Mrian now it's your turn.  You claim you've been studying this subject for 24 years (as old as I am) and that you are certain that Moses and Jesus are midrash from Krishna in the Vitas.  Here are my questions again: 

1.) What evidence do you have of Jewish settlements in India?  What archaeological finds have been presented for this fact?  Example:  We have inscriptions and dedications in stone and marble and granite in Alexandria, Rome, Syria, and Cyrenaica.  Alexandria has the highest concentration of evidence of Jewish life.  Outside the Ancient Near East, we have found settlements in Italy, Greece and that is it.  Please consult J.M.G. Barclay's, Jew's in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (1996).  

2.) Evidence at one of these other Jewish locations, especially Alexandria where papyrus was found and made in great numbers (hence why we have so many manuscripts from Egypt), where the Vitas have been found.

3.) Please show some level of sociological assimilation or acculturalization where the Jews have lost some of their cultural distinctiveness to the Hindu religion, or the following of Hindu religious practices, such that we see with Orpheus and Orphic traditions (i.e. Poems written in Hebrew to Orpheus, or mosaics in Jewish synagogues of Orpheus - we should see poems or literature written of Krishna in Hebrew, or some sort of art or grafitti in Jewish living areas dedicated to Krishna)

4.) Evidence of earlier usage of Vitas before the Gospels, or Paul, where Jews have bveen accustomed to such things.

5.) Similarity in languages must be established.  Is there evidence that Jews even would understand the Vitas if they read them, or would have been in a position to transliterate the language into Hebrew or Greek in a manner which would allow one to show a common link between the Vitas and the Gospels in the original langauges (not the english summerizations).    

 

If you cannot show any of these, there is no way for you to establish a connection between Krishna and Jesus/Moses.  All you have are pretty irrational speculations based on your desire to show something - and nothing that would ever be taken seriously, and it shouldn't.  Historical research is done on a scientific level, especially on observation and induction.  Such a claim, as you are making, would require a very large amount of archaeological and sociological data of which I know you have none.

In fact we have the opposite.  Of the many non-biblical Jewish writers we know of, none discuss or refer to any Hindu god, nor do they refer to dealing with Hindus, or having ever read the Vitas.  We have a large, and a very loud, argument from silence on your part.  

Also, on the idea of Plato, once more, we have evidence from Diogenes Laertius, a historian of good calibre from the period, who wrote, "And she became the mother of Plato by her husband Ariston, Plato being the sixth in descent from Solon."  (Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, III.I)  Plato was not a virgin-birth either.  Nor was he considered to be the son of God.  I grow very tired of having to keep making you both look bad, but this Acharaya S fanboy thing has to stop.  You have to read other books...apparently you both haven;t, and are just making things up as you go along, or are both too intellectually lazy to adequately do the research yourselves, and are just depending on her to do the work for you - which she won't, because once again, she is sloppy.

BTW, just what are your creditials as an ancient text expert?

You obviously do not know what midrashes are, because if you did, you'd understand this by now.  I told you once again what is was, gave you two more examples of midrashes AND explained why you don't see Krishna's name in Hebrew writings.  You do see a form of it in the Greek writings though, thus why we had Christos and Christ.I even told you that in Flood's book Aryans traveled to the Indus (it was not called India in BCE) from the Middle East.  Now IF you were reading anything I said, which I don't think you are and you knew your map, you'd know Israel is part of the Middle East.Also if you read in Moses (Exodus to be exact), people were visiting them from the far corners of the earth and the Pharaoh was sending people out to visit them.  They were no as isolated as you want to believe.You also dodge the question:  What are your creditials for being an ancient text expert?

How dare you misquote me!  Make this the property of RRS:

I did NOT claim anything about or say anything about Caesar, not did I claim anything about Plato.  All I said was that the Plato story maybe worth researching.  THAT is not a claim.Secondly, the midrash statement were MY own words, NOT Acharya's and came from my own studies in the college course I am taking using my own brain.  Not only that, I also asked Bob about it.  IF you really did know him, you would know about his podcast and would have heard about it and his agreeing that they ARE midrashes.  However, get this straight:  what I said was NOT Acharya's words and I take insult not only for myself, but for Acharya too.  IF I had been quoting Acharya, I would have used a quote and page number or at the vary least I would have said I was paraphrasing.  You make really make for poor scholarship yourself, you know.I do not get ALL my information from Acharya's work, which I stated quite clearly.  That was yet another misquote.Your knowledge of mythology is hardly college level.  If anything is a product of Fundamentalism and a young man rebelling against in the same, but very opposite extreme of it.You also make for very poor reporting skills.  I would not want you to interview me or anyone else.BTW, I am not a fanboy.  I happen to be female and probably close to Acharya's age or a little older.  Thank you very much.  I'm old enough to be your mother for that matter and IF I were your mother, I would be disappointed with your lack of knowledge of the various myths and alike.  I would not care if you were 24 or not, I'd still give you a shake down for stating such bogus crap if I were your mother!  Oh wait, I just did and I'm not even your mother.I think the one who needs to get their facts straight is you, Rook, because obviously people who have enough brains to read things right on this board, would know I made no claims and did not quote Acharya, but rather used my own thoughts, words, experiences, and knowledge.

 

Well said, and thorough as always comment from Rook.

I would agree with most of what Rook says, but as far as respecting her as a person...who knows?

I have no idea who she really is.

Reread that.  I said Acharya never did Westar.  Look up Westar.  They have the Jesus Seminar.  I did not even say Spong, Armstrong, or Funk were mythicists.  I said I prefer them and they do talk about myths.  Even Spong says the stories in the OT and NT are midrashes of previous mythical stories.

Jiggs, the similar mythical stories are not entirely unknown to those "Fellows" at Westar though and they have studied them or at least know of them.  In FACT, Karen Armstrong has a short book called "A Short History of Myth".  So, your statement that there are no mythicists, is not quite true.  I don't think one has to be an expert on myth to know which previous stories relate to those in the Bible.  Even Spong has studied some myths and referenced to some of the various myths occassionally in his books.  So, these stories are not unknown to them.We also don't know how many myths they, esp Armstrong, have studied.  Also, Bob Price even says there is no historical Jesus or if there ever was, he is too buried in myth to find him.  These scholars at Westar know there is very little history in the Bible and a lot, like Spong, Borg, Price, and more have called it myth.  All you have to do is read one of their books and you will find them calling the stories in the Bible myth, more than once- and that is in a single book.

I simply wanted to comment on the fact that in over a week, NOBODY here at RRS has had the integrity to point out the dishonesty of Rook's blog on Achayra - "Problems with Acharya S: A Review of some Claims".

Rook hasn't studied any of Acharya's work especially "Suns of God" which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy". Which makes his very own blog on Achayra, in Rook's own words, "poor and sloppy scholarship". And it appears that nobody else here has read her work either. Therefore, they're not qualified to make commentary on it.

I just think it's sad and a monumental embarrassment to all of RRS the way Acharya has been smeared here in order to exclude a fellow Jesus Mythicist. Thanks for the stab in the back to a fellow Jesus myther. In this case, Rook is no better than GakuseiDon.

Rook has also spread his trashy smear campaign against Acharya on a blog at his myspace too.

No wonder Freethinkers can't seem to organize together, with "friends" like this, who needs enemies. Rooks charges are dishonest, fallacious and libelous. Because of his smear campaign against Acharya by Rook, I will give absolutely no support to the RRS in any way, whatsoever. I cannot support something so dishonest. An apology to Achayra is in order.

You're not exactly open-minded either.  I tell you things that isn't Acharya's stuff, but since there is some similarity you reject, sources and all which happen to be text books (ie Krishna).  Then you go stomping off and stating things that aren't quite right either on your blogs.  Something about that makes no sense.

In your opinion.  You didn't even bother to read anything I suggested to know if I did or not.  IF you read you might know more.

OK all arguments aside, how do you explain the similarities in Creation, First people, and flood stories of the Native Americans?  The trickster stories similar to the snake in Adam and Eve in some of those stories?  The sign for the 4 winds/directions is the cross in the N.A. culture.  The list goes on and on.  The first contact with each other that originated these stories before we, as humans, adapted them to our culture, might not have started in Egypt or India.  It could have been much earlier.Early humans were tribal in nature and travelled as a "tribe".  This is documented in the O.T., so I'm not saying anything new.  Early man explained the unexplainable supernaturally, because they were not as scientifically advanced as we are.  So, the idea of a deity is a human concept- no matter the people.  Common threads of ancient myths are solar/lunar deities.  Some tricksters were evil in nature even.If you need links to some of these N.A. myths, I'll gladly provide some, but my point is, until you understand ancient tribal cultures, you won't understand the common threads in all the more modern myths.  You can accuse me of B.S. all you want, but I truly believe until you understand these stories of ancient man, you won't get today's myths.

I still say if you read prior myths, you will find this is nothing but rewritten literature for the particular culture- in this case Christianity.  There was no historical Jesus or if there ever was, he is buried in myth.  The resurrection is nothing but rewritten mythology.  Horus and Osiris are good examples.  (BTW, I am a literary scholar and I appreciate the stories in the Bible as literature.)This is not proof of anything except that they have not done their research or prefer to think the devil got there first, which is nothing more than myth used to bury the fact that Christianity is the same sort of myth.There is no more historical value to the Christ myth than there is John Jakes North and South.Actually, Mark was written before Luke, but I will agree they were written before Acts, but this still does not prove it is not literature.  Also, the Gospels were written to the Hebrew Litergical Calendar.  The crucifixion of Christ is just literature written for Passover.  The witnesses are not qualified for anything except being able to rewrite and add to each other's stories.  Paul was never an eyewitness as he states in one of the books attributed to him.  Also, if you look closely, both Matthew and Luke say the geneologies are that of Joseph, but they are both different.I can continue, but basically this is nothing more than apologetics, as stated, to refute what others have said.  I suggest the person who wrote this, needs to read John Shelby Spong's works as well as Robert Price, Karen Armstrong, Morcus Borg, Don Cupitt, and dare I say, Acharya S.'s work too, among others.  I'd throw in Funk and Hoffmann too.

Walk Like an Egyptian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing Osiris, Horus, and Jesus
James Patrick Holding

Do not copy and paste

All those myths are quite applicable to Jesus.  The story does not have to be word for word the same, for each story was adapted to the culture and it's setting.  That's the simple response, but I don't really care if you believe it or not, just remember it is not possible for a body to resurrect, unless it is not dead to begin with.  There have been many stories of people thought dead and then "came back to life".Next question:

I do not accept the historicity of others.  They are all stories (myths) just as the Jesus myth is.  BTW, did you look into the Mithra and Joshua cults while you were at it?  They also had influence from Roman too (Mithra) and Joshua (Hebrew cult) is another translation (Hebrew, if I recall) of Jesus.

You must remember Rome was in a struggle for control.  Many people were killed in the first century- even Christian Gnostics- clear up to and after Nicene.

You must be a Christian since you want to believe it is history so badly.  Rome knew it was a myth, but what better way to control people, but through religion?  It was a mind control game as well as a battle over religion.  Many people died for other myths too.  Why would people die in the name of Allah?  It simply is something that has been drilled into people over the years, that they now believe it.  It was believe or die.  The fear was so great, the knowledge of it being a myth was buried.  If you believe the story, then, IMO, you believe in a god, because that is what the story is about- a supernatural being, in which people were forced to believe in order for Rome to have control over the masses.  Nothing more.  Same with Allah.

We would have those records if those who were forced into silence were not made to recant and convert, or were killed because they didn't recant and convert.  The great library of Alexandria was destroyed and most of the evidence went with it.  Some of the evidence is concealled some where, some say under the Vatican.  However, we are finding some past evidence that something was wrong around that time- ie scrolls hidden in caves.

They tried and were killed or threatened death.  The fear won out and people stopped talking.  The silence is what helped to bury all of it.

Obviously a Christian because of all this denial.  Anyway...  Jesus fits because a midrash doesn't follow word for word with just people and places changed.  Some myths are mixed into it also.  They overlap and form a new story, with the writer adding his own touch here and there.  Mark wrote first, but it wasn't good enough for Luke, so he added a pagan virgin birth story, which were very popular stories around that time and makes for a nice play.  Also, we don't know when the character was actually born.  The story does not give us that.  It could have been June for all we know, but earlier converts, such as Constentine, wanted to keep some of their pagan practices and how better to get pagans to convert is you allow them to keep some of their rituals.  December 25 was the Winter Solstice or Yule.  Remember the Yule log?  It came from the pagan practice of burning a Yule log all night long night before.  The Christmas tree is also pagan.  Easter is a pagan holiday also.  It goes on and on.  There are many books on this, even Karen Armstrong's books.  She even has a book called the Short History of Myth.

I have spent years reading up on this subject- a good 20 years or better.  It's not just a knee jerk reaction.  I would advice you to do more research into this.  IMHO, if I am forced to believe this myth, I might as well believe in an anthropomorphic Zeus-like deity.  I don't, but if you insist I believe it, then OK I'll start saying my prayers to the invisible man in the sky, because to believe the Christ myth as true and not a story, is the same as believing in God.

u say u do not accept the historicity of others. so don't u believe that manetho, josephus, alexander the great, or nero existed? if not, i respect ur right to stick to whatever criteria u use, if u have any.

but if u do accept the historicity of these persons, i merely ask, based on what do u accept their historicity, and how does that compare to jesus?

i can make replies to all sorts of arguments u raise against why u don't find the gospel story believable; but it seems to me that these objections look more like excuses to escape the question of what determins historical truth from fiction, rather than genuine answers to my questions.

all i want from u is one example; unless u take the extreme view that we cannot know for sure if anyone in antiquity really existed. to take such an extreme view seems more of an admission that jesus did exist than an argument against him.

do have a nice day.

really? there exists a script for the actual invention of clark kent, official documents stating that its a movie, an invention of the imagination, a cartoon; documentaries on how the actor played the role. long from now, superman will leave behind much evidence that he was nothing more than a myth to his inventors, but how does jesus compare? 1) was he ever copyrightes? 2) was anybody from antiquity interviewed about how they came up with jesus? 3) who took the credid for the christ myth, and who ever claimed that he was a myth before modern times?

many today say that santa claus is not real, just as they do superman! also, 4) there is no religion of people willing to die in the name of clark kent; for who would give their lives for something they know to be a lie? 5) many books exist saying that superman/clark kent is just a piece of novel writing; where did anyone in ancient times say that of jesus? josephus even disputes that manetho mentions a fictitious character is his line of egyptian kings, are there any examples of anyone from such times doubting that jesus was real?

as for hercules, 1) the bible clearly distinguishes its record from myths/fables 2 pet 1:16-18, even sayng that they were eyewitnesses. do any writers of antiquity claim to have been an eyewitness to hercules? 2) jonra of hercules' stories match Lk 1:1-5? 3) who are known to have been hercules' followers? where are they now to testify to the origins of their religion? did anyone die for him? 4) there are thousands of mss and fragment of the bible, handwritten, preserved by meticuous copyists, how many do u have for hercules? 5) are the mss of hercules written as close to the time of the pesumed events as the bible mss? 6) did the writers of the hercules' account admit their mistakes, record their own gross shortcomings, how they were reproved, etc, showing thier honesty, that they were honest? no, what i said of jesus cannot be said of hercules!

i know of no evidence that many people were ever deceived into believing that hecules was real nad started to follow him; if jesus is a myth, how did the first group of christians become decieved into believing in him when so many witnesses were around to say 'No! Nobody ever did such things in our city!' Over and over, the gospel repudiate the idea that it was a myth, so how did it get to be this way?

 

running again?

why is it that u go all round about to avoid giving me one example that fits ur criteria of a historical person?

i named king alexander the great, josephus, etc, but u refuse to tell me if these men really existed and why u do or don't believe that they did. why? could it be that to answer that question would actually prove the existence of jesus?

1) if these men did exist [manetho, thucidides, nero, trajan, pliny, josephus, aristole], then so does jesus, for the evidence of their existence is no more than his.

2) if u argue that they did not exist, then u have to go to such an extreme in order to deny jesus existence, that it actually proves his existence. for it leaves us without any criteria for establishing historical truth fro fiction.

3) in other words, what is a historical person? if u have no criteria, then ur saying that u can accept the existence of manetho no matter how little the evidence is in support of his historicity, and reject the existence of others no matter how much proof their is of their reality! how infair and unrealistic! were that attutude taken into legal affairs in court, on what life would be for those seeking justice in the legal system! it seems like u would reject all of history just to prove that one man did not exist!

this dialog between me and u is like u trying to prove to a man that u are a female; and after showing all ur evidence he still doesn't believe, so u ask him, 'well, what evidence do u want? how do u tell a female when u see one?' and he goes all around the bush giving reasons why ur proof doen't convince him - u could have fabricated this, and lied about that, etc; but if he provides no criteria for establishing his view, what would u think? please mriana [i love that name, mriana] stop beating aabout the bush, and either give me ur 1) criteria 2) an example) 3) a comprison to jesus, or 4) admit that u have no criteria, and r just going by what ur gut tells u at the time.

true or not Jesus exists as a belief in millions of peoples hearts and minds and as such is now part of the animistic resonance. Jesus is a technique to forgive oneself and love again. Hence if u believe it you are saved and it worked for you. If you dont then its your own problem to find your own way to love. If you can love anyway then you dont need it. If we love we are all together. If you don't or can't love then you are seperate and alone. Heaven and hell.

The Universe is a word and god is a word. Call it what u like its just semantic differences. No one knows what it is but it is where you are and where u were created. Do you at least believe that? do you believe in your own consciousness? God/universe made man/woman and man made religion. Its all made up. Its all techniques... Love is all you need cause life is empty and pointless without it.

Bless you all

 

 

 

 

LOL...it doesn't matter! Jesus is a PURELY concocted god and you cannot deny there are at least some similarities between Jesus and many other gods BEFORE him.

What Christians like you just don't understand is Jesus is simply Palestinian mythology just like you have Egyptian mythology, Sumerian mythology, Greek mythology, etc. There is absolutely no more historical corroboration of Jesus than any other god! No eyewitness accounts or even contemporary accounts! All references to Jesus are simply theology in a book! It's why your mythical Jesus never comes back because he was never here to begin with! No rational person could  possibly believe any being could come back like that anyway. It breaks the laws of traditional physics and back then they didn't even know what physics was! They were TOTALLY ignorant!

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.