Here's a short e-book on the mythicist position which is free to read and distribute either on or offline: http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/o ... ianity.pdf

Hopefully we can discuss this free e-book here at book talk. The topic is one of looking into the origins of Christianity and the quest for the Historical Jesus. I'll let Ms. Murdock know about this conversation and perhaps I can get her to come and participate in the discussion as well if things get rolling.

Hello Tat, thank you very much for posting the link to The Christ Myth Anthology. At 31 pages it is an easy read and a good introduction to the problem of evidence in the Bible. Ms Murdock is a fine scholar, presenting an informative and balanced approach to the origins of Christianity.

Two areas in which I would be interested in her thoughts are:

1. "Mythicism" as a scientific movement seeking rational understanding of Bible texts argues that Biblical characters such as Jesus are wholly mythical. As I see it, this means the Gospels are a work of fiction composed in order to build a politico-religious mass movement. Jesus Christ as a real person is without historical evidence, so the mythicist argument is that he is pure fiction. Ms Murdock contrasts this view with "evemerism", the old idea that while the Bible stories are not literally true, they are grounded in a factual story which was changed and elaborated to meet the needs of the church in writing the Gospels. I am interested in this debate, and would be interested to hear from Ms Murdock what she sees as the main failings of the evemerist argument.

2. In the light of this problem of Christ, a second area on which it would be interesting to hear from Ms Murdock is how the Bible story fits the history of the stars. My own view is that Jesus may have written some of the key texts of the new testament himself, to explain an eschatology (a theory of time) that directly looked to the slow movement of precession of the equinox as providing the structure of time. Motifs such as the tearing of the temple veil, the loaves and fishes and the holy city have been advanced as primarily referring to an astronomical story of the history of the earth against the background stars. I'm interested in how such research sits against modern thought, including as a potential bridge between religion and science, between faith and reason.

Robert Tulip

I'll let her know that I started a discussion about her e-book here at book talk.


Murdocks work presents a very strong assertion concerning the non-historical status of Jesus. But this isn't to say that it's entirely impossible for there to have been one particular historical person behind the myth. The problem is that there's no contemporary historical evidence of his existence but there's a hell of a lot of evidence that the story is based on mythology. If there was one particular person behind the myth then we know pretty much nothing about that person because what we have in the scriptures is largely and very obviously mythical. The character in the story is playing the role of a mythical character and if there was an actual person that was used it in no way changes the mythical status of the storyline.

The big question is why is the astrotheological allegory even there in the pages in such a way that it can be recognized and understood? Your way of supposing that the story is based on a Jewish mystic type who was privy to the ancient knowledge of precession is one way of explaining its presence. He might have told parables and stories that related to the recent changing of the Great Year. The stories passed along over the years and eventually an orthodox effort came to power and took these stories to the present day. You tend to see them as doing this unknowingly.

I see it more of a group effort by certain mystics who had intentional reasons for creating a myth for the new Piscean Age that had just begun. They believed in staying in accord with the natural movements of precession and so they sought to bring to the table something that blended Judaism with Paganism. The Alexandrian brotherhood were those versed in both traditional Judaism and the Pagan mysteries. A new Great Year had begun and the lore about the coming of a Jewish messiah was blended with solar attributes fixed to a dual annual and precessional based theme. The Hero is made to hang out with fisherman, eat fish, and go so far as to start a fish eating tradition after the resurrection scene in order to last as a tradition through the age of Pisces. I see this all as the work of a group effort by learned men of the time and region. Our only real difference here seems to be the question of one particular mystic man or many different mystic men.

Hi Tat, thanks for letting Acharya know about the discussion at Booktalk. There is a lot of good discussion happening here and it would be interesting to hear from Acharya on some of the issues raised about the Christ Myth and related topics.So, balance of probabilities, on the one hand massive historical evidence of the relation between different mythologies, and on the other hand zero historical evidence for Jesus Christ as a historical person. Scientifically, the case is overwhelming that Jesus did not exist in the way described in the Bible. I tend to see the Gospels as a response of the post-destruction Jewish people, following Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, to form a myth that could serve as a political basis for organisation against the might of Rome. Jesus, as ‘one for all’, symbolised the extent of Roman attack, including their cruel use of crucifixion as a prime weapon of political control. So if there was someone at the origin of the Jesus story who incarnated the teaching of the clash between Rome and Israel as a holy war, with Israel reliant on the deep slow patterns of time to eventually triumph over the imperial project, then such an individual would seek to key in to the mythical idea of Christ as the eternal logos.Yes, I do see the church as having maintained an unconscious belief in the cyclical pattern of time shown in the zodiac, and so as carrying the story of Christ in an unknowing way. We see this in the extensive astrological cosmology in the Bible, and in the use of astrological motifs by the church, such as the fish of Pisces. The confused claim that Christian symbols are not astronomical and astrological in origin reflects the cooption of the church by the imperial world. For example the symbols of the four evangelists are the four fixed constellations at the four corners of the zodiac – Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius – a theme directly congruent with the cosmology of Ezekiel and Revelation. The unconscious status of biblical star lore reveals a pathology in the modern mind, a view that Christian myth cannot actually be based on real observation and evidence. Bringing this stellar material to conscious discussion involves stirring up the emotional basis of Christian faith by exposing the flimsy epistemology of orthodox belief.A real hero is better than an imaginary one. If an actual person was familiar with this precessional vision at the time of Christ, and so consciously and intentionally sought to live it out, then we can postulate that person provided the human origin of the messianic stories in a seed of historical truth. Group effort is generally inspired by a leader of genius, a person of vision. I find it very credible that such a Jesus figure would have had a nasty encounter with the Roman Empire, and with local Jewish Quislings. The embroidery of the tale into the passion narrative of cross and resurrection is the sublime achievement of human literature. If Jesus prompted the question, Who is the Christ?, one can well imagine that extensive discussion of this question, from an ancient enlightened framework informed by historical existential tragedy, could have produced the Gospel documents we have.

A real hero is better than imaginary one, so we find the mystical Joshua figure of the early mystical groups placed into a psuedo-historical setting. I'd think that the orthodoxy sought to do this on purpose.


http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php[/quote]
First off, the gospels don't really appear until the second century, so the whole chart should probably be moved forward into the second century after the destruction of the Jerusalem. There's no real history for Jesus in Paul and then all of the historical hooks sort of take off with time. It looks like the old mystical Joshua character was being shaped into an historical character with time. A mythic hero figure is slowly given a more detailed history which involves an earthly flesh and blood life. The orthodoxy must have been thinking that a real hero would be better for their cause than imaginary one and so they sought to create a historical setting well after the fact.

Also, in terms of astrotheology it seems pretty obvious that people understood the relation between the zodiac and Christianity, many of the church builders and those directing the church builders any ways...

I'm not sure why people act so shocked about the Christ story relating the annual path of the sun around the zodiac. It's actually very obvious in hind sight.

Jesus as unhistorical myth
Main article: Christ myth theory
Opinions of a purely or primarily mythical Christ originate in the late 18th century with Charles François Dupuis.[49] In works published in the 1790s, both argued that numerous ancient myths, including the life of Jesus, were based on the movement of the sun through the zodiac.[50][51][52] Dupuis identified pre-Christian rituals in Syria, Egypt and Persia as representing the birth of a god to a virgin at the winter solstice, and connected this to the winter rising of the constellation of Virgo. The first academic advocate was the 19th century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer. Proponents such as Arthur Drews were influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. The hypothesis is mostly considered obsolete in current scholarhip,[53][54] but a number of authors such as George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price have discussed similar ideas in popular literature in the 1970s to 2000s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chri ... _mythology

Jesus as myth
Further information: Christ myth theory and Jesus Christ and comparative mythology
The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few scholars and historians, some of the earliest being Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[102][103][104][105]
The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[106]
More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, by Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), by Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud), by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Jesus & the Lost Goddess) and by biblical scholar Robert M. Price. Doherty, for example, maintains that the earliest records of Christian beliefs (the earliest epistles) contain almost no reference to the historical Jesus, which only appears in the Gospel accounts.[107] He suggests that these are best explained if Christianity began as a mythic savior cult, with no specific historical figure in mind.
Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians.[108][109] [110]The New Testament scholar[111][112] James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'.[113][114][115]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicit ... e_note-112


James Dunn (theologian)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

James D. G. ("Jimmy") Dunn (1939 - ) was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham. Since his retirement he has been made Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He is a leading British New Testament scholar broadly in the liberal Protestant tradition. Dunn is especially associated with the New Perspective on Paul, along with Tom Wright and E. P. Sanders. He is credited with coining this phrase during his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture.

Dunn has an M.A. and B.D. from the University of Glasgow and a Ph.D. and D.D. from the University of Cambridge. For 2002, Dunn was the President of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the leading international body for New Testament study. Only three other British scholars had been made President in the preceding 25 years.

In 2005 a festschrift was published dedicated to Dunn, comprising articles by 27 New Testament scholars, examining early Christian communities and their beliefs about the Holy Spirit. (edited by Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker & Stephen Barton (2004). The Holy Spirit and Christian origins: essays in honor of James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. ISBN 0-8028-2822-1.)

Dunn has taken up E.P. Sanders' project of redefining Palestinian Judaism in order to correct the Christian view of Judaism as a religion of works-righteousness. One of the most important differences to Sanders is that Dunn perceives a fundamental coherence and consistency to Paul's thought. He furthermore criticizes Sanders' understanding of the term 'justification', arguing that Sanders' understanding suffers from an "individualizing exegesis."

[edit] Writing
Dunn has written or edited numerous books and papers, including:
• James D. G. Dunn (1985). The Evidence for Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. ISBN 978-0664246983.
• James D. G. Dunn (1980). Christology in the making: a New Testament inquiry into the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-24356-8.
• James D. G. Dunn (1988). Romans 1-8, 9-16. Waco, Tex: Word Books. ISBN 0-8499-0252-5.
• James D. G. Dunn (1990). Jesus, Paul, and the law: studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press. ISBN 0-664-25095-5.
• James D. G. Dunn (1990). Unity and diversity in the New Testament: an inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-02436-6.
• James D. G. Dunn (1991). The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-02508-7.
• James D.G. Dunn (1993). The Epistle to Galatians. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-036-X.
• James D. G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate (1994). The justice of God: a fresh look at the old doctrine of justification by faith. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-0797-6.
• James D. G. Dunn (1996). The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-2441-2.
• James D. G. Dunn (1998). The theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. ISBN 0-8028-3844-8.
• James D. G. Dunn (editor) (2003). The Cambridge companion to St. Paul. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-78694-0.
• James D. G. Dunn, general editor, editor of the New Testament; John W. Rogerson, editor of the Old Testament and Apocrypha (2003). Eerdmans commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-3711-5.
• James D. G. Dunn (2003). Christianity in the Making: Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-3931-2.
• James D. G. Dunn (2005). A New Perspective On Jesus: What The Quest For The Historical Jesus Missed (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology). Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic. ISBN 0-8010-2710-1.
• James D. G. Dunn (2007). The New Perspective On Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4562-2.
• James D. G. Dunn (2008). Christianity in the Making: Vol. 2, Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-3932-0.
• James D. G. Dunn (2009). The Living Word (second edition). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-6355-1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dunn_(theologian)

Acharya S
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dorothy M. Murdock, better known[1][2] by her pen names Acharya S and D. M. Murdock,[3] is an author and proponent of the Christ myth theory.[4] She has authored six books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths.[5]
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Works
• 2 Author's background
• 3 Reception
• 4 See also
• 5 External links
• 6 References

[edit] Works
In 1999, Acharya published her first book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (ISBN 978-0932813749), arguing the concept of Jesus Christ as myth. She states the Christ story is a fabrication.[4]

In 2001, Acharya wrote the Foreword to a new edition of Kersey Graves's The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours: Christianity Before Christ (ISBN 093281395X).

A follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled (ISBN 978-1931882316), was published in 2004. Acharya comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She claims parallels to the Christian stories of the life of Jesus as evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing stories, and not the life of a real man. Suns of God (with a foreword by author and theologian W. Sumner Davis) also seeks to address some of the criticisms leveled at Christ Conspiracy.[6]
Her 2007 book, Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (ISBN 978-0979963100) continues the theme of The Christ Conspiracy by expanding her theory questioning the historical validity of Jesus Christ alleging "early Christian history to be largely mythical, by sorting through available historical and archaeological data."[7] In 2009 she released Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (ISBN 0979963117) and The Gospel According to Acharya S.[8]

Her work was used extensively in the movie Zeitgeist.[9] She also acted as consultant for the movie.[10]

In her various books, Acharya describes the New Testament as a work of mythic fiction within a historical setting. She claims that the story of Jesus Christ is a retelling of various pagan myths, representing "astrotheology," or the story of the Sun, and also incorporates the science of archaeoastronomy. She asserts the pagans understood the stories to be myths, but Christians obliterated evidence to the contrary by destroying and controlling literature when they attained control of the Roman Empire, which led to widespread illiteracy in the ancient world, ensuring the mythical nature of Christ's story was hidden.[11]
Acharya compares Jesus' history to other "Saviour gods" such as Mithra, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, and Odin, claiming the similarities result from a common source: the myth of the sun-god or solar deity.[12]

[edit] Author's background
According to her website, Acharya received a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College. She also attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece.[13]

Acharya served briefly as a fellow of The Council for Secular Humanism's Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER).[14]

The website of Stellar House Publishing, based in Seattle and "specializing in Archaeology, History, Astrotheology, Mythology and Religion", states that the company was founded in 2005 by Acharya S (D.M. Murdock).[15]

[edit] Reception
Acharya's positions have received a wide spectrum of criticism including those by Christian apologists Mike Licona,[16] and James Patrick Holding[17] as well as sceptics such as Richard Carrier[18] and Robert M. Price.[19][20] The Christ Conspiracy received a favourable review from Christ myther Earl Doherty.[21]

Acharya's presentation of Christianity as a "conspiracy" has drawn attention from conspiracy theorists. In his book You Are Being Lied To, Russ Kick describes The Christ Conspiracy as "an essential book for anyone who wants to know the reality behind the world's dominant religion."[22] In a book on American conspiracy theorists, Kenn Thomas calls her a "great chronicler of the conspiracy known as Christianity," but relates that she was once disinvited from a "UFO conference" because her theories offended another speaker.[23]

Acharya has been interviewed on a variety of radio stations,[24] including the Alan Colmes Show and the Jeff Rense Show.[25] She also appears on less well known podcasts, such as Black Ops Radio.[26] She has been interviewed in Paranoia magazine[12] and by The Progressive Observer.[27]

In his book In Search of Jesus, religious scholar Clinton Bennett describes her views as being similar to those of Robert Taylor, John M. Robertson and Joseph Campbell,[28] but with a "New Age perspective".[29]

A critique of the movie Zeitgeist criticizes her contributions to the movie, saying she "cherry-pick[ed]" material that was "outdated and always fringe" in order to "support her own astrological fantasies".[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

The shell of your illusion is incredibly thick. There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive. There is plenty of evidence that people believed that there was a man named Jesus who was killed, but none that he was alive. By that I mean nothing exists from the time of the supposed life of Jesus. No letters exist that mention Jesus the preacher or miracle worker. No Christian letters or diaries, no Jewish ones, no Greek ones, no Roman ones. Nobody wrote about a single aspect of his life while he was living it. Just think for a moment about what the man was supposed to have done. He was supposed to have had meetings with thousands of people. He was supposed to have cured people, even raised a man from the dead. He was supposed to have entered the city of Jerusalem at the head of a triumphal procession and yet nobody wrote anything about it at the time. Not a book, not a diary, not a graffito, not even a sale or return catering order for loaves and fishes. Isn't that just a little hard to believe?

Biblical scholars reject the Christ myth... sure. They are much the same as yourself no doubt, with an a priori belief in the bible. You think the proponents of the myth are biased? Look in the mirror.

Just curious, in what capacity is D. M. Murdock an acharya?

“āćārya, s.m. Guide or instructor in religious matters, especially one who invests the student with the sacrificial thread and instructs him in the Vedas, in the law of sacrifice and the mysteries of religion; priest; founder, or leader of a sect; a learned paṇḍit; a title affixed to the names of learned men.”
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... 246.platts
John T. Platts
A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English

Acharya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In Indian religions and society, an acharya (IAST: ācārya; Sanskrit: आचार्य; Pali: acariya) is a guide or instructor in religious matters; founder, or leader of a sect; or a title affixed to the names of learned men.[1] The designation has different meanings in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and secular contexts.
Acharya is also used to address a teacher or a scholar in any discipline, e.g.: Bhaskaracharya, the mathematician.It is also a common suffix in Brahmin names, e.g.: Krishnamacharya, Bhattacharya. In South India, this suffix is sometimes shortened to Achar, e.g.: TKV Desikachar. In the social order of some parts of India, acharyas are considered as the highest amongst the brahmin community often described as the "shrestha brahman" i.e best in brahmins.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Etymology
• 2 In Hinduism
• 3 In Jainism
• 4 In Buddhism
• 5 In scientific/ mathematical scholarship
• 6 Acharya(Degree)
• 7 References
• 8 External links

[edit] Etymology
The term "Acharya" is most often said to include the root "char" or "charya" (conduct). Thus it literally connotes "one who teaches by conduct (example)," i.e. an exemplar.
[edit] In Hinduism
In the Hinduism, an acharya (आचार्य) is a Divine personality (महापुरुश) who is believed to have descended (अवतार) to teach and establish bhakti in the world and write on the philosophy (िसद्धांत) of devotion to God (भगवान्).[2]
Examples of acharyas in the Hindu tradition are:
• Adi Sankaracharya[3]
• Ramanujacharya[4]
• Madhvacharya[5]
• Nimbarkacharya[6]
• Vallabhacharya[7]
• Caitanya Mahaprabhu[8]
• Acharya Shree Koshalendraprasadji Maharaj – (Swaminarayan Sampraday – NarNarayan Dev Gadi)
• Acharya Shree Rakeshprasadji Maharaj (Swaminarayan Sampradaya – LaxmiNarayan Dev Gadi)
[edit] In Jainism
In Jainism, an Acharya is a monk who is one of the five revered panch-paremeshtis, and thus worthy of worship. The word "Suri" is equivalent to Acharya.[citation needed]
An Acharya is the highest leader of a Jain order. He is the final authority in his monastic order and has the authority to ordain new monks and nuns. He is also authorized to consecrete new idols, although this authority is sometimes delegated to scholars designated by him.
Some of the famous Jain Acharyas in approximate chronological order, are:
• Ganahar Sudharma Swami
• Bhadrabahu (undivided sangha, Chandragupta Maurya was his disciple) (325 BCE)
• Sthulabhadra (Svetambar tradition)
• Kundakunda, (Digambar tradition) (2nd century CE)
• Samantabhadra, (Digambar tradition) (3–4th century CE)
• Siddhasen Diwakar, (claimed by both) (5th century CE)
• Haribhadra,(Svetambar tradition), (700–750 CE)
• Virasena, (Digambar tradition), (790–825 CE)
• Jinasena, (Digambar tradition), preceptor of Rashtrakuta rulers, (800–880 CE).
• Nemichandra, (Digambar tradition)
• Hemachandra,(Svetambar tradition), preceptor of Kumarapala, (1089–1172 CE)
• Jagadguru Hira Vijaya Suri, (Svetambar tradition), who was invited by Akbar, the Mughal emperor
• Rajendrasuri (Svetambar tradition)(1827–1906)
• Shantisagar, (Digambar tradition) (1872–1955)
Modern Jain Acharyas include Digambar Acharyas Vidyasagar, and Vidyanand and Svetambar Padma Sagar Suri, Subodhsagar Suri, Yashodev Suri, and Jayantsain Suri. In the Terapantha sub-sect Acharya Bhiksu, Acharya Tulsi & Acharya Mahaprajna, and in the Sthanakvasi sub-sect Acharya Sushil Kumar have been the leading Acharyas.
Some sects, for example the Terapanthi Svetambaras, have a single Acharya. Others have multiple independent Acharyas.
An Acharya, like any other Jain monk, is expected to wander except for the four months of the monsoon (varsha-vas). The Bhattarakas, who head institutions, are technically junior monks, who are permitted to stay in the same place.
Osho, who was born into a Jain community, was known as Acharya Rajneesh until 1971, because he was a college professor at one time. Although he remined unmarried, he was never a Jain monk.
[edit] In Buddhism
In Buddhism, the Pali variant acariya, lit. "teacher", is one of the two teachers of a novice monk, the other being the upādhyāya. In Mahayana traditions the epithet acharya was more widely used as an honorific indicating great scholastic renown; it was somewhat more general than the similar epithet paṇḍita. The Tibetan term loppön is used to translate acharya.
[edit] In scientific/ mathematical scholarship
• Bhaskaracharya
• Mahaviracharya
• Bhaskaracharya I
[edit] Acharya(Degree)
In Sanskrit institution Acharya is a Post Graduate Degree.
[edit] References
1. ^ Platts, John T. (1884). A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English. London: W. H. Allen & Co.. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... 246.platts.
2. ^ Glossary - Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism
3. ^ Although famous for being the proponent of advaita vad, he established the supremecy of bhakti to Krishn.
4. ^ He propagated the bhakti of Bhagwan Vishnu. Source: Ramanujacharya
5. ^ His philosophy is called dvaita vad. His primary teaching is that "the only goal of a soul is to selflessly and wholeheartedly love and surrender to God" Source: [1]
6. ^ His writings say that Radha Krishn are the supreme form of God.
7. ^ Pushtimarg
8. ^ Achintya Bheda Abheda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya#cite_note-0

The veneer of the argument for lack of evidence is very thin. Only a small group of hard core adherents continue to cling to that. But, just for fun, here is Tacitus. I suppose that some early Christians concernd about skeptics 2000 years later contrived to forge this passage along with Josephus, Pliny, Suetonis, fill in the blank.

"Tacitus Annals
[15.44] Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

I await your creative argument for dismissal.
D.

Creative dismissal? To appease what need? Where are the thousands of other documents on the life of Jesus?!? There is no need to support the argument for lack of evidence. You must supply the evidence. Where is it?

The Christian religion is based on the idea that a man called Jesus living in the Roman province of Palestine 2,000 years ago was both human and God. His life and death offered salvation for all who believed in him.

The idea that our relationship with God is incomplete if we do not know Jesus raises problems for believers - in particular, what happens to those who were born before Jesus' time or who never heard of him before they died?

It's an interesting point, but we cannot resolve it before we clarify a much more important question: did Jesus really exist? The evidence is thin, but it suggests that no, there never was a Biblical Jesus. And, surprisingly, it is the Bible itself that provides the strongest argument.

We start our research with an open mind - we don't know if the Biblical Jesus existed. What are the evidence and arguments in favour and against his existence? We will look at three sources of evidence - contemporary secular accounts, the Gospels and the writings of St Paul.

2.2a No contemporary evidence

The first problem is there is no contemporary evidence that the Biblical Jesus existed as a real person.

The Romans were great bureaucrats, historians and diary-keepers. Although most of what they wrote has been lost, enough remains to give us a good idea of the major events that occurred throughout their empire. Yet there is no record of Jesus or events associated with him.

We would not expect contemporary records of relatively minor events witnessed by relatively few people, such as the turning of water into wine (John 2:1-9). However, the slaughter of the new-borns supposedly ordered by King Herod around CE 0 (Matthew 2:16) and the feeding of the five thousand 30 years later (Luke 9: 10-17) would have made a great impact on the entire population, yet no secular evidence remains.

It is likely that the total population of Palestine at the time was about 250,000 people. (Total world population in CE 0 is estimated to have been about 170 million.) This meant that Jesus would have fed one in twenty-five of the Palestinian adult population. If most of those present were men - which is likely - he would have fed up to one in 13 adult men.

Other Biblical statements do not make sense. The Jewish Supreme Council that condemns Jesus would not normally meet on Passover Eve. Pontius Pilate would not have released a known killer of Romans (Barabbas) in order to execute a Jewish preacher with no blood on his hands. Any sudden eclipse of the sun on the day that Jesus died would have been recorded.

2.2b Sixty years later

The first secular references to Jesus only appear 60 years after his supposed death in CE 33. This length of time, in a society where few people could read and rumour spread easily, means that any reports are likely to be highly unreliable and must be examined closely.

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian born in CE 37, appears to be the first secular writer to mention the Biblical Jesus. His Antiquities of the Jews, written around CE 93, describes Jesus as a doer of wonderful deeds and "the Christ" ("the risen one").

Josephus' text only survives in eleventh century manuscripts - 1,000 years after it was written. Many doubt its authenticity and / or argue that the references to Jesus were inserted by later, Christian copyists.

For argument's sake, however, let us assume that Josephus did indeed write that Jesus performed miracles, was crucified and appeared alive on the third day. Though that statement is interesting, however, does not Roman bust said to be of Josephus

help the Biblical cause. It does not prove that Jesus lived in CE 0 - 33; it only proves that Christians believed that they had a leader who lived and died at that time. And belief isn't proof.

2.2c Tacit assumption

The Roman historian Tacitus is another writer cited as evidence that Jesus existed; his Annals state that the Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in AD 64. Tacitus adds that their founder, Christus, was put to death by Pontius Pilate in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

Tacitus' account is even less reliable than Josephus'. The Roman was writing around AD 116; no record remains of the documents or accounts that he was referring to. His statement may be accurate, but it is no more proof than Josephus'; it confirms not not that Jesus existed, only that some people believed that he did.
What is interesting is Tacitus' reference to "Christus". Like other early historians, including Gauis Suetonius Tranquillus and Pliny the Younger, Tacitus appears unaware of the word "Jesus". This may be significant, as we will discuss below.

To summarise this page:
a. There is no contemporary evidence that the Biblical Jesus lived or died.
b. The earliest reference to the Biblical Jesus comes 60 years after his supposed
death. It confirms that some people believed in a spiritual leader who had died
and risen again but it sheds no light on actual events in 30 - 33 CE.

Did jesus exist? The answer is we don't really know. And I think it's probably counterproductive to dig one's heels in either way.

It has always been more or less assumed that Jesus really lived. However, our best source is Paul of Tarsus who may or may not have met jesus, but probably did. Before his conversion Paul persecuted Christians, but underwent conversion at some point. He supposedly knew the disciples and he supposedly saw Jesus' ghost. Those of us who don't really believe in ghosts suspect Paul either made up at least some of this stuff or maybe he was delusional. Bottom line is you can only give so much weight to a single source. And the gospels which came later are problematic in other ways.

Yet, it seems unlikely to me that Jesus was completely fabricated. Surely there must have been some man who was the basis of all these stories. That seems more likely. Then again, it's not entirely implausible that the stories were made up. Again, we just don't know.

The idea that Jesus never existed seems to be something of a modern fad. I honestly don't know how seriously the idea is given by modern scholars. Richard Tarnas in the The Passion of the Western Mind presumes Jesus to be an actual historical figure. I've never read D. M. Murdock's work, but those who are behind her theories seem to have an agenda of their own related to astrotheology. Personally I'm suspicious of astrotheology which looks and sounds an awful lot like a religion itself. Fundamentalists have a total knee-kerk reaction to D.M. Murdoch which is entertaining to watch, but perhaps you can see it as a clash between ideologies. It's an interesting question, did Jesus really exist? But from a critical thinking standpoint, I don't think we have enough compelling evidence to take a definite position on it. But that's just my two cents.

See my response in The Jesus Myth discussion.
Hard to keep track of all the discussions trying to convice yourselves Jesus didn't exist.

Here's a quote from Robert on the issue:

In other words, the mythicist position has been around the whole time. When the claim was made that Jesus came in the flesh, it was met with opposition by those who understood the "Joshua" myth otherwise. The result is the historicizers railing against the mystics who knew the character not as an historical being, but rather a spiritual one. I posted a free e-book to start out this thread of discussion that was obviously missed by some wishing to come in with assertions that are refuted in the first chapters of the e-book. I should refer people back to "The History of The Position" in the "Christ Myth Anthology" that we're discussing here.

If everyone accepted Jesus / Joshua as historical up until very recently, then why does I John 4 exist? Why did the early church fathers have to address people who were claiming that the story is non-historical? Was I John 4 and other refutations of the early church fathers written in the 19th century? Of course not. So neither was the notion that Jesus had never come in the flesh. That's the starting point - the fact that the position has been around from the beginning of the Christian proselytizing efforts.

The mythicist camp sees this as the result of a first century mystical brotherhood spread around the region having allegories about a spiritual messiah which were later replaced by an effort to historicize the formerly spiritual character. They had to rail against the older mystical idea such as in the above verse to move forward with their new historical hook version of the story. In any case, it proves that Jesus historicity has been in question from further back then many currently realize. What was happening in the 19th century is simply what happened when the power of the church began to subside enough to where people were able to voice these questions much more openly. But the question itself is an ancient one that has passed down.

If Jesus had lived historically and was so widely known then why in the world would certain factions not know about it or believe it? Why would anyone protest his historical flesh and blood existence in order to warrant a rebuttal from the historicizers? These are issues that are covered in the books. When you don't bother to read them then you have no idea what's on the table. These books are written to rebuttal those who erroneously assume that questioning the existence of Jesus is a modern fad.

The bottom line here, mentioned by Geo, is that there's no real way to prove that Jesus either did or did not exist historically. We don't have contemporary sources saying that he either did or did not exist. We have nothing. The mythicist camp acknowledges this, while the apologists simply do not. Our point is basically that when the story is understood and the various mythological motifs present in the writings are revealed, it's likely that the Jesus of the story never existed at all. There were lots of "Joshua's", but none of them match the character of the story. Jesus seems to be a composite character, not one particular person.

The apologist tends to harp on an absolute existence, which, can not be substantiated. We won't take an absolute position on his non-existence because that would be rather dishonest. It's a game of intuition. I strongly feel that there was no Joshua killed during the reign of Pilate that fits the description of the mythological story. But that's from reading on it for several years. I do not trust the claims of Christian apologists at all. They are obviously biased and based on promoting the superiority of their own cult. It's a very ego driven act of dishonesty and I don't mind calling it what it is. I used to subscribe to this ego driven sense of superiorty over all peoples, nations, and religions. I knew nothing of other other religions because I was assured by the religious leaders that our Christianity is the only truth in the world and so I never bothered to look into any of them growing up as a kid. That's exactly what they want. But now I know that even if there was an historical person at the base of these contradictive myths he's not the mythologized person we read about in these contradictive myths.

So what's the point in trying to insist on historicity when the evidence doesn't even exist?

That Bible, 1 John 4 quote has to do with Jesus as God versus the Hebrew position that Jesus was a prophet. I don't think it has anything to do with the more recent notions that perhaps Jesus never existed at all. Do any scholars take this notion seriously?

The verse seems aimed at the Manchicheans and others who equated Christ with the sun and didn't see him as historical but rather a symbolic mystical figure with solar attributes.