More Fun with the Acharya S Brigade, Pt 1

Apparently another member of the Acharya S fanclub has chimed in with their own opinion on my critical review of The Christ Conspiracy. The response naturally comes on the oxymoronically named Freethought Nation forums where everyone thinks in lockstep with Acharya. So how does this latest defense fare? Well, let’s take a look at their first piece of their counter-evidence (the rest will be dealt with later):

First this person quotes me from the review that “There is nothing in Egyptian mythology that ever has Horus being crucified. It is something she recycled from crank authors from over a century ago” and then answers “Oh really?” before offering the following pictures as evidence:

dendera louvre


And then comments:

As you can see Horus is placed at the vicinity of the equinox on the zodiac of Dendera.

You might be wondering what this has to do with anything but then you need to have a little background in the “assume your theory and then make something up as you go along” hermeneutics of the Acharya S crowd. Frankly, there is so much wrong here that one barely knows where to begin.

First of all, the first photo is of the Denderah zodiac in a later Greco-Roman temple from the first century BC. The Egyptians never used the twelve-sign zodiacal system (that was a Mesopotamian idea) but instead used a system of the heliacal risings of designated stars and constellations every ten days (decans). After the conquest of Alexander the Great and the rule in Egypt of the Greek Ptolemies, the two systems were integrated to form what became the basis of Western astrology.

The importance here is that the temple was only created in the first century BC using and imported system and thus was hardly representative of any long-standing Egyptian ideas. Moreover, the entire construct assumes concerns that are not even evident in the original zodiac. Note, for instance, that the intersecting lines that appear in the diagram below DO NOT appear in the original zodiac. Nor does Horus actually appear at the intersection – it is merely assumed from the fact that Horus is associated with a stellar object somewhere near the imposed intersection. Then again, so do other depictions. So what we have even at a superficial level is the imposition of the importance of the intersection of two lines that do not appear on the zodiac and the association of Horus with a stellar object in a location nearby but not upon that non-appearing intersection.

Yet, even worse is that fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with a crucifixion! In the review, my comments were in the context of pointing out the absurd redefinition of crucifixion employed by Murdock:

Then there are the countless bogus “pagan parallel” claims in the book that she has spend the last decade and a half whitewashing with lame excuses. For example, there is nothing in Egyptian mythology that ever has Horus being crucified. It is something she recycled from crank authors from over a century ago. It just isn’t there. So what is her story now? She now states that her critics misunderstood the meaning she intended for the terms she used – including for the current discussion on the crucifixion of Horus. In other words, when she said “Horus was crucified,” she did not necessarily mean hanging on a cross or some other similar object.

Now, one might allow for a certain bit of discretion in the definition when making a parallel to Jesus. If Horus had been hung on something akin to a cross, you certainly could argue there was enough similarity to make a real parallel. However, even allowing this wider latitude, there still is no such parallel between Jesus and Horus.

So what exactly did Murdock have in mind by “crucified”? In the recent source guide by Murdock and Zeitgeist creator Peter Joseph, the term “crucified” was redefined to mean “appears with arms outstretched in a symbolic context.” Needless to say, this is not what anyone reading this book would have understood and this new definition was never mentioned prior to her claims being refuted.

Under her new definition, any iconography depicting a figure with its arms extended is now to be considered “crucified.” The figure in question might be giving a blessing, casting a spell, doing a dance, flying through the sky in the form of a falcon, or even being executed on a Roman cross. According to Murdock, these are all “crucified” and all the same. Thus with this new definition, Murdock can claim she was right all along.

While one might admire the cleverness – not to mention the chutzpah – of whitewashing previous errors through such equivocation, it also fails miserably on a number of points. All one needs to do to see this is to consider the absurdity of putting forth a depiction of any deity of your choosing with their arms extended as a parallel to the crucifixion of Jesus. Moreover, if she had really intended this to be the case, why did it take until after the severe criticism of the claim to ever mention it?

Just imagine the reaction if, instead of claiming Horus was crucified like Jesus, the claim had been that Horus was depicted with arms extended like Jesus. The reaction would have been a collective, “Yeah, so what?” It was precisely because the word “crucified” was used and the standard definition was applied that the claim had any importance at all. The new definition only creates the illusion of a parallel through generalization and lacks any real significance.

The only remaining question is whether this really was what Murdock meant all along. By reviewing Murdock’s earlier work -including this book, it is pretty clear that, when she used the term “crucified,” she meant something akin to the crucifixion of Jesus. When it was described, it was always placed within a sequence that included death and resurrection, and hence was associated with a fatality. Generally speaking, you do not die from outstretching your arms – unless something happens such as you are hung on a Roman cross.

In The Christ Conspiracy, Murdock stated that Horus was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected. This certainly places the crucifixion in a death sequence with the two thieves adding to the similarities to the scene at Calvary. At no point did she give any indication that she thought “crucified” meant anything other than what we normally consider a crucifixion.

Even if she really was thinking of iconographic depictions of Horus with his arms extended in 1999, that would only indicate she was being deceptive. After all, if it were true, then Murdock knew she created a “parallel” out of something most would consider innocuous, and did so knowing her readers would misinterpret her meaning. It is far more likely, given her own prior claims, that she really believed there were stories of a crucified Horus, she was caught off guard by discovering her sources for these claims were bogus, and she redefined the term to save face with her fanboys.

Obviously what I stated was that Murdock had originally asserted that Horus had been “crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected” and redefined the term only “crucifixion” only after her claims were exposed as nonsense. That is, what I asserted is that there is no Egyptian mythology where Horus was executed on some object resembling a cross. What this little fanboy came up with is yet another redefinition of crucifixion that neither matches the actual meaning nor matches Murdock’s own redefinition! On top of that, he used a very late Greco-Roman temple that had little to do with ancient Egyptian mythology and imagined two intersecting lines were vital to Egyptian beliefs even though the lines were not important enough to place on the diagram. This is the usual strategy of the Murdockettes: find something that you can claim is in the shape of a cross, find some way to associate it with a pagan god, and then declare that god crucified.

Of course, if they had originally stated that “Horus was depicted as a falcon flying through the sky with wings extended and Jesus was depicted with arms extended on a cross and therefore the latter was copied from the former” everyone would have laughed mightily. Ditto for “Horus was associated with a stellar object appearing somewhere near two intersecting that do not actually appear on a zodiac and therefore the crucifixion of Jesus copied it.” This is how desperate the cult of Acharya is to defend their dear leader.

In other words, when I stated that there was no mythology of a crucified Horus, I meant there was was no mythology of a crucified Horus. I did not mean that some member of a cult of personality might examine artifacts and impose their own meanings on both the artifacts and my words and create nonsense on the fly to defend their hero. Needless to say, outside the strange world of Acharya S clones, no one takes their nonsense seriously.

Here is the challenge I have posted to numerous of these crackpots and to date have received no replies: Name a living Egyptologist who will state that the outline of parallels to Jesus that Horus is assigned in Zeitgeist is basically correct. Can they find some qualified individual to go on record with such a statement or can they just dig up other Jesus mythicists repeating the same drivel?

Lutheran Satire’s Horus Ruins Christmas

For those who need a chuckle, there is a Youtube channel Lutheran Satire that manages to give some good apologetics and analysis of many of the Church’s problems along with some well placed humor. Although some of it may need a little knowledge of issues within Lutheranism, most do not. Over the last Christmas holiday, they posted a great little video on the whole Zeitgeist nonsense that places it all in perspective:


Acharya S Fanboy Fails Again

I did a little experiment today. I posted a review of Acharya S’ The Christ Conspiracy under my normal tag “Labarum” just to see how long it would take the Murdockettes to take umbrage. Apparently it does not take long. My review got six downvotes in a matter of a few hours. At that point, I knew it must have received some comment on her website forums – most likely by an admin who spends his life scouring the internet for criticisms of her in other web forums. Although I cannot be certain, I suspect he is the same fellow who lied in an attempt to cover her tracks in the “Acharya, Attis, and William Butler Yeats” debacle. If not, he must have an admirer since the other guy has his style down to a tee. In any case, I have yet to find any response to my digging up that evidence that Acharya is clueless in those forums. I guess they don’t want to upset the little fanboys …

So what does Acharya’s #1 defender have to say today:

I just happen to be on Amazon this morning and stumbled across a review of Christ Con by pseudo-skeptic scholar wannabe, Labarum/Albert Mcilhenny.

This should already give some indication that this person is not very observant. At no point have I ever presented myself as a skeptic. My website, Youtube channel, Twitter feed, and even my Amazon page makes very clear I am a Christian. So, I guess he can’t keep things straight on even the first line.

Labarum is Albert Mcilhenny and he is a Christian fundamentalist extremist out on his little smear campaign against non-Christians.

Not only is this quite wrong, but it contradicts the first line. If you can’t maintain logical consistency within the framework of two consecutive sentences, you already know you are dealing with someone who is not too swift on the uptake. Also, I have made clear on a number of occasions that I am an Anglican and thus hardly qualify as fundamentalist. As for being an extremist, do remember this comes from a fan of someone who suggested that university scholars were part of a Freemasonic conspiracy to suppress the ideas she supports and said conspiracy is led by the pope. Sometimes a little perspective reminds you that you are dealing with nutjobs. Finally, it should also be noted that anyone who criticizes Acharya is labeled by her and her minions as engaging in a smear campaign merely by the fact of their criticism.

Notice how none of Albert’s complaints have anything to do with Acharya’s main thesis that Jesus is just another sun god. That’s because he can’t debunk it. All he can do is cry over minor errors and typos that do not matter and are not significant.

Actually I wrote an ebook about it that goes into detail on her many historical errors on the subject. But more importantly, this is a review – not a line item negation. I chose a few points that demonstrate that her scholarlship is shoddy and left it at that. I will be doing an ebook on this particular volume and would be more than happy to send him a copy gratis when completed. That should keep him busy. In the meantime, it does not appear he had much to say on the points I did raise. So where is that church in Lyons?

#7 is false:

First of all, even if it were false, does that mean you are conceding #1-6?? Those are some pretty big laughers in that bunch. And I could give you more like it. For example, how do you defend her using Jonathan M. Roberts as evidence that Christians destroyed writings by Livy that would prove Christianity is fraudulent. Have you ever bothered to check Roberts’ evidence? It turns out he claimed that He talked to dead people and he had a conversation with Livy through some medium with a crystal ball. Apparently, the long dead Livy told him that’s what happened. Such is the wonders of research by Acharya S.

As for #7, crackpots like this guy will believe anything his idol Acharya will tell him. So what is the truth when you read the Christ Conspiracy? You can read the truth here. The idea that Ehrman “ruined his repuations” shows just how far out on a limb these clowns are willing to go. While I certainly disagree with Ehrman, it is ridiculous to think his reputation is damaged except among her oddball fans.

He then states I was wrong concerning the fact that there is nothing in Egyptian mythology that ever has Horus being crucified. So does he present us with the evidence of that mythology? Does he give us the testimony of a current Egyptologist to the veracity of the claim? Of course not. He merely cites another Jesus mythicist (Robert M. Price) who agrees with Acharya but himself presents no evidence of the supposed mythology. Price merely alludes to Horus depicted as a falcon with his wings extended across the heavens. You see, as I mentioned in my review, they avoid the fact that no such mythology ever depicted Horus as crucified by stating they both were depicted with arms extended. Of course, if they had originally stated “Horus was depcited as a falcon flying across the heavens and Jesus was crucified and both hand arms extended and therefore the story of Jesus copied that of Horus” they would have been laughed at by everyone. It is only after their incompetence has been exposed that they can derive such lame excuses.

As concerns the wacky strawman about Nixon, he’s oblivious to the fact that Church fathers themselves compared Moses’s raising of his arms while fighting the Amalekites as him “making the sign of the cross”

This not only shows he does not know what constitutes a strawman, but also is incapable of making a logical deduction. First of all, I never said Acharya claimed Nixon was a sun god; I made an analogy between the two since his being crucified was no less true – using her concept – than Horus. You might call it hyperbole, but it is not a strawman. Finally, his counter argument is bogus. Yes, the Church Fathers said Moses when he raised his arms was making the sign of the cross. They were very big into the archetype-fulfillment idea – sometimes to the point of straining a gnat. They could make a symbolic connection because they saw Moses as an archetype fulfilled by Christ. However, when they said Moses was such an archetype, they DID NOT say Moses was crucified.

Yet, even ignoring the obvious, he still has not dealt with the fact that no one would have cared about such a “parallel” if it had been identified this way from the start. Where in the Christ Conspiracy does she ever suggest anything other than the usual definition? Just about any figure in art could be pictures with arms extended but that does not mean it parallels the crucifixion of Jesus. The idea that they would go to such ridiculous lengths do defend such an obvious blunder is evidence enough of their desperation.

We can always count on pseudo-skeptics like Labarum/Albert Mcilhenny to miss the point, which is it was CONCEPTS like the above Christianity ‘borrowed’ its ideas from. Scholars call it syncretism.

Of course. Some Jews saw Horus depicted as a falcon flying and said “Hey, let’s copy that by having a story of a guy getting crucified.” Makes perfect sense – from the inside of a padded cell.

As concerns the wacky strawman about Nixon, he’s oblivious to the fact that Church fathers themselves compared Moses’s raising of his arms while fighting the Amalekites as him “making the sign of the cross”

Of course, those Church Fathers were pointing to Moses’ posture as symbolically foreshadowing the cross. He never bothered noting that none of them ever stated Moses was crucified or in any other way equated the two events. Again, logic is not a strong suit with this guy.

The Church fathers also compared Moses’s serpent raised up on a pole to Christ’s crucifixion – even the Bible compares the two!

First of all, the serpent is at least attached to something akin to a cross – which you do not find with Horus. Second of all, the comparison is to being raised – not to being crucified. The whole point here is that Murdock stated that Horus was crucified. If she had made the claim of Horus flying like a falcon being comparable to Jesus being crucified and then tried to make a connection, no one would have cared about the “parallel” because everyone would have seen through it immediately. Instead she used the term “crucified” either because she actually believed there was such a mythology or she was being intentionally deceptive. I happen to think the former since there were enough crank sources out there saying as much.

This guy, Labarum/Albert Mcilhenny, has no credibility whatsoever.

Do those tinfoil hats ever get uncomfortable??