Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-14-2008, 03:08 PM

Since Acharya S is now participating on this board, I have closed the previous thread and started this new thread, for a fresh start.

I would start off by noting that there is something about her theories, and astrotheology in general, that seems to resonate with people. Astrotheology was once a more popular topic in academics, and its time may come again.

Can we discuss these ideas without getting too emotional?

MarmINFP · 01-14-2008, 05:49 PM

I've been a member here for a while. I posted some in a previous thread about astrotheology, but the discussion didn't get very far.

I've known about Acharya's theories for years, but its only been recently that I've looked more into it. I was interested in comparative mythology long before I knew of astrotheology and they're both talking about the same view. If you've read enough of Campbell, you would know that he writes about the connection between mythology and astrology in terms of religion. Its not a new insight that Acharya came up with. The earliest critics of Christianity were making the accusation of Christianity borrowing from paganism.

I don't know why this idea would be surprising. Mythology is merely a term normally used to refer to a religion that is no longer worshipped, and a study of history shows that religions develop from previous religions.

If you brought this idea up on a Campbell or Jung forum, you'd be unlikely to get as many surprised or critical responses. However, many people seem to have a knee-jerk response to the word 'astrotheology' simply because it has 'astro-' as a prefix. I had someone very knowledgeable in Campbell react to the term because he thought it meant that I believed in astrology. Many atheists/agnostics seem to have a strong reaction to astrology as if the talk of 'Ages' will turn their brains into New Age mush.

Of course the Christians react to it for obvious reasons, but unnecessarilly I think. Jung and Campbell believed comparative mythology touched upon the deeper meaning of religion, and both of them seemed to be on friendly terms with Christianity. And then there are those such as Harpur that take comparative mythology to strengthen their belief in Christianity.

As for strong atheists and strong theists, they both seem to equally dislike Acharya. Its the only thing that brings them together.

I'm not overly interested in arguing for Acharya's case. I'm not an expert in her theories and I have yet to see a discussion about her work where much real discussion occurs... except on her own forum. Many people are interested in mythology and even comparative mythology, but as soon as it touches upon Christianity something switches in their minds. The only interesting discussions about the mythological origins of Christianity happen on forums that are focused on comparative mythology. For reasons I don't understand, many atheists/agnostics aren't overly interested in comparative mythology, and quite a few are actively 'disinterested' in others bringing it up.

There are several other reasons I'm not gung-ho about acting as Acharya's defender. For one, I've found that people usually have their minds made up before they enter such discussions and few people ever change their minds. No matter how rational people think they are, their is an essence of irrationality at the core of every person. Most rational arguments are rationalizations of what people want to believe. Secondly, people who see astrotheology as valid are motivated to study it in depth, and those who don't see it as valid aren't motivated to study it beyond searching for a few criticisms on the web.

Instead of discussing Acharya, I'd rather discuss comparative mythology in general which her view is just one of many. 'Comparative mythology' is somehow more respectable than 'astrotheology' despite the latter merely being a subset of the former. Most comparative mythology speaks of astrology because all of ancient religions spoke of astrology, and so comparative mythology would be quite limited without astrotheology.

Sometimes critics bring up Robert M. Price's now withdrawn criticisms of Acharya, but even Price uses comparative mythology as one of his tools to interpret Christian texts. In his translation of the New Testament, he even directly refers to Acharya's theories.

Any single criticism doesn't disprove Acharya's theory. Even if someone could somehow disprove Acharya's entire theory, it still wouldn't disprove astrotheology because there are plenty of other proponents. And if somenoe could miraculously disprove all of astrotheology, comparative mythology would have plenty of other theories within its toolset.

The problem that many critics seem to have with Acharya is not so much her theory, but rather how strongly she states her ideas sometimes. If you don't like her style, don't discount her ideas on that account. If she isn't to your taste, there are plenty of other astrotheologists and comparative mythologists who have different styles.

For instance, Campbell always tried to spin everything in a positive light, but then he gets discounted for being New Agey on that account. I was introduced to comparative mythology through Jung and I think he is very evenhanded and intellectually astute, but he doesn't have that much academic respectability either. I suppose Karen Armstrong might be the most academically respectable of theorists who references mythology.

I'll end by asking people to give Acharya a chance, to give astrotheology and comparative mythology a chance. As soon as anyone speaks of mythology, they already have a black mark against them in academic circles. Theorists like her are struggling against some deeply imbedded cultural biases. And there has been a bit of a backlash against comparative mythology after Campbell's popularization of it as the whole field got categorized with all things New Age.

I do hope that now that Acharya is a member here, that we can focus on her ideas instead of on her character or on the character of people who appreciate her ideas. If you don't like her, it isn't important for discussions on this forum. Just remember that these ideas are true or untrue no matter who is the person claiming them.

JoeWallack · 01-14-2008, 06:32 PM

JW:
You've got to love IIDB. Where else could you get Acharya S. and Jeffrey Gibson, uh, um, ah. Well, I suppose "interacting" would be the wrong word, but where else could you find posts by one followed/shortly followed by posts from the other?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

GakuseiDon · 01-14-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

I do hope that now that Acharya is a member here, that we can focus on her ideas instead of on her character or on the character of people who appreciate her ideas. If you don't like her, it isn't important for discussions on this forum. Just remember that these ideas are true or untrue no matter who is the person claiming them.

I agree. I think that astrotheology is a very interesting topic, and IIUC about what it is, there is some support for it from early sources. The problem is that there is also a lot of highly speculative theories coming out of the 19th C where the primary source is not apparent. Perhaps we can concentrate on primary sources, esp early ones, to build a picture of what astrotheology meant to people in pre-Christian times? That way we avoid the issues with unsourced 19th C claims.

The first thing to do is to get a good definition of astrotheology. Acharya gives an overview of astrotheology here:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

The scope covered by "astrotheology" is still unclear to me. Is it anything related to the movement of the sun, moon and other objects in the heaven which is given an allegorical meaning, or is it those legends that developed out of the movements of the heavens and were later regarded as literal? The former has many references, the latter not so many.

Here is Plutarch, writing in "Isis and Osiris". Is this an example of "astrotheology"?
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/A.html

"bTherefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom,a since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato54 remarks. Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, cbut they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters."...

They say that the Sun, when he became aware of Rhea's intercourse with Cronus,59 invoked a curse upon her that she should not give birth to a child in any month or year; but Hermes, being enamoured of the goddess, consorted with her. Later, playing at draughts with the moon, he won from her the seventieth part of each of her periods of illumination,60 and from all the winnings he composed five days, and intercalated them as an addition to the three hundred and sixty days. eThe Egyptians even now call these five days intercalated61 and celebrate them as the birthdays of the gods.

There is also a tradition that Osiris and Arueris were sprung from the Sun, Isis from Hermes, and Typhon and Nephthys from Cronus. For this reason the kings considered the third of the intercalated days as inauspicious, and transacted no business on that day, nor did they give any attention to their bodies until nightfall. They relate, moreover, that Nephthys became the wife of Typhon;66 but Isis and Osiris were enamoured of each other67 and consorted together in p35the darkness of the womb before their birth. Some say that Arueris came from this union and was called the elder Horus by the Egyptians, but Apollo by the Greeks.

Are these examples of astrotheology? If not, can anyone provide examples from primary sources?

MarmINFP · 01-14-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I agree. I think that astrotheology is a very interesting topic, and IIUC about what it is, there is some support for it from early sources. The problem is that there is also a lot of highly speculative theories coming out of the 19th C where the primary source is not apparent. Perhaps we can concentrate on primary sources, esp early ones, to build a picture of what astrotheology meant to people in pre-Christian times? That way we avoid the issues with unsourced 19th C claims.

I'm open towards whatever anyone wants to focus on. I find the whole field interesting. If you want to focus on primary sources, then that sounds like a good starting place. Maybe if we could gather all of the main primary sources with links and quotes, then we could discuss the possibilities of how they can be intepreted.

Quote:

The first thing to do is to get a good definition of astrotheology. Acharya gives an overview of astrotheology here:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

I've read that before, but let me read it again and I'll see if it brings anything to my mind.

Quote:

The scope covered by "astrotheology" is still unclear to me. Is it anything related to the movement of the sun, moon and other objects in the heaven which is given an allegorical meaning, or is it those legends that developed out of the movements of the heavens and were later regarded as literal? The former has many references, the latter not so many.

I don't know what the most technical definition might be. I tend to use it in a more general way. As for me, I'd say it includes anything that is connected to the movements of the heavenly bodies whether it was initially interpreted literally or allegorically. I'd guess that many myths were interpreted both ways at different times. Some early texts speak of two layers of meaning and I'd think this would apply to astrotheology.

Quote:

Here is Plutarch, writing in "Isis and Osiris". Is this an example of "astrotheology"?

I'd vote yes.

ApostateAbe · 01-14-2008, 09:22 PM

I am glad that Acharya S has come to this forum. She should do a good job of defending herself against the accusations thrown her direction. Those who have read and support her work haven't done a sufficient job in this forum, it seems. What she really needs to do is to resolve the central criticism that her claims about the origin of the Jesus character lack evidence in ancient texts, that she gets her material from crude 19th century literature and modern myths. I am sorry that I don't know how to couch that in polite language.

mountainman · 01-14-2008, 10:13 PM

Thanks GD for the reference to Acharya's article on Astrotheology.
Here are some comments...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACHARYA

The history of astrology is an important part
of the history of the development of civilization,
it goes back to the early days of the human race

The Precession of the Equinoxes

Another important factor in ancient astrotheology is the precession of the equinoxes, a phenomenon caused by the earth's

off-axis tilt, whereby the sun at the vernal equinox (spring) is back-dropped by a different constellation every 2150 or so

years, a period called an "age." One cycle of the precession, through the 12 signs of the zodiacal ages is called a "Great

Year," and is approximately 26,000 years long. According to orthodox history, the precession was only "discovered" in the

second century bce by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus; however, it is clear from ancient texts, traditions, artifacts and

monuments that more ancient peoples knew about it and attempted to compensate for it from age to age. In Hamlet's Mill,

Santillana and Dechend demonstrate knowledge of the precession at much earlier times, stating: "There is good reason to

assume that he [Hipparchus] actually rediscovered this, that it had been known some thousand years previously, and that on it

the Archaic Age based its long-range computation of time."... (39-40)

The Indian astrologers called the precession of the equinoxes
by the term ayanamsa. Much knowledge moved west after
the time - at least - of Alexander the Great, and Ashoka, if
not earlier in the time of Buddha and Pythagoras.

My research has determined that the knowledge of this precession
was known to the lineage of the astronomers/astrologers who's
advice was sought by the Roman emperors. Sosigenes advised
Julius Caesar at the time of calendar reform, when the basis of
our present 365.25 day calendar was implemented.

However it is clear that the "early christian intellectuals"
such as Origen (aka Eusebius) thought otherwise:

Origen, in his Commentary on Genesis, says:

"The consequence of this doctrine
would be to annihilate completely
our freedom of action, which, in this system,
would no longer be worthy of either praise or blame,
nor of being encouraged or reproved.

If it is so, everything one lets resound
about God's judgment is senseless (...)
faith would be in vain,
the coming of Jesus Christ
to earth would have accomplished nothing,
all the value of the law and the prophets
would become worthless (...)

A further effect of this atheistic and impious discourse
would be to assign the faith of those
acknowledged as believers in God
as a result only of the power of the stars."

--- cited in Eusebius Pamphilus (PE 6.2)

It would certainly seem probable that Constantine
rejected the advice of non-christian astrologers
when he decided to chain "Easter" to the Vernal equinox
at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

Not a good thing.

This had totally disasterous effects for the entire
concept of "astrotheology" and also "astrology" and
"astronomy". As one commentator puts it ....

Quote:

Sosigenes was, undoubtedly, aware of precession
as were the early fathers of the Church.
Precession was known around 200 AD (See, Origen,
early Christian scholar and theologian) but
denied by the early fathers of the Christian church.

One reason for the denial of precession
is because 'precession' suggested a Sun Centered
solar system which was considered heresy
(See, Galileo). Sosigenes secretly, (it seems)
included precession in his calculations
but did not discuss the matter.

Anyhow, they (Council of Nicaea) changed
the Vernal Equinox rather than disrupting
the evolving church doctrine.

This act of changing the Vernal Equinox
also changed the zodiac because the resulting
4-day change (rather than admit to precession
and heresy) shifted the place of 1° Aries by 4
degrees on top of any original zodiac errors (?)
from The Julian Reform in 46 BC.

This event was also the beginning of the end
for astrology as a legitmate activity (religion)
because 'astrology' then went from the actual
positions of heavenly bodies to the tropical
fiction of the calendar, not to metion the
continually scrambled zodiac because of
calendar changes.

SOURCE

From this time epoch the sideral zodiac and the tropical
zodiac have slowly diverged by the rate of the precession
or ayanamsa. Today, if you follow popular astrology, you
will be disappointed that your entire chart needs to be
rotated 24.5 degrees backwards, due to the accumulated
divergence between these two zodiacs, essentially from
the epoch around the Council of Nicaea.

The most popular sidereal zodiacs today are within one
degree of each other. Each of these therfore offers a
separate estimate for the "zero ayanamsa" date. That
is "How long have these two zodiacs been drifting apart?"

These estimates are as follows ...

221 CE (Fagan-Bradley) to
291 CE (Krishnamurti).
285 CE (Lahiri ayanamsa)

For anyone reading this, and thinking this is not science
and/or astronomy, think again. Our calendar does not take
into account precession agaist the stars.

The loss of this information coincides with the implementation
of the christian top-down emperor cult by Constantine, and his
edicts for the burning of literature, which continued for many
hundreds of years.

Archarya continues ...

Quote:

What is Astrotheology - Conclusion

As is evident, the study and reverence of the heavens goes back many millennia, and has constituted in large part the

original religious concepts developed by humanity. As is also clear, the ancients were well aware that they were worshipping

the sun, moon, stars and "all the host of heaven." Entire cultures were based upon astrotheology, and numerous magnificent

edifices were constructed for its glorification. Indeed, the proscription by biblical writers shows how important and

widespread was this worship of the cosmic bodies and natural phenomena. The Church fathers and other Christian writers also

acknowledged this astrotheology and its antiquity, but denigrated it as much as possible. Why? What would a detailed

investigation reveal about their own ideology? As demonstrated in The Christ Conspiracy and here, the knowledge about

astrotheology would reveal the Christians' own religion to be Pagan in virtually every significant aspect, constituting a

remake of the ancient religion. Yet, this astrotheology devised by our remote ancestors over a period of millennia was

symbolically and allegorically a treasure-trove. Hence, the restoration of this knowledge is not to be despaired but

rejoiced. (56-57)

Perhaps the oldest "astrotheology" are the signs of the Zodiac.
They are the images the ancients perceived in the sky. Names were
given however, not only to constellations, but to their constituent
stars, and the science of astronomy was borne with their observation
by these names (which varied between cultures).

But it will come as a shock to some that there are two zodiacs.
The sidereal (which is the realtime one) and the tropical.
The tropical and the sideral zodiac last coincided around
about the time of the Council of Nicaea - Constantine's very
military ("Wall of Swords" = Eusebius) supremacy party.

Since that time, the real sideral view of the stars has drifted
away from what we call the tropical zodiac. The tropical zodiac
is essentially a thing frozen in time back in 325 CE, when it was
decreed that Easter was to be the first Sunday after the full moon
after the vernal equinox.

Think about that nex time you look at the popular (tropical zodiac)
astrology in the papers, mags or the net. The restoration of the
knowledge of the appropriateness of using the sideral zodiac when
dealing with the stars was performed by Fagan, and posthumously
published in the 1970's.

The Indians have always used a sideral zodiac, as did the Babylonians
(a fact demonstrated by Fagan). However, the Indians also have
had problems in agreeing between themselves on the actual value
of this ayanamsa (precession). In 1953 the Indian government
tried to stepin and standardise this.

It seems to me that the restoration of sidereal zodiac astrology
in the west, is precisely one of the fractal forms of the restoration
of more informed knowledge, which may be rejoiced.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown
CONSTANTINE DUNNIT

Amaleq13 · 01-14-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The tropical and the sideral zodiac last coincided around about the time of the Council of Nicaea - Constantine's very military ("Wall of Swords" = Eusebius) supremacy party.

Are you sure they didn't actually last coincide c.150 when Ptolemy made his observations?

Dave31 · 01-14-2008, 11:11 PM

Ahh, thanks for restarting this thread Toto. Acharya was under attack personally instead of her work being discussed in that other absurd thread from what I went through. There have been some great starting point posts here though so I'll join in.

The definition from dictionary.com is

Astrotheology "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astrotheology

Quote:

A.Abe "she gets her material from crude 19th century literature and modern myths"

This is simply false - you need to actually read her work before you make commentary like that.

"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..."
~ Diodorus Siculus (90-21 BCE), Greek Historian,
"Suns of God" 89

Early Church Father Tertullian (160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you."
(paraphrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
~ "Christ Conspiracy" 158

"...All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius Roman scholar around 400ce
"Suns of God" 67-68

I found the article GD shared "Astrotheology of the Ancients" fascinating http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

Here are some of Acharya's online videos - http://www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

mountainman · 01-14-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The tropical and the sideral zodiac last coincided around about the time of the Council of Nicaea - Constantine's very military ("Wall of Swords" = Eusebius) supremacy party.

Are you sure they didn't actually last coincide c.150 when Ptolemy made his observations?

YES. See NASA.

The estimates do vary
according to hypotheses being made by
those performing the calculation.

221 CE (Fagan-Bradley) to
291 CE (Krishnamurti).
285 CE (Lahiri ayanamsa)

These are three independent estimates.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

01-14-2008, 03:08 PM	#1
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Acharya S: Discuss her theories politely here. Since Acharya S is now participating on this board, I have closed the previous thread and started this new thread, for a fresh start. I would start off by noting that there is something about her theories, and astrotheology in general, that seems to resonate with people. Astrotheology was once a more popular topic in academics, and its time may come again. Can we discuss these ideas without getting too emotional?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-14-2008, 05:49 PM	#2
MarmINFP Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Iowa City, IA, USA Posts: 50	I've been a member here for a while. I posted some in a previous thread about astrotheology, but the discussion didn't get very far. I've known about Acharya's theories for years, but its only been recently that I've looked more into it. I was interested in comparative mythology long before I knew of astrotheology and they're both talking about the same view. If you've read enough of Campbell, you would know that he writes about the connection between mythology and astrology in terms of religion. Its not a new insight that Acharya came up with. The earliest critics of Christianity were making the accusation of Christianity borrowing from paganism. I don't know why this idea would be surprising. Mythology is merely a term normally used to refer to a religion that is no longer worshipped, and a study of history shows that religions develop from previous religions. If you brought this idea up on a Campbell or Jung forum, you'd be unlikely to get as many surprised or critical responses. However, many people seem to have a knee-jerk response to the word 'astrotheology' simply because it has 'astro-' as a prefix. I had someone very knowledgeable in Campbell react to the term because he thought it meant that I believed in astrology. Many atheists/agnostics seem to have a strong reaction to astrology as if the talk of 'Ages' will turn their brains into New Age mush. Of course the Christians react to it for obvious reasons, but unnecessarilly I think. Jung and Campbell believed comparative mythology touched upon the deeper meaning of religion, and both of them seemed to be on friendly terms with Christianity. And then there are those such as Harpur that take comparative mythology to strengthen their belief in Christianity. As for strong atheists and strong theists, they both seem to equally dislike Acharya. Its the only thing that brings them together. I'm not overly interested in arguing for Acharya's case. I'm not an expert in her theories and I have yet to see a discussion about her work where much real discussion occurs... except on her own forum. Many people are interested in mythology and even comparative mythology, but as soon as it touches upon Christianity something switches in their minds. The only interesting discussions about the mythological origins of Christianity happen on forums that are focused on comparative mythology. For reasons I don't understand, many atheists/agnostics aren't overly interested in comparative mythology, and quite a few are actively 'disinterested' in others bringing it up. There are several other reasons I'm not gung-ho about acting as Acharya's defender. For one, I've found that people usually have their minds made up before they enter such discussions and few people ever change their minds. No matter how rational people think they are, their is an essence of irrationality at the core of every person. Most rational arguments are rationalizations of what people want to believe. Secondly, people who see astrotheology as valid are motivated to study it in depth, and those who don't see it as valid aren't motivated to study it beyond searching for a few criticisms on the web. Instead of discussing Acharya, I'd rather discuss comparative mythology in general which her view is just one of many. 'Comparative mythology' is somehow more respectable than 'astrotheology' despite the latter merely being a subset of the former. Most comparative mythology speaks of astrology because all of ancient religions spoke of astrology, and so comparative mythology would be quite limited without astrotheology. Sometimes critics bring up Robert M. Price's now withdrawn criticisms of Acharya, but even Price uses comparative mythology as one of his tools to interpret Christian texts. In his translation of the New Testament, he even directly refers to Acharya's theories. Any single criticism doesn't disprove Acharya's theory. Even if someone could somehow disprove Acharya's entire theory, it still wouldn't disprove astrotheology because there are plenty of other proponents. And if somenoe could miraculously disprove all of astrotheology, comparative mythology would have plenty of other theories within its toolset. The problem that many critics seem to have with Acharya is not so much her theory, but rather how strongly she states her ideas sometimes. If you don't like her style, don't discount her ideas on that account. If she isn't to your taste, there are plenty of other astrotheologists and comparative mythologists who have different styles. For instance, Campbell always tried to spin everything in a positive light, but then he gets discounted for being New Agey on that account. I was introduced to comparative mythology through Jung and I think he is very evenhanded and intellectually astute, but he doesn't have that much academic respectability either. I suppose Karen Armstrong might be the most academically respectable of theorists who references mythology. I'll end by asking people to give Acharya a chance, to give astrotheology and comparative mythology a chance. As soon as anyone speaks of mythology, they already have a black mark against them in academic circles. Theorists like her are struggling against some deeply imbedded cultural biases. And there has been a bit of a backlash against comparative mythology after Campbell's popularization of it as the whole field got categorized with all things New Age. I do hope that now that Acharya is a member here, that we can focus on her ideas instead of on her character or on the character of people who appreciate her ideas. If you don't like her, it isn't important for discussions on this forum. Just remember that these ideas are true or untrue no matter who is the person claiming them.

01-14-2008, 06:32 PM	#3
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: You've got to love IIDB. Where else could you get Acharya S. and Jeffrey Gibson, uh, um, ah. Well, I suppose "interacting" would be the wrong word, but where else could you find posts by one followed/shortly followed by posts from the other? Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

01-14-2008, 09:22 PM	#6
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I am glad that Acharya S has come to this forum. She should do a good job of defending herself against the accusations thrown her direction. Those who have read and support her work haven't done a sufficient job in this forum, it seems. What she really needs to do is to resolve the central criticism that her claims about the origin of the Jesus character lack evidence in ancient texts, that she gets her material from crude 19th century literature and modern myths. I am sorry that I don't know how to couch that in polite language.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.