aa5874

Why not admit the same for Marcion and the Historical Jesus and move on?

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's right. If astrotheology is enough to explain the similarities across the globe, then why is there a need to propose an ancient advanced global civilization? And if it isn't enough, then Acharya S needs to explain why. It's an obvious gap in her theory.

It's simply natural to ask questions of any new theory, to examine the tensions created by various hypotheses made to support that theory. That's what science is all about.

Here is Dr Robert M Price in his original review on The Christ Conspiracy. He has removed it from his website, but I'm not aware if he has retracted any specific allegations.

Dr Price writes:

Here is a writer who actually volunteers for the villain role in the old apologetics drama, i.e., a critic who does believe that "people got together and cooked up" early Christianity like a network sitcom. "These inaccuracies serve as evidence that the gospel writers were simply sitting around with books, studying and copying passages, and throwing in an original passage or two to link them all together" (p. 330). And who were these conspirators? The, er, Masons (pp. 334 ff.). And, of course, the Pope, even today, is the Grand Master Mason, you know (p. 348). It is remarkable how and where some people's historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt. Some mythologies of ancient origins and pedigrees seem to be suspect, while others are not.

But it gets much, much weirder even than that. One begins looking for Rod Serling, if one has not already, when we start, in the last chapters, reading bits and pieces drawn from James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu, Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis, Zechariah Sitchen, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia, and of course all that stuff about the maps of the ancient sea kings. We have already seen how Murdock quotes theosophical scholars who sketch in all of world mythology as the cradle of Christian mythology. Murdock agrees, and her theory, derived from various pyramidologists and other occultists, is that there was a highly advanced world wide culture millions of years ago, and that their religion and mythology spread all over the world, surviving not only in the form of Krishna crucifixes but even of Pygmy and South Sea Islander versions of Adam and Eve, Noah, etc.

Notice that the various Pacific, Mexican, and African aborigines whose myths are always cited in this connection do not provide Buddhist and Hindu parallels, as they surely should if all mythemes had been universally disseminated in antediluvian times. No, they seem always to be biblical. At this juncture I am reminded how African and Pacific natives, as part of their Revitalization movements against Christian colonial powers, tend to adopt elements of Christian doctrine, some even claiming that Jesus and the Bible came originally from their own culture, stolen like so much else by the colonials (see Peter Worsley's classic treatment of Melanesian Cargo Cults, The Trumpet Shall Sound). Can it be that when missionaries and monks recorded the vestiges of native mythologies, on the verge of their being stamped out for good, that they were already getting back portions of their own forced catechism? ... Maybe this is why we seem to have Pygmies and South Sea Islanders who have startlingly biblical-sounding beliefs.

The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney. If one has the time, it is fun trying to sort them out.

Here we have a competing theory for the explanation of Christian-sounding myths in different parts of the world: the native populations adopted them as missionaries intruded into their lives. Price brings up an excellent point that these parallels "seem always to be biblical" rather than with Buddhist or Hindu myths.

Toto

I am not accepting anything from GDon. I did my own research.

No, no, and no. She is not simply sharing information, and no more research needs to be done to realize that the Pygmies' claims of having invented everything is just made up, probably for the benefit of the visiting gullible white guy. She has no contemporary scholars who endorse these ideas or even feel the need to investigate them.

Are you familiar with how peer review works in practice? Do you think that academics are just a mutually supportive bunch who only say positive things?

And people are not banned around here for criticizing Carrier or anyone else. We rely on the give and take of debate to get closer to the truth.

So why keep on with the Pygmies? You never answered my question of whether respect for the Pygmies and their culture requires accepting their myths as factual.

When has Acharya S ever admitted error?

aa5874

So, who is doing research on Doherty's SUB-LUNAR crucifixion? Or is it that some white guy made up everything about the SUB-LUNAR in the Pauline writings?

Which contemporary Scholar ENDORSES Doherty's ideas and feel the need to investigate them?

Why does Ehrman continue with the Historical Jesus of Nazareth based on UNRELIABLE sources? When has Ehrman admitted error?

Why does Doherty keep on with the Sub-Lunar? When has Doherty admitted error?

GakuseiDon

I've been thinking of the point raised by Dr Price on Acharya S's astrotheological theory: If she proposes an ancient advanced global civilization that spread their myths and rites around the world, then why does she need astrotheology to explain the similarities in motifs found around the world? The first proposal means that the second is not required, at least where the first one already provides an explanation for those similarities.

So why does Acharya S propose a theory that affectively shoots her own astrotheological feet off, at least in some points? I just don't think she's thought through the ramifications for her ancient advanced global civilization (AAGC) theory.

But I can see why she is attracted to the idea. In "The Christ Conspiracy" she stresses how cultures throughout the world had similar sounding words for various concepts. Obviously looking up at the sky isn't going to produce that, so astrotheology alone is not enough.

But then what to make of her list of astrotheological signs that provide "a Virgin-born crucified saviour"? As she has written:

• The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
• In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin." 190
• The sun is the "Light of the World."
• The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
• The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
• The sun "walks on water," describing its reflection.
• The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass annually.
• The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
• The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
• The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.

Some of these are no longer required as explanations if (for example) the Pygmies themselves spread their beliefs about a Pygmy Christ being born of a Pygmy Virgin around the world. So what is the most likely explanation for a Virgin-born figure in Mexico? Is both needed? It would be interesting to see this put to here: Is the astrotheological explanation for the Virgin motif is stronger than the AAGC one?

Some of her evidence for an AAGC from "The Christ Conspiracy" (various quotes):

More to come!

MCalavera

She looks good, that's for sure.