Friday, 5 June 2009

RE: Critique of Acharya's Sun Thesis Part I (response to Keithtruth)

Keithtruth has recently released an extensive critique of Acharya’s latest article, as well as an attempt to refute her thesis as a whole. Keith’s latest release is extensive, indeed; however the overall content, as expected, leaves a lot to be desired. Littered with falsehoods and double standards; Keith’s latest attempt has done more than I or anyone else could do to expose him as the inconsistent, uneducated, bigoted drone that he really is.
Firstly, although slightly tangential, I feel the need to address something I happened upon in his article entitled ‘Osama Abdullah: The Epitome of Muslim Apologetics’. In this article, Keith proclaims:
‘Osama claimed that "Joseph", who I documented as having been sexually bribed into Islam by Sami Zaatari, is me. He claimed that the specific Youtube user was me pretending to be someone else. My challenge to Osama is to produce convincing proof for his assertion and not just other assertions. If this liar can't show proof for his absurd accusation then he is nothing but a bald faced liar. I am not Joseph. So if you think I am show some documentation.’
Such a contention is fair for Keith to make, as such presumptuous remarks hold no place in intelligent discussion. However, the hypocrisy of Keith’s assertions is made plain to see whence we investigate Keith’s alternative YouTube account. On Keith’s profile page, he hilariously remarks:
He continues:
‘"keithtruth0" is NOT me. It is one of Acharya's sock accounts spamming all of my videos.’
Such statements beg the question; ‘do you have any evidence for this, Keith?’ One could assert that ‘If this liar can’t show proof of his absurd accusation, then he is nothing but a bald faced liar’. It is important to keep in mind things such as this when analysing Keith’s articles, as for those that dig deeper, a landmine of deceit, defamation and slander is lurking in the murky waters of desperation.
Keith opens his article comparing quotes from Theosophists to that of Acharya. Unfortunately such quotes are taken gravely out of context; but even to the rational mind, one can observe how unrelated and foolish such presupposed relations are. Keith quotes Acharya as disclosing:

"But the future is now and the manoeuvres are being unveiled. As far as Christianity's role in this new age Carpenter states: "Christianity therefore as I say must either now come frankly forward and acknowledge it's parentage from the great order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution - or else it must perish, there is no alternative." Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age... The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god "Jesus," the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over... As Hancock says, "We live today in an astrological no man's land at the end of the 'Age of Pisces,' on the threshold of the 'New Age' of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened." Ill-omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the 'Armageddon" so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world."
This statement is poetic, and an uplifting ending to a perhaps solemn reality. However, Keith compares this to a quote from Annie Besant, former president of Theosophy.
"As the equinox reached the sign of Pisces... it was only natural that the early Christian church should add the symbol of the fish to its symbology... the equinox will reach the sign of Aquarius, and, coinciding the great Cycle of influence, we can indeed hope to put a complete end to all the influence of the past Cycle, with its tyranny, slavery, war and cruelty... This is one of the great transitional Epochs, and the karma before humanity as a whole, and to every group in particular, is to reform itself from slavery, female subjection, war and cruelty and establish a civilization based on humane-ness and interest in spiritual matters."
Although the likeness appears to be, somewhat, superimposed… the two texts disassociate themselves further when the appropriate context is provided for Annie’s remark. Annie, truly, asserts the following:
‘… with it’s tyranny, war, slavery and cruelty. No doubt the next Cycle will bring evils in its train of which we have no knowledge as yet, but they will not be the same ones, and it has been said that we have every reason to hope for a less miserable future than we have experienced in the past. We know that the Aquarian subject usually requires a goad to rouse him in activity, but material activity is not the characteristic of the Aquarian. It is not his interest, so we can expect to see out future civilisation and culture based on less active and strenuous sciences. Man will crave and attain more rest and leisure and some goad in the shape of something that needs leisure will soon appear to force the attainment of such a civilisation. So far leisure has not been a necessity to life, except for health and longevity, but as we change structurally other reasons will appear, until we do change the tenor of our civilisation and culture’(1)
The fact that Keith had to eliminate such a lengthy and important section of Annie’s passage indicates that the correlation isn’t as strong as he’d like us to believe. In fact, the differences are astounding, especially in regards to Annie’s overt views of astrological influence upon human behaviour. Anyone with any knowledge of Miss Murdock will realise that she holds no opinion on astrology’s influence upon human demeanour, and she never advocates such an ideology in her book. Once again, Keith has to resort to quote mining and disinformation to perpetuate his thesis.
Parallels are next drawn between Acharya’s book ‘The Christ Conspiracy’ and Blavatsky’s ‘Isis Unveiled’, especially in depicting the characters of Krishna and Buddha. Again, Keith’s arguments lack any serious substance, and are hugely reliant upon his presupposed thesis. I’ll list each parallel Keith documents, and then insert my interjection.
‘"Christna's mother was Devaki, or Devanagui, an immaculate virgin." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.537. Acharya S repeats: "Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.116’
Here is what Acharya asserts in context:
‘Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (‘Divine One’) on December 25th’
Furthermore, Acharya cites Kersey Graves for this statement, so all associations with Blavatsky are nullified upon further investigation. Regardless of this; the source of the information is irrelevant, as long as such contentions can be verified with the relevant source data. It is not the purpose of this video to justify such claims; however I shall be posting videos regarding Krishna in the future. Indeed, this information was documented aeons before Blavatsky; as attested to by Christian authority Sir William Jones from the 18th century:
‘The Indian incarnate God Crishna, the Hindoos believe, had a virgin mother of the royal race, who was sought to be destroyed in his infancy about nine hundred years before Christ’(2)
These writings are by no means restricted through isolation, numerous erudite scholars have arrived at such conclusions; however, for the sake of time, let us move on.
Keith enlightens us with:
‘Blavatsky Teaches: -"...the second person of the Trimurti (Trinity)." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.537. Acharya S repeats: -"He was the second person of the trinity." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.117’
It seems weird that Keith would draw parallels through comparing the most generic of assertions; perhaps he’s struggling in compiling his argument. When stating facts which gleam so strongly of objectivity, similarity is destined to be drawn. However Sir William Jones, in his extensive ‘Asiatic Researches’ also affirms the likeness of the Hindoo trinity with the Christian:
‘Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough in their zeal for the conversation of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindoos were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnou and (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity’(3)
Drawing such likeness between two passages discussing the same thing is foolish, one must agree. However; the fact is objective; thus even if Acharya was using Blavatsky here – it would be of little relevance.
Keith continues:
‘Blavatsky teaches: -"Christna is persecuted by Kansa, Tyrant of Madura, but miraculously escapes. In the hope of destroying the child, the king has thousands of male innocents slaughtered." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.537. Acharya S repeats: -"He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.116.’
Both accounts aren’t even the same in rhetoric; as I continue to stress – Keith’s conclusion is presupposed. He was looking to draw parallels, thus such biases should in no way be taken seriously – Keith’s mind is made up. Even so, such things are agreed upon by numerous and respected authorities on the subject. Sir William Jones remarks:
‘His (Krishna’s) birth was concealed through fear of the reigning tyrant Kansas, who, at the time of his birth, ordered all new-born males to be slain, yet this wonderful babe was preserved’(4)
Furthermore, Doane relates that this story is the subject of an ‘immense sculpture’ in the cave temple of Elephanta, in which the children are represented as being slain(5). Thomas Maurice elucidates:
‘The event of Crishna’s birth, and the attempt to destroy him, took place by night, and therefore the shadowy mantle of darkness, upon which the figures of infants are engraved, darkness (at once congenial with his crime and the season of its perpetration), involves the tyrants bust; the strings of death heads marks the multitude of infants slain by his savage mandate; and every object in the sculpture illustrates the events of that Avatar’(6)
To wit; these stories are by no way exclusive to Theosophy or Blavatsky; they have permeated themselves throughout religious history; as can be demonstrated with primary source documents and the opinions of schooled authorities in the appropriate fields; if you had researched this topic – you’d know that, Keith. However, it seems you’d rather smear and defame the persons who criticise ideologies; it’s apparent that you’d prefer attacking people, as opposed to conceptual deities.
‘Blavatsky teaches: "Chistna... Produces miracles, cures the lame and blind... liberates the dead." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.538. Acharya S repeats: -"He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.116.’
Again, the rhetoric differentiates one from the other. If I were to ask two people the story of Jesus, I’m sure they’re answers would be comparable. These facts are objective and thus the results of questioning shall most likely acquiesce.
I don’t want to waste too much time on this, as there is much more to cover; however, I think I have made it self-evident, that Keith clearly hasn’t researched this topic in any detail, and his attempts at drawing comparisons, are superimposed, and rely upon deception by omission.
Keith proceeds to quote evangelical Christian Dr. Ben Witherington III:
"The attempt to explain the origins of the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the basis of the winter solstice and what happens on Dec. 22-25 would be laughable if Mr. Joseph wasn't serious. First of all, the Gospels are clear that Jesus was not in the tomb for three whole days, only parts of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Were there an attempt by the Evangelists to conform this to some astrological phenomena or pattern, this is inexplicable. Secondly, as I have said, there is no association in the NT of either the death or the resurrection of Jesus with the winter solstice or what happens then. The story of Jesus' birth, death and resurrection are not told in light of such thinking about the winter solstice at all. Indeed the notion of resurrection had long existed in Judaism before the time of Jesus (see e.g. Dan. 12.1-2), and was not concocted in light of astrology or any other nature religion. This is a key point-- nature religions are indeed grounded in the cycle of the seasons, and focus on fertility gods etc. This is very different from religions based on history and revelation or prophecy. But the syncretism of Mr. Joseph will not allow that there are different types of world religions, and differing origins for them as well."
Witherington’s biases are obvious, however; he himself appears utterly ignorant of solar mythology, to the extent that it seems pitiful me even addressing such matters. The fact that Jesus is not in the tomb for ‘three whole days’ is irrelevant, as it’s still over a three day span, coinciding with the Winter Solstice. This is followed by the age old straw man argument of the Winter Solstice never being mentioned in the Bible, which shall be addressed in subsequent parts of this series.
Even so, Joseph Campbell has presented an alternative theory, he explains:
‘The Moon remains the high symbol of the death and resurrection god. Even the Christian image of the resurrection has elements of this symbolism inherent in it: Christ spends three days in the tomb, just as the Moon is three days dark; and the dating of Easter is always made in relation to the full Moon’(7)
Witherington is correct however, in asserting that resurrection had long existed in Judaism prior to the time of Jesus. For, indeed it had done; attached strongly to astrology, or astrotheology. The parallels increase when we come to realise that such resurrections occurred after a three day period. Concerning this, Mettinger elaborates:
‘The idea of a three-days span of time between death and return, a triduum, seems to be at hand in Hosea 6:2 in a context where the imagery ultimately draws upon the Canaanite ideas of resurrection… Apart from Hosea 6:2 one should remember also Jonah 2:1… where Jonah is in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. I understand the belly of the fish as a metaphor for the Netherworld’(8)
It would seem absurd for such tales contained within Jonah and Hosea to be read as ‘history and revelation’ as Wiltherington would have to assert. As has been demonstrated, such 3 day periods are referred to as a ‘triduum’ by scholars.
Hosea 6:2 reads:
‘After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him’
The verb ‘to raise up’ in the Septuagint is ‘anistemi’, which is essentially the same as the noun used in the New Testament for resurrection; ‘anastasis’(9). Furthermore, as my future videos will demonstrate; God’s of the solar mythos prior to Christ possessed three day deaths… Is this nothing more than coincidence?
KeithTruth; the Little Liar of the Lord, attempting to shore up his faith at all costs; even if it means disobeying Christian values, and disassociating himself further from the friendly faithful. Such factual discrepancies can only be accounted for by deceit; by no other means could a person perpetuate such slander and disgrace.
(1) Besant, TM April 1925 – June 1925, p56-57
(2) Graves; WSCS, p86
(3) Asiatic Researches, vol I, p272
(4) Asiatic Researches, vol I, p278, p259
(5) Doane, BMPR, p167; Maurice, IA, vol I, p112, p113 and vol III, p45 and p95
(6) Doane, BMPR, p167; Maurice, IA, vol I, p112, p113
(7) Campbell, ML, p16
(8) Mettinger, RR, p214
(9) Murdock, CIE, p383

No comments:

Post a Comment