Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Acharya S Debunks the Debunkers

Acharya S is a national treasure- you may not agree with her theologically, or politically, or whatever-ically, but you can't deny her scholarship or her courage.

For more info on her latest research dealing with Zeitgeist, click here.


  1. I've read the Christ Conspiracy, and I can certainly deny her scholarship. She draws all her "research" from proven forgeries like "The Aquarian Gospel," or from the rantings of 19th century village atheists.
    As for courage, etc., maybe in the same sense that Hillary Clinton has perseverance. IOW, she's slightly delusional, and she's not happy unless she's pissing people off. It illustrates the thin line that sometimes exists between a good character trait and a psychiatric syndrome.

    Most people whose opinions *count* take it as a given that Jesus of nazareth existed. But there is a case to be made from for the opposite POV strictly on the basis of documentary/historical/archaeo9logical evidence. Unfortunately, Acharya S. isn't one of the ones who makies it convincingly.

  2. Another thing: I find it really disheartening that otherwise intelligent people take someone like Acharya S. as an authority on *anything.* You really might as well base your weltanschauung on The Da Vinci Code. At least it's somewhat entertaining.

  3. Interesting to say that Jesus of Nazareth existed when Nazareth itself didn't exist until after after Jesus was said to have died.

    IMO, Jesus is a composite character based on perhaps two or three historical personages of whom a corpus of sayings were recorded, and this figure was then mythologized in the sun god ferment of the First Century.

    As with most alternative historians I'm more interested in Acharya's questions than some of her answers.
    But considering there is a multibillion dollar conspiracy of political, military and corporate authoritarians pumping fundamentalist bilge into the culture 365 days a year, any freethinking individual has to appreciate the work of those who work to counter it.

  4. Archaeological evidence for "unambiguous human presence" at the site of Nazareth dates from about 200 A.D/C.E., but evidence of some kind of settlement dates as far back as 63 B.C./B.C.E. Also, the fact that Jesus was said to have spent much of his early life in Nazareth was not necessarily a source of pride. If anything, this is something the N.T. authors feel a need to *explain away.* So going by the "embarrassment criteria," Nazareth prob. did exist at the time, and was probably a pretty inauspicious place. The earliest gospels are pretty early (John is usually dated to about 90 A.D./C.E., for example) and they mention Nazareth before 200 A.D./C.E., so it is reasonable to assume Nazareth as a place was known before that date.

  5. BTW, I can appreciate that Acharya S. raises questions. But the poor quality of her work and thought makes it more likely that no one will take them seriously, if anything.

    I really don't mean to be the turd in your punch bowl, but seriously. Take another look at the Christ Conspiracy, for example. Track her sources. She basically cherry picks from dodgy sources to support a preconceived POV. And she does this with everything, if you check out her site. She has a thing about the Jews, for example. So she takes quotes from anywhere and everywhere to prove that Jews are Wicked. Who, for example, is Bill Kingsbury, and why should we *care* what he thinks about the Jews?

  6. also belief in a god who created one from zero, ia a "POV"
    She might even ungrounded or even delusional, but hers primary point is true: there was no Jesus of Nazareth in history, but a bunch of historical rebels against Rome, merged in one, thereafter used as a tool of control by the winners. I find much more delusional to believe the contrary; but I also know that dream is much more preferred that truth.