10498Re: James Churchward and "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold"
- Dec 2, 2007Okay. I listened to the polite diatribe by Churchward's progeny, and his arguments are all wrong-headed.
Like Pam Giese, I have heard Acharya S. at the Adventures Unlimited Conferences. I don't know how much Pam knew about the subject before listening to Acharya, but I was quite well versed in a sizable portion of Acharya's arguments and the time periods she talked about, both in her book and in her presentation. Since I was a young boy one of my great interests was the Dead Sea Scrolls. And later on I made myself into a sort of biblical scholar sans degrees and church. I came to the same conclusions as Acharya, but I have to tell you that her scholarship blew me away. But we really got deep into it (from my POV, anyway), and she both knows her stuff and she is right.
After first hearing Acharya, I cornered her and we talked about 45 minutes on the time period and the intrigues of the period from the Maccabeans to the Council of Nicea, on Eisnemann and James the Just and Saul/Paul/The Liar, on Masada and Qumran.
Trust me folks, Acharya is correct in her conclusions. I was heavy into this subject myself, because I have for a very long time really wanted to know what happened back then, and what was the connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early Christian community. I had the very strong impression that the Dead Sea Scrolls community and the early Christian community were one and the same. I thought if they were, then a lot for questions could be cleared up. I didn't know where everything would end up, but whatever it was, I wanted to know about it.
For a very long time, I accepted/assumed that Jesus' "corporal existence," as Jack Churchward referred to it, was a fact, but along the way I found out much that argued otherwise. About the time Acharya's book came out, I had come to the same conclusion as she did. Jesus never existed. He was The Man Who Never Was, as one book about him is titled. Most people are not aware of this, but there is not ONE SINGLE reliable document ANYWHERE that can prove he existed. For pretty much everyone else of the period there is SOME documentation, but not the guy named Jesus. And the idea that this was a period of low civlization without written accounts, well that is just simply not the case. The Romans documented profusely, and the peoples of the Mediterranean basin left vast amounts of documentation. And Judea and Galilee and Samaria were no exceptions. If Jesus existed and had anything like the influence at the time asserted in the New Testament, MANY documents would exist - but they don't.
If you don't count Schliemann and his discovery of Troy (which in recent years has some into question), archeology had its start when some rich, religious sorts decided to go hither into the Levant to prove the literal truth of the Bible. For the most part, they found that most of the Bible didn't hold water. Almost ALL Biblical scholarship has been undertaken by people sold on the truth of the Bible, yet a very high percentage of the Bible has been shown to be fallacious. Yet - and it is an amazing thing - these same people maintain their beliefs, in spite of their own findings. And what is more, when they came back home, they couldn't bring themselves to tell their fellow parishioners what they had found! So, even though some of the real truth has been known in archeological circles for a very long time, the people in the pews have not been told. Generations now have been told things that have been long since proven to be WRONG and in some cases lies, as the Christian world continues to mislead waves of children into the same cult worship. In other words, Biblical scholarship itself is part of the Christ conspiracy, because of their unwillingness to wake up their fellow Christians to the inaccuracies and fabrications. It is maybe the most shameful episode in Western history, but few are aware of it.
As to Jack Churchward and his arguments, he argues that for Acharya to quote Col. Churchward, she has to include Churchward's belief system in her presentation. Hogwash. All researchers take research of others and re-work the arguments and facts to suit their own conclusions. The younger Churchward accuses Acharya of perpetrating "outrageous abuse" for leaving out other things that Churchward wrote or believed. It is not her place to present the Colonel in his entirety to her audience.
And, to boot, her quoting of him in no way takes the Colonel out of context. He DID say that the Osiris and Jesus stories were "wonderfully alike'," and that "many passages are identically the same, word for word." That they both observed this and came to different conclusions is neither here nor there. That is like saying that, because Einstein came up with a conclusion that overwrote Newtonian physics, that he could not quote or use any of Newton's work in making his case. That is an absurd argument in the case of Einstein and Newton, and it is equally ridiculous in regards to Acharya and Churchward.
Jack Churchward comes off as a country bumpkin living in a fantasy world where no author may quote another without presenting the original writer's belief system in toto. Balderdash.
Acharya's scholarship is actually amazing. Jack C. mentions that she has "1130 notes," of which only 30 are attributed to the Colonel. The important number there is not that she quoted him 30 times, but that her scholarship included 1100 other ones. Leaving Churchward out would not have hurt her one iota.
Also, young Churchward also asserts that Acharya "chose to select passages where James' credibility and prestige could sway the reader, that James' theory did not weigh heavily enough to be included elsewhere is of no concern." Ha ha ha! What a joke. I assure you that including Colonel Churchward's works in her book could have nothing but a deleterious effect on her reputation. Churchward's "credibility" (I say this in spite of the fact that I think he made some very, very good points) on a scale of 1 to 100 is about a 06.4. NO one in the academic world gives Churchward's work anything but disdain. If anything, including quotes from Churchward in her book ADDED to the reputation of the Colonel.
. . . . Steve
P.S. About Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls: My take on it is that Qumran was a military outpost, one of the last to fall in what Josephus called The Jewish War. The reason that the scrolls were found roght outside Qumran is because they had originally been in the Temple in Jerusalem, and when the Romans swept through Jerusalem the Rabiis spirited them out in an attempt to keep them safe. In the process, they at some point made it to Qumran and the caves there. When the fortress of Qumran was overrun, everyone who knew the scrolls were in the caves was killed, so their presence there was lost to history - until 1947. This theory comes from Jonathan Golb of the University of Chicago, and I ascribe to it as the only theory that fits every fact I know. It explains why there was such a wide perspective in the writings themselves, why the writings sound so erudite and modern (amazingly so) - not like an isolated community would have, and it explains why the Copper Scroll, with its listings of caches of gold and silver and other valuables were hidden, was there with the others (it certainly does not refer to any locations in Qumran, though many have tried to tie it to Qumran). As a last kicker, all the assertions that the Qumranians were ascetic Essenes and librarians is simply untrue.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>