Problems with Acharya S: A Brief Review
Over the past few weeks I have been getting an increase if fanboys (literally) of Acharya S, who pour in from who knows where (perhaps the Raves and Shindigs are letting out earlier then usual?). Perhaps they mean well, but this is really what the Jesus Mythicist Campaign was meant to expose - the poor and sloppy scholarship of some of the mythicist defenders out there. Among those who would discredit the movement, I feel Acharaya S is a valid candidate who has been among other things sloppy.
Now, let me clarify by saying I think Acharya is a great woman, who seems to be genuine in her desires to expose the flaws of Jesus historicists. And she is definitely a person with a quality personality. But, scholarship is not a popularity contest, despite what Bart Ehrman thinks. Scholarship is based on foundations of scientific observation and inductive reasoning that seems to be missing from the works of Acharya S (although I have yet to read her new book, with a preface by Robert M. Price, whom I think very highly of), and worse yet, her fans seem to be trolling the interwebs with intent and purpose.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that her fans are out and about, goodness knows what would happened if they all remained in that room together for much longer, yet why must they all flock to my section of the message board? It is clear from their posts that they have only read her books, and seem to have avoided other more note worthy mythicists like the plague! Worse yet, many of the fans that have come to my website seem to have no rudimentary knowledge of antiquity, nor do they seem to have any grasp of the methodologies employed by modern scholars and historians who have to face a rigid peer review before they publish.
When two of her fans attempted to go head to head with me in my forum, I confronted them are some of their very glaring historical inadequacies. Here is a brief list of some of these errors:
1. Comparing Jesus to Krishna/Buddha
2. Claiming the Moses/Jesus stories are Midrash based on the Bhagavad Gita
3. Claiming that both Julius Caesar and Plato were both said to be born of virgins and sons of God
4. Claiming ALL Caesars were deified
Of course, these fanboys get their information from Acharya's work. Her book Sons of God certainly claims that Buddha and Krishna influenced in some way the stories of Jesus and Moses, that Plato and Caesar were born of virgins and were sons of God. I'm grouping problems 1 and 2 together to make for easier refutations of the claims put forth by these fanboys, and Acharya S.
First, before one can even claim that there were influences on early Christians/Jews by the Bhagavad Gita or the works of Buddha (life of Buddha?), several things must be established:
1.) Settlements. What evidence does one have of Jewish settlements in India? What archaeological finds have been presented for this? Example: We have inscriptions (on tomb stones and buildings) and dedications in Alexandria, Rome, Syria, and Cyrenaica of Jewish neighborhoods and businesses, synagogues and temples. Alexandria has the highest concentration of evidence of Jewish life, however outside the Ancient Near East, we have found settlements in Italy and Greece and that is really it. Please consult J.M.G. Barclay's, Jew's in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (1996).
2.) Holy Book Location. One must show evidence at one of these other Jewish locations, especially Alexandria where papyrus was found and made in great numbers (hence why we have so many manuscripts from Egypt), where the Gita has been found.
3.) Assimilation and Socio-Cultural Accommodation. One must present some level of sociological assimilation or acculturalization where the Jews have lost some of their cultural distinctiveness to the Hindu religion, or the following of Hindu religious practices, such that we see with Orpheus and Orphic traditions (i.e. Poems written in Hebrew to Orpheus, or mosaics in Jewish synagogues of Orpheus) - we should see poems or literature written of Krishna in Hebrew, or some sort of art or graffiti in Jewish living areas dedicated to Krishna. The opposite should also be seen as well: Those who follow Hinduism should have held in some regard the Jewish religion in some areas (where these Jewish Settlements could be found in India) much like the Greco-Roman populace produced many "god-fearers" who although did not become circumcised would have certainly respected (and even tithed) to Yahweh.
4.) Holy Book Access. Not only must the Gita be found in a location near or in a Jewish neighborhood or settlement, but evidence of earlier usage of the Gita before the Gospels, or Paul, where Jews have been accustomed to seeing it, or would have at least had knowledge of it.
5.) Holy Book in the Vernacular. Similarity in languages must be established. Is there evidence that Jews even would understand the Gita if they read it, or would have been in a position to transliterate the language into Hebrew or Greek in a manner which would allow one to show a common link between the Gita and the Gospels in the original languages (not the English summarizations)? Do such translations of the Gita in Greek or Hebrew even exist?
If these five venues can be established, there certainly would be sufficient reason to accept that Krishna and Hinduism would have had some sort of influence on the Jewish culture, to the point where one might suggest acutely that Christ would have been recycled trope from Hinduism. The same five must-haves would also have to be established for Buddha as well. (By the way, all five of these can be established for Orphism, and the traditions of Orpheus.)
Yet this is not what we have. In fact, we have the converse of what we would need to adequately establish a base claim that the tropes of Jesus were taken from Hinduism and Buddhism. Of the many non-biblical Jewish writers we know of, none discuss or refer to any Hindu god or Buddha, nor do they refer to dealings with Hindus or Buddhists, or having ever read the Gita. We have a very loud argument from silence on the part of Acharya's claim here, and this position that is being parroted by the fanboys on the message boards do not help her case.
What of references in non-Jewish sources are also non-extant. Can it be established that Greek city-states or the Roman Republic/Empire had access to these documents and myths? This must also be looked at and considered, and clearly it hasn't.
That isn't to say that there aren't some similarities between Buddha, Krishna and Jesus (Buddha was not a God, hero, king or queen, although Acharya claims so on her site. Nor would Buddha have been called "anointed" or "wetted," as she claims - such concepts were entirely Jewish in nature) but the similarities are themes shared by a wide variety of cultures having absolutely not connection with each other. The theme of life over death for example is one of these. So is the theme of dualism, the battle between light and dark - however in Judaism it is clear such trends developed from the Greeks. Clearly, one cannot be so careless as to assume that Krishna and Buddha influenced the development of Jesus Christ.
Onto the next fallacious claims. Once more I'm going to combine problems 3 and 4 to make for an easier explanation. The claim that Caesar was born of a virgin and that he was the son of a God is fallacious. The contemporary accounts of him that we have, including the ones he himself had written, make no mention of this fact. And Suetonius, a century later, only writes of the instance of which Caesar claimed to be descended from kings and Gods, not that he was born of a union between God and his mother:
"When quaestor [67 B.C.], he pronounced the customary orations from the rostra in praise of his aunt Julia and his wife Cornelia, who had both died. And in the eulogy of his aunt he spoke in the following terms of her paternal and maternal ancestry and that of his own father: 'The family of my aunt Julia is descended by her mother from the kings, and on her father's side is akin to the immortal Gods; for the Marcii Reges (her mother's family name) go back to Ancus Marcius, and the Julii, the family of which ours is a branch, to Venus. Our stock therefore has at once the sanctity of kings, whose power is supreme among mortal men, and the claim to reverence which attaches to the Gods, who hold sway over kings themselves.'" (Suetonius, Lives of the Twleve Caesars, Iulius Caesar VI:I)
We also know that Caesar lost his father early on during his teens, "IN the course of his sixteenth year [c. 85/84 B.C.] he lost his father." (Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Iulius Caesar I:I) So there is certainly knowledge that Caesar has a mortal father. Unlike the story of Jesus, which clearly paints a picture of Mary being impregnated before Joseph, with the Holy Spirit telling Joseph what the deal was (and why his soon to be wife was pregnant), we have no such story with Caesar. Suetonius certainly wasn't under the impression that Caesar was born of a virgin, as he makes no mention of such an act (and you would think he would!). Caesar became deified later on, yes, as a God. That does not make Caesar the son of God, nor does it mean he had a virgin birth. These are stories that don't apply to Julius Caesar, nor to Plato, yet Acharya S has apparently either made this up or sloppily read somewhere about this, and cited without further research these two men in this category. You can also consult The Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilization for authoritative data on this very subject. Cicero and Sallust will provide anyone with adequate information on Caesar as they are contemporaneous (Caesar also is enemy attestation).
The claim that Plato was among those born of a virgin and the son of God is bunk as well. Diogenes Laertius, a historian of good calibre from the period, who wrote, "And she became the mother of Plato by her husband Ariston, Plato being the sixth in descent from Solon." (Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, III.I) Certainly, if Diogenes had thought that Plato was born of a virgin, who was impregnated by a God as Acharya claims, why would he make it so clear that Plato was born of a union between his father and mother? Why do we have no such claim made by Aristotle? Certainly if anybody would have thought that Plato was born of a virgin, and was the son of God, Aristotle would have made a mention of it. Yet no reference can be found. Again, as before, no reference to a joining of his mother with a Apollo.
About the deification of the Caesars, it should also be noted that not all the Caesars were deified. In fact, Suetonius makes note that only Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were deified - and they were deified in the manner by which Charles H. Talbert puts forth in his book, What is a Gospel? (1977) The distinction lies within what the Greeks and Romans saw and understood between "eternals" and "immortals." He says:
"'Immortals' must be understood in the context of a distinction between two types of divine beings, the eternals and the immortals. This typology is mentioned at least as early as Herodotus, who says that Hercules and Dionysus were gods who had a beginning to their existence and had not existed eternally...the distinguishing marks of the immortals were: (1) the deity had originally been mortal, and (2) at the end of his career there occurred a transformation of ascention so that he obtained the same honors as the eternals." (p. 28-29)
Talbert goes on to give prominent examples in Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology of such mortals attaining 'immortal' status. Caesar seems to have attained immortal status after or during his death, but he certainly was not the son of God, nor born of a virgin as Acharya claims. Ironically enough, the one character in Roman mythology who does have a typology similar to Jesus, that of Romulus, is missing from Acharya's list! (Romulus was said to have been the son of Mars and born of the virgin Ilia)
For a historian, comparative religion is a tricky thing. It's very cool to see how different societies have common tropes and themes, but that doesn't imply that these themes CAME from each other - at least not all the time. (And not without loads of data and evidence!) It is next to impossible most of the time to establish the connection many conmythispiracists (kon-myth-a-spiricists: my new title for mythicists who resort to this sort of rubbish) wish to establish. There are better ways, and certainly better explanations, for such tropes to exist in the New Testament. You only need one strong case of recycled tropes to show the Jesus of the Gospels isn't historical. And you only need one strong case of recycled tropes to show that those earlier tropes came from other Near Eastern cultures in antiquity. To go to the extremes of Acharya is not only pushing buttons, but begging for scholarship to look at one as amateurish.
Certainly, Acharya has been sloppy in her research, and her claims seem more like sensationalism than actual scholarship. Certainly she sells books, and that is good. I'm glad she is doing well for herself. We should all be so lucky. But, I will not, nor will I let others, promote such incredulous tripe as what we have seen above. There is certainly reason to be skeptical and even cautious about reading Acharya's work. It should be read carefully, with a grain of salt, and it should always be remembered that such claims need to be researched beyond her books. Certainly she misses some very powerful claims in need of citation, and even more does she need to spend more time reading the works of other historians and scholars in the field.
These are serious mistakes, and they need to be corrected.
For further reading: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Rook_Hawkins's blog
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Hey good post Rook! It was
Hey good post Rook! It was really informative.
"conmythispiracists (kon-myth-a-spiricists: my new title for mythicists who resort to this sort of rubbish)"
Although I think this is a bit of a mouthful, lol. I agree that there should be a term for these type of mythicists, but that one is certainly a tongue twister!
Anyways, keep up the good work, I'm always interested in new information in this field.
Have a look at my posts &
Have a look at my posts & others at RRS in the "Jesus/Krisna/Horus" thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/9725?page=1
If folks have a look at the thread there they would see how dishonest Rook is on the issue with Acharya's work. Rook omitted information provided to him in that thread & turned his "Problems with Acharya" into a straw man & an argument from ignorance. Mostly due to the fact that he hasn't read her work (which Rook admits in this thread) - especially "Suns of God" which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy."
Rook is dishonest here but seems to appeal to people who are too lazy to do their own research. And on top of that, It seems that Rook gets his false assumptions about Acharya from his hero Richard Carrier who also hasn't read Acharya's work. So Rook is RELYING on R. Carrier & doesn't go to the source - hows that for "sloppy scholarship"? Rook is an embarrassment to freethinkers & Jesus mythicists by dishonestly smearing Acharya like this.
Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rooks blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Achayra from Rook is in order.
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
How about substantiating
How about substantiating some of Acharya's claims then?
I recall listening to an interview of her by Reginald Finley, and I can remember a lot of claims, but no mention of where she got any of this information, how it can be confirmed, etc. How are astrological or Hindu parallels supported?
Edit: Want to add I'm not interested in a pissing contest about what side feels more strongly. I don't have a position on this, but I don't like claims that get promoted without substantiation.
magilum wrote:
A great place to start would be to actually read her books - which is my point here. Rook has not & is dishonestly smearing Acharya. This thread is NOT really about substantiating claims is it. This thread is simply a dishonest smear campaign by Rook who hasn't actually studied the work. Therefore, Rook has no business making commentary on it.
As I already mentioned, Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rook's blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Acharya from Rook is in order.
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
See what I mean when I say
See what I mean when I say they're fan boys? Not one peice of evidence submitted. Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time here and back up the claims. You all make loads of claims. This isn't a smear campaign whether you want it to be or not. This is a historian challenging the claims of Acharya S.
The only thing in order here is my post. You haven't presented anything but a lot of baseless objections. If you have read the book, then provide me the evidence in her book where she cites. I have asked this of you over and over and not once have you delivered. Put up or shut up.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Freethinkaluva
I understand that you don't like the criticism of Acharya's work, but this isn't sufficient; you need a counterpoint. I certainly don't claim to have a basis for judging her written work, but it should be defensible in some substantiative way by someone who is. If I'm required to read her books as a prerequisite for continuing this conversation, then I may as well stop now, since I have a stack of books on my reading list as it is. Would it be impossible, as someone familiar with the work, to present her substantiation of her claims about a given point? Say, the astrological parallels. Where did she get this claim? Have the claims been verified independently, or do they rely on the word of much older scholarship?
Rook
Rook
- I'm merely pointing out the fact that you've never actually studied her work, which you admit & are already biased against it. And due to that fact, you're dishonest throughout your original post here & it should be removed as it's nothing but a flame, smear & straw man. As I already mentioned, folks who haven't actually read Acharya's work clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rook's blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Acharya from Rook is in order. And, no, Rook, you are NOT a "historian." You are a 24-year-old know-it-all who is lying about his expertise, particularly when it comes to Acharya's work.
magilum, I don't think you're off-base here. I appreciate your neutrality on this issue. Realize that I don't have an issue with criticism of Acharya's work but what Rook is doing is dishonest. I am merely pointing out that Rook hasn't read the works he pretends to be an expert on here. His argument is further weakened by the fact that he feels the need to name-call me for pointing out the obvious. I didn't have an issue with Rook until he began dishonestly blasting Acharya's work, which I have read.
Some of Rook's poor points have already been addressed by Acharya. He made a mistake about Plato and was shown to be wrong in the link to the thread above I shared. Instead of admitting he was wrong, he went off on a campaign of hysteria pretending he knows Acharya's work. His childish behavior really smacks of jealousy, especially when he makes ridiculous claims of being a "historian." You're a kid, Rook, and your scholarship and experience don't even come close to Acharya's, so stop pretending otherwise.
Rook, I can approach Acharya about any kind of factual material you actually provide in your childish and pretentious diatribe, but she shouldn't be expected to go about addressing every little kid who comes along making attacks on her without even studying her work.
magilum, just in case you're actually interested in seeing some of ACHARYA'S work itself, instead of some lame and dishonest rant from someone who hasn't even read it, you can read several of her articles here but be aware that they do not contain all of the details that are in the books:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html
Enjoy this excerpt in the first chapter from "Suns of God" titled, "Astrotheology of the Ancients" -
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html
Anyway, after actually reading her books from beginning to end, I think most will agree that not only does she know what she's talking about but she's an EXCELLENT scholar - not "sloppy" like Rook has been libelously claiming, without even studying her work. I find the large amount of evidence & history worldwide she has compiled fascinating & a very strong case for her position. Folks are free to disagree but they can at least be civil, rational & respectful about it. Or is that too much to ask?
After seeing all of this bad behavior by Rook and his absurd claims about his own background, I honestly have to wonder why anyone would waste their time with him. He's been called out, and he continues to be dishonest. It's obvious that someone needs to do a "Problems with Rook" blog and post IT everywhere. If that does actually happen, Rook would've brought it on himself.
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Freethinkaluva
Your welcome here has diminished to nothing. Consider this a warning. Stop with the fucking ad hominem ranting or you will be banned.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Freethinkaluva, I've seen
Freethinkaluva, I've seen "Sun of God," and I've just now read the second article you posted. I guess what I'm looking for is something with citations: "The ABC of XYZ is considered problematic to x by papyrologist y, which is further corroborated by z, as described in q." I'm assuming you have the books, so if you posted something that represented citations of corroborating evidence, scholarship, etc., it would make it a lot easier to discuss this. I'm really not interested in watching you and Rook trade insults.
I wasn't aware I was trading
I wasn't aware I was trading insults. I'm just as curious to see if he can back up his claims as you are.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
aiia wrote: Freethinkaluva
Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. It is devastatingly difficult to remain polite and respectful when all you get is that rubbish he has been posting. Let us hope his next post has more substance and less needless diatribe.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
magilum "I'm really not
magilum "I'm really not interested in watching you and Rook trade insults."
I understand & I feel the same. I'm not interested in trading insults with Rook or anyone. Again, I appreciate your neutral stance here.
Regarding the astrotheology article, as I stated, it is an excerpt from Acharya's book, which contains well over a thousand citations for nearly every point she makes. If you are interested in citations, please read her books. The online articles do not contain them.
I see no reason to substantiate Acharya's work here as it is already a biased & one-sided thread from the original posts creation. However, you're certainly welcome to visit Acharya's forum & "Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions" section at the very top.
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php
------
I'd simply like to point out that this blog by Rook began with insults, deragatory comments & name-calling in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE. Am I the only one who has the courage to point that out? Rook has been name-calling me "fanboy" in the other thread so I feel that this blog is largely, directed at ME. So, I feel I have a right & a responsibility to address it without being molested & threatened with warnings & banning for merely pointing out the obvious. I realize it might be more convenient for RRS to ban me rather than address Rook's intellectual dishonesty on the issue of Acharya's work. Work Rook admits he's never studied.
"Jesus/Krisna/Horus" thread - enjoy my post "Sat, 2007-10-20 08:22"
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/9725?page=1
I've said my peace concerning Rook's lack of integrity and intellectual dishonesty by his posting this blog without ever actually studying Acharya's works.
Again, folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rooks blog is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. An apology to Achayra from Rook is in order.
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Juvenile delinquency
I surely do agree Freethinkaluva! Imagine if I were to critique Richard Carrier on the basis of what other's have said or "NOT SAID" instead of going to the source--the totality of Carrier's own published works. I would be correctly lambasted for even daring to niggle over any specific issue without having read them. Juveniles do that sort of thing in their smug cocky way. It is to be expected and the latter should not be taken seriously.
By rook or by crook....I doubt you will get an apology out of a delinquent wanna be expert. My impression is he a bratty self-important sand-box player. Hey...I just say things the way I see it. If rookie-baby can't take it, I will supply him with a soother. Anyhow, I haven't observed anything much valid or intelligent displayed here, but I like watching children be goofy!
Hear my void...it's fuller than yours.
Freethinkaluva
Do you? It seems like you give a quick nod to it, but continue with it unabated.
Is it unfair of me to ask for just some citations on a given point? How about claimed parallels between Jesus and Krishna?
You said my question was reasonable. Is there not some compromise to arguing the scholarship of Acharya between ending this conversation and my picking up and reading several hundred pages of text just to determine a point? I mean, if I've researched something, and I feel strongly enough about it, I can generally pull a few citations out of the air, so at least you know where I got the information.
Looks like I may have to.
[...]
skullnboner wrote: I
Thanks for your complete non-sequitor ad hom. I have read Acharya S, and I've also have read articles on her website. So your comparison is moot, especially if you only read Carrier's stuff online (he publishes mainly online). Regardless, however, most people including you have not read the number of books that I have, and when people ask me for evidence of something, I provide ample citations. If you were to criticize Carrier he would also send you a large list of readable books other than his own. In the case of freethinkaluva who is a fan boy (like you apparently) he only is concerned with ad homs (like you) and making baseless claims (like you). Where are his citations?! He can take them directly from Acharya S's book for all I care.
The fact that he hasn't provided any yet (nor have you) lead me toi conclude that you both have absolutely nothing, and you instead resort to theistic tactics (ad hom's and non-sequitors) instead of dealing with the topic. So please, the both of you, continue to dodge. You are only making yourselves look foolish.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
You are quite
You are quite welcome...you deserve it---the "non-sequiter ad hom". I just love when people use those so proper terms. Makes them sound oh so smart.
I have been following the dialogues and I am not near convinced you have read Acharya's Book(s) at all. Your saying so doesn't make it so. Give me page numbers, references, citations etc. when you quote her. Reading bits of her material online does not constitute familiarity with her material in toto. As for you having read more books than I have, I seriously doubt it! That is a silly presumption to make on your part, when you don't know who I am, how old I am, or how studious a reader I am! As a concession however, I will offer you several rolls of toilet tissue to wipe your nose...and other parts. You got to look the part to play the part.
Now I will deal with the topic when you offer something serious, accurate and in context. So far, you haven't presented anything credible to support your arguments, but what is laughable. I can give you all the citations you desire, but I would be wasting my time because in your juvenile boast you would not examine them or even understand them. After all, that has already been done for you, but you are too lazy or ignorant to follow up on them. Yet, you would declare yourself an expert on Acharya and her material and present yourself as a valid critic! Oh for pete's sake....wipe your nose.
Now get serious, get studying and quit playing with yourself. When you manage to complete a full and serious study of Acharya's work, then I might consider you qualified enough to "discuss" her subject, rather than acting like a pompous turd pronouncing your status from atop the highest toilet. For now, I am certain you don't know what you are talking about and I will enjoy watching you "fall-in", but being the nice humble person that I am, I would actually prefer to see you rise above yourself and really become a learned human being.
With love and peace;
The one who KNOWS
Hear my void...it's fuller than yours.
Actually Rookie, if you
Actually Rookie, if you want citations maybe you should start with your own. You don't cite where you're getting your information from Acharya anywhere. I see no page numbers or links to articles - even though, I've already made it clear that her online articles do not contain all of the details nor all of the citations - that is what the books are for, silly. Are you being hypocritical here or is there just a double-standard? From where I stand your entire blog is a straw man.
When you say, "I have read Acharya S" - please be specific because you admitted in the other thread that you've never read "Suns of God". Which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy".
Again, I see no reason to provide citations for such an intellectually dishonest blog. I provided enough here for those who are actually interested in learning more - first thing is not to trust your opinion on Acharya's work. You know very little about it.
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
I'm seriously tired of the
I'm seriously tired of the dodges. If you can't provide me any citations or references form her book, I'm going to assume you can't provide any. I'm seriously annoyed by idiots wasting my time, while you've been asked by three diffrent people to provide citations and you have failed every time.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Rook_Hawkins wrote: I'm
Take a long look at yourself here Rookie. You provide no citations where Acharya has actually made these claims, yet you demand citations from me? Talk about dodges. Rather, it is your who have failed here Rook. Why should I be expected to provide citations when you provided NONE of your own.
If you were really a historian, you'd know where Acharya was getting her information. And, if you really read Acharya's books you'd know that she is very careful about citations. I'm sorry that you're so annoyed here Rook but it's due to your very own "SLOPPY REARCH" & LACK OF CITATIONS.
I'm going to take that last post from you as an apology for your intellectually dishonest blog. Thank you.
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
What are you talking
What are you talking about? I have provided citations! Read her books and her website! You don't even know what you are defending, it is so pathetic.
Right from her damn website (http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm)
The list of pre-Christian gods, heroes, kings and queens who were said to have been born of a virgin includes the following:
She provides ABSOLUTELY NO citation for this claim, nor does she back it up with any sort of evidence - she just claims it.
Additionally On Krishna:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin.htm
"Obviously, the correspondences between Christianity and Paganism, including between the Christ and Krishna myths, are dramatic and not "non-existent," as some have attempted to contend. The debate then becomes whether or not the Christ fable was plagiarized from the Krishna myth, vice versa, or both come from a common root. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that there was plenty of commerce, materially and religiously, between India and Rome during the first centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era."
Yet again, she does not provide the basic tenets of citations to back up this claim. This comes right from her new book, I've read the whole article, yet it does not in any way provide adequate evidence ( nor does it provide ANY where the evidence is really important) - trade is irrelevant to whether or not Jews or even Romans would have had access to the holy texts of the Hindu's. Nor does that allow for any evidence as to if they could even read the language, or translate it. There is simply not enough information. It is sloppy, and poorly supported.
I grow tired of your incompetence. You are child playing in a world greater than you, and if you're not careful you'll find yourself running after a ball in the middle of the street, wading dangerously in front of a truck with its bed filled with evidence speeding down the freeway. Soon I'm just going to ignore you all together, because of how much of my time you consistantly waste.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
And "I grow tired of your
And "I grow tired of your incompetence" & lack of comprehension. I've told you how many times now that the online articles do not contain all of the details - they are EXCERPTS! Do you know what an excerpt IS?
No, the article you mentioned is *NOT* from her new book, "Suns of God" came out in 2004.
I feel like I already provided citations & sources in the link to the other thread which I provided in my very first post here. Still, I'll copy/paiste it here since folks are too lazy to read it in context over there. I'll edit out as much irrelevent material as possible.
"Rook, I can't help but notice that when you found yourself faced with Speusippus, you began spluttering a bunch of sophistic hooey, rather than admit you were WRONG about the "Muslim apologists" originating the claim long after the Christian era. This doesn't look good Rook.
You may choose to humble yourself just a tad. You're not proving yourself clever here. Rather, conceited about your own knowledge, not anything about Acharya's work with your nitpicking and ostentatious display of your own erudition. This is called "pretentiousness".
In the first place, in the online excerpt from Acharya's book that Rook is citing, she relates the claim that Plato was called "the divine" and the "son of Apollo," not Jupiter, as Rook claims, so Rook immediately demonstrates his inability to get facts straight.
Secondly, he calls the claim "silly," then he validates that people long prior to Acharya had made the claim, i.e., some "Muslim Neoplatonists," as if "Muslim Platonists" suddenly made it up at some point long after the Christian era. They did not, so Rook is wrong.
Indeed, when we examine the issue - by actually reading Acharya's book (which nobody here has done), rather than scanning excerpts online and then pretending we're experts on Acharya's work - we discover that Plato was called "the divine" and "son of Apollo" in the works of the Greek philosopher, Speusippus (4th cent. BCE). The following statement may be found on p. 219 of "Suns of God", in the list of pre-Christian virgin-born mortals:
Quote:
Plato, "the divine" and "son of Apollo," according Greek philosopher Speusippus (4th cent. BCE).
For more on Speusippus, see this book here, which Acharya had nothing to do with writing:
http://tinyurl.com/2erplo
And the quote there:
Quote:
To begin with, in F Ia Speussipus told a specific story about Plato's divine parentage, a story that was current in Athens...
What was the story of Plato's divine parentage? That he was the son of Apollo. Hence, CURRENT IN ATHENS during the 4th century BCE was the story that Plato was divine and the son of Apollo.
As we can see, it is not Acharya who is "silly".
The contemptuous remark regarding Julius Caesar can be shown in like manner to be born out of your ignorance, rather than Acharya's. All Caesars were considered to be divine-born sons of God, and Julius Caesar was said to have been born out of the side of his mother; hence, the term "Caesarian section." This is not to say that Caesar WAS born through the side of his mother but that the myth about his miraculous birth is very old and spawned this procedure named after him, for the very reason that it was believed he had been born in this manner. This is the same manner in which Buddha was said to have been born, as related by St. Jerome, who calls Buddha's mother a "virgin." In Against Jovianus (I, 42-43), Jerome remarks:
Quote:
"42. To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed down that Budda, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side of a virgin. And we need not wonder at this in the case of Barbarians when cultured Greece supposed that Minerva at her birth sprang from the head of Jove, and Father Bacchus from his thigh. Speusippus also, Plato's nephew, and Clearchus in his eulogy of Plato, and Anaxelides in the second book of his philosophy, relates that Perictione, the mother of Plato, was violated by an apparition of Apollo, and they agree in thinking that the prince of wisdom was born of a virgin. Timæus writes that the virgin daughter of Pythagoras was at the head of a band of virgins, and instructed them in chastity. Diodorus, the disciple of Socrates, is said to have had five daughters skilled in dialectics and distinguished for chastity, of whom a full account is given by Philo the master of Carneades. And mighty Rome cannot taunt us as though we had invented the story of the birth of our Lord and Saviour from a virgin; for the Romans believe that the founders of their city and race were the offspring of the virgin Ilia and of Mars."
"43. Let these allusions to the virgins of the world, brief and hastily gathered from many histories, now suffice."
Note here too that Jerome says Speusippus specifically names Plato as virgin-born. BTW, that last quote from Jerome can be found in Acharya's "Who Was Jesus?" too, - precious, isn't it?
The only thing "preposterous" here is the arrogance with which you express yourself.
* It may be wise to actually read her work BEFORE making assumptions. Rook you're clearly not qualified to make commentary on Acharya's work as you've admitted you have not studied it. Your glaring ignorance on mythology is what I've been trying to point out to you is what you are missing here and one thing of many, where Acharya has experience and can help. Thank you for helping me make that argument here. Will you have the integrity and character to admit that you made a mistake and jumped the gun?
I'm very disappointed Rook. You must realize that I'm on your side here with the Jesus myth position but your stance and charges against Acharya are false as demonstrated above. Please make the necessary adjustments.
post - "Sat, 2007-10-20 08:22"
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/9725?page=1
;
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Freethinkaluva wrote:
So you wasted five paragraphs to ad hom me? Not looking good, luva.
Where did I say in this blog that he was born of Jupiter?
Another claim made without evidence. Please cite me one source to back up that Muslims got the belief somewhere else?
Further, Muslims came around the sixth century CE, some 500 years after the establishment of orthodoxy of Christianity. That is 500 years too late to be associated with a myth to help establish Christian mythology. You are completely missing the point. She is claiming these people somehow inspired Christianity, the Jesus myth - that is what she is establishing in her book. That is what I am, and have, refuted.
Really? What a bold claim. You like bold, absurd claims.
Please cite when I said I was an expert on Acharya's work. You make a lot of baseless assertions and claims.
I've already addressed this in my blog as to why this is not sufficient.
WHERE is the citation from Speussipus?! I asked for evidence not hearsay! Do you not know the difference?!
We only hear of Speuspipus second hand, from Apuleius and Jerome, both who had written after the time of Christian origins. Even your author, Leonardo Taran, admits that there is some funny busy. He also assumes the point that the opinion was held current in Athens, and didn't back it up. Although he also suggests that Speusippus' works were possibly tampered with, and ends the point by saying:
He admits the theory presented is not only improbable, but unlikely that it was what Speusippus intended. You only present part of the story. And it is clear you only read part of that page, instead of reading the whole position. Again, I covered this in my blog above as well. Proof you don't read what I write, only criticize.
You're right. Her claim was only a gross misuse of data, your claim was silly.
This is false. I've already shown this in other threads. Please review the "Question of Pagan Parallel's" thread and the "Horus/Krishna/Buddha" thread. Only the first two "Caesar's" were considered divine - but we're talking about a virgin birth.
Whether Caesar was birthed differently than others does not imply a virgin birth.
You stretch the information a lot, and that tells me something about what you consider to be "fact."
Again, irrelevant.
Again, not evidence of Caesar having been born of a virgin...
Again, this is hearsay--and decided LATE hearsay coming from a Christian saint. Thank you for presenting no evidence.
That isn't Caesar, that is Romulous.
No, it's late and hearsay. He does not provide the quote, nor a reference for us to check. Again, we're looking for pre-Christian examples of virgin births - not Christian examples presented generations after the fact.
Projection, anyone?
You don't even know what "adequate evidence" means.
What she has is a lot of misuse of hearsay and presents a lot of misinformation.Your source, Leonardo Taran, only uses Jerome and Apuleius as sources towards Speusippus' claim of divine heritage. Why is that? Why do we not have any source prior to 150 CE?
If you think this is an argument, I should stop asking you for evidence - you simply have no grasp of what is being asked of you here.
And for the record, I did reply to you in that thread (below):
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
"So you wasted five
"So you wasted five paragraphs to ad hom me? Not looking good, luva."
- And you wasted an entire blog.
me "Indeed, when we examine the issue - by actually reading Acharya's book (which nobody here has done),..."
Rook "Really? What a bold claim. You like bold, absurd claims."
- What? Asking one to actually read the material BEFORE posting a straw man blog is too bold? Okay, whatever you say, boss.
"Please cite when I said I was an expert on Acharya's work. You make a lot of baseless assertions and claims."
- So then, you admit you've never actually studied it then? In your blog one might get the false impression & we wouldn't want that now would we.
If you're not an expert on Acharya's work, then you are dishonestly making libelous assertions that she makes a "gross misuse of data." You are admittedly NOT an expert on Acharya's work, so you should not be writing long screeds against it and pretending to be an expert on her work. What do you know about what she is "establishing in her book" when you haven't read any of her books? Are you socially retarded?
Acharya is certainly NOT claiming that Muslims - who came 600 years after Christ, by the way, not 500 years - had any influence on Christianity. What a ridiculously inaccurate statement.
"That isn't Caesar, that is Romulous."
- You're completely missing the point, the virgin-birth motif is pre-Christian. What the hell is wrong with you?
Per Speusippus:
"I've already addressed this in my blog as to why this is not sufficient."
- I'm sorry Rook but, your address wasn't sufficient.
"Where is the citation?" Apparently you didn't actually read this sentence: "To begin with, in F Ia Speussipus told a specific story about Plato's divine parentage, a story that was current in Athens..."
As you must know, these works - either Speussipus's Encomium or his Funeral Banquet- are LOST, so we have to go on "second hand" testimony. Where are you getting your data from? Is it all first hand? Do historians only study firsthand texts? In your counterarguments, you are using writers many centuries apart from the time of the events - your sources are, in fact, not even SECOND HAND.
By the way, it's obvious you are merely interested in a pissing contest, apparently to boost your ego and attempt to one-up Acharya. You are one of the worst anal retentives I've ever encountered - even worse than JP Holding, and that's pretty bad.
For others here who may be interested in a response by Acharya she just recently made, here it is, enjoy;
"Of Caesars, Plato and Divine Births"
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=1338
I'm sure you will rant on and on without admitting that you don't know everything and that Acharya is a much better scholar than you are claiming in your NON-expertise concerning her work. I really can't waste any more time on your puerile pursuits at attempting to establish yourself as some great intellectual worthy of anyone's notice. Frankly, Rook, you are far beneath her station.
I am here only in case others may fall for your tripe and miss the real point of Acharya's work, which many have found to be fascinating and enlightening - those who have actually read it that is.
;
"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Freethinkaluva wrote:
Man this is going to be so sweet, thank you for this.
You miss the point. The question isn't whether or not the account is second hand or first hand, but whether it is pre-Christian. If the account was as readily around Athens as you claim, why do we not get any of this information from existing contemporary accounts. Why doesn't Diogenes report this? Like I said, we have existing accounts of Plato's life, and even accounts from contemporaries (Aristotle) yet these accounts do not agree, or even mention, a divine birth.
And your source backfired on you, as even they admit there is something fishy. I read the paragraph, but you aparently stopped reading after that. That quote I provided was a conclusion as per the WHOLE phrase. And I read f1a-b (it was a page above what you quoted) and again, all he provided was hearsay. Which is why he found it suspect. The fact that we know certain things about Plato that Jerome seems to miss when he cites what he does makes it seem fishy. Yet you keep on hacking away at this problem.
If there are no existing contemporary accounts, we have to review the second hand accounts. Are the second hand accounts reliable? NO. Jerome is not reliable, and he is from the third-forth century CE! That is over 800 years later! What makes you possibly think Jerome is an accurate account of the life of Plato, and the day and age from which he wrote? An earlier account, and the account he probably took from, was an existing account of Apuleius, who wrote in the second century CE, and who's account would have been more readily available to Jerome than a copy of Speusippus. And as your source, that you continue to use dispite it not agreeing with you says:
(p. 235) "It is unlikely that Apuleius had direct access to Speusippus' work.... In chapter two he sites Speusippus to support his contention that Plato 'verum etiaum aequiperavit divum potestatibus.' We should not infer, however, that this was also Speusippus' intention because Apuleius does not say so. And what he ascribes to Speusippus does not imply supernatural attributes...and that Apuleius himself reports the story of Plato's divine parentage as the opinion of some writers and does not ascribe it to speusippus at all." (Emphasis mine)
This is again proof you fail to read, and yet you acuse me of not reading. If you had bothered to be intellectually honest for a few minutes and read the whole text provided (which I did), you would have read that line. Again, you fail to provide evidence, and not only did you supply Speusippus, you can only cite Jerome from the forth century, who is probably misquoting Apuleius (the only known account to make any reference to Speusippus in extant prior to Jerome), and this is what you are offering me. What is interesting is the earliest account of Speusippus doesn't claim that Speusippus ever said Plato was born of a virgin. That is your misrepresentation of the facts at hand.
Can you stop pretending that you know something now so we can move on from this dreadful redundant topic. You are clueless, we get it. And Acharya was wrong...okay, we've got that settled. So let's stop this game you are playing. This isn't Truth Be Known's message boards, you're not a mod here. This is our board, and you are playing on a different turf. You probably aren't used to somebody talking to you like this, or about Acharya without some sort of authority. You don't have that here, here we fight with facts. So far you have presented me with misinformation and hearsay, lots of baseless claims and personal attacks, but nothing substantial. That is because you have nothing substantial. We both know that, so stop wasting both our time. Acharya being wrong is not the end of the world, that is just scholarship.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Oh Rook, apparently you have
Oh Rook, apparently you have not double checked sources. Even John Shelby Spong and Bob Price say that Osiris and Horus's stories are very similar to the Jesus myth. Bob goes as far as stating the various midrashes in the Jesus myth and how much they match other mythical stories. He even stated that in a Minnisota Atheist podcast. He compares them in that podcaost- parts 1 and 2. This is another reason why I say you do not know Bob and obviously you only research those that support your Christian upbringing and nothing else.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Mriana wrote: Oh Rook,
Just for giggles - got a link to that podcast?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes I do, but you have to
Yes I do, but you have to have an iPod and subscribe to get a list of the podcasts, which has Bob within the list. http://www.mnatheists.org/page20/atheist_talk/atheisttalk_podcast.shtml You won't see the list until you subscribe, but it's listed as: Robert M. Price gives a lecture on pagan parallels to Christ. Discription (and I have listened to both. Have a good giggle, because it's there and you don't know didley.):
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Back off the attitude
Back off the attitude there, please.
All I did was ask for information (which you provided - thank you).
I don't have a dog in this fight - I just enjoy Dr. Price's work and am always looking for more information. I don't know diddley - that's why I come to sites like this.
Whatever grief you have with Rook, don't include me in it. I may have to take it personally since I haven't made an argument here.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Sorry, I thought I was
Sorry, I thought I was addressing Rook.
Mriana wrote: Sorry, I
apology accepted.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Mriana wrote:
That may well be, but according to every version of the myths of Osiris and Horus that predate Christianity, none are more than coincidental similarities. You really seem to believe that similarity implies influence don't you? That is not the case. They may be similar, but what version is similar? What text can he provide to back that up - or you?
I have the ANET at home, along with hundreds of other manuscript translations and those in the original languages. How many have you read, or looked at? You are all the same it seems...robot parrots who recite lines you have heard without the slightest concern for textual support. It is pathetic.
Mriana, please provide the 5 evidences with appropriate textual support I asked for in my blog, otherwise you simply have no case, no matter how many similarities exist.
Say what? Because Bob and I disagree, that menas I don't know him? I disagree with lots of people, sometimes my best friend Brian, but that doesn't mean I don't know him! Are you really this naive? And that is exactly what this is on your part - naivety. You think you know something about this, but let me tell you something girlie:
(1) I co-founded and am currently help run one of the largest atheist websites on the net worldwide (This site).
(2) I've been an atheist now longer than I was a coherent, decision-making Christian.
(3) I used to believe just like you, just four years ago.
What happened? I realized how completely inaccurate my conclusions were, and actually was able to have people demonstrate to me how my conclusions were overstated and illfounded. One of these people is the worlds leading atheist minds (Richard Carrier) who not only was an editor of the Secular Web but also a mod on IIDB. That doesn't mean I always agree with Richard either.
And what does it matter if the information is coming from a theist or not? Why are you so caught up with this ridiculous idea that theists can't have intelligent ideas and produce intelligent, scholarly journals and monographs. Some of the best research in the field has been by christians. That doesn't make them any less capable of being a historian. If a good point is made, it is made, regardless of whether that person believes in a God or not.
I have noticed that with you and your compatriots. You, like Acharya S in her "refutation" of me, whatever that was, stated the same thing "Christians try to discredit..blah blah"...such is not scholarly - that is sensationalism. Scholars know the difference between atheism and theism, and good and bad scholarship. Secularism knows no difference between god or no god. It only knows the facts, and how those facts are presented.
Nothing you said could be further from the truth. As I certainly DO know Bob, and Frank Zindler, Richard Carrier, Thomas L. Thompson, and John Dominic Crossan, as well as others. Bob was even on my show, and he and I have exchanged more than our fair share of e-mail. All you have to do is look back a few blog posts to understand that. But again, you show how intellectually lazy you are, and how easy it is for you to jump to conclusions.
The truth of the matter is, NONE OF YOU ACHARYA S LACKY'S KNOWS WHAT REAL CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP IS. You all just take Acharya at her word, have you even bought a single book in her bibliography aside from Bob Price to fact check her conclusions? Have you considered that maybe she might be wrong? I doubt it. I doubt you have moved an inch beyond her text. And that is why you continually have to use baseless assertians, speculation, ad hom attacks, attitude and defensive tactics with poor logic to even respond to my posts.
I really want to like you Mriana, but every time you submit a post I cringe at what sort of immature and naive rubbish I'll have to sort through to help you through these hang-ups of yours - such as your strong attitude towards the Hindu influence on Christianity. You know, you might very well be right - BUT you first have to provide an adequate amount of material to show it. Right now, you've claimed a lot and proved nothing.
And, an additional note, I would LOVE for it to be so, that Horus and Osiris influenced the Jesus myth. I would love it because it seems plausible, and even something that could be substantial. But no evidence has been sufficiently entered to prove that. You can cite me opinions all day "Bob Price says this...Acharya says that..Spong this..." That's fine, you can cite me scholars...but where do those scholars provide the textual support, beyond conclusions or opinions that are just quote mined from a segment or a book. You understand the difference? What I'm asking?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Well IF you knew Bob, you
Well IF you knew Bob, you would know that he even says that Horus and Osiris are very much like the Jesus myth. You would know he says that the Jesus myth is rewritten work of previous myths. I serious doubt that you know him or even read his work.Unless you have actually read Bob's or Spong's work you cannot refute them and you just tried to refute what they wrote and said. This just shows you have not clue what Bob has said or even wrote. So who has the lazy intellect? Obviously it is not me, for I read.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Similar doesn't mean
Similar doesn't mean related or derived from, and 'previous myths' doesn't necessarily mean non-Jewish ones (or substitute any source from which the writers can be expected and demonstrated to reference). I think the heart of the disagreement here, aside from all of the tiresome posturing, is that nothing has been presented to both show similarities between Christian and Egyptian or Hindu myths, and specific evidence of this supposed influence beyond the similarities themselves. Unless that is shown, it doesn't matter who agrees on the similarities.
Magilum, thank you. That
Magilum, thank you. That is the very point I am trying to make.
As for knowing Bob, and reading Bob, I have all of his books, including his new book "Jesus is Dead" which I find fascinating. It doesn't mean Bob is right, and Bob never claims to be right. He presents the evidence, and allows for criticism, which is what makes him so spectacular. People who can't accept criticism of their claims do not deserve to be scholars.
Besides, where I agree with Bob in a great many things, if you had read Bob's "Pre-Nicene New Testament" you find that he agrees less with Acharya and more with Thomas L. Thompson. But first you have to remove your mind from one singular path and explore other avenues.
The key to being a good historian, or at least being well rounded, is knowing the full circle of theories and hypotheses that present themselves. There is not one cingular Mythicist position - there are many, and each have their own uniqueness, and distinctiveness, and also their pitfalls. Bob and I strongly disagree as to the nature of the existence of Nazareth, the dating of the Gospels, and the dating of the Epistles (as well as the number of authentic Epistles). However, the disagreement really lies with the factor that I feel there isn't enough adequate evidence to change the current consensus. That doesn't mean he is wrong, just that I feel the evidence is inadequate to prove his case thoroughly to be THE truth. Perhaps there are strands that are - for example, I thing it is very probable that Romans is a selection of letters combined into one. I also find it highly interesting that Luke and Acts seem to be refuting Marcionite theology. So in these instances, I feel Bob and others have made a strong enough case to not only warrent suspicion, but to doubt the general consensus. And I'm not the only one who agrees with him.
However, I feel that dating all the Gospels to the second century is a little extreme, although I feel that in most cases, they could fit there. But the same could be said for a majority of first century texts - Philo could also fit snugly in the second century, and Josephus certainly does. But it would be wrong to date those there, even if the circumstances, literary style, and agendas seem to fit there - they didn't write then regardless of how bad we want that to be the case. And the Gospel of Mark dated at 70 CE is NOT going to hurt the mythicist position.
But I certainly know Bob, whether you doubt it or not is irrelevant to the facts. Perhaps that is the very problem - you just don't know what "facts" are, and think opinions run the world. I would like to be wrong here though, like I said, I want to like you. Trying to suggest I don't know somebody simply because I disagree is pretty retarded, and I hope you really stop to think about how much of an incredibly "I know you are but what am I" childish statement that is that you are making. Again, the evidence is there, all you have to do is read the blogs I've posted on here to see that.
That aside though, like I said, you may be right about the influence factor, but so far you have not come close to providing the sort of evidence that would suffice for me, and if it won't work here, it certainly won't fly as serious scholarship to the people who matter.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
sorry to bump this
sorry to bump this but had to howl, RRS Rocks ! thanks so much everyone .... I'm crying tears of joy ....
Atheism Books.
For Rook
http://www.abisource.com. -->
Feel free to edit/delete this message
MOD: Thanks, done.
Anthony Mallare wrote:
By the way, you're a fucking hypocrite.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/9725
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.
I don't get how we can have
I don't get how we can have two pages of argumentation about history with barely any actual references to it. Dude, where is Acharya getting her information? One point -- just trace one point for us, and you'll have the basis to continue arguing your side. How does Acharya substantiate the claim that Jesus not only shares supposed similarities with Krishna, but is actually derivative of this myth?
Rook, you have not
Rook, you have not vindicated yourself yet, so don't jump for joy.Even Spong, a Jesus Seminar Fellow, points out all the virgin birth templates for the Jesus myth in his book "Born of a Woman" on pages 56 and 57. He also notes that Plato got his own miraculous virgin birth story. It just did not stick and bury him, like it did the so called man Jesus (IF he ever existed). He runs them all down: Gautama Buddha, Horus, Attis, Quirranus, Indra, Adonis, Mithra, Zoroaster, Krishna, and then he mentions Plato, Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, etc etc receiving their miraculous stories that didn't stick.Spong also states concerning the historicity of the Jesus virgin birth story from page 59 of Born of a Woman: "Is there any possibility that the narratives of our Lord's birth are historical? Of course not. Even to raise that question is to betray an ignorance about birth narratives."BTW, the authors of the books attributed to Paul seem unaware of Jesus's so called immaculate conception. Galatians 4:4 says born of a woman, not a virgin. This was written some 20 years after Jesus's supposed crucifiction and about 18 years before the first Gospel was written. There is no hint of a miraculous birth or supernatural parenting in the Pauline account. He described it as normal and completely human. Nothing unusual there.
The man, if he ever existed, starts to get buried in myth when we begin to see the Gospel attributed to Mark. He gets buried deeper and deeper with Matthew and Luke. Spong attributes this myth making as being like the story of Washington cutting down a cherry tree and saying he could never tell a lie. Whatever the case, it is just weaving a story much like John Jakes's North and South.So, what you are saying is nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate a the myth of Christianity, instead of truth. You are in essence, protecting Christianity and hardly an atheist. There are just too many scholars that list these templates- including Bob Price- whose Parrellel Myth lecture you never even listened to- so you know nothing of what he says. What you are saying is purely ludicris.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
I'm just about done with
I'm just about done with this. If I see one more personal attack, naked assertion, or appeal from authority, I'm going to conclude that the Acharya fans on this site have nothing to back up what they say.
Did I mention Acharya in
Did I mention Acharya in that post? Did I mention her in every single post? No. In fact, I mention several other scholars that speak of various myths that were templates for the Jesus myth. So, I am much more than an Acharya fan.Rookie is also making appeals to authority with what he says- apologetic authority that wants to uphold Christianity and tell people what to believe, instead of the truth.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Mriana wrote: Did I
I think the problem is that many here are asserting things like:
"Acharya says X", "Spong says X", "Price says X" without providing quotes from their works which says that.
For myself, I'm having problems with the conclusion you draw that Rook is a Christian apologist. I'm not sure what you base this on.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Like I said...they are
Like I said...they are delusional little fanboys.
Apparently their logic works like this:
Disagree with somebody = You don't know them AND you're a Christian apologist.
See the flow? That is how all of them have been from the beginning. It's a sad combination of delusion and new-age hoopla and misinformation that has lead them on this path. I hope everyone reading this thread can understand now why I am against Acharya's book, and how I feel it is sloppy - and why I feel it is sensationalistic.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Mriana wrote: Did I
OK, that's it. You've managed to waste my time with yet another empty attack post. I've already state the problem, and no one has addressed it, instead offering personal attacks (Rook is bad, Archarya is good, blah blah blah), and appeals to authority (Price said this, so-and-so said this), all without actually making the case that mythical similarities are more than coincidental. I want to reiterate that I have no vested interest in this; I have nothing against Acharya, and I have no idea how Rook's book will be, but you aren't making your case.
Empty Attack Posts and BLOGS
Magilum wrote:
OK, that's it. You've managed to waste my time with yet another empty attack post...
Rook wrote:
1- fanboys (literally),
2- the poor and sloppy scholarship
3- Among those who would discredit the movement, I feel Acharya S is a valid candidate who has been among other things sloppy.
4-her fans seem to be trolling the interwebs with intent and purpose.
5-I'm glad to see that her fans are out and about, goodness knows what would happened if they all remained in that room together for much longer.
6-It is clear from their posts that they have only read her books, and seem to have avoided other more note worthy mythicists like the plague!
7-the fans that have come to my website seem to have no rudimentary knowledge of antiquity
Yes, I can see how concerned you are with "empty attack posts". These were taken from an "attack-blog" without any foundation what-so-ever and completely uncalled for. I didn't see you lamenting the personal attacks from get-go of this blog by Rook.
How does one take such a blog and blogger seriously, when he starts his blog with snotty rudeness and attacks on people he neither knows, the extent of their knowledge, books he has never read, and who is no position to make judgements about competence (never mind his own).
The point of this blog is useless to begin with and Rook isn't and shouldn't be the one making this point (or any other for that matter) for YOU. Why are you here looking HERE for answers about the case that mythical similarities are more than coincidences? Does Rook do your critical thinking for you? Do you rely on him as your source for Acharya, who he has maligned? If you want the answers....do the work. Go to the source--not some snot-nose rookie. YOU are WASTING your time HERE
If you truly desire to know what Acharya's position is, what she has written and stated, read her books and join her own forum, where you can discuss any questions about her work. Rook can come over also, if he dares and make his case where he surely can not be so cocky and rude about what he thinks he knows (which is really a boastful nothing). I doubt he has the nerve though, because he has been and will continue to be proven a deliberate evasive and dishonest fraud.
I put this challenge to you and Rook both, if either of you have the sincerety or the courage.
MOD: Blocked for contributing to on going ad hominem rant and harassment
Hear my void...it's fuller than yours.
Still nothing there but
Still nothing there but noise. I don't know if I made it clear in my previous post, but I've had it with your evasion of my question, to the point that I throw my hands up in disgust. You didn't ask me to commute the terms down, or attempt to clarify, you just outright didn't answer. In case there's any ambiguity left, I don't care if you feel that you've been slighted, I don't care if you think Acharya's character has been smeared, I don't care if you think Rook is not a legitimate historian -- none of this should matter if you can present the facts, or at least some attempted justification of claims. If you could have, the conversation could have followed that: you could have been well into arguing about the source texts referenced by scholar x to reinforce point y. It doesn't appear to me you even understand that information needs to be scrutinized. Instead, you just engage in tribal/provincial nonsense about which talking head you trust. If it wasn't Acharya, it wouldn't surprise the shit out of me if you were into Bill Cooper, Stanley Burroughs, or Nostradamus.
I for one did present facts
I for one did present facts and #2 if you had ever been to college you would know that one has to cite their sources or be charged with plagerism AND receive a special F that tells employers that said student plagerized. So, even if I put it in my own words, I cite where I learned it all from. So what you call appealling to authority is in reality citing my source, something I have done for more than 20 years because I actually write real papers.Can't say either for Rook. Seems that he did plagerize someone and it has been noticed and noted. IF he ever went to college, I would hate to see what grades he made. IMO, he has never truly studied any of these things, much less go to college or he'd be citing his sources far better than what he is. Not to mention, he doesn't even quote his citations right either.Honestly, the ignorance around here is pitiful as well as irrational. As for the fanboy bit... It's really sexist, as well as childish, you know.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Mriana wrote: I for one
I already dealt with this. You cited people who agree with similarities, not justifications for claimed connections. I have no position on this -- all you had to do was post the reasoning for claiming a connection beyond the similarities themselves. Why hasn't anyone done this?
Also, "plagiarism."
Mriana wrote:
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
...
double
Oh no. Don't ask me for
Oh no. Don't ask me for an apology. Ask this guy: MOD: Link removed due to potentially illegal content I have backed all my claims, but you don't like it because they refute all your religious claims. No surprise. Most X-ians do take offense.No, I'm not lying for the hell of it and you know, with such abusive language, I bet you even find it difficult to find and keep a gf, but that's not the topic of discussion. Pussy isn't much of an insult for someone who owns three female cats. Also not the topic of discussion, but documenting and backing up our sources that we state is. Which I believe I have done quite well and FYI, I make A's on my papers as a rule and most likely have two more degrees than you do. So, I'm not as much of a fuck up as you may think. Amazing, that you start cursing when you can't handle the heat. That really doesn't look very good for you.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report