Acharya S., the New Age, and the Culture War on Christianity
Peter Myers, January 1, 2006; update March 23, 2012. My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.
You are at http://mailstar.net/acharya.html.
Added March 23, 2012:
Acharya S. has written a series of books all on the same topic, gradually
improving her style and her referencing, and this is mirrored in the reviews
of her books by Robert M. Price. His review of The Christ Conspiracy, in
which he panned Acharya, is no longer online, ie no longer shows up in
Google. But it's at http://web.archive.org/web/20050119013427/http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_murdock.htm.
Her reply is at http://web.archive.org/web/20051215053121/http://www.truthbeknown.com/firesponse.htm.
If those links stop working, I will post those two articles in full here;
please let me know. Price gave a more favourable review, albeit mixed with
criticism, of Acharya's next book Suns of God: http://www.truthbeknown.com/price-sog-review.html.
And has come out quite pro-Acharya in his review of her later book Christ
in Egypt: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm.
End of Addition
Via her books and her website, Acharya S. launches the fiercest attack on Christianity that I have seen: http://www.truthbeknown.com/
At the above link, at the entrance to her website, she quotes John Kaminski saying "Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era.", and Barbara Walker saying "Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves--indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence."
She wrote, in an article titled An Atheist Here to Destroy:
"And yes, I am here to destroy. I am the intellectual aspect of Kali, the destroyer, of Shiva, of Zeus the thunderer, and of Jehovah the flattener of cities. But I am also a part and parcel of the Creative Life Force that permeates the cosmos, and upon the ruined foundations of dead and rotten ideologies I build anew." http://www.truthbeknown.com/atheist.htm.
I agree with her that many Christian ideas and practices were borrowed from other religions, and have put such information on my website, as well as evidence that the Jewish Bible is man-made; for this, fundamentalist Catholics bundled me with Acharya as a destroyer.
But Acharya overstates her case, claiming:
* Jesus never existed.
* Jesus was not crucified, but Krishna was (at least, according to Hindu myhtology); stories of Jesus' crucifixion were copied from stories of 15 previous crucified saviors.
She republished Kersey Graves's book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, and wrote a new Foreword to it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093281395X/qid=1136077408/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/t/103-3663918-1663034?s=books&v=glance&n=283155.
Her argument is not just that Christianity is assembled from many sources - that I agree with - but that there has been a succession of religious cults featuring crucified saviours, including Krishna, and that the crucifixion theme in Christianity is borrowed from the crucifixion themes of those earlier saviors.
Krishna being one of the 16, this claim of a religious tradition in India, in which Krishna was crucified, is central to her argument.
In late 2004, Acharya S. participated in my email list for a month or so, during our debate over her books.
It began as a debate between Israel Shamir and herself, over whether Christianity is a "Trojan Horse" for Judaism. Shamir's argument is that the attack on Christianity is being promoted by Jews (Acharya being an unwitting accomplice) and is allowing Judaism to dominate the West.
Shamir had included me as one of the recipients of his email to Acharya, and I published his statement in my email list.
Acharya, in replying to him, selected the "Reply to All" option in her browser, thereby sending that comment to me. Since it was a reply to Shamir's criticism of her, and since I had published Shamir's criticism, I felt it appropriate to also publish her reply. This was not to her disadvantage in any way.
After that, my email bulletins became the vehicle for the debate, involving many participants, including Acharya until she withdrew at the end. It took the form of a series of emails, which I have identified as (A), (B) etc. Each email comprised a number of items, being comments of various people, or extracts from Acharya's or other books. These items are numbered, in each email, (1), (2) etc. Some were off-topic, and have been excluded. Others were too lengthy, and have been shortened, noted by "...".
Each email began with a list of the items it contained; that list is omitted here except for the longer emails. Some of the emails began with a short introduction to the items, by me. Where no other author of comments is identified, one should assume it is me.
During the course of the debate, I obtained Acharya's books The Christ Conspiracy (CC) and Suns of God (SoG). She believes that they are an invincible offensive frontline in the culture war against Christianity. But by quoting them at various points of detail - passages which do not appear on her website - I demonstrated weakness in her sources, a lack of evidence, and jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
One participant in the debate, Atracus Sapien, has a Hindu background and knows Sanskrit, and showed that the claims about Krishna - of Kersey Graves and others that Acharya endorses - derive from Western theosophists and are not backed up by Hindu literature or studies. I sent the critiques (below) by Atracus to Acharya, but she did not respond to them.
Alain Danielou, an expert on Sanskrit and on the Hindu gods, is also quoted on the borrowing of mythology between religions (including Christianity), to give a different perspective to Acharya's.
Although attacking the established religions, Acharya offers no evidence to justify her own New Age creed: 'We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes' (SoG, p. 567) and '... in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops"' (CC, p. 416).
During the debate, Acharya referred to herself (in the signature block of an email) as Right Reverend Acharya S - International Church of Astrotheology. Is this a registered, tax-empt, religion? If not, why call it a "church"? In SoG she writes that astrotheology is "the worship of the heavens and planetary bodies" (p. 559).
One opponent wrote, 'Ahcarya is "Pope Joan" for all of the New Age atheists'.
Acharya accused Shamir of behaving in an un-gentlemanly way to her. But towards the end, she resorted to unlady-like name-calling ("you have a bug up your ass" ... "your anal nitpicking"), which showed that she had lost the debate.
One critic Mike Licona, wrote: 'Acharya means "guru" or "teacher." Her actual name is D. Murdock.'
Acharya scoffs (below) at the idea that Osiris had been a man, a king, who was later recognised as a god. Here's what Sir James Frazer wrote on the apotheosis of Osiris:
From The Golden Bough (1922), by Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941).
Ch. 38. The Myth of Osiris
http://www.bartleby.com/196/85.html
XXXVIII. The Myth of Osiris
... 3 Reigning as a king on earth, Osiris reclaimed the Egyptians from savagery, gave them laws, and taught them to worship the gods. Before his time the Egyptians had been cannibals. But Isis, the sister and wife of Osiris, discovered wheat and barley growing wild, and Osiris introduced the cultivation of these grains amongst his people, who forthwith abandoned cannibalism and took kindly to a corn diet. Moreover, Osiris is said to have been the first to gather fruit from trees, to train the vine to poles, and to tread the grapes. Eager to communicate these beneficent discoveries to all mankind, he committed the whole government of Egypt to his wife Isis, and travelled over the world, diffusing the blessings of civilisation and agriculture wherever he went. In countries where a harsh climate or niggardly soil forbade the cultivation of the vine, he taught the inhabitants to console themselves for the want of wine by brewing beer from barley. Loaded with the wealth that had been showered upon him by grateful nations, he returned to Egypt, and on account of the benefits he had conferred on mankind he was unanimously hailed and worshipped as a deity. ...
{end quote} more at postmortem-journeys.html.
And Martin Larson, whom Acharya quotes, writes in his book The Story of Christian Origins, originally published as The Religion of the Occident:
"Osiris was undoubtedly an early ruler of theirs." (p. 3).
If so, it is equally likely that Jesus was a real person, about whom an elaborate mythology was later built. The battle over him still rages 2000 years later.
My own comments within quoted text are shown within curly brackets {...}. This includes the page numbering shown in quotes from books.
(A) Overview of the Debate (B) Whether Christianity is a "Trojan Horse" for Judaism (C) "Acharya is liable to throw out the baby with the bathwater" (D) "Right Reverend Acharya S - International Church of Astrotheology" (E) Acharya says she "does not throw the baby out with the bathwater" (F) Shamir seems to be an agent for INCREASED "Judaic forces" (G) Acharya's New Age Conglomerate (H) Acharya's claim that Krishna was crucified, and Jesus wasn't (I) Why Acharya Matters (J) "Shamir has proved himself an ogre" - Acharya (J) "you have a bug up your ass" ... "your anal nitpicking" - Acharya (K) Krishna irrelevant, Acharya not "New Age" - Kaminski
(A) Overview of the Debate
Acharya's position:
{quote} "Jesus Christ" is a fictional character based on the numerous gods, goddesses and assorted heroes of the "known world" at the time of his creation. He is essentially the sun god turned into a "Jewish" man, "messiah," "christ," God on Earth, etc., in order to ensnare the ignorant Goyim into accepting the megalomaniacal claims of the Israelitish peoples. {endquote}
Israel Shamir replies:
{quote} This is exactly the view that the not-so-esoteric Judaic best-seller of the fourth century, Toledot Yeshu, tries to spread. ... It is amusing that an anti-Judaic Gnostic swallows the Jewish line hook, line and rod. If she would just think why it was written! As the Christian Church was (and is) the main enemy of Jews, they spread this idea in order to undermine people's trust in the Church. {endquote}
Israel Shamir grew up in the Soviet Union. He left in 1969, disillusioned at the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968. He supports the economic security and equality of the Communist-type economy, but opposes the icococlasm and the attack on religion that went with it. The diversity of opinion in his email list shows that he's no totalitarian; but neither is he a liberal. His website is http://www.israelshamir.net/.
Some of Acharya's sources are impeccable, e.g. E.A. Wallis-Budge. Others are informative, but occasionally wrong, e.g. Martin A. Larsen; this is not a major problem.
Others are Nineteenth-century books recording snippets gathered from the British Empire, but without our current standards of evidence. For example, claims about Krishna are sourced to "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions" - but no names of texts, or quotes, or chapters or verses are provided. Acharya quite happily touts this material as evidence (SoG, p. 241).
Acharya seems to support "Positive Atheism". This is the view that the major religions are a positive evil, to be combated and eliminated if possible.
During the debate, one of Acharya's supporters praised her "take-no-prisoners, butt-kicking CONFIDENCE".
When the West was Christian, abortion and sodomy were crimes, women wanted to be mothers, children were respectful, parents and teachers had authority.
What if that regime was based on a lie - that the Bible was a revelation from God, that there was a Covenant, Old then New, which mandated those values?
This is Acharya's point, and I concur up to that point. But she goes further - she insists that the crucifixion never occurred, and is adamant that Jesus never existed. She sees Christianity as a deliberate fraud and conspiracy. Hence the subtitle of her book The Christ Conspiracy: the Greatest Story Ever Sold.
Acharya is part of a fringe group of atheistic and New Age writers who rely heavily on Nineteenth-century sources such as Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907), and Thomas Inman (Inman's books, ca. 1876, are usually quoted indirectly via T. W. Doane's book of 1882).
Twentieth century authors in Acharya's camp include John G. Jackson and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963).
The push for Gay Marriage is occurring in the Post-Christian West, but not in Asia or Africa. It's a sign that the destruction of Christianity is creating a cultural and spiritual vacuum, and unleashing dangerous forces. Acharya is aligned with those forces of Cultural Revolution.
I oppose both extremes in the culture war - the Christian fundamentalist and the New Age/Atheist. In this debate, Acharya's view is presented in her own forceful words, but the weaknesses in her evidence and logic are also exposed.
There are genuine borrowings from Buddhism and other Indian religions to Christianity, as Martin A. Larsen dispassionately shows in his book The Religion of the Occident (The Story of Christian Origins), but Acharya's overstatement and loose argumentation undermine and embarrass those who would argue this case.
Christian borrowings from Egyptian theology and iconography are attested by several impeccable sources, e.g. E.A. Wallis-Budge (1857-1934), who was Curator of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, and who is one of Acharya's reliable sources. Some quotes from Budge are at postmortem-journeys.html.
Another such author is S. G. F. Brandon, who traced the development and borrowing of ideas of the Judgment of the Dead in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greco-Roman Culture, Hinduism and Buddhism: judgment.html.
Acharya has put a lot of work into her books, but by not accepting criticism given in a scholarly spirit, cheapens and devalues her own work.
(B) Whether Christianity is a "Trojan Horse" for Judaism
John Kaminski wrote, "Thanks to religion, the Spaniards could destroy the civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas. Thanks to religion, the jews can destroy Western Civilization" - item 3.
(2) The Pagan Origins of Christianity, by Acharya S
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:25:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
If you like this pithy pontification from the Right Rev. Rick, you might also enjoy the following:
Despite its boasts and claims, Christianity is not unique, as practically all of its dogma, tenets, beliefs, myths and fables can be found in the numerous cultures that preceded it in a wide area of the world. In The Paganism in Our Christianity, Christian apologist Sir Weigall recaps the absorption of Paganism by Christianity:
From Pagan mythology Christianity had unconsciously taken over many a wonderful story and had incorporated it into the life of Jesus: from Mithraism the tale of the birth in the cave and the adoration of the shepherds; from Adonis-worship the tale of the Star in the East; from Dionysos-worship the tale of the turning water into wine; and so forth.
Meanwhile many of the old heathen gods had been taken into the Church as saints. Castor and Pollux became St. Cosmo and St. Damien; Dionysos, many of whose attributes were attached to St. John the Baptist, still holds his place as St. Denis of Paris; Diana Illythia is now St. Yllis of D'le; the Dia Victore is worshipped in the Basses Alpes as St. Victoire; and so forth. All over Christendom, pagan sacred places were perpetuated by the erection of Christian chapels or churches on the same sites; and there are hundreds of shrines dedicated to the Madonna on ground once sacred to nymphs or goddesses, while the holy wells or springs of heathendom are now the holy wells of the Church. The statutes of Jupiter and Apollo became those of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin MaryÉ
Excerpted from Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
(3) Two thoughts of Acharya, by Israel Shamir
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:51:14 +0200 From: "Israel Shamir" <shamir@home.se>
A Reply to a Gnostic
From Israel Shamir
Acharya S, an anti-Judaic anti-Christian Gnostic and the author of The Christ Conspiracy, had sent a letter (below) to an ad hoc list, presenting her 'refutation of Christianity'. The letter contains two thoughts:
1. Christianity as a Trojan Horse: Park Christianity at the gate of the nations, and out pop a bunch of "Chosen People".
... The Church is the ultimate defence against Judaic assault. Indeed, while the Church was strong the Jews were powerless; so much for your thesis of a Trojan Horse. If Jewish hatred is a proof, this proof is available in abundance. This week in Jerusalem, a Jewish believer spat on a cross carried by an Armenian Bishop. Is that the way to treat your Trojan Horse?
But it is interesting for us to understand the reasoning of Acharya. She - and her fellow-travellers - are Americans, and they are used to their Judaised Christianity. They are not aware that since the days of St Paul and St Peter, the Church and the Christian doctrine fully accepted veneration of Our Lady, this additional defence against Judaic penetration. ... This Christianity is not a Trojan Horse, but a mighty shield against Judaic domination.
2. Second thought of Acharya
"Jesus Christ" is a fictional character based on the numerous gods, goddesses and assorted heroes of the "known world" at the time of his creation. He is essentially the sun god turned into a "Jewish" man, "messiah," "Christ", etc. Despite its boasts and claims, Christianity is not unique, as practically all of its dogma, tenets, beliefs, myths and fables can be found in the numerous cultures that preceded it in a wide area of the worldÉ
Acharya would make great friends with my primary school teacher in Novosibirsk of AD 1955. She was also impressed by such comparisons. However, these similarities are rather confirming than refuting Christianity. ...
I saw in an interview (http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4) given by Acharya that she is a great believer in space invaders and in contact with UFOs. ...
----- Original Message ----- From: Acharya S Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:26 AM Subject: Oh, to be as honest as animals--or Marcus Ravage!
I would like to coin a new term to describe you, John: "balldacious."
I've said this before, but it bears repeating, I think. I like to describe Christianity as a Trojan Horse: Park Christianity at the gate of the nations, and out pop a bunch of "Chosen People." As far as I'm concerned, and as I think I make clear in my books, Christianity is a deliberately contrived ideology (not that religions in general aren't), designed to perpetuate the established domination (not hegemony, since "the nations" are not allies) of the Old Testament supremacists. (I hope you get my drift. I need no smearing with fallacious terms such as "anti-Semitic.")
"Jesus Christ" is a fictional character based on the numerous gods, goddesses and assorted heroes of the "known world" at the time of his creation. He is essentially the sun god turned into a "Jewish" man, "messiah," "christ," God on Earth, etc., in order to ensnare the ignorant Goyim into accepting the megalomaniacal claims of the Israelitish peoples.
In this regard, Marcus Eli Ravage, a biographer of the Rothschilds, remarked in Century magazine, 1928: Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, care-free pagan race. You worshipped countless Gods and Goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of the social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.
But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.
We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the world, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to unexplored ends of the earth. Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk-tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer-books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of the learning of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our Kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible. What our people thought and taught has become inextricable woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage. Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of motherhood and womanhood. A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you. Think about it.
Acharya S http://www.truthbeknown.com
John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net> wrote: The religion of the Aztecs and Incas was the essential cause of those civilizations' downfall, for they believed the White Gods had returned, when they were only a bunch of Spanish brigands. Worship your enemy and you are defeated, just like Whites who worship jews via Christianity. Thanks to religion, the Spaniards could destroy the civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas. Thanks to religion, the jews can destroy Western Civilization. Both provide examples in which the Problem-Makers have been deified, with the resultant destruction of the host civilizations.
http://www.faem.com/eric/2003/d0505et.htm
Best wishes, John K.
(5) The Pagan Origins of Christianity, by Acharya S
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:53:45 +1000 From: Nadir <amar5249@bigpond.net.au>
I see that one of your main tasks is the promoting the attacks against Christianity, the Bible and everything related to it. Your real allies are not the Iskandars, the Vincents, the Nadirs or Kathies, but this new one Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> and the John Kaminsky types.
[John Kaminski wrote, " Thanks to religion, the Spaniards could destroy the civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas. Thanks to religion, the jews can destroy Western Civilization" - item 3.] ... {end}
REPLY (Peter M):
Let truth be the criterion.
Examination of the Jewish Bible shows that it's man-made: bible.html.
Have a look to see if the one you use has a Copyright notice in the front. A Copyright on the Word of God?
Next, examine the two accounts of Creation in Genesis 1 & 2. Note that one version says that the animals were created before the people. The other has Adam created first, then the animals, then Eve.
Next, look at the two versions of the story of Noah's Ark.
In one version, God tells Noah to take one board, one pair of each species. In the other, he tells Noah to take 7 pairs of each "clean" species, and 1 pair of each "unclean" species.
The difference between Acharya and me, is that I maintain a religious attitude, a reverence - to I know not what.
Acharya may be new to you, but I came across her work years ago. Even though it's probably largely true, I found it too bitter in its tone.
By comparison, consider what Alain Danielou writes in his book Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus (Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont 1992) - also published under the title Shiva and Dionysus:
{p. 29} Mythology
Whether dealing with heroes, divine incarnations or gods, all mythology is founded on the personification of certain cosmological principles or particular virtues. "Together with the gods, I will tell of the birth of the elements which they personify," says Hesiod. What counts in mythology are the inherent principles and not the legends with which they are surrounded in order to make them more readily understood. It is of no importance that these legends are legion, differing from one region to another, from one visionary poet to another. We should not lose sight of the fact that such myths or legends are only there to make abstract ideas and universal realities more comprehensible.
The wicked fairy remains the wicked fairy even if we invent new fairy-tales. Heroes are attributed with certain acts which surpass reality, but which are designed to emphasize their virtues and the teachings which they personify. To attribute to Jesus of Nazareth the miracles and legends of Dionysus or Krishna does not detract from his message, but serves to make his divine nature more easily understood. To try to see only strictly historical facts is to deny his divinity and his value as an eternal symbol.
The legends surrounding a particular divine aspect in the various civilizations only differ in the indigenous names given to the heroes and gods. These wonderful tales illustrate universal cosmological or philosophic concepts by incorporating them in a local pantheon to make them more accessible and, occasionally, to mask their meaning from the uninitiated who take these legends literally. The same process is found everywhere, whether in the myths of Dionysus, Bacchus, Zagreus or the Minotaur, of Egyptian Osiris or Roman Liber. In the same way, the legends were adapted so as to include Shiva and his cult amongst the Vedic gods or in Tibetan Buddhism. Thus saints are substituted for gods in the Christian world: the life of Buddha appears in the lives of the saints under the name of Saint Joshaphat.
{p. 229} The message of Jesus is opposed to that of Moses and, later on, to that of Mohammed. It seems to have been a message of liberation and of revolt against a Judaism which had become monotheistic, dry, ritualist, puritan, pharisaeic and inhuman. In its Roman form, Christianity was at first in opposition to the official religion of the Empire, in the same way in which it was opposed to official Judaism as a State religion. We know very little of the sources of Jesus' teaching, or of his initiation, his sojourn "in the desert" towards the East. The Christian myths appear to be closely linked to those of Dionysus. Jesus, like Skanda or Dionysus, is the son of the Father, of Zeus. He has no wife. The goddess-mother alone finds her place next to him. He is surrounded by his faithful, his bhaktas, who are of the people, fishermen. His teaching is addressed to the humble and the outcast. He welcomes prostitutes and those who are persecuted. His rite is a sacrifice. It is in the Orphic tradition that the passion and resurrection of Dionysus occupy a central position. It is through Orphism that many of Dionysus' "miracles" were attributed to Jesus. Several aspects of the Orphic legend of Dionysus are to be found in the life of Jesus. The parallel between the death and resurrection of the god and of Christ is self-evident.
The myths and symbols tied to the birth of Christ, to his baptism, his following, his entry into Jerusalem on an ass, the Last Supper (banquet and sacrificial rite), his Passion, death and resurrection, the
{p. 230} dates and nature of the various feast days, his power of healing and of changing water into wine, inevitably evoke Dionysiac precedents.
It would therefore seem that Jesus' initiation was Orphic or Dionysiac and not Essenian as sometimes suggested. His message, which is an attempt to return to tolerance and to a respect for the work of the Father-Creator, was totally perverted after his death. Later Christianity is, in fact, diametrically opposed to it, with its religious imperialism, political role, wars, massacres, tortures, stakes, persecutions of heretics, and its denial of pleasure, sexuality and of all the forms of experiencing the divine joy. ...
{p. 231} Christianity thus became an instrument of conquest and world domination, just as Buddhism had been for the Indian emperors. ...
Christian missionaries, who were often sent out by atheist governments, as was the case in France - where, moreover, religious communities were outlawed under the Third Republic -, were often the most powerful tool in depersonalizing the conquered peoples and subjecting them to the conqueror.
{end} More at danielou-paglia.html.
(6) Two thoughts of Acharya - reply to Israel Shamir
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:02:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
Well, hello! Hi nice to hear from you.
My preliminary response to your reply is that the following is completely false and incorrect, and the source is extremely vitriolic and unreliable:
"I saw in an interview (http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4) given by Acharya that she is a great believer in space invaders and in contact with UFOs."
I am not a "great believer in space invaders and in contact with UFOs," and never have stated that in any interview. This person you cite consistently posts falsehoods about not only me and my work but also the work of many other mythicists and freethinkers.
I'm disappointed by this ridiculous cheap shot, Mr. Shamir. I had thought better of you. But, thanks for getting the word out there!
(7) Two thoughts of Acharya Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:06:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
It is most amusing that yesterday I was also criticized by a Sitchinite for not believing in aliens! As concerns mindless beliefs, I find it further amusing and ironic that someone (Shamir) who fervently believes there's an invisible Jewish guy named Jesus floating around in the sky is bagging on the belief in aliens! What is an "alien?" An invisible Jewish guy floating around in the sky, perhaps? Christ-insanity is full of "aliens": God the Giant Space Alien; His Son, Jesus; the Holy Ghost (a ghost, for heaven's sake!); Satan; a gazillion angels and devils, etc., et al., ad nauseam. Quite a Space Invaders game, that!
(8) Was Superman Jewish?, by Schneir Levin
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/yuriy/superman.html.
Was Superman Jewish? Schneir Levin Johannesburg, South Africa ...
(9) Copyright on the Bible
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:59:42 -0400 From: Kathy Redle <skredle@sbcglobal.net>
Peter +,
You need so many prayers I will continue to pray for you. ...
I have enough charity for you that I do not want you to burn in hell fire because you reject almighty God's sacred scripture and spend more time reading the rantings and ravings of people like Stalin and Lenin and yes the idiocy of modernist clerics like Fr. John Courtney Murray and his ilk. ...
(C) "Acharya is liable to throw out the baby with the bathwater"
(1) Let truth be the criterion - Acharya & the 3 Ways of Knowing God
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:12:38 +1000 From: Nadir Martello <amar5249@bigpond.net.au>
Peter,
You not only promote in your newsletter Gnostic writing for your readers, but you are hunting for more Gnostic material for them too. The likes of Acharya S <acharya_s3@ya hoo.com> and the John Kaminsky types, among others, are the proof of what I am saying is correct.
Matter of fact, Acharya S doesnt even know you.
The below excerpt taken from your newsletter tells just that. Here it is:
<(2) The Pagan Origins of Christianity, by Acharya S
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:25:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
<If you like this pithy pontification from the Right Rev. Rick, you <might <also enjoy the following:>
The by Acharya S and From: Acharya S makes it look like she sent it to you for you to print.
Back to let truth be the criterion - what is your answer now, Peter?
{REPLY (Peter M): Acharya sent that comment to me, by Replying to All the respondents to the discussion; I happened to be one of them. Since it was a reply to Shamir's criticism of her, and since I had published Shamir's criticism, I felt it appropriate to also publish her reply. This was not to her disadvantage in any way} ...
You are a follower of Rev. Acharya S ; I am of Jesus Christ who is my criterion and yardstick for truth, for He is the TRUTH. Jesus said to Thomas, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
[John 14:6] {end}
REPLY (Peter M):
The difference between Acharya and me, is that I maintain a religious attitude, a reverence - to I know not what.
It may surprise you to learn that there is a stream within Christianity that emphasises NOT KNOWING. That is, UNCERTAINTY rather than DOCTRINE or DOGMA.
John Courtney Murray shows this in his study on Thomas Aquinas' The Three Ways of Knowing God: murray.html.
The greatest achievement of medieval philosophers was, not systematic theology, but the discovery that the more we know, the more we are aware of what we don't know.
Aquinas' formulation establishes a bridge between Western and Eastern concepts of divinity, the former "personal", the latter "impersonal" i.e. brahman, karma or tao, because even in the "personal" case, we cannot understand God's nature: daoist.html.
Acharya is liable to throw out the baby with the bathwater. She does a service in charting the borrowing of mythology and cultural icons; but in ridiculing the mythology we have inherited from the past, she fails to appreciate that it may contain cultural treasures.
For example, the Catholic Monstrance, whose golden rays emanate outwards from the centre, was borrowed from the religion of the Sun-God.
This means that Catholicism, and Judaism too, even though roundly condemning "pagan" practices, have inadvertently helped to preserve some of them, by incorporating them into their liturgy or holy books.
Judaism preserves knowledge of the Sacred Marriage rites of Sumeria and Phoenicia in its book The Song of Solomon. Being in the Bible, it cannot be rejected; the puritans interpret it away, as allegorical: jewish-taoist.html.
Sacred Marriage rites were no doubt practiced in pre-Zoroastrian forms of Judaism, including Solomon's Temple: toynbee.html.
Ezra reconstructed Judaism, borrowing from the religion of the Persian Empire: zoroastrianism.html.
Just as each of us values his or her own memory of our life as a child, so it is appropriate to treasure the cultural pathways through which we have become the way we are.
We may be no longer able to believe those earlier beliefs, or practice the rituals, but we treasure them and need to pass on the knowledge of them to future generations.
The alternative is a "cultural lobotomy".
(D) "Right Reverend Acharya S - International Church of Astrotheology"
(1) Bible cf the Rig Veda - Acharya caught out
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:22:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
Oh, for Goddess's sake, Peter, will these arrogant, condescending Catholic/Christian religious-fanatic ranters never cease with their contemptuous, demented drivel?
"You need so many prayers..." Well, gee, Kathy, because you don't believe in the Hindu elephant-headed god Ganesha, I think you need so many prayers, and I'm going to the temple to pray for you!
I pray one day that you, Kathy, will be a sister in Lord Shiva! I hope you get knocked off your "Christ savior complex" horse! Kathy, you are too funny! Even though you obviously take yourself so seriously with your bogus, delusional religion! Are you going to reject the 3500 years or more that the Indian sacred text the Rig Veda has proved itself to be true?!!
"You look for things to pick on so you don't have to get down on your knees and repent." Oh, dear! But, have you accepted the Lord and Savior Krishna yet, Kathy? If not, tsk, tsk!! You are avoiding Him who loves you by following a false religion! "I have enough charity that I don't want you to burn in hell fire..." Well, gee, Kathy, that's mighty big of you! Megalomaniacal even!
Blah, blah, blah. How tiresome is this relentless religious rubbish.
The Right Reverend Acharya S International Church of Astrotheology http://www.truthbeknown.com {end}
REPLY (Peter M):
But the usual Hindu interpretation of the Rig Veda, in allegorical not literal terms, is NOT true. The Rig Veda is actually a record of the Aryan destruction of the Harappan Civilization: rig-veda.html ...
Most of the Rig Veda, like the Jewish Bible, has a mentality of "Religious Tribalism". Towards the end, there are a few poems which reflect a universal theme, obviously composed late, around 1000 BC. It was that change of thinking which paved the way for the rise of the Jains, the Buddhists etc. The same is also found in the Bible.
(E) Acharya says she "does not throw the baby out with the bathwater"
(1) Acharya says she "does not throw the baby out with the bathwater"
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:15:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
Hi Peter -
I appreciate you promoting my work, but the following is a misinterpretation of it that I would like to address:
"Acharya is liable to throw out the baby with the bathwater. She does a service in charting the borrowing of mythology and cultural icons; but in ridiculing the mythology we have inherited from the past, she fails to appreciate that it may contain cultural treasures."
In no way do I throw the baby out with the bathwater, nor do I ignore the "cultural treasures." What I do is to extricate these treasures out of the dross that has accumulated over the centuries, showing what the mythology truly represents. I am a mythologist. I have studied mythology for about 4 decades, informally and formally. I certainly do not ridicule mythology. I ridicule the arrogance and conceit that falsely presents mythology as "history" and the "true religion," that's for sure!
Nor am I without awe for the cosmos. In fact, I frequently state in my writings and on radio programs that one of my "purposes" is to hopefully instill in my readers and listeners a profound awe of the cosmos! Following is the back cover copy from my recently released book, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled."
Picking up where the bestselling and controversial The Christ Conspiracy leaves off, Suns of God leads the reader through an electrifying exploration of the origin and meaning of the world's religions and popular gods. Over the past several centuries, the Big Three spiritual leaders have been the Lords Christ, Krishna and Buddha, whose stories and teachings are curiously and confoundingly similar to each other. The tale of a miraculously born redeemer who overcomes heroic challenges, teaches ethics and morality, performs marvels and wonders, acquires disciples and is famed far and wide, to be persecuted, killed and reborn, is not unique but a global phenomenon recurring in a wide variety of cultures long before the Christian era.
As archaeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist Acharya S thoroughly reveals, these numerous godmen were not similar "historical" personages who "walked the earth" but anthropomorphizations of the central focus of the famous "mysteries." A major element of the cryptic, international brotherhood, these mysteries extend back thousands of years and are found worldwide, reflecting an ancient tradition steeped in awe and intrigue. The reasons for this religious development, which has inspired the creation of entire cultures, are unveiled in this in-depth analysis containing fascinating and original research based on evidence both modern and ancient, captivating information kept secret and hidden for ages.
(F) Shamir seems to be an agent for INCREASED "Judaic forces"
(1) "the Judaic hold on American discourse is slipping" - Acharya replies to Shamir
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:39:58 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
Although Shamir rails aganst "Judaic forces," Communism IS a huge, atrocious "Judaic force" that has destroyed countless lives. It was created as a means to exploit ruthlessly the stupid Goyim, as was Christianity. As I've said before, park the Trojan Horse of Christianity at the gate of the Nations and "the chosen" spill out to take the reins. Shamir seems to be an agent for INCREASED "Judaic forces" throughout the world by supporting these two clearly Judaic constructs.
(2) Jesus Christ a Myth [Anti-Zionist Coalition]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:42:38 +0200 From: "Israel Shamir" <shamir@home.se>
Acharya and John,
I have heard enough of the Christ-denial in my life; I was born, brought up and live in a country where your view is an official one and believers in Christ are frowned upon, at best. Your views are such an OLD hat. Indeed, every Jew is of your opinion, and if you wish I can introduce you to a Judaic publisher - they will buy it anytime. But for us Christians it has no value whatsoever. All your arguments were presented by Celsius and refuted by Origen some 1800 years ago. The main argument of Acharya perfectly fits Napoleon, another Sun-myth with his 12 marchals.
As for Ardeshir, I began to doubt his existence :-)
Shamir
From: "Acharya S" <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> : Yes, John, and the carpenter-god or smith-god with the : 12 helpers/disciples is an OLD theme that was simply : rehashed when the priestly faction fabricated Jesus : Christ. No big surprise there. : --- John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net> wrote: : > Get your facts straight. It can be proved Julius and : > Alexander walked this earth. Jesus is not in that category. Period. : > jk
(3) Religions are manmade nonsense - Acharya
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:27:52 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>
... Mr. Shamir, you seem to delight in this Acharya-bashing, a peculiar obsession and one which does not and will never negate the facts that religions are manmade endeavors and that Jesus Christ is a fictional character. ...
Now, why don't YOU stop beating a dead horse, to wit false ideologies based in irrationality and nonsense.
(4) Acharya's book The Christ Conspiracy 'virtually proves that "Jesus Christ" is a mythical character. ...'
{What does "virtually proves" mean? Either it's a proof, or it's not}
From Acharya's website:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm
... Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. A book that virtually proves that "Jesus Christ" is a mythical character. ...
http://www.freethinkers.org/library/historical/historicus/jesus.html Did Jesus Ever Exist or Is Christianity Founded Upon a Myth? - Excellent expose of the absurd arguments of Christian apologists
(6) Acharya argues that Krishna was Crucified too
Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
{p. 241} The orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow while under a tree. As is true with so much in mythology, and as we have seen abundantly, there are variances in Krishna's tale, including the account of his death. In The Bible in India, citing as his sources the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions," French scholar and Indianist Jacolliot recounts the death of "Christna" as presciently understood by the godman, who, without his disciples, went to the Ganges to "work out stains." After thrice plunging into the sacred river, Krishna knelt and prayed as he awaited death, which was ultimately caused by multiple arrows shot by a criminal who had been exposed by Krishna. The executioner, named Angada, was thereafter condemned to wander the banks of the Ganges for eternity, subsisting off the dead. Jacolliot goes on to describe Krishna's death thus:
{quote} The body of the God-man was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures. {endquote}
Moreover, this legend is evidently but a variant of the orthodox tale,
constituting
an apparently esoteric tradition
{p. 242} recognizing Krishna's death as a "crucifixion. Indeed,
as Jonn Remsburg
says in The Christ:
{quote} There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindoo scriptures,
that
Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.2 {endquote}
{Endnote 2 on p. 286 reads "www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg11.htm".}
{Why isn't it in the Hindu scriptures? Where is it found, and what is
the evidence
for it in India today? Remsberg gives no quote, no reference, yet Acharya
touts this statement by him as evidence.}
{Jacolliot does not say the words which Acharya puts into his mouth. In Jesus' case, crucifixion was the intended means of death, whereas hanging Krishna on a tree was a kind of sky-burial, as practised in the Zoroastrian religion and in Tibet today. In sky-burial, bodies are exposed for vultures and wild dogs to eat the flesh. The Crucifixion is a Jewish punishment for Jesus' defiance, whereas Krishna's killing, in Hindu tradition, is accidental. The Crucifixion is a central theme in the Christian story, whereas Acharya is unable to produce any current Hindu stories featuring the "crucifixion" of Krishna.}
(8) Acharya's statement that Jesus Christ nerver existed - Peter M.
Acharya's reply to Shamir on this issue has forced me to enter the argument, when I had hoped not to until I have read her two books (which I have ordered).
Nadir and Kathy, Catholic Traditionalists, see me as being in Acharya's camp. She and I agree that many of the stories told about Jesus, and much of the theology about him, were copied from stories about other people.
But there are important differences: she argues that Jesus never existed; I think that he did, and was probably a commendable person. She argues that the creators of the Jesus stories were conspirators; I think they were just error-prone humans as we all are.
Jesus stories resemble those of Osiris: postmortem-journeys.html,
and the ahimsa tradition of India (Jain, Buddhist etc): buddhism.html.
That tradition also influenced the Pythagoreans: india.html,
and the Cynics, from whom there is a direct influence in the New Testament: downing.html.
F. Gerald Downing's book CHRIST AND THE CYNICS: Jesus and other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (JSOT Press, Sheffield UK, 1988) puts a strong case that the early Christians, even though Jews, were followers of the Cynic philosophy. That is, they were Hellenized Jews who absorbed the Cynic philosophy of simple living, but put a Jewish twist on it (emphasizing the collective rather than the individual).
One can also detect Zoroastrian influences. Living near Alexandria, they encountered numerous philosophies, and constructed a synthesis of them - much as we do today.
Constructing mythologies is done in our day too: e.g. the heroic mythology of George Washington, or Woodrow Wilson, or Lenin, or Trotsky, or Hitler, or Einstein, depending on one's perspective.
The early Christians would be unlikely to have constructed an elaborate mythology about Jesus if he had not existed. Compare the case of Osiris. In Egyptian theology, he was a man who became a god, like Jesus. Many Egyptologists argue that he had probably been a king, whose fame was what led to his apotheosis.
Acharya's claim that Jesus never existed reverses the burden of proof. How can you prove that someone of 2000 years ago never existed? By going this one step further, and staking her reputation on it, she has set herself an impossible task.
Similarly with her claim, from ephemeral sources, that Krishna was crucified, the implication being that Christians borrowed this too. Benjamin Walker describes Krishna's death, in Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism:
"Only his faithful charioteer Daruka remained with him to the end and attended his last days. Full of sorrow Krishna and Balarama retired to the forest where Balarama died in his sleep. Krishna mourned by himself on a river bank, was mistaken for a deer and shot through the foot by the hunter Jaras ... When Krishna died his spirit ascended to his paradise ... The notion of the dying god is widespread in the Near East. All these themes are found nowhere else in Indian mythology." (p. 566).
Nothing about crucifixion here. By going one step too far, Acharya makes herself the issue.
Her direct style can give the impression of malice; at the very least, she takes insufficient steps to counter that perception. This is a pity, because there is much of value in her work.
In my own situation, I am aware that my critics prefer not to take me on over my strong points, but to home in on any errors or weak points they may find. For this reason, I pay great attention to minor details; corrections often emerge from discussions with those of different opinions. I have learned to avoid overstatement (which gives critics easy pot-shots), and to cultivate understatement instead.
The early Bolsheviks announced that they were freeing the people from Christianity too. They shot bishops and priests, imprisoned and tortured many, pulled down churches, turned churches into museums. And what was the result? Their excesses became the issue, and they lost the support of the people.
(9) Acharya's statement that Christianity is a Jewish conspiracy - Peter M.
Numerous competing groups of "Christians" and "Jews" each think of themselves as the True Jews, carriers of the Jewish Covenant, and the others as backsliders or heretics. No wonder there are lots of religious wars.
Christianity and Islam are offspring of Judaism; less well known is Judaism's own derivation, in particular from Zoroastrianism. Of the "Judaic" religions, only Islam acknowledges the debt to Zoroaster.
Early Christians were persuaded by Hellenized Jewish writers that the Jews were of greater antiquity than other civilizations. Solomon's kingdom left no monuments, whereas those of Egypt and Athens were for all to see; but early Christians were getting a different view through reading the Bible.
Marcion was the first to cast the Judaism out of Christianity.
Gerald Massey's Lectures, at http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/gmlectrs.htm, resembles Winwood Reade's slightly earlier book The Martyrdom of Man. Its call for a rationalistic religion based on the ascent of man reminds me of H. G. Wells' views (which came later). Perhaps Massey was an influence on him.
Massey rejects Christianity, including the Gospels, but accepts the Talmud as a reliable source. I wonder if he was a Freemason.
Shamir implies that "Judaic" forces, although not authoring those books, gave them favourable publicity and propelled their sales.
Harry Waton was a Jewish Communist who elucidated the Jewish approach to both Christianity and Communism, in his book A Program FOR THE JEWS An Answer TO ALL ANTI-SEMITES A PROGRAM FOR HUMANITY: watonpgm.zip.
He says that Judaism is the true religion, the only one dedicated to salvation in this world; all other major religions look to a heavenly paradise after death. Christianity began as a branch of Judaism, but, through Paul's (Roman) triumph over the James (Jerusalem) faction, deviated from it and incorporated "pagan" ways.
Acharya agrees on that point. I think that the "pagan" borrowings give colour to Christianity, compared to Jewish aridity and sterility. Anyway, Judaism itself borrowed from Canaanite, Egyptian and Zoroastrian religion.
Waton says that Jews have to re-capture Christianity. We see this happening before our eyes, with Christianity becoming a "social gospel" of direct action, and various churches announcing - contrary to the New Testament - that the "old" covenant never ended. On the contrary, the expression "new testament" implies "new covenant".
Waton also says that Communism is Judaism's universalist program for humanity, but that, through Stalin's seizure of power, they lost control of it - and must re-capture it, as in the case of Christianity.
An atheist like Ben-Gurion, Waton like him believed in a central role for the Third Temple as the shrine from which Jewish light will disseminate to the rest of the world.
Waton frankly admits that Jews need to use Christianity to achieve these goals; but what he has in mind, is restoring the Jewish component of Christianity, which means strengthening Protestantism and weakening the Roman and Orthodox branches.
These branches incorporate some Judaism, but it immunizes them against further infection, much as vaccines do. That is Shamir's point: it makes them resistant to a Jewish takeover.
Like Acharya, I have noted the non-Jewish cultural streams in Christianity.
The Cynic philosophy is an example. This is entirely non-Jewish, and quite harmless. It does not reject Greek culture; nor do the other non-Jewish borrowings, for the most part.
Where then does Jewish iconoclasm come from? Whence its rejection of all non-Jewish culture?
From two sources: the iconoclasm of Akhnaten, and Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Persian empire during the Jewish exile in Babylon.
There is an important difference between these two. Both are "monotheistic", but Akhnaten's is monistic while Zoroaster's is dualistic.
There is no devil in Akhnaten's religion; yet he set about destroying traditional Egyptian religion, as "pagan".
Zoroastrianism does have a devil, a heavenly being rather than an earthly one. Judaism rejects this dualistic component, and the heavenly devil, instead settling for the pure monotheism of Akhnaten, but with non-Jews playing the role of the earthly (not heavenly) devil. Thus all their culture is evil, and must be shut out and destroyed if possible. Hence the periodic cultural revolutions launched by the "monotheistic" religions.
(10) Acharya's statement that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy - Peter M.
It WAS a Jewish conspiracy, until Stalin it stole it from them and created a Russian version. For his pains, he was murdered in 1953, within 2 months of the Doctors' Plot being announced: death-of-stalin.html.
After his death, the Jewish faction (Beria, Kaganovich, Molotov) gained control, with Malenkov nominally in charge, but were overthrown a few months later by Khruschev of the Russian faction: beria.html.
The "fall of Communism" is the fall of the Russian variant.
The Jewish variant is dominant in Western cities, going under the names "International Socialist", Trotskyist, "New Left", "Green Left", "Marxist Anti-Communist", Deconstruction, Cultural Studies etc.
Not all New Leftists are Jews; probably most aren't. But Isaac Deutscher was a central figure in New Left Review: deutscher.html.
Chomsky and Soros are the leaders today.
Their flagship issues are Open Borders, Feminism, Gay Marriage and other "minority" movements. The various kinds of Victimhood are all pale imitations of Jewish Victimhood. They all model themselves on "the" holocaust.
New Leftists are often anti-Zionist, but keep quiet about the holocaust industry, and Jewish domination of Hollywood and the media. They say that the war is for oil, denying that it's for Israel.
Shamir brings the Jewish factor out into the open.
(G) Acharya's New Age Conglomerate
To judge from the bibliographies in Acharya's books, our interests and book collections overlap substantially; but I take a "live and let live" position, whereas Acharya "takes no prisoners".
She has nothing to say about Jewish power. Shamir argues (item 1) that to attack Christianity is to strengthen Jewish dominance, by default.
"The hunt for Anti-Semites is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the new world order, like Nazis going house to house." -- Israel Shamir http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/
My approach is to attack the root, not the branch; Judaism, not Christianity. I seek to get the Judaism out of Christianity. Apart from that, I look to the Greek Cynics and the Chinese Taoists.
I emphasise uncertainty - the limits of human knowledge; that we only know partial truths - whereas Acharya wants to replace one system of certainty (Christian dogmatism) with another (Atheistic or New Age).
My study of the Protocols of Zion is as controversial as anything Acharya has written. Yet I took the trouble to present the strongest arguments of my opponents (Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein, Norman Cohn), in their own words. I did so because, unless I can refute their strongest points, my case is not made: toolkit.html.
When I asked Acharya her position on Gay Marriage, she declined to say, on the ground that I might use it in "Acharya-bashing". That's avoiding this most important issue, which helped turned the tide in the recent US and Australian elections. It's noticeable that militant Atheists, of the type Acharya often quotes, have come out for Gay Marriage (items 11 & 12).
(1) Shamir on Acharya, Kaminski et al - Anti-Christian Bigotry explodes at Village Voice (2) Kaminski & Ardeshir attack Shamir over Acharya (3) Acharya's New Age Conglomerate (4) Summary of Acharya's position - from The Christ Conspiracy (5) Summary of Acharya's position - from Suns of God (6) The Christ Conspiracy - reliance on too many indirect quotations (7) The Christ Conspiracy - Dating the Gospels (8) Gerald Massey disparages the Gospels but endorses the Talmud (9) Alvin Boyd Kuhn's attacks on Christianity lead to favourable obituary in New York Times (10) Egyptologists dispute Kuhn-Massey-Harpur (Acharya-like) claims (11) Militant Atheists stand up for Gay Marriage (12) Google Results 1 - 10 of about 35,800 for atheists "gay marriage". (0.04 seconds) (13) Summary - how to engage Acharya
(1) Shamir on Acharya, Kaminski et al - Anti-Christian Bigotry explodes at Village Voice
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:06:53 +0200 From: Israel Shamir <shamir@home.se>
Dear Peter, here is a sterling proof that our friends Acharya, Kaminski, Mehta et al just repeat usual Jewish drivel.
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/thisweek.htm
[The last time we checked the Village Voice was a Jewish-owned, Jewish-edited paper in Jewish New York City. The paper was bought by Leonard Stern in 1985 (editor: Richard Goldstein; publisher: David Schneiderman). Stern personally pledged $5 million to the United Jewish Appeal in 1974, part of a campaign that year that 'unabashedly raised money in staggering amounts to send to Israel." [ISAACS, p. 266] Stern eventually sold his newspaper holdings in 2000 to the president and publisher of the Village Voice, David Schneiderman, who headed an investment group. This new conglommerate was called Village Voice Media (CFO: Schneiderman; president: Arthur Howe). Three of the four following trashers of Christianity in its recent pages are Jewish.]
Anti-Christian Bigotry explodes at Village Voice,
by William Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, November 16, 2004 http://www.catholicleague.org/04press_releases/quarter4/041116_voice.htm
"Catholic League president William Donohue called attention today to the anti-Christian explosion under way at the Village Voice: ...
(2) Kaminski & Ardeshir attack Shamir over Acharya
THIS is "Proof"? (was: Acharya, Kaminski et al)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:14:32 -0500 From: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>
Is it my imagination or is Israel Shamir's credibility plummeting by the minute? ... Shamir simply does not understand the difference between dialogue and proselytization. It's too bad, because it taints all his other fine political observations.
For the record, in my mind there is absolutely no difference between Judaism and Christianity in terms of the evil influence they have on the minds of their deluded believers. Both creeds are savage relics of the Dark Ages.
jk
On Nov 19, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Ardeshir Mehta wrote:
THIS is proffered as "proof"?
(3) Acharya's New Age Conglomerate - by Peter Myers
Acharya treads a path pioneered by Gerald Massey and his pupil Alvin Boyd Kuhn, and quotes them regularly.
Her books The Christ Conspiracy (CC) and Suns of God (SoG) attack Christianity in a militant-atheist style, but, at the end, veer off in a New Age direction:
"Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age." (CC, p. 416).
'As Hancock says, "We live today in the astrological no man's land at the end of the 'Age of Pisces,' on the threshold of the 'New Age' of Aquarius.' (CC, p. 417).
"We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes" (SoG, p. 567).
It's cast in millennial terms:
'... in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops"' (CC, p. 416).
Acharya's books are a conglomerate of many pieces of information from other authors, glued together with her own unremitting ideological matrix.
One of Acharya's sources is Martin A. Larson's book The Story of Christian Origins, originally published as The Religion of the Occident.
This book, popular in militant atheist circles, lacks Acharya's New Age bent. Larson uses a less passionate, more academic style. He traces the influences of the religions of Egypt, Babylon, India etc on Christianity, devoting a chapter to each source of influence.
Of Larson, Acharya writes, "Larson traces the origins of monasticism and renunciation to India" (CC, p. 381). I believe Larson correct, and have long been interested in this derivation.
Although I have found Larson a good source, he relies on his constituent sources, some of which are out of date.
For example, he accepted the theory of L. A. Waddell that the Sumerians were an Aryan people.
A summary of Larson's chapter 1 is at http://www.osiris.freeservers.com/
Larson writes:
{p. 2} The Emergence of Isis and Osiris.
Tem, Shu, and Tefnut were worsphipped by the primitive and dark-skinned aborigines some six or seven thousand years ago. But
{p. 3} sometime before 3000 B.C., Egypt was invaded by a light-skinned race of Aryan-Sumerians who stormed out of Mesopotamia, conquered the natives, and engrafted new gods onto the older pantheon. ... Osiris was undoubtedly an early ruler of theirs. {end}
Larson depicts the history of the Middle East in racial terms: Aryans established the civilizations of Sumeria and Egypt (p. 3). They were overthrown by Semites - the Bablyonians and Assyrians (p. 24); then the Aryan Persians overthew the Semites (p. 25). The Arabs, in turn, re-established Semitic dominance.
The Introduction to Larson's book is by Harry Elmer Barnes, of Far Right circles.
The (Nazi) Stormfront site says of Waddell:
"Egyptian Civilization and its Sumerian Origin. A master work by Prof. L.A. Waddell. Professor Waddell shows that ancient Sumeria was the worlds first civilization. Sumerians, who were whites, migrated to the area of Egypt and there built a great civilization, politically incorrect though it may be to so say. Hard cover, 223 pages, 118 illustrations. $12.95" http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/books/Egyptian-Civilization.htm.
Waddell's book is in the bibliography of SoG. Acharya has followed Larson on Waddell's theory that the Sumerians were Aryan. She writes:
"Of the Aryan/Iranian invaders, Larson says: {quote} These Iranians did more than drive the Semitic races into permanent eclipse: themselves descended from older Sumerians, they were the pre-historic conquerors of Egypt and India as well as the progenitors of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Teutons: in short, they have ruled most of the civilized world for two and a half millenniums.{endquote}" (CC, p. 383).
Waddell was wrong about the Sumerians being Aryan.
The Sumerican language was agglutinative, like those of the Finno-Ugric family, and Japanese. Indo-European languages are not agglutinative.
"... The Sumerian language was not deciphered until the nineteenth century of our era, when it was found to be different from both the Indo-European and Semitic language groups. ... By 2500 BC libraries were established at Shuruppak and Eresh, and schools had been established to train scribes ... discipline was by caning. ... Sumerian was an agglutinative language not just in its verb construction, but also in its noun or morpheme construction. " http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerlanguage.html.
"What is an agglutinative language?" http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAgglutinativeLanguage.htm.
"Agglutinative languages make extensive use of derivative suffixes, i.e. mostly invariable morphemes, to word stems to give the resulting word a new meaning. Finnish, Turkish, and Japanese are agglutinative." http://www.paul-raedle.de/vtrain/db-xx-info.htm.
"Ways of Classifying Languages ... 2.agglutinative 1.words made of multiple syllables; each syllable has meaning 2.e.g., Turkish. For example, ev (house), evler (houses), evlerde (in the houses), evlerden (from the houses) ... 4.inflective 1.an alteration in or addition to a form of a word to indicate such things as case, gender, number, mood, and tense; one fusional affix may mark several grammatical categories at the same time 2.e.g., Latin & Old English" http://www.cord.edu/faculty/sprunger/e315/i-e.htm.
Why do I make such an issue of what might seem a minor point? To show that Acharya is vulnerable to the weaknesses in her sources. Especially because she filters out sources that do not agree with her line, for example on the dating of the Gospels.
Cyrus Gordon wrote that Semites did invade Egypt during its prehistory: "Egypt had a long prehistory ... There is evidence of a number of migrations. At an early date (perhaps well back in the fifth millenium) Hamito-Semites swept down from Asia into the Nile Valley ..." diop.html.
Aryans did invade the Middle East, not at the beginning of Sumerian or Semitic civilization but at about 2000 BC. Martin Bernal convincingly argues that they established warrior aristocracies, and participated in the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, which ended the Middle Kingdom: archaeology-bible.html.
Both Gordon and Bernal were/are Jewish scholars, but they eschewed ideology in their history.
(4) Summary of Acharya's position - from The Christ Conspiracy
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, Illinois, 1999).
{p. 407} Conclusion
For nearly 2,000 years hundreds of millions of people have been taught that a historical "son of God" called Jesus Christ lived, did miracles, suffered and died as a blood-atonement especially established once and for all by God Himself, the Creator of the entire cosmos. In reality, the gospel story of Jesus is not a factual portrayal of a historical "master" who walked the earth 2,000 years ago but a myth built upon other myths and godmen, who in turn were personifications of the ubiquitous solar mythos and ritual found in countless cultures around the world thousands of years before the Christian era. As such, the tale served to amalgamate the numerous religions, cults and sects of the Roman Empire and beyond, to create a state religion that was promulgated through forgery, fraud and force. ...
{p. 409} Indeed, the efforts to find a historical Jesus have been pitiful and agonizing, based mainly on what he was not: To wit, the virgin birth is not history, and Jesus's parents were not called Mary and Joseph. Jesus was not from Nazareth, which didn't exist at the time, and the magi, star, angels and shepherds did not appear at his birth. He didn't escape to Egypt, because Herod was not slaughtering children, and he didn't amaze the priests with his teaching at age 12 in the temple. He did not suddenly at 30 reappear out of nowhere to mystify people who, if the birth stories had been true, would have already known him. The "historical" Jesus didn't do miracles or raise the dead. The sayings and sermons weren't originally his. He wasn't betrayed by Judas, since that would be illogical if he were already "world famous." There was no trial, no crucifixion and no resurrection.
Such are some of the numerous parts of the gospel story that have been thrown out by "skeptical" historicizers and evemerists over the centuries because they represent elements found ubiquitously in the myths of the solar heroes and in mystery rites. Tossing all these parts out, we might wonder, even more skeptically, where is the historical Jesus Christ? Have we found the core in the onion? The leap of faith even among evemerists is mindboggling. If 99 percent of this story is based on the myths and only one perceht on any "history," what are people admiring and worshipping?
Although they are taught that "Jesus" represented a stunning break from the "old Pagan world," believers are worshipping basically the same deity or deities as the Pagans - in fact, practically all of them rolled into one. ...
{p. 410} Of this greatest story ever sold, Massey states:
{quote} In this way it can be proved that our Christology is mummified mythology, and legendary lore, which have been palmed off upon us in the Old Testament and the New, as divine revelation uttered by the very voice of God. We have the same conversion of myth into history in the New Testament that there is in the Old - the one being effected in a supposed fulfillment of the other! Mythos and history have changed places once, and have to change them again before we can understand their right relationship, or real significance. ... {endquote}
{p. 412} And Larson states:
{quote} We believe that, had there been no Christianity, Greek enlightenment would, after a fierce struggle with Mithraism and its offspring Manichaeism, have emerged victorious. There would have been no Dark Ages. {endquote}
{p. 415} In fact, rather than serving as an improvement, Christianity has been a psychic trauma, uprooting ideas and deities that were worshipped since Neolithic times, particularly nature gods and goddesses. The sexist Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideology has been a war on all things considered female, including Nature and Mother Earth. The patriarchal age has represented the military campaign of the sky-god father-figure against the earth-goddess mother-figure. In the process, the Goddess's groves - so sacred to the ancients that to cut them down was sometimes a capital offense - have been plowed under and her creatures butchered in a vicious quest for riches and aheaven." The current culture is now headed for environmental cataclysm, because this ideology has served to disconnect human beings from the earth, to constantly focus their attention not on this life and this reality but on an afterlife and another world altogether. ...
{p. 416} The New Age
It has been demonstrated that Christianity pretty much got it all wrong - except the end to its erroneous means: It succeeded in enriching and empowering its most effective proponents many times over. According to the same astrological system used to create Christianity, the age for such divisiveness, fascism and hierarchical exploitation is now drawing to a close, and Iying, deceit, cheating and stealing will fall by the wayside. Included in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops" is the exposure of Earth's "dirty little secret." As Jacolliot says:
Apostles of Jesus, you have counted too much upon human credulity, trusted too much that the future might not unveil your manoeuvres and your fabricated recitals - the sanctity of your object made you too oblivious of means, and you have taken the good faith of peoples by surprise in re-producing the fables of another age, which you believed buried for ever.
But the future is now, and the maneuvers are being unveiled. As far as Christianity's role in this "New Age," Carpenter states:
{quote} Christianity therefore, as I say, must either now come frankly forward and, acknowledging its parentage from the great Order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step fonvard in the path of evolution - or else it must perish. There is no alternative. {endquote}
Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age. "I am with you always to the close of the age" - so ends the Gospel of Matthew. What does this mysterious statement mean, and why was this all-important book ended with it? The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god "Jesus," the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over.
{p. 417} As Hancock says, "We live today in the astrological no man's land at the end of the 'Age of Pisces,' on the threshold of the 'New Age' of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened." Ill-omened verily, as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the "Armageddon" so long awaited and planned for by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.
{end}
(5) Summary of Acharya's position - from Suns of God
Acharya S, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled (Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, Illinois, 2004).
{p. 558} By inspecting the origins of religion, which influences billions around the globe, we can recognize that, although portrayed otherwise, a multiplicity of cultures have much in common with each other. The majority of religions possess at their nucleus not a god, messiah, prophet or other anthropomorphic concept but one genderless, raceless and formless source viewed by the ancient religion-builders as a "divine science." This science or knowledge began to be formulated many thousands of years ago, largely based on human perception of the environment, the sun, moon, stars, planets and nature in general. In creating a view of the cosmos in this manner, mankind added qualities of his own and designed a mystical, mythical and colorful pantheon of deities and demons to populate his world and worlds unseen. So numerous are these religious, spiritual, metaphysical and mystical concepts developed over the millennia of observation and practice of ritual and rite that it would be difficult to produce anything new. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun, and when various important ideologies are examined, they resolve themselves into an initial and profound awe of creation, the world, the cosmos and whoever may be responsible for all of it. The investigation of religion and mythology reveals that, while on the surface human religions and creeds appear to be disparate and divisive, the majority of them have the same roots in nature and astral worship. In actuality, most of the world's religions have
{p. 559} been stellar, lunar, soli-lunar and solar, reflecting astrotheology, or the worship of the heavens and planetary bodies.
Instead of understanding the commonalities underlying it, the proponents of religion have underscored its shallow rigidity and meanness, causing division and grief worldwide, even as they maintain some semblance of civilization. Beneath the surface of the reasonable is too often the fanatic, ready with viperous mouth or vicious weapon to do away with anyone who criticizes the precious faith, which in reality may merely be a creed of derangement, hatred and murderous intent. Stupendous destruction and wanton slaughter have been generated in the name of religion, of this god or that, the most dominant of whom resemble each other in their cruelty and brutality. Man's "holy texts" are filled with horrible tales of torture and butchery, frequently done by the "chosen," "saved" or some other such designation attached to those who blindly believe in inferior and rude ideologies. Human sacrifice in the name of any number of gods and their religions has been so awfully common that huge swaths of earth worldwide are akilling fields," beginning in ancient times and continuing into the present.
In this religiously slavish conditioning, we are told that we must mindlessly follow so-called sacred scriptures, such as the "Good Book," while such writings are often nothing of the kind, filled with countless examples of the most vile and despicable behavior. ...
{p. 560} ... A common rite among not only "Pagans" but also the Israelites, the bizarre and grisly ritual of human sacrifice is overtly at the foundation of one of the world's major religions, Christianity, which has been demonstrated to be little more than a rehash of the numerous systems that preceded it.
As they are currently proselytized, devoid of the mythological knowledge underlying them, the various popular religions are difficult to respect or take seriously, as many of their core tenets assault the credulity and insult the intelligence. For example, the
{p. 561} God of the cosmos is portrayed as all-powerful yet so incompetent and bizarre that, in order to fix a creature he made badly in the first place, he must take birth as his own son and be executed on a cross!
{p. 562} Contrary to popular belief, Christianity was not created in an atmosphere of love and peace; rather, it was formed at the ends of swords pointed at members of the clergy and laity alike. Bloody battles were fought over doctrine at every turn, each tiny and ultimately meaningless detail wrestled over tooth and nail. Bishops and their hooligans appeared at synods and slaughtered those who disagreed with them, a shameful behavior that occurred in numerous places where Christianity spread.
{p. 563} Despite its boasts and claims, Christianity is not unique, as practically all of its dogma, tenets, beliefs, myths and fables can be found in the numerous cultures that preceded it in a wide area of the world. ...
{p. 564} In the final analysis, Christ is as mythical as his predecessors, who were believed by countless millions to be "real people" but who are deemed fictional by today's mainstream scholarship. That the "life of Jesus" is a virtual smorgasbord of qualities assigned to these numerous mythical gods, godmen and heroes is evidence of his fictional nature as well. Along with the unoriginally of its professed founder comes the commonness of its tenets, as Christianity is little different from other popular creeds.
{p. 565} One of the major reasons for the pervasive cultural commonality is that religious and mythological systems have been astrotheological, especially revealed in the reverence and worship of the most visible orb, the sun, deemed as the savior and life-giver, the proxy or representative of the Divine, as well as the Deity itself. At last, it matters not what rancid reasoning apologists proffer, as the one, true, universal Lord and Savior has been and will continue to be the Sun, by whatever name, whether Apollo, Odin, Osiris, Krishna, Buddha or Christ.
Instead of emphasizing cultural commonality and leading the world into peace and prosperity, the priesthoods have focused on differences and division, soliciting their flocks with promises of superiority over other systems. In many religions, it is the duty of the priests not to educate but to mystify, and such priestcraft has been perfected over a period of millennia, with the element of terror strongly emphasized to keep the sheep in line. ...
Religions also strike at the very heart of human nature, repressing sexuality in a manner that causes tremendous psychological, emotional and physical harm. ...
{p. 566} The oppression within religion is neither Western nor Eastern but global, in cultures ancient and modern alike.
{p. 567} We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes as well as the Western dating method. In doing so, we must also move into a new age of perception. ...
In divesting ourselves of the old, genocidal gods and religions, we need not be afraid of divine retribution. ...
{p. 568} It is time for us human beings to recognize our own divinity and that of the rest of the cosmos, to understand our own glorious nature and that of all creation, in order to develop the ultimate respect for ourselves and love for life. We must find ourselves, know ourselves and love ourselves. The way to attain this state is through education and the production of health in the body, mind and spirit. This process should be started in childhood but it can be done at any point. Nevertheless, our precious children - our destiny and future - must be raised in a kind, loving environment that does not mutilate their bodies with heinous "rituals" or their minds with deleterious notions of the universe. These steps are needed for us to finally have peace within our souls and upon our planet.
{end}
(6) The Christ Conspiracy - reliance on too many indirect quotations (Peter M)
To demolish Christianity, Acharya partly relies on quotations from Christian fathers like Augustine, which she turns against it. The problem is, for many of these quotations, she has not chased up the original source (e.g. Augustine's own writings), but has been content to quote what other authors say he wrote:
{CC, p. 25} Indeed, the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels, mass of impossibilities and contradictions that it is, has been so difficult to believe that even the fanatic Christian "doctor" and saint, Augustine (354-430), admitted, "I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so." 1
{This is an indirect quote. Endnote 1, on p. 30, reads "Steiner, 168", referring to the book Christianity as Mystical Fact, by Rudolf Steiner}
{p. 55} Further Evidence of a Fraud
... For example, the eminent Church doctor Augustine readily confessed that Christianity was a rehash of what already existed long prior to the Christian era:
{quote} That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist; from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity. 1 {endquote}
{Acharya takes this important quote not directly, from Augustine, but indirectly. Endnote 1, on p. 75, reads "Jackson,1". This reference is to Christianity Before Christ, by John G. Jackson, published by American Atheists}
{p. 57} In his endless apologizing, Justin reiterates the similarities between his godman and the gods of other cultures:
{quote} As to the objection of our Jesus's being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius.3 {endquote}
{This important quote from Justin Martyr is not sourced from him directly. Endnote 3, on p. 75, reads "Doane, 411-12". It's from Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, by T. W. Doane}
In making these comparisons between Christianity and its predecessor Paganism, however, Martyr sinisterly spluttered:
{quote} It having reached the Devil's ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove. 4 {endquote}
{Another indirect quotation. Endnote 4, on p. 75, reads "Wheless, FC, 32". The book is Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Welless}
(7) The Christ Conspiracy - Dating the Gospels (Peter M)
Acharya ignores the bulk of academic scholarship on the dating of the Gospels, even though many such authors take an anti-Christian line, in favour of an esoteric late dasting of all four:
{CC, p. 34} Although they are held up by true believers to be the "inspired" works of the apostles, the canonical gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century, all four of them probably between 170-180, a date that just happens to correspond with the establishment of the orthodoxy and supremacy of the Roman Church. ...
{p. 37} The Gospel of Mark (175 CE)
After the final destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Romans in 135, the Jerusalem church was taken over by non-Jews. ...
{end}
What's wrong with this?
Because leading scholars like S. G. F. Brandon, who take a contrary view, are simply omitted, brushed aside, ignored, as if Acharya has never heard of them.
Brandon's material on the dating of the gospels at least deserves a mention, if only to refute it: jewish-revolt.html.
Further, he is hardly sympathetic to the Christian position.
(8) Gerald Massey disparages the Gospels but endorses the Talmud
Gerald Massey's Lectures
http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/gmlectrs.htm
Electronically typed and edited by Juan Schoch for educational research purposes. Join gnosis284! - Send e-mail to: gnosis284-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Refs:
http://www.enlightenment-engine.net, http://members.tripod.com/~pc93
pc93@enlightenment-engine.net
Originally published in a private edition c. 1900
FOREWORD
... When Massey lectured in America and Canada, he found himself surrounded with able students. Miss E. Valentia Straiton, author of "The Celestial Ship of the North," and Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn, who wrote extensively on comparative religion. Dr. Kuhn acknowledged that in Gerald Massey had been a great inspiration to him. In fact in his posthumous work, "A Rebirth for Christianity," Dr. Kuhn called attention to the great worth of Massey's research on Christian origins ...
Sibyl Ferguson
vii viii THE HISTORICAL JESUS AND M Y T H I C A L C H R I S T. ================ (All necessary references to the original authorities may be found in the Author's "Natural Genesis." ================
... I lectured upon the subject of Jesus many years ago. At that time I did not know how we had been misled, or that the "Christian scheme" (as it is aptly called) in the New Testament is a fraud, founded on a fable in the Old!
I then accepted the Canonical Gospels as containing a veritable human history, and assumed, as others do, that the history proved itself. Finding that Jesus, or Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, was an historical character, known to the Talmud, I made the common mistake of
1 supposing that this proved the personal existence of the Jesus found portrayed in the Canonical Gospels. ...
{this Pandira name is based on the Talmud. So Massey is accepting the Talmud}
The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod." That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 B.C., although the point is not of much consequence here. Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin--the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 B.C. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 B.C., and that it could hardly be later than 100 B.C. when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 B.C. If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 B.C. But twenty years are a matter of little moment here.
According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover. This is the manner of death assigned to Jesus in the Book of Acts. The Gemara says there exists a tradition that on the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jehoshua, on the rest-day of the Passah (the day before the Passover). The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C. He was succeeded in the government by his widow Salomè, whom the Greeks called Alexandra, and who reigned for some nine years. Now the traditions, especially of the first "Toledoth Jehoshua," relate that the Queen of Jannæus, and the mother of Hyrcanus, who must therefore be Salomè,
2 in spite of her being called by another name, showed favour to Jehoshua and his teaching; that she was a witness of his wonderful works and powers of healing, and tried to save him from the hands of his sacerdotal enemies, because he was related to her; but that during her reign, which ended in the year 71 B.C., he was put to death. The Jewish writers and Rabbis with whom I have talked always deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the Gospels. "This," observes Rabbi Jechiels, "which has been related to Jehoshua Ben-Perachia and his pupil, contains no reference whatever to him whom the Christians honour as God!" Another Rabbi, Salman Zevi, produced ten reasons for concluding that the Jehoshua of the Talmud was not he who was afterwards called Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth (and of the Canonical Gospels) was unknown to Justus, to the Jew of Celsus, and to Josephus, the supposed reference to him by the latter being an undoubted forgery.
The "blasphemous writings of the Jews about Jesus," as Justin Martyr calls them, always refer to Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, and not to the Jesus of the Gospels. It is Ben-Pandira they mean when they say they have another and a truer account of the birth and life, the wonder-working and death of Jehoshua or Jesus. This repudiation is perfectly honest and soundly based. The only Jesus known to the Jews was Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, who had learnt the arts of magic in Egypt, and who was put to death by them as a sorcerer. This was likewise the only Jesus known to Celsus, the writer of the "True Logos," a work which the Christians managed to get rid of bodily, with so many other of the anti-Christian evidences.
Celsus observes that he was not a pure Word, not a true Logos, but a man who had learned the arts of sorcery in Egypt. So, in the Clementines, it is in the character of Ben-Pandira that Jesus is said to rise again as the magician. But here is the conclusive fact: The Jews know nothing of Jesus, the Christ of the Gospels, as an historical character; and when the Christians of the fourth century trace his pedigree, by the hand of Epiphanius, they are forced to derive their Jesus from Pandira! Epiphanius gives the genealogy of the Canonical Jesus in this wise:--
Jacob, called Pandira, Mary=Joseph--Cleopas, Jesus.
This proves that in the fourth century the pedigree of Jesus was traced to Pandira, the father of that Jehoshua who was the pupil of Ben-Perachia, and who becomes one of the magicians in Egypt, and who was crucified as a magician on the eve of the Passover by the Jews, in the time of Queen Alexandra, who had ceased to reign in the year 70 B.C.--the Jesus, therefore, who lived and died more than a century too soon.
Thus, the Jews do not identify Jehoshua Ben-Pandira with the Gospel Jesus, of whom they, his supposed contemporaries, know nothing, but protest against the assumption as an impossibility; whereas the Christians do identify their Jesus as the descendant of Pandira. It was he or nobody; yet he was neither the son of Joseph
3 nor the Virgin Mary, nor was he crucified at Jerusalem. It is not the Jews, then, but the Christians, who fuse two supposed historic characters into one! There being but one history acknowledged or known on either side, it follows that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jehoshua of the Talmud, or is not at all, as a Person. ...
{end}
(9) Alvin Boyd Kuhn's attacks on Christianity lead to favourable obituary in New York Times
Kuhn's attacks on Christianity apparently earned him this favourable obituary in the leading Jewish-owned newspaper: http://www.catholicleague.org/04press_releases/quarter4/041116_voice.htm.
THE NEW YORK TIMES - SEPTEMBER 15, 1963
ALVIN BOYD KUHN, AUTHOR, 82, DEAD ___
Lecturer Taught Languages, Wrote About Scripture __
Special to the New York Times
ELIZABETH, N.J., Sept. 14
Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn, an author, lecturer and former teacher of languages, died today at Morristown Memorial Hospital.
He was 82 years old, and lived at 125 Murray St.
Dr. Kuhn wrote 10 books and 20 booklets on religion, philosophy, psychology, semantics and Bible interpretation. He gave 1,945 lectures in the United States and Canada, discussing among many subjects, the Dead Sea scrolls.
Dr. Kuhn, who received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Columbia University, taught Latin, Greek, French, German, Spanish and English in high schools in Chambersburg, Harrisburg and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. He studied Hebrew and hieroglyphics for his work in Bible interpretation.
His works include: "The Lost Light," "Shadow of the Third Century," "Who is the King of Glory?," "India's True Voice," "The Lost Key to the Scriptures," "Man's Two Births" and "The Red Sea."
Dr. Kuhn received a B.A. degree from Franklin and Marshall College, where he was for a time secretary to the president. He is survived by a son, Dr. Alfred Kuhn, a professor at the University of Cincinnati; a daughter, Mrs. William Caulwell, wife of a faculty member at Millersville (Pa.) State College, and four grandchildren.
(10) Egyptologists dispute Kuhn-Massey-Harpur (Acharya-like) claims
Comment: Was Christ's life based on pagan myths?
By W. Ward Gasque
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040623was
WHEN I first met Tom Harpur just over 30 years ago, he was teaching New Testament studies at Toronto's Wycliffe College. Shortly thereafter, he left the ivory tower to become, in due course, Canada's best-known religious journalist. Since then, he has written 17 books, and several thousand articles and columns; he has also achieved high visibility as a radio and television commentator.
To say that his religious views have changed over the years would be a gross understatement. In 1970, he was an evangelically committed Anglican priest, preparing students to faithfully preach and teach the doctrines of Christianity as understood by the classic creeds of the church. Today, his understanding of God, the world, and salvation seems to be that of a theosophist or a neo-gnostic -- though he continues to consider himself a Christian.
The Pagan Christ (Thomas Allen, 2004) is Harpur's story of his discovery of the writings of Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963), Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834) and Gerald Massey (1828-1907) -- who argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion. ...
According to Harpur, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. Drawing especially on the writings of Kuhn, he claims that virtually all of the details of the life and teachings of Jesus have their counterpart in Egyptian religious ideas; he also maintains that there are strong parallels between Christ's life and Greek, Hindu and Buddhist myths.
Harper does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn, who he describes as "the most erudite, most eloquent, and most convincing . . . of any modern writer on religion I have encountered in a lifetime dedicated to such matters."
Who is Alvin Boyd Kuhn? He, along with Higgins and Massey, is given the title 'Egyptologist,' and is regarded by Harpur as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century . . . [towering] above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religious." Kuhn, he writes, "has more to offer the Church than all the scholars of the Jesus Seminar together. More than John Spong . . . C.S. Lewis . . . Joseph Campbell or Matthew Fox. I remain stunned at the silence with which his writings have been greeted by scholars."
As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who earned a PhD from Columbia University by writing a dissertation on Theosophy. A prodigious author and lecturer, he had difficulty finding a publisher for his works; most of them were self-published. His only link with an institution of higher learning was a short stint as the secretary to the president of a small college.
I sent an email to 20 of the world's leading Egyptologists, outlining the following claims put forth by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):
* That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian "Iusa," which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves".
* That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ.... He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."
* That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.'"
* That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and . . . this word, when the vowels are filled in, is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."
* That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE."
Only one of the 10 experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey! Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (1995), nor are any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942). Since he died in 1834, Kitchen noted, "nothing by Higgins could be of any value whatsoever, because decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was still being finalized, very few texts were translated, and certainly not the vast mass of first-hand religious data."
Another distinguished Egyptologist wrote: "Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets." He goes on to refer to Kuhn's "fringe nonsense."
The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ. Professor Peter F. Dorman, of the University of Chicago, commented: "It is often tempting to suggest simplistic etymologies between Egyptian and Greek (or other languages), but similar sequences of consonants and/or vowels are insufficient to demonstrate any convincing connection."
Ron Leprohan, of the University of Toronto, pointed out that, while "sa" means "son" in ancient Egyptian and "iu" means 'to come," Kuhn/Harpur have the syntax all wrong. In any event, the name 'Iusa' simply does not exist in Egyptian. The name 'Jesus' is a Greek derivation of a Semitic name ("Jeshu'a") borne by many people in the first century.
While the image of the baby Horus with Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. The image of Mary and Jesus is not one of the earliest Christian images, and, at any rate, there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born. And the New Testament Mary was certainly not a goddess (like Isis).
There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was 'a fisher of men' -- or that his followers, the King's officials, were ever 12 in number. KRST is the word for "burial" ("coffin" is written "KRSW"), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title "Christos" or the Hebrew "Mashiah".
There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC; so Harpur's reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. Elsewhere, Harpur refers to "Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE"; and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that "the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age." In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.
Kuhn/Harper's redefinition of "incarnation," and their attempt to root this in Egyptian religion, is regarded as bogus by all the Egyptologists I consulted. According to one: "Only the pharaoh was believed to have a divine aspect, the divine power of kingship, incarnated in the human being currently serving as the king. No other Egyptians ever believed they possessed even 'a little bit of the divine'."
Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources. The notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey or some other long-out-of-date work. Very occasionally, there is a reference to a more contemporary work of scholarship, but this often has little or nothing to do with the point made.
Very few of the books listed in the bibliography are recent. Works that are a century or more old are listed by the date of the most recent edition. The notes abound with errors and omissions. If you look for supporting evidence for a particular point made by the author, it is not there. Many quotations are taken out of context and interpreted in a very different sense from what their author originally meant (especially the early church fathers).
Harpur's book is chock full of questionable claims, such as:
* That prior to the fourth century "it was believed that the coming of the Messiah, or Christ, was taking place in the life of every person at all times."
* That "Christianity began as a cult with almost wholly Pagan origins and motivations in the first century."
* That nearly all of the most creative leaders of the earliest church were pronounced heretics and reviled by "those who had swept in and grabbed control of [church] policies."
* That "the mystical/allegorical method of interpreting the sacred Scripture . . . was replaced by a wholly literal/historical approach" (presumably, in the fourth century).
* That "apart from the four Gospels . . . and the Epistles, there is no hard, historical evidence for Jesus' existence coming out of the first century at all."
* That Albert Schweitzer "concluded that there was no traditional Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person."
* That "Paul's Jesus lacks any human quality for the very reason that, in Paul's understanding, he was not a human person at all."
According to Harpur, Christian scholars have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that there was an actual Jesus who lived in history. First, he insists, there was "the greatest cover-up of all time" at the beginning of the fourth century; and thousands of Christian scholars are now participants in this on-going cover-up.
This perspective misses the fact that, for several generations, there have been professors of religious and biblical studies who are Jewish, Unitarian, members of every Christian denomination -- and many of no professed religious persuasion. And there are no religious tests for chairs in Egyptology. Presumably, the Jewish, Unitarian, secular and many very liberal Christians who happen to be recognized scholars have no axes to grind regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived, or whether most of the ideas found in the Bible stem from Egyptian or other Near Eastern religion.
If one were able to identify all of the non-Christian members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be unlikely that you could find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.
Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ on the work of self-appointed 'scholars' who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words.
W. Ward Gasque is a co-founder of Regent College in Vancouver, and a historian of early Christianity.
(11) Militant Atheists stand up for Gay Marriage
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_gaym.htm
... Sign Up Now for the Agnosticism / Atheism newsletter! ...
Legalizing Gay Marriage
Critiques of the Ethical & Religious Arguments
Exploring: Philosophy > Ethics & Morality
More and more it is looking like legal marriage between members of the same sex may become a reality - but if so, it won't occur without a great deal of difficult social, political, and legal fighting. Those who oppose gay marriage do so with a vehemence: it's not simply that they would rather not see it exist, but rather that they regard it as perhaps the greatest moral and social evil to occur since the legalization of abortion.
However wrong one might find their position, they cannot be dismissed as mere cranks and they cannot be ignored as an irrelevant faction. They are numerous, they are well-funded, they are well-positioned politically, and they are eager to make their case to the public. It is important to understand what their arguments are in order to determine how good their case is and to refute it if their position is unsound.
News and Commentary: Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, and Homophobia
Should same-sex marriage be legal? Should gays and lesbians have the same civil and social rights as everyone else? Should religiious groups continue to discriminate against homosexual? These issues - and gay marriage in particular - are getting more attention lately. Learn about what is going on and what people are saying.
Gay Couples are Unnatural
Although we don't often hear it argued that gay marriage is wrong because gay couples are somehow unnatural, this is a premise which influences other arguments and which lies behind many people's negative opinions about homosexuality in general. For most people, heterosexual relationships are the norm, both in society and in nature. Homosexual relationships are therefore abnormal and unnatural. Perhaps they should be tolerated as a matter of social fairness, but they certainly shouldn't be validated by the state and recognized as a form of marriage.
Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament
This is rarely offered as an explicit argument against gay marriage, but we must keep in mind that it is perhaps one of the most important arguments for opponents. The idea that marriage is sacred and/or a sacrament underlies much of the vehemence which motivates opponents in a way that the other arguments fail to explain. Indeed, if it weren't for the idea that marriage is sacred, it seems unlikely that the debate would be as huge and rancorous as it is.
The Institution of Marriage Will Be Undermined
The most common claim we hear about why legalizing same-sex marriages is the idea that in doing so, the government will actually be undermining the institution of marriage. For some reason, a marriage between members of the same sex is a self-contradiction, and if their unions are legalized then marriage itself across the country will be harmed. But upon what basis is such an argument made?
Marriage is for Raising Children?
The premise that gay couples don't merit treatment as married couples because of the disconnect between homosexuality and procreation cuts across many arguments against same-sex marriage. It is argued that gay marriage would be "unnatural" because it cannot produce children, the ostensibly natural end of marriage. It is argued that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage because it is a legal and moral institution designed to promote and protect procreation and the raising of children. Finally, it is argued that gay marriage would desecrate the godly mandate that heterosexual couples have to mate and propagate the species. Is any of this true, and if so, does it matter?
Male and Female... or not?
And God created them, male and female: those who argue against gay marriage argue that God intended mating between men and women - but what is a 'man' and what is a 'woman'? The argument assumes that there are clear physical and biological boundaries between the two. Usually, that is correct - but there are plenty of people who don't fit clearly into one or the category. Whether we are talking about genetics or physical characteristics, there are people who aren't easily classified as 'men' or 'women.' Whom should they be allowed to marry, if the conservative argument is accepted?
Gay Marriage: What's The Point?
One of the fundamental questions underlying the debate over gay marriage is, quite simply, what the point is for gays to marry. Aside from certain property and legal issues which could, in theory, be solved by other laws, what point are gays trying to make in attempting to get married? Why is it so important to be able to hold up a marriage certificate and say "we're married" instead of simply saying "we're a couple" without a certificate?
Elsewhere on About Marriage Rights for Gays and Lesbians
"One day I hope to have a family. Yes, in the traditional sense of the word- kids, a dog, a big house with a yard and a legally recognized marriage." Read more about what Ramon Johnson, About's Gay Life Guide, has to say on the issue of same-sex marriages.
Lesbian and Gay Marriage
Kathy Belge, About's Lesbian Life Guide writes: "If two people love each other, shouldn't they be allowed the same rights, privileges and responsibilities, no matter their genders? Yet, for heterosexuals, divorce rates are at an all time high. Infidelity in marriage is an epidemic." Read more as she explains the case for and against gay same-sex marriages.
(12) Google Results 1 - 10 of about 35,800 for atheists "gay marriage". (0.04 seconds)
OUTRAGE, BACKLASH AS VATICAN FOCUSES WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN ON GAY ... ... Atheists charge that in politicizing the issue of gay marriage and pressuring lawmakers, the Holy See is acting as a Foreign Lobbyist. ... www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat14.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
American Atheists ... Eleven states in this election passed referendums outlawing gay marriage. ... We Atheists have always been there to support their causes when it is they who should ... www.atheists.org/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.atheists.org ]
Gay Marriage, Civil Union in USA and the world ... says and against the concept of Marriage in our civilization for thousands of years, including Hindus, Buddhists, and even Atheists... Gay Marriage or Civil ... biblia.com/sex/gay.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Agnosticism / Atheism - Skeptical Inquiry, Freethought, & ... ... of Defense Ends Boy Scouts Sponsorships Because the Boy Scouts were successful in defending their right to discriminate against gays and atheists, others have ... atheism.about.com/ - 32k - 18 Nov 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Should Atheists Be Allowed to Marry? Polls on Agnosticism & ... Opponents of gay marriage are largely motivated by their firm belief that such unions are displeasing to God and that only ... Should atheists be allowed to marry? ... atheism.about.com/library/polls/blpoll_ath0035.htm - 26k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from atheism.about.com ]
The Raving Atheist » Archives » November 2004 » Go North ... But yeah, I agree with me_oh_my, the fact that gay marriage was even an issue at all with terrorism ... I wonder what percentage of atheists voted for Bush or Kerry ... ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/go_north.php - 59k - 19 Nov 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Gay Atheists Gay Atheists. Why are there so many gay atheists? ... Does that crisis of religion versus sexuality create a whole class of spiritual gay atheists? ... www.mwillett.org/atheism/gaytheist.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Gay marriage sanity | The Village Gate ... Just as conservatives oppose gay marriage because of a creation-centered argument (only men ... It occurred to me recently that allowing atheists to marry is much ... www.therightchristians.org/?q=node/view/47 - 34k - Cached - Similar pages
AnandTech - How does gay marriage hurt you ? ... quote: Originally posted by: Ulfwald Gay marriage hurts us all, by making us pay higher health insurance costs in group policies. ... Atheists can get married. ... forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=52& threadid=1433417&STARTPAGE=2&enterthread=y - 101k - Cached - Similar pages
Gay & Black Glossary : gay marriage ... Permitting gay marriage will destroy the institution for straight people, or to use George W. Bush's phrase, "Our nation must defend the sanctity ... Atheists marry ... mindprod.com/ggloss/gaymarriage.html - 30k - 19 Nov 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
(13) Summary - how to engage Acharya
Some people seem to regard Acharya as intimidating or daunting. However the way to deal with her books is not by reading them linearly, from front to back, but to subject her material on individual topics to in-depth assessment, as above. The formidable barrage then seems a little threadbare, undone by its own excesses.
Acharya accused Israel Shamir of behaving in an un-gentlemanly way to her. But her own attacking style might seem un-ladylike to some.
It might seem that I myself am hostile to Acharya. This is not so; as I explained to her, I believe that she is unused to people who partly agree but partly disagree with her. She's used to shouting-matches with Christian fundamentalists, or dealing with Yes-Men and Women; neither of these further anyone's scholarship. To advance, she needs to rewrite her books, tightening the argument, removing the polemics (which offend anyone but the converted), and replacing the authoritative statements "As X says ... ", with claims "X argues that ...".
There is much of value in her books, but they cannot be taken at face value.
Anyone interested in Acharya's theme, but without the ideological bombardment, might read
* Martin A. Larson's book The Story of Christian Origins, originally published as The Religion of the Occident
* Jacquetta Hawkes' book Man and the Sun
* the books of Alain Danielou.
(H) Acharya's claim that Krishna was crucified, and Jesus wasn't
To back up their claims that there was a tradition that Krishna (like Christ) was crucified, and therefore that all such crucifixion stories are fables, the dogmatic atheists rely on books of 1876 and 1882, on a few authors of that vintage cross-quoting each other, based on reports of texts, myths and images garnered from British India.
The texts they refer to have no names; no chapters or verses. The location of the images is not provided.
Given the presence of Christian missionaries, is it not possible that such alleged non-Christian crucifixion images were influenced by Christian iconography? Why can't the atheists produce texts and images from today's India, to back up their claims? Why don't they feel the need to do so? Is this their idea of evidence? of rational debate?
Acharya claims that both Osiris and Jesus were mythical. On the contrary, there were most likely real men underneath the myths built up about each. We can tell the difference between the heroic mythology about Einstein and Mao, and cartoon fantasies about Tarzan and Superman.
Everyone dies; some are murdered, most cruelly. Not everyone has a resurrection, as happened in the mythology of Osiris and Jesus. Yet the stories of their "Passion and Resurrection" are most likely built upon real murders.
The mythology about Jesus, as Acharya says, was in part borrowed from that about Osiris. But that mythology was built around a real man, executed by crucifixion for his defiance of Judaism.
Yet he was not defeated. Despite claims that he never existed - the ultimate insult - the Talmud takes credit for his death. He still irks Judaism - hence the profane artwork Piss Christ, and the New York Times' attempt to stop the showing of Mel Gibson's film about him.
The (Nazi) Stormfront site has joined the "Khrishna the original, Jesus a copy" bandwaggon too (item 8).
Items 5 to 7 are excerpts from some of Acharya's sources.
(1) Acharya's New Age Conglomerate - Acharya replies (2) Kathy Redle says Acharya is "Pope Joan" for New Age atheists (3) Iskandar replies to Acharya - "There was no 'Dark Age' in the Eastern Christian Roman Empire" (4) Neanderthals and Acharya - reply from Israel Shamir (5) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, by John G. Jackson - one of Acharya's sources (6) Thomas Inman, M.D., Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism (1874) (7) T. W. Doane, Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions (1882) (8) Stormfront jumps on the "Khrishna the original, Jesus a copy" bandwaggon too (9) Acharya's Proof that Jesus was not Crucified - from Suns of God (10) Acharya's Proof that Krishna was Crucified - from Suns of God
(1) Acharya's New Age Conglomerate - Acharya replies
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:08:21 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> To: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au> CC: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>, arhataosho@yahoo.com, superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com, christ_conspiracy@yahoogroups.com
Peter, while your article serves to continue to give me publicity, it is full of erroneous assumptions and errors, not to mention silly judgments such as "Acharya takes no prisoners."
I am not interested in replacing a system with anything--as usual you are trying to one-up me with your "superior" vision. Much of the rest of what you have written is palpably false, such as your characterization of how I perceive or deal with Judaism.
I don't know why you continue to discuss my work, particularly if it's just SO bad in comparison to your own views. It seems to be simply a pissing contest in which you are trying to elevate yourself above me.
C'est la guerre.
(2) Kathy Redle says Acharya is "Pope Joan" for New Age atheists
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:50:54 -0500 From: "Kathy Redle" <skredle@sbcglobal.net>
Ahcarya is "Pope Joan" for all of the New Age atheists and I think that you along with her simply like to hear your own "babel" it makes you "feel good" and that is the religion you both have. ...
It is you and Acharya who adhere to the mythologies you make up in the cobwebs of your own deranged minds.
Sincerely, Kathy Redle
(4) Neanderthals and Acharya - reply from Israel Shamir
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:48:30 +0200 From: Israel Shamir <shamir@home.se>
Peter, you made a great job by your critique of Acharya. There are just three points to be added, if I may.
1. Acharya wrote:
Despite its boasts and claims, Christianity is not unique, as practically all of its dogma, tenets, beliefs, myths and fables can be found in the numerous cultures that preceded it in a wide area of the world. ... This is rather a proof than dismissal of Christianity. As Christ always (pre-)existed , Christianity existed before incarnation of Christ - as a premonition of His coming. Rene Guenon wrote: true symbolism (and the Christ narrative is symbolical, too) is not an invention of man, but it is based in the Nature; or, better, the nature is just a symbol of transcendent reality (Symbolism of Cross, Chapter 4).
Apparently Acharya does not deny transcendent; so she should understand this argument.
2. The patriarchal age has represented the military campaign of the sky-god father-figure against the earth-goddess mother-figure. In the process, the Goddess's groves - so sacred to the ancients that to cut them down was sometimes a capital offense - have been ploughed under and her creatures butchered in a vicious quest for riches and heaven."
Christianity accepted and integrated "the earth-goddess mother-figure" in its much refined veneration of Our Lady. ...
(5) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, by John G. Jackson - one of Acharya's sources
In The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya makes 16 references to a work called Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, by John G. Jackson, as if it is a major academic treatise. Yet the original 1941 edition is a pamphlet of 32 small pages, stapled, without footnotes.
Acharya used the American Atheists edition of 1985.
This booklet expresses the same viewpoint as Acharya, whose two books expand it to over 1000 pages. Yet the main material is sourced from the same authors: Gerald Massey; T. W. Doane, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions (1882); Thomas Inman, author of Ancient Faiths and Modern (1874), or his other books, as quoted by T. W. Doane (1882); Godfrey Higgins' Anacalypsis (a New Age forerunner of Blavatsky's theosophical book The Secret Doctrine).
The internet edition has footnotes, but does not indicate whether these were added by Jackson or a later editor: http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/ChristMyth/ChristMythPart1.html.
Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, by John G. Jackson (the Truth Seeker Company, Inc., New York, 1941):
{p. 11} PAGAN CHRISTS
The Egyptian analogies to the Christian epic are so close in some cases as to suggest an Egyptian origin for certain Christian doctrines and rites. This is clearly shown by Gerald Massey:
"... The alleged facts of our Lord's life as Jesus the Christ, were equally the alleged facts of our Lord's life as the Horus of Egypt, whose very name signifies the Lord. ..."
{p. 12} Osiris, the father of Horus, was another virgin-born god of ancient Egypt. His Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection were celebrated in an annual mystery-play at Abydos, on about March 25, an approximation of the Vernal Equinox, i.e. Easter. ...
{Jackson now makes claims of a parallel between Krishna and Jesus. He claims that his material on Krishna is from "the sacred books of India", but no names of texts, or references, or quotes are supplied.}
{p. 13} Another great pagan christ was Krishna of India. In the sacred books of India it is recorded that Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki, that his nativity was heralded by a star, and that though of royal lineage, he was born in a cave. (According to the apocryphal gospel of Protevagelion, a work attributed to James, the brother of Jesus, the Christian savior was born in a cave.) At the time of Krishna's birth, the cave was mysteriously illuminated. (At the birth of Jesus, "there was a great light in the cave, so that the eyes of Joseph and the Midwife could not bear it.") The infant Krishna spoke to his mother soon after his birth. ("Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: 'Mary I am Jesus the Son of God, that Word which thou did bring forth according to the declaration of the Angel Gabriel unto thee, and my Father hath sent me for the salvation of the world' " according to the apocryphal gospels of 1 and 2 Infancy. ) Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king. (Jesus was born while his foster-father Joseph was in the city to pay his tax to the govenor.) The babe Krishna was adored by cowherds. (The infant Jesus was adored by shepherds.) King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the massacre of all male children born during the same night as was Krishna. (This is almost identical with the story of the slaughter of the innocents, ordered by Herod.) Nanda was warned by a heavenly voice to flee with the infant Khrisna across the Jumna River, to Gakul, to escape King Kansa. (Joseph was warned by a voice in a dream to flee into Egypt with the Christ-child to escape the wrath of Herod.) Krishna performed many miracles in the city of Mathura. (Jesus, while in Egypt, lived in a town named Matarea, where he performed many miracles.) Krishna
{For evidence that Krishna was crucified, note the dependence on Thomas Inman's 1874 book Ancient Faiths and Modern, or his other books of around that time, as quoted in T. W. Doane's 1882 book Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions. Why no corroboration from current texts or sculptures in India?}
{p. 14} was a crucified christ. He is pictured in Indian art as hanging on a cross with arms extended. (Dr. Thomas Inman, a celebrated authority on pagan and Christian symbolism, states that: "Christna, whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified.") Krishna was pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross. (Jesus was pierced by a spear during his crucifixion.) The light of the sun was blotted out at noon on the day of Krishna's death. (The sun was darkened from the sixth to the ninth hour on the day of the crucifixion of Christ.) Krishna descended into hell to raise the dead before returning to the abode of the gods. (We read of Jesus Christ that: "He descended into hell, and on the third day rose again from the dead." The Descent into Hell of Jesus is described in the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus.) Krishna rose from the grave, and finally ascended bodily to heaven in the presence of a multitude of spectators. (A similar story is related of Jesus Christ.) In Indian art Krishna literally means "The Black." (In early Christian art Jesus is almost invariably represented as a Black man.) Sir Godfrey Higgins made a thorough investigation of the pictures and images of Black Infants and Madonnas in the cathedrals of Europe.
{the following Footnotes are from the internet edition: 1.Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ or Natural Genesis and Typology of Equinoctial Chistolatry (London: 1936), pp. 42?43. ... 8.Thomas Inman, M.D., Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names, vol. 1 p. 441; cited by T. W. Doane in Bible Myths, p. 186. ... 10.Higgins, Anacalypsos, vol. 1, pp. 138?139.}
{Jackson offers no Buddhist texts to back up the following claims about Buddha}
{p. 15} The close parallels between the life-stories of Buddha and Christ are just as remarkable as those between Krishna and Christ. Buddha was born of a virgin name Maya, or Mary. His birthday was celebrated on December 25. He was visited by wise men who acknowledged his divinity. The life of Buddha was sought by King Bimbasara, who feared that some day the child would endanger his throne. At the age of twelve, Buddha excelled the learned men of the temple in knowledge and wisdom. His ancestry was traced back to Maha Sammata, the first monarch in the world. (Jesus' ancestry is traced back to Adam, the first man in the world.) Buddha was transfigured on a mountain top. His form was illumined by as aura of bright light. (Jesus was likewise transfigured on a mountain top. "And his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." After the completion of his earthly mission, Buddha ascended bodily to the celestial realms.
{p. 17} SOURCES OF THE CHRIST-MYTH
There are two principal types of savior-gods recognized by hierologists, namely: vegetation-gods and sun-gods. The vegetation theory has been brilliantly developed by Sir James George Frazer, in his Golden Bough,1 and by Grant Allen in The Evolution of the Idea of God. ...
{p. 18} According to the advocates of the solar myth theory, the ancient crucified saviors were personifications of the sun, and their life-stories were allegories of the sun's passage through the twelve constellations of the Zodiac. ...
{p. 19} Vegetation cults, it seems are older than stellar or solar cults, but were later blended with them. In the primitive vegetation-god sacrifice, the victim was, it is believed, originally the king, or head-man, of the tribe or clan. It was believed by ancient man that the prosperity of the tribe depended on the well-being of the ruler. If the king became old and feeble, it was considered a foregone conclusion that the nation or tribe would suffer a similar decline. So the king, who was usually regarded as a god in human form, was sacrificed, and replaced with a younger and more vigorous man. After much passage of time, the son of the king was substituted in the sacrificial rite, and being also the offspring of divinity, he was properly called the son of the god. At a still later period, a condemned criminal was chosen in the place of the royal victim. This culprit was given regal honors for a time, then put to death. He was generally slain while bound to a sacred tree, with arms outstretched in the form of a cross. After being entombed, he was believed to rise from the dead within three days; the three-day period representing the return of vegetation. The question naturally arises: Why three days? The answer is, that the three-day period is based on the three-day interval between the Old and New Moons. It is still believed by certain persons of a superstitious type that there is an intimate connection between the phases of the moon and the growth of crops. ...
{p. 20} Among the advocates of the non-historicity of Jesus, John M. Robertson and L. Gordon Rylands are
{p. 21} widely known ... The views of Rylands and Robertson have been challenged by Joseph McCabe and Sir Arthur Weigall. Mr. McCabe holds that it is more reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that Jesus did actually live; that he was a man who was gradually turned into a god. Sir Arthur Weigall counters the mythicists with a very ingenious theory. According to Sir Arthur, when Jesus was crucified he did not die, but only swooned; and that afterwards he was revived by his friends and spirited away. The Matthew narrator tells us that the chief priests and Pharisees requested Pilate to station a guard of Roman soldiers at the tomb of Jesus: "Lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead." It is stated in the Bible account that the guard was not placed at the tomb until the second night after the burial of Jesus. Weigall suggests that Jesus was taken out of the tomb on the first night; so that the soldiers stood watch over
{p. 22} an empty sepulchre. Since the report was abroad that Jesus had died on the cross, accounts of subsequent appearances must have convinced many persons that he had risen from the dead. The myths and legends concerning such pagan christs as Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus. ...
Whether Jesus lived or not, we may conclude with certainty that Christianity is of pagan origin. December the twenty-fifth is celebrated as the birthday of Jesus Christ. This date is an approximation of the Winter Solstice, and the birthday of several pagan sun-gods. Its pagan derivation is beyond all dispute. ...
{p. 23} The mysterious doctrine of the Trinity loses the character of mystery when we consider its origin. In ancient Egypt the Sun was worshipped as a god. Since there can be no life without sunlight, the Sun was recognized as the Creator of life, and since without adequate sunlight living things wither and die, the Sun was regarded as the Protector, or preserver of life. An excess of sunlight destroys life, so that the Sun was also known as the Destroyer of life. The Sun, considered in its three aspects of Creator, Protector, and Destroyer, was indeed a Trinity in Unity. Solar and stellar symbolism have profoundly affected the Christian religion. For instance, in the Apocalypse, we read of the Four Beasts and the Four Horsemen. Taken literally the narrative does not make sense, but when we learn that the beasts are zodiacal constellations and the horsemen, planets, we get a much clearer perception of the matter. ... {end}
(6) Thomas Inman, M.D., Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism (1874)
T. W. Doane (1882) gets his evidence that Krishna was crucified from Inman's book Ancient Faiths and Modern (1876). Doane is relied on by a host of fellow-travellers including Acharya, who repeat his quotation - that is, quoting Inman indirectly, through Doane.
The National Library of Australia, here in Canberra, has a copy of Ancient Faiths and Modern - the only one at any library in the country - but it is missing. I have ordered a copy via the internet.
In the meantime, I was able to locate another of Inman's books at St Mark's Theological College, in Canberra. Some excerpts (below) show that Inman is a credible author, but that his word cannot be taken as final.
Those who claim a tradition that Krishna was crucified do not offer modern evidence from texts or sculptures in India.
Thomas Inman, M.D., Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism Exposed and Explained, second edition, revised and enlarged (Turbner and Co., london, 1874).
{p. xxxii} After reading thus far, I can imagine many a person saying with astonishment, " Are these things so ? " and following up his thoughts by wondering what style of persons they were, or are, who could introduce into religion such matters as those of which we have treated.
In reply, I can only say that I have nothing extenuated, and set down nought in malice. But the first clause of the assertion requires modification, for in this volume there are many things omitted whigh I have referred to at length in my larger work. In that I have shown, not only that religious fornication eisted in ancient Babylon, but that there is reason to believe that it existed also in Palestine. The word Wlp Kadesh, whigh signifies "pure, bricht, young, to be holy, or to be consecrated," is also the root from whigh are formed the words Kadeshah and Kadeshim, whigh are used in the Hebrew writings, and are translated in our authorised version "whore" and "sodomite." See Deut. xiii. 17.
Athanasius tells us something of this as regards the Phoenicians, for he says, (Oratio Contr. Gent., part i., p. 24.) "Formerly, it is certain that Phoenician women prostituted themselves before their idols, offering their bodies to their gods in the place of first fruits, being persuaded that they pIeased the goddess by that means, and made her propitious to them."
Strabo mentions a similar occurrence at Comana, in Pontus, book iii., c. iii. p. 36 - and notices that an enormous number of women were consecrated to the use of worshippers in the temple of Venus at Corinth.
Such women exist in India, and the priests of certain temples do everything in their power to select the loveliest of the sex, and to educate them so highly as to be attractive.
{p. xxxiii} The customs whigh existed in other places seem to have been known in Jerusalem, as we find in 1 Kings xiv. 24., xv. 12, that Kadeshim were common in Judea, and in 2 :Eings iii. 7, we discover that these "consecrated ones" were located "by the temple," and were associated with women whose business was "to make hangings for the grove." What these tissues were and what use was made of them will be seen in Ezekiel xvi. 16.
Even David, when dancing before the ark, shamelessly eposed himself. Solomon erected two pillars in the porch of his temple, and called them Jachin and Boaz, and added pomegranate ornaments. We have seen how Abraham and Jaaob ordered their inferiors to swear by putting the hand upon "the thigh"; and we have read of the atrocities whigh occurred in Jerusalem in the time of Ezekiel. Yet the Jews are still spoken of as God's chosen people, and the Psalmist as a man after God's own heart.
But without going so far back, let us inquire into the conduct of the sensual Turks, and of the general run of the inhabitants of Hindostan. From everything that I can learn - and I have repeatedly conversed with those who have known the Turks and Hindoos familiarly - these are in every position in life as morally good as common Christians are.
My readers must not now assert that I am either a partisan or a special pleader when I say this; they must consider that I am making the comparison as man by man. I do not, as missionaries do, compare the most vicious Mahomedan and Brahmin with the most exemplary Christian; nor do I, on the other hand, compare the best Ottoman and Indian with Christian criminals; but I take the whole in a mass, and assert that there is as large a percentage of good folks in India and Turkey as there is in Spain and France, England or America.
The grossest form of worship is compatible with general
{p. xxxiv} purity of morals. The story of Lucretia is told of a Pagan woman, whilst those of Er and Onan, Tamar and Judah relate to Hebrews. David, who seduced Bathsheba, and killed her husband, was not execrated by "God's people," nor was he consequently driven from his throne as Tarquin was by the Romans.
In prowess and learning, the Babylonians, with their religious prostitution, were superior to the "chosen people." Of the wealth and enterprise of the Phoenicians, Ancient History tells us abundance.
There are probably no three cities in ancient or modern times whigh contain so many vicious individuals as London, Paris, and New York. Yet there are none whigh history tells us of that were more powerful. No Babylonian army equalled in might or numbers the army of the Northern United States. Nineveh never wielded armies equal to those of the French Napoleon and the German William, and Rome never had an empire equal to that whigh is headed by London.
The existence of personal vice does not ruin a nation in its collective capacity. Nor does the most sensual form of religion stunt the prosperity of a people, so long as the latter do not bow their necks to a priesthood.
The greatest curse to a nation is not a bad religion, but a form of faith whigh prevents manly inquiry. I know of no nation of old that was, priest-ridden whigh did not fall under the swords of those who did not care for hierarchs.
The greatest danger is to be feared from those ecclesiastics who wink at vice, and encourage it as a means whereby they can gain power over their votaries. So long as every man does to other men as he would that they should do to him, and allows no one to interfere between him and his Maker, all will go well with the world,
{p. xxxv} Whilst the following sheets were going through the press, my friend Mr. Newton, who has not only assisted me in a variety of ways, but who has taken a great deal of interest in the subject of symbolism, gave me to understand that there were some matters in whigh he differed very strongly from me in opinion. One of these was as to the correct interpretation of the so-called Assyrian grove; another was the signification of one of Lajard's gems, Plate iv., Fig. 8; and the most conspicuous of our divergencies was respecting the fundamental, or basic idea, whigh prompted the use in religion of those organs of reproduction whigh have, from time immemorial, been venerated in Hindostan, and, as far as we can learn, in Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, Jerusalem, Etruria, Greece, and Rome, as well as in countries called uncivilised. I feer quite disposed to acquiesce in the opinions whigh my old friend has formed respecting the Assyrian grove, but I am not equally ready to assent to his other opinions
Where two individuals are working earnestly for the elucidation of truth, there ought, in my opinion, to be not only a tolerance of disagreement, but an honest effort to submit the subject to a jury of thoughtful readers.
As I should not feel satisfied to allow any other person to express my opinions in his words, it seemed to me only fair to Mr. Newton to give him the facility of enunciating his views in his own language. It was intended, originally, that my friend's observations upon the "grove " should be followed by a dissertation upon other relics of antiquity - notably upon that known as Stonehenge - but circumstances have prevented this design being carried into execution.
When two individuals who have much in common go
{p. xxxvi} over the same ground, it is natural, indeed almost necessary, that they should dwell upon identical topics. Hence it will be found that there are points whigh are referred to by us both, although possibly in differing relationship.
As my own part of the following remarks were printed long before I saw Mr. Newton's manuscript, I hope to be pardoned for allowing them to stand. The bulk of the volume will not be increased to the extent of a full page.
If I were to be asked the reason why I differ from Mr. Newton in his exalted idea about the adoption of certain bodily organs as types, tokens, or emblems of an unseen and an inscrutable Creator, my answer would be drawn from the observations made upon every known order of priesthood, from the most remote antiquity to the present time. No matter what the creed, whether Ancient or Modern, the main object of its exponents and supporters is to gain over the minds of the populace. This has never yet been done, and probably never will be attempted, by educating the mind of the multitude to think.
In Grreat Britain we find three sets of hierarchs opposed to each other, and all equally, by every means in their power, prohibit independent inquiry.
A young Romanist convert, as we have recently seen, is discouraged from persevering in the study of history and logic; a Presbyterian is persecuted, as far as the law of the land permits, if he should engage in an honest study of the Bible, of the God whigh it presents for our worship, and of the laws that it enforces. A bishop of the Church of England is visited by the puny and spiteful efforts of some of his nominal equals if he ventures to treat Jewish writings as other critics study the tomes of Livy or of Herodotus.
One set of men have banded together to elect a god on earth, and endeavour to coerce their fellow-mortals to believe
{p. xxxvii} that a selection by a few old cardinals can make the one whom they choose to honour "infallible."
Another set of men, who profess to eschew the idea of infallibility in a Pope, assume that they possess the quality themselves, and endeavour to blot out from the communion of the faithful those who differ from them "on points whigh God hath left at large."
Surely, when with all our modern learning, thought, and scientific enquiry, hierarchs still set their faces against an advance in knowledge, and quell, if possible, every endeavour to search after truth, we are not far wrong when we assert, that the first priests of barbarism had no exalted views of such an albstract subject as life, in the higher and highest senses, if indeed in any sense of the word.
Another small point of difference between my friend and me is, wheher there has been at any time a figured representation of a kakodaemon - except since the beginning of Christianity - and if, by way of stretching a point, we call Typhon - Satan or the Devil - by this name, as being opposed to the Agathodaemon, whether we are justified in providing this evil genius with wings. As far as I can judge from Chaldean and Assyrian sculptures, wings were given to the lesser deities as our artists assign them to modern angels. The Babylonian Apollyon, by whatever name he went, was winged - but so were all the good gods. The Egyptians seem to have assigned wings only to the favourable divinities. The Jews had in their mythology a set of fiery flying serpents, but we must notice that their cherubim and seraphim were all winged, some with no less than three pairs - much as Hindoo gods have four heads and six, or any other number of arms.
Mr. Newton assumes that the dragon mentioned in Rev. xii. was a winged creature, but it is clear from the context, especially from verses 14 and 15, that he had no pinions, for
{p. xxxviii} he was unable to follow the woman to whom two aerial oars had been given.
The dragon, as we know it, is, I believe, a medieval creation; such a creature is only spoken of in the Bible in the book of Revelation, and the author of that strange production drew his inspiration on this point from the Iliad, where a dragon is described as of huge size, coiled like a snake, of blood-red colour, shot with changeful hues, and having three heads. Homer, Liddell, and Scott add - used dragon and hophis indifferently for a serpent. So does the author of Rev. in ch. xx. 2. I have been unable to discover any gnostic gem with anything like a modern dragon on it.
Holding these views, I cannot entertain the proposition that the winged creatures in the very remarkable gem already referred to are evil genii.
In a question of this kind the mind is perhaps unconsciously biassed by comparing one antiquarian idea with another. A searcher amongst Etruscan vases will see not only that the angel of death is winged, but that Cupid, Eros, or by whatever other name "desire" or love goes, frequently hovers over the bridal or otherwise voluptuous couch, and attends beauty at her toilet. The Greeks also gave to Eros a pair of wings, intended, it is fancied, to represent the flutterings of the heart, produced when lovers meet or even think of each other. Such a subordinate deity would be in place amongst so many sexual emblems as Plate iv. Fig. 3 contains, whilst a koakdaemon would be a "spoil sport," and would make the erected serpents drop rather than remain in their glory.
These matters are apparently of small importance, but when one is studying the signification of symbolical language, he has to pay as close an attention, and extend the net of observation over as wide a sea as a scholar does when endeavouring to decipher sone language written in longforgotten characters, and some divergence of opinion between independent observers sharpens the intellect more than it tries the temper.
{p. 90} The bull and lioness are emblematic of the masculine and feminine powers. The mark on the temple indicates the union of the two; an aureole is seen around the head, as in modern pictures of saints. In this drawing the Ganges rises from the male, the idea being that the stream from Mahadeva is as copious and fertilising as that mighty river. The metaphor here depicted is common in the East, and is precisely the same as that quoted in Num. 2 xiv. 7, and also from some lost Hebrew book in John vii. 38. It will be noticed, that the Hindoos express androgyneity quite as conspicuously, but generally much less indelicately, than the Grecian artists.
Figure 135 {a snake swallowing its tail} is a common Egyptian emblem, said to signify eternity, but in truth it has another meaning. The serpent and the ring indicate l'andoulle and l'anneau. The tail of the animal, whioh the mouth appear to swallow, is la queue dans la bouche. The symbol resembles the crux ansata in its signification, and imports that life upon the earth is rendered perpetual by means of the union of the sexes. A ring, or circle, is one of the symbols of Venus, who carries indifferently this, or the triad emblem of the male. See Maffei's Gemme, vol. iii., page 1, plate viii.
Figure 136 is the vesica piscis, or fish's bladder; the
{p. 91} emblem of woman and of the virgin, as may be een in the two following woodcuts.
Figures 137, 138, are copied from an ancient Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, printed at Venice, 1524, with a license from the Inquisition; the book being lent to me by my friend, Mr. Newton. The first represents the same part as the Assyrian "grove." It may appropriately be called the Holy Yoni {vulva}. The book in question contains numerous figures, all resembling closely the Mesopotamian emblem of Ishtar. The presenoe of the woman therein identifies the two as symbolio of Isis, or la nature; and a man bowing down in adoration thereof shows the same idea as is depicted in Assyrian sculptures, where males offer to the goddess symbols of themselves.
{end}
As a guide to Inman's method of interpreting images, I have scanned in his Fig 137, on p. 91, as referred to above. It is at Inman-Fig137-Holy-Yoni.jpg.
Inman's sexual interpretation may indeed be the original meaning of the symbol, in goddess religions, but in its Christian application, the austerity of the monk suggests that this meaning may have been absent, especially in a society of limited sexual knowledge.
His claim, in the 1870s, to have seen images depicting the Crucifixion of Krishna, is surprisingly unmatched by samples of modern textual or sculptural evidence depicting the same. Surely, if there is such a tradition in India, the onus is on those who claim such to produce current evidence, rather than relying on Inman.
(7) T. W. Doane, Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions, Fourth Edition (New York, The Truth Seeker Company, 1882)
{p. 184} Moreover, the doctrine of bhakti (salvation by faith) existed among the Hindoos from the earliest times.
Crishna, the virgin-born, "the Divine Vishnu himself," "he who is without beginning, middle or end," being moved "to relieve the earth of her load," came upon earth and redeemed man by his sufferings - to save him.
The accounts of the deaths of most all the virgin-born Saviours of whom we shall speak, are conflicting. It is stated in one place that such an one died in such a manner, and in another place we may find it stated altoether differently. Even the accoumts of the death of Jesus, as we shall hereafter see, are conflicting; therefore, until the chapter on "Explanation" is read, these myths cannot really be thoroughly understood.
As the Rev. Geo. V. Cox remarks, in his Aryan Mythology, Crishna is described, in one of his aspects, as a self-sacrificing and unselfish hero, a being who is filled with divine wisdom and love who offers up a sacrifice which he alone can make.
The Vishnu Purana speaks of Crisna being shot in the foot with an arrow, and states that this was the cause of his death. Other accounts, however, state that he was suspended on a tree, or in other words, crucified.
{Which other accounts? Why not name them, and quote them chapter & verse?}
Mons. Guigniaut, in his "Religion de l'Antiquite," says:
"The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow "8
{footnote 8 is a quote from Godfrey Higgins' book Anacalypsis - the same old incestuous circular quoting. What is the textual source of this "remarkable and convincing tradition"? To speak of an arrow "nailing" him is poetic licence.}
Rev. J. P. Lundy alludes to this passage of Guigniaut's in his "Monumental Christianity," and translates the passage "un bois fatal" (see note below) "a cross." Although we do not think he is justified in doing this, as M. Guigniant has distinctly stated that this " bois fatal " (which is applied to a gibbet, a cross, a scaffold ctc.) was "un arble" (a tree), yet, he is justified in doing so on other accounts, for we find that Crishna is represented hanging on a cross, and we know that a cross was frequently called the "ac-
{p. 185} cursed tree." It was an ancient custom to use trees as gibbets for crucifixion {but not in India}, or, if artificial, to call the cross a tree. ...
In the earlier copies of Moor's "Hindu Pantheon," is to be seen representations of Crishna (as Wittoba),4 with marks of holes in both feet, and in others, of holes in the hands. In Figures 4 and of Plate 11 (Moor's work), the figures have nail-holes in both feet. Figure 6 has a round, hole in the side; to his collar or shirt hangs the emblem of a heart (which we often see in pictures of a Christ Jesus) and on his head he has a Yoni-Linga (which we do not see in pictures of Christ Jesus.)
{footnote 4 above says: See Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. I. p. 146, and Inman's Ancient Faiths, vol. I. p. 402.}
Our Figure No. 7 (next page), is a pre-Christian crucifix of Asiatic origin,5
{footnote 4: see Lundy: Munumental Christianity, p. 160.}
evidently intended to represent Crishna crucified. Figure No. 8 we can speak more positively of, it is surely Crishna crucified. It is unlike any Christian crucifix ever made, and, with that described above with the Yoni-Linga attached to the head, would probably not be claimed as such. Instead of the crown of thorns usually put on the head of the Christian Saviour, it has the turreted coronet of the Ephesian Diana, the ankles are tied together by a cord, and the dress about the loins is exactly the style with which Crishna is almost always represented. 6
{footnote 6: This can be seen by referring to Calmet, Sonnerat, or Higgins, vol. ii, which contain plates representing Crishna.}
Rev. J. P. Lundy, speaking of the Christian crucifix, says:
{p. 186} "I object to the crucifix, because it is an image, and liable to gross abuse, just as the old Hindoo crucifix was an idol."1
{footnote 1: Munumental Christianity, p. 128.}
And Dr. Inlrlan says:
"Crishna, whose history so closely resemble our Lord's, was aIso like him in his being crucified."2
{footnote 2: Ancient Faiths, vol. I. p. 411.}
{p. 187} ... The monk Georgius, in his Tibetinum Alphabetum (p. 203), has given plates of a crucified god who was worshiped in Nepal. These crucifixes were to be seen at the corners of roads and on eminences. He calls it the god Indra. Figures No. 9 and No. 10 are taken from this work. They are also different from any Christian crucifix yet produced. ...
P Andrada la Crozius, one of the first Europeans who went to Nepal and Tibet, in spealing of the god whom they worshiped there - Indra - tells us that they said he spilt his blood for the salva-
{p. 188} tion of the human race, and that he was pierced through the body with nails. He further says that, although they do not say he suffered the penalty of the cross, yet they find, nevertheless, figures of it in their books.
{end Doane quotes}
(8) Stormfront jumps on the "Khrishna the original, Jesus a copy" bandwaggon too
Shamir writes, "Acharya, Kaminski, Mehta et al just repeat usual Jewish drivel." Among Acharya's sources, Gerald Massey endorses the Talmud, and Alvin Boyd Kuhn was given a favourable obituary in the New York Times.
But the (Nazi) Stormfront website takes up the theme too, minus those pro-Jewish authors.
This article uses many of the same sources Acharya does - John P. Lundy, T. W. Doane, Thomas Inman - but Acharya herself does not get a mention.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=883863&postcount=3
Chrishna the original, Jesus a copy...
Its Chrishna (Khrishna) not Jesus Christ(hna) who was the original....
John P. Lundy, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
'If we may believe so good an authority as Edward Moor (author of Moor's "Hindu Pantheon" and "Oriental Fragments"), both the name of Crishna, and the general outline of his history, were long anterior to the birth of our Savior, as very certain things, and probably extended to the time of Homer, nearly nine hundred years before Christ, or more than one hundred years before Isaiah lived and prophesied.' 16
J. B. S. Carwithen, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
'Both the name of Crishna [sic] and the general outline of his story are long anterior to the birth of our Savior; and this we know, not on the presumed antiquity of the Hindoo records alone. Both Arrian and Strabo assert that the god Crishna was anciently worshipped at Mathura, on the river Jumna, where he is worshipped at this day. But the emblems and attributes essential to this deity are also transplanted into the mythology of the west.'17
T. W. Doane, Nineteenth Century:
'In the Sanskrit Dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole story of Crishna, the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in his infancy from Kansa, the reigning monarch of the country.' 18
Monier Williams, Nineteenth--Century Professor:
'...the religious creeds, rites, customs, and habits of thought of the Hindus generally have altered little since the days of Manu [in] 500 B.C.'19
George W. Cox, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
'...Practically, the myths of Crishna seems to have been fully developed in the days of Megasthenes [fourth century B.C.], who identifies him with the Greek Hercules. 20
1) Both were preceded by a 'forerunner' born a short time before them.21 2) Each was born in a city away from home where his father was on tax business.22 3) Krishna was born in a cave.23
Jesus was born in a stable (Luke 2:7). However, Quintus Tertullian (third century), St. Jerome (fourth century), and other Church fathers claimed that Jesus, too, was born in a cave.'24
Frederick W. Farrar, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:
'That the actual place of Christ's birth was a cave is a very ancient tradition, and this cave used to be shown as the scene of the event even so early as the time of Justin Martyr (A.D. 150).' 25
4) 'In infancy, both Krishna and Jesus were sentenced to death by kings who viewed them as pretenders to the throne. Due to this threat: Krishna's father was warned by a heavenly voice "to fly with the child to Gacool, across the river Jumna.26
'Jesus' father was warned in a dream, '...rise and take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt...' (Matthew 2:13).
5) One of these kings then ordered "the massacre in all his states of all the children of the male sex during the night of the birth of Crishna."27
The other, Herod, '.sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem, and in all that region, who were two years old or under...' (Matthew 2:16).'
6) 'One of both Krishna and Jesus' first 'miracles' performed as adults was the curing of a leper.' 28
7) 'Urged by Krishna to make a request, a man replied: 'Above all things, I desire to have my two dead sons restored to life.' Immediately they were brought to life and came to their father."29
"While [Jesus] was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying: `My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live....' But when the crowd had been put aside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose" (Matthew 9:18, 25).
8) Either a poor cripple or a lame woman came with "a vessel filled with spices, sweet scented oils, sandalwood, saffron, civet, and other perfumes, and made a certain sign on [Krishna's] forehead, casting the rest upon his head."30
"Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster box of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at the table" (Matthew 26:6--7).
9) Both washed the feet of their disciples.31 10) Both had a beloved disciple.32 11) Krishna said: "Let him, if seeking God by deep abstraction, abandon his possessions and his hopes, betake himself to some secluded spot, and fix his heart and thoughts on God alone."33
Jesus said: "But when you pray, go into your room and close the door and pray to your Father Who is in secret; and your Father Who sees in secret will reward you" (Matthew 6:6).
12) Krishna said: "I am the light in the sun and the moon, far, far beyond the darkness. I am the brilliancy in flame, the radiance in all that's radiant, and the light of lights."34
Jesus said: "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12).
13) Krishna said: "I am the sustainer of the world, its friend and Lord. I am its way and refuge."35
Jesus said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
14) Krishna said: "I am the Goodness of the good; I am Beginning, Middle, End, Eternal Time, the Birth, the Death of all."36
Jesus said: "Fear not, I am the first, and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades" (Revelations 1:17--18).
15) Both "descended" to hell.37
16) Both "ascended" to heaven before witnesses.38
17) Both are said to have been God incarnate:
"Crishna is the very Supreme Brahma, though it be a mystery how the Supreme should assume the form of a man."39
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion; He manifested in the flesh." (I Timothy 3:16).
18) Before death, Krishna was pierced with an arrow 40 and Jesus with a spear (John 19:34).
19) Both were crucified:
John P. Lundy, Nineteenth--Century Reverend: I object to the crucifix because it is an image, and liable to gross abuse, just as the old Hindoo crucifix was an idol.41
Dr. Thomas Inman, Nineteenth--Century: Crishna [sic], whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified.42
20) When Krishna died, it is said that a black circle surrounded the moon, the sun was darkened at noon, the sky rained fire and ashes, and spirits were seen everywhere.43
When Jesus died, the sun was darkened from the sixth to the ninth hour, graves were opened, and saints rose and entered the city (Matthew 27:45, 51--52).
21) Both were "resurrected."44
22) "Krishna will return in the end days as an armed warrior, riding on a winged white horse. He will destroy the wicked then living. The sun and the moon will be darkened, the earth will tremble, and the stars will fall."45
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days [following Jesus' "return"] the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken" (Matthew 24:29).
FOOTNOTES:
16. John P. Lundy, Monumental Christianity (New York, 1876), p. 151. 17. Ibid, pp. 151--152. 18. T. W. Doane, Bible Myths (New York, 1882), p. 286. 19. Williams, Indian Wisdom, or Examples of the Religious, Philosphical, and Ethical Doctrines of the Hindoos (London, 1875), p. iv. 20. Cox, The Myths of the Aryan Nations (London, 1870), vol. 2, p. 138. 21. Maurice, Hindostan, vol. 2, p. 316; Luke 1:57. 22. H. H. Wilson, trans., The Vishnu Purana, A System of Hindoo Mythology and Tradition (London, 1840), book 5, chap. 3; Luke 2:1--7. 23. Cox, vol. 2, p. 107. 24. Godfred Higgins, Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions (London, 1836), vol. 2, pp. 98--99. 25. Farrar, The Life of Christ (New York, 1876), p. 38. 26. Mons Dupuis, trans., The Origin of All Religious Worship (New Orleans, 1872), p. 134. 27. Swain, vol. 1, p. 259. 28. Thomas Maurice, History of Hindostan (London, 1798), vol. 2, p. 319; Matthew 8:2--4. 29. Maria L. Child, The Progress of Religious Ideas through Successive Ages (New York, 1855), vol. 1, p. 68. 30. Maurice, Hindostan, vol 2, p. 320. 31. Maurice, Indian Antiquities (London, 1794), vol. 3, p. 46; John 13:5. 32. Charles Wilkes, trans., The Bhagavat Gita, or Dialogues of Crishna and Arjoon, in Eighteen Lectures With Notes, (London, 1785), p. 51; John 13:23. 33. Williams, Hinduism (London, 1877), p. 211. 34. Ibid., p. 213. 35. Ibid., p. 213. 36. Ibid., p. 213. 37. Swain, vol. 1, p. 237; I Peter 3:19. 38. Higgins, p. 131; Acts 1:9 39. Wilson, p. 492. 40. Higgins, vol. 1, p. 144. 41. Lundy, p. 128. 42. Inman, Ancient Faiths and Modern (London, 1868), vol. 1, p. 411. 43. Child, vol. 1, p. 71. 44. Dupuis, p. 240; Matthew 28:6. 45. Child, vol. 1, p. 75; Williams, Hinduism, p. 108.
http://www.christianism.com/appendixes/VIII.html
from: Ancient Faiths and Modern: A Dissertation upon Worships, Legends and Divinities in Central and Western Asia, Europe, and Elsewhere, Before the Christian Era. Showing their Relations to Religious Customs as they now Exist. By Thomas Inman, M.D. (London), Author of "Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names," Etc., Etc. Consulting Physician to the Royal Infirmary, Liverpool; Lecturer, successively, on Botany, Medical Jurisprudence, Therapeutics, Materia Medica, and the Principles and Practice of Medicine, Etc., in the Liverpool School of Medicine; Etc., New York: J.W. Bouton, 1876 (c1875). [reprint available from: ballantrae@globalserve.net].
(9) Acharya's Proof that Jesus was not Crucified - from Suns of God
{SoG p. 93} The story of Osiris's death and resurrection has been the source of much discussion, especially since it is so similar to the Christian myth but pre-dates the latter by millennia. In the various Osirian legends, Osiris's "brother and rival," the "great python" Typhon or Set, swallows Osiris up, or in Plutarch's version, throws Osiris's body into the Nile. Osiris's renewed incarnation/son Horus, kills Set or Sata, the night sky, darkness, desolation and fertility-destroying pestilence. The initial destruction of the god by the "Prince of darkness" represents the overthrow of the sun and its light reflected in the moon. The dismemberment of Osiris into 14 pieces symbolizes the 14 days of the month when the moon is waning and the sun's light in it is "dying." Osiris's passion was said to take place on the 17th day of the month of Hathor, "when Osiris was in the twenty-eighth year either of his reign or of his age," the number 28 signifying the days in the lunar month. Osiris's body parts were said to have been retrieved and buried in separate sacred sites by Isis. As is common in priestcraft, there were many tombs of Osiris in Egypt and Arabia, a development that reflects the mythical nature of Osiris, not that he was a real person" interred in all these places.
The Passion and Resurrection of Osiris have been major mythical motifs that made their way into Christianity: "That the Passion as it was distinctly called and Resurrection of Osiris were yearly and openly celebrated by the worshippers of the Alexandrian gods with alternate demonstrations of grief and joy, the classical poets have put beyond doubt." The closeness to the much later Christ myth is unmistakable, as "Osiris was to his worshippers 'the god-man, the first of those who rose from the dead,' [whose] death and resurrection were therefore supposed to be in some way beneficial to mankind." Concerning this ancient, pre-Christian ritual, Budge relates:
{quote} ...we find that the doctrine of eternal life and of the resurrection of a glorified or transformed body, based upon the ancient story of the resurrection of Osiris after a cruel death and horrible mutilation, inflicted by the powers of evil, was the same in all periods [of Egyptian history], and that the legends of the most ancient times were accepted without material alteration or addition in the texts of the later dynasties. ...everywhere, and in texts of all periods, the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Osiris are accepted as facts universally admitted. {endquote}
{The above quote is from E.A. Wallis-Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Dover, New York, 1967, p. xlviii. I placed a similar quote from Budge's book Osiris & the Egyptian Resurrection, Volume 1 ([1911] Dover Publications, New York, 1973) on my website: "Osiris ... was very different from the gods into whose heaven he entered, for he was at one time an inhabitant of the earth. Because he was the first man who had raised himself from the dead, he became the type and symbol and hope of every dead man, and the older gods in heaven seem to have thought it right to set apart a place in the Other World where he could live with all those who died believing in him, and rule over them." (pp. 79-80). postmortem-journeys.html . Budge (1857-1934), who was Curator of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, dedicated that book to Lord Rothschild, the same Lord Rothschild to whom the Balfour Declaration was addressed: "I dedicate this book on the Fundamentals of Sudani and Egyptian religion by permission to the Honourable Lionel Walter Rothschild, Trustee of the British Museum, with sincere gratitude and thanks." (p. v).}
{p. 94} Thus, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are archetypical not actual, representing a common religious and mythical motif, not the death and resurrection of a "real person." ...
As do Christians today, the millions of followers of Osiris were quite certain that, even though he was the Omnipotent Lord of Lord and King of Kings, he had at some point walked the earth.
{end SoG quotes}
Acharya argues that the mythological overlay, over the lives of Osiris and Jesus, allows one to conclude that they never existed.
However, this is not a proof.
It is more likely that each did exist. Larsen says Osiris "undoubtedly" was an early ruler (The Religion of the Occident, p. 3).
In our own time, in various circles, one may not criticise Einstein, or Mao, or Hitler, or Lenin, depending on one's allegiance. A heroic halo around such persons, rendering them above criticism, is not so different from the mythology built up, over time, around Osiris and Jesus.
Yet Einstein, Mao, Hitler and Lenin were real people. Tarzan and Superman are not. We can tell the difference between heroic stories of real people, and fantasies about cartoon characters. It is equally likely that the people smart enough to build the pyramids could do the same.
Jesus was not mentioned in Roman texts of his time because they were about the rich and powerful. The same applies today: the world is familiar with leading politicians and entertainers, but dissidents against the system remain largely unknown.
(10) Acharya's Proof that Krishna was Crucified - from Suns of God
This is an example of how to counter Acharya's attack, by probing her weak points.
{SoG p. 241} {Chapter 9} Krishna Crucified?
... The orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow while under a tree. As is true with so much in mythology, and as we have seen abundantly, there are variances in Krishna's tale, including the account of his death. In The Bible in India, citing as his sources the "Bagaveda- Gita and Brahminical traditions," French scholar and Indianist Jacolliot recounts the death of "Christna" as presciently understood by the godman, who, without his disciples, went to the Ganges to "work out stains." After thrice plunging into the sacred river, Krishna knelt and prayed as he awaited death, which was ultimately caused by multiple arrows shot by a criminal whose offenses had been exposed by Krishna. The executioner, named Angada, was thereafter condemned to wander the banks of the Gages for eternity, subsisting off the dead. Jacolliot proceeds to describe Krishna's death thus:
{quote} The body of the God-man was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures. News of the death having spread, the people came in a crowd conducted by Ardjouna, the dearest disciple of Christna, to recover his sacred remains. But the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared - no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes... and the tree to which it had been attached had become suddenly covered with great red flowers and diffused around it the sweetest perfumes. 1 {endquote}
{Jacolliot published this book in 1876. But what are the sources? Acharya expects to get away with the statement, 'citing as his sources the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions"'. I challenge Acharya to find verses in the Bhavagad-Gita which back up Jacolliot's claim. As for "Brahminical traditions", one requires the names of texts, and quotations specifying chapter and verse. Or does Acharya apply one standard of evidence to herself, and another to her targets?}
Jacolliot's description includes a number of arrows, instead of just one, which, along with the suspension in the tree branches, resembles the pinning of the god to a tree using multiple "nails." Krishna's subsequent disappearance has been considered an ascension.
{Jacolliot does not say the words which Acharya puts into his mouth. In Jesus' case, crucifixion was the intended means of death, whereas hanging Krishna on a tree was a kind of sky-burial, as practised in the Zoroastrian religion and in Tibet today. In sky-burial, bodies are exposed for vultures and wild dogs to eat the flesh. The Crucifixion is a Jewish punishment for Jesus' defiance, whereas Krishna's killing, in Hindu tradition, is accidental. The Crucifixion is a central theme in the Christian story, whereas Acharya is unable to produce any current Hindu stories featuring the "crucifixion" of Krishna.}
Moreover, this legend is evidently but a variant of the orthodox tale, constituting an apparently esoteric tradition
{p. 242} recognizing Krishna's death as a "crucifixion. Indeed, as Jonn Remsburg says in The Christ:
{quote} There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindoo scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.2 {endquote}
{Endnote 2 on p. 286 reads "www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg11.htm".}
{Why isn't it in the Hindu scriptures? Where is it found, and what is the evidence for it in India today?}
In Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, Doane elaborates upon the varying legends concerning Krishna's death:
{Nopte Acharya's reliance on Doane's book of 1882}
{quote} The accounts of the deaths of most of all virgin-born Saviours of whom we shall speak, are conflicting. It is stated in one place that such an one died in such a manner, and in another place we may find it stated altogether differently. Even the accounts of the death of Jesus...are conflicting...
The Vishnu Purana speaks of Crishna being shot in the foot with an arrow, and states that this was the cause of his death. Other accounts, however, state that he was suspended on a tree, or in other words, crucified. {endquote}
Doane then cites M. Guigniaut's Religion de l'Antiquite, which states:
"The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow.
Doane further relates that the pious Christian Rev. Lundy refers to Guigniaut's statement, translating the original French "un bois fatal" as "a cross." Doane next comments:
{quote} Although we do not think he is justified in doing this, as M. Guigniaut has distinctly stated that this "bois fatal (which is applied to a gibbet, a cross, a scaffold, etc.) was un arbre (a tree), yet, he is justified in doing so on other accounts, for we find that Crishna is represented hanging on a cross, and we know that a cross was frequently called the "so cursed tree." It was an ancient custom to use trees as gibbets for crucifixion, or, if artificial, to call the cross a tree.3 {endquote}
To wit, the legend of Krishna's death has been interpreted to mean that he was pinned to a tree, essentially representing a crucifixion. However, it is not just tradition but artifacts that have led to the conclusion that Krishna was crucified. Indeed, there have been found in India numerous images of crucified gods, one of whom apparently is Krishna, important information not to be encountered in mainstream resources such as encyclopedias.
Moreover, it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna. As Doane further relates:
{quote} It is evident...that to be hung on a cross was anciently called hanging on a tree, and to be hung on a tree was called
{p. 243} cruciilxon. We may thereore conclude Irom thls, and rom wnat we shall now see, that Crishna was said to have been crucified.
In the earlier copies of Moor's Hindu Pantheon, is to be seen representations of Crishna (as Wittoba), with marks of holes in both feet, and in others, of holes in the hands. In Figures 4 and 5 of Plate 11 (Moor's work), the figures have nail-holes in both feet. Plate 6 has a round hole in the side; to his collar or shirt hangs the emblem of a heart (which we often see in pictures of Christ Jesus)...
Rev. J. P. Lundy, speaking of the Christian crucifix, says:
1 object to the crucifix because it is an image, and liable to gross abuse, just as the old Hindoo crucifix was an idol.
{Note the reliance on Thomas Inman's books ca. 1876:}
And Dr. Inman says:
Crishna, whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified.4 {endquote}
Thus, we discover from some of the more erudite Christian writers {Lundy objects to the crucifix, yet Acharya calls him a Christian. Does Inman call himself a Christian? Does Doane?}, admitting against interest, that images of a Indian god crucified, with nail holes in the feet, had been discovered in India, and that this god was considered to be Krishna, as Wittoba. As we have seen, Moor's book was mutilated, with plates and an entire chapter removed, which have luckily been restored in a recent edition of the original text. Fortunately, Higgins preserved for posterity some of Moor's statements and plates, recounting and commenting upon the missionary's remarkable discovery:
{quote} Mr. Moor describes an Avatar called Wittoba, who has his foot pierced....
This incarnation of Vishnu or CRISTNA is called Wittoba or Ballaji. He has a splendid temple erected to him at Punderpoor. Little respecting this incarnation is known. A story of him is detailed by Mr. Moor, which he observes reminds him of the doctrine of tuming the unsmote cheek to an assailant. This God is represented by Moor with a hole on the top of one foot just above the toes, where the nail of a person crucified might be supposed to be placed. And, in another print, he is represented exactly in the form of a Romish crucifix, but not fixed to a piece of wood, though the legs and feet are put together in the usual way, with a nail-hole in the latter. There appears to be a glory over it coming from above. Generally the glory shines from the figure. It has a pointed Parthian coronet instead of a crown of thorns....5 {endquote}
The images provided by Moor evidently constitute representations of an Indian god, Wittoba/Krishna, in cruciform, vith nail holes. The image of the godman crucified without the wood, "in space," can also be found reproduced in Lundy's book, wherein he insists that it is indeed non-Christian, uninfluenced by Christianity, representing an older tradition of a crucified god.
{end SoG quotes}
(I) Why Acharya Matters
Acharya's Double Standards of Evidence
Acharya believes that her books The Christ Conspiracy (CC) and Suns of God (SoG) are an invincible offensive frontline in the culture war. But when one explores her argument at various weak points, in detail, one finds a lack of evidence, and jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Although attacking the established religions, Acharya offers no evidence to justify her own New Age creed: "We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes" (SoG, p. 567) and '... in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops"' (CC, p. 416).
Acharya launches the fiercest attack on Christianity that I have seen. Some of her sources are impeccable, e.g. E.A. Wallis-Budge. Others are informative, but occasionally wrong, e.g. Martin A. Larsen; this is not a major problem.
Others are Nineteenth-century books recording snippets gathered from the British Empire, but without our current standards of evidence. For example, claims about Krishna are sourced to "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions" - but no names of texts, or quotes, or chapters or verses are provided (item 5).
Acharya quite happily touts this material as "evidence" (SoG p. 241).
Nor is this lack made up by obtaining current texts or religious images from India. To be properly documented, icons and sculptures need to be sourced to a particular location and tradition.
She also claims that "Buddhism, far older than acknowledged, is found widespread beginning thousands of years ago. ... the Egyptian Pharaohs or shepherd kings were Rajputs, or royal Buddhists.14" (CC, pp. 382-3; see item 4).
I've never seen any Egyptologist endorsing the latter statement; nor does Acharya seem to feel any need for their opinion.
Endnote 14 on p. 390 reads "Higgins, I, 612." - referring to Godfrey Higgins' book Anacalypsis, a forerunner of Madame Blavatsky's theosophical treatise The Secret Doctrine, and one of Acharya's weak New Age sources.
In SoG, p. 242, she writes, "Indeed, as Jonn Remsburg says in The Christ: {quote} There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindoo scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.2 {endquote}"
Endnote 2 on p. 286 reads "www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg11.htm". What is this "Positive Atheism"? It sounds suspiciously like the regimen of the Soviet Union.
Remsberg gives the above bare statement without any quote, or reference, yet Acharya touts this statement by him as evidence.
In item 1, I explain why Acharya matters. (1) Why Acharya Matters (2) Acharya S. and Her Misrepresntation of Lord Krishna (3) Acharya says, "it's not possible that this guy read Suns of God and is still so arrogantly superior" (4) Acharya's low standards of evidence - "Pharaohs were Buddhists" (5) Sources for Krishna claims - "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions" - but no text, chapter or verse (6) What is "Positive Atheism"? - Results 1 - 10 of about 27,300 for "positive atheism". (0.17 seconds) (7) A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy - by Mike Licona
(1) Why Acharya Matters
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:50:59 EST From: Hudsonmi@aol.com
I'm happy to accept Acharya's claim that there wasn't any Jesus . What's so remarkable is that the speeches attributed to him actually were given by another person who came to be known, by coincidence, also as Jesus Christ. I guess the same thing has been said about Shakespeare's plays -- that indeed he didn't write them, but they were written by someone else called William Shakespeare. Does this settle matters simply enough?
Michael {end}
REPLY (Peter M):
Michael,
It's one thing to believe such; another to prove it.
Christians may be unable to prove that Jesus existed, but nor can Acharya prove that he didn't.
I agree with her that many of the stories about Jesus are borrowings from other religions, and have put such materian on my website, e.g. at postmortem-journeys.html .
Futher, I feature material showing that the Bible is a human construct, undermining the notion that there is a Covenant, Old or New. This undermines Church authority over non-Christians.
I cannot understand why Acharya wants to go further than this. There is no need to assert that the Crucifixion did not take place, or that Jesus never existed.
The push for Gay Marriage is occurring in the Post-Christian West, but not in Asia or Africa. It's a sign that the destruction of Christianity is creating a cultural and spiritual vacuum, and unleashing dangerous forces.
The changes, in the guise of giving equality to various minority or victim groups (e.g. gays), and liberating us from the shackles of the past, are really about the destruction of Civilization.
The Ancient Greeks were very tolerant of homosexuality, but never confused homosexual relationships with marriage. Instead, Gay Marriage is about the replacement of Sexual Complementarity with Androgyny, as the basis of society.
There has never been such a revolutionary change, except in the first ten years of the Soviet Union.
Acharya is aligned with the forces of Cultural Revolution. Otherwise, she would have replied when I asked her position on Gay Marriage. Instead, she said she was withholding her position lest I use it for "Acharya-bashing".
If she opposed Gay Marriage, there would have been no point in withholding her position.
Christianity turns out to have a baby in its bathwater.
The destruction of Christianity is not simply about giving up exotica such as the Virgin Birth. At a more basic level, it's about giving up our BC/AD dating system, which sets the year O at the presumed date of the birth of Jesus. Wrongly, by a few years, it turns out. But would we rather re-commence with a new year 0, as happened during the French Revolution?
We don't need to believe in "Christ" to have some attachment to the present dating system.
Acharya is one of those who uses BCE and CE in place of BC and AD. In the past, I would have thought nothing of this - I have noticed that ardent Jews do it - but as I perceive what's happening more closely, I am paying close attention to such "trivia". Once there's "One World", those promoting this minor change may go ahead with a really major one, re-setting the Year O.
Another implication of the destruction of Christianity is changes to the Public Holidays that are celebrated - for example, away from Easter and Christmas to Passover and Rosh Hashanah.
A warning sign is that Congress now takes a day off on 4 Jewish Holidays (Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Hanukkah), 2 Christian Holidays (Easter & Christmas), and 0 Moslem: http://www.house.gov/2004_House_Calendar.html
Even then, any Christian meaning in Easter and Christmas is being suppressed.
Acharya says nothing about this. This is why Israel Shamir sees her as unwittingly in the service of the Lobby.
The "Left-wingers" running the anti-war demonstrations are also strangely silent about it.
(2) Acharya S. and Her Misrepresntation of Lord Krishna
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:53:00 +0530 From: atracus sapien <atracus@gmail.com>
Sometime back, I managed to read Acharya's book on the Christ Conspiracy. I had great expectations from the book, and I was sadly disappointed. I wish there was a way I could recover the money that I spent on it, due to my misunderstanding that it may contain serious research. The fact that she fails miserably on her presentation and research on krishna's life makes me reject the rest of her data. I can no longer trust data on which I have no expertise, if she has done so badly in areas where I CAN verify facts.
When I obtained the book, I zoomed in to the area where I could easily call myself well-versed - the Sacred Lore of Lord Krishna in India. Acharya's attempts to portray a similarity between the life of Christ and Krishna are totally misplaced and there is literally no similarity between them, except for the one single fact that they were both considered saviours. However, that similarity is quite debatable, too, since Krishna is considered as an Avatar of Shri Vishnu in all the Indic sacred lore. Jesus is definitely not an avatar by any christian dharma. (Acharya should look up the difference in an Avatar and a Messiah.)
In her deliberately misplaced attempt to portray of similarities between Christ and Krishna, Acharya does not quote from any ancient Indic (primarily Sanskrit) text giving the Lore of Krishna. Her facts about Krishna are all picked up from second or 10th hand information gleaned from God-knows-which euro-centric authors (probably those part of the theosophical conspiracy to marry indic spirituality to biblical roots)
To summarize, her work in this book falls totally short on the life of Krishna, for the following reasons -
1. Acharya seems unable to quote from any ancient Indic literature, suggesting that she has no knowledge of Sanskrit. Now, this might be excusable, since one can find accurate English translations of ancient Sanskrit literature regarding Krishna. She does not do so. Rather, any reference that is convenient to her hypothesis is picked upon, despite the fact that is is absolutely not in compliance with any authentic Indic literature.
2. The is a large corpus of ancient Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi literature regarding Krishna. particularly, literature that arose during the Bhakti movement in India - the dharma of devotion. All of these are ignored. She rather picks up her information from some pulp that has no connection with the tradition of Krishna. The fact that she does so clearly demonstrates a propensity to pick convenient info from any convenient source, no matter how non-authentic.
3. I am also tempted to conjecture whether she is not riding on the back of the attempts made by theosophy some time back. The theosophists wanted to unify the various easter, western streams of spirituality to form a world religion that would be acceptable to all audiences. In their intense urge to establish this world religion, over which they would have control, they did try to misappropriate the sacred lore of India. This is looked upon by a lot of Indian Scholars as an attempt to westernize Indic spirituality, and bring it within the grip of organized religion. This would be the bane of Indic spirituality which is quite de-centralized, and hence its adherants are not as prone to centralized programming as some western religions.
Her intent to unveil the origins of Christianity may be appreciable. However, when she misrepresents information to do so, the endeavour loses respectability quite completely.
Here are some glaring inconsistencies-
1. Krishna was born in a warrior caste (a Yadava, he is also called Vrushni-kulotpanna - born of the Vrishni), anf fought many battles. Jesus was not from any warrior caste/tribe at all.
2. Krishna was born in a royal family (his father was NOT a carpenter by any stretch of imagination, as Acharya seems to want to portray). Jesus was not.
3. Krishna propounded a philosophy that espouses the non-malicious use of force, for a just cause, if all peaceful methods have failed. Jesus asked his followers to simply turn the other cheek.
4. Krishna gave up his body in seclusion, using a poisoned hunter's arrow. Nobody tortured or crucified him. I believe Jesus died in a slightly different manner.
5. Krishna didn't need to be resurrected (nor was resurrected) - the Hindu dharma does not believe (or need to believe) in bodily resurrections, since it believes that the soul is immortal. That is why Hindus cremate their bodies - it has no meaning except as a temporary vehicle of the Atma. The Jesus mystique is largely based on his bodily resurrection.
6. Krishna was the eight child born to his parents while they were in house-arrest, by his maternal uncle.
7. According to ancient lore, Krishna was an accomplished politician, lover, dancer, warrior, and musician. The legend of Jesus seems entirely different.
8. Krishna's birth was not of any virgin or of any young maid (whichever way one translates the word virgin). He was the eight child of Devki and Vasudeva.
9. Krishna is an Avatar, Jesus is a messiah.
I could go on and on, since they ARE two entirely different entities. All the facts mentioned above may be easily verified on any website carrying the original Sanskrit texts (and their translations) pertaining to Lord Krishna.
But, do any of these facts mentioned above point to any similarity between the life (or philosophy) of Jesus and Krisna?
I believe Acharya's book is aimed at western audiences who may be largely ignorant about the life and philosophy of Krishna, and would therefore be forced to believe that Acharya may have something of substance to say in her book.
Regards - Atracus
(3) Acharya says, "it's not possible that this guy read Suns of God and is still so arrogantly superior"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:10:36 -0500 From: Joseph <josip@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Peter, Acharya S just posted this on her e mail list about you. Josip
To: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com, christ_conspiracy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:14:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Christ Conspiracy Fwd: Acharya's claim that Krishna was crucified, and Jesus wasn't Reply-To: Christ_Conspiracy@yahoogroups.com
This guy really seems obsessed. Not to mention that he makes ludicrous assumptions, such as the title.
Osiris was a "real person"--right, Peter, you really know a lot about mythology. It seems that everyone with an opinion is an expert on the subject. (To be kind.) (BTW, it's not possible that this guy read Suns of God and is still so arrogantly superior--he simply read an excerpt.)
{Note added January 4, 2006. See Sir James Frazer on the idea that Osiris had been a man - a king - later recognised as a god.}
(4) Acharya's low standards of evidence - "Pharaohs were Buddhists"
Acharya believes that her books are an invincible frontline in the culture war. But when one explores her argument on various points, in detail, one finds a lack of evidence, and jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
For example, she claims in The Christ Conspiracy that the Egyptian Pharaohs were royal Buddhists:
{CC, p. 382} The various Indian migrations are further evidenced by the fact that Buddhism, far older than acknowledged, is found
{p. 383} widespread beginning thousands of years ago. In addition to those examples previously explored, the Macedonians invoked Bedu (Buddha),13 and the Egyptian Pharaohs or shepherd kings were Rajputs, or royal Buddhists.14 {end}
Endnote 14 on p. 390 reads "Higgins, I, 612."
Acharya's statement that Pharaohs were Buddhists, which no Egyptologist would endorse - nor does Acharya seem to feel any need for their opinion - comes from Godfrey Higgins' book Anacalypsis, a forerunner of Madame Blavatsky's theosophical treatise The Secret Doctrine.
Aryans did invade the Middle-East around 2000 BC, and they spoke a Sanskrit-like landuage and had a Vedic-like religion, but they did not come from India. Nor were they Buddhist; Buddhism and the other ahimsa religions arose in India from around 1000 BC, as a reaction against Brahmanism and the caste system. See Martin Bernal's material at diop.html .
(5) Sources for Krishna claims - "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions" - but no text, chapter or verse
Acharya writes in Suns of God:
{SoG p. 241} {Chapter 9} Krishna Crucified? ...
The orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow while under a tree. As is true with so much in mythology, and as we have seen abundantly, there are variances in Krishna's tale, including the account of his death. In The Bible in India, citing as his sources the "Bagaveda- Gita and Brahminical traditions," French scholar and Indianist Jacolliot recounts the death of "Christna" as presciently understood by the godman, who, without his disciples, went to the Ganges to "work out stains." After thrice plunging into the sacred river, Krishna knelt and prayed as he awaited death, which was ultimately caused by multiple arrows shot by a criminal whose offenses had been exposed by Krishna. The executioner, named Angada, was thereafter condemned to wander the banks of the Gages for eternity, subsisting off the dead. Jacolliot proceeds to describe Krishna's death thus:
{Jacolliot published this book in 1876. But what are the sources? Acharya expects to get away with the statement, 'citing as his sources the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions"'. I challenge Acharya to find verses in the Bhavagad-Gita which back up Jacolliot's claim. As for "Brahminical traditions", one requires the names of texts, and quotations specifying chapter and verse. Or does Acharya apply one standard of evidence to herself, and another to her targets?}
{quote} The body of the God-man was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures. News of the death having spread, the people came in a crowd conducted by Ardjouna, the dearest disciple of Christna, to recover his sacred remains. But the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared - no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes... and the tree to which it had been attached had become suddenly covered with great red flowers and diffused around it the sweetest perfumes. 1 {endquote}
Jacolliot's description includes a number of arrows, instead of just one, which, along with the suspension in the tree branches, resembles the pinning of the god to a tree using multiple "nails." Krishna's subsequent disappearance has been considered an ascension.
{Jacolliot does not say the words which Acharya puts into his mouth. In Jesus' case, crucifixion was the intended means of death, whereas hanging Krishna on a tree was a kind of sky-burial, as practised in the Zoroastrian religion and in Tibet today. In sky-burial, bodies are exposed for vultures and wild dogs to eat the flesh. The Crucifixion is a Jewish punishment for Jesus' defiance, whereas Krishna's killing, in Hindu tradition, is accidental. The Crucifixion is a central theme in the Christian story, whereas Acharya is unable to produce any current Hindu stories featuring the "crucifixion" of Krishna.}
Moreover, this legend is evidently but a variant of the orthodox tale, constituting an apparently esoteric tradition
{p. 242} recognizing Krishna's death as a "crucifixion." Indeed, as Jonn Remsburg says in The Christ:
{quote} There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindoo scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.2 {endquote}
{Endnote 2 on p. 286 reads "www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg11.htm".}
{Remsberg gives no quote, no reference, yet Acharya touts this statement by him as evidence.}
{Why isn't it in the Hindu scriptures? Where is it found, and what is the evidence for it in India today?}
(7) A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy - by Mike Licona
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:11:29 -0500 From: Joseph <josip@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Peter, Here is a very fair and instructive critique of Acharya S' major work you might enjoy. Josip _______________________
A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy By Mike Licona Copyright © 2001, TruthQuest Publishers -----
Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book entitled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. This book presents an hypothesis of how Christianity came into being. Although it has received no attention from scholarship, with the lone exception of a negative book review and that from an atheist scholar,(1) The Christ Conspiracy has nonetheless gained support from a number of laypersons. The occasion for this paper is to assess Murdock's major claims in a brief manner in terms of their accuracy and whether her book is a worthwhile contribution on the origin of Christianity. The paper will sample some of her major claims. No attempts will be made to defend the Christian worldview.
Acharya means "guru" or "teacher." Her actual name is D. Murdock.(2) Throughout the remainder of this paper, this author will be referred to as Ms. Murdock. The thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons from the first and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus and his disciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve as a one-world religion for the Roman empire. This religion would be a collage of all of the other world religions and combined with astrology.
This, of course, is a radical and unorthodox picture of Christianity. However, being radical and unorthodox does not invalidate a view. Notwithstanding, if Ms. Murdock's picture of Christianity is to be believed as correct, she has to be accurate in her assessment of the details of the other religions she cites in terms of their similarities with Christianity, correct in her assessment of ancient astrology, correct in her peculiar datings of the Gospels, and correct concerning the Masons. If she is incorrect on any one of these, her hypothesis must be altered or abandoned. It is when we look at the areas of astrology, comparative religion, New Testament higher criticism, Freemasonry, and other issues, we find her to be incorrect in every one of these areas.
1. Astrology ...
{I disagree with Licona's argument on this theme, but bypass it}
2. Comparative Religion Studies
a. Similarities to Krishna
Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed from other religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with Krishna, the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" expounds on this position.(21)
What about Ms. Murdock's claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Peguine World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.
{Edwin Bryant may be an expert on Krishna, but Rutgers University is reputed to be a CIA front. There are genuine borrowings from Indian religions to Christianity, as Martin A. Larsen dispassionately shows, but Acharya's exaggerations undermine and embarrass those who would point this out}
When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."(22) He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there for him could not really see it.(23)
Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article "Krishna, Crucified?" an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.(24) In it she states, "it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna." To this Bryant responded, "She doesn't know what she's talking about! Vithoba was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified." Then he became indignant and said, "If someone is going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition, they should at least read a religion 101 course."(25)
Later I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy.(26) He stated that 14 of her 24 comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong.(27) What about her 9 that are correct; especially Krishna's virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna's bodily ascension? Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name."(28) ...
3. Christianity ...
a. Very Late Datings of the Gospels
Ms. Murdock holds that the Gospels were not penned until after A. D. 150, a view held by no major New Testament scholar, irrespective of their theological perspective. ...
6. Poor Scholarship
On the home page of her web site, Ms. Murdock claims to be a scholar.(111) If anything has become apparent while we have briefly examined her book, The Christ Conspiracy, it is that precisely just the opposite is true.
In addition to all that we have just reviewed, a few other points stand out. Practically all of her sources are secondary rather than primary sources. For example, she quotes Adolf Hitler as saying that it was his Christian convictions which led him to attempt to exterminate the Jews.(112) Where did Hitler say this? We cannot know from reading her book, because her source is The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets! On another occasion, she appeals to the Catholic Encyclopedia.(113) However, rather than quote directly from it, she merely quotes someone else who is summarizing from it. On still another point, she quotes Otto Schmiedel.(114) However, when you look at the endnote, you find that her source is Rudolf Steiner, a mystic.(115) This shows that Ms. Murdock knows what some others are saying. But it does nothing to prove that what her sources are saying are correct. Rarely are reasons provided by her sources in support of their statements. It is like someone arguing that terrorism is justified and cites ten terrorists claiming that terrorism is just. However, this does nothing to support their position that terrorism is justified; only that some believe that it is. It also indicates that she has not checked out the claims of her sources, but rather uncritically accepts what they say.(116)
Much of her book is blocks of quotes from these secondary sources, most of whom are hardly authorities. ...
(J) "Shamir has proved himself an ogre" - Acharya
"But, of course, religion is poison" - Mao to the Dalai Lama. http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagim008.php http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white7.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/tibet/etc/script.html http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/tibet.html http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/pdf/rel220schaeffdlhandout.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A644195
Religions of India - Alain Danielou cf Acharya's C19 sources
Alian Danielou argued that the Sumerians had come from the Harappan civilization, which seems to have spoken a Dravidian language - the sort now found in South India (Tamil), and in pockets of Pakistan (item 7).
Dravidian languages are agglutinative, like Sumerian.
Danielou, brother of Cardinal Jean Danielou, was an expert on the religions and music of India. It was he who introduced Ravi Shankar to the West.
His books are found in New Age bookshops, but he, unlike some, is academically sound.
He produced a new translation of the Kama Sutra from the Sanskrit.
In 1949 he was appointed professor at the Hindu University of Benaras and director of the College of Indian Music. In 1954, he left Benaras to take up the post of director of the Adyar Library of Sanskrit manuscripts and editions at Madras. In 1956, he was made a member of the Institut Française d'Indologie at Pondicherry, and subsequently of the Ecole Française d'Extrême Orient. President Charles de Gaulle presented him with the Légion d'Honneur. In 1981, he received the UNESCO/CIM prize for music, and in 1987 the City of Paris honoured his 80th birthday (item 6).
The contrast between him and the Nineteenth-century Western sources on India used by Acharya, could not be greater. They did not know Sanskrit; Danielou was an expert in it.
His book The Myths and Gods of India, previously published under the title Hindu Polytheism, is a study of the Gods and Goddesses of India. I cannot see anything in it about Krishna having been "crucified".
Danielou was a homosexual, but he opposed Gay militancy and the attempt to destroy marriage.
Some quotes from his material are at danielou-paglia.html.
Excerpts from his autobiography The Way to the Labyrinth are at danielou2.html.
(1) "The Vicious Religious Mentality" - from Acharya (2) "crucifixion" of Krishna (3) "Question for neanderthals only" - reply to Shamir (4) John Kaminski says Acharya "has no hidden philosophical agenda" (5) Origins of Christianity - Christian Lindner (6) A biography of Alain Danielou (known in India as Shiv Sharan) (7) Alain Danielou argues that Sumeria was founded by Dravidian-speakers from Harappa
(1) "The Vicious Religious Mentality" - from Acharya
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:52:10 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> To: Vencislav Bujic <vencib@yahoo.com>, Christ_Conspiracy@yahoogroups.com, John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>, superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com CC: Israel Shamir <shamir@home.se>, forest215@juno.com, ... Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
Peter -
Although you pretend to be oh-so-moderate and tempered, what you and Shamir, et al., have proved once again is that religion makes people nasty and hateful. Because I don't believe in YOUR particular fairytale, you attack me personally. Shamir has proved himself an ogre. One of the major reasons for me doing what I'm doing is because the world is not safe with deranged religious fanatics running around harming living, feeling human beings because those individuals don't believe in the fanatics' particular cult. And, yes, Christianity is a cult, no different from the rest.
Now, what if I believed that Hercules was a "real person" who lived thousands of years ago--and thousands of people did indeed believe that he was a historical personage--and you and Shamir started critiquing the myth of Hercules. Do you think I would be so base as to personally attack you? Shamir has no problem being so vicious. Frankly, his perspective is mean and hateful, and I surely don't want IT to replace an already mean and hateful perspective. That's the WHOLE problem with barbaric religious dementia in the first place. You've all just proved it repeatedly.
What a shame that irrational and nonsensical fairytales keep people from seeing and enjoying each other. A real disgrace.
{end}
REPLY (Peter M):
Acharya,
You say, "Because I don't believe in YOUR particular fairytale, you attack me personally".
Which fairytale is mine? By most definitions, I'm not a Christian. If a Christian is someone who prefers to stick with our current Western (Gregorian) Calendar (with its BC/AD dating system), and prefers Christian public holidays to Jewish ones, then I'm a Christian. But that's a very minimalist definition.
I happen to believe that Jesus existed, but I make the same claim for Osiris. Is that fanatical?
Plenty of religious people are not "vicious", "nasty" or "hateful".
With such a view, it's no wonder that you are out to destroy the religions. You ridiculed my claim that you "take no prisoners", but this language of yours justifies that claim.
You own New Age creed is also a religion: "We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes" (SoG, p. 567) and '... in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops"' (CC, p. 416).
How do you know these things - is it not a religious faith that you express?
You yourself dish out plenty of attacks on the religions, and on individuals. Calling Shamir an "ogre", for example, is a personal attack.
In saying "you attack me personally", you treat my critique of your position as irrational, a mere ad hominem attack. You have not replied to my demonstration of defects in your sourcing and errors in your argument; you seem to see no reason to modify your position.
I take criticism on board, modifying the pages on my website when shortcomings are pointed out, and I include links to my opponents' websites, e.g. Jared Israel. You deflect criticism - it's all water off a duck's back. Your mentality is more "religious" than mine.
I do espouse a philosophy - the Cynic/Taoist. It is a religious philosophy, because it senses a "greater whole" in the universe, a system of order that we with our limited minds only grasp dimly. But beyond these few basic tenets, it has no doctrines, or priesthood, or temples. It does not "shout from the rooftops", nor try to destroy other philosophies or religions.
You have woven your case from many sources; I am familiar with this process, because I have done the same. In such situations, one is vulnerable to defects in the sources. On the internet, it's possible to make corrections immediately, but once one is in print this is not so.
If only you showed a willingness to weed out the errors and weaknesses in your argument, I would find a lot to praise in it. Your bibliographies have led me to some interesting books I had not come across before. But given your ideological crusade, while your books contain serious errors I must focus on those defects.
(2) "crucifixion" of Krishna
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:09:32 +0500 From: "Iskandar Sahib" <iskandar38@hotmail.com>
I would concur with your suggestion that the rumour of cricifixion of Krishna could well have been due to a Christian infuence. Christianity was of course present in India from 35 AD, when S. Apostle Thomas started what is today known as the Malankara (Syrian/Jacobite) Orthodox church, which remains strongest in Kerala and adjoining provinces of south India. What we know as Hinduism was adept at surviving by absorbing infuences from other rival schools of thought.
You wrote:
"The mythology about Jesus, ...was built around a real man, executed by crucifixion for his defiance of Judaism."
My reading on that would be that, (as S Augustine intimated, in the quotation used by Archarya) Christ did not defy the true Judaism, he fulfilled it entirely. He fulfilled the promises made before to Abraham and Moses. What he stood against was the corrupt distortion of that religion by the sects then in power, Saducee and Pharisee.
(5) Origins of Christianity - Christian Lindner
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:16:05 +0000 From: "Tim OSullivan" <timos2003z@hotmail.com>
I think there is a lot in what Lindner writes. It looks like inspired scholarship. I, for one, now believe in a great influence on early Xtianity coming from Buddhism. I think Lindner proves this. However, as you have written, he does overstate his case, I think.
One really can not be so sure Jesus never existed. One must not jump to conclusions. Lindner also recommended a site www.jesusneverexisted.com by one Ken Humphreys, an Englishman I take it. There is an uninformed anti-Irish slant to the site. He gets matters about the early Irish church wrong which I intend to tell him about. That undermines the credibility of the rest. He seems to think Xtianity brought down the Roman Empire and was the sole cause of its destruction. I am not informed well on this issue. I suspect there were economic, political and military reasons as well. Humphreys overplays his hand too, it seems. He does have a well presented website with a lot of interesting reading, however.
{end}
REPLY (Peter M):
I corresponded with Christian Lindtner in 2002. He sent me a booklet he had written.
His website is http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/
Lindtner knows Sanskrit, and claims that the Buddhist influence on the Gospels is so strong that they are a mere plagiarism of Buddhist texts.
Lindtner's weakness is that he is unaware of other influences - for example F Gerald Downing shows very strong Cynic influences on the Gospels: downing.html
The Cynics have some features in common with Buddhists, through influences from India on the earliest Pythagorean communities, but unlike the Buddhists the Cynics had no church. They were individuals, with no priests, pope or centralised doctrine.
Martin A. Larsen shows that Christian theology and iconography was synthesised from many sources, India being one. Lindtner only knows about the Indian connection.
The "Holy Family" and "Madonna & Child" iconography come from Egyptian theology (Osiris, Isis, Horus).
S. G. F. Brandon demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark relates to the Jewish uprising of 66-70 AD and its suppression by the Romans: jewish-revolt.html .
Lindtner can't deal with these non-Indian factors. It's impossible to reduce the Gospels to an Indian tie alone.
(6) A biography of Alain Danielou (known in India as Shiv Sharan)
Shiv Sharan: Not Your Typical French Hindu By Rakesh Mathur, London
HINDUISM TODAY October, 1995 -- volume 17, number 10
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/10/1995-10-05.shtml
"I spent more than twenty years in India in the traditional Hindu world," wrote Shiv Sharan -- known in Europe as Alain Daniélou of Paris, France -- in Shiva and Dionysus. ...
In 1987 famed sitarist Ravi Shankar, whom Sharan introduced to Europe in 1958, wrote of him, "Having covered the entire length and breadth of our great heritage during his long span, so deep were his feelings for the Motherland that he embraced Hinduism and took the name of 'Shiv Sharan.' ...
It was Karpatri who initiated Daniélou into Saivite Hinduism, and gave him the name of Siva Sharan ("protected by Siva"). ...
In 1949, Sharan was appointed professor at the Hindu University of Benaras and director of the College of Indian Music. ...
Once in Europe, he wrote prolifically. Among his most popular books were Hindu Polytheism; Virtue, Success, Pleasure and Liberation, The Four Aims of Life; The Ragas of Northern Indian Music; Music and the Power of Sound, plus books on sculpture, architecture, tales, history and yoga. He completed the first full translation of the Kama Sutra just before his death.
His double culture, which was by no means artificial, gave Sharan an outsider's vision of the Western world. In two of his works, Shiva and Dionysus and While the Gods Play--Saiva Oracles and Predictions on the Cycle of History and the Destiny of Mankind, he deals with the problems of a Western culture gone astray, having lost its own traditions and taken man away from nature and the divine. He demonstrates that the rites and beliefs of the ancient Western world before the onslaught of Christianity are very close to Saivism and clearly explains it with the aid of the texts and rites that have been preserved in India. ...
For many in Europe, however, Sharan is best known for his promotion of the classical music of India and other countries. In 1958 he was the first to produce an anthology of Indian music, which included the Dagar brothers, Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar Khan and Pattamal, among others. ...
In 1963 he created the International Institute for Comparative Music Studies in Berlin and Venice with the help of the Ford Foundation of America. By organizing concerts for the great musicians of Asia and the publication of recorded collections of traditional music under the aegis of UNESCO, he played an important part in the rediscovery of Asian art and music in the West. Because of his efforts, Indian music's influence can be seen on various established Western artists such as Xenakis, Nadia Boulanger and his friend, Maurice Béjart. Sharan received numerous awards during his lifetime. President Charles de Gaulle presented him with the Légion d'Honneur, the highest award in France. In 1981, he received the UNESCO/CIM prize for music, and in 1987 the City of Paris honored his 80th birthday.
(J) "you have a bug up your ass" ... "your anal nitpicking" - Acharya
(1) "you have a bug up your ass" ... "your anal nitpicking" - Acharya (2) Acharya's rebuttal of Mike Licona's refutation (3) "Useful idiot"? "Asinine"? "Gibberish"? "Anal nitpicking"? - Ardeshir on Acharya's language (4) "The words I used were well chosen and well deserved" - Acharya (5) "Acharya's web site which scientifically reveals the truth" (6) Complimentus Infinitus - Acharya's "take-no-prisoners, butt-kicking CONFIDENCE" (7) "All these are valid points! If you have any arguments against them, let's hear them." - Ardeshir to Acharya (8) "You should be listening to Acharya rather than feebly trying to pontificate to her" - Kaminski (9) Ardshir replies to Kaminski on Acharya's insults (10) Fraudulent References to Krishna - Acharya a "pulp-fiction-writer-masquerading-as-a-researcher" (11) The secularist attack: secularism is no longer neutrality but "an ideology that imposes itself"
(1) "you have a bug up your ass" ... "your anal nitpicking" - Acharya
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:31:07 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> To: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au> CC: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>, arhatahoshos@yahoo.com, superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com, christ_conspiracy@yahoogroups.com, news_sense@yahoogroups.com
Peter -
It is clear that YOU are the one constantly jumping to unwarranted conclusions. One sentence from the end of my first book does NOT make a "New Age creed." Your conclusions continue to be asinine. Did not someone write to you that they thought I was "rather nice?" THAT'S my creed, Peter. All the rest that you depict about me is pure gibberish coming through your own psyche.
Gee, it's nice to matter, but you have a bug up your ass that is certainly causing you to make erroneous assumptions, misstatements and just plain foolish remarks. I guess in your eyes I am pretty effective in my work, even though you contradict yourself by putting forth your own petty, malformed opinions about what it is exactly I'm doing, which, according to your constant whining is SO bad and false.
Here's a clue as to what I'm doing. It's really quite simple and needs no contortionist gyrations: Telling the TRUTH.
In contrast to your anal nitpicking that leads nowhere and proves nothing, and your arrogant attitude towards the depth of scholarship in SoG, which surely far surpasses your own knowledge of the subject, I submit the following comments, from a REAL, EXPERT MYTHOLOGIST, who has several books on the subject published by major publishers and who was a college professor:
{quote} I received your Suns of GodÉ What a magnificent work! I do wish you had a major publisher who would promote it as The Da Vinci Code was promoted, to convince the world about the true fishiness of Christian mythology. But of course Dan Brown threw in some action-suspense-murder stuff, which is apparently what sells books these days, and his scholarship was nowhere near the quality of yours.
You deserve to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves--indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of your conclusions and the volume of your evidence.
Seldom have I read a book that so delighted me, and had me nodding in agreement on every page. It is truly wonderful. It gives me hope that some day, maybe, the civilized world may grow out of its superstitious adolescence.
Heartfelt wishes and hopes for your success. {endquote}
Now, can you move on, or will you continue to be a useful idiot in publicizing my work?
{end}
REPLY (Peter M):
What is the name of your REAL, EXPERT MYTHOLOGIST? What books has he written? At what College was he a Professor?
(2) Acharya's rebuttal of Mike Licona's refutation
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:58:33 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> To: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>, John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net> CC: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com, christ_conspiracy@yahoogroups.com, news_sense@yahoogroups.com, arhataosho@yahoo.com
Here's my rebuttal of Mike Licona's refutation. Licona is an apologist whose life is dedicated to proving that Jesus Christ truly rose from the dead. Now, that's a very credible source, Peter.
What next? Jack Black sticking his tongue out at me?
http://truthbeknown.com/licona.htm
Also, as concerns the person who read Christ Con and whines about getting his money back, such criticism--from those who have not really looked into the subject very deeply, skimming a few mainstream, orthodox books--is why I wrote "Suns of God." As the majority of people without extreme prejudice towards my person can see from Suns of God, I have done my homework and backed up all my major claims. In your continuous context-destroying quoting from my work to make me look foolish, you have neglected remarks such as those at the end of the chapter on "Krishna Crucified?" (Note the QUESTION MARK--surely you are aware of what that signifies?)
What I basically say at the end of that chapter is that it does not matter whether or not Krishna was depicted as crucified; the whole point is that the motif existed before the Christian era and is therefore unoriginal to Christianity. I guess that point was over the head? I know to religious fanatics and assorted other nutters these silly little details are SO important, because they really base their worldview on them, but frankly they are not important. What they are is verification that religion makes people crazy.
Why not let your readers actually READ Christ Con and/or Suns of God and decide for themselves, instead of this frenzied clamoring to prevent them from doing so?
{end}
REPLY (Peter M):
Acharya,
You write, "the whole point is that the motif existed before the Christian era".
How do you know that "the motif existed before the Christian era"? That is, how can you discount the possible influence of Christian missionaries on this crucifixion motif?
Your Nineteenth-century sources for beliefs and images of a crucifixion motif in India are not exact in any way. They contain no specific references to names of texts citing chapter and verse, no quotations, no location or person where such an image or sculpture was found.
In no academic circle would this be called "evidence". Yet you use it to deny the crucifixion of Jesus.
You get away with it in New Age circles, because such readers come in off the street, without sufficient knowledge of history and religion to spot the errors.
Despite that, your books do contain a wealth of information, but your case depends on the correctness of the details, and reliable details are mixed with unreliable ones. New Age readers may be unable to tell.
I'm appealing to you to correct that situation, i.e. issue a revised edition.
Amazon sells Suns of God at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931882312/qid=1101392360/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/t/002-9820428-0536837?v=glance&s=books
At the above link, they offer a special price for the two books.
They offer The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932813747/qid=1101392360/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/t/002-9820428-0536837?v=glance&s=books .
(3) "Useful idiot"? "Asinine"? "Gibberish"? "Anal nitpicking"? - Ardeshir on Acharya's language
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:29:59 -0500 From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca> To: news_sense@yahoogroups.com CC: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>, Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>, Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>, superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
Dear oh dear.
This is most certainly NOT what I meant when I said that to reach the truth one needs to present evidence and arguments and ideas, rather than talk about personalities!
"Useful idiot"? "Asinine"? "Gibberish"? "Anal nitpicking"? Dear me. CAN we not have at least a modicum of decorum?
(4) "The words I used were well chosen and well deserved" - Acharya
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:39:15 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> To: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca>, news_sense@yahoogroups.com CC: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>, Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>, Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com>, superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com
NO!!
There was no "decorum" in Peter's numerous posts targeting me. There was no politeness in asking me if I was interested in his assault. There was no class at all.
The words I used were well chosen and well deserved.
Ardie, you remind me of a fussy old grandmother.
(5) "Acharya's web site which scientifically reveals the truth"
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:04:33 -0800 (PST) From: Vencislav Bujic <vencib@yahoo.com>
--- John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net> wrote:
> Excellent point about ETs, Vencislav, one which I have pondered. > However, I disagree with your opinion of Peter's critique of Acharya, > and I would explain it this way.
John, that opinion of Peter's critique of Acharya was writen by Israel Shamir.
I admire work done by Acharya S, in fact it was your article "Devils From Heaven", the part which says that Justin Martyr never mention so-called four apostoles and their New Testament Gospels, I was shocked and it made me search on the Google and from there I jumped to the Acharya's TruthBeKnown.com web site.
Long time before I never really was comfortable with that hindu, sorry, hebrew god called Jehowa, it was feeling like when you do not really want to seat next to mass murderer, although he is suppose to you your boss. More attractive and much better described was Krishna, and for some time I was "crucified" between Krishna and Jehowa, later only because it was tradition and because Serbian Christian Orthodox priest told us that if you are not Orthodox Christian then you are no longer serbian, and become traitor to the people. That I read few authors, among them "Nature's Eternal Religion" by Ben Klassen, he also wrote that there is no historical evidence of Jesus, for long time I thouth he is just exxagerating about Jesus and jews. But on page 289 he wrote about Israel, and said that one of the reasons for seting up that state was to "later on occupy neighbouring Arab countries, make big Israel, with the help of United States of course". After 911 and US attack on Afganistan and Iraq, those Ben Klassen words begin hunting me... I keept believing in Christ, but there was always voice inside me saying "what if Ben Klassen is right about Christ as he was right 30 years ago when he predicted Israeli occupation of Iraq under guise od US fighting terrorism?"
The years passed by, more and more questions were poping up in my mind, I kept learning more about astronomy and watching the sky with telescope until I was at point that Christian system of belief become insult to my inteligence. And then come your new article Devils from Heaven, in the mean time from your previous articles I learned to trust your words, so I said, "damn, there must be some truth in claim that Jesus acctually never lived on earth." Soon I found Acharya's web site which scientifically reveals the truth.
Thank you all for opening our eyes!
Vencislav
(6) Complimentus Infinitus - Acharya's "take-no-prisoners, butt-kicking CONFIDENCE"
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:08:21 -0800 (PST) From: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> To: news_sense@yahoogroups.com, superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com, myers@cyberone.com.au
I held this one back, but I think I'll toss it out now, since these harpies can't control themselves.
From: ********************8 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 03:50:51 -0400 To: acharya_s3@yahoo.com Subject: Complimentus Infinitus
Bravo (!!!!!) to your masterful achievement at putting Israel Shamir's childish, infantile monologues in their place.
Too bad his shallow delusions and dementias necessitated that you waste your time temporarily stooping down to his miniature mental stature.
I immensely appreciate, admire, revere, and respect your scorching sarcasms ....and I hope that you NEVER allow ANYBODY'S disapproval to subdue your aggressive, opinionated, take-no-prisoners, butt-kicking CONFIDENCE!!!!!
You rule!!
You rock!!!
You not only win the debate. You also, with your skillfully elegant, shameless, fearless use of justified and deserved riducule, bury the opposition's foolhardy pretentions of respectability ....and I like that.
I like that very, very, very, very much!!!!!
Thank you, for all you are, for all you do, and for all you have yet to bring into being.
You ARE special!!!!!
Keep your Power on!! ....and don't ever let ANYBODY'S criticisms of your style intimidate you into fighting the battle on their terms!!!!!
Your strong biting sarcasms are the unique spice crystals which make all your works singularly peerless gems.
Again, complimentus infinitus, dear lady!!!!!
(7) "All these are valid points! If you have any arguments against them, let's hear them." - Ardeshir to Acharya
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:14:03 -0500 From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca> To: Acharya S <acharya_s3@yahoo.com> CC: superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com, Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>, John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>, news_sense@yahoogroups.com
On Wednesday, November 24, 2004, at 08:39 PM, Acharya S wrote:
{quote} NO!! There was no "decorum" in Peter's numerous posts targeting me. {endquote}
He did not heap upon you unseemly epithets, did he, as you did upon him?
His attack on you would have raised no eyebrows in Parliament, or in a court of law, had you been opposing politicians or lawyers as the case may be; yours on him, however, would have caused the Speaker or the Judge, as the case may be, to admonish you MOST strongly!
{quote} There was no politeness in asking me if I was interested in his assault. There was no class at all. {endquote}
I agree that he attacked your ideas and claims. But why should he not, if he disagrees with them?
He offered what he evidently thought were adequate arguments against your claims. For instance, he offered the following e-mail in support of his position that the stories of Jesus and of Krishna are far from being necessarily related to one another:
[QUOTE] 1. Krishna was born in a warrior caste (a Yadava, he is also called Vrushni-kulotpanna - born of the Vrishni), anf fought many battles. Jesus was not from any warrior caste/tribe at all. 2. Krishna was born in a royal family (his father was NOT a carpenter by any stretch of imagination, as Acharya seems to want to portray). Jesus was not. 3. Krishna propounded a philosophy that espouses the non-malicious use of force, for a just cause, if all peaceful methods have failed. Jesus asked his followers to simply turn the other cheek. 4. Krishna gave up his body in seclusion, using a poisoned hunter's arrow. Nobody tortured or crucified him. I believe Jesus died in a slightly different manner. 5. Krishna didn't need to be resurrected (nor was resurrected) - the Hindu dharma does not believe (or need to believe) in bodily resurrections, since it believes that the soul is immortal. That is why Hindus cremate their bodies - it has no meaning except as a temporary vehicle of the Atma. The Jesus mystique is largely based on his bodily resurrection. 6. Krishna was the eight child born to his parents while they were in house-arrest, by his maternal uncle. 7. According to ancient lore, Krishna was an accomplished politician, lover, dancer, warrior, and musician. The legend of Jesus seems entirely different. 8. Krishna's birth was not of any virgin or of any young maid (whichever way one translates the word virgin). He was the eight child of Devki and Vasudeva. [END QUOTE]
All these are valid points! If you have any arguments against them, let's hear them. Otherwise you will have, by default, lost the argument - at least in the minds of one who reads both your posts and Peter's!
As for your offering the words in praise of your book penned by "a REAL, EXPERT MYTHOLOGIST, who has several books on the subject published by major publishers and who was a college professor" - how is THAT supposed to be a rebuttal to Peter's arguments?
{quote} The words I used were well chosen and well deserved. {endquote}
Well deserved, maybe. But not well chosen.
By using terms such as "idiot", "asinine", "gibberish", and "anal", and many more such, you did not proffer any REBUTTALS to his claims - on the contrary you made it sound as if you did not HAVE any rebuttals!
{quote} Ardie, you remind me of a fussy old grandmother. {endquote}
What has THAT got to do with anything?
If someone wishes to prove that the theory of relativity is false and self-contradictory - as I in fact do - it makes no sense to call Einstein an "idiot" ... though that epithet is, IMHO, quite well deserved by him! But calling Einstein an idiot does not, repeat NOT, disprove the theory of relativity, does it now.
(8) "You should be listening to Acharya rather than feebly trying to pontificate to her" - Kaminski
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:22:05 -0500 From: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>
(Note: Can't send to yahoogroups. Someone else may wish to.)
Maybe I should have stepped into this brouhaha just a bit earlier, since I started it, but I detect a spinning out of control that I shall endeavor to correct, since I like you both and see both points.
Acharya was right to be upset at Peter for misrepresenting her work. She doesn't espouse any creed; she only debunks obvious bullshit, and quite well, I might add. For Peter to ignore her basic theses, which are proven many times over, and go rummaging for quasi-questionable 19th century footnotes is definitely nitpicking. His failure to comment on the overall impact of Acharya's work betrays the weakness of his argument.
Further, as someone else pointed out, Peter usually presents material without comment, but in the case of Acharya he has stepped out of character to oppose her mammoth compilation of objective evidence, which all in the discussion would agree is overwhelmingly legitimate, with suspect interpretations of her motives.
Consider what Peter actually wrote:
Acharya's Double Standards of Evidence
Peter: Acharya believes that her books The Christ Conspiracy (CC) and Suns of God (SoG) are an invincible offensive frontline in the culture war. But when one explores her argument at various weak points, in detail, one finds a lack of evidence, and jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
JK: At various weak points, in detail, one finds a lack of evidence? This is a preposterous assertion. In both Acharya's books, there is an avalanche of legitimate evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is wholly derivative, with absolutely no substance of its own that wasn't stolen from other creeds. The conclusion that Christianity is bad fiction is thoroughly warranted, and nobody on this list can refute that.
Peter: Although attacking the established religions, Acharya offers no evidence to justify her own New Age creed: "We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes" (SoG, p. 567) and '... in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops"' (CC, p. 416).
JK: This is not a New Age creed, this is an inspired perception (and an obvious conclusion) of a timeless truth as exemplified by her discovery that the 12 apostles are merely a transliteration of signs of the Zodiac and that all religions have to one degree or another anthropomorphized the sky. Instead of trying to impugn her reputation and nitpick her footnotes (the vast preponderance of which are unimpeachable), you should all be thankful you have her in a conversation at all, and try to learn something, rather than flex your offended egos which have been constructed on suspect, biased, and deceitful mythological misinterpretations. The only reason you are still able to denigrate her work is because you haven't read her books carefully, nor objectively .... because ... well, you know my thoughts on that subject - because you are unwilling to escape that prison of thought you are in and consider what she has written with an authentically actualized objectivity. In addition to religious/philosophical bigotry at work, I also detect some sexism.
Peter: Acharya launches the fiercest attack on Christianity that I have seen. Some of her sources are impeccable, e.g. E.A. Wallis-Budge. Others are informative, but occasionally wrong, e.g. Martin A. Larsen; this is not a major problem.
JK: No, this is not a major problem. Acharya's scholarship should be eliciting stunned admiration from you, but instead you manifest insulting slurs. Why is that?
Peter: Others are Nineteenth-century books recording snippets gathered from the British Empire, but without our current standards of evidence. For example, claims about Krishna are sourced to "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions" - but no names of texts, or quotes, or chapters or verses are provided (item 5). Acharya quite happily touts this material as "evidence" (SoG p. 241).
JK: This is a slur, and deceptive. Acharya has proven well beyond objective doubt that the Christian construction is wholly stolen. All its facts are attributable to previous belief systems.
REFUTE THAT! And then explain why you are still quoting and defending the derivative Christian material, when Acharya has shown us over and over where this material actually came from.
Personally, I think you have no standards of evidence, other than what you choose to believe. ...
Peter has taken any possible error he could find and wrapped it up as a refutation, brought it back around and put it in the front row, in front of all the irrefutable evidence showing without question Christianity is a shabbily constructed hoax involving fictitious personalities.
You guys are all missing the point because you're trapped in your own egos. You should be listening to Acharya rather than feebly trying to pontificate to her. This argument is over, all right. None of us is really in the same league with her.
Now, as regards the questions about Krishna, there is some room for conversation about those disputed trivialities, but if I were her, I wouldn't even condescend to answer those who have been so disrespectful and so resentful about her production of a truly world-changing pair of books that will be long remembered and coveted by all those in pursuit of the actual historical truth, as opposed to those who wish to linger in debilitating ritualistic fantasies merely to justify the many years spent looking in the wrong direction and accepting cynically constructed lies as some sort of heavenly truth.
Get your heads on straight. You clearly do not realize what she has accomplished.
(9) Ardshir replies to Kaminski on Acharya's insults
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:47:02 -0500 From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca>
John,
I was not talking about Acharya's ARGUMENTS, if you will notice, but about the unseemly EPITHETS she used. This is not scholarship by any stretch of the imagination. If Peter has misrepresented her work, she should point out the ways in which he has done so. But that is not what she did.
Let me count the ways in which she instead resorted to open, personal insults, and that too, in a rather short e-mail message (I quote here from her own message to prove my point):
1. Asinine 2. Gibberish 3. You have a bug up your ass 4. Foolish remarks 5. Your own petty, malformed opinions 6. Your constant whining 7. Contortionist gyrations 8. Anal nitpicking 9. Your arrogant attitude 10. Useful idiot
How does using a plethora of such epithets help her establish that her ARGUMENTS are correct?
Even if she were God Almighty himself, or Shakespeare himself, or Homer himself, and had written books far better-researched and more earth-shaking than anyone else had ever penned in all of human history, she STILL ought to be censured - and strongly at that - for resorting to such language in lieu of rational arguments ... of which there are none (as in zip, zero, nada) in her message which has been re-quoted at the bottom here, for ease of reference.
(10) Fraudulent References to Krishna - Acharya a "pulp-fiction-writer-masquerading-as-a-researcher"
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:29:46 +0530 From: atracus sapien <atracus@gmail.com>
Dear Peter-ji,
Acharya's claim of citing references to "...Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions..." in her agenda to misrepresent Indic lore fall flat instantly, because the Bhagvata-Geeta does not speak of Krishna's life at any point. It is a *philosophy* propounded by Krishna, NOT his autobiography. Secondly, it is BHAGVAT Geeta - the word "veda" is not part of the word "Bhagvata", as Acharya would obviously have us believe, by her deliberate mis-spelling of the title as "Bagaveda-Gita" . Any person who has even prima-facie knowledge of Indic lore would not make such a basic mistake of putting the word "veda" where it does not belong, unless it was a deliberate attempt to mis-lead.
To put this boo-boo in context - this is as inane as someone giving a reference that "The Sermon on the Mount and other Christian traditions speak often of Jesus staying in Kashmir." If someone made a statement like that it would only establish the lack of credibility of that person, and does not even deserve to be discussed.
Also, her suggestion that Krishna was strung up on a tree at his death is ridiculous, because Krishna was a powerful ruler at that time, and he gave up his life voluntarily, using the poisoned arrow of the hunter. A powerful ruler (in the height of his power, after a big victory) is not treated with such indiginity as Acharya wants to suggest.
I suggest we give this pulp-fiction-writer-masquerading-as-a-researcher a well-deserved skip. Her self-professed moniker, 'Acharya', is a Sanskrit term that would correspond to "professor", in Vedic traditions. What kind of an inane person would assume the garb of "professor" and display such basic ignorance about the subject she writes about? A clear case of someone who has not even been to Kindergarten. I am not trying to attack her personally here, but she is blatantly misappropriating and misusing the moniker "Acharya". It is a title that is worn by very learned vedic pontiffs, and she obviously is trying to ride on the back of the respectability associated with this title. Quite a cheap trick, from any point of view. Frankly, I shudder everytime I refer to her as "Acharya/Professor", as I normally tend to use the word "professor" in a respectable context.
regards
- Atracus
(11) The secularist attack: secularism is no longer neutrality but "an ideology that imposes itself"
www.chiesa The Church Is Under Siege. But Atheistic Habermas Is Coming to its
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:35:04 +1100 From: "amar5249@bigpond" <amar5249@bigpond.net.au>
Newsletter Chiesa 22.11.2004 [URL is: http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42281,00.html]
The Church Is Under Siege. But Habermas, the Atheist, Is Coming to its Defense And Cardinal Ratzinger is the one who summoned him. The philosopher of Frankfurt breaks through the battle line of the secularist attack. Other secularist intellectuals are also coming to Christianity's defense. Among Catholics, there are some who trust them ? and others who don't by Sandro Magister ¥ VERSIONE ITALIANA ¥
ROMA ? They're more convinced of it than ever in the Vatican. There is a systematic assault by secularism against Christianity underway, centered in Europe and with the Church of Rome as its main target.
In an interview with the newspaper "la Repubblica" on November 19, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger described it as follows:
"We are faced with an aggressive secularism, one that even shows intolerant characteristics sometimes. [...] In Sweden, a Protestant pastor who preached on homosexuality on the basis of a Scripture passage was jailed for a month. Secularism is no longer that element of neutrality which opens up areas of freedom for everyone. It is beginning to turn into an ideology that imposes itself through politics and leaves no public space for the Catholic and Christian vision, which thus risks becoming something purely private and essentially mutilated. We must defend religious freedom against the imposition of an ideology that presents itself as the only voice of rationality."
One month earlier, on October 18, Cardinal Renato Martino, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, was even more blunt. Presenting a collection of all the diplomatic speeches of Pope John Paul II, he denounced the fact that the voice of the pope and of the Church "are deliberately made to disappear, submerged beneath the tumult and shouting orchestrated by powerful cultural, economic, and political lobbies, which are mostly motivated by prejudice against everything that is Christian."
In the judgment of the Vatican authorities, there are countless proofs of this secularist aggression. Cardinal Martino, who represented the Holy See at the United Nations for sixteen years, recalls "the attempt to eject the Vatican from the UN because the Church has always defended life and opposed abortion." As for the present situation, he added: "Just think of the carefree and cheerful manner in which these lobbies tenaciously promote the confusion of [sexual] roles in gender identity, ridicule marriage between man and woman, and attack life, which is made the object of the most extravagant experiments."
The omitted mention of Christian roots in the preamble of the new charter of the European Union ? which John Paul II has personally lamented a number of times ? is held to be another of these proofs.
And so is José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's secularist "revolución" in Spain, encompassing divorce, gays, embryos, abortion, and euthanasia. All under the banner of the motto: "If the majority says something, that is the truth."
And so are Italy's referendums to ease recourse to artificial fertilization and to permit the elimination of the "unfit" unborn.
And so is the rejection for the post of vice-president of the European Commission of Italian minister Rocco Buttiglione ? a professor of philosophy and scholar of pope Karol Wojtyla's thought ? for reason of his explicitly Catholic positions on homosexuality and marriage. ...
An introduction to Acharya's argument
{SoG, p. 563} Despite its boasts and claims, Christianity is not unique, as practically all of its dogma, tenets, beliefs, myths and fables can be found in the numerous cultures that preceded it in a wide area of the world. In The Paganism in Our Christianity, Christian apologist Sir Weigall recaps the absorption of Paganism by Christianity:
{quote} From Pagan mythology Christianity had unconsciously taken over many a wonderful story and had incorporated it into the life of Jesus: from Mithraism the tale of the birth in the cave and the adoration of the shepherds; from Adonis-worship the tale of the Star in the East; from Dionysos-worship the tale of the turning water into wine; and so forthÉ.
Meanwhile many of the old heathen gods had been taken into the Church as saints. Castor and Pollux became St. Cosmo and St. Damien; Dionysos, many of whose attributes were attached to St. John the Baptist, still holds his place as St. Denis of Paris; Diana Illythia is now St. Yllis of Dôle; the Dia Victore is worshipped in the Basses Alpes as St. Victoire; and so forth. All over Christendom, pagan sacred places were perpetuated by the erection of Christian chapels or churches on the same sites; and there are hundreds of shrines dedicated to the Madonna on ground once sacred to nymphs or goddesses, while the holy wells or springs of heathendom are now the holy wells of the Church. The statutes of Jupiter and Apollo became those of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary ...
... Christianity is very largely a pagan faith; yet behind its pomp and vanities, beneath its preposterous complexities, there is still to be found the Jesus of history, and in His teaching and example is the world's salvation. If only we can get back to Him. ... 8 {endquote}
{end SoG quote}
Endnote 8 on p. 568 reads "Weigall, 204-208.", referring to Arthus Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity (Hutchinson & Co., London, 1928).
{end}
(K) Krishna irrelevant, Acharya not "New Age" - Kaminski
(3) "Acharya/professor" demoted to "Moodha-charya" (4) Acharya's books "are to religious thought what Darwin was to the disciplines of biology and paleontology" (5) Krishna irrelevant, Acharya not "New Age" - Kaminski (+) Acharya's statements about Buddha seem to be erroneous
(3) "Acharya/professor" demoted to "Moodha-charya"
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:04:50 +0530 From: atracus sapien <atracus@gmail.com>
It is not surprising that the "acharya" has not been able to respond to my specific points. It is a fact that she cannot possibly respond in any scholarly way, except by clearly admitting that she has made misrepresentations about Krishna. Which she cannot and will not do - too much money has been made by sensationalism in the name of truth.
In an ironical, perverted way, the lady has made a career by doing EXACTLY the same thing that she claims to expose - lies about history and sacred lore. Would make an interesting case study for any psychologist. As some one said, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself". It would appear that in the process of investigating the lies embedded in official history, "acharya" has become entangled in lies herself. She would do well to do some soul-searching and introspection.
Anyway - since the self-proclaimed "acharya" has been amply proven to have indulged in faulty (probably deliberately so) scholarship, her self-assumed title of "acharya/professor" must rightly be stripped. This is NOT a personal attack - this is on par with a cowardly soldier being found guilty of unsoldierly conduct and being stripped of his rank - he does not deserve it.
In lieu of the title, I hereby bestow upon the writer-formerly-known-as-acharya, the more apt sanskrit title of "Moodha-charya" (specially coined for "acharya" by myself - "Moodha-charya" in sanskrit, would be equivalent to "professor of vacuousness", or even "a vacuous professor"). If she wishes to regain the self-bestowed title of "Acharya/professor", then she and her "REAL, EXPERT MYTHOLOGIST" pal (probably fictitious, too) need to back up all of their misleading statements about the life of Krishna (lies like Krishna being born of a carpenter, or being crucified, or being born of a virgin in spite of being the 8th child, etc.), by giving authentic references from ancient indic literature (not from some convenient book written by some 20th century theosophist quack).
On the other hand, I can qualify all my statements about Krishna's life by solid references from ancient Sanskrit literature.
Since there is no conceivable way that she can back up her statements, she can no longer claim to be an "acharya", and is hereby demoted to the post of "Moodha-charya".
A small parting suggestion to the enterprising Moodhacharya - *** Do not keep shooting yourself in the foot by lying about Krishna. Even a high-school kid in the Indian-subcontinent could spot your lying. Rather, stick to lying about Babylonian or, Egyptian, or gnostic cultures, where there is no living tradition to spot your lies. Have fun with all money you made by doing exactly what you claim to expose - fabricating lies about sacred lore. And if possible, in due consideration of this undoubtedly useful advice that I have given you, do see if you can refund me the money that I spent on your book. Its not a big amount - but you see, I hate spending even a cent on something that only deserves to be shovelled. ***
This concludes the matter in my eyes.
And please - Let us now restore this mailing list to something worth discussing, after having paid due attention to amply exposing fraudulent scholarship.
(4) Assault on Acharya - "Her books are to religious thought what Darwin was to the disciplines of biology and paleontology"
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:57:15 -0600 From: "Greg Rowe" <gsrowe@knology.net> To: <myers@cyberone.com.au> CC: "Israel Shamir" <shamir@home.se> ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Rowe To: Vencislav Bujic ; John Kaminski Cc: Acharya S Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Assault on Acharya
Her books are to religious thought what Darwin was to the disciplines of biology and paleontology. The need for a supernatural way out is so ingrained in some, like Peter, that they take personal offense, and turn vicious, when their beddy-bye plush toy, their "Lamb of God" is taken away by the spotlight of unrelenting scholarship and they're on their own, as a free person in a multiverse that is not a supernatural gaming table with invisible players, after all. John, I can hardly improve (as is often the case) on your succint statement of what's happening here:
"Instead of trying to impugn her reputation and nitpick her footnotes (the vast preponderance of which are unimpeachable), you should all be thankful you have her in a conversation at all, and try to learn something, rather than flex your offended egos which have been constructed on suspect, biased, and deceitful mythological misinterpretations"
Acharya does not set up a New Age religion to replace the worn and shabby Semitic Mythology, whose standard-bearer has involved us in a dishonorable conflict with an inoffensive people, George Bush and his Dominionist and Reconstructionist Christian-Zionist backers. Rather, she clears the cobwebs away, leaving us free to invent new mythologies that liberate, rather than enslave, uplift, rather than oppress with guilt and invented eschatology, the human potential. For that, we should be grateful.
{end}
REPLY (Peter M):
<<Semitic Mythology, whose standard-bearer has involved us in a dishonorable conflict with an inoffensive people>>
You refer to the Palestinians. But it is Judaism and its Protestant fifth-column within Christianity, which is to blame, not Jesus, whom you call the standard-bearer. He, according to the Gospels, suffered at the hands of this very same Judaism. I say this without being a "believer" in any theological sense (which I know you, like Acharya, accuse me of).
You support Acharya because you like her militant atheism. But what about her errors, e.g. in her statements about Krishna? What about her failure to reply, when Atracus pointed them out in detail?
I would not normally send out an email with the foul language Acharya used, when exposed as wrong, but her resort to it showed that she'd lost the debate.
She says that she "is a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece": http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm.
She did spend the academic year 1982/1983 as a participant in the "Regular Program" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. At that time, she was a "Regular Member of the ASCSA, i.e. she was enrolled in their program as a postgraduate student.
But Acharya is no longer a "Member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
(5) Krishna irrelevant, Acharya not "New Age" - Kaminski
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:42:08 -0500 From: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>
I have no wish to participate in a circle jerk of false hypotheses. Peter misrepresents Acharya (nothing is "New Age" about her academic analyses), Shamir misrepresents Christianity (that it is something other than a totally fabricated fiction), and both conspire to lead a foolish and futile discussion that Christianity is separable from Judaism, which it is not, being a Jewish constructed myth about the divinity of a Jewish male. Also, given the disingenuousness of both and their inability to focus on the original question in a debate, I feel we all have more productive tasks to complete. I know I do. Shamir and Peter both lost the original argument when they resorted to aspersion rather than valid refutation when addressing Acharya's monumental assertion that when you take away all the evidence that was stolen from earlier creeds, there is absolutely nothing left of Christianity, nothing whatsoever that is original or tangible. But in the egotism of scrutinizing sources that are essentially worthless because they're fiction, these religious "scholars" prefer to continue dancing among the mannikins rather than listen to what the real people are saying. No more for me, thanks.
{end}
REPLY (Peter M):
Do you have Acharya's books? If not, how do you know what she says?
Her argument is not just that Christianity is assembled from many sources - that I agree with - but that there has been a succession of religious cults featuring crucified saviours, including Krishna, and that the crucifixion theme in Christianity is borrowed from the crucifixion themes of those earlier saviors.
If you don't know this, you don't know her argument. Or rather, you are focusing on what you consider her overall conclusion, but ignoring important details in the chain of reasoning by which she reaches that conclusion.
Apart from writing CC and SoG, Acharya wrote the Foreword to the new edition of Kersey Graves' book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ.
That's where the Krishna material comes in, Krishna being one of the 16. Thus this claim of a religious tradition in India, in which Krishna was crucified, is not peripheral to her argument - as you make out, not having read her books - but a central part.
On the "New Age", Acharya writes:
"Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age." (CC, p. 416).
'As Hancock says, "We live today in the astrological no man's land at the end of the 'Age of Pisces,' on the threshold of the 'New Age' of Aquarius.' (CC, p. 417).
"We have entered a new era, based on the astronomical precession of the equinoxes" (SoG, p. 567).
It's cast in millenial terms:
'... in this age in which "the truth will be shouted from the rooftops"' (CC, p. 416).
If you don't have her books - why don't you buy them, if you're so keen - then of course you can't read what she said on the New Age theme, except for the above quotes. But they suffice to make my point.
Acharya's site has a page "About the Author" which calls her "Rev." (short for "Reverend"), says she has "devotees", and mentions that she wrote a book called The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm
{quote} About the Author ... Rev. Acharya S has gained mastery in several religions, as well other esoterica and the supernatural, and has a number of students and devotees. She is also the author of several books, including The Christ Conspiracy, Paradise Found and The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age. Her current book is Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. Articles by Acharya S have been published in Exposure, Steamshovel Press, Paranoia, as well as other periodicals and ezines. {end}
She writes a book about a Blueprint for the New Age, yet you deny that she's "New Age".
{end}
(+) Acharya's statements about Buddha seem to be erroneous
{I am not sure if this post went out: I may have withheld it because the debate had wound down - everyone was tiring of it - Peter M.}
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:20:39 -0500 From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca>
> Sure, Christian theology and iconography contain a lot of cultural
> borrowing. But that's no excuse for turning a blind eye to Acharya's
> fabrications about Krishna, and her refusal to correct them.
True.
Also her statements about the Buddha seem to be erroneous, many of which seem to be without foundation.
It is true that India is full of legends. But not all of them constitute Hinduism or Buddhism, or any of the other religions of India! In Buddhism, at all events, if it's not in the *Tripitaka*, the totality of the scriptures (or more correctly, *sutras*) of Buddhism, well then it's a mere legend, and not Buddhism.
And who knows when the legend originated? It can have originated fairly recently, with the Indians coming into contact with the West, or with Islam, and learning therefrom of Christian teachings, directly or indirectly!
Thus relying on Indian legends for similarities between the story of the Buddha and the story of Jesus proves nothing.
Acharya writes, and I quote from her own web page <http://truthbeknown.com/origins.htm>:
[QUOTE] The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:38 Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."38a He was of royal descent. He crushed a serpent's head. Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.38b He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.38c He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."38d He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all. He was transfigured on a mount. Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.38e He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven." Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd"39, the "Carpenter"40, the "Infinite and Everlasting."40a He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World." [END QUOTE]
And here are the footnotes thereunto:
[QUOTE] (38) In Gnostic and Historian Christianity, Massey says, "In ... Buddhism in Christendom, [author] Mr. Lillie thinks he has found Jesus, the author of Christianity, as one of the Essenes, and a Buddhist! But there is no need of craning one's neck out of joint in looking to India, or straining in that direction at all, for the origin of that which was Egyptian born and Gnostic bred! Essenism was no new birth of Hindu Buddhism brought to Alexandria about two centuries before our era; and Christianity, whether considered to be mystical or historical, was not derived from Buddhism at any time. They have some things in common, because there is a Beyond to both." We will add that the Egyptians refined the Mythos in exquisite and overwhelming detail, but linguistical theory has in the past, and now again with the Nostratic theory, traced the origins of Western and Middle Eastern language and culture in large part to India. It is yet difficult to say which came first, Krishna, the predecessor of Buddha, or Osiris-Horus. Certainly Horus was a well-developed savior-god by the time attributed to THE Buddha. There would be no need to build Horus upon Buddha (Egyptian "Putha" or "Ptah"), and it is true that Christianity did not need to rely on the doctrines of Buddhism, having the complete Mythos at hand. However, we do know absolutely that there was cultural exchange between the West/Levant and the Buddhistic world of the Far East prior to the inception of Christianity, in the form of travelers, traders, and monks of the vast brotherhood network, who were constantly exchanging information concerning religion, the esoteric gnosis, and the Mythos and Ritual. Also, it has been suggested that there was at least one group of Brahmanic and Vedic scholars living in the Levant prior to the founding of Christianity. These individuals, who would likely be members of one or more aspects of the brotherhood network, would certainly also be exchanging information about the very ancient Krishna, et al., and contributing to the culture around them. It is not only entirely possible but probable that Hindus ventured to the Levant over the millennia. But they would not have needed to, in order to spread their version of the Mythos, since there were those, such as Alexander the Great, who went to them. Indeed, Louis Jacolliot expertly traces the Judeo-Christian Bible back to India, noting many similarities between the Hindu and Christian priesthoods. (The Bible in India) There are also quite a few similarities between the Catholic and Tibetan Buddhist hierarchies and rituals. The influence from the Far East has come in waves beginning several thousand years ago, and culture may have begun to develop there in in the protohistoric period some 12,000 years ago or more. If the reckonings of maverick Egyptologists are accurate, however, Egypt would have been developing simultaneously with this Indian culture, the origins of both, then, being a possibly much older civilization. There is no question, however, that the archaic Indian language Sanskrit or its Nostratic predecessor has highly influenced many of the Western/Middle Eastern languages. Therefore, there has unquestionably been early and ongoing contact, and with language comes religion. "The ancient peoples of India were Asiatic Ethiopians, and it should not surprise us that they shared common traditions with their brothers in Africa." (John Jackson, Christianity Before Christ) (38a) Some people have tried to dispute the "virgin" status of Buddha's mother. However, in the first place, it should be remembered that the "life of the Buddha" does not represent the biography of a person but is an account of a solar hero; thus, the typical solar attribute would be appropriate. In any case, Joseph McCabe relates: " ... Mr. Robertson shows from St. Jerome that the Buddhists themselves did call Maya 'a virgin' - they believed in a 'virgin birth' - and he rightly rejects the statement of Professor Rhys Davids that these Buddhists understood the birth of Buddha quite differently from the Christians because 'before his descent into his mother's womb he was a deva.' That is exactly what Christians say of Jesus." (38b) See Temple of the Recumbent Buddha for artifacts proving the motif of Buddha and the 12. (38c) Mead, p. 133. (38d) Ibid. (38e) Graves, p. 118. (39) Isis Unveiled by Helena Blavatsky, vol. II, pp. 209, 537-538. (40) Massey, MC, p. 150. (40a) Mead, p. 134. [END QUOTE]
However,
1. As far as I know, there is nothing in any Buddhist sutra to indicate that the Buddha is reputed to have been born of a virgin (if there is, could Acharya please quote chapter and verse?);
2. Nor have I come across anything in the Gospels showing that Jesus was of Royal descent (the Buddha, of course, was, being the son of King Suddodhana);
{the Gospels do imply that Jesus was a descendant of David, but the Virgin Birth confuses this}
3. As for crushing a serpent's head, as far as I know, neither Jesus nor the Buddha is reputed to have done so (if someone would quote chapter and verse it might help!);
4. Shakyamuni's (i.e., the Buddha's) disciples can actually be named, and they are clearly far more than twelve in number: (a) Ananda, (b) Subhuti, (c) Maha Mogallana, (d) Maha Kshyapa, (e) Sariputra, (f) Anathapindika, (g) Angulimala, (h) Citta, (i) Aniruddha, (j) Assaji, (k) Kodananna, (l) Bhadiya, (m) Vappa, (n) Mahanama, (o) Katyayana, (p) Punna Mantaniputta, (q) Rahula, (r) Upali (Note that up till now we have named only the male disciples, who are clearly far more than 12 in number ... and then there are the following female disciples): (s) Bhaddakapilani , (t) Khema, (u) Kissagotami, (v) Patacara, (w) Samavati, (x) Yasodhara, (y) Pajapati. And we have almost exhausted the alphabet!
5. Re. miracles, the Buddha actually made it an offence, in the *Vinaya Pitaka*, for monks (*bhikkhus*) and nuns (*Bhikkhunis*) who might possess powers to perform miracles to exhibit them in public. When asked to perform a miracle in order to impress and thereby convert people, the Buddha refused, saying that education was itself the greatest of miracles. (It has to be admitted however that despite this, he once praised a monk for using his psychic powers to rescue a child who had been kidnapped. But from the Buddhist perspective, the ability to perform miracles is no proof of holiness, and has no spiritual value *per se*.)
6. In what precise way did the Buddha "abolish idolatry"?
7. As far as know, there was no such thing as a "transfiguration" of the Buddha, whether on a mount or anywhere else. Again, a quotation with chapter and verse might be welcome.
8. The Buddha was never, as far as I know ever crucified. Again, chapter and verse would dispel all doubt.
9. Nor, as far as I know, was he ever resurrected. But of course a quote from the sutras would suffice to dispel any doubt.
10. The term "Good Shepherd" seems to be quite absent from Indian sacred texts, both Hindu and Buddhist. Indeed sheep are not given much value in India, since meat is not eaten by the devout, and in the warm climate of India, their wool is of not much use! Why would any Indian be a shepherd, then? Cows are valued in India for their milk, but not sheep. But once again, if anyone has a quote from the Buddhist scriptures to back up this claim, they have but to present it.
11. Nor, as far as I know, did the Buddha perform any carpentry. The sutras, again ... eh?
Now this is a list of the majority of the claims put forward by Acharya in her own words, without - as far as we can see from the references - anything from the Buddhist scriptures to back it up. Why, then, should her words be credited?
I am all in favour of her main thesis, that there is nothing to indicate that Jesus ever lived in the flesh in any sense other than, for example, the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son lived in the flesh. But the above claims of hers seem more to discredit her thesis than to bolster it!
{end}
Western Civilization Index: transciv.html.
Write to me at contact.html.
