Krishna, Jesus, and the conspiracy of religion...

[kasalt]

There is an oft repeated claim in this forum that key events in the life of Krishna, such as date of birth, birth to a virgin, etc., mirror key events in the life of Jesus. I have found NO evidence in my readings that this is the case.

This urge to equate the details of the birth and life of Krishna with the birth and life of Jesus arrises out of a desire to link Eastern religions with the conspiracy of the sun-god religions of the West, who's births were associated with the winter solstice.

To begin with, Krishna was NOT born on 25 December. According to scriptural sources, astrological indications, and traditional belief, Krishna was born in the month of July. In fact, the date of 25/12, which figures promenantly in Western religious calanders due to the fact that it is the date of the Winter solstice, does not figure promenantly AT ALL in the Vaishnava calander of significant religious events.

Furthermore, Krishna was the eighth son of his mother and father, which hardly makes him elligible for a "virgin" birth.

From the Wikipedia entry on Krishna, we read:

"Birth - Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives Krishna's birth date (Janmashtami) as 19th or 21st July 3228 BCE. Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

If you want to read more about the advent of Krishna from an authoratative source, go here:

1: The Advent of Lord Krsna - http://krsnabook.com/ch1.html

2: Prayers by the Demigods for Lord Krsna in the Womb - http://krsnabook.com/ch2.html

3: Birth of Lord Krsna - http://krsnabook.com/ch3.html

[tinmenace]

I don't think Christ was born on December 25th either.

As for Krishna, I don't know too much about it, so... ;)

[kasalt]

I don't think Christ was born on December 25th either.


No, he wasn't...well, assuming he was even born at all. ;) His birthday became recognized by the Roman empire as 25 December because that was the date of the birth of previous sun gods, and that due to the association with the winter solstice.

Zeitgeist the Movie makes this same claim about Jesus and Krishna both being born on 25 December, and David Icke also repeated this claim in his latest book, as he has previously. I was disappointed to see that because the truth is so easily verifiable, and if someone new to Icke comes along, reads that, and looks it up and finds it isn't true, credibility may take a hit.

[jimijams]

Good posting Kasalt, I'll watch with interest to see if anyone come come up with some evidence that supports the claim that Krishna was born on the solstice..

jimi

[jimijams]

This is what Acharya S has to say about Krishna's birthday from her book Suns of God..

Link..
(http://books.google.com/books?id=rey19p_ycHUC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=krishna+birthday+solstice&source=web&ots=82KbKh5rlY&sig=sndByaWIGazUY3kQkb4agecupIU#PPA229-IA4,M1)

[shellygurrrl]

My family likes to think Jesus was born December 25. I say let them think that and have PEACE. I personally don't think it matters. I love Jesus and any one who lives to try and make the world a better place!

RIGHT?!

[kasalt]

This is what Acharya S has to say about Krishna's birthday from her book Suns of God..

Link..
(http://books.google.com/books?id=rey19p_ycHUC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=krishna+birthday+solstice&source=web&ots=82KbKh5rlY&sig=sndByaWIGazUY3kQkb4agecupIU#PPA229-IA4,M1)

Thanks for that Jimi, great find. Acharya S quotes from numerous sources which claim that Krishna was born on December 25th. One is a book by Sarah Titcomb called Aryan Sun Myths, and the other is Christianity and Mythology, by J.M. Robertson. These are all extremely indirect sources, and the more indirect the source, the greater the likelyhood that misunderstanding and blatant error will creep in.

Here's what I was able to find just in the last few minutes regarding a birthdate for Krishna. They all agree on a birthdate for Krishna that falls somewhere between July 19-21 of the year 3228 BC:

Krishna (born: July 21, 3228 BC)
"Even gods come to earth with their destinies chalked out for them. So claims astrology, at any rate...But backtracking into the past can be a sloppy misadventure if you don’t get your calculations right. So Bansal rests his claims on two of his software packages—the Leo Gold and the Palm computer programmes. They can simulate any planetary configuration that has occurred or could occur in time. All they need is a date. And July 21, 3228 bc, according to Bansal, satisfies every condition described during Krishna’s birth...Krishna was born in the Rohini nakshatra, in the Hindu month of Bhadrapada, on the 8th day of the waning moon at midnight. Bansal says this was enough information for him to nail the date, working backwards from Krishna’s death, which he says occurred at 2 pm on February 18, 3102 bc." - http://www.hvk.org/articles/0904/29.html


Sri Krishna: His Birth and Activities
"Historically, Lord Krishna appeared on the midnight of the 8th day of the dark half of the month of Sravana. This corresponds to July 19th 3228 BC. He exhibited His pastimes for a little over 125 years and dissappeared on February 18th 3102 BC on the new moon night of Phalguna." (His departure marks the beginning of the current age of corruption known as Kali.) - http://www.avatara.org/krishna/lila.html


Sri Krishna's Life Timeline
"Birth: Appearance at midnite of Sravana k8 (July 19/20), year 3228 BC to Devaki" - http://www.avatara.org/krishna/chart.html


But the final nail in the coffin rests in the fact that the religious festival celebrating the birthday of Krishna, known as Krishna Janmashtami, is celebrated "sometime in the months of August/September of the Gregorian calendar." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Janmaashtami )

...In other words, nowhere near December 25th. ;)

[kasalt]

Here is a link to a list of major Hindu holidays, arranged by date:

Hindu Festivals Calendar 2008
http://festivals.iloveindia.com/hindu-festivals.html

If you scroll down to the bottom of the list, you will see that there are no major holidays listed for the months of November and December. This is because there aren't any. Nothing on December 25th, nothing around the winter solstice, no celebrations of the birth of a sun god, nothing at all.

[lizzy]

This is what Acharya S has to say about Krishna's birthday from her book Suns of God..

Link..
(http://books.google.com/books?id=rey19p_ycHUC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=krishna+birthday+solstice&source=web&ots=82KbKh5rlY&sig=sndByaWIGazUY3kQkb4agecupIU#PPA229-IA4,M1)

Interesting book. Will look into getting that.

[jimijams]

Thanks for that Jimi, great find.

Here is an interesting review of the book I found from the same site..

"I'm afraid that, the author is unaware of most of the facts about the Krishna. She is indeed taking the references from the works of some non-Indian scholars. I highly doubt the total genuineness of the facts that those non-Indian ... more » scholars came to conclusions regarding the Indian history and mythology. There are two things related to our past, one history and other mythology. This is applicable to every cults or religions in the world. Whatever may be the intention of the author, she fails to tell the truth transparently. The story of Krishna, whether he was a man or god himself, whether he existed or not, is a long debate in India. But I don’t understand the connection between Jesus Christ and Krishna. One common thing between them is both are subject of debate and worshipped as god by millions of people, but the life of both has lot of difference. Beginning from the birth (the circumstances), growing up as a charismatic leader who inspired millions and preached the ‘dharma’ and the death or demise. The author doesn’t make it clear that whether it is mythology or history that she is intended to say. I can’t debate on every misconception that the author has mentioned in the book as it takes lot of time to clarify. Certainly I need to know that whether the author of this book have visited India or not. If not I invite her to come to India and spend some time here to do more research on the book written by her."
http://books.google.com/books?id=rey19p_ycHUC

[kasalt]

Here is an interesting review of the book I found from the same site..

"I'm afraid that, the author is unaware of most of the facts about the Krishna. She is indeed taking the references from the works of some non-Indian scholars. I highly doubt the total genuineness of the facts that those non-Indian scholars came to conclusions regarding the Indian history and mythology. There are two things related to our past, one history and other mythology. This is applicable to every cults or religions in the world. Whatever may be the intention of the author, she fails to tell the truth transparently. The story of Krishna, whether he was a man or god himself, whether he existed or not, is a long debate in India. But I don’t understand the connection between Jesus Christ and Krishna. One common thing between them is both are subject of debate and worshipped as god by millions of people, but the life of both has lot of difference. Beginning from the birth (the circumstances), growing up as a charismatic leader who inspired millions and preached the ‘dharma’ and the death or demise. The author doesn’t make it clear that whether it is mythology or history that she is intended to say. I can’t debate on every misconception that the author has mentioned in the book as it takes lot of time to clarify. Certainly I need to know that whether the author of this book have visited India or not. If not I invite her to come to India and spend some time here to do more research on the book written by her."
http://books.google.com/books?id=rey19p_ycHUC

Thanks again for that Jimi. The reviewer is spot on. If Acharya S is going to comment on Hindu beliefs for her book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha, and Christ Unveiled, then why not quote directly from Hindu scriptural or scholarly sources to prove her points? She does not. Instead, she relies on such works as Aryan Sun Myths: The Origin of Religions. My problem with Aryan Sun Myths is that it was written in 1889 by an American author who is not a Hindu, and whose access to accurate, authoritative information on Hindu beliefs would have been much more limited then as opposed to now. It is poor scholarship to rely on inaccurate and outdated information.

In any case, Acharya S gets it wrong and this really baffles me because the truth is so easy to come by. In fact, the truth is so easy to come by that one might be justified in calling these erroneous claims DISinformation, rather than misinformation.

[phildee3]

I don't think Christ was born on December 25th either.



Christ was "born of the father before all ages."

Dec 25th is just the date that was chosen to celebrate it, -
it could be any date.

[optimus pigpot]

Christ was "born of the father before all ages."

Dec 25th is just the date that was chosen to celebrate it, -
it could be any date.

Jesus never existed so he was not "born of the father before all ages", So seriously fuck Jesus and all this make believe BOLLOCKS!!!!!

Fucking shout to the top!!!!!!! Paul Weller style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jimijams]

In any case, Acharya S gets it wrong and this really baffles me because the truth is so easy to come by. In fact, the truth is so easy to come by that one might be justified in calling these erroneous claims DISinformation, rather than misinformation.
I have a theory that authors like this and films such as Zeitgeist that promote this kind of thinking are deliberately putting this out there to get us ready for the new one world religion which is Pagan Gaia worship..

[blue]

nothing is ever a solid proof of these gods, so much mystery is around their birth, life span, death and so on and so forth. i need to know why so much confusion around the jesus character. if he was for real every one would have known.
but there are two things common in all these so called gods
a) gods used to live among humans (jesus, krishna etc..). which reminds us of the anunnaki who lived among their creations.
b) gods have left the planet earth, which reminds us of the anunnaki leaving the planet earth for good and fleeing.

so all these so called gods have been created to keep the human population in line and not allow them to go near the truth and their true relation to the nature.RELIGION IS A BIG SCAM. ITS A CONSPIRACY. ITS GETTING US ALL KILLED. its a waste of time in arguing about when jesus was born when did he pick his nose when did he scratch his head. just live in peace and love everyone.

[sunyatta60]

In response to the Op I suggest you expand your reading because there is overwhelming evidence that what is claimed for Jesus can be claimed for any other deity. Why because it is all to do with Sun Worship.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

And if you go here you can watch a programme in which a Oxford theologian explores the very question you yourself doubt. In The Hidden Story of Jesus.

http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html

[octopusrex]

Pagan Gaia worship. Where do I sign in? Sounds cool.

[jimijams]

Pagan Gaia worship. Where do I sign in? Sounds cool.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-rodriguez10dec10,1,7279465.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

[sunyatta60]

Hi I have been corresponding with Acharay S for a long time now and I sent the OP off for her perusal here is her response in full:

First of all, it doesn't sound like these people have read my book at
all, so they are clearly unqualified to be discussing it. I do NOT
merely quote from Cox's "Mythology of the Aryan Nations." I DO use
Hindu and "scholarly" sources, as if Cox is not scholarly in any event.
The first "reviewer" has CLEARLY not read my work and is therefore NOT
"spot on" at all. Anyone who says the following is NOT an expert on
the subject: "But I don't understand the connection between Jesus
Christ and Krishna." That's because he/she has NOT studied the matter,
obviously. I appreciate the invitation, but one doesn't need to go
anywhere to write about mythology.

"It is poor scholarship to rely on inaccurate and outdated
information." My sources are neither "inaccurate" nor "outdated," and
my scholarship is not "poor." Nor does my work constitute
"disinformation." It is bad form not to read a work one pretends to be
reviewing. Note that there is not one specific citation of "poor
scholarship" here, just a sweeping generalization from someone working
on a premise who has apparently not read the work at hand.

Acharya


And her second e-mail contained this:

Please feel free to pass this link along as well, so that others can
see that the criticisms of my sources are completely unfounded and made
by those who have not read my work:

http://truthbeknown.com/bibliography.pdf

Thanks.

[optimus pigpot]

The "jesus" myth came from Sun / Son worship... That's the MYTH!

A MYTH has no historical basis... That's No HISTORICAL basis!!

With NO historical basis only myth to support, which as we know cannot support anything, "jesus" is irrelevant, without existence and thus without meaning. That's no MEANING!!!

And what are some peoples religious standpoint on the website as I have no standpoint about anything! And if you dispute Icke why do you persist on entertaining the forum with endless drivel from websites and quotes that you pick up which everyone has access to????

Anyone can read but it is what you make of it that counts!!!!!

Happy reading!!!!!

Optimus pigpot!!!!!!

[phildee3]

Jesus never existed so he was not "born of the father before all ages"

I didn't say that he was.
I said that Christ was.

Jesus was born (maybe; - there's no "proof" for or against) on one day in the year;
(probably not Dec. 25th.)

Jesus is a historical figure.
Christ is a mythological one.

David says that infinite love (ie. God) is the only reality.
Ultimately he's right, but what he doesn't say is that there are degrees of reality between the physical/historical illusion and the ultimate reality.
Mythology lies somewhere in between them and has much more meaning than history.

Infinite love has infinite meaning.

[phildee3]

You've been PURPLED!!!!!!!



Cool!!!!!

Purple has the highest frequency of all the colors of the visible spectrum and, as such, is used to symbolize the spiritual realm.
It's use, in both Christian and Vedic iconography, helps to spiritualize our consciousness.

[sunyatta60]

Jesus is a historical figure.
There is no evidence for this outside of the Bible a book given to the world by the Anti Christ Satanic Church of the Roman Empire.
Christ is a mythological one.
LOL Christ is a Greek word meaning Messiaha it is not talking of a Man but of a State of Consciousness.

BY the way the Anti Christ church bestowed the Title Jesus Christ upon a Man they wanted to discredit and whose teachings they tried to distort. There was no Jew called Jesus and if you ask amongst Orthodox Jews today how many are called Jesus you won't find any. Jesus is a Catholic name go to Latin countries and the name is most prevalant.

"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."
Thomas Paine

[phildee3]

Jesus is a historical figure.

There is no evidence for this

You misunderstand me.

I did not say that this history is true or not true.
Indeed, much of history is untrue.



the Bible a book given to the world by the Anti Christ Satanic Church of the Roman Empire.

Agreed.



Christ is a mythological one.

LOL Christ is a Greek word meaning Messiaha it is not talking of a Man but of a State of Consciousness.

Agreed.

Historical characters are men & women.
Mythological characters are gods & goddesses.



BY the way the Anti Christ church bestowed the Title Jesus Christ upon a Man they wanted to discredit and whose teachings they tried to distort.

Agreed.



There was no Jew called Jesus and if you ask amongst Orthodox Jews today how many are called Jesus you won't find any. Jesus is a Catholic name go to Latin countries and the name is most prevalant.

Of course; but is is Latinized from the Hebrew name.
You're picking at straws here.



"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

Again; - agreed.

Except that:
i) Christ was/is not a man but an aspect of God (or "a" god, if you prefer).
ii) The word "parody" is incorrect as it implies comic mockery. "Version" would be more appropriate.

[kasalt]

Hi I have been corresponding with Acharay S for a long time now and I sent the OP off for her perusal here is her response in full:

First of all, it doesn't sound like these people have read my book at
all, so they are clearly unqualified to be discussing it. I do NOT
merely quote from Cox's "Mythology of the Aryan Nations." I DO use
Hindu and "scholarly" sources, as if Cox is not scholarly in any event.
The first "reviewer" has CLEARLY not read my work and is therefore NOT
"spot on" at all. Anyone who says the following is NOT an expert on
the subject: "But I don't understand the connection between Jesus
Christ and Krishna." That's because he/she has NOT studied the matter,
obviously. I appreciate the invitation, but one doesn't need to go
anywhere to write about mythology.

"It is poor scholarship to rely on inaccurate and outdated
information." My sources are neither "inaccurate" nor "outdated," and
my scholarship is not "poor." Nor does my work constitute
"disinformation." It is bad form not to read a work one pretends to be
reviewing. Note that there is not one specific citation of "poor
scholarship" here, just a sweeping generalization from someone working
on a premise who has apparently not read the work at hand.

Acharya


And her second e-mail contained this:

Please feel free to pass this link along as well, so that others can
see that the criticisms of my sources are completely unfounded and made
by those who have not read my work:

http://truthbeknown.com/bibliography.pdf

Thanks.

Thanks for posting this Sunyatta, and thanks to Acharya S for responding. Obviously, I haven't spent a fraction of the time Acharya S has in researching this subject, so take my brief observations for what they're worth. I'm acutally a fan of Acharya's work, so please consider this "constructive".

I took a look at the bibliography Acharya provided, and while I noticed that Acharya does occasionally quote from sources that are both Indian and Hindu, for some reason she refers most frequently to the works of Western authors who are non-Indian and non-Hindu. Furthermore, quite a number of these works were written as far back as the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. There are potential problems with this. Stop for a minute and ask yourself whether there might have been any preconceived notions, biases, and/or prejudices that might have been at work within the minds of the authors of that time (i.e., the time of colonialism (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Hinduism/?view=usa&ci=9780195166552)). Then ask yourself if those biases and prejudices might have influenced some of those authors' interpretations of Hinduism.

Here are some examples of what I mean. On page 161 of "Suns of God", Acharya quotes 19th century authors Sarah E. Titcomb and Charles Morris as follows: "Titcomb also related that Krishna 'had twelve favorite disciples who accompanied him on his missionary travels.'" However, Acharya goes on to admit, "That Krishna had 12 disciples is not found in the orthodox account..." Now I ask you, if the notion that Krishna had 12 disciples is not found in the orthodox account, then where did this notion come from? We are left to guess at the answer to that (the influence of colonialism would be my guess). Suffice to say, it certainly didn't originate within Hinduism.

On p. 205 of Suns of God, Acharya quotes from the book Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, published in 1882 by American author T.W. Doane, as follows: "According to the religion of the Hindoos, Crishna...was the Son of God, and the Holy Virgin Devaki." In my readings of Hindu literature, I have never once seen Krishna referred to as "the Son of God", nor does he ever claim to be "the son of God". He is always and only referred to as God himself. For example, here are a couple of Krishna's quotes from the Bhagavad Gita:

"I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support, and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rg, the Sama, and the Yajur" (Bhagavad Gita 9:17).

"It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father" (Bhagavad Gita 14:4).

In his purport to Bhagavad Gita 7.15, the Indian guru Swami Prabhupada states:

"In the Gita, in plain and simple language, it is stated that Sri Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is none equal to or greater than Him. He is mentioned as the father of Brahma, the original father of all human beings. In fact, Sri Krsna is said to be not only the father of Brahma but also the father of all species of life. He is the root of the impersonal Brahman and Paramatma; the Supersoul in every entity is His plenary portion. He is the fountainhead of everything and everyone is advised to surrender unto His lotus feet."

Krishna is never portrayed in Hindu scriptures as a "divine Son" praying to a heavenly father who is above him, as Jesus is in the gospels.

On the subject of Krishna being "born of a virgin" Acharya quotes, "Crishna was born of a chaste virgin, called Devaki, who, on account of her purity, was selected to become the 'mother of God.'" Acharya cites as her source for this claim Eighteenth century American author William Doane, and where he got it from I have no idea. Never before have I read of Krishna having been "born of a virgin". After all, it is common knowledge that Krishna was Devaki's 8th child, and I'm sure that many extravagantly virtuous things can be said of this woman who gave birth to 8 children, but "chaste virgin" doesn't strike me as one of them.

[sunyatta60]

Hi Kasalt
I have sent your reply off to Dorothy for her perusal I am sure she will respond to the point you made. From my perspective it is not only Acharay who is making these claims only the other night I watched a 2 hour documentary by Professor Robert Beckford called 'The Hidden Message of Jesus'. In that documentary he travels all over the world and shows you him interviewing Hindu Priest who admit that Krishnu could be the incarnation called Jesus.
My view is that No man called Jesus Christ existed that he was and still is a Roman Church Invention.
BTW you can see that documentary by watching it for free by clicking the following link registering with Channel 4 it will be worth it the documentary was very good.

http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html

The “second coming” of Christ is a transformation of human consciousness, a shift from time to presence, from thinking to pure consciousness, not the arrival of some man or woman. If Christ were to return in some externalised form, what could he/she possibly say to you other than this: I am the Truth. I am divine presence. I am eternal life. I am within you. I am here. I am Now.
Eckhart Tolle

[kasalt]

[B]Hi Kasalt
I have sent your reply off to Dorothy for her perusal I am sure she will respond to the point you made. From my perspective it is not only Acharay who is making these claims only the other night I watched a 2 hour documentary by Professor Robert Beckford called 'The Hidden Message of Jesus'. In that documentary he travels all over the world and shows you him interviewing Hindu Priest who admit that Krishnu could be the incarnation called Jesus.


Thanks Sun, I found the documentary on Google vid and watched it. In fact, here is the first 10 minutes of it for anyone who is interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55u9RcO7SxE

[sunyatta60]

I'm not sure who wrote this - you?

"for some reason she refers most frequently to the works of Western
authors who are non-Indian and non-Hindu."

I don't know why that would be so difficult to understand. There are
relatively FEW resources in English, and still fewer of those address
this subject.

My book "Suns of God" contains a lengthy discussion of the "virgin
Devaki" issue, so whoever is writing this may wish to actually read
that chapter to see why people have been writing what they have. I use
those English writers as a SPRINGBOARD to discuss the subject, not as
all-knowing divine authorities whose statements constitute the last
word. In my discussion, I go into an analysis of the Rig Veda - can't
get much more Indian than that - in order to see where the inference
may have come from. I demonstrate that, like the Greeks - who were
INDO-Europeans - the Rig Veda contains the suggestion that the DAWN, a
personified deity, was VIRGINAL and that "she" gave birth to the SUN.
Moreover, this dawn goddess shares the same epithet with Devaki, i.e.,
Aditi. It may be that the "virginal" state of Devaki - a MYTHICAL
character - was taught within the MYSTERIES of the Indian priesthood,
as was the case with Egypt.

It's not really a constructive exercise without reading my analysis.
In fact, the entire debate is really a waste of time, as we are being
faced with global pressures that could destroy humankind - and this is
what people are obsessed with? Whether or not a MYTHICAL character
could be construed as CHASTE and, therefore, VIRGINAL?

By the way, MANY Indian and Hindu sources claim Devaki as "chaste." If
"chaste" does not mean "virginal," then Indians have a peculiar
definition of the word.

Here's but one example:

********************/23hdl5

Is it SO difficult to understand why someone would claim "virginity" of
Devaki, as many have done over the centuries - including, evidently,
HINDUS who were part of the mysteries.

Silly debate, frankly, but thanks for bringing up my work.
Acharay S

[drakul]

.

[drakul]

I have Acharya's book - The Christ Conspiracy - Greatest Story Ever Sold.

I enjoyed the book, underlined many passages, wrote notes, questions in the margins and have done some research on her assertions. Overall Acharya's writings are part of a long and widespread Disinformation campaign to destroy Christianity. This campaign goes back at least 100 years to one of Acharya's main reference sources - `The World's 16 Crucified Saviors' pub. 1875, by an avowed atheist - Kersey Graves. From Wikipedia -

`... modern scholarship has cast serious doubt on the veracity of such claims, and demonstrated that Graves' scholarship is deficient. Graves massaged his data to fit his thesis, and where he had no data he falsified it. He often failed to cite proper sources for verification; although, "many of the most important facts collated in this work were derived from Sir Godfrey Higgins' Anacalypsis" [1].
[edit] Present-day readers
Graves' writings today are read by people seeking conspiracy theories, and remain popular in some circles strictly opposed to Christianity as a source of discredition of the claims of the faith. He is also a major source for Acharya S, author of The Christ Conspiracy.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kersey_Graves

Much of the antiChristian writings today emanate from Graves, including Icke.

The false info Acharya S writes Krishna's parents, his background etc is so easy to check it's stunning to the point of farcical. Truly her writing is aimed at the very naieve and easily influenced. It's not scholarly at all. She throws alot of references up there to hide the fact that she really only uses a few to push her points, as Kasalt points out.

Acharya's defense of her statement that Krishna's mother Devaki was a `VIRGIN' despite having 8 children seems ludicrous no matter how much you twist the meanings. There is a huge gap between a VIRGIN and a woman with 8 children. At the very least Acharya should exhibit some scholarship and ADMIT - `Yes Devaki had 8 children - but I am still calling her a `VIRGIN' because...here are my reasons blah blah blah...' That approach would at least inspire some confidence in her veracity.

[sunyatta60]

I enjoyed the book, underlined many passages, wrote notes, questions in the margins and have done some research on her assertions. Overall Acharya's writings are part of a long and widespread Disinformation campaign to destroy Christianity. This campaign goes back at least 100 years to one of Acharya's main reference sources - `The World's 16 Crucified Saviors' pub. 1875, by an avowed atheist - Kersey Graves. From Wikipedia -

Christianity needs destroying in my opinion it is the Biggest Con of the last Two thousand years and it was a gift from Rome. It makes me laugh that Christians who claim not to be a Pope Kisser acknowledge that the Main Branch of Christendom is Roman Catholism and that it is Anti Christ. Yet in the very next breath these mind controlled robots are quoting Jesus at me from the Very Book that the said Anti Christ Church gave to the world, namely the Unholy Bible.
It is complete Nonsense and people like Graves and Acharay and Icke are helping people wake up to see that All Religion is nothing more than Mind Control.

[drakul]

Christianity needs destroying in my opinion it is the Biggest Con of the last Two thousand years and it was a gift from Rome. It makes me laugh that Christians who claim not to be a Pope Kisser acknowledge that the Main Branch of Christendom is Roman Catholism and that it is Anti Christ. Yet in the very next breath these mind controlled robots are quoting Jesus at me from the Very Book that the said Anti Christ Church gave to the world, namely the Unholy Bible.
It is complete Nonsense and people like Graves and Acharay and Icke are helping people wake up to see that All Religion is nothing more than Mind Control.

You and much of the rest of the world have been duped. You actually think the VATICAN/Roman Catholicism is the be all and end all of Christianity. The Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Christianity is NOT Roman it is GREEK. Have you researched the Eastern Orthodox Church? Acharya and Icke act as though it doesn't exist - however the Orthodox Church is the 2nd largest Christian denomination in the world with over 300 million adherents.

The oldest bible in the world the CODEX SINAITICUS is written in GREEK. Constantine, the first `Christian' emperor was born in SERBIA and hated Rome so much he moved the `Roman' capitol to CONSTANTINOPLE, which at the time was GREEK, now Turkey. Learn about Orthodox Church history and you will vastly expand your horizons. The Orthodox Church was the FIRST church - it did not mount an INQUISITION like the VATICAN, Orthodoxy does not have a POPE (God's `infalliable' messenger on earth) etc. etc.

http://www.bl.uk/news/2005/pressrelease20050311.html

`The Codex is an iconic and historic document which dates from the period when the Roman Empire split and the Emperor Constantine, who ruled the Eastern Empire, adopted Christianity. Greek heritage dominated this Empire and the Codex was produced in response to the wish to gather together Greek versions of the principal Jewish and Christian scriptures. It is the earliest surviving book to encompass in one volume the great wealth of texts that have come to be recognised as forming the Christian Bible.'

[phildee3]

Christianity is NOT Roman it is GREEK.
The oldest bible in the world the CODEX SINAITICUS is written in GREEK.


...and written in the mid-4th. century.
Christianity is 350 years older than this!
If you must give it a nationality - it is Palestinian.
If language is your yardstick - then it is Aramaic.

I agree that orthodoxy is closer to original Christianity than RC, but only because it has traditionally resisted reformation. It is still a state religion, with a heirarchy, (both being contrary to the essence of the message of Christ) and commits the same error of claiming itself to be the true Christianity.

True Christianity is egalitarian and universal,
transcending both rank and nationality/language.

[drakul]

Question - What exactly did MITHRA or Mithraism teach? No one seems to know, but Mithra is constantly held up by Acharya as one of the `16 Crucified Saviours' whose story is supposed to be virtually IDENTICAL to Jesus Christ. But when you google Mithra - Almost Nothing. All you get is that Mithraism was very popular in Rome and was called the `soldier's religion'. Why? Maybe because nearly every image of Mithra shows him with a big knife cutting the throat of a bull. Mithraism seems to be the same pagan religion requiring ACTUAL blood sacrifice that Christianity replaced with symbolic blood and symbolic flesh. I have found nothing ressembling the life, actions and teaching of Jesus Christ in Mithra at all. Maybe someone can help me?

Nearly every form of pagan religion practiced some form of blood/human sacrifice. Christianity ended that in areas where it is practiced. But Acharya pretends the pagans were noble enlightened individuals not held in THRALL by black magic which forced them to give even their CHILDREN to be sacrificed.

[phildee3]

Acharya's defense of her statement that Krishna's mother Devaki was a `VIRGIN' despite having 8 children seems ludicrous no matter how much you twist the meanings.

I think we have a problem of translation here rather than one of interpretation.
The original for "virgin," in the bible, is more accurately translated as "chaste, faithful, true, honorable."
Perhaps there is a similar problem with the translation of the Vedas.

[phildee3]

Mithraism seems to be the same pagan religion requiring ACTUAL blood sacrifice that Christianity replaced with symbolic blood and symbolic flesh. I have found nothing ressembling the life, actions and teaching of Jesus Christ in Mithra at all. Maybe someone can help me?



The reason why Christianity replaced Mithraism in Rome, and the similarity between them, is that they were both Monotheistic.

Part of your confusion is around the word "pagan."
It actually means "rural," not "non-Christian." This is a deception of the Roman church.
Christianity is actually a pagan religion. Look at all it's references to wilderness, and nature.
It becomes anti-Christian when it becomes a state religion, in both Constantinople and Rome.

[drakul]

I think we have a problem of translation here rather than one of interpretation.
The original for "virgin," in the bible, is more accurately translated as "chaste, faithful, true, honorable."
Perhaps there is a similar problem with the translation of the Vedas.


Not at all, the Vedas are very clear on this. And there is much more - on pgs 116-117 of the Christ Conspiracy Acharya makes all kinds of unverifiable statements about Krishna being Christ - such as:

* Krishna`died on a tree or was crucified on a cross betw 2 thieves'.

LMAO - Krishna was mortally wounded by a hunter who shot him in the foot while he was meditating UNDER a tree. You really have to twist things to come out with a crucifixition from that description of Krishna's death.

* Krishna `was killed around the age of 30'.

According to Wikipedia Krishna was at least 89 at the time of his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

Acharya equates Christ with the Indian word Krishna. However in Indian Krishna means the `DARK ONE' and Krishna is always portrayed as blue or black-skinned. Where as Christ or Christos comes from the Greek - the ANNOINTED ONE.

And on and on. Furthermore Krishna was a great warrior who fought great battles and killed many people. Christ was a man of peace who practiced pacifism.

[synergy777]

christ was an invention of rome,

yashuah (jesus) was a rebel, he spoke of peace/compassion but also allowed people to defend themsleves against oppression. oppression from corrupt empires/roman, corrupt clergy/paharissees and sadducees/jews.

check the ceasars messiah thread.

[drakul]

The reason why Christianity replaced Mithraism in Rome, and the similarity between them, is that they were both Monotheistic.



Let's start with your first statement re Mithraism. To state that Christianity replaced Mithraism simply because `they were both Monotheistic' totally waters down Acharya's position: Pg 118-119 of the Christ Conspiracy -

* Mithra was born of a virgin in a cave on Dec 25 and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.

* Mithra had 12 companions or disciples. As the Great Bull of the Sun Mithra sacrificed HIMSELF for World Peace (a little New Age here)

And on and on. Where does Acharya get all this??? Not from original translations or first had sources as far as I can tell -

From wikipedia -
`No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, thought to be an atypical representation of the cult at best.[3] Current knowledge of the mysteries is almost entirely limited to what can be deduced from the iconography in the mithraea that have survived.'

[drakul]

The reason why Christianity replaced Mithraism in Rome, and the similarity between them, is that they were both Monotheistic.



Let's start with your first statement re Mithraism. To state that Christianity replaced Mithraism simply because `they were both Monotheistic' totally waters down Acharya's position: Pg 118-119 of the Christ Conspiracy -

* Mithra was born of a virgin in a cave on Dec 25 and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.

* Mithra had 12 companions or disciples. As the Great Bull of the Sun Mithra sacrificed HIMSELF for World Peace (a little New Age here)

And on and on with her claims. Where does Acharya get all this info??? Not from original translations or first had sources as far as I can tell -

Wikipedia is very clear on this-

`No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, thought to be an atypical representation of the cult at best.[3] Current knowledge of the mysteries is almost entirely limited to what can be deduced from the iconography in the mithraea that have survived.'

`According to the fourth century Historia Augusta, Commodus participated in its mysteries: Sacra Mithriaca homicidio vero polluit, cum illic aliquid ad speciem timoris vel dici vel fingi soleat "He desecrated the rites of Mithras with actual murder, although it was customary in them merely to say or pretend something that would produce an impression of terror".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

So from this ancient relatively first hand source it can be surmised that the Mithraic mysteries were about inducing `terror' through blood sacrifice and on the occaision reported above by Augusta - `actual murder' - HUMAN SACRIFICE. Even the Romans became repulsed by Mithraism.

[phildee3]

Krishna was a great warrior who fought great battles and killed many people. Christ was a man of peace who practiced pacifism.

Krsna and Christ are deities, and we must first know them as such before we can even begin to consider their possible incarnation.

Krsna kills demons, not people.
Jesus was a man of peace who practiced pacifism.
Christ is engaged in a great battle against Satan/the antichrist.

I don't know about Acharya. I'm not interested in the exoteric arguments, but I do have direct relationships with both Christ and Krsna and found them to be one and the same. They are different cultural expressions/aspects of the same, one Supreme Being.
This is from experience; not some heady, academic analysis.

[drakul]

Krsna and Christ are deities, and we must first know them as such before we can even begin to consider their possible incarnation.

Krsna kills demons, not people.
Jesus was a man of peace who practiced pacifism.
Christ is engaged in a great battle against Satan/the antichrist.




Puleeze - Krishna killed his OWN RELATIVES -

The Kurukshetra war and the Bhagavad-gita

`Krishna was cousin to both sides in the war between the Pandavas and Kauravas. He asked the sides to choose between his army and himself. The Kauravas picked the army and he sided with the Pandavas. He agreed to be the charioteer for Arjuna in the great battle. The Bhagavad Gita is the advice given to Arjuna by Krishna before the start of the battle'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#The_Kurukshetra_war_and_the_Bhagavad-gita


It's like D. Icke recently said - Don't climb out of one mindbox only to close yourself up in another. That's exactly what the `anti-Christs' like Acharya are doing. Turning people against Christianity by using DISinformation or even outright falsification and alot of the naive sheople are falling for it.

YES there is myth and misinformation in the Bible - it's 2 thousand years old and based on word of mouth. But for GOD'S SAKE why engage in deliberate falsification in order to deny Jesus Christ??? There should be enough factual info that so-called `scholars' like Archarya portrays herself to be so that she would not feel compelled to use this kind of really BLATANT obvious DISinformation.

Unless Acharya is just another puppet dancing on strings manipulated by the Hidden Hand...

[synergy777]

CEASARS MESSIAH
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16431&page=3


The Real Jesus?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11410

[phildee3]

To state that Christianity replaced Mithraism simply because `they were both Monotheistic' totally waters down Acharya's position: Pg 118-119 of the Christ Conspiracy -

I didn't say "simply."
There was nothing simple about it.

(but please note, I am in no position to debate "The Christ Conspiracy" as I have not read it, or any of Acharya's work).


Even the Romans became repulsed by Mithraism.

Exactly.
This is another reason why they adopted Christianity as their state religion.
They had already accepted monotheism but were alienated to the other montheistic religions.
That's why Christianity (or their own twisted variant of it) caught on so well.

[phildee3]

Puleeze - Krishna killed his OWN RELATIVES -


Other deities; - demons.

Is not Satan a relative of Christ?

[phildee3]

christ was an invention of rome,


Ouch!!!.

[drakul]

CEASARS MESSIAH
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16431&page=3

The Real Jesus?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11410

It does not make sense that the Roman emperors created the `Myth' of Christianity in order to `unify the empire', etc. Why would the emperors make up a religion which was antithetical to their own powerbase??!!!

For example Christians were persecuted for refusing to sacrifice to the emperor. The emperor was DIVINE, not Jesus Christ. The Roman religion was based on the solar serpent religion of blood sacrifice whose priests were akin to voodoo practioners - it was a DEATH CULT religion ruled by gods that inspired FEAR. Not the love, forgiveness and compassion of Christianity.

[phildee3]

It does not make sense that the Roman emperors created the `Myth' of Christianity in order to `unify the empire', etc. Why would the emperors make up a religion which was antithetical to their own powerbase??!!!

Agreed; - they didn't.

Just like the Bush cabal, who took the concept of freedom and democracy and twisted it to suit their complete, opposite agenda: -
the Romans took a pure, sacred Christianity and twisted it to fit their own agenda to control their "subjects."

Henry VIII did it too -
Really put the icing on the cake, didn't he?
"Supreme head of the church" my ass!!

The NWO is nothing new, my friends. It's been going on since the advent of farming!

[kasalt]

Here is an Acharya S video that I highly recommend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs

[kasalt]

This is a videotaped lecture Acharya S gave based on her book, Suns of God. During the lecture, she said something that I found unsettling. I don't recall her exact words, but she basically gave a stamp of approval to the number 666. Basically she said something to the effect that 666 had been wrongly demonised by the male priesthood. Sorry I didn't mark the time, I think it was in the last half hour of the lecture when she said it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5672009516679691710

EDIT: The statement can be found at 1:05:45, and perhaps I was reading too much into it. Here is her quote:

"The book of Revelation is basically an assault on the goddess, who was still quite potular at the time. The whore of Babylon...Ishtar...umm, the mark of the beast was the mark of the goddess, 666 was a sacred number in goddess worshipping cultures."

She was responding to a question from an audience member about when religion went from being matriarchal to patriarchal, and this was part of her answer to that question. So perhaps her answer was purely academic and not intended as an endorsement of "666". (I guess.)

[phildee3]

Here is an Acharya S video that I highly recommend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs

I've still not read "The Christ Conspiracy" but now I get the jist of what you're talking about and I can tell you that Acharya is correct, buit she doesn't go far enough!
We Christians do not worship the sun but the spiritual force that comes through the sun via the central sun (which lies at the centre of the galaxy).

This central sun was known as the "black sun" by the SS.
Hitler tried to harness it's power.

The Christ force - the life force - comes to us, giving life to our planet, through the sun.
It is the portal for life/love to come through from the infinite realm of "heaven" to temporal earth.

Christ comes through the sun.

This is the essence on sun/son worship - not the worship of the physical sun.
Christ is a spirit. Eternal.
The sun is mortal. It will die.
Jesus was a man (mortal, but as perfect as one can be because he was destined to be another portal for the Christ force to enter into the temporal world).

Classical Christian iconography (as above) attempts to paint a personification of Christ (coming through the sun),
not a likeness of the man Jesus.

[kasalt]

Back in '94 I had a rare OBE during which I was told by an interior voice that the reason why the words "sun" and "son" were identical in pronunciation and similar in spelling because it had been "arranged" that way. The purpose of this arrangement was to cause people to equate the two, and thus come to faith in "the Son of God", Jesus Christ, who is "the light of the world" and "the source of life".

That was, of course, before I came into contact with all of this information here. Make of that what you will...I'm still trying to figure out what I'll make of it! ;)

[phildee3]

Back in '94 I had a rare OBE during which I was told by an interior voice that the reason why the words "sun" and "son" were identical in pronunciation and similar in spelling because it had been "arranged" that way. The purpose of this arrangement was to cause people to equate the two, and thus come to faith in "the Son of God", Jesus Christ, who is "the light of the world" and "the source of life".


I can confirm that the "voice" was correct.


Acharya appears to be laboring under the common misapprehension that primitive man was not a smart as us and so worshipped the physical sun.
It doesn't take much see that a plant or a tree grows to a much greater size than can be accounted for by soil nutrients and water alone, - that they feed off of an invisible force carried by sunlight.

Prehistoric man no more worshipped the sun than Christians worship pieces of bread!

[drakul]

I've still not read "The Christ Conspiracy" but now I get the jist of what you're talking about and I can tell you that Acharya is correct, buit she doesn't go far enough!
We Christians do not worship the sun but the spiritual force that comes through the sun via the central sun (which lies at the centre of the galaxy).

This central sun was known as the "black sun" by the SS.
Hitler tried to harness it's power.

The Christ force - the life force - comes to us, giving life to our planet, through the sun.
It is the portal for life/love to come through from the infinite realm of "heaven" to temporal earth.

Christ comes through the sun.

This is the essence on sun/son worship - not the worship of the physical sun.
Christ is a spirit. Eternal.
The sun is mortal. It will die.
Jesus was a man (mortal, but as perfect as one can be because he was destined to be another portal for the Christ force to enter into the temporal world).

Classical Christian iconography (as above) attempts to paint a personification of Christ (coming through the sun),
not a likeness of the man Jesus.


BRILLIANT. Really logical and well constructed. Is it true? Well... I'm just another human ant running around in microcosmic circles, but I enjoy reading/thinking about concepts which open my horizons based on logical concepts.

It's pretty well established that most religions and secret societies, such as the Masons, have AT LEAST 2 separate teachings - the esoteric and the exoteric. One for the general public and one or more secret teachings.

I would add that the ring of light, the HALO shown around the head of Jesus and the saints that Acharya claims is the SUN, also has other meanings. People who are in a high spiritual state emit an INNER LIGHT an AURA which shines from their faces.

[drakul]

This is a videotaped lecture Acharya S gave based on her book, Suns of God. During the lecture, she said something that I found unsettling. I don't recall her exact words, but she basically gave a stamp of approval to the number 666. Basically she said something to the effect that 666 had been wrongly demonised by the male priesthood. Sorry I didn't mark the time, I think it was in the last half hour of the lecture when she said it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5672009516679691710

EDIT: The statement can be found at 1:05:45, and perhaps I was reading too much into it. Here is her quote:

"The book of Revelation is basically an assault on the goddess, who was still quite potular at the time. The whore of Babylon...Ishtar...umm, the mark of the beast was the mark of the goddess, 666 was a sacred number in goddess worshipping cultures."

She was responding to a question from an audience member about when religion went from being matriarchal to patriarchal, and this was part of her answer to that question. So perhaps her answer was purely academic and not intended as an endorsement of "666". (I guess.)


GODDESS WORSHIP opens up a whole new can of worms regarding Christianity. There is a fine line here. On one side you have WOMAN (WOMBman) who has been completely sidelined from the power structures of all major religions and this includes learning the Esoteric practices. Wombman it could be argued, is inately more spiritual than man. Why? Because Wombman gives birth. Wombman creates life. Wombman nutures life, she does not TAKE life, she GIVES life. Ideally Wombman is loving and compassionate to her children - how much closer to GOD is that?

On the other hand, and this is not to be underestimated - you have the DARK SIDE of Goddess worship. The black aspect which demanded human/blood sacrifice, often of children. The Hindu goddess KALI is an aspect of that. The Aztecs also had similar sacrificial goddess - COATLICUE always shown with a skirt of writhing snakes and a necklace of skulls.

For other aspects of the Goddess' dark, serpentine side - look at the Greek ATHENA - on her breast is usually the emblem of the glaring GORGON MEDUSA with hair of writhing snakes. At Athena's side next to her shield is a large PYTHON (solar serpent cult) with head upraised. Athena also required blood sacrifice.


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/classes/finALp.html

[phildee3]

the HALO shown around the head of Jesus and the saints that Acharya claims is the SUN, also has other meanings. People who are in a high spiritual state emit an INNER LIGHT an AURA which shines from their faces.

Of course.
This is the origin, and primary meaning, of the halo in iconography.

Acharya's interpretation is a valid one, though. I like it!



It's pretty well established that most religions and secret societies, such as the Masons, have AT LEAST 2 separate teachings - the esoteric and the exoteric. One for the general public and one or more secret teachings. .

All teachings of "religions and secret societies" are, by nature, "exoteric" (ie. from outside).
Those that are secret (for initiates only) are occulted from the general public, but they are still "exoteric."

Do not confuse "esoteric" with "occult".

There are two forms of occultism:
i) regarding things that are concealed by others, usually to hold some kind of power over the uninitiated, and
ii) that which conceals itself, by making itself impossible to be shared (sacred knowledge which one can only receive when one is ready).

i) may be transmitted exoterically (to the "inner circle" of secret societies).
ii) can only be revealed esoterically (from within) to an individual who need not be a member of any such group.


"All that is hidden shall be revealed." ST. MARK

[drakul]

Numerous writings equate ESOTERIC (hidden/secret) teachings/practices with the OCCULT. For me it is a moot point.

In re-reading your previous post that `Acharya is right but doesn't go far enough' -

IMO Acharya is not `RIGHT'. How can a thesis based on deliberate falsifications be right? Acharya's thesis is essentially that there were 16 crucified saviors in the world and that they all have the same story - THEREFORE Jesus Christ is a myth a made up lie = THEREFORE Christianity is an evil control system that should be denounced.

Acharya then presents her concocted evidence discussed in some detail on this thread- all these `mythical god men' were born on Dec 25 of a virgin in a cave attended by shepards and wise men with gifts. All were crucified and rose again, etc. etc. Any simple GOOGLE check will show Acharya presents stunning DISinformation.

I smiled when I saw Acharya's arrogant response posted on this thread - to the effect that whether Krishna was born to VIRGIN as she claims, instead of to a woman who had already borne 7 children as the Hindu Vedas claim was `just a minor detail and don't we have more important things to do'?

A minor detail? Why did she BOTHER print it as fact then? Along with all the other garBAGE like Krishna was born on Dec 25 when his birthday is celebrated on JULY 21??? A big difference there. These `minor details' are holding up her entire thesis that all the saviors of mankind are made up myths - because they all have the same story. As an (`alternative) historian isn't Acharya responsible for ACCURACY? Apparently she doesn't think so.

[phildee3]

Numerous writings equate ESOTERIC (hidden/secret) teachings/practices with the OCCULT. For me it is a moot point.

As you please.
But to me it is essential to understanding the true nature of the divine; - by looking within (eso = within).
The Roman church, as well as all our other wannabee slave-masters, have twisted the real meaning of these words to confuse us so we have to depend on their "experts" to tell us the "truth" (which is actually a bunch of lies).

"Occult" is a verb meaning "hidden."
It is not a noun, so there can be no such thing as "the" occult.
It is a ruse by the demons, to demonize the benign, and draw attention away from their own evil intent.

George Orwell was right in telling us that "doublespeak" (ie. twisting the meaning of words) is an essential tool of big brother.

It's not a "moot point" for those who wish to be free!



In re-reading your previous post that `Acharya is right but doesn't go far enough' -

IMO Acharya is not `RIGHT'. How can a thesis based on deliberate falsifications be right?


As I said, I've not read her work so I am not qualified to comment on this.
When I said she was right, it was based on seeing the YouTube flick - "Sun of God?" which simply suggests that there is a correlation between primitive "sun worship" and Christianity. I agree.

(Supporting references to my post on this, which you liked, are "The Spear of Destiny" by Trevor Ravenscroft and many references by Rudolf Steiner, -especially in his science of biodynamics).

But I also see, as I said, that Acharya bases her thesis on the false premise that we are smarter than our ancestors. Of course, this will result in many false conclusions but not necessarily all of them. I can understand why you're angry with her after investing time and money on her book, but you just might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Trust your "voice" (from within!).

[drakul]

As I said, I've not read her work so I am not qualified to comment on this.
When I said she was right, it was based on seeing the YouTube flick - "Sun of God?" which simply suggests that there is a correlation between primitive "sun worship" and Christianity. I agree.

(Supporting references to my post on this, which you liked, are "The Spear of Destiny" by Trevor Ravenscroft and many references by Rudolf Steiner, -especially in his science of biodynamics).

But I also see, as I said, that Acharya bases her thesis on the false premise that we are smarter than our ancestors. Of course, this will result in many false conclusions but not necessarily all of them. I can understand why you're angry with her after investing time and money on her book, but you just might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Trust your "voice" (from within!).

I am not at all angry with Acharya. Nor do I feel that I wasted money buying her book. (I just like to enthusiastically press my points). Acharya offers interesting insights and info along with the DISinfo. The problem is weeding out the good stuff. If Acharya lies about the easily verifiable stuff - what about the other so-called `history' she writes which is not so easily verifiable. So I take it all with a grain of salt - my mind is not set in cement. I enjoy learning. That's what I'm here for!

Note - I disagree with your statement that Acharya `bases her thesis on the false premise that we are smarter than our ancestors.' On the contrary. Read her books. According to Acharya the ancient pagans had it right. WE Christians are the mind-controlled fools.

[phildee3]

WE Christians are the mind-controlled fools.

Speak for yourself, mate.
Not me.
You are the one who is confused.
I can't have a conversation with you - you keep contradicting yourself.
Good luck with your battle against your demons.

[kasalt]

Speak for yourself, mate.
Not me.
You are the one who is confused.
I can't have a conversation with you - you keep contradicting yourself.
Good luck with your battle against your demons.

I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't expressing his own opinion, he was expressing Acharya's:

According to Acharya the ancient pagans had it right. WE Christians are the mind-controlled fools.

[phildee3]

I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't expressing his own opinion, he was expressing Acharya's:

So would you say that his punctuation, that indicates otherwise, was a mistake, an accident or a coincidence?

[jebuswasreal]

Knock yourselves out:

*LINK DELETED COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT*

*Sorry gang have to find this elsewhere JW*

[sunyatta60]

Well, then, what's the difference between Jesus and Hercules, or Attis, or Osiris, or Adonis, etc?

According to Justin Martyr there are none :)

<<<When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union. Was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding the sons of (the god) Jupiter.
Justin Martyr 100-165AD<<<<

RJ:
But he ended up by saying that the Devil must have stepped in before, to lay the foundation of deception. Prepostrous I know.

[sunyatta60]

Mate these whacked out Xitians come out with the biggest load of Tosh and then have the audacity to call me a Conspiracy Theorist. I remember when I first came to aol on the DF board years ago and Silly Mick and the other idiots who have all swallowed the biggest Conspiracy of the last 2000 years were telling me that Lord Buddha was a Copy Cat LOL.
I had to point out to the Ignorant fools that Buddha came 500 years before there Jesus did. Then they came out with the biggest load of codswallope of the lot by claiming the Devil sent Buddha and he is an imposter to fool the world. These crazies do the same when they claim the earth is only 6000 years old, you ask them what about all the dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. And they give you their pet line of the devil put them to trick the world. These idiots cannot see they have been taken in by The Roman Church and many of them like Mickplym, Thai Foooooooool and Sheri Nuwine even claim that the Roman Church is The Anti Christ Church. When it is pointed out to them that the very Church that they call Anti Christ gave the World the Bible, this is the very book that they hold dear to because it has brainwashed them. They then deny it and they say they got that book not from the devil but from the Jews LOL. Honestly mate you just cannot make this crap up and the saddest thing is these people just cannot stand back and see what NONSENSE it is. What alarms me is that along with those other two Mad Xitians Bush and Blair we have had Xitians on this very board calling for war, supporting the war and even openly claiming their Support for the Anti Christ in its War on People Everywhere.

[sunyatta60]

Since 'booty' is your "Lord", maybe you can provide us with some evidence of his Resurrection?

I suggest you take your own advice and provide me with evidence that anyone called Jesus Christ ever existed. Even the most Rabid Xitian Fundamentalist admit it cannot be proven and that their Belief all comes down to Faith.
It strikes me that if the Whole World lies in the hands of the Wicked One then that would include Religion too.
Most of the Religious world believe in someone called Jesus, where would be the best place for The Anti Christ to hide but On or Behind the Cross. The Roman Anti Christ Church Invented Jesus Christ they are the Ones claiming Jesus was Divine. I say the Jews and the Gnostics were right in rejecting this false deity and for that they have been persecuted by people with your mindset.

[sunyatta60]

If you don't believe the "BOOK", then how can you say the "ROMAN CHURCH", for certain, is "THE ANTI CHRIST"?
But, on the other hand, if you believe the ROMAN CHURCH", is, "THE ANTI CHRIST", then that has to mean that you believe the "BOOK", huh?
Either way, your words betray you.

There is no betrayal because unlike you I am not trying to convert anyone to anything. Are you a Catholic Nathan? If not then your Xitian roots must have branched out and your church would have been influenced by people like Martin Luther. It was Luther and others who first called The Roman Church; Anti Christ. many so-called Xitians posting to this very board claim that the Roman Church is Anti Christ. I happen to agree with them, in case you are wondering three that I can name are Sheri, Steve and Mick.
Your convoluted logic is complete nonsense Nathan, you don't have to believe Either One you can choose to accept that Both are Anti Christ and that is the point I am making. If Christians believe the Roman Church is Anti Christ then how can they then give the Whole World a Book that allegedly came from God.
It is more logical and consistent to say The Roman Church is the Devil's Church and the Book that came from it The Bible is a product of the Devil's Church i.e it is really The Devil's book. And from my logic I can therefore choose to believe in Neither and thus reject both just like the Jews and the Gnostics did and still do.

Nothing is Everything Plato there is far more evidence for him than there is for the Mythos Jesus LOL

[i_am]

Knock yourselves out:

*LINK DELETED COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT*

*Sorry gang have to find this elsewhere JW*

Like at her website :)


http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html

[phildee3]

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconspiracy.html

On Acharya's website, I find only an inquiry into the historical Jesus.

I see no spiritual inquiry into the Christ.

[sunyatta60]

I see no spiritual inquiry into the Christ.

On her site you will find the following which makes her position clear imho.

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"
Pope Leo X


Not surprising when her position is that Jesus Christ is a Roman Church Invention.

[phildee3]

I see no spiritual inquiry into the Christ.

On her site you will find the following which makes her position clear imho.

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"
Pope Leo X


Not surprising when her position is that Jesus Christ is a Roman Church Invention.

And with all that incredible amount of work her only approach is an historical one?
Amazing!

She's obviously not looking for the truth but for evidence to support her a priori assumption.

Pigpot with a college degree!

[sunyatta60]

She's obviously not looking for the truth but for evidence to support her a priori assumption.

She started out a Christian if my memory serves me right :)
So looking at it all from an historical perspective would be a sensible way in which to begin the search.

[phildee3]

She's obviously not looking for the truth but for evidence to support her a priori assumption.

She started out a Christian if my memory serves me right :)
So looking at it all from an historical perspective would be a sensible way in which to begin the search.

The search for what?
The man, Jesus, yes.
Christ? Of course not!!
Christ is an ahistorical being.

If you want to find the truth about a spiritual being, use spiritual science
- the total antithesis to history which is full of lies and distortions.

She's making lots of money from selling hate.
Divide and conquor.
Illuminati for sure!

[sunyatta60]

The search for what?
The man, Jesus, yes.
Christ? Of course not!!
Christ is an ahistorical being.

Christ is not a Being it is a state of Mind. She is searching for the Truth.

She's making lots of money from selling hate.
She does not hate anyone and only mad Christians are going to project their hate and anger on to her and they do in their thousands. For exposing the scam she has had to contend with Death threats.
Divide and conquor.
That is the goal of the Religion that you are defending.
Illuminati for sure!
Set up by the Illuminati because they are part of the Evil Cabal that runs the system. People like Acharay and Icke are coming from different angles but they are both doing a wonderful job in exposing how the system through Religion enslave people and subjugate them.

[phildee3]

She is searching for the Truth.

LOL - by using history???





She's making lots of money from selling hate.

She does not hate anyone

I didn't say she hated anyone.
I sid she's "selling hate."





...only mad Christians are going to project their hate and anger on to her and they do in their thousands. For exposing the scam she has had to contend with Death threats.

see?




Divide and conquor.

That is the goal of the Religion that you are defending.

No, that's the goal of the elite who organize (which does not mean invent) and control all religions as soon as they get popular enough.





Illuminati for sure!

Set up by the Illuminati because they are part of the Evil Cabal that runs the system.

Thank you.
QED

[drakul]

Speak for yourself, mate.
Not me.
You are the one who is confused.
I can't have a conversation with you - you keep contradicting yourself.
Good luck with your battle against your demons.

How have I contradicted myself?

You made the statement (without reading any of her books) that -`Acharya bases her thesis on the false premise that we are smarter than our ancestors'.

I said - `NO Acharya says the ancient pagans had it right. WE Christians are the mind-controlled fools'.

What's `contradictory' about that? It's a completely straight forward rebuttal and is well within the structure, the sacred ground if you will, of my argument that Acharya falsifies history in order to prove her point that the world had 16 crucified saviors - who all have the same story.

But they don't.

Isn't this thread about Acharya's accuracy as a historian???

[drakul]

Mate these whacked out Xitians come out with the biggest load of Tosh and then have the audacity to call me a Conspiracy Theorist. I remember when I first came to aol on the DF board years ago and Silly Mick and the other idiots who have all swallowed the biggest Conspiracy of the last 2000 years were telling me that Lord Buddha was a Copy Cat LOL.
I had to point out to the Ignorant fools that Buddha came 500 years before there Jesus did. Then they came out with the biggest load of codswallope of the lot by claiming the Devil sent Buddha and he is an imposter to fool the world. These crazies do the same when they claim the earth is only 6000 years old, you ask them what about all the dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. And they give you their pet line of the devil put them to trick the world. These idiots cannot see they have been taken in by The Roman Church and many of them like Mickplym, Thai Foooooooool and Sheri Nuwine even claim that the Roman Church is The Anti Christ Church. When it is pointed out to them that the very Church that they call Anti Christ gave the World the Bible, this is the very book that they hold dear to because it has brainwashed them. They then deny it and they say they got that book not from the devil but from the Jews LOL. Honestly mate you just cannot make this crap up and the saddest thing is these people just cannot stand back and see what NONSENSE it is. What alarms me is that along with those other two Mad Xitians Bush and Blair we have had Xitians on this very board calling for war, supporting the war and even openly claiming their Support for the Anti Christ in its War on People Everywhere.


I agree that your typical `fundamentalist' Christian is often brainwashed and makes simple arguments which don't hold up to objective analysis. I understand it is very frustrating to talk to people like this. It is also very frustrating to discuss the value of Jesus Christ's teachings with people who have completely closed their minds to the point that EVEN DELIBERATE HISTORICAL FALSIFICATION I.E. as found in ACHARYA'S BOOKS, IS OK AS LONG AS IT ATTACKS CHRISTIANITY.

The BIBLE is composed of 2 books:

Book 1 the Old Testament is essentially the history of a semitic people with some prayers and teachings thrown in to make it more palatable. This is the book that made it possible to claim Israel for the Jews and which has turned America against Islam.

Book 2 the New Testament contains the teachings and parables in red of Jesus the Christ. Even that is not alot. The rest of the New Testament is all about the organization, the power structure of the Church. I pay very little attention to anything in the Bible BUT the teachings of Jesus.

BTW - I just returned from SE Asia where I spent hours discussing the existence of GOD and the Immortal Soul with Buddhist priests in the temples of N. Thailand. I have practiced Meditation for many years. The best spiritual teacher I ever had by far was a Sufi master. But after all these years of searching, I still find the words/teachings of Jesus to be magnificent and something to live up to.

Not all Christians are as ignorant as you assume. Try to keep the discussion with the POINT OF THIS THREAD - the accuracy or IN-accuracy of Acharya's claims that the world has had `16 crucified saviors whose stories are all the same'.

Are they the same? Or has Acharya falsified the evidence to fit her thesis?
After all these years of searching, I still find the words/teachings of Jesus to be magnificent.

[phildee3]

Acharya's claims that the world has had `16 crucified saviors whose stories are all the same'.



If this were true, wouldn't it make the Mystery of Golgotha more powerful and meaningful rather than less?

[sunyatta60]

[QUOTE=phildee3;229939]LOL - by using history???

Well she is looking at what those who constructed the History of the church is and found them to have clearly lied about it. There are two Histories in the time humanity has been on Earth. The False Constructed History and the True History of what really happened. Sadly for you it seems you don't even know that.





I didn't say she hated anyone.
I sid she's "selling hate."

That is the same thing and you are now engaging in silly semantics sorry but your spurious charge is hateful bullshit on your part.


.only mad Christians are going to project their hate and anger on to her and they do in their thousands. For exposing the scam she has had to contend with Death threats.


see?

Yes I saw it and told you about it, I take it you are one of these Brainwashed Xitian Robots.


Divide and conquor.

That is the goal of the Religion that you are defending.

No, that's the goal of the elite who organize (which does not mean invent) and control all religions as soon as they get popular
enough.

I think I am talking to someone here who does not realise that Christianity is a Mind tool used by the Establishment to Mureder, Kill, Subjugate and war with people. Christianity is part of the problem and therefore cannot be part of the solution to the problem.

Set up by the Illuminati because they are part of the Evil Cabal that runs the system.

Thank you.

No need to thank me for pointing out to you what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has escaped from the mind prison that Icke talks about. The Illuminati set up Christianity and there you really do have a case of QED :)

[sunyatta60]

I agree that your typical `fundamentalist' Christian is often brainwashed and makes simple arguments which don't hold up to objective analysis. I understand it is very frustrating to talk to people like this. It is also very frustrating to discuss the value of Jesus Christ's teachings with people who have completely closed their minds to the point that EVEN DELIBERATE HISTORICAL FALSIFICATION I.E. as found in ACHARYA'S BOOKS, IS OK AS LONG AS IT ATTACKS CHRISTIANITY.

Please point out these deliberate falsifications!




Not all Christians are as ignorant as you assume.
Just 99% of them the remaining 1% are hiding the Truth from everyone else.

Try to keep the discussion with the POINT OF THIS THREAD - the accuracy or IN-accuracy of Acharya's claims that the world has had `16 crucified saviors whose stories are all the same'.
Please don't tell me what to do I don't take orders and I cannot be brainwashed.

Are they the same? Or has Acharya falsified the evidence to fit her thesis?
No in my opinion
After all these years of searching, I still find the words/teachings of Jesus to be magnificent.
How do you know they are the words of someone called Jesus? Ever met any Jews by that Name? Neither have I, it was a Title bestowed upon a deity by the Roman Church. Of course those crafty Romans knew that in order to trap people into serving their Empire they had to sprinkle their Bible with some Truth but how much of it was spoken by Christ is a very hot topic of debate.

[drakul]

Sunyatta - `Please point out these deliberate falsifications!'

I DID. Didn't you read my posts detailing the falsifications on the `crucified saviors' - Horus, Krishna, Mithra, etc. ???

[sunyatta60]

Hi there!

For the next 10 days or so, my newest show on my new book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" will be playing on Abraxas/Miguel's program "Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis." It will be archived after that at "The Chronicles of Acharya." Be sure to listen - Miguel and I always do some mind-blowing, fun shows together! My part starts 13 minutes into the show.

Following is the message sent out by Miguel/Abraxas:

The Savior has been born...wait...maybe he never was born. Could all the contradictions and anachronisms in the Bible, lack of historical data, absent archeological evidence, Church Father silence and even the Gnostic Scriptures be in reality pointing to a mythic godman, a patchwork hero with a thousand theologies? Is there really any first century proof indicating there was anything close to a first century Galilean Rabbi? We take on this herculean task in a CSI manner and attempt to find if there is a man behind the legend at all.

Astral Guestâ?"Acharya S, author of "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ," "Suns of God" & "The Christ Conspiracy."

Topics Discussed:

--How the Canonical Gospels damn the notion of a historical Jesus by their language, context and message.
--Contradictions and anachronisms in the four Gospels mostly overlooked until now.
--The deterioration of Biblical scholarship since the 19th century.
--Proof that most of the New Testament was written late in the Second Century by men far removed from any alleged character named Jesus.
--How the Gnostic Gospels and Heretics themselves point to a mythic being instead of a carnal savior.
--New parallels between Jesus and other rising/dying godmen. --Why archeology points completely against the backdrop of the Jesus saga.

And much more!

As always to access the program:

--Go to my homepage http://www.thegodabovegod.com/
--Scroll down until you see the Stickam screen (the eye with the bloody tear)
--Click the music icon and voila..."Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis 79 - Was there a Historical Jesus?" will appear in its entirety!

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

Acharya S

[sunyatta60]

It does not make sense that the Roman emperors created the `Myth' of Christianity in order to `unify the empire', etc. Why would the emperors make up a religion which was antithetical to their own powerbase??!!!

It makes perfect sense to do just that and I can think of a number of reasons for them doing what they did and that is Distort the Original teachings of those we today call Gnostics. The Gnostics were Jews not Christians the term Jesus Christ is a Roman Title and the Roman usurped the religion because they could see how powerful an effect it had on its adherents. By adopting the same powers of suggestion they could get their Army to fight and more importantly die in the name of a god and give the soldier his due reward at some future point in time. We can see how difficult it is to stop people who are determined to die for their cause using their god by looking at the extremeist of Islam.

For example Christians were persecuted for refusing to sacrifice to the emperor.
Not Christians but Gnostics, Christians were Roman Citizens and they took part in the blood letting their cult is after all about being washed in the blood of the guy who allegedly bled to death on a Cross.

The emperor was DIVINE, not Jesus Christ.
If you ever get to Istanbul present day Constantinople you will see Roman Christian Art in the temples there of the Emperors bowing down to the baby Jesus.

The Roman religion was based on the solar serpent religion of blood sacrifice whose priests were akin to voodoo practioners - it was a DEATH CULT religion ruled by gods that inspired FEAR. Not the love, forgiveness and compassion of Christianity.

LOL mate talk to some of the most Rabid Xitian Fundies around on the Net and it is totaly clear that they have turned to the Christian God out of Fear and not Love. Christianity is a Death Cult and its priest use all kinds of Occult magic to inculcate people like yourself. Millions have been killed because of Christianity in the last 2 millenia and like they have Jesus saying in the bible he never came to bring peace but a sword. This religion was set up by the Romans to get people fighting which made it easy for them to propagate their Empire.

[kasalt]

A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy

Written by Mike Licona

Exerpt:

2. Comparative Religion Studies

a. Similarities to Krishna

Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed from other religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with Krishna, the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled expounds on this position.

What about Ms. Murdock’s claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Penguin World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion." He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there for him could not really see it.

Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article "Krishna, Crucified?" an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. In it she states, "it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna." To this Bryant responded, "She doesn’t know what she’s talking about! Vithoba was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified."

Later I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy. He stated that 14 of her 24 comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong. What about her 9 that are correct; especially Krishna’s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna’s bodily ascension? Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name." Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD." Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation. An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century. Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires...

Ms. Murdock’s claim that Christianity has borrowed substantially from Hinduism is without merit. Her claims are false, unsupported, and exhibit a lack of understanding of the Hindu faith.

b. Similarities to Buddha

In addition to Krishna, Ms. Murdock cites similarities between the Buddha and Jesus as an example of how Christianity has borrowed from Buddhism. As with Krishna, she lists 18 similarities Jesus shares with Buddha in The Christ Conspiracy. Regarding these, I emailed Professor Chun-fang Yu, Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers. Dr. Yu has specialized in Buddhist studies. I listed the 18 similarities recorded by Ms. Murdock and asked if these were actual traditions of the Buddha. She replied writing, "None of the 18 [are] correct. A few, however, have some semblance of correctness but are badly distorted." She then listed a total of eight that had some similarities and provided details...

It is appropriate to mention here that Ms. Murdock claims to have mastered several religions. Her book, The Christ Conspiracy claims a mastery of Christianity and her new book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, with excerpts found on her web site also indicate that she believes Hinduism and Buddhism to be two other religions which she has mastered in terms of her knowledge of them. However, as we have seen, she is terribly ignorant of the actual traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism. And as we are about to see, she is likewise mistaken when it comes to her understanding of Christianity...

http://www.risen-jesus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=109

[sunyatta60]

Hi Kas
I sent your last post off so lets see how she responds, I have to say that David Icke is very much in agreement with Acharay in general and his research skill are very very good.
As for Christendom I have come to the opinion recently that Jesus is probably the Anti Christ.
The reason for that is The Roman Church gave the world world the Bible and they also are the ones who Claimed that Jesus was Divine.
Many non Catholics who claim to be Christian call the Roman Church The Anti Christ Church.
So anyone using the Bible to prove their Religion is the correct one is basically falling foul of the Laws of Logic. They are quickly submerged into the fallacy of circular argument with no way out. The sad thing is many of these mind controlled Robots cannot understand let alone appreciate their Philosophical difficulty and they have no way of extracting themselves from it other than to abandoned their whole religious belief system. Not surprisingly very few take that course of action because there are real dangers of a full blown psychosis filling the vacum in thie house of sand.

[phildee3]

Many non Catholics who claim to be Christian call the Roman Church The Anti Christ Church.


Many Catholics also call the Roman Church The Anti Christ Church.
Me for one.
But then, all sects are anti-catholic, and antichristian, - by definition.

[sunyatta60]

Many Catholics also call the Roman Church The Anti Christ Church.
Me for one.
But then, all sects are anti-catholic, and antichristian, - by definition.

So who do you say gave the world the Bible?

[phildee3]

So who do you say gave the world the Bible?

In it's present form, the Roman "church."

But they didn't write it.
It's a compilation of earlier documents, mostly by holy men and women and as such can be seen as the "inspired word of God" ("channelings" in new-age speak).

The Romans compiled it, making lots of alterations, with the same intent that you claim that they "wrote" it.
Downgrading women - both as characters and authors - was probably their greatest travesty.

[drakul]

'

If you ever get to Istanbul present day Constantinople you will see Roman Christian Art in the temples there of the Emperors bowing down to the baby Jesus.



Actually Constantinople is present day ISTANBUL (you reversed it).

The `temples' you speak of in former Constantinople are not pagan temples at all but CHURCHES - the most visited one being the HAGIA SOPHIA - Holy Wisdom. Hagia Sophia was the grandest church in the world built not by Romans but by the BYZANTINE emperor Justinian in 537 AD. This was 200 years AFTER Christianity had become the official religion of Byzantium and the Roman empire.

[drakul]

Actually Constantinople is present day ISTANBUL (you reversed it).

The `temples' you speak of in former Constantinople are not pagan temples at all but CHURCHES - the most visited one being the HAGIA SOPHIA - Holy Wisdom. Hagia Sophia was the grandest church in the world built not by Romans but by the BYZANTINE emperor Justinian in 537 AD. This was 200 years AFTER Christianity had become the official religion of Byzantium and the Roman empire.


http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/hagiasophia.htm

[drakul]

Back to Acharya S and her deliberate falsifications of other divine saviors with the agenda of destroying faith in the message of Jesus Christ - dismissing it as a another plagerizing solar cult:

1. Buddha was born on Dec. 25.

NOT. Buddha's birthday is celebrated in the 4th lunar month of the Chinese calendar - in APRIL or MAY. I mean PULEEZE Acharya insults our intelligence here. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists, why don't you go tell THEM when Buddha was born?

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/holidays.html


2. Buddha was born of a VIRGIN.

Again PULEEZE - nowhere in Buddhist teachings will you find that Buddha's mother Maya was a virgin. There is no virgin birth in Buddhism. Buddha's father was Shuddhodana King of the Shakyas. Buddha never said he was the `Son of God'.

3. Buddha's life was threatened by a king who was advised to destroy the child as he was liable to overthrow him.

Can you find that in the Buddhist scriptures? I can't.

4. In `some traditions Buddha died on a cross'.

What (Unknown) traditions? I lived in a 95% Buddhist country (Thailand), actively practiced Buddhism and have visited Buddhist countries - Cambodia, Singapore, Hongkong, Japan, Philippines, etc and have NEVER seen a crucified Buddhist pictured, nor can I find one in Buddhist teachings/art.
So where is that crucified Buddha Acharya?

5. `Buddha was ressurected as his coverings were unrolled from his body and his tomb opened by supernatural powers. Buddha ascended bodily into Nirvana.'

Wow. that's quite a statement - considering Buddha was CREMATED as is the custom in Asia. And after his cremation ALL the ashes and bone fragments were collected and carried all over Asia to be worshipped to this day.

http://www.thomasriddle.net/buddhist_sites/kushinigar/index.htm

And on and on....

[sunyatta60]

I am well aware of this blather and responded to it once many years
ago.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

Licona simply called these people up, read a sentence or two to them,
then hung up after they said, "Nonsense!" They had never read my book,
didn't know my arguments and barely even remembered speaking to him.

Typical Christian behavior.

In any event, no, my book has NOT been refuted. There remains no
evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, and everything points to
him being a myth.

By the way, my ENTIRE nearly 600-page book "Suns of God" IS a response
to these claims. I appreciate you bringing up my work online, but you
really need to read that book, if you want to continue to do battle
with these people.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

Thanks!
Acharay S

[sunyatta60]

If you ever get to Istanbul present day Constantinople you will see Roman Christian Art in the temples there of the Emperors bowing down to the baby Jesus.

Actually Constantinople is present day ISTANBUL (you reversed it).

I missed out a semi colon after present day but maybe I should have written if you ever get to Istanbul the present day name for Constantinople etc.

[kasalt]

Thanks again Sun, and thanks again to Acharya for responding.

If Acharya truly believes that she is in the right, then IMHO she should continue along without missing a beat. For my part, my postings here are not intended to quell discussion, but only to further it. Hopefully, this discussion will lead us to a much clearer vision of the truth (whatever that is). In the meantime here's a little more I dug up:

Claim: Jesus' and Krishna's mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia
Reality: Krishna's mother may have been referred to as Maia, but only because this is the Hindi word for "mother." His mother's actual name was Devaki; his foster mother's name was Yashoda. - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

"Skeptics sometimes cite Kersey Graves in Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Godfrey Higgins' Anacalypsis (which Graves drew from) in asserting that Krishna was a crucified deity. No such event occurred in the Gita or in any recognized Hindu scripture. Given the pronounced syncretic tendency of Hinduism, it is safe to assume that any odd tales of Krishna's being crucified arose only after the existence of Christian proselytism, in imitation of the Christian narrative. It is neither authentic to Hinduism nor is Hinduism the source of that portion of the Christian narrative. The same may be said for most of the purported nativity stories. In my opinion, both Higgins and Graves are highly unreliable sources..." - http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html

"One final note: I'd like to compliment Van Eck on his criticism of the assertions made by some authors about the similarities between Krishna and Jesus. For example, some have said Krishna was "crucified," but the Upanishads say he "disappeared" and is waiting for us in a spiritual abode that appears as boring as heaven. I'd like to add my criticism to those writers who perpetuate the myth that Krishna was born on December 25th. This is not Krishna's birthday according to scripture, nor is it when Hindus celebrate Krishna's "appearance." This is the birthday that Christians stole from the Persian sun god, Mythra, and adopted for Jesus! It seems that some authors, in their attempt to show a common origin for religious myths, tenaciously adopt misinformation to make their case. We must remember to be critical and always check our sources." - http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/1/1hindu96.html

See also: Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors - Infidels.org book review
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

[phildee3]

LOL - by using history???


Well she is looking at what those who constructed the History of the church is and found them to have clearly lied about it. There are two Histories in the time humanity has been on Earth. The False Constructed History and the True History of what really happened. Sadly for you it seems you don't even know that.




It's sad that you think everything is either black or white;
- that history is either completely true or completely untrue.

History is never completely either;
- just an infinite number of shades of grey in between.

There are elements of truth in items that are clearly lied about,
and errors in those that are intended to be recorded truthfully.

Such is the nature of history.

I am not so foolish as to join your war of pro-Acharya vs. anti-Acharya arguments.
There is much in her work that is right on,
and much that is rubbish.

Just like the bible.

and the only way to find the truth is from within,
- not by listening to what others say.

and a good way to do that is to contemplate the myths (ie. the "mysteries").


"There remains no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, and everything points to him being a myth." Acharya

Quite!

...and because historical "facts" are only some shade of grey, the historical figure of Jesus Christ cannot be shown, irrefutably, to be either true or untrue.

But mythological facts can be observed, through the inner eye and by use of the "scientific method," to be so.

Christ, as a mythological fact, has been proven by the scientific method in spiritual science.


The historical "Jesus Christ" cannot be proven and must therefore remain an issue of faith.

[drakul]

I am well aware of this blather and responded to it once many years
ago.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

Licona simply called these people up, read a sentence or two to them,
then hung up after they said, "Nonsense!" They had never read my book,
didn't know my arguments and barely even remembered speaking to him.

Typical Christian behavior.

In any event, no, my book has NOT been refuted. There remains no
evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, and everything points to
him being a myth.

By the way, my ENTIRE nearly 600-page book "Suns of God" IS a response
to these claims. I appreciate you bringing up my work online, but you
really need to read that book, if you want to continue to do battle
with these people.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

Thanks!
Acharay S


`BLATHER'? The most basic call for accuracy, for authenticity in the assertions forming very foundation of her book, her thesis on Christianity and it's `BLATHER'?

A real scholar, a real teacher would not respond in such an arrogant manner. In fact a real scholar would not make such arrogant, obvious falsifications. And Acharya obviously knows they are falsifications because she makes no effort to support them. A real scholar could not get away with that. His/her contemporaries would demand authentication.

You can quote from her book(s) page by page verboten (as I have) and Acharya will still announce - `YOU HAVE NOT READ MY BOOK'.

heheheh Acharya S is laughable. :rolleyes:

[octopusrex]

Ok.

Whatever your conclusions about this stuff.

Please don't fuck with Krsna. He's alright! He likes girls. And steals butter to give it to monkeys.

Can't fuck with that.

And Jesus.. Okay, so he got himself killed for fucking with Jewish merchants. Big deal. We all make mistakes.

And.. Budha.. So he didn't go for flashy costumes. So what?

Mohammed.. Now there's a fellow that knows how to live well!

Some day, many millions of years from now, folks might be discussing if Santa Claus was a real person. It don't MATTER so long as children are happy, does it?

[jambolina62]

I believe that these people have existed down the centuries.
Jesus, or whatever his name was, tried to teach us about love. He was killed for that. Can't have good people here, it mucks up the agenda.

PS I believe in Father Christmas, I saw him once when I was seven, and I was not dreaming. The power of the mind is wonderful sometimes.

[octopusrex]

I wouldn't put is past the Devas to install some Santa Claus to make sure children don't loose faith in them.

Gotta know who Santa works for!

[sunyatta60]

[QUOTE=phildee3;231797]It's sad that you think everything is either black or white;
- that history is either completely true or completely untrue.

History is never completely either;
- just an infinite number of shades of grey in between.

You know and so do I that History is written by those who won the conflicts, whether they take the form of war or intellectual argument. Of course there are different shades of grey but when I use the word Truth I do so in the context of Plato's Absolute Truth and not in terms of relative Truth.

[drakul]

[QUOTE=phildee3;231797]It's sad that you think everything is either black or white;
- that history is either completely true or completely untrue.

History is never completely either;
- just an infinite number of shades of grey in between.

You know and so do I that History is written by those who won the conflicts, whether they take the form of war or intellectual argument. Of course there are different shades of grey but when I use the word Truth I do so in the context of Plato's Absolute Truth and not in terms of relative Truth.

So if Acharya and Zeitgeist `astro theologists' are pushing the lies that Krishna and Buddha's birthdays are on DECEMEBER 25 when in fact they are on JULY 21 and MAY 8 respectively, what does that tell you?

[phildee3]

[QUOTE=sunyatta60;257893]

So if Acharya and Zeitgeist `astro theologists' are pushing the lies that Krishna and Buddha's birthdays are on DECEMEBER 25 when in fact they are on JULY 21 and MAY 8 respectively, what does that tell you?

Well, I suppose that is tells sunyatta that everything they say is an "absolute lie."
But I don't think so.
I do think that they are right on with some things, but you have to sort them out from the crap, and that takes an inner awareness of relative truth in order to discern which is which.

"Don't follow leaders" - BOB DYLAN

[synergy777]

http://www.newjerusalemnetwork.net/emmanuel/asia.html

The Everlasting Gospel of Heru In Asia

REVELATION 14:6 "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the Everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people

Introduction
I'm sure that by now you have read in my writings how and why the descendants of Meru (the firstborn of Heru) propagated Heru's Gospel from Ethiopia (Djibouti) into India and the Bay of Bengal, where the story of Noah actually occurred. Contrary to the Biblical depiction of the symbolic story of Noah, Noah's did not come to rest upon the mountains of Ararat, but upon the highest elevation on earth, Mt. Everest of the Himalaya Mountains.


Ham - warm, hot, and hence the south; also an Egyptian word meaning "black", the youngest son of Noah (Gen. 5:32; comp. 9:22,24). The curse pronounced by Noah against Ham, properly against Canaan his fourth son, was accomplished when the Jews subsequently exterminated the Canaanites.

One of the most important facts recorded in Gen. 10 is the foundation of the earliest monarchy in Babylonia by Nimrod the grandson of Ham (6, 8, 10). The primitive Babylonian empire was thus Hamitic, and of a cognate race with the primitive inhabitants of Arabia and of Ethiopia.
(See ACCAD.)

The race of Ham were the most energetic of all the descendants of Noah in the early times of the post-diluvian world

Accad - the high land or mountains, a city in the land of Shinar. It has been identified with the mounds of Akker Kuf, some 50 miles to the north of Babylon; but this is doubtful. It was one of the cities of Nimrod's kingdom (Ge 10:10). It stood close to the Euphrates, opposite Sippara.

It is also the name of the country of which this city was the capital, namely, northern or upper Babylonia. The Accadians who came from the "Mountains of The East," Where The Ark Rested, attained to a high degree of civilization. In the Babylonian inscriptions they are called "the black heads" and "the black faces," in contrast to "the white race" of Semitic descent. They invented the form of writing in pictorial hieroglyphics, and also the cuneiform system, in which they wrote many books partly on papyrus and partly on clay. The Semitic Babylonians ("the white race"), or, as some scholars think, first the Cushites, and afterwards, as a second immigration, the Semites, invaded and conquered this country; and then the Accadian language ceased to be a spoken language, although for the sake of its literary treasures it continued to be studied by the educated classes of Babylonia.

thanks to tehuti

more at the link, certainly clears up many things.

[drael]

I posted this in another thread bu thought it was also relevant here...

It is that its clear the jesus mythology is based on several sources, not one. But people keep insisting that jesus is actually krishna, or mithra etc. A quick reveiw of ancient mythology makes it quite clear virtually none of the symbology is original is any way, but also that there are a variety of "sources".

Part of this may likely have to do with the historical jesus being influenced by outside culture, such as eastern mysticism or other mystery school teachnings (which seem likely based on his teachings). Part of this may have to do with the power of those particular symbols, that things were arranged that way by "god" because the symbols are important. Or it could be simply a copied story.

But one has to be honest about this as a christian IMO. Either, other religions have it at least part right by using these same symbols and ideas - or the bible is at least part mythology.

Because the bible shares so much with other religions and mythologies - to me, if i where christian, this would make me interested in the history of those symbols and other religions. I mean if god uses a cross, in a very similar way to the egyptian anhk for example, as a symbol of ascension - maybe theres commonality there between those two faiths. There are thousands of such examples.

So, what is so wrong about christianity having commonality with other religions? (simply ditch the word "based on", and replace with "has in common with" or accept than some of the bible may be fictionalised)

[phildee3]

I posted this in another thread bu thought it was also relevant here...

It is that its clear the jesus mythology is based on several sources, not one. But people keep insisting that jesus is actually krishna, or mithra etc. A quick reveiw of ancient mythology makes it quite clear virtually none of the symbology is original is any way, but also that there are a variety of "sources".

Part of this may likely have to do with the historical jesus being influenced by outside culture, such as eastern mysticism or other mystery school teachnings (which seem likely based on his teachings). Part of this may have to do with the power of those particular symbols, that things were arranged that way by "god" because the symbols are important. Or it could be simply a copied story.

But one has to be honest about this as a christian IMO. Either, other religions have it at least part right by using these same symbols and ideas - or the bible is at least part mythology.

Because the bible shares so much with other religions and mythologies - to me, if i where christian, this would make me interested in the history of those symbols and other religions. I mean if god uses a cross, in a very similar way to the egyptian anhk for example, as a symbol of ascension - maybe theres commonality there between those two faiths. There are thousands of such examples.

So, what is so wrong about christianity having commonality with other religions? (simply ditch the word "based on", and replace with "has in common with" or accept than some of the bible may be fictionalised)



I completely agree with you here drael, - as a Christian.

Except for a couple of minor points:
i) "Either, other religions have it at least part right by using these same symbols and ideas - or the bible is at least part mythology."
Why not both? I think it's both.
ii) I'm not sure that "God uses a cross..."
The God that I know just is, and it is man that uses symbols.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with this post!

[sunyatta60]

[QUOTE=sunyatta60;257893]

So if Acharya and Zeitgeist `astro theologists' are pushing the lies that Krishna and Buddha's birthdays are on DECEMEBER 25 when in fact they are on JULY 21 and MAY 8 respectively, what does that tell you?

It tells me that they are repeating the Lies that the Roman Church propagated from the outset in order to expose them. Jesus was never here but Siddarth Gautma was.

[phildee3]

It tells me that they are repeating the Lies that the Roman Church propagated from the outset in order to expose them.



The RC's say that Buddah and Krsna were born on Dec 25th?
What is your source? Where do they say that?

[sunyatta60]

The RC's say that Buddah and Krsna were born on Dec 25th?
What is your source? Where do they say that?

The RC says Jesus was, and if you want to find out about the other two check out Christian Theologian from Oxford Robert Beckford he asserted it in his progamme at Christmas you can find the whole programme at Channel 4.

[phildee3]

The RC says Jesus was,



I don't think so.
Dec.25th is arbitrarily chosen as the feast day to celebrate his birth.
Show me RC dogma that says otherwise.


...and if you want to find out about the other two check out Christian Theologian from Oxford Robert Beckford he asserted it in his progamme at Christmas you can find the whole programme at Channel 4.



Yeh, right!
One hell of a search!
Thanks for the link - not!