Arcadia Discussion Zone

Are you referring to Hugh Montgomery of God-Kings 'fame'? If so, I think it is worth asking whether he is actually a historian? AFAIK he has a qualification in Audiology (? wtf) and a minor law qualification...

All speculation based on hearsay, Sue - your own.



You provided a link to a website that provided language-variant diminutions of the name Elizabeth, the text of which I posted above. It is not helpful at all. You have posted nothing to back up your assertion about the name "Alain" deriving from the name "Eli".



I'd prefer references, Sue, repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your case. If Saul/Paul referred to a son of Jesus, where is the scriptural reference for this? Or has that been "edited" from the historical narrative too?



Where are these posted? Under what subject heading? BTW, if Hugh Montgomery and Laurence Gardner are your "experts" then it is hardly surprising that you're vehemently resisting calls for references.



Sure there is, you can provide references and refrain from acting like you're being put-upon to back up your own assertions.



That is called diversion, and this genre is rife with it. One scandal after another, ad nauseam, for decades. And all because pseudo-historical authors expect adulation for their "insights" which are merely the products of their fertile imaginations - which is why they never seem to be able or willing to present evidence and get huffy when asked about it.



And there we have it - an author who considers critical questions regarding her work to be "uncalled for and unnecessary." An author who comes trolling on a forum to sell her book, initiates discussions that tie in to her book, and lambasts anyone who asks pointed questions about her forum posts for not having read her book. Congratulations, Sue - you've shown your true hand and your real motives.



You needn't bother, if you refuse to cite your sources here then you're certainly not going to cite them in print.



"Mindless head games"... yes, you can save us all a lot of time and attention by dropping yours. At least Kath McGowan had sense enough to fall back on the "fiction" excuse when she could no longer fight her way out of corners.

TCP

And don't forget past president of a sorely under-accredited "private university" in Serbia widely suspected to be an elaborate diploma mill. They gave an honorary doctorate to Gaddafi.

TCP

Well, the truth comes out TCP...You are not really interested in Eli-Alain....You are going to bash this author regardless what is said....it isn't your intention to read the book or to ask reasonable questions...it is your intention to bash..perhaps to impress Andrew and your friends on this forum with your capability for superior intellectual head games.Perhaps because you said I came here "trolling" .. duh? Really? I dont need to do that Tim....Further, about 6 members of this forum already have my book and suggested that some of the information would make for good discussions here.....THEY posted my book cover here and invited me to participate....thought it might help Andrew out a bit too.

Now I understand how Andrew's forum has fallen in to such low regard. Mostly, I feel sorry for Andrew.

So we'll end this conversation now.....Based upon your attitude here, I bet the farm you'll have a real long hateful "book review" up at amazon any day now......any day....coz the way you post here, you couldn't resist spreading your brand of 'opinion' around. And to think you've accomplished all this and STILL haven't read the book. Please don't. If you dont like it now, you wont like it after either..and I sure do not have to answer ANY of your questions here...who died and left you in charge?

Anyways, it's clear by now that it's not really about the book, is it Tim! Or should I call you Spartacus...You are the same guy after all.


You have a nice day . I feel sorry for you Tim. You sound so angry and desperate.

Au contraire, I'm very interested in seeing your sources.



Why are you so resistant to revealing your sources, Sue? You could put me away quite handily by bringing them out for inspection, and yet you hedge every time they're requested. Do you honestly feel that anyone asking you to provide backup to your theories is "bashing" you?



If I was going to do that I'd have done it years ago - when you gave me copies of both of your books.



I tried reading them, Sue, I honestly did. But unfortunately they read like fiction and lacked clear and identifiable references. I wound up giving them to the Goodwill, not that long ago in fact.



The book is just words on pages. It's really about the mind and motives of the author.

Sorry you don't want to "discuss" your work here in any sort of meaningful way, Sue. I guess that "breath of fresh air" you rode back in on could only be expected to carry you so far...

TCP

I feel sorry for you Tim...you sound so desperate and miserable... glad you gave the old book to Goodwill....the new book has very detailed and numbered references....but you wouldn't care about little details like that....it might spoil your next two or three attacks..
No one else who has the book has these issues Tim....so this is REALLY about something more personal....like your inner hatred and rage?

“It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning.”~ Claude Bernard

You're even worse at psychoanalysis than you are at "research"... stick to writing fiction, Sue, you've got a real gift for it.

TCP

Yup..... we 're hitting a raw nerve here folks.

I'm making bread pudding tonight...the really rich recipe made with sweetened condensed milk and served warm with whipped creme....Wish Tim were closer so I could offer some....a warm meal does wonders for grouchy old men.

You're a regular Doris Day, Sue!

TCP

awe shucks, do you really think so Tim? Thank you. Ya know ...when I decided to pull the book and do it "right' (to best of my abilities) I followed all the advise and suggestions that you gave me..it took me nearly a year , one chapter per month gone over in excruciating detail to be sure I had my references this time...which was no easy feat considerding half the information remained in India and I was in Florida and New York..

.In fact I was so grateful that I gave you credit for helping me in the Acknowledgements.......and only pulled it at the last moment because I thought I should ask your permission first...and I hadn't heard from you in a while.....

Anyways.....I do owe you a lot and you will always have a special place in my heart...even when you're grouchy.

Thank you Tim.
PS since a few people here already have the book, may I send you a copy? Not for review....(I haven't asked anyone for a review...I think that is ridiculous conditions for a gift).. Consider it my contribution to your next Goodwill donations..are you still at 621 S. D........?

Seriously, .

Stand back from the food TCP.

Yep, otherwise you might get a cream pie in the face

Regards
Nic

Hugh MOntgomery was the best I could come up with....plus Tabor and Madge Griswold from UCLA....the remaining charts I found got even sillier...traced the bloodline back to fairies and sea monsters.... and no one wanted to see Gardner's lineages...it was like a desert out there.. so I gave these as examples of what some people came up with in their search for bloodlines...groan..well, maybe we'll get lucky and Nat Geo will want to get desposyni DNA from the Loch Ness Monster..

The loch ness Monster is a military intelligence joke. It's based on a series of mines that lost their footing and had to be retrieved. They were planted to prevent intrusion into the loch's border security during the war and monitoring underwater submarine incursions by the enemy.
Besides military intelligence, operations where they run "nature intelligence" - where they monitor the major fault lines, run military exercises etc, etc....

I doubt Nat Geo would touch it with a bar of salt.

Oh drat Rain...
oh well... We'll move on to other interesting theories.
Got any ideas?

Shasta,
Disregarding how you ever prove any link to Jesus, what do you think such a link would show?
What I mean is, what is the upshot of what you're trying to prove - isn't this a bit like the 'Jesus married Magdalene and had children' bit in as much that doesn't that make Jesus no more than you or me? Or are you looking for a G_d gene?
Let's assume that Jesus did have children - what has been so special about them over the past 2,000 years? Did they stop the wars? Stop famine? Murder? General nastiness in mankind?

So doesn't it simply end up with 'Jesus had a family' - and then isn't that true of a large proportion of people from the same era and location? IE it tends to just imply nothing of any real significance?

Yeah, if you play with the Big Boys get yourself a cashed up handler. They like planes, trains and ufo's.

Shasta,

When not slanging it out with TCP you (both) might want to consider the following:

http://www.brucelipton.com/biology-of-belief-overview/

http://www.brucelipton.com/spontaneous- ... -overview/


By Lipton's account you can change your genes by your thought processes.

So if you think hard enough about it, you can Merovinginize your genes according to your needs/beliefs.

You could throw in a bit of Hapsburg just for fun (mind you exclude the shapeshifting elements - those slitty eyes aren't all that appealing).
.

So sad....so many critics! None who have actually read the book...
Deep sigh..
I will make another batch of cookies...maybe name them after the Carolingian kings..
or the Hapsburgs! I bet I can materialize Hapsburg genes too!
Must try that next....must try that next..

I'm always confused by this? Why do you think that Jesus having sex disqualifies Him from supposedly being God made flesh?

Shasta, I'd guess that none of this 'poor me' stuff is fooling anybody! Almost everybody on this forum has seen all this 'duckin and divin' histrionics before from so many others on this forum.

Let's keep it simple! You have claimed that Saint Paul mentioned a supposed son of Jesus. Can you provide a source for those of us who would be interested in examining such a claim?

I don't, hence the question of the G_d gene. If G_d manifested as a wholly human being, then Jesus was just that wasn't He? IE a wholly human being. If G_d manifested and still had godly attributes (doesn't that then diminish the story slightly - as if Jesus was still G_d, then how easy to ignore temptation and pain as G_d is all powerful), then do those 'descendants' also have godly powers? Is that what Shasta or the 'Magdalene and Jesus had kids' followers believe? I never quite understood what Christianity believed (and I don't think Christians themselves had any hard and fast 'concept' - wasn't that part of Nicaea?) and I don't think the 'Jesus had descendants' followers have come to a conclusion about what that actually means. Are the descendants 'of the same substance as G_d' (wasn't that the belief enforced by Nicaea?), human...a mixture...?
It just seems to me that whichever way you look at it, the descendants aren't that special. Either they are human and have no specific godly powers. Or they are G_d and the hundreds/thousands/millions of them that may exist today are what - also all G_d? - but they haven't done anything with whatever power they have - so what difference the power?