Freethought Nation

13 thoughts on “The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ”

1. 16 years ago?I stumbled across it on Meta-Religion maybe 2 years ago and have printed it countless times to give or mail to friends who have discussed Christianity with me. A web search of the author led me to your books. I guess it’s all really nothing new, though. It’s all been hashed over at least since Christianity hit the spiritual market almost 2000 years ago.

2. Fantastic!!!

   Thanks for updating [i]The Origins of Christianity[/i] article Acharya S. I notice that the sources that gave you so much grief over the years since 1999 (Kersey Graves etc) have been removed and replaced with highly respected sources making your article more solid than before. AND, you haven’t backed away from anything … rather, you’ve actually added more to it and [b]strengthened your case[/b].

   Would you say that your new book,[i]The Christ Myth Anthology[/i] is an updated version of [i]The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever [b]SOLD[/b][/i] from 1999? That’s a genius idea – a 2nd edition.

   Keep ’em coming!

   You’re the best!

3. I just saw Acharya’s response to Jackson’s comment at the forum and thought it would be great to have a link here:

   [b]Newly Updated “The Origins of Christianity”[/b] ([url]http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2946[/url])

4. Awesome, I feel like a kid in a candy store.

5. Nice work once gain
   When it came out 16 years ago the internet was in its infancy. This is a perfect format that is easy to read and understand. There is a whole new generation that would love the truth they just don’t have the time to read a 600 page dissertation.
   The Kersey Graves info may not have been 100% accurate but you must remember that he was breaking relatively new ground that built upon Massey, and of course the info he had to work with was scant…no internet in those days.
   So continue to hash and rehash and re-re hash you will hit new people each time. BTW Atheism is up to 15% in this country from about 7% in the 70s , all it takes is Information and Courage. I sure wish we could change that label to Realism.

6. Thanks for the Truth
   I was brought up in a traditional baptist family and only started considering the idea of this religion consuming all of the world based on an idea of the sun as not literal but to be transcended only four years ago. I was the son of a preacher two times, one biologically, and one in an adoptive manner. It seemed that I was hopeless, but my rebellious and revolutionary spirit and consciousness kept me looking for Truth because I would find many discrepancies in the doctrine and lives of religious people.

   The more I sought out the Truth, the more I was led into new possibilities. I was being liberated from my hypnotism and intoxication. It started with the deeper things of Gnosticism, then went to the alien cover-ups, to conspiracy “theorists,” and now to Achayra S and the cover-ups of the true identity of slaves from Africa.

   Thank you for showing us that we are free to use our thinking capacity and for showing us Truth!

7. Christ and his winged shoes
   If only humanity would awaken and realize that the christ had nothing to do with this material world and is instead a state of consciousness applied. If people truly desire to have a connection with God they need only to turn within themselves and find it. Seperate the “rose” (spirit) from the “cross” (material). It is much more profitable to keep this myth grounded in the material world, and to lead people to believe that they can only find god through your institution (church). This level of thought has unfortunatley resulted in obscene profits, bloodshed and misguided souls. It also breeds repression that culminates in an untold number of dark and perverse behaviors toward your fellowman. Find Thoth’s “Emerald Tablet” and journey within, and then you will become the change that you wish to see in this world.

8. I hesitate to put through your message because you have been relentlessly dishonest and derogatory at IIDB/freeratio over the past number of years. As you have made clear from your numerous derisive comments at that forum, you really are not interested in the material but only in harassing me in a sustained smear campaign that you are continuing here.

   As you do there, you make such ridiculous remarks here that I must address them. It is really absurd that I am raked over the coals by that bunch of hornets at IIDB/freeratio for every little detail, when individuals such as you can make repeated ludicrous contentions demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge of the subject, without a peep from the critics.

   In the first place, what you are claiming to have read, i.e., the article that is the subject of this thread, is an EXCERPT from a larger work – as it says right on the front page. As such, I do not provide all the citations or details. Nor am I obliged to do so in a freely given article, as I do not need to post it on the internet in the first place. Moreover, the bulk of these figures are easily findable both on and offline – do you mean to tell me that you need a citation about Buddha? Prometheus? Zoroaster? There are thousands of books on these figures – you can even look them up quickly and easily on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no need to cite these commonly known figures, as any scholar would know.

   Furthermore, in the body of the article and in my forthcoming book, I go into details about some of the better known figures such as Buddha, Krishna and Prometheus. Each of the contentions concerning these figures is carefully cited, mainly from highly credentialed, respectable sources.

   As is my custom, I will go into whatever other detail is necessary when I complete my [i]Christ Myth Anthology[/i]. From your comments here and elsewhere, you obviously know very little about my work, although you dishonestly pretend to be an expert at it in order to make derogatory remarks.

   If you knew my work, you would know that I do not claim that the Jesus story copied that of Quetzalcoatl, but that there are some very important parallels, which is why I include the material there. You would also know these facts from my other works, which you so obviously have not read. For example, in [i]Suns of God[/i] you would find a significant discussion of Quetzalcoatl, a study relevant to demonstrating a commonality found in various places on the globe that shows a possible astrotheological origin of this mythos.

   Therefore, your silly remark about the Aztecs crossing the Atlantic constitutes a typical straw man based on ignorance. If you were really interested in the subject, you would follow up on your own – it’s really not hard – but that is clearly not your interest. Again, your interest is to be hostile and harassing.

   As concerns the Bali contention, my exact language in the footnote is:

   [quote]Apparently, this god is a manifestation of the Hindu deity Balarama. (See Perry, 17.)[/quote]
   As I say, this article represents an EXCERPT – [i]freely given online[/i] – of a larger work. My citation here of Perry is not that [i]he [/i]is saying Bali = Balarama, which is why I worded the note “[i]See[/i]…” rather than simply citing him as the source of the contention. Moreover, it is [i]I[/i] who have made the suggestion that the two gods are related, which is why I said “[i]Apparently[/i].” A scholar would understand those fine points.

   The contentions in your last paragraph are absolutely absurd and demonstrate how little you know about the subject and my work. The relevant parts of the article – i.e., the “Characters” section – was substantially rewritten using almost entirely different sources that are carefully cited – I even included an extensive bibliography so you can look them up. If you actually did some research instead of being an armchair critic assailing people for not spoonfeeding you, you would know that the references I cited in many instances themselves contain the primary sources. For example, when I cite “Doniger” or “O’Flaherty,” I am referring to the translations of Indian texts by the scholar Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty. Again, if you actually knew something about the subject, you would know that fact. Ditto with Carpenter, Thundy, et al. Not only have I used different sources – as you would know, if you knew my work, which, again, you obviously don’t – but I have also changed the wording of the parallels where necessary.

   What you have demonstrated here is more of the same abusive nonsense you have been spewing at me for years now, and I grow very weary of it, especially when you and the others at that forum rarely police yourselves for your continual errors such as you have revealed here.

   But thank you for this fine example of your absurdity and hypocrisy.

   1. Acharya S, thank you for your reply. I shouldn’t have been so hostile, my apologies. I challenge your readers to do the same as I have done: to follow one of your relevant citations to the original evidence. They should go on the Internet–Wikipedia, Google books–or go to libraries, and follow the chain of references backward. Yes, there are thousands of books about various gods and mythical men, but your claims are specific and unusual–i.e. that gods share important qualities with Jesus–and that is an example of what needs evidence. Back when I believed your theory, I tried to find original evidence for that claim, and I emerged with only the words of 19th century ideologues who don’t provide evidence. You may say that is my fault, but that is why I make that challenge to your readers. I would like your readers to know the truth.

      1. All you have done with your renewed complaint is to verify that you have not studied the work in depth at all. If you had, you would know that I have continued to provide THOUSANDS of citations from the widest spectrum of sources, including the most ancient to the most modern.

         Yes, by all means, people should be encouraged to actually read my books, note the many thousands of citations therein, including a 900-source bibliography for Christ in Egypt ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]) alone, and then proceed from there.

         Good luck sifting through all the sources – I have already done all that work, but please continue to do so on your own. But you would actually need to do it, rather than pretending to do so and then complaining when you have failed, making spurious and libelous remarks about my work instead.

         Here is yet another case in point, in which I cite two LIVING scholars for contentions regarding Buddha:

         The “crucifixion” of Buddha? ([url]http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2946&start=15[/url])

         My readers can be assured that many of the rest of my thousands of citations are in like kind, including primary sources, some of which have been very difficult to dig up, and as can be found in abundance in Christ in Egypt ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]), for one.

9. It is great that Acharya S put her material online. Thank you, Acharya S.

   That list of gods on pages 8 and 9–there are 26 of them, and only 5 of them have footnotes. Whenever a scholar makes a claim that is not common knowledge, I think it is only responsible to provide a citation, which means Acharya S should have had a superscript for all 26 of those names, especially “Quetzalcoatl of Mexico.” She thinks that “The Jesus story evidently incorporated elements from the tales of other deities,” including, apparently, Quetzalcoatl. It wouldn’t be so bad if she provided evidence, because, yeah, maybe some Aztecs sailed across the Atlantic and explored the Mediterranean or something. Obviously, the problem is that she doesn’t provide any details at all.

   But, OK, she does provide a citation for “Bali of Afghanistan.” The footnote says, “Apparently, this god is a manifestation of the Hindu deity Balarama. (See Perry, 17.)”

   And the line in the bibliography for Perry says, “Perry, John T., [I]Sixteen Saviours or One? The Gospels Not Brahamanic[/I], P.G. Thomson, 1879.”

   How is this source relevant for evidence of the point that “Bali” is a manifestation of “Balarama,” or that either of those gods is a source for the Jesus myth? It is a book criticizing the theory Kersey Graves. Why not cite an ancient religious document from India?

   Luckily, the text of the book, [I]Sixteen Saviours or One? The Gospels Not Brahamanic[/I] is provided online here ([url]”http://www.archive.org/details/sixteensaviourso00perr”[/url]), so I looked up page 17. I find the sentence, “Wittoba, an incarnation of Vishnu, is the same as Chrishna. Bali is another of the divinities with which, under various names later Brahmanism has swarmed.”

   And that is where the trail ends. No citation is provided for that, so no evidence that “Bali” is a manifestation of “Balarama,” who isn’t mentioned until page 28 (without connection to Bali), and certainly no evidence that either of them is a source of the Jesus myth.

   So, the weird thing is, even when the claim seems irrelevant, the evidence seems absent.

   This does not seem to be an upgrade of Acharya S’s previous writings. If any of you doubt me, try following her references and attempt to verify her most important claims. Whenever I try to do it, I come to a dead end. That really isn’t the way it should be for the writings of a historical scholar. A historical scholar should cite primary sources for the most relevant claims–ancient manuscripts that are the earliest evidence of what Acharya S is talking about. If she took out references to Kersey Graves and instead references more irrelevant people of the 19th century, Jackson and JH Chrestos, that is like repainting a demolished car.

10. re:
    Acharya S, thanks again. I am not challenging your readers to verify ALL of your claims. I am asking them to pick only one of claim, one of the many unusual claims essential to your main conclusions, and then try to go confirm it starting at one of your footnotes. It is not a lot of hard work, or at least it shouldn’t be. It involves only a few publications, or maybe even just one.

11. From where I stand, Acharya has thoroughly outlined why you fail, ApostateAbe. What part of it did you not understand?

    What part of this link do you not understand?

    Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One ([url]http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php/Documented_Sources_for_Zeitgeist_Part_One:_The_Greatest_Story_Ever_Told[/url])

    It looks like quite a mountain of evidence has been compiled from Acharya’s works. Many of the sources cited in the link are also cited in Acharya’s works too. I see no reason to believe that you know what you’re talking about, ApostateAbe.

Comments are closed.