Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by GakuseiDon »

stephan happy huller wrote:Where does she get these ideas? I've never seen a scrap of evidence to support the cobbling together of all these little things into a one meta-thesis. This had to have come by personal revelation. If you disagree with me, please tell me where she got these ideas. Study? What ancient source told her that the ten thousand or so things she brings together in her writings are all interconnected? There is no ancient source. It is personal revelation.
These ideas were circulating in the 19th Century, so she could well have gotten them from authors writing then. That was a period when the West became fascinated by many things Eastern and Egyptian. Many laymen writers, including Christian ones, tried to explain the origins of religious belief by showing that Christianity, in one form or another, was at the bedrock of other religions. There was a bit of a cottage industry on the topic, so Acharya had plenty of sources for inspiration.

Here is T. W. Doane, in his book "Bible Myths and their parallels to other religions", writing in 1882:
  • Our assertion that that which is called Christianity is nothing more than the religion of Paganism, we consider to have been fully verified. We have found among the heathen, centuries before the time of Christ Jesus, the belief in an incarnate God born of a virgin; his previous existence in heaven; the celestial signs at the time of his birth; the rejoicing in heaven; the adoration by the magi and shepherds; the offerings of precious substances to the divine child; the slaughter of the innocents; the presentation at the temple; the temptation by the devil; the performing of miracles; the crucifixion by enemies; and the death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven.
So she is drawing on a long line of scholars and interested laymen, stretching back several hundred years.

Where Acharya S differs is in her details about an actual conspiracy to keep the origins of Christianity secret, with that conspiracy still going on today through the Freemasons and the Pope. I'm not aware of any other mythicist who holds that position. And to build that conspiracy, she has again relied -- at least in part -- on sources stretching back several hundred years. It's pulling together two streams of thought into one meta-conspiracy. If she really believes in all this, she is very brave to try to expose it.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Robert Tulip »

Here is Acharya's comment on the opening post. I think it illustrates that GakuseiDon is reading too much into the line about Freemasonry, which looks to me more like a throwaway quote from Godfrey Higgins than a considered opinion.
Acharya wrote:Thanks, Robert. As usual, my critics are reading too much into a few words, in order to make a big deal out of nothing. Instead of focusing on the title of the book - by which the entire book should not be judged - the germane material demonstrates that the gospel story is MYTHICAL, with precedents for virtually every major element in older religions and myths.

The details of how this came to be are not as relevant as the fact that it did come to be, but some people are fascinated by "whodunnits." Yet, who wonders "whodunnit" when it comes to the Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman religions and myths? Nobody cares, which shows this aspect is not very important to the discussion.

In any event, for those who wish to know the "whodunnit," I have provided numerous pages well beyond the Christ Conspiracy's final chapters regarding Rome and Alexandria, including in Suns of God and Christ in Egypt. To be reviewing the first of my books while ignoring the last is not an exercise in efficiency or erudition, if one is trying to critique the work and appear knowledgeable about the subject.

Christ in Egypt in particular discusses the hows and whos, in the Alexandria chapter. If one wishes to know that aspect of the Christ myth, that chapter is a good place to start.

Nevertheless, my observation of how the gospel myth was created is pretty much along the same lines as how the Egyptian, Canaanite, Babylonian, Indian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Chinese, Japanese, Maya, Aztec, Inca, Native American and countless other myths were created, organically and over a period of time, syncretizing other myths and altering them, etc.

It's not difficult to comprehend the process, which is understood when it comes to all these other mythological systems, and there's no real reason to be focusing on that element, since we already comprehend how these other systems were created. Focusing on this one word, "conspiracy," when it was an afterthought, is not very productive.

The original title of my book was the same as my initial article: The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. As I was writing the book, I was visited by a prominent "conspiriologist" or conspiracy theorist who had been published by AUP, Christ Con's eventual publisher. This individual had been raised a Catholic and was at first resistant to the material, until I explained it in more "conspiratorial" terms. That's when the lightbulb went off, and I discovered that the words "Christ conspiracy" could convey an interesting element, but it is not the central focus.

We've discussed the meaning of the word "conspiracy" elsewhere - in the original Latin it means "to breathe together." There is no question that the creation of Christianity was a concerted and joint effort - a "breathing together," if you will. But, to reiterate, it is not necessary to describe Christianity's creation in those terms at all. We could call it, "The effort by numerous people, sects and groups over a period of decades to centuries to create Christianity," but such a description would be very cumbersome.

Let's not get hung up on this one word when it comes to describing how Christianity was created. Let us simply look at the past priestcraft to determine how such myths have been created, syncretized and altered over the millennia. Only a couple of centuries prior to the common era, governmental officials and priests in Alexandria worked to create new hybrid god, Serapis, to unite the warring factions of Egypt, the Egyptians, Greeks and Jews. This concerted effort could also be called the "Serapis conspiracy," but the point is that the same type of priestcraft was employed a couple of centuries later to create the new hybrid god, Jesus Christ, designed for much the same purpose.

So, if there was a "Serapis conspiracy," then there was a "Christ conspiracy" as well. But, once more, we don't have to call it by that title, and the word is not as significant as some people would make of it. The point behind it is important: To wit, Christianity is a manmade creation for political purposes, little different from the creation of Serapis or a thousand other gods and goddesses over the thousands of years.

As usual, my comments regarding the "Order of Melchizedek" are being misconstrued for strawman purposes. My point was that these religious/spiritual systems are not extraterrestrial, as is a major speculation being passed around today, but very terrestrial. I was not implying that there was a single agency at work here that had existed since time immemorial and that passed along a continuous and unbroken line of knowledge and priestcraft. I was emphasizing the terrestrial nature of this sort of religion-making business, as opposed to attributing the effort to ETs. Once again making much ado about nothing and focusing on the wrong things - a naive and puerile perspective, frankly, but that's what we've come to expect from these quarters, unfortunately.

Not sure what part of "Second Edition" my critics don't understand, but their obsessive focus on certain elements will allow me to clarify in the new edition what should have been easy to comprehend. Now, what is really important are the pagan parallels and the meaning behind the myth, not the powerbrokering. Perhaps those who feel powerless are obsessed with powerbrokers?

And what is this silliness? The "true story of WWII according to Acharya S?" I don't engage in WWII revisionism - that's just another puerile obsession used to raise a strawman in order to invoke ridicule. I simply point out at the very beginning of Christ Con that World War II had a religious element to it, based on the beliefs of various individuals involved in setting it up or engaging in it: To wit, the Bolsheviks and Marxist leaders were raised significantly as Jews, while Hitler was a Christian. After that, I don't even discuss WWII. Again, childish making of a mountain out of a molehill by obsessives, and, rather than providing actual insights into what I may have meant - why don't they actually ASK me? - these individuals are simply handing us their OWN psyches on a platter.
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by stephan happy huller »

So she is drawing on a long line of scholars and interested laymen, stretching back several hundred years.


Right. But each one of her additions to this assumption develops by personal revelation. There are no witnesses for Christianity being a development of the religion of ancient Egypt. In order to make this argument you'd have to be an expert on both early Christianity and contemporary Egyptian religion. Whether or not she happens to have expertise with respect to one or both (she doesn't) that is a huge burden to even have this suggestion taken seriously given that it is obvious that Judaism is the context from which Christianity developed and there are no important examples of Jewish syncreticism from the period that could help explain Christianity developing as a first century religion. The facts are that there are no reasons to develop a theory about Christianity developing from (a) paganism in the earliest period and every reason to search within (b) Judaism and its sects. The fact that she and her cohorts choose to dwell on (a) is problematic. It's like the police detective who - in investigating a crime - seems to obsess over a suspect who can be demonstrated to have been on another continent and never had any dealings with the victim.

I don't understand the obsession with paganism. Certainly fourth century Christianity picked up something from the Roman cults. But in the earliest period, I just don't see it.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by GakuseiDon »

Robert Tulip wrote:Here is Acharya's comment on the opening post. I think it illustrates that GakuseiDon is reading too much into the line about Freemasonry, which looks to me more like a throwaway quote from Godfrey Higgins than a considered opinion.
I can't see anything in her comment on my OP that makes it look like a throwaway quote from Higgins than her considered opinion. I am actually quoting Acharya S herself in my OP:
  • Unbeknownst to the masses, the pope is the Grand Master-Mason of the Masonic branches of the world... Masonry originally held, and still does at the higher levels, the knowledge that the Christ character was the sun. This knowledge has obviously been hidden from all but the few. (TCC, page 348)
If she is using Higgins as a source, does she now think that Higgins is probably wrong?

The only thing I see in her response that hints at her view on this is the following:
Acharya wrote:As usual, my comments regarding the "Order of Melchizedek" are being misconstrued for strawman purposes. My point was that these religious/spiritual systems are not extraterrestrial, as is a major speculation being passed around today, but very terrestrial. I was not implying that there was a single agency at work here that had existed since time immemorial and that passed along a continuous and unbroken line of knowledge and priestcraft. I was emphasizing the terrestrial nature of this sort of religion-making business, as opposed to attributing the effort to ETs. Once again making much ado about nothing and focusing on the wrong things - a naive and puerile perspective, frankly, but that's what we've come to expect from these quarters, unfortunately.
She seems to be hinting that she is confirming what I wrote about modern-day powerbrokers like the Masons. I'm not arguing there that she is claiming that ETs are involved, only terrestrial powerbrokers. Can you explain how her response to my OP deals with her views about powerbrokers today? Are there groups today, like high-ranking Masons and scholars, who probably know that the Christ character is the sun, but are hiding it from the masses?

If she believes that isn't the focus of her book, that's fine, but she DID make those comments, and they don't appear to be throwaway lines. But, as I said, if she has changed her mind on them, I'd be interested to know.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Robert Tulip »

stephan happy huller wrote:
And Stephen, it would be really nice if we were all just discussing ideas,
We are.
and if the standard of commentary could rise above ganging up to mock the alleged liar.
I haven't called her a liar.
I was talking about Roger Pearse and a couple of others, who made assertions that a person is dishonest but failed despite my repeated comments to back up their baseless claims. That is talking about a person, not ‘discussing ideas’. It is highly unethical to cast baseless slurs.
stephan happy huller wrote: The meta-theory that everything is one, that all lines intersect cannot be demonstrated from any historical source. It is logic of Mani and Joseph Smith and not of a serious scholar
Stephan, I am so pleased to see your comments, even though I completely disagree and have some issues that I have earlier noted regarding the tone. What I wish to focus on, aiming not to try the good reader’s patience too extremely, is your rather brusque dismissal of the Hermetic philosophy, your apparent view that anyone who thinks “all is one” is a Mormon who needs their head read.

This illustrates a simple fundamental problem regarding the paradigmatic framework of assumptions that govern our whole attitude to thought. Of course all is one. That is a simple true axiom. If you don’t start from the unity of reality, you fail to recognise the coherence and consistency principles that are at the foundation of scientific method.

As you know from our earlier conversations at FRDB that seem to have gone the way of Bach’s fish wrappers due to the stupidity of the owners of that board, I wrote a Masters thesis on ethics in Heidegger’s ontology. This hermetic principle of the unity of reality is something that is central to Heidegger’s approach to existential philosophy. Further, I see a deep underlying compatibility between Heidegger’s focus on the meaning of being and Acharya’s analysis of Jesus as the Sun. I fully appreciate that this claim has potential to ignite some level of incandescence in certain quarters, since it is too easy to say a vile mystical obscurantist Nazi is hardly to be held up as any sort of authority especially as the inspiration for some sort of sun worshipping ecofeminism.

So what is the connection? The theme of hermeneutics within continental philosophy seems to me to be at the core of its conflict with the analytical tradition of Anglo American philosophy. And Heidegger is rather a grand hermeneut, with his central idea that the meaning of being is uncovered in analysis of human existence as care. Through care, in the ontology of Being and Time, we encounter anxiety, a mood that opens us to being as a whole, connecting our temporal world of appearance to the absolute reality of being. This sense of the whole takes Heidegger back to Parmenides’ idea that truth is one as the foundation of philosophy. Here, on the noble path of being, we find the original connection to the unity of the all, which Heidegger came to interpret as the fourfold of earth and sky, man and gods.

I don’t know if Acharya has read any Heidegger (that needs a certain tragic attitude), but my view of her work is that it shows a similar sense of connection to natural being. My view is that the unity of the whole is seen in astronomy, and that ancient recognition of the central role of the sun as the source of light and life is actually at the origin of Christian memes about Jesus. Copernicus, another grand hermeneutic philosopher, held that precession of the equinox is the key observation revealing the unity of all things. So this idea of cosmic oneness is at the foundation of modern thought, even though it has been lost within the dominance of superficial cultural trends.

I do think Acharya is assuming ideas in terms of philosophical method that are profoundly important, but which have largely been lost in the cultural currents of modernity. So it is essential to get behind some of the superficial critiques and consider the philosophical issues at stake. Your glib comparison between the grand vision of unity of the all and the fantasies that inspire Mitt Romney helps to illustrate a certain arrogance regarding philosophy that is well worth analysing.
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Robert Tulip »

GakuseiDon wrote:Are there groups today, like high-ranking Masons and scholars, who probably know that the Christ character is the sun, but are hiding it from the masses?
GD, you should read Acharya’s ten page essay Jesus Christ Mason of God if you want to get an understanding of her views on freemasonry.

In this essay she more explicitly notes her attribution of the Pope Masonic reference to Higgins, which was footnoted in TCC. I think it was disingenuous of you to leave the footnote out of your partial quotation. Here is how she presents it in her essay on Jesus Christ Mason of God.
Acharya wrote: Godfrey Higgins declared that the Pope, "who holds many secret things" is the "Grand Master of the Masons," the "Grand Master-Mason of the world."45
This quote, explicitly sourced from an 1836 book, can hardly do the work you suggest of it in terms of current political claims.

I have read all her books, and Acharya does not allege anything about current religious conspiracies as far as I am aware, although she notes that church authorities know more about the origins of their teachings than they routinely express in public. How much more they know is hard to say, given the intense bullying exercised by fundamentalist bigots such as NT Wright who consider the Historical Jesus an article of emotional faith not to be questioned in any way.

Acharya's interest is to explain how Christianity originated. This involved a range of conspiratorial factors, of which the antecedents of freemasonry (eg Christ as the stone the builder refused) are important.

I will suggest to Acharya that she note the unclarity regarding the Higgins footnote that you have helpfully found in TCC (edit: corrected from CIE).

Stephan Huller once again displays his extreme ignorance and prejudice in his allegation that Acharya does not have expertise about the religion of ancient Egypt. He should read her book Christ in Egypt before playing the fool by spouting off like that.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by GakuseiDon »

Robert Tulip wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:Are there groups today, like high-ranking Masons and scholars, who probably know that the Christ character is the sun, but are hiding it from the masses?
GD, you should read Acharya’s ten page essay Jesus Christ Mason of God if you want to get an understanding of her views on freemasonry.

In this essay she more explicitly notes her attribution of the Pope Masonic reference to Higgins, which was footnoted in CIE. I think it was disingenuous of you to leave the footnote out of your partial quotation. Here is how she presents it in her essay on Jesus Christ Mason of God.
Acharya wrote: Godfrey Higgins declared that the Pope, "who holds many secret things" is the "Grand Master of the Masons," the "Grand Master-Mason of the world."45
This quote, explicitly sourced from an 1836 book, can hardly do the work you suggest of it in terms of current political claims.
I haven't read her Jesus Christ Mason of God, but I have read her "Suns of God", which apparently Jesus Christ Mason of God is extracted from. In her book, she gives the same quote you gave above, but she prefixes it as "Magistrate and Mason Godfrey Higgins declared that the Pope..."

From her "Suns of God" (my bolding, but italics in the original):
  • Many of these scholars, such as the Mason Higgins, were privy to "insider information", i.e. the esoterica of various religious traditions, no doubt based on their status as members of one or more brotherhoods and secret societies. (page 296)
    ...
    Since Masonry played such an important role in an event as momentous as the founding and governing of the USA, as well as numerous other nations and/or governments, it is not difficult to believe that it also was instrumental in the creation of various religions. This contention is especially true since it is masons and their benefactors who build the temples, synagogues, churches and cathedrals. It is thus apparent that masons have seen themselves as builders of religions. As David Gallop shows in In God's Name, Masonic organizations continue to create mayhem upon this planet, specifically in the name of the Catholic religion. Magistrate and Mason Godfrey Higgins declared that the Pope, "who holds many secret things," is the "Grand Master of the Masons," the "Grand Master-Mason of the world." (228)

    Naturally, in its play for global domination the Church has placed itself in competition with "Masonry," or, rather, various factions of it. As Massey states, the "war of the Papacy against Masonry" has occurred because the latter is the heir to the pre-Christian mysteries, which prove that Christianity is unoriginal. (229) Masonic rituals are also carried out within the higher levels of the religion of Mormonism; yet, few acknowledge this fact or criticize the Mormon hierarchy for its Masonic origins, similar to those of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    The denial of these facts concerning Masonry and its role in world events and institutions, including and especially religion, may occur out of obstinacy, naivete or ignorance, or the denier may be part of the fraternity, bound by others of secrecy. Many germane facts concerning Masonry are not widely known because of the various blood oaths taken by Masons, including one in which the penalty is "having my skull smote off and my brains exposed to the scorching rays of the noonday sun..." (230) (page 551)

    Footnotes:
    228. Higgins, 1, 8231h.
    229. Massey, GML, 58
    230. Ronayne, 221.
I've quoted the whole paragraph above, including the footnotes, to give the context. Her comment on "[t]he denial of these facts concerning Masonry" seems to indicate her view that it plays a part in modern times.
Robert Tulip wrote:I have read all her books, and Acharya does not allege anything about current religious conspiracies as far as I am aware, although she notes that church authorities know more about the origins of their teachings than they routinely express in public. How much more they know is hard to say, given the intense bullying exercised by fundamentalist bigots such as NT Wright who consider the Historical Jesus an article of emotional faith not to be questioned in any way.

Acharya's interest is to explain how Christianity originated. This involved a range of conspiratorial factors, of which the antecedents of freemasonry (eg Christ as the stone the builder refused) are important.
Yes, I know that that has been the focus of her books, so it is unfair to some extent that I am making a big deal out of her views of modern-day conspiracies. She could be wrong about the modern-day part (say, from the 19th Century onwards), but completely right about the historical part. The only thing is that she is using some of the same sources (for example, Higgins and Massey) for both parts. But if her view is that there are powerful groups even today, including scholars, who 'know the truth' and presumably want to suppress that truth, then she is brave indeed to stand up to them.
Robert Tulip wrote:I will suggest to Acharya that she note the unclarity regarding the Higgins footnote that you have helpfully found in CIE.
Thanks Robert. I suppose for me the larger question is that, given that Higgins was apparently a Mason himself, and there was animosity between the Masons and the Catholic Church, does Acharya S regard him as a reliable source, both for ancient beliefs and for Masonic beliefs about the Pope in his time?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
ApostateAbe
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by ApostateAbe »

Robert Tulip wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote:maybe I can help you
What? By getting me to explain when I stopped breaking the law, even though I never did break the law? The entire premise of your offer of help is baseless. I have engaged with the arguments of various heresiologists, such as Bart Ehrman, the Finn Zwaarddijk and others. In each instance, the alleged lies and errors of Murdock prove to be simple misinterpretations, upon which the heresiologist builds a fantastic tissue of calumny. There are tiny errors, such as the dating of Augustine raised by Ehrman, and typographic errors such as the one mentioned here about Higgins. But the heresiologists continue in the grand political tradition of never retreating or apologising.

Cults are organisations like the Church of Scientology, the Mormons, the Unification church and other fundamentalist groups who hold doctrines that are readily refuted by reference to simple mainstream knowledge. Murdock's research methods are scientific. Recognition of the evolutionary continuity between Christianity and older astral myths involves a paradigm shift which anyone with supernatural commitments cannot cope with.

Perhaps my main area of difference with Murdock is in her negative language about Christianity as a 'rehash' of older myth. I prefer a more positive reading of Christianity as an intentional adaptation of existing ideas for the new context of the common era, presenting a high vision that was lost by the corruption of the church. I am interested in discussion about the potential for reform of religion rather than implying people should oppose religious thinking on principle.
That really is a significant difference that you have with Murdock, because her opposition to Christianity seems to be fundamental to her ideology, and I think your disagreement is to be appreciated. Much of my dealings has been with Freethinkuluva, and maybe you have more independence of thought.

My main issue with Acharya S, as you may know, is her strong seeming tendency to source her knowledge of ancient history from modern authors in place of the ancient evidence directly. Her defense has been that the modern authors are trustworthy, which I also disagree with, but it is also irrelevant. We don't need to place trust in modern authors. The ancient evidence is most relevant, and the evidence does not need to be passed through many modern filters. Worse, the modern authors likewise tend to source from previous modern authors, and it is a game of telephone, with evolving messages such that the original cited evidence or claim is not the same as that presented by Acharya S to her readers.
User avatar
hjalti
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:28 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by hjalti »

Robert Tulip, I think most people dislike Acharya, not because she has different ideas, but because she spews so much crap (i.e. silly claims that she backs up by referencing dubious 19th century sources or modern crackpots).

But I wouldn't accuse her of being a liar and a fraud unless I had some good reason to. Like the saying goes: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." And you can replace "stupidity" with something more appropriate, "gullible and uncritical use of crappy sources" or something like that.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by beowulf »

Pipe down Torquemada

She might or might not sue, but she will not sentence you to be burned at the stake.
Have you not read that Bible scholarship is a “wankfest”.

Re: The Myth cist Position
by Peter Kirby » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 am

"Biblical scholarship is a wankfest in the first place. Nobody can test their hypotheses, there is very little data and little hope of getting more, everyone involved rolls their eyes at the first hint of math, the people running the show are vested to the hilt, and the best work being done is the social science and text criticism stuff that nobody really cares about. Do you really want to work to gain legitimacy with this crowd? (Maybe, if you really like the text criticism or social science aspects.) And I'll take a shot at something else here: there's at least one other department that looks very similar, and it's women's studies. How much luck do you think you got of convincing them that vaginas don't get paid 77% of what a penis gets because patriarchy?"

Lies are the fabric of all religions and the catholic lies are a nasty curse on mankind: the original sin, for starters
There are more obnoxious posters than Dr. Robert Tulip .
Post Reply