Yellum Notnef

That's not quite what I was getting at. I think I've already stated that i do do not go in for the "every god was exactly like Jesus" bit. But I think there is enough there combined to show a clear and undeniable realation to the sun and astrology.

This means very little to me considering the source and obvious motivation.

I don't think we will ever see a good scholarly work on this, but again, perfectly fitting a square Jesus into a round Osiris hole does not interest me.

Sure there are, but there seems to be more to it than that and that it's seemingly ignored due to lack of surviving written sources is what irks me.
I come here every day hoping to learn something new, but it's always the same old same old.
Meanwhile the sun continues to go through the motions of dying and resurrecting every year as it's done for billions of years, but somehow Jesus' uncanny similarity to it is coincidence and only noticed by cranks.

gottspeed

I can't even believe that the people claiming the movie is bullshit are questioning the validity of the sources. The SOURCES!? I'm not even going to get into that can of worms. If the average IQ on this site is anything like the members would like to believe my point goes without explanation anyway.

The audacity. The irony... I think what we're dealing with here is identification with the aggressor. Or at very least buyers loyalty.

Reading half the posts on here gives me the same feeling as seeing a gruesome video. The aggressive ignorance horrifies me.

Fortuna

Veclock,

Perhaps they do, but if so it is indirectly. For example, it is fairly clear that Jesus's 12 disciples are representative of the 12 tribes of Israel. The reason I believe that is because of all the parallels and links between the NT gospels and the Hebrew Tanach. Now perhaps the 12 tribes are representative of the 12 cycles, or perhaps there is yet another intermediate link.

But, when you try to equate the english word "son" to the also english word "sun", and then say that this shows that Jesus = Sun mythology, that 's just ludricous. Look up the etymology of those 2 words and see if you can establish the link. (you can't). You might as well be telling us that "god" is "dog spelled backwards.

There is something else. Suppose I was to say to you something like "Anglicanism is pagan because they burn incense at their rituals just like the pagans did". Do you understand the folly with that connection ? Indirectly, it does come from what might be describedd as pagan religions. But the point is that almost all of them burned incense. It was part of many ancient cultures. But there is no direct connection.

No, it doesn't. I hope you're not implying the "sun"="son" here. 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 could understand it from the pov of some very northern latitude wher the sun might stay below the horizon on those days, but none of these ancient cultures are that far north. And wher does the "3 days" come from. I can understand something more general from the seasonal growth cycles, but this "sun dies for 3 days" comes from wher exactly ? Give me a source that specifically mentions this.

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.

Yes, but what does this have to do with it ? Be more specific, can you explain what and how this makes a parallel to Christianity ? When you don;t do that, you come off like a crank.

Perhaps not, but at the very least you could explain exactly what the parallels are and how it is related. I think that when you do that you will find that the parallel, if any, is indirect, if at all.

Probably not, but is it a direct parallel ? For example, Jesus miracle of the feeding of the masses is probably a parallel to Elisha doing more or less the same feat. Why ? To show audiences familiar with Tanakh that Jesus was a prophet in the Tanakh tradition.

Yes, and there is a similiar story about Romulus and Reemis. But now for the question, was Sargon's story the original ? Is it at least the oldest of the 3 ? Or did Sargon's version also come from an earlier source ? However, in this case I agree that this is probably so. But, do you know why I agree ? What makes this fairly plausible ?


No, and because the author does not give us his sources for these, his information is useless

The reason that Acharya has a reputation of being a crank is because she does not tell us where she gets most of her "facts". She does not tell us her specifics sources. and that makes her information useless.

Oh, my understanding is that in a few cases where she did list her source, the source did not exactly say what she claimed.

So, when you make claims like these, provide a primary source for them.

karlmarx

A beetle once said he was more famous than Jesus... then the xians went and burned all his records.

(*ducks*)

Hykuptah

Keep searching,most of The Bible's reference's come from other sources of universal knowledge.The reason that you find the evidence to be non-conclusive is because the evidence was presented as fact and faith mixed with the preconceived notion that it is infallible information.Not to mention direct references to the Sun of God as well as several other astrological,spiritual,and historical parallels as well as myths that are presented in The Scriptures as truth.

dog-on

Maybe one should ask these questions when looking at the "coincidences. What influences/transferences did the theology/traditions of Sol Invictus worship have on Christianity once the Romans made Christianity their state religion? What if anything was changed to the pre-existent "Christian" theology?

Justin70

Shedding a bit more light on the "three kings" connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)

I did a ton of research into a lot of this years ago. I'll have to dig out my notes but doing a great deal of checking into the christian art over the centuries did a lot to connect Astrology and the symbolism in the bible (much of which is laid out in the first part of Zeitgeist)

MarmINFP

I've read much of Acharya's books and I've read through quite a few threads on various forums about Acharya. Her general argument makes sense to me, but i'm not knowledgable about the primary sources. The problem with requesting primary sources in a forum discussion is that many of these primary sources that scholars speak of aren't available on the internet nor in most public libraries.

The two criticisms you've made of Acharya aren't ones I've heard before.

"she does not tell us where she gets most of her "facts". She does not tell us her specifics sources."

Could you give specific examples to clarify these accusations? She gives many references to source materials. Have you read her second book because? She says that she wrote it to answer the criticisms of her first book.

"Oh, my understanding is that in a few cases where she did list her source, the source did not exactly say what she claimed."

What is the source of this understanding of yours? Did someone on this forum make such a comment? If so, could you link to this other thread? Which specific few cases are you speaking about?

Fortuna

Actually, I find that most, if not all of the time they are (but we have to take that on a case by case basis). Compare Acharya's books to those from Dr Elaine Pagels of Princeton (she's just an example, also look at Metzger). Every time Dr Pagels makes an assertion, you will find a footnote. If you then go to that footnote, she will list her primary source, and sometimes even offer some commentary on it. I did not find this at all well done in Acharya's "Christ Conspiracy". Since I could not race nor verify the primary source for her assertion, it's useless to me.


You've got to be kidding me ! I've seen this so many times I tire of reading it(and writing it). It's been a while since I've read CC, but when I did read it I was thoroughly unimpressed. Especially given that the obvious fact that the gospels use so many Tanach parallels (and the narrator of GMark keeps telling us this !). So, at best the connection is indirect. It is possible and in some cases very likely that the Tanakh got some of this from older myths. But to not mention this, that is, to not point out the that the connection is secondhand, makes it seem to me that she is either being intentionally misleading, but for sure she is not nterested in telling us all the facts of the matter. It makes me think she has an axe to grind.

I've not read her second book. And my copy of Christ conspiracy ended up in the rubbish bin after the first 30 or so pages.

I just asked one a few posts up. Here is that one but I've included a second one that is so over the top that it ought to make very clear to you that Acharya isn't worth the read.

"The sun 'dies' for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th"

First, where does she get this "dies for 3 days" ? I understand perfectly what the winter solstice is, and the idea of the sun's cycle (I've got a degree in Physics and studied the subtleties of the earth's motion), but from where does the 3 days come from ? Source(s) please ? Further, given all the Tanakh parallels in the Nt gospels, it is reminiscent of "Jonah's in the belly of the beast" for 3 days. Show me a primary source that talks about the death of the sun for 3 days. As I remember, either she does not list any, or what she lists talks only about the solstice, yet nothing about being dead for 3 days.

This next one is just over the top ! Read it for yourself and rofl.

"The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30."

:huh: WOW ! Just WOW ! :banghead: How ridiculous is that ? With that one her book goes into the rubbish bin.

Which btw, is where my copy of CC went, probably over something ridiculous like this. (Though, I don;t see how anything could beat that one on the ignorance scale).

Read her claims about Mithras and Jesus parallels ? Need i say anymore ?




Justin,

OK, so later authors or groups make the connection. That does not help to backup your claim that the les trois rois de Matthew represent the stars of the belt of Orion.

I would like to pose some questions about this ;

- Does the gospel of Matthew say that they were "kings" or does it say that there were "Magi" ?

- So, where and how did the idea that they were "kings" originate ?

- And how/why did they become associated with the stars of the belt of Orion ?

- When traditions about a story arise after the story is written, is it valid to say that "the characters in that story were based on those traditions ?

Case closed.

Fortuna

Justin and Marm,

Shedding a bit more light on the "three kings" connection which Acharya has in her "CC, greatest story..." book : Also. look below for her next zinger !


If you have indeed done "a ton of research on this", tell me where in the gospel of Matthew that you find where it talks about Les trois rois ? Because if you had actually done your research, then you know that the bible (specifically the gospel of matthew) says that they were "magi" (pl gospel) and nowhere does it say that there were 3 of of them.

The english translation(KJV) calls them "wise men". (nor does it say how many of them there were (because the greek doesn't say).

I'm sure that Acharya S explained this in her book also, correct ?

Do tell me, from all of your research on this, how and where did the tradition of them beings "kings" develop, and why 3 of them ?

So, at best what you have is, an explanation of how this later tradition that developed from the Chrestienne community (or was it from one of the apocryphals) corresponded to the stars on the belt of Orion.

Once again, I must ask, did Acharya S explain where this later tradition came from, or did she say it came from the bible ? (if she said it came from the Bible, then she would be incorrect, no ?

I await your reply ? :wave:


In my prior post, I made some remarks that this one ought to make you toss CC into the rubbish bin. I didn;t explain why.

Tell me, when were "degrees" for measuring angles invented ?

Well, there are 2 sources. The Babylonians used a system of circumscription
of a circle into 6 sections to derive the value of pi. But, they used a base 60 numbering system, and they use a formula. The problem is , they did not use the number 60, nor 360 for the whole thing. The used ratios in their base 60 numbering system. So they divided a circle into a set of characters that represents 60 (base 60) units , which is 360 in our base 10 numbering system.(This all comes from a clay tablet discovered in 1936.

In fact, according to the math forum, the orginal western source for this is Cladius Ptolemy. They say that ;

In other words, when Acharya says that ""The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30."

The problem is that, the nmbering system that would refer to that angle as
"30" degrees had not been invented nor published until late in the second century. Mosr scholar date the gospels in the late frost century, some in the early second.

Do you see the problem with her statement ? :banghead:

ROFLMAO !

Do you know now what you ought to do with your copies of Acharya's books ?