Dave31

All your personal attacks do is reflect that you don't know her work at all - and THAT is the real embarrassment. I don't believe you are qualified to be making comments about what she's qualified to do.

GD, you would only be representing her work correctly for this one issue, which is that there were images of a god in cruciform in India and they were censored. Acharya's actually researched how this development happened, which some might find to be interesting.

She doesn't, so the rest is a straw man.

Yeah, we get that you're not really interested in this subject and will say anything to keep others from knowing about it. Your comments show you aren't even following this thread. All Acharya has done in what GD has brought up is to narrate what had happened with this particular issue, so what's the "special pleading?" There is none, except for what you are doing.

ChristMyth, what Acharya is doing is using these scholars - and many others, right up to the modern era - as a starting point at that time. Then she digs up whatever evidence for the claims she can find. It's really that simple. The "shoddy scholarship" I've seen has been on the end of her critics, including at this forum.

GD, we know you're a confirmed Christian, so we know where that stuff comes from. The fact is that since she wrote CC and SOG she's gone on to bring up more of the same information from a bunch of different sources whose agendas are certainly not what you are proposing here. More straw men.

You being in India, I would assume that you have not actually read Acharya's work, so you really don't know what is in Acharya's "imagination" or that of our sources.

Sure, you can beat this dead horse all you want. She doesn't "suggest" it, she can see from the history of the debate that the Brits censored these images. Also, she talks about the god Indra being depicted in crossroads in Nepal, with his arm outstretched. I don't see what the big deal is in saying that gods all over the world have been shown in cruciform - it's obviously true. I guess this is a real sticking point for your, GD, as a Christian.

Maybe we should go back to Tertullian and Minucius Felix's comments about the pagan gods in cross shapes? In SOG, Acharya also provides all kinds of images of these gods and goddess in cross shape, as she does in "Christ in Egypt" as well. The point has become moot.

That's not quite accurate. What she does show is that the image of a god or goddess in a cross shape - and that the cross shape itself - were SACRED IMAGES long before Jesus supposedly lived. That's the whole point.

Regarding Graves, no, she really isn't. She moved on long ago, and she didn't use Graves at all in "Who Was Jesus?" "Christ in Egypt," "The Gospel According to Acharya S" or "The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar." It's people here who can't go beyond Kersey Graves or Dr. Prices old removed review of Christ Conspiracy. There's much more to the subject than Graves, but people here are hung up on him and can't see the forest for the trees.

I have to wonder whether you're kidding, Toto. "or matched Jesus' story in any way?!" Are you familiar with this subject or no? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that Krishna's life was FULL of "exact counterparts" to the life of Christ. There was a whole school of Christian apologists who wrote theses trying to prove that Hindu priests copied Christianity, because the parallels were so close and obvious. Look up the names "Edward Washburn Hopkins" and "Albrecht Weber," for starters.

gurugeorge, thank you for getting it. That's exactly right.

That's not the common tradition at all. In the accepted MYTH, Krishna was shot in the foot with an arrow while sitting under a tree. A number of scholars have seen a parallel here to the execution of Jesus, especially in the book of Acts, where it is said that Christ was hung on a tree. Read the part in SOG about the ancient ritual of human sacrifice.

gurugeorge was not necessarily talking about Krishna, so let's not get hung up there. Gods suffer and die, that's the point.

The point is not whether or not the idea is abstract or what it really means, the point is that there was a long tradition about a "crucified" figure - see Plato, for example - as well as the pre-Christian sacredness of the cross and so on, and that this widely held theme was probably what the crucifixion myth in Christianity was based on. You can argue the details all day long, but the point will still be there. A god or goddess in cross shape, the cross itself, were sacred to the pre-Christian world, and Christ's crucifixion serving as some earth-shattering episode becomes derivative and mythical instead.

Roger Pearse

Thank you very much indeed for this one. Contemporary reviews are always a delight. It's gorgeous, isn't it?

But what would Mr. Perry think, tho, to find that Graves' book was still being treated as an oracle in 2009?

However did you come across this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I'm sorry to tell you that this kind of reply to these kinds of criticism does your case no service. Tactically, it is a mistake.

Surely the only way to address concerns about accuracy and integrity is to demonstrate both? If someone questions what we say, it does not good to resort to attacking them. They may be ill-wishers (although hardly in this forum); but calling them so will not remove the grounds of their objections and will harden their hostility.

Now the ideas of Acharya S have been canvassed pretty extensively on the web for the last decade. It is useless to complain that people don't know what she says. People DO.

I hope you will consider these points, if only for tactical reasons. At the moment you're not making progress, and you do Acharya S no service.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Which British would this be, I wonder? The East India Company, which was so afraid of stirring Hindu religious passions that it banned missionaries from company lands? The missionaries like Henry Martyn, whose like was a study of linguistics? Or the administration that was set up after the Indian Mutiny in 1857, a century later, that was hardly more encouraging to mission? That existed during the period when the great collections of Oriental literature were formed, and fakes like those of Notovitch created to feed the interest in Tibet and the East?

I fear that, like most people today, to Acharya S the history and policies of British India are quite unknown.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Celsus

The fact is, Dave31 is only here to defend anything Acharya asserts dogmatically, but not actually engage in substantive argument. He's been called numerous times to make an actual argument, show evidence, basically engage with the discussion, but when called to, he always retreats into the cowardly "Read Acharya" while continuously insulting everyone who disagrees with him. On a skeptical board of all places, ironically he's even worse than most of the nutty apologists we've had over the years. He is probably wisely employing the principle of "better to be thought a fool..." and all that, but it just means no one will take him seriously.

Anyway, the ignore list has its uses

Toto

The original "Catholic Encyclopedia" is online here on Google books. At p. 734 we read The same text is on the newadvent site.

These legends of Krishna are late, and follow the arrival of Christian missionaries to the area. They seem to have little to do with the original stories of Krishna.

But if you think that being shot in the foot while sitting under a tree is the same as being crucified and hung on a tree, you can probably prove that anything is the same.

Jeffrey Gibson

What ever you might believe about Celsus, it's evident and indisputable that you are in no way qualified to assess what AS is qualified to do, the strengths of her arguments, or the degree of her success in carrying out what she claims she has accomplished. So on your own logic, you are stating and admitting that no one here should believe anything you have to say about the merits of AS' scholarship and the truth of her claims.

If you want to call the kettle black, you'd better make sure that you are not the pot.

And what specifically those 12 languages you claim AS is good at reading?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

So .. Dave shows himself not only totally unqualified to judge the merits of what AS says about ancient sources, but wholly unable to read correctly and grasp the import of the sources he himself cites as "proof" that Jesus was a warmed up verson of Krishna.

Wow. With friends like these, AS surely doesn't need any of the irrational and close minded enemies she says she has.

Jeffrey

Dave31

I AM skeptical which is how I know that people here cannot be trusted when it comes to Acharya's work. I have actually read it and I'm the only one here in this thread who has. So, it's not difficult for me to see all the inaccuracies from people here who have not read her work. They sure like to pretend that they're experts on her work though.

Who here has actually read a work cover to cover by Acharya other than the decade old Christ Conspiracy? Here's who has not read Acharya's work in this thread alone: ApostateAbe, Celsus, Roger Pearse, GakuseiDon, Jeffrey Gibson & others. The same people who trip over each other trying pile-on and attack her however they can. So, intellectual dishonesty & misogyny runs rampant here concerning the work by Acharya S. A substantive conversation is never going to be allowed to take place here at this forum on her work.

Toto, the point is that you said there were no parallels. You were wrong, as I showed. And the debate as to when the "exact counterparts" were put onto the Krishna myth has in no way been settled, so what you've said here is also incorrect. What you're arguing is what the Christian apologists have claimed, not what the evidence shows. You really need to study this subject before you jump to conclusions. It's really disappointing how little everyone here actually knows about these issues.

Again, the debate is not whether or not there are parallels - there are many, as I showed by my previous comments, which you are conveniently twisting so you can deflect off the fact that you erroneously said there were no other parallels. The debate is when they were attached to the Krishna myth - and that debate is still ongoing.

And you can just forget about the whole Krishna crucified thing - it doesn't matter. Acharya's work doesn't stand or fall on it. She even says at the top of her article on "Krishna crucified" that she's not making the conclusion that he was but that she's relating the debate, which is important in the study of the history of comparative religion.

By the way, I didn't say it was comparable to being "crucified and hung on a tree." I said it was comparable to Jesus being hung on a tree in Acts. You threw in the word "crucified." Why do people who attack Acharya for accuracy always make so many inaccurate claims themselves? It's just out of control. :huh:

How about admitting that you didn't know about all those parallels when you claimed there weren't any? Is anybody around here honest? And lets stop moving the goal post around too.

What a disappointment here. One would have a better conversation at an elementary school yard. The endless misrepresentation of Acharya's works here at this forum are an embarrassment to all Freethinkers everywhere.

GakuseiDon

Dave, little baby Jesus tells me that one day you will become Acharya's worst nightmare, by checking every single claim she makes. As the saying goes, "The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." May that day come soon.

I hope that what I have written below will help you along the path to questioning her.

Yes, and is that not the strangest thing??? Here is what she writes at the top of that article (my emphasis):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm

• This article represents reportage of a debate and does not draw any firm conclusion as to whether or not Krishna was ever depicted as "crucified" in the Christian sense

But the sources she uses do MOST DEFINITELY state that Krishna was portrayed as crucified -- on a tree, even. WE don't have the evidence now because of those blasted British (if you are terrible at sports you are going to invade other countries **), who went into India and destroyed the images. (I suspect the Opium trade was the British way of removing the crucified Confucius images out of China.)

So: Are her sources wrong? If so, why use them? If not, why does she doubt them? Can you answer this conundrum, Dave?

Here are what her sources write:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm

Doane: ... we find that Crishna is represented hanging on a cross, and we know that a cross was frequently called the so cursed tree. It was an ancient custom to use trees as gibbets for crucifixion, or, if artificial, to call the cross a tree

Acharya: However, it is not just tradition but artifacts that have led to the conclusion that Krishna was crucified. Indeed, there have been found in India numerous images of crucified gods, one of whom apparently is Krishna, important information not to be encountered in mainstream resources such as encyclopedias.

Dr. Inman: Crishna, whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified.

Acharya: Thus, we discover from some of the more erudite Christian writers, admitting against interest, that images of a Indian god crucified, with nail holes in the feet, had been discovered in India, and that this god was considered to be Krishna, as Wittoba.

Acharya: To be sure, an image of a crucified Krishna, prior to Christianity, is a fact not easily ignored, and one must wonder how it came to be so disregarded.

So Dave, WHY exactly is Acharya "not making the conclusion that" Krishna was crucified? Is there a problem with her sources?

Well, can you correct for accuracy please? Are her sources accurate or not? Can you ask Acharya how much confidence she has in her sources, please?

** OK, ok, granted about the Ashes. And Rugby. Damn!