar widely known for his geological theories that question the conventional dating of the Great Sphinx—and researcher Logan Yonavjak introduce and anthologize the core writings that underscore the range and continuing challenges of psychical research.

[Pardalis]

Just 23 posts and he's already in rerun?

[HereticHulk]

Another one of Acharya S' sock puppets, Freethinkaluva should show up here in 3....2.....1......

These guys/gals are everywhere. It is like the same 3 or 4 people spamming a bunch of forums.

I'm glad this thread was started though. I'd like to see others peoples thoughts on her latest 'work'.

D M Murdoch has a standing invitation to debate here, her claims that she endorses and profits from in Zeitgeist.

[Dave31]

macy,

Well, we've already got 34 pages of hearing from the harpies there. The main source for part 1 was never ALLOWED to have a link posted for further reading substantiating Zeitgeist part 1 so I had to start my own thread. I understand you'd prefer censorship and bias instead of an objective view but that is your flaw not mine.

Meanwhile, GreNME has posted many posts there advertising his website and forum yet, no a word is said to him. He admittedly never read anything by Acharya - until recently with the companion guide, so he says. The hypocrisy and one-sidedness is clear as glass and has gone on long enough.

The Randi forum mods won't allow a link for further reading from an expert on the subject and source for Zeitgeist part 1 but will instead allow some person with no credentials to rant from a prison for violent criminals. When things like this are going on how can the Randi forum claim any credibility with a straight face?

"FSP was one of America's first maximum-security prisons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_State_Prison

The Randi forums and elsewhere need to be aware and take seriously this OBSESSION GreNME has with Acharya. GreNME shows the signs of a stalker. Maybe that's why he's in prison? 34 pages of ranting about someone and their work when they admit they've never read their work? Then going on to create a forum and website further obsessing over it? WAKE UP!

Why should Acharya waste her time 'debating' with folks who know nothing about the subject or her work and who may potentially be mental? She has much better things to do.

So who has actually read the ZG companion guide e-book? Or actually read Acharya's books from beginning to end?

[Drudgewire]

Why should Acharya waste her time 'debating' with folks who... may potentially be mental?
A sense of kinship? :p

[GreNME]

I have, Dave, and I found both her book and her companion guide to be full of assertions without sufficient evidence. Of course, this has already been explained to you, and not only here on the JREF forum but on the Infidels forum as well. You pop in, you provide advertisements and accusations at people, and then your only real defense is "have you actually read such-and-such book?"

The answer is, depending on the book, probably yes. However, having read it or not does not make one qualified to comment on the subject matter within the book itself. You see, there actually exist people who have performed their own studies completely apart from Dorothy's (Acharya S) books, and have found the claims that Dorothy (Acharya S) espouses to be flawed in many ways.

So, if you truly wish to have a discussion on the topic and are not simply copy-pasting from Dorothy's (Acharya S) website or her mailing list, then I'm more than happy to discuss the topic with you. If you are just going to continue your cross-forum copy-paste-a-thon, then I should probably let you know that the moderators don't take kindly to that stuff here.

I await your summary. :)

[maccy]

macy,

snip



If you posted a link to something that didn't cost $7 to download (and actually attempted to discuss it, rather than just asking people to read it) it wouldn't be commercial spam. As it is, you are spamming, which is why I reported you.

We'll see what the moderators have to say; but, for reference, the forum rules are here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45132

[dudalb]

I was not aware that having a PHD in Natural Science conferred any expertise in Archaelogy or Ancient History.
The first third of Zeitgeist is crap. (So are the other two thirds,but that is another question). I know of few historians who endorse it's claims about the origins of Christianity.
If you think Christianity is a pile of woo,fine, I have no problems with that. But don't use
a pile of woo just as smelly to attack it.

[thesyntaxera]

Hello Dave-

There is a forum located at www.gnosticmedia.com/communion

I think you might have a lot in common with the folks over there as opposed to here where one is asked to provide evidence to back bold claims such as those made in the first part of Zeitgeist.

Speaking of obsession, why even worry about GreNME if he is so wrong? Whats your beef?

[bofors]

If you think Christianity is a pile of woo...

As opposed to what?

[Dave31]

GreNME, so now you claim you've read ZG companion guide as well as her book (didn't specify which book as she has 3 and soon to be 4) and the they are "full of assertions without sufficient evidence."

The problem with that is you were making those claims BEFORE you ever read any of her work. You clearly have an axe to grind with no interest in being objective nor honest about it.

GreNME "your only real defense is "have you actually read such-and-such book?"

It's a fair question to ask because most haters of this topic and of Acharya's work have not read her work yet make claims such as you do claiming it's "full of assertions without sufficient evidence" without ever having studied it first.

GreNME "I'm more than happy to discuss the topic with you"

- Why would I waste any of my time discussing this with you when you have no credentials whatsoever - nothing more than an armchair quarterback making fallacious claims about what is and what is not true. No thanks.

GreNME "If you are just going to continue your cross-forum copy-paste-a-thon, then I should probably let you know that the moderators don't take kindly to that stuff here."

- That's very hypocritical since they let you do it on a constant basis - 34 pages of it in the ZG thread.

Why can't you address the issue about being in Folsom Prison? And btw, what other languages to you speak, read and write?

thesyntaxera, not interested in the 'gnosticmedia' drug view point. The issue with GreNME is simply that he is obsessed with the ZG movie and Acharya's work spreading fallacious posts on the topic at every forum he goes to and you guys are buying it up like kids and candy - more to the point he is becoming a stalker - already addressed in post 7.

maccy, no, you're not really all that concerned about spam or adverts here rather, you prefer censorship, bias and one-sided views. As already mentioned in post 7.

Folks are welcome to get passed all the censorship and selective perception to begin actually discussing the ZG companion guide whenever they chose after they've actually read it. Instead of attacking me for sharing the fact that it exists.

[maccy]

Why can't you address the issue about being in Folsom Prison?

Dave, I'd be careful in your dealings with GreNME, if I were you. Rumour is that he shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

[HereticHulk]

GreNME, so now you claim you've read ZG companion guide as well as her book (didn't specify which book as she has 3 and soon to be 4) and the they are "full of assertions without sufficient evidence."

The problem with that is you were making those claims BEFORE you ever read any of her work. You clearly have an axe to grind with no interest in being objective nor honest about it.



It's a fair question to ask because most haters of this topic and of Acharya's work have not read her work yet make claims such as you do claiming it's "full of assertions without sufficient evidence" without ever having studied it first.



- Why would I waste any of my time discussing this with you when you have no credentials whatsoever - nothing more than an armchair quarterback making fallacious claims about what is and what is not true. No thanks.



- That's very hypocritical since they let you do it on a constant basis - 34 pages of it in the ZG thread.

Why can't you address the issue about being in Folsom Prison? And btw, what other languages to you speak, read and write?

thesyntaxera, not interested in the 'gnosticmedia' drug view point. The issue with GreNME is simply that he is obsessed with the ZG movie and Acharya's work spreading fallacious posts on the topic at every forum he goes to and you guys are buying it up like kids and candy - more to the point he is becoming a stalker - already addressed in post 7.

maccy, no, you're not really all that concerned about spam or adverts here rather, you prefer censorship, bias and one-sided views. As already mentioned in post 7.

Folks are welcome to get passed all the censorship and selective perception to begin actually discussing the ZG companion guide whenever they chose after they've actually read it. Instead of attacking me for sharing the fact that it exists.

The church of Murdoch. :D

You have the tenacity of a born again x-tian!

If nobody has 'crendentails' here, Dorothy should have to problem coming in and debate her claims then. The onus is on her, she is the one making the claims that no serious scholar would touch. Instead, she sends one of her followers making weak sales pitches. Laughable man! There is your ax, if there needs to be one for you to justify your spamming?

I saw Dorothy get owned at The Infidels forum, I saw you and freethinkaluva get owned at Rational Responders forums, you can make the rounds here too. We would prefer to have Ms. Murdoch herself.

BTW, when is she going to submit her 'work' for Peer Review?

[GreNME]

Dave, when you're done with the personal attacks you can feel free to give your summary and personal opinions on the e-book. Your weird attempts to discuss non-sequiturs that don't actually have to do with the content and instead seem focused on attacking me permanently are only going to have your posts seem rather creepy.

I say the assertions are lacking sufficient evidence because I've looked at the source material, Dave31, and found that they don't tend to support claims made by Dorothy or others. However, if you want to summarize any specific claims made in any of Dorothy's books I would be happy to discuss those with you. If you don't want to, I'm not sure where this conversation is going to be any more interesting than you casting personal aspersions about me based primarily on ignorance (of the subject matter) and loyalty (to Dorothy).

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, not interested in the 'gnosticmedia' drug view point. The issue with GreNME is simply that he is obsessed with the ZG movie and Acharya's work spreading fallacious posts on the topic at every forum he goes to and you guys are buying it up like kids and candy - more to the point he is becoming a stalker - already addressed in post 7.

Nor am I, but they sure are really into AS. They are even one of the sources for the zeitgeist video. Since you need your point of view on the world to be validated why not go there where no one will chastise you for holding an unprovable hypothesis as fact...you will find much support!

The problem with that is you were making those claims BEFORE you ever read any of her work. You clearly have an axe to grind with no interest in being objective nor honest about it.

Please describe in detail why it is important for one to read all of her books? She isn't the the sole arbiter of history.

[GreNME]

Don't encourage him with regard to his personal attacks. His biggest contention with me is that his normal "have you read the books" defense (in and of itself insufficient) no longer applies to me, so now it's down to personal attacks. This thread will go downhill even more quickly if it stays concentrated on personal attacks. I'd much rather have Dave31 try actually putting some of the stuff he says he read into his own words here in rhetorical format.

[thesyntaxera]

Don't encourage him with regard to his personal attacks. His biggest contention with me is that his normal "have you read the books" defense (in and of itself insufficient) no longer applies to me, so now it's down to personal attacks. This thread will go downhill even more quickly if it stays concentrated on personal attacks. I'd much rather have Dave31 try actually putting some of the stuff he says he read into his own words here in rhetorical format.

Fair enough. Lets hear it....Dave.

[HereticHulk]

{crickets}

[Hokulele]

Well, this thread became boring quickly.

[Dave31]

GreNME "his normal "have you read the books" defense no longer applies to me"

- I'm not convinced of that at all. You couldn't even be specific on which "book" you claim you've read as I already said in post 14.

GreNME "I say the assertions are lacking sufficient evidence because I've looked at the source material"

- Really? What languages do you speak, read and write? If you're such a scholar then where is your inerrant work? And what are your outstanding credentials?

GreNME why can't you address the issue about being in Folsom Prison? A prison for violent criminals.

thesyntaxera "Fair enough. Lets hear it, Dave"

- Read "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book.

I started a new thread because it was being censored in that other 34 page ZG thread (Even though GreNME was allowed to advertise and spam the thread up with his forum & website links & rantings for 34 pages meanwhile, nobody was allowed to be aware of the ZG companion guide link from a main source for part 1).

[thesyntaxera]

Well, this thread became boring quickly.

I was excited to see that Dave31 actually replied...my hopes that he would have actually provided something to the discussion on this film have, of course, been dashed.

Please, Dave, substantiate your claims, otherwise the thread is going no where.

[GreNME]

- I'm not convinced of that at all. You couldn't even be specific on which "book" you claim you've read as I already said in post 14.

Suns of God, The Christ Conspiracy, and her early PDF offering that was on her old affiliate networking website (something like "Who was Jesus"), among other sundry stuff.

- Really? What languages do you speak, read and write?

More than you.

If you're such a scholar then where is your inerrant work? And what are your outstanding credentials?

More than yours.

GreNME why can't you address the issue about being in Folsom Prison? A prison for violent criminals.

I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

- Read "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book.

I started a new thread because it was being censored in that other 34 page ZG thread (Even though GreNME was allowed to advertise and spam the thread up with his forum & website links & rantings for 34 pages meanwhile, nobody was allowed to be aware of the ZG companion guide link from a main source for part 1).

Then, like I said, Dave-- feel free to stop trying to make this a personal thread about me and actually do yourself a favor by typing, in your own words, what you think is contained within the e-book that is completely irrefutable and why you (Dave31) feel that it is so. I'm not going to type up a whole argument against what Dorothy wrote if I'm not having a discussion with Dorothy herself. I gave my opinion on it, now if you would like to supply some actual arguments, I'll be happy to provide you with counter-arguments. But if you're going to persist in continuing to try to make this personally about me (or, heck, personally about Dorothy as well) then we're really not talking about the subject matter of the e-book, and you run the risk of being reported for creating a thread to simply attack someone personally.

Like I said, I eagerly await your synopsis and explanation (oh, and supporting evidence would be a nice change of pace). :)

[Dave31]

Okay, so we've established that GreNME cannot speak, read or write any other languages as his juvenile reply tells us all we need to know there. As well as he's no scholar - not even close as he doesn't have the credentials or capabilities to produce his own inerrant work. So all we have from GreNME in the 34 page Zeitgeist thread other forums and his website he advertises and spams in every other forum he belongs to is just his own selective opinion on the subject worth no more than anybody else's uneducated opinion on the subject. Thanks for having the integrity to admit it GreNME.

[thesyntaxera]

Okay, so we've established that GreNME cannot speak, read or write any other languages as his juvenile reply tells us all we need to know there. As well as he's no scholar - not even close as he doesn't have the credentials or capabilities to produce his own inerrant work. So all we have from GreNME in the 34 page Zeitgeist thread other forums and his website he advertises and spams in every other forum he belongs to is just his own selective opinion on the subject worth no more than anybody else's uneducated opinion on the subject. Thanks for having the integrity to admit it GreNME.

Still no evidence I see. When you get some, feel free to share it and your arguments as to why it qualifies as evidence. Until then please quit wasting your time attempting to attack another's character, it's rather boring, and annoying, not too mention distasteful and stupid.

[Dave31]

That's monumentally hypocritical when that is exactly what GreNME did for 34 pages and not a word is said to him - you guys have turned into a GreNME cult. He's OBSESSED with the Zeitgeist movie and work of Acharya. All he has done is attack her character - even BEFORE at the time he claimed he hadn't read any of her work and REFUSED to do so. Something smells fishy...

"no evidence"?

LOL, ever thought of actually reading -

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

Seems to be a good place to start and the title of this thread - if you don't like this thread, nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post in it ya know.

[Dave31]

"Easter: Christian or Pagan?" - VIDEO

"Contrary to popular belief, Easter does not represent the "historical" crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In reality, the gospel tale reflects the annual "crossification" of the sun through the vernal equinox (Spring), at which time the sun is "resurrected," as the day begins to become longer than the night.

Rather than being a "Christian" holiday, Easter celebrations date back into remotest antiquity and are found around the world, as the blossoming of spring did not escape the notice of the ancients, who revered this life-renewing time of the year, when winter had passed and the sun was "born again." The "Pagan" Easter is also the Passover, and Jesus Christ represents not only the sun but also the Passover Lamb ritually sacrificed every year by a number of cultures, including the Egyptians, possibly as early as 4,000 years ago and continuing to this day in some places."

Enjoy the video
http://www.truthbeknown.com/easter.htm

[thesyntaxera]

That's monumentally hypocritical when that is exactly what GreNME did for 34 pages and not a word is said to him - you guys have turned into a GreNME cult. He's OBSESSED with the Zeitgeist movie and work of Acharya. All he has done is attack her character - even BEFORE at the time he claimed he hadn't read any of her work and REFUSED to do so. Something smells fishy...

"no evidence"?

LOL, ever thought of actually reading -

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

Seems to be a good place to start and the title of this thread - if you don't like this thread, nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post in it ya know.

The only person I see here who is obsessed appears to be you. Your favorite POV of reality has been trampled on and now you want to take it out on some one. Good for you.

Present some evidence, or summarize the points made in the companion guide in your own words. If you do they will be discussed, if you do not they won't.

I suspect you won't though.

[Bluekush623]

I think the real question is whether or not Jesus existed. Zeitgiest is trying to show that he didn't. Which is why they present their characteristics for Jesus being a composite god and although they may get some of the descriptions and story wrong, I'd say there at least teaching something more true then the bible.

[thesyntaxera]

I think the real question is whether or not Jesus existed. Zeitgiest is trying to show that he didn't. Which is why they present their characteristics for Jesus being a composite god and although they may get some of the descriptions and story wrong, I'd say there at least teaching something more true then the bible.

Hmm...telling lies equals truth? ....nevermind....

The problem with the whole Zeitgeist thing is that it assumes facts not in evidence, nor is there going to be much evidence as far as I can tell...without evidence one cannot claim fact...see how that works?

If you have evidence that supports the assertions made in the film I suggest you present it...so far no one has.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

this is what botheres me:
egiptian gods horus and set.
now why should I give a flying crap who they were?
and if I do/don't, will it make a slight change in my life?
Battle between horus/set = jesus and satan.
WHEN did this "battle occur"? got evidence?
this is all i could deal with this crap.

[Bluekush623]

Hmm...telling lies equals truth? ....nevermind....

The problem with the whole Zeitgeist thing is that it assumes facts not in evidence, nor is there going to be much evidence as far as I can tell...without evidence one cannot claim fact...see how that works?

If you have evidence that supports the assertions made in the film I suggest you present it...so far no one has.


This is also what the Bible is doing. So theres the bigger assertion that Zeitgiest is implying, Jesus never existed. Although Zeitgiest could be 100% wrong in its claims tying Jesus to other gods, its still true in the fact that Jesus didn't exist. Its challenging the authority of whats said to be true. It then makes one think outside the box, and find answers for them self, still far better anything the bible has done.

[thesyntaxera]

This is also what the Bible is doing. So theres the bigger assertion that Zeitgiest is implying, Jesus never existed. Although Zeitgiest could be 100% wrong in its claims tying Jesus to other gods, its still true in the fact that Jesus didn't exist. Its challenging the authority of whats said to be true. It then makes one think outside the box, and find answers for them self, still far better anything the bible has done.

Even asserting that Jesus didn't exist is assuming facts not in evidence. There are plenty of scholars that would argue that a man(not a god) named jesus lived and was inspiration for the cult of christianity to take root.

In order to challenge the authority of what is said to be true you need evidence...an internet video with no evidence is not evidence of anything...

[Bluekush623]

Even asserting that Jesus didn't exist is assuming facts not in evidence. There are plenty of scholars that would argue that a man(not a god) named jesus lived and was inspiration for the cult of christianity to take root.

In order to challenge the authority of what is said to be true you need evidence...an internet video with no evidence is not evidence of anything...

Ok but thats not what the bible is teaching so its just as much of a theory as Zeitgiest wish actually implies truth. Theres hundred of thousand words written down in the past in which made stories(religions). Just cause we have them today and can decipher them doesn't make them anymore true then another story written yesterday. Zeitgiest is a story, just like the bible and countless other holy books. And Zeitgiest will be more wholly then the rest of the stories because it makes own think outside the box and question.

We have people debunking the claims in Zeitgiest, but so can the bible be debunked. Its a dog chasing its tail, whats the point?

So that leaves the ultimate question, did Jesus exist or not?

And i say no. So at least give Zeitgiest some credit and build from there.

[thesyntaxera]

Ok but thats not what the bible is teaching so its just as much of a theory as Zeitgiest wish actually implies truth. Theres hundred of thousand words written down in the past in which made stories(religions). Just cause we have them today and can decipher them doesn't make them anymore true then another story written yesterday. Zeitgiest is a story, just like the bible and countless other holy books. And Zeitgiest will be more wholly then the rest of the stories because it makes own think outside the box and question.

We have people debunking the claims in Zeitgiest, but so can the bible be debunked. Its a dog chasing its tail, whats the point?

So that leaves the ultimate question, did Jesus exist or not?

And i say no. So at least give Zeitgiest some credit and build from there.

As soon as there is some EVIDENCE to credit Zeitgeist with I will happily build from there. From what I have gathered there is some evidence that a man, or a small number of men were combined to make the character jesus. So far there is 0 evidence to support any of the claims of Zeitgeist. No one so far has said that the bible was some bastion of truth....by the way.

If I follow you line of logic correctly you would like me to give zeitgeist credit even though it is false, because the bible is also false...or in short, because it is false it "implies truth"...as you say...And that it is holy because it makes one think outside the box?

I am confused.

[Bluekush623]

As soon as there is some EVIDENCE to credit Zeitgeist with I will happily build from there. From what I have gathered there is some evidence that a man, or a small number of men were combined to make the character jesus. So far there is 0 evidence to support any of the claims of Zeitgeist. No one so far has said that the bible was some bastion of truth....by the way.

If I follow you line of logic correctly you would like me to give zeitgeist credit even though it is false, because the bible is also false...or in short, because it is false it "implies truth"...as you say...And that it is holy because it makes one think outside the box?

I am confused.

Zeitgiest is trying to debunk the bible and story of Jesus, although its claims maybe false its still correct in the fact that Jesus never existed as the bible says he does.

[thesyntaxera]

Zeitgiest is trying to debunk the bible and story of Jesus, although its claims maybe false its still correct in the fact that Jesus never existed as the bible says he does.

Both being false doesn't make one more valid than the other. Just because something(this film) attempts to do something and fails miserably in every sense of the word does not mean that it is doing any good for society....especially if the information it is spreading is woefully inaccurate.

[Nick227]

"Easter: Christian or Pagan?" - VIDEO

"Contrary to popular belief, Easter does not represent the "historical" crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In reality, the gospel tale reflects the annual "crossification" of the sun through the vernal equinox (Spring), at which time the sun is "resurrected," as the day begins to become longer than the night.

Rather than being a "Christian" holiday, Easter celebrations date back into remotest antiquity and are found around the world, as the blossoming of spring did not escape the notice of the ancients, who revered this life-renewing time of the year, when winter had passed and the sun was "born again." The "Pagan" Easter is also the Passover, and Jesus Christ represents not only the sun but also the Passover Lamb ritually sacrificed every year by a number of cultures, including the Egyptians, possibly as early as 4,000 years ago and continuing to this day in some places."

Enjoy the video
http://www.truthbeknown.com/easter.htm

But the date of Easter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter) is determined by cycles of the moon, not the sun. It's pretty rare for it to be as early as the Vernal Equinox.

Frankly, you can find any time of the year and claim that it has some significance to the period of the sun. It doesn't really prove anything. Everyone knows that Easter is originally a fertility festival. The word Easter I think even derives from the same root as the word "oestrogen." So what?

Nick

[Nick227]

this is what botheres me:
egiptian gods horus and set.
now why should I give a flying crap who they were?
and if I do/don't, will it make a slight change in my life?
Battle between horus/set = jesus and satan.
WHEN did this "battle occur"? got evidence?
this is all i could deal with this crap.

Sounds like this battle is occurring in your own head at the moment!

Nick

[Nick227]

This is also what the Bible is doing. So theres the bigger assertion that Zeitgiest is implying, Jesus never existed. Although Zeitgiest could be 100% wrong in its claims tying Jesus to other gods, its still true in the fact that Jesus didn't exist. Its challenging the authority of whats said to be true. It then makes one think outside the box, and find answers for them self, still far better anything the bible has done.

I figure it's fair to state that, Zeitgeist regardless, the Christian church has thrived by reinforcing quite an assounding level of bs in its time, on this very issue. They should have come out decades ago and agreed that the evidence for Jesus actually having lived is minimal, if you ask me.

As it is, this vast edifice is now completely vulnerable to even the most amateur CTist. They could do with being a bit more pro-active really. When, as a culture, you repeatedly present something as absolutely true, when actually there's little evidence for it, you are just storing up troubles for yourself at some point in the future.

Nick

[Nick227]

Both being false doesn't make one more valid than the other. Just because something(this film) attempts to do something and fails miserably in every sense of the word does not mean that it is doing any good for society....especially if the information it is spreading is woefully inaccurate.

But many of the saviour figures of antiquity do follow a certain model in their life experience, namely birth-purgation-rebirth. I think it's not so strong to tie it all back in to the sun, but for sure this is the most accessible symbol for the intended audience.

There are also aspects of modern history and particularly the rise of globalism that are acutely shady, imo, and which can easily be thought of as being potentially a malevolent force at work.

The problem is that Zeitgeist, in attempting to present both an accessible and a watertight case, chooses scenarios to represent its claims that cannot be backed up so well. If the maker had been prepared to go for areas where there is imo a lot of valid contention - such as self-similar mythologies and the Bretton Woods organisations for example - then they would have created a more substantiable movie. Of course, likely precious few people would have bothered watching it, or telling their friends!

Nick

[Bluekush623]

Both being false doesn't make one more valid than the other. Just because something(this film) attempts to do something and fails miserably in every sense of the word does not mean that it is doing any good for society....especially if the information it is spreading is woefully inaccurate.


And you must miserably fail to see the false claims, lies, corruption and murder and rape the church has portrayed on society but its ok since it was written in ancient history. While Zeitgiest is the Devil because it was created by one man trying to help stop all the confusion and move earth forward. So which is more Evil Zietgiest or the church? In this case the ends justify the means and Zietgiest wins. No question about it. Who cares if Jesus isnt a composite God, he still wasnt real.

[thesyntaxera]

But many of the saviour figures of antiquity do follow a certain model in their life experience, namely birth-purgation-rebirth. I think it's not so strong to tie it all back in to the sun, but for sure this is the most accessible symbol for the intended audience.

I would argue that just because they are similar one shouldn't assume that they are related in any way. The "hero's journey" as we have discussed before shows up in many places that have no connection to egypt or chrisitianity.

There are also aspects of modern history and particularly the rise of globalism that are acutely shady, imo, and which can easily be thought of as being potentially a malevolent force at work.

I think if you recall, I agreed with you on this point, and even argued in it's favor. Synarchy!

The problem is that Zeitgeist, in attempting to present both an accessible and a watertight case, chooses scenarios to represent its claims that cannot be backed up so well. If the maker had been prepared to go for areas where there is imo a lot of valid contention - such as self-similar mythologies and the Bretton Woods organisations for example - then they would have created a more substantiable movie. Of course, likely precious few people would have bothered watching it, or telling their friends!

For sure. To me the film appeared to be an attempt to create a movie about the "ULTIMATE" conspiracy, one that stretches across time from the origins of civilization to the present....and I think this was done on purpose in order to capitalize on the rising popularity of all kinds of conspiracy related films that have been in existence on the net for several years now. The film tries to save itself with the caveat that one should read up themselves and decide accordingly...as if one might come to the same conclusions. It's kind of ironic that now, after the film has been viewed by millions, so many people are calling BS, and the makers who hide behind this caveat are scrambling to be viewed as respectable protectors of the truth under persecution for not maintaining the status quo.

In short...ego's running wild.

[thesyntaxera]

And you must miserably fail to see the false claims, lies, corruption and murder and rape the church has portrayed on society but its ok since it was written in ancient history.

That the church has portrayed on society? No one said that the catholic church doesn't have it's fair share of inequity. Most, if not all religions have some impropriety in their respective histories...saying one is worse than the other is missing the point.

While Zeitgiest is the Devil because it was created by one man trying to help stop all the confusion and move earth forward.

When has selling falsehood been a good method for eliminating confusion?

So which is more Evil Zietgiest or the church?

Thats not even the question here. Your arguments tend to paint you as someone who has already decided what they think and feel, and as a result I believe you are tainting your own perception of this issue.

In this case the ends justify the means and Zietgiest wins. No question about it.

Lying justifies what exactly?

Who cares if Jesus isnt a composite God, he still wasnt real.

He still wasn't a real god...that doesn't mean that he didn't exist as a person.

[Bluekush623]

That the church has portrayed on society? No one said that the catholic church doesn't have it's fair share of inequity. Most, if not all religions have some impropriety in their respective histories...saying one is worse than the other is missing the point.

But you have too also look at how many people certain religions obtain and how they do it *cough* Inquisitions *cough*. Although im sure its just not the Catholics who did it, its just more recent and apart of the history we are living in.



When has selling falsehood been a good method for eliminating confusion?

Since when has anything been 100% true lately.c'mon you guys gets way too critical you become biased. They also just say Jesus never existed thats not so false. And lets not mention the churches marketing abilities again to spread the clear truth.



Thats not even the question here. Your arguments tend to paint you as someone who has already decided what they think and feel, and as a result I believe you are tainting your own perception of this issue.

I am but im always open to new ideas when presented.

Lying justifies what exactly?

You tell me, stop being so critical its the first of its kind by one dude in his bedroom, its not a blockbuster movie which has its own church and mall. There are people wasting money on countless material items everyday by god they pay 5 or 10 dollars for a low budget documentary which tries to crack the mind open.



He still wasn't a real god...that doesn't mean that he didn't exist as a person.

Him just being a regular person is irrelevant, the church wont never admit it, thats the key to the story he's immortal. So i guess i should clarify a bit, Zietgiest implies he wasn't an Immortal god who was resurrected into heaven just like all the other "Holy", "Enlightened" beings in history.

[Dave31]

nick227 "But the date of Easter is determined by cycles of the moon, not the sun."

- This was already covered in both the article and the video. Actually view the video or read the article. Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox. It's solar based. The lunar aspect wasn't added until centuries later. Even then it's still astronomical and astrotheological.

The Easter calculations were recomputed in the seventh century by the Christian author(s) of the Paschal Chronicle or Alexandria Chronicle, which seeks to establish a Christian chronology from "creation" to the year 628. The Paschal Chronicle determines the proper date for Easter as March 21st and the date of Christ's resurrection as March 25th (or, midnight, March 24, three days after the beginning of the equinox). In his various calculations, the Chronicle author discusses solar and lunar cycles, including the 19-year lunar cycle, by which he reckons the crucifixion and resurrection, concluding: "This is consistent with the prior determinations of reputable men in the calculation of the heavenly bodies." To wit, Christ's death and resurrection are based on astrotheology.

The Chronicle author further confirms that Christianity is a continuation of the ancient "Pagan" astrotheological religion when he states that the "Annunciation of our Lady," i.e., the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary, likewise occurred on March 25th, the vernal equinox, exactly nine months prior to the December 25th birthdate, the annual rebirth of the sun.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/easter.htm

[Nick227]

I would argue that just because they are similar one shouldn't assume that they are related in any way. The "hero's journey" as we have discussed before shows up in many places that have no connection to egypt or chrisitianity.

For sure, that's the point. This mythos has been around for aeons and has remained, it seems, perpetually attractive to humans. The difficulty is in creating useful data to assess whether the Christ myth is just another re-telling, or what.

The film tries to save itself with the caveat that one should read up themselves and decide accordingly...as if one might come to the same conclusions. It's kind of ironic that now, after the film has been viewed by millions, so many people are calling BS, and the makers who hide behind this caveat are scrambling to be viewed as respectable protectors of the truth under persecution for not maintaining the status quo.

In short...ego's running wild.

I don't see Peter Joseph or Archarya S as "egos running wild," personally. I see them as people who are genuinely concerned about what is going on in our world. And who have allowed their concerns to override the need to back up claims. I still broadly support them. I think the Christian church needs a good pummelling, it's long overdue and it's healthy. To me this whole process with Zeitgeist is like encounter therapy, rather that some precious vault of objectivity and academia. Let them take a few blasts and see how much **** sticks. The whinging academics can whine away. They do anyway.

Nick

[Dave31]

Acharya's work is much better than most here will give credit for.

Checkout her "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" book. Get a description from the WWJ video - http://www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

She's currently writing "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus connection" which will explain in further detail with primary sources and a huge bibliography of highly credentialed scholars and experts in their fields that Christianity took many of their ideas from the Egyptian religions.

It should be out by summer time & will probably be available for pre-order on amazon & elsewhere.

[Nick227]

Acharya's work is much better than most here will give credit for.

Checkout her "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" book. Get a description from the WWJ video - http://www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

She's currently writing "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus connection" which will explain in further detail with primary sources and a huge bibliography of highly credentialed scholars and experts in their fields that Christianity took many of their ideas from the Egyptian religions.

It should be out by summer time & will probably be available for pre-order on amazon & elsewhere.

I look forward to seeing this "huge bibliography of highly credentialed scholars and experts in their fields that Christianity took many of their ideas from the Egyptian religions." I don't really believe for the reason that I studied Christian Qabalah for 8 years with a register WMT group, and whilst there are connections between Jesus and Horus, they are not so strong that they get brought up so much. So, for me, coming more from an esoteric background, I don't really buy Archarya and Peter's argument, certainly not to the degree that they do. This situation is not helped by the level of overzealous claims made for their work - such as the one I quote above.

Nick

[Nick227]

- This was already covered in both the article and the video. Actually view the video or read the article. Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox. It's solar based. The lunar aspect wasn't added until centuries later. Even then it's still astronomical and astrotheological.

I don't really buy it. Easter is a pagan festival. It's a celebration of fertility and springtime. A celebration of sex, basically. Of this I have no doubt and frankly if you were to ask the attendees of say the average middle-class dinner party I'm sure many would tell you the same, meaning pretty much everyone knows. It happens at this time of year because this is when everything is coming into bloom.

What Archarya does is try and track it back to the Vernal Equinox and then use this to reinforce her argument that Jesus is the Sun. I'm not convinced. She grabs bits of info from scholars here and there who seem to support her view and then drags it all together to present a seemingly convincing argument. I'm suspicious of this technique even. The way she constructs arguments comes across to me as someone who is determined to find evidence to support her theory, not someone who wants to know the truth.

I don't buy Jesus as the sun also because, like I said, I studied Christian Qabalah for years. It's not as simplistic as this. Esoterically the New Testament is more an allegory for the development of the individual to unlock the full spiritual potential present in the body, culminating in the creation of the "solar body" - a deathless vesture with which the aspirant may merrily jaunt about space and time at his or her desire. This may seem pretty far-fetched to the casual observer but if you study the esoteric Christian traditions you will see that it is the central motif of Qabalah and Gnosticism.

Archarya's works to me infer that ancient man spent his time mindlessly worshipping the sun, and I find this patronising in the extreme. In my opinion, the intelligentsia of the pre-Christian Mediterranean were a great deal more developed than we in many ways.

Nick

[Dave31]

nick have you actually read Acharya's books? Not just the online articles but the books themselves and which ones? Because the online articles *DO NOT* contain all of the details - that is what the books are for.

nick have you read "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1" E-book? http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

Note: Despite the false claims, ZEITGEIST has not been refuted. My book Christ in Egypt will demonstrate through primary and highly credentialed sources that all of the Horus-Jesus connections in ZEITGEIST are factual.

To be advised of the release of Christ in Egypt, join Acharya's mailing list: http://www.truthbeknown.com/mailinglist.html

The overwhelming majority of folks who complain so loudly about her work, as it turns out, have never even read it. They've read a paragraph or an article online and that's about it.

[Nick227]

nick have you actually read Acharya's books? Not just the online articles but the books themselves and which ones? Because the online articles *DO NOT* contain all of the details - that is what the books are for.

nick have you read "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1" E-book? http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html



The overwhelming majority of folks who complain so loudly about her work, as it turns out, have never even read it. They've read a paragraph or an article online and that's about it.

I have not read Archarya's books. I read excerpts. I look at her site. She is imo a zealot. She's cool, but in pretty much everything I have seen of hers she does the same manipulative trick of starting off with a conclusion and then scouring ancient records to back it up.

I haven't read her books because they don't attract me. I don't want some mad zealot ramming haphazard opinions into my brain, that's not my trip. She does not understand the subject matter as far as I can tell. She's not Gnostic. She's not Qabalist. She does not grasp the esoteric meaning of the texts she quotes. She does not even begin to grasp it, from what I've read.

Jesus was not a depiction of the sun. The esoteric root of Christian mythos is much deeper than this. Take a look at this picture (http://www.nick2211.yage.net/pics/vesica.jpg). It's one of many thousands of similar images of Christ dating from antiquity and very frequently seen in European churches. Christ is enclosed in a vesica piscis, surrounded by the four Holy Living Creatures, and raising two fingers of his right hand. Frequently he has a Bible or Torah in his left, often with Alpha-Omega symbols on them. This picture symbolically depicts Christ as an interior and timeless state of consciousness.

The Christian mythos alludes to an interior, redemptive pathway into deeper layers of the human psyche. This is portrayed throughout the Testaments in many allegorical tales.

Jesus is not a depiction of the sun. This is a fantasy constructed by people who have not studied esoterica.

Archarya's writing is manipulative in the extreme, imo, in that she appears to start with a conclusion and work back. She comes across to me rather as being addicted to her perspective. There are actually whole spiritual sciences out there, like Gnosticism and Qabalah, that are almost entirely dedicated to revealing the truth of the Christian vision. They've been at it for millenia. Are you even remotely familiar with them?

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "I have not read Archarya's books."

I appreciate your honesty nick. Your misunderstanding and misconceptions of her work most likely stem from not ever studying her work.

nick "Jesus is not a depiction of the sun. This is a fantasy constructed by people who have not studied esoterica."

- Jesus is a collage of other gods savior sons of god who who depictions of or had attributes personifying the sun. It's no fantasy as even early church fathers inadvertently admit this factoid. I'm not sure you're the goto guy to decide who has and who hasn't studied esoterica, especially when you haven't studied their work.

nick "Archarya's writing is manipulative in the extreme, imo, in that she appears to start with a conclusion and work back. She comes across to me rather as being addicted to her perspective. There are actually whole spiritual sciences out there, like Gnosticism and Qabalah, that are almost entirely dedicated to revealing the truth of the Christian vision. They've been at it for millenia. Are you even remotely familiar with them?"

- Honestly nick, how would you know if her work is "manipulative in the extreme" when you just admitted you've never studied her work? You are too quick to make false assumptions and accusations based on ignorance of the work at hand. Had you actually studied her work you'd know that she does in fact, discuss Gnosticism, Qabalah and much more. You will learn a lot on these topics in her new book "Christ in Egypt" too.

[Dave31]

Nick, I understand your view of this meaning behind Easter but you're not realizing the main source and reason for the springtime bloom - the sun. Spring is about fertility but without the sun gaining in strength at the vernal equinox to make that happen, we would not experience that springtime bloom. It's very simple and blatantly obvious. Most children understand it. I think a "children's" book (really for adults) is in order explaining this.

It's a natural process that has been performed on planet earth for millions of years. The sun and the earths tilt create the seasons. The suns strength begins to be strong enough to push for photosynthesis making plant life grow in the spring and begins to weaken at the autumnal equinox taking us into winter and the winter solstice where the suns strength is at its weakest only to start anew come spring once again. Again, kids understand this.

nick "Archarya's works to me infer that ancient man spent his time mindlessly worshipping the sun, and I find this patronising in the extreme. In my opinion, the intelligentsia of the pre-Christian Mediterranean were a great deal more developed than we in many ways."

- When you say things like this it leads me to believe that you haven't read Acharya's work at all.

"Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus."73 The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle74 surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity."
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins5.htm

[Dave31]

Nick, I understand your view of this meaning behind Easter but you're not realizing the main source and reason for the springtime bloom - the sun. Spring is about fertility but without the sun gaining in strength at the vernal equinox to make that happen, we would not experience that springtime bloom. It's very simple and blatantly obvious. Most children understand it. I think a "children's" book (really for adults) is in order explaining this.

It's a natural process that has been performed on planet earth for millions of years. The sun and the earths tilt create the seasons. The suns strength begins to be strong enough to push for photosynthesis making plant life grow in the spring and begins to weaken at the autumnal equinox taking us into winter and the winter solstice where the suns strength is at its weakest only to start anew come spring once again. Again, kids understand this.

nick "Archarya's works to me infer that ancient man spent his time mindlessly worshipping the sun, and I find this patronising in the extreme. In my opinion, the intelligentsia of the pre-Christian Mediterranean were a great deal more developed than we in many ways."

- When you say things like this it leads me to believe that you haven't read Acharya's work at all.

"Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus."73 The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle74 surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity."
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins5.htm

[Nick227]

Nick, I understand your view of this meaning behind Easter but you're not realizing the main source and reason for the springtime bloom - the sun. Spring is about fertility but without the sun gaining in strength at the vernal equinox to make that happen, we would not experience that springtime bloom. It's very simple and blatantly obvious. Most children understand it. I think a "children's" book (really for adults) is in order explaining this.

You can tie anything back into the sun, if you want to. It's meaningless. The sun is the prime mover in pretty much every living transaction that has ever occurred.

Show me a passage in Archarya's work where she demonstrates a good understanding of spiritual symbology. She does not get it. She wants a nice simple answer that she can tell to the average cit. It is not so simple and not so easy to transmit. I openly admit that I have not read so much of her work...because I am not attracted to. If I pick up say, Dr Paul Foster Case on spiritual symbology say, Tarot: Key to a Wisdom of the Ages, the book to me literally radiates wisdom. The symbols portrayed speak for themselves. There is a perceivable energy flow in my body. If I look at one of Archarya's books, it's nothing but fantasy. I don't want to pollute my mind like this.

You asking me to read all of one of her books is to me like saying "it's not enough to eat in McDonald's once. You have to eat there every day for a year to get a feel for the place!" I don't want to go there, dude. And you need to get this. Really! She writes like a junkie.

Nick

[Nick227]

"Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus."73 The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle74 surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity."


Even in this passage she cannot prevent herself from overlaying an absurd level of dualistic interpretation. There are the evil Christians and good old Socrates. Everything this woman interprets is overlaid like this - a nice simple dualistic battle between good and bad. It's a *********** fairy tale for deluded tossers who don't want to own their own dark side.

"the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature." Their gods were atmospheric? WTF is that supposed to mean - they play Jean Michel Jarre records?

The astrological signs are just symbols. They are not the end of the story. She is writing abject bollocks and invariably completely missing the deeper interpretations of the texts to which she refers. Do you think Socrates was not aware that the sun is actually the prime mover in all human transactions, that it is the power behind the sun that is creating thoughts, creating identification with thought? That it is this power that is finally transacting with itself through its self-created experience of personal identity? Socrates knew this stuff and there is no way he would have settled for saying the gods are astrological in nature. It's totally nonsensical and makes a complete mockery of the whole Greek metaphysical tradition.

Judges 5:20 - "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera." The astrological signs were understood as underlying forces that shaped individual human personality, and thus offered the salvationary mechanism by which negative traits could be made conscious and overcome.

How can you ask me to read her foolishness? I have no objection to Acharya S writing inflammatory material for the new age masses. It is after all better than orthodox Christianity. But please don't ask me to read it too. I've read enough to know its true calibre. It's like being asked to read Chairman Mao's little red book when you know the Dao De Ching.

If Acharya S wants to debate the real esoteric meaning of Biblical text, as opposed to desperately trying to reinforce an interpretation which prevents her from actually having to look at herself, then please tell her to get in touch. Let's see if she has the guts for true self-examination.

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "Even in this passage she cannot prevent herself from overlaying an absurd level of dualistic interpretation."

- That quote was in response to your comment which agreed with you. Now, you're changing your tune.

"atmospheric?"

- Natural phenomena nick - if you actually read her work you'd know this simple little thing.

nick "She is writing abject bollocks and invariably completely missing the deeper interpretations of the texts to which she refers."

- Again, your opinion based in ignorance of never actually studying her work.

nick "How can you ask me to read her foolishness? I have no objection to Acharya S writing inflammatory material for the new age masses."

- Honestly nick, all you've shared about her work is your biased opinion based on ignorance due to never having actually studied it. Why would I trust your opinion when you're so eager to base your views in ignorance and bigotry?

nick "real esoteric meaning of Biblical text"

Are you claiming only your views and opinions can be correct?

nick "Let's see if she has the guts for true self-examination"

Maybe you could try to follow your own advice sometime? I'm not trying to belittle you nick but you are a little over-the-top in your rigidity against an authors work you've never read.

[Dave31]

nick "She does not get it" And "She writes like a junkie"

- Again, this is your opinion based on ignorance of her work. And you've admitted it several times now as in - "I openly admit that I have not read so much of her work"

So nick you haven't studied her work but you're openly making false assumptions and accusations. That bias is your own issue, not hers. You say you're not attracted to her work - fair enough but maybe that's because it challenges your own belief system which it appears you've put all of your faith. I understand.

However, are you sure it's fair to ridicule an authors work you've never really studied and therefore know very little about it?

[Hokulele]

Here is what I find so hard to swallow about the Jesus = Sun nonsense. You would think that if those who compiled the New Testament and later set the holidays really understood the symbolism of the solstice and equinoxes and wanted to tie into that symbolism, they would have put Jesus' birth at the vernal equinox and the resurrection at the winter solstice. Think about it.

[Bluekush623]

Here is what I find so hard to swallow about the Jesus = Sun nonsense. You would think that if those who compiled the New Testament and later set the holidays really understood the symbolism of the solstice and equinoxes and wanted to tie into that symbolism, they would have put Jesus' birth at the vernal equinox and the resurrection at the winter solstice. Think about it.

Yea to some extent but its just not as simple because i also just wont say he was only a sun god in the writings. He has the similar attributes in his character too the sun but theres also the immortal part of him being a god(esoterically the power of the sun and life) and real instead of just a metaphor. Then thats where all the confusion starts, what or who the hell is this dude named Jesus.

So I'd say its cause Jesus is born when the sun rises from its 3 day death period on the 25th after the solstice(both are babies), then his resurrection "true birth" of being a god, is celebrated with the fertile worship "true birth" of real life on Easter the vernal equinox.

[Hokulele]

Yea to some extent but its just not as simple because i also just wont say he was only a sun god in the writings. He has the similar attributes in his character too the sun but theres also the immortal part of him being a god(esoterically the power of the sun and life) and real instead of just a metaphor. Then thats where all the confusion starts, what or who the hell is this dude named Jesus.

So I'd say its cause Jesus is born when the sun rises from its 3 day death period on the 25th after the solstice(both are babies), then his resurrection "true birth" of being a god, is celebrated with the fertile worship "true birth" of real life on Easter the vernal equinox.


In which case I would say that you have a very odd idea of birth and rebirth compared to almost every pre-historic mythology.

I agree, there is much confusion surrounding the historical Jesus vs. the biblical Jesus. However, I find that movies such as Zeitgeist only add to that confusion and do not help resolve it. Only by going to primary sources (and in some senses, the New Testament really is a primary source) can anyone begin to sort it through. If you read through the other Zeitgeist thread, you can see references to the primary sources, I do not see the same in the works mentioned here.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Sounds like this battle is occurring in your own head at the moment!

Nick
nah! the Lolita soundtrack is in my head as we speak.....

[Nick227]

- That quote was in response to your comment which agreed with you. Now, you're changing your tune.

- Natural phenomena nick - if you actually read her work you'd know this simple little thing.

That quote is also demonstrative of the quality of her work. It is not that I have not read any of her writing, so please stop writing that. I have read Doris' website and extracts of her writing. It's weak. She does not grasp the subject matter adequately to make the claims she does. She does not begin to grasp the subject matter. It's a harmless new-age joke for Glastonbury airheads to get excited about.

Please stop claiming that because I have not read a whole book of Doris' writing I cannot make an accurate statement as to its worth. That is pure nonsense. You do not need to read 200 pages to know where someone is at. 20 will do fine.

Jesus is not a depiction of the sun. That's too shallow an interpretation. When you want to actually know for yourself who or what Jesus represents, you are going to have to put down Doris' books and look in a different place.

Nick

[Nick227]

- Again, this is your opinion based on ignorance of her work. And you've admitted it several times now as in -

So nick you haven't studied her work but you're openly making false assumptions and accusations. That bias is your own issue, not hers. You say you're not attracted to her work - fair enough but maybe that's because it challenges your own belief system which it appears you've put all of your faith. I understand.

However, are you sure it's fair to ridicule an authors work you've never really studied and therefore know very little about it?

Dave,

I find that you keep coming back to this position. You try to paint it black and white but it is not like this, is it? I have read Doris' writing. I have read pages and pages of it.

Please be aware that it is not necessary to read a whole book of someone's writing to have an idea of where they're at and if you're attracted to read more. Were you the manager of a book store would you refuse to let anyone browse? Would you follow customers out of the store ranting at them that they'd put such-and-such a book down without buying it?

What doesn't help the situation is that you appear to be just one of a whole series of people who come onto this list making all sorts of idiotic claims and then, when challenged to provide any evidence, fall back to this position of demanding that someone reads a whole one of Doris' books or otherwise they can't understand what she's writing. It's just bloody nonsense, man.

Nick

[Nick227]

Yea to some extent but its just not as simple because i also just wont say he was only a sun god in the writings. He has the similar attributes in his character too the sun but theres also the immortal part of him being a god(esoterically the power of the sun and life) and real instead of just a metaphor. Then thats where all the confusion starts, what or who the hell is this dude named Jesus.

So I'd say its cause Jesus is born when the sun rises from its 3 day death period on the 25th after the solstice(both are babies), then his resurrection "true birth" of being a god, is celebrated with the fertile worship "true birth" of real life on Easter the vernal equinox.

I'm sorry but I find this tentative in the extreme. Jesus' life follows the classic life-purgation-rebirth model of many ancient "hero" myths. If he's just a sun god then he's going to die and be born again at the winter solstice. It makes no sense to me otherwise.

Dave,

With your no doubt immense knowledge of La Murdock's writings, could you let us know how she deals with this issue.

Nick

[Nick227]

Thinking about the Jesus=Sun thing a little more, I would also like to hear of La Murdock's reasons as to why ancient man needed to create a personification of the sun. I mean, if you want to worship the sun, why not just worship it? It's up there in the sky all day long (though admittedly not so visible half the time here in England). But why bother constructing some elaborate and complex mythos to portray something which is anyway right in front of your face? What's the bloody point?

Nick

[Hokulele]

Thinking about the Jesus=Sun thing a little more, I would also like to hear of La Murdock's reasons as to why ancient man needed to create a personification of the sun. I mean, if you want to worship the sun, why not just worship it? It's up there in the sky all day long (though admittedly not so visible half the time here in England). But why bother constructing some elaborate and complex mythos to portray something which is anyway right in front of your face? What's the bloody point?

Nick


My opinion on this is that personification of anything for the purpose of worship is based on animistic dualism. As a hypothetical example, someone could think along the lines of I can't imagine myself not existing, so I will create a concept I will call "soul" that is an eternal version of the essence of me. Since this version is eternal, and it contains the very essence that makes me me, it is better than the physical me. To extend this thought, maybe everything has this soul. Animal souls, tree souls, rock souls, everything has soul. I bet even the sun has a soul. Now if the soul is better than the physical reality, instead of thanking the sun for warmth, I should thank its soul.

And then this concept changes over time and the idea of a deity as separate from the object itself is born.

Please note, this is just my thinking on the matter. I have done no anthropological or historical research into it (nor do I plan to make Internet videos about it). It is mostly just thinking as a way of passing time. If someone can show concrete evidence that solar deities arose by some other method, I would be perfectly happy to accept it. Please also note, I am not a dualist.

[Nick227]

My opinion on this is that personification of anything for the purpose of worship is based on animistic dualism. As a hypothetical example, someone could think along the lines of I can't imagine myself not existing, so I will create a concept I will call "soul" that is an eternal version of the essence of me. Since this version is eternal, and it contains the very essence that makes me me, it is better than the physical me. To extend this thought, maybe everything has this soul. Animal souls, tree souls, rock souls, everything has soul. I bet even the sun has a soul. Now if the soul is better than the physical reality, instead of thanking the sun for warmth, I should thank its soul.

And then this concept changes over time and the idea of a deity as separate from the object itself is born.

Please note, this is just my thinking on the matter. I have done no anthropological or historical research into it (nor do I plan to make Internet videos about it). It is mostly just thinking as a way of passing time. If someone can show concrete evidence that solar deities arose by some other method, I would be perfectly happy to accept it. Please also note, I am not a dualist.

Jesus as a solar deity I don't have such a problem with. Jesus as the sun is different. I guess Plato-era metaphysics would have held that the physical world is just the last of a series of worlds that have descended from some transcendental source, and that the first of these worlds was a realm of divine archetype or ideation. Thus there would reasonably be higher dimensional notions of the sun. To what degree they might be conceived of as resembling the sun is speculation.

To me, the living reality behind the Jesus myth is that Jesus is very much a personal liberational principle, the effective study of which should, of itself, begin to free the individual from the limitations of an existence spent solely in an overtly dualistic mindset. I consider this in line with Gnostic and Kabbalistic thought and they've been in this business for aeons.

Now you could say this relates to solar deities, but I don't buy that it so much relates to the sun.

BTW, thanks for such a great explanation!

Nick

[Hokulele]

Ah, sorry. I had latched onto your phrase "why ancient man needed to create a personification of the sun". I agree, I do not see how one can get from Jesus (historical or mythical) to sun without some exceedingly bizarre mental gymnastics.

[Bluekush623]

Jesus as a solar deity I don't have such a problem with. Jesus as the sun is different. I guess Plato-era metaphysics would have held that the physical world is just the last of a series of worlds that have descended from some transcendental source, and that the first of these worlds was a realm of divine archetype or ideation. Thus there would reasonably be higher dimensional notions of the sun. To what degree they might be conceived of as resembling the sun is speculation.

To me, the living reality behind the Jesus myth is that Jesus is very much a personal liberational principle, the effective study of which should, of itself, begin to free the individual from the limitations of an existence spent solely in an overtly dualistic mindset. I consider this in line with Gnostic and Kabbalistic thought and they've been in this business for aeons.

Now you could say this relates to solar deities, but I don't buy that it so much relates to the sun.

BTW, thanks for such a great explanation!

Nick


Solar/Sun is the same thing, If Jesus is the solar energy then his origin is still the physical sun.This is the Micro and Macro a lower meaning and physical existence, then the deeper meaning and nonphysical-existence.

[Hokulele]

Solar/Sun is the same thing, If Jesus is the solar energy then his origin is still the physical sun.This is the Micro and Macro a lower meaning and physical existence, then the deeper meaning and nonphysical-existence.


I chocolate Wednesday finger manager it kiwi?

[Nick227]

Solar/Sun is the same thing, If Jesus is the solar energy then his origin is still the physical sun.This is the Micro and Macro a lower meaning and physical existence, then the deeper meaning and nonphysical-existence.

Whatever happens the origin is not the physical sun. You might say that Jesus and the sun come themselves from the same source, if one is looking at the multi-dimensional Platonic perspective, but then you could say that about anything. It's a monist philosophy.

Microcosm and Macrocosm do not apply to Jesus and the sun. It's nonsensical to me and I studied Qabalah, which makes constant use of self-similarity, for years.

You are just mixing together a bunch of partially-understood metaphysical concepts and trying to make 1+1=3.

If you want to link Jesus and the sun you are going to have to look at the force behind the sun - this is where the early Christians were at as far as I know. Jesus as a solar deity, or Jesus being portrayed with a solar disk on his forehead, does not mean Jesus is the sun. That's too much of an over-simplification. You are going to have to look deeper than this. And you are going to have to look at your emotional investment in believing the nonsense La Murdock is trying to push.

That is, if you actually are interested in what Jesus actually does represent. If you just want to remain unconscious you have that choice too.

Nick

[Bluekush623]

Whatever happens the origin is not the physical sun. You might say that Jesus and the sun come themselves from the same source, if one is looking at the multi-dimensional Platonic perspective, but then you could say that about anything. It's a monist philosophy.

If its not the sun then what sprouted life? Its sure wasnt some god written down. Solar cannot be defined without the sun, you are thinking way too critical.

Solar-
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or proceeding from the sun: solar rays; solar physics.
2. Using or operated by energy derived from the sun: a solar heating system.
3. Determined or measured in reference to the sun: the solar year.
Microcosm and Macrocosm do not apply to Jesus and the sun. It's nonsensical to me and I studied Qabalah, which makes constant use of self-similarity, for years.

Solar energy doesn't produce the sun, the sun produces solar energy.

You are just mixing together a bunch of partially-understood metaphysical concepts and trying to make 1+1=3.

And you are saying 1+1=0


If you want to link Jesus and the sun you are going to have to look at the force behind the sun - this is where the early Christians were at as far as I know. Jesus as a solar deity, or Jesus being portrayed with a solar disk on his forehead, does not mean Jesus is the sun. That's too much of an over-simplification. You are going to have to look deeper than this. And you are going to have to look at your emotional investment in believing the nonsense La Murdock is trying to push.

That is, if you actually are interested in what Jesus actually does represent. If you just want to remain unconscious you have that choice too.

Nick

the link between Jesus and the sun is GOD the unknown force of life. This is how they are the Micro and Macro, as above so below, so we have a god in the sky and on land. Jesus just isn't God, hes the son(sun) of his father(god, unknown force).

[thesyntaxera]

...and yet we still wait for some sort of evidence to back the claims of the film zeitigeist....

[Bluekush623]

...and yet we still wait for some sort of evidence to back the claims of the film zeitigeist....


and yet we wait for Jesus to return......

[thesyntaxera]

and yet we wait for Jesus to return......

Evidence..sir...evidence....got any?

Just answer the question.

[Bluekush623]

Evidence..sir...evidence....got any?

Just answer the question.

its this SIMPLE Jesus was never real, thats the main claim to Zietgiest. Now what evidence does the church have who created the god damn character, besides the book? NONE. Its not important that Jesus was or wasn't a composite god. HE STILL NEVER EXISTED AS THE BIBLE AND CHURCH SAYS HE DOES. Whats so hard to understand, are you jealous Zietgiest came out before your movie or what? Go complain in Rome to the people who still push the b.s and murder in the name of Jesus, instead of wasting time debating small points in a internet movie which tries to move humanity forward. Seriously if you cant evolve the topic like we have already done maybe you got the problems.

People are trying to get Zietgiest to incriminate itself, why dont you do the same to the bible and see who holds up more in the end.

[GreNME]

Dave31, could you do me a favor and actually provide any evidence? I already get that you think Dorothy is a really cool person and that you think I'm some kind of demigogue, but let's see if you can actually make an argument using those little things called "facts" instead of personal attacks.

If its not the sun then what sprouted life? Its sure wasnt some god written down. Solar cannot be defined without the sun, you are thinking way too critical.

Actually, all life sprouted from mixtures of carbon, amino acids, and water. I mean, if you want to get all technical about it. Maybe you should start again with your premise.

Solar energy doesn't produce the sun, the sun produces solar energy.

And human babies aren't made up of little sunbeams, no matter how many times a mother might tell her child that.

the link between Jesus and the sun is GOD the unknown force of life. This is how they are the Micro and Macro, as above so below, so we have a god in the sky and on land. Jesus just isn't God, hes the son(sun) of his father(god, unknown force).

Ridiculous New Age nonsense. "[A]s above so below" is straight out of New Age texts and isn't based on anything but emotional appeal-- interestingly not unlike religion.

Solar/Sun is the same thing, If Jesus is the solar energy then his origin is still the physical sun.This is the Micro and Macro a lower meaning and physical existence, then the deeper meaning and nonphysical-existence.

Emphasis mine on the word "If" there. That little "if" is where your whole argument hinges, and to date there is jack and squat to support that "if" in the first place. So, unless we can start from there and work our way forward-- as opposed to the inane habit of (self-)publications like Dorothy's book(s) or the Zeitgeist movie, who work backwards from a predetermined premise in a manner much like creationists-- the rest of what you're trying to assert is pretty much meaningless.

By the way, Bluekush: I'm not arguing for or against any existence of Jesus. From all my studies of that time period and that region in Palestine, it would be next to impossible to verify positively or negatively as to any actual existence. Also, quite frankly, since I have no religious connection to the text (not a Christian) I don't really care much if he did or not. I think the only significance of the figure is the mythology that led to the creation of the largest religion in the modern world, and honestly if it wasn't Jesus it would have wound up being someone else. My main beef is the twisting of historical and anthropological data by individuals who seem to have a religious axe to grind misrepresenting facts.

Basically, if you want a lively discussion on whether Jesus existed or not, I suggest checking out the religion subforum. If you're making assertions to the accuracy of either the Zeitgeist movie or Dorothy's book, feel free to explain why you think their actual claims are supported using evidence.

-----

Ah, sorry. I had latched onto your phrase "why ancient man needed to create a personification of the sun". I agree, I do not see how one can get from Jesus (historical or mythical) to sun without some exceedingly bizarre mental gymnastics.

So far, it seems the only way that people seem to be getting to that assumption is how the mistaken English words "son" and "sun" sound similar. Everything else seems to be red herrings or pulled out of thin air.

[Hokulele]

its this SIMPLE Jesus was never real, thats the main claim to Zietgiest. Now what evidence does the church have who created the god damn character, besides the book? NONE.


Wrong.

While the historicity of Jesus is still debated, there are other sources of evidence. None of it may be very strong, but to claim there is nothing else is pure bunk. I would recommend browsing around the Religion and Philosophy forum here, and pay extra attention to the posts by jjramsey. Here is a thread to get you started.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55747

[GreNME]

Okay, so we've established that GreNME cannot speak, read or write any other languages as his juvenile reply tells us all we need to know there.

Wrong. I've actually offered to Jan Irvin, a contemporary of Dorothy, to point out any specific Egyptian texts and I would guide them through the actual translation process, which is something anyone can learn to do. I've already pointed out mistakes made regarding names in Arabic and Hebrew that are made by these "Horus-Jesus" claims as well. Just because you either haven't bothered to actually look at what I've said previously or are instead more interested in me having a pissing contest with someone who isn't even going to bother to take part in this discussion only displays your intellectual dishonesty.

As well as he's no scholar - not even close as he doesn't have the credentials or capabilities to produce his own inerrant work.

I have just as many credentials as Dorothy does on the subject matter. Yet another unnecessary personal attack.

So all we have from GreNME in the 34 page Zeitgeist thread other forums and his website he advertises and spams in every other forum he belongs to is just his own selective opinion on the subject worth no more than anybody else's uneducated opinion on the subject.

I've only posted it in one thread on one forum, yet I'm spamming on every forum I belong to? I see, so factual accuracy is pretty much unimportant to you. Good to know.

Thanks for having the integrity to admit it GreNME.

Thanks for not providing any summary of the claims in the book you feel are worthy of discussion-- discussion you initiated, by the way. I've pretty much stated I'm perfectly willing to discuss the subject with you, and you turn around and come back with nothing but personal attacks. Let me know when you're ready to actually finish what you start instead of making a thread to try to pick a flame war.

[GreNME]

Oy, I missed this one

- This was already covered in both the article and the video. Actually view the video or read the article. Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox. It's solar based. The lunar aspect wasn't added until centuries later. Even then it's still astronomical and astrotheological.

Two things:

Saying it has to do with the Sun when it specifically follows the Moon, which is following a lunar tradition from the Hebrews who picked it up at least in part from the Babylonians, is a perfect example of how these arguments try to insert unnecessary aspects in order for their predetermined conclusions to even sound remotely plausible.

Astrotheology involves theology and astrology, not astronomy. Astrology has nothing to do with actual astronomy outside of both of them talking about stars. The similarity begins and ends there.

[thesyntaxera]

its this SIMPLE Jesus was never real, thats the main claim to Zietgiest.

That actually isn't the main claim of ZG...if it were there wouldn't have been two other parts to the film. Also, we know with almost absolute certainty(99.9) that jesus wasn't god, what isn't certain is if he existed or not as a man. What evidence do you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his non-historicity?

Now what evidence does the church have who created the god damn character, besides the book? NONE. Its not important that Jesus was or wasn't a composite god. HE STILL NEVER EXISTED AS THE BIBLE AND CHURCH SAYS HE DOES.

What evidence is there that says he existed the way ZG says he did?


Whats so hard to understand, are you jealous Zietgiest came out before your movie or what? Go complain in Rome to the people who still push the b.s and murder in the name of Jesus, instead of wasting time debating small points in a internet movie which tries to move humanity forward. Seriously if you cant evolve the topic like we have already done maybe you got the problems.

Evolve what topic exactly? The topic at hand is the complete and utter lack of fact based evidence in this steaming pile you call a film. If you come up with some evidence, the discussion can move forward, if not, we are doomed to roam in circles.

People are trying to get Zietgiest to incriminate itself, why dont you do the same to the bible and see who holds up more in the end.

I think the problem is that Zeitgeist has already incriminated itself.

[Bluekush623]

Actually, all life sprouted from mixtures of carbon, amino acids, and water. I mean, if you want to get all technical about it. Maybe you should start again with your premise.


Sorry i thought heat was a must have variable to produce life.


Ridiculous New Age nonsense. "[A]s above so below" is straight out of New Age texts and isn't based on anything but emotional appeal-- interestingly not unlike religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet..very new age

Emphasis mine on the word "If" there. That little "if" is where your whole argument hinges, and to date there is jack and squat to support that "if" in the first place. So, unless we can start from there and work our way forward-- as opposed to the inane habit of (self-)publications like Dorothy's book(s) or the Zeitgeist movie, who work backwards from a predetermined premise in a manner much like creationists-- the rest of what you're trying to assert is pretty much meaningless.

The "if" was to help me explain what i was telling Nick, id say he was many things then just besides the sun. I also wouldnt say that its no evidence because the phrase Jesus saying "I am the light of the world" John 8:12, is clearly enough evidence to suspect such a claim.


By the way, Bluekush: I'm not arguing for or against any existence of Jesus. From all my studies of that time period and that region in Palestine, it would be next to impossible to verify positively or negatively as to any actual existence. Also, quite frankly, since I have no religious connection to the text (not a Christian) I don't really care much if he did or not. I think the only significance of the figure is the mythology that led to the creation of the largest religion in the modern world, and honestly if it wasn't Jesus it would have wound up being someone else. My main beef is the twisting of historical and anthropological data by individuals who seem to have a religious axe to grind misrepresenting facts.

Fair enough, but you should care when you could be killed because of their lies and views, how do you think the church got so big, it surely wasnt by evidence. And how are we so sure there is supposed too or would have been some leader to spawn such a religion, thats just a pointless assertion, even if we bring in the Teacher of righteousness, i dont think the church wants nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, reasons Allegro and all the controversy of releasing the DSS. Then we can get into the Jesus/Mushroom talk which would be anthropological, so whats your opinion on that?

Basically, if you want a lively discussion on whether Jesus existed or not, I suggest checking out the religion subforum. If you're making assertions to the accuracy of either the Zeitgeist movie or Dorothy's book, feel free to explain why you think their actual claims are supported using evidence.

Their claims are Jesus never existed, whether or not supported by factual evidence, I pose the question what evidence is there for the existence of Jesus anyways?


So far, it seems the only way that people seem to be getting to that assumption is how the mistaken English words "son" and "sun" sound similar. Everything else seems to be red herrings or pulled out of thin air.

The zodiac references just must have been pulled from thin air too.

[GreNME]

Sorry i thought heat was a must have variable to produce life.

As was light, as was air, as were a lot of things. Why not say Jesus is equal to a mixture of oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen as well? It would have exactly the same amount of relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet..very new age

Yes, it is. One could say that there's nothing new under the sun, and the "as above so below" half-abbreviation of an older derivative work doesn't make that thing more ancient just because it recycles a saying and butchers the quote. The United States of America isn't as ancient as Hellenistic Greece simply because it operates on a form of democracy.

The "if" was to help me explain what i was telling Nick, id say he was many things then just besides the sun. I also wouldnt say that its no evidence because the phrase Jesus saying "I am the light of the world" John 8:12, is clearly enough evidence to suspect such a claim.

That's not evidence, that's quote mining. Even 2000 years ago they had lamps, so mentioning a single phrase referencing light isn't convincing. Heck, referencing uncontextual quotes at all isn't convincing, because as I've pointed out before putting those things into the context of the surrounding text usually shows the claims to be misleading, which also tends to work with another group of people who quote one-liners as if they are definitive proofs: evangelical religious proselytizers.

Fair enough, but you should care when you could be killed because of their lies and views, how do you think the church got so big, it surely wasnt by evidence.

Oh, cut the dramatic hyperbole. We are over a millenia past the Dark Ages and centuries past the Crusades. Doing the whole "x religion will kill you" is useless rhetoric that is rarely much different than the religions it rails against. Replacing one form of mob rhetoric with another does not make the replacement better, it just makes it more of the same.

And how are we so sure there is supposed too or would have been some leader to spawn such a religion, thats just a pointless assertion, even if we bring in the Teacher of righteousness, i dont think the church wants nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, reasons Allegro and all the controversy of releasing the DSS. Then we can get into the Jesus/Mushroom talk which would be anthropological, so whats your opinion on that?

Why change the subject? If you really want to have an in-depth discussion on Allegro, the accuracy of his claims, his controversial behavior, and the relevance of his stated beliefs I suggest bringing it up in the History section. I'll happily follow over to that thread, but I'd bet there are plenty more people who could chime in for you as well and point out things that I might miss.

Their claims are Jesus never existed, whether or not supported by factual evidence, I pose the question what evidence is there for the existence of Jesus anyways?

The Zeitgeist movie's claims regarding the existence of Jesus are secondary to the final thesis of Part I, which was (and I quote): “Christianity, along with all other belief systems, is the fraud of the age.”

And as I said about that statement before, quoting Robert Hanlon: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

The zodiac references just must have been pulled from thin air too.

As relating to the Jesus story? Absolutely. The Southern Cross-- wasn't discovered until the seventeenth century (and actually wouldn't have been visible above the horizon back in the times when the Jesus story was developing, either). Horus similarities-- Horus did not have twelve disciples, was never crucified, didn't die and rise up, and has no evidence of any birthday even remotely close to the solstice. The sundry fake claims go on and on and on.

[Bluekush623]

That actually isn't the main claim of ZG...if it were there wouldn't have been two other parts to the film. Also, we know with almost absolute certainty(99.9) that jesus wasn't god, what isn't certain is if he existed or not as a man. What evidence do you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his non-historicity?

No the main claim is the life we are living is B.S, Jesus and religion is just one part. And ill just back myself up with the church because him being a man is irrelevant, theres no religion unless if he is from god.


What evidence is there that says he existed the way ZG says he did?


Not saying there is. but since everyone was on a bashing train, i thought to pause and ask the more important question, whether or not he was even real.
And seriously Jesus having attributes as a son god is not far fetched or illogical, the numbers do add up.

Evolve what topic exactly? The topic at hand is the complete and utter lack of fact based evidence in this steaming pile you call a film. If you come up with some evidence, the discussion can move forward, if not, we are doomed to roam in circles.

You must have some real beef because frankly if u agree Jesus wasn't a god why take Zietgiest with so much hate, for Christs sake the man is trying to help make people think of just that. you may say his ego is running wild and hes just trying to make a buck off false claims, but this is one of the first movies of its nature, this man is risking his life for what he's saying, last time i checked saying the complete world is a lie wasn't the most financial backing plan invented. Everyone is not going to always be 100% on every topic the government, religions, T.V, radio, newspaper and etc. spew propaganda all day long but who the hell cares they control it all anyways, but when someone releases an independent movie which gets a little attention lets demolish the hell out of it, for its wrong and the world is right. When mobs supporting Zietgiest start murdering in the name of, then we have a problem. Until then lets handle the mob thats already out there.


I think the problem is that Zeitgeist has already incriminated itself.

If we never even had the b.s from the bible then theres no Zietgiest. Start the discussion where it begins, the guy wasn't real plain and simple.i still dont see how you think Zietgiest is worse then the bible. Its tries to help give people the "real" meaning of Jesus and not whats told, again for Christs sake anyone be allowed from doing that because they aren't right.

[GreNME]

No the main claim is the life we are living is B.S, Jesus and religion is just one part. And ill just back myself up with the church because him being a man is irrelevant, theres no religion unless if he is from god.

I don't think you're getting it. I quoted directly from the transcript of the film itself. What I quoted is its thesis, he (Peter J) pretty much says so himself both in the film and the transcript. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered to also cover Moses and others. The movie was saying that all religion is a fraud, plain and simple.

The only rational response to that is, as I already pointed out, Hanlon's Razor.

[thesyntaxera]

No the main claim is the life we are living is B.S, Jesus and religion is just one part. And ill just back myself up with the church because him being a man is irrelevant, theres no religion unless if he is from god.

Life is only as "BS" as you make it....and that is not what they claim at all. There are very specific claims in the film that are flimsy at best.

...the numbers do add up.

No, they don't. If they did there would be evidence, and as yet, there isn't any.

You must have some real beef because frankly if u agree Jesus wasn't a god why take Zietgiest with so much hate, for Christs sake the man is trying to help make people think of just that. you may say his ego is running wild and hes just trying to make a buck off false claims, but this is one of the first movies of its nature, this man is risking his life for what he's saying, last time i checked saying the complete world is a lie wasn't the most financial backing plan invented.

I have a real beef with liars....and lies...and people who knowingly spread lies and claim them to be fact. I seriously doubt his life is in danger....the illuminati has better things to do than off some guy for making an internet movie.

Everyone is not going to always be 100% on every topic the government, religions, T.V, radio, newspaper and etc. spew propaganda all day long but who the hell cares they control it all anyways, but when someone releases an independent movie which gets a little attention lets demolish the hell out of it, for its wrong and the world is right. When mobs supporting Zietgiest start murdering in the name of, then we have a problem. Until then lets handle the mob thats already out there.

I think there is plenty of unrest out there related to all of those things you mention. If you can't see it you aren't looking. I'm all about people getting the word out...with facts.

If we never even had the b.s from the bible then theres no Zietgiest. Start the discussion where it begins, the guy wasn't real plain and simple.i still dont see how you think Zietgiest is worse then the bible. Its tries to help give people the "real" meaning of Jesus and not whats told, again for Christs sake anyone be allowed from doing that because they aren't right.

I never said one was worse than the other. The bible in the context you are presenting has no relevance to this topic since we are discussing a internet film and the supposed "substantiation".

[Bluekush623]

As was light, as was air, as were a lot of things. Why not say Jesus is equal to a mixture of oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen as well? It would have exactly the same amount of relevance.

Where were our science labs? From common thinking the Sun and earth are the only pieces of physical evidence we would have seen which produces life. When the Sun rises we are warm and food grows, then the winter is over the sun comes back to produce. We didn't have knowledge of certain particles thats why these were natural phenomenons which had a hand in our religions, not intervention from god.


Yes, it is. One could say that there's nothing new under the sun, and the "as above so below" half-abbreviation of an older derivative work doesn't make that thing more ancient just because it recycles a saying and butchers the quote. The United States of America isn't as ancient as Hellenistic Greece simply because it operates on a form of democracy.

And being Ancient doesn't make anymore more correct/true or provable.


That's not evidence, that's quote mining. Even 2000 years ago they had lamps, so mentioning a single phrase referencing light isn't convincing. Heck, referencing uncontextual quotes at all isn't convincing, because as I've pointed out before putting those things into the context of the surrounding text usually shows the claims to be misleading, which also tends to work with another group of people who quote one-liners as if they are definitive proofs: evangelical religious proselytizers.

Well those are your standards, and it is evidence because i could find 100, its just your standards which wont let you take in all evidence. I'm also not a quote miner, the rest of the phrase reads off in my favor "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Follow the sun and no more darkness, not too complicated. These are the words that said Jesus was a real god, if we cant use this as evidence what can we use.





Oh, cut the dramatic hyperbole. We are over a millenia past the Dark Ages and centuries past the Crusades. Doing the whole "x religion will kill you" is useless rhetoric that is rarely much different than the religions it rails against. Replacing one form of mob rhetoric with another does not make the replacement better, it just makes it more of the same.

Right a millenia, its never left just because they don't use torture devices or burn witches doesn't mean its over. Why is the Israel Palestine war being fought with U.S dollars, when its there holy land and religious war. Didn't the terrorists attack us because of our religious freedoms. The crusades were a religious war, and religious wars are still being fought.


Why change the subject? If you really want to have an in-depth discussion on Allegro, the accuracy of his claims, his controversial behavior, and the relevance of his stated beliefs I suggest bringing it up in the History section. I'll happily follow over to that thread, but I'd bet there are plenty more people who could chime in for you as well and point out things that I might miss.

Im not changing the subject, just going where you went. Im also not claiming Allegro 100% he did get things wrong, but one thing is for certain you can not rule out shamanism from being a precursor for religions.


The Zeitgeist movie's claims regarding the existence of Jesus are secondary to the final thesis of Part I, which was (and I quote): “Christianity, along with all other belief systems, is the fraud of the age.”

And as I said about that statement before, quoting Robert Hanlon: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”


So all religions are correct?

As relating to the Jesus story? Absolutely. The Southern Cross-- wasn't discovered until the seventeenth century (and actually wouldn't have been visible above the horizon back in the times when the Jesus story was developing, either). Horus similarities-- Horus did not have twelve disciples, was never crucified, didn't die and rise up, and has no evidence of any birthday even remotely close to the solstice. The sundry fake claims go on and on and on.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't mean it the ancients didn't know about it, from wiki

Due to precession of the equinox the stars comprising Crux were visible from the Mediterranean area in antiquity, so their stars had to be known by Greek astronomers. However, it was not regarded as a constellation of its own, but rather as part of Centaurus.

For the same reason Crux was visible from Jerusalem at Jesus Christ's time and was best visible during the spring time (i.e. Good Friday and Easter). The evening after the crucifixion (most probable date April 3, 33 AD) Crux was just above Jerusalem's southern horizon.[citation needed].

The separation of Crux to be a separate constellation is generally attributed to the French astronomer Augustin Royer in 1679. Other historians attribute the invention of Crux to Petrus Plancius in 1613, and that the constellation was later published by Jakob Bartsch in 1624. However, Crux had already been a well known southern asterism at least four centuries before it was promoted to an official constellation and published in the Seventeenth Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux

Then you jump off ship into the Egypt-Christianity characteristics, i never even mentioned them. I'm talking about Jesus and the zodiac, 12 disciples(Constellations), 4 books(seasons), Jesus-Pisces characteristics and etc.

[Bluekush623]

I don't think you're getting it. I quoted directly from the transcript of the film itself. What I quoted is its thesis, he (Peter J) pretty much says so himself both in the film and the transcript. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered to also cover Moses and others. The movie was saying that all religion is a fraud, plain and simple.

The only rational response to that is, as I already pointed out, Hanlon's Razor.

thats why i said Jesus and religion.

[Dave31]

nick "What doesn't help the situation is that you appear to be just one of a whole series of people who come onto this list making all sorts of idiotic claims and then, when challenged to provide any evidence..."

- Maybe you don't even realize how hypocritical you are because this is exactly what you're doing. You should try and head by your own words. You continue to make "all sorts of idiotic claims" without ever having studied the work. The fact remains, when it comes to Acharya's work you're simply not qualified to comment on it beyond your opinion. You're not an authority on her work as you clearly know very little about it at all. Nothing you say will ever change that.

nick "I'm sorry but I find this tentative in the extreme. Jesus' life follows the classic life-purgation-rebirth model of many ancient "hero" myths. If he's just a sun god then he's going to die and be born again at the winter solstice. It makes no sense to me otherwise."

You guys are trying to take something literally. That is the damage of Christianity, Islam and religion in general. The Egyptians didn't do that. It was allegorical, symbolic etc. based on natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars, constellations, river - Nile, thunder, etc. Until one realizes that they'll never get it. Making sense in the literal was never the point. Keep doing that and you'll "never see the forest for the trees."

nick "Thinking about the Jesus=Sun thing a little more, I would also like to hear of La Murdock's reasons as to why ancient man needed to create a personification of the sun. I mean, if you want to worship the sun, why not just worship it? It's up there in the sky all day long (though admittedly not so visible half the time here in England). But why bother constructing some elaborate and complex mythos to portray something which is anyway right in front of your face? What's the bloody point?"

nick, nick, nick you haven't studied Acharya's work at all. She has written 3 books on this topic & soon to be a 4th. The ancients knew that if the sun did not continue to rise every morning, and be re-born every year after the winter solstice and resurrect every vernal equinox that all life on planet earth would seize to exist. However, so long as the sun continued to rise day after day, year after year there would always be life re-newed. Without the sun we get total extinction. That is point enough to consider the sun and life itself sacred or a sort of blessing isn't it?

Enjoy the video - skip to 6 to minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoFY2PKzDME&feature=related

It's common sense when one thinks about it.

"why ancient man needed to create a personification of the sun"

Combine that info with the story about the seasons and a collage of other saviors and we have the story of Jesus. No "exceedingly bizarre mental gymnastics" needed. It's very simple - Occam's razor even.

nick "Jesus as a solar deity I don't have such a problem with. Jesus as the sun is different."

- The Egyptians incorporated both - all 3 in fact. Horus was the baby sun rising in the morning until noon and when at its "most high" it became Ra. At night the sun became Osiris the sun god of the underworld. This is the physical, divine and spiritual or eternal aspects of the sun. Acharya details this in her books.

"the link between Jesus and the sun is GOD the unknown force of life"

- One aspect of the sun is of course, as I already mentioned earlier, PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

Hokulele "While the historicity of Jesus is still debated, there are other sources of evidence."

WRONG - http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3828A6ED4FFA99BCBA6AF9D3710F/who-was-jesus-fingerprints-of.aspx

"- This was already covered in both the article and the video. Actually view the video or read the article. Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox. It's solar based. The lunar aspect wasn't added until centuries later. Even then it's still astronomical and astrotheological."

GreNME "Two things:

1. Saying it has to do with the Sun when it specifically follows the Moon, which is following a lunar tradition from the Hebrews who picked it up at least in part from the Babylonians, is a perfect example of how these arguments try to insert unnecessary aspects in order for their predetermined conclusions to even sound remotely plausible."

- You still don't get it, it's the 1st full moon AFTER the SPRING EQUINOX. It is solar based and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to change that. Judaism is a lunar aspect as well as Islam. Still, Christianity is solar based. The clue rests in each of their calendars. Please try to be well informed before making authoritative assertions you are clearly unfamiliar with.

G "2. Astrotheology involves theology and astrology, not astronomy. Astrology has nothing to do with actual astronomy outside of both of them talking about stars. The similarity begins and ends there."

I'm no fan of astrology. Neither is Acharya. You are incorrect about the definition of astrotheology. A simple dictionary search would inform you.

"Astrotheology: Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astrotheology

GreNME you come off as if you have an axe to grind. What's wrong?

[Bluekush623]

Life is only as "BS" as you make it....and that is not what they claim at all. There are very specific claims in the film that are flimsy at best.


Ok im sorry religion and government aren't the two organizations which control the world.

No, they don't. If they did there would be evidence, and as yet, there isn't any.

12 disciples/12 constellations.. I need Kindergarden again.


I have a real beef with liars....and lies...and people who knowingly spread lies and claim them to be fact. I seriously doubt his life is in danger....the illuminati has better things to do than off some guy for making an internet movie.

LMAO So why argue Zietgiest. Go debate the pope, the bible has had a little more impact. Well I was thinking more of some red-neck home breed American. and if the Illuminati aren't too worried why are you since it wont change too many people facts and lead the world astray? Nvm i give up just because zietgiest isnt 100% true there will always be one person to get stuck in saying its wrong.


I think there is plenty of unrest out there related to all of those things you mention. If you can't see it you aren't looking. I'm all about people getting the word out...with facts.


I never said one was worse than the other. The bible in the context you are presenting has no relevance to this topic since we are discussing a internet film and the supposed "substantiation".

No Bible, No Zeitgiest.

[Hokulele]

Where were our science labs? From common thinking the Sun and earth are the only pieces of physical evidence we would have seen which produces life. When the Sun rises we are warm and food grows, then the winter is over the sun comes back to produce. We didn't have knowledge of certain particles thats why these were natural phenomenons which had a hand in our religions, not intervention from god.


So, ancient farmers didn't worry about drought? The Egyptians didn't base their agriculture about the flooding of the Nile? I would argue that water was at least as important as sun and earth to early agricultural communities. Your attempt to tie everything into the sun is making the same mistakes the video made.

In addition, there are plenty of examples of religions being based on historically verified men such as Buddhism and Confucianism. No gods required.

WRONG - http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3828A6ED4FFA99BCBA6AF9D3710F/who-was-jesus-fingerprints-of.aspx


WRONG!

Did you even bother to read the thread I linked? You are the one who claims one cannot refute a position that one hasn't read.

- You still don't get it, it's the 1st full moon AFTER the SPRING EQUINOX. It is solar based and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to change that. Judaism is a lunar aspect as well as Islam. Still, Christianity is solar based. The clue rests in each of their calendars. Please try to be well informed before making authoritative assertions you are clearly unfamiliar with.


If it is purely solar, why bother bringing the full moon into the equation at all? Sounds like post-hoc rationalization to me.

[GreNME]

You guys are trying to take something literally. That is the damage of Christianity, Islam and religion in general. The Egyptians didn't do that. It was allegorical, symbolic etc. based on natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars, constellations, river - Nile, thunder, etc. Until one realizes that they'll never get it. Making sense in the literal was never the point. Keep doing that and you'll "never see the forest for the trees."

So now you (or maybe Dorothy) are claiming to know the mind of the ancient Egyptians? Interesting. Since you're such an expert, care to explain the Egyptian allegorical thoughts on the flooding of the Nile and how they developed a system of predicting it? I happen to have translations from actual Egyptian sources talking about it, but since you seem to know so much I'll give you the chance to beat me to the punch. My guess is you haven't the slightest clue about which you talk and couldn't name a single Egyptian text that talks about it.

Jesus as a solar deity I don't have such a problem with. Jesus as the sun is different.
- The Egyptians incorporated both - all 3 in fact. Horus was the baby sun rising in the morning until noon and when at its "most high" it became Ra. At night the sun became Osiris the sun god of the underworld. This is the physical, divine and spiritual or eternal aspects of the sun. Acharya details this in her books.

And gets it totally wrong. Ra (more accurately, Re) didn't represent the Sun at noon and Horus the Sun at morning and evening. That doesn't even have any basis in any Egyptian literature. Re was considered a higher being, at a level above that of Horus, who was personified by the sitting pharaoh. In fact, all throughout Egyptian literature this is exactly how the two (as distinct entities, not the combined Re-Horakhty) are described. If you really don't believe me I'll happily provide you with actual passages from Egyptian literature and the sources from which they're taken.

- One aspect of the sun is of course, as I already mentioned earlier, PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

Which has to do with plants, not people, and is something which people of ancient Egypt had no knowledge of.

- You still don't get it, it's the 1st full moon AFTER the SPRING EQUINOX. It is solar based and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to change that. Judaism is a lunar aspect as well as Islam. Still, Christianity is solar based. The clue rests in each of their calendars. Please try to be well informed before making authoritative assertions you are clearly unfamiliar with.

Holy mackerel. Even the Zeitgeist film asserts that Jesus was modeled after at least two Jewish sources-- Joseph and Moses-- and the gospels themselves are written in a midrashic format. The Jesus cult of the first century was a Jewish one that moved out of Israel/Palestine. The story of the crucifixion and resurrection itself places it directly after (or during) the Jewish Passover. That you blatantly ignore this obvious and blatant reference to Hebrew dating shows just how intellectually dishonest you're being.

I'm no fan of astrology. Neither is Acharya. You are incorrect about the definition of astrotheology. A simple dictionary search would inform you.

Like this one (http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictionary/astrotheology.php)? You should also probably not speak for other people (unless you're Dorothy and not willing to admit it), because that's not very respectful toward them and you could later wind up feeling foolish if your assertions wind up not being confirmed.

GreNME you come off as if you have an axe to grind. What's wrong?

Hey, you're the one who made this thread attacking me personally, so you've really got no basis for questioning me. Additionally, I've been making it a point to continually request you provide a summary of any of the details within any of the books and we can discuss the actual subject matter instead of making personal aspersions. You continue to respond with personal attacks. You're the one whose behavior is seeming like you're a bit obsessed with someone on a personal level.

You going to provide that summary or is it going to be more personal attacking?

[Bluekush623]

So, ancient farmers didn't worry about drought? The Egyptians didn't base their agriculture about the flooding of the Nile? I would argue that water was at least as important as sun and earth to early agricultural communities. Your attempt to tie everything into the sun is making the same mistakes the video made.

No doubt, they used the sun to tract time also and water would technically apart of earth.

In addition, there are plenty of examples of religions being based on historically verified men such as Buddhism and Confucianism. No gods required.

Of course I'm not saying theres only Sun gods, but it was apart of Jesus's characteristics.

[GreNME]

And being Ancient doesn't make anymore more correct/true or provable.

No one is saying it does, I'm saying let's call a spade a spade here.

Well those are your standards, and it is evidence because i could find 100, its just your standards which wont let you take in all evidence. I'm also not a quote miner, the rest of the phrase reads off in my favor "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Follow the sun and no more darkness, not too complicated. These are the words that said Jesus was a real god, if we cant use this as evidence what can we use.

Are you forgetting the existence of lamps at that point in history, or am I missing something in your mental leap? My "standards" require an ability to cogently place a line establishing derivatives from one thing to another. There are plenty of such things throughout the gospels, to be sure, and they almost always seem to be pointing to messages or passages within Hebrew scripture. The use of parables and midrashic format, the attempts to declare lineage to David, even the description of the entrance into Jerusalem on the donkey are all direct references to Hebrew scripture. The whole point of the story is an attempt to portray Jesus (unsuccessfully, according to Jews) as the Jewish moshiach. If you could provide any evidence as clear as those things we might have a point from which to begin, but instead all you have are one-liners.

Right a millenia, its never left just because they don't use torture devices or burn witches doesn't mean its over. Why is the Israel Palestine war being fought with U.S dollars, when its there holy land and religious war. Didn't the terrorists attack us because of our religious freedoms. The crusades were a religious war, and religious wars are still being fought.

That's a whole lot of hyperbole right there. You're working from the Evangelical handbook, but let's try to answer each of your questions:
The fighting in Israel/Palestine is over land, not US currency.
The terrorists attacked us for various reasons, but I don't remember "religious freedoms" being on the list of claims. The most obvious actual reason is that the leaders of the group are power-hungry criminals who have tried to steal power before (OBL attempted a coup in Saudi Arabia, for instance), and this was another attempt to gain 'street cred' among large amounts of disaffected people to use as an army for power.
Whoever told you the Crusades were a religious war wasn't being factual with you. The Crusades were about two things: land and power. Money also played a smaller role, but the Crusades themselves were a power push thinly veiled in religious overtones. If you like I can suggest to you some actual history books on the subject to give you more details.


Im not changing the subject, just going where you went. Im also not claiming Allegro 100% he did get things wrong, but one thing is for certain you can not rule out shamanism from being a precursor for religions.

Pray tell, what kinds of things do you think he got wrong?

As for the whole shamanism/religion thing, check out a few pages near the end of the other Zeitgeist thread for some conversation thesyntaxera and I had on the subject. Evidence of actual religious practices go back well into pre-history, long before mankind even settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and into the agrarian one. You'd have to provide some pretty damned compelling evidence to argue that something like shamanism-- basically a set of religious qualities themselves-- were a precursor to religion and religious practices. Prehistoric man was burying their dead with their belongings (signifying a belief in at least a simplistic or partial belief that they would need them after death) long before the popular mushroom-in-a-cave-painting existed.

So all religions are correct?

I didn't say that. I said don't attribute malice to what can easily be qualified as stupidity (or, in the case of early mankind, ignorance).

Doesn't mean it the ancients didn't know about it, from wiki

You should probably not consider Wikipedia a definitive source, considering Wikipedia has had problems with people shoving misleading information in it before. During the time of year that would have been the solstice, the constellation would not have sat above the horizon during the night from anywhere in Palestine, Egypt, Rome, or any part of the Mediterranean. If you seriously believe otherwise-- and neither Peter J nor Dorothy nor anyone else has bothered to perform the mathematical calculations to prove otherwise-- feel free to use a star mapping software to chart the sky as would be seen from Jerusalem in the first century CE. You'll be sorely disappointed. However, read the passage you quoted carefully: it was not regarded a constellation on its own in Rome because it was part of a completely different constellation. Like I said, it wasn't split off as its own constellation until about sixteen centuries after the Jesus birth story has already been written. Can't you admit that fact and accept it?


Then you jump off ship into the Egypt-Christianity characteristics, i never even mentioned them. I'm talking about Jesus and the zodiac, 12 disciples(Constellations), 4 books(seasons), Jesus-Pisces characteristics and etc.

There weren't just four books written as gospels, there were several more that weren't canonized-- which happened three centuries later by people who were not alive when the books were written. There are more than twelve constellations, and if you want to bring up the zodiac then which zodiac would you like to use-- Chinese? Egyptian? Babylonian? Greco-Roman? Navajo? Incan? Care to explain why movies like Zeitgeist or writers like Dorothy are so enamoured of the Greco-Roman zodiac at the exclusion of every other one? As for Pisces, in case you didn't realize it the vesica pisces (the fish symbol) stood for more than the symbol used by Christians to signify enclaves-- it also signified both the penis and the vagina, among other things both analogous and literal. The Romans tended to be rather liberal (and often bawdy) with their common symbolism, so trying to draw a definitive delineation that considering the wealth of Roman historical information that shows all sorts of mixed metaphors is weak at its very best.

So, ancient farmers didn't worry about drought? The Egyptians didn't base their agriculture about the flooding of the Nile? I would argue that water was at least as important as sun and earth to early agricultural communities. Your attempt to tie everything into the sun is making the same mistakes the video made.
No doubt, they used the sun to tract time also and water would technically apart of earth.

You're wrong. They didn't use the Sun at all to predict when the Nile would flood. They used something else, but since you seem so sure of yourself I'm going to let you look it up to find out.

Go ahead, try again. :)

[Dave31]

Hokulele "So, ancient farmers didn't worry about drought? The Egyptians didn't base their agriculture about the flooding of the Nile? I would argue that water was at least as important as sun and earth to early agricultural communities. Your attempt to tie everything into the sun is making the same mistakes the video made."

Not really, the Zeitgeist movie part 1 was only 20-25 minute basic intro. You're welcome to make your own movie if you think you can do better. The water certainly was important to the Egyptians especially the flooding of the Nile at that time marked by the rising of Sirius/the summer solstice. It wasn't all just about the sun more accurately natural phenomena. Which includes the moon and the Nile river.

Hokulele "If it is purely solar, why bother bringing the full moon into the equation at all? Sounds like post-hoc rationalization to me."

You assume too much - the Lunar aspect comes from the Jewish traditions in combo with the solar. Who ever said it was "purely solar"? One would bring the Lunar aspects into the equation to include Lunar religions ergo Judaeo-Christianity. It's not difficult.

GreNME "So now you (or maybe Dorothy) are claiming to know the mind of the ancient Egyptians?"

- No, I'm not Acharya and the Egyptians spelled out what they were thinking - you'd know this if you spoke other languages.

GreNME "care to explain the Egyptian allegorical thoughts on the flooding of the Nile and how they developed a system of predicting it?"

You mean via the rising of Sirius every summer solstice. Old news. Looks like the sun had something to do with it after all. And no, I don't need your help with actual passages from Egyptian literature and the sources. Your biased views are yours to keep. Not interested.

"One aspect of the sun is of course, as I already mentioned earlier, PHOTOSYNTHESIS."
GreNME "Which has to do with plants, not people, and is something which people of ancient Egypt had no knowledge of."

The word "PHOTOSYNTHESIS" no but the effects yes, they certainly did have knowledge of.

GreNME "I've been making it a point to continually request you provide a summary of any of the details within any of the books and we can discuss the actual subject matter instead of making personal aspersions."

Again, very hypocritical when you launch character assassinations and smear campaigns at Acharya and her work - work you've never really studied because it challenges your beliefs and faith.

GreNME "Care to explain why movies like Zeitgeist or writers like Dorothy are so enamoured of the Greco-Roman zodiac at the exclusion of every other one?

This proves that you haven't really read any of Acharya's books at all. As she discusses many other zodiacs. Nice try though.

[Hokulele]

You assume too much - the Lunar aspect comes from the Jewish traditions in combo with the solar. Who ever said it was "purely solar"? One would bring the Lunar aspects into the equation to include Lunar religions ergo Judaeo-Christianity. It's not difficult.


Wait a minute, first you are claiming that Easter (a Christian holiday) is a date originally chosen based on a solar calendar.

Actually view the video or read the article. Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox. It's solar based. The lunar aspect wasn't added until centuries later.

And now you are claiming that the lunar aspects were brought in to tie this to Judaeo-Christianity? This sounds like saying it has to link to itself by linking to itself. :boggled:

[Bluekush623]

No one is saying it does, I'm saying let's call a spade a spade here.

Me too, 12 disciples/12 constellations


Are you forgetting the existence of lamps at that point in history, or am I missing something in your mental leap? My "standards" require an ability to cogently place a line establishing derivatives from one thing to another. There are plenty of such things throughout the gospels, to be sure, and they almost always seem to be pointing to messages or passages within Hebrew scripture. The use of parables and midrashic format, the attempts to declare lineage to David, even the description of the entrance into Jerusalem on the donkey are all direct references to Hebrew scripture. The whole point of the story is an attempt to portray Jesus (unsuccessfully, according to Jews) as the Jewish moshiach. If you could provide any evidence as clear as those things we might have a point from which to begin, but instead all you have are one-liners.


Never knew lamps could move by themselves.


That's a whole lot of hyperbole right there. You're working from the Evangelical handbook, but let's try to answer each of your questions:
The fighting in Israel/Palestine is over land, not US currency.
The terrorists attacked us for various reasons, but I don't remember "religious freedoms" being on the list of claims. The most obvious actual reason is that the leaders of the group are power-hungry criminals who have tried to steal power before (OBL attempted a coup in Saudi Arabia, for instance), and this was another attempt to gain 'street cred' among large amounts of disaffected people to use as an army for power.
Whoever told you the Crusades were a religious war wasn't being factual with you. The Crusades were about two things: land and power. Money also played a smaller role, but the Crusades themselves were a power push thinly veiled in religious overtones. If you like I can suggest to you some actual history books on the subject to give you more details.


Didnt say it was over our money, but merely that our money is being used.

Well it was all over the media after 9/11, the new religious war even though its may not be true its there propaganda, just like Christianity was used and its still a war when you go out to conquer.



Pray tell, what kinds of things do you think he got wrong?


Dont exactly remember but nothing to undermine his theory.

As for the whole shamanism/religion thing, check out a few pages near the end of the other Zeitgeist thread for some conversation thesyntaxera and I had on the subject. Evidence of actual religious practices go back well into pre-history, long before mankind even settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and into the agrarian one. You'd have to provide some pretty damned compelling evidence to argue that something like shamanism-- basically a set of religious qualities themselves-- were a precursor to religion and religious practices. Prehistoric man was burying their dead with their belongings (signifying a belief in at least a simplistic or partial belief that they would need them after death) long before the popular mushroom-in-a-cave-painting existed.

Of course its as old as anything, I'd say this is one of the things religion evolved into, amongst all the other teachings of the tribes, but now down the line personal benefits got in the way and it all went to hell.

I see Christianities 3 main aspects as Sex, Shamanism, and the Stars and Jesus is the Phallus Mushroom Sun god, amongst other things.Now youll laugh.

all we have here is natural phenomenon that evolved into something outside of us.

I didn't say that. I said don't attribute malice to what can easily be qualified as stupidity (or, in the case of early mankind, ignorance).

I think quite the opposite, Early mankind keep it simple.

You should probably not consider Wikipedia a definitive source, considering Wikipedia has had problems with people shoving misleading information in it before. During the time of year that would have been the solstice, the constellation would not have sat above the horizon during the night from anywhere in Palestine, Egypt, Rome, or any part of the Mediterranean. If you seriously believe otherwise-- and neither Peter J nor Dorothy nor anyone else has bothered to perform the mathematical calculations to prove otherwise-- feel free to use a star mapping software to chart the sky as would be seen from Jerusalem in the first century CE. You'll be sorely disappointed. However, read the passage you quoted carefully: it was not regarded a constellation on its own in Rome because it was part of a completely different constellation. Like I said, it wasn't split off as its own constellation until about sixteen centuries after the Jesus birth story has already been written. Can't you admit that fact and accept it?

I really dont care because Jesus was never even born, so theres not even a date. I just posted that because the ancients still could have known about it 10,000 years ago, you made it sound like the constellation wasn't discovered until the 17th century.



There weren't just four books written as gospels, there were several more that weren't canonized-- which happened three centuries later by people who were not alive when the books were written. There are more than twelve constellations, and if you want to bring up the zodiac then which zodiac would you like to use-- Chinese? Egyptian? Babylonian? Greco-Roman? Navajo? Incan? Care to explain why movies like Zeitgeist or writers like Dorothy are so enamoured of the Greco-Roman zodiac at the exclusion of every other one? As for Pisces, in case you didn't realize it the vesica pisces (the fish symbol) stood for more than the symbol used by Christians to signify enclaves-- it also signified both the penis and the vagina, among other things both analogous and literal. The Romans tended to be rather liberal (and often bawdy) with their common symbolism, so trying to draw a definitive delineation that considering the wealth of Roman historical information that shows all sorts of mixed metaphors is weak at its very best.

So why do you think its only 4, is it just another one of the million coincidences?
I know there are like 88 constellations but 12 main in all zodiacs, maybe they use the greco-roman because thats where the religion came from. im not one backing anybodies work here, just discussing.

As mentioned above i realize there are vasts amounts of symbolism representing very common things.

You're wrong. They didn't use the Sun at all to predict when the Nile would flood. They used something else, but since you seem so sure of yourself I'm going to let you look it up to find out.

Go ahead, try again.


http://www.e-planetarium.com/Shows/AAA/Amazing_AstronomersSCRIPT.pdf

Im sure they could have also used measuring sticks or some other kind of device to measure the rise of the river, you just cant say that they didnt know about the stars and measurement of time.

[Hokulele]

Me too, 12 disciples/12 constellations.


The main problem is any coincidence can seem compelling if that is all you focus on. Why wouldn't it be 5 disciples/5 planets (that were known at the time)? 8 disciples/8 currently known planets (prophecy + numerology!)? 7 disciples/5 planets+sun+moon (similar to how the days of the week were established)? 30 disciples/30 days per lunation? 10 disciples/10 fingers? No matter how many disciples there were, you can make up a match. Note how you did something similar with the number of gospels in the current version of the New Testament (4 gospels/3 seasons). As an example, there are 27 books in the New Testament, and 27 is 33. The Holy Trinity!

Numerology is crap. Numerology mixed with astrology is crap3. A Holy Trinity of crap!

[Nick227]

If its not the sun then what sprouted life? Its sure wasnt some god written down. Solar cannot be defined without the sun, you are thinking way too critical.

Bluekush,

I am not saying this is what I believe, I am saying that it is what the guys around at the time of the creation of Christianity appear to have believed. Study, man. Platonism, Gnosticism, Philo, Origen and the battle between the neo-platonists and the dualists.

There are two basic areas you can look - academia and esoterica. You are using terms in such a way as to demonstrate you have no actual grasp of them.

the link between Jesus and the sun is GOD the unknown force of life. This is how they are the Micro and Macro, as above so below, so we have a god in the sky and on land. Jesus just isn't God, hes the son(sun) of his father(god, unknown force).

Have you actually studied esoterica with any kind of registered school? One of the Western Mystery Traditions? Because this just sounds to me like a load of new-age buzzwords run together and I cannot follow it.

The link between Jesus and God in Kabbalah is symbolised by the Hebrew word, Ahben (aleph, beth, nun). It means stone, as in Philosopher's Stone and it's numeration is 53. There are 3 letters. The first two, aleph-beth, are AB and in Hebrew mean "Father." The second two, beth-nun, are BEN and mean "Son." From this the Kabbalist understands that the Stone, which is the developed pineal gland, is a physical conflation of the two principles Father and Son, as in Jesus saying "I and my Father are One." It means, in psychological terms, that the ego is purified to the point where the individual can only do "God's work," he or she is a pure channel for divine expression.

I include this above to just give a taste hopefully of the depth of the symbolism present in the Bible. Kabbalists and Gnostics have been busy with this stuff like I say for centuries, or in the case of Gnostics, millenia. The esoteric intention behind the Torah and other biblical books is to push the individual deeper and deeper into the depths of their true nature, finally even rendering them invulnerable to death. To claim Jesus is the sun is to not really even grasp the most superficial layer of meaning.

BTW, I'm not inviting some long discussion on the subject matter. My own Kabbalah days are a bit behind me. I would just love some of La Murdock's and Pete Joseph's supporters to start to grasp the actual depth of what they're dismissing as sun worship.

Nick

[Nick227]

The "if" was to help me explain what i was telling Nick, id say he was many things then just besides the sun. I also wouldnt say that its no evidence because the phrase Jesus saying "I am the light of the world" John 8:12, is clearly enough evidence to suspect such a claim.

The reference is to awareness. This is the light of the world. Self-awareness.

The Emerald Tablet of Hermes is talking about the journey of awareness between the physical and archetypal worlds, it's a metaphor for the Alchemical journey.

Nick

[Nick227]

its this SIMPLE Jesus was never real, thats the main claim to Zietgiest. Now what evidence does the church have who created the god damn character, besides the book? NONE. Its not important that Jesus was or wasn't a composite god. HE STILL NEVER EXISTED AS THE BIBLE AND CHURCH SAYS HE DOES. Whats so hard to understand, are you jealous Zietgiest came out before your movie or what? Go complain in Rome to the people who still push the b.s and murder in the name of Jesus, instead of wasting time debating small points in a internet movie which tries to move humanity forward. Seriously if you cant evolve the topic like we have already done maybe you got the problems.

People are trying to get Zietgiest to incriminate itself, why dont you do the same to the bible and see who holds up more in the end.

We don't know whether Jesus existed or not. It's quite possible some teacher of the time created the tale and called himself by the highly symbolic name Iessou Christou.

I like Zeitgeist. I like the movie. But don't start telling me Pt 1 is actually demonstrably true, because that is pure nonsense.

Nick

[GreNME]

Not really, the Zeitgeist movie part 1 was only 20-25 minute basic intro. You're welcome to make your own movie if you think you can do better. The water certainly was important to the Egyptians especially the flooding of the Nile at that time marked by the rising of Sirius/the summer solstice. It wasn't all just about the sun more accurately natural phenomena. Which includes the moon and the Nile river.

So, you're saying it was about the sun even when it wasn't, yet you still fail to provide any proof.

You assume too much - the Lunar aspect comes from the Jewish traditions in combo with the solar. Who ever said it was "purely solar"? One would bring the Lunar aspects into the equation to include Lunar religions ergo Judaeo-Christianity. It's not difficult.

It was Lunar first and foremost, that is what you are ignoring. The Christ cults of the first century were initially Jewish. Just because you fail to acknowledge that doesn't change the facts of history.

- No, I'm not Acharya and the Egyptians spelled out what they were thinking - you'd know this if you spoke other languages.

You claim this, and yet you respond about the Nile question with:

You mean via the rising of Sirius every summer solstice. Old news. Looks like the sun had something to do with it after all. And no, I don't need your help with actual passages from Egyptian literature and the sources. Your biased views are yours to keep. Not interested.

The star was called Sothis by the Egyptians, and the positioning of Sothis every year did not coincide completely with the solstice, being a different number of days away from it each year. So, trying to work backwards by attempting to connect any event of historic significance to the closest-rounded solstice or equinox just makes your claims seem all the more spurious. It also shows that you really don't know anything about the actual Egyptian approach to it, you're just parrotting the incorrect claims of others. Like I said, I can give you the names of the actual Egyptian texts for you to look at yourself. I can even give you the ISBNs of books that have translated the texts (since I'm betting you can't do so yourself).

And my biased view? Based totally on actual excerpts from actual Egyptian wrwiting as opposed to third- or fourth-hand rephrasing of excerpts like what you're working from, Dave31. I can not only name the texts I reference, but the kingdom and the sitting pharaoh of the time it was written. So if by "bias" you mean "factually based" then you might be on to something.

The word "PHOTOSYNTHESIS" no but the effects yes, they certainly did have knowledge of.

You're lying. Provide a single Egyptian textual source that displays the Egyptians had any idea of the process of photosynthesis, even if called by another name.

Again, very hypocritical when you launch character assassinations and smear campaigns at Acharya and her work - work you've never really studied because it challenges your beliefs and faith.

Hey, Bluekush, take a look at what Dave31 is doing here. When he has no real argument, he falls back on the whole issue of faith. Unfortunately for Dave31 I'm agnostic, not Christian or Jewish or any other religion.

This proves that you haven't really read any of Acharya's books at all. As she discusses many other zodiacs. Nice try though.

She makes a brief mention of a few of them, but never focuses on them. Two or three mentions in a whole book is not "discussing" them.

[Nick227]

nick, nick, nick you haven't studied Acharya's work at all. She has written 3 books on this topic & soon to be a 4th.

Hip hip hooray, I can hardly *********** wait.


The ancients knew that if the sun did not continue to rise every morning, and be re-born every year after the winter solstice and resurrect every vernal equinox that all life on planet earth would seize to exist. However, so long as the sun continued to rise day after day, year after year there would always be life re-newed. Without the sun we get total extinction. That is point enough to consider the sun and life itself sacred or a sort of blessing isn't it?

....so, thought the ancients, what shall we do to ensure that the sun keeps on coming up? I know, said one wise old chap with a long white beard, let's come up with a complex and highly elaborate myth, make it as obscure as possible, in which we imagine the sun is really a person and then tell long stories about this person a few of which vaguely fit with him being the sun. The others considered this for a few moments and then proclaimed - **** off back to your cave!


Combine that info with the story about the seasons and a collage of other saviors and we have the story of Jesus. No "exceedingly bizarre mental gymnastics" needed. It's very simple - Occam's razor even.

I'm not disputing that the energetic transitions represented physically as the seasons are an important element of esoteric practice. Or that the power understood physically as the sun is at the heart of matters. But this does not mean that Jesus is the sun. That is too much of a generalisation and largely misses the entire point of the exercise.

Dorothy can write as many books as she likes. The point at which she starts to actually become interested in what Jesus really does represent, as opposed to trying to reinforce her own misinterpretation, is the point at which I'll start to read them. Thus far, she doesn't get it.

Nick

[Nick227]

12 disciples/12 constellations.. I need Kindergarden again.

12 Hebrew simple letters, 12 similar spheres fit exactly around another, 12 edges to a cube...you can't track it back to one set of symbols. They are interdependent.

LMAO So why argue Zietgiest. Go debate the pope, the bible has had a little more impact. Well I was thinking more of some red-neck home breed American. and if the Illuminati aren't too worried why are you since it wont change too many people facts and lead the world astray? Nvm i give up just because zietgiest isnt 100% true there will always be one person to get stuck in saying its wrong.

ZG is a propaganda movie. I like it. But don't come here saying it's true. It isn't.

Nick

[Nick227]

No doubt, they used the sun to tract time also and water would technically apart of earth.

You're getting *********** desperate now, man! Really. Give it up.

Of course I'm not saying theres only Sun gods, but it was apart of Jesus's characteristics.

Jesus doesn't have imo a coherent single metaphysical identity, but being a solar deity is a part of it for sure. The Jesus mythos comes from all angles. Imo it's a condensation of a lot of the mystical knowledge that preceeded it. You cannot just write Jesus off as the sun. It's much deeper than that.

Nick

[GreNME]

Me too, 12 disciples/12 constellations

There are more than twelve constellations. I don't know why I have to keep repeating that. Further, there were twelve tribes of Israel, but instead of wondering whether the disciples of Christ, who was portrayed as the Jewish moschiach in the midrashic gospel stories, were a hearkening back directly to the tribes of Israel you's instead demanding that one make a mental leap to the astrology zodiac.

The funny part is that the numbers 12, 3, 9, and 6 are numbers that pop up all over religious symbolism in the Mid-East-- so do the numbers five and seven-- yet the religio-conspiracy-theorists instead argue that these numbers were derivative of the Greco-Roman ptolemaic zodiac, which actually post-dates most of the ancient Mid-Eastern cultures.

Never knew lamps could move by themselves.

Who says they have to? You're the one trying to draw allegorcal connections. Read your quoted passage again, it describes illumination, not motility.

Didnt say it was over our money, but merely that our money is being used.

And so is British money and French money and Saudi money and German money and Israeli money and UAE money and so on. People fund their fighting with money, this has little connection to religion, which was what we're talking about.

Well it was all over the media after 9/11, the new religious war even though its may not be true its there propaganda, just like Christianity was used and its still a war when you go out to conquer.

Except that the vast majority of people, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or otherwise, are going out of their way to emphasize that the fighting is explicitly not religion-related. So, unless you're talking about the leaders such as Osama bin Laden, his various "number two"s, and idiots within the Bush administration (including the top idiot), you really don't have much actual basis for claiming religion is a huge determining factor. Extremism is a huge determining factor, but trying to make it about religion sort of misses the points of facts about the parties involved.

{regarding what Allegro got wrong}
Dont exactly remember but nothing to undermine his theory.

Which theory? He had several?

Of course its as old as anything, I'd say this is one of the things religion evolved into, amongst all the other teachings of the tribes, but now down the line personal benefits got in the way and it all went to hell.

No, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. "Shamanism" is basically a description of behaviors attributable to religious practices. There aren't evidences of shamanistic practices that predate the oldest and most notable practice of prehistoric man that signified the beginnings of religious (post-death) thought, which were burials of the dead, most notably with their accoutrements and painted with ochre. No one, not Allegro nor Irvin nor Murdoch nor anyone, can provide any proof of practices that predate those things for prehistoric man. If anyone honestly thinks they can, then they shouldn't be writing self-published books or posting on the intarwebs, they should be submitting those proofs to review journals as something that no one has ever seen before. To date, nothing that has been argued on this subject is something new, even Allegro's ideas borrowed from several older sources (with the exception of his translation work).

I see Christianities 3 main aspects as Sex, Shamanism, and the Stars and Jesus is the Phallus Mushroom Sun god, amongst other things.Now youll laugh.

Just because you "see" it that way doesn't make it so in anything but your mind (and possibly the mind of whomever convinced you). I'm not going to bother arguing with what you see in your mind, I am instead interested in discussing what the intentional representations of the mythologies and symbolisms in the past actually were. Arguing something just because it 'kinda sounds right' to you is not convincing to me. I want evidentiary substantiation of claims, not touchy-feely descriptions of what impressions you get from it. Unless it can be quantified and shown as evidence, then it is quite likely speculation.

all we have here is natural phenomenon that evolved into something outside of us.

What are you talking about? If you mean natural phenomena played parts in early myth-making and story-telling, then that's fine (it's elementary and simplistic, but fine). If it's something else you're going to need to explain.

I didn't say that. I said don't attribute malice to what can easily be qualified as stupidity (or, in the case of early mankind, ignorance).
I think quite the opposite, Early mankind keep it simple.

What I said is keeping it simple. Building huge conspirational scenarios where almost anything religious goes back to the Sun, the Greco-Roman ptolemaic zodiac, or drugs tends to be ridiculously complex.

I really dont care because Jesus was never even born, so theres not even a date. I just posted that because the ancients still could have known about it 10,000 years ago, you made it sound like the constellation wasn't discovered until the 17th century.

The constellation WASN'T discovered until the 17th century. That is literally the first time in all of recorded history ever that it is described as a constellation. There was never any description of a cross in the sky in that sector of the sky before that time. Not 10,000 years ago, not 2,000 years ago, not even 1,000 years ago. If you truly feel otherwise, then all you have to do is provide some kind of proof. Describe it, summarize its evidentiary points, and let's examine it together. If you can't do that, then you're just making baseless speculations.

So why do you think its only 4, is it just another one of the million coincidences?

Why four gospels? That was the work of the Nicene Council, which happened centuries later. Trying to reverse-engineer that into some kind of conspiracy doesn't make any sense.

I know there are like 88 constellations but 12 main in all zodiacs, maybe they use the greco-roman because thats where the religion came from. im not one backing anybodies work here, just discussing.

The problem is that the (acceptance of the) ptolemaic model on which the modern zodiac is based post-dates the early stories of Jesus and the known early appearances of his cult. So, unless these early Christians were also time travelers the discussion ends with the fact that the dates don't line up in a sequential order.

As mentioned above i realize there are vasts amounts of symbolism representing very common things.

If you realize this, why aren't you considering it in the proper context?

http://www.e-planetarium.com/Shows/AAA/Amazing_AstronomersSCRIPT.pdf

Im sure they could have also used measuring sticks or some other kind of device to measure the rise of the river, you just cant say that they didnt know about the stars and measurement of time.

There's no need to speculate about what they could have done, because there is actual evidence in Egyptian texts-- most notably letters written and documentation of the events by which they made their predictions-- that explain what they actually did. The Egyptians developed thier system to operate like clockwork using their methods, but the flooding of the Nile was not determined by the position of the Sun. It was the position of the star Sothis in the sky. When Sothis reached a certain point, the higher class scholars would send missives to the priestly classes in towns along the Nile instructing them to announce the timed flooding to the farmers so that they can prepare. Months later the priests were instructed to announce the time to harvest. This process repeated for centuries over centuries in Egypt, using almost exactly the same methods throughout each dynasty.

No speculation necessary. Documentation was something the Egyptians were highly skilled at. This is one of the reasons why it's so imperative that people who make claims about things in ancient Egypt be able to provide actual source documentation and not mistaken or flawed conjectures from outside (third-party) sources.

Just so you know, Bluekush, Egypt was one of the more literate civilizations of antiquity, with a higher percentage of people able to read and write than most others in its time (more than the Greeks, too). Once Egypt was conquered by Alexander's Hellenistic empire the Egyptians began what was to be the decline that erased their whole civilization from the planet-- their religious practices slowly became overtaken with infused Hellenistic mythology, their language was slowly replaced with Greek (and later Arabic), and even the ethnic people of the land were out-bred by both the Greek conquerers and the Bedouin tribes who moved in later. The only thing left of the ancient Egyptian people are their monuments and their artifacts. This isn't meant to down-play any modern Egyptian state nationalism (and I want that to be clear for anyone who might be from there), it is simply establishing a historical and anthropological set of facts so that proper context is maintained.

Back in the 19th century there was a great deal of excitement regarding Egypt as scholarly groups began to establish systems for translating the wealth of Egyptian writing that had been collected over the centuries, which was previously untranslatable before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. E.A. Wallis Budge, one of the early translation pioneers, took a 26-foot-long scroll (which would come to be known as the Book of the Dead), cut it into even lengths, and pasted it onto boards for transport to the UK in the late 1800's. Unfortunately for Budge, he inadvertently broke up the contextual layout of the pieces of the scroll (plates), and even after the mistake was discovered and only partially accounted for the damage had already been done. While Budge still managed an initial translation, considering the original damage done and lack of context, he did a decent job even though there was little to no point of reference. Even his subsequent retranslations improved on his early work, and the retranslations of others who followed over the subsequent decades improved the quality and accuracy of the texts even more.

This enthusiasm toward the Egyptian writings manifested itself in a few ways. There was a group of individuals, some of them scholars, who were convinced and practically obsessed with sourcing much of the origins of modern civilization to that of these ancient Egyptians. Gerald Massey was one such individual, and he was a decently-regarded art historian who dabbled in Egyptology. This school of thought shared in the late 19th century played a huge role in the "out of Egypt" claims made about everything from religious ideas to agricultural models to speculations on military tactics-- but the popular one was the religious claims that modern religious thought (namely Christianity) came out of Egypt. The difference between Massey's work and that of people like Budge is that Massey never actually provided the transliterations of the texts he was describing having translated, and though he made numerous (mostly esoteric) claims about the contents of the texts he wrote about, he never speficied for posterity or scientific verification which lines on which plates he was describing for his more unconventional claims. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Kersey Graves wrote similar material with numerous claims, but instead of focusing on Egyptian antiquity he instead focused on the mystery schools (which are called in modern vernacular the Gnostics) that came out of Egyptian lands in the centuries surrounding the first century CE, with equally sketchy and often unsourced claims that were often made without specifying exactly where the claims are based. So, we have two examples of the "out of Egypt" school of thought (there were others) that relied on different periods and are, for the most part, unprovable relying on the works of the authors of the 19th century books and have since not been verified in any real capacity through subsequent translations.

As the 20th century continued on, with two world wars and the advent of widespread radio and film (and eventually television), the esoteric "out of Egypt" claims never really caught on to a wider audience and Hollywood fascination with mummies and caricatures of Egyptian symbolism (and heiroglyphs) caught more attention with people. However, the "out of Egypt" school of thought began to catch on again some time around the 1950's-1960's, most likely due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls (Nag Hammadi is located in Egypt) in 1945. More along the lines of Graves' books, the school of thinking included similar or the same set of factors as the origins for all of the most popular religions, claiming each of them were based on the same things. The discovery of the Qumran scrolls (in the Wadi Qumran near the Dead Sea) and the subsequent interpretations by a group including John M Allegro wound up adding to this school of thought, since Allegro was convinced the Qumran (especially the Copper Scroll) was proof of exactly that. Allegro finally wound up taking his original assertions that the Qumran detailed the shared origins of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and going a few steps further in later publications, adding shamanism and drug-induced hallucinations as the sources for all religion.

Nowadays, those same elements are seeing a comeback, this time tied to conspiracies that somehow implicate one religious institution or another as not only manipulating their churches (a totally plausible conjecture) but also of manipulating world economies and governments, and basically being responsible for all of the bad parts of human history and little to none of the good. Using the Zeitgeist film as an example, this contemporary version of older claims repackages the same arguments in with fresh wording, attempting to mix in the writings of Cumont, Frazer, Campbell, and others (usually quoted out of context) to argue the same talking points that failed to pass scientific scrutiny before. The Zeitgeist movie isn't the only example of this, and quite a few of its sources make the same or similar mistakes (or are actually the previous flawed or unproven claims themselves).

Basically, Bluekush, I would be more than happy to cover the subject matter with you if you actually want to discuss it. I can even point you back to publications that are essentially the sources for many of the claims (if you weren't aware of them), and we can work from there to establish their scientific credibility, accuracy, and consistency. I honestly have no problem with it. What I don't think is useful is saying "this book/movie/whatever is true and you can't prove it wrong" as an argument, which is why I've been stating that if someone wants to list various talking points from any of those sources they can be addressed accordingly, but that making personal attacks like Dave31 is doing don't accomplish anything. I think some of the subject matter is appropriate for the conspiracy theory subforum here, while other parts of it might be appropriate as history or religious discussion outside of any overarching conspiracy theory.

What I'm not going to do is what Dave31 seems to want me to do: make personal attacks toward anyone. I don't think Massey, Graves, Allegro, (Jan) Irvin, Dorothy (Murdock, a.k.a. Acharya S), or even the maker of the Zeitgeist film are bad people or deserving of personal insults. I just think that, to differing degrees depending on the individual, they are promoting incorrect, flawed, or grossly misrepresented conclusions in their subject matter. I'm perfectly willing to discuss why I think so, but if you want to know why for each one I think it would be more productive to actually ask me about specific ones and we can work from there, rather than expecting me to write some all-encompassing piece of text that is miraculously supposed to cover all the subject matter and each individual talking point all in one shot.

[Nick227]

Jesus is the Phallus Mushroom Sun god, amongst other things.

No, that was Osho Rajneesh. Jesus was a wimp who probably played with girls.

Nick

[GreNME]

Jesus is the Phallus Mushroom Sun god, amongst other things.

No, that was Osho Rajneesh. Jesus was a wimp who probably played with girls.

Nick

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-004.gif

[thesyntaxera]

I was hoping something funny would happen...then it did.

[Hokulele]

:D

[Nick227]

- Maybe you don't even realize how hypocritical you are because this is exactly what you're doing. You should try and head by your own words. You continue to make "all sorts of idiotic claims" without ever having studied the work. The fact remains, when it comes to Acharya's work you're simply not qualified to comment on it beyond your opinion. You're not an authority on her work as you clearly know very little about it at all. Nothing you say will ever change that.

Let me check something out here, Dave. Just say I was to fork out $7.99 or whatever on one of Dorothy's ebooks (about 10p in real money), read it, and found it to be a complete pile of manipulative nonsense - would you then accept my opinion? Or would you find another little back door to sneak out of?

Your position is bs. You hide behind some new-age author but can't actually bring any arguments or positions to the table yourself. You need to go to brainwashed follower bootcamp, dude. You need to toughen up. Currently you're one of those background henchmen in a Bond movie who gets killed by a karate chop that wouldn't worry a squirrel.

You guys are trying to take something literally. That is the damage of Christianity, Islam and religion in general. The Egyptians didn't do that. It was allegorical, symbolic etc. based on natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars, constellations, river - Nile, thunder, etc. Until one realizes that they'll never get it. Making sense in the literal was never the point. Keep doing that and you'll "never see the forest for the trees."

Listen, if you're going to create a symbol for the personified sun dying and being reborn, when the **** else is it going to be other than at the winter solstice? Puhleeeze. I've never heard such pitiful reasoning in my life.

Do I take it by your lack of quoting La Murdock's works that she doesn't actually cover this issue, preferring no doubt to quote some obscure 5th century monk who no ********** has ever heard of and who may, in some archaic language have said something that could be construed as meaning Jesus was the sun?

Do I take it that she avoids dealing with what must be one of the most glaringly obvious issues in her argument?

I mean, do you actually have any critical facilities in your brain? Don't you find this just a tinsy bit odd?

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "Your position is bs. You hide behind some new-age author but can't actually bring any arguments or positions to the table yourself."

Pretty big words for someone who has never actually read the books by an author you claim to be "new-age". Again nick, how would you know when you've already admitted you've never studied the work? As I've made clear to you already, your opinion is just that, your opinion based on ignorance of the work.

Again, right back achtya nick - Speaking of having any "critical facilities in your brain" - may be you could first actually try and study up on topics you select to ridicule. Is this how you got your High School Education? Seems like it. I'll have to ignore you at this point. It's not worth spending any time addressing such petty posts from people complaining about authors works they've never read.

[Nick227]

Pretty big words for someone who has never actually read the books by an author you claim to be "new-age". Again nick, how would you know when you've already admitted you've never studied the work? As I've made clear to you already, your opinion is just that, your opinion based on ignorance of the work.

Again, right back achtya nick - Speaking of having any "critical facilities in your brain" - may be you could first actually try and study up on topics you select to ridicule. Is this how you got your High School Education? Seems like it. I'll have to ignore you at this point. It's not worth spending any time addressing such petty posts from people complaining about authors works they've never read.

My background is esoteric. GreNME is more academic, as I see it. I studied Qabalah for years. I worked with the symbology in ritual and meditation. What you seem to me to fail to appreciate is that there are authentic schools of wisdom who have been dealing with Jesus and the Bible for centuries, some for millenia. Some from the actual time ascribed to Jesus.

If you want to discuss aspects of Biblical symbology - Adam and Eve, Jacob's Ladder, the flight from Egypt, Ezekiel's Vision, the birth of Jesus, the Revelation, whatever - just go for it. I won't run you down. I'd be happy to discuss the topic, just like GreNME would be happy to discuss the academic perspective.

Nick

[Dave31]

GrenME,

First of all, regardless of your little barbs and snide remarks, the fact will remain that Easter is mainly a SOLAR holiday, but the ancients also included LUNAR aspects into their religious concepts, which is why today we call it ASTROTHEOLOGY, not "soli-lunar mythology." It should be as evident as the nose on your face that Easter *IS* the VERNAL EQUINOX. Are you trying to tell me that the ancients did not celebrate the vernal equinox? And you really don't know that the VERNAL EQUINOX HAS TO DO WITH THE SUN? Truly preposterous, but such shows the (low) quality of your argument. As I've mentioned already, even children understand it.

GrenME "Gerald Massey was one such individual, and he was a decently-regarded art historian who dabbled in Egyptology."

Gerald Massey was not an "art historian." He was a self-educated biblical scholar, Egyptologist and poet. Are you just skimming wikipedia to get your material? You seem to be just regurgitating encyclopedia entries, which you apparently spend your entire day doing. You need a girl friend bad, dude.

GrenME "The difference between Massey's work and that of people like Budge is that Massey never actually provided the transliterations of the texts he was describing having translated, and though he made numerous (mostly esoteric) claims about the contents of the texts he wrote about, he never specified for posterity or scientific verification which lines on which plates he was describing for his more unconventional claims."

These remarks are false, and they show that you simply repeat - endlessly, as you have done all over the place - the criticisms of others who have not studied Massey's works. Where you learn something different from the mainstream party line, you seem incapable of factoring it into your mainstream regurgitation. Gerald Massey utilized not only the work of Budge but also of many other Egyptologists, including Champollion, Dr. Samuel Birch, Bunsen and anyone else prominent in his day - and you would know that fact if you had really read Acharya's "Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1." Also, Massey read hieroglyphs himself and cited his sources in numerous places. Since it is your habit of not even reading the material you pretend to be an expert on, I highly suspect that you have not read anything by Gerald Massey. In this regard, You have proved yourself completely lacking in integrity as you go on for page after page here and the ZG thread pretending to be an expert on works that you have never read. You have done this repeatedly, and I have called you out on it repeatedly, yet you've got a bunch of people unfortunately falling for your con, because you can string sentences together with enough facts to come across as if you've digested an entire encyclopedia.

GrenME "On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Kersey Graves wrote similar material with numerous claims, but instead of focusing on Egyptian antiquity he instead focused on the mystery schools (which are called in modern vernacular the Gnostics) that came out of Egyptian lands in the centuries surrounding the first century CE, with equally sketchy and often unsourced claims that were often made without specifying exactly where the claims are based."

Again, you sound like you have not read anything by Kersey Graves AT ALL. Why do you continuously present yourself as an expert on the works of people you haven't even read? This, sir, is a VERY SERIOUS CHARACTER FLAW, and everyone here who is fawning all over you should understand that you have not even read the works you pretend to know. Your remarks concerning Kersey Graves' work are COMPLETELY WRONG. That's not at all what he wrote about.

GrenME "As the 20th century continued on, with two world wars and the advent of widespread radio and film (and eventually television), the esoteric "out of Egypt" claims never really caught on to a wider audience and Hollywood fascination with mummies and caricatures of Egyptian symbolism (and heiroglyphs) caught more attention with people. However, the "out of Egypt" school of thought began to catch on again some time around the 1950's-1960's, most likely due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls (Nag Hammadi is located in Egypt) in 1945. More along the lines of Graves' books, the school of thinking included similar or the same set of factors as the origins for all of the most popular religions, claiming each of them were based on the same things. The discovery of the Qumran scrolls (in the Wadi Qumran near the Dead Sea) and the subsequent interpretations by a group including John M Allegro wound up adding to this school of thought, since Allegro was convinced the Qumran (especially the Copper Scroll) was proof of exactly that. Allegro finally wound up taking his original assertions that the Qumran detailed the shared origins of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and going a few steps further in later publications, adding shamanism and drug-induced hallucinations as the sources for all religion."

Once again, your research and understanding into the subject are INCREDIBLY SHALLOW. You've barely scratched the surface, yet you present yourself as an all-knowing authority. The reason we didn't see much of the "Out of Egypt" comparisons is because they were deliberately suppressed, obviously. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. In fact, it takes a pretty shallow mind not to realize that with so much material out of Egypt, and with its proximity to Judea, and with its massive library and university, etc. - Alexandria serving as a major port of the time - that there was NO influence of Egyptian religion on Christianity! Completely ridiculous, despite your shallow encyclopedia timeline.

The rest of what you are saying is still more of the shallow nonsense that you continually regurgitate here and elsewhere, wasting band width that could be better used elsewhere.

If your shallow and uninformed opinions about subjects that you know little about - dishonestly going on for pages without having even read the works at hand - is what the others here are interested in, then so be it. But they should know that you really don't know what you are talking about, despite your constant claims and running on at the mouth in long winded posts.

In the meantime, I await Acharya's forthcoming book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection," which, unlike your shallow and malformed dismissals, actually digs deeply into the material to demonstrate that there is no way that the Egyptian religion, mythology and culture did not influence the rest of the Mediterranean. One simple case in point: the goddess Isis was arguably the most popular deity of the time when Christianity was being created. She was called "Healer" and "Savior," centuries prior to the Christian era. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people knew about Isis and her role as a "Healer" and "Savior," including many Jews in the Diaspora. Are you trying to tell me that Isis was completely forgotten by all those people suddenly when Christ supposedly came along? Wow! That IS a supernatural genesis. We would have to deem you a Christian - and I suspect that anyway, with your constant irrationality and unwillingness to accept any scientific data that comes your way.

GrenME "I just think that, to differing degrees depending on the individual, they are promoting incorrect, flawed, or grossly misrepresented conclusions in their subject matter."

Actually, it is YOU who are doing this very thing, as your knowledge of the subject matters at hand is extremely shallow and reflects that you haven't really studied them. You may have read ABOUT them, but there's a big difference. And you have yet to admit that you will go on and on for pages fallaciously presenting yourself as an "expert" on works that you haven't even read - again, that is a SERIOUS character flaw.

Again, I say, if the others here are impressed by your shallow regurgitations that contain numerous errors of fact because you are simply repeating like a parrot the equally uninformed opinions of other parrots, without having studied the material in question, then that is their problem and loss.

Others here are invited, however, to study the works of Acharya at her website: http://truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html

Start with those articles - you will see that Acharya's knowledge of the relevant subject matter is FAR MORE profound than that of GrenME, the pretender.

BTW, your calling Acharya or D.M. Murdock, if you prefer, by the first name is disrespectful, as she herself does not use that name. Stop using that name, which she herself did not reveal to the world but which was revealed by disrespectful detractors.

Otherwise, I really have absolutely no interest in your opinions based on ignorance, but the others here should be aware that you do not know what you are talking about, despite your ability to go on and on for dozens of pages at a time, yes. Well informed, no. It's obvious that Massey, Acharya and others have a MUCH better and deeper knowledge of the relevant subject matter than you do, so just quit pretending.

[Nick227]

First of all, regardless of your little barbs and snide remarks, the fact will remain that Easter is mainly a SOLAR holiday, but the ancients also included LUNAR aspects into their religious concepts, which is why today we call it ASTROTHEOLOGY, not "soli-lunar mythology." It should be as evident as the nose on your face that Easter is the VERNAL EQUINOX. Are you trying to tell me that the ancients did not celebrate the vernal equinox? And you really don't know that the VERNAL EQUINOX HAS TO DO WITH THE SUN and the earths tilt? Truly preposterous, but such shows the (low) quality of your argument. As I've mentioned already, even children understand it.

What about the 4 Celtic fire festivals, Dave? You'll find them more in the Bible than the solstices and equinoxes. They were the seasonal peaks. Check the Vision of Ezekiel. Check Revelation 4. Check the picture I showed you earlier, one of many thousand similar from medieval churches. Check the Gnostic Fixed Cross, the Cross of Crucifixion. The four Holy Living Creatures - man, eagle, bull, lion - aquarius, scorpio, taurus, leo.

The Fixed Cross is the Cross of Initiation, the doorway into the mysteries. The four seasonal peaks are of far greater significance than the equinoxes or solstices.

You're living in your own private biblical Egypt, Dave - the land of negative psychic oppression. Why do you think Moses (Mem, Shin, Heh = 345) could lead the Israelites out of this dump? 345 - you have to stand up straight...for yourself. You gotta learn to walk on your own, man. Not in this woman's footsteps.

Nick

[thesyntaxera]

...and...still no evidence....unless defensive rhetoric now counts as evidence...

[GreNME]

GrenME,

First of all, regardless of your little barbs and snide remarks, the fact will remain that Easter is mainly a SOLAR holiday, but the ancients also included LUNAR aspects into their religious concepts, which is why today we call it ASTROTHEOLOGY, not "soli-lunar mythology."

Just because you keep repeating it without any basis in fact or proof does not make the thing true. If repetition made something true, then religious preachers the world over would be recreating reality every day and George W. Bush would somehow have managed to be a good president. Reality, unfortunately for you (and George W. Bush) is not dictated by repetition, but by fact.

It should be as evident as the nose on your face that Easter *IS* the VERNAL EQUINOX.

Only inasmuch as Independence Day in the US is based on the Summer solstice or Columbus Day (also in the US) is based on the autumnal equinox.

Are you trying to tell me that the ancients did not celebrate the vernal equinox?

Which "ancients" are you referring to? The Babylonians? The Hebrews? The Akkadians? The Kasi or Vriji? The various Chinese dynasties? The Kush?

The answer is: some did, some didn't. Some it's difficult to say.

And you really don't know that the VERNAL EQUINOX HAS TO DO WITH THE SUN? Truly preposterous, but such shows the (low) quality of your argument. As I've mentioned already, even children understand it.

And, apparently, children are the only ones proselytizing it. Those of us with adult educations have learned that things aren't quite so black and white, and not everything can be broken down to helaical cycles.

Gerald Massey was not an "art historian." He was a self-educated biblical scholar, Egyptologist and poet. Are you just skimming wikipedia to get your material? You seem to be just regurgitating encyclopedia entries, which you apparently spend your entire day doing. You need a girl friend bad, dude.

You need to learn to actually do reasearch on your own without relaying other people's words, dude. I'm going by work he did for museums and by both his bibliography (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cbiog_appendices_2.htm) and lectures (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/bnr_news_reports.htm). He dealt primarily with two things most of his career: art history (involving critique and explanation) and spiritualism. I intentionally left out the fact that he was well-known to peddle spiritualists (and was actually criticized as a fraud more than once) because I don't think there's any need to use emotional appeals to show that his claims had no substantiation. but hey, if you want to trot out the fact that he was known to peddle his wife Rosalina around as a psychic (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cnr_clairvoyance.htm), he defended fraudsters who posed as mediums (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cmc_miscellanea_1.htm#Lyon_v_Home), and that his many tracts he published (http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cnr_miscellanea_tracts_1.htm) regularly try to establish that there are "secret" and hidden occult rituals and magics within African and Egyptian texts that are worth being found.

Honestly, Dave31, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you want to get into a full Massey biography in order to try to establish his credibility.

These remarks are false, and they show that you simply repeat - endlessly, as you have done all over the place - the criticisms of others who have not studied Massey's works.

I've read two of his books. As far as "Massey's works" are concerned, he published a great deal more on Shakespeare than he did on Egypt, so apparently it shows how much you know on "Massey's works" in the first place.

Where you learn something different from the mainstream party line, you seem incapable of factoring it into your mainstream regurgitation. Gerald Massey utilized not only the work of Budge but also of many other Egyptologists, including Champollion, Dr. Samuel Birch, Bunsen and anyone else prominent in his day - and you would know that fact if you had really read Acharya's "Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1."

Except for those pesky parts where his writings diverge from the mainstream Egyptologists.

Also, Massey read hieroglyphs himself and cited his sources in numerous places.

He cited plenty except for where it counted. He doesn't cite the actual words where he translates his made-up "Anup the Baptizer" in his books, he doesn't cite the actual texts when he claims Horus was baptized. Whenever it comes to trying to substantiate his claims, there are never any original text citations nor any plain translations of the actual phoenetics used in any of his translations. Other valid, more skilled, and more accurate translations not only include the translations, but also the phoenetic transliterations and the corresponding glyphs. Massey fails to do this piece of academic due diligence that almost all of his more mainstream contemporaries managed to do.

Since it is your habit of not even reading the material you pretend to be an expert on, I highly suspect that you have not read anything by Gerald Massey. In this regard, You have proved yourself completely lacking in integrity as you go on for page after page here and the ZG thread pretending to be an expert on works that you have never read. You have done this repeatedly, and I have called you out on it repeatedly, yet you've got a bunch of people unfortunately falling for your con, because you can string sentences together with enough facts to come across as if you've digested an entire encyclopedia.

Again, you sound like you have not read anything by Kersey Graves AT ALL. Why do you continuously present yourself as an expert on the works of people you haven't even read? This, sir, is a VERY SERIOUS CHARACTER FLAW, and everyone here who is fawning all over you should understand that you have not even read the works you pretend to know. Your remarks concerning Kersey Graves' work are COMPLETELY WRONG. That's not at all what he wrote about.

Ahh, I see where you're going now. Since you obviously haven't read anything by these guys, you're instead arguing by basically regurgitating the praise people like Dorothy load upon these guys, and decide to attack me as if I claimed to be an expert on the works of these people, as opposed to having actually studied the source material of the ancient cultures. This is what makes your arguments so weak: you continue to work from the assumption that unless one has completely memorized and agreed with the works of those fringe authors that they have no idea of the actual subject matter on the subject of antiquity, of ancient religions or cultures, or how those cultures and practices moved through time. Your biggest fault, Dave31, is that you demand I treat your heroes' works as gospel, and you seem to be taking it personally that I don't.

Once again, your research and understanding into the subject are INCREDIBLY SHALLOW. You've barely scratched the surface, yet you present yourself as an all-knowing authority.

I'm not claiming to be all-knowing. To rephrase a popular saying: I don't have to be all-knowing, I just have to let you show everyone how I obviously know more than you. ;)

The reason we didn't see much of the "Out of Egypt" comparisons is because they were deliberately suppressed, obviously.

Right. This kind of speculation is why I call this stuff conspiracy theory.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. In fact, it takes a pretty shallow mind not to realize that with so much material out of Egypt, and with its proximity to Judea, and with its massive library and university, etc. - Alexandria serving as a major port of the time - that there was NO influence of Egyptian religion on Christianity! Completely ridiculous, despite your shallow encyclopedia timeline.

If you have proof that the "out of Egypt" stuff is true, I've given you several pages on which you could have stated your case. Instead, all you've done is attack me personally and demanded that anyone you converse with treat the contemporary books you get your ideas from as gospel.

The rest of what you are saying is still more of the shallow nonsense that you continually regurgitate here and elsewhere, wasting band width that could be better used elsewhere.

Once again, repetition does not make what you say any more factual.

If your shallow and uninformed opinions about subjects that you know little about - dishonestly going on for pages without having even read the works at hand - is what the others here are interested in, then so be it. But they should know that you really don't know what you are talking about, despite your constant claims and running on at the mouth in long winded posts.

Then all you have to do to prove me wrong is actually provide any proof-- literally any actual proof that is sourced in ancient Egyptian text and clearly laid out for everyone here to see for themselves-- and yet you continue to fail to do so.

In the meantime, I await Acharya's forthcoming book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection," which, unlike your shallow and malformed dismissals, actually digs deeply into the material to demonstrate that there is no way that the Egyptian religion, mythology and culture did not influence the rest of the Mediterranean.

Do you, Freethinkaluva, and Mriana all copy and paste from the same sources when you make these sales pitches?

One simple case in point: the goddess Isis was arguably the most popular deity of the time when Christianity was being created.

Prove it. Don't play the salesman, show everyone else here what proof exists that Isis was the most popular deity in the first century CE.

She was called "Healer" and "Savior," centuries prior to the Christian era. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people knew about Isis and her role as a "Healer" and "Savior," including many Jews in the Diaspora.

Prove it. Don't come back with more sales pitches for Dorothy, simply summarize the proofs as you claim to have read them, and let's work from there.

Are you trying to tell me that Isis was completely forgotten by all those people suddenly when Christ supposedly came along? Wow! That IS a supernatural genesis. We would have to deem you a Christian - and I suspect that anyway, with your constant irrationality and unwillingness to accept any scientific data that comes your way.

Ahh, when you can't come up with a good reasoning for why I don't buy what you're trying to sell, you demonize me with personal attacks. Again.

Actually, it is YOU who are doing this very thing, as your knowledge of the subject matters at hand is extremely shallow and reflects that you haven't really studied them. You may have read ABOUT them, but there's a big difference. And you have yet to admit that you will go on and on for pages fallaciously presenting yourself as an "expert" on works that you haven't even read - again, that is a SERIOUS character flaw.

Again, I say, if the others here are impressed by your shallow regurgitations that contain numerous errors of fact because you are simply repeating like a parrot the equally uninformed opinions of other parrots, without having studied the material in question, then that is their problem and loss.

The "material in question" are the ancient Egyptian, early Christian, Greek and Roman literature that exists out there, and the fact that you continue to ignore those in lieu of your hero-worship-sales-pitches hasn't been missed here.

BTW, your calling Acharya or D.M. Murdock, if you prefer, by the first name is disrespectful, as she herself does not use that name. Stop using that name, which she herself did not reveal to the world but which was revealed by disrespectful detractors.

Her name isn't "Acharya." The word "acharya" is a bastardization of an old Hindu word (acarya), a term associated with the Hindu Alvars, basically meaning "guru" in the most literal sense. Since she's no guru, and I have not been informed that her legal name has been changed to "Acharya S" I will continue to call her by her legal name because that is factually and legally the proper name to address her by.

Otherwise, I really have absolutely no interest in your opinions based on ignorance, but the others here should be aware that you do not know what you are talking about, despite your ability to go on and on for dozens of pages at a time, yes. Well informed, no. It's obvious that Massey, Acharya and others have a MUCH better and deeper knowledge of the relevant subject matter than you do, so just quit pretending.

Tell you what: why don't you actually do like I've been asking from the start and simply provide a summary of what you think are actual proofs and let's have an actual discussion instead of a flame war? Otherwise, I'm going to have to begin reporting this thread to moderation as being an attempt at flame war and personal attacks toward me.

[Dave31]

What about the 4 Celtic fire festivals, Dave? You'll find them more in the Bible than the solstices and equinoxes. They were the seasonal peaks. Check the Vision of Ezekiel. Check Revelation 4. Check the picture I showed you earlier, one of many thousand similar from medieval churches. Check the Gnostic Fixed Cross, the Cross of Crucifixion. The four Holy Living Creatures - man, eagle, bull, lion - aquarius, scorpio, taurus, leo.

The Fixed Cross is the Cross of Initiation, the doorway into the mysteries. The four seasonal peaks are of far greater significance than the equinoxes or solstices.

You're living in your own private biblical Egypt, Dave - the land of negative psychic oppression. Why do you think Moses (Mem, Shin, Heh = 345) could lead the Israelites out of this dump? 345 - you have to stand up straight...for yourself. You gotta learn to walk on your own, man. Not in this woman's footsteps.

Nick

nick, nick, nick you're not using your head for someone who claims to be so well educated in the esoteric and Qabalah. The Celtic calendar was lunar based as was the Islamic and Jewish calendars. So naturally they put their emphasis there. It's totally absurd to omit the other 4 celebrations on the solstices and equinoxes in order to deny any connection to the sun. You can't possibly attempt to argue that with a straight face nick.

Does the moon create life on earth? Does the moon give us warmth? Does the moon give us photosynthesis? No. Without the sun there would be no seasons, no solstices, no equinoxes, no Celtic fire festivals - no life on earth as we know it. With out the sun, the moon would never shine. Why this is so difficult to grasp can only be due to selective perception, ignorance etc. I appreciate the moon too but you don't need to go off the deep-end in your attempt to deny lifes total reliance upon the sun.

Christianity puts its emphasis more on solar aspects hence the solar based Gregorian calendar. Hence the popular solar holidays celebrated in pre-Christian times we know today as "Christmas" and "Easter." Christianity has several Jewish flavors to it so they include some lunar aspects as well which is why we have Easter (which is really at the vernal equinox when the LIGHT overtakes the DARK) celebrated after the 1st full moon after the V.E. This only further demonstrates that Jesus was never a real person but rather, astronomical and astrotheological.

The Celts celebrate each season at its peak. However, what creates those "peaks"? THE SUN and the earths tilt creating those seasons. What are those peaks peaks of - the seasons created by the sun. It's not either or nick. The Solstices, Equinoxes, Celtic Fire festivals and the seasons are all connected and have their foundation in the solar cycle. If your beliefs inspire you to put emphasis more on lunar aspects, go for it but it will never eliminate the fact that the seasons, solstices and equinoxes exist due to the sun.

I don't think I can break it down anymore to simplify it further nick. If you don't get it by now, maybe you should consider putting down your esoteric and Qabalah pursuits and replace them with something entirely different.

Here are a few things I pulled up just doing a quick google for you to help you out ... I really want you to get this -

The Solstices, Equinoxes and the Celtic Fire festivals.

"Wiccans, and some Neopagan groups which are influenced by Wicca, observe eight festivals which they call "sabbats".[1] Four of these fall on the solstices and equinoxes and are known as "quarter days or Lesser Sabbats". The other four fall (approximately) midway between these and are commonly known as "cross-quarter days," "fire festivals," or Greater Sabbats. The "quarter days" are loosely based or named after the Germanic festivals, and the "cross-quarter days" are similarly inspired by the Gaelic fire festivals."

Sun Sabbats and Moon Sabbats

"Sun sabbats" refer to the quarter days, which are based on the astronomical position of the sun. "Moon sabbats" can be observed on Full Moons, typically the one closest to the traditional festival date or the 2nd full moon after the preceding quarter day. This would place the Moon sabbat anywhere from 29-59 days after the preceding solstice or equinox. Moon sabbats can also be observed on the nearest Lunar phase to the Cross-quarter day according to the table at right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_of_the_Year

Celts celebrated 4 major festivals during the year. These festivals are associated with the seasons and are tied to the phases of the Moon. The Celtic year is divided into halves marked by the two great fire festivals of Samhain and Bealtaine. The period from Samhain to Bealtaine is called "an Ghrian beag" or the "lessor Sun". The period from Bealtaine to Samhain is called "an Ghrian mor" or the "greater Sun".

"Sun rituals were probably performed by the Druids at MidWinter and MidSummer Solstices as well as the Spring and Vernal Equinoxes."
http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/celticfi.htm

"The four fire festivals marked the turning of the seasons."
http://www.sacredfire.net/festivals.html

"The ritual welcoming of the sun and the lighting of the fires was also believed to ensure fertility of the land and the people." http://www.new-age.co.uk/celtic-festivals-beltane.htm

"The winter and summer solstice, and the spring and fall vernal equinox were celebrated by the Celts and in between are the four major holidays. In the Celtic world, days began at sundown, so all holidays commenced at sundown and continued the following day. The sun and the moon (and to some extent the planets) determined the dates of all eight Celtic holidays."
http://www.helium.com/items/355329-winter-summer-solstice-spring

"The Four Seasons are known as Solar Festivals, in that they mark a seasonal change caused by the Sun. The cross quarter days are marked by Fire Festivals and are usually celebrated as significant agricultural festivals. Together the Solar Festivals and the Fire Festivals make up the Wheel Of The Year. The Wheel Of The Year, is often broken into eight festivals, whether they are the eight Asatru Blots, Seasonal Festivals or Celtic Sabbats, and the observance of Solar energies at the solstices and equinoxes and the Fire energies on the cross quarter days, is a common theme throughout the world."

The Four Fire Festivals

Imbolc - Feb 2nd
Disablot/Imbolc/Candlemas.
This holiday is also known as Candlemas, or Brigid's (pronounced BREED) Day.

Beltane - May 1 April 30th/May 1st
May Eve/Valpurgis/Cetsamhain/Roodmas/Shenn do Boaldyn/May Day
(Beltane derived from the Irish Gaelic "Bealtaine" or the Scottish Gaelic "Bealtuinn", meaning "Bel-fire", the fire of the Celtic god of light (Bel, Beli or Belinus).)

Lughnasa - August 2, July 31st/Aug 1st
Frey Fest/Lughnasa/Lugnasad/Lammas

Samhain - October 31
Winter Nights/Samhain/Feile Moingfinne/Halloween
(*Note: Samhain is pronounced sowen, soween, saw-win, saw-vane or sahven, not sam-hayne)

The Four Solar Festivals

Winter Solstice - Yule - Dec 21st/22nd
(Yule from the Anglo-Saxon 'Yula', meaning 'wheel' of the year.)

Spring Equinox - Ostara - Mar 21st/22nd

Summer Solstice - Lithia - Midsummers Eve - June 21st/22nd
(Midsummer, Gathering Day, Summer Solstice, Alban Heffyn, Feill-Sheathain)

Autumn Equinox - Harvest - Mabon - Sept 21st/22nd
Gwyl canol Hydref or Mabon: (pronounced May-bon. Also known as Harvest Home, Harvest Tide, Fall Equinox, Autumn Equinox etc.)
http://www.thewhitegoddess.co.uk/sabbats/index.asp

[thesyntaxera]

nick, nick, nick you're not using your head for someone who claims to be so well educated in the esoteric and Qabalah. The Celtic calendar was lunar based as was the Islamic and Jewish calendars. So naturally they put their emphasis there. It's totally absurd to omit the other 4 celebrations on the solstices and equinoxes in order to deny any connection to the sun. You can't possibly attempt to argue that with a straight face nick.

Does the moon create life on earth? Does the moon give us warmth? Does the moon give us photosynthesis? No. Without the sun there would be no seasons, no solstices, no equinoxes, no Celtic fire festivals - no life on earth as we know it. With out the sun, the moon would never shine. Why this is so difficult to grasp can only be due to selective perception, ignorance etc. I appreciate the moon too but you don't need to go off the deep-end in your attempt to deny lifes total reliance upon the sun.

Christianity puts its emphasis more on solar aspects hence the solar based Gregorian calendar. Hence the popular solar holidays celebrated in pre-Christian times we know today as "Christmas" and "Easter." Christianity has several Jewish flavors to it so they include some lunar aspects as well which is why we have Easter (which is really at the vernal equinox when the LIGHT overtakes the DARK) celebrated after the 1st full moon after the V.E. This only further demonstrates that Jesus was never a real person but rather, astronomical and astrotheological.

The Celts celebrate each season at its peak. However, what creates those "peaks"? THE SUN and the earths tilt creating those seasons. What are those peaks peaks of - the seasons created by the sun. It's not either or nick. The Solstices, Equinoxes, Celtic Fire festivals and the seasons are all connected and have their foundation in the solar cycle. If your beliefs inspire you to put emphasis more on lunar aspects, go for it but it will never eliminate the fact that the seasons, solstices and equinoxes exist due to the sun.

I don't think I can break it down anymore to simplify it further nick. If you don't get it by now, maybe you should consider putting down your esoteric and Qabalah pursuits and replace them with something entirely different.

Here are a few things I pulled up just doing a quick google for you to help you out ... I really want you to get this -

The Solstices, Equinoxes and the Celtic Fire festivals.

And...what does all that have to do with the film zeitgeist, it's specific claims, and the substantiation that is supposed to blow us away?

Where is your evidence?

[GreNME]

Since Christianity didn't come to the Celts for at the very least more than four hundred years after the beginnings of the Christian cult, I'm not seeing how bringing up the Celtic impressions on Christianity-- and indeed Irish Catholicism does have Celtic aspects to it-- is proof that Horus is a precursor to Jesus.

[Hokulele]

Well, as someone who hadn't spent any time on this until the original thread on Zeitgeist was posted here, I must say that the quality of Dave31's arguments has completely convinced me that I will never, ever, spend a dime on any of the works he has promoted. If his posts here are any indication of the quality of the research presented there, I will give them a pass.

Dave31, a word of advice, there are many more people reading your posts than Nick227 and GreNME. Your last post could easily turn many of them away from the very information you wish to promote. Having followed (and participated in) various debates with GreNME, Nick227, and thesyntaxera, with a fairly substantial number of disagreements, I must say that I have never felt the antipathy towards any of them as I have with you.

[Nick227]

nick, nick, nick you're not using your head for someone who claims to be so well educated in the esoteric and Qabalah. The Celtic calendar was lunar based as was the Islamic and Jewish calendars. So naturally they put their emphasis there. It's totally absurd to omit the other 4 celebrations on the solstices and equinoxes in order to deny any connection to the sun. You can't possibly attempt to argue that with a straight face nick.

It is not that Jesus is not connected to the sun, he has some of the attibutes of a solar deity. But to say that Jesus is the Sun is idiotic. Your woman Mrs Murdoch is trying to construct an argument that Jesus is the Sun. He's not. It's nonsense. Anyone who studied metaphysics for like more than a few hours knows this.

This is why her books do not attract wide audiences and mostly just people with authority issues who need to view metaphysics through a dualistic, us-and-them filter in order for them to be able to relate to it.

Nick

[Nick227]

And GreNME is your real name? No, we will refer to you as "Johnson" from now on. Her legal name is none of your business. And it is this type of double-standard / hypocrisy you so handily apply like a coward who has initiated any "flame war" due to your own launch of personal attacks and disrespect of Acharya and her work - work you've never really studied and that is clear from your comments repeatedly. Nobody twisted your arm and forced you to post here. So maybe it's YOU who need to be addressed by moderation. You sir, deserve any personal attacks you get as you dugg your own hole there. If Acharya's work were so wrong your disrespectful tone and libelous comments wouldn't be necessary. No, rather, you simply have an axe to grind because you can't handle the information. So you have these knee-jerk reactions. And your turrets syndrome probably doesn't help the matter any, Johnson.

Dave,

I have read most of this thread and I don't see where GreNME is attacking you. In fact he's said on at least one occasion that he doesn't consider Dorothy, Allegro, or the other protagonists bad people. He just doesn't agree with their interpretation.

Why are you believing he is attacking you? As I read it he just wants to debate the actual issues with you. Something, thus far, you are not doing.

As for me, well I'm happy to slag La Murdoch's work off a bit. But I don't think I go too far, it's more to try and get you to address the actual issues. I don't think she's a bad person either. I'm sure I'd get on fine with her if I met her.

But you, man, to me you come on more like some Khmer Rouge cadre. "If Acharya's work were so wrong your disrespectful tone and libelous comments wouldn't be necessary." I nearly laughed out loud when you came out with that one! She's a woman, writing a book. She's clearly got a major issue with authority and so everything she writes is dripping in this us-and-them conspiratorial rhetoric. She can't relate to the world in another way and her writings attract other authority trippers who can't look deeper than this. This is where she's at. It's ok. Worse things happen at sea.

And if there's anyone you want to address these comments to it should be me. I'm the one who's dissing her. When you hide behind some self-appointed title, and use this as a platform to promote a view that can't stand up on it's own, I mean, you're just begging the universe for feedback. You sound like a fascist when you come out with stuff like this, Dave. Is that what you are?

Nick

[thesyntaxera]

...sheesh...do I need to point out again that you have posted, and yet again, not provided a single shred of evidence?

I thought not.

[GreNME]

Just keep in mind, Nick, that Dave31 is going to keep prodding you into bagging on Dorothy so that later he can claim all you can do is make personal attacks. Then again, he's apparently going to say that anyway (like he is with me), so maybe it's a lose-lose situation there. I still think it's not worth going into detractions of Dorothy personally, since she's not here to defend herself and I wouldn't automatically assume that she would feel positively about the methods of 'debate' (using the term loosely) that Dave31 here has been using. I could be wrong on that, but I'd rather be wrong about assuming the better about someone than embarrassed about assuming the worst, like Dave31 seems to do by default.

My post 125 as well as the original post here is due in part to GreNME/Johnson and his 34 pages of attacking Acharya in the other zeitgeist thread. I tried to post a link over there to

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

And it got deleted, CENSORED more accurately describes it as GreNME/Johnson admits there that he had never read Acharya's work and even refused to do so. Now, he just changed his mind and claims he has. It's okay for GreNME/Johnson to go on & on for 34 pages making fallacious comments attacking Acharya over there and disrespectfully calling her "Dorothy" which was a name only used by detractors who meant harm therefore, every single time GreNME/Johnson uses it, he is encouraging harassment and disrespect and the flame war he himself created ... but a link for others to be able to read an e-book further discussing ZG was out of line. So I started this thread. I expected it to be deleted.

I've already explained to you the best thing you could possibly do to show that you are honestly acting in good faith here: post a brief summary of the points in the e-book you felt were especially relevant, and if possible also name the sources being cited for those points. We can begin discussion of the topic (the actual subject matter) from that point. That's really all you have to do, Dave31.

Here, GreNME/Johnson puts words in my mouth I did not say nor claim. This is an example of his argument style and what he did for 34 pages in the other thread - set-up straw man after straw man. I made no mention of time lines nor Horus. So thanks for that example of your tactics for all to see GreNME - Johnson.

No straw man. Nick, thesyntaxera, Hokulele, and I have constantly pressed you to provide evidence, most preferably evidence that Dorothy's e-book claims (since that's ostensibly what this thread is about), that supports the assertions being made. Since no one is arguing that there haven't been groups who have had sun-worship as part of their practices, you're the only one raising a straw man by arguing about a group unrelated to the beginnings of Christianity, which is allegedly one of the things we're arguing here.

It was clear in post 122 that I was trying to break things down for nick. He's still refuses to acknowledge any connections to the sun. When Christianity's most popular celebrations are "Christmas" (a holiday about the re-birth or resurrection of the sun) and Easter (when the sun/light over takes the dark 3 days after the vernal equinox) that is solar based. Jesus is a personification of the sun. The only thing one can do is simply deny that - it still doesn't make it false.

Not providing evidence to claims made repeatedly doesn't make them true. What we're asking you to do, Dave31, is display evidence. You have yet to do so.

Again & again nick you just can't help yourself making these types of fallacious comments when you've already admitted you've never even read her work - this is the type of attitude GreNME/Johnson has influenced here by his dishonest handy work in the other ZG thread.

Nick said he read her website, not her books. Your mistake.

Again, as I've stated from the beginning read the e-book, I'm only interested in having this type of discussion with rational, objective folks who can have a respectful dialogue - which isn't going to happen here in this thread or at this forum.

If you really believe that, Dave31, then why start the thread here in the first place? To try to provoke me? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to devolve to your level and call anyone, not even people I disagree with (like Dorothy, Jan, and others), names simply because I disagree with them. There's no need. It would be really cool if you could accept that and then proceed to get down to actually talking about what's inside the e-book instead of using it as a verbal bludgeon and a springboard from which to personally attack people.

[Bluekush623]

It is not that Jesus is not connected to the sun, he has some of the attibutes of a solar deity. But to say that Jesus is the Sun is idiotic. Your woman Mrs Murdoch is trying to construct an argument that Jesus is the Sun. He's not. It's nonsense. Anyone who studied metaphysics for like more than a few hours knows this.

This is why her books do not attract wide audiences and mostly just people with authority issues who need to view metaphysics through a dualistic, us-and-them filter in order for them to be able to relate to it.

Nick
Well Ive atleast been saying Jesus does have sun/solar god attributes although its not his entire character.I say its not idiotic to call Jesus the sun because thats where some of his persona origins from, thats like saying bread isn't flour and water. I think it would be idiotic and nonsense to ONLY call Jesus a Sun god. I see Zeitgiest as not having the full story then being completely incorrect, because Astrotheology and the Zodiac don't alone create the bible and other religions. and its not necessarily these the movies fault or mistake for only discussing Astrotheology for that could be only where their research has taken him, because as we see Jesus does have sun attributes. So their thesis is correct in stating Christianity and other religions are a fraud, because they are if we have too decode them, even if Zeitgiest doesn't give us the 100% complete story. Because like Ive said I feel zeitgiest is more about making one think outside the box and realize its not like how we've been told it is, then to push claims onto someone like the bible.

[Nick227]

My post 125 as well as the original post here is due in part to GreNME/Johnson and his 34 pages of attacking Acharya in the other zeitgeist thread. I tried to post a link over there to

By "attacking Acharya" you mean "disagreeing with what she writes," I take it.

It was clear in post 122 that I was trying to break things down for nick. He's still refuses to acknowledge any connections to the sun.

Well, yes, apart from all the times when I've pointed out that Jesus has some of the attributes of a solar deity, which must nearly number double figures in this thread alone.


When Christianity's most popular celebrations are "Christmas" (a holiday about the re-birth or resurrection of the sun) and Easter (when the sun/light over takes the dark 3 days after the vernal equinox) that is solar based. Jesus is a personification of the sun. The only thing one can do is simply deny that - it still doesn't make it false.

If Jesus is a personification of the sun, why doesn't he die and be reborn at the winter solstice?


Again & again nick you just can't help yourself making these types of fallacious comments when you've already admitted you've never even read her work - this is the type of attitude GreNME/Johnson has influenced here by his dishonest handy work in the other ZG thread.

As I've pointed out time and again, I have read her work. I have read plenty of it. I just haven't read a whole book of it.

You are like Acharya, Dave. Neither of you can deal with something that is in between two opposites. For you it has to be either black or white. No matter how many times I repeat that Jesus has some solar attributes or that I have read some of Acharya's work, you cannot take this in. You have to put me either in one extreme or the other.

You can't deal with reality, Dave. Reality, for mature adults, is mostly between two extremes, not at one pole or the other.

Dorothy Murdoch can, from what I've read, only interpret history from a conspiratorial us-versus-them viewpoint. This is how it is for her. Everything has to have an evil minority somewhere trying to control the world.

Nick

[Nick227]

Well Ive atleast been saying Jesus does have sun/solar god attributes although its not his entire character.I say its not idiotic to call Jesus the sun because thats where some of his persona origins from, thats like saying bread isn't flour and water. I think it would be idiotic and nonsense to ONLY call Jesus a Sun god. I see Zeitgiest as not having the full story then being completely incorrect, because Astrotheology and the Zodiac don't alone create the bible and other religions. and its not necessarily these the movies fault or mistake for only discussing Astrotheology for that could be only where their research has taken him, because as we see Jesus does have sun attributes. So their thesis is correct in stating Christianity and other religions are a fraud, because they are if we have too decode them, even if Zeitgiest doesn't give us the 100% complete story. Because like Ive said I feel zeitgiest is more about making one think outside the box and realize its not like how we've been told it is, then to push claims onto someone like the bible.

I'd agree with a lot of that. ZG is a great propaganda movie. Christianity - I wouldn't call it a fraud, the religion covers a lot of time-honoured themes that have attracted people for aeons. Jesus may or may not have actually lived. Who knows?

Christianity could be said to be a vessel for social control. Concepts like "original sin", the absolute existence of evil, and the need to seek salvation outside of the self hardly make for a particularly well-balanced psyche. But, then, you could point the same finger at pretty much any religion - Buddhism, Islam, whatever, they all do the same ****.

Nick

[Hokulele]

Well Ive atleast been saying Jesus does have sun/solar god attributes although its not his entire character.I say its not idiotic to call Jesus the sun because thats where some of his persona origins from, thats like saying bread isn't flour and water. I think it would be idiotic and nonsense to ONLY call Jesus a Sun god. I see Zeitgiest as not having the full story then being completely incorrect, because Astrotheology and the Zodiac don't alone create the bible and other religions. and its not necessarily these the movies fault or mistake for only discussing Astrotheology for that could be only where their research has taken him, because as we see Jesus does have sun attributes. So their thesis is correct in stating Christianity and other religions are a fraud, because they are if we have too decode them, even if Zeitgiest doesn't give us the 100% complete story. Because like Ive said I feel zeitgiest is more about making one think outside the box and realize its not like how we've been told it is, then to push claims onto someone like the bible.


The problem with your bread analogy is that it would be like saying there is no such thing as bread, only flour and water. If they want to expose the dirty little secrets of religion, or christianity in particular, there are much better ways to go about it. The main problem for the people promoting this film and associated books is that other people have already used the other arguments, and made them with serious research and hard work.

Zeitgeist does have a point (although I disagree with it), but they support that point with three different sections of arguments that are mostly founded on BS. Making stuff up to make a point generally backfires, often in a serious manner.

[thesyntaxera]

I wouldn't call it a fraud, the religion covers a lot of time-honoured themes that have attracted people for aeons. Jesus may or may not have actually lived. Who knows?

...and on that fraud note, I think it is important to remember that religions didn't just happen. They weren't specifically created for CONTROL. They evolved out of the murk just like all other cultural institutions. In some cases they actually preserved a great deal of information that would have been lost in times such as the dark ages.

[Bluekush623]

I'd agree with a lot of that. ZG is a great propaganda movie. Christianity - I wouldn't call it a fraud, the religion covers a lot of time-honoured themes that have attracted people for aeons. Jesus may or may not have actually lived. Who knows?

Christianity could be said to be a vessel for social control. Concepts like "original sin", the absolute existence of evil, and the need to seek salvation outside of the self hardly make for a particularly well-balanced psyche. But, then, you could point the same finger at pretty much any religion - Buddhism, Islam, whatever, they all do the same ****.

Nick

Agreed, I don't believe Religion was a fraud when created for it held all the ancient teachings, but that it merely evolved into lies, manipulation, corruption and mis-representation or w/e else reason we don't have the real truth being spoken by the "leaders".

[Bluekush623]

The problem with your bread analogy is that it would be like saying there is no such thing as bread, only flour and water. If they want to expose the dirty little secrets of religion, or christianity in particular, there are much better ways to go about it. The main problem for the people promoting this film and associated books is that other people have already used the other arguments, and made them with serious research and hard work.

Zeitgeist does have a point (although I disagree with it), but they support that point with three different sections of arguments that are mostly founded on BS. Making stuff up to make a point generally backfires, often in a serious manner.

No im saying although we call it bread dont forget what makes it, so if we call the God Jesus, dont forget apart of him is still the sun. Of course you can debunk religion a few different ways but that doesnt mean Astrotheology isnt in the mix also.

What point? That we are being lied to from the 2 biggest organizations(religion, Government)? To say their arguments are founded on BS and there just making it up is ridiculous because you even said they weren't the only ones to do it, you'd then have to agree completely with all religions and government to back up your statement and i don't think you'd want to do that. Not having the complete story and all points of view doesnt make someone's work less credible, its just not as credible, and the credibility that the bible has well its what started this whole movie.

[GreNME]

What point? That we are being lied to from the 2 biggest organizations(religion, Government)? To say their arguments are founded on BS and there just making it up is ridiculous because you even said they weren't the only ones to do it, you'd then have to agree completely with all religions and government to back up your statement and i don't think you'd want to do that. Not having the complete story and all points of view doesnt make someone's work less credible, its just not as credible, and the credibility that the bible has well its what started this whole movie.

The problem is that replacing one set of questionable claims and fictitious stories (insert religion, all or any specific, in this space) with a set of equally questionable and fictitious stories (the claims in Part I of Zeitgeist) doesn't change anything. It doesn't introduce honesty into the equation, it doesn't encourage people to look critically at the world around them, it just replaces one set of rhetorical lies with another set of rhetorical lies.

If you ask me, that's not change. It's not even useful, except to whomever gets to (or wants to) sit in the seat of the new clergy.

[Bluekush623]

The problem is that replacing one set of questionable claims and fictitious stories (insert religion, all or any specific, in this space) with a set of equally questionable and fictitious stories (the claims in Part I of Zeitgeist) doesn't change anything. It doesn't introduce honesty into the equation, it doesn't encourage people to look critically at the world around them, it just replaces one set of rhetorical lies with another set of rhetorical lies.

If you ask me, that's not change. It's not even useful, except to whomever gets to (or wants to) sit in the seat of the new clergy.

So theres not a trace of Astrotheology in the bible?

[Nick227]

...and on that fraud note, I think it is important to remember that religions didn't just happen. They weren't specifically created for CONTROL. They evolved out of the murk just like all other cultural institutions. In some cases they actually preserved a great deal of information that would have been lost in times such as the dark ages.

Well, I'm not the best of historians by a long shot, but I do recall that there were quite a lot of ructions between differing Christian factions in the early centuries CE, culminating in the infamous Council of Nicea and the "standardisation" of Christianity.

CTists hark back to this frequently, because it does seem that an overtly moralistic and dualistic Christianity was forged at this time, and this could have been a type of conspiracy to create a vessel for social control. However, as other commentators have pointed out, it's easy to reverse engineer history like this, to try and prove a point, but hard, when you really think about it, to imagine that it would have been so easy to conspire so effectively at the time.

Nick

[Nick227]

Zeitgeist does have a point (although I disagree with it), but they support that point with three different sections of arguments that are mostly founded on BS. Making stuff up to make a point generally backfires, often in a serious manner.

This is an excellent point. I generally support Zeitgeist, because I think it's an excellent vehicle for Dorothy's stated intention to "seriously stir up the *****." I think the institutions it attacks are long overdue to take a few body-blows.

However, there are serious issues with validity. Zeitgeist is so effective a propaganda movie I believe it does have the capacity to shift world opinion, to really get people to look. The issue is that it actually isn't all that true. Jesus was not the sun. The NIST report isn't all that weak. The technology for RFID implants to track humans hasn't been created. Etc, etc.

So....you get 10 million people to question what's going on at a deep level....and they discover actually the movie was bs'ing them. Maybe something positive comes of it. Maybe not.

Nick

[Nick227]

So theres not a trace of Astrotheology in the bible?

You could say there is, but the astrological houses are just one set of symbols, one created by the human eye. There are loads of inter-related symbol systems, many of which are present in the Bible.

Guys like Jan are trying to tie everything back to one set of symbols. The trouble is that this can't be done. You get bits of it to work and you think, "Hey I'm really onto something here. I've cracked it." Then you look more and whole bits of it don't fit. It's at this juncture that you have the choice to just keep searching for bits that fit your own interpretation...or to really look to understand what is going on and what it all means, if there even is something there.

It reminds me of when Rubik's Cube came out. People would claim they'd done it and show you one side complete but try not to show you the mess the rest of the sides were still in!

Nick

[GreNME]

So theres not a trace of Astrotheology in the bible?

That's a non-sensical question. The claims made in Zeitgeist are, for the most part, false.

The claims about proof of Horus being baptized are false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The claims about proof of there being an Anup the Baptizer are false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The claims of proof that Horus was crucified and rose in three days is false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The claims about Horus raising Osiris from the dead are completely false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The "Isis Meri" claim is a case of complete ignorance to the Egyptian language-- "meri" is Egyptian for "beloved" and is used in Egyptian writing by regular people for each other (I can provide an example if you really need it)
The claims about Horus having a birthday on the 25th of December are false. The Egyptian calendar didn't even coincide with the Julian or Gregorian calendars, and the Egyptian calendar shifted every year (meaning dates on the Egyptian calendar would be on different days each year relative to our current calendar). If you truly believe Horus has a birthday on December 25th, I would like you to show your proof.
The whole scenario presented in the film involving the Southern Crux (Cross) constellation is completely false-- the Southern Crux did not rise above the horizon at the winter solstice back in the first century CE. There is no logical explanation (barring time travel) for a constellation that was not identified for sixteen centuries later to have led to the description of the Jesus birth story. If you believe that the Southern Cross was known as a distinct figure (meaning it was a known figure in the shape of a cross), then feel free to provide proof.


There are more things, but I hope you catch my drift here. Claiming that "astrotheology" is in anything is a nonsense statement. You can make anything you want about astrotheology, because ultimately all you have to do is claim whatever you are talking about is linked to some constellation, the sun, or a star. One could argue that last year's film Transformers contained copiouos amounts of astrotheology if you want. I'm sure that bible-thumpers preach about how whatever popular movie is out contains elements of Christian theology. What you are proposing, however, contains one major flaw:

Subjective interpretation does not make an objective proof.

Let me explain. You see two instances of the number twelve: twelve disciples of Jesus and twelve signs of the zodiac. From your subjective interpretation that creates an association in your mind. However, the more objective facts are that the twelve disciples, in keeping with traditional Jewish midrashic format, are a reference back to the twelve tribes of Israel, which can be argued is at least somewhat representative of the twelve lunar cycles in the Hebrew year. While your subjective interpretation may be completely applicable to you and enable you to categorize it into a subject area of your choice-- some might call it comparative mythology, some anthropological history, some religious history, and so on-- the reality is that the subjectivity of your interpretation hampers and impedes obtaining a clearer overall picture of how the actual individual cultures (in this case, the ancient Hebrews) operated. It (the subjectivity) injects blanket generalizations that impair the ability to critically examine the elements of the cultures and civilizations in question and see how they moved through history.

If I show you two spheres and tell you that they are both objects relating to the same sport, you have two options: 1) accept my claim as authoritative or 2) find out more about this sport I say they are part of, to see of the claim holds weight. If the two spheres I'm holding are a bowling ball and a soccer ball, then one would obviously know they aren't of the same sport because they already have the contextual understanding of the actual sports in which they are used. The Zeitgeist movie expects the reader to do the first with all of the comparisons it makes, while most of the comparisons begin showing themselves as unable to withstand scrutiny once more contextual understandings of the religions being compared is acheived. Of the ancient cultures with which I am most familiar-- those of the Middle-East in particular, with a few Indus River Valley cultures included as well-- I have noticed a great deal of contextual failures within a majority of claims made in the Zeitgeist film.

[Bluekush623]

That's a non-sensical question. The claims made in Zeitgeist are, for the most part, false.

The claims about proof of Horus being baptized are false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The claims about proof of there being an Anup the Baptizer are false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The claims of proof that Horus was crucified and rose in three days is false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The claims about Horus raising Osiris from the dead are completely false. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof in Egyptian text.
The "Isis Meri" claim is a case of complete ignorance to the Egyptian language-- "meri" is Egyptian for "beloved" and is used in Egyptian writing by regular people for each other (I can provide an example if you really need it)
The claims about Horus having a birthday on the 25th of December are false. The Egyptian calendar didn't even coincide with the Julian or Gregorian calendars, and the Egyptian calendar shifted every year (meaning dates on the Egyptian calendar would be on different days each year relative to our current calendar). If you truly believe Horus has a birthday on December 25th, I would like you to show your proof.
The whole scenario presented in the film involving the Southern Crux (Cross) constellation is completely false-- the Southern Crux did not rise above the horizon at the winter solstice back in the first century CE. There is no logical explanation (barring time travel) for a constellation that was not identified for sixteen centuries later to have led to the description of the Jesus birth story. If you believe that the Southern Cross was known as a distinct figure (meaning it was a known figure in the shape of a cross), then feel free to provide proof.


And this is a nonsensical response. I never mentioned the Egypt-Christianity comparisons, and this also isn't the whole part of the movie but what 5 min? What about the Joseph/Jesus comparisons, they mention just more then one religion and I'm not claiming all of there info to be correct anyways, but the film is a stepping stone for real truth to someday be known. You just keeping creating straw-men for me too fall into now. I believe Nick and I have come to some common ground with atleast bible isn't straight forward, as he says Jesus has solar properties, theres something more then we are told.
But yet all thats being said is Where is Zeitgiest's evidence, Well where the hell is the bible's evidence. Instead of complaining for evidence, present what you think went down in history if both Zeitgiest and the bible are wrong, be the teacher. You must have the most accurate truth if you know both are wrong. All I'm saying is religion came from man-made natural phenomenon such as observations of the stars, sexual intercourse/reproduction, plant use and whatever else that was important to our ancient tribes. Although Zeitgeist concentrates on just the stars doesn't mean it wrong, it just don't have the full story. What is so bizarre about this?

I said so theres no Astrotheology in the bible too prove a point, Zeitgeist isn't completely false and as off accurate as everyone is portraying, there opponent is the bible not someones educated opinion on history, so if they can prove ONE point of evidence showing the bible isn't the word of god it has done its job for the most part, and if you say no Make your own movie, write your own book do something besides asking for evidence all day, show us how it is then.

There are more things, but I hope you catch my drift here. Claiming that "astrotheology" is in anything is a nonsense statement. You can make anything you want about astrotheology, because ultimately all you have to do is claim whatever you are talking about is linked to some constellation, the sun, or a star. One could argue that last year's film Transformers contained copiouos amounts of astrotheology if you want. I'm sure that bible-thumpers preach about how whatever popular movie is out contains elements of Christian theology. What you are proposing, however, contains one major flaw:

Subjective interpretation does not make an objective proof.

Let me explain. You see two instances of the number twelve: twelve disciples of Jesus and twelve signs of the zodiac. From your subjective interpretation that creates an association in your mind. However, the more objective facts are that the twelve disciples, in keeping with traditional Jewish midrashic format, are a reference back to the twelve tribes of Israel, which can be argued is at least somewhat representative of the twelve lunar cycles in the Hebrew year. While your subjective interpretation may be completely applicable to you and enable you to categorize it into a subject area of your choice-- some might call it comparative mythology, some anthropological history, some religious history, and so on-- the reality is that the subjectivity of your interpretation hampers and impedes obtaining a clearer overall picture of how the actual individual cultures (in this case, the ancient Hebrews) operated. It (the subjectivity) injects blanket generalizations that impair the ability to critically examine the elements of the cultures and civilizations in question and see how they moved through history.

I only made on example instead of reading of the transcript of the movie sorry. Well since were getting into beliefs now my subjectivity is something like "the ancients did not believe that spirituality made men either righteous or rational, but rather that righteousness and rationality made men spiritual".
If it didnt happen like this, then there must be some God or alien intervention.
Or maybe GreNME can tell us what happened?

If I show you two spheres and tell you that they are both objects relating to the same sport, you have two options: 1) accept my claim as authoritative or 2) find out more about this sport I say they are part of, to see of the claim holds weight. If the two spheres I'm holding are a bowling ball and a soccer ball, then one would obviously know they aren't of the same sport because they already have the contextual understanding of the actual sports in which they are used. The Zeitgeist movie expects the reader to do the first with all of the comparisons it makes, while most of the comparisons begin showing themselves as unable to withstand scrutiny once more contextual understandings of the religions being compared is acheived. Of the ancient cultures with which I am most familiar-- those of the Middle-East in particular, with a few Indus River Valley cultures included as well-- I have noticed a great deal of contextual failures within a majority of claims made in the Zeitgeist film.

You're talking about Zeitgeist claiming, look at what its opponent the bible is pushing onto people, all we have here now is a merry go round. What evidence does either opponent Zeitgeist or the Bible have, where did these religions come from? 3rd parties the time is now too step up and let everyone what happened because if it wasnt man made or god made, where did it come from?

[GreNME]

And this is a nonsensical response. I never mentioned the Egypt-Christianity comparisons, and this also isn't the whole part of the movie but what 5 min? What about the Joseph/Jesus comparisons, they mention just more then one religion and I'm not claiming all of there info to be correct anyways, but the film is a stepping stone for real truth to someday be known. You just keeping creating straw-men for me too fall into now. I believe Nick and I have come to some common ground with atleast bible isn't straight forward, as he says Jesus has solar properties, theres something more then we are told.

Not straw men, I'm focusing on the e-book, since that's what Dave31 started the thread about. However, I'm glad you have actually mentioned some specifics, as opposed to Dave31's personal attacks. As far as Joseph is concerned, I did make a few posts in the other thread on that, but for summary purposes: there are some similarities, and because of the link to the twelve tribes there are relations between the two stories, but the movie names the wrong ones and pretty much manages to screw up a pretty obvious midrashic reference. Here's my explanation from the page I put together about Part I that I'm still revising:
[Regarding the Joseph/Jesus mention]

Unlike the majority of the other correlations brought up in the film, this one is actually a valid one. However, the correlations mentioned within the film are somewhat superficial and flimsy, while the more academic correlations are ones that are quite valid. Joseph, the son of Jacob[31] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Joseph.html), is an Old Testament midrash that can be found in Genesis chapter 37[32] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2037&version=50) through Genesis chapter 50[33] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=50&version=50). The film mentions the following parallels as significant "proof" of the movie's claims:

Miracle birth: Indeed, both the circumstances of Joseph (born of Rachel[34] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2030:22-30:24;&version=50;)) and Jesus (born of Mary[35a] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:18;&version=50;) [35b] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:26-1:38;&version=50;))could be interpreted to have been miraculous. However, only in the story of Jesus is the birth by a virgin and is the child considered divine.

12 Brothers / 12 Disciples: Unfortunately, the narrative in the Zeitgeist film plays word-games to trick the viewer into believing there is an exact parallel. However, Joseph was one of twelve brothers[36] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2035:23-35:26;&version=50;), which means he only had 11 brothers, while Jesus had 12 disciples. Jesus was not one of the number of disciples, while Joseph was one of the number of brothers.

Sold for 20 / 30 Pieces of Silver: Once again, unfortunately, the narrative to the film is playing word-games to try to create a parallel. Judas Iscariot (Hebrew: יהודה איש־קריות‎ Greek: Yəhûḏāh ʾΚ-qəriyyôṯ) did not sell Jesus, he betrayed him for a price according to the New Testament gospels[37] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:14-26:16;&version=50;). Joseph, on the other hand, was sold as a slave[38] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2037:26-37:28;&version=50;). This may seem like a small distinction, but it is an important one if someone is wanting to take an honest look at the two stories from a comparative point of view. Comparative religious study can be interesting, but without intellectual honesty a presentation (like the film) quickly shows an underlying agenda that is less interested in accuracy than it is in its own interpretation of events.

Judah / Judas Suggests Sale: As previously pointed out, Judas Iscariot did not sell Jesus. In the story of Joseph, Joseph is sold as a slave; in the story of Jesus, the loyalty of Judas is sold for a price. Again, this may not seem like a huge distinction, but ignoring the distinction is yet another sign of intellectual dishonesty to portray aspects that are not the same as if they were in order to make a point. Such behavior is not scholarly nor is it condusive to those who are looking for any kind of honest assessment.

Work at Age 30: The narrator in the Zeitgeist film states that both Joseph and Jesus "began their work" at the age of 30 years, but this is completely false. Jesus did indeed begin his ministry at the age of thirty, according to the New Testament. Joseph "began" his work of predicting things through interpretations of dreams at age seventeen[39] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2037:1-37:11;&version=50;), not 30. If Joseph's own dreams are not counted in the "work" of Joseph, then the age he began is still not age 30, but instead age 28[40] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=40&version=50). Two years after he first began his interpretation of dreams for others is when he arrived before the pharaoh of Egypt[41] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2041:1-41:13;&version=50;). Again, the narrator and the film use deceitful word-games in the attempt to convince the viewer.

31. Jewish Virtual Library description of Joseph
32. Genesis CH 37 - beginning of the story of Joseph
33. Genesis CH 50 - the end of the Joseph midrash
34. Genesis CH 30:22-24 - the "reproach" mentioned in the passage was her inability to bear children to Jacob
35a. Matthew CH 1:18, 35b. Luke CH 1:26-38: both New Testament accounts of Mary's conception
36. Genesis CH 35:23-26 - list of the sons of Jacob
37. Matthew CH 26:14-16 - Judas agrees to take 30 pieces of silver for "deliver[ing]" Jesus to the priests
38. Genesis CH 37:26-28 - Joseph is sold by his brothers and brought to Egypt
39. Genesis CH 37:1-11 - where Joseph dreams his future through through interpretive symbols
40. Genesis CH 40 - Joseph interprets the dreams of the Egyptian pharaoh's two servants
41. Genesis CH 41:1-13 - the pharaoh's dreams, where Joseph is then called before the pharaoh



But yet all thats being said is Where is Zeitgiest's evidence, Well where the hell is the bible's evidence. Instead of complaining for evidence, present what you think went down in history if both Zeitgiest and the bible are wrong, be the teacher. You must have the most accurate truth if you know both are wrong. All I'm saying is religion came from man-made natural phenomenon such as observations of the stars, sexual intercourse/reproduction, plant use and whatever else that was important to our ancient tribes. Although Zeitgeist concentrates on just the stars doesn't mean it wrong, it just don't have the full story. What is so bizarre about this?

Arguing that the bible doesn't provide proof doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone here has claimed the bible is proof of anything but a religion and is a religious document. Since I don't subscribe to any religion based on the Christian bible I'm definitely not saying it's proof of anything. That doesn't automagically make the claims from the Zeitgeist film exempt from having to provide proof. If the Zeitgeist film fails to provide any substantial proof, why should I give it any more intellectual relevance than I do the Christian bible as far as being factually-based and not simply another product of religion?

Asking me to break down for you more than six or eight thousand years of human recorded history is impossible to do in a single post. This is why I've been asking Dave31 and yourself to prevent specific points you think are irrefutable. However, if you truly do wish to be given something to read that can give you far more contextual information and factually-based evidences, I can provide you with a very basic beginning list of documents, at least partially made up of straight translations of various ancient documents (many of them accessible for free), that you can take the time to read for yourself. That would give you the added bonus of not simply having to take my word for it. Let me know and I'll compile the list for you.

I said so theres no Astrotheology in the bible too prove a point, Zeitgeist isn't completely false and as off accurate as everyone is portraying, there opponent is the bible not someones educated opinion on history, so if they can prove ONE point of evidence showing the bible isn't the word of god it has done its job for the most part, and if you say no Make your own movie, write your own book do something besides asking for evidence all day, show us how it is then.

I know that's why you stated it like you did, which is why I responded the way I did. Just the same as the preacher behind the pulpit on Sunday morning can claim that the CBS movie of the week had Christian undertones (whether it did or not), the subjective interpretation methodology of astrotheology also can take nearly anything and claim it as its own. However, that doesn't make the claims factual and it doesn't mean a whole lot out of the selective religious interpretation.

I only made on example instead of reading of the transcript of the movie sorry. Well since were getting into beliefs now my subjectivity is something like "the ancients did not believe that spirituality made men either righteous or rational, but rather that righteousness and rationality made men spiritual".
If it didnt happen like this, then there must be some God or alien intervention.
Or maybe GreNME can tell us what happened?

Like I said, I can give you a list of some of the stuff I've read that would make a good primer, but if you really want to study this subject then it's going to encompass more than is going to be allowable in the space of a single post.

You're talking about Zeitgeist claiming, look at what its opponent the bible is pushing onto people, all we have here now is a merry go round. What evidence does either opponent Zeitgeist or the Bible have, where did these religions come from? 3rd parties the time is now too step up and let everyone what happened because if it wasnt man made or god made, where did it come from?

The Christian bible isn't set up as the opponent to the Zeitgeist movie. Remember the thesis quote: “Christianity, along with all other belief systems, is the fraud of the age.” The emphasis is mine. The movie sets all religion up as its opponent. Considering there are whole schools of study that exist to study the history, movements, and effects of religion, one would think that if the movie were setting itself as an opponent to all religion that it would take many of its cues from many of those schools of study. In fact, it pretty much claims all those schools are study are wrong and instead takes fringe theories and peddles them as "truth" (a word that is loaded with baggage and often not synonymous with fact). What I'm asking, as someone who has studied many publications from quite a few of those schools of study referenced above (in the realm of ancient history), is for either the makers of the film itself or anyone who honestly feels the film's first part is factually-based to provide what they feel are incontrovertible proofs.

So far, the responses have been mixed, but on the whole no actual proofs have yet to be presented. I've seen many dodges, hand-waving, word games, and personal attacks, but rarely anything that withstands much scrutiny. However, if you feel there are parts in the film that have merit and bear bringing up, I encourage you to list them and we can discuss.

[Hokulele]

No im saying although we call it bread dont forget what makes it, so if we call the God Jesus, dont forget apart of him is still the sun. Of course you can debunk religion a few different ways but that doesnt mean Astrotheology isnt in the mix also.


The problem is, astrotheology is probably the weakest point to attack. Where is the evidence for it other than your 12 disciples/12 zodiacal constellations?

What point? That we are being lied to from the 2 biggest organizations(religion, Government)? To say their arguments are founded on BS and there just making it up is ridiculous because you even said they weren't the only ones to do it, you'd then have to agree completely with all religions and government to back up your statement and i don't think you'd want to do that. Not having the complete story and all points of view doesnt make someone's work less credible, its just not as credible, and the credibility that the bible has well its what started this whole movie.


This is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. Both Zeitgeist and the bible can be wrong. Just because I do not support one, it does not mean I must support the other.

Your argument regarding supporting the government is even weaker. I live in the United States, and there are plenty of things about my government I not only complain about, but actively work to change. However, there are many parts of the government I feel do a very good job considering the restrictions they must operate under (Yay for my local Fire Department and the Ocean Safety squads at our beaches!). The US government is most definitely not a monolithic entity the way many groups and CT proponents make it out to be. Just sorting out who has jurisdiction between the federal, state, and local agencies can be a mess to people who do not understand how our government functions.

Rather than painting religion and government with such a broad brush (they only exist to control the masses), I would recommend studying some history of religion and history of politics. I am sure any of us posting here could give you some references of where to begin.

In fact, it would probably be extremely interesting to see a list of recommended reading from such diverse sources as the posters in this thread even if Bluekush isn't interested. Anyone up for a new thread in Religion and Philosophy or History, Literature and the Arts?

(Dave31, I think we already know what you would recommend as reading. ;))

[Nick227]

I believe Nick and I have come to some common ground with atleast bible isn't straight forward, as he says Jesus has solar properties, theres something more then we are told.

Well, I think you need to recognise the different backgrounds of people debating here. Like I said earlier, to me you can approach the issue of what Christianity is really about from either the academic angle, or the esoteric. GreNME, without putting words in his mouth, is doing the former. I'm doing the latter.

Frankly, plenty of people from the former camp wouldn't recognise the latter as having any or much validity. And plenty from the latter would consider the former a waste of time. So, needless to say...ne'er the twain shall meet, or much meet anyway.

To my mind what writers like Jan, Allegro, and Dorothy are trying to do is mix the two...and frankly all they create imo is a collosal mess. Biblical esoterics is all about symbols. Hebrew and Greek words and letters, isopsephia, gematria, figurate numbers, astrological houses, metaphysical interpretations of the body. You can't really render this stuff objectively. It doesn't work. It was not created for our regular objective state of awareness to grasp. It was not created to be rendered into some form of objective proof. It is a subjective science, a science of your inner world. For me, it's just a part of it that these two fields of interpretation are inevitably a long way apart.

The story goes that Christianity split around the time of the Council of Nicaea. The moralists got control and the Gnostics and neo-platonists went underground. Something like this anyway. And pretty much ever since rumours of deeper significances and meanings in the Bible have sprouted around the place here and there, attracting occasional devotees to Gnosticism or its later brother, Kabbalah. Nowadays, what with the Aquarian age or whatever, there are increasing numbers of new-age writers trying to relate these deep symbolic images to an audience of spiritual tourists previously brought up on the Discovery Channel and MTV. Needless to say, it doesn't really work like this. You can't meaningfully reduce symbolism to soundbites.

You can't mix the esoteric and the academic and create anything much meaningful. Dorothy, Jan, Allegro, and Peter Joseph are demonstrating this admirably.

Nick

[GreNME]

Well, I think you need to recognise the different backgrounds of people debating here. Like I said earlier, to me you can approach the issue of what Christianity is really about from either the academic angle, or the esoteric. GreNME, without putting words in his mouth, is doing the former. I'm doing the latter.

Frankly, plenty of people from the former camp wouldn't recognise the latter as having any or much validity. And plenty from the latter would consider the latter a waste of time. So, needless to say...ne'er the twain shall meet, or much meet anyway.

Not putting words into my mouth at all, and well said Nick. I think both of us recognizing that allowed us to appreciate each other's take on the topic.

Bluekush, if you do believe that Nick and yourself are coming to a point where you have an understanding, then definitely take his words seriously. Just as I could give you loads of academic sources (and, I do admit, they are almost exclusively academic resources), Nick can point you in the direction of more accurate and long-studied esoteric sources. In either direction, you'd be faced with a lot of material to look over, because both have loads of text writtenon the subjects.

I do agree, however, that the two are not compatible in any meaningful fashion any more. Historically, both for the academic and esoteric realms, the split began in the 17th or 18th centuries and they've both gone on to stand further and further from each other in perspectives, focus, and in some cases language. One (the esoteric) practically requires subjective introspection, or personalization, of the subject matter, while the other (academic) practically requires the a person to remove themselves from the subject on a personal level as much as possible. This is definitely key to what makes them troublesome to mix, and I suspect it may have at least some role in a few of the producers of the Zeitgeist-related materials to be taking professional or academic criticisms so overly-personally.

[Nick227]

I do agree, however, that the two are not compatible in any meaningful fashion any more. Historically, both for the academic and esoteric realms, the split began in the 17th or 18th centuries and they've both gone on to stand further and further from each other in perspectives, focus, and in some cases language. One (the esoteric) practically requires subjective introspection, or personalization, of the subject matter, while the other (academic) practically requires the a person to remove themselves from the subject on a personal level as much as possible.

The rise of science and the objective mindset from around the time of The Royal Society has proceeded now to the point where any other perspective is frequently treated with derision. (Well, especially in places like the JREF forum!) It does create an issue for those who wish to grasp how earlier mindsets perceived the world and things like spirituality or causation, or who wish to study symbology. This is partly why I like Zeitgeist and the work of guys like John Allegro. They do provide a doorway in.

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "Like I said earlier, to me you can approach the issue of what Christianity is really about from either the academic angle, or the esoteric. GreNME, without putting words in his mouth, is doing the former. I'm doing the latter."

No, GreNME/Johnson is not coming from an academic angle at all as he's not accurate or objective in his views - very biased in fact. Your angle is largely a "New-Age" angle even though you toss that ad hom at Acharya when the opportunity arises - even though it's not accurate. You don't this because you've never studied her work.

nick "To my mind what writers like Jan, Allegro, and Dorothy are trying to do is mix the two...and frankly all they create imo is a collosal mess. Biblical esoterics is all about symbols."

Acharya does not belong in the same category as jan & Allegro. Again, you'd know this if you actually studied her work nor has Johnson studied her work either. A little factoid that keeps being ignored here and elsewhere.

Please re-read your membership agreement, especially Rule 6: You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum. Also, remember that civility is required here. Repeated insults or posting of an advertisement for this book will be considered a breach of your agreement. You have posted the link to the book often enough to let people know about it. Please cease and desist now.
Posted By:LibraryLady

Or the firing squad shows up at your door to censor you. Nice. thanks for proving me correct.

[Dave31]

GreNME/Johnson "The problem is that replacing one set of questionable claims and fictitious stories (insert religion, all or any specific, in this space) with a set of equally questionable and fictitious stories (the claims in Part I of Zeitgeist) doesn't change anything. It doesn't introduce honesty into the equation, it doesn't encourage people to look critically at the world around them, it just replaces one set of rhetorical lies with another set of rhetorical lies."

This comment demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what is really going on. Zeitgeist nor Acharya's works are replacing one "fictitious stories" for another.

GreNME/Johnson "it just replaces one set of rhetorical lies with another set of rhetorical lies."

These comments are your own broad stroke propaganda. It shows that you really don't know all that much about the Egyptian religion at all summed-up nicely here by Gerald Massey:

"The lost language of celestial allegory can now be restored, chiefly through the resurrection of ancient Egypt; the scriptures can be read as they were originally written, according to the secret wisdom, and we now know how history was first written as mythology." -- Gerald Massey

Hokulele "Zeitgeist does have a point (although I disagree with it), but they support that point with three different sections of arguments that are mostly founded on BS. Making stuff up to make a point generally backfires, often in a serious manner."

Nowhere in Acharya's work does she ever "make stuff up." It's not "BS" either - you may not like it but that doesn't make it false.

GreNME/Johnson "Not straw men, I'm focusing on the e-book, since that's what Dave31 started the thread about."

No, you're not focusing on the e-book at all - you've never read it and your comments here demonstrate that clearly. There are too many times in your post 146 you said "show me the proof in Egyptian text" when it fact, it was provided in the Companion guide. A little factoid one would be aware of if they actually read it.

Hokulele "This is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. Both Zeitgeist and the bible can be wrong."

And so can you as you and others here speaking out so loudly against ZG and Achayra's work have never studied it so how would you know? Euphoria is not evidence. Just because it feels good to say that doesn't make it true.

Hokulele "The problem is, astrotheology is probably the weakest point to attack. Where is the evidence for it other than your 12 disciples/12 zodiacal constellations?"

This is why I mention to actually study Acharya's works - it's covered very thoroughly here is an excerpt just from the 1st chapter from "Suns of God"

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

[Nick227]

No, GreNME/Johnson is not coming from an academic angle at all as he's not accurate or objective in his views - very biased in fact. Your angle is largely a "New-Age" angle even though you toss that ad hom at Acharya when the opportunity arises - even though it's not accurate. You don't this because you've never studied her work.

Uh huh, the old "you've never studied her work" track again.

Leaving aside terms like "new-age" for a moment, what I see when I read Acharya's work on this subject is someone trying to present a radical viewpoint objectively. Can we agree on this? Her radical viewpoint is symbolic in nature. She is trying to track Biblical mythology back to one symbol set, astrotheology, and use this symbol set to create causative links between different mythologies, for example Egyptian and Christian.

What I'm saying is that this is bound to fail to a large degree, because if you actually do understand what Biblical symbology is about you will already know that all the symbol sets available, and there are many, are inter-relating and the goal is not to create some concrete statement of how things are, but to further the development of the student through the search for understanding itself. Biblical symbolism was created with this in mind. The Bible, as an esoteric document, is not trying to tell you how things are. It is trying to guide you into a state of higher awareness.

Or the firing squad shows up at your door to censor you. Nice. thanks for proving me correct.

No one is persecuting you, Dave. We are just trying to discuss with you.

Nick

[Nick227]

This is why I mention to actually study Acharya's works - it's covered very thoroughly here is an excerpt just from the 1st chapter from "Suns of God"

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

The further one regresses in time, the more obvious it becomes that the principal and singular religious worship found around the globe has revolved around nature. This nature worship has included reverence not only for the earth, its creatures and their fecundity, but also for the sun, moon, planets and stars. For many thousands of years, man has looked to the skies and become awestruck by what he has observed. This awe has led to the reverence and worship both of the night and day skies, an adoration called "astrotheology." While fertility worship has constituted an important and prevalent part of the human religion, little has astonished humankind more than the sky, with its enormous, blazing, white day orb in the azure expanse, and with its infinite, twinkling, black night dome. So fascinated by the sky, or heavens, has been man that he has created entire religions, with organized priesthoods, complex rituals and massive edifices, in order to tell its story.

Look, I'm sorry, but even this first bit is so appalling that it's barely readable, if you ask me. This whole new-age fantasy that before the evil Christians showed up everyone sat around worshipping nature - I don't buy it. To worship simply means to project onto form a certain emotion. It is not a big deal. It's hard to know for sure where ancient people were really at, but if you work with ancient rituals they are about moving bodily energy and the emotional content comes in just to forward this process. There are objects of focus. It can be that worship is a part of it, as in Bhakti Yoga, but only because that is the emotion that creates the specific shift intended. You can equally despise nature, if that's what's required.

Reading on, all she is doing is trying to rationalise a whole aeon's worth of esoterica into one symbol set - astrological. This is all. Dorothy is trying to apply hard objective reasoning to a complex interwoven symbology that will not reveal itself within such a process. There are a multiplicity of symbol sets and they're inter-relating.

It's also utterly patronising. If I was an ancient man and I had somehow time-travelled to the 21st century, I would go around her house and shout at her. I'm willing to bet that ancient man was just as interested in who he was and where he was going as people are today. It is not just about worshipping nature or the stars. It's about who you are.

If you don't believe me, why not start going through the parables and miracles of Jesus from the New Testament and see how many fit into the astrotheological paradigm? I'm sure there will be some that do but you will find that a lot refer to other paradigms and many will be a bloody struggle to convincingly place anywhere!

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "No one is persecuting you, Dave. We are just trying to discuss with you."

Not me personally but yes, there are 34 pages of fallacious comments and character assassinations and straw man after straw man against Acharya and her work in the other ZG thread where I was *NOT ALLOWED* to post a single link to Acharya's "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book for folks who might be interested in further reading of something to substantiate Zeitgeist further.

Meanwhile, Johnson linked his forum many times without any word to him from the moderators. The bias and one-sidedness here at this forum and elsewhere is clear as glass. I knew better than to expect an objective discussion here on these issues - I simply wanted to ensure that folks who were interested had access to Acharya's information. I don't feel like *I* need to prove anything to anyone here. I am merely pointing out the obvious and that is simply that folks here who are so rigidly against ZG part 1 &/or Acharya's work have never studied it.

nick "the old "you've never studied her work" track again"

Yes, & folks still don't get it - if you incorporated this tactic in school - you'd fail the tests and get bad grades. Suddenly, you think it's just fine. It's not, you, Johnson and others fail MISERABLY at understanding Acharya's work.

nick "Acharya's work on this subject is someone trying to present a radical viewpoint objectively. Can we agree on this?"

No, It's only radical according to the mainstream status-quo who clearly doesn't like the historical data backing it up.

"Her radical viewpoint is symbolic in nature."

That's not radical that's paganism. Getting to the roots of this symbolic nature of paganism may be considered radical by some but it's really not - it's just common sense, Occam's razor. How come you don't understand such a basic thing with all your years of study?

"She is trying to track Biblical mythology back to one symbol set, astrotheology, "

This is not accurate - she's never done. She's never said "Astrotheology is all that there is, I'm right & everybody else is wrong." She is simply pointing out a monumental omittion. Astrotheology is without a doubt a vital aspect.

Her work is an investigation and compilation of the data supporting astrotheology. She never denied there was more to it than just that. It is a common root or common denominator to our religions worldwide. She is simply filling the vacuum where there is a hole in history big enough for the Titanic. This info is being omitted and ignored - which is why she brings it to light for the masses. The Elite know the info and they know its true but it never got handed down to the public.

"What I'm saying is that this is bound to fail to a large degree, because if you actually do understand what Biblical symbology is about you will already know that all the symbol sets available, and there are many, are inter-relating and the goal is not to create some concrete statement of how things are, but to further the development of the student through the search for understanding itself. Biblical symbolism was created with this in mind. The Bible, as an esoteric document, is not trying to tell you how things are. It is trying to guide you into a state of higher awareness."

And without the knowledge of Astrotheology, the most basic understanding of the common denominator between religions worldwide throughout history is non-existent. You are free to go off on whatever tangent suits you but the most basic understandings, step one is missing. By doing that one is making it much more complicated than it really is.

Step one is what interests Acharya - How did religions get created throughout history and why. And why have others throughout history worked so hard to keep this basic information away from the masses. If these types of questions about the foundations upon which religions are created and built don't interest you then, I can see why acharya's work does not attract you. Still, it doesn't make her wrong. That is why she uses such a large variety of sources and such a large bibliography - to utilize a large consensus of opinion.

"I'm sorry, but even this first bit is so appalling that it's barely readable, if you ask me."

I'd say that is more of your own knee-jerk reaction because you simply are too wrapped-up in your own New-Age thing to know the difference. You're rigidly biased against her and that is clear. You can't force yourself to admit that the "Astrotheology of the Ancients" excerpt is actually interesting.

This is why Acharya is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the sun, moon and other natural phenomena.

Astrotheology: "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies."

Archaeoastronomy: "The study of the knowledge, interpretations, and practices of ancient cultures regarding celestial objects or phenomena. The branch of archaeology that deals with the apparent use by prehistoric civilizations of astronomical techniques to establish the seasons or the cycle of the year, esp. as evidenced in the construction of megaliths and other ritual structures."

Myth: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

You could learn a lot more about her work by reading the F.A.Q's at her forum - http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php

[Hokulele]

Her work is an investigation and compilation of the data supporting astrotheology. She never denied there was more to it than just that. It is a common root or common denominator to our religions worldwide.


Please point out the role of astrotheology in the following religions:

- Shinto
- Confucianism
- Taoism
- Hawai'ian (or heck, any of the Polynesian theologies)

These are just the ones I am most familiar with. I would also love to see your support for astrotheology for Australian Aboriginal spiritual beliefs, or even large swaths of African religions (which tend to be heavily based on ancestor worship).

In addition, divination has been accomplished through many methods that never required any ties to nature (the I Ching as a pre-Christian and possibly pre-historic example).

I am not suggesting that there have never been ties between astrology and religion, but that claiming it is the foundation of all religions worldwide is unsupportable.

[Dave31]

Nice straw man Hokulele. Which of those religions were mentioned in Zeitgiest? NONE - still many religions worldwide did & do incorporate astrotheology and other natural phenomena.

We will begin a real discussion of this topic when folks have all of the fallacies out of their systems.

[Dave31]

Nice straw man Hokulele. Which of those religions were mentioned in Zeitgiest? NONE - still many religions worldwide did & do incorporate astrotheology and other natural phenomena.

We will begin a real discussion of this topic when folks have all of the fallacies out of their systems.

[Bluekush623]

The problem is, astrotheology is probably the weakest point to attack. Where is the evidence for it other than your 12 disciples/12 zodiacal constellations?

The weakest point to attack? Or do you mean reveil?
The rest of the movie transcript, like i told GreNME sorry for not listing every part.



This is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. Both Zeitgeist and the bible can be wrong. Just because I do not support one, it does not mean I must support the other.

Ok, then step up and tell us how history went down.

Your argument regarding supporting the government is even weaker. I live in the United States, and there are plenty of things about my government I not only complain about, but actively work to change. However, there are many parts of the government I feel do a very good job considering the restrictions they must operate under (Yay for my local Fire Department and the Ocean Safety squads at our beaches!). The US government is most definitely not a monolithic entity the way many groups and CT proponents make it out to be. Just sorting out who has jurisdiction between the federal, state, and local agencies can be a mess to people who do not understand how our government functions.

Yay for local government. But what has the United States government/corporation done for us lately...wait theres 600 bucks coming to off set house payments and the economy. you say its not monolithic but thats from ignorance. Once one learns why its called the United States, and not the United States of America you'll see the deception. Just because its a mess for people who dont understand doesnt mean the federal, state or local government doesnt know whats happening.

Rather than painting religion and government with such a broad brush (they only exist to control the masses), I would recommend studying some history of religion and history of politics. I am sure any of us posting here could give you some references of where to begin.

Again ignorance on the posts made here. I sure didnt claim they existed to control the masses.

In fact, it would probably be extremely interesting to see a list of recommended reading from such diverse sources as the posters in this thread even if Bluekush isn't interested. Anyone up for a new thread in Religion and Philosophy or History, Literature and the Arts?

Id love to see what GreNME has to reference, cant wait.

[Bluekush623]

Please point out the role of astrotheology in the following religions:

- Shinto
I'm no expert on every religion but a simple search yields..

Amaterasu in Japanese mythology a sun goddess and perhaps the most important Shinto deity (神, kami?). Her name, Amaterasu, means literally "(that which) illuminates Heaven". She was born from the left eye of Izanagi as he purified himself in a river and went on to become the ruler of the Higher Celestial Plain (Takamagahara).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu

- Confucianism
Is Confucianism a "religion?"

Most religions can be defined as having a set God or group of gods, an organized priesthood, a belief in a life after death, and organized traditions, thus it is debatable whether Confucianism should be called a true "religion". While it prescribes a great deal of ritual, little of it could be construed as worship or meditation in a formal sense. However, Tian is sacred to many Confucians. Confucius occasionally made statements about the existence of other-worldly beings that sound distinctly agnostic and humanistic to European and American ears. Thus, Confucianism is often considered a secular ethical tradition and not a "religion." It is best described as a philosophy with special rituals and beliefs.


- Taoism
Most traditional Chinese Taoists are polytheistic. Nature and ancestor spirits are also common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. This sort of shamanism is eschewed for an emphasis on internal alchemy among the "elite" Taoists.

Chinese alchemy, astrology, cuisine, several Chinese martial arts, Chinese traditional medicine, fengshui, and many styles of qigong breath training disciplines are intertwined with Taoism throughout history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

- Hawai'ian (or heck, any of the Polynesian theologies)

In Polynesian mythology, Ina is a lunar deity (daughter of Kui or Vaitere) who kept an eel in a jar, but it soon grew into the eel-god, Tuna, who tried to rape her. The people of Upolo rescued her and sentenced him to death. At his request, she buried his head in the sand and from it grew the first coconut.

These are just the ones I am most familiar with. I would also love to see your support for astrotheology for Australian Aboriginal spiritual beliefs, or even large swaths of African religions (which tend to be heavily based on ancestor worship).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ina_%28goddess%29

In addition, divination has been accomplished through many methods that never required any ties to nature (the I Ching as a pre-Christian and possibly pre-historic example).

I-Ching: A Chinese book of ancient origin consisting of 64 interrelated hexagrams along with commentaries attributed to Confucius. The hexagrams, originally used for divination, embody Taoist philosophy by describing all nature and human endeavor in terms of the interaction of yin and yang. Also called Book of Changes.

No ties to nature? Don't forget we are nature.

I am not suggesting that there have never been ties between astrology and religion, but that claiming it is the foundation of all religions worldwide is unsupportable

No one here is claiming astrotheology is all of religion, read over the posts again, it's just merely a part of religion just like all other aspects of the human nature.

We are at a standstill here and no one wants to come forward, if Zeitgeist and the bible are both wrong, and theres no Astrotheology or natural phenomena worship in the bible. Then whats the basis for these deadly religions? God/Alien Intervention? Zeitgeist isn't the 100% clean cut, point to point story(just like the bible was supposed to be) but theres no way anyone with a straight face can say the bible and other religions don't have astrotheology.

[GreNME]

This comment demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what is really going on. Zeitgeist nor Acharya's works are replacing one "fictitious stories" for another.

In your opinion, maybe. That's fine. You're as entitled to believe those things are gospel as I am to hold the opinion that they are academically lazy and at least somewhat insulting to the intelligence of those who study the esoteric schools of thought.

These comments are your own broad stroke propaganda. It shows that you really don't know all that much about the Egyptian religion at all summed-up nicely here by Gerald Massey:

"The lost language of celestial allegory can now be restored, chiefly through the resurrection of ancient Egypt; the scriptures can be read as they were originally written, according to the secret wisdom, and we now know how history was first written as mythology." -- Gerald Massey

You mean Gerald Massey the 19th century spiritualist, right? Number one, he's dead, and number two, the only thing "secret" about the "wisdom" of Egyptian texts is that people like you can't read them even though there are literally gobs of resources (some of them free) that teach you how.

But if you want some "secret wisdom" of your own. I challenge you to translate the following text in Egyptian.
http://image.grenme.com/message.png

I know what it says. However, the only hint I'm going to give you is that you're going to not only need to know how to convert heiroglyphs to letters, but also to understand words in Egyptian. Good luck there, buddy-- if you can't figure it out then I suppose there's at least one ancient language where I'm ahead of you, Dave31. ;)

Nowhere in Acharya's work does she ever "make stuff up." It's not "BS" either - you may not like it but that doesn't make it false.

I challenge you to show proof of a single reference in any Egyptian text to the name "Anup the Baptizer" then. All you have to do is name the Egyptian text that contains that name. My guess is that you can't, since it doesn't exist.

No, you're not focusing on the e-book at all - you've never read it and your comments here demonstrate that clearly. There are too many times in your post 146 you said "show me the proof in Egyptian text" when it fact, it was provided in the Companion guide. A little factoid one would be aware of if they actually read it.

What you are attempting is called tautology, Dave31. The claims in the e-book aren't true just because they appear in the e-book. That is the same faulty justification biblical literalists use when defending the claims in the bible, and they are no less tautological. What you need to provide are the actual ancient sources of the information behind the claims in the e-book. If you can't even do that, then I doubt very much you've even read the document you're trying to sell to everyone else here.

And so can you as you and others here speaking out so loudly against ZG and Achayra's work have never studied it so how would you know? Euphoria is not evidence. Just because it feels good to say that doesn't make it true.

You let me know when you translate that Egyptian text shown above. Then maybe we'll see who has studied more.

This is why I mention to actually study Acharya's works - it's covered very thoroughly here is an excerpt just from the 1st chapter from "Suns of God"

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

I've already read it, you don't need to sell it here, Dave31. What you have yet to do is summarize any of the things you're selling into your own words and using even a single one of the sources Dorothy names. If you can't do that, then it just makes you seem like a proselytizer.

Not me personally but yes, there are 34 pages of fallacious comments and character assassinations and straw man after straw man against Acharya and her work in the other ZG thread where I was *NOT ALLOWED* to post a single link to Acharya's "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book for folks who might be interested in further reading of something to substantiate Zeitgeist further.

Meanwhile, Johnson linked his forum many times without any word to him from the moderators.

I've linked it twice, Dave31, and not once in this thread. In just this thread alone you've linked your advertisement several times. Further, I'm not asking anyone to send me any money, while the links you've given either go straight to a commercial product or are primers for buying a commercial product. You should learn the definition of what "sales" and "spam" mean before you unintentionally get yourself in trouble for breaking the membership agreement.

[Hokulele]

Bluekush, this is exactly what I was looking for. I had put two softballs in there, although I will note that the Wiki articles are quite a bit off on the aspects of Shinto that would have matched Zeitgeist even more closely than Christianity, and there are several religions in that list that would not match anything astrotheology-related at all (the article on Polynesia is very off). If you are interested in a discussion on this, I would recommend splitting this off to the R&P forum, as there are other knowledgable posters who may want to contribute.

Dave31's response has pretty much shown that he is not interested in the discussion, but in promotion.

[Bluekush623]

Bluekush, this is exactly what I was looking for. I had put two softballs in there, although I will note that the Wiki articles are quite a bit off on the aspects of Shinto that would have matched Zeitgeist even more closely than Christianity, and there are several religions in that list that would not match anything astrotheology-related at all (the article on Polynesia is very off). If you are interested in a discussion on this, I would recommend splitting this off to the R&P forum, as there are other knowledgable posters who may want to contribute.

Dave31's response has pretty much shown that he is not interested in the discussion, but in promotion.

Which were the softballs then? Several religions out of 4, you said 2 were softballs? Please reference something then too the articles of how Shinto and the Lunar god Ina are wrong. Im not really interested in continuing unless you are trying to make some point, because i really don't have interest in those specific studies.

[Dave31]

Johnson "In your opinion, maybe. That's fine. You're as entitled to believe those things are gospel as I am to hold the opinion that they are academically lazy and at least somewhat insulting to the intelligence of those who study the esoteric schools of thought."

Yes, we know you're bigoted views. Only you & your high dollar credentials could possibly be correct. Otherwise, you've wasted a lot of money to get those big degrees - which are what exactly?

Johnson "You mean Gerald Massey the 19th century spiritualist, right? Number one, he's dead, and number two, the only thing "secret" about the "wisdom" of Egyptian texts is that people like you can't read them even though there are literally gobs of resources (some of them free) that teach you how."

Massey's comment demonstrates he had a great understanding of the Egyptian religion where you are lacking. Also, nobody could read the Egyptian hieroglyphs until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. A little factoid you chose to omit.

Johnson "I challenge you to translate the following text in Egyptian. I know what it says. However, the only hint I'm going to give you is that you're going to not only need to know how to convert heiroglyphs to letters, but also to understand words in Egyptian. Good luck there, buddy-- if you can't figure it out then I suppose there's at least one ancient language where I'm ahead of you"

Not interested in your childish games. I should hope you could find the English translation from where you're copying the image. None of this proves you can actually read, write and translate Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and texts. It just shows your juvenile tactics and issues with your desperate need to be right all the time.

Johnson "What you are attempting is called tautology"

"The claims in the e-book aren't true just because they appear in the e-book. That is the same faulty justification biblical literalists use when defending the claims in the bible"

No, that is more of your desperate attempt to toss more pasta on the wall in hopes of some accusation or fallacy will stick. It's an old school tactic not utilized by reasonable, objective folks interested in sincere discussion on a subject.

"...In his synopsis of the historical-versus-mythical, Cutner notes that the clergy's "adversaries" were dispatched in the most unprofessional and puerile manner:

"Long ago the celebrated Dr. Bentley, in trying to dispose of Anthony Collins, had found one very fine method: convict your Freethinking opponent of fraud, ignorance, and bad scholarship, and his thesis falls to the ground. I should say rather, try to convict your opponent by this method, for some of the mud thrown is sure to stick.... By thus concentrating on mistakes of grammar or Greek, the reader is unwarily led away from the main issue which is exactly what the critic wants. Over and over again Christian controversialists have pursued this method, as if it always mattered greatly that a present tense of Greek should be the imperfect, or that a date should be conjectured as, let us say, 1702 when it ought to be 1712 in the opinion of somebody else. (27-28)"

Indeed, there is hardly a mythicist who has not experienced such treatment, even at the hands of other mythicists and/or freethinkers, another fact highlighted by Cutner, who shows that the early modern mythicists were viciously attacked not only by Christians but also by other "rationalists" and "freethinkers" who, in their attempts to remain "respectable" with the Christian elite, mindlessly fell in line and displayed a real lack of critical thinking. Professional jealousy also factors into this type of vitriol, as various scholars want their particular interpretation to become that which is accepted by the establishment...."

from "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm

Johnson "I doubt very much you've even read the document you're trying to sell to everyone else here."

I have read it & that's another difference between us - you have not. And it has nothing to do with selling, it's about people having access to further reading - something you despise. That is really your main goal here isn't it, to distract people from further reading material that will substantiate Zeitgeist. You hate it so you don't want others to have it. Censorship is your main objective Johnson.

Johnson "show proof of a single reference in any Egyptian text to the name "Anup the Baptizer"

LOL, yeah, you'd like that wouldn't you. That will be in "Christ in Egypt" so you can wait until it is published.

Again, I don't feel like *I* need to prove anything to anyone here. I am merely pointing out the obvious and that is simply that folks here who are so rigidly against ZG part 1 &/or Acharya's work have never studied it.

[GreNME]

Id love to see what GreNME has to reference, cant wait.

What I have to reference, or the beginning library I would suggest? If the latter, I've posted it at least twice before on the Zeitgeist thread, but here it is:

[ BOOKS ]


For Egypt:

The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egyptian-Pyramid-Texts-Writings/dp/1589831829/) by James P. Allen and Peter Der Manuelian
The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811807673/) by Raymond Faulkner, Ogden Goelet, Carol Andrews, and James Wasserman
Ancient Records of Egypt: (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0252069900/) (Volume 1), Vol. 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Records-Egypt-EIGHTEENTH-DYNASTY/dp/0252069749/), Vol. 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Records-Egypt-NINETEENTH-DYNASTY/dp/0252069757/), Vol. 4 (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Records-Egypt-Twentieth-Twenty-Sixth/dp/0252069765/), and Vol. 5 (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Records-Egypt-Supplementary-Bibliographies/dp/0252069919/) by James Breasted
Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt (http://www.amazon.com/Development-Religion-Thought-Ancient-Egypt/dp/1417973285/) by James Breasted[/url]
Egyptian Religion (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801480299/) by Seigfried Morenz
Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9774246691/) by Robert Armour
Ancient Egyptian Literature (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egyptian-Literature-John-Foster/dp/0292725272/) by John Foster

.
Mesopotamia:

The Harps that Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300072783/) by Thorkild Jacobsen
From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (http://www.amazon.com/Distant-Days-Poetry-Ancient-Mesopotamia/dp/1883053099/) by Benjamin Foster
Sumerian Mythology (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812210476/) by Samuel Kramer
Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192835890/) by Stephanie Dalley
The Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.amazon.com/Epic-Gilgamesh-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449191/) by Andrew George
Stories from Ancient Canaan (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664241840/) by Michael Coogan
Samarkand (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566562937/) by Amin Maalouof and Russel Harris
Lost Discoveries : The Ancient Roots of Modern Science--from the Babylonians to the Maya (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684837188/) by Dick Teresi
Inanna (http://www.amazon.com/Inanna-Diane-Wolkstein/dp/0060908548/) by Diane Wolkstein
Ancient Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Iraq-Third-Penguin-History/dp/014012523X/) by Georges Roux

.
Judaism and Christianity:

The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804200858/) by Thomas W. Mann
Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195141822/) and The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195141830/) by Bart D. Ehrman
When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156013150/) by Richard E. Rubenstein
The Gnostic Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0753821141/), The Origin of Satan (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679401407), and Beyond Belief (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0330431978/) by Elaine Pagels
The Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.amazon.com/Nag-Hammadi-Library-James-Robinson/dp/0060669357/) by James Robinson
Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History (http://www.amazon.com/Constantines-Sword-Church-Jews-History/dp/0618219080/) by James Carroll
The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060616601/peterkirby) by John D Crossan

.
Misc: A History of the Ancient World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195066286/) by Chester Starr; The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1853752924/) by Robert K. G. Temple



[ WEBSITES WITH ORIGINAL TEXT ]


Egyptian

The Pyramid Texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm), Translation by Samuel A. B. Mercer
The Book Of The Dead (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/index.htm) by E.A. Wallis Budge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Wallis_Budge)
The Rosetta Stone (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/trs/index.htm) by E.A. Wallis Budge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Wallis_Budge)
The Hieroglyphics of Horapollo Nilous (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/hh/index.htm) translated by Alexander Turner Cory
The Book of Am-Tuat (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/bat/index.htm) by E.A. Wallis Budge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Wallis_Budge)
The Book of Gates (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/gate/index.htm) by E.A. Wallis Budge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Wallis_Budge)
The Egyptian Heaven and Hell by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Wallis_Budge]E.A. Wallis Budge (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ehh/index.htm)
The Demotic Magical Papyrus (The Leyden Papyrus) (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/dmp/index.htm) by F. Ll. Griffith and Herbert Thompson
More from the Internet Sacred Texts Archive (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/index.htm)

.
Mesopotamian:

The Seven Tablets of Creation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm) by L.W. King
The Seven Evil Spirits (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/seven.htm) translated by R. C. Thompson
The Code of Hammurabi (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/index.htm) translated by L.W. King
The Syrian Goddess (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/tsg/index.htm) translated by Herbert A. Strong
The Epic of Gilgamish (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/eog/index.htm) by R. Campbell Thompson
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/chad/index.htm) by George Smith (related to Gilgamish)
Ishtar and Izdubar (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/iai/index.htm) by Leonidas Le Cenci Hamilton
A Whole Treasure Trove of Sumerian Writing (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php) - really, this is awesome (and too big to list in pieces)

.
Judaism and Christianity (and related):

Judaism section of the Internet Sacred Texts website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/index.htm). There are too many to list and some are in Hebrew.
Christian section of the Internet Sacred Texts website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm). Same thing, except for the Hebrew part.
Gnosticism section of the Internet Sacred Texts website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm). Same thing... oh, you get the picture :)
Zoroatrian section of the Internet Sacred Texts website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/index.htm). You know the drill. Also, they link to a comprehensive site of Zoroastrian text (http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html)




[ WEBSITES WITH GOOD DISCUSSIONS / ARTICLES (and some quotes I think are useful) ]


Myths of Babylonia and Assyria (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/index.htm) by Donald A. Mackenzie
.
The Mystery Cults and Christianity Part One: Introduction and Survey of the Cults (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp13A.htm) by Earl Doherty

.
The Mystery Cults and Christianity Part Four: A Cult of Parallels: Pagan Myths and the Jesus Story (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp13D.htm) by Earl Doherty

.
Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp01.htm)

.
Old Testament Life and Literature (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/) by Gerald A. Larue -- This is an excellent piece to read regarding taking a serious critical thinking look at the Old Testament.

.
How likely are chance resemblances between languages? (http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm) by Mark Rosenfelder. This essay examines how comparing two similar things from different cultures, in this case words or language, can be deceiving and not reliable.

.
Example of a list of similar-looking words in different languages (http://members.aol.com/yahyam/coincidence.html) - not that there are some near the bottom where the similar-looking words mean the opposite or something very different from each other.
.
A BYU study on "wordprinting" in the Book of Mormon (http://lds-mormon.com/wordprin.shtml) (which the LDS claim was written by several authors in a pseudo-Egyptian script)

.
A whole list of various historic Jesus theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html) - a good resource to bookmark and make not of author names (for buying, not avoiding)
.
Horus entry in the Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html)


And just so you know, that's just the beginning. Basically, that's tip-of-the-iceberg material. I included many free resources in there because I don't expect that everyone is as into the subject of history and ancient Mid-East culture as I am. I'd also include in the list some other stuff, like maybe actually reading The Golden Bough (http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Bough-James-George-Frazer/dp/0684826305/) (though the unabridged 13-volume series has more, and is available mostly used or in pieces). I'd also recommend something like Guns, Germs, & Steel (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Jared-Diamond/dp/0739467352/) for some good perspective as well. Some of these sources are quoted by those like Dorothy or Jan or even the Zeitgeist film, but one finds it interesting just how many quotes are taken completely out of context by them in order to be shoved ham-fisted-ly into their arguments. I'd say that, of the Egyptian BotD translations that Faulkner's illustrated translation (this one ([url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811807673/), with beautiful recreations of the plates) is probably the most superior and accurate of the BotD translations, but comparing different versions is a worthwhile study tactic. You'll also notice that I included at least one website of a person whom Dorothy quotes as a positive reviewer (Doherty), but rather than simply take the review quote as full agreement take a look at Doherty's writing (which I don't find authorative, though it's reasonably well researched).

But, like I said, this is just to get you started. :)

[thesyntaxera]

Again, I don't feel like *I* need to prove anything to anyone here. I am merely pointing out the obvious and that is simply that folks here who are so rigidly against ZG part 1 &/or Acharya's work have never studied it.

Then please, please, please...post some freaking evidence to support yourself.
Evidence will be proof enough. If you aren't here to provide an argument outside of attacking others on a personal level then just leave the discussion, because you sure aren't adding anything to it by sticking out your tongue and calling us stupid.

[fullflavormenthol]

Please point out the role of astrotheology in the following religions:

- Shinto
- Confucianism
- Taoism
- Hawai'ian (or heck, any of the Polynesian theologies)

These are just the ones I am most familiar with. I would also love to see your support for astrotheology for Australian Aboriginal spiritual beliefs, or even large swaths of African religions (which tend to be heavily based on ancestor worship).

In addition, divination has been accomplished through many methods that never required any ties to nature (the I Ching as a pre-Christian and possibly pre-historic example).

I am not suggesting that there have never been ties between astrology and religion, but that claiming it is the foundation of all religions worldwide is unsupportable.

Sorry I had to quote the whole thing. You have just made an excellent point, and one many people seem to over look. The basic assumption of astrotheology is this idea that all religions derive from astrology in some form. You rightly pointed out that this cannot be seen in many theologies. In fact many aboriginal religions seem to be based off forces of nature instead of the stars.

Also from my studies, hobbyist though they may be, many of the most powerful deities in mythologies tend to be thunder gods. Which begs the question of if the Greeks, for example, based their beliefs off of the stars than why was Zeus a god of thunder? The Norse mythology also brings forth a problem in this regard.

When I first heard these ideas about astrotheology over 10 years ago I was interested, but then I went to college and took some comparative religion and religious studies classes and it subsided. Some religions do hold the stars in high regard, but beyond them it is mere pattern searching to try and tie all religions into this theory.

[GreNME]

Yes, we know you're bigoted views. Only you & your high dollar credentials could possibly be correct. Otherwise, you've wasted a lot of money to get those big degrees - which are what exactly?

I didn't bring up credentials, and now you are showing your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy when your initial peeing match argument tactic backfires. I don't claim any "high dollar credentials" when I'm talking about me, I claim lots of study and a huge list of reference material from which I (and anyone else) can draw.

Massey's comment demonstrates he had a great understanding of the Egyptian religion where you are lacking. Also, nobody could read the Egyptian hieroglyphs until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. A little factoid you chose to omit.

Thank you very much for showing everyone that you are not only intellectually dishonest, but an outright liar. I just so happened to mention that little factoid two days ago in this very thread.
Back in the 19th century there was a great deal of excitement regarding Egypt as scholarly groups began to establish systems for translating the wealth of Egyptian writing that had been collected over the centuries, which was previously untranslatable before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. E.A. Wallis Budge, one of the early translation pioneers, took a 26-foot-long scroll (which would come to be known as the Book of the Dead), cut it into even lengths, and pasted it onto boards for transport to the UK in the late 1800's. Unfortunately for Budge, he inadvertently broke up the contextual layout of the pieces of the scroll (plates), and even after the mistake was discovered and only partially accounted for the damage had already been done. While Budge still managed an initial translation, considering the original damage done and lack of context, he did a decent job even though there was little to no point of reference. Even his subsequent retranslations improved on his early work, and the retranslations of others who followed over the subsequent decades improved the quality and accuracy of the texts even more.

So, either you aren't even bothering to read or you're just simply a liar. Either way you are showing just how dishonest you actually are.

Not interested in your childish games. I should hope you could find the English translation from where you're copying the image. None of this proves you can actually read, write and translate Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and texts. It just shows your juvenile tactics and issues with your desperate need to be right all the time.

In other words you can't translate it.

I'll give you another hint: I wrote the phrase and then translated it to Egyptian, then transliterated it into hieroglyphs. While that bit of information would greatly help someone who actually knew how to translate Egyptian, I have a pretty good impression that it won't help you at all.

Johnson "What you are attempting is called tautology"

"The claims in the e-book aren't true just because they appear in the e-book. That is the same faulty justification biblical literalists use when defending the claims in the bible"
No, that is more of your desperate attempt to toss more pasta on the wall in hopes of some accusation or fallacy will stick. It's an old school tactic not utilized by reasonable, objective folks interested in sincere discussion on a subject.

I see you don't understand the definition of tautology, either. :)

I have read it & that's another difference between us - you have not. And it has nothing to do with selling, it's about people having access to further reading - something you despise. That is really your main goal here isn't it, to distract people from further reading material that will substantiate Zeitgeist. You hate it so you don't want others to have it. Censorship is your main objective Johnson.

All you have to do is show all the people here you've read it by providing a brief summary of what you thought were the most poignant and irrefutable parts of the e-book. Referencing the sources Dorothy associated with those parts would show good faith. So far, you seem incapable of such.

Johnson "show proof of a single reference in any Egyptian text to the name "Anup the Baptizer"
LOL, yeah, you'd like that wouldn't you. That will be in "Christ in Egypt" so you can wait until it is published.

Are you sure you've read Dorothy's other works? She has already named where she got the reference. In fact, she's gone further and made it clear that while the source she references doesn't point out exactly where in the Egyptian text it's located (because it doesn't exist), that the name is inferred through a series of logical jumps. Why do I already know this and you don't if you've read her work and I haven't? You should adjust yourself, because your dishonesty is showing again.

Again, I don't feel like *I* need to prove anything to anyone here. I am merely pointing out the obvious and that is simply that folks here who are so rigidly against ZG part 1 &/or Acharya's work have never studied it.

In other words, you don't have any proof. You can't even point out that Dorothy has sourced the Papyrus of Ani as the location where "Anup the Baptizer" is located, even though the reference does not exist.

On the Anup thing: Dorothy keeps getting this wrong because Gerald Massey got it wrong. He took a Hellenized transliteration for Anubis, "ANPU", and switched two letters around to come up with the name "Anup" (which doesn't exist). Massey goes further and takes a scene that describes Anubis leading Ani, the deceased human being in the version of the BotD Massey wrote about, to the edge of a river to a bark (boat) that would take him across the river. Ani, not Horus, goes into the water and washes before entering the bark (boat). Massey confuses this because, in the preceding passages, Ani takes on the spiritual aspects of several Egyptian religious figures (deities), one of whom is Horus. Ani takes on these aspects in order to be worthy of crossing over the river, toward his final judgments and into the realm of the dead.

[fullflavormenthol]

GreNME> First I have been lurking long enough to realize I like your style, and your CTwiki was a help in my own basic research.

And thank you for refuting Massey. This is one of the problems I have faced in speaking with Zeitgeist followers. They will quote from Massey as if he is the father of Egyptology, and then either call me a liar when I bring up the translations of Hellmut Brunner or claim that Brunner is completely agreeing with Massey. The clear problem with Massey is that he had a pretty well defined agenda, but that would be a personal attack. The truth is that he read things into the Egyptian religion that aren't, especially according to later researchers like Faulkner, and Frankfort.

That being said I would like to recommend,

"Die Geburt des Gottkönigs", by Hellmut Brunner; though being a German text you might have to do what I did and get a German reader to help you go through it.

"Ancient Egyptian Religion", by H. Frankfort. This one is really old, but he was a University of Chicago researcher and his summary of Egyptian beliefs, especially dealing with Horus are invaluable.

[Hokulele]

Which were the softballs then? Several religions out of 4, you said 2 were softballs?


The Shinto religion actually supports the ideas behind Zeitgeist much better than Christianity, so I was surprised that it was left out. The history of the development of that religion is very well documented, and the way it was manipulated by the Emperors in order to control the population is very well documented as well. If Zeitgeist wanted to show population control through religion/government, there is no better example anywhere than Shinto. The additional fact that almost all astronomical objects are featured in Shinto made this was softball number one.

Softball number two was Confucianism. Although you may view this as a philosophy more than a religion (and many people do), the Chinese of the time viewed it as a religion, the official state religion. There are no ties I know of to link Confucius and his students to astrology, but many to link it to government. Again, I would have seen this as a natural fit to the main point of Zeitgeist. Since there is no astrotheology tie, or since the authors have little or no experience with Asian culture and history, I am not surprised in the least it was left out.

Please reference something then too the articles of how Shinto and the Lunar god Ina are wrong.


The Shinto article made it sound like it was clear that Amaterasu was strictly a sun goddess. The reality is much more subtle. This wiki article is much closer, but it wasn't until relatively recently that Amaterasu was fixed as a sun goddess and ancestor of the Japanese Imperial line. There are many conflicting accounts of her role in the Shinto pantheon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu

The main problem is that the wiki page on Ina is it is mixing mythology with religion. There are stories about sun and moon deities (for lack of a better word), but no patterned worship or organized temples. There were places where people learned astronomy, mostly as an aid to navigation. Being tropically located, the sun just didn't have as much of an agricultural or social impact on the Polynesians as it did in more northern or southern cultures. Most Polynesian temples and priestly castes were based on ancestor worship, war gods, or sea gods/goddesses.

This is a fairly long article that is not all that tied to the subject, but if you scroll down to the paragraph that begins at the bottom of the picture of the sunset, there is a pretty good summary of Polynesian religious evolution.

http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/1992/raiatea.html

Im not really interested in continuing unless you are trying to make some point, because i really don't have interest in those specific studies.


No problem. I mostly wanted to see how Dave31 would react to my challenge. The fact that you were interested enough to do a little bit of research and put together a reasonable answer is the response I was hoping from him. I certainly don't mind debate and discussion, but if you aren't interested, I don't mind dropping it either.

But the main point of most of my posts in this thread is that no one should ever make such blanket black and white statements about anything as complex as religion or government. The study of each is fascinating, and to ignore the complexity is to miss most of the important points. By seeing how religions differ from each other in their roots and development, you can learn much more about human nature than by trying to make too many big picture statements. For example, saying that all religions are culturally transmitted is true, but trivially true. Look for the non-trivial lessons in comparative religion, that is where the meat is.

[GreNME]

GreNME> First I have been lurking long enough to realize I like your style, and your CTwiki was a help in my own basic research.

And thank you for refuting Massey. This is one of the problems I have faced in speaking with Zeitgeist followers. They will quote from Massey as if he is the father of Egyptology, and then either call me a liar when I bring up the translations of Hellmut Brunner or claim that Brunner is completely agreeing with Massey. The clear problem with Massey is that he had a pretty well defined agenda, but that would be a personal attack. The truth is that he read things into the Egyptian religion that aren't, especially according to later researchers like Faulkner, and Frankfort.

Keep in mind that my stuff on the CTWiki is mostly unfinished. I've had a few things come up in the last two months that have eaten a lot of my time. I'll be working more on it in the coming weeks.

Regarding Massey: I wouldn't say he had an 'agenda' as much as he very much was looking to find affirmation of beliefs he already held. Nothing I've read of his comes across as being agenda-based as opposed to being very convinced that there was some mystical secret that he simply had to find in the texts. A century later, when the ability to translate the texts isn't so secret any more, his own writing tends to display the faults of his translation more than anything someone else could.

That being said I would like to recommend,

"Die Geburt des Gottkönigs", by Hellmut Brunner; though being a German text you might have to do what I did and get a German reader to help you go through it.

"Ancient Egyptian Religion", by H. Frankfort. This one is really old, but he was a University of Chicago researcher and his summary of Egyptian beliefs, especially dealing with Horus are invaluable.

I'll look into the German book, and since there are several Egyptian texts that have been translated in Germany it would probably do me well to become acquainted with the language (at least for reading) anyway. I've seen the second one you mention, though I don't have it in my personal library. I'll definitely be on the look-out for it. Thanks for the recommends. :)

[fullflavormenthol]

I think my opinions of Massey have been unfairly tainted by having to deal with them being brought up as a "debunking" of other Egyptologists I was mentioned to the Zeitgeist proponents. Still I like your opinion of Massey's belief in a mystical secret of things.

I also know your wiki is unfinished, but at least you have proposed issues with the Zeitgeist interpretation of things. I think my main issue is that, unlike most documentaries of controversial nature, Zeitgeist doesn't actually bring up an opposing view.

The problem I have is that increasingly the internet is becoming clogged with this misinformation making it hard for people who don't know where to look to find the academic opinion of these issues. Beyond getting a quote from a Boston College professor whose work on the Sphinx is highly disputed by scholars in his own field.

Basically I have been running against people that feel that peer review is a bad thing and represents control by some secret conspiracy devoted to keeping the truth down.

[Nick227]

Not me personally but yes, there are 34 pages of fallacious comments and character assassinations and straw man after straw man against Acharya and her work in the Iother ZG thread where I was *NOT ALLOWED* to post a single link to Acharya's "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book for folks who might be interested in further reading of something to substantiate Zeitgeist further.

But you have to pay for Dorothy's, don't you? I also don't recall GreNME posting link after link of his pages.


That's not radical that's paganism. Getting to the roots of this symbolic nature of paganism may be considered radical by some but it's really not - it's just common sense, Occam's razor. How come you don't understand such a basic thing with all your years of study?

I very much doubt that Dorothy's vision is an accurate portrayal of the pagan mind, but for sure it's now hard to know. Personally, I find it an immensely patronising view of ancient man.

This is not accurate - she's never done. She's never said "Astrotheology is all that there is, I'm right & everybody else is wrong." She is simply pointing out a monumental omittion. Astrotheology is without a doubt a vital aspect.

The symbols of astrotheology are one aspect of the story. I wouldn't doubt it for a moment. But what Dorothy is doing is trying to track the whole mystery back to one symbol set. This in my experience, is a typically male thing to do actually. To try and make a whole series of multi-shaped pegs fit into just one hole. I would expect better from a woman.

Her work is an investigation and compilation of the data supporting astrotheology. She never denied there was more to it than just that. It is a common root or common denominator to our religions worldwide.

That is nonsense. Astrotheology is an aspect that deals with the formation of the personality. If astrotheology were the root of the world's religions then they would have died out aeons ago. Her work, to me, tries to reinforce her own thesis and in so doing overlooks vast amounts of data which don't fit with it. She seems overwhelmed by an inner need to "seriously stir up the ****e," as she puts it, and she allows this need to override concerns about validity on both an academic and an esoteric level. Personally, I feel I can relate to where she's coming from. She wants to create change. Me too. It's just that I do have to question the validity of her approach, given that cursory independent examination of the Gospels reveals them clearly to be about a great deal more than just astrotheology. It's not even a basis, it's simply one aspect. If you study Kabbalah, for instance, you will learn that the configuration of the stars at the time of birth are believed, in this doctrine, to represent the basic configuration of the personality of the individual.

To be honest, I think you will find that the average person is more intrigued by the interpretations of orthodox Christianity than that of the astrotheologists. I'm sure Christianity wouldn't have had a hope in hell in surviving the last 2,000 years if it were based solely on astrotheology. It doesn't speak to people.

The only people I've ever known who were into astrotheology, and I've been around the whole entheogen scene for years, were only interested in it as a counterpoint to orthodoxy. They weren't actually interested in astrotheology for its own sake. They just wanted something to push back against orthodox Christianity with. Ask Dorothy to interpret Judges 5:20 "The stars in their courses fought against Sisera," to the Kabbalist one of the classic astrotheological quotes of the Bible. She won't want to know, I'm sure. If it doesn't give her the chance to slag off the Church, she's not interested.

It's the same with you, Dave. I don't see anything in your posts where you're actually interested in what the Bible is about, you just want ammo to fire against Orthodoxy. You're both just acting out of unconsciousness.

She is simply filling the vacuum where there is a hole in history big enough for the Titanic. This info is being omitted and ignored - which is why she brings it to light for the masses. The Elite know the info and they know its true but it never got handed down to the public.

Well, I would agree that any version of the Gospels which can demonstrate that they're not simple moral tales is to a degree threatening to the orthodox church. But there is the issue of validity. Christianity is not just astrotheology. The stars are not all of it. They're just one small aspect. And when you present the public with a tale that is pretty much equally untrue as that told by the Church I don't know that this creates any meaningful useful change. If Dorothy was to start, say, with John 1:1 and work her way through this Gospel, demonstrating that passage by passage the writer is referring to astrotheology I would sit up and take notice. She doesn't do this. She creates her version of history and tries to ram things into it willy-nilly.

Step one is what interests Acharya - How did religions get created throughout history and why. And why have others throughout history worked so hard to keep this basic information away from the masses. If these types of questions about the foundations upon which religions are created and built don't interest you then, I can see why acharya's work does not attract you. Still, it doesn't make her wrong. That is why she uses such a large variety of sources and such a large bibliography - to utilize a large consensus of opinion.


Religions are created as an inevitable side-effect of egoic identification.

I'd say that is more of your own knee-jerk reaction because you simply are too wrapped-up in your own New-Age thing to know the difference. You're rigidly biased against her and that is clear. You can't force yourself to admit that the "Astrotheology of the Ancients" excerpt is actually interesting.


I do knee-jerk a bit at times. I do react. But it is not baseless. I do actually have a decent grasp of many of the principles involved and so to read someone who so clearly doesn't causes me to react. Dorothy does not grasp the modern-day spiritual doctrines which have emerged from the Bible. She makes this inadvertently clear time and again when you read her.

This is why Acharya is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the sun, moon and other natural phenomena.

That you believe such a statement demonstrates just how little you grasp of the subject matter. It's not just about veneration. That is totally patronising.

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "I very much doubt that Acharya's vision is an accurate portrayal of the pagan mind, but for sure it's now hard to know. Personally, I find it an immensely patronising view of ancient man."

Once again, how would you know when you've already admitted you've never studied it? Your views of her work over & over again are inaccurate. Acharya is passionately interested in the origins of religion and is anything but patronizing of them - she certainly does not have any respect for Christianity, Islam and for good reason too. And she explains that. If you read her work that would be categorically clear.

nick "The symbols of astrotheology are one aspect of the story. I wouldn't doubt it for a moment. But what Acharya is doing is trying to track the whole mystery back to one symbol set."

I already addressed this, you're not accurate. As I already mentioned, She is simply pointing out a monumental omittion and it covers more than just astrotheology. It also includes info about the "mysteries," mythology, archaeoastronomy, natural phenomena and more. If you read Acharya's books you'd know this.

nick "That is nonsense. Astrotheology is an aspect that deals with the formation of the personality. If astrotheology were the root of the world's religions then they would have died out aeons ago."

Nick, you STILL don't get something that is so simple - why would astrotheology "died out aeons ago" when the sun, moon, stars, constellations etc are still in existence doing whatever it is they do. The sun and earth's tilt are still creating the seasons, solstices, equinoxes and the Celtic fire festivals? To claim it has "died out" now THAT is the nonsense. (SHAKES HEAD WITH AMAZEMENT)

nick "Her work, to me, tries to reinforce her own thesis and in so doing overlooks vast amounts of data which don't fit with it."

Yes, your views of her work so far have all been inaccurate because you've never studied her work. This is not her thesis, she didn't invent astrotheology nor did she create the history of it - she investigated it and compiled the history of it together so others may appreciate a large part of human history that has been down played or omitted completely.

nick "If you study Kabbalah, for instance, you will learn that the configuration of the stars at the time of birth are believed, in this doctrine, to represent the basic configuration of the personality of the individual."

Yes, there are many books on this new-age topic. She deals with the parts that have been down played or omitted and why.

nick "The only people I've ever known who were into astrotheology..."

nick, you still don't understand what creates the seasons, equinoxes or solstices let alone understand astrotheology or Achayra's work. Most pagan religions have something to do with astrotheology and natural phenomena to varying degrees. You simply don't know that &/or are not interested - so why even post in this thread when you've already stated that you're not interested in the subject matter?

nick "They just wanted something to push back against orthodox Christianity"

No, nick, it's more than that - it has to do with the fact that it's a fraud on many levels. If you read Acharya's work, you'd know that. Many folks don't appreciate being lied to.

nick "Christianity is not just astrotheology. The stars are not all of it."

Astrotheology is only the foundation for Christianity, that's all. One "small aspect" that is over-looked, ignored, down-played or omitted altogether and you are helping demonstrate this by proving my point - so thank you.

nick "If Acharya was to start, say, with John 1:1 and work her way through this Gospel, demonstrating that passage by passage the writer is referring to astrotheology I would sit up and take notice. She doesn't do this."

Actually, she does some of this in "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ" without getting too far into the astrotheology so folks don't get confused. John is largely originally an Egyptian text as it was also discovered there and very likely written there as well. Enjoy the video - http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3828A6ED4FFA99BCBA6AF9D3710F/who-was-jesus-fingerprints-of.aspx

;)

[Nick227]

Once again, how would you know when you've already admitted you've never studied it? Your views of her work over & over again are inaccurate. Acharya is passionately interested in the origins of religion and is anything but patronizing of them - she certainly does not have any respect for Christianity, Islam and for good reason too. And she explains that. If you read her work that would be categorically clear.

The link you showed me that begun this part of the thread was patronising in the extreme, imo.



I already addressed this, you're not accurate. As I already mentioned, She is simply pointing out a monumental omittion and it covers more than just astrotheology. It also includes info about the "mysteries," mythology, archaeoastronomy, natural phenomena and more. If you read Acharya's books you'd know this.

The whole sum of these things accounts for a tiny fraction of the symbolism. You gotta check some Gnostic thought, dude. Here's a starter "The Pattern of Initiation in the Evolution of Consciousness." Read Alchemy. Read Kabbalah. The stuff she comes out with is tangential at best.



Nick, you STILL don't get something that is so simple - why would astrotheology "died out aeons ago" when the sun, moon, stars, constellations etc are still in existence doing whatever it is they do. The sun and earth's tilt are still creating the seasons, solstices, equinoxes and the Celtic fire festivals? To claim it has "died out" now THAT is the nonsense. (SHAKES HEAD WITH AMAZEMENT)

People care about who they are, Dave. They care about where they're going. It is not about the sun. It is about the principle that is creating the sun. Read, man. It's about who you are. The sun, moon and stars are tangential.

A few thousand years ago we all had a monthly session of getting wasted and shagging each other's partners. We justified it by saying it was to do with the *********** equinox or something, to keep the local religious weirdos happy. It's not about the *********** equinox. It never was. No one gives a **** about the sun. It's there in the sky. It's cool. It's about who you are, what makes you tick, what makes you happy, what your needs are. Christianity would never have survived the last 2000 years had it actually been about astrotheology. No one gives a **** about astrotheology. Like I say, even most astrotheologists don't give a **** about it.


nick, you still don't understand what creates the seasons, equinoxes or solstices let alone understand astrotheology or Achayra's work. Most pagan religions have something to do with astrotheology and natural phenomena to varying degrees. You simply don't know that &/or are not interested - so why even post in this thread when you've already stated that you're not interested in the subject matter?

Because it pains me to listen to such unconscious drivel and I react. Every time you're confronted to bring something actual to the table you just skip out of there, back into your head and more childish little arguments. You're just a wind-up merchant and for me your very existence justifies giving Zeitgest a harder and harder time. There's no way to reach you, but at least some of the people out there who are into these things can actually feel.

Nick

[Dave31]

nick "The link you showed me that begun this part of the thread was patronising in the extreme, imo."

Yes, that would be because facts and evidence are "patronizing" to your beliefs.

nick "You gotta check some Gnostic thought, dude."

If you read Acharya's work you'd be aware of the Gnostic clues given. For example, how they stole many of their ideas from the Egyptian religions. If you read Acharya's work you'd know she discusses the Gnostics at length. Her new book soon to be out "Christ in Egypt" will have a chapter on that alone.

nick "Read Kabbalah. The stuff she comes out with is tangential at best."

The new age Kabbalah views don't interest me nor am I interested in being involved in your cult.

nick "It's not about the *********** equinox...No one gives a **** about the sun. It's there in the sky."

LOL, that's why the Egyptian religion revolved around the sun and its myriade of forms. We're not interested in your opinion of astrotheology as you know absolutely NOTHING about it as per your constant stream of straw men reveals.

nick "Christianity would never have survived the last 2000 years had it actually been about astrotheology. No one gives a **** about astrotheology. Like I say, even most astrotheologists don't give a **** about it."

Christianity has survived specifically thanks to its astrotheological foundations. Something you are oblivious to.

You already said you're not interested in this subject so why are you here - just as a troll? I guess I'll have to report you to the mods for trolling.

The fact is that you don't know the argument, you aren't aware of the thesis because you haven't studied the works. So, your arguments are straw man fallacies and you don't even know it and if you do, then you're just trolling. You can't even understand the effects of the earth revolving around the sun. You should just stick to the new-age cult rhetoric.

Just because *YOU* aren't interested in the study of astrotheology, mythology, archaeoastronomy doesn't mean nobody else isn't. That is your own bigoted view.

You have the attitude of a curmudgeon. If you're not interested in the origins of religion simply avoid this thread and the work of Acharya same as you have been. Nobody has ever twisted your arm to force you to post here.

[Nick227]

Yes, that would be because facts and evidence are "patronizing" to your beliefs.

Read the first paragraph in the piece you linked and point me to facts and evidence.

If you read Acharya's work you'd be aware of the Gnostic clues given. For example, how they stole many of their ideas from the Egyptian religions. If you read Acharya's work you'd know she discusses the Gnostics at length. Her new book soon to be out "Christ in Egypt" will have a chapter on that alone.


Please spare me these infantile ramblings about how this person stole this and this person did that. You seem only capable of relating to the world through this whole us-versus-them filter. Is there anything in this world you don't consider a conspiracy?

"The psychological rule says that when a person remains divided and unaware of his inner contradictions the universe must perforce act out the conflict."

You already said you're not interested in this subject so why are you here - just as a troll? I guess I'll have to report you to the mods for trolling.

I said that I have never met anyone who was genuinely interested in astrotheology. They just see it as a means to get back at orthodox Christianity. Astrotheology is for people with authority trips who don't want to look at them, same as conspiracy theories. It's for people who actually are afraid of themselves and prefer to look at the world through this simplistic us-and-them mirror.

You have the attitude of a curmudgeon. If you're not interested in the origins of religion simply avoid this thread and the work of Acharya same as you have been. Nobody has ever twisted your arm to force you to post here.

I know the origin of religion. Religion is the inevitable consequence of egoic identification. Identified with body and thought, awareness naturally projects experiences it cannot grasp through its derived understandings onto a "God" figure.

Nick

[Axiom_Blade]

People care about who they are, Dave. They care about where they're going. It is not about the sun. It is about the principle that is creating the sun. Read, man. It's about who you are. The sun, moon and stars are tangential.

A few thousand years ago we all had a monthly session of getting wasted and shagging each other's partners. We justified it by saying it was to do with the *********** equinox or something, to keep the local religious weirdos happy. It's not about the *********** equinox. It never was. No one gives a **** about the sun. It's there in the sky. It's cool. It's about who you are, what makes you tick, what makes you happy, what your needs are. Christianity would never have survived the last 2000 years had it actually been about astrotheology. No one gives a **** about astrotheology. Like I say, even most astrotheologists don't give a **** about it.


Awesome post! You really hit it dead-on there.
All of this Zeitgeist nonsense reminds me of The Bible Code mania several years ago. People like to think they've "cracked the code", that they have some secret knowledge about Christianity.

Ignoring all of the actually legitimate reasons why Christianity is bunk, they latch onto some made-up reason.

[Dave31]

Johnson "But, like I said, this is just to get you started."

That's great, you can goto amazon and organize a list of books on the subject, fascinating. Maybe you could actually try and read them sometime?

Johnson "I'd say that, of the Egyptian BotD translations that Faulkner's illustrated translation (this one, with beautiful recreations of the plates) is probably the most superior and accurate of the BotD translations"

Actually, it depends on what one is looking for - he did a good job in some areas and not so good in others. It's not the superior, end-all. I don't believe you've read it. You're simply repeating someone else's opinion of the book as this is your M.O.

Anyone who knows anything about Anubis knows that his Egyptian name - "Anubis" is Greek - is transliterated variously as Anpu and ANUP. Also, as in ANU-bis, get it? There were no vowels it is not a "mistake" on the part of Massey. Besides, Massey wasn't the first to translate it as such. You have absolutely no Idea what you're talking about do you.

A 2 second google would've found the answer for you but you knew nothing about it - WHY? Or instead of an objective stance you take your typical biased stance. You really blew it with this one Johnson. You either don't read the books you pretend to be an expert on and rely on the opinions of them from others or, you don't know nearly as much about the Egyptian religion as you attempt to lead folks to believe. I think it's all the above.

Since you are WRONG about Anup and Massey, everything that follows could likewise be deemed WRONG. And quit with the "Dorothy" crap - what are you, a stalker? As I said before, every single time you use that name you are being disrespectful.

If you actually READ the Book of the Dead, you would know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS." If you knew about Egyptian history and religion, you would know that when the king is deceased, he is the Osiris, but when he is alive he is HORUS. You would also know that the speaker in the BOTD - the deceased - frequently calls himself by other names, such as "I am Horus." "I am Atmu." "I am Ra." It seems like you haven't read any of these books you pretend to be reading, just like you didn't read Acharya's work but DISHONESTLY pretended to have, for page after page, regardless of how many times it was shown that you were LYING about being an expert on her work in other threads. Here you do the same thing: You couldn't even exercise your fingers for two seconds to google ANUP and discover that it is a commonly known transliteration of the Egyptian - do you actually know ANYTHING about the Egyptian language? You've made so many mistakes and inaccuracies it's impossible to keep up with them all.

ANI is the name of ONE pharaoh who had a papyrus of the Book of the Dead written for him - the Papyrus of Ani. A later edition of the BOTD is the Saite Rescension - these are all facts you would know if you hadn't just skimmed the surface and are now pretending to be an expert. These texts were read for many different people, and the deceased in them is called the "N" or "the Osiris" or the "Osiris N," etc.

Before the Papyrus of Ani were the Pyramid Texts, upon which the BOTD is largely based. Thus, the BOTD was essentially in existence BEFORE the Papyrus of Ani and has nothing to do with Ani, except that it was rewritten for his passing.

Even The Encyclopedia Britannica has "Anup" and "Anubis" in it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vPktAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA157&dq=anubis+anup

Johnson "I didn't bring up credentials" "I don't claim any "high dollar credentials"

Yes, I see you avoid that discussion like the plague. So we've established you have no biblical or Egyptian credentials to speak of - great, thanks for your honesty. So you're really not qualified to determine who is or who isn't accurate about, well, anything.

Johnson "In other words you can't translate it."

I said, "Not interested in your childish games". And that's not going to change.

Johnson "In other words, you don't have any proof."

I thought you were the self-proclaimed expert? Even though you have no credentials in the area to speak of. I'm simply not inclined to share great info with you as you've demonstrated yourself totally unworthy. You can keep doing your own shoddy research and stay stuck in that rut you're in for all I care. I won't lose any sleep at all.

[Hokulele]

Even The Encyclopedia Britannica has "Anup" and "Anubis" in it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vPktAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA157&dq=anubis+anup



Sure, the 1910 version you googled. The most recent version has the description start off this way.

also called Anpu ancient Egyptian god of the dead, represented by a jackal or the figure of a man with the head of a jackal.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007931/Anubis

You will need an account to read the online version (you can sign up for a free account), or you can go to your local library.

Would you care to address why this has been updated since 1910?

[Nick227]

For anyone interested (and not banned!) I've been debating the issue of astrotheological validity over on the truthbeknown forum starting lower on the page at http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=815&start=270.

Nick

[GreNME]

That's great, you can goto amazon and organize a list of books on the subject, fascinating. Maybe you could actually try and read them sometime?

Unlike you, I have read them (and more), as well as owning most of them. Some of the editions of the older books are dated, though, so I've linked to the newest prints.

Johnson "I'd say that, of the Egyptian BotD translations that Faulkner's illustrated translation (this one, with beautiful recreations of the plates) is probably the most superior and accurate of the BotD translations"
Actually, it depends on what one is looking for - he did a good job in some areas and not so good in others. It's not the superior, end-all. I don't believe you've read it. You're simply repeating someone else's opinion of the book as this is your M.O.

If by "someone else's opinion" you mean "almost all of academic Egyptology across the board" then yeah, but also because I actually own several different translations and have compared them.

Anyone who knows anything about Anubis knows that his Egyptian name - "Anubis" is Greek - is transliterated variously as Anpu and ANUP. Also, as in ANU-bis, get it? There were no vowels it is not a "mistake" on the part of Massey. Besides, Massey wasn't the first to translate it as such. You have absolutely no Idea what you're talking about do you.

No, "Anup" is a mistransliteration of the Greek transliteration ANPU. It's a mistake of a fourth-generation translation attempt. If you used a dictionary that wasn't nearly 100 years out-of-date you would realize this.

A 2 second google would've found the answer for you but you knew nothing about it - WHY?

Because I know what I'm talking about, as opposed to you.

Or instead of an objective stance you take your typical biased stance. You really blew it with this one Johnson. You either don't read the books you pretend to be an expert on and rely on the opinions of them from others or, you don't know nearly as much about the Egyptian religion as you attempt to lead folks to believe. I think it's all the above.

You know what would be great? If you could actually point to a proof instead of trying to take the "ad hominem ad infinitum" tactic with your posts, we could actually get discussion going.

Since you are WRONG about Anup and Massey, everything that follows could likewise be deemed WRONG. And quit with the "Dorothy" crap - what are you, a stalker? As I said before, every single time you use that name you are being disrespectful.

She's not my hero, she's yours. I'm not wrong about Massey, because you seem to not be aware that the BotD translation where Massey (incorrectly) claims that there is an Anup the Baptizer is from the Papyrus of Ani. However, you really dig a hole for yourself with the following:

If you actually READ the Book of the Dead, you would know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS." If you knew about Egyptian history and religion, you would know that when the king is deceased, he is the Osiris, but when he is alive he is HORUS. You would also know that the speaker in the BOTD - the deceased - frequently calls himself by other names, such as "I am Horus." "I am Atmu." "I am Ra." It seems like you haven't read any of these books you pretend to be reading, just like you didn't read Acharya's work but DISHONESTLY pretended to have, for page after page, regardless of how many times it was shown that you were LYING about being an expert on her work in other threads. Here you do the same thing: You couldn't even exercise your fingers for two seconds to google ANUP and discover that it is a commonly known transliteration of the Egyptian - do you actually know ANYTHING about the Egyptian language? You've made so many mistakes and inaccuracies it's impossible to keep up with them all.

Says the guy who can't even parse a simple Egyptian sentence I gave him to prove he isn't lying. The only thing you get right is that each BotD that was written in Ancient Egypt is not a first-person story of some deity but of a deceased human, which I already pointed out. People like thesyntaxera will notice I'm recycling part of a previous post, but let's use Budge and Renouf-- two favorites reference of you types-- to show how you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

Start with the Book of the Dead (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/) (translation by Budge). The involvement of Anubis is one of overseer, protector of the body, and guide. Once you get to Plate 3 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod15.htm) you see the funerary rites involving Anubis, who oversees the process. In Plate 7 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod17.htm), which actually doesn't appear in the version of the Ani Papyrus (it was found at a different time and kept in the Louvre, where Massey was not located) involve presenting the 'words' (mouth) of the deceased to three gods, the main being Anubis, for judgment. Later, in Plate 15 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod22.htm), organs of the deceased person's body are weighed by Thoth (the god scribe) in the presence of Anubis and later presented to Osiris for judgment. In Plate 16 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod23.htm), after the body has been prepared and wrapped, Anubis is described as embracing the body-- this has more than one interpretation, but regardless of which interpretation of the action it is the beginning of the role of Anubis as the guide for the dead soul to the afterlife. This process continues until, by Plates 33 & 34 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod39.htm), the body of the deceased is completely prepared, presented, and ready to follow through into the final part where the deceased soul partakes of the funerary offerings (Plates 35 & 36 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod40.htm)) and walks out into the afterlife (Plate 37 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod41.htm)). The whole ritual is described with Anubis playing the role of overseer and guide, to ensure the body is worthy and prepared to enter the life after death. Anubis plays a presiding role, not a servicing one. Even more important, he doesn't play the role of a herald or prophet, as was the role of John the Baptist.

Let's go to Renouf's translation (find it here (http://books.google.com/books?id=LgbpvROVLIQC&pg=RA1-PA165#PPP7,M1)). The speaker of the texts (pg 160 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LgbpvROVLIQC&pg=RA1-PA165#PPA160,M1)) is the deceased person (my Soul, my Chu and my Shade) for whom the ritual is taking place. The words are supposed to be the words of the dead human, taking on aspects of more than one god including Osiris ("imprison not my soul"), Thoth (that their path is preordained), Ra (that they have strength and power in the 'storm' to follow), Khnum (named as Chnemu, The Dread One), and Ashu (named The Sprinkling God, who was a god of water), among others as the rite progresses. The 'divine pool' between the 'divine sycamores' is 'the Sutu' (translated: the Darkness, pg 163 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LgbpvROVLIQC&pg=RA1-PA165#PPA163,M1)), which the 'divine sycamores' are literally the Earth (life) and the heavens (afterlife). The description yet goes on to also describe the lake as one of 'fire' and 'flame' as it crosses the skies (pg 166 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LgbpvROVLIQC&pg=RA1-PA165#PPA166,M1)), with the human who has taken on the aspects of these gods to pass from life into afterlife standing on the boat after having proven worthy to pass on. In case it isn't clear: this isn't a description of a baptism of Horus, it is a description of a rite of passage of the dead person who has taken on the aspects of a number of gods, to pass into the afterlife. It's a glorified funeral passage.

Your problem, Dave31, is that you (and those who seem convinced of the same BS) can't seem to ever be capable of honestly switching between the literal (for whom the funeral text was written) and the figurative/symbolic (how the soul for whom it's written progresses) writing within the Egyptian texts.

ANI is the name of ONE pharaoh who had a papyrus of the Book of the Dead written for him - the Papyrus of Ani.

Ani isn't the name of any pharaoh, it's the name of one high-ranking scribe for a pharaoh in the 19th Dynasty, which shows just how little you actually know about the copies of the BotD. Each copy of the BotD names the person for whom its copy is written, and several of them exist written explicitly for the person with whom they were buried.

A later edition of the BOTD is the Saite Rescension - these are all facts you would know if you hadn't just skimmed the surface and are now pretending to be an expert. These texts were read for many different people, and the deceased in them is called the "N" or "the Osiris" or the "Osiris N," etc.

At least you're admitting that the descriptions of the deceased taking on aspects of the deities is what is written in the texts, though you don't seem able to differentiate that the text is still referring to the deceased and not the deities.

Before the Papyrus of Ani were the Pyramid Texts, upon which the BOTD is largely based. Thus, the BOTD was essentially in existence BEFORE the Papyrus of Ani and has nothing to do with Ani, except that it was rewritten for his passing.

However, the one referenced by Massey was the Papyrus of Ani, because that was the one Budge first translated (my previous description of the scroll that was cut up and placed on boards). Just because you refuse to acknowledge which version of the text Massey (incorrectly) used doesn't make what I said wrong.

Even The Encyclopedia Britannica has "Anup" and "Anubis" in it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vPktAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA157&dq=anubis+anup

And, true to form, you reference a 1910 edition of the encyclopedia (link (http://books.google.com/books?id=vPktAAAAIAAJ&dq=anubis+anup&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0)), showing just how out-of-date your understanding of Ancient Egyptian words really is.

Johnson "I didn't bring up credentials" "I don't claim any "high dollar credentials"
Yes, I see you avoid that discussion like the plague. So we've established you have no biblical or Egyptian credentials to speak of - great, thanks for your honesty. So you're really not qualified to determine who is or who isn't accurate about, well, anything.

I love how you have now switched back to claiming higher credentials when your previous attempt to disregard credentials fails. Just because I'm not claiming higher credibility doesn't mean I don't have it, Dave31. I'm saying that you're the one trying a pissing match, and I can assure you it's one you would not win if you continued on that track. Heck, you can't even translate a single set of words I put up there for you.

I thought you were the self-proclaimed expert? Even though you have no credentials in the area to speak of. I'm simply not inclined to share great info with you as you've demonstrated yourself totally unworthy. You can keep doing your own shoddy research and stay stuck in that rut you're in for all I care. I won't lose any sleep at all.

Translation: you don't really know what my credentials are, so you're going to keep strumming that useless harp so you don't have to further prove what little credibility you actually have.

Let us all know when you can come back with proof, Dave31.

[Dave31]

Hokulele "Would you care to address why this has been updated since 1910?"

Actually, this is once again, another straw man argument - I'll explain why shortly...

Hokulele "You will need an account to read the online version (you can sign up for a free account), or you can go to your local library."

When you do that, you'll find the full article adds:

"also spelled Anpu, or Anup"
http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-9309881/Anubis

It is just as I explained it. It's not a mistake. Stop assuming the worst all the time in regards to Zeitgeist part 1, Massey, Acharya etc.

[GreNME]

You have yet to come back with proof, Dave31. Where is your misspelled name referring to a baptizer?

[Dave31]

Fine, high-ranking individual - the point is that you didn't realize that, did you, before I pointed it out? You didn't even know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS," did you? You are just skimming these sources and then presenting yourself as an "expert." Of course, you won't admit that fact. And it's YOU finally who are admitting that the deceased takes on the names, roles and epithets of the god(s) - and that's a crucial part to this whole argument. (Which is pointless because you seem to suffer from Tourette's Syndrome and the inability to admit that you are NOT an expert on the subjects at hand but are simply skimming resources.)

It's nice that you can regurgitate all this data, but I'm afraid you haven't dug deeply enough into the subject - as usual, just shallow skimming - proved by the fact that you didn't even know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS." Acharya's got an entire chapter on the subject of "Anup the Baptizer" that will demonstrate once again that your shallow skimming is erroneous. I'm not able to repeat her long arguments here. I have shown repeatedly where you make errors of fact because your familiarity with the subject matter is shallow, but you won't admit it, and you will continue your personal vendetta and attempts at making a name for yourself by attacking Acharya in your obsessive stalker manner, regardless of what is brought to the table. It will never be enough, of course.

In the meantime, I can only hope that my showing how you don't really know what you are talking about, regardless of the high opinion you hold of yourself and how much you can regurgitate mainstream sources, will be helpful to other readers in calling your bluff here and elsewhere as well.

You've been shown time and again to be in error, which you never admit. You hadn't read Acharya's work, yet you've gone on obsessively for page after page in the other Zeitgeist thread and elsewhere pretending you did, never admitting that lack of integrity. You don't know Massey's work - you didn't even know that he was not an "art historian" - yet again you dishonestly present yourself as an expert. When challenged, you don't admit that you don't know something but you run to do some shallow skimming of mainstream materials and then completely ignore that you've been shown not to know what you are talking about, again falsely presenting the material that you've just found as if you'd known it all along.

We know what your MO, motive and your agenda are, but I'm not allowed to point them out or else it will constitute a "personal attack." I can only hope that others here have finally recognized your dishonest MO and will call you on it, instead of getting tripped up by your cagey ability to verbosely regurgitate mainstream facts just gleaned from encyclopedias and the rest.

Johnson, your style of argument is exactly the sociopathic know-it-all type of argument Acharya is attempting to rise above. The run off to skim anything so you can post a counter argument and attempt to present it as if you knew it all along meanwhile, you had no idea.

Johnson, in short, you're a critic who engages in presumptive dismissal of works you've never studied, referencing status-quo source material, poor analysis of historical context, and a myriad of other scholarly deficiencies that are unoriginally 'amateurish' and sophomoric consistent with the caliber of unskilled elaborations typical of latter day apologetics.

[thesyntaxera]

Dave31-

There are so many errors in your post that I don't even know where to begin. You assume an awful lot, that much is certain. You are still now stooping to new lows, which isn't much of a surprise. Your methods are dishonest, and a marvel of twisted logical loops that makes my head spin. I cannot grasp how someone such as yourself could be so willfully ignorant that you would actually boast about it with nonsense such as this last post.

Get a clue, and with any luck, some evidence.

[Nick227]

Fine, high-ranking individual - the point is that you didn't realize that, did you, before I pointed it out? You didn't even know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS," did you? You are just skimming these sources and then presenting yourself as an "expert." Of course, you won't admit that fact. And it's YOU finally who are admitting that the deceased takes on the names, roles and epithets of the god(s) - and that's a crucial part to this whole argument. (Which is pointless because you seem to suffer from Tourette's Syndrome and the inability to admit that you are NOT an expert on the subjects at hand but are simply skimming resources.)

It's nice that you can regurgitate all this data, but I'm afraid you haven't dug deeply enough into the subject - as usual, just shallow skimming - proved by the fact that you didn't even know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS." Acharya's got an entire chapter on the subject of "Anup the Baptizer" that will demonstrate once again that your shallow skimming is erroneous. I'm not able to repeat her long arguments here. I have shown repeatedly where you make errors of fact because your familiarity with the subject matter is shallow, but you won't admit it, and you will continue your personal vendetta and attempts at making a name for yourself by attacking Acharya in your obsessive stalker manner, regardless of what is brought to the table. It will never be enough, of course.

In the meantime, I can only hope that my showing how you don't really know what you are talking about, regardless of the high opinion you hold of yourself and how much you can regurgitate mainstream sources, will be helpful to other readers in calling your bluff here and elsewhere as well.

You've been shown time and again to be in error, which you never admit. You hadn't read Acharya's work, yet you've gone on obsessively for page after page in the other Zeitgeist thread and elsewhere pretending you did, never admitting that lack of integrity. You don't know Massey's work - you didn't even know that he was not an "art historian" - yet again you dishonestly present yourself as an expert. When challenged, you don't admit that you don't know something but you run to do some shallow skimming of mainstream materials and then completely ignore that you've been shown not to know what you are talking about, again falsely presenting the material that you've just found as if you'd known it all along.

We know what your MO, motive and your agenda are, but I'm not allowed to point them out or else it will constitute a "personal attack." I can only hope that others here have finally recognized your dishonest MO and will call you on it, instead of getting tripped up by your cagey ability to verbosely regurgitate mainstream facts just gleaned from encyclopedias and the rest.

Johnson, your style of argument is exactly the sociopathic know-it-all type of argument Acharya is attempting to rise above. The run off to skim anything so you can post a counter argument and attempt to present it as if you knew it all along meanwhile, you had no idea.

Johnson, in short, you're a critic who engages in presumptive dismissal of works you've never studied, referencing status-quo source material, poor analysis of historical context, and a myriad of other scholarly deficiencies that are unoriginally 'amateurish' and sophomoric consistent with the caliber of unskilled elaborations typical of latter day apologetics.

Dave31,

I want to ask you something here. Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? That actually GreNME might know a great deal about the subject? That actually a lot of the earlier hypotheses about Egyptian ritual and belief might have been updated in recent years? Have you considered these possibilities?

Why don't you read the other bigger Zeitgeist thread and check through his notes there?

Nick

[GreNME]

Fine, high-ranking individual - the point is that you didn't realize that, did you, before I pointed it out? You didn't even know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS," did you? You are just skimming these sources and then presenting yourself as an "expert." Of course, you won't admit that fact. And it's YOU finally who are admitting that the deceased takes on the names, roles and epithets of the god(s) - and that's a crucial part to this whole argument. (Which is pointless because you seem to suffer from Tourette's Syndrome and the inability to admit that you are NOT an expert on the subjects at hand but are simply skimming resources.)

Um, since I'm the one who pointed out where you were wrong, and considering I already covered this stuff back in the other Zeitgeist thread, you're just showing what a non-reading liar you are. Furthermore, the deceased person does not equal the deities, and the deceased person is never baptized by Anubis in the first place. However, back to the original point, none of the Books of the Dead ever make any mention of an "Anup the Baptizer" in any of their text, which is why you continue to fail to show any proof.

It's nice that you can regurgitate all this data, but I'm afraid you haven't dug deeply enough into the subject - as usual, just shallow skimming - proved by the fact that you didn't even know that the deceased is called "THE OSIRIS."

Because the deceased isn't called "The Osiris" at all. In Ani's case, Ani taking on an Osirin aspect would be referred to as "Osiris-Ani" as others (like you) would be referred to with your name predicating the spiritual aspect (Osiris-Dave31). It is even evidenced in other names throughout Egyptian myth and literature but is most prevalently (to the layman) evidenced in names like Re-Horakhty (Horus taking on solar aspects of Re) and Atum-Re (Re taking on the deified aspects of Atum). Unfortunately for you, you're wearing your ignorance to Ancient Egyptian culture as a crutch and you keep switching from literalism to symbolism to try to hide it.

Acharya's got an entire chapter on the subject of "Anup the Baptizer" that will demonstrate once again that your shallow skimming is erroneous. I'm not able to repeat her long arguments here. I have shown repeatedly where you make errors of fact because your familiarity with the subject matter is shallow, but you won't admit it, and you will continue your personal vendetta and attempts at making a name for yourself by attacking Acharya in your obsessive stalker manner, regardless of what is brought to the table. It will never be enough, of course.

More personal attacks when you fail to be capable of providing any proof.

In the meantime, I can only hope that my showing how you don't really know what you are talking about, regardless of the high opinion you hold of yourself and how much you can regurgitate mainstream sources, will be helpful to other readers in calling your bluff here and elsewhere as well.

Then prove yourself knowledgable and translate the phrase I have written in Ancient Egyptian above, Dave31. You can't because you seem unable to change your ineffectual song and dance.

You've been shown time and again to be in error, which you never admit. You hadn't read Acharya's work, yet you've gone on obsessively for page after page in the other Zeitgeist thread and elsewhere pretending you did, never admitting that lack of integrity. You don't know Massey's work - you didn't even know that he was not an "art historian" - yet again you dishonestly present yourself as an expert. When challenged, you don't admit that you don't know something but you run to do some shallow skimming of mainstream materials and then completely ignore that you've been shown not to know what you are talking about, again falsely presenting the material that you've just found as if you'd known it all along.

As soon as you are able to show proof instead of character attacks, your claims might be taken seriously.

We know what your MO, motive and your agenda are, but I'm not allowed to point them out or else it will constitute a "personal attack." I can only hope that others here have finally recognized your dishonest MO and will call you on it, instead of getting tripped up by your cagey ability to verbosely regurgitate mainstream facts just gleaned from encyclopedias and the rest.

"The rest" being actual sourced and studied Ancient Egyptian literature, actual Egyptology sources, and a growing library of actual credible literature on the subject, among other things.

Johnson, your style of argument is exactly the sociopathic know-it-all type of argument Acharya is attempting to rise above. The run off to skim anything so you can post a counter argument and attempt to present it as if you knew it all along meanwhile, you had no idea.

Johnson, in short, you're a critic who engages in presumptive dismissal of works you've never studied, referencing status-quo source material, poor analysis of historical context, and a myriad of other scholarly deficiencies that are unoriginally 'amateurish' and sophomoric consistent with the caliber of unskilled elaborations typical of latter day apologetics.

And you have yet to do anything but try to make this thread about Dorothy or Massey than any of the actual subject matter they actually wrote about, crying and complaining when someone brings up the errors in the claims made because you don't seem to be capable of presenting even a single talking point from any of their books yourself. That is why you are coming across as possibly having never actually read the works you're selling and defending as gospel, even though your main attack is (incorrectly assuming) that others haven't read them as well.

[Hokulele]

Actually, this is once again, another straw man argument - I'll explain why shortly...

When you do that, you'll find the full article adds

It is just as I explained it. It's not a mistake. Stop assuming the worst all the time in regards to Zeitgeist part 1, Massey, Acharya etc.


The interesting thing about the student website you linked is that it is actually quoting Compton's Encyclopedia, rather than the traditional Encyclopedia Britannica, which could account for the differences in the articles. EB purchased Compton's not too long ago, and is in the process of reviewing the content. It will be interesting to see what the next revision states.

http://corporate.britannica.com/press/releases/comptons_release_wlogo.html

One of my immediate relatives is a reference librarian, and I am more than happy to go into detail about the sources used by various encyclopedia, as well as the editorial review process.

So, back to your original link, why do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica changed their article between 1910 and today? This question has a great deal of relevance to the topic of this thread and is not a strawman at all.

I am wondering if your accusations of logical fallacies is simply a way of ducking questions you do not like . . .

[LibraryLady]

I've split off about a dozen posts to AAH, to try to clean up the side tracks in this thread. Please remember to keep it civil and stay on topic.

[GreNME]

The interesting thing about the student website you linked is that it is actually quoting Compton's Encyclopedia, rather than the traditional Encyclopedia Britannica, which could account for the differences in the articles. EB purchased Compton's not too long ago, and is in the process of reviewing the content. It will be interesting to see what the next revision states.

Actually, I wonder if there is a way to submit to them for review the error within the entry. The "Anup" mistake should have been long-since corrected on encyclopedia references as it has been in the most recent EB, though it's not necessarily surprising that such a small and otherwise innocuous error would be overlooked.

One of my immediate relatives is a reference librarian, and I am more than happy to go into detail about the sources used by various encyclopedia, as well as the editorial review process.

So, back to your original link, why do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica changed their article between 1910 and today? This question has a great deal of relevance to the topic of this thread and is not a strawman at all.

I am wondering if your accusations of logical fallacies is simply a way of ducking questions you do not like . . .

Just another casualty in the "it was on the internet, so I thought it was true" camp, maybe? I'm wagering it's a ducking mechanism, but I'd love to hear the explanation. :)

[GreNME]

Where's our buddy Dave31 at? He didn't get booted did he? If so, could he come back to try to answer his way out of the corner he's painted himself into?

[Slayhamlet]

It would say "banned" or "suspended" under his name if he'd been booted.

[Dave31]

I'll try one more time to post but I have been unable to post in this thread due to the fact that my posts have been deleted. It is not worth my time or effort to spend much time posting here anymore. As much as I'd like to set the record straight I've lost interest in this forum. Plus, too many other things going on.

Hokulele "This question has a great deal of relevance to the topic of this thread and is not a strawman at all."

Encyclopedia Britannica online only has 114 words when I checked it. Anpu is okay but at least some of the other spellings that could and probably should be included are Anup, Anoub, Anoup, Wip, Ienpw, Inepu, Yinepu, or Inpw and more.

Hokulele, why don't you ask Encyclopedia Britannica why they made the change and excluded all the other variations? I'd like to hear THEIR explanation for this.

Even Wiki includes - Inpu, Anupu, Wip, Ienpw

Johnson calling Anup a "mistake" and going on further to claim it is an error on the part of Massey and Acharya is totally ludicrous and bunk. It demonstrates the dishonesty at play here on the part of Johnson. Massey got it from other top Egyptologists of his time. And since there were no vowels, it could hardly be a mistake. Quite the opposite according to Greeks and Coptics.

This entire argument of claiming that since the newest version of Brittanica didn't include it (only included one word) is being used as a straw man. Is Johnson going to claim these are mistakes now too - Anoub, Anoup, Wip, Ienpw, Inepu, Yinepu, or Inpw?

Ask Johnson to provide the evidence from top Egyptologists how it is a "mistake" and how that "mistake" is Massey's and Acharya's when they didn't invent the word.

Anyway, enjoy the new video:

* I see that GreNME/Johnson is in the video at around 2:44

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked or Refuted? A Video Response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/zeitgeist-refuted-not.html

[Hokulele]

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact


So, why do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica changed their article? Don't forget, you were the one to bring up EB in the first place.

[Dave31]

... just checking in ...

Apparently, Acharya's video has neutralized the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 arguments.

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

I'd love to see this video go viral like Zeitgeist did with over 15 million views worldwide in several languages!

Acharya's new book, "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" will be available soon. It will change the world of Egyptology.

GreNME/Johnson, you were great at around 2:44ish. Encyclopedia Man! I about lost it when I first saw that.

It's great that Acharya and her supporters have a sense of humor.

[fullflavormenthol]

... just checking in ...

Apparently, Acharya's video has neutralized the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 arguments.

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

I'd love to see this video go viral like Zeitgeist did with over 15 million views worldwide in several languages!

Acharya's new book, "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" will be available soon. It will change the world of Egyptology.

GreNME/Johnson, you were great at around 2:44ish. Encyclopedia Man! I about lost it when I first saw that.

It's great that Acharya and her supporters have a sense of humor.
Upset that people ignored you? Acharya's video doesn't address any of the real issues. If anything she merely avoids the questions and just attacks the people the same way you do, by accusing them of not reading her works.

Look. It is now just sad. Zeitgeist is very irrelevent, and Acharya will never been more than some wanna be historian and a hack. And oh Zeitgeist and 15 million views world wide. Harp on that all you want to, millions more people have watched the Star Wars Kid, and the Sneezing Panda video.

It was been fun "debating" you and all, but you are just a troll who avoids questions; ducks out of the forum claiming you'll never return, and then pops back in to gloat about imagined victories.

Christ in Egypt won't change anything. It isn't going to rock the world of Egyptology. It will come and go known only by the people who buy into her nonsense, and poor research. I am sure she will be thankful for you plugging her book, but it is rubbish and I can tell you that now. Why? Because her facts are just wrong, and she can't dispute anything beyond a personal attack and persecution complex.

I guess what I am asking is who the (rule 10) really cares anymore? We have been ignoring you , because you got nothing. You won't answer the questions, anything you don't like you accuse of being a straw man. The truth is that most of us are simply done wasting our time with this.

[Dave31]

LOL, fullflavormenthol you're just pissed because you've already admitted you've never studied any of the work by the author...let alone "Christ in Egypt" which you know nothing about because it's not even out yet. You've simply convinced yourself that your "questions" based in ignorance and your bitter attitude are somehow relevant.

You know nothing of the artifacts, history or primary sources because you've never studied the works that discuss them AND you didn't view the video either so i really don't care what you think. You're opinion is irrelevant.

If you don't like this thread you don't have to troll it up... nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post here. Your bitter attitude and total ignorance on the subject tells us all we need to know about your opinion concerning this issue.

Go write your own inerrant masterpiece - I'll refute it without ever reading it or knowing anything about it at all - sound familiar?

[GreNME]

I see that you, like so many other Dorothy followers, are still unable to translate the simple Egyptian message I've challenged you with, showing once agian that while I can indeed work in other languages, you guys (Dorothy's followers) are simply parrotting her own ad hominem insults with nothing to back it up.

When your arguments of "have you read it?" fail-- because some of us have read it and continue to find it ridiculous-- your only recourse is to throw insults, and that's why you've continually been labelled a troll here. It isn't because of any stance you hold, it's in your conduct. Once people provide for you genuine challenges to your argument, you disappear for weeks without an answer, and then come right back with more insults and lack of information.

Please stop spamming these boards with the messages from Dorothy's Yahoo mailing list, by the way.

By the way: for all you people touting CT videos "going viral" as affirmation of anything (especially basis in fact) regarding validity, I made a little message for you (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2mOu0K8FS28). Special thanks to Unsecured Coins for inspiration. After all, if RickRolls and the Numa Numa kid can manage to become internet icons with their inanity, I'm not exactly sure that's the metric you want to be associating with if you're looking for academic credibility.

2mOu0K8FS28


ETA: Oh, and Dave31, 1:28 is in there for both you and Dorothy, while I suggest you ask your fellow TBK-bots to look at the graphic appearing at 1:32 as a guide when reading any book, even your hero Dorothy. Cheers.

[Nick227]

... just checking in ...

Apparently, Acharya's video has neutralized the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 arguments.

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

I'd love to see this video go viral like Zeitgeist did with over 15 million views worldwide in several languages!

Why not read Elaine Pagel's "Beyond Belief," just to get a little perspective, Dave?

The transition of the mysteries tradition and the emergence of Orthodox Christianity is well accounted for there. Dorothy creates her own interpretation, much of which doesn't fit so well with what is increasingly known about Christianity's origins.

I think when you start to see the fuller picture, particularly the role of Bishop Iranaeus and what motivated him at the time (c 170AD), a lot falls into place which is not accounted for in the CT version of events.

It seems to me that Dorothy's interpretation requires that one is a newcomer to the topic, and not familiar with a lot of the emerging research in this area. Presumably this is why virtually all her adherents systematically refuse to debate the actual issues and rely on just insisting that one reads her books and one will believe. As soon as you start to read more widely and research more, from a position of actually trying to find the truth as opposed to trying to back up one theory, a lot gets clearer.

According to Pagels, a highly respected academic in this field, Christianity's emergence as a religion occurred in response to the persecution all Christians faced in the first couple of centuries. What became orthodoxy emerged as some early Christians sought to standardise and thus legitimise their religion. They created, from the mass of Christian material still being written, the canonical Bible based around 4 specific gospels, and proceeded to try and outlaw the rest of the material and those who were creating and following it. This split finally became concrete following the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. He simply built upon Iranaeus's earlier work and, with the Council of Nicaea, Orthodox Christianity was born.

It was not really so much an attempt to deceive anyone, or to withhold from them their spiritual birthright, more the unfoldment of a very human sequence of events from strategies needed in the face of persecution.

Nick

[dudalb]

Acharya's new book, "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" will be available soon. It will change the world of Egyptology


Ever notice how every crackpot historical or scientific theory always will "change everything we know about blank" and how they almost never do?
Egyptology seems to attract more then it's fair share of crackpots though. From the "Secrets Of The Pyramids" crap to this Horus is Jesus nonsense,the topic seems to attract crackpots like honey attracts flies.

[Nick227]

LOL, fullflavormenthol you're just pissed because you've already admitted you've never studied any of the work by the author...let alone "Christ in Egypt" which you know nothing about because it's not even out yet. You've simply convinced yourself that your "questions" based in ignorance and your bitter attitude are somehow relevant.

Regarding the astrotheological perspective in general, there are still a great deal of questions that are not dealt with in any of Dorothy's works as far as I'm aware. I have been on her own discussion forum debating these points and have yet to see anyone tackle them, despite a good 15 pages of debate.

Principally, no attempt has been made to account for many of the Gnostic gospels and to try and tie them into the astrological perspective. Not surprising really, as they're patently not to do with it. There was the emergence of a great deal of original material in the early centuries AD, much of which is in the form of direct teaching, and this simply does not fit in with the whole notion that the principles of Christianity are all of astrotheological origin. There clearly are astrotheological undercurrents in some Christian works but it is a major overstatement to say they account for the bulk of the material and until points like this are addressed I can't see many people with a background in this area buying Dorothy's version of events.

Nick

[fullflavormenthol]

LOL, fullflavormenthol you're just pissed because you've already admitted you've never studied any of the work by the author...let alone "Christ in Egypt" which you know nothing about because it's not even out yet. You've simply convinced yourself that your "questions" based in ignorance and your bitter attitude are somehow relevant.

You know nothing of the artifacts, history or primary sources because you've never studied the works that discuss them AND you didn't view the video either so i really don't care what you think. You're opinion is irrelevant.

If you don't like this thread you don't have to troll it up... nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post here. Your bitter attitude and total ignorance on the subject tells us all we need to know about your opinion concerning this issue.

Go write your own inerrant masterpiece - I'll refute it without ever reading it or knowing anything about it at all - sound familiar?
At the risk of having this moved to AAH, everytime you respond to me you just show your own ignorance. I have studied, but who cares? Because unless I drop at the feet of some granola new age lit majors "research" in worship you will claim I haven't read anything.

So...whatever.

Oh yeah, and I have read much of her work. Accusing me of not reading it won't make it so, and saying that I admitted to it only makes you into a liar. Simply because anyone can look back.

Again...why does Dorothy only use pre-Rosetta Stone sources as the basis for her "interpretations" of the Horus myth?

[Dave31]

My last post seems to address these last few posts too.

As far as video count goes, GreNME/Johnson is just pissed cause nobody cares to view his absurd waste of time video. That's GreNME/Johnson at 1:37 in your own video, right GreNME?

The only thing GreNME/Johnson has read of Acharya's is what he could steal or view online.

Also, NOTHING I've posted here has come from any mailing list so that's an outright lie. I'm not on her list. You do inadvertently demonstrate your dishonesty more often that you realize though, so thanks for that.

Nick227,

All I ever saw from you at Acharya's forum was denial, denial and more denial. Your views are so bigoted that nothing else could possibly be correct unless you okay it. So, I'll be ignoring you completely as you've got your head is so far up the anus of your Kabbalah that you can't or refuse to see anything else. You're not the expert you think you are. Your knowledge is very scanty and problematic. But if that's what you learned in your 8 year Kabbalah training then you've been ripped-off.

Nick you consistently demonstrate your total ignorance of Acharya's work. Acharya has covered the Gnostics and their relationship to astrotheology in every book she's written. You would already know this if you knew anything about her work.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.


fullflavormenthol, your impression of her work is faulty. Her work has nothing to do with "granola," 'new age" or "worship."

I don't think you've studied her work because of comments like this:

"why does Dorothy only use pre-Rosetta Stone sources as the basis for her "interpretations" of the Horus myth?"

- This is completely false and if you studied her work, you'd already know this.

Everytime you guys say "Dorothy" it's used as a disrespectful and derogatory comment. And GreNME/Johnson wants to complain about "conduct"?!?! That name was private until haters like yourselves outed it and tried to expose whatever private information they could. You guys are no better than the 3 strangers who kidnapped her young child. She is constantly under threat from vicious haters much like some of the folks here. Yes, she gets death threats too. Aren't you proud of yourselves, picking on a woman. Some of you here are vitriolic and hateful that it's impossible to have any respect for you at all.

Again, Acharya's video has neutralized the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 arguments.

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

[fullflavormenthol]

My last post seems to address these last few posts too.

As far as video count goes, GreNME/Johnson is just pissed cause nobody cares to view his absurd waste of time video. That's GreNME/Johnson at 1:37 in your own video, right GreNME?

The only thing GreNME/Johnson has read of Acharya's is what he could steal or view online.

Also, NOTHING I've posted here has come from any mailing list so that's an outright lie. I'm not on her list. You do inadvertently demonstrate your dishonesty more often that you realize though, so thanks for that.

Nick227,

All I ever saw from you at Acharya's forum was denial, denial and more denial. Your views are so bigoted that nothing else could possibly be correct unless you okay it. So, I'll be ignoring you completely as you've got your head is so far up the anus of your Kabbalah that you can't or refuse to see anything else. You're not the expert you think you are. Your knowledge is very scanty and problematic. But if that's what you learned in your 8 year Kabbalah training then you've been ripped-off.

Nick you consistently demonstrate your total ignorance of Acharya's work. Acharya has covered the Gnostics and their relationship to astrotheology in every book she's written. You would already know this if you knew anything about her work.

fullflavormenthol, your impression of her work is faulty. Her work has nothing to do with "granola," 'new age" or "worship."

I don't think you've studied her work because of comments like this:



- This is completely false and if you studied her work, you'd already know this.

Everytime you guys say "Dorothy" it's used as a disrespectful and derogatory comment. And GreNME/Johnson wants to complain about "conduct"?!?! That name was private until haters like yourselves outed it and tried to expose whatever private information they could. You guys are no better than the 3 strangers who kidnapped her young child. She is constantly under threat from vicious haters much like some of the folks here. Yes, she gets death threats too. Aren't you proud of yourselves, picking on a woman. Some of you here are vitriolic and hateful that it's impossible to have any respect for you at all.

Again, Acharya's video has neutralized the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 arguments.

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4
No, she uses pre-Rosetta stone translations, by non-experts, to suggest something that no respected Egyptologist or Historian would even give a serious look at. She will reference other sources, but quote mine them and present them completely out of context. She is published by a new age press that advertises books on Atlantis and aliens. The only people that push her work are from that same new age clic. But you are very much like your idol, as Dorothy once put it "like attracts like" (A reference to the new age text The Secret). The video you keep plugging is nothing more than her rant and series of personal attacks against her critics.

So I should stop feeding the troll. Because in all the posts I have seen by you, you have presented nothing more than the talking points Dorothy "They're out to get me" Murdoch gives people like you to say.

In the larger world, in the academic world; she is a nobody. And that is a good thing. She has her website, she can post her youtube videos; but Star Wars Kid will always have more views than anything she is connected with. Who's Your Caddy will have been seen by more people than Zeitgeist.

So I banish thee to the list of people on ignore, because crackpot nonsense like the work of Dorothy "They're out to get me" Murdoch is not even worth my time anymore. I have done the research, and she is at best wrong and stubborn about being wrong, and at worst a huckster. I lean toward her being the latter.

[Nick227]

Nick227,

All I ever saw from you at Acharya's forum was denial, denial and more denial. Your views are so bigoted that nothing else could possibly be correct unless you okay it. So, I'll be ignoring you completely as you've got your head is so far up the anus of your Kabbalah that you can't or refuse to see anything else. You're not the expert you think you are. Your knowledge is very scanty and problematic. But if that's what you learned in your 8 year Kabbalah training then you've been ripped-off.

Nick you consistently demonstrate your total ignorance of Acharya's work. Acharya has covered the Gnostics and their relationship to astrotheology in every book she's written. You would already know this if you knew anything about her work.

I have not seen Dorothy address the issue of direct teaching at all. No one on her forum touches it either. They stick with the bits that fit their theory and just start ad hominem attacks when questioned about other aspects. How do you account for the sheer volume of original material emerging from this period, clearly not influenced by astrotheology?

The sheer wealth of direct teaching is phenomenal from this time. Valentinus, Basilides, the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Philip, Mary Magdelene, the Gospel of Truth, the Bruce codices - the books of IAOU and the Pistis Sophia, plus many many others that could be mentioned. Even a passing reading reveals that they have at best only transitory reference to astrotheology, yet all quote Jesus as source material. How do you account for this in your perspective?

In addition, the emergent view of the early Christians that is now coming with the work of scholars like Pagels, does present a coherent perspective of the evolution of Christianity. The CT version, as given in Zeitgeist, that the evil Constantine and his cohorts knocked up the whole thing to control people, does not really bear historical scrutiny.

Nick

[fullflavormenthol]

In addition, the emergent view of the early Christians that is now coming with the work of scholars like Pagels, does present a coherent perspective of the evolution of Christianity. The CT version, as given in Zeitgeist, that the evil Constantine and his cohorts knocked up the whole thing to control people, does not really bear historical scrutiny.

Nick

I know that a lot of the emerging work shows something closer to what I mentioned in one of the Zeitgeist threads earlier. Religions evolve, and part of the problem with the work of Acharya is that she presents the modern Christianity with its more fixed calendar as the same Christianity that existed from the beginning. Nothing in the historical literature lends itself to such an interpretation. At some point we have to question the motivations of such a grossly inaccurate interpretation. Honestly a lot of what she says is new age inspired and seems to come from a desire to show Christianity as something dark and sinister; something created to destroy the world around us.

The main point, is that it just isn't there.

[Nick227]

I know that a lot of the emerging work shows something closer to what I mentioned in one of the Zeitgeist threads earlier. Religions evolve, and part of the problem with the work of Acharya is that she presents the modern Christianity with its more fixed calendar as the same Christianity that existed from the beginning. Nothing in the historical literature lends itself to such an interpretation. At some point we have to question the motivations of such a grossly inaccurate interpretation. Honestly a lot of what she says is new age inspired and seems to come from a desire to show Christianity as something dark and sinister; something created to destroy the world around us.

The main point, is that it just isn't there.

The thing for me with Dorothy's work and her handful of followers is that they just seem so bloody mad. Reading her is like being locked in a room with a drunk who just rams her ideas repeatedly at you no matter what counter-argument is presented. It's just propaganda from start to finish and anyone who simply brings up a point not accounted for in her argument just gets personal attacks.

People who've been into mystical Christianity for years won't get involved with her, from what I've seen. Most of these schools, especially the Gnostics, resent orthodox Christianity with a passion bred from aeons of persecution. But they don't get involved, no doubt because it's just too crazy and too detached from reality.

Her discussion forum seems to have about 5 people on it, only one of whom, who goes by the name of Mr Bridger, seems to have any independent grasp of the material. For the others, all they appear to know of the subject matter is the work of Archarya. The whole set-up is like a mini Khmer Rouge and thankfully it is a very mini one.

Nick

[fullflavormenthol]

The thing for me with Dorothy's work and her handful of followers is that they just seem so bloody mad. Reading her is like being locked in a room with a drunk who just rams her ideas repeatedly at you no matter what counter-argument is presented. It's just propaganda from start to finish and anyone who simply brings up a point not accounted for in her argument just gets personal attacks.

People who've been into mystical Christianity for years won't get involved with her, from what I've seen. Most of these schools, especially the Gnostics, resent orthodox Christianity with a passion bred from aeons of persecution. But they don't get involved, no doubt because it's just too crazy and too detached from reality.

Her discussion forum seems to have about 5 people on it, only one of whom, who goes by the name of Mr Bridger, seems to have any independent grasp of the material. For the others, all they appear to know of the subject matter is the work of Archarya. The whole set-up is like a mini Khmer Rouge and thankfully it is a very mini one.

Nick
Well my introduction was through Zeitgeist, and even watching that I was finding problems with her logic. I read more of her work, and then compared it to what I had studied and the work of famous Egyptologists like Brunner. It just doesn't add up, and I found that I can't debate with her proponents because it all comes down to being accused of not reading her work. No matter the point you bring up, it is either labeled a Straw man or "she covered it". Neither of which are the case. It seems to me that Acharya wanted to prove Christianity was a sinister fraud, and pieced together the argument from there.

It isn't a new argument either, just like the Da Vinci Code wasn't new. These things come in cycles, and her followers are willfully blind to this. Many are great students of her work, but will refuse to read any further; because like any good CT the larger world is secretly "in" on the conspiracy.

[Nick227]

Many are great students of her work, but will refuse to read any further; because like any good CT the larger world is secretly "in" on the conspiracy.

Personally, I was surprised at just how few people seemed to be on her discussion group. I'd joined expecting at least a decent debate on a subject that's interesting to me. If you look through the postings, something I can't do as I'm now banned (!), you'll see that actually there are only 5 or so regular posters. I don't get the impression her books attract so much attention either.

Nick

[fullflavormenthol]

Personally, I was surprised at just how few people seemed to be on her discussion group. I'd joined expecting at least a decent debate on a subject that's interesting to me. If you look through the postings, something I can't do as I'm now banned (!), you'll see that actually there are only 5 or so regular posters. I don't get the impression her books attract so much attention either.

Nick
I don't know if you wrote it or not, but the statement by someone here was that her work appeals to those unfamiliar with the subject. So I take her rants with a grain of salt, because it is more apologetics than real research, meant to "address" the issues brought against her work to keep her fans.

[Nick227]

I don't know if you wrote it or not, but the statement by someone here was that her work appeals to those unfamiliar with the subject. So I take her rants with a grain of salt, because it is more apologetics than real research, meant to "address" the issues brought against her work to keep her fans.

Dorothy starts off with a conclusion and then scours historical record, at a fair depth, selecting those things which agree with it and disregarding those which don't. Thus she ends up with books which do appear on the surface to be the product of considerable research, but which don't survive critical examination.

This approach is then mirrored in her adherents, virtually none of whom appear to have carried out any investigation for themselves, and who simply reply to any questions with ad hominem attacks or assertions that you have to read more of her work. Basically, she attracts people who want to blindly follow someone who creates a worldview they find appealing.

Nick

[fullflavormenthol]

Dorothy starts off with a conclusion and then scours historical record, at a fair depth, selecting those things which agree with it and disregarding those which don't. Thus she ends up with books which do appear on the surface to be the product of considerable research, but which don't survive critical examination.

This approach is then mirrored in her adherents, virtually none of whom appear to have carried out any investigation for themselves, and who simply reply to any questions with ad hominem attacks or assertions that you have to read more of her work. Basically, she attracts people who want to blindly follow someone who creates a worldview they find appealing.

Nick
That I completely agree with. Most of her adherents are people who have developed a beef with Christianity, and it is not enough for them to simply disbelieve in it. It has to be something sinister. All Dorothy has to do is merely mention an historian in the back of the book and people who believe her will then argue that she is faithfully presenting their work.

[dudalb]

Honestly a lot of what she says is new age inspired and seems to come from a desire to show Christianity as something dark and sinister; something created to destroy the world around us.

Trying to cash in on the Da VInci Code phenenmenon, perhaps?

[fullflavormenthol]

Trying to cash in on the Da VInci Code phenenmenon, perhaps?
Exactly. People fear what they don't understand, and the complex evolution of a religion falls into this category. A person can just as easily make the origins of the Buddhist faith seem sinister, but within every complex system of ideology there is a desire among its adherents to make it consistent. Hence you will find Councils and organized groups setting canon.

To the uninformed this can be presented as a conspiracy, but often life isn't that exciting. That isn't to say that there isn't a rich and interesting tapestry in the origins of what has become modern Christianity. It just isn't a spooky and magical adventure like the works of Dan Brown or Acharya S.

[Nick227]

Exactly. People fear what they don't understand, and the complex evolution of a religion falls into this category. A person can just as easily make the origins of the Buddhist faith seem sinister, but within every complex system of ideology there is a desire among its adherents to make it consistent. Hence you will find Councils and organized groups setting canon.

I think this is pretty much what happened. Iranaeus survived a major witch-hunt of Christians in the second century, and so he set about trying to standardise and legitimise his faith as a means to try and protect it and himself. He venerated the gospel of John, with its core assertion that "you are not God," and so this became his principle canon, to which he added Matthew, Mark and Luke. The scattered groups of free-form Christians around at the time, believing in all kinds of things, suddenly found themselves marginalised and Valentinus in particular became Iranaeus' nemesis. Clement, Origen and others reinforced his perspective over the decades until the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, convened the council of Nicaea, and set in stone the canonical Bible. The residual writings and gospels from the previous 3 centuries were progressively driven from view by the emergent orthodoxy, to the point where all we knew of them for many years was through the writings of their opponents and detractors.

This makes a great deal more sense to me than the notion that Christianity, the religion, was created as a vehicle purely for social control - that's to say malice aforethought. Of course, it's likely that Iranaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Constantine and the rest of them all had controlling, patriarchal tendencies and that this also inspired them to create a standardised Christianity, aside of the need to do so to avoid persecution.

The ideas present in the banned Gnostic Gospels were marginalised and largely lost, only to return with the finds at Nag Hammadi. The act of trying to bring this material back into the context of early Christianity has provided much fuel for conspiracy speculation but there are actually far more simple and obvious ways to regard the relationship.

Nick

[GreNME]

Nick, bravo for bringing up Elaine Pagels. She's one of the names I mentioned very early on with regard to people who have made names for themselves studying the gnostic gospels who has incredible insight and gives a much clearer picture of what is actually within the ancient texts themselves, as opposed to using bits and pieces of them as a trampoline to promote her own New Age dogma. Bart Ehrman is another good author to look into, if you haven't already.

The ideas present in the banned Gnostic Gospels were marginalised and largely lost, only to return with the finds at Nag Hammadi. The act of trying to bring this material back into the context of early Christianity has provided much fuel for conspiracy speculation but there are actually far more simple and obvious ways to regard the relationship.

Precisely, and it also applies similarly to the Qumran (and writers like Allegro).

Also, it appears Dave31 still has only bile and insults to hurl instead of answering any challenges to the scholarship of the works. I also notice that he has yet to provide a translation for the message in Egyptian I presented. As for his reprinting messages from Dorothy's mailing list, I was being a bit overly broad there: in reality, what he's doing is following Dorothy's request to spread her videos far and wide. I'd already seen the crack about the MS Encarta commercial guy supposedly being me because one of her stalker-followers decided to post it on my own personal site (http://www.grenme.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15078&postcount=32) (not even original there, Dave31, unless that was you ;) ).

Actually, the main reason I made the video about the claims of number of views had to do with Dorothy's own dishonest tactics in artificially increasing the views as if that lent credence to the claims. Some of Dorothy's messages asking her people to help with the attention-whoring so that they can claim that their multiple views are valid:
Hi there -

Just in case you haven't seen it, here's the direct link to our "Zeitgeist Debunked?" response video -

htp://youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

It's already got over 16,000 views - and counting!

Be sure to check it out!

And "Favorite" it, as well as "Digg" and so on, if you feel so inspired.
Hi there -

And a Happy Sunday to you!

I wonder if you'll do me a favor by Digging our new ZEITGEIST video? It's not hard to do, especially if you already have an account at Digg.com. If you don't have an account, please consider taking the time to sign up so you can participate in this worthy endeavor.

Here's the link to the Digg for our video:

htp://digg.com/educational/ZEITGEIST_Part_1_Debunked_Refuted_Acharya_Responds

or

htt://tinyurl.com/5rg9q5

Digg is one of those "social bookmarking" sites that has the capacity to expose information to a massive amount of people.
If everyone participates in this fun and exciting activity, our video could garner quite a bit of attention - so please do think about making your vote count!

If you haven't seen the video yet, by all means go to it here:

ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

You can also Digg it directly from there. Just under the video you'll see the options to add it to MySpace, Facebook, DIGG, etc. We're focusing on Digg, but if you prefer other social bookmarking sites, please feel free to add the video there too!

As essentially a "one-woman show" here, I do count on my great friends and supporters for all the help they can provide. So, I really and truly appreciate it when people find my endeavors worthy of contribution.

Thanks so much!

That's the reason I wondered early on about whether these Dorothy-ites were the beginnings of some New Age religion, because they seem so evangelical about it and are regularly egged on by her to behave that way. It's kind of creepy, especially when her small band of minions start showing up on my personal site trying to start scraps with me.

Dave31: I've already extended offers to Dorothy for moderated debate if she wants to prove herself. That's not an invitation to you or any of your fellow stalkers to make this a personal smear campaign. If you ever want to actually debate the details instead of make personal attacks, you let me know. Like FFM I don't really have time or desire to shoot back and forth with you while all you can manage are personal attacks.

[Nick227]

Precisely, and it also applies similarly to the Qumran (and writers like Allegro).

According to the latter-day Gnostic priest, Stephan Hoeller, people have been publishing books claiming Jesus didn't exist and that Christianity is simply recycled material since the 19th century.

I don't think any have dealt with the issue of original teachings. If Jesus simply walked the earth articulating an ancient philosophy then perhaps it would be reasonable to question whether he existed or not. But the majority of teachings attributed to him are non-philosophical. They are simply dialogues, questions and statements, many of which are highly original.

When Dorothy or another researcher can source say, The Gospel of Thomas, from the writings attributed to the Buddha, or anyone else, then I think there will be a case to be made. Until then, I don't really understand logically why she continues with her travails.

Nick

[Nick227]

That's the reason I wondered early on about whether these Dorothy-ites were the beginnings of some New Age religion, because they seem so evangelical about it and are regularly egged on by her to behave that way. It's kind of creepy, especially when her small band of minions start showing up on my personal site trying to start scraps with me.

Something I find interesting, relating to New Age mysticism, is that it is specifically the existence of the Gospel of Thomas that most refutes Dorothy's case. Most new-agers love this text. Pagels quotes a well-regarded American Buddhist who said that, had he had access to this gospel when he was dissatisfied with orthodox Christianity, he would never have bothered with Buddhism! It's not easy to support Dorothy's case and be into Thomas.

When I mentioned the issues with this gospel on the truthbeknown forum, one of the few present said she loved the book, but was subsequently at a loss to account for its existence without the presence of a major spiritual figure to have created its sayings.

Nick

[GreNME]

According to the latter-day Gnostic priest, Stephan Hoeller, people have been publishing books claiming Jesus didn't exist and that Christianity is simply recycled material since the 19th century.

Oh, those people were mostly made of of the beginnings of the Theosophist movements (Blavatsky and the like) or people with similar stated motivations but not the same organizational structure (like Graves). Yeah, Dorothy cites regularly enough from these people (especially Graves and Massey), but the thrust or crux of her writing tends to be more similar to those like Allegro-- taking the message into a realm of New-Age-y attempts to center on mid-20th-century discoveries about the mystery schools.

That's why I mentioned Ehrman, by the way. I had the opportunity to send him a question on the topic of the "out of Egypt" mystery school centric literature coming out about by those like Dorothy, and his response was essentially that people who stick to that thin and shallow an interpretation of the mystery schools really don't understand the materials they're trying to work with in the first place.

I've read a few very well-worded academic arguments against a historical Jesus, but none of them rely on the mystery schools, Egyptian mythology, Krishna, or Mithras. They tend to focus on the culture of the region at the time and the unreliability of the few Roman authors who are used by apologists today. For me, all said and done, I don't much care because I'm not a Christian anyway. It's only reliably traceable back to Paul anyway, in my opinion.

[Nick227]

Oh, those people were mostly made of of the beginnings of the Theosophist movements (Blavatsky and the like) or people with similar stated motivations but not the same organizational structure (like Graves). Yeah, Dorothy cites regularly enough from these people (especially Graves and Massey), but the thrust or crux of her writing tends to be more similar to those like Allegro-- taking the message into a realm of New-Age-y attempts to center on mid-20th-century discoveries about the mystery schools.

That's why I mentioned Ehrman, by the way. I had the opportunity to send him a question on the topic of the "out of Egypt" mystery school centric literature coming out about by those like Dorothy, and his response was essentially that people who stick to that thin and shallow an interpretation of the mystery schools really don't understand the materials they're trying to work with in the first place.

What I understand about the Gnostic schools of the early centuries AD is that they were very free-form and the ability to create your whole own school-of-thought was highly regarded, indeed almost needed to demonstrate attainment.

Understanding this, I found it is easy to believe that there was a human need to establish orthodoxy, in the face of the constant outpouring of new gospels, many of which frequently contradicted one another.

Thus, as I see it, orthodoxy was established, not principally to hide secrets, but to try and create some standardisation in the emergent Christianity. The principle aspect to me which became secret, with the establishment of orthodoxy and Nicaea and the subsequent purging of other creeds, was the stated position of the relationship between God, Jesus and Man. With orthodoxy man became forever in God and Jesus' shadow, cut off by a seeming eternal barrier from attainment. I think it's this belief, principle to orthodoxy but antithetical to many Gnostic Gospels, that disappeared from view and led to the latter-day rise in the conspiracy version of events.

Thank you for mentioning Bart. He seems an interesting guy.

Nick

[GreNME]

Not trying to turn this into an R&P thread. Honest.

Thus, as I see it, orthodoxy was established, not principally to hide secrets, but to try and create some standardisation in the emergent Christianity.

Yes. Hence the use of the name "catholic" for the church, which translates literally to "universal".

The principle aspect to me which became secret, with the establishment of orthodoxy and Nicaea and the subsequent purging of other creeds, was the stated position of the relationship between God, Jesus and Man.

The only disagreement I'd have is with the wording. "Lost" better describes it than becoming secret in any way.

Thank you for mentioning Bart. He seems an interesting guy.

I like him for two reasons: 1) he remains fairly agnostic one way or the other in terms of the whole apologist/mythicist argument (lots of room for bias both ways); and 2) he's answered me pretty straight-forward-ly when I've asked him questions on subjects like those covered in Zeitgeist Pt 1. For the former he has my respect, and for the latter he has my thanks.

[Nick227]

According to the latter-day Gnostic priest, Stephan Hoeller, people have been publishing books claiming Jesus didn't exist and that Christianity is simply recycled material since the 19th century.


Oh, those people were mostly made of of the beginnings of the Theosophist movements (Blavatsky and the like) or people with similar stated motivations but not the same organizational structure (like Graves). Yeah, Dorothy cites regularly enough from these people (especially Graves and Massey), but the thrust or crux of her writing tends to be more similar to those like Allegro-- taking the message into a realm of New-Age-y attempts to center on mid-20th-century discoveries about the mystery schools.

I read (http://www.blavatsky.net/features/newsletters/2004/newsletter0412.htm) that Blavatsky actually wasn't in the no-real-Jesus camp. She made a few statements criticising the Jesus she saw as constructed by Irenaeus, but many more of Jesus as real spiritual teacher of the time.

Nick

[GreNME]

I read (http://www.blavatsky.net/features/newsletters/2004/newsletter0412.htm) that Blavatsky actually wasn't in the no-real-Jesus camp. She made a few statements criticising the Jesus she saw as constructed by Irenaeus, but many more of Jesus as real spiritual teacher of the time.

Nick

You are correct that the theosophists weren't as squarely in the Jesus myth camp as modern-day people like Dorothy. Instead, the theosophists held that these motifs and characters from the myths transferred-- sometimes across vast distances with no known historical connection-- between cultures. Some might say they believed there was some secret magical power to this, but that's not entirely clear-- especially with Blavatsky, who seemed more interested in twisting everything into stories having some connection to Hindu mythology. The trouble with Blavatsky and many of the theosophist crowd is that they used hoaxes and forgeries as their "proofs" within their writings. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy actually happened upon one of those forgeries in their book The Jesus Mysteries (the rune on the cover of their book, which they expound upon in the book, is a fake). I'm not saying that Blavatsky or her cohorts created some of these hoaxes-- they weren't instances like the Ica or Acambaro stones-- but their works derived heavily from these fake claims and their academics were lacking (to say the least).

The only real difference between Blavatsky and Dorothy is that Blavatsky didn't hide her intention to promote mysticism.

[Nick227]

You are correct that the theosophists weren't as squarely in the Jesus myth camp as modern-day people like Dorothy. Instead, the theosophists held that these motifs and characters from the myths transferred-- sometimes across vast distances with no known historical connection-- between cultures.

Reading the list of quotes on the Blavatsky site, what intrigued me was that, in one, she flips right over into DM Murdock territory...

Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac.(BCW 9:225)

...but in all the others she seems to me very reasonable. Thus, though I certainly haven't had a thorough look to see what other material she wrote on the subject, I think it's unfair to place her with Dorothy Murdock. She doesn't ignore the issue of direct teachings.

Nick

[GreNME]

Nick, if you want to discuss Blavatsky, you may want to bring it up over on the R&P section for future reference. The point with Blavatsky is that she and her theosophist group used several hoax documents as their source material and they mostly talked about what they did to build a following of converts. That's where my comparison is based, because much like most other religion stuff I have very little vested interest in proving or disproving one's faith. She may very well have believed in what she was talking about, but that doesn't make some of the sources she used any less fake.

[Dave31]

dudalb & fullflavormenthol "Trying to cash in on the Da VInci Code phenenmenon, perhaps?"

- Acharya has been online since 1995 and she's written 2 books *BEFORE* Da Vinci Code ever was written let alone made into a movie. This simply demonstrates your level of ignorance of her work and your level of extreme bias. Your hatred and biases of Zeitgeist part 1 and Acharya S has been clear from the beginning nobody here expects to see any serious objectivity from fullflavormenthol, GreNME/Johnson or Nick227.

GreNME/Johnson "Some of Acharya's messages..."

And you have the gull to name-call the rest of us "stalkers"? Check yourself, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

GreNME/Johnson "I also notice that he has yet to provide a translation for the message in Egyptian I presented."

- As I already explained, I'm not interested in your petty games.

GreNME/Johnson "because they seem so evangelical about it"

- Yet you can't see your own evangelism throughout this thread and the nearly 40 pages in the Zeitgeist thread. Your own evangelism comes in the form of Anti-Zeitgeist evangelism. That's really creepy. I think you're just jealous of the attention Zeitgeist got and is still getting.

GreNME/Johnson "Dave31: I've already extended offers to Dorothy for moderated debate if she wants to prove herself."

- LOL, why should she debate you as you have already demonstrated yourself to be dishonest, vicious, juvenile and ignorant on the subject. I asked you a very simply question a long time ago about what your credentials were and what languages you could read write etc and you refused to answer it at all. You played your typical juvenile games instead of answering the question. Acharya S will never debate you as I'm guessing she has no respect for you. So you couldn't find things in the encyclopedias - that's your problem not hers.

GreNME/Johnson "If you ever want to actually debate the details instead of make personal attacks, you let me know."

- Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Thanks Lisa, I'm being ganged up on by members who offer mostly derogatory comments, name-calling and personal attacks along with hateful vicious comments from members here who clearly HATE the topic of this thread and you never say a single word to them you simply attack me for defending myself against such hate, biases and dishonesty. If these guys don't like this thread nobody is twisting their arm forcing them to post here. They've demonstrated over and over repeatedly that they absolutely *ARE NOT* familiar with Acharya's work and are lying when they claim otherwise. The level of viciousness here is appalling.

[Dave31]

"Christ in Egypt" Luxor Nativity Scene Excerpt

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor

Adapted from an Excerpt from Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdock aka Acharya S

"In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings."

Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity (19)

"... However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)."

"The Luxor nativity scene represents the birth sequence of an obviously very important god-king, as it was portrayed in one of the most famous Egyptian sites that endured for some 2,000 years. Egypt, it should be kept in mind, was a mere stone's throw from the Israelite homeland, with a well-trodden "Horus road" linking the two nations and possessing numerous Egyptian artifacts, including a massive, long-lived fort and Horus temple at the site of Tharu, for instance. Moreover, at the time when Christianity was formulated, there were an estimated 1 million Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and other Israelitish people in Egypt, making up approximately one-half of the important and influential city of Alexandria. The question is, with all the evident influence from the Egyptian religion upon Christianity presented in Christ in Egypt, were the creators of the Christian myth aware of this highly significant birth scene from this singularly important temple site in Egypt? If not, these scenes were common enough right up to and into the common era - could the creators of Christianity really have been oblivious to them?

Indeed, the point is not necessarily that the creators of Christianity used this particular narrative but that there were plenty of miraculous-birth templates long prior to the Christian era, rendering Jesus's own nativity all too mundane and common, rather than representing a unique "historical" and "supernatural" event that proves his divinity above and beyond all others. With such a widespread precedent, could we honestly believe that the Christian nativity scene constituted something new and startling?"

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
Do not post commercial adverstisements.

;)

[Nick227]

- Acharya has been online since 1995 and she's written 2 books *BEFORE* Da Vinci Code ever was written let alone made into a movie. This simply demonstrates your level of ignorance of her work and your level of extreme bias. Your hatred and biases of Zeitgeist part 1 and Acharya S has been clear from the beginning nobody here expects to see any serious objectivity from fullflavormenthol, GreNME/Johnson or Nick227.


Dave,

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

1) I do not hate Zeitgeist. I quite enjoyed the film actually. I've been into conspiracy material for years.

2) I am trying to be objective. What DM Murdock does, imo, like Peter Joseph, is present only one side of the story. She just presents evidence in support of her conclusion. Anything which weakens her case she completely disregards. This is not objectivity. Peter Joseph and DM Murdock want you to believe them. This is their agenda. To try and achieve this they only present that evidence which supports their conclusion.

There are real big, big issues with the notion that Christianity is simply recycled astrotheology, and with the notion that Christ never lived. People have been debating these things for decades, likely centuries. Peter Joseph and DM Murdock do not address these issues, to the best of my knowledge. They avoid the issues because they do not seek truth.

The question is....are you interested in truth, or do you just want to believe what one person is telling you?

Nick

[fullflavormenthol]

Dave,

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

1) I do not hate Zeitgeist. I quite enjoyed the film actually. I've been into conspiracy material for years.

2) I am trying to be objective. What DM Murdock does, imo, like Peter Joseph, is present only one side of the story. She just presents evidence in support of her conclusion. Anything which weakens her case she completely disregards. This is not objectivity. Peter Joseph and DM Murdock want you to believe them. This is their agenda. To try and achieve this they only present that evidence which supports their conclusion.

There are real big, big issues with the notion that Christianity is simply recycled astrotheology, and with the notion that Christ never lived. People have been debating these things for decades, likely centuries. Peter Joseph and DM Murdock do not address these issues, to the best of my knowledge. They avoid the issues because they do not seek truth.

The question is....are you interested in truth, or do you just want to believe what one person is telling you?

Nick
I think that is the big thing there. Zeitgeist/Acharya S don't even attempt to present balance. That being the case it isn't really a documentary, it really isn't scholarly research. I believe the comparison to the Da Vinci Code is legitimate in the context of the movie Zeitgeist as far as the climate of "christian conspiratism" that has become popular. The better comparison would come from the fact that both the Da Vinci Code and the works of Dorothy basically recycle rejected ideas and pretend that they are new and ground breaking.

I respect you staying in the argument with Dave, but looking at the part you quoted I am glad I am out of it. It seems just more of the same, just personal attacks.

[Nick227]

I think that is the big thing there. Zeitgeist/Acharya S don't even attempt to present balance. That being the case it isn't really a documentary, it really isn't scholarly research.

I saw an interesting thing quoted from Jan Irvin the other day, over on GreNME's forum. He's a staunch defender of Dorothy. He was offering $100 to anyone who could refute her latest book and several people were commenting that it wasn't very much money.

I wasn't bothered about the money, it was more the wording of the deal that interested me. You had to read the book and deal only with the citations and case presented there. In order to refute or to challenge a position it is usually the case that you present evidence that challenges its conclusion. However, Jan wasn't up for this. His offer was solely to challenge the authenticity of the actual cited evidence, not the conclusion.

This to me sums up the whole Zeitgeist-DM Murdock position. They are absolutely determined not to examine other evidence. The whole thing is some pseudo-spiritual kangaroo court!

I believe the comparison to the Da Vinci Code is legitimate in the context of the movie Zeitgeist as far as the climate of "christian conspiratism" that has become popular. The better comparison would come from the fact that both the Da Vinci Code and the works of Dorothy basically recycle rejected ideas and pretend that they are new and ground breaking.

Well, I think Zeitgeist deliberately withholds contradictory evidence. It's propaganda, basically. The Da Vinci Code more expands one repressed aspect of early Christian belief, relating to the divine feminine, and creates from it a whole drama. I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code and Zeitgeist. I just don't consider them as pertaining to very much truth. On the whole I'd say the Da Vinci Code does slightly better in the truth stakes than Zeitgeist.

I respect you staying in the argument with Dave, but looking at the part you quoted I am glad I am out of it. It seems just more of the same, just personal attacks.

Well, these guys don't have anything else. It's either ad hominem attacks or demands to keep reading Dorothy's material. Our way is right. It just is and nothing that contradicts it will be allowed. Classic cult behaviour, to be honest.

Nick

[Dave31]

Lisa Simpson "Do not post commercial adverstisements"

This is WAY over-the-top Lisa. That was simply a link to an article/ excerpt. I find it mind boggeling that you consider it an advert. Or does this demonstrate the extreme prejudice against sharing ANYTHING here by Acharya S?

The excerpt that you consider an advert is going to be published in Dr. Robert Price's "Journal for Higher Criticism," a very highly respected Journal.

nick227, in regards to # 2, No you're not trying to be objective. You've never studied her work as your posts demonstrate because she certainly does provide counter views as demonstrated in her book "Who Was Jesus?" which has a bibliography that is nearly ALL xian and they admit the evidence for Jesus is "scanty and problematic." She provides the views of highly credentialed xians in her other books too but you aren't aware of that because you've never actually studied her work.

Speaking of one-sided, all I've seen from you is a complete denial of the evidence she has provided. All you're concerned with is the Kabbalah - which is your "truth."

fullflavormenthol "The better comparison would come from the fact that both the Da Vinci Code and the works of Dorothy basically recycle rejected ideas and pretend that they are new and ground breaking"

Again and again you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance of her work and your own extreme biases and prejudice against Acharya S. She provides a compilation of the HISTORY of solar mythology and astrotheology. And because of that she has NEVER pretended it was new when she explains it to be quite old. It's only new in the sense that most of the general public today are completely unaware of it.

FFM post # 203 "she uses pre-Rosetta stone translations, by non-experts, to suggest something that no respected Egyptologist or Historian would even give a serious look at."

The excerpt proves you wrong FFM:

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

;)

[GreNME]

The excerpt proves you wrong FFM:

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
http ://www .stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor. html

Actually, she admits it herself pretty early on (and then goes on to backpedal away from Carrier's corrections):It should be exmphasized that none of these contentions originated with me but were paraphrased from the work of lay Egyptologist Gerald Massey, who in turn evidently adapted the basics from Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe (1799-1881), an Egyptologist and translator of the Bible, whose relevant quote appears at the top of this article.

Interestingly, for all of the words she uses she still fails to address the main problems with her claim as pointed out by Richard Carrierlink (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html) in the first place (to which this little "article" was supposed to be a response). Most funny is how she refuses to admit her mistake in using "immaculate conception" with regard to the Christ birth story when it pertains to Mary's conception in Catholic dogma. She can't even admit she simply used the wrong wording when citing other similar mistakes made by some of her sources. Her attempts to connect the scene to Horus consist of two things: claiming the queen represents Isis because Massey says so, and claiming that since pharaohs are considered Horus representations that their mothers must be representative of Isis and that this proves the claim that the Jesus birth narrative is Egyptian in origin. Nevermind the fact that such leaps of logic aren't supported by any Egyptian literature we know of, whether royal inscriptions, religious documents, or regular citizen letters or stories, right? ;)

ETA - Oh, and once more on the language thing: Dorothy seems to be conflating the ideas of Ba and [/i]Ka[/i] in her response to Carrier, even though Carrier makes the distinction (properly) in his link. That's a pretty significant thing to make such an elementary mistake on, especially for someone who claims to be so familiar with the ancient language like Dorothy claims. Have you had a chance to get her to translate my message, or have you had a chance to do so yourself? I see there's still no response from you or any of her other acolytes on that little test that should be easy to anyone with any real familiarity.

[fullflavormenthol]

Actually, she admits it herself pretty early on (and then goes on to backpedal away from Carrier's corrections):

Interestingly, for all of the words she uses she still fails to address the main problems with her claim as pointed out by Richard Carrierlink (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html) in the first place (to which this little "article" was supposed to be a response). Most funny is how she refuses to admit her mistake in using "immaculate conception" with regard to the Christ birth story when it pertains to Mary's conception in Catholic dogma. She can't even admit she simply used the wrong wording when citing other similar mistakes made by some of her sources. Her attempts to connect the scene to Horus consist of two things: claiming the queen represents Isis because Massey says so, and claiming that since pharaohs are considered Horus representations that their mothers must be representative of Isis and that this proves the claim that the Jesus birth narrative is Egyptian in origin. Nevermind the fact that such leaps of logic aren't supported by any Egyptian literature we know of, whether royal inscriptions, religious documents, or regular citizen letters or stories, right? ;)

ETA - Oh, and once more on the language thing: Dorothy seems to be conflating the ideas of Ba and [/i]Ka[/i] in her response to Carrier, even though Carrier makes the distinction (properly) in his link. That's a pretty significant thing to make such an elementary mistake on, especially for someone who claims to be so familiar with the ancient language like Dorothy claims. Have you had a chance to get her to translate my message, or have you had a chance to do so yourself? I see there's still no response from you or any of her other acolytes on that little test that should be easy to anyone with any real familiarity.
Exactly. It is such a huge leap in logic, and yet it is considered the "smoking gun" by proponents of Dorothy's theory. There is not much more I could add to your description of the problem, and it was amusing that Dorothy never answered for the problems between Massey and Brunner. Brunner is obviously the stronger source, but most people will never read Die Geburt des Gottkönigs, unless it is eventually translated into English. I can't blame the writers she is taking the information from, because they were either lay people or using the resources available; which would be increased knowledge through use of Rosetta stone translation and an expanded knowledge of Egyptian writings. Somehow Dorothy has managed to convince her followers that Die Geburt des Gottkönigs agrees with her work, and I don't know how that happened given the fact that she never actually examines it in any of her work; even the article that is supposed to refute Carrier.

the Immaculate Conception thing is just rediculous. It is such a common mistake with lay people that I rarely hold it against anyone, but they should admit to making the mistake when it is pointed out to them; and Dorothy should know better. The inability to admit this mistake is carried over into her followers. One of which basically yelled at me because I said that the Immaculate Conception referred to Mary being concieved without sin to which he responded, "dude we are not talking Mary". Then the argument went on forever about how the birth of Horus was "immaculate", and I was never able to explain the problem with their statements.

[Dave31]

Once again, both of you demonstrate the level of EXTREME DISHONESTY in your libelous comments about the Luxor excerpt.

You probably didn't even read the excerpt. If you did you would've noticed the 26 footnotes including several highly credentialed Egyptologists independently in agreement with Acharya. Most all POST Rosetta Stone sources too.

You guys simply cannot admit that you are wrong and have to take a position that includes reading comprehension issues.

You can't accept the fact that Richard Carrier screwed up.

"... However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)."

G/J "Have you had a chance to get her to translate my message, or have you had a chance to do so yourself?"

Again, for what the 5th time, I'm not interested in your juvenile games. I will NEVER translate your "message" for you and I've already told you that several times. Not interested.

It appears that Dr. Robert Price enjoys the excerpt - which holds far more weight than any of you here ever will. You guys are just jealous of the attention Acharya S gets and will continue to get.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well, I think Zeitgeist deliberately withholds contradictory evidence. It's propaganda, basically. The Da Vinci Code more expands one repressed aspect of early Christian belief, relating to the divine feminine, and creates from it a whole drama. I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code and Zeitgeist. I just don't consider them as pertaining to very much truth. On the whole I'd say the Da Vinci Code does slightly better in the truth stakes than Zeitgeist.

I compare them merely for the purpose of showing that they both ignore things. I will agree that the Da Vinci Code (by which I am refering to works like Holy Blood, Holy Grail) do a better job than Zeitgeist, because at minimium they deal with the opposition; and like you said don't ignore the contradictory evidence.


Well, these guys don't have anything else. It's either ad hominem attacks or demands to keep reading Dorothy's material. Our way is right. It just is and nothing that contradicts it will be allowed. Classic cult behaviour, to be honest.

Nick

Yeah, that is why I had no choice but to put Dave on ignore. Honestly at the point in which the argument recycles back to the inscription of the birth of Amenhotep III at Luxor the argument has recycled back to the beginning. Seriously even if you want to dispute the work of Hellmut Brunner you would at minimium have to declare that this part is "disputed" and remove it from the evidence. The point that the followers of Acharya will ignore anything she tells them too, and that is just sad.

EDIT: I now request the mods move this to the R&P forum or the general CT forum. This is not about 9-11.

[GreNME]

Once again, both of you demonstrate the level of EXTREME DISHONESTY in your libelous comments about the Luxor excerpt.

When you have nothing of significance to defend yourself with, you sling personal accusations once again. Predictable.

You probably didn't even read the excerpt. If you did you would've noticed the 26 footnotes including several highly credentialed Egyptologists independently in agreement with Acharya. Most all POST Rosetta Stone sources too.

You have a chronic case of "don't get it" don't you? She's still relying primarily on Massey in that excerpt, and twisting the words of more recent publications to suit her preconceived conclusion. The temple at Luxor does not have a Nativity scene that the author of Luke borrowed. You seem to simply be buying into whatever Dorothy says because she says it, even though it's already been pointed out that almost all pharaohs claimed divine heritage. You ignore Dorothy's stubborn refusal to admit her error in using "immaculate conception" and using word-games (in English, no less, neither the original Egyptian nor the Latin from the Catholic dogma) to defend it.

And you keep trying to defend her use of old text translations, even while she does underhanded stuff like cite James Allen who is (in the text she's citing) actually quoting Peter Le Renouf. [Side note: I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Allen to ask him his thoughts on the excerpt for clarification] You can't actually answer the challenges to the claims, you can't actually put anything into your own words, and you display zero critical thinking in lieu of parroting Dorothy's claims and posting link after link to her self-published 'work'. Even in Earl Doherty's link in her "sources" Mr. Doherty points out that Dorothy (using Massey) is mistakenly using language in a backward manner-- his own words were "unwisely carried over New Testament terminology to where it does not belong."

You guys simply cannot admit that you are wrong and have to take a position that includes reading comprehension issues.

You can't understand that intellectually honest scholarship includes learning to get the language right, accepting and admitting where confirmation bias can lead to flaws, and using the most up-to-date source information. You have yet to be able to support a single argument, opting instead to repeatedly paste and re-paste the same quotes (verbatim) being made by other Dorothy acolytes on other forums (example (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/4160/#40418)) while adding nothing but continued personal attacks in your own words.

Again, for what the 5th time, I'm not interested in your juvenile games. I will NEVER translate your "message" for you and I've already told you that several times. Not interested.

Not capable is more like it. None of you are. You guys even come harass me over on my own website but you can't even back up your own attacks with any credibility of your own.

It appears that Dr. Robert Price enjoys the excerpt - which holds far more weight than any of you here ever will. You guys are just jealous of the attention Acharya S gets and will continue to get.

This is how Dorothy gets her attention (http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=2068): asking people to post-flood Digg and other sites, post links all over the place, and play press agent for her.

That might be the kind of attention you want, but if Dorothy and friends want to behave like used car salespeople then they (and you) are welcome. Some of us prefer to approach things as actual academic studies instead of a political campaign.

[fullflavormenthol]

That might be the kind of attention you want, but if Dorothy and friends want to behave like used car salespeople then they (and you) are welcome. Some of us prefer to approach things as actual academic studies instead of a political campaign.

I think that is the reason why I started to ignore Dave, I just want to really debate the issues; and honestly that is just not happening. I mean I feel bad, but my fiance is a history major; and she yells at me anymore when I bring up issues that people like Dave bring up. She basically gets tired of the fact that I just don't ignore things. So I started too. I startied so much due to my future masters thesis on the subject of relgious communication. Personally the issue is no longer about the truth or falsehood of Dorothy Murdoch; it is merely accepting that some people won't be able to see the falsehood in her writings.

I would also like point out that footnotes don't mean anything, unless the sources would actually be in agrement with you; which is why I don't take her seriously because I know a lot of her footnoted source wouldn't actually agree with her.

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh man, after reading through the "website" a few more times it becomes even more pathetic. This is nothing, but a derail and an attempt at manufacturing authority through a sad little rant. Constant attacking of the person, and here is the real question. What the hell does any of this have to do with Acharya S being correct or incorrect in her interpretation of history?

Lets be honest here. I am highly critical of Acharya S, but this derives from her attitude in dealing with her critics. Especially in not dealing with the issues and resorting to personal attacks. The other thing is her constant appeals to her own authority. I mean you can look at the bottom of one of her little web rants and you'll see some bull(rule 10) line like this...

Acharya S is an expert Historian, Egyptologist, Mythologist, and an expert in Comparative Religion.

For someone who throws around the term "expert" a lot she doesn't mention that her formal training is in literature. Why does this matter? Beyond the dishonesty of declaring yourself an expert in so many subjects, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The real issue is do her claims stand up to scrutiny? They don't, and it doesn't matter if a 7th grader is able to point that out; if she is wrong, she is wrong.

What is known is that she is fond of linguistic games, which includes using homonyms that don't exist in the languages of the people at the time. Making mis-statements that are completely wrong. For example insisting that the birth of Jesus was December 25th, no that is a latter tradition. Insisting that Horus was born of a virgin. Calling Orion's belt the "Three Kings" at a time and place in which that name wasn't used, insisting that the narrative even mentions three kings; pretending that the magi were there at the nativity.

It is a shallow view of Biblical history, coming from someone who is not going beyond that folk knowledge of the Bible.

If degrees are going to become the single issue in determining the truth or falsehood of an idea, well Acharya would lose. She has no degree in Comparative Religion. She is not degreed in Egyptology. She could call herself a Mythologist. She doesn't even have the degree in History. But none of this matters.

The debate is about the truth or falsehood of the ideas in question, and anything else so base as a personal attack has no merit in this debate.

[jhunter1163]

When I started reading this thread, I was open to the possibility that Murdock might be correct. I was at that time probably Zeitgeist's target audience; someone who had an interest in the topics covered, but who didn't know enough about Egyptian and early Christian mythology to pick apart Murdock's claims.

I read the refutations by Nick, GreNME and FFM, and waited for a rebuttal from Dave31. All I got was "Read Murdock's work." Well, I don't WANT to read a bunch of books. Also, I don't care how tall anyone posting here is. I want you, Dave, to respond specifically to the criticisms leveled at Murdock by the above three posters so I can come to an informed conclusion about her work.

I would also like to thank FFM, Nick and GreNME for expanding my knowledge base re: Egyptian and early Christian mythology by at least a factor of 10.

[GreNME]

Hi-larious. :)


ETA: By the way, jhunter, if you ever want I can give you some good recommendations for beginning study of the Mid-East