MCalavera

Notice the dates on those sources. :P

Acharya S should really go back to school. Silly girl.

GakuseiDon

An update on this. I see on Acharya S's blog a recent article where she suggests that the dying-rising motif may be 50,000 years old. Acharya S writes here:

http://freethoughtnation.com/contrib...ior-ursus.html

Readers familiar with my work in comparative religion will know that for years I have asserted that most of the germane characteristics of the Christ tale long predate the Christian era. In this regard, the following information regarding apparent Stone Age religion ranks among the most important I have yet encountered.

In the book Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints (or via: amazon.co.uk), archeology professor Dr. Brian Hayden states:

"...in some myths, the bear, as master over the entire animal kingdom, is sent to earth by his father to understand the problems of humans and to find solutions for them. In a scenario recalling the story of Christ, the bear sacrifices himself for humanity; afterward there is a communion in which the participants eat the body and drink the blood of the bear. This leads to his resurrection..." (115)

This bear-savior cult Hayden dates to some 50,000 years ago, its object of worship along the lines of the Ursus spelaeus or cave bear in the image here. Hence, the idea of a dying-and-rising savior is extremely old and did not appear suddenly 2,000 years ago. Indeed, numerous pre-Christian gods were depicted as dying and resurrecting.

I would say that Acharya S has disproved Hallet's point that the Pygmies could not have been influenced by external sources. There is nothing stopping us from thinking that the Pygmies, using their advanced technology to travel around the globe, were influenced by the bear cult, and thus built their Pygmy Christ born of a Pygmy Virgin and crucified on a Pygmy cross from the bear cult.

Stringbean

Love her research but thats the reason I do not use her much in way of evidence to this stuff. For some reason people find it hard to equate the jesus of the bible with other mythological gods of the past.

Roger Pearse

Better yet, she hasn't quite thought this through. All this stuff, as evidence that "Christianity is borrowed" can only mean -- it isn't evidence for her thesis at all, otherwise -- that she thinks the early Christians were in contact with ancient Mexico.

And if she does NOT think that the early Christians borrowed from ancient Mexico, then of course all this suddenly proves that the early Christians were stating something that all men know, and must be in the genes or something of mankind; or else is some kind of divine revelation made equally to all men. Which both sound rather like support for Christian claims, not evidence against it!

Such are the perils of borrowing a gun uncritically from others; that you find yourself accientally shooting your own horse dead.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon

Acharya does suggest both as possibilities in her works. According to Acharya S, both astrotheological observations and at least one (elsewhere she proposes at least two) ancient advanced civilization which she names "Atlantis" as a shorthand term played a part. She writes (my emphasis):
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/acharyanotes.html

Many on this list come from The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Graves. This is not to suggest that all of these godmen characters were utilized in the formation of the Christian myth, as overt contact had not occurred in such places as Mexico or Bermuda... However, we utilize this list to demonstrate that the same concepts are found worldwide with and without cultural exchange, because they are derived from the same astrotheological observations. Also, we are in concurrence with the "ancient advanced civilization" theory ("Atlantis") that would allow for one or more centralized civilizations to have spread throughout the world during a very remote period in protohistory, thus taking with it the well-developed Mythos and Ritual, which would then mutate into the various forms found around the globe.

Robert M Price made much the same criticism as yours in his original review of Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy". Either the motifs were spread by an ancient global civilization or they were astrotheological in origin -- taken from observations of the sky -- in which case there is no need to postulate an advanced global civilization.

But conceivably both explanations are possible: for example, astrotheological observations bolstered by globally advanced Pygmy influences; which is probably enough for Acharya S supporters to rest assured. In "The Christ Conspiracy", Acharya quotes Walker describing similarities between the Mayan (in the Americas) and Eastern religion, and tying this in with the Pygmies:

Moreover, the Mayan creator god was called "Hurakan", and the Caribbean storm god was "Hurukan," both of which are nearly identical to the Tibetan wrathful deity, "Heruka," which in turn is related to Herakles or Hercules. It is from this stormy god that we get the word "Hurricane." Walker hypothesizes that "Horus" was "Heruka" of the East and notes that the Pygmies revered Heru, an archaic name for Horus. (Page 396)

So nothing stops us from concluding that astrotheological observations gave a standard set of beliefs, and then the advanced global Pygmies came along and provided a common set of rituals and terminology.

Vorkosigan

This is Velikovskian crap.

aa5874

Bart Ehrman's source for HJ of Nazareth is TOTAL CRAP.

It is UNFORGIVABLE that EHRMAN, unlike Acharya S, uses the BIBLE for the history of HJ of Nazareth.

When EHRMAN quotes passages from the very sources that he ADMITS are historically UNRELIABLE as evidence for his HJ then EHRMAN'S HJ is TOTAL CRAP, and he is at the BOTTOM of ALL CRAP.

Whether Acharya S is right or wrong is debatable but EHRMAN's HJ theory was DERIVED from historical GARBAGE, the NT.

Dave31

Earl Doherty chewing out GakuseiDon at IIDB post 23:

That's GakuseiDon's M.O. and he incorporates that same tactic towards the work by Acharya S. It's extremely disingenuous to say the least. Case in point 1:

Instead of citing mega.nu as a source why not provide the ACTUAL source? That article was updated 2 years ago and you KNOW that. It proves just how disingenuous you really are.

The Origins of Christianity

Forum discussion

There's no mention of Atlantis that I have found.

Case in point 2:

Again, she seems to have brought up several topics towards the end of the book as areas of interest. The point being that more research on those topics is needed. So, instead of thanking her for raising the questions, you smear her with falsehoods claiming that she makes claims that she didn't actually make - same as with Earl Doherty. Besides, she was quoting someone else, which you did acknowledge to my surprise. Rather than bring that stuff here for the purposes of bludgeoning Acharya to death, you could make at least some attempt to make mature posts raising the questions for open and honest discussion. I believe that was Acharya's purpose for mentioning those subjects in hopes of inspiring further research.

GDon, your question makes no sense when one actually reads the material. The way you bring this stuff here certainly can easily dupe those who've not read the material for themselves, same as Earl Doherty mentions above. It was Dr. Hallet who claimed that for the past 4,000 years the Pygmies were fairly uncontacted, except for by the Egyptians, citing one example, until the last century or so. Instead of quoting Acharya, why don't you make the minimum effort to actually read Hallet's book? The contention is that the Pygmies had this myth before that Egyptian contact, as well as the contact with Christians.

It's not hard to understand: The evidence reveals Pygmies possessed the basic myth long before 4,000 years ago, before they were contacted by Egyptians or anyone else. As concerns the clan of the cave bear, Acharya S did not say that the Pygmies were the only very ancient source, although there's little reason to not suggest that they may also be the source for the basic mythos that migrated to the cave-bear areas, since, like all of humanity, these cave-bear clans allegedly came from the very region in which the Pygmies flourished, i.e., the Genetic Eve of the South African San people.

Questions for GakuseiDon:

1. Have you read the book about Pygmies by Dr. Jean-Pierre Hallet?

2. Have you read the book by Dr. John Jackson or at least where he discusses the Pygmy issue?

3. What other books have you read about pygmies?

4. If you have read no other books or studied Pygmies in any meaningful way, then, why do you pretend to care about Pygmy history?

Acharya's book is not about Pygmies. And, for the umpteenth time, she points these things out in the back of her first book to raise the questions and essentially say more research in this area is needed. You repeatedly omit all these facts and merely use this topic to bludgeon her to death, disingenuously. Instead of acting like a hyena, why not make an effort to bring these issues up in a far more honest and sincere way so people can have a mature conversation on these subjects? Every thread you've posted about Acharya S has 'poisoned the well' or incorporated other assorted fallacies right out of the gate. I don't know why I waste my time with you to be honest. You've been doing this same thing for several years and you've not changed a bit - even when you've been proven wrong or utterly dishonest, repeatedly.

GakuseiDon Is this the very first time I've ever seen GakuseiDon acknowledge that Acharya S may be right about anything? Sure seems like it. I certainly welcome the progress, although, it was many years in the making.

Speaking of Quetzalcoatl, Acharya has posted a blog:

Our Lord and Savior Quetzalcoatl

DVD: Great Minds of Our Time: D.M. Murdock

It's highly relevant to the case for mythicism. So, I'd like to hear what others think of it.

GakuseiDon

Yes, yes, you and Doherty agree I'm a horrible person. With that established, let's get back to the claims.

But what does that mean with regards to her current position? Did Acharya S give up on the idea of "Atlantis" two years ago? Why did she change her mind? And what does she think now?

Acharya S has stated that she is "in concurrence with the "ancient advanced civilization" theory ("Atlantis") that would allow for one or more centralized civilizations to have spread throughout the world during a very remote period in protohistory."

Dave, is that statement still correct? If she no longer accepts the "ancient advanced civilization" theory that posits an ancient advanced civilization with global influence "during a very remote period in protohistory", then point me to where she states this, and I will never bring it up again. However, if you don't know whether she has changed her mind or not, then please tell me also.


It would be nice -- and in fact polite -- to have either of you actually quote me when I do that. But I've long stopped expecting that so I take such accusations as pandering to the audience.

Okay. I'm raising these questions to you in the hopes of inspiring further research also. There, easy.

Yes, but that's irrelevant to my point, as I've explained before. I'm assuming for the moment that Hallet is correct, that the Pygmies have had no contact since the Egyptian expedition. But Acharya S herself posits that these beliefs existed long BEFORE the Egyptian expedition. So doesn't Acharya S's own research invalidate Hallet's point?

Dave, did beliefs similar to the Pygmies' exist elsewhere in the world BEFORE the Egyptian expedition, in your view?

No.

No, but Dr Jackson sounds fascinating.

None.

I don't care about Pygmy history. I do care about the bizarre and wacko theories proposed by Acharya S and Doherty on the evolution of religion. This is modern myth making, a rewriting of ancient history to fit with modern world-views. Modern world-views are built on myths that try to make sense of the universe around us. I'm guessing that Acharya S's theories just 'seem right' to you Dave, correct? It fits into how you understand human nature?

I'm sure that this type of modern myth-making goes on in all kinds of subjects, but it just happens I'm interested in how ancient people thought, thus my interest here.

"Acting like a hyena"? That's a hyena then, is it? So do hyenas do a lot of bludgeoning to death where you live, Dave? Maybe you mean the ancient advanced global Pygmy hyenas.

Okay. Snore.

Thanks Dave! I call expressions like "so nothing stops us from concluding..." as "fringe speak" The credit should go to Doherty, though.

Hey, I see in the first link that ApostateAbe is asking questions to Acharya S, and she is accusing him of acting like a hyena also! What a coincidence!

But doesn't she know that he is only raising these questions in the hopes of inspiring further research?

Anyway, back to my actual point. Dave:

1. Hallet writes that his Pygmy friends had had no contact with the outside world for 4000 years (at which time they were visited by at least one Egyptian explorer), therefore they could not have picked up the Osiris-Isis-Horus and proto-Christ myth story elements from any outsider. Is that correct?

2. Acharya S traces the origins of those myths **before** 4000 years ago, so conceivably the Pygmies could have picked up their beliefs from the Egyptians. Is that correct?

Solo

Extreme Diffusionism ?

Jiri