What’s with Acharya S.

Share your thoughts on the written word.
User avatar
Chadvoodoo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:59 am
Location: Shanghai, China
Contact:

What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Chadvoodoo » Wed May 11, 2005 3:54 am

I just ordered the book ‘Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha & Christ Unveiled’ and am looking forward to reading it. I had previously read parts of her book ‘The Christ Conspiracy; The Greatest Story Ever Sold’ and enjoyed it very much. The Author- Acharya S.- writes well and the length and breadth of her knowledge in the area of myth, religion and history seams inexhaustible.

But a couple of things about her and her books send up red flags:

1)Her books are published by Adventures Unlimited Press, a firm that has an extensive catalog of what I can best describe as “fringe” books (conspiracy stuff, books on Atlantis, U.F.O.’s, etc.).

2)Her webpage- http://www.truthbeknown.com - has a certain “new agey” feel that I find inconsistent with her being a self professed skeptic and critical thinker. To be more specific, she professes a belief in U.F.O. and aliens (while admitting that she can not prove it). And in such essays on her website as ‘Mysteries of the World’ she celebrates some fantastic cosmic anomalies she claims science cannot explain--all the while labeling debunkers and skeptics as “dogmatic and dull”.

In my way of thinking, (and I could be wrong) to hold religion and the belief in a personal god up to such rigid and thought provoking scrutiny and then let the U.F.O. klatch off the hook is a bit inconsistent. It’s like condemning the eating of candy and then binging on donuts!

What I’m wondering is how Acharya S. is regarded by scholars in the area of myth and religion? How well regarded is she by other professionals in both the skeptic community and the ancient studies community?

Again, even though she seems dead on as far as the subject of the origins of Christianity is concerned; the fact that she doesn’t have a more mainstream publisher worries me a little bit.
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” - Denis Diderot

User avatar
Colonel Hogan
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Postby Colonel Hogan » Fri May 13, 2005 6:27 pm

I don't believe "Acharya S." is regarded at all by the Biblical scholarship community. I think she is probably a Wiccan feminist -- she makes some good arguments but basically she rehashes Wheless constantly.

Richard Spencer
New Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Postby Richard Spencer » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:56 am

Acharya S. is one of many new authors who have written on the subject of Jesus and his pagan predecessors. The result of these works has generally been to present Jesus as a myth and not a person who lived in history. The bulk of their arguments typically rests on comparing essential elements of the story of Jesus with similar instances in pagan mythology. The problem with these works should be obvious to skeptics; we've got a lot of people quoting each other and producing a lot of literature, but we rarely get any primary sources. Starting with authors like Gerald Massey and Kersey Graves, you end up getting a lot of interesting speculation, but little substance and enough scholarly errors to cast a dubious shadow on the entire genre.

These kinds of works typically end up serving as a bridge to some other "weird" beliefs. For example, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" was a very important book for me in leaving Christianity, but based on their more recent works, I can see a pattern developing something like this... (and this is not directed entirely or exclusively at Freke and Gandy, but is directed more at the genre)

1. Christianity as it exists in the world today is not literally accurate
2. Thanks to our scholarship and research, we have uncovered certain principles at work in the religions that influenced Christianity and early Gnosticism before it was corrupted
3. These principles are mystic truths and should be explored/experienced today

In other words, they're debunking Christianity - but they are doing so in order to use the popularity of Christianity to provide the foundation of their own mysticism. This can be done because they act as if they have located the genuine heart of truth that birthed Christianity. Even Elaine Pagels seems to have wondered slightly into this problem in her book on the Gospel of Thomas.

Acharya S's works, as you have noted Chad, seem to push deeply into this territory.

It is unfortunate that Acharya S seems to have become known as a current "scholar" who supports mythicist theories about Jesus. Her other theories place her well into the fringe and thereby make mythicists appear to be on the fringe. If I were you Chad, I would rest "Suns of God" on my bookshelf and pick up The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Dougherty or the many works of G.A. Wells on Jesus and the New Testament.

Nevertheless, the astrotheological influences on Christianity are certainly intersting to study. Just be warned - it risky to believe something simply because Acharya S says so.

NoMan
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:03 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby NoMan » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:50 am

Look at Acharya's references. Many of them are old Theosophists from Blavatsky's circle. I have to credit her, she does manage to find obscure references and historical arguments that faded away. However, she also tends to ignore a lot of new scholarship in the area. A few thoughts of mine:

1.) Her repeated citations from 100 year old books is a common tactic used by people who do not write well. If a book is over so many years, no permission is necessary to use it, the book can be quoted word for word as long as the original author is credited.

2.) She does embrace many of the stranger theories that float about. She does not agree with Zacharia Sitchin, but holds many opinions that float in the same arena as him. She reminds me greatly of David Icke.

3.) She is lacking on credentials. Her only credential is an undergrad in mythology. She doesn't say what level that undergrad is either, two year or four years?

4.) She uses some very spurious sources. Particularly, her repeated use of Barbara Walker in her online rants. Walker is a femi-nazi pagan that believes everything wrong in the world can be traced to a white man. Her scholarship is completely lacking. Even people doing Amazon reviews that look up her work find she deliberately falsifies information from her sources. Outside from Walker, most of her sources are going to be old theosophists.

5.) Her tactics resemble Freke & Gandy. They push against Christianity as we know it to substitute it for their gnostic blend of Christianity. She pushes it for a pre-Christian mother-worshipping religion. Skeptics will say, "Why should we overthrow the Pope and then institute the Dhali Lama?" Just note that there is an ideological agenda.

6.) Check Richard Carrier's arguments along these lines:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... raves.html

He's a historian who has written and researched extensively on this time period. Follow the links at the bottom and you'll get into some more meaty discussions about these types of arguments and the flaws inherent to them.

7.) Having said all that, she isn't that bad for information on Christianity. Just be skeptical about what she says, look for where she gets information from, and compare her work with Dr. Robert Price, Earl Doherty, or G.A. Wells. I mention these three because they do not have any known ideological bias, (except that Price is a H.P. Lovecraft fan).

8.) Which reminds me of one other thing. She seems very uncritical of her sources. In a debate with a Christian on her references, she keeps saying, "Well, so and so said that, so it's not me." For example, that there are 150,000 textual variations on the New Testament. When challenged on it by modern standards there isn't nearly that many, she just repeats it. "So and so said it, it's not me."

Okay. The whole point of being an author and supposedly an expert on a field is to present the wheat from the chaff. If you're just lumping sources together without discrimination, then you're back to the problem that Richard Carrier talked about, the work becomes useless as a reference, since you have to repeat all the research of the person's book in order to find out what is right and what is wrong.

http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/inde ... =acharya-s

Is a two-part rebuttle.

User avatar
Chadvoodoo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:59 am
Location: Shanghai, China
Contact:

Postby Chadvoodoo » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:26 am

Thank you Richard, Col. Hogan and NoMan. Your comments and feedback were helpful.
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” - Denis Diderot

shamrock
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: Ontario Canada

Postby shamrock » Wed May 24, 2006 9:12 pm

I read Acharya's books and enjoyed them. If you read the feedback in the "Emails I have loved" section on her website, you'll encounter a number of people who benefitted from her books: they stopped believing in Christ.
You can be skeptical about anything you want to be....except the luck of the Irish!!

mikeledo
New Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:17 am
Location: South Carolina

Book is Bunk

Postby mikeledo » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:39 pm

Now I will confess I believe that the Bible is based upon a cosmic myth. But this author has it all wrong.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:49 pm

LOL, a little reading of Acharya's FAQ's would help esssssplain all of these issues.

What about Acharya's publisher - Adventurers Unlimited Press?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4764#p4764

Is Acharya a "New Ager" and part of the “New Age Movement”?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4756#p4756

Who Is Gerald Massey?
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/w ... assey.html

Kersey Graves
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4770#p4770

JP Holding
www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm

Mike Licona
http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

[quote]"STUPID THINGS RICHARD CARRIER HAS DONE AND SAID"

"Richard Carrier Owes Acharya an Apology"

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771[/quote]

"Emails I have loved"
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... f=3&t=1959

[b]"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

"Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion." "We sorely need a new History of Religions School for the 21st century, to apply modern techniques to this important ancient material. Perhaps this book will help bring that about."
- Earl Doherty

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church[/b]

Primary sources and scholar commentary on them support ZG1:

Sourcebook
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf

Primary Sources & Scholars cited in the ZG1 Sourcebook
http://www.truthbeknown.com/zeitgeistsources.html

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Zeitgeist Part 1
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =19&t=2997

If you guys ever read her newer books like the below you'd realize that she's one of the best scholars writing on the subject alive today:

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/c ... egypt.html

Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
http://www.amazon.com/Moses-Exist-Myth- ... uthbeknown

She is also the very first to ever create a succinct, comprehensive mythicist position:

Why I Am a Mythicist
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... f=5&t=4344

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... php?t=2160

What is a Mythicist?
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

The Mythicist Position video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:53 pm

Oh yeah, she has also already announced a revised 2nd edition to her first book, Christ Conspiracy (1999) set to come out in late 2014 or sometime in 2015:

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Revised 2nd Edition
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... m.php?f=26

anonymous66
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:15 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby anonymous66 » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:25 am

I'm suspicious of her research methods after learning she was the "expert" behind the Zeitgeist movie. What a disaster that was.

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:03 pm

[quote="anonymous66"]I'm suspicious of her research methods after learning she was the "expert" behind the Zeitgeist movie. What a disaster that was.[/quote]

LOL, the only people who say those types of things are those who are out to smear her. Scholars and others who've actually read her work are supportive:

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology, Review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt"

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary, Chicago

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church, Houston, TX

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, Review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt"
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... _egypt.htm

Zeitgeist part 1 was no disaster as it was viewed by over 300 million people worldwide across nearly 3 dozen languages - never before has mythicism gotten around to so many. Plus, the Zeitgeist part 1 Sourcebook provides the primary sources and scholar commentary on them backing up ZG1:

Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook transcript & sources
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Some people will go to great lengths to lie about Zeitgeist part 1 and Acharya S. Her work gets better and better with each new book and her latest book, is fantastic.

Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
http://www.amazon.com/Moses-Exist-Myth- ... uthbeknown

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:51 pm

Zeitgeist was a "disaster" in that it contained soooo many errors. It literally made me gag repeatedly.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:09 pm

It is demonstrably false to claim Zeitgeist part 1 is full of errors when the primary sources are cited in the Sourcebook along with scholar commentary on them. These are lies from the desperate out to shore up their faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means lying about it. What does Jesus do about those lies?

Primary sources and scholar commentary on them support ZG1:

Sourcebook
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf

Primary Sources & Scholars cited in the ZG1 Sourcebook
http://www.truthbeknown.com/zeitgeistsources.html

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Zeitgeist Part 1
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =19&t=2997

No, Zeitgeist has not been refuted!
http://freethoughtnation.com/no-zeitige ... n-refuted/

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:24 am

Zeus22 wrote:It is demonstrably false to claim Zeitgeist part 1 is full of errors when the primary sources are cited in the Sourcebook along with scholar commentary on them.

It is actually demonstrably true to claim Zeitgeist part 1 is full of errors, simply by showing some of those errors. Here is one of my favourites:

"And during this three day pause, the sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation."

No. The Sun is never in the "vicinity" of the Southern Cross (or Crux). It gets as close to the Southern Cross as it gets to the Big Dipper. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest, as the movie did, that the Sun actually enters the constellation of the Southern Cross. Look at the map of the constellations for yourself, and it should be absolutely obvious: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... r_plot.svg

Furthermore, there wasn't even a constellation called "the Southern Cross" until the 16th century AD, when European sailors started exploring further south. Before that it was just part of another constellation, Centaurus.

The same anachronistic error is made when the movie claims the three stars of Orion's belt were known as the Three Kings. The did not receive this name until probably the 18th century.

These are lies from the desperate out to shore up their faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means lying about it.

I am not "the desperate out to shore up [my] faith", I am an atheist. What I am is someone with enough knowledge of astronomy to see the BS being passed on to, and eaten up by, the gullible people who desperately want to somehow "disprove" Christianity. The right way to do something like that is with facts, not the made up nonsense being espoused by people like Acharya S.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:53 pm

LOL,

[quote]Gord: "It is actually demonstrably true to claim Zeitgeist part 1 is full of errors, simply by showing some of those errors. Here is one of my favourites:

"And during this three day pause, the sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation."[/quote]

And you would be wrong, probably because you don't know what you're talking about and you have obviously not read the Sourcebook proving you wrong with primary sources and scholar commentary on them. [b]I am also an atheist and these errors you spout embarrass us all!!![/b] Atheists like you are part of the problem not the solution because you detour people from reading the material for themselves to see the evidence that people like you claim doesn't exist.

Wiki: "It was entirely visible as far north as Britain in the fourth millennium BC."

Southern Cross / Crux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux

Zeitgeist Part 1: The Greatest Story Ever Told
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-qYDb7 ... aFzRpetf2A

Here's a response to a comment:

[quote]"Although I am not personally responsible for that particular element, this issue is addressed in the Sourcebook, which I wrote and which you can obtain here:

"It has been claimed that the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere and that, therefore, the Egyptians, for one, could not have included it in their myths. In the first place, the fact is that the Southern Cross is indeed visible in the current era from anywhere south of 27° N, which includes a large portion of Egypt, such as some of the most important sites like Abu Simbel (21° N), Luxor (25° N) and Aswan (24° N), as well as some of the most ancient sites like Nabta Playa (22° N), where, again, there is an ancient observatory at least 6,000 years old. Secondly, at the time when the gospel story purportedly took place, the Southern Cross was visible just south of 32° N, as related by astronomer Dr. Chris Dolan:

"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."

As we can see, if the baby Jesus had really and truly been born in Judea, to the south would have appeared in the sky the figure of the Southern Cross."

- Acharya S[/quote]

I think she's far better at this and has far more experience at this than you, Gord.

[quote]Gord: "Furthermore, there wasn't even a constellation called "the Southern Cross" until the 16th century AD, when European sailors started exploring further south. Before that it was just part of another constellation, Centaurus."[/quote]

Strawman argument, ZG1 was created in 2007 not 2007 BCE. The constellation was still there and did exist regardless of the name and is not a legit argument. It merely exposes your own biases demonstrating that you are not a reliable or credible source on the subject. Now, you owe Acharya an apology for falsely accusing her of "[i]made up nonsense being espoused by people like Acharya S[/i]."

[quote]Gord: "The same anachronistic error is made when the movie claims the three stars of Orion's belt were known as the Three Kings. The did not receive this name until probably the 18th century."[/quote]

LOL, you simply have no idea what you're talking about and are in fact regurgitating Christian apologist arguments and it is extremely embarrassing. There's simply too much evidence from primary sources and Egyptologist commentary on them making the case in her book:

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Egypt-Horu ... 979963117/

It's also obvious you have never read:

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

There's good reason why scholars who've actually read her work like Dr. Price are supportive of it:

[b][size=150]"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's [/size][/b]

The rest of the arguments from the anti-Zeitgeist part 1 crowd are of the same crap quality as what you've provided here. It's pathetic. Please stop embarrassing all freethinkers.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:04 am

Zeus22 wrote:LOL,

Gord: "It is actually demonstrably true to claim Zeitgeist part 1 is full of errors, simply by showing some of those errors. Here is one of my favourites:

"And during this three day pause, the sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation."


And you would be wrong, probably because you don't know what you're talking about and you have obviously not read the Sourcebook proving you wrong with primary sources and scholar commentary on them....

Wiki: "It was entirely visible as far north as Britain in the fourth millennium BC."

Yes, the stars could be seen in Britain in the fourth millennium. That doesn't disprove anything I said! The Sun still didn't go any nearer to them then than it did to the Big Dipper!

It's an intentional misdirect on the part of the makers of the movie.

I am also an atheist and these errors you spout embarrass us all!!! Atheists like you are part of the problem not the solution because you detour people from reading the material for themselves to see the evidence that people like you claim doesn't exist.

No, I'm part of the solution. It's people like you, who continue to propagate the lies, who won't accept the corrections, who are the problem.

If you argue with the truth behind you, then you can win. But if you back up your claims with such obvious lies and misinterpretations as are presented in the movie, then you are just a mockery of the intelligent arguments against religions.

"Although I am not personally responsible for that particular element, this issue is addressed in the Sourcebook, which I wrote and which you can obtain here:

"It has been claimed that the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere and that, therefore, the Egyptians, for one, could not have included it in their myths. In the first place, the fact is that the Southern Cross is indeed visible in the current era from anywhere south of 27° N, which includes a large portion of Egypt, such as some of the most important sites like Abu Simbel (21° N), Luxor (25° N) and Aswan (24° N), as well as some of the most ancient sites like Nabta Playa (22° N), where, again, there is an ancient observatory at least 6,000 years old. Secondly, at the time when the gospel story purportedly took place, the Southern Cross was visible just south of 32° N, as related by astronomer Dr. Chris Dolan:

"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."

As we can see, if the baby Jesus had really and truly been born in Judea, to the south would have appeared in the sky the figure of the Southern Cross."

- Acharya S

I think she's far better at this and has far more experience at this than you, Gord.

First of all, that argument isn't what I said at all. There's no doubt they were aware of the stars in the modern constellation of the Southern Cross, because back then they were part of the constellation of Centaurus. Maybe before you try arguing against what it is you think I've said, you should read what I wrote and try to understand what it is I actually said.

Second, she is obviously not better at this than I am. I have three years of university astronomy, and hundreds of hours of observations of the sky. That's how I'm so easily able to recognize the nonsense in the movie. She, on the other hand, is unaware of the location and the history of the Southern Cross and of the path of the Sun through the constellations. Even when shown that she is wrong, she continues to stand behind the images from a make-believe world where the Sun suddenly deviated 40° to be "crucified" on a constellation that didn't exist for another 1600 years.

Gord: "Furthermore, there wasn't even a constellation called "the Southern Cross" until the 16th century AD, when European sailors started exploring further south. Before that it was just part of another constellation, Centaurus."

Strawman argument, ZG1 was created in 2007 not 2007 BCE. The constellation was still there and did exist regardless of the name and is not a legit argument. It merely exposes your own biases demonstrating that you are not a reliable or credible source on the subject. Now, you owe Acharya an apology for falsely accusing her of "made up nonsense being espoused by people like Acharya S."

It is not a strawman argument. Sweet black baby Jebus, the only one here making strawmen is you. The constellation didn't exist until the 16th century; it could not have been a part of the thought processes of people before it was invented!

I will not apologize to Acharya S. for espousing such made up nonsense as is put forth by the movie she continues to stand behind.

Gord: "The same anachronistic error is made when the movie claims the three stars of Orion's belt were known as the Three Kings. The did not receive this name until probably the 18th century."

LOL, you simply have no idea what you're talking about and are in fact regurgitating Christian apologist arguments and it is extremely embarrassing.

No, I'm the one with the knowledge here, you are the one regurgitating nonsense. Take one course in astronomy, go out and locate all the named constellations in your night sky, and you will see the obvious truth for yourself. It's there to be seen, for realsies! You can do what I and thousands of others have done, and verify reality for yourself!

There's simply too much evidence from primary sources and Egyptologist commentary on them making the case in her book:

If she had good astronomical evidence, she failed to get it into the movie.

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Egypt-Horu ... 979963117/

It's also obvious you have never read:

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

You don't know what you're talking about. I have read both, and I shuddered in dismay at the nonsense they portray.

There's good reason why scholars who've actually read her work like Dr. Price are supportive of it:

And there's even better reason why scholars who've actually read her work dismiss her as a crank.

The rest of the arguments from the anti-Zeitgeist part 1 crowd are of the same crap quality as what you've provided here. It's pathetic. Please stop embarrassing all freethinkers.

You call the glaringly obvious, observable, verifiable truth "crap quality". You are an embarrassment to all thinkers, free or...I dunno, whatever the hell else type of thinkers you seem to think there are around here.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:41 pm

I see, so you insist on embarrassing yourself and all freethinkers. You either do not know what you're talking about or you're intentionally confused on what Zeitgeist was actually saying there. The Southern Cross/Crux was visible from Egypt and Jerusalem and that's what they may have seen several thousand years ago. You are strawmaning and it's dishonest.

Like other anti-Zeitgeisters you have to distort the facts and it's disingenuous. So, make it up however you need to. Thing is, even if it was wrong, Acharya just said it did not come from her work so blaming her still just demonstrates your biases and dishonesty. And even if it were wrong it doesn't mean that everything else is. What you fail to grasp here is that it all depends on where one is on the planet, plus the earths tilt and it all makes the difference.

You're a self-proclaimed astronomy genius who still hasn't figured out that the earth tilts on its axis and other positions on the planet have different perspectives.

"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."
- Dr. Chris Dolan, Astronomer

I especially love how you try to claim it never existed as if somebody suddenly decided to put it up there. It existed and was there by whatever name.

It's impossible to have an objective discussion on this subject with someone as dishonest as you, Gord. Get a life. One cannot debate a pathological liar. I will waste no more time you.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:31 am

Zeus22 wrote:I see, so you insist on embarrassing yourself and all freethinkers. You either do not know what you're talking about or you're intentionally confused on what Zeitgeist was actually saying there. The Southern Cross/Crux was visible from Egypt and Jerusalem and that's what they may have seen several thousand years ago. You are strawmaning and it's dishonest.

Are you stupid? Zeigeist clearly implied that the Sun actually enters the constellation of the Southern Cross, while carefully wording it that it "nears" the constellation. It's intentional misdirection.

Like other anti-Zeitgeisters you have to distort the facts and it's disingenuous. So, make it up however you need to. Thing is, even if it was wrong, Acharya just said it did not come from her work so blaming her still just demonstrates your biases and dishonesty. And even if it were wrong it doesn't mean that everything else is. What you fail to grasp here is that it all depends on where one is on the planet, plus the earths tilt and it all makes the difference.

I didn't make up any of the {!#%@} they put into the movie Zeitgeist. If Acharya S. still stands behind it, then I will still blame her for standing behind the BS in the movie.

And no, it doesn't matter where you stand on the planet, the Sun never gets nearer to the Southern Cross than it gets to the Big Dipper. This is an absolutely obvious thing to anyone who understands anything about astronomy. Take a first year university course on the subject, and you will realize how embarrassingly ignorant you are of reality.

You're a self-proclaimed astronomy genius who still hasn't figured out that the earth tilts on its axis and other positions on the planet have different perspectives.

I am a documented astronomy genius, but that's irrelevant. I never claimed in this discussion I was a genius. It doesn't take a genius to know these things, and that's what's really embarrassing about this. Take a course on the subject, dammit! It doesn't take a genius to know that the tilt of the Earth on its axis does not in any way change the path of the Sun through the constellations.

"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."
- Dr. Chris Dolan, Astronomer

I never claimed the stars were not visible from the northern hemisphere. That is a strawman argument. Drop it immediately.

I especially love how you try to claim it never existed as if somebody suddenly decided to put it up there. It existed and was there by whatever name.

No, you complete moron. Constellations are creations of the human mind. The stars existed, but not the constellation of the Southern Cross. At the time, those stars were part of the constellation of Centaurus.

It's impossible to have an objective discussion on this subject with someone as dishonest as you, Gord. Get a life. One cannot debate a pathological liar. I will waste no more time you.

{!#%@} you, you {!#%@} shithead. You and your arrogant attitude are one reason why people look down on atheists. Next time someone tells me atheists are "deluded", I will mention you by name, and have to agree that, yes, at least one of us is. You are mistaken, and when corrected, you prefer to stay with the falsehood. YOU are the liar here, {!#%@}.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:32 pm

[quote]Gord "And no, it doesn't matter where you stand on the planet, the Sun never gets nearer to the Southern Cross than it gets to the Big Dipper. This is an absolutely obvious thing to anyone who understands anything about astronomy. Take a first year university course on the subject, and you will realize how embarrassingly ignorant you are of reality."[/quote]

LOL, and this is why you fail, you can't or won't grasp the concept that the Southern Cross/Crux was visible from Egypt and Jerusalem for several thousand years just off the horizon. You are strawmaning and it's dishonest.

[quote]Gord "It doesn't take a genius to know that the tilt of the Earth on its axis does not in any way change the path of the Sun through the constellations."[/quote]

That's great but, that's not what Zeitgeist was saying there so, it is and always has been *YOU* distorting the facts there using your strawman arguments that Zeitgeist never claimed. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a pathetic and sloppy error.

[quote]Gord "I never claimed the stars were not visible from the northern hemisphere. That is a strawman argument. Drop it immediately."[/quote]

LOL, that comment just proves my point that you can't or won't grasp the concept that the Southern Cross/Crux was visible from Egypt and Jerusalem for several thousand years just off the horizon and this is what Zeitgeist was talking about. You embarrass all atheists and freethinkers with such egregious errors and distortions.

This is a prime example of what you anti-Zeitgeisters do, you distort what ZG1 was saying in the first place and then, go on to make straw man arguments in your attempts to prove it wrong, but you fail and you will continue to fail.

Now, stop wasting my time with your pretzeled distortions. You're an embarrassment to all atheists, you sound like Matt Dillahunty, another embarrassment to atheists.

Professional astronomers side with Zeitgeist:

"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."
- Dr. Chris Dolan, Astronomer

Suck it up and deal with it.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:49 pm

Zeus22 wrote:
Gord "And no, it doesn't matter where you stand on the planet, the Sun never gets nearer to the Southern Cross than it gets to the Big Dipper. This is an absolutely obvious thing to anyone who understands anything about astronomy. Take a first year university course on the subject, and you will realize how embarrassingly ignorant you are of reality."

LOL, and this is why you fail, you can't or won't grasp the concept that the Southern Cross/Crux was visible from Egypt and Jerusalem for several thousand years just off the horizon. You are strawmaning and it's dishonest.

I never said the stars of the Southern Cross weren't visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. You're arguing with a strawman. Quit it.

Gord "It doesn't take a genius to know that the tilt of the Earth on its axis does not in any way change the path of the Sun through the constellations."

That's great but, that's not what Zeitgeist was saying there so, it is and always has been *YOU* distorting the facts there using your strawman arguments that Zeitgeist never claimed. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a pathetic and sloppy error.

You argued that "the earth tilts on its axis and other positions on the planet have different perspectives". I get to argue with things you said, too, not just what is said in Zeitgeist.

Zeitgeist says the Sun approaches the Southern Cross, and visually presents it as actually entering the constellation. The Sun never does that; the Sun never gets closer to the Southern Cross than it does to the Big Dipper. The tilt of the Earth's axis won't change that fact.

Gord "I never claimed the stars were not visible from the northern hemisphere. That is a strawman argument. Drop it immediately."

LOL, that comment just proves my point that you can't or won't grasp the concept that the Southern Cross/Crux was visible from Egypt and Jerusalem for several thousand years just off the horizon and this is what Zeitgeist was talking about. You embarrass all atheists and freethinkers with such egregious errors and distortions.

Hey, stupid: I never said the stars in the Southern Cross weren't visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. It's got nothing to do with anything I've said. You might as well tell me that birds have feathers -- it's irrelevant to my arguments.

Try arguing with me, and not with your imagination.

This is a prime example of what you anti-Zeitgeisters do, you distort what ZG1 was saying in the first place and then, go on to make straw man arguments in your attempts to prove it wrong, but you fail and you will continue to fail.

I haven't distorted anything. Zeitgeist distorted things. I'm just pointing out the errors, once again, to an idiot who's incapable of understanding even these basic, observable facts.

Now, stop wasting my time with your pretzeled distortions. You're an embarrassment to all atheists, you sound like Matt Dillahunty, another embarrassment to atheists.

You're an idiot, an embarrassment to the human race itself.

Professional astronomers side with Zeitgeist:

"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."
- Dr. Chris Dolan, Astronomer

I have never argued otherwise, except to say that it's the stars that were visible and not the constellation, which did not exist at the time. Dr. Chris Dolan is wrong about that, but it's a simple mistake, not a deliberate lie. As is common in conversational use, he is not differentiating between the stars themselves and the constellation.

Suck it up and deal with it.

Eat {!#%@}, moron.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:26 pm

[quote]Gord: "I never said the stars of the Southern Cross weren't visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. You're arguing with a strawman. Quit it."[/quote]

LOL, no, you only claimed they never existed in the first place and you just did it again, which is another one of your distortions. Now, you're trying to squirm your way around what you claimed.

Here's another egregious error on your part:

[quote]Gord: "Zeitgeist says the Sun approaches the Southern Cross, and visually presents it as actually entering the constellation. The Sun never does that; the Sun never gets closer to the Southern Cross than it does to the Big Dipper. The tilt of the Earth's axis won't change that fact."[/quote]

[img]http://i41.tinypic.com/1221co3.jpg[/img]

Here's another error:

[quote]Gord: "I never said the stars in the Southern Cross weren't visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. It's got nothing to do with anything I've said."[/quote]

It has everything to do with because you were wrong because you failed to address and did not understand what Zeitgeist was saying there and I've just established that fact and the fact that you are wrong. So, your "one of my favourites" turns out not to be an issue at all.

Dr. Chris Dolan was not wrong, you simply [b]STILL[/b] don't get it at all and you still can't figure out why you're embarrassing yourself here. It's pathetic. I feel sorry for you at this point. Perhaps you should ask for your money back from that "Big Lots" Astronomy course.

Now, stop wasting my time with your pretzeled distortions. You're an embarrassment to all atheists.
Last edited by Zeus22 on Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:43 pm

Here's an image establishing the fact that you are wrong, Gord. Get over it, suck it up and deal with it:

[img]http://i41.tinypic.com/1221co3.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d125/solarsky22/SouthernCrux1_zpsd765b4f4.jpg[/img]


http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 986#p16986

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:40 pm

Zeus22 wrote:
Gord: "I never said the stars of the Southern Cross weren't visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. You're arguing with a strawman. Quit it."

LOL, no, you only claimed they never existed in the first place and you just did it again, which is another one of your distortions. Now, you're trying to squirm your way around what you claimed.

I never said the stars of the Southern Cross didn't exist at the time, I said the constellation didn't exist at the time. Do you understand that a constellation is a man-made thing? It's a drawing.

Here's another egregious error on your part:

Gord: "Zeitgeist says the Sun approaches the Southern Cross, and visually presents it as actually entering the constellation. The Sun never does that; the Sun never gets closer to the Southern Cross than it does to the Big Dipper. The tilt of the Earth's axis won't change that fact."


Image

Your image demonstrates that what I've been telling you is correct. The Sun in that image is between the constellations of Capricorn and Sagittarius:

Image

That's not even when it's closest to the Southern Cross; it's closer when it's in the constellation of Libra. But even then, it is still roughly 40 degrees away from the Southern Cross. (That's one-ninth of the way around the entire sky.)

The same is true for the Sun's closest approach to the Big Dipper. When the Sun is in the constellation of, say, Leo, it is still 40 degrees away from the Big Dipper.

Look at this star chart and it should be obvious: http://wind.caspercollege.edu/~marquard ... ch_med.jpg

Note: The Big Dipper is off the top of the page, and the Southern Cross is off the bottom. The Sun follows the curving line through the constellations. It never gets anywhere close to either the Southern Cross or the Big Dipper.

Here's another error:

Gord: "I never said the stars in the Southern Cross weren't visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. It's got nothing to do with anything I've said."


It has everything to do with because you were wrong because you failed to address and did not understand what Zeitgeist was saying there and I've just established that fact and the fact that you are wrong. So, your "one of my favourites" turns out not to be an issue at all.

Zeitgeist propagates misinformation and outright deception about the Sun approaching and entering the constellation of the Southern Cross. I pointed it out. You've repeatedly attempted to claim that I said something I did not; I never said the stars in the Southern Cross were not visible from Egypt or Jerusalem in the past. That was never my argument. Ever. Yet you keep trying to argue against it, as if it has anything to do with what I've been saying. It has nothing to do with the errors I have pointed out in the movie.

The movie is wrong. Demonstrably. You are avoiding having to face that fact.

Dr. Chris Dolan was not wrong, you simply STILL don't get it at all and you still can't figure out why you're embarrassing yourself here. It's pathetic. I feel sorry for you at this point. Perhaps you should ask for your money back from that "Big Lots" Astronomy course.

Yes he was. I explained it to you clearly and carefully, and you still don't get it.

The facts are obvious if you'll just look at them. Take the simplest course in astronomy, and you'll be amazed at the BS being spewed in the Zeitgeist movie.

Now, stop wasting my time with your pretzeled distortions. You're an embarrassment to all atheists.

You make everyone associated with you look like idiots. You're dragging down the entire species with your stupidity. Please die without procreating; or if it's too late for that, take your children with you when you go. I recommend fire.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:42 pm

Zeus22 wrote:Here's an image establishing the fact that you are wrong, Gord. Get over it, suck it up and deal with it:

Image

Image


http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 986#p16986

Your image demonstrate that the Sun never approaches, never mind enters, the constellation of the Southern Cross.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Poodle » Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:08 pm

One of the most amusing threads since San Francisco Bay :D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:56 am

I hope you learned nothing from it, to keep it consistent with its message.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby fromthehills » Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:44 am

Cheers, Gord.

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:17 pm

Oh Geez, I was hoping a more intelligent person who has actually studied the material would've come in here to esssssplain it to Gord by now.

Gord wrote:Zeitgeist propagates misinformation and outright deception about the Sun approaching and entering the constellation of the Southern Cross" "Your image demonstrate that the Sun never approaches, never mind enters, the constellation of the Southern Cross."


Gord, you've added that to pad out your strawman argument due to your own biases and pseudo-skepticism against Zeitgeist part 1. You are putting words in ZG1 that they did not say and that's why you are in error. Granted, I'll concede that they could've explained it better.

ZG1 said: "in the VICINITY of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation" not *IN* the constellation.

Apparently, he meant along the horizon just as the image shows. Peter Joseph should've explained that better or just left it out but, he never claimed to be any type of scholar and the point with Zeitgeist part 1 was to get the discussion going not be the "end all." So, critics far too often attack ZG1 based on false premises as Zeitgeist was never created as an academic documentary.

Too many astronomers these days tend to have merely a basic knowledge of ancient mythology about the stars and do not always understand the intricacies of ancient star worship:

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites
http://astrotheology.net/star-worship-o ... sraelites/

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html

Gord wrote:Even when shown that she is wrong, she continues to stand behind the images from a make-believe world where the Sun suddenly deviated 40° to be "crucified" on a constellation that didn't exist for another 1600 years.


That is another lie of yours as well as the fallacy of 'guilt by association,' as again, it did not come from her work. She does not stand behind errors as she cut that part out of the Sourcebook and as I said previously, "Like other anti-Zeitgeisters you have to distort the facts and it's disingenuous. So, make it up however you need to. Thing is, even if it was wrong, Acharya just said it did not come from her work so blaming her still just demonstrates your biases and dishonesty. And even if it were wrong it doesn't mean that everything else is."

From her own forum from long ago:

"...Acharya had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though, and he asked for a quick consultation at the last minute, (ONLY FOR PART 1 and it dealt mainly with the contributions that came from her own work, not that of others AND some of Acharya's requests got changed while others did not - it was Peter Joseph's project) which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1. She had nothing to do with any other parts, other movies or the movement. She cannot be expected to vouch for any material in Zeitgeist that did not originally come from her work."

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 152#p18152


Another comment from her forum from long ago:

"Interestingly, after checking the sources, Gerald Massey nor Thomas Doane nor anybody else I can find ever proclaims that the sun was ever: "in the vicinity of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation." That specific claim comes from Jordan Maxwell, so, he needs to address this specific issue and provide sources to substantiate his claim. Any potential errors on the part of others does not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is a sun god, as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it for the Jesus as a sun god thesis or to make the case for mythicism."

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 331#p16331


Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faILHU82-Cw

Did you get that? To repeat, errors on Maxwell's part do not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is just another sun god as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it to make the case for mythicism.

The source is, as I said from the beginning, Jordan Maxwell so, by all means, feel free to take it up with him instead of constantly blaming the wrong person. Let us know what Jordan Maxwell says after you contact him on this issue. Maybe he'll concede it's an error or offer an explanation.

contact@jordanmaxwell.com

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:30 pm

Zeus22 wrote:Oh Geez, I was hoping a more intelligent person who has actually studied the material would've come in here to esssssplain it to Gord by now.

:facepalm:

Zeus22, I am the intelligent person who has actually studied the material, and I am essssplaining it to you.

Gord wrote:Zeitgeist propagates misinformation and outright deception about the Sun approaching and entering the constellation of the Southern Cross" "Your image demonstrate that the Sun never approaches, never mind enters, the constellation of the Southern Cross."

Gord, you've added that to pad out your strawman argument due to your own biases and pseudo-skepticism against Zeitgeist part 1. You are putting words in ZG1 that they did not say and that's why you are in error. Granted, I'll concede that they could've explained it better.

They could have explained everything better if they'd just stuck to the facts rather than portraying made-up nonsense as if it were true.

ZG1 said: "in the VICINITY of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation" not *IN* the constellation.

I. Know. They. Didn't. Say. "In the constellation"!! I've already explained that to you. They show an image of the Sun within the constellation! It's purposefully misleading.

Zeigeist clearly implied that the Sun actually enters the constellation of the Southern Cross, while carefully wording it that it "nears" the constellation. It's intentional misdirection.

Apparently, he meant along the horizon just as the image shows.

Apparently, apologists can find any number of things for what he apparently meant to say. It's a real pity he never actually said them.

Peter Joseph should've explained that better or just left it out but, he never claimed to be any type of scholar--

He should have at least gotten help from someone then before making such outlandishly false claims.

--and the point with Zeitgeist part 1 was to get the discussion going not be the "end all."

Oh, he got a discussion going, alright. In fact, two discussions: On the one hand, all the people who know better and have been stating how wrong he was; and on the other hand, all the gullible know-nots who fell for his BS.

So, critics far too often attack ZG1 based on false premises as Zeitgeist was never created as an academic documentary.

I and every critic I've ever read have based our criticisms on exactly what was portrayed in the movie. It didn't need to claim to be an "academic documentary" in order to be so bloody WRONG on so many things. It PRESENTS itself as if it were stating facts when, in fact, it is putting forth falsehoods that have been known to be falsehoods for at least a hundred years.

Too many astronomers these days tend to have merely a basic knowledge of ancient mythology about the stars and do not always understand the intricacies of ancient star worship:

Wow. The same can be said for people who make videos, people who watch videos, and people who believe in the BS they hear and see in videos.


How much of that appeared in the movie? I don't remember any of it.

Gord wrote:Even when shown that she is wrong, she continues to stand behind the images from a make-believe world where the Sun suddenly deviated 40° to be "crucified" on a constellation that didn't exist for another 1600 years.

That is another lie of yours--

Oh, please. Write when you find work!

--as well as the fallacy of 'guilt by association,' as again, it did not come from her work. She does not stand behind errors as she cut that part out of the Sourcebook and as I said previously, "Like other anti-Zeitgeisters you have to distort the facts and it's disingenuous. So, make it up however you need to. Thing is, even if it was wrong, Acharya just said it did not come from her work so blaming her still just demonstrates your biases and dishonesty. And even if it were wrong it doesn't mean that everything else is."

She said herself she still stands behind the movie Zeigeist. I'm not distorting any facts, I'm explaining them to you: Zeitgeist made enormous, ridiculous mistakes which people continue to believe to be true.

From her own forum from long ago:

"...Acharya had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though, and he asked for a quick consultation at the last minute, (ONLY FOR PART 1 and it dealt mainly with the contributions that came from her own work, not that of others AND some of Acharya's requests got changed while others did not - it was Peter Joseph's project) which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1. She had nothing to do with any other parts, other movies or the movement. She cannot be expected to vouch for any material in Zeitgeist that did not originally come from her work."

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 152#p18152

She told Peter Joseph that there were "a few inaccuracies" in his movie, but "he didn't take all my suggestions". That was the extent of her personal involvement, although he did draw from her work.

The point is, SHE STILL BACKS THE MOVIE!!!

Another comment from her forum from long ago:

"Interestingly, after checking the sources, Gerald Massey nor Thomas Doane nor anybody else I can find ever proclaims that the sun was ever: "in the vicinity of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation." That specific claim comes from Jordan Maxwell, so, he needs to address this specific issue and provide sources to substantiate his claim. Any potential errors on the part of others does not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is a sun god, as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it for the Jesus as a sun god thesis or to make the case for mythicism."

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 331#p16331

Great! She should tell all the idiots out there, maybe they'll believe it then.

And she should withdraw her support for a movie she knows contains errors such as these.

Especially when she KNOWS it used information from Jordan Maxwell: http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Power-Cont ... 1585091200

Jordan Maxwell is considered to be the world's foremost authority on ancient religions and modern conspiracies.

:lol: Maxwell is a "big name" in the world of conspiracy theories, and that's it.

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faILHU82-Cw

Wow, great, another load of crap. What's it got to do with anything? I've been arguing about Zeitgeist the whole time, not that garbage video.

Did you get that? To repeat, errors on Maxwell's part do not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is just another sun god as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it to make the case for mythicism.

The source is, as I said from the beginning, Jordan Maxwell so, by all means, feel free to take it up with him instead of constantly blaming the wrong person. Let us know what Jordan Maxwell says after you contact him on this issue. Maybe he'll concede it's an error or offer an explanation.

contact@jordanmaxwell.com

I am blaming Murdock for continuing to support Zeitgeist even though she knows it's full of errors.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:50 pm

Gord wrote:
Zeus22 wrote:Oh Geez, I was hoping a more intelligent person who has actually studied the material would've come in here to esssssplain it to Gord by now.

:facepalm:

Zeus22, I am the intelligent person who has actually studied the material, and I am essssplaining it to you.


No, you're just spewing hatred at this point as no intelligent person throws the baby out with the bathwater. Your hatred and wiliness to burn everything to the ground is noted. Now you're just way over-the-top as a mistake doesn't mean all of Zeitgeist should be tossed. It's people like you that keep this important information buried for another 2,000 years. It's clear that you're agenda is to shut down or ruin any discussion due to your own biases. - that is YOUR issue not everybody elses.

ZG1 said: "in the VICINITY of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation" not *IN* the constellation.

Gord wrote:I. Know. They. Didn't. Say. "In the constellation"!! I've already explained that to you. They show an image of the Sun within the constellation! It's purposefully misleading.

Zeigeist clearly implied that the Sun actually enters the constellation of the Southern Cross, while carefully wording it that it "nears" the constellation. It's intentional misdirection.


Ok, so you admit you knew ZG1 never said the sun was ever actually in the Southern Cross/Crux constellation. Thanks for admitting that you are strawmaning and trolling. It is a lie to claim Peter Joseph was ever "purposefully misleading" that is just your biases and hatred talking again as he released the transcript and sources from the very beginning - nobody who is being "purposefully misleading" does that.

--and the point with Zeitgeist part 1 was to get the discussion going not be the "end all."

Gord wrote:Oh, he got a discussion going, alright. In fact, two discussions: On the one hand, all the people who know better and have been stating how wrong he was; and on the other hand, all the gullible know-nots who fell for his BS.


In your biased black and white thinking and with us or against us mentality, you gloss over a third option where people realize ZG1 gives a decent basic introduction, and, while not perfect, it is better than the anti-ZG1 crusaders are willing to admit.


Gord wrote:How much of that appeared in the movie? I don't remember any of it.


That's because Zeitgeist part 1 was only a very basic introduction and is only the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ

Again, from her forum long ago:

"...Acharya had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though, and he asked for a quick consultation at the last minute, (ONLY FOR PART 1 and it dealt mainly with the contributions that came from her own work, not that of others AND some of Acharya's requests got changed while others did not - it was Peter Joseph's project) which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1. She had nothing to do with any other parts, other movies or the movement. She cannot be expected to vouch for any material in Zeitgeist that did not originally come from her work."

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 152#p18152


Another comment from her forum from long ago:

"Interestingly, after checking the sources, Gerald Massey nor Thomas Doane nor anybody else I can find ever proclaims that the sun was ever: "in the vicinity of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation." That specific claim comes from Jordan Maxwell, so, he needs to address this specific issue and provide sources to substantiate his claim. Any potential errors on the part of others does not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is a sun god, as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it for the Jesus as a sun god thesis or to make the case for mythicism."

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 331#p16331


Gord wrote:Great! She should tell all the idiots out there, maybe they'll believe it then.And she should withdraw her support for a movie she knows contains errors such as these.

Especially when she KNOWS it used information from Jordan Maxwell: http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Power-Cont ... 1585091200

Jordan Maxwell is considered to be the world's foremost authority on ancient religions and modern conspiracies.

:lol: Maxwell is a "big name" in the world of conspiracy theories, and that's it.


LOL, that's more of your "Guilt By Association" fallacy. She is in no way responsible for any errors on Jordan Maxwell's part and it's embarrassing for you to even attempt to claim otherwise.

Did you get that? To repeat, errors on Maxwell's part do not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is just another sun god as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it to make the case for mythicism.

The source is, as I said from the beginning, Jordan Maxwell so, by all means, feel free to take it up with him instead of constantly blaming the wrong person. Let us know what Jordan Maxwell says after you contact him on this issue. Maybe he'll concede it's an error or offer an explanation.

contact@jordanmaxwell.com


Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness


Gord wrote:Wow, great, another load of crap. What's it got to do with anything? I've been arguing about Zeitgeist the whole time, not that garbage video.


LOL, your true colours are showing again, that would be an excellent video demonstrating that even the early church fathers understood that Jesus was an allegory for the sun.

In the information box is a quote from an astronomer:

"Because I am an astronomer and a student of the Bible, it is glaringly obvious to me that Jesus is merely another in a long line of Sun Gods. The evidence is right under the nose of anyone who takes the time and effort to read the Holy Bible. D M Murdock has just given everyone a cheat sheet. Use it !!!"


As concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel, Dr. J. Glen Taylor concludes:

"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a 'solar' character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of 'icon.' Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel." (Taylor, 257)


Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ...

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusasthesun.html


The video below provides some of the comments by those early church fathers:

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faILHU82-Cw

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:06 am

Zeus22 wrote:
Gord wrote:
Zeus22 wrote:Oh Geez, I was hoping a more intelligent person who has actually studied the material would've come in here to esssssplain it to Gord by now.

:facepalm:

Zeus22, I am the intelligent person who has actually studied the material, and I am essssplaining it to you.

No, you're just spewing hatred at this point as no intelligent person throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm neither spewing nor hating.

You and Murdock are both accepting falsehoods as tools to convert the religious from their belief systems. But that's just exchanging one set of falsehoods for another. Tainting the truth with lies is no way to build a solid foundation for anything you're going to depend on.

Your hatred--

Stop projecting your feelings onto me. They're yours, not mine. I feel disdain for liars, but hatred is far too intense a word for anything I feel about this subject.

--and wiliness to burn everything to the ground--

That's another falsehood. I would not burn everything to the ground; I would dispense with the falsehoods and keep what's true and sturdy.

Now you're just way over-the-top as a mistake--

Which Murdock herself would agree is a valid criticism of the film.

--doesn't mean all of Zeitgeist should be tossed.

Yes it does. Zeitgiest as it stands now relies on a great number of falsehoods. It should be rejected because of that. Errors are one thing, but those can and should be corrected. However, to continue supporting something which you know for a fact is spreading misinformation is essentially the same as spreading that information yourself.

It's people like you--

People with valid criticisms.

--that keep this important information--

Falsehoods.

--buried for another 2,000 years.

Hopefully, once it's done away with, these falsehoods will never be repeated. That's why it's essential to stop supporting them before they become entrenched in peoples beliefs, as has already happened with the Zeitgeist movie. It's far too late to just stop; now it's a question of correcting the mistakes and debunking the falsehoods.

It's clear that you're agenda--

Seeking the truth and then correcting the falsehoods that prevent others from finding out about it.

--is to shut down or ruin any discussion--

This is a lie. I continue to discuss this now. If I wanted to shut it down, I would simply stop responding to you.

--due to your own biases.

I am biased, certainly. I'm biased against lies and for truth. Why do you have a problem with that?

that is YOUR issue not everybody elses.

Why can't I value truth even if no one else does? I still get to express it. Or are you trying to "ruin any discussion" that doesn't entitle you to continue spreading lies to further your own agenda?

ZG1 said: "in the VICINITY of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation" not *IN* the constellation.

Gord wrote:I. Know. They. Didn't. Say. "In the constellation"!! I've already explained that to you. They show an image of the Sun within the constellation! It's purposefully misleading.

Zeigeist clearly implied that the Sun actually enters the constellation of the Southern Cross, while carefully wording it that it "nears" the constellation. It's intentional misdirection.

Ok, so you admit you knew ZG1 never said the sun was ever actually in the Southern Cross/Crux constellation. Thanks for admitting that you are strawmaning and trolling.

Read very closely. I never, ever, EVER said Zeitgeist SAID the sun was actually in the Southern Cross constellation. I have nothing to "admit" in that regard. My argument has always been that the film IMPLIES it.

It is a lie to claim Peter Joseph was ever "purposefully misleading"--

No it is not. Peter Joseph made the movie, the movie is purposefully misleading, therefore Peter Joseph is purposefully misleading.

that is just your biases--

For the truth.

--and hatred--

The hatred is entirely in your head, not in mine.

--talking again as he released the transcript and sources from the very beginning - nobody who is being "purposefully misleading" does that.

Of course they do. Peter Joseph made a movie containing purposefully misleading scenes which depict the Sun entering the constellation of the Southern Cross. Peter Joseph also (apparently, I won't argue, I'll take your word for this) "released the transcript and sources from the very beginning". Therefore it is clearly false, as shown by the example we're actually discussing, to say that "nobody who is being 'purposefully misleading' does that".

--and the point with Zeitgeist part 1 was to get the discussion going not be the "end all."

Gord wrote:Oh, he got a discussion going, alright. In fact, two discussions: On the one hand, all the people who know better and have been stating how wrong he was; and on the other hand, all the gullible know-nots who fell for his BS.

In your biased--

For the truth and against falsehoods.

--black and white thinking and with us or against us mentality--

Hold it, you're projecting another of your own personality traits onto me here. I haven't made any "for us or against us" statements. Those are the sentiments of people like you, who demands that critics of Zeitgeist keep silent to prevent the truth from reaching the ears of those you're trying to draw away from their religious beliefs. You're using known falsehoods to trick them, and anyone who doesn't agree with your methods should shut up. Isn't that right? Isn't that exactly what you're doing here, on this forum, in this discussion?

--you gloss over a third option where people realize ZG1 gives a decent basic introduction--

Containing many falsehoods.

--and, while not perfect--

Because it contains so many falsehoods.

--it is better than the anti-ZG1 crusaders are willing to admit.

No, it is exactly as bad as the "anti-ZG1 crusaders" are willing to admit. It's an awful presentation of half-truths and outright falsehoods! It's pseudo-history at its worst! It's bunk, it's garbage, and it's a blight on skepticism.


Gord wrote:How much of that appeared in the movie? I don't remember any of it.

That's because Zeitgeist part 1 was only a very basic introduction and is only the tip of the iceberg.

So you're saying none of it was in Zeitgeist, and has nothing to do with what we're discussing?

Then why post it?

Again, from her forum long ago:

"...Acharya had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though, and he asked for a quick consultation at the last minute, (ONLY FOR PART 1 and it dealt mainly with the contributions that came from her own work, not that of others AND some of Acharya's requests got changed while others did not - it was Peter Joseph's project) which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1. She had nothing to do with any other parts, other movies or the movement. She cannot be expected to vouch for any material in Zeitgeist that did not originally come from her work."

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 152#p18152

She should stop supporting something that she knows contains purposefully misleading imagery and outright falsehoods.

Another comment from her forum from long ago:

"Interestingly, after checking the sources, Gerald Massey nor Thomas Doane nor anybody else I can find ever proclaims that the sun was ever: "in the vicinity of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation." That specific claim comes from Jordan Maxwell, so, he needs to address this specific issue and provide sources to substantiate his claim. Any potential errors on the part of others does not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is a sun god, as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it for the Jesus as a sun god thesis or to make the case for mythicism."

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 331#p16331


Gord wrote:Great! She should tell all the idiots out there, maybe they'll believe it then.And she should withdraw her support for a movie she knows contains errors such as these.

Especially when she KNOWS it used information from Jordan Maxwell: http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Power-Cont ... 1585091200

Jordan Maxwell is considered to be the world's foremost authority on ancient religions and modern conspiracies.

:lol: Maxwell is a "big name" in the world of conspiracy theories, and that's it.


LOL, that's more of your "Guilt By Association" fallacy.

No, it's a "guilt by using the works of a conspiracy theorist" observation. Peter Joseph used garbage in Zeitgeist. Murdock knows where he got his garbage from. Murdock still supports Zeitgeist, even after admitting it contains garbage like that.

She is in no way responsible for any errors on Jordan Maxwell's part and it's embarrassing for you to even attempt to claim otherwise.

What's embarrassing is the way you make these strawman arguments. I'm holding Murdock responsible for what Murdock does, just in the same way I'm holding Joseph responsible for what Joseph does and Maxwell responsible for what Maxwell does. Maxwell is a nutbar; Joseph used Maxwell as a source for his horrible Zeitgeist movie; and Murdock supports that movie, even knowing it is contains falsehoods.

Did you get that? To repeat, errors on Maxwell's part do not debunk Acharya's thesis that Jesus is just another sun god as that thesis does not stand or fall on the Southern Cross/Crux issue. We don't need it to make the case for mythicism.

Where did you ever get the idea that I was making any such argument? Is it from voices inside your head or something?

Stop listening to the voices inside your head and start reading what I'm typing instead!

The source is, as I said from the beginning, Jordan Maxwell so, by all means, feel free to take it up with him instead of constantly blaming the wrong person.

I'm blaming each of them for what each of them is doing.

Let us know what Jordan Maxwell says after you contact him on this issue.

I don't seek out information from such horrible sources as Jordan Maxwell. I do not accept such poor sources, unlike people like Peter Joseph, who used him as a source for his terrible creation, Zeitgeist.

contact@jordanmaxwell.com

Not even for a laugh.

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness


Gord wrote:Wow, great, another load of crap. What's it got to do with anything? I've been arguing about Zeitgeist the whole time, not that garbage video.

LOL, your true colours are showing again, that would be an excellent video demonstrating that even the early church fathers understood that Jesus was an allegory for the sun.

No, it's a load of crap that doesn't demonstrate anything other than a poor understanding of evidence and some rather likeable skills with making videos.

In the information box is a quote from an astronomer:

"Because I am an astronomer and a student of the Bible, it is glaringly obvious to me that Jesus is merely another in a long line of Sun Gods. The evidence is right under the nose of anyone who takes the time and effort to read the Holy Bible. D M Murdock has just given everyone a cheat sheet. Use it !!!"

Astronomers and students of the Bible are not experts in the field. His opinion holds very little value with anyone who looks for expert opinions.

As concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel, Dr. J. Glen Taylor concludes:

"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a 'solar' character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of 'icon.' Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel." (Taylor, 257)

Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ...

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusasthesun.html

Have you actually read what Dr. J. Glen Taylor wrote? In his article, "Was Yahweh Worshiped As The Sun?" [Biblical Archaeology Review, 20/3 (1994) 53-61, 90-91) he said that Yahweh was an "abstract figure" who was "symbolically represented -- at least occasionally -- by the sun". He's not saying that ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was the sun, but that they thought of Yahweh as formless, and they used the image of the sun as a proxy for their god who had no actual shape.

Here, read it for yourself: http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/th ... taylor.pdf It's not an article about Yahweh being a sun god at all; it's about Yahweh having a female consort goddess.

This is one of the things that Murdock repeatedly does wrong: She quotes someone out of context to imply that they mean something they don't. It's one of the many reasons why she can't be taken seriously by scholars.

And anyway, why are we even talking about this? Whether she's correct or not in this theory, I've been complaining about all the nonsense in the movie Zeitgeist. I was never intending to get into this discussion about Murdock's misrepresentation of other people's work -- it's a long and fruitless series of complaints that only marginally coincide with the Zeitgeist fiasco. My real complaint with regard to Murdock is simply her continued backing of a film she knows is spreading falsehoods and misinformation to people.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:38 pm

Gord, ok, we got it, you're another militant atheist who hates anything that has anything to do with religion, which is no improvement over fundamentalist and bigoted theists. It's a disservice to freethinkers who enjoy studying the fascinating history and evolution of religion, which began as star worship.

It is and will always be a lie to claim: "Murdock are both accepting falsehoods..."

You have never read a single book of hers.

Another lie: "Zeitgiest as it stands now relies on a great number of falsehoods."

Zeitgeist Part 1 (ZG1) released online on June 18, 2007

In the links and posts below you will find a massive amount of documentation validating the claims concerning religion in part 1 of the first "Zeitgeist" movie (2007), with primary sources and scholar commentary on them; at least with regards to that which cited as its source the work by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock. Acharya had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though, and he asked for a quick consultation at the last minute, (ONLY FOR PART 1 and it dealt mainly with the contributions that came from her own work, not that of others AND some of Acharya's requests got changed while others did not - it was Peter Joseph's project) which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1. She had nothing to do with any other parts, other movies or the movement. She cannot be expected to vouch for any material in Zeitgeist that did not originally come from her work.

Basic factoids concerning Zeitgeist part 1:

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 1 on religion (2007), is only around 25 minutes long and is merely a basic introduction into the world of comparative religion, mythology and astrotheology. Zeitgeist has been translated into nearly 3 dozen languages and has received over 300 million online views worldwide (as of 2013) - so there's clearly quite a bit of interest in this subject.

Zeitgeist was never created to serve as a 'scholarly' documentary, therefore, one may disagree with specific language in how Peter Joseph said or presented things as he does not pretend to be a scholar, however, the contentions in Zeitgeist part 1 are substantiated by valid evidence and scholar commentary on them. In all the criticisms of Zeitgeist part 1 on religion it appears far too many people have totally misunderstood how and why Zeitgeist part 1 was created in the first place and criticize it based on false premises. Despite claims to the contrary, Zeitgeist part 1 has not been successfully refuted.

Zeitgeist: The Movie won the top award, "Best Feature," at the Artivist Film Festival in 2007 and are currently up to 30 awards. Acharya S appeared on a panel to answer questions about part 1 in front of a packed house at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, California.

Read the Q & A at the Zeitgeist website to see how it came into existence:

Quote:
HOW DID "ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE" COME TO BE?:

"The original Zeitgeist was actually not a "film", but a performance piece, which consisted of a vaudevillian style multi-media event using recorded music, live instruments and video. The event was given over a 6-night period in New York City and then, without any interest to professionally release or produce the work, was "tossed" up on the Internet arbitrarily. The work was never designed as a film or even a documentary in a traditional sense - it was designed as a creative, provoking, emotionally driven expression, full of artistic extremity and heavily stylized gestures.

However, once online, an unexpected flood of interest began to generate. Within 6 months over 50 Million views were recorded on Google Video counters (before they were reset for some reason). The current combined estimates put the number of Internet views at over 100 million as of 2009. Suddenly "Zeitgeist" the event, became "Zeitgeist: The Movie"." (The current combined estimates put the number of Internet views at over 300 million as of 2013.)

- Peter Joseph

"The religion section is the strongest of the whole work"

- Peter Joseph

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 152#p18152


Primary sources and scholar commentary on them support Zeitgeist Part 1:

ZG1 Sourcebook (transcript, sources, citations & images)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf

Primary Sources & Scholars cited in the ZG1 Sourcebook
http://www.truthbeknown.com/zeitgeistsources.html

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

No, Zeitgeist has not been refuted!
http://freethoughtnation.com/no-zeitige ... n-refuted/

Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... hp?p=18805

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites
http://astrotheology.net/star-worship-o ... sraelites/

2,750-year-old solar-aligned temple discovered in Israel
http://freethoughtnation.com/2750-year- ... in-israel/


Gord wrote:Hold it, you're projecting another of your own personality traits onto me here. I haven't made any "for us or against us" statements. Those are the sentiments of people like you, who demands that critics of Zeitgeist keep silent to prevent the truth from reaching the ears of those you're trying to draw away from their religious beliefs. You're using known falsehoods to trick them, and anyone who doesn't agree with your methods should shut up. Isn't that right? Isn't that exactly what you're doing here, on this forum, in this discussion?


No, that's just you refusing to take any responsibility for your own comments here and attempting to claim you didn't say what you clearly have said. Your "with us or against us mentality" is as transparent as glass throughout this thread as you make it clear that if people don't completely disregard Zeitgeist part 1 in toto, you will maliciously attack them with your own hatred, biases and bigotry - your way or the highway = "with us or against us mentality".

Again, intelligent people don't have knee-jerk reactions and just assume the worst and throw out the baby with the bathwater, like you insist.

You are nothing more than a troll at this point purposely taking a dump in this thread, same as you did my other thread:

Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25297

Militant Atheists like you are part of the problem not the solution because you detour people from reading the material for themselves to see the evidence that people like you claim doesn't exist.

Case in point:

Below, again, you demonstrate your biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism on that video, "Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness," that includes every single primary source for every claim made but, you wouldn't know that because all you have to offer are knee-jerk reactions. You probably didn't even watch the video and just went into your usual mode of attack, because, apparently, that's all you have to offer and it's a disservice to all non-believers.

Gord wrote:Wow, great, another load of crap. What's it got to do with anything? I've been arguing about Zeitgeist the whole time, not that garbage video.


Zeus22 wrote:LOL, your true colours are showing again, that would be an excellent video demonstrating that even the early church fathers understood that Jesus was an allegory for the sun.


Gord wrote:No, it's a load of crap that doesn't demonstrate anything other than a poor understanding of evidence and some rather likeable skills with making videos.


I think it's categorically clear who is "a load of crap" with "a poor understanding of evidence" - YOU, Gord.

Gord wrote:Have you actually read what Dr. J. Glen Taylor wrote? In his article, "Was Yahweh Worshiped As The Sun?" [Biblical Archaeology Review, 20/3 (1994) 53-61, 90-91) he said that Yahweh was an "abstract figure" who was "symbolically represented -- at least occasionally -- by the sun". He's not saying that ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was the sun, but that they thought of Yahweh as formless, and they used the image of the sun as a proxy for their god who had no actual shape.


LOL, that's because that article was specifically written about "Yahweh's Consort" - more of your biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism at work here for all to see. It's blatantly obvious that you have not read his book because the author's very own book description proves you wrong:

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)


To reiterate, Gord, take note of the title of his book: "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel"

Gord, you have ruined your own credibility here and are simply not a reliable source to be trusted. A decent person with a conscience would be ashamed as you're smearing another very highly respected scholar whose book was peer reviewed and substantiates his work with credible primary sources, same as Murdock.

You obviously did not even read the article:

"I would further suggest that the enigmatic expression "Yahweh of Hosts" implies that Yahweh was head of the stars and was to be identified with the most important star of all, the sun. Support for this suggestion is found in several Biblical passages ... The scene lies at the center of an elaborate zodiac mosaic in the middle of the nave floor. Similar zodiacs decorated a number of ancient synagogues; they illustrate an ancient Israelite tradition of retaining elements of Pagan sun worship in their own worship. Several Biblical passages support the identification of Yahweh with the sun."

- Rev. Dr. Glen Taylor


So now, you need to apologize for your malicious smear:

Gord wrote:"This is one of the things that Murdock repeatedly does wrong: She quotes someone out of context to imply that they mean something they don't. It's one of the many reasons why she can't be taken seriously by scholars."


Again, the more you post the more your reveal that your pseudo-skeptic views are not any sort of solution because you tend to be wrong. Once again, all you've done here is demonstrate your biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism as well as intellectual dishonesty. You have ruined your own credibility here proving once more that you cannot be considered a reliable source of information on this subject.

As concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel, Dr. J. Glen Taylor concludes:

"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a 'solar' character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of 'icon.' Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel." (Taylor, 257)


Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ...

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusasthesun.html


The video below provides some of the comments by those early church fathers:

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faILHU82-Cw

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, Astronomer and Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles

Scholars who've actually read her work are supportive of it:

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock, author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'."
- Aron Ra

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S"
- Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

; )

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:09 pm

Zeus22 wrote:Gord, ok, we got it, you're another militant atheist--

:facepalm:

--who hates--

:doublefacepalm:

--anything that has anything to do with religion, which is no improvement over fundamentalist and bigoted theists. It's a disservice to freethinkers who enjoy studying the fascinating history and evolution of religion, which began as star worship.

BS.

It is and will always be a lie to claim: "Murdock are both accepting falsehoods..."

It might not be a lie, but it certainly is poor grammar.

You have never read a single book of hers.

Eat a dick.

Another lie: "Zeitgiest as it stands now relies on a great number of falsehoods."

It's not a lie, I've already demonstrated several falsehoods being propagated by Zeitgeist.

Zeitgeist Part 1 (ZG1) released online on June 18, 2007

In the links and posts below you will find a massive amount of documentation validating the claims concerning religion in part 1 of the first "Zeitgeist" movie (2007), with primary sources and scholar commentary on them; at least with regards to that which cited as its source the work by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock. Acharya had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though, and he asked for a quick consultation at the last minute, (ONLY FOR PART 1 and it dealt mainly with the contributions that came from her own work, not that of others AND some of Acharya's requests got changed while others did not - it was Peter Joseph's project) which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1. She had nothing to do with any other parts, other movies or the movement. She cannot be expected to vouch for any material in Zeitgeist that did not originally come from her work.

Whoop-te-doo.

Why is it you keep mentioning "only part one" of Zeitgeist? That's the only part we're talking about here. I haven't even watched the other parts, because after watching the first part, I didn't see any point in watching more plain ol' BS.

Basic factoids concerning Zeitgeist part 1:

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 1 on religion (2007), is only around 25 minutes long and is merely a basic introduction into the world of comparative religion, mythology and astrotheology. Zeitgeist has been translated into nearly 3 dozen languages and has received over 300 million online views worldwide (as of 2013) - so there's clearly quite a bit of interest in this subject.

Zeitgeist Part 1 is full of misinformation, fabrications, and outright falsehoods. And Murdock, knowing this full well, continues to stand behind it.

Zeitgeist was never created to serve as a 'scholarly' documentary, therefore, one may disagree with specific language in how Peter Joseph said or presented things as he does not pretend to be a scholar, however, the contentions in Zeitgeist part 1 are substantiated by valid evidence and scholar commentary on them. In all the criticisms of Zeitgeist part 1 on religion it appears far too many people have totally misunderstood how and why Zeitgeist part 1 was created in the first place and criticize it based on false premises. Despite claims to the contrary, Zeitgeist part 1 has not been successfully refuted.

Many, many parts of Zeitgeist have been refuted. I myself have refuted one, very simply, in this very discussion. Even Murdock herself, as you yourself have posted, sees the presentation of the sun entering the constellation of the Southern Cross as being wrong.

And the specific language of Peter Joseph is irrelevant, we're talking about outright untruths. Falsehoods. In many instances, they amount to nothing less than lies.

Zeitgeist: The Movie won the top award, "Best Feature," at the Artivist Film Festival in 2007 and are currently up to 30 awards. Acharya S appeared on a panel to answer questions about part 1 in front of a packed house at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, California.

People who don't know anything about the topic awarded a piece of crap "Best Feature" because they didn't know how shitty it actually was.

Read the Q & A at the Zeitgeist website to see how it came into existence:

Why?!? I don't care how it came about, who it came about, when it came about, what it came about, why it came about, or where it came about. It came about, so what? The problem is the misinformation that is continuing to be propagated by this piece of crap! And Murdock still stands behind it.

"The religion section is the strongest of the whole work"

- Peter Joseph

Well, that certainly speaks very poorly for the rest of it. I'm glad I never watched past part I.

Primary sources and scholar commentary on them support Zeitgeist Part 1:

ZG1 Sourcebook (transcript, sources, citations & images)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf

Primary Sources & Scholars cited in the ZG1 Sourcebook
http://www.truthbeknown.com/zeitgeistsources.html

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

No, Zeitgeist has not been refuted!
http://freethoughtnation.com/no-zeitige ... n-refuted/

Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... hp?p=18805

Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites
http://astrotheology.net/star-worship-o ... sraelites/

2,750-year-old solar-aligned temple discovered in Israel
http://freethoughtnation.com/2750-year- ... in-israel/

Wow, what along list of crap you've posted! Thanks for all the links to complete garbage. However can we repay you?

Gord wrote:Hold it, you're projecting another of your own personality traits onto me here. I haven't made any "for us or against us" statements. Those are the sentiments of people like you, who demands that critics of Zeitgeist keep silent to prevent the truth from reaching the ears of those you're trying to draw away from their religious beliefs. You're using known falsehoods to trick them, and anyone who doesn't agree with your methods should shut up. Isn't that right? Isn't that exactly what you're doing here, on this forum, in this discussion?

No, that's just you refusing to take any responsibility for your own comments here and attempting to claim you didn't say what you clearly have said. Your "with us or against us mentality" is as transparent as glass throughout this thread as you make it clear that if people don't completely disregard Zeitgeist part 1 in toto, you will maliciously attack them with your own hatred, biases and bigotry - your way or the highway = "with us or against us mentality".

You're reading your own feelings into my comments. I take full responsibility for my comments, but absolutely none for you imagination. I have no "with us or against us" mentality, that's what YOU'RE presenting here when you demand we support a piece of junk like Zeitgeist just because it's anti-religion.

Again, I don't hate people who believe in the BS being propagated by Zeitgeist, I simply work to correct that BS. You're the one who seems to be feeling hatred. Don't put your emotions on me and try to make me responsible for them, they're yours.

Again, intelligent people don't have knee-jerk reactions and just assume the worst and throw out the baby with the bathwater, like you insist.

Intelligent people like myself recognize that Zeitgeist is the bathwater, and needs to be thrown out.

You are nothing more than a troll at this point purposely taking a dump in this thread, same as you did my other thread:

No, you dope, I'm the intelligent voice pointing out the nonsense. You're the dumbass who keeps coming up with incorrect assumptions, and demands to keep on believing the nonsense, even going so far as to hate the people who offer corrections to the fundamental errors in Zeitgeist. It's not my fault Zeitgeist is so bad. Don't hate me for being correct.

Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25297

Did you notice the thread got locked by the board administrator? There's a reason for that. It's not my fault, it's not even Pyrrho's fault -- it's yours. Think about it.

Militant Atheists like you--

:triplefacepalm:

--are part of the problem not the solution because you detour people from reading the material for themselves to see the evidence that people like you claim doesn't exist.

I'm the part of the solution to morons like yourself who insist on spreading BS around and calling it "teh troof". The nonsense needs to be countered before it can do any damage, but in the case of Zeitgeist, it is far too late, and low-brows like yourself have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

Case in point:

Below, again, you demonstrate your biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism--

:roll: I'm starting to think you don't even know what those words mean.

--on that video, "Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness," that includes every single primary source for every claim made but, you wouldn't know that because all you have to offer are knee-jerk reactions. You probably didn't even watch the video and just went into your usual mode of attack, because, apparently, that's all you have to offer and it's a disservice to all non-believers.

And as usual, you're completely wrong. The "primary sources" you think are sited, when investigated, actually show misquotes, out-of-context quotes, and other forms of using someone else's words to say things those people didn't mean. For instance, the video quotes from http://www.yeshuahamashiach.org/Hanakah ... ctions.htm as follows:

The lying video wrote:"The [central] shamash [sun] or 'servant' is the candle used to light the other candles of the Hanukkah menorah. Yeshua [Jesus] is our shamash..." YeshuahaMashiach.org

But here's what the actual website actually says (and you can see this for yourself, if you'd like: http://www.yeshuahamashiach.org/Hanakah.htm )

The actual website wrote:The shamash or “servant” is the candle used to light the other candles of the Hanukkah menorah. Yeshua is our shamash...

The term "sun" is never used or implied -- it's inserted entirely as an invention of the video! The website isn't calling Yeshua the sun, it's calling Yeshua a servant! That's the definition of the term "shamash"!

Gord wrote:Wow, great, another load of crap. What's it got to do with anything? I've been arguing about Zeitgeist the whole time, not that garbage video.

Zeus22 wrote:LOL, your true colours are showing again, that would be an excellent video demonstrating that even the early church fathers understood that Jesus was an allegory for the sun.

Gord wrote:No, it's a load of crap that doesn't demonstrate anything other than a poor understanding of evidence and some rather likeable skills with making videos.

I think it's categorically clear who is "a load of crap" with "a poor understanding of evidence" - YOU, Gord.

Actually, it's the websites you keep posting links to. You've bought into the BS and you're stuck in it now, and you keep posting loads of crap trying to support the BS.

Gord wrote:Have you actually read what Dr. J. Glen Taylor wrote? In his article, "Was Yahweh Worshiped As The Sun?" [Biblical Archaeology Review, 20/3 (1994) 53-61, 90-91) he said that Yahweh was an "abstract figure" who was "symbolically represented -- at least occasionally -- by the sun". He's not saying that ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was the sun, but that they thought of Yahweh as formless, and they used the image of the sun as a proxy for their god who had no actual shape.

LOL, that's because that article was specifically written about "Yahweh's Consort" - more of your biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism at work here for all to see.

You really don't see what's wrong with misrepresenting what the author was saying? Even though you just admitted the article wasn't talking about Yahweh being the sun, you still think it's okay to quote from it and imply that the author was saying that Yahweh was the sun!

It's wrong to do so.

It's blatantly obvious that you have not read his book because the author's very own book description proves you wrong:

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)

IF he says Yahweh was the sun in the book, then it would be proper to quote him from his book saying so. It is NOT proper to quote him NOT saying it but making him appear to say it, then defending your actions by claiming he said is somewhere else and for some unknown reason you were unable to quote him saying it where he actually said it so you took his words out of context from another source to make him appear to be saying it.

To reiterate, Gord, take note of the title of his book: "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel"

To reiterate, Zeus22, take a note of the fact that he was quoted out of context to make him appear to be saying something he wasn't actually saying. That is an improper way to try to convince anyone of anything.

Gord, you have ruined your own credibility here--

Oh my credibility is as strong as it ever was. :neener:

--and are simply not a reliable source to be trusted.

Ha! Then I could appear in Peter Joseph's next fake documentary!

A decent person with a conscience would be ashamed as you're smearing another very highly respected scholar whose book was peer reviewed and substantiates his work with credible primary sources, same as Murdock.

I haven't smeared any respected scholars. I've pointed out the nonsense being propagated by Peter Joseph, Murdock, and yourself. To support your claims, not one of you have used any credible sources that I've ever been able to find (and yes, before you jump to your next conclusion, I have looked).

You obviously did not even read the article:

"I would further suggest that the enigmatic expression "Yahweh of Hosts" implies that Yahweh was head of the stars and was to be identified with the most important star of all, the sun. Support for this suggestion is found in several Biblical passages ... The scene lies at the center of an elaborate zodiac mosaic in the middle of the nave floor. Similar zodiacs decorated a number of ancient synagogues; they illustrate an ancient Israelite tradition of retaining elements of Pagan sun worship in their own worship. Several Biblical passages support the identification of Yahweh with the sun."

Of course I read the article, I quoted parts of it to you. What you've just quoted doesn't support your position that Yahweh was thought of as the sun, but instead continues to support Taylor's view that the sun was a symbol for Yahweh who was thought of as "abstract and non-anthropomorphic", as he states in the sentence right before the section from which you took your quote:

He is [b]abstract and non-anthropomorphic, and, as we have seen, his symbol, although it may have offended purists, was so widely represented as the sun that that symbol found its way into the Temple itself in association with a horse, which is also found on tier 1.

“Yahweh of Hosts who dwells (among) the cherubim” (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Kings 8:6–7) is an expression for the God of Israel that is virtually synonymous with the theology of the Jerusalem Temple. Here, near the center of this cult stand, is an archaeological vignette of a well-attested Israelite deity—Yahweh—in association with cherubim. I would further suggest that the enigmatic expression “Yahweh of Hosts” (Yahweh Tsva’ot) implies that Yahweh was head of the stars and was to be identified with the most important star of all, the sun....


So now, you need to apologize for your malicious smear:

No I don't. I'm still correct, and my alleged "smear" is still an accurate criticism of your beliefs.

Gord wrote:"This is one of the things that Murdock repeatedly does wrong: She quotes someone out of context to imply that they mean something they don't. It's one of the many reasons why she can't be taken seriously by scholars."

Again, the more you post the more your reveal that your pseudo-skeptic views are not any sort of solution because you tend to be wrong. Once again, all you've done here is demonstrate your biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism as well as intellectual dishonesty. You have ruined your own credibility here proving once more that you cannot be considered a reliable source of information on this subject.

Yes, I suppose I am biased against pseudo-historians like Murdock. So what? Their techniques are dishonest, their arguments are unsupported by actual evidence, and they back things like Zeitgeist even though they know they're full of errors. That doesn't make me a pseudo-skeptic, that makes me an actual skeptic.

And, as usual, my credibility is still just as strong as it ever was, so there. :neener:

As concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel, Dr. J. Glen Taylor concludes:

"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a 'solar' character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of 'icon.' Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel." (Taylor, 257)

Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ...

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusasthesun.html

See?? Look at that nonsense!! You can't take what was quoted from Taylor and get the results that Murdock gets. Taylor says the sun was an icon for Yahweh; Murdock transforms that into "the sun was Jesus Christ." It's not what he said!

The video below provides some of the comments by those early church fathers:

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

Yeah, I'm not going to watch it. You've already demonstrated the kind of crap you post. It's full of errors and misrepresentations, and you can't even see them, let alone acknowledge them.

Face it, you're a lost cause until you're able to skeptically look at your own beliefs and recognize the nonsense that pervades them.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby xouper » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:11 pm

Gord wrote:Why is it you keep mentioning "only part one" of Zeitgeist? That's the only part we're talking about here. I haven't even watched the other parts, because after watching the first part, I didn't see any point in watching more plain ol' BS.

You aren't missing anything. Parts two and three are even stoopider than part one.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:28 pm

xouper wrote:
Gord wrote:Why is it you keep mentioning "only part one" of Zeitgeist? That's the only part we're talking about here. I haven't even watched the other parts, because after watching the first part, I didn't see any point in watching more plain ol' BS.

You aren't missing anything. Parts two and three are even stoopider than part one.

I'll take your and Zeus22's words for it. :mrgreen:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Zeus22
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Zeus22 » Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Just more of the same standard BS from Gord whose just butt hurt because Acharya mopped the floor with your hero Tim Callahan:

Skeptic Mangles Zeitgeist (and Religious History) by Acharya S
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skept ... geist.html

Gord is like a fundamentalist Christian extremist out to shore up his biases, bigotry and pseudo-skepticism at all costs. Gord is probably Tim Callahan anyway.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:19 am

Who the hell is Tim Callahan?

Zeus22, you're still a complete idiot who simply does not understand what I've been saying. I've made it as clear as I can for you. Now you're just another lost cause about whom I can no longer care.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: He Who Usually Means Well
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:44 am

Chadvoodoo wrote:I just ordered the book ‘Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha & Christ Unveiled’ and am looking forward to reading it. I had previously read parts of her book ‘The Christ Conspiracy; The Greatest Story Ever Sold’ and enjoyed it very much. The Author- Acharya S.- writes well and the length and breadth of her knowledge in the area of myth, religion and history seams inexhaustible.

But a couple of things about her and her books send up red flags:

1)Her books are published by Adventures Unlimited Press, a firm that has an extensive catalog of what I can best describe as “fringe” books (conspiracy stuff, books on Atlantis, U.F.O.’s, etc.).

2)Her webpage- http://www.truthbeknown.com - has a certain “new agey” feel that I find inconsistent with her being a self professed skeptic and critical thinker. To be more specific, she professes a belief in U.F.O. and aliens (while admitting that she can not prove it). And in such essays on her website as ‘Mysteries of the World’ she celebrates some fantastic cosmic anomalies she claims science cannot explain--all the while labeling debunkers and skeptics as “dogmatic and dull”.

In my way of thinking, (and I could be wrong) to hold religion and the belief in a personal god up to such rigid and thought provoking scrutiny and then let the U.F.O. klatch off the hook is a bit inconsistent. It’s like condemning the eating of candy and then binging on donuts!

What I’m wondering is how Acharya S. is regarded by scholars in the area of myth and religion? How well regarded is she by other professionals in both the skeptic community and the ancient studies community?

Again, even though she seems dead on as far as the subject of the origins of Christianity is concerned; the fact that she doesn’t have a more mainstream publisher worries me a little bit.


I don't know Acharya, but by coincidence, yesterday I received an e-mail from a person of that name in Nepal, who wanted some references on number words and symbols.

As you describe Acharya, she has many traits in common with a late friend of mine, a brilliant scholar, who regarded Christianity as degraded superstition, but believed in ESP, dowsing, and Uri Geller with passion. Well, that's what made him the unique person he was. Despite what he regarded as my blinkered skepticism, we got along very well. There are some mysteries I certainly can't explain, among them this apparent skepticism about religion combined with childlike credulity in other things.
"A general conversion among the boys was once effected by the late excellent Mr. Fletcher: one poor boy only excepted, who unfortunately resisted the influence of the Holy Spirit, for which he was severely flogged; which did not fail of the desired effect, and impressed proper notions of religion on his mind."

James Lackington, Memoirs of the First Forty-five Years of the Life of James Lackington, the Present Bookseller

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Gord » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:28 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:I don't know Acharya, but by coincidence, yesterday I received an e-mail from a person of that name in Nepal, who wanted some references on number words and symbols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya

In Indian religions and society, an acharya ... is a preceptor or instructor in religious matters; founder, or leader of a sect; or a highly learned man or a title affixed to the names of learned men. The designation has different meanings in Hinduism, Buddhism and secular contexts.

Acharya S. was the pen name of Dorothy Murdock, who died in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: He Who Usually Means Well
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: What’s with Acharya S.

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:55 pm

Gord wrote:
Upton_O_Goode wrote:I don't know Acharya, but by coincidence, yesterday I received an e-mail from a person of that name in Nepal, who wanted some references on number words and symbols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya

In Indian religions and society, an acharya ... is a preceptor or instructor in religious matters; founder, or leader of a sect; or a highly learned man or a title affixed to the names of learned men. The designation has different meanings in Hinduism, Buddhism and secular contexts.

Acharya S. was the pen name of Dorothy Murdock, who died in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S


Gord, you are a treasure!
"A general conversion among the boys was once effected by the late excellent Mr. Fletcher: one poor boy only excepted, who unfortunately resisted the influence of the Holy Spirit, for which he was severely flogged; which did not fail of the desired effect, and impressed proper notions of religion on his mind."

James Lackington, Memoirs of the First Forty-five Years of the Life of James Lackington, the Present Bookseller


Return to “Book Reviews/Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest