Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Acharya S Watch: Josue V. Harari and the “Castrated and Crucified Attis”

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
\The earlier link I gave you with the ".edu" site, 10 Egyptologist confirmed that almost all of the parallels mentioned there were true.

No, they didn't.

They pointed out the obvious errors and didn't bother addressing anything else.

Seriously, you think that someone has committed ridiculously bad errors in a number of subjects, but ignoring the rest of their claims means that they are valid? Sometimes you just give up in the face of the stupidity.

Okay, you're obviously ridiculously biased in favour of idiots like D.M. Murdoch, so I'm out. Enjoy your ignorance.




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
First of all, this thread started off by regurgitating the crap from a known Christian apologist, Albert Mcilhenny, who is also labarum312 on Youtube. Nobody cares about his opinion except other fundy Xians too lazy to actually look things up for themselves, let alone actually study the subject. A normal person would be ashamed to ever cite this guy Albert for anything.

Take note that in all Albert's rantings (and all the ranting throughout this thread) nobody has actually proven anything wrong. It appears nobody has even checked into the claims that Albert himself makes because if you did you'd notice all of his complaints are erroneous. For example, his claim that Dr. Josue V. Harari is not the author but merely an editor is wrong as even a cursory check will show. Though, he probably did ALSO edit as well, which is not uncommon.

www.amazon.com...

Ward Gasque was exposed and debunked here long ago:
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Dick Carrier was responded to on K. Graves
www.freethoughtnation.com...

And Luxor
www.freethoughtnation.com...

And what most critics absolutely never knew was that Gerald Massey was very highly peer reviewed by the top Egyptologists of his day:

Who Is Gerald Massey?
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

Acharya has plenty of support by other scholars as anyone who's actually studied her work would know, such as Dr. Price with TWO relevant Ph.D's. Here's his review of her book 'Christ in Egypt' which I bet nobody here has ever read.

www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

Albert is crying over this link, which he never shares cause he doesn't want people reading it for themselves:

Top 10 myths about the religion part of Zeitgeist
www.examiner.com...

Most posters here clearly just have an axe to grind. No point wasting any time here. This is just a thread for haters, anti-Zeitgeisters and anti-Acharyaites.
edit on 5-9-2013 by GoldenKnight because: typos



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


I see D.M. Murdoch's favourite toady has chosen today for his annual visit to try and deflect criticism of the non-scholar and demonstrated liar.

Murdoch is not a source of credibility for herself or her meal ticket Gerald Massey, sorry.

Yes, I've read that review, since you have posted it numerous times before. It reminds me of this:


.
Edmund: Look, there's no need to panic. Someone in the crew will know how to steer this thing.

Rum: The crew, milord?

Edmund: Yes, the crew.

Rum: What crew?

Edmund: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.

Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.

Edmund: Oh, really? [starting to get the picture]

Rum: Yahs. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.

Edmund: Oh, God; Mad as a brush. (Source)



One guy saying that Murdoch has an interesting book does not outweigh all the other people who've demonstrated that she's a fraud.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Typical, the haters will continue to do what they do best, HATE.

I found some responses to other crap posted in this and several other threads here with the malevolent agenda of smearing authors whose works Christian apologists have never read. The Xian fundy's are just out to shore up their faith and euphoria at all costs ... even if it means being dishonest.

Skeptic Project / Con-Sci on ZG1, DEBUNKED
www.freethoughtnation.com...

I especially love this one where Ed makes a complete fool of himself with the "Ferseus" bit because he has absolutely no clue what the hell he's talking about:

www.freethoughtnation.com...

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History)
stellarhousepublishing.com...

So lets allow Acharya's work stand or fall based on the merits of the evidence and case she presents without all the biased BS from known apologists who have no intention of ever being objective or honest.

Here are comments by other professional scholars who've actually read Acharya's work:

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
— Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

Review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt"
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
— Dr. Robert Eisenman

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
— Pastor David Bruce, M.Div

"Thirty years ago, when in divinity school, I might have had second thoughts about becoming an Episcopal priest if a book like D.M. Murdock's 'Who Was Jesus?' had been available to me."
— Bob Semes, Retired university professor of History and Religion

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
— Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church

"Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together the rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion."
— Earl Doherty

Emails I Have Loved
www.freethoughtnation.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Crucifixion Or ‘Crucifiction’ In Ancient Egypt?
www.islamic-awareness.org...

Primary sources and scholar commentary on them support ZG1:

Sourcebook
stellarhousepublishing.com...

Primary Sources & Scholars cited in the ZG1 Sourcebook
www.truthbeknown.com...

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
truthbeknown.com...

Zeitgeist Part 1
freethoughtnation.com...

The Astrotheological Origins of Christianity
www.freethoughtnation.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 

I owe someone a thank you for poining out this rather silly response by one of D. M. Murdock's fanboys. Their response is rather ridiculous overall, but I will limit it to the comments that refer to my blogpost and video.

First of all, note the entire thing begins with an ad hominem attack. Rather than lead with any factual data, GoldenKnight, like many of Murdock's minions concentrates on personal attacks that amount to "you cannot listen to that person because they disagree with Acharya S.

When GK finally gets around to "refuting" me, he states everything I say is erroneous. What is his evidence for this? Has he ever read the source cited? Does he interact with the quotes from the book I provided? No - his argument is a link to the Amazon page for the book where Harari is listed as author. That's it. I almost doubled over in laughter as Amazon frequently lists editors as authors by mistake. In this case it is particularly amusing since when you check the book cover pictured on the page whose link he provided, it clearly lists Harari as editor and writer of the introduction. It then goes on to list the contributors and among them is the Paul de Man who I named as the author of the article in question. This braindead fanboy never even read the book. For that matter, neither did Murdock. Anyone who had would know everything I said is correct.

Hopefully in the next few weeks, I will return to the library where I read it and make copies of the relevant pages for all to see. This will settle the issue for good. It is astonishing to me that someone would make such accusations without ever checking the evidence for themselves. Did this person think I could make this stuff up about William Butler Yeats and the quote from de Man?? Amazingly, he never addressed that issue at all. I say amazingly since the real point of the post and video, the fact that the text was dealing with a 20th century poem by William Butler Yeats, was never countered. Frankly, the misattribution to Harari rather than de Man would have been a minor issue had the context been correct and I said as much in both the article and the video. The real disgrace is that Murdock cited a discussion that, in context, offered her position no support whatsoever and she likely never read it herself. The fact that she miscited the author was just gravy. Obviously this fanboy never bothered checking my claim. Much better just to be told what to believe. And this person thinks Christians are the deluded ones.


I think everyone can see from this the reliability of D. M. Murdock and her fans. For more fun on this subject please check out my blog series "Acharya S Watch" that catalogues some of the many doozies she has put in print over the years. And yes there are dozens more I have not yet pointed out. You may see the series here.

I hope that clears up this issue and I will post the copies of the pages as soon as I can get the book again.

edit on 21-9-2013 by labarum because: typo
edit on 21-9-2013 by labarum because: typo



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


As promised, I have a copy of the book and made a quick video just to demonstrate GoldenKnight is nothing more than a toady who will go to any extreme to defend his idol Acharya - even when she has been proven to be a complete joke. The video is here:

www.youtube.com...

The truth is that Paul de Man was the source of the quote and it was about a twentieth century poem by William Butler Yeats - as I stated in my original blog post and video. GoldenKnight is now exposed as a complete and total fraud.
edit on 3-10-2013 by labarum because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2013 by labarum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


For me, personally, the point is not to match the Jesus story note-for-note. Instead, the reason why parallels are drawn between figures like Horus and Attis is that the theme, or meaning, of the event is what is similar. And Horus, in my mind, isn't even the only, or best, example found in Egypt.

Consider the mythic cycle of Osiris:

Osiris was the legendary "first Pharoah," the king of all the Egyptians. During the spring Osiris was killed by his brother, Set, who wanted dominion over the Earth. Osiris was later resurrected, by Thoth and Anubis, long enough to conceive a child, Horus, who engaged Set in a confrontation for dominion of the Earth. Eventually Osiris left the Earth and returned to the Afterlife (Heaven), while his son, Horus, defeated the adversary and ended the Egyptian people's suffering and tribulation. Osiris and Horus, together, recount the pertinent details later employed in the Christ cycle: King of the Earth, reigns in Heaven, divine son who defeats the adversary, death and resurrection, offers men salvation from the evils of the world, etc.

The motif, known as the dying-and-rising god motif, is found all over the ancient Near East.

In Mesopotamia you have Inanna, who descends to the Underworld where she dies and is hung up for three days, before being resurrected and ascending to become Queen of Heaven. Similarly, in the spring you had Dumuzi, the shepherd and King of Sumer, who was beaten and murdered for crimes he hadn't committed. Dumuzi descends to the Underworld where he spends half of every year, the other half he is resurrected and returns to the Earth to rule over his people. Death and resurrection both in the spring, and for three days. Queen (instead of King) of Heaven. Punished for false crimes. Again, many of the themes and events later found in the Jesus cycle are present in the Inanna/Dumuzi cycle.

That is what it is really about, to me. Not finding a carpenter-god who preaches peace and is murdered at the age of thirty-three, only to resurrect, etc. The fine details are not necessarily the important part. Of more importance is the moral, theme, and meaning of the myth. Dumuzi, Horus, Inanna, Osiris and a handful of others, I think, all exemplify the meaning of the myth just as well as Christ.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by labarum
 


Hey Libarum,

I am almost sorry I drug you into this, but I am glad you posted your response. It's typical for those who love Acharya and similar "researchers" to not actually deal with the given evidence proving the fraudulent work of Acharya. I did like your video



They will probably also not watch your video explaining the errors.

It's much easier to grasp onto anything expressing hatred of the bible and Christianity than to look for truth. Thanks for chiming in and I would love to see your responses here as many are haters of the bible with no real evidence to back up their hatred except life experience, and that sadly says more about us than God or the bible.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I've heard there is a documentary about Christianity being based on Egyptian mythology, I think it is called the Egyptian origin of our christian faith or some such thing.

Also, much of the bible is obviously based on sumerian stories, so why would you assume the new testament is literal?



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


This thread is about the complete fabrication of astrotheology and it's creating sources and lying outright. I think it's clearly proved here. Now if you want to prove the bible events did not happen go ahead. Unfortunately, history backs up the bible over and over. Many an atheist has come to faith because of their work in archeology.

Do you not think that Satan cannot put stories out there in other cultures to seem to point in another direction? Of course, you would have to believe in Satan. I can't help anyone who simply wants to live in denial. The early church and leaders of Jesus day never said, "Hey, this guy is a fake, never existed" and yet now 2000 years later his very existence is questioned. These same people don't doubt Julius Caesar existed and yet there is less evidence of his life than Jesus.

Of course there will be similar creation stories because it happened. The issue is in the details. Believe what you want, but I think the bible has much more proof to back it up than other sources offer.

Again, this thread is about the pseudo scholarship of Acharya S. and how people so want to grab onto what she is saying despite when her sources and facts are shown to be wrong. It truly is an attitude of "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"

Did you watch the videos I shared? If not, then you probably don't know what I am talking about completely.
edit on 4-10-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   
During the course of the year the sun appears to go though the zodiacal constellations and this seems to have been know about for a very long time it’s even mentioned in the bible as the Mazzaroth
Mazzaroth


The word's precise meaning is uncertain[1] but its context is that of astronomical
constellations, and it is often interpreted as a term for the zodiac, or the zodiacal constellations as a group


if you look to see what constellation the sun rises in on the spring equinox you know what astrological age you are in and because of something called precession of the equinoxes this changes over very long periods of time
Astrological age


2000 years ago it is alleged that Jesus was born its >also< when the sun entered the constellation of Pisces
Some time before that the sun was in the constellation Taurus and during that time the Egyptians where into the Isis Horus thing

The hat Isis is wearing could be bulls horns and a Sun disk

That picture again but with an icon of Jesus and Mary


I don’t know much about Acharya S and her views are but given the above I can understand why people are linking Jesus with other Sun/savior gods
edit on 4-10-2013 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


You really need to go find out how things have changed astrologically, how the ancients viewed these things and just when much of that sort of thinking changed. Have you ever watched something debunking Zeitgeist? This entire portion is covered in it, and shows how this idea came about.




posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


that vid is two hours long can you give me the potted version?



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


While many constellations were known, the grouping of twelve along the ecliptic developed in the period 1000-500 BC in Babylon. There is an early form of the zodiac described in the first tablet of the Mul Apin (circa 1000 BC), but it had seventeen rather than twelve constellations. It was centuries later that the twelve sign zodiac first appeared. The Mazzaroth most likely concerned the entire set of fixed constellations in the night sky rather than one specific group.

The whole bit about the signs in the spring equinox is rather silly since it is based upon a division of the sky chosen by the IAU in the 20th century. In antiquity, the division of the sky around the time of the New Testament differed by eight degrees from that assumed in Zeitgeist and elsewhere. Thus Jesus would have shown up about five centuries too early for any "Age of Pisces." This is why, for example, the renowned astrologer/astronomer Ptolemy writes about the sun rising in Aries on the spring equinox in the second century AD - long after the time of Jesus.

The Egyptians never used the zodiac until the Ptolemaic dynasty that followed the conquest of Alexander the Great. Their use of the bull was very much for the same reason as other cultures before and after - the bull was widely recognized as a symbol of fertility.

The iconography of Mary and Jesus is very reminiscent of that of Isis and Horus and it is quite a good bet the former was based on the latter. But the Jesus/Mary icons began appearing centuries after Christianity had begun - thus it may be a sign of later syncretism but not early dependence. Then again, any depiction of a mother and child are going to resemble that of Isis and Horus since those are based upon how mothers and their children actually look. It does not appear Mary was as important early on and, as Egypt was Christianized, the popular devotion to Isis/Horus was adapted to Mary/Jesus but I have no firm proof.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Never mind I flicked through the video
As I said I haven’t read anything by Acharya S but I will have a go at a making case for the astrotheology thing

The only reason with have a civilisation now is that between 12000 and 6000 years ago ancient man developed a calendar system and the only way he might have done it is by studying the sky and he would have grouped stars together in to constellations – if you have a problem with that then go out on a clear night and look up and you will soon be seeing the same groups of star our ancestors did and you will probably see the same patterns they did

What our ancestors would have seen is the sun passes through some of these constellations, he might have split this band of stars in 12 or 13 different collections probably because the are 12-13 full moons in a year (moons-months (moonths) in Finnish for example moon=kuu and the months end in kuu - October = lokakuu)

With the constellations would have come stories about what they represent so the skies would filled with people and creatures perhaps as an aid to memory or maybe the early astronomers realised they could make a living from this technology by keeping the secret of how they did it to themselves and bamboozled their customers with tall tales of gods

These astronomers would have seen the sky rotates around them – in the northern hemisphere the stars appear to go around Polaris they would have also seen the length of the days vary so the would have plotted the year as a circle and split it into 4 parts 2 equinoxes and 2 solstices like:



they would come to realise the sun slowly moves in respect to the constellations by observing which constellation the sun came up in on the spring equinox and would have then come upon the idea of astrological ages and maybe at some point added the idea that at the start of each new age an avatar of that age would appear cough pisces/jesus cough

the whole development would have been slow and subject to many revisions over the centuries till we get the situation we have to day – did it happen as I have tried to out line maybe/maybe not but the above is not an unreasonable guess as to what did happen

and if you still have a problem with this then
Genesis 1 -14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
edit on 4-10-2013 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


Hate to break the news to you, but the whole theory of dying and rising gods has been dead (and not rising) for decades. Some of the gods (like Osiris and Dionysus) died and stayed dead; other went away and came back; some descended to the underworld and returned but with no indication they died. Even T. N. D. Mettinger, about the only scholar of the ANE who thinks there were individual cases of dying and rising gods, stated quite clearly that these gods (he thought there were at most a handful) should not be hypostasized into a single category as the motivations for each dying and rising were quite distinct. Yet even Mettinger admitted that ANE scholars supporting the existence of dying and rising gods were looked upon as “residual members of an almost extinct species.”

The whole problem with the drg is that the myth was often conflated with later versions in mystery religions of late antiquity and even the latter were constructed from composites that assumed a degree of uniformity that simply did not exist. For example, Osiris did not offer salvation from the evils of this world. That is simply a projection as Egyptian religion was largely works and praxis oriented.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 



No one is saying they didn't use the night sky. The calendar of twelve months was developed for the exact reasons you mentioned but that was millennia before the development of the zodiac. However, there is no particular reason one needs to use twelve signs where the sun travels. These, after all, do not even match the months used in the ancient calendars.

For example, the Egyptians used a system of decans which marked the sky by constellations or stars rising every ten days. After the Ptolemaic dynasty began, this system was combined with the zodiac developed by the Babylonians and adopted by the Greeks to create the zodiacal system using signs and decans that became dominant in Western astrology.

But there was no "zodiac" in Egypt until that period and none in use elsewhere in the region until the first millennium BC. This is not a disputable point. We have a paper trail (or at least a "clay trail") with the cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia. We also see a complete lack of the zodiac in Egypt but extensive use of decans. While your speculation sounds plausible, the hard evidence says otherwise.

This illustrates one of the problems with Zeitgeist: it relies upon long outdated sources. The deciphering of the cuneiform tablets and its compilation and analysis was done primarily in the twentieth century beginning with Franz Xaver Kugler and later by Otto Neugebauer and others. Anything prior to this period simply lacks the evidence to reach an informed conclusion.

As for Genesis, it is no problem at all. No one said they didn't use the stars; they just didn't use the zodiac. You can be aware of every constellation in the heavens and when they appear without giving a hoot about which particular ones the sun passed by each year.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

labarum
reply to post by racasan
 


While many constellations were known, the grouping of twelve along the ecliptic developed in the period 1000-500 BC in Babylon. There is an early form of the zodiac described in the first tablet of the Mul Apin (circa 1000 BC), but it had seventeen rather than twelve constellations. It was centuries later that the twelve sign zodiac first appeared. The Mazzaroth most likely concerned the entire set of fixed constellations in the night sky rather than one specific group.


Help me out here
If you could plot where the sun rises during the year maybe by putting a post in the ground to show where it had risen you would end up with something like this

Form which someone can work out winter and summer solstices and half way between the two would be the equinoxes – right?

So where does the


division of the sky chosen by the IAU in the 20th century.

fit into that?

I don’t get this bit

In antiquity, the division of the sky around the time of the New Testament differed by eight degrees from that assumed in Zeitgeist and elsewhere. Thus Jesus would have shown up about five centuries too early for any "Age of Pisces."

Pisces is Pisces the sun raises in it or it doesn’t (and it does)


This is why, for example, the renowned astrologer/astronomer Ptolemy writes about the sun rising in Aries on the spring equinox in the second century AD - long after the time of Jesus.


Well you might have something here – it would depend on who is deciding what the constellation boundaries are


The Egyptians never used the zodiac until the Ptolemaic dynasty that followed the conquest of Alexander the Great. Their use of the bull was very much for the same reason as other cultures before and after - the bull was widely recognized as a symbol of fertility.

Or some Egyptians did use the ideas behind the zodiac and some not – what do you make of the connection between the pyramids and the constellation of Orion?


The iconography of Mary and Jesus is very reminiscent of that of Isis and Horus and it is quite a good bet the former was based on the latter. But the Jesus/Mary icons began appearing centuries after Christianity had begun - thus it may be a sign of later syncretism but not early dependence. Then again, any depiction of a mother and child are going to resemble that of Isis and Horus since those are based upon how mothers and their children actually look. It does not appear Mary was as important early on and, as Egypt was Christianized, the popular devotion to Isis/Horus was adapted to Mary/Jesus but I have no firm proof.

Yes or its depicting the same sun god idea



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by labarum
 


I know you are working on a new book dealing with a lot of this, do you have a final title or date it will be released and are you going to read from it or do some videos based on this new book about Jesus and the Sun as it ties in with pagan systems which might play into how astrotheology has been getting so much traction?






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join