Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Roger Pearse
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Roger Pearse » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:40 pm

spin wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:You can go to the Freethought Nation Forum to find what other discussion there is. If you are polite, you can even post there.
Rubbish. You know that that is not true.
Seconded.

Roger Pearse
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Roger Pearse » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:01 pm

This post clearly forms part of a discussion, and I don't have the context. May I just query one or two points of detail? Regardless of the larger point, some invalid types of argument are being deployed, and that doesn't help anyone.
xplosion wrote:... Justin Martyr, born in Judea, considered himself a gentile pagan convert.
Out of interest, where does Justin tell us this? I find online that he was born in Flavia Neapolis, in what was then Palestine, but no ancient source.
He never once quotes directly from Luke, Matthew, John or Mark to prove his points about Jesus. Instead he quotes hundreds of times from the Old Testament.
Which "points about Jesus" do you mean? I think specifics are important here. Justin left two apologies, directed to pagans, and a dialogue, directed to the Jews. I'm unclear why anyone would feel he must, must, must quote from the four gospels to this audience.

But, in general: is this a safe type of argument? That is, to presume we know what a writer MUST quote, and then draw inferences from the fact that he does not? It's as if someone noticed that I never mention Obama, and concluded from this that I never heard of him. In actual fact I have no reason to mention him.

It's fairly obvious why he quotes from the OT, surely?
Living and writing in Rome (died 160 AD), and even though he is considered the supreme Christian apologist of his day, he seems completely ignorant of the idea that Peter established the Roman church.
This is an argument from silence, tho. Let's just ask ourselves in what context MUST Justin, in this thinking, mention Peter as founder of the Roman congregation? Not in any of his surviving works, I would have thought. (Most of his works are lost, of course). All this relies on OUR judgement of what MUST happen. That's terribly risky. I'd rather have data.
though Luke itself creates inconsistencies including a major one that even the Jesus Seminar could not resolve -- that of Luke placing the birth of Jesus during the census of Quirinius, the problem being that historically this census appears to have occurred AFTER Herod died.
Those of us who know how little evidence underpins most of our knowledge of antiquity are not disturbed by this, you know? It's really a form of "unless the bible is confirmed by some other statement, then the bible is wrong". Which is not a method that I should care to apply to *any* ancient text. Not even to Plutarch.
Luke refuses to grapple with the so-called Slaughter of the Innocents which is contained only in Matthew and nowhere else in history, Christian or otherwise. Josephus for instance you would THINK he'd have made mention of such a major Herod crime as killing all the infants in a region, since he lists many lesser Herod crimes. If such a thing had actually happened historically, you would THINK that there would have been a major uprising against Herod recorded by the historians of the day, as it is inconceivable ...
The technical term for this form of argument, tho, is "speculation".
Luke also states that Jesus was praised in the temple immediately as the messiah after his birth; how did that escape the notice of Herod, who Matthew claims did not learn of the birth of jesus until the latter was about two years old?
Again, tho, this is a speculative argument. Perhaps if I unpack it into its component parts? What I see is this:

1. Herod the Great knew of everything that happened in Jerusalem. (nonsense)
2. Herod had informers in the temple (probably)
3. One of them would certainly have heard Jesus being saluted as such (how on earth can we know this?)
4. He would certainly have reported it to Herod (did ancient informers really work like this?)
5. Herod would certainly have taken action to arrest the boy (do we know this?)
6. We know that he did not (we don't know this).
7. Therefore none of it happened.

I take the trouble to drag out this argument into its components (and we might argue about what precisely the components are, of course) because implicit assumptions underpin all these kinds of arguments. And as soon as we look under the hood, we see very questionable argumentation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Roger Pearse » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:10 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:My only point -- it obviously was not made emphatically enough -- was to draw people's attention to the simple fact that Ulansey's thesis is not a "done deal". It is still under debate and faces serious objections. I am myself quite open to Ulansey's hypothesis being correct but this question has not yet been settled.
Ulansey's theory has been pretty soundly rejected. But the general idea that the tauroctony represents a star chart is very fashionable at the moment. Unfortunately Roger Beck has pretty much admitted that it's all speculation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:23 pm

Roger Pearse wrote:
spin wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:You can go to the Freethought Nation Forum to find what other discussion there is. If you are polite, you can even post there.
Rubbish. You know that that is not true.
Seconded.
Why would anyone want to go to Freethought Nation Forum expecting a serious and open scholarly-critical discussion when we read the following from Robert Tulip:
The failure to understand about the loaves, ie the blindness to the allegorical meaning of the stories about Jesus as representing the sun and planets, produces hardness of heart, a wilful and cruel reinforcement of ignorant arrogance. Such hardness became the basis of church persecution of Gnostic vision, a syndrome which produced the dominant inverted religious pathologies that have come to see evil as good and good as evil. . . . Unfortunately you have to have some understanding to comprehend this, and what Mark calls hardness of heart makes it simply impossible for most people to understand.
That makes it pretty clear that if you go there you have to make up your mind in advance that you are going to be proved wrong and agree with them or you'll be dismissed as willfully ignorant and arrogant. That is, you will be accused and insulted there just as Murdock's supporters have accused and insulted us here for daring to persecute, sorry, I mean critically analyse their hypothesis.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:24 pm

Roger Pearse wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:My only point -- it obviously was not made emphatically enough -- was to draw people's attention to the simple fact that Ulansey's thesis is not a "done deal". It is still under debate and faces serious objections. I am myself quite open to Ulansey's hypothesis being correct but this question has not yet been settled.
Ulansey's theory has been pretty soundly rejected. But the general idea that the tauroctony represents a star chart is very fashionable at the moment. Unfortunately Roger Beck has pretty much admitted that it's all speculation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Not doubting, but can you lead me to something to verify it has been pretty soundly rejected? Thanks.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by stephan happy huller » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:01 pm

I find online that he was born in Flavia Neapolis
Yes that is right and there have been articles written on demonstrable 'Samaritanisms' in the writings of Justin. Of course these have been glossed over with Irenaeus's handiwork (as well as the rewording of scripture according to the LXX). But he was from Flavia Neapolis.
Everyone loves the happy times

User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by stephan happy huller » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:04 pm

And why must any conversation these folks participate in have a biased referee? Peter Kirby has demonstrated no hostility toward this crowd. Surely if they have something to say or want to have fair discussions they can have them here. Instead they want to have the right to eject people for not showing sufficient reverence to their Queen. As I have said here before. If we want to learn something about the ancient Christian past Andrew Criddle is a better guide than their Queen. Show me one attested Christian group to have interpreted the gospel along the lines of 'astrotheology' - either exclusively or in part. Then we can begin a real discussion. Otherwise this is little more than intellectual cunnilingus and as the great Daryl Hall once said, I'll do anything but I can't go for that.
Everyone loves the happy times

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:37 pm

stephan happy huller wrote:Instead they want to have the right to eject people for not showing sufficient reverence to their Queen.
Or simply sufficient reverence for their belief systems, methods, attitudes and the whole she-bang. I am reminded of my time in Singapore. Many people there believed they lived in a truly free society because they had the right to meet with and ask questions of their political leaders. The fact that their questioning tone and content was always expected to conform to polite subservience when supplied with "answers" from their leaders was considered nothing more than good manners and due respect. Ditto when I watched an interview with some former members of the Hitler Youth and noticed how familiar it all was with my own cult experience: yes, one was allowed to ask honest questions, but only if one couched them in a "good attitude", which is code for a demonstrated mind-set that one really does want to believe the party line and will submit to it even if one cannot for a time fully intellectually understand or agree with it.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2767
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by DCHindley » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:50 pm

Roger Pearse wrote:
xplosion wrote:... Justin Martyr, born in Judea, considered himself a gentile pagan convert.
Out of interest, where does Justin tell us this? I find online that he was born in Flavia Neapolis, in what was then Palestine, but no ancient source.
1st Apology Chapter 1: "I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine"

In Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234, Methodius is said to have stated, in his Discourse on the Resurrection: "VI. Now Justin of Neapolis, a man not far removed either from the times or from the virtues of the apostles ..."

DCH

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by bcedaifu » Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:51 am

xplosion wrote: Justin Martyr, born in Judea, considered himself a gentile pagan convert.
Roger Pearse wrote: Out of interest, where does Justin tell us this? I find online that he was born in Flavia Neapolis, in what was then Palestine, but no ancient source.
DCHindley wrote: 1st Apology Chapter 1: "I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine"
In Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234, Methodius is said to have stated, in his Discourse on the Resurrection: "VI. Now Justin of Neapolis, a man not far removed either from the times or from the virtues of the apostles ..."
Ancient sources?

Justin Martyr 1st Apology from Codex Parisinus Graecus 450, date of authorship: 14th century.
Photius: 9th century text written by the patriarch of Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_%28Photius%29

According to Wikipedia, Methodius' Discourse on the Resurrection exists in the original Greek, but, the reference provided refers to Migne's Patrologia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Graeca

What was Migne's source?
If we possess a credible Greek source, then, why bother to quote Photius: “said to have stated” ?

I find curious, that a thread devoted to criticism (unjust in my opinion) of Murdoch's scholarly attributes, should broadcast uncritical acceptance of “facts”, based on rumors, gossip, and unsubstantiated hearsay. Isn't that precisely the criticism of Acharya S? Where's the evidence of an original Christian sect based on astrotheological ideas, a forum member inquired? Where's the evidence for any original Christian sects, I reply.

I have read, in the past week or so, among several critics of Acharya S, comments by Neil Godfrey, complaining about his reception when he sought to post at her web site.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=404

Notice what kirby did to my posts, critical of godfrey. He sent the exchange to Siberia. The scholarship of Acharya S may, or may not, be the cat's meow, I have no clue. I haven't read her books. I haven't participated at her forum. I do agree, 100%, with Robert Tulip's idea, that a productive forum is one which exhibits civility, and honesty, and I further deny that, on this forum, analysis of Murdoch's “contributions” to the literature regarding a mythical stature for Jesus, has risen to the level of maturity comparable to that one might expect of high school graduates.
DCHindley wrote: I mention all this, although D Murdoch is not about Aliens, because of the persistence of true believers to defend their key figures.
I am ashamed to read this from you, David. You wrote it to smear her. And, not with olive oil.

I am neither a “true believer”, nor a member of her group. I am not defending her. I have no idea where Justin Martyr was born.

I am offering criticism of those idiots, including kirby, spin, and the other cultists on this forum, who have shamefully ignored the essential obligation to engage in SCHOLARSHIP, to refute theories contrary to one's own opinion. Name calling, and other childish expressions, like banning from the forum, simply confirm the poverty of ability on the part of this forum's leadership.

“rubbish”, doesn't cut it, spin. Repulsive is my assessment of kirby's comment quoting Mencken, implying some imaginary level of supposedly superior intelligence, by those opposing her thesis of a role played in early christianity by those astrologers and star gazers who had worked for centuries cataloging movements of objects in the night time sky.

neilgodfrey finally wrote something I can agree with:
I think we need to be clear what constitutes cultish behaviour
How else to explain kirby's use of acronyms unknown to anyone else, but fellow cult members. How else to explain kirby's ridiculous dismissal of Leucius Charinus, for his having committed the crime of criticizing the mediocre “scholarship” of kirby? How else to explain the gender hostility exhibited by huller, and his reference to “queen” and “cunnilingus”? Maybe huller can't differentiate “N” from “L”.
CULT.

Post Reply