GakuseiDon

I think you mean footnote 28? It reads: "Higgins, I, 823. See also the works of Jordan Maxwell."

Jordan Maxwell is the person behind the three parts of the "Zeitgeist" movie. Acharya S uses him a few times in "The Christ Conspiracy", including this on Page 96 (my bolding):

Furthermore, a representation of the Jewish “Feast of the giving of the law” has an image of an erupting volcano—Mt. Sinai—with the two tablets of the Ten Commandments above it. As Jordan Maxwell points out, the benediction or blessing sign of the Feast is the same as the split-fingered, “live long and prosper” salutation of the Vulcan character Spock on “Star Trek.” Vulcan, of course, is the same word as volcano, and the Roman god Vulcan was also a lightning and volcano god. In volcano cults, the thunderous noise coming from the mountain is considered the “voice of God,” the same voice that “spoke” to Moses in the myth.

Now, I know that Leonard Nimoy has stated that his Vulcan "live long and prosper" sign comes from Judaism. But what the heck is "Star Trek" doing in there? Absolutely bizarre.

I make no bones that I regard much of Doherty's speculation as nutty as Acharya S's. I know you reject this, just as Dave31 rejects that Acharya S's work is very 'fruity'. But from memory, about the only thing I tie Acharya S to Doherty is Doherty's review of Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy". Or were you thinking about something else?

There are a lot of things in "The Christ Conspiracy" which are flat-out bizarre. And I mean A LOT. The Pope as "Grand Master-Mason of the Masonic branches of the world", the puppet master with many scholars and universities being the puppets, is just one of them.

Doherty has reviewed "The Christ Conspiracy" on Amazon, giving it five stars out of five. He says the book "covers a wide range of interesting and provocative topics, with plenty of stimulating insights", and while noting the speculation (in this case on the commonality of certain religious and cultural motifs from one end of the planet to the other), he writes "for the most part the author simply lets the data speak for itself, and readers can draw what conclusions their own adventurous spirits might wish."

Now, I will grant that Doherty may have missed one or two of Acharya S's kookier notions. But did he miss ALL of them, such that he felt that the book as worth five stars out of five? How could that have happened?

Is it worth pointing out? Not for you, of course. I can understand why you don't like it, any more than Dave31 is pleased when I quote some of the nutty things that Acharya S claims. As I already noted above, "the crap claims of Acharya S are not a reflection on the claims of Doherty", which need to be addressed on their own terms. But I haven't done the association between Doherty and Acharya S. Doherty did that himself. He can recant this association at any time.

mountainman

The Nicaean boundary event occurred 1687 years ago.

If there is a secret brotherhood to keep mythicism at bay it would have to be found in the actions of the 19th century Vatican Popes and papal archaeologists, such as de Rossi & Co, who collated the first volume of "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae". This source of archaeological data contains many items of claimed evidence which, upon examination, are entirely questionable.

Many scholars have accepted and are accepting items of evidence from this source on an authoritative and uncritical basis, because the source has been accepted by earlier scholars.



The Vatican has maintained the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" continuously from Nicaea in the 4th century, to the rule of Rat-singer in the 21st century. It is only in recent centuries that the effect of this "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" has lessened, as the power of the church has weakened.

The Vatican is more or less an organisation which has for centuries intercepted manuscript and relic and archaeological discoveries, and retained them for posterity. The loss of the control of the Dead Sea Scrolls by the Vatican marked the point at which the "Brotherhood" lost control of the management of evidence discoveries. Since then the Nag Hammadi Codices and the gJudas manuscript discovery have managed to remain (at least on the surface) beyond the control of the Vatican.

Christian archaeological citations are continuing to be made with reference to the descendant publications of the original 19th century Papal compilation called "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae". The Vatican Tourism department relies on this bullshit for its day tours to the Catacombs. Modern scholars still cite this evidence, as though it were something legitimate, whereas there is no legitimacy in any of the items put forward. I have examined these items. Has anyone else?

In this matter of "Christian archaeology", with the exception of the Dura-Europos-Yale "house church" and the Palaeography departments of some major universities (such as Oxford and Yale), the Vatican still securely holds on to the myth that the Catacombs of Rome evidence "Early Christians". This myth is bullshit, yet the scholars still trot out the citations, books after book, perpetuating this myth.




Does everyone see Jesus in the archaeology?

YES, YES, Yes of course we do !!!


The Pope's researchers are infallible.

Toto

What is Star Trek doing in there? You have missed the whole point of this sort of work. It attracts people who want to believe that everything is connected, who like to find connections between everything.

James McGrath seems to spend most of his time on his blog discussing the connections between Christianity and science fiction/popular culture. Go tell him how bizarre he is.

Not from memory - you continually mention Acharya S and Doherty in the same sentence, as if they were related. No one else who has read them puts them in the same category.

That's true, and it's part of the entertainment value of the book.

He didn't miss them. He specifically said that the book was entertaining and stimulating. Lots of people find this sort of speculation entertaining without feeling the need to get all judgmental about the author.

You can find something worth while in many writings, even if the author on occasion goes off on a nutty tangent and entertains speculative ideas. Doherty also reads Christian authors, even when he disagrees with them, and some of them have even more bizarre beliefs than Acharya S - they think a man rose from the dead. Does he have to reject everything about them because they are wrong on this point?

Doherty does not cite Acharya S as a source and does not derive any of his theories from her work. He does not discuss astrotheology, or Jesus as a sun god.

You have not made the case that your constant harping on Acharya S is anything other than a smear campaign. If you want to discuss Doherty's views, just talk about his work.

J-D

We have to deal with such apparent contradictions because some people are hopelessly wedded to the absurd notion that people can be meaningfully classified as 'historicists' and 'mythicists'. Once you junk that stupid idea the apparent problem disappears.

yalla

There seems to be a tendency on the part of some, I suspect it is deliberate, to attempt to associate by means of constant repitition, mythicism as a theory with those elements identified by those same 'some' as wacky.
Its a common propaganda trick.
The idea is to constantly erfer to both, whether warranted as such, together so that people think they are the same. The 1000 odd repititions of WMDs and Iraq together is an example of the same technique as used by politicians.
The strange thing the same people ignore those 'wacky' groups associated with the conservative christian HJ apologist camp. Creationists, YECs, bible inerrantists for example.
It would be nice if we could concentrate on the issues and not 'poison the well' by attempting to associate opposing viewpoints on the issue[s] with the 'wackies'. Its a weapon that has two sharp sides and should be kept in the scabbard.

hjalti

So Don, what in Doherty's writings is even close to this papal masonic nonsense from Acharya?

MrMacSon

"Are scholars part of a secret brotherhood to keep mythicism at bay?"

They are probably more wedded to the idea of hiding the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus; many acknowledge there is mythicism by pleading for supernaturalism.

mountainman

Acharya S has raised an entire range of issues that are not addressed by the mainstream circus act of "Biblical Historians". GDon continually reminds everyone of this circus act by dragging out issues that are then supposed to be clubbed to death by the faithful mainstreamers.

GDON has called for discussion on the "Vatican Brotherhood" and I have responded directly to these challenges. The Vatican is suspect of forging its own evidence in the field of "Early Christian Archaeology".



I agree. If its not pigmys it conspiracies. But in this instance it is clear, at least to me, that there is substance in the claim relating to a Vatican "brotherhood". If GDON does not think this is the case, then he must respond to the issues I have raised about "Christian archaeology", and the inception of this field by the Vatican, quite formally, and with a great deal of financial resources, in the mid 19th century.

sotto voce

It wasn't a boundary event, was it. What is attribution of comment from one poster, to another? A crossing the boundary event? It's not misrepresentation. But it does tend to make HJ look a cert, does it not.

The Milvian Bridge was the boundary. If you're interested in archaeology, try this for size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archofconstantine.jpg

So there is solid evidence for HJ. Massive, even. Go and bang your heads on it, all ye of little faith. Obey the Great Con. Note the girth of the neck, the paucity of the skull.

But you are right, I was a touch 'previous'. The battle will be 1700 years old in six months' time on October 28th. Catholics everywhere will say a Mass for their founder. Quietly, of course.

But everything about the Vatican is questionable. It was originally founded on crime, it today exists courtesy of Mussolini, a fascist inspired by the Roman Empire that founded it. Of course this shambolic cult has to effect indignation at MJ, just as it has to feign opposition to breaches of the moral law. But, after the shouting, the drama, the monster mountebanks will share a jovial beer or something stronger in the bar with any atheist chum.

No. As I've written before, scholars have no option. It's the billions around the world who decide that HJ is their eternal study, because they won't have it any other way.

Why is this? People simply cannot believe that the human race could ever in sixty billion years have invented the biblical record. The more they discover about it, the less likely it can be what mythicists say it is.

GakuseiDon

It doesn't matter what I think. Let the evidence speak for itself. Let's get back to the OP topic.