Toto

Acharya S should be honored to have a champion like aa5874.

In the meantime, James McGrath has posted a link to Jim Davila's Paleojudaica blog post on an article in Ha'aretz behind a low paywall on the conflation of Joshua with Samson as sun gods. This is the sort of work that Acharya S might use support the idea of astrotheology if she could avoid the fake linguistic parallels

aa5874

Toto, when are you going to admit that Acharya S does NOT use admitted sources of fiction for history like Ehrman and Doherty??

Who use the Bible to date the Pauline writings as an early source??

Doherty, Ehrman or Acharya S??

You appear to be attempting to smear Acharya S in order to divert attention away from those who ACTUALLY and ADMITTEDLY use sources that are NOT credible.

Did Not Ehrman admit that the NT is historically problematic and filled with discrepancies and contradictions??

Yes or No??

So why don't you attack Ehrman for using sources as history that he ADMITS are not credible.

Did NOT Doherty claim that the Pauline writings have been manipulated??

Yes or No???

Why is he using admitted manipulated sources as history without corroboration??

Toto, you are really wasting time. You are merely terrified to expose the blatant errors by Ehrman and Doherty.

We know who use sources that are admittedly manipulated as sources of history without even a shred of corroboration.

We know who use the very NT that cannot be trusted as history.

It is NOT Acharya S.

Toto, tell us. You know them.

James The Least

That's all the study of ancient religion ever was, or ever will be.

James The Least

Oh, I think Archaya S. is acutely aware of the male domination of women in religion and history. A big part of her work seems to be devoted to exposing how shameful this is to modern women still clinging to religion, especially in Islam, trying to get them to "wake up."

Zwaarddijk

aa5874,
she does use "sources for fiction", such as 19th century astrologers who made shit up about stuff.

tanya

Anyone should be honored to have someone of aa5874's intellectual prowess, honesty, and devotion to historical accuracy, as their defender.

Thank you for the links, always appreciated.

Here Toto has mixed two problems:

a. whether or not Acharya S' books adequately document her hypothesis of a tendency of humans to incorporate the nighttime constellations into superstitious practices, and,

b. whether or not there exists evidence supporting interpretations, based on linguistic investigations, of humans from different cultures engaging in comparable superstitious ceremonies.

How does Toto's mixing of these two problems, or two issues, contribute to clarity on either one? Why not furnish a link to support either criticism? One needs a quote from Acharya's texts, illustrating her "error", and then, a corresponding quote, from an "authority", refuting this "mistake". Since there are two issues, then, one seeks four links: her mistake, and the proper repudiation of it, for both issues.

I will bet a wooden nickel, that Don would be the first in line to procure a copy of a newly discovered manuscript, long buried in the Egyptian Sand, authored by Philo, praising Hercules' selfless devotion to human endeavors, as Philo does, On the Embassy to Gaius.

So Acharya S' writings are "speculative bullshit" according to Don, and 100% of her authorities represent fictional, plain vanilla, "shit", according to Miekko, and she engages in "fakery", according to Toto.

Wow.

Thanks to these three luminaries, for providing such clarity on the inappropriateness of Acharya's texts, and thanks to Chaucer for highlighting such distinguished expositions.

:notworthy:

GakuseiDon

It is incredibly interesting. What did it mean to live in a universe where the earth was the centre and your gods literally looked down upon you? A world without photographs, where writing was expensive and the ability to read was not common? Where magic, demons and miracles and monsters were common place, and maybe no further away than outside your front door? What was it like to live in a conquered country, where that conquest would seem to indicate that the invader's gods were more powerful than your own? Where schools of philosophy become so important that religions were influenced by them? All very interesting.

Zwaarddijk

Tanya,

to make shit up is an idiom that means, well, fabricate things. This you do know, as you speak English well enough to know these things.

It does not mean I am calling their works shit, I mean there is stuff in their works that is nothing but fanciful and not based on any actual evidence.

Now, you've refused to respond this far to the fabricated words - "Old Irish" budh and krishna, Scandinavian john as a name for the sun, ... does this mean you think it's not worth the effort and you're thinking that she can't do any mistake and this evidence doesn't shift your faith in her, do you just ignore me except to make unfounded allegations about me, or what? What do you think of this clearly faulty evidence she presents?

When I first mentioned this, you said I should provide sources. Now I have provided sources. Your silence on it is deafening. I guess you've stuck your fingers in your ear at home and are going *nahnananana can't hear you* (metaphorically).

aa5874

Please IDENTIFY EXACTLY what Acharya S has written. Please name the book, the chapter, page and actual passage.

You appear to be on a smear campaign.

You claim you document bullshit but admit you have NOT documented the bullshit in "Did Jesus Exist?"

You seem to be peddling your own BS.

Again, where does Acharya S admit her sources are NOT credible??

Ehrman admits his Sources are BS, NOT historically reliable, but still uses them for the history of his Jesus.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182-184 Part II chapter 6. [The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth] by Bart Ehrman.

Page 182 Page 184 The claim by Ehrman that Jesus was a human being is a load of BS based on the Bible a primary source of BS.

Acharya S has IDENTIFIED the Gospels as a LOAD of BS and that the Jesus character is a product of BS, in effect, the Jesus story was a BS Myth Fable.

Ehrman BELIEVES parts of the BS Myth Fable is history while simultaneously argues the NT is not historically reliable and identifies the BS in the Bible books.

The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth "Did Jesus Exist?" got the very worst Peer review.

Document the BS of Ehrman.

tanya

I must be dense.

I don't observe any "sources", in this clumsy post. May I humbly suggest you send an email to Chaucer. He is both a veteran of this forum, and a smart guy, and a nice person, in my opinion, and I am sure he can help you to begin to learn the right way to submit a post to this forum.

You need at least three different links:
1. To Acharya S' writings, with her faulty logic, including her reference to the "19th century astrologers", that you have cited, without citation.
2. to these same "astrologers", so that we can see precisely what it is about their work that she found acceptable, and that you find objectionable;
3. to your experts, ostensibly refuting those "astrologers".

Alternatively, if you are unable to provide these three links, then, of course, you need not contact Chaucer. In such a case, however, it would be polite to issue a retraction, and an apology to fellow forum member, Acharya S, whose accomplishments you have then insulted, without basis. I don't recall Chaucer engaged in a similar practice. When Chaucer offers criticism, we take note, for his comments are generally well documented. We may, or may not, agree with his assessment, but at least we understand that he has done his homework. I cannot say the same for you, Miekko-chan.