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
You are so fucking
You are so fucking clueless. First of all, you call me a Christian/religion apologist, then you cite the largest Christian asshole you can find. YOu are such a fool. I hope the world could one day see this post, and I want to be there for this whole community to laugh at you. Especially being that we're one of the top 5 atheist websites in the world, and I co-founded it. Silly little girl, you are so far out of your league.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
If appealing to Price or
If appealing to Price or another authority doesn't bear on the argument, what the hell makes you think your credentials substantiate your argument? Is this really where we're at now? An academic pissing contest, and personal attacks, in lieu of actual argument? I read Acharya's response to Rook (posted earlier this thread) and the whole time she argued against the accusation that she had claimed Plato and Caesar were actually divine (as opposed to claiming that some had tried to push that story). An improbable accusation I don't recall ever having been made. Really, what the hell is going on here?
magilum wrote: If
Indeed. I was going to write a response to her, but her whole response was a strawman (after erroneously claiming I made one!), and she cited really old sources - at one point she cited Voltaire! Because he is totally new scholarship! I'm surprised she didn't cite Graves! Did you note her "refutation" to my argument against Speusippus was that "only Christians" argue against it, and because "they have bias" we should "ignore them?" Seriously, she might as well have just called me a Christian. And if that is the case, she has just proven how incredibly horrible of a scholar she really is. Not to mention she didn't provide a single shred of evidence for her case.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Nero wrote: Hahahahhah!
Actually telly is a common slang word and isn't used by the poncy butler type British stereotype you yanks laugh at (in fact I never met one in my life, although up here in the North that's a stereotype for southerners (and I've never met a southerner like that either)).
We aren't all either posh or cockneys in England you know. We have an incredible amount of indigenous accents, dialects, languages and localised cultures for an island only 1/4 the size of Texas. To give an example if you go 10 miles north out of Manchester to Bolton or Bury you may as well be in a different country the accent is so different, 30 miles West you actually are in a different country (Cymru/Wales) with its own language.
Please don't sterotype us because arfter awll its bladdy rude.
Atheist Books
I have called you a
I have called you a Christian, Rook, many times. Guess you missed it.What makes you think Spong is the biggest Christian asshole? Seems to me you are like typical Christians who can't stand what he has to say and then send him death threats. Yes, it is Christians who send him death threats. Really nice bunch of people.Seems to me, like many Christians, you can't deal when someone shows you wrong, so you throw a tantrum and like many Christians, you become abusive when you don't like what is said. Not once have I cussed you out, yet you come at me like a typical Christian- abusive and hateful.Well, this is one Chicken shit atheist (a Humanist) who isn't Chicken Shit and will call them as she sees them. IF you aren't a Christian, Rook, you sure do give atheists a bad name. Personally, I'd gladly give you back to the Christians since you support them so much and act a lot like them, esp when shown wrong.Oh yes, I know, you'll deny it strongly. *rolling eyes* What you know what those in the psych field say about angry denial.
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 have
I don't believe he was talking about Spong. I believe he was talking about the
guy who runs the Atheism Sucks site that you pulled from.
I'm not against vitriol as long as it is properly aimed."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, Two things. 1) I
Mriana,
Two things.
1) I removed your links due to potential legal ramifications which I am not at liberty to reveal. Do not put them up again.
2) I'm completely tired of reading this thread. If you wish to retain posting priviledges here, you will not post another ad hominem attack, and you will confine your posts to matters of fact -- namely, you will directly answer the repeated requests for citations.
As a side note, and a word of advice, you should know that a polite response is your only option. One ad hominem, or one childish quip about censorship, and I will ban you immediately. You've been given a longer leash than most. We do not tolerate flame wars.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Mriana wrote: Seems to me,
1) He's not a christian.
2) The "you give (atheists/whatever group) a bad name" comment is rather ridiculous.
You don't seem to have anything to say other than that you don't like Rook. No one cares.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
Books on atheism.
Freethinkaluva wrote: I am
If that was really your goal, you failed. All you've actually accomplished is to show that you're a jealous, angry asshole.
Next time, actually work out whether your stated goal is really your goal... if so, then try avoiding outright hypocrisy - if you think the person you are attacking is being unfair, then be fair. If you think he's rude, then avoid being rude. If you think he's unprofessional, then act professional.
All you've managed to do is bring out anyone who supports Rook to support him even further.
You're a fucking joke.
As for your response to this: I couldn't fucking care less. I won't even read it. Too busy with important things.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
Books on atheism.
it appears ad hominen
it appears ad hominen attacks are okay, as long as they are not aimed at Rook. I've noticed a great theme here: "don't contradict Rook or else". The hypocrisy is amazing. Mriana and free are right. You guys do give atheists a bad name. It's no wonder RRS is becoming more and more of a joke. If you want to vent go ahead, but don't pretend you can hold a candle to the grownups like Archaya, Price and Spong, b/c you can't. You won't be happy until EVERYONE is your type of atheist, and anyone who doesn't fit is "chicken shit" or "irrational". Yeah, that's soo much better and so different than religion. Just b/c you have do central dogma doesn't mean you can't act like them. "Support RRS and agree with everything or else". Truly pathetic.
"We do not tolerate flame
"We do not tolerate flame wars."
unless you win them or start them.
How could you possibly
How could you possibly mistake Rook for a Christian?
Apparently you don't know
Apparently you don't know what "flame war" means.
"You're an asshole because so far this thread you've produced nothing productive except insults, so you get what you give." - NOT a flame.
"You're an asshole because you disagree." - Flame.
Get it?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
friendlyagnostic wrote: it
When Rook releases his book, I hope it's held up to intense scrutiny; and if it turns out he doesn't back up his claims, he deserves to get raked over the coals (nothing personal). How many Acharya fans have popped into this thread so far to talk shit? Three? four? Not one has been able to answer my modest question, so maybe you can be the one. If you're interested in starting a real conversation about her claims, tell me how she substantiates her claim that the supposed similarities between Jesus and Krishna suggest direct influence.
[Snipped full paragraph of empty personal attacks.]
History becomes prejudice,
History becomes prejudice, rather than cold facts, it's also story telling with an additude and interpretation, often more a philosophy, which is fine as long as we know that.
Why people think what they do is more my first interest.
Flame throwing is love.
Looking for god is doubt of ourself.
Knowing I am stupid is the highest of all my realizations.
Relax, Fight , why? , yeah why, ask Iraq.
BEER helps ....
Atheism Books.
for what it's worth
for what it's worth .... crazy train ....
Google it , jewish philosophy , etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_philosophy
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3k.htm
send this to rook ? Some of this I found interesting, I'm rather un read ... .
Jewish philosophy http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/J066
The first three of these ways are all variations of the Cosmological Argument. The first way is an argument from motion, derived fairly directly from Aristotle's Metaphysics:
There is something moving.
Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is god).
.... ME IS INDEED stupid, just like you .....
Atheism Books.
magilum wrote: When Rook
That is the difference right there. I'm being Peer Reviewed - I can bet you any amount of money under a dollar (because I'm poor) that Acharya has not been. If something is not adequately backed up - it is stopped at Peer Review until I can provide support, and if I cannot provide evidence, the claim must be revisited, and revised. It won't get to book form before being raked through the coals.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Just what does matter of
Just what does matter of fact mean? Does this mean I have to repeat like a parrot what you say or do I have the right to keep my opinion that Jesus is a myth copied after other myths like Osiris and alike? If I have to parrot you and agree with you, then that is just as bad as the Pope.Fact: Jesus is a copy of other myths. Many reputable scholars have said that, but you have not even read them. Just what supports your theory. (that's not an ad hominem, that's the truth) Here I stand.However, I some how have a feeling if it doesn't agree with you it's an ad hominem, but just so we are clear, please do explain #2, so we are clear on it. If means parroting you concerning myth, then no, because I do not agree. I've spent over 20 years studying this with many of the best and I'm convinced Jesus was a myth or at the very least someone who is buried so deep in myth, we can't find him.
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Rook_Hawkins
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: Just what
What's your opinion based on beyond superficial similarities between mythical figures? None of you have managed to do anything but reiterate what you've heard from Acharya about similarities.
Here's a post on another site where the claims of Acharya are challenged as unsubstantiated and based on second-hand references (that have often already been discredited).
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/
Once again, her proponents are ill-equipped to defend her positions beyond restating the broad, and often false, similarities between the Jesus myth and others (Horus in this case). I've seen other ones as well, but I've never seen a point-by-point rebuttal by any Acharya proponent, or Acharya herself, that substantiated anything.
magilum wrote: Mriana
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: magilum
Are you talking about the part where you say Spong and Price agree that the stories are similar? Is that your reference? I've already addressed that. You didn't post anything that said Price supported actual influence, just similarity. Correlation != causation and similarity doesn't itself connote influence.
I never said the story was unique, I'm just asking you to back up your claims of influence beyond similarities, which you haven't done.
You're gonna have to post a link, since I don't have the inclination to look for your references for you.
There's a difference between reading sources and just accepting them. For instance, in the link I'd posted previously, 'Consigliere' writes:
He goes on to cite a dozen more claims of the Horus/Jesus parallels and their lack of substantiation. I would think it possible for someone familiar with Acharya's work to refute the claim that it's based on invalid scholarship as cited above. If you think I'm taking 'Consigliere's' word for it, think again -- I've searched for things like 'Isis-Meri,' the supposed parallel to the Virgin Mary, and only come up with references to Acharya's books and articles, and refutations of them. Where does this claim of parallel come from?
OK lady, you've been to college. That's dandy, but not an argument unto itself.
Mriana has been asked this
Mriana has been asked this over and over and in multiple threads - she ceases to give adequate information. As you say, Magilum, it is one thing to read and understand an argument, and even an arguments flaws - but something else to just accept a position without question.
IN Mriana's case, it seems that she focuses a lot on a small selection of authors, and I doubt if she really understands the arguments involved - I'm basing this conclusion on her completely inability to provide evidence, and her apparent lack of understanding as to what constitutes as 'evidence.' She seems to mix up hearsay and opinion with evidence, and that bothers me.
Great points all around.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Rook_Hawkins wrote: Mriana
Mriana
"Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark." ~ Lois Smith as Iris Hineman in The Minority Report
Mriana
Y'know, Mriana, I stuck your paragraph into a text editor and had it count the words that were on topic. The result: 9.36%. This:
“I have several people I could add to my list of sources,”
That leaves 90.64% personal attack and hand-wringing. That's not an argument from me with the topic, just food for thought.
On topic, I don't doubt that you could list more names, but is the criteria by which you include them better than that for Price? That is, do these people actually acknowledge Egyptian or Hindu influences, or simply similarities; and then, do they acknowledge them having researched them themselves, or do they take Acharya's word for it? Do they accept what she says as a likely explanation, or simply an interesting or novel one? Do they, contrary to what I've seen so far, go back to the source texts and explain how their specific inferences have been derived, and explain how ambiguities in translation could provide different interpretations?
We all take things for granted, and defer to expertise and authority sometimes, but it's important to know when we do it and why; and when we can, to question those assumptions, and revise our views accordingly.
Bump, .... Yes ,
Bump, .... Yes , evidence ? history is half bs, as rook says,
"seems to mix up hearsay and opinion with evidence, and that bothers me." , said rook .....
Yeah, So mush BS, me is a rook fan , I could be wrong , but seems rook is just saying our evidence ain't there .....
I love it .....
Atheism Books.
Hey I AM, "your an
Hey I AM, "your an idiot" .... hey I already knew that ....
Just wanted to say, ... my interruptions are often for we dummys who are trying to learn something here at rrs. My humor can suck, I'm a lousy Mark Twain impersonator .... anyhow here's a brief simple summary-history relative to this thread topic .... the how and why of it ?
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology Mithra, Horus, Buddha etc.
Jesus myth hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
"It has recently been popularized by a number of authors including Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke, Acharya S, and Peter Gandy."
the jesus myth http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+jesus+myth&btnG=Search
.... Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows ....
The Truth About The Jesus Myth Part 1, 10 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zNJcPiIDg .... the conflicting comments are better than the video !What's an atheist muther to do ? historical truth is impossible I say, history fans are lovers, .... let's invent a time machine ! .... peace out
Atheism Books.
(duplicate snipped)
(duplicate snipped)
First, I'd like to thank
First, I'd like to thank Rook Hawkins for taking on Acharya S's work. It seems to me to be rather shallow and superficial, though I can't quite put my finger on it. Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier and Robert Price are MUCH, MUCH better; at they very least, they discuss their sources, something which Acharya S seldom does.
As to Plato being the son of a god and a virgin, Diogenes Laertius claims that in his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, though that document is some centuries after the fact. Pythagoras ended up with that claim being made about him also, though Iamblichus, who mentions that claim, lived some centuries after the fact also. Interestingly, Iamblichus is rather skeptical of that story.
On Pythagoras, the Neoplatonist Porphyry tells us that he succeeded in getting an ox to stop eating that great no-no food: beans. Yes, "thou shalt not eat beans."
There was a Roman Emperor who supposedly had divine parentage: Augustus Caesar, according to an account related by Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars. And Caesarean section has nothing to do with Julius Caesar himself; it's derived from a word meaning "to cut". So "Caesar" literally means something like "cutter".
And about Krishna, whoever got the idea of his virgin birth? If anything, he was the opposite, having 7 brothers born before him. However, Krishna fits various other hero-myth tropes very well, like King Kamsa wanting to kill him out of fear that he will someday kill Kamsa. That king killed all of Krishna's brothers, and Krishna himself was rescued and brought up by foster parents.
Lord Raglan had constructed a classic Mythic-Hero profile, which is a sort of average biography of such heroes. Though it does have a few problems, like not splitting "royal" and "virgin" into two criteria, not featuring child-prodigy stories, and not including prophecy fulfillment and attempts to thwart it.
Yes, prophecy fulfillment, like prophecies fulfilled not only by Jesus Christ, but also by Romulus, Oedipus, Perseus, Krishna, the Buddha, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar.
"It seems to me to be rather
"It seems to me to be rather shallow and superficial, though I can't quite put my finger on it. Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier and Robert Price are MUCH, MUCH better; at they very least, they discuss their sources, something which Acharya S seldom does."
Okay, so let me guess, you've never read her books either. At the bookstore this weekend I came across "Suns of God" so I flipped through it. She cites her sources thoroughly and discusses them from what I saw, so this claim that she doesn't is an out-right lie.
There is something very wrong about this blog. The dishonesty on the part of those attacking an authors work (in this case Acharya's) without ever having actually read it is DISTURBING.
Both Earl Doherty and Dr. Price have written positive reviews of Acharya's work. And Dr. Price has apparently written the foreword to her new book "Who Was Jesus?" as you can see his comments here - http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html
Lord Raglan's "The Hero Pattern" scores Krishna at 21. Which is higher than Jesus' score at 18.
If one has a quick look here at the bottom of Acharya's "Suns of God" promo page you'll notice she has 7 out of 15 chapters about Krishna & Buddha in her 600 page book. http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Seems to me that one would need to study it in order to know her position and the facts and evidence she brings to the table before launching an attack on it.
What I see in this blog is akin to a crusade, except this one comes from the militant atheist fundamentalists attacking a Jesus Mythicist. Pure genius (that was sarcasm).
The hero pattern
The hero pattern demonstrates similarities. Price's review acknowledges the similarities. But similarities are insufficient to demonstrate connections. What needs to be established here is proof that one directly influenced the other.
Then there are the problems with some of the supposed similarities themselves. The claim that Horus was born of a virgin named "Isis-Meri" for instance, is one I can't find substantiation for beyond the claims of the author.
When she cites sources, how far back do they go? There is a lot of scholarship that has since been discredited, so it's important what specifically was cited.
WHY is this such a difficult
WHY is this such a difficult thing to understand? If you're vague and look deep enough, similarities can exist in the most opposite of two identities! Look, John A.T. Robinson and I both drove green cars, that doesn't mean I got the idea to drive a green car from Robinson. William Craig has a hot wife (he says), and I have a hot girlfriend - that doesn't mean he influenced me to get a hot girlfriend. Correlation does not equal causation. This is a simple logical equation. This is not that hard to comprehend people. If you can present us with the evidence that in this case, the causation is due to influence from the two indentities (stating similarities does not count, as shown above), we'll gladly agree. Until that day, you don't have a case.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Hello Peeps This blog has
Hello Peeps
This blog has been very interesting but I think both sides need to leave their ego's at the front door!
The won't budge opinion that both parties have expressed have only caused hostile exchanges, this achieves absolutely 0!
Wise men (& woman) don't argue they contemplate!
I Know Nothing wrote:Hello
Is that all you have to say? What is your point? What about the review of Acharya S?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
What do you say about this?
Yeah... You obviously don't know the story about Buddha either... who was Royalty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQqa3oItK3s
Who Was Jesus
I recently completed reading the Gospel according to Acharya and I'm 3/4 finished with Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of Christ. I've been a born-again believer most of my 37 years. I've been to church countless times various denominations various preachers for many many years. I've done home bible studies sang in choir you name it. Both my parents taught sunday shcool, my mom for over 25 years. We discussed theology like most families discuss sports. My unbelief began early and I constantly sought mentorship within the church to enlighten me on the grey areas of the bible or weird doctrine that I needed explaining. For years Ive been travelling on my own truth seeker path and seeking Christ in earnest. Ive had so many doubts and problems with everything. I can go back to childhood for examples of how things just dont seem right in the church and how the theology or doctrine or religious piety or whatever it is, is wrong just on gut instinct. Realize ive been baptized twice and rededicated saved about a zillion times. Its hocus pocus. Its lies. IT is a deliberate deception that has trickled down to us and because we just have to have some guy named God floating above us we then just go ahead and believe a load of insanity.
The Fingerprints of Jesus book blows it out of the water. I'm educated I get it. Objectively as I can be, Acharya S. is completely justified in maintaining that Jesus is a myth. Thank You Acharya!!
Freethinkaluva wrote:Have a
<br>
I'm not sure if you realize it, but "Sun" and "son" are only homophones in the English language. Even doing a simple Google Translate can show you that they are completely different in Greek (son = γιος, sun = ήλι&omicron
. It's not even close... so this little game you make up of "Sun Worship" is equal to "Son Worship" is lazy wrong at best, completely lazy at worst.
<br>
If someone can find proof that in another language other than English that Son and Sun are homophones, and would have been used in the time periods between 2000-3000 years ago, then you might have some right to your claims, but you just won't find any, so give it up already
Too Smug
The problem I have with atheists of Rook's ilk is that they are all so damn smug.
Acharya S
Mr. Rook- I realize this is an old thread, but did you ever read Acharya's books? She sites everyone of her sources of research in the footnotes of the pages in her books. I ask, because you pointed out many times that nobody was giving any sources to back anything up. Acharya painstakingly noted all of her sources and research. I was just curious how this debate turned out after 5 years. Thanks!