When the man's right, he's right. The parallels between myths are well documented - that isn't exactly news. But to reach a conclusion that converges on Jesus is loose, to say the least.

Hmm, then I guess I shouldn't worry about reading the book I bought 6 months ago "The Suns of God" - http://www.amazon.com/Suns-God-Krishna-Buddha-Unveiled/dp/1931882312/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208347391&sr=8-1

Which book is it that talks about the parallels between the greek heros/gods on the point scale? Robert Price mentions it in The God Who Wasn't There I think...

Otherwise, any other good books that talk about parallels that ARE well documented?

I guess I'm less careful on here, since I assume a sort of understanding that they're myths, rather than something you can really hang your hat on. Even IF there were as many parallels as claimed, or that shit about Virgo and the M (wtf?), it wouldn't be surprising to find parallels, it just that they wouldn't mean anything either. But I understand that it would be frustrating for someone who's actually studying the history and the myths closely to hear someone make completely outlandish statements and reach a sudden and unsopported conclusion based on them. It made me laugh, because it seemed so much like satire (along the lines of The Number 23-style paranoia) that my response certainly wasn't measured. The idea that you can go in a straight line from Horus to Jesus or any of the others is pure fiction, agreed. That kind of argument banks on the audience's ignorance and unwillingness to research.

I don't think they have to distance themselves from her, she seems to distance herself from scholarship pretty quickly. That whole part about Horus was a huge stretch. Huge. I thought the astrology bit was cute, but again, more along the lines of comedy than serious scholarly work.

It often puzzles me that people are motivated to lie about this stuff. Do they just want to fool people? Do they actually believe it? I mean, her material is SUCH a stretch. Every connection made in that movie is a huge leap in logic. If I said, "rutabegas are both Jesus and the reason the twin towers fell" I'd be making just as much sense. So maybe I'm so thrown by the idea that that kind of thing could be taken seriously.

Cool subject and thanks again RRS. I don't know jack. Most of what I read and see on ancient religion is a lot of guessing, and wishful thinking .... obviously.

I support the Z movie simply because it gets religious people to think, by challenging their ideas .....

I have seen my christian friends jaws drop in embarrassment .... as they watched part one of the Z movie   ..... Hey, is there such thing as a "good" lie ?        ??? Ummm,  Lie and save the world ??? 

  [ can a MOD fix the text stretch in this thread ? ]

Yeah , yep , and on and on it goes AmericanIdle ....

  Shit dogma,  when all is ONE   

Any ideas regarding the influence of mushrooms on the ancient writers? The art seems to suggest yes. Hell, I don't know what history opinions to believe half the time.   Another fun  movie to show the Xains,  anyhow  ....

"The Pharmacratic Inquisition" , 3.5 hrs   broken into 7 segments   http://www.gnosticmedia.com/DL.html   --- or full length   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4555365073003895154

some quick reading,  "The psychedelic secrets of Santa Claus" 

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3136.html

http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/dec99.html

    

Rev. Real , Thanks very much for the movie and interesting links. I will definitely check it out. 

"If you're really interested, I can supply you with some reference material for the different kingdoms throughout Egyptian history (more than three millenia of history doesn't condense easily or seamlessly), as well as several good books on Sumerian, Babylonian, and Jewish history (the latter of which can bring you to date on contemporary Judaism). Interestingly, you may even find that some books I suggest are similar or the same as those Dorothy claims to get her information, though you'll find a different picture when reading source material and concordances from actual experts on the subject matter."

Me, me, please! I am extremely interested in checking out that information. I am specially interested in sources about Ancient Egypt. I would like to find more images about sexuality in Egypt... As far as I have learned, they appreciated sexuality and fertility greatly, but it is difficult to find the associated images, because old encyclopaedias wouldn't publish such ones. I would also like to know in which book it says that "meri" means beloved. I'd do well with google books too, if there are any. I am very interested in this.

 

 

Request updated: I found an Oxford transcription of the Rosetta stone with the translation of Meri (checked, it means "beloved", Acharya S doesn't know how to check her facts for sure). By the way, I checked out Acharya's S book and it was ridiculous. Have you seen her sources? The lost continent of Mu? Helena Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled? Horus crucified... because a geologist says he found him crucified in Mexico? I didn't know whether to laugh (the sources were hilarious) or to cry (some people actually believe them).

I am now mainly interested in the images about Egyptian sexuality. I know this sounds bad, but I think it's a very interesting and unknown part of Ancient Egyptian culture, and those images are hard to find. They are usually self-censored by our media and scholars because we are so reticent to look at that stuff... But I find Isis' loyal sexuality immensely interesting. I mean, as a woman I'm very interested in female characters, and Isis is one of those who break the damned virgin-whore dychotomy, so present in both Christian and Greek-Roman mythology. I'd like to know more about her.

 

Because info on the real women is easy to find, thanks to second-wave feminists (not to confuse with nowadays feminazis).

I'm not focusing on mythological women, I want more info about them and about sex in Egypt, because it's difficult to find. Most History books about Egypt are very self-censored about it.

Thank you, but I already know about them. And you forgot Hatshepsut and a few more queens. No, honestly: it is VERY  easy to find information on these women. The second wave feminists did a good work trying to find historically important female characters, and there are tons of info about them. What I am looking for are mythology books (specially on Egypt) that do not censor the Egyptians views on sex. Every bit of knowledge about Egyptian views on sex I've found, I have had to struggle from bits and little pieces from lots of different books. I am specially interested in seeing the highly sexual images that appear through art in all Egypt. I know of people who have gone to Egypt and seen them, but they are awful hard to find, and every image has to be fought for. I just would like to know if there's some good info on that. And I am particularly interested in Egypt, because it's very well-know in the surface, and very little known in detail. And about why I want to know about the sexuality in Egypt... well, because I  already know about sexuality in Greece, Rome and European Middle Ages and Renaissance. I know also about Eastern societies, but I want to know about one of the greatest cultures of the Ancient World, and Egypt is next in my list.

 

 

 

The source I used for "meri" meaning "beloved" in Egyptian was the work of someone who worked at a NYC museum, based on a letter written by a wife to her deceased husband. I'd have to go searching through my electronic records for the PDF in question containing the brief publication describing it, but in a later post you seem to have gotten verification on that. As for a few books you can check out:

• Ancient Egypt by David Silverman - ISBN 019521952X
• If you can find it, The Literature of Ancient Egypt by William K. Simpson and R.O. Faulkner (I think highly of Faulkner's translations) - ISBN 0300017111; for an update of (mostly) the same, The Literature of Ancient Egypt by William K. Simpson and some new translators (Ritner, Tobin, and Wente) - ISBN 0300099207
• The series 'Ancient Egyptian Literature' Vol. I, Vol. II, and Vol. III by Miriam Lichtheim - ISBN 0520248422, 0520248430, and 0520248449 (respectively)

Those should probably be a good starting point for you to get some idea about ancient Egypt as a people and not some kind of relic or an esoteric prop like Dorothy likes to use them for. I recommend these books because they offer a look at the ancient Egyptian people, Which is what it seems like you're asking about. As for sexuality in Egypt, you're going to find information on that particular subject rather scarce.

 

What I can tell you from what I know is that Egypt, being a very metropolitan nation, was fairly progressive in terms of its social views on sexuality compared to many of its neighbors, but that's not saying a great deal. Outside of royal or politically powerful lineage women were still considered the lesser sex, though while there could be instances of brutality Egyptian society didn't generally take a brutal attitude toward the treatment of women. There was a reverence to the goddess Sothis (whose constellation was called Sirius by the Hellenistic astrologers/astronomers), but that had to do with knowing the timing for the flooding of the Nile, which was the center of life and livelihood in Egypt. Hathor (another goddess) represented fertility throughout most of Egypt's history-- names and functions of gods changed or shifted slightly depending on which time period we're discussing-- and Isis was considered 'motherly' in that she instructed and protected Horus, the one who was personified by the pharaoh, thus being a connection from the Egyptian people to the divine. Those things, however, don't adequately or even partially describe Egyptian religion, though. Depending on the part of Egypt we're talking about, the main gods worshiped varied between a few 'higher' beings, none of which included Ra, Horus, Isis or Osiris.

If you're seeing scant info in books it isn't necessarily because of self-censoring. There really is very little actual data clearly laying it out. What we know about the attitudes of the time is that relationships weren't remarkably different from other nations with wealth and trade of those time frames, which basically boils down to them not being incredibly different from even more recent understanding of relationships. Marriages weren't all arranged by fathers as social currency, and girls could be taught to write as well as boys, though boys were still the ones who held military, religious, and political positions in the society. Their mythical females reflected this-- males were the warriors or arbitrators or leaders or givers of strength, and females were the nurturers and caregivers and givers of life (or health). There are stories where sexual desire play a role, like the myth of Geb and Nut (Google it), but even in that story there is a reservation in the myth toward succumbing to those desires (namely that it would be catastrophic in that particular myth). Not all of the myths containing sex as elements looked at sexual desire that way, but I don't know what you're looking for in particular.

 

Female (and male) deities and in Egyptian myth were depicted as highly attractive in Egyptian mythology because the Egyptians related to their gods and mythological characters in a very romantic (emotionally, not sexually) manner. Unlike the gods of Mesopotamia who were often depicted as resembling animals or who were often written as being cruel or ambivalent toward humans, the Egyptian gods were sympathetic beings who had a purpose but also resembled and behaved like humans. In this way the Egyptian gods were not dissimilar to the Hellenistic or Greek (or Roman) gods with relation to the people who worshipped them, despite the points of cultural references obviously being different. This is why, during the late kingdoms of Egypt after being conquered by the Greeks, the Egyptians began attempting to find similarities between the Egyptian and Greek (and later Roman) pantheons and tried to reconcile observances between the two. This is one area where Dorothy (acharya) mistakes a conquered people's attempt to ingratiate themselves to the conquerers as some kind of deeper esoteric connection that simply doesn't exist.

Anyhow, I hope the book recommendations I gave were helpful, and if I come across any other sources that you may find useful I'll try to pass them along. I recall having read a scholarly journal last year about some remarkable characteristics of some female characters or contributions to Mesopotamian life and mythology, and if I can find its name I'll pass that along as well. What you're looking for is a very broad subject on which very little information exists, however, so don't be too discouraged if you find information difficult to locate.

First off, my apologies for several things. I wanted to reply to the first post because it mentioned the topic of this post, but I couldn't. I've read Rook_Hawkins review (http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_with_acharya_s_a_brief_review), so I hope that this does not spark unwelcome traffic for him.

I have not read any of Acharya's own writings, but rather had viewed the Zeitgeist movie on YouTube and found astronomical errors in that film for which I must assume that she is the source -- I have only just now discovered her.

If she is not the source, then I would appreciate being corrected. Please understand that everything that I am addressing is what was presented in the Zeitgeist movie. I have known since about 1973 about the existence of the many mystery religions centered around gods and demi-gods who died and were resurrected and through whom worshippers could also gain immortality, often through some ritual consumption of the god's body and/or blood. I have known since about 1983 that elements of sun-god worship had been incorporated into Christianity by Emperor Constantine from its very start as a state religion -- I was shocked while viewing the movie "Lady Gray" (Queen of England for 9 days, losing to the Catholic "Mary, Bloody Mary&quot and seeing that the container of the communion wafers on the church altar was a flaming SUN. In short, I know Acharya's basic claims are true. The problem is when she gets a number of the facts wrong. I have been involved with "creation science" for decades and a frequent response of ours to them is: "If the things you claim that we can check out all turn out to be false, then how could we possibly believe those things you claim that we cannot check out?" The same can apply to Acharya's claims. If her opponents can find glaring factual errors in some of her claims, then they will easily discount all of her other claims. OK, here's my astronomical beef with her (if she is indeed the source). From the Wikipedia page on the Zeitgeist movie ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie ):

OK, while in college I studied astrology (so I know that what is presented about the astrological ages is correct), which led me to study astronomy. Those statements in the movie immediately raise red flags for me. Don't get me wrong here; that story made all kind of sense and was a very compelling interpretation. The only problem is that, astronomically and even astrologically speaking, it is pure and utter crap. The alignment that it describes cannot possibly ever occur. The three stars in Orion's belt are indeed "pointer stars" that point to Sirius, the brightest star in the sky. However, the claim is "the three stars in Orion's belt (called the "Three Kings&quot align with Sirius on December 25". Uh, yes, that is technically correct. However, there's nothing special about 25 Dec. Those stars point to Sirius every single day of the year, every single second of the year, year after year. In astrology, which was ancient astronomy, you had the fixed stars, which did not move (relative to each other), and the wandering stars (AKA "planets&quot which did move against the background of the fixed stars. Sirius and Orion's Belt are fixed stars, which means that they do not move relative to each other. That means that Orion's Belt always points to Sirius. Duh? The next really immense problem is this statement: "the three stars in Orion's belt (called the "Three Kings&quot align with Sirius on December 25, the brightest star in the sky, and point to the Sun's rise on the horizon." Uh, sorry, but that is absolutely impossible. It would be like saying that the Statue of Liberty overlooks the Great Wall of China, as you will soon discover. OK, time for a little basic astronomy lesson. The coordinate system by which we describe the location of any object in the sky is created by extending the earth's equator into the sky as the celestial equator. We then measure distance above and below the celestial equator in degrees of north or south declination. Then we pick a starting point in the celestial equator, the Vernal Equinox, and measure longitude eastward in Hours of Right Ascension, which translates to one hour RA per 15 degrees longitude; that also works out to a total of 24 hours RA to form a complete circle. The plane of the earth's orbit around the sun is called the ecliptic; this plane is observed by the sun's apparent position in the sky. That means that the sun is always on the ecliptic. Because of the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth's axis, the plane of the ecliptic and the plane of the celestial equator are at different angles, to the tune of 23.5 degrees. On most sky charts, the celestial equator is drawn as a straight line and the ecliptic as a sinusoidal curve above and below it. Important to us is that the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator at two points: the Vernal Equinox where the sun will be moving from south to north, and the Autumnal Equinox where the sun will be moving from north to south. The farthest north the sun will go will be 23.5 degrees north declination, at the Summer Solstice. And the farthest south the sun will go will be 23.5 degrees south declination, at the Winter Solstice. Those are the four cardinal points, the four positions of the sun that define the start of our four seasons, as well as the start of the four Cardinal signs of the Zodiac. To summarize this: 0 hours RA, Vernal Equinox, First Day of Spring, 0 degrees Aries, Sun at 0 hr RA, 0 degrees decl. 6 hours RA, Summer Solstice, First Day of Summer, 0 degrees Cancer, Sun at 6 hr RA, 23.5 degrees north decl. 12 hours RA, Autumnal Equinox, First Day of Autumn, 0 degrees Libra, Sun at 12 hr RA, 0 degrees decl. 18 hours RA, Winter Solstice, First Day of Winter, 0 degrees Capricorn, Sun at 18 hr RA, 23.5 degrees south decl. OK, now we can describe where all our suspects are on the morning of 25 December. The sun is just slightly past 18 hours RA (about 18:16 RA) and just a little bit north of 23.5 degrees south declination. And where are our fingermen (ie, the ones allegedly pointing to the sun at this time)? In the neighborhood 6 hr RA and close to the celestial equator (the Belt is around 5:30 RA and 1 degree south declination, while Sirius is at 6:43 RA and 16:05 degrees south declination). All the way over on the opposite side of the sky! They couldn't have a better alibi if they had made one up. Cast a quickie horoscope ("view of the hour"; real handy for sketching out what will be in the sky and about where) and you will see that just as the sun is rising in the east on 25 December, Orion and Sirius are setting in the west. The only time that the Sun is anywhere close to Orion and Sirius is at the start of summer, 6 months from 25 December, but it's 23.5 degrees north of Orion's Belt and about 40 degrees north of Sirius. Now you see how the "Statue of Liberty overlooking the Great Wall of China" comparison applies. Just for fun, I plotted their positions on graph paper and extended the line from Orion's Belt through Sirius. It points southward. Since the Sun is north of them when it's in their part of the sky, that line will never point to the sun. And when the sun is farthest south on 21 December (18 hr RA, 23.5 degrees south declination) that line will be pointing to 18 hr RA, 56 degrees south declination. Way off the mark! It's a nice story, real cute. Too bad it's so obviously bogus. Out of curiosity, has anyone else noticed this error?

   That spaceing problem happens to me also, it comes from being computerly illiterate.  So  I   add  extra spaces in my posts then ask the moderators to fix my spaceing screw ups.   So far it works pretty well.       Welcome to the forums by the way.  Tell us a bit about yourself.

 

I did use a plain text editor, which is my preference since a lot of my work is writing code.  I even used the "plain text editor" option offered here. 

 

Yes, I am aware that the stars are constantly in motion.  But because of they are so distant, any change in their position would not be detectable to the naked eye for greatly extended periods of time.  Hence, for practical purpose they are considered to be fixed. 

 

Of course, all I have to go by is the Zeitgeist movie.  Does Acharya herself make that exact same claim?  Does she provide a source for that claim?

 

 

Dorothy Murdock provides several "sources" for her claims, and with the exception of those writers who are equally steeped in syncretistic nonsense, many of her sources are misused by her for her own agenda and not for the outside merits.

 

Murdock has all the makings of a New Age astrologer with her use of astrological symbolism and significance. Her misuse of the data is what is significance.

 seems it is a problem that the world is suffering
please listen hard to understand it better you