Dave31

LOL, thou doth protest too much - nothing more than a typo. You'll notice by reading the actual book that her comment is not included in the quotation marks. It's sloppy and egregious on your part to claim that she "inserts her own writing into the quote" when she clearly does not and it only takes two seconds to figure that out.

You have proven repeatedly that you're desperate to smear her however you can and accuracy is of zero interest to you - or this forum, so long as it's against Acharya S.

Zwaarddijk

Indeed, her bit is not included in the quotation marks - but they are included in the indentation, and typically, she marks quotes by indentation - quotation marks in indentation is generally something she only ever does when there are nested quotes! Which you seem to have failed to notice.
This isn't just one typo - it's four major typos all misleading the reader!

Also, her own claim should be supported by some sourcpoe.
Fun thing though, she provides an argument against her own claim elsewhere - an early Christian coin depicting Jesus apparently found in Wales or somewhere, so she can't even keep her story straight. Of course, Christians being mainly lower class inhabitants of the Roman empire could also account for the lack of Christian coinage. (I believe that coin to be a hoax, though.)

What's the chances - four accidents of editing and typing coming together to create this impression, or Acharya intentionally trying to mislead her readers?

spin

I know you can go on like this three days running, Robert, without exhausting the well of intellectual gymnastics. Such generalities are impressive. Dog's leg into some crux and off you go, a new direction, a novel thesis.

Back to the idol. It's nice that D.M. noticed that Paul labeled the Hagar material in Galatians "allegory". It indicates she can read. Startling discovery... I mean that Paul used Hagar allegorically. I guess his having said so was a bit of an aid, but people mightn't notice these things, you. Perhaps if Paul hadn't said so, D.M. might have missed the fact as well. It's astounding how he did that... I mean that he labeled that passage an allegory. Such a novel approach. Did he label anything else an allegory? You know, did he use allegory elsewhere? Fuck, she made a clever discovery that Paul used allegory. Better yet, the writer of Ezekiel wrote all this shit about Oholah and Oholibah and it would seem that they weren't even real people. That was a stupendous find. How did she ever do that? I woulda thought that they were real people, I mean if she hadna pointed out that they too were allegory. I wonder what it was that gave them away. I thought that they were just two loose women who whored in Egypt some time before Ezekiel got to know them and Oholah was Samaria and Oholibah was Jerusalem. There's nothing particularly not realistic there, is there? Who'd ever have concluded that we were dealing with allegory... I mean other than D.M.?

Robert is so sharp to have discovered that context was so important. With insight like that, he too could write a worthy tome for Health Research, pointing out the weird and wonderful realities behind the facade of the humdrum of staid veneers, finding the nexus that links the various cults and cultures, opening those doors of perception necessary to reach what is truly there, staring us in the face, so to speak, but remaining inscrutable without his key.

Sorry, I've meandered again because I am so gobsmacked over the bristling perceptions. What is this wisdom that has been given him? So consider this pearl: 'a number of other biblical places, nations and tribes are frequently referred to allegorically as “he” or “she,” Tell me Robert, how do you say "it" in Hebrew???' You must have somehow missed this question with all your erudition. Given that D.M. has pointed out through her insight that "a number of other biblical places, nations and tribes are frequently referred to allegorically as “he” or “she,”" how do you, or how does one, say "it" in Hebrew? I mean as the writers are being so allegorical about nations by using the English pronouns, "he" and "she" instead of "it", I'm fascinated to know how you actually say "it" in Hebrew. Can you help me out there, and supply the pronoun that does not yield the allegory that D.M. has so perceptively noticed, so that we can have a control?

Zwaarddijk

To further entertain Robert Tulip - who I bet is shrinking away from this debate by the post, since the evidence of Acharya's shoddiness in research is getting so overwhelming - let's add this to the funeral pyre of her credibility:

"Both of these groups, Semites and Aryans, are claimed in the Bible to have been "sons of Noah" who were to "share the same tent" and to enslave the descendants of Noah's third son, the Hamites; thus, at some point their distinction could not have been very pronounced. In fact, the Aryans and Semites are more intermingled than suspected, as some of the "sons of Japheth" became Ashkenazi, or "European Jews," as stated at Genesis 10:2-3. Indeed, the distinction was made long afterwards, when the Yahwists were compiling their books and attempting to promote themselves as strict segregationists. "(The Christ Conspiracy, p. 97)

So, Genesis apparently speaks of Ashkenazi Jews now?

Robert Tulip

Oh the irony.

The whole book, 431 pages of historical analysis, subtitled “The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, is devoted to proving that Jesus is fiction, in case you had not noticed that Zwaarddijk. Also, unlike you, she accurately uses quotation marks in Casey’s coin text you cite about how the literary record distorts the facts.

Anyone reading the book with modest abilities of English comprehension can see that the indentation is a typo, like your “sourcpoe”. Casey’s view that literature distorts and suppresses the actual historical record is a logical source for Acharya’s comment that the Gospel events are fictional.

We are talking here about a numismatist explaining that evidence “may shake the foundations” of the conventional story. That means the story is probably fiction, as Acharya observes. Casey’s attestation of the absence of coin evidence, considered together with Acharya's observation of nil coin evidence for early Christianity, justifies the conclusion that the conventional acceptance of a historical Jesus is incorrect.

And I see in your “quotpoing” you appear to have maliciously and fraudulently added a quotation mark to the end of the indented text, which is not there in the book, as readers can see at google books. You are the one Zwaarddijk who is actually distorting quotations here! When you seek to make a stupidly pedantic case about the accurate placement of quotation marks, it behoves you to get it right, and not to maliciously add extra punctuation to a purported quote that distorts it to imply an error that is not actually there.

My edition of CC, and the version at google books, has the endnote cited as 10, not your “clxxviii. Your extra " added here, as though no one would notice your fraud, completely undermines, once again, the entire charade of your feeble inquisition. I see Boris has joined the pathetic witchhunt. Next you will be arguing I have a carrot for a nose.

Robert Tulip

Sorry for my morbid fascination with Zwaarddijk's motives and methods, but I have again checked his sources.

Acharya's endnote (CC p87 n10) cites christianism.com as her source for the Casey quote.

http://www.christianism.com/articles/article2.html contains

This is, as the kids put it, an epic fail on Zwaarddijk's part, neglecting even to check the source actually cited in the endnote, which explains directly why she added the square brackets around [dating to the].

Instead of malevolently and stupidly concocting fabricated base motives, Zwaarddijk might try actually engaging on substantive arguments for a change.

Zwaarddijk

Then she should not have listed P.J. Casey's book at all, as it's apparent she never read it.

Zwaarddijk

The final extra quotation-mark I accidentally included was a result of bad editing of a post - I had originally intended to quote her in quotation marks (so the onset would have read ""..., but changed my mind when I found the forum supports indentation. The accidental retention of that bit can't be fixed any longer

The "10" there and the "po" at a weird place is the result of me typing with the touchpad on, I did notice my palm accidentally moving the cursor - but as I quickly looked over my post, but I didn't see any extra syllables anywhere, so I figured nothing such had occured. Alas, it had.

Zwaarddijk

Then she should not have listed P.J. Casey's book at all! No matter how you turn it, it is a fucking misleading way of quoting.

Also, the entry in my version is like this:
clxxviii. P.J. Casey, Understanding Ancient Coins An Introduction for Archaeologists and Historians, Batsford, 1986 43. (christianism.com)
I actually assumed the 43. (christianism.com) (why parenthesis? what's the significance of the number?) Since it also was written with a different font from the rest of the entire bibliography (in the version I am reading), I figured it was a mistake in editing, something that had accidentally been copy-pasted where it currently was from some earlier version or whatever. In addition, when quoting someone quoting someone, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT STANDARD PRACTICE TO LIST THE NESTED WORK IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY AS SHE DOES HERE, nor does she do that *anywhere else in her entire bibliography*. This is misleading no matter how you turn it.

So, how about the Ashkenazim? You gonna maintain she's really right about that too or that I am misunderstanding what she's saying or missing her point or misrepresenting it or failing to grasp the bigger picture? HOW ABOUT THE CLAIM THAT ASHKENAZI JEWS ARE ALLUDED TO IN GENESIS?

Sheshbazzar

Wonder if they'll ever get the balls to put old 'St Peter' on public display.


But ya know in a sense it is quite true, without old 'St Peter's' contributions none of us would be here. :Cheeky: