GakuseiDon

I think that the expression "Jesus is the reason for the season" is used to suggest that consumerism should not be the primary focus in the Christmas season.

Admittedly, I am a liberal Christian, so I don't take the expression literally. But I don't think it is meant to mean "Jesus is the reason we have winter".

Roger Pearse

Thank you for your comment. Perhaps I should explain my post, as I feel a little disappointed with your reply.

I saw your original post, and felt that perhaps there was some reason in complaining that we didn't take Acharya seriously enough to critique her work, naive though this was. So I donated half an hour of my time - time that I won't see again -, and grabbed a text by her from the web, and critiqued it.

I am disappointed that you have ignored 99% of my reply. I'm glad I spent no more time on it, and this makes you look as if you didn't care what I said; it was unwelcome, so you ignored it. That discredits you, you know.

NB: Please be aware that every troll peddling a lie responds to an enquiry as to evidence with the kind of "argument by book" above. You don't want to do this - it discredits an argument before you begin.

You will appreciate that it doesn't do your cause any good to complain that I should have read some other, unspecified, works, which would "clarify" my points. Are you saying that this post was not by Acharya S? Or that it is rubbish which shouldn't be taken seriously? Neither does your cause much good, does it?

You do not indicate why you put this link here.

Indeed not; so has to justify itself.

Then why not make specific references?

Thank you for your claims. I have no idea why you offer these comments - also without evidence - or how they address my comments. You have to produce EVIDENCE FROM ANTIQUITY for your claims.

Of course I can look it up. But why didn't Acharya?

Erm, I see the claim. On what evidence is this claim based? That book, likewise, gives none.

Offering a Wikipedia link is not a reply; indeed it is close to an insult.

While I can observe such crass errors in a "quick blog", I will not trouble to read further. Again, this is the same argument that discredited you earlier.

In short, you demand we investigate, and when we do, you take refuge in evasions. I'm afraid, in my case at least, you've lost the argument.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dave31

Ah fair enough. Though I didn't start this thread - it was split off from

"Jesus Project getting off the ground" - post 73 ish page 3
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=254159&page=3

My response was originally towards Carrier's blog post quoted by Ted Hoffman as seen in the original post here.

Carrier's criticism of her work is very seriously flawed and he accepts no accountability or responsibility for it whatsoever. His sloppy and egregious criticism of Acharya's works had led others who look up to him to treat her work with the same irrationally biased attitude without ever having actually studied her works. Carrier certainly hasn't read much beyond the paragraph he quotes in his Luxor article as he admits -
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=100965

That's not accurate but, I can't see wasting my own time with folks who irrationally and rigidly adhere to their biases against an authors works they have never actually studied and therefore, know very little about. So, my response was short, I'll admit but, if you want details you can read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested in the subject.

I don't care what you say about Acharya's works as you know nothing about it and conceding the fact that her work actually is just as good if not better than many scholars out there on the subject would be an admission against your own interests, which demonstrates more of your own rigid biases.

At any rate, I'm sorry you wasted your time with a blog critique that was unnecessary. Maybe you could review her latest book titled, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection instead?

I see you're really uptight over a short blog - now how about your thoughts over Carriers criticism of Acharya over the Luxor issues? He made some "poor", "sloppy" and "egregious" errors.

What this means is that Carriers criticism over the Luxor issues in Acharya's work is very seriously flawed, in fact, his entire article can be thrown out as trash. He wasn't even looking at the correct primary source. That's an embarrassing egregious error. He has turned many people away from studying Acharya's works because of this article and his other comments elsewhere. I think Carrier owes Acharya an apology for his quick, hand-waving dismissal of her work which he has never actually studied at all.

Or are you and others here okay with these monumental, hypocritical double standards? I think it's an embarrassment to freethinkers and the mythicist movement.

I'm reminded of:

"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance"
- Albert Einstein

Yellum Notnef

In that case it should be "Jesus is the reason for the holiday" not the entire season. But after all it's Christian tradition to believe that Jesus is the reason for everything including the seasons.

But who cares. It's just another bit of Christian nonsense anyway.

ApostateAbe

Dave31, you seem to have already lost the debate, but I'll say it again. The most persuasive thing you can do is scan the first page of a bibliography of one of Acharya S most recent publications. We are men of evidence.

Toto

Discussion of ad hominems split and locked

Kapyong

Gday all,

AcharyaS posted here a while back :
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....charya&page=10

Wow !
She actually FIXED her error about the Pope Leo quote :


The Proof
The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In the infamous quote he attributes to Pope Leo X in his play from 1564, Bishop of Ossory John Bale appears to be suggesting that the Pope was privy to the truth based on his high rank: "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."

Well, partly fixed - she still claims a line from a play is "proof".


K.

Doug Shaver

I think it reasonable to suppose that "season" is meant to be an ellipsis for "holiday season."

Roger Pearse

I wonder if she credits J.P.Holding for tracking down the Bale reference? Or checked any of Wheless' claims?

Last night I was reading a PhD dissertation which left me with a bad feeling. It continually referred to some very low grade secondary source, rather than the primary sources. Some statements made me jump and say "hey, how do we know this?" but of course only these duff references were given. It looked very poor, compared to a French dissertation that I've been working with for a year now. Perhaps there is a generally low grade of expectation in some parts of US academia?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Dear Doug,

I entirely agree with that.
Three cheers for the annual holidays !!
If we borrow that picture again we will see it is missing something ....


We are missing the precession of the equinoxes,
which was known in antiquity prior to the period of early christianity,
but of which knowledge was lost ...



The ancient lineage of the pythagoreans certainly were associated with the study of astronomy (as astrologers, etc) until at least the time of Constantine. At that time, by the decree of Constantine, the celebration of the easter festival was to coincide to a specific day each year. At that time, when christianity assumed the position of being advisors to the emperor, astrology and astronomy went to the end of the queue, or worse, in the case of Sopater.

The regulation of the seasons (or when is the Easter PUBLIC HOLYDAY this year?) requires the knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes. Thus the role of the astronomer/priests in providing this knowledge during antiquity until Sopater. He was the last of that lineage, and the knowledge of the precession (for the annual holidays) was not implemented by those who created the offical annual holidays, until the calendar reform of the same "church" over a thousand years later.

Acharya's open dealings with astrological material should not be looked at in such a critical manner when it is understood that the knowledge of the precession implied a knowledge of astronomy (and - ten to one on - probably mathematics). Here is another image.


To conclude, we can see that there are two types of astrologers in the world today differentiated by the solar and the sidereal zodiacs. The sidereal zodiac has always allowed for precession. The solar zodiac is a snapshot of the sky more or less around about the epoch of the council of Nicaea. This may be a trivial and unimpressive fact, but I find it interesting that Acharya deals with such subject matter.

Best wishes,


Pete