Toto

No - Atwill had a few academics with real PhD's who were more supportive of his work, who could lend credibility (at least to the point where a casual observer might think that his ideas were worth looking into.)

Acharya S would not add credibility as far as people who were looking for credibility are concerned (if you get my meaning.)

But - and I don't want to sound like Stephan Huller here - all of the other talking heads in Atwill's movie were flabby middle aged white guys. Acharya S is an attractive blond and was wearing some exotic jewelry, and added some color and variety.



This is actually not bad. I think that standard academics would even agree with a lot of it Even if they believe that there was a historical Jesus at the beginnings of Christianity, they do believe that the gospels are mostly legendary accretions added to the basic story.

Of course they were busy. It takes a lot of work to launch a new religion. :Cheeky: Besides, what else did they have to do, except sit around and tell stories, and embellish them? They didn't have the internet or TV to distract them, just a bit of Greco-Roman theater at the nearest big town.

aa5874

Again, Toto, you have presented all wasted rhetoric. Your post confirms that you are not prepared to present any actual evidence for your claims about Acharya S.





Toto, what is a standard academic??? One who uses admitted discredited sources like the NT??

Ehrman uses the NT although he admits the NT contains events that most likely did NOT happen and that the Gospel are filled with discrepancies and contradictions. See Did Jesus Exist? page 182-184.

The birth of Jesus in the NT is one of those events. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.26-35.

Acharya S does NOT use the Discredited NT but Ehrman does.

Is Ehrman a standard academic??

Toto, is Doherty a standard academic when he used the manipulated Pauline letters to argue that Jesus was crucified in the sub-lunar??

Who else in all academia argues that Jesus was in some kind of heaven when he was crucified??

Logical fallcies and Presumption are standard in Academia.

Please, just read "Did Jesus Exist?? and you will be inundated with fallacies both of logic and facts..

Zwaarddijk

New post. Do point out mistakes if you find them.

Zwaarddijk

So, no one willing to take me to task for flaws in my response? No one going to point out my lack of credentials when it comes to this post? No one going to defend the problems in The Christ Conspiracy, as though these flaws somehow are ok and the mistakes in it do not cause problems for the thesis presented?

I am essentially saying the entire chapter 'Etymology Tells the Story' is nothing but a tall tale, a terrible example of shoddy research and illogic. Specifically for Tanya, there's some examples of necessary things to think of when doing etymology in it - things that Acharya shows no regard for whatsoever, such as, say, the existence of the words she uses for evidence, or anything like it.

Tanya, do you think the things I point out when it comes to etymologies are things real linguists just scoff at or think can be disregarded just like that? If so, why? Do these things not seem relevant and reasonable?

Check it out: http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2...nguistics.html

GakuseiDon

Zwaarddijk, I don't think you are going to get much of a debate on this board. The only real strong defender of Acharya S here is Dave31, but he doesn't discuss specifics, he just comes by, dumps a load of adhoms, and goes back to the safety of Acharya S central, the Freethought Nation website. You could try posting over there, but you'll find you won't be able to post more than a couple of times, before your posts suddenly no longer get through their moderation policy. Which is not unexpected, given the cultish behaviour of those on FTN. So unless GodAlmighty, Robert Tulip, Tat Tvam Asi or Acharya S herself decide to post here, you aren't going to find anyone to take up the debate on Acharya S's behalf unfortunately.

I see your comment on your blog regarding the origin of "Solomon". Acharya S writes:

The "great" king Solomon, ... in fact, "Sol-om-on" refers to the sun in three languages: "Sol" is Latin, "om" is Eastern, and "on" is Egyptian. "On" means both "sun" and "lord," reflecting an association found in countless cultures.

As you note, she cites as her source the American astrologer John Hazelrigg (1860-1941), a founder of the American Academy of Astrologians. But from her perspective and presumably from the perspective of her fans, if she can find a source for it, it has been 'researched'.

Just as jaw-dropping numbingly ridiculous as her origin of the word "Solomon", you might want to see her description of the word "Israel":

Furthermore, the word Israel itself is not a Jewish appellation but comes from the combination of three different reigning deities: Isis, the Earth Mother Goddess revered throughout the ancient world; Ra, the Egyptian sungod; and El, the Semitic deity passed down in form as Saturn. (The Christ Conspiracy, p. 98)

Again, she lists her source as Hazelrigg, as she does on quite a few other occasions. At some point, you would think that she would start to think, "Hmmm, is this guy reliable?" But it never appears to happen. Nor does it happen with her other sources.

The real question is, with these hundreds of pages of speculative bullshit in her book, why does anyone find her work convincing? I think the answer is that those people convinced by her work don't have the knowledge of the sources to understand when she is talking crap like with "Solomon" and "Israel". But then they also probably won't appreciate any critique of such books, like you have started to do with your blog. I appreciate your efforts and where you are coming from -- it's galling to see ancient people's beliefs misrepresented for someone's agenda, whether for bad Christian apologetics or bad mythicist apologetics -- but I think your efforts may be in vain, if the intention is to engage on specific points.

Anyway, my favorite 'linguistic link' provided by Acharya S in TCC is the following:

Moreover, the Mayan creator god was called "Hurakan", and the Caribbean storm god was "Hurukan," both of which are nearly identical to the Tibetan wrathful diety, "Heruka," which in turn is related to Herakcles or Hercules. It is from this stormy god that we get the word "Hurricane." Walker hypothesizes that "Horus" was "Heruka" of the East and notes that the Pygmies revered Heru, an archaic name for Horus. (TCC, page 396)

The implication of this link between cultures scattered around the world is quite fantastic!

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that's an illegitimate motive for a film-maker, in fairness; include a daft dolly bird to break things up a bit is that old light-and-shade thing. It's a visual medium. Why else does the gorgeous Bettany Hughes present ancient history programmes, instead of me?

The question we need to ask is whether pix of Acharya S would do wonders for *my* blog's hit rate. Has anyone done any objective research into this? Which pictures were most, erm, attractive (from a web-statistical point of view)?

Anyone who is offended by the idea of Saint Acharya as blog eye-candy is welcome not to look.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Well, you claimed you document bullshit so if you bring up Acharya S then we will compare the bullshit in "Did Jesus Exist?".

Tell us is it bullshit for Ehrman to use admitted fictional sources, the Gospels and Pauline writings, for the history of his Jesus in the 1st century??

Acharya S does NOT employ the bullshit sources, the Good News of the Resuurection called Gospels, as history.

Toto

None of us have all the knowledge we need, but I think that Acharya is tapping into a fundamental desire to feel that "everything is connected." It's a very powerful feeling.

stephan huller

When I was submitting experts for my documentary with one of the channels here (but with a British production company) all they cared about was eye candy (and at least some credentials). The woman liked James Tabor but that was when he had his Kris Kristofferson/70s guy look going on. When I gave her all the other eggheads she was disappointed.

aa5874

Well, Document Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?". You will be inundated by the loads of BS.

Carrier has examined "Did Jesus Exist?" by Ehrman.

See http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026/

Again, please compare Ehrman's Sources to those of Acharya S.

Who uses the Bible as history for Jesus???


Ehrman--- NOT Acharya S.

In the Bible it says the Son of a Ghost was baptized by John and that Jesus encountered a Holy Ghost bird at baptism. See Matthew 1.18 and Matthew 3.16.

Who claims the baptism story is truly history??

Ehrman--Not Acharya S.

Acharya S claims Jesus is Myth.

We already have documented the bullshist in" Did Jesus Exist?"