Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MarmINFP · 10-21-2007, 04:26 AM

Fortuna - I'm not going to give much efort tryjng to defend Acharya. I find her theory interesting, but I can't say much more than that until I look further into it. I want to look at some of the early texts related to Christianity, and I want to study more of the criticisms of Acharya that i can find.

I trust someone like Robert M. Price more than I trust Acharya. I'm more interested in his theories at the moment, and I want to read his book about the Pre-Nicene texts. He used to be severely critical of Acharya and he is the one who ousted her by using her real name. Btw, she is using her real name on her most recent book. For reasons I'm not sure of, Price is no longer critical of her work. He has written the introduction for her newest book, and he took down from his site his earlier criticisms.

As for Acharya, I see what you're saying about the 30 degrees/30 years argument of hers. I don't remember that from her first book. I'll check it out and see what she says about it. Maybe she made some other comments about this in her second book.

I don't doubt that some of her arguments might overreach the evidence. Afterall, she is making a rather overarching theory that is bound to have errors. Even she has admitted to being a fallible human. She doesn't try to argue that she has never stated a factual error. I don't know how she'd respond to your criticism here.

I've noticed the differences between critics and proponents in threads about her work. Critics tend to nitpick individual facts and try to guide the argument towards the arguments that are the most easily questioned. Proponents seem undeterred by this methodology because they believe that the vast majority of her arguments and cited sources do stand up. I've never seen either side assent to being wrong about anything, but someone must be wrong.

I'm not sure I'm in the mood to attempt to be Acharya's proponent. This argument about Acharya's work has been done over and over again on boards across the web. At this point, I'm not sure I can add anything useful to the endless debate.

The most interesting discussions I've seen so far are over at Dawkin's forum. However, I'm still looking around here and so its unlikely that I've discovered all of the interesting threads that have occurred on this board.

Do you ever visit Dawkin's forum? If so, have you seen some of the discussions there about Acharya?

MarmINFP · 10-21-2007, 04:47 AM

In case anyone is interested, here is a recent thread at Acharya's forum:

Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=1149

MarmINFP · 10-21-2007, 06:49 AM

This is fromt the above link:

Quote:

Originally Posted by acharya

The Son of God is the Sun of God

The assertion that the "Son of God" is the "Sun of God" is frequently raised as another strawman argument that detractors like to knock down. Like these other criticisms, I have already addressed this one, but like sauerkraut it keeps repeating.

The complaint about this assertion stems from the impression that I and others are claiming the words "son" and "sun" are interchangeable and that, according to mainstream etymology, these two words in fact constitute "false cognates."

In the first place, the phrase comparing "son" and "sun" is usually meant to be a PLAY ON WORDS, not to suggest that the two words are etymological cognates and are interchangeable. Hence, this complaint represents a strawman argument. I for one am well aware that, according to mainstream etymology, the two words are not cognates and are not related. Using this PLAY ON WORDS to make a point is perfectly allowable, but one that is evidently lost on the critic.

In any event, as it turns out - and I as discovered long after I knew that mainstream etymology does not allow for the two words to be cognates and related - there IS reason to suggest otherwise, per the fascinating work of Christian etymologist Jacob Bryant, who published his book A New System, or An Analysis of Ancient Mythology in 1774. In Suns of God (76), I write:

Quote:
Bryant notes that the Egyptian priests were called "Sonchin," or "Son-Cohen" - priests of the sun. Thus, the English word "son" is not a false cognate with "sun," and it is truthfully said that the "son of God" is the "sun of God." This son-sun connection can also be found in the Indian language: In tracing many Indo-European and Vedic words to a common root, Roy [93] proffers, among others, the root "son," representing "sunu" in Vedic and "son" in Indo-European.

The "Roy" above refers to Indian scholar S.B. Roy, who wrote Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy, Institute of Chronology, New Delhi, 1976.

Even if we do not accept the etymology of Bryant and Roy, the fact will remain that the assertion that the son of God is the sun of God represents a clever play on words which reflects reality within the world of mythology. Indeed, the Old English word for "son" is sunnu, while "sun" is sunne, so again we have an apt comparison.

Magdlyn · 10-21-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Bryant notes that the Egyptian priests were called "Sonchin," or "Son-Cohen" - priests of the sun.

Is this supposed to prove that the word "son" in Egyptian means "sun" in English?

Is this also a demonstration that the Hebrew word for priest, kohen, is related to an Egyptian word, chin? (I am doing a little research into words in Hebrew that can be demonstrated to be borrowed from the Egyptian).

capnkirk · 10-21-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

Veclock,

As to the "sun dying forr 3 days, please explain that. I understnad that udring the winter solstice that the sun reaches its lowest point in the sky around December 21 or 22. But, what I don't understand is how you get this idea of the sun "dying" from that ?

I can shed some light on the claim about the sun dying for three days at the winter sosltice. In short this is one of the "outlandish" claims because of "where" in the sky this phenomena is claimed to happen (i.e. the southern cross). To make the claim relevant, they tell us that the sun reached its lowest zenith in the constellation of the Southern Corss. Well, the sun never enters the Southern Cross and never has. Due to the phenomenon of precession, the constellation that hosts the winter solstice changes over time, but it has ALWAYS been one of the constellations on the ecliptic (the 12 signs of the zodiac). The Southern Cross is not one of those constellations. So the symbolic merging cannot happen.

Quote:

I've often suspected if Jesus's 3 days in the grave didn't come from the Jonah story, but I've yet to see anyone show the specific parallels.

The only potentially relevant significance to Jesus' three days in the grave followed by resurrection stem from the Roman policy of "denial of burial" for 3 days for insurrectionists. (for more information, including parallel cases for denial of burial for 3 days, see: S. Lieberman, Texts and Studies, (New York, 1974), p. 258.)

Magdlyn · 10-21-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnkirk

The only potentially relevant significance to Jesus' three days in the grave followed by resurrection stem from the Roman policy of "denial of burial" for 3 days for insurrectionists. (for more information, including parallel cases for denial of burial for 3 days, see: S. Lieberman, Texts and Studies, (New York, 1974), p. 258.)

I can add to that. I was once told by a person who was studying prior to a conversion to Judaism, that there was/is a belief in that culture that one's soul does not leave the body's environs for 3 days after the body dies. It hovers nearby. I am not sure how Jesus' soul got to take a trip to Hades instead. (And of course, it wasn't actually 3 days before J appeared to Mary M, anyway, just about a day and a half.)

Freethinkaluva · 10-21-2007, 03:13 PM

"Zeitgeist" part 1 video based on Acharya's work (starts @ 9:45-35. Acharya has nothing to do with parts 2 & 3)
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

There seem to be a lot of false assumptions here regarding Acharya's work. A great place to start would be to actually read her books as the online articles do *NOT* contain all of the details. I highly recommend "Suns of God" or Acharya's new book, "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ".

She is having a serious impact as more and more scholars are learning from her work. Dr. Price has written a positive review of "Suns of God" and he has just written the foreword to "Who Was Jesus?" (WWJ). It will be out soon.

So rather than engage in ad homs and straw man fallacies, it's probably a good Idea to actually read her books before making false assumptions.

Realize that we will never fully understand our modern religious roots unless and until we understand the mythological and astrotheological aspects of its history and origins.

"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,
* source: "The Antiquities of Egypt" by Diodorus Siculus, "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." "Christ Conspiracy" 158 (paraphrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

"...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
* source: "The Saturnalia" by Macrobius, "Suns of God" 67-68

"Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions"
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...=1149&start=15

* Acharya is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the sun, moon and other natural phenomena.

GakuseiDon · 10-21-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

"Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions"
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...=1149&start=15

* Acharya is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the sun, moon and other natural phenomena.

I see that Acharya is still going with the "Horus in cruciform" interpretation of this image (the "Horus cruciform" shapes are supposedly on the end of the chair arms):

They are so obviously depictions of animals with the sun-between-horns motif that are common in that period that even I was shocked by Acharya's ridiculous claim.

Acharya herself even responded to me here when I pointed out similar representations:

Part of Acharya's response:

"First of all, Don and Punkish, you should know by now that I am not willing to redo all of my research to satisfy lazy, dishonest and disrespectful ignoramuses whose only claim to anything is to harass others with their smart mouths. Frankly, you are sorely lacking in both intelligence and class, and I do not have the time or the inclination to see you through grade school."

As I pointed out to her, she shouldn't NEED to redo her research. Even if she doesn't list her primary sources in any of her books (which she doesn't), surely she should have the primary sources noted down *somewhere*.

I also pointed out that perhaps the shape was something else entirely: evidence of Doughboy crucified! The similarity with Acharya's "Horus in cruciform" shape is remarkable. I defy anyone to compare Doughboy's shape and Acharya's "cruciform" shape and declare that the similarity is just coincidence...

Freethinkaluva · 10-21-2007, 03:59 PM

GakuseiDon, <edit> you've never actually read any of her work so you are not qualified to make commentary on it.

GakuseiDon · 10-21-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

GakuseiDon, <edit> you've never actually read any of her work so you are not qualified to make commentary on it.

I've told you a few times, FTL, I HAVE read her books. <edit> I've also skimmed through "Suns of God" looking for her resources. I haven't read her latest, though (IIRC "Fingerprints of Christ").

<edit>

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

10-21-2007, 04:26 AM	#41
MarmINFP Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Iowa City, IA, USA Posts: 50	Fortuna - I'm not going to give much efort tryjng to defend Acharya. I find her theory interesting, but I can't say much more than that until I look further into it. I want to look at some of the early texts related to Christianity, and I want to study more of the criticisms of Acharya that i can find. I trust someone like Robert M. Price more than I trust Acharya. I'm more interested in his theories at the moment, and I want to read his book about the Pre-Nicene texts. He used to be severely critical of Acharya and he is the one who ousted her by using her real name. Btw, she is using her real name on her most recent book. For reasons I'm not sure of, Price is no longer critical of her work. He has written the introduction for her newest book, and he took down from his site his earlier criticisms. As for Acharya, I see what you're saying about the 30 degrees/30 years argument of hers. I don't remember that from her first book. I'll check it out and see what she says about it. Maybe she made some other comments about this in her second book. I don't doubt that some of her arguments might overreach the evidence. Afterall, she is making a rather overarching theory that is bound to have errors. Even she has admitted to being a fallible human. She doesn't try to argue that she has never stated a factual error. I don't know how she'd respond to your criticism here. I've noticed the differences between critics and proponents in threads about her work. Critics tend to nitpick individual facts and try to guide the argument towards the arguments that are the most easily questioned. Proponents seem undeterred by this methodology because they believe that the vast majority of her arguments and cited sources do stand up. I've never seen either side assent to being wrong about anything, but someone must be wrong. I'm not sure I'm in the mood to attempt to be Acharya's proponent. This argument about Acharya's work has been done over and over again on boards across the web. At this point, I'm not sure I can add anything useful to the endless debate. The most interesting discussions I've seen so far are over at Dawkin's forum. However, I'm still looking around here and so its unlikely that I've discovered all of the interesting threads that have occurred on this board. Do you ever visit Dawkin's forum? If so, have you seen some of the discussions there about Acharya?

10-21-2007, 04:47 AM	#42
MarmINFP Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Iowa City, IA, USA Posts: 50	In case anyone is interested, here is a recent thread at Acharya's forum: Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=1149

10-21-2007, 03:13 PM	#47
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	"Zeitgeist" part 1 video based on Acharya's work (starts @ 9:45-35. Acharya has nothing to do with parts 2 & 3) http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com There seem to be a lot of false assumptions here regarding Acharya's work. A great place to start would be to actually read her books as the online articles do NOT contain all of the details. I highly recommend "Suns of God" or Acharya's new book, "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ". She is having a serious impact as more and more scholars are learning from her work. Dr. Price has written a positive review of "Suns of God" and he has just written the foreword to "Who Was Jesus?" (WWJ). It will be out soon. So rather than engage in ad homs and straw man fallacies, it's probably a good Idea to actually read her books before making false assumptions. Realize that we will never fully understand our modern religious roots unless and until we understand the mythological and astrotheological aspects of its history and origins. "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, * source: "The Antiquities of Egypt" by Diodorus Siculus, "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." "Christ Conspiracy" 158 (paraphrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia) "...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 * source: "The Saturnalia" by Macrobius, "Suns of God" 67-68 "Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions" http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...=1149&start=15 * Acharya is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the sun, moon and other natural phenomena.

10-21-2007, 03:59 PM	#49
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	GakuseiDon, <edit> you've never actually read any of her work so you are not qualified to make commentary on it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.