I've got a question for you, Charlie Brown. You call Acharya S a pseudo-scholar who doesn't have any kind of degree. How do you know this to be a fact? What nitwit fed you this moronic bullhockey? For the record, Acharya S has two earned Ph. D's -- one in ancient languages and one in ancient religion. I would wager that she has forgotten far more than you will ever know. Maybe until YOU have earned a couple of Ph. D's, you would do well l to keep your mouth shut and tend to your knitting.
Acharya S claims that she was a born again Christian in the 1980's. Just because it didn't "work" for her doesn't make the reality of the resurrection power of Jesus Christ untrue. I contend that she really was authentically born again but was disillusioned by ungodly demons who crept into the church and she now has a vendetta against all things Christian, or she never really experienced Christ in the first place, she "faked it".
Your totally missing the point of what she is saying, and why. Also, what do "Degrees" have to do with anything? and I assure you she can speak several languages, you sarcastic little twat.
@ willdrake1 - While I admire your attempt to provoke thought amongst those who might site Acharya S. as a source, or reason to disbelieve christianity, I can assure you there are far easier ways to debunk the jesus myth. However, it would behoove you to look at parallels between different religions and see what concepts were borrowed, stolen, or transformed to fit christianity's particular theology. Furthermore, who would want the christian god anyway? Angry tyrant that he is.
Dude I like your style. Big respect to you. Sorry there are people out there trying to live YOUR life for you. Oh the irony lol.If you do follow any of the advice from your critics I would be more than happy for you to meet my daughter lol. Now for that subscription. Peace.
Seriously, how could you possibly know what you are talking about? You're just a junior high school student, with no credentials. Rather than waste your life with religious apologetics, and other delusional activity . . . go get a graduate education in science or psychology, or get a girl friend to play with; you'll be spending your time on something worthwhile.
Dude, you should get a better introduction picture. You look like you're about to puke in that one. Oh wait, what you say is pretty much the same thing puking, nevermind.
Listing to this post again, kinda makes me think...
Ex: I'm an author and I get tons of questions or w/e; and I tell someone to read my footnotes (see for them self) and they right back, saying those weren't good enough w/e, asking for more—if I, the Author, do not respond, does that somehow make me thereby unable to respond or simply, I don't have the time or the patients to privately correspond on an academic level, with hundreds or more people?
@willdrake1 Ok, I had to have someone actually tell me (they were laughing) that you wrote "write" as "right" and "patience" as "patients". So this was a bad example to use as you obviously are not qualified to be an author.
Your statment would be a valid one unless you are are an academic in a setting that calls for debate and discussion (as most of You Tube is). If you write fictional books about aliens it would be much different than a University professor writing a book about a lost tribe
1) The Ex was AN example—in relation to Acharay S, since that is what this video is all about.
2) Yes, careless posts, bad idea.
3) You'd be surprised about authors, how little many can write vs story-tell; the two becoming one after in-house editing.
4) The point was to counter aaronk's suggestion: That Because she didn't respond a second time, to whoever the person was who emailed her, somehow automatically makes her unable to. Rather than something else?
@willdrake1 --of Cherokee Indians that somehow wound up in Moscow around the 4th century (or something else equality "radical". Then I would assume students and the public would ask many questions (if you were or considered yourself a respected academic). Atheists and some theists come to You Tube to "enlighten and educate" the poor stupid ignorant theists. Often, going to pages and leaving comments that are immature and narcissistic. As most of these same atheists feel the...
@willdrake1 need to constantly tell theists how stupid we are, and many seem to have A LOT of time on their hands (no doubt many are living in their mom's basments unemployed) and WANT to tell a person who ignorant they are, then I think its fair to assume they will make the time to respond when challenged. Look at Dawkins.His refusal to debate William Lane Craig has many atheists pissed off as well. He wants to make fun of Craig but then refuses debates. It speaks volumes actually
It only speaks volumes, if you equate the ability to debate with the substance of the debate.
In that case, anyone who can speak and preform well, will always have an edge over the evidence.
Hard Science isn't about debate, its about facts—what can be weighed, repeated and proven to a reasonable %; PersonA might convince the Crowd thinking heavy thoughts is what holds them to the ground, but PersonB standing beside him on the podium, knows better regardless.
Hello Aaron, how's it going my friend? You're still having to deal with the shallowness of Youtube atheists I see. People like willdrake really do try my patience. I honestly don't know what they are hoping to achieve.
So what was the point of your comment then? It hasn't served any useful purpose as far as I can see. Going on someone's video and commenting on their age wouldn't persuade anyone of anything.
I would suggest that people who feel the need to belittle others without offering any arguments against their position are those who are more likely to feel inferior.
Regarding his age, well when is someone old enough in your view to speak on something?
If you were paying attention to the things I've said to you specifically and others, you would realize I'm not out to prove anything or to persuade anyone; also, that a comment is sometimes, merely that, a comment. As an example, since for some reason this is hard to understand: You cook at a restaurant. Someone leaves a COMMENT that the food sucked. That's it. There's not a necessary follow up or debate or Q&A. That's it. Take it or leave it or w/e. That's what a comment is.
I didn't belittle anyone. I'm sure aaronk doesn't feel belittled. It was a joke.
You just sound very sensitive.
To your last question, that would depend upon the particular issue now wouldn't it; it wouldn't be wise to suggest a single age would spread equally across all topics now would it?
@ukchristian28-He is hoping to achieve nothing other than a personal agenda of self gratification. You can pretty much write him off by his words on here. He should not try your patience. If his opinion was important then I can see how he could but someone who states "you cannot speak if you do not have pubes" has shown by that statment he is not interested in real debate even if he tried later to show he was. His opinion is entirely irrelevant based on his own words
If this were a debate, then yes, knocking your age instead of sticking to the topic would be childish, however, since this isn't a debate *I don't debate children: 17yrs old being that & my comments merely stand alone comments* simply pointing out the fact that you're a child, isn't really knocking you—more, pointing out a fact. So, sorry, not really ironic at all.
My reply left out: If this were a debate, then yes, knocking your age instead of sticking to the topic would be childish, however, since this isn't a debate *I don't debate children: 17yrs old being that & my comments merely stand alone comments* simply pointing out the fact that you're a child, isn't really knocking you—more, pointing out a fact. So, sorry, not really ironic at all.
@willdrake1 You shouldn't talk if you don't have manners and brains. I'm sorry it's just common sense...and a rule. Actually it should be a law but a lot of people would have to walk around silent. I find it interesting you went right for the "pube" remark. Do you have some sort of pube fetish or are you just crass and ill mannered. I watch videos on You Tube and never think about pubes. Odd that you do....makes me wonder
@willdrake1 WOw...get over yourself dude. I am not thin skinned. I simply thought it spoke volumes that you were quick to make a "pube remark" and it was childish. Aaron is not as vocal with trolls as I am. "A rule is a lesser law". ROFL. OMG. A rule is a rule and a law is a law. What I said was a joke. Apparently you are a troll with no logic and also if you were joking, your sense of humor leaves much to be desired.
Now, I have fed one troll once today now and that is enough
LOL you seriously are thin skinned and from the way you type, you must love the sound of your voice.
I wonder, how high in the air does you nose get when you talk to people?
OH, by the way, yes a Rule *see deff:interchange ability* is a lesser Law *see deff: interchange ability*, which is why I pointed out the issue with you saying "its a rule," than adding, "it should be a law" and since you come off so highfaluting, I couldn't tell if you were capable of joking.
@ukchrist "Your own words" You can make connectios to just about anything with reasoning like that."
No you can't. Isis is a moon goddess with 2 accomplice goddesses, 1 of which is her sister (Nephtys), forming a trio. She doesn't have physical sex to concieve her child and she is called a virgin. Her roman manifestation, Diana the virgin moon goddess, is also part of a goddess trio. In christianity Mary is a virgin mother of a deity and forms a trio with her sister Mary, and Mary Magdeline.
So tell me, how exactly do the three Marys match the goddesses Diana, Minerva and Vesta, especially Mary of Celaphos since the Bible says so little about her?
@ukchristian28 Acharya S is a crackpot and a fool out hawking books that have fooled some and I know for a FACT that the majority of scholars laugh of her or have never heard of her. D. M. Murdock has NO credentials!! I can't even find a masters degree that she holds in ANY subject. She is nice to look at but that is about it. She is a nice looking BS artist.
@ukchristian28 The 3 marys in jesus' story are none other than the goddess trio in Rome: Diana, the virgin moon goddess, Minerva, and Vesta. In egypt these three goddesses are Isis, the moon goddess, her sister nephtys, and hathor. Mary and her sister, Mary of Celaphos, are Isis and her sister Nephtys, correct?
And you are making the connection how? The fact that there are three of them and they are female? You can make connections to just about anything with reasoning like that!
But his excuse for these parellels, "satan planted them in advance" was about justification of christainity. You think he'd try to alliviate "christian persecution" by insulting other theologies, calling them creations of the devil? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, that is one of the reasons why the romans did not like christians, because they called their gods "demons".
Well, that's the reason he gave in the document in question. If you want to ignore the reason he gives for saying what he did and ascribe some other motivation not stated then fine. Just don't say that you are honest or rational.
Now, onto Horus: in an inscription in the temple of Seti I, Isis is called "The Great Virgin" In the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis says, "I am the great virgin"....so you see the are primary sources, you just need to look at them. Perhaps you should...I don't know...READ a work before you get on youtube and start talking shit about it.
The story of Horus ressurection can be found on the Metternich Stela.
"an inscription in the temple of Seti I, Isis is called "The Great Virgin""
Could you state exactly where you read that please? I have been searching online and so far the only websites I have found which make this claim are those by mythicists. However I have found the account of his birth which has Iris hovering over a erect phallus of her dead husband Osiris. I haven't been able to find any version which depicts Iris as a virgin but maybe you can direct me to one.
@ukchristian28 So what you're saying is that, Isis herself doesn't actually has sex with Osiris? The reliefs that show Isis hovering over Osiris is actually showing her bird, Sothis, sitting on Osiris's penis and then flying back to her with semen. This is why the holy spirit is often shown hovering above Mary in the form of a bird, correct? Also, she declares her virginity at the temple of Sais: "No one has uncovered my undergarments".
Where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit depicted as hovering over Mary in the form of a bird? That's the silliest thing I have heard all week.
Also, she declares her virginity at the temple of Sais: "No one has uncovered my undergarments".
Before or after she conceived Horus? Also, what is the reference to that? If it was before, you can compare that to any woman since everyone is a virgin to begin with.
@ukchristian28 In the same passage that she declares "No one has uncovered her undergarments" she also states "the fruit that I have brought forth is the sun (horus)" .That compounded with the fact that the egyptian reliefs show her NOT having sex with Osiris (her bird, sothis, instead) is evidence that they considered her a virgin mother goddess. The Greeks and Romans depicted Isis as a virgin moon goddess (Diana, the virgin moon goddess).
Secondly does inscription describe Isis before or after she conceived Horus? Does it say she remained a virgin during and following his conception? Claiming that she was a virgin once in a story is hardly significant.
Sorry, you look 12 in this video, so perhaps now you look 14, but no matter. You did make the claim that her ideas had be "crushed/smashed/trounced into smithereens".y(You'd be right if you were talking about christanity). In the early days of christianity the "pagans" tried to debunk it by accusing it of being a spin off of other religions, Justin's response was in that context.
His intention behind writing it isn't even that relevent. Obviously he was trying to defend his faith by comparing it to the other religions. But wouldn't it be awfully stupid of him to do so if those parallels were NOT true? That was my point in providing that quote. The early christians knew of these parallels, so please don't sit up there and blab on about stuff you don't know anything about.
Did you watch the video I directed you to? James White goes quite indepth in providing the context of Justin Martyr's comments. What Justin was doing was pointing out the hypocracy of the Roman authorities for persecuting Christians but not persecuting people who believe these other things. Justin even says that those pagan gods were demonic imitations as White demonstrates by quoting Justin indepth. Watch White's video and get back to us.
Did you know that one of the earliest christian writers, Justin Martyr, actually used the defense that "satan" planted myths which pre-dated christianity in order to make christianity look like a copy cat religion. He was writing in the 2nd century, when it would have been pretty apparant which myth was first. He fully admitted that christian motifs were found in previous myths. So there you have it. Finding one example that one scholar says "might" post-date xianity is not crushing the arg.
You are very articulate for a 12 year old. You're like a young Bill O'Reilly! I can't be too harsh on you since you're just a kid, but her material has not been "crushed". You didn't back up your statements. Did you read her book? Imagine you're an author, who spent years writing a book, and citing it, and constantly have people brining up the same questions you've answered in your book.
@LambadLambadLambda I'm almost 17. A plea for evidence is not something that must be backed up. It is a demand for the opposition to back up their claims.
Yes, it has.
Justin tried to make Paganism and Christianity look similar as an argument against Roman persecution. The God Who Wasn't There is a terrible source.
If you respond, cite a pre-Christian text, picture, or inscription that says Horus was born of a virgin, resurrected etc.
If you do not provide the above, you will be blocked.
@aaronk1994 Are you defending a literal belief in a Historical Son of God who was crucified and resurected who's coming back on a white horse to take his followers to a place where there are streets paved with gold for eternity. ? Or are you simply saying that the Horus Jesus connection is not as iron clad as Acharya S and Peter Joseph depict in Zeitgeist ? Because irresptective of their short comings, Jesus the Christ is clearly a metaphor. You understand this right ?
Firstly, this video is nearly two years old (it never ceases to amaze me how many people fail to notice the upload date on a video) and secondly he doesn't look 12 in this video. Therefore, how about you quit being so patronising?
No. Be harsh. This has nothing to do with his age, but the b.s he's talking about.
Kids don't get a pass on ignorance cause they're kids; those ignorant kids will grow up and breed—see a problem. Its what happened in the case of Billy'O.
Are you agreeing to "You're still very much a child" cause if so, didn't you two points earlier say, "Thankfully, I'm not a kid?" If you're not agreeing to you being very much a child, what are you agreeing too?
10 months or not, the ability to vote and take a bullet, doesn't somehow magically make you more than a child. Sorry. Much like how you sober up, Time is the only answer.
Didn't you read: "To those who WISH to teach" as in, what another person was trying to do, though saying kids should be given some slack for their ignorance.
Someone who so clearly believes in Christ, is beyond teaching. Nothing against him, but its a fact; and so, a waste of time. He could no-more learn to be an atheist than I could learn to be a Christian; and if you were to ask him, and he to answer honestly, he'd agree.
@aaronk1994 Why? I thought you said that you wanted the pre-Christian info? Isn't blocking him and deleting the comments saying that you really do not want the pre-Christian info?
@changingmyself Because none of the things he cited supported any of the parallels. Half of them were too vague to derive anything from, and the other half actually contradicted Christianity. One of them even said that there was a place where Gods were born! Christianity is monotheistic; his Egyptian texts don't even parallel the most basic doctrine of Christendom.
I have zero patience for people who support this thesis. If they can't provide evidence, they will be blocked.
@aaronk1994 Well, I support it and half the evidence that Teched posted was mine, and BTW, I am a scholar. So, block me, I am not interested in chatting with a child who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and doesn't have a clue what a bibliography is, what a primary source is, or hell, what scholarly work is. I will in turn block you also. I don't like ignorance.
Aaron, you are one smart young man! I am guessing you are homeschooled? (I can't imagine our school system producing an intellect like yours!) I was homeschooled until highschool. Took a lot of guff from my peers for it and was stupid enough to be ashamed at the time in that I knew no other homeschoolers, but the joke is on them now.
Four proven ways to improve your intellect, playing chess & reading the KJV, Foxe's Book of Martyrs and Pilgrim's Progress.
Kid,I have been involved in truth movement since reading Bill Cooper.D.M Murdock(Achraya S) is a known Theosophist who was the main reason for Zeitgeist,since we all knew about the Rothschilds and FED,9-11 was an inside job,who failed to know that bin "07".TZM was a new age/NWO iniltration into the truth movement,for the illuminati to control their own resistance,,or erase true Christians from the truth movement.D.M has been refuted but you do a fine job yourself!
You also clearly have no idea how Bibliographies work, and its a bit telling that you never mention anything about E.A. Wallis Budge, since he was both a Christian and leading Egyptologist of his time. And yes, she does cite an older book of hers (which she clearly states each time that she cites it), so... I'm unsure what the actual problem is.
are you a guy or a girl? think you're smart? are you shure you ain't held in a cellar? you know ... if you where in the nature, you would easely eaten by a field mouse.. sorry little something.. so much identity crisis i have not seeing for a long time. don't you think there are more older, wiser persons out there then you are?? today on youtube every little piece of crap can give her "opinion" on everything.. wait for 5 years.. we'll see what is going to happend with you.
I love the beginning, aaronk uses "acharya does not have any credentials." Ill ask aaronk what his credentials are? He is under very heavy indoctrination. And is exactly what i fear our world is coming to when it comes to education. And hence is creationism is not allowed in public schools. This is a poster child for that. Please do not be offended, it is not your fault.
ahaa i like how this kid thinks just because he has a big 50 year old vocabulary, he thinks he is better than everyone else. Your not even using half of those words right. Just talk normal.
i pity you, kid. its quite obvious that you didnt even have a fighting chance at deciding between theism and atheism; you were obviously brainwashed from birth, taken into the cult of christianity. you should just keep to yourself and stop trying to prove something that is completely unprovable.
Christianity has been debunked. and defeated. and not only by evidence. but by common sense, and 6th grade science.
the bible is not a reliable source at all, either.
I respect you aaron almost.
even know your beliefs are ridiculously stupid, and you are a southerner. 50 years behind the rest of the world. You still spout your beliefs to, well, none believers world wide.
@WonderNoobie And what do you believe? That millions of years ago nothing exploded and turned into primordial ooze which then magically turned into unicorns and dinosaurs, which eventually turned into us. Dude, read your science book.
The difference between Christians and scientists is that Christians follow the evidence that exists and scientists search for what they already believe to be true.
B. You want to know WHY you still believe in the bible? Because you haven't read it yet.
You want to know HOW I know you haven't read it? Because you just said christians follow evidence that EXISTS. As a matter of fact, no matter what you say, I KNOW you haven't read it.
C. Everything you just said about the big bang was completely wrong, and I have no idea where you got any of that from.
D. I made that comment 9 months ago, great fucking job replying almost a year later.
E. Tell me some fucking real evidence of the bible. Please do so, because when I look up in the sky, what do you think I see? Clouds. I don't see a floating utopia of peace and happiness.
The big bang atleast has EVIDENCE and makes sense. Your little book there, says we were shaped like and from clay...does that seem...I don't know..impossible?
You also must think god just randomly poofed out of nowhere too
@WonderNoobie Hey thanks for the positive response. First of all, I have read the Bible, and it's accuracy is startling, acheologically, scientifically, and historically. Secondly, I believe in the big bang. God spoke and bang. There is remarkable proof for the Big Bang, but matter cannot be created or destroyed. I believe in looking at the evidence and then making a hypothesis. Evolution is completely backwards in that regard, it makes a hypothesis and then finds evidence to support it.
And I really can't see how what I said was illogical when it was actually true.
And no you never provide evidence. You just give a link to some stupid article or say some opinions on what you think but make your opinions sound like real facts when they clearly aren't.
@WonderNoobie I guess I can't speak on that, I've never asked him for evidence. But as far as I can tell he's given evidence. I have noticed him ask for evidence that can't be provided because it doesn't exist, kind of like the same evolutionists I was just talking about. Rather than follow evidence they believe maybes and possiblys.
I suppose you could see it that way. But when one person is saying 2+2=3 and the other says 2+2=5 and they both say the other is wrong, you must see either the ignorance of both or the intellectual dishonesty of both.
How did it not make sense ? These people have shown that he starts with faulty premises, straw man arguments, arguments from personal incredulity and he uses the most feeble standards of evidence and the most questionable historical records, the bible for example. Once that has been established you can ignore the rest of his statements as they are based on his previous inaccuracies, faulty assumptions, logical fallacies, gullibility and of course...lies.
The short list I gave is but a fraction of those who have refuted him. I find it very funny that so many other apologists find his notions so damaging to their own arguments that they attack people that defend their beliefs. NWT says " God exists because of this...." and WLC says " NWT is wrong because he damages my position of why god exists." How can you expect anyone to believe any apologist when they refute each other ? Its really sad .
Nothing but biased, Christian extremist trash here. no need to waste any more time here.
Decent Christians are embarrassed by this kind of trash smearing & libeling a single female scholar who's works aaronk1994, admits he's never read. You're only out to shore up your faith at all costs even if it means attacking living breathing humans. It's like you prefer a new, modern day Inquisition against all non-believers.
Very sloppy and very inaccurate - 1 star for sure. Read a book other than the bible. Looks like you got your info from other dishonest xians who are only out to shore up their faith at all costs even if it means SMEARING a single female author.
"King David" should be held responsible since you use his site to harass her with. "She couldn't respond" is a lie - she wrote a 600 page book titled "Christ in Egypt" w/ 2,400 fn's to primary sources & expert opinion w/ 900 biblio sources.
Precisely! Pointing out how Acharya S is not a scholar, and showing how she lies about her sources is a clear attempt to smear and hurt the poor women!
Is that really all you've got?
By the way, JP Holding is critiquing her entire Horus book.
Your hero JP Holding is a joke - he has no relevant qualifications, credentials or degrees and is no authority on anything whatsoever. Most decent Christians are embarrassed by him and stay away from him. You should do the same.
I've read his so-called critique - it's one big straw man. He's about as dishonest as you can get.
Aaron has now asked you numerous times to cite a primary source that demonstrates a borrowing relationship that is viable, yet, we have nothing but smears and harrasment.
Already did. You have already admitted that you've never read a single book by Acharya. And, you've admitted you are relying on others who also have never read any of her work like "King David." Everybody knows never to trust JP Holding.
A friend gave me Holdings e-block thing - I would never pay for such trash. Again, Holding is just another biased xian extremist who smears libels & maliciously attacks those who demonstrate Jesus & Xianity are lies. So, to be attacked by him is a compliment
I've already explained to you that you don't have go into depth into an author's bibliography to recognize BS claims and crappy sources. I'd tutored tons of students in college and read tons of scholary essays to the point where I know how to recognize shitty scholarship and argumentation in my sleep.
6. LOL, Wallis Budge at 8:15 was an Egyptologist and a Christian who verified the connections.
7. The bibliography is in alphabetical order U got 2 the B's. woo woo
8. Many of those modern scholars commented on pre-xian primary sources and verified them. Again, If you read her books you'd already know that.
9. She cites her own books like other scholars do who've already tackled a specific issue and don't want to take up dozens of pages re-hashing it again.
6. Wallis Budge does not cite any pre-Christian sources for any of his claims.
7. That was where the bibliography ended in her video, not my fault.
8. Stop citing me scholars who allegedly found pre-Christian sources. If the sources are so many, it shouldn't be difficult for you to cite me just one.
9. The funny part was that she claimed she was a "highly credential scholar", which is not true. She only has two degrees, one is not even relevant.
Hercules2345, since you advocate a conspiracy theory, please go watch my new uploaded video about conspiracy theories. It will show you WHY you are not taken seriously.
thunder, you're just another punk with zero qualifications, formal training or credentials trying to argue far above your station. You've never read anything by her either.
No, but I do have training as an English tutor, in how to site sources, how to do scholarly research, and how to recognize BS sources and claims. I don't have to read her work in depth to know that her info is BS. I just have to look at source and I just know they are BS.
Do I need to read into lots of depth into the claims of Holocaust Deniers to know that their claims are BS? No.
Of course we should be open-minded, do research, and be skeptical, but we shouldn't be so skeptical to the point where are brains fall out of our ears.
Seriously dude, I should just block you. I've already argued with you about this, and you have not given any evidence whatsoever of these parallels.
I'll give you one more chance to cite a pre-Christian source that states any of the major parallels (crucifixion, born of a Virgin etc). If the sources are as numerous as you claim, it shouldnt be hard to provide just one. Come on man.
1. Cite your own degrees, qualifications, credentials or formal training?
2. What books by Acharya S have you actually read?
3. What authority do YOU have to claim she's unreliable?
4. King David at 3:20, has also never read a single book by Acharya S
5. Attis at 6 - you're just quote mining, demonstrating you didn't read or understand the book. Acharya was showing that the parallels exist, which Christian apologists have been lying about all these years, saying they don't.
2. I don't need to read them. Ive read the critiques, which quote the book and refute it.
3. She a liar, as I've shown here.
4. How do you know that? Besides, he actually had a discussion with her, and she couldn't produce any evidence of the parallels.
5. Many of the parallels simply do not exist, and the ones that do are post-Christian. This makes them irrelevant, since they borrowed them from Christianity.
W.L.Craig. yes thats right, the foolish philosopher himself.
John Starke.
T. David Gordon. I could go on and on, and most of them are Christian apologists themselves, so before you question, you should do a little research. I know this a lot to ask of theists, what with the whole non functional brain problem you have, but I do dare to dream.
Hey Aaron, you might wanna be a little careful not to plea to "authority" too much. Archya S is not a scholar, but this alone doens't defeat her arguments. Now, most youtube subscribers, athiest, or theist like us, are not scholars, surely we wouldn't want to say all of our arguments are invalid because out lack of degrees. I'm not saying that this was your argument, but it might be read that way. God Bless my friend!
Aaron is not saying that someone's lack of credentials automatically makes a person's claims invalid. It's how you back those claims with sufficient evidence that matter. You don't have to be a scholar to do that.
I mean, just the fact that she quoted HERSELF is proof alone that she is not to be taken seriously.
I've got a question for you, Charlie Brown. You call Acharya S a pseudo-scholar who doesn't have any kind of degree. How do you know this to be a fact? What nitwit fed you this moronic bullhockey? For the record, Acharya S has two earned Ph. D's -- one in ancient languages and one in ancient religion. I would wager that she has forgotten far more than you will ever know. Maybe until YOU have earned a couple of Ph. D's, you would do well l to keep your mouth shut and tend to your knitting.
0515stan 2 days ago
Acharya S claims that she was a born again Christian in the 1980's. Just because it didn't "work" for her doesn't make the reality of the resurrection power of Jesus Christ untrue. I contend that she really was authentically born again but was disillusioned by ungodly demons who crept into the church and she now has a vendetta against all things Christian, or she never really experienced Christ in the first place, she "faked it".
dokterdon 3 days ago
Your totally missing the point of what she is saying, and why. Also, what do "Degrees" have to do with anything? and I assure you she can speak several languages, you sarcastic little twat.
MrJuno6 1 week ago
@ willdrake1 - While I admire your attempt to provoke thought amongst those who might site Acharya S. as a source, or reason to disbelieve christianity, I can assure you there are far easier ways to debunk the jesus myth. However, it would behoove you to look at parallels between different religions and see what concepts were borrowed, stolen, or transformed to fit christianity's particular theology. Furthermore, who would want the christian god anyway? Angry tyrant that he is.
UPplRSick 2 weeks ago
Dude I like your style. Big respect to you. Sorry there are people out there trying to live YOUR life for you. Oh the irony lol.If you do follow any of the advice from your critics I would be more than happy for you to meet my daughter lol. Now for that subscription. Peace.
martinladley 3 weeks ago
Seriously, how could you possibly know what you are talking about? You're just a junior high school student, with no credentials. Rather than waste your life with religious apologetics, and other delusional activity . . . go get a graduate education in science or psychology, or get a girl friend to play with; you'll be spending your time on something worthwhile.
Famespeare 1 month ago
@Famespeare I'm a high school senior.
aaronk1994 1 month ago
@aaronk1994 Not much of a difference really. You still don't know anything. Go do something with your life that will make a real difference.
Famespeare 1 month ago
Good video. Acharya S should never be referred to as a scholar. keep the real truth movement alive brother. Good Job and God bless!
Paul00TMD 1 month ago
what you say is correct as description of yourself bro
bernsten11 2 months ago
exellent job!!
nerinaodistre 2 months ago
young brother....keep reading.there is no evidence for a christ jesus life>>>
yellowandblues 3 months ago
@yellowandblues Yes there is, actually.
aaronk1994 3 months ago
Do snakes and donkeys talk??? The Bible says they do. Does the Bible quote the sources for this nonsense???....just sayin'.
landriver1 3 months ago
Dude, you should get a better introduction picture. You look like you're about to puke in that one. Oh wait, what you say is pretty much the same thing puking, nevermind.
LambadLambadLambda 4 months ago
Yes, yes, citing yourself is kinda funny.
willdrake1 4 months ago
Listing to this post again, kinda makes me think...
Ex: I'm an author and I get tons of questions or w/e; and I tell someone to read my footnotes (see for them self) and they right back, saying those weren't good enough w/e, asking for more—if I, the Author, do not respond, does that somehow make me thereby unable to respond or simply, I don't have the time or the patients to privately correspond on an academic level, with hundreds or more people?
Just a thought.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 Ok, I had to have someone actually tell me (they were laughing) that you wrote "write" as "right" and "patience" as "patients". So this was a bad example to use as you obviously are not qualified to be an author.
Your statment would be a valid one unless you are are an academic in a setting that calls for debate and discussion (as most of You Tube is). If you write fictional books about aliens it would be much different than a University professor writing a book about a lost tribe
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
1) The Ex was AN example—in relation to Acharay S, since that is what this video is all about.
2) Yes, careless posts, bad idea.
3) You'd be surprised about authors, how little many can write vs story-tell; the two becoming one after in-house editing.
4) The point was to counter aaronk's suggestion: That Because she didn't respond a second time, to whoever the person was who emailed her, somehow automatically makes her unable to. Rather than something else?
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 --of Cherokee Indians that somehow wound up in Moscow around the 4th century (or something else equality "radical". Then I would assume students and the public would ask many questions (if you were or considered yourself a respected academic). Atheists and some theists come to You Tube to "enlighten and educate" the poor stupid ignorant theists. Often, going to pages and leaving comments that are immature and narcissistic. As most of these same atheists feel the...
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@willdrake1 need to constantly tell theists how stupid we are, and many seem to have A LOT of time on their hands (no doubt many are living in their mom's basments unemployed) and WANT to tell a person who ignorant they are, then I think its fair to assume they will make the time to respond when challenged. Look at Dawkins.His refusal to debate William Lane Craig has many atheists pissed off as well. He wants to make fun of Craig but then refuses debates. It speaks volumes actually
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
It only speaks volumes, if you equate the ability to debate with the substance of the debate.
In that case, anyone who can speak and preform well, will always have an edge over the evidence.
Hard Science isn't about debate, its about facts—what can be weighed, repeated and proven to a reasonable %; PersonA might convince the Crowd thinking heavy thoughts is what holds them to the ground, but PersonB standing beside him on the podium, knows better regardless.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@aaronk1994: You can't talk if you don't have pubes. I'm sorry, its just a rule.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 Knocking my age rather than responding to my points is rather childish, ironically.
aaronk1994 4 months ago
Comment removed
ukchristian28 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaronk1994
Hello Aaron, how's it going my friend? You're still having to deal with the shallowness of Youtube atheists I see. People like willdrake really do try my patience. I honestly don't know what they are hoping to achieve.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28
Well, I'm not trying to achieve anything. A comment doesn't always lead to a debate.
Why don't people understand this.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1
So what was the point of making it? Just to be annoying? Just so you could act superior? You're a waste of webspace.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28
"So what was the point of making it"
Ummm, its a comment. You know what that is right?
No, not to be annoying, that is based upon your feelings towards the comment—not its intent.
Do you have inferiority issues? Sounds like it.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1
So what was the point of your comment then? It hasn't served any useful purpose as far as I can see. Going on someone's video and commenting on their age wouldn't persuade anyone of anything.
I would suggest that people who feel the need to belittle others without offering any arguments against their position are those who are more likely to feel inferior.
Regarding his age, well when is someone old enough in your view to speak on something?
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28
If you were paying attention to the things I've said to you specifically and others, you would realize I'm not out to prove anything or to persuade anyone; also, that a comment is sometimes, merely that, a comment. As an example, since for some reason this is hard to understand: You cook at a restaurant. Someone leaves a COMMENT that the food sucked. That's it. There's not a necessary follow up or debate or Q&A. That's it. Take it or leave it or w/e. That's what a comment is.
willdrake1 4 months ago
Respond to this video...
I didn't belittle anyone. I'm sure aaronk doesn't feel belittled. It was a joke.
You just sound very sensitive.
To your last question, that would depend upon the particular issue now wouldn't it; it wouldn't be wise to suggest a single age would spread equally across all topics now would it?
willdrake1 4 months ago
@ukchristian28-He is hoping to achieve nothing other than a personal agenda of self gratification. You can pretty much write him off by his words on here. He should not try your patience. If his opinion was important then I can see how he could but someone who states "you cannot speak if you do not have pubes" has shown by that statment he is not interested in real debate even if he tried later to show he was. His opinion is entirely irrelevant based on his own words
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@aaronk1994
If this were a debate, then yes, knocking your age instead of sticking to the topic would be childish, however, since this isn't a debate *I don't debate children: 17yrs old being that & my comments merely stand alone comments* simply pointing out the fact that you're a child, isn't really knocking you—more, pointing out a fact. So, sorry, not really ironic at all.
willdrake1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaronk1994
My reply left out: If this were a debate, then yes, knocking your age instead of sticking to the topic would be childish, however, since this isn't a debate *I don't debate children: 17yrs old being that & my comments merely stand alone comments* simply pointing out the fact that you're a child, isn't really knocking you—more, pointing out a fact. So, sorry, not really ironic at all.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 You shouldn't talk if you don't have manners and brains. I'm sorry it's just common sense...and a rule. Actually it should be a law but a lot of people would have to walk around silent. I find it interesting you went right for the "pube" remark. Do you have some sort of pube fetish or are you just crass and ill mannered. I watch videos on You Tube and never think about pubes. Odd that you do....makes me wonder
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
Comment removed
willdrake1 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
Manners and a Brain? I haven't attacked anyone, even the kid didn't take as much offense as you. You must be thin skinned?
How is it a Rule, when, as you say, it should be a Law? You know a rule is a lesser law, right?
"...for the 'pube' remark" What, as if their was a buffet I had to choose from?
It was a joke.
You go on and on and on and on...dude, get over it. You act as if I called your pubes into question. Opps, I'm being Crass again, watch out.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 WOw...get over yourself dude. I am not thin skinned. I simply thought it spoke volumes that you were quick to make a "pube remark" and it was childish. Aaron is not as vocal with trolls as I am. "A rule is a lesser law". ROFL. OMG. A rule is a rule and a law is a law. What I said was a joke. Apparently you are a troll with no logic and also if you were joking, your sense of humor leaves much to be desired.
Now, I have fed one troll once today now and that is enough
DarkQuietWyattON 4 months ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
LOL you seriously are thin skinned and from the way you type, you must love the sound of your voice.
I wonder, how high in the air does you nose get when you talk to people?
OH, by the way, yes a Rule *see deff:interchange ability* is a lesser Law *see deff: interchange ability*, which is why I pointed out the issue with you saying "its a rule," than adding, "it should be a law" and since you come off so highfaluting, I couldn't tell if you were capable of joking.
willdrake1 4 months ago
Pathetic..just pathetic.
TheJrv2damac 5 months ago
@TheJrv2damac Thanks for showing why.
aaronk1994 5 months ago
@aaronk1994
Likewise, numbnuts.
TheJrv2damac 5 months ago
@TheJrv2damac Are you going to give any reasons or counter-arguments?
aaronk1994 5 months ago
@ukchrist "Your own words" You can make connectios to just about anything with reasoning like that."
No you can't. Isis is a moon goddess with 2 accomplice goddesses, 1 of which is her sister (Nephtys), forming a trio. She doesn't have physical sex to concieve her child and she is called a virgin. Her roman manifestation, Diana the virgin moon goddess, is also part of a goddess trio. In christianity Mary is a virgin mother of a deity and forms a trio with her sister Mary, and Mary Magdeline.
FastLane871 6 months ago
@FastLane871
So tell me, how exactly do the three Marys match the goddesses Diana, Minerva and Vesta, especially Mary of Celaphos since the Bible says so little about her?
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 Acharya S is a crackpot and a fool out hawking books that have fooled some and I know for a FACT that the majority of scholars laugh of her or have never heard of her. D. M. Murdock has NO credentials!! I can't even find a masters degree that she holds in ANY subject. She is nice to look at but that is about it. She is a nice looking BS artist.
boblackey1 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 The 3 marys in jesus' story are none other than the goddess trio in Rome: Diana, the virgin moon goddess, Minerva, and Vesta. In egypt these three goddesses are Isis, the moon goddess, her sister nephtys, and hathor. Mary and her sister, Mary of Celaphos, are Isis and her sister Nephtys, correct?
FastLane871 6 months ago
@FastLane871
And you are making the connection how? The fact that there are three of them and they are female? You can make connections to just about anything with reasoning like that!
ukchristian28 6 months ago
But his excuse for these parellels, "satan planted them in advance" was about justification of christainity. You think he'd try to alliviate "christian persecution" by insulting other theologies, calling them creations of the devil? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, that is one of the reasons why the romans did not like christians, because they called their gods "demons".
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
Well, that's the reason he gave in the document in question. If you want to ignore the reason he gives for saying what he did and ascribe some other motivation not stated then fine. Just don't say that you are honest or rational.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
Now, onto Horus: in an inscription in the temple of Seti I, Isis is called "The Great Virgin" In the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis says, "I am the great virgin"....so you see the are primary sources, you just need to look at them. Perhaps you should...I don't know...READ a work before you get on youtube and start talking shit about it.
The story of Horus ressurection can be found on the Metternich Stela.
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
"an inscription in the temple of Seti I, Isis is called "The Great Virgin""
Could you state exactly where you read that please? I have been searching online and so far the only websites I have found which make this claim are those by mythicists. However I have found the account of his birth which has Iris hovering over a erect phallus of her dead husband Osiris. I haven't been able to find any version which depicts Iris as a virgin but maybe you can direct me to one.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 So what you're saying is that, Isis herself doesn't actually has sex with Osiris? The reliefs that show Isis hovering over Osiris is actually showing her bird, Sothis, sitting on Osiris's penis and then flying back to her with semen. This is why the holy spirit is often shown hovering above Mary in the form of a bird, correct? Also, she declares her virginity at the temple of Sais: "No one has uncovered my undergarments".
FastLane871 6 months ago
@FastLane871
Where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit depicted as hovering over Mary in the form of a bird? That's the silliest thing I have heard all week.
Also, she declares her virginity at the temple of Sais: "No one has uncovered my undergarments".
Before or after she conceived Horus? Also, what is the reference to that? If it was before, you can compare that to any woman since everyone is a virgin to begin with.
Are you trolling or are you being serious here?
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 In the same passage that she declares "No one has uncovered her undergarments" she also states "the fruit that I have brought forth is the sun (horus)" .That compounded with the fact that the egyptian reliefs show her NOT having sex with Osiris (her bird, sothis, instead) is evidence that they considered her a virgin mother goddess. The Greeks and Romans depicted Isis as a virgin moon goddess (Diana, the virgin moon goddess).
FastLane871 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 Yeah. Thought so.
FastLane871 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
Secondly does inscription describe Isis before or after she conceived Horus? Does it say she remained a virgin during and following his conception? Claiming that she was a virgin once in a story is hardly significant.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
Sorry, you look 12 in this video, so perhaps now you look 14, but no matter. You did make the claim that her ideas had be "crushed/smashed/trounced into smithereens".y(You'd be right if you were talking about christanity). In the early days of christianity the "pagans" tried to debunk it by accusing it of being a spin off of other religions, Justin's response was in that context.
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
Aaron is correct in what he said about Justin Martyr. I recommend the following video on the subject:
watch?v=Yqf3OvKqG6E
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28
His intention behind writing it isn't even that relevent. Obviously he was trying to defend his faith by comparing it to the other religions. But wouldn't it be awfully stupid of him to do so if those parallels were NOT true? That was my point in providing that quote. The early christians knew of these parallels, so please don't sit up there and blab on about stuff you don't know anything about.
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
Did you watch the video I directed you to? James White goes quite indepth in providing the context of Justin Martyr's comments. What Justin was doing was pointing out the hypocracy of the Roman authorities for persecuting Christians but not persecuting people who believe these other things. Justin even says that those pagan gods were demonic imitations as White demonstrates by quoting Justin indepth. Watch White's video and get back to us.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
Aaron, I had forgotten just how excellent this video is. Good job!
ukchristian28 6 months ago
BTW, once you get older, if you go on to have any kind of sucess in any career, you'll learn that you learn 100x more after college than in it.
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
Did you know that one of the earliest christian writers, Justin Martyr, actually used the defense that "satan" planted myths which pre-dated christianity in order to make christianity look like a copy cat religion. He was writing in the 2nd century, when it would have been pretty apparant which myth was first. He fully admitted that christian motifs were found in previous myths. So there you have it. Finding one example that one scholar says "might" post-date xianity is not crushing the arg.
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
You are very articulate for a 12 year old. You're like a young Bill O'Reilly! I can't be too harsh on you since you're just a kid, but her material has not been "crushed". You didn't back up your statements. Did you read her book? Imagine you're an author, who spent years writing a book, and citing it, and constantly have people brining up the same questions you've answered in your book.
LambadLambadLambda 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda I'm almost 17. A plea for evidence is not something that must be backed up. It is a demand for the opposition to back up their claims.
Yes, it has.
Justin tried to make Paganism and Christianity look similar as an argument against Roman persecution. The God Who Wasn't There is a terrible source.
If you respond, cite a pre-Christian text, picture, or inscription that says Horus was born of a virgin, resurrected etc.
If you do not provide the above, you will be blocked.
aaronk1994 6 months ago
@aaronk1994 Are you defending a literal belief in a Historical Son of God who was crucified and resurected who's coming back on a white horse to take his followers to a place where there are streets paved with gold for eternity. ? Or are you simply saying that the Horus Jesus connection is not as iron clad as Acharya S and Peter Joseph depict in Zeitgeist ? Because irresptective of their short comings, Jesus the Christ is clearly a metaphor. You understand this right ?
kdpflanders1 4 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
Firstly, this video is nearly two years old (it never ceases to amaze me how many people fail to notice the upload date on a video) and secondly he doesn't look 12 in this video. Therefore, how about you quit being so patronising?
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@LambadLambadLambda
No. Be harsh. This has nothing to do with his age, but the b.s he's talking about.
Kids don't get a pass on ignorance cause they're kids; those ignorant kids will grow up and breed—see a problem. Its what happened in the case of Billy'O.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 Are you going to counter anything I say in this video?
Yes, kids do get a pass on ignorance. Thankfully, I'm not a kid.
aaronk1994 4 months ago
@aaronk1994
No. What would be the point. Not all assertions are for argument or persuasion.
No—to those who wish to teach—Kids do not get a pass.
How old are you? You look like you're 13-15ish and if so, yes, you're a kid. Sorry no one has let you in on that.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 In other words, you can't back up your assertion that my points were BS.
Yes, kids are naturally ignorant. They are still learning.
I am 17.
aaronk1994 4 months ago
@aaronk1994
Still learning is one thing.
However, when you step up to speak as if you know, than, kid or not, you shouldn't be given a pass.
17? You're still very much a child.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 Going to adress my points?
I agree.
aaronk1994 4 months ago
@aaronk1994
Are you agreeing to "You're still very much a child" cause if so, didn't you two points earlier say, "Thankfully, I'm not a kid?" If you're not agreeing to you being very much a child, what are you agreeing too?
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1
Oh yes, he's very much a child. In 10 months time he will be old enough to vote and also join the armed forces and die for his country.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28
10 months or not, the ability to vote and take a bullet, doesn't somehow magically make you more than a child. Sorry. Much like how you sober up, Time is the only answer.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1
"No—to those who wish to teach—Kids do not get a pass."
So why don't you teach him something then instead of patronizing him?
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28
Didn't you read: "To those who WISH to teach" as in, what another person was trying to do, though saying kids should be given some slack for their ignorance.
Someone who so clearly believes in Christ, is beyond teaching. Nothing against him, but its a fact; and so, a waste of time. He could no-more learn to be an atheist than I could learn to be a Christian; and if you were to ask him, and he to answer honestly, he'd agree.
willdrake1 4 months ago
Well, there you have it..the pre-Chirstian texts that state these paralells. Thank you Teched for posting all of these.
changingmyself 7 months ago
@changingmyself I blocked him and removed his comments.
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 Why? I thought you said that you wanted the pre-Christian info? Isn't blocking him and deleting the comments saying that you really do not want the pre-Christian info?
changingmyself 7 months ago
@changingmyself Because none of the things he cited supported any of the parallels. Half of them were too vague to derive anything from, and the other half actually contradicted Christianity. One of them even said that there was a place where Gods were born! Christianity is monotheistic; his Egyptian texts don't even parallel the most basic doctrine of Christendom.
I have zero patience for people who support this thesis. If they can't provide evidence, they will be blocked.
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 Well, I support it and half the evidence that Teched posted was mine, and BTW, I am a scholar. So, block me, I am not interested in chatting with a child who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and doesn't have a clue what a bibliography is, what a primary source is, or hell, what scholarly work is. I will in turn block you also. I don't like ignorance.
changingmyself 7 months ago
@changingmyself So you aren't going to actually respond to my points?
What is your degree in?
I own thousands of pages of scholarly work.
Zeitgeist is BS. Every intelligent person knows this.
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 I did respond to your points; you dont know what you are talking about. I went to a Christian college and studied religion.
changingmyself 7 months ago
@changingmyself No you didn't. All you said in response was "I support it", and "I'm a scholar".
What college? What degree?
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@changingmyself
Seems you also think aaronk is a child whose had way too much time to play with his computer.
willdrake1 4 months ago
@willdrake1 Yep. :)
changingmyself 4 months ago
Comment removed
teched246 7 months ago
Comment removed
teched246 7 months ago
Comment removed
teched246 7 months ago
Comment removed
teched246 7 months ago
Comment removed
teched246 7 months ago
Comment removed
teched246 7 months ago
Aaron, you are one smart young man! I am guessing you are homeschooled? (I can't imagine our school system producing an intellect like yours!) I was homeschooled until highschool. Took a lot of guff from my peers for it and was stupid enough to be ashamed at the time in that I knew no other homeschoolers, but the joke is on them now.
Four proven ways to improve your intellect, playing chess & reading the KJV, Foxe's Book of Martyrs and Pilgrim's Progress.
God Bless, I'm subbin!
salmagnum 8 months ago
and who do u think u are ?????
pnd51010 9 months ago
Kid,I have been involved in truth movement since reading Bill Cooper.D.M Murdock(Achraya S) is a known Theosophist who was the main reason for Zeitgeist,since we all knew about the Rothschilds and FED,9-11 was an inside job,who failed to know that bin "07".TZM was a new age/NWO iniltration into the truth movement,for the illuminati to control their own resistance,,or erase true Christians from the truth movement.D.M has been refuted but you do a fine job yourself!
71invictus 9 months ago
You also clearly have no idea how Bibliographies work, and its a bit telling that you never mention anything about E.A. Wallis Budge, since he was both a Christian and leading Egyptologist of his time. And yes, she does cite an older book of hers (which she clearly states each time that she cites it), so... I'm unsure what the actual problem is.
AtheisticHumanist 1 year ago
@AtheisticHumanist Still waiting on a pre-christian text that states any of these parallels.
I'll say it again, scholars abandoned this thesis years ago. It is based on nothing.
aaronk1994 1 year ago
"bachelors in Liberal Arts"
Um... you do realize that "Bachelor of Liberal Arts" is the name of the degree itself... right?
AtheisticHumanist 1 year ago
God bless you young man, keep fighting the good fight and stand in the strength of the Lord, your doing wonderful, Blessings
Jeff
DonJay777 1 year ago
are you a guy or a girl? think you're smart? are you shure you ain't held in a cellar? you know ... if you where in the nature, you would easely eaten by a field mouse.. sorry little something.. so much identity crisis i have not seeing for a long time. don't you think there are more older, wiser persons out there then you are?? today on youtube every little piece of crap can give her "opinion" on everything.. wait for 5 years.. we'll see what is going to happend with you.
bojanalex007 1 year ago
I am an atheist and i actually agree with Aaronk: Acharya S is full of shit :P
Wulfshade 1 year ago
I love the beginning, aaronk uses "acharya does not have any credentials." Ill ask aaronk what his credentials are? He is under very heavy indoctrination. And is exactly what i fear our world is coming to when it comes to education. And hence is creationism is not allowed in public schools. This is a poster child for that. Please do not be offended, it is not your fault.
blitzb4 2 years ago
Aaron may not have credentials (yet) but he uses credentialed sources. That's the difference between him and Acharya S.
And he is undecided on the creationist debate. I also don't think he would support creationism in public schools.
mikeellerbeck 2 years ago
Comment removed
blitzb4 2 years ago
ahaa i like how this kid thinks just because he has a big 50 year old vocabulary, he thinks he is better than everyone else. Your not even using half of those words right. Just talk normal.
WonderNoobie 2 years ago
i pity you, kid. its quite obvious that you didnt even have a fighting chance at deciding between theism and atheism; you were obviously brainwashed from birth, taken into the cult of christianity. you should just keep to yourself and stop trying to prove something that is completely unprovable.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
Unless your here for rational argumentation, go away.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
unless you find a way to become any less insane and moronic, kill yourself.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
aha, rational? You are so unrational, you preech almost every day, for the sole reason of...? Nothing.
Your making videos hating on everyone that doesnt like your beliefs, christians..
WonderNoobie 2 years ago
27 seconds into your video.
Christianity has been debunked. and defeated. and not only by evidence. but by common sense, and 6th grade science.
the bible is not a reliable source at all, either.
I respect you aaron almost.
even know your beliefs are ridiculously stupid, and you are a southerner. 50 years behind the rest of the world. You still spout your beliefs to, well, none believers world wide.
Visurit 2 years ago
Please back that up.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
@aaronk1994
does thermodynamics not apply to your god?
Visurit 2 years ago
DUDE READ THE BIBLE.
You obviously havent since you dont even need to back anything up, its the most unreliable sorce.
Some random guy we call god, that WE have NEVER seen or heard of in real life..
he somehow somes into existance and out of nowhere he creates us. No purpose, he just creates us.
And kabam!!! there is your proof, all i needed to do was tell you how we were created. Its so unrealistic right? and it doesnt make any sence? yep.
WonderNoobie 2 years ago
@WonderNoobie And what do you believe? That millions of years ago nothing exploded and turned into primordial ooze which then magically turned into unicorns and dinosaurs, which eventually turned into us. Dude, read your science book.
The difference between Christians and scientists is that Christians follow the evidence that exists and scientists search for what they already believe to be true.
chuber1979 1 year ago
A. Nice job assuming I believe in the big bang.
B. You want to know WHY you still believe in the bible? Because you haven't read it yet.
You want to know HOW I know you haven't read it? Because you just said christians follow evidence that EXISTS. As a matter of fact, no matter what you say, I KNOW you haven't read it.
C. Everything you just said about the big bang was completely wrong, and I have no idea where you got any of that from.
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
Comment removed
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
D. I made that comment 9 months ago, great fucking job replying almost a year later.
E. Tell me some fucking real evidence of the bible. Please do so, because when I look up in the sky, what do you think I see? Clouds. I don't see a floating utopia of peace and happiness.
The big bang atleast has EVIDENCE and makes sense. Your little book there, says we were shaped like and from clay...does that seem...I don't know..impossible?
You also must think god just randomly poofed out of nowhere too
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
@WonderNoobie Hey thanks for the positive response. First of all, I have read the Bible, and it's accuracy is startling, acheologically, scientifically, and historically. Secondly, I believe in the big bang. God spoke and bang. There is remarkable proof for the Big Bang, but matter cannot be created or destroyed. I believe in looking at the evidence and then making a hypothesis. Evolution is completely backwards in that regard, it makes a hypothesis and then finds evidence to support it.
chuber1979 1 year ago
wow surprise surprise, you didn't swear at me
can we just set our differences aside and both agree that arronk is a dickwad that contradicts himself in every sentence he says?
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
@WonderNoobie What a logical, rational comment.
aaronk1994 1 year ago
Thanks I guess?
I just made fun of you and you compliment me...whatever I guess.
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
@WonderNoobie It's called SARCASM.
aaronk1994 1 year ago
Can't really tell sarcasm in typing.
And I really can't see how what I said was illogical when it was actually true.
And no you never provide evidence. You just give a link to some stupid article or say some opinions on what you think but make your opinions sound like real facts when they clearly aren't.
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
@WonderNoobie Give me an example of him contradicting himself.
chuber1979 1 year ago
I do not remember exactly all of them, but here is a simple one.
He is always asking for evidence on alot of things, but he never provides any for himself. Even when you ask.
WonderNoobie 1 year ago
@WonderNoobie Actually I do provide evidence.
Stop skirting the issue. The fact remains that there is no evidence for these parallels.
aaronk1994 1 year ago
@WonderNoobie I guess I can't speak on that, I've never asked him for evidence. But as far as I can tell he's given evidence. I have noticed him ask for evidence that can't be provided because it doesn't exist, kind of like the same evolutionists I was just talking about. Rather than follow evidence they believe maybes and possiblys.
chuber1979 1 year ago
I suppose you could see it that way. But when one person is saying 2+2=3 and the other says 2+2=5 and they both say the other is wrong, you must see either the ignorance of both or the intellectual dishonesty of both.
alianchild 2 years ago
How did it not make sense ? These people have shown that he starts with faulty premises, straw man arguments, arguments from personal incredulity and he uses the most feeble standards of evidence and the most questionable historical records, the bible for example. Once that has been established you can ignore the rest of his statements as they are based on his previous inaccuracies, faulty assumptions, logical fallacies, gullibility and of course...lies.
Nothing more is required.
alianchild 2 years ago 2
You did ask who had refuted N.T.W. did you not ?
The short list I gave is but a fraction of those who have refuted him. I find it very funny that so many other apologists find his notions so damaging to their own arguments that they attack people that defend their beliefs. NWT says " God exists because of this...." and WLC says " NWT is wrong because he damages my position of why god exists." How can you expect anyone to believe any apologist when they refute each other ? Its really sad .
alianchild 2 years ago
Nothing but biased, Christian extremist trash here. no need to waste any more time here.
Decent Christians are embarrassed by this kind of trash smearing & libeling a single female scholar who's works aaronk1994, admits he's never read. You're only out to shore up your faith at all costs even if it means attacking living breathing humans. It's like you prefer a new, modern day Inquisition against all non-believers.
Let me guess, you're home schooled too?
Hercules2345 2 years ago
"Decent Christians are embarrassed by this kind of trash smearing & libeling a single female scholar."
Lol, I'm not embarrassed. She deserved to be ridiculed for her crappy scholarship.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
"Let me guess, you're home schooled too?"
No, I'm in college, studying English and Rhetoric.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Very sloppy and very inaccurate - 1 star for sure. Read a book other than the bible. Looks like you got your info from other dishonest xians who are only out to shore up their faith at all costs even if it means SMEARING a single female author.
"King David" should be held responsible since you use his site to harass her with. "She couldn't respond" is a lie - she wrote a 600 page book titled "Christ in Egypt" w/ 2,400 fn's to primary sources & expert opinion w/ 900 biblio sources.
Hercules2345 2 years ago 4
Precisely! Pointing out how Acharya S is not a scholar, and showing how she lies about her sources is a clear attempt to smear and hurt the poor women!
Is that really all you've got?
By the way, JP Holding is critiquing her entire Horus book.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Your hero JP Holding is a joke - he has no relevant qualifications, credentials or degrees and is no authority on anything whatsoever. Most decent Christians are embarrassed by him and stay away from him. You should do the same.
I've read his so-called critique - it's one big straw man. He's about as dishonest as you can get.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
Aaron has now asked you numerous times to cite a primary source that demonstrates a borrowing relationship that is viable, yet, we have nothing but smears and harrasment.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
"I've read his so-called critique - it's one big straw man."
You don't back up with this claim, nor do you back up your other claims.
Jesus Myth = a BS conspiracy theory that does not deserve to be taken seriously.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
How about providing some evidence that it is flawed?
Anyway, why are you subscribed to Holdings E Block if you don't support him?
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Already did. You have already admitted that you've never read a single book by Acharya. And, you've admitted you are relying on others who also have never read any of her work like "King David." Everybody knows never to trust JP Holding.
A friend gave me Holdings e-block thing - I would never pay for such trash. Again, Holding is just another biased xian extremist who smears libels & maliciously attacks those who demonstrate Jesus & Xianity are lies. So, to be attacked by him is a compliment
Hercules2345 2 years ago
"You've never read a single book by Acharya".
I've already explained to you that you don't have go into depth into an author's bibliography to recognize BS claims and crappy sources. I'd tutored tons of students in college and read tons of scholary essays to the point where I know how to recognize shitty scholarship and argumentation in my sleep.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
6. LOL, Wallis Budge at 8:15 was an Egyptologist and a Christian who verified the connections.
7. The bibliography is in alphabetical order U got 2 the B's. woo woo
8. Many of those modern scholars commented on pre-xian primary sources and verified them. Again, If you read her books you'd already know that.
9. She cites her own books like other scholars do who've already tackled a specific issue and don't want to take up dozens of pages re-hashing it again.
10. R U a keith TRASH wannabe?
Hercules2345 2 years ago 2
6. Wallis Budge does not cite any pre-Christian sources for any of his claims.
7. That was where the bibliography ended in her video, not my fault.
8. Stop citing me scholars who allegedly found pre-Christian sources. If the sources are so many, it shouldn't be difficult for you to cite me just one.
9. The funny part was that she claimed she was a "highly credential scholar", which is not true. She only has two degrees, one is not even relevant.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
6. You've never read Budge either. You are aware that Egypt existed long before Christianity, right?
7. Yes, your fault due to sloppy work w/ ZERO investigation. It just demonstrates the level of dishonesty Christians will stoop.
So, you're a keith TRASH and JP Holding wanna be - wow, no need to set high goals when you can set really, really low ones.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
"You are aware that Egypt exist long before Christianity, right?" LOL, that's hilarious.
Are you aware that apples existed before the invention of the car?
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Hercules2345, since you advocate a conspiracy theory, please go watch my new uploaded video about conspiracy theories. It will show you WHY you are not taken seriously.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Not interested in conspiracy theories at all. Life's too short to waste my time with such videos.
"You don't back up with this claim"
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic. php?f=4&t=2255
Hercules2345 2 years ago
"Not interested in conspiracy theories at all."
Ironic, since you are advocating one.
Sorry, forums are not a reliable source to back up your claim. Nice try.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
thunder, you're just another punk with zero qualifications, formal training or credentials trying to argue far above your station. You've never read anything by her either.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
No, but I do have training as an English tutor, in how to site sources, how to do scholarly research, and how to recognize BS sources and claims. I don't have to read her work in depth to know that her info is BS. I just have to look at source and I just know they are BS.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Do I need to read into lots of depth into the claims of Holocaust Deniers to know that their claims are BS? No.
Of course we should be open-minded, do research, and be skeptical, but we shouldn't be so skeptical to the point where are brains fall out of our ears.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Seriously dude, I should just block you. I've already argued with you about this, and you have not given any evidence whatsoever of these parallels.
I'll give you one more chance to cite a pre-Christian source that states any of the major parallels (crucifixion, born of a Virgin etc). If the sources are as numerous as you claim, it shouldnt be hard to provide just one. Come on man.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I'm going to have to report this video to youtube - all you're doing is SMEARING an author who's works you admit you've never read.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
"I'm going to have to report this video to youtube - all you're doing is SMEARING an author who's work you admit you've never read."
Lol, good luck with that.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Maybe we shouldn't smear Hitler either, because I've never read Mein Kamf.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
Adventures Unlimited Press. Nuff said.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
aaronk1994,
1. Cite your own degrees, qualifications, credentials or formal training?
2. What books by Acharya S have you actually read?
3. What authority do YOU have to claim she's unreliable?
4. King David at 3:20, has also never read a single book by Acharya S
5. Attis at 6 - you're just quote mining, demonstrating you didn't read or understand the book. Acharya was showing that the parallels exist, which Christian apologists have been lying about all these years, saying they don't.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
1. I cite historians and scholars w/ credentials.
2. I don't need to read them. Ive read the critiques, which quote the book and refute it.
3. She a liar, as I've shown here.
4. How do you know that? Besides, he actually had a discussion with her, and she couldn't produce any evidence of the parallels.
5. Many of the parallels simply do not exist, and the ones that do are post-Christian. This makes them irrelevant, since they borrowed them from Christianity.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Ryan Thomas Jones.
Dr C M Mcmahon. Robert M. Price.
W.L.Craig. yes thats right, the foolish philosopher himself.
John Starke.
T. David Gordon. I could go on and on, and most of them are Christian apologists themselves, so before you question, you should do a little research. I know this a lot to ask of theists, what with the whole non functional brain problem you have, but I do dare to dream.
alianchild 2 years ago
Hey Aaron, you might wanna be a little careful not to plea to "authority" too much. Archya S is not a scholar, but this alone doens't defeat her arguments. Now, most youtube subscribers, athiest, or theist like us, are not scholars, surely we wouldn't want to say all of our arguments are invalid because out lack of degrees. I'm not saying that this was your argument, but it might be read that way. God Bless my friend!
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago 4
Aaron is not saying that someone's lack of credentials automatically makes a person's claims invalid. It's how you back those claims with sufficient evidence that matter. You don't have to be a scholar to do that.
I mean, just the fact that she quoted HERSELF is proof alone that she is not to be taken seriously.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago