Acharya S's
 Truth Be Known        yin yang image
 religion spirituality mythology archaeology history astrotheology archaeoastronomy
online since 1995
Acharya S image
Online Video

"You Can

Truth Be Known donation button

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ     |     The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST New! image

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ image

 The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1

<< Previous    1  [2]  3  4    Next >>

From: KT
To: 'Acharya S'
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:01:37 -0500

"Anti-Semitism" is a Mossad psyop/prop-op.

From: RH
To: Acharya S
Subject: Acharya S Scholar and Visionary
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 18:53:40 +1000

Greetings Acharya S.

"I think that the true test of a genius is the ability to see the follies of one's own times. The ability to change one's own times is the true test of a leader. And the ability to do both is the true test of a visionary who will never be elected."

This quotation occupies a prominent position on your home page. It would appear to advertise the importance of genius, leadership and vision in your life. It may also be suggesting that since you admit to being a visionary you are by definition also a genius and a leader. I sincerely hope so. There is certainly evidence of that unmistakable touch of genius; the drive to be different. Your site will surely attract genius and vision and it has every opportunity of providing leadership....

Kindest reguards,

P.S. A well produced, well presented site with great a potential to initiate change. Thank you.

The following is an excerpt from an atheist chat room.

PapaSam: TEACHER. The murderous god of your bible and your religion is the master abortionist of all time. If you believe your bible, take a look at Sodom and at the flood. Your god brimstoned Sodom and all its residents, including the babies suckling at their mothers' breasts and the fetuses in their mothers' wombs. For a change of pace, instead of burning them up, he decided to drown them all. So your god came out with a flood and drowned the whole world except for the drunk, Noah, and his familly. How many million did he abort that time? You tell me, teacher. It's your bible and your abortionist god. If you don't know, ask your priest, if you can get him away from bungholing the altar boy.

From: PA
To: Acharya S
Subject: Site
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:34:22 -0500

Finally I hear from the wondrous Acharya. I agree with all your points and then some, religious belief in any system is the sign of dull alseep mind. You have been another person I have run into with our common plight to free the mind from the chains of ignorance and those are some very heavy chains. Most of the more intelligent woman I run into seem to be involved in Wicca but at least they have a decent philosophy, very Taoist/Buddhist in nature. I don't slam them as much for being Wicca because it isn't near the problem Christianity is nor have they caused the death of about 100 million innocent people. I recognize that it is apparent some have to believe in something, a pity they cannot find that need within themsleves. It would seem many can't take the next step and cast aside all belief, supernatural myths of Gods, is a shelter for the fearful. I would like you review my site when you can, of course I destroy Christianity and kick the legs out from under belief in general but I also attempt to demonstrate the benefits of unstructured, nonritual meditation and the parallels of quantum science to Eastern teachings but not in the way that is commonly done. I am loosing my web access for awhile and this email address will not work after the next week.

...You have got to be the most fascinating woman I have encountered on this green earth. I am not some internet geek or weirdo. I am on numerous boards around the net notorius for my philosophy and utter ability to chop the Bible into little pieces. I love what you're doing... I a notorius philosophical smartass, hated and despised by a lot of Christian's and loved by the open minded enlightened few...

Acharya is a hotty!!!

P.S. ...I just looked at your recent pictures additions, I must say whooooooooo, you really are amazing, there is something very exotic about a beautiful intelligent woman. No wonder I am compelled to your site. Why is it no man has touched your heart, were none worthy?

From: TK
To: 'Acharya S'
Subject: RE: Fan letter
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:57:24 -0500

Read The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. Please pass on my praise for well-written widely encompassing and 'smashing' book. I've had one of her sources "Godfrey Higgins" Volumes for about 25 yrs. It set me on the road to pay heed to etymology and the general worldwide structure of the 'mythoses'. Another of my favorite sources for linquistic and other opinions is L.A. Waddell's 'Makers of Civilisation in Race and History.'

In my search for TRUTH over the years, I decided that if Christ represented anything, 'HE/SHE' should be the ideal for the SPIRIT OF TRUTH - TRUTH above all, even if it shatters cherished 'fairy tales'. We are supposed to be mature intelligent people, not naive little children. It's time to grow up-wake up.

I'm recommending the store hold more copies of this book, as I have others.

Thx kindly

From: JC
To: "Acharya S"
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:42:42 -0400


Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:41:59 -0500
From: ER
To: Acharya S
Subject: Thanks for the reply!

Hello, Acharya!

I thought you weren't going to answer me, so thanks for replying!

Religion in today's world has lost a lot of its force -- my best friend went and converted to Islam and now he's going to get married to a Wiccan! This isn't what I'd call traditional religiosity....

At any rate, I wish you success in achieving the aims of your anti-crusade.

Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: BC <thesimpleone@*****>
Subject: Today
To: Acharya S

Today I have viseted your website.  I am very displeased.  I am sorry that your fallacies have blinded you.  Soon you will understand. Soon you will know.  But, until then, so be it.

You're "very displeased!" Oh no! Geesh, what an egomaniac. By its fruit you shall know it, and Christianity's fruits are utterly charmless, not to mention menacing and vicious.

From: SF
To: Acharya S
Subject: I'm not alone?
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:21:53 EDT

I'm sure you've heard this before. I won't bore you with my personal history.  I am glad you are alive and thinking.  It gives me new hope in the human race...

Here is my simple (I find it so) argument against the opinion that Christianity is the 'Truth'.  If you are born in the Arab world, you will most likely be Muslim.  If you are born in India, you will most likely be Hindu.  If you are born in the Western world, you will most likely be Christian.  I find it interested that truth is geographically dependant. Why are these people not Christian?  Is it because they WANT to go to Hell? Is it because their book is better?  Is it because they never heard of Jesus?  No.  The answer is simple.  I thought modern psychology called this phenomenon 'peer pressure'...

Although I do not subscribe to the opinions held dear by most organized religions, I do believe in 'God'.  Apparently, my 'God' is very different from anything these people imagine.  Mine has no personality.  It is not anthropomorphic.  It doesn't love me or hate me.  I think my notion of 'God' is similar to your own.  From your website I glean that you grok a kind of 'all pervasive energy' that is the foundation or source of life -- beyond that -- that 'God' is the universe --  the sum total of all that was, is, and will be.  For you I have a present.  Every freethinker that comes to believe in some kind of god has some proof that works for them.  Here is mine: Water. Yes water. Water, as far as I know, is the only substance whose solid form floats in its liquid form.  What does this mean?  It means that most substances get more dense as you remove heat, and expand as you add heat.  Water, too, gets more dense when you remove heat...until about 3 degrees Celsius. Then, when you remove heat, it expands.  Why?  I don't know.  I have not come across anyone who knows.  It is convenient though, don't you think? How many fish would die if ice sank?  Would life have evolved from that 'primordial mud puddle' if ice sank?  I don't know.  But to me, this phenomenon is too beautiful, too perfect, to be mere chance.  I think the physical laws of the universe are designed to allow life to flourish. Who designed them?  No 'body'.

I am currently working on a theory of exactly what 'God' is that fits within modern science in terms of quantum physics and cosmology....The law of increasing Entropy - familiar with it? The modern cosmological theories on inflation (aka the Big Bang)..familiar with them? Imagine this -- imagine that entropy has an opposite law associated with it, an opposite tendency or force.  I call this tendency or force, 'volition'.  It is the tendency for matter to exist.  It is what created the singularity that caused the big bang in the first place.  It is why quantum physics permits the spontaneous creation of matter/energy in a vacuum. To try and make a long theory short -- Entropy can be said to be a tendency towards destruction (lower energy).  Volition can be said to be a tendency towards creation (more energy).  These two forces balance each other, but in peculiar ways.  Given the flatness of the universe, it occurs to me that the big bang is a cyclic phenomenon, happening over and over again thru countless eons and resulting in uncounted incarnations of the universe. The universe itself is pervaded with these two opposing forces.  Entropy seeks to destroy the universe, and volition seeks to perpetuate and multiply the universe.  (Some in cosmology believe black holes to be 'universe seeds' that spawn new universes extradimensionally adjacent to our own.)  How does this relate to humans?  Volition is not just a tendency, but an actual force.  In the same way that all things exhibit magnetic fields, so do all things exhibit volition fields.  People are the volitional equivalent of magnets, in that they exhibit a high concentration of the volition field. This is what makes people 'sentient'.  It is what gives people the desire to be alive and to reproduce.  It is why we are more than the sum total of our atoms.  I mean honestly, we are just an assortment of atoms aren't we? Then why are we alive?  Why do we perceive reality and respond to it more so than say a rock?  This concentration of volition is what makes us 'alive'. But in the same sense, since all things are permeated by and have volition, so are all things 'alive' in a sense. Volition allows things to exist. If a thing were to lose it's volition, it would cease to exist. (It would wink out in a 'fit of entropy' heehehehe.) Entropy it can be said, destroys all things 'in due time', but it is volition that allows them to exist at all, and indeed will respawn the universe when entropy and gravity cause it to collapse (assuming the universe is flat anyway -- not flat like paper -- flat in terms of matter density (see any decent text on cosmology)). I am currently working on the math to help establish this notion in more grounded scientific terms.  First, however, comes the inspiration...the math follows. (First Newton observed the world, THEN he came up with the math hehehe).

...Anyway, this has gotten far longer than I originally intended. I enjoy your website, and now that I've found it, I will come back often.

Thank you for being you =)

From: JM
To: Acharya S
Subject: A question
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:14:03 -0400

I have a question regarding your work "The Origins of Christianity." (Actually I have several, but I'll start with just a simple one). Now I'm just a chemist and not a scholar of ancient cultures, but I believe my scientific background helps me logically appraise people's arguments.  My question is about a conclusion you reach, not the data. It is about this:  in your work, you mention a quote by Pope Leo in 1521, basically saying how the Church has profited by the "fable" of Christ. You use this as support that church leaders knew that Jesus was a myth and were covering it up for obvious reasons. You mention how Leo would know of this cover-up due to his high position of authority. Now, I'm just going to assume this quote is indeed accurate and taken in context, since no other background is provided except the quote. Would you please explain to me why you think it's more likely that the guardian of a well-kept 1500-year old "Jesus myth" secret would just blurt the secret out rather than the more likely (and FAR simpler) explanation that Leo was simply an unbeliever who just happened to be pope? Additionally, how do you know the fable isn't that he simply didn't believe Jesus was God, not that he didn't believe Jesus existed?

I would really like to know your logical reasoning, since Occam's Razor would suggest we throw out the more complex conspiracy theory in favor of the simpler "the man was an unbeliever" theory.

Thank you for your time.

Well, by the way most people are using it, it would seem that Occam's Razor is completely useless. It can be applied willy-nilly to bolster any point. I could easily say, since we don't have a bunch of supermen running around doing miracles and magic, by virtue of Occam's Razor, the existence of Jesus Christ is illogical.

In addition, the rest of my work, i.e., the Origins essay and my book The Christ Conspiracy, as well as the numerous writings of others found at my "What's New?" and "Christ Conspiracy" sections demonstrate quite thoroughly that we are dealing with a MYTH, so the one quote of Leo's is irrelevant. In any case, he "just happened to be pope," this unbeliever? Now, that's unbelievable. The idea that a non-conspiratorial view is "simpler" and therefore more logical is absurd. For a student of "deep history," it becomes evident that conspiracies are the order of the day. The word "conpire" comes from the Latin "conpirare," which means "to breathe together." All it takes is TWO people to make a conspiracy. The American Founding Fathers constitute a conspiracy. So does anything that requires more than one person. The non-conspiratorial perspective is childish and naive. As well as foolish, as it has allowed for way too much horseshit to go on in this world. Very unsophisticated - laughable even, to our more mature European cousins, for example.

Again, Leo knew the truth because he had risen through the ranks - like so many other organizations, the Catholic Church is a secret society that has levels of initiation. The knowledge of the allegorical nature of the Christian mythos and ritual is explained at the higher levels of initiation into the brotherhood. The revelation of such mysteries is bound by a blood oath, punishable by death, which is why early Christians were persecuted. Numerous others have come to know the truth about Christianity and that Jesus Christ is a SUN GOD by virtue of rising through the brotherhood ranks. One of these is Rev. Robert Taylor, who, in 19th century England, discovered the truth, and, for preaching it from his pulpit, was jailed twice for blasphemy. Others, such as Jesuits, have likewise admitted the truth of the mythical nature of Christ. Most of the better-educated clergy have known that Christ is a myth. This scholarship goes back to the very beginning, naturally, with educated "Pagan" detractors openly crying foul.

Regarding the admissions of the hierarchy, there have been many.  As Alvin Boyd Kuhn says:

"It will be well to place alongside of Origen's lament over the deterioration of splendid allegory into crass literalism the unguarded utterance of Synesius, a Bishop of Alexandria after Origen's time:  'In my capacity as Bishop of the Church I shall continue to disseminate the fables of our religion, but in my private capacity I shall remain a philosopher until the end.'  By the 'fables' he meant the mass of literalized legend which the Fathers purveyed to the ignorant laity, of which Celsus says that they were so outlandish that even a stupid child's-nurse would be ashamed to tell them to children.  And what he meant by remaining a 'philosopher' would shock the churchmen who have for centuries decried the great Platonic and Neo-Platonic systems which, in spite of their protestations, have contributed much to the foundation of Christianity.  The unedifying spectacle of a Bishop fooling the populace with fables he knew were fictions, whilst he fed his own mind upon the deeper meanings of philosophy from pagan schools, goes far to support the claims made in this work and elsewhere as to the nature and causes of the terrible calamity that befell Christianity in the third century, ending in the conversion of allegory into a literalized Gospel and the befuddlement of the world."

From: TS
To: Acharya S
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:40:22 -0400


One thing I would have told you, had I got the chance to meet you, was how you and other educated, truth-seeking people like you have influenced me and inspired me to return to college to get my degree. I was on the verge of my third year when I dropped out. Dropped out because I had no idea what I wanted to do. Now I'll return with a clear sense of what it is I should do...

Hopefully, some day you'll know my name like I know your name and, hopefully, some day I'll get to meet and thank you in person.


From: JC
To: Acharya S
Subject:  Whoops!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:15:57 JST

Dear Acharya:

In your essay, "Origins of Christianity," footnote 9 states: In The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read, John Remsburg states: "The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels."

You also write: In A Short History of the Bible, Keeler says, "The books [canonical gospels are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them."

As you quoted John Remsburg above, he states that the gospels did not exist in Justin's time. Both you and John are clearly misrepresentating the facts. This can be verified at Justin's First Apology, chapter LXVI, where he writes:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

Acharya, your assertions on this matter may seem fine and well, even believable, for people who are unfamiliar with Justin Martyr's writings. In reality, opening the First Apology of Justin, you will quickly find that he has quoted Jesus' words, which are found in the gospels, on quite a good many occasions. To take but one example, in chapter XV he quotes Jesus' words, "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." (Mt 5:28) He thereafter quotes the rest of Jesus' words from Mt 5:29, 32; 19:12; 9:13; 5:44,46; 6:19; 16:26; and 6:20. Your attempts to prove that the words of Jesus did not exist until some second century "priestly forger" engaged in "pious fraud" wrote them up simply does not fit the facts - it ignores them.

<< Previous    1  [2]  3  4    Next >>