Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:47 am

Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions (F.A.Q)

(Note: This section of the TBK Nation is a work in progress.)

------------------

G'day folks,

While criticism and skepticism of Acharya's work are welcome and open for respectful, honest and sincere discussion and debate, there are others who only launch ad hominems and vicious personal attacks. In light of this, many folks aren't always sure how to respond or what to say and are in need of help. Here, I intend to do just that.

I hesitated to create this in the sense that I really don't want to give any credibility to Acharya's detractors for a variety of reasons - some due to the fact that many have never actually studied or read her work. They read a few online articles which *DO NOT* contain all the details found in the books and convince themselves that they are experts on Acharya and her work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of these folks have no formal training or credentials whatsoever and believe that their opinion based in euphoria is all the evidence they need. Would these same folks also give a neurosurgeon their opinion too? When it comes to religion it seems that FAITH is the prerequisite, not evidence. If there were any evidence to support religious claims, faith would not be the main requirement.

Many folks are unaware that Suns of God was written in large part to refute the criticisms of Christ Conspiracy. So if they have issues with CC it was probably already addressed in Suns of God.

Most of Acharya's detractors claim to be looking for "truth" while at the same time being very dishonest. What comes to mind is a website created by a JP Holding follower titled "Preventing Truth Decay" (PTD) where they claim to refute Acharya and the "Zeitgeist Movie". Relying totally on arguments that have already been addressed. Since they claim to be "preventing truth decay," I thought I'd send them a response - to no avail. The PTD creator won't provide any already available links to show the opposing views which have been around long before PTD was ever created. This dishonesty is typical and doesn't surprise me. Other innocent folks may be fooled though - and that's what concerns me. So, that's why I'm starting this thread for others to be able to obtain a necessary response instead of having to go to Acharya only for her to have to regurgitate the same responses over and over to points that have already been addressed.

I hope that by doing this it will enable Acharya to continue her very important work rather than get bogged down by having to deal with such things as this.

The Zeitgeist Movie seems to have spurred a lot of criticism but at least the discussion has started. If you see dishonest things getting passed around about Acharya's work and aren't sure how to respond bring it here for help with a response. Or send them here for responses. Christianity has universities teaching apologists what to say and how to respond - very dishonestly from where I stand. We simply must fight back with the facts and evidence that DOES EXIST.

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:52 am

"Zeitgeist" part 1 video is largely based on Acharya's work but includes many others as well. Of course she can only vouch for her own work. And, Acharya had nothing to do with parts 2 & 3
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Realize that Zeitgeist was never intended to be a scholarly documentary. As Peter Joseph explains it was a personal project which was shown in New York as a free public awareness expression. After the event was over, "The Movie" was tossed online with little thought given to a public response.

-----

Here is my response to the "Preventing Truth Decay" site that I sent them shortly after their page "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted was created. I've seen folks passing this site around as if it holds the authority and is the last word on the matter - what a joke. There's MUCH MORE I could add but not bad for a quickie... feel free to copy/paste it wherever necessary. I may make additions to this later when I have the time.

(http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zei ... tone.shtml)

and (http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/archaryas.shtml)

Which is the same crap from JP Holding and Mike Licona which Acharya already addressed.

* added edit: For my original e-mail go to this thread "Preventing Truth Decay responds"
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopi ... =4793#4793

I've made a few additions to this here as I stated I would so, it is no longer the original but you are free to copy/paste it and send it to info@preventingtruthdecay.org to correct the errors and misinformation there. Please do...

Dear Preventing Truth Decay.org,

I've recently viewed your website which includes an article titled "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted".

I wanted to respond to this and since your website is all about preventing the decay of truth, I'm confident that you would also have the integrity to post my response along with the article. Otherwise, it would be very dishonest and unscholarly to censor the opposing view point, wouldn't it. I couldn't help but notice that you chose not to include Acharya's responses to Holding and Licona that have been available long before you created Preventing Truth Decay. I will simply organize a quick response not a point by point to every single criticism as it doesn't seem necessary, nor do I have the time.

In your section "General Introduction" -

The claims of outdated scholarship and primary sources are brought up along with author Acharya S and her book "The Christ Conspiracy". There's something you should know, there are two other books by Acharya as well, "Suns of God" and "Who Was Jesus?". Having read them all, I felt I should say something because your view of Acharya's work is not accurate.

Acharya wrote "Christ Conspiracy" in 1999 it is 430 pages, with over 1,200 footnotes & over 100 bibliographical citations. "Suns of God" (2004) in response to the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy". So the criticisms have already been dealt with there. "Suns of God" is nearly 600 pages with over 1,800 footnotes with 46 pages of illustrations, which comprise over 100 separate images. Suns of God's bibliography comprises over 250 books and articles. Most of these are from conservative and respected sources, and many of them are Christian, dating back to the earliest times. Acharya has presented this enormous amount of resources in order to provide a consensus of opinion, precisely because the subject matter is so contentious.

In 2007, "Who Was Jesus?: Fingerprints of The Christ", in this work Acharya sets aside mythology, astrotheology to specifically deal with the Gospels where Acharya shares commentary by various Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars. WWJ, comprises of 168 books and articles most of which are again, from conservative and respected sources, and many of them are Christian, dating back to the earliest times through to today.

Back to outdated scholarship and primary sources, Acharya addresses this issue in the Introduction to "Suns of God" here - http://www.truthbeknown.com/introduction.htm

You said,

Quote:

"The claim that Christianity was influenced by pagan religious beliefs, including astrology, is nothing new. These claims are rooted in the “history of religions school,” which emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century. However, by the mid-twentieth century, this method had been greatly refuted-even non-Christian scholars opposed this perspective."

- Well, this is not accurate, as even Justin Martyr admits around 150 CE in "The First Apology" (XXI):

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you [PAGANS] believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter..."

* Yes, I've seen your response to this quote - enjoy "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?" http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm
For more on this see "Who Was Jesus?" by Acharya

"That there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity has been observed since the early centuries of the Church, when both Christian and non-Christian alike commented upon certain similarities."
~ Dr. Bruce Metzger, "Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian"

It appears that most of the sources you use here are Tektonics/JP Holding and Mike Licona. First, JP Holding -

JP Holding has no qualifications whatsoever in any Biblical field, knows no Biblical languages, and has no relevant training, yet has the temerity to presume that his OPINION is enough, and that his personal FAITH is all that he needs, to offer a vicious and vitriolic critique of credible credentialed scholars who are trained in this area of expertise. JP Holding has no training in comparative religion. No training in mythology. No training in archaeoastronomy. No training in astrotheology. Here are just a few links about the dishonesty of JP Holding exposing why he & his entourage cannot be trusted ...see it for yourself.

TEKTONICS.ORG: EXPOSED!
http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html

'James Patrick Holding, the Want-to-Be Apologist'
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... 24jph.html

'Dishonesty by Robert Turkel (J.P. Holding)'
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/turkeldishonesty.html

A Reply to J. P. Holding
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... lding.html

"Writing James P Holding Off!"
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... g-off.html

"Prove Jesus Existed, Please!"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm

James Patrick Holding: Another Apostate With Selective Education
http://www.darrellwconder.com/debate1.html

Do a google for JP Holding and his alt. "Sheila Rangslinger" -

"DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself."

And here's what Acharya had to say concerning Mike Licona -

Quote:

"First of all, Mike Licona is not a credible individual, as his stated life's mission is to 'prove' that a Jewish man was 'the' God of the cosmos, and was born of a virgin and raised from the dead - a ridiculous premise that is unprovable.

"Secondly, Licona's methodology of 'debunking' my work included making random phone calls to professors, reading them a couple of sentences taken out of context, such that they pronounced my book to be 'ridiculous' and made other disparaging comments about my person, and then hanging up. As an example of this unethical behavior of Licona - during which time he apparently also identified some of these 'ridiculous' sentences as mine when they were not - we received the following response from one of his main 'sources' in his attempts at discrediting me, Professor Edwin Bryant.

When we asked Prof. Bryant about this affair concerning Licona, my work and Bryant's derogatory comments, Bryant responded as follows:

"'I somewhat remember receiving a phone call from someone sometime back requesting my views on Krishna in connection with a book he was critiquing. I had no time or interest to read the book to which he was referring, nor was I criticizing the book itself, as you suggested in a previous email since, not having read it, I had no grounds to do so. As a scholar of the Krishna tradition, I felt duty-bound to answer his questions, which I did, and gave my opinion of the views he represented to me regarding Krishna's supposed crucifixion. There are no traditional sources indicating Krishna or any avatara of Vishnu was crucified. If western authors from (I assume) the colonial period have published claims that there are alternative folk narratives that do represent such a version of events, then the onus is on them to provide specific references to these sources if they are to be taken seriously by scholars.

"'best wishes, Edwin Bryant'

"Obviously, Licona was not as cozy with these scholars as the impression he gives in order to depict himself as an authority. Nor did he give much a disclosure concerning my arguments, which Bryant acknowledges he has never read. Moreover, again, my book "Suns of God" goes into greater detail regarding this issue in particular, much of which data I would think would be fascinating to a "scholar of the Krishna tradition." In specific, I address the assertion concerning the depiction of Krishna as 'crucified' or in cruciform.

"Please also see my rebuttal of Licona vis-a-vis my work -

"'It is obvious that apologist Licona's main tactic in refuting The Christ Conspiracy is to attack my credibility, constantly misrepresenting statements from my book and website in order to make me look absurd. Such is a classic tactic of apologists and other used-religion salesmen attempting to sell their shoddy goods to an unsuspecting public. Apologists are not generally trained to think independently or to refute facts but to assail the credentials and credibility of the individual who does not buy such shoddy goods. In other words, don't bother them with the facts or the science, they will simply retort that your hair is the wrong color or you will be punished by God or some other playground rubbish.'

"In any event, even if a few assertions from my work are shown to be in error, and I admit to being fallible, the general premise - to wit, Jesus Christ is as mythical as Hercules - remains sound and unrefuted."
- Acharya S

Acharya regarding Mike Licona - http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

From your section, "Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithra (or Mithras)-Is the Life of Jesus Christ Plagiarized from their Myths?"

For starters, actually read "Christ Conspiracy", "Suns of God" Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ and Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (CIE) which addresses all of the Egyptian claims in Zeitgeist. For a shorter version of CIE check out The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book

“Mithra was born on December 25.”

Quote:

JP Holding response: "“…the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from..."

To this nonsensical remark, Acharya responds, "First of all, Holding's opinion on this subject is, as usual, irrelevant. The fact is that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people worldwide believe that the Jewish son of God was born on December 25th, just like many other sons of God. Holding merely waving that fact away is not going to affect reality."

What does the Catholic Encyclopedia say on this issue?

Mithraism: "Sunday was kept holy in honour of Mithra, and the sixteenth of each month was sacred to him as mediator. The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

* Notice the word "REBIRTH," which means that the sun was perceived to have died only to be re-born or resurrected 3 days later after the winter solstice.

Natalis Invicti: "The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

* see "Suns of God" and for more info on Horus

Section "Did Any of these Pre-Christian Deities Really Rise from the Dead?"

- Again, I refer you to Justin Martyr around 150 ce admitting pre-Christian Pagan gods which were "...crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven..."

* for more on this see "Who Was Jesus?" and of course "Suns of God".

Section "Jesus Christ-the Most Recent Solar Messiah?"

The fact that Christians' favorite holidays are Christmas and Easter is enough to consider Jesus a sun god. I agree that the bible makes no mention for the actual date for the birth nor death of Jesus - as would be the case for a fictional character. In ancient times long before the advent of Christianity both an Easter and a Christmas type of celebration existed which usually represented victory of the light over the darkness. Neither holiday was originated by Christianity. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when Christmas was recognized as an official holiday in the US. Christians fought over it for nearly a full century specifically because they considered it to be too PAGAN.

You said,

Quote:

"I contacted former astrologer Marcia Montenegro..."

who seems to know absolutely nothing about solar mythology, astrotheology nor comparative religion. I can't take anything she has to say seriously on any of the issues here.

However, Dr. Noel Swerdlow is the Professor of Astronomy etc, I can listen to what he has to say:

Quote:

Q. "The sun rises on December 25 and this is why Jesus and all of the other deities mentioned previously share similar characteristics."

"“This is of course complete nonsense astronomically. The identification of Christ with solar deities goes back to the eighteenth century" ... "It may be true that picking that particular day for Christ's birth was influenced by traditions about the winter solstice, but that does not make him a solar deity.”

First of all, that's the wrong question. The question concerns the WINTER SOLSTICE, not whether or not the sun rises on December 25th - of course, the sun rises on December 25th. Secondly, this person is not an expert on solar mythology, so he does not know any of the arguments that concern whether or not Jesus is another, Jewish version of the sun god. Also, the claim made by apologists and Dr. Swerdlow that the comparison of Jesus to other solar deities began in the 18th century is FALSE.

In the first place, sun gods were extremely important in the ancient world, as attested by pre-Christian writer Diodorus Siculus, for one:

"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." "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 around 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68

Most importantly, the comparisons of Jesus with the sun began in the SECOND CENTURY, with Church fathers such as Tertullian (160-220 CE), who said:

Chapter 13. ”The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort.

"Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day, in preference to the preceding day as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest and for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish feasts on the Sabbath and 'the Purification,' and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps, and the fasts of unleavened bread, and the 'littoral prayers,' all which institutions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest."

Tertullian, "Ad Nationes," I, 13 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Later, St. Augustine (354-430 AD/CE) was also compelled to dispute the same observation, which obviously continued to his day:

"I think that what the Lord says, 'I am the light of the world," is clear to those that have eyes, by which they are made partakers of this light: but they who have not eyes except in the flesh alone, wonder at what is said by the Lord Jesus Christ, "I am the light of the world." And perhaps there may not be wanting some one too who says with himself: Whether perhaps the Lord Christ is that sun which by its rising and setting causes the day? For there have not been wanting heretics who thought this. The ManichÃ¦ans have supposed that the Lord Christ is that sun which is visible to carnal eyes, exposed and public to be seen, not only by men, but by the beasts. But the right faith of the Catholic Church rejects such a fiction, and perceives it to be a devilish doctrine: not only by believing acknowledges it to be such, but in the case of whom it can, proves it even by reasoning. Let us therefore reject this kind of error, which the Holy Church has anathematized from the beginning. Let us not suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ is this sun which we see rising from the east, setting in the west; to whose course succeeds night, whose rays are obscured by a cloud, which removes from place to place by a set motion: the Lord Christ is not such a thing as this. The Lord Christ is not the sun that was made, but He by whom the sun was made. For all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."

Augustine, "Tractate on the Gospel of John," XXXIV
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701034.htm

Solar Mythology Lesson # 1 - http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/ ... h/day.html

Winter solstice sunrise in Newgrange 3600-3100 BC
http://www.knowth.com/loughcrew.htm

I see no evidence to believe that the Jesus of the bible was ever anything else besides another sun god.

p.s. I'm sure you'll be pleased to discover that astronomer and former-director of Los Angeles's Griffith Observatory Dr. Edwin Krupp is quoted many times throughout "Suns of God" among others.

Section "Did Jesus Even Exist?"

"Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"
~ The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)

* for more on this see "Who Was Jesus?" by Acharya

Quote:

Section "Conclusion"

"Towards the end of Part I, the narrator states the phrases "We want to be academic' and that 'Christianity is not based on truth." These statements are quite ironic, however, because genuine academic research blatantly refutes the vast majority of his claims (as is evidenced by the data provided above) and strongly supports historic Christianity."

- REALLY? I'll just grab a few more quotes from Christian authorities that I found interesting from "Who Was Jesus?" -

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."
~ Merrill C. Tenney, "New Testament Survey," p. 203.

Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
~ F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" founder of the modern evangelical movement

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."
~ John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5.

Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, ex-Catholic priest and monsignor

---------------

So for my own conclusion. I'd point out that if you're going to be overly critical of an author's work, it may be wise to actually read the book first rather than rely on the dishonesty of JP Holding and Licona. I see this review of the "Zeitgeist" part 1 movie and Acharya's "Christ Conspiracy" as more Christian dishonesty attempting to censor a view point that has been around much longer than Christianity.

If you would like to claim that Jesus was a historical real person that lived on earth, was the son of god etc, etc then simply provide the evidence - outside of the Bible - to support these claims. Note that even if you could, it would be the first time throughout history as even the apostles and earliest church fathers couldn't produce any evidence for this. If there were any evidence to support the claims, faith would not be the main requirement for Christianity.
* for more on this subject see "Who Was Jesus?" by Acharya

If it is solar mythology or astrotheology you're interested in then, it would be wise to approach experts in this field. Not folks with no credentials whatsoever like JP Holding etc.

Acharya S is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology and solar mythology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya S examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the Sun and other natural phenomena throughout her work:

Who Was Jesus? Expanded Version
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

* New edit Oct 2nd - We have been blessed by the "Preventing Truth Decay" creator joining us with a response here -

Preventing Truth Decay responds
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopi ... =4793#4793

* The entire issue surrounding the Zeitgeist part 1 controversy comes down to 2 things.

1. The evidence of solar mythology, astrotheology found worldwide as far back into history as we can go.

2. The very severe lack of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

These 2 subjects intersect in many ways and must be examined together. It is my contention that we will never fully understand our modern religious beliefs unless and until we also understand the mythological and astrotheological aspects of our history. Mainstream academia omits these 2 aspects for the most part. We can argue about the details forever - detractors can disagree with Acharya all they want but it still comes down to those 2 issues from above.

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:19 pm

Why does Acharya S use a pen name?

First, many authors use a "pen name". It's very common and a big deal really need not be made of it. I'm not aware of any other author being harassed so much over a pen name as Acharya S. When it comes to religion and challenging the status-quo it may be wise to hide ones true I.D. especially if one is discussing Islam - radical Muslims will create violent riots for exposing Islam. For example, remember the Danish cartoons of Muhammad which set-off violent riots by Muslims? And Christianity has a history that isn't much better.

This is another ad hominem attack that critics try to use against Acharya S to dismiss her entire body of work, that's all. "Acharya" was chosen as a sort of joke to tease the Hindu authorities because no woman is allowed to be an "Acharya" - let alone a white woman. "Acharya" means many things - teacher, master, priest of the sun, guru etc. The "S" is a mystery - oooh, it must be something horrible :lol:

The "S" stands for Sanning which means "truth" in Swedish.

In fact, some Hindu fanatics ended up getting Acharya's Wikipedia page deleted because of her pen name, essentially validating why she used "Acharya" in the first place. That's why Wiki has forbid her Wiki article from being titled "Acharya S." These few Hindu fanatics (Hare Krishna) demonstrated their own biases, bigotry and prejudice by attacking a female author for using the name 'Acharya" as a pen name. Furthermore, there are loads of people with the last name "Acharya." The joke here is on those who take the pen name "Acharya S" too seriously. Acharya S doesn't. :mrgreen:

Currently, there are several Christians attacking her Wiki page insisting on posting what they think is her real name. Those who are actually familiar with Acharya's works have all been banned by Wiki except one. So, at this point, it seems only biased critics with an agenda are allowed to edit her Wiki page. Anyone who attempts to oust her identity does so purely out of malice wishing to cause harm to her and her family. Such people will be held accountable. I've seen people online call her Diane, Dee Dee, Dorothy and other assorted guesses. She prefers "Acharya" to protect her security, privacy and her family.

Quote:

"Just an FYI - I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY FULL NAME IN PUBLIC. If you see a site claiming to know my "real name," do not believe it - and do not send me familiar "howdy, yada, yada" messages using it. The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical religious disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family."

- Acharya S

Acharya · **Joined:** Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm **Posts:** 1250

Critics Don't Know My Work, Shriek About My Pen Name

Thanks, FTL, for doing all that.

I see that the Zeitgeist controversy has spawned at least 900 new webpages specifically referring to me and my work.

Within these pages appear many erroneous claims that are reflective of the singular fact that my critics have not read my works and are therefore unqualified to make commentary upon them. Such facts, however, do not prevent these individuals from dishonestly attempting to debunk my work.

I would like to emphasize that point: The vast majority of my critics have not even read my works. In particular they have not read Suns of God, which contains refutations for pretty much all of their shallow criticisms. Anyone who wishes to defend my work really needs to read SOG. And those who attack my work without having studied SOG have NO credibility whatsoever.

These dishonest characters also like to hold up detractors of mine within the "atheist" community who likewise have not studied my work but are dishonestly pretending to be experts on me and it. These individuals apparently view themselves as competitors and are evidently professionally jealous in that their works are not receiving the same widespread recognition.

Moreover, I usually don't like to play this card but the facts demonstrate that I have been subjected to what could only be deemed sexism. I have heard about at least one prominent radio personality who didn't want to endorse my work because I was "too sexy." Hard to believe at this point in my life, but a sad reflection of human culture. In any event, a pathetic illustration of the blatant sexism to which I have been subjected. It could honestly be suggested much other vitriol directed at me emanates from the same place.

In any case, it may be a good idea to keep these ideas in mind when encountering the usual character assassinations I'm subjected to when fervent believers cannot dispense with the facts I present. Invariably, they attack my credentials, making hysterical commentary, for example, about how I use a pseudonym and don't reveal my real name.

In the first place, it is true that for some years I was safe in my anonymity from the crackpots and stalkers who later threatened to obtain my credit report, for example, and post it online, along with my home address and phone number. Anyone who knows my story knows that it was none other than Dr. Robert Price who outed me in 2001, which I discovered to my horror one day while sitting home alone, pregnant. All of a sudden, I get an email from a stranger with my real name and home address and phone number, saying that it had been released by Dr. Price to a Christian network. My first reaction was that I would need to flee my home. I was terrified for my life at that point. So, that's the reason I initially used a pseudonym. (Bob Price and I have since mended fences, and he has removed his bad review of Christ Con and endorsed Suns of God. Dr. Price has also written the foreword to my book Who Was Jesus?)

Yes, I chose the pseudonym principally in order to tease religious fanatics, as I was at that time studying Indian religion and noted the chauvinism within. The issue of a pseudonym constitutes an infantile argument that reflects an utter inability to deal with the facts, just more ad homs and assaults on my character, as if that will prove Jesus existed. (And my contention that "Jesus Christ" is a fictional character is really at the basis of much of the vitriol tossed my way.)

In the meantime, the harpies are still shrieking about my nom de plume - a common characteristic in the publishing world, as is evidence by the term "de plume," which means "of pen." I.e., it's a PEN NAME. Nothing sinister or conspiratorial about using a PEN NAME. Enough of such tripe.

Although these harpies claim to be expert enough about me to make their absurd commentaries, they have no idea that I have now begun to use my REAL NAME, as can be found on the first page of my website, attached to my book Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ In other words, the point is now moot.

Acharya · **Joined:** Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm **Posts:** 1250

What Are Acharya's Credentials?

Another subject that cackling harpies glom onto, fallaciously believing it somehow discredits the numerous facts I bring up in my volumes of work, is that of my credentials.

In the first place, I've read where these insightful "experts" on me remain so befuddled that they cannot even discover the biographical material I've had posted on my website since 1995. Instead of honestly admitting that they are NOT experts on me or my work, such individuals start weeping and wailing about how I have no credentials that they can find or verify.

For everyone's edification, I have included a page on my website entitled:

What Are Acharya's Credentials?

All inquiries may be directed there - please feel free to send and post this article all over the place whenever you see a discussion of me and my work!

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:53 pm

What about Acharya's publisher - Adventurers Unlimited Press?

A friend of Acharya, Kenn Thomas owner of "Steamshovel Press" talked his friend and owner of Adventurers Unlimited Press (AUP) David Childress into publishing "Christ Conspiracy" and he's very happy he did. Let it be known that "Christ Conspiracy" is the NUMBER 1 SELLING BOOK of ALL TIME for AUP.

Quote:

"Acharya comes up against the enormous counter-publicity efforts of various churches and religious groups that would want to keep her thesis and ideas suppressed. AUP publishes many heretical books and scholarly work at odds with mainstream views, so to a certain extent it's natural for her work to be found there. And I doubt if even a larger publisher could meet the demand for ChristCon. The upper limit of that has yet to be tested. The Bible started with a small publisher, too, y'know."
~ Kenn Thomas owner of "Steamshovel Press"

Detractors often haven't actually read any of Acharya's material at all but rely on the dishonesty of others to pass around without even checking for accuracy. Here's a tame comment I ran into:

Quote:

"The catalog of Adventures Unlimited Press, Acharya S’s publisher, specializes in conspiracy books, Extraterrestrial Archaeology, UFOlogy, books on Atlantas, Anti-Gravity, Cryptozoology, Lost Cities, Templar Studies, Mysterious Phenomena, etc.; i.e. it is not University of Chicago Press"

First of all, there's no problem with those topics. Secondly, what these folks don't know is that major, respected publishers also publish these things and more. Major publishers also publish books on pedophilia, satanism, rape, incest, polygamy, homosexuality, murder, cannibalism and worse.

Folks consider these to be respectable publishers and they are but they publish books on all of those topics too. Simply go to Amazon.com and do a book search and type in a favorite publisher along with a topic from above and you'll be amazed at what turns up.

University of Chicago Press - Lets look up "conspiracy" and see what turns up ...

"The 9/11 Conspiracy" by James H. Fetzer

"The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth about Extraterrestrial life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt" by Lynn Picknett

Prometheus - lets look up oh, I don't know, say, "Atlantis" and see what turns up ...2 pages of books. A couple are:

"The Atlantis Encyclopedia" by Frank Joseph

"Voyage to Atlantis: The Discovery of a Legendary Land" by Jr., James W. Mavor

Harpers - Lets see if they have anything on the "Christ Myth"

"JESUS WHO? Myth vs. Reality in the Search for the Historical Jesus" by James Gardner

"The Jesus Myth" by G. A. Wells

"Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy ("Three Rivers Press" is a part of Harpers)

Simon & Schuster - Lets look up "UFOs"

"UFO Briefing Document: The Best Available Evidence" by Don Berliner and Whitley Streiber

"UFOs and the National Security State" by Richard M. Dolan and Jacques F. Vallee

They have 4 pages of books on UFOs http://tinyurl.com/2wrtpe

W.W. Norton - Lets look up "Mysterious Phenomena"

"The Mysterious North Shore: A Collection of Short Stories About Ghosts, UFOs, Shipwrecks and More" by William Mayo

Anyway, you get the point. Complaints about Adventurers Unlimited Press (AUP) simply don't stand.

Never mind how God created the universe in 7 days. Never mind the talking snake with Adam and Eve, the fraudulent Noah's ark, the burning bush, Never mind the mention of the Anunnaki and Nephilim plus all the other extraordinary tales in the Old and New Testaments including Jesus' resurrection. Never mind all the religious wars and genocide in the bible. Never mind all the forgery and interpolations. Never mind all the errors in the bible.

I WAS A CHRISTIAN FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS. I simply got tired of being lied to. The bible should have a disclaimer sticker that reads something like this:

"This book discusses gods. The existence of entities with supernatural powers is controversial, and many believe that myths, especially other people's myths, are fictional. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

and/or,

"These stories are a collage of many other, much older stories that are known to be myths, legends and/or, Astrotheology and should never be taken as literal fact." The bible should be in the FICTION section with the rest of the fiction.

Acharya · **Joined:** Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm **Posts:** 1250

My Publisher

Thanks again, FTL.

It is amazing how little people know about the publishing world, yet they yack as if they are experts. In the first place, one doesn't write a book and then have major publishers falling all over themselves to obtain it - unless one is already famous for some reason or another. In the bad old days before print-on-demand and ebooks, it was a seriously difficult process to get a book published, as there were far too few publishers for all the authors, and major publishers were extremely selective.

Those who are using the strawman argument of my publisher - revealing just how weak is their ability to dispense with the FACTS I bring up - have obviously never written a book and attempted to get it published. Hence, once again they are extremely ignorant of the subject they are so snidely waving about. One thing that continuously strikes those who are engaged in this intellectual debate about the origins of religion and Christianity in particular is how repulsively dishonest, smart-alecky and sociopathic the upholders of the faith can be. Such characteristics are obvious from the fact that their great champions - who shall remain nameless - are barbarians and knuckledraggers whose only "talent" is their smart mouths and attempts at bullying.

In any event, years ago when Christ Con was published, obtaining any publisher was a long and tedious process that may never have yielded results. I was fortunate to have another publisher's offer, but I chose AUP, even though Kenn Thomas had to twist Childress's arm. Like you say, Childress is certainly glad he took that risk!

The entire publisher issue is a non-issue, smoke-and-mirrors and strawman argument that only those with no real argument concerning the facts and with a less-than-stellar IQ would keep bringing up. It is irrelevant, especially when you factor in the pabulum that major mainstream publishers themselves have pumped out endlessly - and when you consider what absolute SCHLOCK Christian publishers waste perfectly good trees on. It's time for the environmentalists to picket this Christian crap, such as the "Left Behind" series, which is planting a dangerous blueprint for total global destruction in the brains of millions. Their publishers should be sued.

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:11 am

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" 1875 classic by Kersey Graves

Some get confused by this page by Richard Carrier and try to use it to blast Acharya for mentioning Kersey Graves. BTW, Richard Carrier has never actually read any of Acharya S/Murdock's works. I see no reason to believe Carrier has actually read Graves work either because of this comment at the top of the article:

Quote:

"[Editor's note: This is a conflation of three responses which were made by Richard Carrier to feedback and e-mail involving questions about the scholarhip of Kersey Graves, in particular, and about scholarship, in general, in the subject area about which Graves concerned himself in The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors.]"
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... raves.html)

Kersey Graves is only cited 7 times in the "Christ Conspiracy" index. In "Suns of God" she mentions him only in order to discuss the fracas surrounding his credibility. She does NOT rely on Graves at all in SOG.

Nobody, not even Richard Carrier has researched where Graves was getting his info like Acharya has, as it's a thankless job. She wrote the foreword to the 6th edition to "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors".

Quote:

"As concerns the much-maligned Kersey Graves, to my knowledge not one of his critics has bothered to check out why he wrote what he did. I am evidently the first person to spend any time researching where he procurred his information, and I spill considerable ink on the subject in "Suns of God". Interested parties, I would think, would find it a fascinating piece of detective work."
- Acharya

Quote:

"I can assure you that I have not discovered one individual in modern times who has looked into the issues surrounding Kersey Graves as much as I have. When the subject is studied IN DEPTH, it becomes apparent that Kersey Graves made nothing up, as he has been charged, but was working with preceding scholarship. Whether or not that scholarship is accurate becomes the issue then, not whether or not Kersey Graves "fabricated" anything. I have examined many aspects of his work and have not found one instance of "fabrication." More careful citation on Graves's part would have prevented many of these aspersions from being cast upon him."
- Acharya

Quote:

Here, Richard Carrier agrees with Kersey Graves ...

"...consider his [Kersey Graves] emphasis on the December 25 birth date as a common feature. This is one of the things he [Kersey Graves] gets right, at least regarding Greco-Roman religion: all gods associated with the sun shared the sun's 'birthday,' erroneously identified as December 25..."

Quote:

"The author has in his possession historical quotations to prove the truth of each one of the above parallels. He has all the historical facts on which they were constructed found in and drawn from the sacred books of the Hindoo religion and the works of Christian writers descriptive of their religion. But they would swell the present volume to unwieldy dimensions, and far beyond its proper and prescribed limits, to present them here; they are therefore reserved for the second volume, and may be published in pamphlet form also...

In proof of the correctness of the foregoing comparative analogies, we will now summon the testimony of various authors setting forth the historical character of the Hindu God Krishna, and the essential nature of his religion, so far as it approximates in its doctrines and moral teachings to the Christian religion. We will first hear from Colonel Wiseman, for ten years a Christian missionary in India."
- Kersey Graves, 273
http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/lin ... ours-5.htm

This article demonstrates what I'm talking about -
"Beddru is Beddou is Buddha"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/beddru.html

Regarding Kersey Graves and the god "Deva Tat," another instance of Graves being charged with "fabrication," Acharya answered:

Quote:

The original passage in Asiatic Researches is to be found in vol. X on page 62 of Col. Wilford's essay, "Origin and Decline of the Christian religion in India," in which he spells "Deva-Thot" as "Deva-Tat." This Deva Thot or Deva-Tat has been equated with Jesus, based on a number of striking correspondences between their stories, correspondences that in reality appear because the gospel story existed ubiquitously in bits and pieces for centuries and millennia prior to the Christian erra. Significantly, "Thot" is the same as the Egyptian name for Budha/Mercury/Hermes, i.e. Thoth. It would seem, therefore, that this Siamese Buddhist tradition regarding "Deva Thot" is pre-Christian and has little to do with "Jesus Christ," except that the "punishment by the cross" and other characteristics were eventually taken into Christianity.

That Asiatic Researches article regarding "Deva-Tat" dates to over a century prior to Graves and is fairly long. The title "Deva-Tat" was apparently well known within the Indian/Buddhist priesthood. Once again, Proof of yet another example how Graves did *NOT* "make it up." There are 23 references to the Asiatic Researches article & its authors in "Suns of God" pages 365, 367, 368 http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:46 am

The Nativity Scene in the Temple of Luxor - the ancient Egyptian inscription

Richard Carrier comments on the "Nativity of Jesus" as it pertains to the ancient Egyptian inscription at Luxor here -
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/ca ... iption.htm

"15. Four consecutive scenes reproduced in my book are found portrayed upon the innermost walls of the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Luxor, which was built by Amenhept III., a Pharaoh of the 17th dynasty. The first scene on the left hand shows the God Taht, the Lunar Mercury, the Annunciator of the Gods, in the act of hailing the Virgin Queen, and announcing to her that she is to give birth to the coming Son. In the next scene the God Kneph (in conjunction with Hathor) gives the new life. This is the Holy Ghost or Spirit that causes the Immaculate Conception, Kneph being the spirit by name in Egyptian. The natural effects are made apparent in the virgin's swelling form."
~ Gerald Massey
http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/ ... _jesus.htm

Quote:

The Nativity Scene in the Temple of Luxor by Acharya S/Murdock

"However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)." http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:09 pm

Does Acharya rely on 18th and 19th century sources?

LOL, this is one of the most absurd lies that gets passed around the net. It demonstrates that these folks have never read her work at all.

Here are just 3 quotes of many from Acharya's work that demonstrates these assumptions utterly false

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

"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

Also, see the Bibliography for Suns of God, which demonstrates that Acharya used a wide variety of sources dating to the earliest times.

Critics also attempt to claim: "Nobody questioned Jesus' existence until the 19th century."

This comment is disingenuous because a) It omits the fact that questioning church doctrine & dogma was punishable by death throughout the crusades, Inquisitions & DARK AGES right up to the 1800's. And b) Independent critical thinking was not allowed. Folks were scared to death to be skeptical of the church let alone publicly question Jesus' existence. Nevertheless, xian apologists & ignorant agnostics & atheists regurgitate this pathetic line of reasoning. It's embarrassing.

It's scripture like 2 John 7 and 1 John 4:2-3 that kept people in fear of questioning Jesus' existence. Nobody wanted to be seen as against god. The fact that this scripture is there gives us a clue that many people must not believed in a historical Jesus from the beginning.

1 John 4:2-3 "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

2 John 7: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

It appears this mentality is still a default psoition today even in New Testament scholarship. They just assume a priori that Jesus must have existed and work from there. The facts & evidence demonstrate that Jesus is as mythical as Hercules.

Quote:

"According to the Wikipedia article on the Jesus Myth:

"The Jesus-myth is a concept associated with a sceptical position on the historicity of Jesus, which claims that Jesus did not exist as a historical character, but functioned instead as an abstract, symbolic, and metaphorical allusion to a higher knowledge. The theory has not found widespread acceptance among mainstream scholars and historians...

The first scholarly proponent of the Jesus myth idea was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo. His arguments made little impact at the time. In the early twentieth century, however, a few other scholars published arguments in favor of the Jesus Myth idea. These treatments were more influential and merited several book-length responses by historians and New Testament scholars."

Quote:

"...Contrary to popular belief, the idea that Jesus Christ is a mythical character is not new: In fact, the questioning and doubting of the gospel tale started at the beginning of the Christian era and has been continued by thousands, if not millions, since then. The historicization and carnalization of the Christ character was fought by the Docetic Gnostics, and the disbelief was addressed by early orthodox Christians as well, including the writers of the canonical epistles of John. Indeed, 1 John 4 condemns as "antichrists" those "spirits" who do not confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," as does 2 John 7, which says:

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Many, says 2 John, have contested the historicity of Jesus Christ, even by his day. Obviously, therefore, this dissension began with the dawn of the Christianity, which is understandable. If, for example, the average American today were approached with wild tales about some obscure religious fanatic who lived decades ago in, say, Mexico, and who purportedly did many miracles, from manifesting food and raising the dead, including himself, to ascending to heaven, would the person simply believe it, without any proof whatsoever? And be willing to accept this obscure preacher as the "Son of God" and God Almighty Himself? Such is the case with the story of Jesus Christ. In reality, the doubting of Christ as a historical character is not a "new fad"; those who argue otherwise are not informed on the subject..."

For the full article see - "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?" http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm
Also enjoy an excerpt from "Suns of God", from a chapter titled, "The "Historical" Jesus?" - http://www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm

* For more information about the severe lack of evidence for a historical Jesus see "Who Was Jesus?: Finger Prints of The Christ". There you'll find comments from Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars such as...

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" a founder of the modern evangelical movement

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."
- John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5.

Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor.

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"
- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."
- Merrill C. Tenney, "New Testament Survey," p. 203.

Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

See, even Christian New Testament and biblical scholars as well as Jewish scholars don't agree evidence for Jesus. The facts & evidence demonstrate that Jesus is as mythical as Hercules.

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:30 pm

What about the copycat theory?

The "copycat" argument is often inadvertently used as a straw man argument. The people I see making the copycat argument do so mostly out of ignorance or attempting to shore up their faith at all costs. The fact remains that there are a great many similarities of gods and savior sons of gods throughout history. That doesn't necessarily mean they are all exact carbon copies of each other. If Pagan religions worldwide were basing their religious ideas around natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations i.e. astrotheology, then, there are going to be plenty of similarities. The differences tend to be related to environment, culture, era etc. Add to that all of the competition and borrowing of ideas between them. Still, the CONCEPTS have their foundations in astrotheology. And that's what we're talking about, borrowing similar concepts based in natural phenomena. If one is unaware that the myths were based on natural phenomena it will seem odd, mysterious and supernatural. When you know what you're looking for it becomes obvious.

This copycat argument is absurd because religions have always been in competition with each other and each newly created god or savior usually had additional new powers or attributes etc in order for religious oneupmanship to usurp the older god or savior. In the case of war for example, the victor was usually able to force their gods, culture and calendars onto the losers. It was easier or more helpful to do that if your god had more extraordinary powers or attributes etc, etc than theirs. Sometimes they created a new god by blending each others gods. Sometimes, simply by giving the same god a new name or just changing it slightly was enough...

Quote:

"...In actuality, even the place names and the appellations of many other characters in the New Testament can be revealed to be Hebraicized renderings of the Egyptian texts.

As an example, in the fable of "Lazarus," the mummy raised from the dead by Jesus, the Christian copyists did not change his name much, "El-Azar-us" being the Egyptian mummy raised from the dead by Horus possibly 1,000 years or more before the Jewish version. This story is allegory for the sun reviving its old, dying self, or father, as in "El-Osiris." It is not a true story.

Horus's principal enemy--originally Horus's other face or "dark" aspect - was "Set" or "Sata," whence comes "Satan." Horus struggles with Set in the exact manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness, among other similarities. This is because this myth represents the triumph of light over dark, or the sun's return to relieve the terror of the night..."
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/o ... ianity.pdf

The other older gods may have been stricken from the records so to speak. We know for a fact that Christians went on a rampage to destroy any and all pagan gods. We know this because early church fathers admitted it. They also made laws against worshipping pagan gods etc, etc. Why would they do that? Probably because they never did have a good answer to explain the similarities between the much older pagan gods and Jesus. It was easier to just destroy the evidence as much as possible.

Another obvious reason for the similarities and parallels of religions, when one understands astrotheology, is centered around pagan holidays similar to our "Christmas" and "Easter". Those are just two celebrations that have been celebrated as far back in time as we can go. Different cultures with different environments celebrated them in their own way but usually revolved around many similar themes such light vs. dark, night vs. day, life vs. death, God vs. Satan, Horus vs. Set, Heaven vs. Hell etc, etc.

Quote:

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ (written in 1993 long before Acharya's books)

"The "Son" of God is the "Sun" of God -

The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.

For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th. This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
* The sun "walks on water." (reflection off the water)
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.

Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus." The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity."

Quote:

"As concerns the specious claim that the analogies between the Christ myth and those outlined below are "non-existent" because they are not found in "primary sources," let us turn to the words of the early Church fathers, who acknowledged that major important aspects of the Christ character are indeed to be found in the stories of earlier, "Pagan" gods, but who asserted that the reason for these similarities was because the evidently prescient devil "anticipated" Christ and planted "foreshadowing" of his "coming" in the heathens' minds."

"...In his First Apology, Christian father Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) acknowledged the similarities between the older Pagan gods and religions and those of Christianity, when he attempted to demonstrate, in the face of ridicule, that Christianity was no more ridiculous than the earlier myths:

"ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?"
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/o ... ianity.pdf

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:02 am

What are the Primary Sources?

In response to the cry for "primary sources," in Suns of God Acharya writes:

Quote:

The Past Destroyed

When it comes to religion, alternative perspectives are considered highly suspect and are subject to intense scrutiny, held up to impossible standards of proof, while the accepted paradigm is lightly handled and can pass with little or no evidence at all. Those who step outside the box are dunned with requests for credentials and bibliographies, while believers in the mainstream ideology require no credentials except belief and seem not to need to read much at all, including the very "sacred scriptures" they defend. In any case, when one is doing investigative research, dating back thousands of years, one must use a variety of sources, ancient and modern. If one uses works too modern, the hue and cry is for "primary sources!" If one uses material "too old," the criticism is that it is "outdated." Hence, the scholar is put in a double bind, while the critic is never satisfied. In such a picky environment, it is a wonder anything important ever gets written or read.

The "outdated" argument becomes specious when it is understood that the work of more "modern" authors is nonetheless based on those who proceeded. To become a scholar one must study as much as is possible; obviously, whatever one is studying must have come before. The current studies are based on the past studies. No modern writer can possibly be called a scholar if he or she has not studied the works of the past; hence, he or she is using what detractors will call "outdated" material. Since true scholarship is founded upon the studies of the centuries and millennia past, it could all be deemed "outdated" by these illogical and impossible standards. It should not be necessary to point out this fact, but it often seems as if sense were not common at all, and every little detail, every meaning between the lines, must be clearly spelled out or else misrepresentation, misconstruing and misunderstanding will follow. In any case, the date of a book is frequently irrelevant, as truth is timeless.

Moreover, the so-called outdated scholarship on the origins of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, that arose in the past few centuries is actually superior not only in depth but also in perspective to what is often produced today. Furthermore, these various authorities preserved information regarding literature and iconography since destroyed--and there has been a great deal of destruction during the past three centuries, including two World Wars. Indeed, the reconstruction of the ancient world and its religion has been difficult to determine because of the passage of time and the vast desolation of cultures worldwide. The eradication of evidence has been so rampant and thorough that it is amazing anything can be said with any certainty at all. However, enough does survive, in bits and pieces, that we can gain a good idea of what was going on, at least in the past few thousand years. When critics clamor for "primary sources," the din actually serves to raise up the fact of this criminal and shameful cultural destruction, the purpose of which frequently was to cover the tracks of conspirators gleefully plagiarizing others' religions and falsely presenting their own as "divine revelation." The "primary source" argument can be used in response by asking, where are the primary sources that prove Christianity and the existence of Jesus Christ? Where are the precious originals of the gospels, written by the very hands of the apostles and other witnesses to Jesus's alleged advent? The earliest New Testament manuscripts in existence can be dated only to the third or fourth century. Not only are there no primary sources proving Christian claims, but what texts we do possess have been altered tens of thousands of times....

Introduction to "Suns of God" http://www.truthbeknown.com/introduction.htm

Acharya also answered this question regarding "primary sources" in an email:

Quote:

"In the first place, there is no "Ancient Encyclopedia of Primary Sources" that you can find by digging around the Great Pyramid or the Parthenon. The point I've made about the destruction of culture - which should be obvious - is that so much decimation has occurred that it becomes difficult to piece together what actually happened.

In return, where are the "primary sources" that serve as evidence for Christianity? There aren't any - anything of value was destroyed long ago. So, you are basing your entire worldview on texts far removed from the purported events - many of which are supernatural and require EXTRAORDINARY evidence - without in fact requiring ANY real, credible and valid scientific evidence at all that can stand up to scrutiny. In fact, you blindly accept these assertions with the lowest standards possible. Yet, when you ask others for "primary sources" regarding the mythical motifs found in pre-Christian Pagan culture, your standards are absurdly high.

In order to get at the truth, you would need to have a broad view of the ancient world, which typical education does not provide, especially not a Christian educational background. What do you know about Greece? Or Rome, beyond what you've read in the New Testament? Have you lived or studied in these places? You would need to understand that these ancient times were much more advanced than most people are aware. There was a widespread exchange of ideas that did not escape the Israel/Palestine/Judea area. In addition, Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and assorted other Israelites lived in large populations outside of Judea and Palestine during the era in question. There were hundreds of thousands of them in Egypt, for example. Half of the population of the Egyptian city of Alexandria at the time was Jewish - a significant amount of people - and there was a very impressive university and library at Alexandria. What was in those books? THOSE are the primary sources used by the creators of the New Testament, and they have been largely destroyed. Hence, we have to look at the fragments from the entire Roman Empire at the time and painstakingly piece them together. That's what an archaeologist does, and that's what I do, particularly in "Suns of God," although volumes more could be written based on the ENTIRE literary record still in existence. No one could possibly claim to have surveyed the entire literary record to find all of the pre-Christian motifs and themes that can be found within Christianity as well. So, yes, I use "primary sources" to the extent that they exist and that I had access to them."

~ Acharya

Here's the bibliography for "Suns of God":
http://www.truthbeknown.com/bibliography.pdf

Freethinkaluva22 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:25 am

Is Acharya a "New Ager" and part of the “New Age Movement”?

Another frequent charge used to dismiss Acharya's work is that she is a "New Ager."

I realize that "Christ Conspiracy" may sometimes be found at bookstores in the "New Age" section, especially back in 1999; however, the reason is simply because the information is alternative to mainstream religion as it challenges the status quo. The AUP publisher put the book in the category of "Religion/New Age." She had no control over that. Acharya's books are also found in the "Religion" section too. NONE of Acharya's other books are categorized as "New Age."

The basis for this "New Age" epithet seems to be a couple of short sentences Acharya uses in The Christ Conspiracy:

Quote:

"Despite the vilification of the New Age movement, the fact is that were are entering a new age."
~ Christ Conspiracy, p. 416

However, this statement is not a proclamation of being a new ager - this is simply stating an astronomical fact.

Quote:

"As Hancock says, 'We live today in the astrological no man's land at the end of the ‘Age of Pisces,’ on the threshold of the 'New Age' of Aquarius" ~ Christ Conspiracy, p. 417

Same here as above. Graham Hancock is in agreement with Acharya as well as astronomers - the point was about the precession of the equinoxes, which is defined as follows:

Quote:

"The precession of Earth's axis of rotation with respect to inertial space is also called the precession of the equinoxes. Like a wobbling top, the direction of the Earth's axis is changing; while today, the North Pole points roughly to Polaris, over time it will change. Because of this wobble, the position of the earth in its orbit around the sun at the moment of the equinoxes and solstices will also change.

Currently, this annual motion is about 50.3 seconds of arc per year or 1 degree every 71.6 years. The process is slow, but cumulative. A complete precession cycle covers a period of approximately 25,765 years, the so called Platonic year, during which time the equinox regresses a full 360° through all twelve constellations of the zodiac. Precessional movement is also the determining factor in the length of an astrological age.

In ancient times the precession of the equinox referred to the motion of the equinox relative to the background stars in the zodiac; this is equivalent to the modern understanding. It acted as a method of keeping time in the Great Year."
precession of the equinoxes (Enjoy the photos)

Nowhere does Acharya actually claim to be a "New Ager" - she doesn't believe any particular ..."age will be a time of utopia." That's not at all what she's saying or claiming throughout her work.

It is helpful to realize that being trained in comparative religion and mythology, Acharya certainly discusses many religions. but that doesn't necessarily make her a devotee in any of them - even if she has engaged in yoga or meditation. I have enjoyed yoga and meditation from time to time and still do but, I'm an atheist. I read and study about religion and a number of things; still, I'm now an atheist after being a saved, baptized Christian for many years.

Interestingly, in the very next sentence after the quote from page 416, Acharya goes on to quote Jesus saying: Quote:
"I am with you always to the close of the age" - so ends the Gospel of Matthew."
Mat 28:20 RSV

According to the Blue Letter Bible "Age" in Greek translates to "aiōn" and is used 128 times throughout the New Testament in the Textus Receptus.

Does this make Christians "New Agers?" God, according to Christians is omnipresent - wouldn't that also make them New-Agers? In the book Revelation "I am Alpha and Omega" is mentioned 4 different times. It generally goes on to say, "...the beginning and the end, the first and the last." - of an "AGE", as in precessional age? You get my point.

Acharya · **Joined:** Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm **Posts:** 1250

The "Crucifixion" of Horus

Regarding pre-Christian gods, we possess strange suggestions from Church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Minucius Felix about them being "crucified" or on crosses, i.e., in cruciform. Indeed, the whole point about the "crucifixion" of Horus and other gods is that they are represented as hanging on crosses, long before the story of Jesus Christ was created with the same central theme. The particulars of these myths vary, of course, because of the era, culture and motive for creating them. In the sun god mythos, the sun is represented as "hanging on the cross" at several points, including during the vernal equinox, when the day and the night are the same length, and the sun was said to be in the middle of this "cross." In other words, the sun was "crossified," such as in the images in this article:

Was Horus "Crucified?"
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/w ... ified.html

Here is my response to the Horus question from another thread:

Quote:

There is no one smoking gun - i.e., an ancient encyclopedia entry on Horus/Osiris or other dying-and-rising savior god - that defines the solar hero in this specific manner. However, there is plenty of evidence we can use to piece together the tale, as it applies to the solar hero in general.

The characteristics you are citing regarding Horus emanate largely from Gerald Massey's extensive work on the Egyptian religion, as well as from his student Albert Churchward.

For more information on this subject, you may wish to consult my book Suns of God, which contains a lengthy discussion of the "crucifixion" theme, as well as various images of gods in cruciform.

The same sort of exegesis is necessary for the other characteristics you mention, and the problem will lie eventually with the interpretation of texts. Massey based much of his material on the work of the well-respected Christian Egyptologist Wallis Budge. Today, however, Budge's critics claim that his interpretations are TOO Christian. I would tend to disagree, because the apologist argument is that the same and similar notions found within Christianity remain somehow different from those within the Egyptian religion. In my opinion, this argument ranks as indefensible.

There is little original to Christianity, as can be demonstrated by the words of Justin Martyr, who compared the various parts of Christ's myth with those of preceding Greek and Roman gods:

Quote:

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know.

Knowing that a Christian apologist would not give away any point needlessly, we must wonder why Martyr said that in presenting Christ as crucified Christians were proposing nothing new. Who, then, of the "sons of Jove" was depicted as "crucified?"

And again, from Tertullian and Minucius Felix we find accusations that the Romans themselves worshipped crosses and men/gods affixed to cross. The Latin for "fix upon a cross" is "crucifigere," or crucify. It is singularly interesting that Roman gods were depicted in on crosses prior to Jesus being likewise portrayed in art.

As concerns the assertion that Horus was "crucified between two thieves," the reasoning I have seen is that the cross represents the sun being "crossified" at the equinoxes, with the autumnal one representing, of course, the declination towards winter, when the "two thieves" of Sagittarius and Capricorn rob the sun's strength. The sun was also robbed by the "thieves" of the night sky--the stars--as depicted in other cultures, more of which can be found in Suns of God. The quarters on either side of the equinoxes have also been said to rob the sun's strength.

In knowing that Christianity was based on the Egyptian religion in large part, that for thousands of years the cross was a popular solar symbol, and that Horus was a popular sun god, it seems Massey logically concluded that this motif of the crucifixion between two thieves must likewise be part of the (Egyptian) solar mythos and ritual that he was uncovering at the base of Christianity. Moreover, we have a peculiar "crucifixion between two thieves" in Mexican iconography, as brought out by Lord Kingsborough. A logical conclusion is that this theme must have been part of ancient pre-Christian religion. We do not, however, find the motif neatly laid out in an ancient Egyptian encyclopedia, unfortunately. And this fact also demonstrates the appalling amount of cultural destruction often caused by religious fanatics.

Acharya · **Joined:** Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm **Posts:** 1250

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, [in this case] the English word "son" [would not be] 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.

Indeed, the Old English word for "son" is sunnu, while "sun" is sunne, so again we have an apt comparison.

The linguistical connection can be found in other languages as well.

English: sun son
Old English: sunne sunnu
Afrikaans: son seun
Dutch: zon zoon
German: Sonne Sohn
Slovenian: sonce sin

However, it needs to be stated that nobody is claiming that "son" and "sun" sounding the same is proof of anything. Therefore, making videos or writing articles in order to debunk this straw man and non-issue represents not only a total misrepresentation of this point but also an utter waste of time.

Furthermore, some have pointed out the similarity between the Greek words for son, huios, and sun, helios. I have not found any evidence that this possible Greek pun was used in the ancient world, however, but that doesn't rule it out, as much literature has been destroyed since that time, and my survey was brief.

To repeat, in Greek the word for "sun" is ἥλιος or "helios."

In Hebrew, it is שמש or "shamash," while in Latin is it "sol."

It should be noted that I have known these words in Greek, Hebrew and Latin for about 30 years. As such, I have never said that these words are the same - that is a complete and utter fabrication, displaying the ridiculously poor quality of the criticisms of my work. One should be suspect of any other argument following such an absurd straw man, as it is likely to be of the same poor quality. Individuals and websites using this strawman son-sun criticism should be dismissed out of hand as inaccurate and irrelevant.

The bottom line is that 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.

The Sun/Son Play on Words throughout History

Also, this sun/son pun in English has been well noted in the past by many writers, poets and clergymen in the Christian world. As I relate in my ebook Jesus as the Sun throughout History - all facts are carefully cited there, so be sure to obtain my ebook for more information:

Quote:

Moreover, this sun-son word play has been noted many times previously in history by a variety of individuals, including English priest and poet Robert Southwell in the 16th century and English poet Richard Crashaw in the 17th century. English poet and preacher John Donne (1572-1631) and Welsh poet and priest George Herbert (1593-1633) likewise engaged in the son/sun pun as applied to Christ. In discussing Donne, Dr. Arthur L. Clements, a professor at Binghamton University, remarks that the "Son-sun pun" is "familiar enough." Comparing Christ to the "day star," famous English poet John Milton (1608-1674) was aware of the "sun/son of God” analogy and "revel[ed] in the sun-son pun." In his book about English poet Andrew Marvell (1621-1678), Dr. Nigel Smith, a professor at Princeton University, comments that "Jesus was also thought to have been referred to in Mal. 4:2 (thereby involving a pun on Sun/Son of God)..." Puritan minister Edward Taylor (1642-1729) engaged in the same punning by describing Christ as "the onely [sic] begotten Sun that is in the bosom of the Father..."

Furthermore, in describing the actions of the Church fathers in adapting sun myths to Christianity, Thomas Ellwood Longshore declared in 1881, "They merely changed the visible 'Sun of God' for the invisible 'Son of God,' or for this personage they called the 'Son of God'..." while addressing the Shakespearean character Petruccio’s "arrogation of the son/sun pun" in "The Taming of the Shrew," Dr. Peter Holland, a professor of Shakespearean History at Notre Dame University, says that this play on words is "normally used to glorify Christ..." In An Introduction to English Grammar, Dr. Sidney Greenbaum, a professor of English at University College London, comments, "Religious poetry traditionally puns Sun with Son, Christ the son of God..." Dr. Stephen C. Behrendt, a professor of English at the University of Nebraska, called the pun "longstanding." The sun-son play on words as applicable to Christ has also been deemed so "common" as to represent a "devotional pun."

Obviously, this "devotional pun" was widely recognized centuries ago by the English-speaking intelligentsia and educated elite. Therefore, shallow criticisms of the statement that the son of God is the sun of God represent illogical straw men reflective of ignorance of this fact and should be dismissed as such. In reality, the repeated punning across several centuries proves once more that Christ was widely associated with the sun long before the 19th century. In any event, the idea of the sun as both God and the son of God predates the Christian era by centuries, and the ancient solar role was most obviously transferred first to Yahweh and then to his supposed son, the alleged Jewish messiah Jesus Christ.

In my ebook Jesus as the Sun throughout the Ages, I have thus recounted the history of the son-sun pun in English literature - possibly the most thorough treatment of such - and demonstrated that it has a long and venerable usage among some of the best writers and poets of the English language dating back centuries.

I shall therefore count myself among these esteemed wordsmiths who chose to avail themselves of a first-rate play on words, rather than among the pun-illiterate and poetry-insensate critics.

Freethought Nation

Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions

Who is online