Zwaarddijk

You are aware Acharya implies that Indian civilization is 100k years old?

aa5874

You have wasted all your time and energy with your own "BS" when you have not ever been able to dispute her claim that Jesus was a Myth.

You have completely missed the point of the thread.

Acharya S position that Jesus was a Myth is in perfect agreement with the written statements of the Church, its agents and Codices.

Jesus of the NT was a Ghost--a Myth.

It is documented.

Matthew 1:18 (CEB) No matter what you say about Acharya S she did get these sources right.

1. In gMatthew Jesus was born after Mary was pregnant by a Ghost.

2. In gMark Jesus walked on water, transfigured and resurrected.

3. In gLuke Jesus was born after Mary was under the "shadow of a Ghost".

4. In gJohn Jesus was God the Creator.

5. In Acts, Jesus Ascended in a cloud.

6. In the Pauline writings, it was Revealed that Jesus was the Firstborn of the dead.

7. Ignatius claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

8. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

9. Tertullian claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

10. Origen claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

11. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

12. Aristides claimed Jesus was a God that lived inside a woman.

13. Eusebius claimed Jesus was Divine.

14. Jerome claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Acharya S got her sources for Myth Jesus.

Jesus was a Myth.

Acharya S is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Please, stop wasting your time with your own 'BS'.

HJers are ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The very BIBLE of the Church support Acharya S.

Matthew 1:18 (CEB)

outhouse

Thank you Tanya.

It was better then I expected.

We really need more archaeological evidence to back said dates provided. So as of now its incomplete with a 30,000 ish date from Tibet.




here is the key statements stated from your link.


that dates inferred from present-day genetic diversity can vary greatly, as a result of unknown differences



It is often the case that dates from mtDNA are up to twice as old as those for the Y chromosome


So when we cut these dates in half, were left about where we started



and that the initial migration signal may be difficult to detect, especially when it is hidden beneath layers of subsequent migrations.


a detailed understanding of human diversity will require more extensive sampling.


A more complete survey of populations and sophisticated statistical analysis of thousands of additional markers is needed


So the work here is unfinished

Iskander

Why is that important to you?

spin

I have no problem with Shi et al.'s data, though the dating is interesting. Shi is specifically dealing with East Asia and the effects of Y-DNA C-M130 haplotype descendants, the ones who skirted India and went on to East Asia and Sahul. Shi was not responsible for the caption in the cited article that talks about "humans arriving in the Indian subcontinent about 70,000 years ago". It was probably Shi's reviewers, Stanyon et al. who assert later "The migration route to East Asia must pass through the Indian subcontinent." The text I was reading when I noted the claims here about Petraglia was Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, Random House, 2002. Wells argues for the migration using the coastal plain, which provided an ease of passage unavailable inland. Majumder (see below) states, "South Asia has served as the major early corridor... The likely route of dispersal ran along the coastline of India." From what I've read, not a trace of the C-M130 migration was left in India, ie despite the genetic diversity in the population of the subcontinent, one doesn't find evidence of the original C-M130 haplogroup. One has to step back to M168 and go down another lineage.

In a review paper by P.P. Majumder, "The Human Genetic History of South Asia" (Current Biology 20, R184–R187, February 23, 2010), the writer notes, "Within India, consistent with social history, extant populations inhabiting northern regions show closer affinities with Indo-European speaking populations of central Asia than those inhabiting southern regions."

On to the colonization of the Pacific, according to Soares et al. (Ancient Voyaging and Polynesian Origins, Am.J.Hum.Gen. 88, 239-247, 2011) the Bismarck Islands were occupied by at least 6kya (p.244), but "the indigenous lineages of the Bismarck Archipelago, M27, M28, and M29, are rarely found beyond their place of origin." The later thrust into remote oceania didn't come from the Bismarcks, nor does it come from New Guinea, given the fact that the indicative Lapita pottery which marks the outward move though found in the Bismarcks was not found early in New Guinea. Soares et al. look to Island South East Asia for the eventual source of the pottery and thus a mid-Holocene origin of the Polynesian peoples. Linguistically, Soares links Polynesian to Proto-Malay, which is in tune with an ISEA home for the earliest Polynesians.

Robert Tulip writes:

This clearly does not match the evidence. Journeys of "thousands of miles through open seas" have no reflection in reality, let alone "30,000 years ago".

It should be noted that when we cite from academic sources, we leave the James Churchward new age nonsense behind and start dealing with scientific evidence, which is quite a change from the range of amusing crap in the bibliography I looked at some posts back.

Zwaarddijk

Which potential untruth is more major:
- positing that there was a man, in Jerusalem and environs (for some large value of environs), who riled some people up, got some adherents and finally got killed - whose adherents couldn't accept that he wasn't, after all, the messiah?
- pushing civilization back 90 000+ years, only because the Rig Veda says so?

Let us assume both are untrue, which of these two is the more major distortion of history?

Iskander

Let us assume that Achar is distorting history and that the Gospels are also distorting history.

You are claiming that Achar’s distortion of history is a mortal sin that deserves to be punished by hell on earth according to the judgement delivered by some northern Torquemada and some American cardinals.


You are classifying the distortion of history in the Gospels and in the Koran and in the Shudra enslaving Vedas as only a venial sin to be atoned by the reciting of a Hail Mary.

Have I got it right?

tanya

What does not match "the evidence"?

We have no reliable empirical evidence to support or refute the notions of ancient sea travel, i.e. voyage by ocean, prior to the existence of any carvings, writings, monuments, sculptures, or cave paintings to illustrate the accomplishment.

In my opinion, it is an error to assume ignorance and incompetence, by ancient peoples.

There is a bias, on this forum, in my opinion, to thinking that history, human civilization, begins (and for some folks, ends) with judaism.

Again, only an opinion, I suspect that in the future we will learn much more about ancient civilizations, and their accomplishments, pushing the age of homo sapiens further back. Three decades ago, modern humans did not co-exist with homo neanderthal--today we know that we share a percentage of neanderthal's genetic makeup.

This is a fluid area of research. The fossil record changes daily. Our understanding of the emigrations from Asia into North and South America also has changed radically, in the past few years.

Just a few months ago, I chanced upon an article describing recovery of a spear point in the mud of Chesapeake Bay. I am a little pressed for time, so cannot dig up the references, now, but anyone interested can find the connection with similar spear points found only in one other place on planet earth: a narrow section of land, spanning what is today Southern France and northern Spain. How did that spear point from Europe end up in the mud off the coast of Maryland?

Iskander

Evolution requires the transition of dumb animals such as kicking mules to gifted superior animals such as the posters in this forum.


The ancient people have to be credited with having achieved that transforming rational glory!

I say, Glory to the Neanderthal man and woman. Hallelujah!

Zwaarddijk

You are attacking a strawman here! I do think the gospels are obviously wrong and I say as much whenever it's relevant to the topic - I don't believe a single miracle described in it took place, I think several or even most of the reported discussions between Jesus and the pharisees are either distorted, invented or misattributed, and I think the narrative is badly stitched together out of anecdotes, exaggerations and religious interpolation of his life.

I do not defend the NT at all! The NT, however, when discussed by reasonable people is admitted to be a book full of things not to be taken at face value at all. Acharya's fans are much like religious people in that pointing out any flaw in her books is an affront to them.

However, Acharya's fans also oppose those who think Jesus was just a madman or a charismatic preacher who had some limited success in acquiring adherents during his lifetime, and who think his life was an entirely natural event with no gods or anything of the kind involved.

Which of the beliefs that Jesus was a small-time cult leader about whom a bunch of exaggerated works were written and that India has had civilizations for 100 000 years is a greater distortion of reality, if reality is that
a) Jesus is a mythical figure that was made human by people misunderstanding the story (rather than a human that was deified by people)
b) India has had civilization for <6 kyears ?
You refused to answer that, as a strawman argument such as the one you presented is misleading and just pure dumb.

Nowhere do I claim that her mistakes and distortions and fabrications are mortal sins, I am just claiming that these things make her books almost as worthless if used as scientific sources as the NT is.

I would respect you a bit if you didn't go to such annoying strawman arguments.