Two of my favourite people together.  I can’t wait to listen to it.  :)

After perusing Murdock’s Truth Be Known website for a couple of minutes I’ll pass on this podcast. She seems to be deep into woo, and Robert Price is just annoying.

I read the book “The Christ Conspiracy” a few years ago.I had mixed feelings about it,on one hand the author goes into psuedo-archaeological thories like a super advanced worldwide civilisation that existed before the last ice age,these individuals built the pyramids and so forth,however the stuff about the Christ B.S. is great reading,also the theories about the nature of religious beliefs in general is very interesting.The author seems like she’s on the border of woo IMO.

Ms. Murdock did well, fitting the all the messiah myths together like a glove and hand.  Special consideration for the Jesus messiah seems to be the primary distinction that it has.  It’s so simple when you look at it that way.  :)  Price finds a good guest.  Interesting to hear the Emperor Constantine and followers had to cheat so badly to make theirs the prevailing Christian cult, thus establishing the orthodoxy that led to Catholicism.  Tsk tsk tsk… cheaters. 

The parallels between John the Baptist/Jesus and the Egyptian Anubis/Osiris show a strong link, a good point by Ms. Murdock.

The mythology take on Jesus just demonstrates once again, one thing you can never say about Christianity is that you know something about it, because all of it is so very doubtful, dubious, and even fictive and deceptive.

I agree Jump and it makes more sense when Acharya and Price tell it.  Just goes to show it’s all a myth.  I expect this is going to be another good one, as soon as I get it downloaded to listen to it.  I’m excited.

I was very excited to hear this, not because I like Archarya, but because it was her weird analysis that led to my deconversion. She says enough things that are verifiable and accurate that she gets your attention, and requires your diligence to understand, then she mixes in craziness to support her ideology. This is the basic tactic of dictators and religious leaders through history. To debunk her I had to teach myself a method of debunking, which led to debunking a whole lot more.

I was expecting a more hostile interview. But Price may have been the perfect one to do this. He agrees with her basic idea that Christ never existed, and uses parallels to other myths to show it. He was very friendly to her, but managed to slip in a few scholarly questions that she couldn’t handle. Her nervous laughter and the statement “you’ll have to edit this out”, revealed a lot.

I was glad to hear that she has completely abandoned some of her stands and that she was willing to site more of her sources than I’ve heard before and admit that some of them are not as strong as she once said. I still can’t bring myself to buy one of her books, although I am intrigued by this more scholarly work she claims to be coming out with. I was disappointed that she stood by the parallel to the resurrection of Horus. As always she leaves out the parts about being killed by Seth and how Isis reassembled the 13 parts and fashioned a phallus.

A few years ago, when Price had a Q&A podcast, I asked him if there were parallels beyond the basic archetypes like resurrection, changing water to wine and bringing people back from the dead. He said no, the Egyptian dying and rising gods were pretty flat characters.

The richness of Jesus’ ministry, his battles with the occupier government and his own religion’s leaders did not come from Egypt. They came from the people who parted ways with Egypt. That Constantine and King James took these stories and made them work for their oppressive societies has little to do with the original scriptures. The sad thing is Archarya is capable of sorting out that history, but instead she muddies the waters.

I was very excited to hear this, not because I like Archarya, but because it was her weird analysis that led to my deconversion. She says enough things that are verifiable and accurate that she gets your attention, and requires your diligence to understand, then she mixes in craziness to support her ideology. This is the basic tactic of dictators and religious leaders through history. To debunk her I had to teach myself a method of debunking, which led to debunking a whole lot more.

Yes, she helped with my deconversion, as did Bob Price, Bishop Spong and less known people.

I was expecting a more hostile interview. But Price may have been the perfect one to do this. He agrees with her basic idea that Christ never existed, and uses parallels to other myths to show it. He was very friendly to her, but managed to slip in a few scholarly questions that she couldn’t handle. Her nervous laughter and the statement “you’ll have to edit this out”, revealed a lot.

I’ve talked to Bob and Acharya personally.  She and Bob are supposedly friends.  Given that Bob is one of my mentors, I am in the same camp- I do not believe JC ever existed either.

I was glad to hear that she has completely abandoned some of her stands and that she was willing to site more of her sources than I’ve heard before and admit that some of them are not as strong as she once said. I still can’t bring myself to buy one of her books, although I am intrigued by this more scholarly work she claims to be coming out with. I was disappointed that she stood by the parallel to the resurrection of Horus. As always she leaves out the parts about being killed by Seth and how Isis reassembled the 13 parts and fashioned a phallus.

Buy one of her more recent ones then.  They are great and so was the show.

In my view, every book by Acharya gets better and better. Critics still tend to bludgeon her to death with her first book a decade later even though she’s written 5 or 6 since then.  A 2nd edition for Christ Conspiracy is a brilliant idea. Christ in Egypt was absolutely fantastic! She substantiated her claims to the point of ‘over documenting her case’ as Dr. Price said in his own review. 

Christ in Egypt: Reviewed by Dr. Robert M. Price
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

I read a comment on Facebook recently that suggested Acharya’s mythicist position is on par with Darwin’s theory of evolution: “The “mythicist position” is nearly as radical now as Darwin’s ideas were in the 19th century....”

I really enjoy her mythicist position video ... it just seems like common sense.

What is a Mythicist?
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

I learned quite a bit from this thread:

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position

“Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists. You should be made aware that the mythicist position outlined above is the very first clear outline of the mythicist position throughout history. Good luck finding such a nicely spelled out mythicist position anywhere else. A very special appreciation goes to Acharya/Murdock for stepping up to the plate with such a visionary position. The Mythicist Position takes us far beyond the endless Theist vs. Atheist debate….”
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160

I can honestly consider myself a freethinking mythicist because I am very interested in the origins and purpose of the myths Acharya writes about. So, I must thank her for it because were it not for her I’d probably never know, which is sad because I find it far more interesting and fascinating than what religion would like for us to believe. Plus, you’ll never get this info from the Dawkins, Harris atheist crowd either. I’d like to see those guys acknowledge Acharya’s work because she does what they don’t do - trace back the origins of religious concepts and their purpose. It’s simply shocking to find out that it’s based in natural phenomena!!! Imagine that, an Occam’s razor explanation for the origin and evolution of religious concepts with similarities and differences due to the variety of environments, culture and era! Acharya makes it very simple to finally understand.

Richard Dawkins on ZEITGEIST, Part 1
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21425#p21425

Acharya’s Work Complements Sam Harris’s Philosophy
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3588

Acharya’s revised version of Zeitgeist Part 1 was very well done. I’d like to see it peer reviewed by Dr. Price and other mythicists and then after any potential necessary changes (if any), published in a scholarly journal.

The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (August 2010)
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf

I found myself wanting more when the podcast was over. I hope CFI/Point of Inquiry/ Dr. Price has Acharya S on again because it seemed like they were just getting warmed up.

Dionysus:

I don’t see anything new here. You provided a lot of information, so being brief will be difficult.
From the Zeitgeist Source Book:
1-14 are all birth narrative stuff. Many high ranking religious people have acknowledged this is most likely not historical, added on later to enhance Jesus’ image. None of it is in the book of Mark. There are lots of cultures that didn’t interact who used numbers like 3 and 12. This is actually shown on pg 67
15-17 So they called him the Lamb. There aren’t that many domesticated animals to draw from.
18 Notice how she excuses the multiple story lines for Horus. His name was used and reused over centuries in Egyptian history.
I will just skip the astrology stuff because it doesn’t seem to relate to anything really. There are lots of crosses everywhere. I could find one and show that it follows some other mythic line too.
39 – This thing about Moses bringing in the age of Aries is just weird. What is she saying? Is she saying there is something to astrology, or that Moses thought so, so he does this symbolic act? Or just what are the authors trying to say by including astrology symbolism? What else about Moses teaching parallels astrology? At least with Jesus I can see some Piscean aspects of him, but Moses?
42 – One little line about a water bearer means something about Aquarius? Really? So whomever wrote the gospels is suggesting that 2000 years in the future there will be a new age? Why would they care? Why don’t they say more about it or what the Age of Aquarius will bring?

On the mythicist link:
Although she claims it here, I don’t see Archarya “going outside the theist-versus-atheist box” at all. She constantly uses language that denigrates not only theists but academics alike. Now she is expanding to say they don’t accept mythicsim either. There are plenty of people who have been studying myth for a long time, and they do it with barely a mention of Christianity. Worse, she only focuses on the history of the symbols. She then leaps to conclusions about how they were shared, passed on and integrated into cultures with no textual criticism or archaeology to back it up. Showing a picture of 12 people then pointing to book that has 12 disciples is simply not adequate.

I have never seen any discussion by her about what the Egyptians were trying to do with their gods vs what Jews were trying to accomplish with theirs. Myth always has a meaning, it may be about politics of the time, a way to tell history and embellish the heroes, or just a lesson for the children. Archarya rarely touches on that.

If you are looking for something that not only discusses the history but talks about how mythology is useful for discussing ideas, try this: Branch From the Lightning Tree

39 – This thing about Moses bringing in the age of Aries is just weird. What is she saying? Is she saying there is something to astrology, or that Moses thought so, so he does this symbolic act? Or just what are the authors trying to say by including astrology symbolism? What else about Moses teaching parallels astrology? At least with Jesus I can see some Piscean aspects of him, but Moses?
42 – One little line about a water bearer means something about Aquarius? Really? So whomever wrote the gospels is suggesting that 2000 years in the future there will be a new age? Why would they care? Why don’t they say more about it or what the Age of Aquarius will bring?

It’s not weird at all and makes perfect sense.  Much more sense than anything else I’ve heard.  In fact, it makes it very understandable as to how people would have came up with such myths and even makes the story make sense.  Anything else makes no sense at all and one might as well throw the book away or burn it.

On the mythicist link:
Although she claims it here, I don’t see Archarya “going outside the theist-versus-atheist box” at all. She constantly uses language that denigrates not only theists but academics alike. Now she is expanding to say they don’t accept mythicsim either. There are plenty of people who have been studying myth for a long time, and they do it with barely a mention of Christianity. Worse, she only focuses on the history of the symbols. She then leaps to conclusions about how they were shared, passed on and integrated into cultures with no textual criticism or archaeology to back it up. Showing a picture of 12 people then pointing to book that has 12 disciples is simply not adequate.

I don’t think she leaps to conclusions.  Bob and I have discussed her many times and little is conclusions.

I have never seen any discussion by her about what the Egyptians were trying to do with their gods vs what Jews were trying to accomplish with theirs. Myth always has a meaning, it may be about politics of the time, a way to tell history and embellish the heroes, or just a lesson for the children. Archarya rarely touches on that.

You haven’t read Christ in Egypt have you?

Lausten, is this an inadvertent admission that you’ve never actually read a single book by Acharya S?

“I still can’t bring myself to buy one of her books”

If that’s the case then, why should anybody trust your opinion of her work?  Besides, it’s usually good manners to actually study the work first BEFORE ranting on about it out of ignorance. Her online articles do not contain ALL of the details - that is what the books are for.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christ_Conspiracy/message/15717

Anything else makes no sense at all and one might as well throw the book away or burn it.

Hard to respond to that. My comment may have been rash, certainly there could be interpretations of the bull and ram symbols that relate to astrology, I just never heard any. I was calling you out, giving you a chance to supply one.

Here is an interpretation if you would like to consider someone else’s opinion:
Jewish Library article
I make no endorsements here, just giving an example of what I meant to ask for.

Bob and I have discussed her many times and little is conclusions.

When you don’t take time to form your responses well, it gives me the sense you aren’t taking me seriously. That’s fine, I didn’t even read the books, but I think I have given you some specifics to respond to. I think it is perfectly fair to form an opinion based on reviews, articles, her web and Zeitgeist. I have never said that some artifact she points to is forged or that some translation is wrong.

You haven’t read Christ in Egypt have you?

No, and I don’t plan on it if she is going to be secretive. Bart Ehrmann gives you enough in his interviews to let you know he has something to say, and I have bought and read his books. The link you supplied is a perfect example of how she uses many words to say she is better read than me, something I don’t refute, and focuses on her themes of exposing Christian history, and not on the points I raised. I’m thankful that expositions like hers have been made, but let’s get on with it now. Great, the Bible is not history, now what?

I’ll agree to cut back on the name calling and I would prefer that you engage on the questions I raise, not my education or ability to match Archarya on her archaeology skills. Can you make more specific connections from gods of India to the Jews, other than that someone had traveled there a few hundred years before Jesus? Can you connect the cultural meaning of the symbols you claim are being used with something that was going on at the time?

I’m not trying to preach to anybody, but I think you can see a big difference between what Archarya does, which I summarize as: there is astrology with a Ram following a Bull and there is this Bible story with similar images,
and what other scholars do which I provide in the above link. Here is an excerpt:

“The bull had an important role in the art and religious texts of the ancient Near East. The storm-god *Hadad is frequently represented standing on a bull. Taking these facts into account it is generally assumed (after H. Th. Obbrick) that Jeroboam’s calves corresponded to the *cherubim of Solomon’s Temple, i.e., they were regarded as seats or pedestals upon which the Lord was thought to stand invisible to human eyes.”

another excerpt, discussing how those stories and symbols were used throughout Jewish history:

“For the Church the golden calf episode served as proof that the divine covenant with Israel had never been consummated, so that the Jewish claim to a special relationship with the Almighty was unacceptable (see Smolar in bibl., p. 91).:

Lausten, I suggest you read Victor H Matthews work.  He is a prof who teaches Old Testement Parallels.  The parallels are to other previous cultures with stories that are the bases for the O.T. stories.  I took a couple of his classes in at the Uni I attended and it tells me Acharya is right on track with all she is saying.  http://www.amazon.com/Victor-Harold-Matthews/e/B001ITXG0I/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1309378518&sr=8-1

http://www.missouristate.edu/relst/matt.htm  There is his bio as a prof.  He teaches the origins of the Bible being from other cultures such as Assyrian, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and other places.  Notice, I said Egypt.  Within the last few years, given I know him personally, I inquired of him concerning Acharya’s work.  He agreed with it.  When I commented few people, but him and others like him believe me, he stated you can’t make them believe it due to our culture trying to insist it is historical.  Now, if you take the Episcopal Church, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that the Virgin birth story is “legend”, which is a form of mythology.  Thus the mythicist thought stands and the more you dig into this, even Tom Harpur, an Anglican priest in Canada who wrote The Pagan Christ gives the same Egyptian origin, which involves Sun worship or Astro/Solar theology.

Here Tom Harpur states, “Religion is mythology, misunderstood.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk-6qtQl0vU  I can give you plenty of sources that supports Acharya’s work.  There is nothing that establishes that there was ever a historical Jesus.  Not only that, these sources support the idea of Solar theology too.

If you did not even read Acharya’s books then why are you even bothering to comment on her work?  If you are forming an opinion reviews, then you haven’t read any of the reviews either, based on what you are saying here.  I see no reason to take you seriously at all, esp if you have not read anything of her work.

ROFL!  If you have read Bart Erhman, then you should read Acharya’s too.  However, Bart is the one who is not giving you all the info.  He gives bits and pieces in his books.  The more you read his work the more you find, he is and has gone in the same direction, but does not say it all in one book.

You didn’t read my post either, because I did not give any links.  Also, Acharya doesn’t give any attitude in her books that she is better than anyone.  I don’t know where you get that either.  I also did not say anything about your education or Archaeological skills either.  Honestly, if you are going to quote me, please do not add anything I did not say.  If you are referring to the book I asked if you read, take note, there is no link there.  The only think about Christ in Egypt on her website is a link to buy the book, not the book itself, so you do not have a clue as to what the book says.  Could it be you don’t want to read a tome and prefer short and sweet books that spoon feed little snippets of info that you don’t even piece together and do your own research?  It takes a LOT of work to read various sources, even take classes on religion and mythology.  Acharya and I have done that, albeit she has done far more than I probably will.  There is no way I can take you seriously if you don’t even read her work or do some actual research and study on the subject, including with actual scholars.

Acharya is not being secretive on anything. If you had read her books and did research yourself, you would know this.  I even go to other sources she doesn’t even cite in her books and they justify what she says.  I don’t know why I even bothered to suggest Matthews’ work to you.  I doubt you will read that even and he’s a scholar too, just as Bob Price is.  BTW, Bob has taught at some impressive universities too, as well as supports Acharya’s work.  So he’s not some Joe Schmoe off the streets.  So don’t even try me, if you haven’t even read much on the subject or even taken various classes on the subject or even talked personally with people such as Bob, Spong, and others.  And you expect me to take you seriously when you haven’t even read the book?  Please!

You didn’t read my post either, because I did not give any links.

I was responding to Dionysus and you at the same time. Sorry.

Thus the mythicist thought stands and the more you dig into this, even Tom Harpur, an Anglican priest in Canada who wrote The Pagan Christ gives the same Egyptian origin, which involves Sun worship or Astro/Solar theology.

I have no argument with anyone about the Bible being myth. I agree that is well established. In fact it was established a long time ago. My problem with Acharya is she doesn’t provide much beyond that simple analysis. The simple fact that it was Constantine’s mother-in-law, (or maybe it was his mother, doesn’t matter), that went and “found” the cross that Jesus was crucified on is enough for me to figure out that it is garbage archaeology. I don’t need a book to add any detail to that.

I’m trying to be nice, so maybe I should just say that her style doesn’t appeal to me and the data she provides doesn’t do much for my understanding of the place of Jews and Christians in history. That the Moses story of the golden calf was written down sometime around the dawning of the age of Aries just doesn’t mean much to me.

The simple fact that it was Constantine’s mother-in-law, (or maybe it was his mother, doesn’t matter), that went and “found” the cross that Jesus was crucified on is enough for me to figure out that it is garbage archaeology.

What?  I don’t recall ever reading Acharya writing that and I go through her books with a highlighter.  Bob saw his books he signed for me, so he knows I do that.  Did it to his too.

I don’t recall ever reading Acharya writing that

I didn’t say it was Acharya. I read it in “Constantine’s Sword”. I also saw it in a Bible that had footnotes about the archaeology that supported the stories, well supposedly supported them. That’s my point. It is fairly well known that things like the church of the holy sepulchre are not historically accurate, unless you are someone who doesn’t question things like that or doesn’t know about things like historical source documentation. The Bible that had it did not say that the archaeology of an Emperor’s relative in 330 AD is not reliable, but it is not too hard figure that out.

Maybe a different tact would help. Forget my generalizations, those are my opinion, you can take it or leave it. Lets look closer at things that make me go hmmm. I will stick to the source book in the link above, and just use what it says.

Pg 16, #13, “The virginity of Horus‘s mother, Isis, has been disputed, because in one myth she is portrayed as impregnating herself with Osiris‘s severed phallus.” The Jesus birth narrative has God sending angels to tell a human woman she is pregnant. It includes the trouble her boyfriend had with this. This section goes on to list some more wildly varying accounts of Horus’ birth. The 2 gospels with birth narratives don’t agree exactly, but they aren’t that different.

Pg. 15 #12 Discussion of Horus being born on the winter solstice. I don’t find any parallel in the Bible. The Bible is very unhelpful with Jesus’ birth date. The setting of that date came much later by people who had a very different agenda than the writers of the gospels. They may have had some of these ancient myths in mind, but how does that make it a conspiracy? What does that tell us?

Pg. 14 #11, A discussion of Horus and Osiris battling evil, including mention of Osiris overcoming the powers of darkness. In Genesis, God creates everything. He doesn’t have to defeat the powers of darkness. There are some odd passages that seem to say he created Satan but the Bible is mostly about people, not gods battling every night. Jesus has a moment of doubt in faith in the gospels, but only battles Satan in that very odd book of Revelations which is obviously allegory.

These are the kind of non-parrallels that bother me, that make me not interested in buying her books. Do they concern you at all? What do you make of them?
And just as a reminder, I’m not leading up to making a case for the existence of Jesus or even any value of the Bible. You don’t need to reiterate that there are parallels and that the archaeology presented is solid. I’ve already agreed to that.

(FYI I tried to reply to the yahoo post, but I’m getting some kind of PythonError)

You would have to read the book to fully understand, but days get shorter in winter and Solistice is a sun celebration.  The sun sits on the Southern Cross (crux) for three days (to the naked eye) and then returns causing the days to get longer and the sun’s rays get stronger.  BTW, Samson and Delilah is a sun motif too.  Another interesting fact, which is stated in the BCP (Book of Common Prayer, Anglican) is Easter is set by the first full moon on the first Sunday after the spring Equinox, after March 21. Rules for Finding Easter  This goes into the morning sun worship on Easter Sunday.

Just goes to show there is more astro theology than most people realize or care to explore.  The Conspiracy are the various books the Church condemned as heresy and even demonized, after discarding them from cannon during a big brew-ha-ha.  I’d explain, but I don’t feel up to writing a book tonight.

Secondly, I think you are stuck on cultural symbolism.  We are talking about motifs and this various motifs were set to various cultures.  You are forgetting there are some stories in the Torah that are not in the Xian Bible.  Also, if you were to read Victor H. Matthews book, esp Parallel of the OT you would get a better understanding of the battle you are hung up on currently.  You are missing the parallels because you haven’t taken the time to learn exactly what is being discussed- such as Price’s book, Matthews, and many others.  When digs into it, like what I point to above, they will find the parallels do work and that there is a ton of solar theology.

No they do not concern me at all, because I’ve spent years studying this stuff and it works, causing all the puzzle pieces to fit together quite nicely.  It all makes sense now.

I don’t need a lesson on the solstice, and wouldn’t one use a science book for that? I don’t understand what the disconnect is. You seem to be repeating yourself that you read it and it works for you. I feel I am providing specific examples of what my concerns are but you are not addressing them. Not sure what to do about that. I gave three examples that you could have addressed with specifics, but instead you went to generalities.

I’m glad you didn’t “write a book” because my guess is you would have said a lot of things that would not have answered my questions. I suspect that would just be frustrating. You probably do know more details about book burnings and heresies, but, at least for this discussion, I am satisfied with just knowing that they happened at all. I’m sure Acharya does a great job of exposing them, but I don’t get the sense that she talks much about the historical context of exactly who did it, what was going on at the time, who was opposing those actions at the time and other historical details that would interest me. Details that I think are important to understanding how religion functions and why it is the way it is today.

That doesn’t make her wrong, it is just not a way of looking at history that I find useful. As you say, there are motifs and motifs repeat. I don’t see why you think I don’t understand that.

you would get a better understanding of the battle you are hung up on currently.

What am I hung up on? I pointed out that the source book discusses battling gods and I don’t see a parallel of that in the Bible. If you would have sited some parallel, anything other than Revelations that would have been great. Fundamentalist talk about the battle but that is very recent. I’m really clutching for straws here, trying to figure out what you’re asking of me.

A few years ago, when Price had a Q&A podcast

Dr. Price still has his Bible Geek Q & A podcast (I assume that is the one you are referring to).  Here’s a link to it:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm

I don’t need a lesson on the solstice, and wouldn’t one use a science book for that?

Not back then they didn’t.  It was a totally different world.  Before religion as we know it there was animism.

I don’t understand what the disconnect is. You seem to be repeating yourself that you read it and it works for you. I feel I am providing specific examples of what my concerns are but you are not addressing them. Not sure what to do about that. I gave three examples that you could have addressed with specifics, but instead you went to generalities.

I did address them, in the mind set of when religion, the human concept of it began.

I’m glad you didn’t “write a book” because my guess is you would have said a lot of things that would not have answered my questions. I suspect that would just be frustrating. You probably do know more details about book burnings and heresies, but, at least for this discussion, I am satisfied with just knowing that they happened at all. I’m sure Acharya does a great job of exposing them, but I don’t get the sense that she talks much about the historical context of exactly who did it, what was going on at the time, who was opposing those actions at the time and other historical details that would interest me. Details that I think are important to understanding how religion functions and why it is the way it is today.

You’re trying to think as a modern day rationalist and not as a superstitious cave person who didn’t know what we know now.

A few years ago, when Price had a Q&A podcast

Dr. Price still has his Bible Geek Q & A podcast (I assume that is the one you are referring to).  Here’s a link to it:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm

He could learn a lot from Bob, as well as if he picked up some of the worship books of modern myth, like the BCP.

You’re trying to think as a modern day rationalist and not as a superstitious cave person who didn’t know what we know now.

Well, that explains the disconnect.

Acharya mentions Helena, quoting Wells, in Christ Conspiracy, p. 80 of my edition: “‘There is not a single existing site in Jerusalem which is mentioned in connection with Christian history before 326, when Helena (Mother of Constantine) saw a cave that had just been excavated, and which was identified with Jesus’ tomb.’” As to the cross business, she is repudiating such “religious madness” of relics and sacred sites hunting when she recounts this story: “Indeed, it is reported that when Helena’s representative inquired in Jerusalem as to the ‘Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,’ no one had ever heard of him except, reputedly, one old man, who promptly showed Helena’s envoy a field of buried crucifixes, which was apparently evidence satisfactory enough for these great minds and honest characters to settle the matter, such that they claimed to have found the ‘true cross.’”

To call the mission of Helena archaeology is an insult to science.

-John F. Felix

Well, after reading through this response by Acharya S to professional historian Dr. Forbes, I thought it was very well done. She deserves far more credit and respect than she gets.

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning ‘Zeitgeist, Part 1’
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Just want to update that I have continued to study this discussion and I appreciate the challenges. Much of what I wanted to express was lost in the details. I do not refute Acharya’s scholarship, it is the conclusions, the connections. It is difficult to pin those down because of her style of presenting many details about about astrology and Egyptian myth then showing parallels to the Bible then claiming a general theme. My problem with her and Price is that I rarely hear them acknowledge that it has been well known that the Bible is based on myth for a long time. By “well known”, I don’t mean commonly. But listen to this, about someone who learned about the Bible/myth connection 50 years ago (about 6 minutes in).

Deconversion 2.3

There is plenty of scholarship on how the Bible came to be. Why does Acharya not connect her work to their’s? Why does she spend so much time saying her work is unique and that the sources she finds have been hidden? Where is the peer review?

An archetype is an archetype is an archetype.  Different times and different places, same old story.  Sounds like a very well organized conspiracy to me but who’s doing the driving?  All very interesting but would it stand up in a court of law? Oh, I forgot, they do that all the time… it’s enough to drive one to drink.  Communion wine anyone? 

“You guys are missing a very large boat” - Noah

Conspiracy is another term I would like defined. Murdock’s claim is that the Bible writers plagiarized earlier myths and lied about the miracles to gain power. Is that something we don’t know? Comments on how comparing to other gods is anathema can be found in the earliest Catholic counsels. These are the things that apologists have been responding to forever.  If your definition of conspiracy is that people lie, then there are an awful lot of conspiracies.

The second theme is that there were book and library burnings and people were not allowed to interpret the scriptures themselves. Again, in the history books. What is the conspiracy? There is no Illiminati type organization passing on the secret way to control people’s minds. The secret is out in the open, claim miracles and scare people. Each generation can choose to do that or not. It is the teaching of young people, who pass it on to their children before they are experienced enough to start questioning that keeps the myth alive. Peter Berger explains this quite well in his sociology classic, The Social Construction of Reality.

Bible stories were written for a number of reasons. The creation story may have been originally intended to be comforting, to tell people that gods did not create them as slaves, or to defeat chaos, but this one god had it all under control. That has been rewritten so many times, who knows. The Book of Ruth was written as a political piece, to convince people that they should accept their neighbors from other tribes. That Moses was based on the Aries war god may be true, but Murdock looks at each of these in isolation and completely ignores what doesn’t fit her theme. That severely diminishes her value.

For the Murdock scholars, does she ever mention the Documentary Hypothesis?

An archetype is an archetype is an archetype.  Different times and different places, same old story.  Sounds like a very well organized conspiracy to me but who’s doing the driving?  All very interesting but would it stand up in a court of law? Oh, I forgot, they do that all the time… it’s enough to drive one to drink.  Communion wine anyone? 

“You guys are missing a very large boat” - Noah

Yeah, the Church has been doing it for years, yet when it comes to the Church, they seem to be above the law.

I’ll be on the look out for her books, they look pretty interesting. Are there more books like this?

I’ll be on the look out for her books, they look pretty interesting. Are there more books like this?

Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman – This one explains the Documentary Hypothesis.
Who Wrote the New Testament by Burton L. Mack
Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein (PBS and National Geographic have covered this)
Some Mistakes of Moses by Robert Green Ingersoll
Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong

I’ll be on the look out for her books, they look pretty interesting. Are there more books like this?

Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong

:lol:  You do know why Jack wrote “Jesus for the Non-religious” don’t you?  While he is humanistic, he still has a god concept and has no desire for people to give up on Xianity or even Jesus.  It is his way of evangelizing.  Don’t get me wrong, I adore the man and he was one of my mentors before I lost belief and religion.  He’s a good man and I have nothing against him.

  You do know why Jack wrote “Jesus for the Non-religious” don’t you?

Talking to you is very much like talking to a theist. You have a strange sense of evidence and facts. I know Spong still loves Jesus as if he is real and present, but when I read his stuff I can’t figure out why. His stated mission is to keep the church from becoming what the fundamentalists want it to be. When I met him after a speech, I told him the book almost made me quit the church. He said, well, maybe you should. Eventually I did.

In the book listed, he goes through many of the well known miracles and discusses why they could not possibly be true and discusses how they came to be written. That is the topic that diabolicalreally asked about.

While he is humanistic, he still has a god concept and has no desire for people to give up on Xianity or even Jesus.  It is his way of evangelizing.

What are you saying? Can’t you evaluate his works separate from his personal feelings?

  You do know why Jack wrote “Jesus for the Non-religious” don’t you?

Talking to you is very much like talking to a theist. You have a strange sense of evidence and facts. I know Spong still loves Jesus as if he is real and present, but when I read his stuff I can’t figure out why. His stated mission is to keep the church from becoming what the fundamentalists want it to be. When I met him after a speech, I told him the book almost made me quit the church. He said, well, maybe you should. Eventually I did.

In the book listed, he goes through many of the well known miracles and discusses why they could not possibly be true and discusses how they came to be written. That is the topic that diabolicalreally asked about.

While he is humanistic, he still has a god concept and has no desire for people to give up on Xianity or even Jesus.  It is his way of evangelizing.

What are you saying? Can’t you evaluate his works separate from his personal feelings?

I’ve met him also and have had a few correspondences with him, which I still have.  In fact, he encouraged me to become a humanist.  However, I do not see how talking to me is like talking to a theist, esp when I do not have a god concept or even believe in a historical Jesus.  This kicks me out of the theist category.

What am I saying?  Well, I’m not separating his works from his feelings.  He is the true definition of a Xian humanist or humanistic Xian.

Mriana; You are like a theist in that you seem more interested in feelings than facts. You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, probably because you see the consequence of responding. You judge Spong based on his beliefs. Of the 6 titles I supplied, you picked the one that you could make non-fact based slam about.

What am I saying?  Well, I’m not separating his works from his feelings.  He is the true definition of a Xian humanist or humanistic Xian.

Yes, I got that. The question means what are you implying?

Mriana; You are like a theist in that you seem more interested in feelings than facts. You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, probably because you see the consequence of responding. You judge Spong based on his beliefs. Of the 6 titles I supplied, you picked the one that you could make non-fact based slam about.

I never saw the Documentary hypothesis, so how can I answer that question if I’ve never even heard of it? I don’t even know what it means. I really don’t have a clue, so don’t accuse me of something, when you don’t even know why I have not answered that question.  I’m not ignoring anything, just waiting for someone else to answer you on that.  So unless you know what I’m thinking, then don’t get your underwear in a knot.  I’ve taken many a religious course at the uni and they never once talked about any “documentary hypothesis”.

BTW, I do know what the question, “What are you saying?” means.  You don’t have to get bent.

Mriana; You are like a theist in that you seem more interested in feelings than facts. You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, probably because you see the consequence of responding. You judge Spong based on his beliefs. Of the 6 titles I supplied, you picked the one that you could make non-fact based slam about.

I never saw the Documentary hypothesis, so how can I answer that question if I’ve never even heard of it? I don’t even know what it means. I really don’t have a clue, so don’t accuse me of something, when you don’t even know why I have not answered that question.  I’m not ignoring anything, just waiting for someone else to answer you on that.  So unless you know what I’m thinking, then don’t get your underwear in a knot.  I’ve taken many a religious course at the uni and they never once talked about any “documentary hypothesis”.

The question was, had you seen it referenced in Acharya’s work. You claimed you are very familiar with her work, so if you hadn’t heard of it, then the answer must be no. I don’t see what is so difficult about that.

BTW, I do know what the question, “What are you saying?” means.  You don’t have to get bent.

It did not appear from your response that you did understand the question. So, I was clarifying, not getting bent.

I don’t understand your hostile attitude. Obviously we disagree. I don’t think I am that difficult to understand but you have frequently misinterpreted me, as in the two cases in this last response.

(Edited for clarity)

Yeah, the Church has been doing it for years, yet when it comes to the Church, they seem to be above the law.

Few appreciate the research and motives that go into the historical reporting of various histories as much as I do, except perhaps those who use such material as a tool for their own plagiarism.  What ever might motivate such a thing except that it be used as a continuing source of justification for the powers that choose to hold sway over and rule (other) men.

“The Church” seems somewhat ill-defined these days but yes, either “religion” or some other iconic figurehead has forever been above the law if not actually in full command of the law itself from the beginning of most world histories.  But that’s just a personal and quite unqualified opinion.  Notwithstanding the above, one should never underestimate either the confusion or influence of the mystics who pervade throughout our history.  :cheese:

Some of the links are broken, but this post from a different forum is the most comprehensive one that I have found. (FYI, in case you think I am being obsessive, I was looking for something else when I found this)

Comments on Zeitgeist and Acharya’s theories in general, with links

Earl Doherty, who is mentioned in the interview, is not a scholar.  He has no credentials.  He is just a layperson who self-published a book.  No major Academic faculty will hire Robert M. Price because his theories about Jesus are not credible.  D. M. Murdock doesn’t have a PhD either.  She is just a layperson with a theory that has no peer reviewed credibility.  The Jesus-Myth hypothesis has not penetrated the universities because there is nothing to it.  Secularists would like it to be true, but academics have dismissed it based on lack of merit.

Earl Doherty, who is mentioned in the interview, is not a scholar.  He has no credentials.  He is just a layperson who self-published a book.  No major Academic faculty will hire Robert M. Price because his theories about Jesus are not credible.  D. M. Murdock doesn’t have a PhD either.  She is just a layperson with a theory that has no peer reviewed credibility.  The Jesus-Myth hypothesis has not penetrated the universities because there is nothing to it.  Secularists would like it to be true, but academics have dismissed it based on lack of merit.

Okay.  My vacation’s over.  Had fun posting on the forums.  I will check back again in another six months.  But with the Jesus-Myth theory, try to remember something:

On the planet earth, we have things called universities where you can go and learn about stuff from experts.  If you want to learn about religion, you go to the theology department of the university.  In the theology department, you will not be taught that Jesus was a myth, because the overwhelming majority of experts in theology agree that Jesus was a real person.  If you want to hear stories about Jesus being a myth, you go to people like D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price, who the experts all agree are being foolish and careless with their theories.  Don’t confuse the fact that Bob Price is prolific and really interested in religion with the idea that anyone who matters takes him seriously.  Bob Price is prolific, not profound.  Secularists love him because they want Jesus to be a myth.  You don’t have to believe Jesus was divine, but the experts agree he lived.

Two of my favourite people together.  I can’t wait to listen to it.  :)

And in what peer reviewed, academic theological journal can I find a defense of D. M. Murdock?

..... You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, ......

could you repeat the question—- and doesn’t the ‘documentatry hypothesis’ relate to the old Testament?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Some here have made light of the fact that Price isn’t employed by a University, because of his supposed wacky theories.  This is an ad hominem not a critique of the evidence presented.  There is also a lot of weight being given to the fact that the majority of scholar in Christian theological school believe Jesus was a Historical Person.  Forgetting for a moment the fact that an appleal to the majority is a logical falacy, what does the fact that the majority of Christians who teach at Theological school believe their god was a historical person?  Nothing.  It’s like asking an Ancient Ptolemian if he believes the earth is the center of the solar system or a Hindu if Siva is real.  It is a faith statement plan in simple.  If you don’t like the Christ Myth theory critique the arguments.  As for peer view Theological journal not publishing the works of Price and the other mythists, again what does that mean?  That the editors of SBL and other “scholarly” journal in the field believe Jesus was historical.  Further what does peer view mean in religious studies?  Its not like the authors are conducting experiments that the reviewer can repeat inorder to see if the same results are acheived, rather it is a statement that a member of some ‘good ol boy’ network finds the authors ideas agreeable.  Thus I find it as no surprise that a bunch of religionist find it disagreeable/abhorant to say there wasn’t a Jesus.  Do I agree with Murdock, no, do I think the Christ myth theory should be honestly debated?  Yes.  If there is a discoverible historical figure behind the Bible then he should be able to be discovered using the tools of historical research, without the need to resort to special pleading, evident free hyperbole, and logical falacies.  Finally, the claim that what “religious scholars” are doing is so complicated that someone without a PhD can’t possible contribute.  While I generally agree that I wouldn’t want to go to a Doctor who doesn’t have an MD, I find this argument a bit silly.  The only limiting factor I see, as one who has a degree in Religious studies, is the knowledge of the various ancient language the different Biblical manuscripts have survived in, if you have mastered these languages I see no reason an outsider who has read all the relevant literature can’t contribute to the field, hell most religious movement were founded by individuals who lack anything but the most basic of education so I am not sure why someone who can work in the languages of the religious text can’t figure them out.  This doesn’t mean I agree with Murdock and Doherty? No, rather it means I want their arguments critique not whether or not they have a degree.  In other words if their lack of education means that they have made numerous mistakes, as Murdock has, (I’m not familiar with Doherty’s work) because of her reliance on poorly done translations and out right frauds, then point these mistakes out don’t attack her for not having a peice of paper.

The most wonderful thing about conspiracies is that they can go on ad infinitum.  I’m sure that all people like to imagine that each has some kind of special franchise regarding the God they worship or at least are supposed to be worshiping according to their own traditions.  This does add a common and personal relationship with regards to forming a cohesive unit of a given society (we are special), but I’d suspect that the real God that we all know and love is much larger than that and by most definitions has been around and making some kind of presence known since “the beginning” in one way or another. 

In such case historical similarities as outlined herein might just as well be viewed as a reinforcing aspect as opposed to exposing the stories as purely fraudulent simply because they have been heard somewhere before.  Moses was reportedly raised in the royal house of Egypt which might tend to make him quite familiar with the early Egyptian perceptions of “gods” or even “God”, but perhaps even the character Moses is simply yet another piece of yet another conspiracy?  Do we have any more historical basis for a real Moses than we do for a real Jesus aside from the verbal and written records handed down to us by the Hebrews and their descendants?  If one’s position to this question is taken simply as “negative” then there we go, “There is (apparently) no such thing as God!” or at least the Hebrew one.  But all things would then become much less interesting to us whether or not any form of sheepskin in involved with the telling.

The purpose of confusion is to make you think harder.

illrationalist:
As you point out, you can’t recreate an experiment to prove that Christ existed. History works differently than other sciences, like biology. You are always dealing with probabilities. So, authority takes on a different meaning. The fallacies you point out are valid, but should not be applied in the same way they would be applied to biology. In biology, a grad student’s experiment could trump a tenured professor’s opinion. There is no such trump card in history. Either we do all the work ourselves to convince only our self, or we rely on the consensus of opinion. When doing that, I also look at whether or not other historians acknowledge someone’s opinion and vice versa. In Murdoch’s case, I also note that rarely mentions other historians or critiques their work or explains why her opinion differs. She only talks about the ones she uses and the parts of their work that support her POV.

Also, do they have an agenda? You mention theologians do, but fail to note that non-Christian historians also agree that it is most likely that Jesus existed.

..... You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, ......

could you repeat the question—- and doesn’t the ‘documentatry hypothesis’ relate to the old Testament?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Murdoch does talk about the Old Testament, so I felt it was relevant. As I discussed above, one way I judge the quality of a historian’s work is if they acknowledge the work of others and compare and contrast their own. Murdoch is doing Biblical historical analysis but doesn’t mention this major theory of Biblical authorship. That’s why I asked about it.