Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

[stephan happy huller]

So what you are arguing is that the gospel is not Egyptian but developed by a syncretic religion by whom? Where and when was this created and by whom?

[stephan happy huller]

Just more lies.

This is the cult-like quality of the community of this lady that most of us find baffling. Because someone says that her work is 'not excellent' - do you understand what 'excellent' even means and the standard that is required for something being deemed 'excellent' - if some so much as disagrees they are 'lying.' This is fucking absurd. I don't think her work is excellent. I don't think your arguments are substantive. Yes this is a subjective opinion. But those who disagree with your assessment of the worth of this nonsense (my subjective opinion and that of many others) are not 'liars,' or part of a conspiracy to blog the light of this truth from reaching people. I think it's a stupid belief. I think the bunch of you are mental cases. But that doesn't make me a 'liar.' That's my opinion. Just as your opinion about 'your leader' doesn't make you liars - you're just deluded (IMO).

[Maximos]

I already addressed your BS and I was specifically addressing your claim: "she's just repeating some nonsense from dubious 19th century sources or even modern Atlantean experts!"

Just more lies from and it ruins your own credibility on the subject as you have proven repeatedly that you are not any sort of reliable or trustworthy source of information on anything by Acharya S as you appear to know almost nothing about her work. It's obvious you've never studied her work and instead are more interested in some sort of smear campaign bludgeoning her to death with pseudo-skepticism of her first book from 1999, which she already announced she's writing a 2nd edition. You obviously have never read any of her other books.

I love how people whine and cry about 18th/19th century sources yet, never complain about the bibles and its sources that are much older than the 18th/19th century. It's blatant biases. Those 18th and 19th century sources were looking at the same primary sources. Sure, they made mistakes as one might expect but, they weren't always wrong either. In fact, modern scholarship has independently confirmed many of their claims previously thought wrong.

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

The claims of Atlantis and aliens are just more smears that have been addressed in her FAQ's:

Does Acharya subscribe to the ancient astronaut theory?

Scholars and others who've actually studied her work have appreciation for it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ms. Murdock is one of only a tiny number of scholars with the richly diverse academic background (and the necessary courage) to adequately address the question of whether Jesus Christ truly existed as a walking-talking figure in first-century Palestine."
—David Mills, Atheist Universe

"Thank you, Acharya, for the important work you are doing. Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ just might be the best short introduction to Biblical scholarship yet."
—David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate

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

"Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves—indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence."
—Barbara Walker, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets and Man Made God

"The Christ Conspiracy—very, very scholarly and wholly researched—is a book for today..."
-Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic Priest

[stephan happy huller]

I don't have an objection to the idea that Jesus didn't exist.

I don't have an objection to the idea that Roman cults influenced the way Christianity appeared in the third and fourth century.

I don't have an objection to bits and pieces of what she is saying.

[stephan happy huller]

I don't have an objection to the idea that Jesus didn't exist.

I don't have an objection to the idea that Roman cults influenced the way Christianity appeared in the third and fourth century.

I don't have an objection to bits and pieces of what she is saying.

But I am unconvinced that any of this helps us understand how Christianity developed in the very beginning. I don't believe she is letting the evidence speak for itself. She has a thesis and tries to make some of the evidence taken out of its original context fit the thesis.

[hjalti]

I haven't either read any of her books, and don't intend to, the stuff I found after a quick browse on google-books is enough. I mean Maximos, she's saying that the similarity between the Greek 'potamos' and the name of the Potomac river is evidence of a "global civilization". Her apparent source? A guy who wrote about Atlantis being in the Bermuda triangle.

[Roger Pearse]

So, there's just no reason for you to ever be posting in threads discussing her work because you know nothing about it.

So basically this is shake down to get people to reader her book. You can't discuss whether her outlandish claims about the origins of Christianity are true ... unless you've read her books....

Well said.

[hjalti]

LOL, your lies were exposed quite thoroughly by Robert Tulip.

I see. So you have no evidence I lied. You just don't like what I say. When you figure out how I've been dishonest please let me know.

Instead of all these personal attacks, "Maximos", why not address the concerns people here have? That this is nonsense?

Start with her claim that Mithras has 12 disciples, if you like. Which ancient source says so? Which modern scholar agrees? What evidence is there that the depiction of the zodiac "must" mean "disciples"?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I recall the ancient Roman historian Kerseus Gravus writing about it. That must be her source

[Roger Pearse]

I think there is a great deal of truth in this. But it's not a feature of biblical studies per se. It's a feature of any discipline in the humanities where the political establishment of a country or time has a definite collective view on the subject. We might call that a "politicised" subject. When the data base is static, and limited; where people have to grind out PhD's by screwing the last drops out of a topic already squeezed dry by a thousand previous books, articles and dissertations, and where expressing opinions unwelcome to the establishment may mean that you will not obtain your PhD, then a subject is in trouble.

I had a feeling this might be your response, Roger. Cheers.

(Obvious disclaimer: the disarray in a subject as practiced does not in itself "legitimize" anything or everything in that subject.)

Agreed.

I realise on rereading this, that it sounds like a justification of biblical studies. I had no such intention. I was rather intending to identify *why* I think the subject is in trouble. I am myself profoundly distrustful of what I find labelled as biblical scholarship, because too often it doesn't seem scholarly to me. While there is said to be some excellent scholarship on points of detail, whenever I look at the subject I find myself dealing with stuff that seems unscholarly to me. And I keep wondering why basic stuff - like creating a critical edition of the Armenian bible - has never been done, while there are millions of people involved in the discipline.

It was encountering rhetoric posing as scholarship of this kind at the age of 18-19 that convinced me that the humanities were just subjective rubbish. It was almost 20 years before I discovered what *real* scholarship was like, and took the path that has led me here today. Today I know that what I saw was simply bad scholarship. But there is such a thing as good scholarship!

[Roger Pearse]

I see we have some new people posting here. While some of the views expressed may be a bit bonkers, I'd like to say that I at least welcome the opportunity to see a new perspective, and to examine a few of these issues. Please be welcome.