1) The book starts with taking two quotes out of context
She starts off with 3 quotes actually:
"For what is now called the Christian religion existed of old and was never absent from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh. Then true religion which already existed began to be called Christian."
- Saint Augustine, Retractiones (I, xiii)
"The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was neither New nor Strange."
- Bishop Eusebius, The History of the Church (II, iv)
"There can be no doubt that the oldest Egyptian writings contain some vestiges of primeval faith. Egyptians in very remote areas believed in the immortality of man, with reward or punishment in the future state. They believed in the existence of good and evil powers in this life, and were not without a sense of personal responsibility..."
- Rev. Dr. W.H. Rule, The Horus Myth and Its Relation to Christianity (66)
These are all at the top just as you see here, so how they are "taken out of context
" when she simply provides the quote?
the author says that Greek writing is "word-based", implying to me that Egyptian writing was not, that it was simply pictograms. This is a common misconception, in fact the symbols used were consonants much like Arabic or Hebrew, followed by symbols showing the action of the word written, its function, and many other things.
His understanding of what Acharya said is just wrong, and he makes no sense. I don't know why you think this nonsensical remark is worth responding to - what does it prove? Only that he likes to misrepresent Acharya's work and position in order to make people think he's smart.
Edward "Essentially she's a liar and fraud, who claims to have superior knowledge of language (Greek, Hebrew, English, for starters), when in reality her knowledge of language seems to be child-like at best -- making comparisons to the words "Sun" and "Son" meaning the same thing and being the same words in other languages."
6) The "Sun of God" thing does not make sense. I would like to remind you that Acharya S considers herself to be very knowledgeable in at least Hebrew and Greek, so how could she connect "Son" and "Sun", when they are not linguistically similar, and in English they just sound similar, but are not related.
Edward is quick to toss out the "liar and fraud
" accusation before he even knows what the hell he's talking about. The sun/son issue has been addressed long ago
and it appears that the PUN
went over his head as did nearly everything else. It is a play on words - so that's a false assumption to begin with. However, there are actually several languages where sun and son are either spelled similar or sound similar. Those who know no other languages aren't in any position to have a valid opinion on this matter for obvious reasons. So, some may THINK
they've torn it to pieces but they haven't - in fact, they've put their foot in their mouth.
And Acharya has NEVER said anything about the words being the same in Hebrew and English - that is a complete and total lie.
Acharya's major in college was Greek Classics. She's been to Greece several times even as an archaeology student - they spoke Greek often. Acharya has always excelled in linguistics.
2) She claims to be a "member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Edward probably called them and asked if they knew who "Acharya S" was. Well, of course, they don't have an "Acharya S" on record, because that's a pseudonym. And what business is it of his to be going around harassing her professors? Is he stalking her? First of all, he couldn't have emailed all of them, because many of them have been retired for a long time. So, he's lying again. Secondly, if he asked them about "Acharya S," again, they wouldn't have known who she is, because that's not her name.
She's got a thread here that proves she's an alumna of ASCSA, so once again Edward is shown to be a completely incompetent researcher who does not know what he is talking about
. In fact, it's quite obvious from his repeated falsehoods about Acharya's work and life that he is the "liar and fraud
" as well as jealous and misogynistic.F&M, CCSU and ASCSA Buddies
4) Massey is really no one of consequence outside of the circles of Christian conspiracies. He is not considered an Egyptologist, or someone knowledgeable of ancient texts by anyone but himself and Christian conspiracists.
Edward has no clue how peer reviewed Gerald Massey was. Plus the fact that his sources were the top Egyptologists of his day. Who Is Gerald Massey?
In any case, Acharya doesn't rely on Gerald Massey at all, so this incompetent ignoramus gets this one wrong too.
7) It even alludes to a fact that "horizon" has something to do with "Horus", when in fact horizon originates from Old French orizon, originally from Greek horos meaning "boundry".
His understanding of what Acharya said is just wrong. Acharya never makes any such claim, so that's just another ridiculous straw man that he's raising up in order to attack her. Seriously, this guy Edward is really confused.
No where in this chapter  does it describe Set as "that god who steals souls, who laps up corruption, who lives on what is putrid, who is in charge of darkness, who is immersed in gloom, of whom those who are among the languid ones are afraid.", or anything even close
8 ) Set was not evil until nearly 100 AD when the Romans turned him into a demonic figure.
Well, once again Edward is completely wrong in the first quote, because he didn't bother to check Acharya's sources and is just pretending to know what he's talking about.
Here's the link to Dr. Raymond Faulkner's translation of the Book of the Dead
, with the relevant part highlighted.
9) The worst part is she blatantly lies about "birthdays" of deities to make different dates important, when most of them never had birth dates.
He just makes these ridiculous sweeping statements and then calls her a liar. What the hell is he talking about? What dates? What gods?
11) Horus' birthday was on the 5th day of the Epagomenal Days, which takes place in late August or sometimes in late July.
First of all, there is more than one Horus, but this guy knows almost nothing about this subject and obviously doesn't even know that basic fact. The Horus who was born during the five epagomenal days is the brother
of Osiris, while the Horus who is born at the winter solstice is the son
of Osiris. Again, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he just lies repeatedly. He's actually incredibly pathetic - and so are the people who are citing this incompetent ignoramus.
14) In Buddhism there is no enemy, except potentially yourself, but short of declaring everyone Satan, the concept does not exist
Another straw man - I guess he's talking about the temptation of Buddha by Mara. So, maybe he needs to go lecture the Buddhists who made up that story centuries ago, instead of flailing at Acharya like some mad man.
15) Her web site is geared more towards selling books that question religions ideologies, rather than actually investigating them. You can take a look and find her making various claims about Islam (same kind she did about Christianity and others). It even brings up how "Allah" is actually the moon goddess. I'll save refuting this some other time, because it requires some in-depth explanation of history and language. Her web site also goes on about how Junk food (such as candy bars and hamburgers) are essentially drugs and there are roaming gangs involved in "bloody orgies of criminality and depravity".
More lies - he obviously has a really big personal issue with Acharya - what is his problem? Again, he sounds like he's jealous and misogynistic
. Which website? She's got THOUSANDS of pages of data on all her websites. So does Yahoo, the New York Time and so on - and, oh no! - they are making money with their websites! Look at all the ads! I guess only Acharya is not allowed to make a living. In fact, maybe she should be burned at the stake!
Acharya has one article about the Roots of Islam
on her Truth Be Known website (this guy pretends he knows her work, but again his comments show he doesn't). In it, she quotes Barbara Walker discussing the origins of Allah - scholarly work, way over the head of this joker who pretends to be a scholar and expert.
"Goes on about?
" She's got one short article about junk food from about 15 years ago - and it's since been proved to be correct. That's "going on about" something? What "roaming gangs?" Another lie. What she said is, "In examining history, it would appear that humanity has spent a great deal of time involved in bloody orgies of criminality and depravity." This guy is just nuts - he's told so many lies I can't even keep up. He's not held accountable, he doesn't have to prove any of his total trash, but Acharya's got to answer for every little thing, even complete and total bullshite people like this guy make up about her and her work! Why do people just assume that Acharya should be forced to address every punk kid who comes along with a bad attitude and maliciously smears her while totally ignorant of her work?
He says: "I'll save refuting this some other time, because it requires some in-depth explanation of history and language
." Yeah, guess what? He's not the go-to guy for any of this information. But it's clear he wants to be - and that's his whole problem isn't it?
Here's yet another gem from this guy that shows he doesn't know Acharya's work: "Perhaps she copied some of her work from this guy?
" Actually, Acharya cites Albert Churchward in Christ Con, and this "all-knowing expert" on her work would know that fact, if he had even bothered to check the bibliography of her best-known book. He hasn't, and he is no expert on her work. He needs to stop pretending, because all he has done is show that he is incredibly dishonest, poorly educated and ignorant
And another instance where he's just making crap up in order to smear Acharya: "Maybe it is also worth mentioning that she could not get her books published anywhere except Stellar House Publishing, a company which she runs.
How does he know that? Did he canvas every publishing company on Earth to find out whether or Acharya had been rejected by them? Did she tell him that happened? Again, he just makes up what he wants in order to libel Acharya, which he has done over and over again. Acharya wanted her own publishing company and did not ask any publisher to publish her work. Therefore, she did not get rejected by any publishing company - that's just another malicious lie.
And another statement revealing his total ignorance of Acharya's work, this time about her book Who Was Jesus?
: "This is another book by Acharya S, but is published under a different alias. It's the same as her other stuff
." No, it's really not, but he wouldn't know that, because he's never read it. He just makes stuff up as he goes along, as we can see from what I've written here. In the meantime, while he is making all these dishonest comments about Acharya's work, other people who are actually qualified have made the following comments about the same book, Who Was Jesus?
Who Was Jesus? is a fine work, characterized by your unique ability to spot neglected implications and aspects of debates... --Robert M. Price, Ph.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament
D.M. Murdock, aka "Acharya S," has written a really fine introduction to the problem of the Historical Jesus. She couches everything in the most basic terms, comprehensible to the layman, and lays out the problem and all the issues in a both really readable and digestible form. Her charts are insightful and extremely useful and presented in such a way as to make things immediately plausible to the general reader. I can recommend her work whole-heartedly for anyone on a world-wide basis who really wants to know what is at stake in approaching and coming to terms with the real person behind the literary image provided by those who created the story of "Jesus." --Robert H. Eisenman, Ph.D, The New Testament Code
I loved this book. It is absolutely superb in every way, from the eloquence of the writing to the integrity of the scholarship. This book should be required reading in every American classroom.... Ms. Murdock is one of only a tiny number of scholars with the richly diverse academic background (and the necessary courage) to adequately address the question of whether Jesus Christ truly existed as a walking-talking figure in first-century Palestine. This question, and many others related to New Testament reliability, are directly confronted and satisfyingly answered in Who Was Jesus? My personal recommendation is that Who Was Jesus? should be the first book purchased and studied by anyone, atheist or true believer, who wants to debate Jesus' existence and the Bible's veracity.... You should therefore make this book priority reading even over The God Delusion, God is Not Great and other excellent but, in my opinion, less important books than Murdock's! .... --David Mills, Atheist Universe
I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship here. I think I've read every popular alternative theory about Jesus that has come down the pike--with Who Was Jesus? I was very impressed. --Pastor David Bruce, M.Div Pastor David Bruce, M.Div Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, HollywoodJesus.com
Thirty years ago, when in divinity school, I might have had second thoughts about becoming an Episcopal priest if a book like D. M. Murdock's Who Was Jesus? had been available to me. Murdock's book, probably the best of this genre - written with clarity, precision, and conviction - unpacks most of the nonsense and mythology surrounding the ancient Hebrew figure called Jesus and presents a compelling picture of a mythological amalgam to counter most of the misinformation and wishful-thinking that passes for Christian apologetics today. -- Bob Semes, Retired Professor of History and Religion
And I can tell from his derogatory comments about the other books he's probably never read them either. So he's just pretending to know all about these books, without having read them - that is intellectually dishonest.
I can go on, because he's made one comment after another that shows his ignorance, but this guy Edward is really not worth responding to. He just has no clue what he's talking about. All he's done is throw up a bunch of lies and distortions and then attack Acharya personally, based on his own lies and totally poor understanding of the subject. I see his game as trying to knock Acharya down so people will think he's the real expert. He's not. It's a typical play for power from an ignorant kid. I would frankly be ashamed and embarrassed to post such ignorant trash as he has done. And anybody citing this guy as some credible "authority," whether theist or atheist, is obviously desperate. This incredibly dishonest character Edward, creator of the website conspiracy science. com, needs to be held accountable for all his malicious lies and utter ignorance.