Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

reply to post by kallisti36


i agree that acharya has some narrow vision on this topic, but i wouldn't discount everything she says. take the good parts and leave the rest.

have you ever read genesis without the added english words, in the original hebrew ? not a later hebrew translation, (which tends to take the english words and retranslate them back into hebrew) mind you, just the original words that were in the original hebrew. like this: dissect this verse any words that have a number after them, were in the original hebrew. any words without a number after them, were not in the original hebrew

Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.

that means the verse would read (in english) God created man image, image God created. male female created.

The original hebrew of that is:
Elohim bara 'adam tselem tselem Elohim bara zakar nĕqebah bara.

The text is saying adam was created male and female. some assumed this meant he was a hermaphrodite with both male and female parts. but that's not what it means. the real clue is in the first word in the sentence: ELOHIM, which is a plural word. It should read Gods

People have argued that Elohim is referring to a singular deity who is head of a divine council, but they believe that based on the english words around the other words, such as "he them" and "his own", which are NOT in the original hebrew. those additions were assumptions made, presumably by the english and latin translators.

what that means to me and you is, the nĕqebah (females) were fashioned/created, not in the image of a male god, but a female god (i mean, he him and his own are NOT in the original text)

how do i know this? easy: i did a strong's concordance search on the word "man" (which shouldn't be in the verses listed, as it was actually 'adam. tricky buggers)
www.blueletterbible.org...

most people who study scripture, assume alot of stuff. you can tell just by that verse alone, how many things are assumed.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


GoldenKnight, I'm curious: Do you know Acharya? Do you have any spiritual beliefs?

You joined ATS yesterday and only seem to be posting in this particular OP so far--unless I'm mistaken. So I'm just trying to get some context on your own ability or inclination to be openminded.

It also seems to me that one wouldn't have had to read her books to address her scattergun assertions in Zeitgeist.

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

I'm focusing on the claims of hers that I know are false, like her cruciform nonsense and virgin birth apples to oranges claims.

LOL, you have been wrong every step of the way.

Cruciforms/Gods on Crosses
www.freethoughtnation.com...

The Virgin Birth
www.freethoughtnation.com...

The Twelve in the Bible and Ancient Mythology
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Dying and Rising Gods
www.freethoughtnation.com...

And, I'm STILL waiting to hear which books of Acharya's you've actually read. Why do you repeatedly DODGE that question? Just admit that you've never read a single book of hers.

Ok
1. None of those gods are on crosses. Outstretched arms does not imply crucifixion. I don't understand what this hangup is over supposedly crucified gods. Crucifixion was a Roman practice, it existed, alot of people were crucified and if Ya'hshuah existed, he was one of them. All in all, it is merely a symbol. There is nothing metaphysical about crucifixion. It's Ya'hshuah shedding his blood for the sins of the world without being dismembered or having a bone broken (as foretold in Messianic prophecy). The cross is just the mode by which he was executed. The fascination with the cross comes from the observation that the world was redeemed from a torture device and the excruciating pain that Ya'hshuah endured to save us. Beyond imagery, there are no similarities, and the similarities are pretty weak (outstretched arms seems to be the best you can provide).

2.Krishna was not born of a virgin, nor Horus (Isis wasn't a virgin), or Buddha. Dionysus's mother had sex with Zeuss, so he was born of a god, but it wasn't a virgin birth

3. The tribes of Israel were established centuries before the Zodiac

4. Osiris was never raised back to life, instead taking up abode in the realm of the dead. As for Tammuz: "Dumuzi according to the Sumerian mythographers rises from the dead annually and, after staying on earth for half the year, descends to the Nether World for the other half" In contrast with Ya'hshuah who died, resurrected and conquered death, Tammuz/Dumuzi was still subject to death. Not the same in the least.

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by GoldenKnight

 

GoldenKnight, I'm curious: Do you know Acharya? Do you have any spiritual beliefs?

You joined ATS yesterday and only seem to be posting in this particular OP so far--unless I'm mistaken. So I'm just trying to get some context on your own ability or inclination to be openminded.

It also seems to me that one wouldn't have had to read her books to address her scattergun assertions in Zeitgeist.

Thanks for asking. I was saved and then later baptized in evangelical Christianity for most of my life (since probably before many here were born). I have read Acharya's work since it first came out in 99. I was originally against it - same as so many here who claim she's wrong or that Zeitgeist is wrong. So, to prove it wrong I began to actually read it (which I didn't do previously - same as so many other anti-Zeitgeist and anti-Acharya fanatics across the net). And here I am 11 years later. I have also seen all the trash from Keith "truth" and his cult of xian extremists before and I'm frankly, fed-up with all the smears and malicious attacks against her and her work.

It also seems to me that one wouldn't have had to read her books to address her scattergun assertions in Zeitgeist.

That type of comment just sounds like your looking for a justification to rationalize intellectual dishonesty. If you're too lazy to actually read the material then, you aren't really interested in the facts and evidence. And if people refuse to study the work then, they simply aren't qualified to make any claims about it.

"Acharya S/Murdock currently has five books to date with over 2,100 pages of text, including over 5,700 footnotes/citations to primary sources and the works of highly credentialed and respected authorities in relevant fields of study from a wide variety of backgrounds, including many Christian scholars, adding up to over 1,600 bibliographical sources. Her books also contain over 300 illustrations.

Christ in Egypt is nearly 600 pages and contains almost 2,400 footnote/citations to primary sources and expert commentary on them from a wide variety of backgrounds & expertise from over 900 bibliographical references to scholarly journals, books, articles etc and 60+ images and a map."

reply to post by undo


Elohim being plural in Genesis is subject to debate. It is singular or supposedly singular in Genesis and plural when referring to pagan deities. It depends on context, for example "That is a nice woman" is singular whereas "Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn" is referring to all women. Also, Elohim can refer to anything from God, to supernatural entities, like Samuel's ghost. So when Elohim says let us make man in our image, he could very likely be referring to his angels who would also be referred to as Elohim.

Addendum: This also may have been Abba referring to the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
Thought I would throw that theory in as well.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


Acharya's Tiamat theory, please?
i'm being completely serious here. what does she think tiamat is?

reply to post by kallisti36



i just proved to you that the reason scholars say he was singular ruling over a divine council (in the creation of humakind) is because of the english words that were added. who knows, they may been added in the latin and the english translators were just copying the latin. but regardless, the original hebrew, did not say he him or his own.

you're missing alot if you don't really delve into the original hebrew, not the retranslated hebrew, not the english translation and not the latin translation.

p.s. i'm a fan of michael heiser's work as well. but i also know he holds the belief that Elohim is a plural word used in a sense of the royal "we", referring to a singular entity over a divine council, because of the other english words, added to the text. without those, there's no surrounding supporting text in those passages that hold up the singular male deity (in the creation of humankind verses).

reply to post by undo


I've actually been looking into the Chronicle Project, which is a totally literal translation from Hebrew text. Useful information, if a bit hard to read.

reply to post by kallisti36


you can do it yourself (and i would highly suggest you do) here:
www.blueletterbible.org.../1

if there's a number after the word, it was in the original hebrew text. if you want to know what the original hebrew word was for that word, click the little number after the word in question, and it gives you every possible word that may have meant in hebrew, its hebrew prounuciation and the root words from which it came.

reply to post by undo


Thank you! This will be perfect for understanding Biblical prophecy. I'm going to Daniel!

reply to post by kallisti36

Theosis is also, very different from Buddhist Nirvana and Oneness with Brahman because it does not entail an "ego-death" or an end of the self.

So you say. But, of course, saying it doesn't make it true. Quoting how later Christian Theologians decided to interpret already heavily edited and conveniently selected Scriptures in order to suit the agenda of the Catholic Church is pretty meaningless.

There are many many Scriptures which indicate a required 'ego death' for Christians in very similar manner to that described in various schools of Buddhism and Advaita. Do you want me to quote some of them?

But then again, what is the point? If I demonstrate that an alternative interpretation to the orthodox Christian one is possible, or even likely, you'll just dismiss it in defence of your present belief system.

Its also worth remembering that this concept is also present in Jewish mysticism.

reply to post by kallisti36


yes it's very interesting for prophecy, particularly as you start looking for the origin of the words used in the verses and find their equivalents in verses outside of prophecy. it's a real page turner.

kallisti36,

LOL, thank you for demonstrating the level of dishonesty and ignorance on these issues.

1. None of those gods are on crosses. Outstretched arms does not imply crucifixion....

Your #1 here exemplifies a severe disconnect. You set up an endless straw man argument every time you try to argue against the Jesus/Pagan gods parallels like the way you have here. If you actually read Acharya's work you wouldn't have that issue.

You assume that just because those gods aren't actually on a cross in precisely the same way as described in the bible with Jesus that you can do your typical hand-waving dismissal. It displays your own biases and prejudice clear as glass. What you don't understand or seem to even be interested in understanding is that these are the original *CONCEPTS* that evolved over time and eventually landed in the bible. The Pagan parallels do not even need to be exact - that is simply setting up an impossible standard for a claim that nobody is making in the first place - IT'S THE CONCEPTS THAT MATTER.

There is nothing metaphysical about crucifixion.

Yeah, originally it most certainly was. But, since you've never studied the subject you wouldn't know anything about that.

"The Pyramid Texts speak of "the great virgin" (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)" ... "In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: "I am the great virgin" "The Egyptian goddess who was equally ‘the Great Virgin’ (hwnt) and ‘Mother of the God’ was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus]." - Dr. Witt, an Egyptologist - Christ in Egypt, page 152

* The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old.

"Osiris is doubly resurrected as his son Horus, too, and he, too, is eventually raised from the dead by Isis. He is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern. As such, he seems to represent the common Platonic astronomical symbol of the sun s path crossing the earths ecliptic...." - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

"The cross & the crucifix are very ancient symbols found around the world LONG PRIOR to the advent of the Christian savior. In the gospel story Jesus tells his disciples to 'take up the cross' & follow him. Obviously, the cross already existed and was a well-known symbol, such that Jesus did not even have to explain this strange statement about an object that, we are led to believe, only gained significance AFTER Jesus died on it." - Christ Conspiracy pg 218

"The Babylonians, Egyptians, Aztecs & others had cross symbols. However, there is no cross in Christianity. No cross at all! There is no cross anywhere in the bible. The words which have been translated "cross" & "crucify" in the New Testament are "stauross" or "stavross" & "stavrooh". All translators, even fundamentalists, agree that a they are *NOT* a cross. Liddell & Scotts A Greek-English Lexicon defines "stauross" or "stavross" as "upright pale or stake". W.E. Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament words, another Christian resource, reports that "stauross" or "stavross" - "denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake". Herbert Cutner: "Jesus: God, Man or Myth" 1950, reports that scholars have been aware of the error but have been unable to resist the traditional mistranslation. In the 18th century, some Anglican bishops recommended eliminating the cross symbol altogether but were ignored. There is no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the 5th century, where it appears on a coin in a painting. The first clear crucifixion appears in the late 7th century. Before then, Jesus was almost always depicted as a fish or a Shepard, never on a cross. Any bible that contains the word "cross" or "crucify" in dishonest. Christians who flaunt the cross are not only unwittingly advertising a pagan religion, but also breaking the 2nd Commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image..." Scholars realize that this anachronistic phrase is historical nonsense. It couldn't have had any meaning to the disciples before the cruci-fiction." - "Losing faith in faith" pg 203-4

Matthew 16:24 KJV "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Mark 8:34 RSV "And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

2.Krishna was not born of a virgin, nor Horus (Isis wasn't a virgin), or Buddha. Dionysus's mother had sex with Zeuss, so he was born of a god, but it wasn't a virgin birth

Scholars who actually know what they're talking about disagree with you. We've gone over this one like 10 times now. You obviously have no interest in being honest here.

www.freethoughtnation.com...

3. The tribes of Israel were established centuries before the Zodiac

Wrong again:

Age of the Zodiac

"The zodiac is mentioned in the Bible at Job 38:32, where the author refers to the "Mazzaroth." The Book of Job is traditionally placed in an early setting, as the RSV says, from the patriarchal period, preceding the founding of Israel. Job is believed to have been an adult when Moses was allegedly born, which would mean that Job's adventures and story, with its discussion of the Mazzaroth/12 signs, preceded Moses and the gathering together of 12 tribes. Skeptical historians question whether or not the OT history of Moses and others truly occurred at any point, much less the 13th century, and much of the Bible appears to have been written only as early as after the Babylonian Captivity. If we were to subscribe to the Bible as history, however, we would have to accept that the Zodiac was known to the Hebrews before Moses created Israel with its 12 tribes, which many - including Philo and Josephus - have identified with the 12 zodiacal signs. There is much more to the history of the zodiac, including the Karanovo Zodiac, which dates to around 6,000 years ago. In The Astronomy of the Bible, Christian royal astronomer Walter Maunder dates the emergence of the zodiac as we know it to some 5,000 years ago. The Indians have their own history of the zodiac, dating back thousands of years as well." freethoughtnation.com...

National Geographic's "Ancient Astronomers" discusses the 16,000 year old cave painting/mural depicting the zodiac at Lascaux in Southern France with archaeoastronomer, Chantal Jegues-Wolkiewiez. www.freethoughtnation.com...

4. Osiris was never raised back to life, instead taking up abode in the realm of the dead. As for Tammuz: "Dumuzi according to the Sumerian mythographers rises from the dead annually and, after staying on earth for half the year, descends to the Nether World for the other half" In contrast with Ya'hshuah who died, resurrected and conquered death, Tammuz/Dumuzi was still subject to death. Not the same in the least.

I've shared this one several times too. Again, you have no intention of being honest here.

"Osiris is doubly resurrected as his son Horus, too, and he, too, is eventually raised from the dead by Isis. He is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern. As such, he seems to represent the common Platonic astronomical symbol of the sun s path crossing the earths ecliptic...." - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

Here's a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus.

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by kallisti36

 

Theosis is also, very different from Buddhist Nirvana and Oneness with Brahman because it does not entail an "ego-death" or an end of the self.

So you say. But, of course, saying it doesn't make it true. Quoting how later Christian Theologians decided to interpret already heavily edited and conveniently selected Scriptures in order to suit the agenda of the Catholic Church is pretty meaningless.

There are many many Scriptures which indicate a required 'ego death' for Christians in very similar manner to that described in various schools of Buddhism and Advaita. Do you want me to quote some of them?

But then again, what is the point? If I demonstrate that an alternative interpretation to the orthodox Christian one is possible, or even likely, you'll just dismiss it in defence of your present belief system.

Its also worth remembering that this concept is also present in Jewish mysticism.

I don't care about Kaballah, it post-dates the Tanakh and Ya'hshuah and Orthodox Jews view it as heretical.

Ya'hshuah speaks of the resurrection and the Kingdom of Heaven, neither of which are understood to be similar to the nothingness and/or oneness of Nirvana and similar philosophies. What you are doing is applying Eastern thought (where there was no such concept to begin with) to convenient phrasing, which is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm tired of historical revisionists divorcing religious figures from their followers and asserting that they know more about a religion than it's adherents do.

my way out there theory is that because genesis was written by Moses, and because moses was raised as an egyptian, that what we see in the first creation of adam verses, is the egyptian version of the creation of the adam (a race), who were created / cloned, in the images of the Atum (plural race of gods, both male and female). oddly enough, even the egyptians came to refer to Atum as singular. i don't think so. i wonder when the teaching of singular Atum came into their text.

anyway, my wacky theory is that the atum were a race, created before the eve, mentioned later, and that in reality, the first creation was the atum (males and females cloned in the images of the gods) and the later eve, who was a cloned, modified female atum, given the ability to procreate, which is the fall narrative. part of the fall narrative outlines why there had to be yet another modification to cloned, procreating eves and cloned, procreating atums, so that the new procreators wouldn't live forever and over run the universe after a few thousand years. thus the text that says, (paraphrasing) Crap! they are making copies of themselves! we gotta make another modification to their dna. (read the section of our dna that apparently made it so our bodies were eternally regenerating all parts, or something like that, anyway)

the tree of life metaphor is ALL OVER the ancient world.
the caduceus, double helix or single helix serpents twined around a staff.
moses raises a serpent twined around a staff to heal the people.
jesus is likened to moses raising the twined serpent on the staff, as he is lifted on the cross.
it's all about healing and living forever. et. al, the tree of ilfe in our dna (double helix)

reply to post by GoldenKnight


Thanks for replying. You seem much more human now. I have been reading much of her online stuff and have been to many of the links you post from the same pro-Acharya website.

It's just that as far as I can see, when she's not blatantly wrong she is forcing information to fit her hypothesis. You do realize that the majority of scholars in her disciplines don't give her theory the weight of agreement don't you? It also appears, if I'm not mistaken, that she's self-published as far as her books are concerned.

None of the above is conclusive in and of itself, but from what I'm reading it's a loooooong stretch where it's not intentionally misleading. And: She tries to distance herself from the new age but I'm telling you I KNOW my former peeps when I see 'em. Word.

Oh, and btw: That which you once believed to be true is waiting for you with open and very tender arms. It's difficult to soften a self-hardened heart, I well know from experience, but it's not impossible. Good luck. I know it will probably tick you off, but I'm praying for you with a sincere and loving heart. Peace.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


This is the problem I have with the insular mindset of Acharya S fanatics. She revises history and attacks common sensibilities to make her point. Stauros: In Koine Greek, the form of Greek used between about 300 BC. and AD 300, the word σταυρός was already used to refer to a cross. It was used[4] to refer to the instrument of execution by crucifixion, which at that time involved binding the victim with outstretched arms to a crossbeam, or nailing him firmly to it through the wrists; the crossbeam was then raised against an upright shaft and made fast to it about 3 metres from the ground, and the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft.

Outstretched arms mean nothing. Crucifixion existed and it was pioneered by Romans long after all of these gods were depicted with outstretched arms. The only point of contention is over by what method was Ya'hshuah crucified. Stauros implies crucifixion, but does not imply what method, which could have been a torture stake (as in JW tradition), an X, a T, or the crossbeam.

While the view that Jesus died on a stake has thus been advanced by writers of the 19th and 20th century, 2nd-century writers, such as Justin Martyr[12] and Irenaeus,[13] speak of him only as dying on a two-beam cross. In the same century, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas and Clement of Alexandria saw a two-beam shape of the cross of Jesus as foreshadowed in the Greek numerals corresponding to the present-day Arabic numerals 318, a figure mentioned in Genesis 14:14; and the first of these,[14] as well as Justin Martyr, saw the same shape prefigured in Moses keeping his arms stretched out in prayer in the battle against Amalek.[15] At the end of the same century, Tertullian speaks of Christians as accustomed to mark themselves repeatedly with the sign of the cross,[16] and the phrase "the Lord's sign" (τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον) was used with reference to a cross composed of an upright and a crossbeam.[17] Crosses of † or Τ shape were in use, even in Palestine, at the time of Jesus.[18] While at that time the word "σταυρός" could mean either a stake or a cross, these writers, who lived within a century or so of the death of Jesus, all believed that in his case it referred to a cross, not a stake.

She ignores thousands of years of history to capitalize on an ambiguous word. It's dishonest and it divorces Christian beliefs and understanding from the scripture. It's dishonest and stupid.

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by GoldenKnight

 

Thanks for replying. You seem much more human now. I have been reading much of her online stuff and have been to many of the links you post from the same pro-Acharya website.

It's just that as far as I can see, when she's not blatantly wrong she is forcing information to fit her hypothesis. You do realize that the majority of scholars in her disciplines don't give her theory the weight of agreement don't you? It also appears, if I'm not mistaken, that she's self-published as far as her books are concerned.

None of the above is conclusive in and of itself, but from what I'm reading it's a loooooong stretch where it's not intentionally misleading. And: She tries to distance herself from the new age but I'm telling you I KNOW my former peeps when I see 'em. Word.

Oh, and btw: That which you once believed to be true is waiting for you with open and very tender arms. It's difficult to soften a self-hardened heart, I well know from experience, but it's not impossible. Good luck. I know it will probably tick you off, but I'm praying for you with a sincere and loving heart. Peace.

reply to post by The GUT


From her FAQ's:

Is Acharya a "New Ager" and part of the “New Age Movement”?
www.freethoughtnation.com...

apollo is in the book of revelation, chapter 9. he's apollyon, otherwise known as abaddon.
the entities that come of the abyss (bottomless pit), are:

tail of a scorpion: scorpio
teeth of a lion: Leo
hair like a woman: virgo

virgo the virgin is in revelation 12. so is draco the dragon (northern circumpolar constellation)

all these astronomical references are not saying the meaning is exclusively astronomical, nor is it saying the meaning is about astrology.

what it is is a calendar, about the timeframe the other events mentioned are going to happen, using the precession of the equinoxes as the framework for the calendar.

see this guy's work (you might want to watch the entire series)