Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST
- Thread starter Dave31
- Start date
I can't help but notice that GreNME could not produce the evidence of his original claim that this thread is a copy-paste directly from Acharya's e-newsletter.
So GreNME has changed his tune trying fabricating the "evidence" he does not have. He owes Acharya and myself an apology for his utter dishonesty.
I have contacted Acharya & made her aware of the blatant defamation here by GreNME. She said she is contacting J. Randi about it. If the Jrandi forums intend to hold a credible reputation then they need keep the utterly dishonest out. GreNME has offered absolutely nothing but trolling throughout this thread. His comments need to be deleted due to the fact that his last few posts attribute quotes from Acharya such as "Originally Posted by Dorothy Murdock in a newsletter" and "Originally Posted by Dorothy Murdock TBK e-mail" that are utterly false - they are total fabrications by GreNME. All one needs to do is actually check - none of those comments came from any "newsletter" and they're all old and come from her forum taken out of context.
A monumental clue is the fact as already made categorically clear that Acharya has NEVER USED THE NAME DOROTHY - it comes from malicious detractors attempting to share personal and PRIVATE information that could potentially lead to physical harm/violence AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST WITH THE ABDUCTION OF HER YOUNG CHILD. GreNME has simply used that name so often that it has become a habit and he forgot. So GreNME is BUSTED by his own use of it.
The utter disrespect for a single female here is purely heinous.
And, Acharya replied to me that her moderator Freethinka actually said
All of the comments that GreNME has taken out of context from the forum were made in May of 2008 as one can see by actually checking.
It's way past time for GreNME to CEASE and DESIST the utter defamation against Acharya S and her works.
So GreNME has changed his tune trying fabricating the "evidence" he does not have. He owes Acharya and myself an apology for his utter dishonesty.
I have contacted Acharya & made her aware of the blatant defamation here by GreNME. She said she is contacting J. Randi about it. If the Jrandi forums intend to hold a credible reputation then they need keep the utterly dishonest out. GreNME has offered absolutely nothing but trolling throughout this thread. His comments need to be deleted due to the fact that his last few posts attribute quotes from Acharya such as "Originally Posted by Dorothy Murdock in a newsletter" and "Originally Posted by Dorothy Murdock TBK e-mail" that are utterly false - they are total fabrications by GreNME. All one needs to do is actually check - none of those comments came from any "newsletter" and they're all old and come from her forum taken out of context.
A monumental clue is the fact as already made categorically clear that Acharya has NEVER USED THE NAME DOROTHY - it comes from malicious detractors attempting to share personal and PRIVATE information that could potentially lead to physical harm/violence AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST WITH THE ABDUCTION OF HER YOUNG CHILD. GreNME has simply used that name so often that it has become a habit and he forgot. So GreNME is BUSTED by his own use of it.
The utter disrespect for a single female here is purely heinous.
And, Acharya replied to me that her moderator Freethinka actually said
All of the comments that GreNME has taken out of context from the forum were made in May of 2008 as one can see by actually checking.
It's way past time for GreNME to CEASE and DESIST the utter defamation against Acharya S and her works.
Last edited:
Tim, I'm not sure what you're doing over there Acharya discusses the Jewish origin and influence upon Christianity THROUGHOUT her books. She has repeatedly stated and made the case that Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and Israelites were behind the creation of Christianity, combining their scriptures with the characteristics and adventures of non-Jewish gods and godmen. In fact, that's her entire thesis. In "The Christ Conspiracy," Acharya devotes entire chapters, such as "The Myth of Hebrew Monotheism" and "Essenes, Zealots and Zadokites," specifically to the Jewish question. These are listed in the Table of Contents in "The Christ Conspiracy."
Another chapter in "The Christ Conspiracy" is "The Making of a Myth," p. 356, in which Acharya highlights the various texts used by the JEWISH and SAMARITAN creators of Christianity. Subsections there include:
"The Intertestamental Literature and Christian Apocrypha"
"The Book of Enoch"
"The Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs"
"The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus"
"The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, or The Didache"
And so on. These are all listed in "The Christ Conspiracy," which one would know if one were reading it. I can't see how you could've missed all of them if you were really looking. If it was a snake it would've bitten you, Tim.
These parts of Acharya's work are continually overlooked when individuals wish to dismiss her by using sensationalism. In this section, for example, she goes into detail about which specific texts were used by the creators of Christianity.
As concerns, "Suns of God," most of it discusses the mythology and ancient texts of Hinduism and Buddhism, but Acharya's also got chapters on Christ that most definitely discuss Jewish influences, such as the Septuagint and Philo.
If you're using Google Books, all you need to do is search for the words "Jews," "Judaism" and so forth. If you are using Google Books, you might want to get the real book, because her books are on limited preview. Scanning the table of contents usually doesn't prove as illuminating as actually reading the book.
"Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" is almost entirely about the JEWISH origins and influences upon Christianity. You can see the Table of Contents here:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/table-of-contents.html
Acharya has an entire chapter entitled "Prophecy or Blueprint?," with a chart showing the precise Old Testament scriptures that were used as a blueprint in the creation of Christianity. Perhaps you missed all the glowing reviews of "Who Was Jesus?" by a variety of educated people, including skeptics and believers here:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus1.html
For example, Pastor David Bruce, who has a master's in Divinity, said of WWJ:
Here's a quote from a review at Amazon by a seminary student, who is
"Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" is a specific study of the comparisons between Horus and Jesus, as found in the EGYPTIAN primary sources. Jews and other Israelitish people, Judaism and Jewish writings are referenced throughout the book.
I hope this helps you out, Tim.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Thank you for the clarification. Of course the Table of Contents for "The Christ Conspiracy," such as "The Making of a Myth" doesn't list the chapter subheadings, so I wouldn't know from reading it that she had referred back to the important literature of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Also, a chapter heading titled "The Myth of Hebrew Monotheism" doesn't tell me that.
As to my critique of "Zeitgeist," that is precisely what it was, a critique of the movie, which mentions none of the material above. I still stand by what I said:
First, Horus did not have 12 disciples The Book of Amduat shows him facing "he twelve hours" not his twelve deisciples.
The dying and rising gods who preceded Jesus weren't crucified, though they were put to death in various gruesome ways.
As to the birthday of various precursers of Jesus being on December 25, we must remember that, due to the inaccuracies of various ancient calenders, the date of the winter solstice kept slipping backward. Initially, in the Roman calender it was in early January, which is why Janus, the Roman god after whom the month was named, is shown as having two faces, one looking forward into the future and one looking backward into the past. Thus, it's unlikely that any god born on the solstice in an earlier time would have had a birthday on December 25. Another problem with this is that the birthday of Jesus wasn't fixed until Pope Julian I decreed it be on that date ca. 350. This is a bit late for it to be part of the original Christ myth and seems more likely to be an attempts to occupy a rival's territory by confiscating the birthdate of Sol Invictus (L. "Unconquered Sun").
Even though we may disagree on the Jesus/ Horus connection, the fact that she acknowledges the Jewish sources for the Christ myth means that we may not be that far apart in our views as I had formerly thought. Again, none of this material is in the film "Zeitgeist." For all that, there are three things that still bother me about Acharya's work: her odd screed on circumcision, her belief in an ancient global civiilization and what amounts to tacit support of Peter Joseph's conspiracy theories in"Zeitgeist."
Her assertion that male cirumcision causes irreversibe brain damage, I find absolutely absurd. If it were true, we would expect the Jews to exhibit lower over all intelligence than other peoples. In fact, though I'm sure this is more heritage than heredity, they exhibit higher. Also I can see no reason why removal of the foreskin would have any effect on th brain. I would tend to see male circumcision as rather pointless, but not that big a deal one way or another.
As to the theory of a global civilization that flourished in the late Pleistocene, one that was destroyed by a cataclysmic flood brought about by the melting of the glaciers, there really is no evidence for this. Usually advocates of this theory advocate radical redating, and their dates are utterly unsupported by the evidence, including carbon 14 dating.
Finally, though I know you don't agree with me on this, unless she publicly comes out and says she doesn't gree with Joseph's 9/11 conspiracy theory and his assertion that the Federal Reserve Board is part of a conspiracy of financiers to destroy democracy (Parts II and III of "Zeitgeist"), allowing her work to be coupled with his amounts to tacit support of his theories. So tell me, does she or does she not agree with Joseph's views as expressed in Parts II and III of "Zeitgeist"?
As to my critique of "Zeitgeist," that is precisely what it was, a critique of the movie, which mentions none of the material above. I still stand by what I said:
First, Horus did not have 12 disciples The Book of Amduat shows him facing "he twelve hours" not his twelve deisciples.
The dying and rising gods who preceded Jesus weren't crucified, though they were put to death in various gruesome ways.
As to the birthday of various precursers of Jesus being on December 25, we must remember that, due to the inaccuracies of various ancient calenders, the date of the winter solstice kept slipping backward. Initially, in the Roman calender it was in early January, which is why Janus, the Roman god after whom the month was named, is shown as having two faces, one looking forward into the future and one looking backward into the past. Thus, it's unlikely that any god born on the solstice in an earlier time would have had a birthday on December 25. Another problem with this is that the birthday of Jesus wasn't fixed until Pope Julian I decreed it be on that date ca. 350. This is a bit late for it to be part of the original Christ myth and seems more likely to be an attempts to occupy a rival's territory by confiscating the birthdate of Sol Invictus (L. "Unconquered Sun").
Even though we may disagree on the Jesus/ Horus connection, the fact that she acknowledges the Jewish sources for the Christ myth means that we may not be that far apart in our views as I had formerly thought. Again, none of this material is in the film "Zeitgeist." For all that, there are three things that still bother me about Acharya's work: her odd screed on circumcision, her belief in an ancient global civiilization and what amounts to tacit support of Peter Joseph's conspiracy theories in"Zeitgeist."
Her assertion that male cirumcision causes irreversibe brain damage, I find absolutely absurd. If it were true, we would expect the Jews to exhibit lower over all intelligence than other peoples. In fact, though I'm sure this is more heritage than heredity, they exhibit higher. Also I can see no reason why removal of the foreskin would have any effect on th brain. I would tend to see male circumcision as rather pointless, but not that big a deal one way or another.
As to the theory of a global civilization that flourished in the late Pleistocene, one that was destroyed by a cataclysmic flood brought about by the melting of the glaciers, there really is no evidence for this. Usually advocates of this theory advocate radical redating, and their dates are utterly unsupported by the evidence, including carbon 14 dating.
Finally, though I know you don't agree with me on this, unless she publicly comes out and says she doesn't gree with Joseph's 9/11 conspiracy theory and his assertion that the Federal Reserve Board is part of a conspiracy of financiers to destroy democracy (Parts II and III of "Zeitgeist"), allowing her work to be coupled with his amounts to tacit support of his theories. So tell me, does she or does she not agree with Joseph's views as expressed in Parts II and III of "Zeitgeist"?
Okay, fair enough, Tim. I thought they were fairly easy to find when I looked for them. You'll appreciate her new book "Christ in Egypt" as that table of contents includes all subheadings making for a user-friendly reference guide. The bibliography and index are quite extensive too.
First of all, Tim, you didn't even know that Horus WAS associated with "the 12," because you're not an expert on the Egyptian religion and you didn't even bother to check the facts. Now, you're doing it again, because you don't know the Egyptian religion very well. Acharya certainly identified the image in question as being from the Book of Amduat with the hours, so she knows that fact very well - in her rebuttal to you, she even presented the discussion of the 12 as being astrotheological in nature, including as addressed by Josephus and Philo. You haven't studied the information on the subject, so you don't know if these 12 PERSONIFIED hours, standing in front of Horus sitting on a THRONE, like a king addressing his SUBJECTS, could be considered his "helpers" or "disciples." This was covered in Acharya's article - maybe you should re-read it? You didn't know about Horus and the 12 at all remember? So now you're going to raise a straw man? Here's the point: The thesis is that the god with the 12 is a MYTHICAL motif that was borrowed by the creators of Christianity and set into "history." In this premise, Jesus and his "disciples" weren't REAL PEOPLE either; they were rehashes of the mythical 12 that represent the signs of the zodiac and the hours.
Well, following your "logic" above, they didn't really die, because they were sun gods and the like, not real people. It's called mythology. That straw man aside, by reading Acharya's work, you would see that the point here is that the god on a cross existed in pre-Christian times and in non-Christian cultures and that it was probably from this important motif and icon that the creators of Christianity drew their inspiration for presenting a "crucified" godman/messiah. There's much more to this subject - Acharya's written dozens of pages on the subject of the pre-Christian and non-Christian god in cruciform. Not only is this figure of a god in a cross shape or cruciform admitted to by the Church fathers, but it appears in Plato, as well as in Egyptian images.
I think you're missing the point - don't get confused by the variety of calendars. Regardless of the calendar used, the winter solstice remains the same. You're attempting to split hairs here, which is a total waste of time since the Gregorian wasn't implemented until 1582 by Pope Gregory. The fact is that at some point the Church fathers found it appropriate to attach the SUN GOD's birthday to the Christian Also, to the ancients December 25th represented the END of the three-day period or "triduum" of the winter solstice, so it's not a question of "slippage." December 25th represented the winter solstice, period.
I just get the sense that you're reaching for anything, Tim. I think there's plenty we can agree on nevertheless, the traditional birth date for Jesus 3 days after the winter solstice holds obvious relationship to the sun god. The other dates were also astrotheological as well. The point is that if Jesus really were a historical character the birth date wouldn't jump around from this astrotheological event to that. It just demonstrates the biblical Jesus was not a historical character. Acharya writes about those other birth dates was well. Also, Jesus's birthday as that of the SUN GOD on December 25 was already a tradition by the early third century, if not earlier. Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus:
"O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born ... Christ should be born"
-- Cyprian (may be found in Christ in Egypt page 81)
Yes, this is true. There's probably much more the two of you can agree on as well. Acharya has never NOT acknowledged the Jewish connection to Christianity. She was raised a Protestant, and she knows the religion very well. She knows that it was supposedly created by a "Jewish" man with Jewish disciples using the Jewish scriptures and law, etc. Her entire premise is that Jews took the Jewish scriptures - especially the "messianic prophecies" - and combined them with the characteristics of Pagan gods and myths, in order to create a superhuman Jewish messiah. You probably agree with Acharya on that premise, and you're just debating the details. That's fine, but it's a waste of time if all of your points have already been addressed here or in her work.
That's right - as already explained she had no part in the creation of Zeitgeist whatsoever.
These are all irrelevant here as they have nothing to do with your article nor hers nor is it the topic in this thread.
Ah, that wasn't her comment now was it, Tim. She cited neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott for that:
There's really nothing "absurd" about understanding that cutting off body parts at a young age will likely prevent various parts of the brain from growing properly. What is absurd is to believe otherwise, especially since it's obvious you haven't studied the issue and do not have scientific credentials to make any pronouncement towards it. Here's some literature on the subject of circumcision and brain damage:
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html
There's plenty more.
As concerns an ancient global civilization, practically every day there is more evidence found that ancient humanity was far more advanced than the mainstream has believed. So, your belief in the mainstream paradigm of the ancient world is just that - a belief. And it's being dispelled on a daily basis. Ever heard of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey? Look it up.
In addition, so what? I know atheists who practice tarot card reading and other "mystical" and esoteric things - does that affect their ability to analyze religious claims? Are you 100% correct in all your thoughts and deeds? Are you interested in mind control, such that everyone has to agree with you 100% on every subject? You yourself clearly knew nothing about the Egyptian 12, yet you're trying to argue about it. You also clearly know nothing about circumcision, but you're trying to argue about it - I could therefore say, "There are things that still bother me about Tim's work...he attempts to discuss subjects he clearly knows nothing about..."
Seriously Tim? Because I've answered a few times already by providing her very own quotes with the links to back it up. How many times are we going to go through this one?
Here video says essentially the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4
So both her blog and video nipped that in the bud long ago.
I'll offer my recommendation once more - it's probably best for you to let all of this go until you've made yourself well informed by giving Acharya's 4 books and the sources she provides in them a serious going over.
On a side note - I trust that Skeptic Magazine will have the integrity to include a mention of Acharya's response to yours when that issue comes out? Or provide it in full in a later issue? Don't you think skeptics deserve to hear her side of this issue, especially taking into consideration that she specializes in some of the areas pertaining to Zeitgeist part 1?
Last edited:
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Well Dave, I tried twice to respond to your latest post, only to have the forum totally destroy my posts becuse I inadvertantly left in a url. I don't even know how I did it the second time. However since I spent a considerable abmount of time on those posts, I'm rally pissed. I'll try again later.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
The 12 disciples, who may well be fictional, are most likely based on the 12 tribes of Israel. These, in turn probably represent months of the year as part of a lunar cult as noted by Savina Teubal in "Sarah the Priestess." Were they based on the Zodiac, we would expect the disciples to reflect their respective signs in their personalities. However, most of them don't even have personalities and are essentially spear carriers, which fits a messianic myth more than one that is astrotheological.
If you can show me a pre-Christian image of a crucified god - as opposed to a solar cross, it will go a long way toward proving your and Acharya's point.
Jesus' three day death may well be derived from shamanism. In shamanic initiations, the shaman "dies" and is "reborn" a new man. Among the Yakut, a Siberian tribe, the initiate lies in his yurt, symbolically dead for three days and nights (see Mircea Eliade's "Shamanism").
Among a Tibetan tribe , the Tamaing (sp.?), at the onset ofthe shamanic crisis, the initiate is pssessed by spirits who drive him into solitude. In the Gospel of Mark, once Jesus has been baptised and had a very subjective epiphany, in which he sees the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him, the Spirit straightaway drives him into the wilderness. Both Matthew and Luke try to soften this, saying the Spirit "led" him into the wilderness (Gr. "ago" or "anago"); but Mark uses the word "exballo," meaning "throw out". Its Latin analogue is "ejecto," from which we get our word "eject." So, in Mark, Jesus is handled roughly by the Spirit, as in the case of shamanic initiates.
As to the birthday of Horus, some documentation of that would be helpful. Let me explain why I don't think an ancient Egyptian god would be born on Dec. 25. Consider Janus, the Roman god initially associated with a winter solstice early in January (which was named after him). Even though by the first century the solstice had slipped back to Dec. 25, Janus remained associated with January. I suspect the birthday of a god on the original solstice would remain fixed, even after the solstice had moved to another date.
As to Cyprian, he livd between ca. 200 and ca. 253. So his seeing the birthday of Jesus as being on the winter solstice would still fit a late commandeering of the birthday of Sol Invictus by Christians.
As to whether Acharya said it directly or only quoted Prescott, concerning infant circumcision causing brain damage, it makes little difference. If you quote someone to support your view, you are taking that person's quoted belief as your own. While I was unable to access the website for Prescott, I have to say that I don't really need to be a scientist to know that the Jews don't seem to be a brain-damaged lot. Rather, their intellectual acheivement is out of all proportion to their numbers.
According to the Smithsonian article on Gobekli Tepe, it was bilt by a people who not only lacked metals, but pottery as well. Further, they didn't develop agriculture until 500 years after the site had been abandoned. Thus, while it's impressive that it's 11,000 years old, it hardly qualifies as a representative for a global Pleistocene civilization.
As to atheists who consult Tarot cards, I would doubt their atheism. As to whether Acharya's belief in a global civilization in the late Pleistocene is important to consider, Iwould have to know how important it is to her theory that all religions derive from astrotheological religion.
Yes, Skeptic Magazine will refer to Acharya's rebuttal to my review of "Zeitgeist" and my response to it.
If you can show me a pre-Christian image of a crucified god - as opposed to a solar cross, it will go a long way toward proving your and Acharya's point.
Jesus' three day death may well be derived from shamanism. In shamanic initiations, the shaman "dies" and is "reborn" a new man. Among the Yakut, a Siberian tribe, the initiate lies in his yurt, symbolically dead for three days and nights (see Mircea Eliade's "Shamanism").
Among a Tibetan tribe , the Tamaing (sp.?), at the onset ofthe shamanic crisis, the initiate is pssessed by spirits who drive him into solitude. In the Gospel of Mark, once Jesus has been baptised and had a very subjective epiphany, in which he sees the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him, the Spirit straightaway drives him into the wilderness. Both Matthew and Luke try to soften this, saying the Spirit "led" him into the wilderness (Gr. "ago" or "anago"); but Mark uses the word "exballo," meaning "throw out". Its Latin analogue is "ejecto," from which we get our word "eject." So, in Mark, Jesus is handled roughly by the Spirit, as in the case of shamanic initiates.
As to the birthday of Horus, some documentation of that would be helpful. Let me explain why I don't think an ancient Egyptian god would be born on Dec. 25. Consider Janus, the Roman god initially associated with a winter solstice early in January (which was named after him). Even though by the first century the solstice had slipped back to Dec. 25, Janus remained associated with January. I suspect the birthday of a god on the original solstice would remain fixed, even after the solstice had moved to another date.
As to Cyprian, he livd between ca. 200 and ca. 253. So his seeing the birthday of Jesus as being on the winter solstice would still fit a late commandeering of the birthday of Sol Invictus by Christians.
As to whether Acharya said it directly or only quoted Prescott, concerning infant circumcision causing brain damage, it makes little difference. If you quote someone to support your view, you are taking that person's quoted belief as your own. While I was unable to access the website for Prescott, I have to say that I don't really need to be a scientist to know that the Jews don't seem to be a brain-damaged lot. Rather, their intellectual acheivement is out of all proportion to their numbers.
According to the Smithsonian article on Gobekli Tepe, it was bilt by a people who not only lacked metals, but pottery as well. Further, they didn't develop agriculture until 500 years after the site had been abandoned. Thus, while it's impressive that it's 11,000 years old, it hardly qualifies as a representative for a global Pleistocene civilization.
As to atheists who consult Tarot cards, I would doubt their atheism. As to whether Acharya's belief in a global civilization in the late Pleistocene is important to consider, Iwould have to know how important it is to her theory that all religions derive from astrotheological religion.
Yes, Skeptic Magazine will refer to Acharya's rebuttal to my review of "Zeitgeist" and my response to it.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Dave:
I went looking for images of pre-Christian crucified gods. All I could find was an amulet depicting Orpheus crucified that was used on the cover of Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries." They claimed it was from ca. 200 BCE. That would have been impressive, except for the fact that the amulet's provenance is doubtful, and it may even be a forgery. The late W.K.C. Guthrie of Cambridge decided it was the product of sincretism by a Gnostic sect ca. 200 CE. Apparently, they were blending the worship of Orpheus in a Dionysian context with that of Jesus. This is made more probable by the fact that in Greek myth, the fate of Orpheus was that he was torn to peices by the Maneads.
Certainly, Christianity and Christian imagery were more often than not the beneficiaries of what went before them. While most of the miracles attributed to Jesus were recycled and amplified versions of those performed mainly by Elijah and Elisha in the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus turning water into wine in the wedding feast at Cana was taken from a ritual performed at a temple of Dionysos in Elis, in Greece. Also, the miracuous relase of Paul and Silas from prison in Acts 16 is straight out of "The Bacchae" by Euripides.
However, syncretism went both ways. The nativity of Krishna - who certainly greatly antedates Jesus - appears to be derived from a blended Matthean / Lucan account of the Nativity of Jesus, passed on to the Hindu religion by Thomas Christians who were present in India in the third century CE.
Bringing this back to the Crucifixion, I still see no reason not to assume that a historical Jesus, a very minor messianic pretender, was put to death by crucifixion on an instrument that looked like a "T," and that this was merged with the myths of the excruciating deaths of dying an rising gods in a classic resurrection myth, while the "T' was merged with symbolism of the pre-existing solar cross.
I went looking for images of pre-Christian crucified gods. All I could find was an amulet depicting Orpheus crucified that was used on the cover of Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries." They claimed it was from ca. 200 BCE. That would have been impressive, except for the fact that the amulet's provenance is doubtful, and it may even be a forgery. The late W.K.C. Guthrie of Cambridge decided it was the product of sincretism by a Gnostic sect ca. 200 CE. Apparently, they were blending the worship of Orpheus in a Dionysian context with that of Jesus. This is made more probable by the fact that in Greek myth, the fate of Orpheus was that he was torn to peices by the Maneads.
Certainly, Christianity and Christian imagery were more often than not the beneficiaries of what went before them. While most of the miracles attributed to Jesus were recycled and amplified versions of those performed mainly by Elijah and Elisha in the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus turning water into wine in the wedding feast at Cana was taken from a ritual performed at a temple of Dionysos in Elis, in Greece. Also, the miracuous relase of Paul and Silas from prison in Acts 16 is straight out of "The Bacchae" by Euripides.
However, syncretism went both ways. The nativity of Krishna - who certainly greatly antedates Jesus - appears to be derived from a blended Matthean / Lucan account of the Nativity of Jesus, passed on to the Hindu religion by Thomas Christians who were present in India in the third century CE.
Bringing this back to the Crucifixion, I still see no reason not to assume that a historical Jesus, a very minor messianic pretender, was put to death by crucifixion on an instrument that looked like a "T," and that this was merged with the myths of the excruciating deaths of dying an rising gods in a classic resurrection myth, while the "T' was merged with symbolism of the pre-existing solar cross.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
ESkeptic magazine is a Johnny Come Lately. Some of us here at JREF have been not only mangling ZEITGEIST for nearly two years, we have been ripping it to shreds and stomping on the ramaining bits.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I was asked by Michael Shermer to review "Zeitgeist" for Skeptic. This was quite recently. I hadn't heard of it before. I begged off reviewing parts 2 and 3 because I have no expertise in the fields with which those parts dealt. However, an entire issue of Skeptic was devoted to 9/11 conspiracies. Acharya S, in her rebuttal of my review of part 1, said that I had not watched the latest version of Zeitgeist, thus had failed to note corrections she had made. I did note certain changes when I viewed what is touted as the final version, and those corrections will show up in the print version of the review.
I had no idea "Zeitgeist" was anything but a recent phenomenon. Can you tell me if there were significant changes in part 1 since two years ago? Did you debate part 1 with Acharya / Murdock earlier?
I had no idea "Zeitgeist" was anything but a recent phenomenon. Can you tell me if there were significant changes in part 1 since two years ago? Did you debate part 1 with Acharya / Murdock earlier?
Dang Tim, I'm really sorry to hear that. It has happened to most of us. Try to keep a copy in a notepad or something until you post to be safe from losing it completely.
Tim, the draft of Zeitgeist was put online in June of 2007, for Peter's friends and for Acharya to review. Right after he put it up, Peter asked Acharya for a consultation, and she consulted with him just a couple of days later. A week or so after that, the official version for Part 1 was complete and put online. By that time, the draft had already gotten out by some of Peter's friends and had some 60,000 hits. What you saw was only this draft that mistakenly escaped. The final version was based on Acharya's consultation, and it should be noted that she ONLY consulted on Part 1, as she had nothing to do with Parts 2 or 3 whatsoever.
Although they would like to think they had something to do with it, the changes that were made to Part 1 had nothing to do with the peanut-gallery criticisms from the scholar wannabes here or elsewhere (they can keep dreaming though). I have yet to see even ONE of them produce their own inerrant, scholarly masterpiece books of their own.
Peter Joseph had a re-release date for the official version of the entire movie in October 2008, because it had been slated to receive an award from the Artivist Film Festival in Hollywood in November. As far as I know, he only made changes at that time to the other parts and did something to make it more high tech.
Acharya's book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection was specifically written to address the criticisms and questions concerning the Egyptian and Horus material as found in Zeitgeist, which in turn came largely from Acharya's earlier books. As I've said before, she uses thousands of primary sources and the writings from credentialed scholars in this book. It includes research in the original languages, such as Egyptian, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. She also includes research originally in German and French, all of which she reads. You really should check it out, if you want to know about the Egyptian influences on Christianity.
Last edited:
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Dave,
Since I did eventually get through, and added what my own check on pre-Christian crucifixion images yeilded, could you respond to that?
Since I did eventually get through, and added what my own check on pre-Christian crucifixion images yeilded, could you respond to that?
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Dave, when you say . . .
"The final version [of Zeitgeist] was based on Acharya's consultation, and it should be noted that she ONLY consulted on Part 1, as she had nothing to do with Parts 2 or 3 whatsoever."
. . . you sound as though either you or Acharya S or both are distancing yourselves from the film's conspiracy theories. Didn't she know in advance what she was contributing to? Had Joseph come to me for material on the mythic sources of the New Testament and early Christianity, and I knew any help I might give him was going to be coupled with wacko conspiracy theories, I would have declined his request so as to avoid the contamination of my work being associated with his theories.
I await your response to this question as well as my latest responses to your points, and particularly to the "Orpheus / Bacchus" crucifixion image.
"The final version [of Zeitgeist] was based on Acharya's consultation, and it should be noted that she ONLY consulted on Part 1, as she had nothing to do with Parts 2 or 3 whatsoever."
. . . you sound as though either you or Acharya S or both are distancing yourselves from the film's conspiracy theories. Didn't she know in advance what she was contributing to? Had Joseph come to me for material on the mythic sources of the New Testament and early Christianity, and I knew any help I might give him was going to be coupled with wacko conspiracy theories, I would have declined his request so as to avoid the contamination of my work being associated with his theories.
I await your response to this question as well as my latest responses to your points, and particularly to the "Orpheus / Bacchus" crucifixion image.
I don't think she ever saw parts 2 or 3 until long after she consulted on part 1. And, I don't think it would've made a difference as she had nothing to do with parts 2 or 3. The sources and transcript make that obviously clear as well - she is not cited as a source for anything other than part 1.
If you are writing an article for a book for someone else you don't have control over what else may be in that book. Even better, do you endorse everything that has ever been published in "Skeptic Magazine"? If not, then you'd better tell them to remove your work for fear of any contamination - see what I mean? It's just utterly ridiculous. Do you endorse everything posted at the James Randi forums here? If not, then, you should be in total fear of contamination for posting here.
Tim, your harping on this point is a "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" position. If she doesn't clarify that she had nothing to do with it, then you yack on about how she had BETTER do so. If she does, then you come back with more crabbing. No, she didn't "contribute" to the creation of ZG - how many times do I have to repeat that fact? And, no, she didn't really go about trying to dictate what Peter Joseph, whom she barely knew, should be doing with his film. It's really transparent that you're really just trying to do anything you can to save face because you didn't know what you were talking about when you wrote your "review" of ZG. It's probably best to just let it go.
You'd best police the net to make sure none of your writings are posted on "contaminated" websites. Give me a break. You would have LOVED to have your work seen by 100 million people worldwide, Tim, so why the snooty posturing? It's really unflattering.
What have I or Acharya got to do with the Bacchus crucifixion image? You should be talking to Freke and Gandy.
You'll just have to read "Christ in Egypt" there's plenty of details - I'm reading them now. I think you'll appreciate what she's done in that book.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I'm not being "snooty." If Skeptic endorsed 9/11 conspiracy theories, I would most certainly NOT want my work associated with it. However, be that as it may, I'll let that point go.
I am still concerned about her support of an ancient global civilization and Graham Hancock's dating of the Sphinx. As I earlier noted, Gobekli Tepe was built by a peopel who lacked metellurgy, pottery, agriculture and, I think we can assume, writing. Do you have any other support for a Pleistocene civilization?
Since you're reading "Christ in Egypt," why don't you pass on to me a few of her pre-Christian crucifixion images and where I might find them, before I wade into a long work. What is it, 600+ pages? What the Orpheus / Bacchus crucifixion has to do with you is that, so far, that's the only alleged pre-Christian crucifixion image I've been able to find, and it turns out that it is, in fact, post-Christian.
I am still concerned about her support of an ancient global civilization and Graham Hancock's dating of the Sphinx. As I earlier noted, Gobekli Tepe was built by a peopel who lacked metellurgy, pottery, agriculture and, I think we can assume, writing. Do you have any other support for a Pleistocene civilization?
Since you're reading "Christ in Egypt," why don't you pass on to me a few of her pre-Christian crucifixion images and where I might find them, before I wade into a long work. What is it, 600+ pages? What the Orpheus / Bacchus crucifixion has to do with you is that, so far, that's the only alleged pre-Christian crucifixion image I've been able to find, and it turns out that it is, in fact, post-Christian.
Hey Tim,
Just checking in ... I was hoping to see your revised final draft for the "Skeptic Magazine" - is it finished and available for us to read yet? Do you know which edition it will be in yet?
btw, I'm sure "Skeptic Magazine" addressed her as either Acharya S, D.M. Murdock or both, right? I trust the name "Dorothy" will not be anywhere to be found since she has never used that name.
Is there anything else you need for your revised article or is it too late now? I'd have to scan pics from "Christ in Egypt" to get those pre-xian crucifixion pics you wanted & I have no way to do that here.
Here are some pics from Jordan Maxwell's site -
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/religion/religion7.html
Ah, "pre-Christian" is a relative term. Even though the image of Quetzalcoatl dates from after the supposed time of Jesus, that doesn't mean it was influenced by Christianity ... just because something is created after the year 1 CE doesn't necessarily mean it has any Xian influence. Many places around the globe were "pre-Christian" until a few centuries ago.
p.s. It appears that the creator of Zeitgeist Peter Joseph has renounced his former position on 9-11...
Just checking in ... I was hoping to see your revised final draft for the "Skeptic Magazine" - is it finished and available for us to read yet? Do you know which edition it will be in yet?
btw, I'm sure "Skeptic Magazine" addressed her as either Acharya S, D.M. Murdock or both, right? I trust the name "Dorothy" will not be anywhere to be found since she has never used that name.
Is there anything else you need for your revised article or is it too late now? I'd have to scan pics from "Christ in Egypt" to get those pre-xian crucifixion pics you wanted & I have no way to do that here.
Here are some pics from Jordan Maxwell's site -
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/religion/religion7.html
Ah, "pre-Christian" is a relative term. Even though the image of Quetzalcoatl dates from after the supposed time of Jesus, that doesn't mean it was influenced by Christianity ... just because something is created after the year 1 CE doesn't necessarily mean it has any Xian influence. Many places around the globe were "pre-Christian" until a few centuries ago.
p.s. It appears that the creator of Zeitgeist Peter Joseph has renounced his former position on 9-11...
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
No, the present issue of Skeptic was just recently published. The Zeitgeist review won't be out until the next issue appears. This will take some time, since Skeptic is a quarterly.
I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal is about whether I refer to Acharya S as D. M. Murdock or as Dorothy M. Murdock. She's listed on a number of websites as Dorothy M. Murdock. I, of course, won't be refering to her merely as "Dorothy," as though we were on familiar terms, but I still can't figure out what the problem is with using her full first name coupled with her last name.
As to the images on Jordan Maxwell's site, I wish I had better documentation of his sources. According to the Mahabarata, Krishna's death resulted from being shot in the foot with an arrow. This sounds like a parallel to the death of Achilles in Greek myth. Where is he said to be crucified?
As to American parallels to Jesus: I note in my book, "Secret Origins of the Bible" that Spanish priests condemned a ritual meal by Peruvian Indians as, "a blasphemous, satanic parody of the Eucharist." Also, the Axtecs had a ritual in which they ate cakes, made of prickle-poppy seeds, in the form of the god Huitzilpochtli in a ceremony called "eating the god."
However, I suspect the Codex Borgianus to have been contaminated by Christian influences, because earlier codices said that Quetzalcoatl either threw himself on a funeral pyre and ascended into heaven from the flames as the planet Venus or that he was merely driven away by his enemies, leaving over the seas on a raft of writhing snakes, and that he would one day return.
As to Peter Joseph backing off from the 9/11 conspiracy - which is about 1/3 of "Zeitgeist" - I would say two things. First, it's bit late to do that, now that the film has become so popular, and second, I wonder just what he does believe.
I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal is about whether I refer to Acharya S as D. M. Murdock or as Dorothy M. Murdock. She's listed on a number of websites as Dorothy M. Murdock. I, of course, won't be refering to her merely as "Dorothy," as though we were on familiar terms, but I still can't figure out what the problem is with using her full first name coupled with her last name.
As to the images on Jordan Maxwell's site, I wish I had better documentation of his sources. According to the Mahabarata, Krishna's death resulted from being shot in the foot with an arrow. This sounds like a parallel to the death of Achilles in Greek myth. Where is he said to be crucified?
As to American parallels to Jesus: I note in my book, "Secret Origins of the Bible" that Spanish priests condemned a ritual meal by Peruvian Indians as, "a blasphemous, satanic parody of the Eucharist." Also, the Axtecs had a ritual in which they ate cakes, made of prickle-poppy seeds, in the form of the god Huitzilpochtli in a ceremony called "eating the god."
However, I suspect the Codex Borgianus to have been contaminated by Christian influences, because earlier codices said that Quetzalcoatl either threw himself on a funeral pyre and ascended into heaven from the flames as the planet Venus or that he was merely driven away by his enemies, leaving over the seas on a raft of writhing snakes, and that he would one day return.
As to Peter Joseph backing off from the 9/11 conspiracy - which is about 1/3 of "Zeitgeist" - I would say two things. First, it's bit late to do that, now that the film has become so popular, and second, I wonder just what he does believe.
Seriously Tim? It's been explained several times now just in this thread alone.
1. She has never used that name.
2. She does not want it used.
3. It's only used for derogatory or disrespectful purposes (i.e. GreNME & other punks who viciously spread it around to attack a single female who has never done anything to them - very brave of them).
4. It's dangerous to her physical well being and her family.
Re-read some of the posts regarding this issue:
She even starts the video off saying, "Hello friends I'm D.M. Murdock aka Acharya S..."
"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? Acharya Responds - VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4
I will bring this to Acharya's attention and ask her to consider having her mod address it in the F.A.Q's at her forum.
Isn't that the 'damn if ya do, damn if ya don't' argument? So it doesn't matter what he does - it's never going to suffice? Is he not allowed to change his position? Still, it has absolutely nothing to do with Zeitgeist part 1 and certainly nothing to do with Acharya whatsoever - no matter how much you'd like to make such. That would be nothing more than guilt by association and poisoning the well.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I'm aware of the posts, but I still don't see what the big deal is. Calling her Dorothy M. Murdock isn't going to suddenly sic stalkers on her. As to that revealing she's a woman, she appears in a number of videos, so it's not exactly unknown that she's female. If I remember to list her as D. M. Murdock, which I probably will, then that's how she'll be listed. If I slip up and list her as Dorothy M. Murdock, I'm sure the world won't end. Really, this is getting a bit silly.
As to Peter Joseph's change of views, since I won't be dwelling on parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist, his present views on 9/11 are of minimal importance. However, the review of the film has to be the review of the film as it has been shown (i.e. its final version). I might put in a footnoe that he has recently backed off from the 9/ 11 conspiracy. However, the review will be largely unchanged.
The reason I look a bit askance at his change of heart is that he has already made hay with his 9/11 conspiracy theory. It's something like the late Jerry Falwell repenting somewhat from his anti-gay rhetoric after years of villifying them. I wouldn't have expected gays to suddenly say, "Oh, that's all right, Jerry." Or, suppose I punched you in the nose, then said, "Gee, Dave, I feel bad about that. From now on, I renounce punching people in the nose."
As to Peter Joseph's change of views, since I won't be dwelling on parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist, his present views on 9/11 are of minimal importance. However, the review of the film has to be the review of the film as it has been shown (i.e. its final version). I might put in a footnoe that he has recently backed off from the 9/ 11 conspiracy. However, the review will be largely unchanged.
The reason I look a bit askance at his change of heart is that he has already made hay with his 9/11 conspiracy theory. It's something like the late Jerry Falwell repenting somewhat from his anti-gay rhetoric after years of villifying them. I wouldn't have expected gays to suddenly say, "Oh, that's all right, Jerry." Or, suppose I punched you in the nose, then said, "Gee, Dave, I feel bad about that. From now on, I renounce punching people in the nose."