Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-31-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I've had several Acharya S fans tell me that New Testament Christianity has "NOTHING", "absolutely nothing", to do with Judaism and contains no Jewish theology or references AT ALL.

Such claims are so absolutely foolish that its hard to even fathom. All one need do is open the New Testament to just about any random page to see quotes from the OT scriptures, so how people can even make such claims is beyond me, but a number of people defending her works have told me this.

I'm just playing devils advocate here; But I've read 3 of her works, and she doesn't at all make the claim that Christianity isn't based in or upon Jewish scripture or Theology. She goes into great depth to show midrash of the OT in creating NT scripture, in fact.

Yes, this is true, but for some reason it seems that many people focus in entirely on the pagan aspect business, along the lines I guess of the Zeitgeist "movie".

ApostateAbe · 12-31-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think Acharya S's work lacks thorough criticism because it is immune to it. It is not falsifiable. She makes a bunch of claims, and she will do one of three things:

1) doesn't cite the source
2) cites a source that no longer exists
3) cites a secondary source that doesn't cite its sources

Her work doesn't have thorough scholarly criticism because it doesn't even begin to be a work of scholarship. All you can do is say, "Where is the evidence?" The end!

What percentage of her work matches that lack of evidence pattern? 25%? 50%? 75%? 100%? Her claims certainly aren't all without evidence, which is the way many play it off to be. That's where a thorough, critical review would be helpful. - pinpoint the areas that can not be supported by evidence. I know much of it is, because I've read the exact same claims in other books by people who are well respected in their scholarship.

I do know that when I had questions about claims in Christ Conspiracy, I was directed toward her other book 'Suns of God' for evidence of her previous claims. A circular chain that I'm not at all comfortable with, honestly.

I still think a wholesale dismissal - which is practically what I've always seen - doesn't do anyone any good. Maybe I'll tear it apart when I read it again and start digging into each claim. It might make a good critical thinking exercise.

Go ahead and do some of that research, and please let us know your progress.

lpetrich · 12-31-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

(Analyzing Acharya S's claims...) It seems that no-one else is doing it, so maybe I will, though I hate to actually have to acquire her books and read them and waste time addressing them, but perhaps it must be done.

I'd like to congratulate you for being willing to do that, Malachi151. I also am annoyed by some of her odd and poorly-supported claims, like her astrotheology claims and her tendency to see sun myths in everything.

Some things clearly originated in Sun myths, like the Samson story. Samson's name sounds like the Hebrew word for "Sun", and he has long hair (Sun rays?) that gets cut by Delilah, whose name sounds like the Hebrew word for "night". But seeing Sun myths everywhere is an absurdity.

GakuseiDon · 12-31-2007, 10:06 PM

Mike Licona has written a review of Acharya S's "Christ Conspiracy" here:
http://www.risen-jesus.com/index.php...=22&Itemid=109

GakuseiDon · 12-31-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Some things clearly originated in Sun myths, like the Samson story. Samson's name sounds like the Hebrew word for "Sun", and he has long hair (Sun rays?) that gets cut by Delilah, whose name sounds like the Hebrew word for "night". But seeing Sun myths everywhere is an absurdity.

Acharya gives some examples here:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

"The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
* The sun "walks on water."
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected."

These are obviously parallels to Jesus, and they appear to be taken seriously by many people, since they can be found in many places on the Internet. But as I am a Christian, any attempt by me to suggest that they are not meaningful is met by the charge that my Christian bias is showing.

So, a serious question: How is it possible to analyze these parallels, so that the analysis can be seen as objective and without bias on either side? And without such a method, how can you convince Acharya followers that the parallels are subjective and without meaning?

Geetarmoore · 01-01-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

But seeing Sun myths everywhere is an absurdity.

As an interested person, may I ask how you arrive at this conclusion, and what you mean by 'everywhere'?

Geetarmoore · 01-01-2008, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, a serious question: How is it possible to analyze these parallels, so that the analysis can be seen as objective and without bias on either side? And without such a method, how can you convince Acharya followers that the parallels are subjective and without meaning?

Well, I'm going to try to go through her book a chapter at a time, taking each claim, and evaluating it with my best attempt at scholarship. I would like to think that truth is more important to me than ideology. I'll attempt to keep my research as transparent as possible. I'll post the result of each chapter in web page format, and then allow others to pick it apart, and even change it with better or more accurate information when available.

That's my plan as of now, anyway.

Geetarmoore · 01-01-2008, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Mike Licona has written a review of Acharya S's "Christ Conspiracy" here:
http://www.risen-jesus.com/index.php...=22&Itemid=109

A review is what I would like to see; A "refutation", however, isn't. It's like you were saying about requiring some kind of impartiality. A review can however lead to some, or many refutation of facts, for sure. But 'refutation' just screams from a pre determined POV, IMO.

GakuseiDon · 01-01-2008, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, a serious question: How is it possible to analyze these parallels, so that the analysis can be seen as objective and without bias on either side? And without such a method, how can you convince Acharya followers that the parallels are subjective and without meaning?

Well, I'm going to try to go through her book a chapter at a time, taking each claim, and evaluating it with my best attempt at scholarship.

Certainly specific claims can be investigated to see if they are backed up by primary sources, but the parallels from Acharya that I reproduced earlier (e.g. "the sun walks on water" or the sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him") are intuitive. There is nothing further to be looked up AFAICS. How can the claims that this kind of thinking influenced early Christianity be reasonably evaluated one way or the other?

Roger Pearse · 01-01-2008, 05:05 AM

I would suggest that anyone looking at this stuff reduce/paraphrase each claim to a sentence, and then examine how to test it. If it cannot be tested it's crap.

If it can be tested, don't forget the 'negative test' which checks that the test criteria are right -- i.e., OK, this claim passes the test; but would loads of other things which are plainly not true pass too?

Finally if a claim passes, check whether it actually is evidence, or merely a statement about the world, from which yet another claim is being insinuated.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-31-2007, 10:06 PM	#24
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Mike Licona has written a review of Acharya S's "Christ Conspiracy" here: http://www.risen-jesus.com/index.php...=22&Itemid=109

01-01-2008, 05:05 AM	#30
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I would suggest that anyone looking at this stuff reduce/paraphrase each claim to a sentence, and then examine how to test it. If it cannot be tested it's crap. If it can be tested, don't forget the 'negative test' which checks that the test criteria are right -- i.e., OK, this claim passes the test; but would loads of other things which are plainly not true pass too? Finally if a claim passes, check whether it actually is evidence, or merely a statement about the world, from which yet another claim is being insinuated. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.