An Interview with Randy Mabe – “Astrotheology: Fact or Fiction?” – #188


Randy Mabe joins us for this episode, titled “Astrotheology: Fact or Fiction?”. This episode is being released on Sunday, January 05, 2014, and was recorded December 27, 2013.

Randy Mabe has been a Real Estate Appraiser for over 20 years.
He has a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Real Estate. He also has 2 Associates Degrees one in Accounting and the other in Computer Science.
Recently, Randy has gone back to school and has taken the following classes:

World Religions
The New Testament
Ancient Egypt

After watching Part 1 of the Movie Zeitgeist, Randy began an intense study of Religion and Astrotheology.

This study includes watching/listing to nearly 4 hours of documentaries every working day. Basically, by working out of the home and as he types real estate appraisals he listens to documentaries on youtube.

One night while sitting in a hot tub, Randy noticed something in the stars, it was a cross. Shortly after that Randy made a connection between the quatrains of Nostradamus and Astrotheology.

So, after 4 years of taking college classes, reading books and watching documentaries Randy is here on Gnostic Media to present the following theory:

That Nostradamus did not predict Hitler, Napoleon or any future events. What Nostradamus is really trying to tell us is that the Astronomy of 2012 is the astronomy for the greatest story ever told, or the bible narratives.

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:


This episode is video only:

  33 comments for “An Interview with Randy Mabe – “Astrotheology: Fact or Fiction?” – #188

  1. Johnathan Clyde
    January 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Great show; you keep blowing my mind! My friend and I have taken a great interest towards your show as of recent; I’m so glad I saw your show with James Corbett to make the bridge over! Thank you for all your hard work, wonderful research, and great passion towards seeking truth within our cloudy reality. I especially want to thank-you for your health/diet topics for those are what I’m most interested in. Do you have any work in which you talk about your experience with veganism more in-depth; or was the main topic? Thanks again!

    • January 5, 2014 at 9:51 pm

      I don’t know. It almost killed me. Part of my life I’d like to forget about. NO ONE survives that.

      • Johnathan Clyde
        January 5, 2014 at 11:06 pm

        The reason I ask is because you introduced me to new thinking; I didn’t realize how dim the path was made to be. I wasn’t sure if you had any articles about your journey to better inform people who’ve followed similar ideas. I can understand why if you didn’t – but I would also understand if you did to bring awareness to your audience.
        Also, whatever happened to interviewing

        • January 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm

          episode 36 or 37 covers some of it. Sally Fallon some more, Dave Asprey some more… I suppose I make it hard to find.

        • el
          January 20, 2014 at 9:45 am

          plus eating everything is just a more liberal and free way to live.

  2. lewis jones
    January 7, 2014 at 5:47 am

    “Up! Flee! Out into broad and open land!
    And this book full of mystery,
    From Nostradamus’ own very hand,
    Is it not sufficient company?
    The stars’ course then you’ll understand
    And Nature, teaching you, will then expand
    The power of your soul, as when
    One spirit to another speaks.”

    Faust, act 1, scene1.

  3. Rich D
    January 10, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    You really cant relate Jesus to December 25th. There is no way that’s ever suggested in the bible. Using the grammar provided, we know that 1. the Shepard’s were living out in the fields with the sheep, something that apparently wouldn’t have been the case by late December because it gets cold there! There is no record of Jesus discussing his birthday in fact you couldn’t conclude Jesus had ever celebrated a birthday since it wouldn’t have been an un-humble thing to do and it would have been taking away worship from his God “the father”. Also since there were only two mentions of birthdays in the bible, both showed birthdays in a negative light since they were celebrated by people opposing God and murder took place the second time toward John the baptizer, the point with these side points is it didn’t seem to be the most important thing in his or early Christians minds but its been morphed into this important thing centuries later. 3 It does say Jesus entered his work or priesthood at “about” 30 yrs old as the Jewish custom was. We would have to assume that it was right around his birthday within a few days or weeks for sure as this seemed to be his purpose. Now we also know the bible says Jesus died after a 3.5 yrs of his missionary work. We know the exact date he died, in Jewish month of Nisan (which is late march to mid April on the 14th (which falls on a different day each year in the Gregorian calendar). So if he was 33.5 and it was sometime in late march to mid April, 6 months later would bring you to around October. So the December 25th math was no doubt around long before Jesus but really that’s irrelevant when you strip away all the lies that have been layered over the whole thing. So my logically this cant add up anyway! There were several other things that I would also bring up from this Vodcast, but I have a flight to catch in a couple hours and don’t have too much time now.

    I do enjoy the show and articles and I appreciate all the time, effort, and info Jan thanks!

    • Rich D
      January 10, 2014 at 6:53 pm

      sorry about all those typos, I should have proof read that before I entered it haha

    • January 10, 2014 at 10:32 pm

      Hi, thanks for your reply. I understand that you think that there’s no way to relate Jesus to December 25. Did you happen to see the on screen text from Church father Epiphanius? Or have you read my book, or say D. M. Murdock’s 5 books on this very topic, showing hundreds of references that show just this?

      Please let me know how much of the research you’ve actually studied, vs. just coming here to tell us what you’ve heard. See also the two interviews on this website, also mentioned in the video, that discuss these very points. Please address the actual citations provided without omitting them so that we may continue this conversation dealing with the facts and information presented and under discussion. Thank you!

      • Rich D
        January 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm

        I have not read your book on this nor murdo ck 5′s. Did yours or the other back up what I was saying on this topic? If so thats good and I apolagize if you are aware that dec 25 is meaningless in relation to Jesus’ birth and actual biblical significance. This is infact a topic I’ve been interested in for a long time. I have done quite a bit of research over the years on that specific topic, so YES I have done research, and certainly I wasnt coming on here to just argue, I like your show and essays, many things I havnt been aware of or were new to me in many shows and have opened me up to looking more into many topics and I use a lot of material you provide and link to for reference, or guests you’ve had and the info they provide is often very informative. So dont think I’m trying to argue to just to argue or with not knowing anything, if thats what it seems like to you. If I had no knowledge in this topic I wouldnt have said anything. I understand the significance and the convienance of this history being twisted into dec 25 but what I said is factual. The only thing from the video I was really addressing was exactly what I said, Im not sure what points you think I was ommiting, if Im over looking somthing or misunderstanding feel free to tell me specifically what I missed… But I believe Mr Mabe said somthing a long the lines of an acknowlegement that Jesus may not have been born dec 25th but still sticking with it because its commonly excepted (kind of paraphrased i realize) and of course that would stick with the point being made in this show. Thats fine I guess, but its just that its not accurate with the bible. So to me its a dismissal I could care less about church fathers or church doctrine, its all a load of bull and they’re full of all kinds of lies and twisting the bible and it very well may be to go along with an agenda that was around long before Jesus but the bible itself would say thats because of a super human agenda. Either way the whole dec 25 thing doesnt hold water to the actual biblical accounts… Im not trolling your site or trying to turn peole against your site infact I have turned several people on to this show and site, I wouldnt do that if I think its a bunch of non sence. If you think I’m just being an asshole and trying to avoid facts your mistaken maybe I seem overly defensive, but you have several times mentioned on shows that people come on the posts and do exactly that but I’m clarifying thats not what I’m doing. I dont know what you disagree with in what I said, because it was pretty basic reasoning. I will check out the interviews mentioned in the video, I had already planned to but I havent had a chance yet.

        • el
          January 20, 2014 at 9:38 am

          wait wait wait.

          correct me if I’m wrong, but i don’t think the point of this podcast was to prove a date for Jesus, OF NAZARETHs’ birth. as far as i got, this show deals with the allegories contained in the waters “both above and below” which is Earth and Sky.

          Did i miss the part when Jan said Jesus was born on Dec 25th? is this another case of the map not being the territory?

        • el
          January 20, 2014 at 10:03 am

          i guess we should agree on whether we are in Revelations right now? and what is the meaning of revelations?

          And what is the Apocalypse? Is it a place, or a thing? Both? It is the pulling away and the revealing of the truth of how diseased and fake most peoples understanding of “Christianity” is. Certainly, you know this, and if you do NOT know this, you are whom I’m speaking about.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 9:43 am

      OK DUDE so MAYBE were dealing with an allegory? sheesh….

  4. el
    January 20, 2014 at 9:41 am

    GOD this was an INTERESTING one, Jan.

    funny, i had that same star chart tool from when i was 7 years old. Seeing it really brought the memories back from when i was young and had an insatiable thirst to understand—everything.

    then i went to school.

  5. Curtis Ingram
    January 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    I’ve criticized your show on “the mind and porn” as being pseudo science coming outta the mouth of your guest, but this one…all I can say is thanks. LOL Thanks brother. Great work. A lifelong Trivium and Quadrivium student. – Curtis

  6. Paul Sholtz
    February 2, 2014 at 1:50 am

    I’m a great fan of this site and of Jan Irvin’s efforts to get to us to “rethink” the sacred cows that we’ve been taught since childhood and which we’ve always (often, erroneously) presumed to be true. Not to mention to get us to see and cut through the lies and deception that have been deliberately planted in our way.

    However there are at least several things in this presentation that I have to disagree.

    Specifically, there’s one core assumption that’s being made in this presentation that I don’t agree with, and that’s the idea that the “Egyptians were Sun worshippers”.

    Again, like so many sacred cows, this is something we’re taught since childhood and something we simply take for granted, but even a moderately in-depth look at Egypt and Egyptology will fail to generate even a single shred evidence to support this idea.

    In fact, throughout all Egyptian myth and religion and ritual, the object they’re paying homage in the sky is NOT the Sun, but rather an object or star that we translate into English as “Sirius”. The whole of Egyptian religion has their priests carefully watching the skies for the “Rising of Sirius”, since this would herald the flooding of the Nile and necessitate evacuation of lower Egypt. Worship, or perhaps, trepidation of Sirius is in fact pervasive throughout the Middle East in this time. The Freemasons, who like to claim descent from ancient Egypt (whether or not you believe that is another story) worship Sirius as the “Blazing Star” of Freemasonry (in which they embed their Eye of Horus, also an Egyptian motif). Sura 53:49 in the Koran gives interesting hints about the star Sirius and its connection to Allah. Indeed, there are myths — certainly popular with the modern New Age crowd, but which are often grounded at least partially in more ancient myth — indicating that at least some fraction of humanity came to Earth from Sirius.

    But again, even this is misdirection(!!) How elaborate the misdirection is, no??

    Since the object that the Egyptians called “Sirius” is NOT the twinkle-twinkle little star off in the winter sky that we today call Sirius, but rather “Sirius” is simply the label they attached to the Red Planet we now know as Mars. So in fact, the Egyptians could in fact be called Mars worshippers, NOT Sun worshippers. This raises all kinds of interesting possibilities regarding findings other researchers have made between the Giza plateau on Earth and certain features that are prominent on the Martian landscape, but I won’t go there here, other than to say that this is the explanation for the “Reddening Mystery” of Sirius — which is, that all writers prior to 300 BC describe Sirius as being of a deep red color, while all writers after 300 AD describe Sirius as the bright blue-white twinkle twinkle star in our night sky. This has prominent some modern researchers, even astrophysicists from MIT and such, to develop models of how a giant blue star like Sirius could suddenly turn red, and then blue again.

    But in fact the solution is much simpler .. “Sirius” is simply the label used by the Egyptians to describe Mars.

    It’s interesting too that Egypt was at its height during what archaeologists call the Iron Age, and alchemically iron is the metal always associated with Mars. Iron Age –> Mars. Mars –> Egypt. Connections worth exploring And not without reason is iron alchemically associated with Mars, since that “red dust” that you see covering the whole of Mars is nothing more than just iron .. or rather, iron oxide (Fe2O3), or what we on Earth know very simply as just “rust”. There’s a mystery here, since scientists claim that there is no oxygen on Mars, and that Mars is too small to have ever had an oxygen atmosphere, and yet you can’t get rust without oxygen(!!) So at one time (possibly quite recently) there must have been enough oxygen in Mars’ atmosphere to literally RUST the entire surface of the planet, which itself is made entirely from iron. And here on earth, we associate Mars with iron, and the Egyptians who worshipped Mars ruled during the Iron Age.

    All very interesting.

    The hieroglyphs on the Egyptian temples all show a RED ball in the sky. Mars is red. They don’t depict a YELLOW ball in the sky. The Sun is yellow. Moreover, the Red ball the Egyptians are worshipping often has surface features depicted on it, very similar to the surface features we today see on Mars. The Eye of Horus being the most obvious. If you superimpose the Egyptian hieroglyph for Eye of Horus on to a NASA photo of Valles Marineris, that giant canyon on Mars, you’ll see that they form an almost perfect match.

    This is something that could be discussed in much greater depth. I may make more posts on this if there is interest. But I’ll close by saying that I’m not a huge fan either of the school of astrology that tries to see all of world history as an unfolding of the “procession of the equinoxes”.. that is, that Jesus is age of Pisces, we’re in age of Aquarius, before was Aries, then Taurus or whatever. I don’t like it for two reasons: (i) first, b/c the phenomenon is far too subtle. When people develop myth and legend and astrological allegory (i.e., astro-theology), they build those myths around things are the obvious and in-your-face.. Not around something that moves by 72 arc-seconds per century, or whatever the precession moves at; and (ii) because in my personal opinion, I don’t even think the precession of the equinoxes — as we presently measure it — dates to any earlier than 700 BC or so(!) So it’s not a “calendar” for ancient times, since in ancient times the sky, and Earth’s rotation, etc, were all completely different.

    The “ages” through which the Earth moves are not these subtle motions from one “Pisces” constellation to an “Aquarius” constellation every two thousand years. Rather, the “ages” are in-your-face obvious rearrangements of the spin axis of the entire planet(!) So much so, that the path of the Sun, or arrangement of the constellations, etc, changes in an obvious and discernible way.

    The last such “rearrangement” took place about 700 BC, and brought with it the beginning of the end of the Iron Age (and, ironically, of pharonic Egypt as well). During the Iron Age, one year lasted exactly 360 days. This is why the ancient calendars record 360 days in a year. It’s not because the people then were stupid, and today we’re smart. It’s b/c back then a year really was 360 days! At the end of the Iron Age, the Earth’s spin axis rearranged (slightly .. more slightly than in previous transitions), and readjusted from a 360-day year to the modern 365.24 day year. This “closing of the Iron Age” and the rearrangement of the spin axis is actually recorded, quite accurately and in a detailed manner, in the Bible in the Book of Isaiah.

    The Bible uses the phrase “A new heavens, and a new earth” to describe these transitions between ages, b/c when the ages transition, there quite literally is a rearrangement of the planets and the path of the Sun in the sky. The Bible records more than one such rearrangement/transition in the past as well, although outside of the reference given in Isaiah, I wouldn’t attach too much weight to the dates given in the Bible. As you go farther back, the dates (from the Bible) become more unreliable (imho).

    This view that transitioning ages happen when the earth precesses from one constellation to another every two thousands years is an idea that comes from those MIT professors who wrote “Hamlet’s Mill”. I think fans of this Web site will know how much weight to place on establishment academia. If they’re not outright intelligence agents, those professors were at the very least (imho) spreading disinfo.

    I applaud Randy Mabe for the effort he’s put forth, but imho, the Sun empires did not begin until after the Iron Age ended. Indeed, the Roman Empire was the first great Sun Empire, with Christianity and modern America (America uses a lot of Sun imagery in its national symbols) closely following suit.

    But I have to disagree with the ideas that: (a) Egyptian was a Sun worshipping culture.. in fact, I think Egypt was a Mars worshipping culture, not a Sun worshipping culture; and (b) the idea that ages transition when there’s some incredibly subtle shift in exactly which “constellation” the Sun happens to rise in every 2,000 years. In fact, I think the transition between ages is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS when it does happen, and is easily discernible owing to the fact that the Sun starts to follow a new path in the sky, or the planets are following new paths, days are shorter or longer, years are shorter or longer, etc. That kind of thing.

    • February 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm

      Please see the entire book, referenced in this episode, with D.M. Murdock – Christ in Egypt, that totally, 100% refutes everything you’ve said here with dozens of primary citations. Sirius is just a very small part of Egyptian Astrotheology. Thanks.

      • Paul Sholtz
        February 10, 2014 at 11:33 pm

        I’m very, very familiar with the idea that Christianity originated from Egypt. This idea is many hundreds of years old, if not as old as Christianity itself. Certainly Acharya didn’t invent this idea, nor is her work even very original. Referencing for instance this document:

        All she’s doing is just leaning on academics that have come before her, who in turn are leaning on academics that came before them, who in turn are leaning on academics that have come before them, ad infinitum back to 2,000 years ago.

        The idea is unoriginal for any number of reasons, not the least of which b/c the character in the New Testament acting under the name of “Jesus” comports himself in a manner not unlike an Initiate of the Egyptian Mysteries would have behaved. Consequently, for this and many other reasons, people have been making these connections between the New Testament and Egypt probably since there has been a New Testament.

        Also, again referencing the document above, some of the academics Acharya is leaning on are themselves pretty shaky and flaky — she references Edward Gibbon in the document above, whose most famous work is of course “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, a work which basically blames the collapse of Rome on a combination of (a) Germans; and (b) Christians. In fact, at least imho, and I think the great weight of historical evidence (if you care to research it) indicates that Rome was brought to its knees and destroyed by the eruption (or rather, explosion) of the Krakatoa in Indonesia in 535 A.D., an eruption so massive that it cast the entire world — including Europe and the Roman Empire — into a literal dark nuclear winter for at least several years, possibly as long as several decades.

        That’s why it’s called the “Dark Ages”, after all..

        Records of the “nuclear winter” (i.e,. freezing cold temperatures, no sunlight at all, etc) that griped the Roman Empire (operating more out of Byzantium by that time) at this time are not difficult to find. At all. I’m somewhat surprised and amazed (or, perhaps not) that Gibbons couldn’t “see” the evidence for this, or somehow “missed” it. But I’m even more surprised that modern scholars haven’t corrected the error. If I didn’t know better, I might suspect the machinations of some kind of special interest group that just doesn’t like either Germans or doesn’t like Christians or possibly both to be behind the historical revisionism here.

        But .. I think you’ll agree, there isn’t space here to do an entire book report on Acharya’s work. Nor is it even necessary since in the main I totally agree with her — Christianity does borrow very heavily from the Egyptian Mysteries, at least in its outward symbols, accouterments and ceremonies.

        I just think it’s wrong to connect Egypt with Sun worship. The Sun empires didn’t begin until after the Iron Age ended, and Rome was really the first such Sun empire. To connect everything with the Sun just because you see the number 12 somewhere is pretty shaky reasoning (for a lot of reasons I can’t go into here, but which perhaps should be obvious if you think about it).. “New Order of the Ages” and so forth, these are the Roman Sun cults. It doesn’t date (in a substantial way) to anything earlier than that.

        Also — again, without going into great depth — just b/c you see a statute from some ancient civilization of a mother holding her son doesn’t mean that that culture is “Sun-worshipping”. I mean, seriously. To be honest, I’ve never totally understood how in the Christian religion you’re supposed to get “Madonna holding Jesus == Sun worship” (although I do agree that Christianity, in the main, is a Roman-based Sun cult). What the hell exactly does a mother holding her child have to do with the Sun? Or anything else in the sky? How do you know that you didn’t just find some old statute from some old culture that venerated the process of child-birth and procreation, which indeed, is the most common and most integral and most central aspect of human life. Period. Bar None. Remember too that in these ancient days, life was “rough” .. not every kid grew up to be an adult. Life and reproduction were valued more than they are today. And it’s worth noting too that such statutes of mother holding child exhibit a far healthier and more constructive attitude towards sex than most modern Americans hold.

        It’d be like some archaeologist 2,000 years from now finding a copy of Playboy, or some other American pornography, and then pointing to it and saying “Ha! I knew it! Those Americans were Moon-worshippers! See! I knew it! This Playboy magazine proves it! It was all about the Moon with them!” It just doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve never understood the “Mother holding baby –> Sun worship” angle.

        I’ll conclude by saying also, that I have to disagree with you when you say that Acharya’s work “refutes everything I’ve said here”.

        For instance, I’ve said the following things above, which I hope both you and Acharya would agree with:

        (1) The surface of Mars is covered, from top to bottom, with a very thick layer of iron oxide (Fe2O3), better known on Earth as simple “rust”;
        (2) It is this “rust” that gives Mars its reddish appearance;
        (3) The Iron Age ended on Earth roughly around 700 BC;
        (4) The beginning of the decline of pharonic Egypt coincides with the end of the Iron Age;
        (5) Pharonic Egypt ruled earth during a time that is known to us as the Iron Age.

        I think these are pretty stable facts that even you’d have to agree w/, no?

        Like I said, I respect what Randy Mabe has done and I respect the work that you’ve done as well Jan.

        I just think that:

        (1) The preponderance of evidence indicates that the Egyptians were Mars-worshippers, not Sun-worshippers. And, much like Acharya, these aren’t even (in the main) my own original ideas. This idea goes back at least as far as Immanuel Velikovsky, and has more recently been greatly refined and developed by John Ackerman, whose blog on this subject I encourage you to read:

        (2) I think it’s wrong to associate the “transition of ages” w/ something so subtle as the precession of the equinoxes. There’s a lot of evidence we could cite (no room here) that this precession, at least in its present-day course, didn’t exist until quite recently. 700 BC was the date I gave above for the start of the “present day” precession. But precession is so subtle it’s not something you build a religion around.

        In ancient days, the “end of an age” and “beginning of a new age” were connected with incredible, Earth-changing, continent-shaking, mountain-and-ocean-rearranging cataclysm .. which indeed is probably why some sects were so fearful of something similar and cataclysmic happening in December 2012, when apparently — according to somebody — some kind of Mayan precession through some sort of equinox was supposed to happen.

        The “changing of the ages” occurs when the Earth’s spin axes, or its rotation, or its orbit around the Sun, are influenced and disturbed, thus changing length of days, changing length of seasons or years, in some (extreme) cases even altering the Earth’s gravity. In short, something truly, utterly and totally 100% cataclysmic.

        It doesn’t have anything to do with “which constellation the Sun happens to be rising in in December” or whatever.

        Again, the precession-of-the-equinoxes mania stems from that work “Hamlet’s Mill”, which in some ways is very excellent scholarship. It’s certainly typically-American scholarship, in the sense that it gets the “What” correct with incredible precision, but the “How” and “Why” explanations are just off on the fruit farm. It’s like NASA scientists — NASA can get you the best and most accurate measurements on anything happening in the cosmos. Ever. And it’s more or less (to w/in the precision of their instrumentation) 100% correct. But their explanation for everything is always “black holes”, “dark energy” and “big bangs”, all of which are totally bogus, if not outright fraudulent “theories”.

        Same true here. The guys behind “Hamlet’s Mill” did just outstanding work collecting the myths of the ages from around the world. But their explanation for everything is always “precession of the equinoxes”, and more often than not (imho) that explanation just doesn’t hold water.

        • February 10, 2014 at 11:37 pm

          So you can’t even address once single citation and you need a circumstantial ad hominem on her, and so this is your whole argument: “All she’s doing is just leaning on academics that have come before her, who in turn are leaning on academics that came before them, who in turn are leaning on academics that have come before them, ad infinitum back to 2,000 years ago.”

          And so you don’t quote a thing… quite the straw man to say that “This idea is many hundreds of years old, if not as old as Christianity itself. Certainly Acharya didn’t invent this idea, nor is her work even very original. Referencing for instance this document:”

          No one claimed she invented the idea.. that’s retarded – to say the least. But what about the many dozens of PRIMARY documents she cited that didn’t lean on anyone? Of course you have to entirely omit them, especially since you’ve obviously not studied a single word of it – and use this lame attack about leaning on other academics. So… Sad… Grammar first? Thanks.

          • Paul Sholtz
            February 11, 2014 at 10:12 am

            I tried to read what Acharya wrote, and to be honest, I couldn’t even make heads or tails out of it.

            What’s she trying to say?

            A. There’s a mother-son image in Egyptian mythology;
            B. There’s a mother-son image in Christian mythology;
            C. Therefore, Jesus is fake.

            I don’t see how A and B imply C.

            Is she trying to prove that Jesus never existed? If so, that’s a (very) hard thing to prove, either in the positive or negative. Is she trying to prove that Christianity inherits a great deal from Egyptian mythology? If so, I’d have to agree, so no worries.

            For someone who’s so versed on the nature of rhetoric and debate and ad-hominem attack, I’m surprised to see you resorting to calling my arguments “retarded” and attacking me twice so far.

            I’m not attacking Acharya, although I don’t find much original in what she’s doing or saying.

            But I don’t agree that she can prove that Jesus is “fake” just b/c she finds similarities between Egypt and Christianity. Which, indeed, weren’t even found by her but which have been found by thousands of people before her for many thousands of years.

            If you’d like to find a particular point to debate about Acharya and her thesis, let’s start there. I’d probably agree w/ about 90% of it anyway, but if you wish, we can.

            But her works are pretty broad in scope.

            I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to in your post above.

            Unless Acharya is an expert in Egyptian hieroglyphics, I’m not sure she’s using any “primary” sources. Can you elaborate on exactly which “primary” sources she’s using, or which “primary” sources you’re referring to?

            Also, in refuting your point, I DID actually address one of her citations, the one to Edward Gibbon whom I regard as a (very) unreliable source for the reasons I stated.

          • Paul Sholtz
            February 17, 2014 at 1:39 pm

            Hello Jan,

            So I took up your invitation to explore Acharya’s “primary sources”, and I have to say that I found them rather less than convincing, if not outright deceptive/fraudulent in some cases.

            At the outset, I’d also like to say that introducing Acharya into this discussion in the first place is a bit of a “strawman”, since I never came on here to debate the whole “Jesus never existed” unicorn that Acharya is chasing. I made two points: (i) the Egyptians — in the pharaonic era — were Mars worshippers, not Sun worshippers; and (ii) end-of-age has nothing whatsoever to do w/ the precession of the equinoxes.

            Pretty simple points to understand, even if you don’t agree with them.

            Using the Acharya reference work I linked to above, I did an electronic search of the document and could not find a single reference to the word “Mars” or “iron” in it, so I’m not sure why you think Acharya’s “work” invalidates what I’m saying, or why you’re even introducing her into this debate other than as a strawman.

            So that we have a reference point to work from, consider the following Acharya commercial:


            Fast-forward to about the 2:10 mark, and you’ll see/hear the narrator making the comment that “Horus was born on December 25, or the winter solstice, in a manger.”

            OK … wow.

            In the first place, the winter solstice begins on December 21. Russell Pine, who you’re commenting on in this thread, advocates the idea that the solstice actually lasts from Dec 21 to Dec 24, with it ending on the morning of December 25 (although I haven’t seen that validated other than in his lectures). So… that’s a bit off, but whatever, a couple days no big deal.

            But let’s go back into Plutarch’s original “primary source material”.

            What Plutarch actually writes is NOTHING like what Acharya is representing it as(!)

            Here is what Plutarch says:

            “and about the time of the winter solstice she [Isis] gave birth to Harpocrates, imperfect and premature, amid the early flowers and shoots.”


            No mention of a manger, no mention of Mr. Horus.

            Instead, it’s the god Harpocrates who is born on the solstice.

            Now I’m sure that Acharya would jump on and claim that “Horus is Harpocrates” since Harpocrates, I gather, is essentially Greek for “Horus the younger”, or “Horus junior”. But I’m going to have to disagree with “Horus is Harpocrates” since if you read the entire Plutarch work, it’s quite clear that (i) Horus and (ii) Harpocrates are TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES/BEINGS. There’s a “Horus the elder”, known usually simply as “Horus”, and there’s a “Horus the younger”, known as Harpocrates, who Plutarch says was born about the winter solstice.

            If you do a full-text search of the Plutarch document for the number of hits of Horus v. Harpocrates, you get:

            Horus: 41
            Harpocrates: 3

            So Horus is mentioned 41 times in the document, Harpocrates is mentioned 3 times.

            I can’t get into all the details of how/why Horus and Harpocrates are two separate entities, but suffice the following quotes:

            “But this Horus is himself perfected and complete; but he has not done away completely with Typhon, but has taken away his activity and strength.”


            “And Harpocrates is not to be regarded as an imperfect and an infant god, nor some deity or other that protects legumes, but as the representative and corrector of unseasoned, imperfect, and inarticulate reasoning about the gods among mankind.”


            Horus has the tenor of being “perfect”, Harpocrates has the tenor of being “imperfect”, and so on. Horus is a great and mighty warrior, Harpocrates is a small infant child, who was conceived after Horus (the elder) was doing battle w/ Typhoon, etc.

            The “great” Horus of Egyptian mythology was Horus the elder, being described here, NOT Harpocrates (i.e., Horus the younger). Moreover, the only name we have for Harpocrates is just that, Harpocrates, the Greek variant, which suggests to me that the deity itself is of (later) Greek origin, not of (older) Egyptian origin.

            Finally, bear in mind that while Plutarch may be honest man, he’s basically a Greek writing in the second century A.D., who makes business trips to Rome where he hangs out with and wine and dines with elite Roman senators. So by the second century A.D., even Plutarch is going to be impacted (in some way) by the Christian variants of the myths that are circulating by that time.

            Asking Plutarch to make an honest assessment on the state of Egyptian religion in 1000 BC is a little like asking Jerry Falwell to make an honest assessment on the state Chinese buddhism in 700 AD. Do you think Jerry Falwell is really the best qualified to answer that question? Would you be surprised to Falwell came back and told you that he found out that Buddha was born on December 25? Would you believe him?

            Plutarch is, in general, above reproach (imho), but imho he’s not the best authority on what was happening in Egypt in 1000 BC either. He’s a Hellenistic philosopher living in the second century of the Christian era. It’s not like he’s vizier to the Pharaoh or something. Moreover, what Plutarch ACTUALLY writes about Horus, and what Acharya CLAIMS that Plutarch is writing about Horus, are completely at variance with each other(!)

            Now that we’ve laid the Acharya strawman to rest, we can return to the points I was making.

            I encourage you check out the following recent Red Ice interview, where Harvard-trained Egyptologist William Mullen is making the same point I am, that Horus was Mars (fast forward to about the 12:30 mark):


            Graham Hancock has written books about the correlations of the Giza plateau and Mars:


            The connections between Egypt and Mars are not difficult to find, I’m not sure why it’s provoking such hostility. Mullen and Hancock are better men than I, and they don’t provoke such animosity.

            The Iron Age ended in 700 BC, at which point the Sun came into dominance as the predominant celestial body over earth’s skies. So maybe between 700 BC and 0 BC you have a “mad rush” to rearrange religions, and make them more “Sun-oriented” instead of “Mars-oriented”, but imho the bulk of Egyptian mythology is concerned with Mars, not with the Sun.

            Even the modern-day name of Cairo is taking from an Arabic root meaning “Mars”, and legends tell that Cairo was founded when the planet “Mars” (or as I would say, the star “Sirius”, since I think Sirius is an old, archaic label for the red planet Mars) was rising over the Nile.

            That’s the point I was making.

            And the other point I was trying to make is that while I respect and applaud the effort that Randy Mabe has put forth, I think that people who are going down the Pharaoh-was-a-Sun-worshipper path are making a big mistake.

          • February 17, 2014 at 2:08 pm

            Wow, I see that you’ve not cited a single thing from Acharya’s books, but created a rather pathetic straw man while claiming to have studied them. Fail. You don’t even quote one single item that’s supposedly wrong or weak – you just make declarations. Nor do you show how one single item debunks the many dozens of her primary citations, secondary et al. You make some statements, quote a few others, including Graham Hancock who has less that capable critical thinking skills, and you think you’ve actually debunked her. But you don’t actually address anything in her actual work and show how it’s wrong.

            NO. Study her work and books – she’s written 5 books on these topics – VERY heavily cited. I’d appreciate if you not make up BS to avoid having done so.

            Read and study HER BOOKS and stop lying about it. Stop using straw mans to videos and professors with agendas and just read HER books. It’s that simple and nothing you need to make up lies about. Graham Hancock worked with Terence McKenna and Esalen. If you’d like to see this “brilliant” scholar at work, go on my Facebook wall and read his idiotic slander and vacuous rants. LOL. He sells new age religions. No wonder you think it’s all about Sirius and can’t study ANYTHING contrary. As if the Egyptians only observed 1 star. Ridiculous.

          • February 17, 2014 at 2:14 pm

            BTW, the Epiphanius quote that I discovered and published, which was included in this video, already debunked you. Somehow you’ve overlooked this major fact in your poor studies campaign.

          • Paul Sholtz
            February 17, 2014 at 2:40 pm

            Which Epiphanius quote and why is this a “major fact”?

          • February 18, 2014 at 5:42 pm

            You didn’t even watch this video before you attacked. My god. It was on the screen 3 times. Have the intelligence to study things before you attack them. I get stupid, ignorant people around here all the time, but wow.

          • Paul Sholtz
            February 17, 2014 at 3:03 pm

            And why should I study Acharya’s books?

            Like I said, she’s chasing the “Jesus never existed” unicorn, which isn’t something that interests me, nor is it a very unique viewpoint, nor is she the most authoritative writer on the subject, nor is it even relevant to what I’m talking about, which is pharaonic Egypt.

            If I wanted to chase the “Jesus never existed” I might read her works, or those of the other (many) authors that came before her.

            But I’m talking about Egypt, circa 700 BC.

            I read one of her PDFs which I found online, and which I linked to above, and which I thought was confusing and scattered, and which has nothing do with Mars. Then I found a video of hers, which I linked to above, where the narrator quotes Plutarch as saying “Horus was born on December 25 in a manger”, which is a total misrepresentation of what Plutarch actually says which is “Harpocrates was born near the winter solstice amongst some flowers”.

            This isn’t good scholarship.

            The Egyptian’s kept two calendars: the first was a lunar-based calendar, which they used for civic purposes. This is where you get the number 12 from.. The number 12 comes from the MOON, not from the Sun(!) If the Earth were just going around the Sun, you wouldn’t count 12 months.. You’d count maybe 4 months, one for each season. It’s the MOON that divides the cycles of the Sun into 12, and that’s why Moon-based culture, like the Egyptians, count in 12s.

            The Jews, if you can believe Exodus (in the sense of them having time in Egypt), probably got their moon-based calendar from these Egyptians also, and it’s probably why the number 12 is so important in the Old Testament.

            The second calendar the Egyptians used was anchored on the rising of Sirius, and this was the calendar they used for “emergency evacuation” purposes, since the rising of Sirius would herald tremendous and terrible flooding along the Nile. I would contend that this calendar system, anchored on Sirius (i.e., Mars), is still basically the same one we use today, which in its archaic form was anchored on Mars, in March. All astrology calendars begin the start of the year in March, and constellation of Ares connected with Mars. March comes from Mars. April, btw, comes from Aphrodite, which is Venus. So Mars and Venus were the two most important celestial objects in the ancient skies.

            In 700 BC, everyone started changing their calendars. Everyone had been keeping a 360-day calendar until then and then they switched to the modern 365 day calendar. In 700 BC the Romans reformed their calendar, which at that time only had 10 months in it .. beginning in Mars/March and continuing to the 10-month, or Dec-month, December. In 700 BC the Romans added two more months, Jan and Feb, making a full 12.

            So something major changed in the skies in 700 BC, and up until that time, Mars (i.e,. March) occupied the predominant place of importance, as can be seen also from the Egyptians anchoring their calendars prior to 700 BC on Sirius (i.e,. Mars).

            At least listen to the Red Ice interview w/ the Harvard Egyptologist who’s talking about how “Horus is Mars”.

            Acharya is totally irrelevant to this topic, and the reason people don’t pay more attention to her is b/c they know subconsciously that she’s trying to prove something which can never be proven. She has “Jesus never existed” plastered all over the headers of her PDFs and YouTube interviews. This topic, while fun to explore, can NEVER be proven, either in the positive or the negative. The thesis she’s trying to prove itself discredits much of everything else she has to say, even if she does find some things (like an Egyptian influence on Christianity) which I would agree are there.

          • February 18, 2014 at 5:26 pm

            As they say “don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”.

            This website is about the trivium and studying things before we judge them. This idiocy does not fly here:

            “And why should I study Acharya’s books?

            Like I said, she’s chasing the “Jesus never existed” unicorn, which isn’t something that interests me, nor is it a very unique viewpoint, nor is she the most authoritative writer on the subject, nor is it even relevant to what I’m talking about, which is pharaonic Egypt. ”

            You read them before you attack shit and say there’s no evidence. You look at the facts rather than using intellectually bankrupt appeals to ridicule such as “unicorn”. Obviously the intelligent human studies things and does not argue from ignorance as you are.

            Look, you have no interest in studying anything, or being shown wrong. Your idiotic straw man argument is stupid at best:

            “I read one of her PDFs which I found online, and which I linked to above, and which I thought was confusing and scattered, and which has nothing do with Mars. Then I found a video of hers, which I linked to above, where the narrator quotes Plutarch as saying “Horus was born on December 25 in a manger”, which is a total misrepresentation of what Plutarch actually says which is “Harpocrates was born near the winter solstice amongst some flowers”.

            This isn’t good scholarship.”

            Plutarch is covered in detail in her books that you haven’t read. Would you provide an example that wasn’t good scholarship, a quote? Nothing.

            “If I wanted to chase the “Jesus never existed” I might read her works, or those of the other (many) authors that came before her. ”

            And you would yet create yet another straw man, because you’re so high on your own lies and bullshit. This is an appeal to popularity of opinions, not facts. Since you can’t bother yourself to read and study someone’s work before you attack it, you don’t come from a place of competence. Obviously if you read her work, you’d have real examples, but all of your points are fallacious arguments and total distortions of her actual works.

            your short overview of Egyptian religion and mythology just so happens to skip about 2000 pages of material and quotes that doesn’t jive with your ignorant view that refuses to study things before he attacks them. You’re the epitome of logic before grammar. Yeah, I know, you don’t get what that means.

            Again, this quote debunks your fallacious, unread idiocy, where you name call at scholars whose works you’ve never read:

            In 375 CE, Epiphanius, Biship of Constantia, described the similarities between Jesus’ birth and the pagan winter solstice celebrations. About 1,000 years later, in the 14th century, the Church attempted to censure this evidence, but an original, uncensored copy was later discovered and is presented below. As noted scholar G.R.S. Mead relates on the Epiphanius text:

            And here it will be of interest to turn to a curious statement of Epiphanius; it is missing in all editions of this Father prior to that of Dindorf (Leipzig, 1859), which was based on the very early (tenth century) Codex Marcianus 125, all previous editions being printed from a severely censured and bowdlerized fourteenth century MS.
            ~ George Robert Stow Mead, Thrice-greatest Hermes, 1906

            The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis 51.22.3-12:
            22,3 For the Savior was born during the forty-second year of the Roman emperor Augustus […] (4) For these say as follows: […] “Christ was born on the eighth before the Ides of January, thirteen days after the winter solstice [the epiphany] and the increase of the light of the day.” (5) Greeks, I mean the idolaters, celebrate this day on the eighth before the Kalends of January, which Romans call Saturnalia, Egyptians Cronia, and Alexandrians, Cicellia. (6) For this division between signs of the zodiac, which is a solstice, comes on the eighth before the Kalends of January, and the day begins to lengthen because the light is receiving its increase. And it completes a period of thirteen days until the eighth before the Ides of January, the day of Christ’s birth, with a thirtieth of an hour added to each day (7) The Syrian sage, Ephrem, testified to this calculation in his commentaries when he said, “Thus the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth in the flesh or perfect incarnation which is called the Epiphany, was revealed after a space of thirteen days from the beginning of the increase of the light. For this too must needs be a type of the number of our Lord Jesus Christ and his twelve disciples, since, added to the disciples, he made up number of the thirteen days of the light’s increase.
            22,8 And how many other things have been done and are being done because of, and in testimony to this calculation, I mean of Christ’s birth? Indeed, those who guilefully preside over the cult of idols are obliged to confess a part of the truth, and in many places deceitfully celebrate a very great festival on the very night of the Epiphany, to deceive the idolaters who believe them into hoping in the imposture and not seeking the truth.
            22,9 First, at Alexandria, in the Coreum, as they call it; it is a very large temple, the shrine of Core [Kore]. They stay up all night singing hymns to the idol with a flute accompaniment. And when they have concluded their nightlong vigil torchbearers descend into an underground shrine after cockcrow (10) and bring up a wooden image which is seated naked a litter. It has a sign of the cross inlaid with gold on its forehead, two other such signs, [one] on each hand, and two other signs, [one] actually [on each of] its two knees—altogether five signs with gold impress. And they carry the image itself seven times round the innermost shrine with flutes, tambourines and hymns, hold a feast, and take it back down to its place underground. And when you ask them what this mystery means they reply that today at this hour Core—that is, the virgin—has given birth to Aeo.
            22,11 This also goes on in the city of Petra, in the idolatrous temple there. (Petra is the capital city of Arabia, the scriptural Edom.) They praise the virgin with hymns in the Arab language and call her Chaamu—that is, Core, or virgin—in Arabic. And the child who is born of her they call Dusares, that is “only son of the Lord.” And this is also done that night in the city of Elusa, as it is there in Petra, and in Alexandria.
            22,12 I have been obliged to prove this with many examples because of those who do not believe that “The Epiphany” is a good name for the fleshy birth of the Savior.
            ~ Epiphanius

            Epiphaneus states “22,8 And how many other things have been done and are being done because of, and in testimony to this calculation, I mean of Christ’s birth?”. Here he admits that Christ’s birth is based on solar calculations, and then caveats in a shallow attempt to show Christ as the original reason for the December celebrations.

            Christian Rätsch Ph.D. further relates in Pagan Christmas:

            In Egypt, Kykellia is called “the rite of Isis.” Like the smudging nights, this is a twelve-day feast. It begins with a torch procession in honor of the birth of Horus, the son of Isis: “The birth of the new sun is the intended meaning, and that was connected with the announcement of the sowing [of wheat] in the earth, freshly fertilized (with dung) and flooded by the Nile” (Vossen 1985, 72f). The sowing was done on December 27, during the feast celebrating the ascension of Horus to the throne. The meaning of the name Isis is equivalent to “Earth”.
            ~ Christian Rätsch

            If you don’t have the brains and intelligence to read things before you attack them, and if you need to make up lies and name call at people over your own distortions, much less not having even listened to the 2 interviews ON THIS WEBSITE where she addresses your idiocy directly, then there is NO hope for you. There is NO possible way to have an intelligent conversation with you. You will use all manner of straw man attacks, name calling, ridicule and distortion to serve your new age purposes. You can’t quote a single error from her work, so you lie and use straw mans and appeals to how popular something is. Your arguments are completely void of ANY critical thinking. Please see the trivium to the left and learn to think before you make wild, false claims about things you don’t seem to have the mental capacity to even study.

            “And why should I study Acharya’s books?

            Like I said, she’s chasing the “Jesus never existed” unicorn, which isn’t something that interests me, nor is it a very unique viewpoint, nor is she the most authoritative writer on the subject, nor is it even relevant to what I’m talking about, which is pharaonic Egypt. ”

            ALL you have is attacks. If you’re not intelligent enough to read, and can’t respect scholars who spend years researching something before you attack it then there is NO help for you. I leave you to Jesus and your name calling insanity.

            “At least listen to the Red Ice interview w/ the Harvard Egyptologist who’s talking about how “Horus is Mars”.”

            Again, you came here attacking her work without a single example, saying her and Randy are entirely wrong, without a single example because of your straw man arugments. No, YOU SUPPLY YOUR EVIDENCE IN QUOTES OF HOW THIS WORK IS WRONG BY THEIR OWN WORKS AND WITHOUT YOUR FORKED TONGUE LIES!

            Again, notice the straw man attacks. You can’t look at any of her work whatsoever, so you assume from one interview that its mars, and there’s no evidence contrary to your religious, fallacious views. A pdf to cover 5 books? Do you really enjoy making yourself look foolish while pretending to be intelligent?

            “and the reason people don’t pay more attention to her is b/c they know subconsciously that she’s trying to prove something which can never be proven. ”

            Again, you appeal to what others think, not being capable of thought yourself. You have ZERO citations or quotes or even ONE SINGLE example to show us what is wrong. All you have is attacks.

            “But I’m talking about Egypt, circa 700 BC.”

            Yes, and her book Christ In Egypt covers this and a whole lot more. Why are you so afraid to read them and face the citations? Why do you need to resort to name calling and lies to avoid her work? Give an example of the poor scholarship. Nothing. You don’t even understand the onus of proof and you have failed entirely to support 1 single claim.

            Here’s the breakdown of your idiotic, worse than stupid argument:

            Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

            An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

            Person A makes claim X.
            Person B makes an attack on person A.
            Therefore A’s claim is false.

            The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

            Also Known as: Ad Populum
            Description of Appeal to Popularity

            The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

            Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
            Therefore X is true.

            The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

            It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth” but all these claims turned out to be false.

            This sort of “reasoning” is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

            This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

            This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.

            Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
            Description of Appeal to Ridicule

            The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

            X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
            Therefore claim C is false.

            This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

            It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”

            Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

            Description of Straw Man

            The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

            Person A has position X.
            Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
            Person B attacks position Y.
            Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

            This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

            Her arguments are presented in full in her books, of which, again, you have 100% failed to address 1 single error, much less read. What intelligent person EVER mistakes a video for someone’s written work where all the citations are provided? Idiocy. Try to focus on the facts, rather than leading yourself around by the nose with these lies you tell yourself and pawn off as education to others.

            Be gone. Your stupidity bores me. You’re banned. Go away. You’re not welcome here.

  7. adam jarosz
    February 14, 2014 at 4:22 am

    @jan irvin, Hi, just learned of you. When it comes to talking to people I choose only those with open minds. I suggest the same for everybody, unfortunately it does narrow ones choice of company to a very small clique, but its worth avoiding the endless, uphill struggle to try and salvage those that are in need of sane arguments the most.

    • February 15, 2014 at 10:43 pm

      Jordan Maxwell’s name is Russel Pine, been convicted of fraud.

      Look also on the website.

      • el
        February 22, 2014 at 12:34 pm


      • Jon Donnis
        March 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm

        I, too, have been convicted of fraud – twice, Federal and state. Means nothing.

        Jordan Maxwell is an upstanding member of the anti-Illuminati regardless of the fact that he thinks ectoplasm is chessecloth. I enjoy his works and to link him to the Great Santos Bonacci then call him a fraud is dishonourable.

        I also am close friends with Joe Dombrovski who you claim doesn’t pay his rent. This is a lie.

        I suggest that you see a medium…like me, best in my class…to sort out your demons, Jan.

        Jon Donnis

        • March 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm

          Ok, so when Maxwell gets busted in a fraud, we ignore it. When he admits he did it, we ignore it. When he’s caught multiple times, we ignore it. “Upstanding member”? By how? By what means? If half his information is inaccurate, how is he upstanding? If most of “his work” is not his, how has he contributed? When his own business manager comes out on Maxwell’s own website, exposing the entire thing, including his lectures, do you just ignore it? Why?

          Your loaded verbiage of “the Great Santos Bonacci” is hilarious. The same Santos who says “There is NO Truth in logic” and then bans anyone who listens to my show? The same one who has gone around the internet name calling and making screeds? How is that Great?

          I don’t know a Joe Dombrovski. Don’t know what you’re talking about there. Again, maybe get your facts straight?

          See a medium, like you? so that you can channel stuff from Uranus that you must made up? Best in what class? The Medium Class? What university is that?

          You may want to consider studying the trivium to the left. We have to take in information and study it before we claim how great or valuable it is.

          Obviously you’re here to protect an agenda, and aren’t interested in the the facts. In fact, I’d bet you’ll argue next that facts don’t exist.

          There’s one thing that your note makes clear: Mysticism is most certainly the tool of tyrants. Is it irony that you admit that you’re a “convicted fraud”? Is it any wonder you’d come here to defend them?

          Your argument certainly isn’t based on any of the facts available. May I ask if you’ve studied them?

    • el
      February 22, 2014 at 12:53 pm

      Adam have you read manly p halls work,?

Leave a Reply