Freethought Nation

Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions (F.A.Q)

(Note: This section of Freethought Nation is a work in progress.)

* If you have more questions that you think should be included in the FAQ section then PM me or post a new thread - bring it to my attention and I'll consider adding it here. I've added a few links below for a quick jump to direct posts for your convenience. The online excerpts and articles at Truth Be Known and Stellar House Publishing are available in 52 different languages by simply clicking on the Google Translate button.

Why does Acharya S use a pen name?

Who is Acharya S?

Find Acharya S elsewhere on the internets

Film: "God in the Box" (includes Acharya S)

Acharya's Books, E-Books and articles/excerpts on Kindle, iPhone, iPod, iPad and similar devices, such as Blackberry, Android

What is Astrotheology and Archaeoastronomy?

What is a Mythicist? What is the Mythicist Position?

The Virgin Birth

Dying and Rising Gods

The Twelve in the Bible and Ancient Mythology

What about December 25th and the winter solstice?

3 Kings/Orion's Belt & Solstice/Christmas

The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition

The Son of God is the Sun of God

Acharya's Responses to Bart Ehrmans' Book 'Did Jesus Exist?' and over 70 more

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

The Use of 19th Century Writings

Has Gerald Massey Been Refuted?

What is a conspiracy?

What about the word "disciple"?

What about Acharya's publisher - Adventurers Unlimited Press?

Do atheists disagree with Acharya's basic premise?

Is Acharya S / D.M. Murdock "Anti-Religion"?

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence

The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook Transcript & Sources (2010)

Zeitgeist Challenge

What about the copycat theory?

Krishna's Birthday

Was Krishna Born of a Virgin?

Does Acharya subscribe to the ancient astronaut theory?

Luxor and Richard Carrier

The Origins of Islam

Freethought Gear

The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar

The 2011 Astrotheology Calendar

Acharya's Work Complements Sam Harris's Philosophy

There are many more posts throughout the thread and the rest of the forum addressing new and old discoveries. As well as the critics - here are a few:

Dr. Chris Forbes on Zeitgeist part 1

Zeitgeist Refuted Documentaries

Skeptic Magazine Critique of Zeitgeist Part 1

Conspiracy Science Smears Acharya S

Jesus, Horus and KingDavid8. com

Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1

Richard Carrier on Zeitgeist part 1

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Why does Acharya S use a pen name?

Theists and especially atheists have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "Conspiracy" in the title of her first book, as well as her pen name "Acharya S."

First, many authors use a "pen name". It's very common and a big deal really need not be made of it. I'm not aware of any other author being harassed so much over a pen name as Acharya S. When it comes to religion and challenging the status-quo it may be wise to hide ones true I.D. especially if one is discussing Islam - radical Muslims will create violent riots for exposing Islam. For example, remember the Danish cartoons of Muhammad which set-off violent riots by Muslims? And Christianity has a history that isn't much better.

This is another ad hominem attack that critics try to use against Acharya S to dismiss her entire body of work, that's all. "Acharya" was chosen as a sort of joke to tease the Hindu authorities because no woman is allowed to be an "Acharya" - let alone a white woman. "Acharya" means many things - teacher, master, priest of the sun, guru etc. The "S" is a mystery - oooh, it must be something horrible The "S" stands for Sanning which means "truth" in Swedish.

In fact, some Hindu fanatics ended up getting Acharya's Wikipedia page deleted because of her pen name, essentially validating why she used "Acharya" in the first place. That's why Wiki has forbid her Wiki article from being titled "Acharya S." These few Hindu fanatics (Hare Krishna) demonstrated their own biases, bigotry and prejudice by attacking a female author for using the name 'Acharya" as a pen name. Furthermore, there are loads of people with the last name "Acharya." The joke here is on those who take the pen name "Acharya S" too seriously. Acharya S doesn't.

There were several Christians attacking her Wiki page insisting on posting what they think is her real name. Those who are actually familiar with Acharya's works have all been banned by Wiki except one. So, at this point, it seems only biased critics with an agenda are allowed to edit her Wiki page. Anyone who attempts to oust her identity does so purely out of malice wishing to cause harm to her and her family. Such people will be held accountable. I've seen people online pretend like they know and call her Diane, Dee Dee, Dorothy, Dotti and other assorted guesses. She prefers "Acharya" to protect her security, privacy and her family.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Is Acharya a "New Ager" and part of the “New Age Movement”?

Another frequent charge used to dismiss Acharya's work is that she is a "New Ager."

I realize that "Christ Conspiracy" may sometimes be found at bookstores in the "New Age" section, especially back in 1999; however, the reason is simply because the information is alternative to mainstream religion as it challenges the status quo. The AUP publisher put the book in the category of "Religion/New Age." She had no control over that. Acharya's books are also found in the "Religion" section too. NONE of Acharya's other books are categorized as "New Age."

The basis for this "New Age" epithet seems to be a couple of short sentences Acharya uses in The Christ Conspiracy:


However, this statement is not a proclamation of being a new ager - this is simply stating an astronomical fact.


Same here as above. Graham Hancock is in agreement with Acharya as well as astronomers - the point was about the precession of the equinoxes, which is defined as follows:


Nowhere does Acharya actually claim to be a "New Ager" - in fact, she's not it's just another derogatory label tossed at her. She doesn't believe any particular ..."age will be a time of utopia." That's not at all what she's saying or claiming throughout her work. So, this whole "New-Ager" label tends to come from those who've never read her work or didn't understand it.

Acharya certainly discusses many religions. but that doesn't necessarily make her a devotee in any of them - even if she has engaged in yoga or meditation. I have enjoyed yoga and meditation from time to time and still do but, I'm an atheist. I read and study about religion and a number of things; still, I'm now an atheist after being a Christian for many years.

Interestingly, in the very next sentence after the quote from page 416, Acharya goes on to quote Jesus saying:

Quote:

"I am with you always to the close of the age" - so ends the Gospel of Matthew."

Mat 28:20 RSV

According to the Blue Letter Bible "Age" in Greek translates to "aiōn" and is used 128 times throughout the New Testament in the Textus Receptus.

Does this make Christians "New Agers?" God, according to Christians is omnipresent - wouldn't that also make them New-Agers? In the book Revelation "I am Alpha and Omega" is mentioned 4 different times. It generally goes on to say, "...the beginning and the end, the first and the last." - of an "AGE", as in precessional age? You get my point.

=====

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Critics Don't Know My Work, Shriek About My Pen Name

Thanks, FTL, for doing all that.

I see that the Zeitgeist controversy has spawned at least 900 new webpages specifically referring to me and my work.

Within these pages appear many erroneous claims that are reflective of the singular fact that my critics have not read my works and are therefore unqualified to make commentary upon them. Such facts, however, do not prevent these individuals from dishonestly attempting to debunk my work.

I would like to emphasize that point: The vast majority of my critics have not even read my works. In particular they have not read Suns of God, which contains refutations for pretty much all of their shallow criticisms. Anyone who wishes to defend my work really needs to read SOG. And those who attack my work without having studied SOG have NO credibility whatsoever.

These dishonest characters also like to hold up detractors of mine within the "atheist" community who likewise have not studied my work but are dishonestly pretending to be experts on me and it. These individuals apparently view themselves as competitors and are evidently professionally jealous in that their works are not receiving the same widespread recognition.

Moreover, I usually don't like to play this card but the facts demonstrate that I have been subjected to what could only be deemed sexism. I have heard about at least one prominent radio personality who didn't want to endorse my work because I was "too sexy." Hard to believe at this point in my life, but a sad reflection of human culture. In any event, a pathetic illustration of the blatant sexism to which I have been subjected. It could honestly be suggested much other vitriol directed at me emanates from the same place.

In any case, it may be a good idea to keep these ideas in mind when encountering the usual character assassinations I'm subjected to when fervent believers cannot dispense with the facts I present. Invariably, they attack my credentials, making hysterical commentary, for example, about how I use a pseudonym and don't reveal my real name.

In the first place, it is true that for some years I was safe in my anonymity from the crackpots and stalkers who later threatened to obtain my credit report, for example, and post it online, along with my home address and phone number. Anyone who knows my story knows that it was none other than Dr. Robert Price who outed me in 2001, which I discovered to my horror one day while sitting home alone, pregnant. All of a sudden, I get an email from a stranger with my real name and home address and phone number, saying that it had been released by Dr. Price to a Christian network. My first reaction was that I would need to flee my home. I was terrified for my life at that point. So, that's the reason I initially used a pseudonym. (Bob Price and I have since mended fences, and he has removed his bad review of Christ Con and endorsed Suns of God. Dr. Price has also written the foreword to my book Who Was Jesus?)

Yes, I chose the pseudonym principally in order to tease religious fanatics, as I was at that time studying Indian religion and noted the chauvinism within. The issue of a pseudonym constitutes an infantile argument that reflects an utter inability to deal with the facts, just more ad homs and assaults on my character, as if that will prove Jesus existed. (And my contention that "Jesus Christ" is a fictional character is really at the basis of much of the vitriol tossed my way.)

In the meantime, the harpies are still shrieking about my nom de plume - a common characteristic in the publishing world, as is evidence by the term "de plume," which means "of pen." I.e., it's a PEN NAME. Nothing sinister or conspiratorial about using a PEN NAME. Enough of such tripe.

Although these harpies claim to be expert enough about me to make their absurd commentaries, they have no idea that I have now begun to use my REAL NAME, as can be found on the first page of my website, attached to my book Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ In other words, the point is now moot.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

What Are Acharya's Credentials?

Another subject that cackling harpies glom onto, fallaciously believing it somehow discredits the numerous facts I bring up in my volumes of work, is that of my credentials.

In the first place, I've read where these insightful "experts" on me remain so befuddled that they cannot even discover the biographical material I've had posted on my website since 1995. Instead of honestly admitting that they are NOT experts on me or my work, such individuals start weeping and wailing about how I have no credentials that they can find or verify.

For everyone's edification, I have included a page on my website entitled:

What Are Acharya's Credentials?

All inquiries may be directed there - please feel free to send and post this article all over the place whenever you see a discussion of me and my work!

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

What about Acharya's publisher - Adventurers Unlimited Press?

A friend of Acharya, Kenn Thomas owner of Steamshovel Press talked to his friend and owner of Adventurers Unlimited Press (AUP) David Childress about publishing Christ Conspiracy and he's very happy he did. Let it be known that Christ Conspiracy is the NUMBER 1 SELLING BOOK of ALL TIME for AUP.

Detractors often haven't actually read Acharya's material beyond a few online articles, if that. They rely on the dishonest smears of others who post on the net without even checking for accuracy. Here's a tame comment I ran into:

First of all, there's no problem with those topics. Secondly, what these folks don't know is that major, respected publishers also publish those things and far worse. Major publishers also publish books on pedophilia, satanism, rape, incest, polygamy, homosexuality, murder, cannibalism and more.

Folks consider these to be respectable publishers and they are but, they publish books on all of those topics too. Simply go to Amazon.com and do a book search and type in a favorite publisher along with a topic from above and you'll be amazed at what turns up.

University of Chicago Press - Lets look up "conspiracy" and see what turns up ...

The 9/11 Conspiracy by James H. Fetzer

The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth about Extraterrestrial life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt by Lynn Picknett

Prometheus - lets look up oh, I don't know, say, "Atlantis" and see what turns up ...2 pages of books. A couple are:

The Atlantis Encyclopedia by Frank Joseph

Voyage to Atlantis: The Discovery of a Legendary Land by Jr., James W. Mavor

Harpers - Lets see if they have anything on the "Christ Myth"

JESUS WHO? Myth vs. Reality in the Search for the Historical Jesus by James Gardner

The Jesus Myth by G. A. Wells

Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy ("Three Rivers Press" is a part of Harpers)

Simon & Schuster - Lets look up "UFOs"

UFO Briefing Document: The Best Available Evidence by Don Berliner and Whitley Streiber

UFOs and the National Security State by Richard M. Dolan and Jacques F. Vallee

They have 4 pages of books on UFOs http://tinyurl.com/2wrtpe

W.W. Norton - Lets look up "Mysterious Phenomena"

The Mysterious North Shore: A Collection of Short Stories About Ghosts, UFOs, Shipwrecks and More by William Mayo

Anyway, you get the point. Complaints about Adventurers Unlimited Press (AUP) simply don't stand and are simply used to try to get others not to read Acharya's works.

Never mind how God created the universe in 7 days. Never mind the talking snake with Adam and Eve, the fraudulent Noah's ark, the burning bush, Never mind the mention of the Anunnaki and Nephilim plus all the other extraordinary tales in the Old and New Testaments including Jesus' resurrection. Never mind all the religious wars and genocide in the bible. Never mind all the forgery and interpolations. Never mind all the errors and contradictions in the bible. Lets just worry about whatever AUP may have published. Lets just get hung-up on her pen name "Acharya S" and the word "Conspiracy" in the title of her first book rather than the fascinating information in it (SARCASM).

I was a saved, baptized evangelical Christian for two decades. I simply got tired of being lied to. The bible should have a disclaimer sticker that reads something like this:

"This book discusses gods. The existence of entities with supernatural powers is controversial, and many believe that myths, especially other people's myths, are fictional. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

and/or,

"These stories are a collage of many other, much older stories that are known to be myths, legends and/or, Astrotheology and should never be taken as literal fact." The bible should be in the FICTION section with the rest of the fiction.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

My Publisher

Thanks again, FTL.

It is amazing how little people know about the publishing world, yet they yack as if they are experts. In the first place, one doesn't write a book and then have major publishers falling all over themselves to obtain it - unless one is already famous for some reason or another. In the bad old days before print-on-demand and ebooks, it was a seriously difficult process to get a book published, as there were far too few publishers for all the authors, and major publishers were extremely selective.

Those who are using the strawman argument of my publisher - revealing just how weak is their ability to dispense with the FACTS I bring up - have obviously never written a book and attempted to get it published. Hence, once again they are extremely ignorant of the subject they are so snidely waving about. One thing that continuously strikes those who are engaged in this intellectual debate about the origins of religion and Christianity in particular is how repulsively dishonest, smart-alecky and sociopathic the upholders of the faith can be. Such characteristics are obvious from the fact that their great champions - who shall remain nameless - are barbarians and knuckledraggers whose only "talent" is their smart mouths and attempts at bullying.

In any event, years ago when Christ Con was published, obtaining any publisher was a long and tedious process that may never have yielded results. I was fortunate to have another publisher's offer, but I chose AUP, even though Kenn Thomas had to twist Childress's arm. Like you say, Childress is certainly glad he took that risk!

The entire publisher issue is a non-issue, smoke-and-mirrors and strawman argument that only those with no real argument concerning the facts and with a less-than-stellar IQ would keep bringing up. It is irrelevant, especially when you factor in the pabulum that major mainstream publishers themselves have pumped out endlessly - and when you consider what absolute SCHLOCK Christian publishers waste perfectly good trees on. It's time for the environmentalists to picket this Christian crap, such as the "Left Behind" series, which is planting a dangerous blueprint for total global destruction in the brains of millions. Their publishers should be sued.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" 1875 classic by Kersey Graves

Some get confused by the article by Richard Carrier linked below and try to use it to blast Acharya for mentioning Kersey Graves. BTW, Richard Carrier has never actually read any of Acharya S/Murdock's books. I see no reason to believe Carrier has actually read Graves either because of this comment at the top of his own article he admits that his opinion of Kersey Graves' book comes from three e-mails, not by reading Graves' book. Nowhere does Carrier give any indication that he ever actually read the book:

Richard Carrier has made no effort researching where Graves was getting his info like Acharya has and it's obviously a thankless job. It's easy for those like Richard Carrier to attack Kersey Graves when he's dead and can not defend himself.

She wrote the foreword to the 6th edition to "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors".

Kersey Graves is only cited 7 times in the "Christ Conspiracy" index. In "Suns of God" she mentions him only in order to discuss the fracas surrounding his credibility. She does NOT rely on Graves at all, she is merely asking why he is saying what he is - that's where her investigation STARTS, not where it ends:

Here, Richard Carrier agrees with Kersey Graves on the December 25 birth date issue ...

Regarding Kersey Graves and the god "Deva Tat," another instance of Graves being charged with "fabrication," Acharya answered:

That Asiatic Researches article regarding "Deva-Tat" dates to over a century prior to Graves and is fairly long. The title "Deva-Tat" was apparently well known within the Indian/Buddhist priesthood. Once again, proof of yet another example how Graves did not "make it up." There are 23 references to the Asiatic Researches article & its authors in Suns of God.

This article demonstrates what I'm talking about: Beddru is Beddou is Buddha

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

In the article below Richard Carrier criticizes a paragraph, e-mailed to him, about the Luxor inscription from Acharya S first book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999) pages 115-116:


It's important to note that Richard Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya S/Murdock as the information he obtains of her work apparently comes from e-mails from others. Dick Carrier's criticisms of her work have been very sloppy including egregious errors, so, be very skeptical of his criticisms as Richard Carrier is not a reliable or credible source on Acharya's work. It's also important to realize that Carrier has never proven anything of significance wrong. It appears his agenda is merely to 'poison the well.':


Acharya's responds to the above criticism by Dick Carrier in the article below:


Here's the latest:

Parallelophobia, personal attacks and professional jealousy: A response to Richard Carrier's 'That Luxor Thing'

Is Jesus's nativity an Egyptian myth?

What Egyptologists (and other scholars) say about Egypt's role in Christian origins

Myopia is not expertise

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

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

LOL, this is one of the most absurd lies that gets passed around the net. It demonstrates that these folks have never read her work at all.

Here are just 3 quotes of many from Acharya's work that demonstrates these assumptions utterly false

Early Church Father Tertullian (160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you." (a paraphrase by the Catholic Encyclopedia) "Christ Conspiracy" 158

"...All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
- Macrobius Roman scholar around 400ce
* source: "The Saturnalia" by Macrobius, "Suns of God" 67-68

"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..."
- Diodorus Siculus (90-21 BCE), Greek Historian
* source:"The Antiquities of Egypt" by Diodorus Siculus, "Suns of God" 89

Also, see the Bibliography for Suns of God, which demonstrates that Acharya used a wide variety of sources dating to the earliest times.

Critics also attempt to claim: "Nobody questioned Jesus' existence until the 19th century."

This comment is disingenuous because a) It omits the fact that questioning church doctrine & dogma was punishable by death throughout the crusades, Inquisitions & DARK AGES right up to the 1800's. And b) Independent critical thinking was not allowed. Folks were scared to death to be skeptical of the church let alone publicly question Jesus' existence. Nevertheless, xian apologists & ignorant agnostics & atheists regurgitate this pathetic line of reasoning. It's embarrassing.

It's scripture like 2 John 7 and 1 John 4:2-3 that kept people in fear of questioning Jesus' existence. Nobody wanted to be seen as against god. The fact that this scripture is there gives us a clue that many people must not believed in a historical Jesus from the beginning.

1 John 4:2-3 "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

2 John 7: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

It appears this mentality is still a default psoition today even in New Testament scholarship. They just assume a priori that Jesus must have existed and work from there. The facts & evidence demonstrate that Jesus is as mythical as Hercules.


* For more information about the severe lack of evidence for a historical Jesus see "Who Was Jesus?: Finger Prints of The Christ". There you'll find comments from Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars such as...

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" a founder of the modern evangelical movement

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."
- John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5.

Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor.

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"
- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."
- Merrill C. Tenney, "New Testament Survey," p. 203.

Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

See, even Christian New Testament and biblical scholars as well as Jewish scholars don't agree evidence for Jesus. The facts & evidence demonstrate that Jesus is as mythical as Hercules.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

What about the copycat theory?

The "copycat" argument is often used as a straw man argument as those I see claiming to have debunked the "copycat" argument do so mostly out of ignorance or in attempt to shore-up their faith at all costs. To explain, many only see Acharya's lists, say for example Horus, online at some website or forum without ever actually reading Acharya's book to get the full context. Acharya never claims these are "carbon copies" as that would be absurd. She merely points out that the CONCEPTS existed in the pre-christian Pagan world and were not original to Christianity and she provides primary sources and scholar commentary on them to substantiate her case. The skeptics omit or are ignorant of all the background context in order to dodge, deny and dismiss either out of biases or ignorance.

The fact remains that there are a great many similarities of gods and savior sons of gods throughout history. That doesn't necessarily mean they are all exact carbon copies of each other. If Pagan religions worldwide were basing their religious ideas around natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations i.e. astrotheology, then, there are going to be plenty of similarities. The differences tend to be related to environment, culture, era etc. Add to that all of the competition and borrowing of ideas between them. Still, the CONCEPTS have their foundations in astrotheology. And that's what we're talking about, borrowing similar concepts based in natural phenomena. If one is unaware that the myths were based on natural phenomena it will seem odd, mysterious and supernatural. When you know what you're looking for it becomes obvious.

This copycat argument is absurd because religions have always been in competition with each other and each newly created god or savior usually had additional new powers or attributes etc in order for religious oneupmanship to usurp the older god or savior. In the case of war for example, the victor was usually able to force their gods, culture and calendars onto the losers. It was easier or more helpful to do that if your god had more extraordinary powers or attributes etc, etc than theirs. Sometimes they created a new god by blending each others gods. Sometimes, simply by giving the same god a new name or just changing it slightly was enough...


The other older gods may have been stricken from the records so to speak. We know for a fact that Christians went on a rampage to destroy any and all pagan gods. We know this because early church fathers admitted it. They also made laws against worshipping pagan gods etc, etc. Why would they do that? Probably because they never did have a good answer to explain the similarities between the much older pagan gods and Jesus. It was easier to just destroy the evidence as much as possible.

Another obvious reason for the similarities and parallels of religions, when one understands astrotheology, is centered around pagan holidays similar to our "Christmas" and "Easter". Those are just two celebrations that have been celebrated as far back in time as we can go. Different cultures with different environments celebrated them in their own way but usually revolved around many similar themes such light vs. dark, night vs. day, life vs. death, God vs. Satan, Horus vs. Set, Heaven vs. Hell etc, etc.



Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

'Christian era' and 'pre-christian'

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

What are the Primary Sources?

In response to the cry for "primary sources," in Suns of God Acharya writes:


Acharya also answered this question regarding "primary sources" in an email:

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Zeitgeist part 1 vs. "Preventing Truth Decay" website

"Zeitgeist" part 1 video is largely based on Acharya's work but includes many others as well. Of course she can only vouch for her own work. And, Acharya had nothing to do with parts 2 & 3
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Realize that Zeitgeist was never intended to be a scholarly documentary. As Peter Joseph explains, it was a personal project which was shown in New York as a free public awareness expression. After the event was over, "The Movie" was tossed online with little thought given to a public response.

-----

Here is my response to the "Preventing Truth Decay" site that I sent them shortly after their page "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted was created. I've seen folks passing this site around as if it holds the authority and is the last word on the matter - what a joke. There's MUCH MORE I could add but not bad for a quickie... feel free to copy/paste it wherever necessary. I may make additions to this later when I have the time.

and
Which is the same crap from JP Holding and Mike Licona which Acharya already addressed.

* added edit: For my original e-mail go to this thread "Preventing Truth Decay responds"
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... f=4&t=1158

I've made a few additions to this here as I stated I would so, it is no longer the original but you are free to copy/paste it and send it to info@preventingtruthdecay.org to correct the errors and misinformation there. Please do...

Dear Preventing Truth Decay.org,

I've recently viewed your website which includes an article titled "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted".

I wanted to respond to this and since your website is all about preventing the decay of truth, I'm confident that you would also have the integrity to post my response along with the article. Otherwise, it would be very dishonest and unscholarly to censor the opposing view point, wouldn't it. I couldn't help but notice that you chose not to include Acharya's responses to Holding and Licona that have been available long before you created Preventing Truth Decay. I will simply organize a quick response not a point by point to every single criticism as it doesn't seem necessary, nor do I have the time.

In your section "General Introduction" -

The claims of outdated scholarship and primary sources are brought up along with author Acharya S and her book "The Christ Conspiracy". There's something you should know, there are two other books by Acharya as well, "Suns of God" and "Who Was Jesus?". Having read them all, I felt I should say something because your view of Acharya's work is not accurate.

Acharya wrote "Christ Conspiracy" in 1999 it is 430 pages, with over 1,200 footnotes & over 100 bibliographical citations. "Suns of God" (2004) in response to the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy". So the criticisms have already been dealt with there. "Suns of God" is nearly 600 pages with over 1,800 footnotes with 46 pages of illustrations, which comprise over 100 separate images. Suns of God's bibliography comprises over 250 books and articles. Most of these are from conservative and respected sources, and many of them are Christian, dating back to the earliest times. Acharya has presented this enormous amount of resources in order to provide a consensus of opinion, precisely because the subject matter is so contentious.

In 2007, "Who Was Jesus?: Fingerprints of The Christ", in this work Acharya sets aside mythology, astrotheology to specifically deal with the Gospels where Acharya shares commentary by various Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars. WWJ, comprises of 168 books and articles most of which are again, from conservative and respected sources, and many of them are Christian, dating back to the earliest times through to today.

Back to outdated scholarship and primary sources, Acharya addresses this issue in the Introduction to "Suns of God" here - http://www.truthbeknown.com/introduction.htm

You said,

- Well, this is not accurate, as even Justin Martyr admits around 150 CE in "The First Apology" (XXI):

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you [PAGANS] believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter..."

* Yes, I've seen your response to this quote - enjoy "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?" http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm
For more on this see "Who Was Jesus?" by Acharya

"That there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity has been observed since the early centuries of the Church, when both Christian and non-Christian alike commented upon certain similarities."
- Dr. Bruce Metzger, "Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian"

It appears that most of the sources you use here are Tektonics/JP Holding and Mike Licona. First, JP Holding -

JP Holding has no qualifications whatsoever in any Biblical field, knows no Biblical languages, and has no relevant training, yet has the temerity to presume that his OPINION is enough, and that his personal FAITH is all that he needs, to offer a vicious and vitriolic critique of credible credentialed scholars who are trained in this area of expertise. JP Holding has no training in comparative religion. No training in mythology. No training in archaeoastronomy. No training in astrotheology. Here are just a few links about the dishonesty of JP Holding exposing why he & his entourage cannot be trusted ...see it for yourself.

TEKTONICS.ORG: EXPOSED!
http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html

'James Patrick Holding, the Want-to-Be Apologist'
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... 24jph.html

'Dishonesty by Robert Turkel (J.P. Holding)'
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/turkeldishonesty.html

A Reply to J. P. Holding
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... lding.html

"Writing James P Holding Off!"
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... g-off.html

"Prove Jesus Existed, Please!"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm

James Patrick Holding: Another Apostate With Selective Education
http://www.darrellwconder.com/debate1.html

Do a google for JP Holding and his alt. "Sheila Rangslinger" -

"DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself."

And here's what Acharya had to say concerning Mike Licona -

From your section, "Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithra (or Mithras)-Is the Life of Jesus Christ Plagiarized from their Myths?"

For starters, actually read "Christ Conspiracy", "Suns of God" Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ and Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (CIE) which addresses all of the Egyptian claims in Zeitgeist. For a shorter version of CIE check out The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book

“Mithra was born on December 25.”



To this nonsensical remark, Acharya responds, "First of all, Holding's opinion on this subject is, as usual, irrelevant. The fact is that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people worldwide believe that the Jewish son of God was born on December 25th, just like many other sons of God. Holding merely waving that fact away is not going to affect reality."

What does the Catholic Encyclopedia say on this issue?

Mithraism: "Sunday was kept holy in honour of Mithra, and the sixteenth of each month was sacred to him as mediator. The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

* Notice the word "REBIRTH," which means that the sun was perceived to have died only to be re-born or resurrected 3 days later after the winter solstice.

Natalis Invicti: "The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

* see "Suns of God" and for more info on Horus

Section "Did Any of these Pre-Christian Deities Really Rise from the Dead?"

- Again, I refer you to Justin Martyr around 150 ce admitting pre-Christian Pagan gods which were "...crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven..."

* for more on this see "Who Was Jesus?" and of course "Suns of God".

Section "Jesus Christ-the Most Recent Solar Messiah?"

The fact that Christians' favorite holidays are Christmas and Easter is enough to consider Jesus a sun god. I agree that the bible makes no mention for the actual date for the birth nor death of Jesus - as would be the case for a fictional character. In ancient times long before the advent of Christianity both an Easter and a Christmas type of celebration existed which usually represented victory of the light over the darkness. Neither holiday was originated by Christianity. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when Christmas was recognized as an official holiday in the US. Christians fought over it for nearly a full century specifically because they considered it to be too PAGAN.

You said, who seems to know absolutely nothing about solar mythology, astrotheology nor comparative religion. I can't take anything she has to say seriously on any of the issues here.

However, Dr. Noel Swerdlow is the Professor of Astronomy etc, I can listen to what he has to say:


First of all, that's the wrong question. The question concerns the WINTER SOLSTICE not whether or not the sun rises on December 25th - of course the sun rises on December 25th. Secondly, this person is not an expert on solar mythology, so he does not know any of the arguments that concern whether or not Jesus is another version of the sun god. Also, the claim made by apologists and Dr. Swerdlow that the comparison of Jesus to other solar deities began in the 18th century is FALSE.

In the first place, sun gods were extremely important in the ancient world, as attested by pre-Christian writer Diodorus Siculus, for one:

"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..."
- Diodorus Siculus (90-21 BCE), Greek Historian, "Suns of God" 89

Early Church Father Tertullian (160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you." "Christ Conspiracy" 158 (paraphrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

"All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
- Macrobius around 400ce "Suns of God" 67-68

Most importantly, the comparisons of Jesus with the sun began in the SECOND CENTURY, with Church fathers such as Tertullian (160-220 CE), who said:

Chapter 13. ”The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort.

"Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day, in preference to the preceding day as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest and for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish feasts on the Sabbath and 'the Purification,' and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps, and the fasts of unleavened bread, and the 'littoral prayers,' all which institutions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest."

Tertullian, "Ad Nationes," I, 13 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Later, St. Augustine (354-430 AD/CE) was also compelled to dispute the same observation, which obviously continued to his day:

"I think that what the Lord says, 'I am the light of the world," is clear to those that have eyes, by which they are made partakers of this light: but they who have not eyes except in the flesh alone, wonder at what is said by the Lord Jesus Christ, "I am the light of the world." And perhaps there may not be wanting some one too who says with himself: Whether perhaps the Lord Christ is that sun which by its rising and setting causes the day? For there have not been wanting heretics who thought this. The Manichæans have supposed that the Lord Christ is that sun which is visible to carnal eyes, exposed and public to be seen, not only by men, but by the beasts. But the right faith of the Catholic Church rejects such a fiction, and perceives it to be a devilish doctrine: not only by believing acknowledges it to be such, but in the case of whom it can, proves it even by reasoning. Let us therefore reject this kind of error, which the Holy Church has anathematized from the beginning. Let us not suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ is this sun which we see rising from the east, setting in the west; to whose course succeeds night, whose rays are obscured by a cloud, which removes from place to place by a set motion: the Lord Christ is not such a thing as this. The Lord Christ is not the sun that was made, but He by whom the sun was made. For all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."

Augustine, "Tractate on the Gospel of John," XXXIV
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701034.htm

Solar Mythology Lesson # 1 - http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/ ... h/day.html

Winter solstice sunrise in Newgrange 3600-3100 BC
http://www.knowth.com/loughcrew.htm

"The earliest known direct reference to precession is that of the Greek astronomer Hipparchus (2nd century BCE), who is credited with discovering it. Adjustments of the Egyptian temple alignments, pointed out by Sir Norman Lockyer, may well indicate a much earlier sensitivity to this phenomenon, however."

Again, Krupp says:

"Circumstantial evidence implies that the awareness of the shifting equinoxes may be of considerable antiquity, for we find, in Egypt at least, a succession of cults whose iconography and interest focus on duality, the bull, and the ram at appropriate periods for Gemini, Taurus, and Aries in the precessional cycle of the equinoxes."

- Suns of God, page 40
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 910#p19910

Dr. Swerdlow also appears to be unaware that the Old Testament discusses the zodiac in one of the oldest book in the OT, Job explicitly at Job 38:32 where he mentions the "mazzaroth" = zodiac. And lets not forget that the bible itself mentions the "age" many times so, Dr. Swerdlow should just stick to astronomy and leave the theology, mythology and astrotheology to others as he appears to know nothing about it.


I see no evidence to believe that the Jesus of the bible was ever anything else besides another sun god.

p.s. I'm sure you'll be pleased to discover that astronomer and former-director of Los Angeles's Griffith Observatory Dr. Edwin Krupp is quoted many times throughout "Suns of God" among others.

Section "Did Jesus Even Exist?"

"Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"
- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)

* for more on this see "Who Was Jesus?" by Acharya



- REALLY? I'll just grab a few more quotes from Christian authorities that I found interesting from "Who Was Jesus?" -

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."
- Merrill C. Tenney, "New Testament Survey," p. 203.

Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" founder of the modern evangelical movement

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."
- John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5.

Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, ex-Catholic priest and monsignor

---------------

So for my own conclusion. I'd point out that if you're going to be overly critical of an author's work, it may be wise to actually read the book first rather than rely on the dishonesty of JP Holding and Licona. I see this review of the "Zeitgeist" part 1 movie and Acharya's "Christ Conspiracy" as more Christian dishonesty attempting to censor a view point that has been around much longer than Christianity.

If you would like to claim that Jesus was a historical real person that lived on earth, was the son of god etc, etc then simply provide the evidence - outside of the Bible - to support these claims. Note that even if you could, it would be the first time throughout history as even the apostles and earliest church fathers couldn't produce any evidence for this. If there were any evidence to support the claims, faith would not be the main requirement for Christianity.
* for more on this subject see "Who Was Jesus?" by Acharya

If it is solar mythology or astrotheology you're interested in then, it would be wise to approach experts in this field. Not folks with no credentials whatsoever like JP Holding etc.

Acharya S is a top expert in the field of comparative religion and mythology, specializing in astrotheology and solar mythology with a keen interest in archaeoastronomy. Acharya S examines the connections between modern religious belief and our ancient veneration for the Sun and other natural phenomena throughout her work:

Who Was Jesus? Expanded Version
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

* New edit Oct 2nd - We have been blessed by the "Preventing Truth Decay" creator joining us with a response here -

Preventing Truth Decay responds
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... f=4&t=1158

* The entire issue surrounding the Zeitgeist part 1 controversy comes down to 2 things.

1. The evidence of solar mythology, astrotheology found worldwide as far back into history as we can go.

2. The very severe lack of credible evidence for the existence of Jesus.

These 2 subjects intersect in many ways and must be examined together. It is my contention that we will never fully understand our modern religious beliefs unless and until we also understand the mythological and astrotheological aspects of our history. Mainstream academia omits these 2 aspects for the most part. We can argue about the details forever - detractors can disagree with Acharya all they want but it still comes down to those 2 issues from above.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

The "Crucifixion" of Horus

Regarding pre-Christian gods, we possess strange suggestions from Church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Minucius Felix about them being "crucified" or on crosses, i.e., in cruciform. Indeed, the whole point about the "crucifixion" of Horus and other gods is that they are represented as hanging on crosses, long before the story of Jesus Christ was created with the same central theme. The particulars of these myths vary, of course, because of the era, culture and motive for creating them. In the sun god mythos, the sun is represented as "hanging on the cross" at several points, including during the vernal equinox, when the day and the night are the same length, and the sun was said to be in the middle of this "cross." In other words, the sun was "crossified," such as in the images in this article:

Was Horus "Crucified?"
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/w ... ified.html

Here is my response to the Horus question from another thread:

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

The Son of God is the Sun of God

The assertion that the "Son of God" is the "Sun of God" is frequently raised as another strawman argument that detractors like to knock down. Like these other criticisms, I have already addressed this one, but like sauerkraut it keeps repeating.

The complaint about this assertion stems from the impression that I and others are claiming the words "son" and "sun" are interchangeable and that, according to mainstream etymology, these two words in fact constitute "false cognates."

In the first place, the phrase comparing "son" and "sun" is usually meant to be a PLAY ON WORDS, not to suggest that the two words are etymological cognates and are interchangeable. Hence, this complaint represents a strawman argument. I for one am well aware that, according to mainstream etymology, the two words are not cognates and are not related. Using this PLAY ON WORDS to make a point is perfectly allowable, but one that is evidently lost on the critic.

In any event, as it turns out - and I as discovered long after I knew that mainstream etymology does not allow for the two words to be cognates and related - there IS reason to suggest otherwise, per the fascinating work of Christian etymologist Jacob Bryant, who published his book A New System, or An Analysis of Ancient Mythology in 1774. In Suns of God (76), I write:


The "Roy" above refers to Indian scholar S.B. Roy, who wrote Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy, Institute of Chronology, New Delhi, 1976.

Indeed, the Old English word for "son" is sunnu, while "sun" is sunne, so again we have an apt comparison.

The linguistical connection can be found in other languages as well.

English: sun son
Old English: sunne sunnu
Afrikaans: son seun
Dutch: zon zoon
German: Sonne Sohn
Slovenian: sonce sin

However, it needs to be stated that nobody is claiming that "son" and "sun" sounding the same is proof of anything. Therefore, making videos or writing articles in order to debunk this straw man and non-issue represents not only a total misrepresentation of this point but also an utter waste of time.

Furthermore, some have pointed out the similarity between the Greek words for son, huios, and sun, helios. I have not found any evidence that this possible Greek pun was used in the ancient world, however, but that doesn't rule it out, as much literature has been destroyed since that time, and my survey was brief.

To repeat, in Greek the word for "sun" is ἥλιος or "helios." In Latin, "sun" is "sol."

Hebrew Shamash/Shemesh

In Hebrew, the word for "sun" is שמש or "shamash" or "shemesh," both common transliterations of the vowel-less Hebrew. As Dr. James M. Lindenberger remarks concerning שמש shamash/shemesh in the Bible:


(Botta, Alejandro, ed. In the Shadow of Bezalel. Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013; p. 269.)

In this same regard, Wikipedia "Shamash" comments:


A transliteration of the vowel-less Hebrew would be smm.

Note also that Gesenius's Lexicon associates the root letters sm with the Old Germani Summi, among others:



In this regard, it would appear that sm and "sun" are related.

It should be noted that I have known these words in Greek, Hebrew and Latin for about 30 years. As such, I have never said that these words are the same - that is a complete and utter fabrication, displaying the ridiculously poor quality of the criticisms of my work. One should be suspect of any other argument following such an absurd straw man, as it is likely to be of the same poor quality. Individuals and websites using this strawman son-sun criticism should be dismissed out of hand as inaccurate and irrelevant.

The bottom line is that even if we do not accept the etymology of Bryant and Roy, the fact will remain that the assertion that the son of God is the sun of God represents a clever play on words which reflects reality within the world of mythology.

The Sun/Son Play on Words throughout History

Also, this sun/son pun in English has been well noted in the past by many writers, poets and clergymen in the Christian world. As I relate in my ebook Jesus as the Sun throughout History - all facts are carefully cited there, so be sure to obtain my ebook for more information:


This issue is also address in Forbes Claim No. 2

In my ebook Jesus as the Sun throughout the Ages, I have thus recounted the history of the son-sun pun in English literature - possibly the most thorough treatment of such - and demonstrated that it has a long and venerable usage among some of the best writers and poets of the English language dating back centuries.

I shall therefore count myself among these esteemed wordsmiths who chose to avail themselves of a first-rate play on words, rather than among the pun-illiterate and poetry-insensate critics.

See also: The Son-Sun pun strawman

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it: