Jump to content

Talk:Acharya S: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|living=no|listas=Acharya S|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class = c|listas=Murdock, D. M.}}
{{WikiProject Atheism |class=C}}
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=c|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion |class=C |Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low|Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Theology |class=C}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=low}}
}}
}}

{{oldafdfull| date = 28 December 2009 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' Please note also RfC on lead close "[There is a clear consensus to include the real name in the lead and footnotes. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)]" | page = Acharya_S_(3rd_nomination) }}
{{oldafdfull| date = 28 December 2009 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' Please note also RfC on lead close "[There is a clear consensus to include the real name in the lead and footnotes. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)]" | page = Acharya_S_(3rd_nomination) }}


Line 14: Line 15:
|algo = old(31d)
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Talk:Acharya S/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Acharya S/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 13
|counter = 14
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
Line 20: Line 21:
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
}}
}}
{{auto archiving notice
|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
|age = 30
|small=
}}

== Obituary apparently composed by her family ==

This obituary contains a lot of information. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/hartfordcourant/obituary.aspx?pid=177367841 [[User:Smeagolalwayshelps|Smeagolalwayshelps]] ([[User talk:Smeagolalwayshelps|talk]]) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)smeagolalwayshelps

:This is very helpful, thanks! --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 14:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

== Negative Commentaries ==

I find it a bit much that at the end of the first paragraph there is the sentence "Her theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars," with a reference to some little known journal.

I'm sure Einstein has received some negative commentaries at similarly little known journals, but I don't see such a disclaimer on his page.

Sigh...but by now I have become used to the bias of Wikipedia. I don't even know why I am bothering to write this, like speaking into the North Wind, it is.

Still, that sentence is unfair and should be removed. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/169.226.244.199|169.226.244.199]] ([[User talk:169.226.244.199|talk]]) 21:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I've no dog in this fight, but actually, Wikipedia has entire articles devoted to this on Einstein.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_investigations</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_(alternative_formulations)</ref> It's my understanding that anyone who thinks the complained of sentence and reference lack perspective can create an article entitled "Academic Response to Acharya S" and link it to the main entry on her. Hopefully, however, it would have more content than blurbs from her fan pages. [[User:Smeagolalwayshelps|Smeagolalwayshelps]] ([[User talk:Smeagolalwayshelps|talk]]) 16:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
:{{reflist}}

:I suspect it would be even more difficult to find any positive commentary from academic scholars. Academic scholars tend not to comment on her work because her work is not considered academic (for instance almost all is self-published; Stellar House Publishing was started and run by her). I suspect instead of a separate article it should be a section within this (and carefully separating the academic from the non-academic responses). BTW I notice no mention of [[Maurice Casey]]'s criticism of her work yet. [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 02:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

::Here is a compilation by Murdock herself of claimed positive commentary on her work, with claimed academic and claimed non-academic responses all mixed up. This is why some of her fans think it's "unfair" that the article states, "Her theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars." http://freethoughtnation.com/what-people-are-saying-about-the-work-of-d-m-murdockacharya-s/ Note also her unverifiable claim that "In addition to the people quoted below who have read my work are many others who have done likewise but who have not publicly stated as much." [[User:Smeagolalwayshelps|Smeagolalwayshelps]] ([[User talk:Smeagolalwayshelps|talk]]) 13:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
:::Of course someone's going to say that their own work is well received, especially on the site that's made to sell their books. That's why we rely on ''independent'' sources. And really, [[Charles Covington]]'s opinions on history don't matter any more than yours or mine. The problem is that the criticism of her ideas is coming from actual historians. The source cited for the claim that her views are received negatively? [[Robert M. Price]], another Christ Mythicist. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 13:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this article reads like it was written by anti-Acharya critics who appear to know nothing about her work. This article is far more interested in sharing her private information than they are sharing anything about her work. I've pointed this out before and my comments were deleted and I was banned. From someone who has actually read and owns all of her books, whoever has been in charge of this article should be fired immediately for such biases and libel.

Bart Ehrman's LIBEL should be deleted. Here's what Dr. Robert Price had to say about this issue regarding Bart Ehrman's malicious smears tossed at Acharya S:

“Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works.”

– Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’

Why isn't that posted here in response to the Ehrman quote? Because those in charge of this article are only interested in defaming her.

Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel?
http://freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/

Richard Carrier defended Acharya on this issue in the book too as well as across several of his own blogs:

“At the very least I would expect Ehrman to have called the Vatican museum about this, and to have checked the literature on it, before arrogantly declaring no such object existed and implying Murdock made this up … She did not make that up. The reason this error troubles me is that it is indicative of the carelessness and arrogance Ehrman exhibits throughout this book … [Ehrman] often doesn’t check his facts, and clearly did little to no research. This makes the book extremely unreliable. A reader must ask, if he got this wrong, what other assertions in the book are false? And since making sure to get details like this right is the only useful purpose this book could have had, how can we credit this book as anything but a failure?”

http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/#comment-11233

Why isn't any of that here? Well, I guess we know why ... those in charge of this article are anti-Acharya critics who know nothing about her work.

Erp, here: Critical Review of Maurice Casey’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4282

There are plenty of highly respected scholars who support Acharya's work. Scholars who've actually studied Acharya's work tend to be supportive:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of Acharya's "Christ in Egypt"

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S"
- Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock,author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'."
- Aron Ra, The Ra Men podcast EP10 - Did Moses Exist? with D.M. Murdock

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman

Acharya S: Peer Review and Scholarly Journal Publications
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3411

Most importantly what has been intentionally omitted here is Acharya's mythicist position - the very first succinct, comprehensive position for mythicists.

The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/97.94.225.154|97.94.225.154]] ([[User talk:97.94.225.154#top|talk]]) 20:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Bias ==

The end of the section on Einstein reads:
Einstein's intellectual achievements and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with "genius".

It does not read:
His theories have received negative commentaries from academic scholars.

True, there are *separate* articles discussing possible problems with his theories. I would not object to a separate article with the title "Controversies in the Philosophy of Acharya S." But to put such a disclaimer at the end of the first paragraph introducing her on her own page is clearly biased. Clearly. Yes, someone could make such a separate page...apparently...but until it exists, I again maintain that it is unfair to put the "negative commentaries" sentence (backed up by other biased language in the article) in a prominent position on a page which would appear to be simply about the individual.

In the first paragraph the usage of the phrase "she claimed" also indicates bias.

As an illustration of the pejorative connotation of the verb "claim" consider again the Einstein article. We do not see this sentence:

Near the beginning of his career, Einstein *claimed* that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field.

Rather *thought* or *realized* or the like is used for Einstein's point of view.

What if the Acharya S sentence read like this:

She *realized* that Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths.

Really, all you have to say is that she was a mythicist. Here in this Wiki article, there are a whole slew of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Acharya S is simply a modern exponent of this time-worn interpretation of the Bible.

This is not the only Wikipedia article which demonstrates such bias. In my view it would be better to simply state the facts about the subject rather than use such slanted language. It seems to damage the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

[[Special:Contributions/169.226.91.121|169.226.91.121]] ([[User talk:169.226.91.121|talk]]) 00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

:I think there's some validity to your point about the language used in the articles, but I also think the validity of your point is limited by the indisputable facts that Murdock's theories have not achieved nearly the degree of acceptance of Einstein's and that Murdock hasn't nearly the degree of significance in popular culture as Einstein. I'll illustrate both the validity of your point and the limitation of the validity of your point, in reverse order. In [[John Grisham]]'s novel, [[The Pelican Brief]], there is a minor character known as Einstein. He is described thus: "Einstein was the nickname for Nathaniel Jones, a demented legal genius the firm kept locked away in his own little library on the sixth floor. He read every case decided by the Supreme Court, the eleven federal appellate courts, and the supreme courts of the fifty states. Morgan had never met Einstein. Sightings were rare around the firm." Now, Einstein is a bad guy. Grisham's heroine, Darby Shaw, proves to be Einstein's intellectual equal. Now, Darby Shaw is a good "guy". The Pelican Brief was published years before The Christ Conspiracy. Were The Pelican Brief published today, and if a character commented, "They may have their Einstein, but we have our Acharya," not many of its readers would understand the reference. (There's the illustration of the limitation of the validity of your point.) But if a curious reader read the article on Murdock in Wikipedia, the reader still wouldn't understand the reference. (There's the illustration of the validity of your point.) [[User:Smeagolalwayshelps|Smeagolalwayshelps]] ([[User talk:Smeagolalwayshelps|talk]]) 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

:You wrote above, "Really, all you have to say is that she was a mythicist. Here in this Wiki article, there are a whole slew of them:" and linked to the article on [[Christ myth theory]]. However, I think that from your perspective, the language of that article would be just as slanted. For example, the first sentence describes Christ myth theory as a "hypothesis" and the second sentence reads, "The Christ myth theory contradicts the mainstream view in historical Jesus research...." And from the Talk page for that article, it appears that issues similar to those you've raised here also have been raised there and that similar explanations have been given. That article makes brief mention of Murdock as being among the later writers influenced by the "assertions" of [[Gerald Massey]] and lists four of her books as sources. I think it might improve the article on Christ myth theory if something more about Murdock were added there. Why don't you give it a try? [[User:Smeagolalwayshelps|Smeagolalwayshelps]] ([[User talk:Smeagolalwayshelps|talk]]) 13:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

::The use of "claimed" is easily corrected, but "realized" is biased in the other direction. Neutral (if sometimes boring) words like "said" or "stated" are preferred (see [[WP:CLAIM]]). As far as mentioning criticism of her, that is entirely appropriate if the criticism comes from appropriate sources (as it does). There is no reason to split such material into a separate article unless this one becomes excessively long. That certainly isn't the situation now. Comparison with a widely studied figure such as Einstein is not apt -- the sourcee material exists to have multiple robust articles about Einstein and his work, but this is not true for persons of much more limited notability. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

== Acharya's mythicist position should be here ==

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."

As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection page 11-12

The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S"
- Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of Acharya's "Christ in Egypt"

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, astronomer and director at Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/97.94.225.154|97.94.225.154]] ([[User talk:97.94.225.154#top|talk]]) 20:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Bart Ehrman's comments are LIBEL and should never have been here ==

Bart Ehrman's comments are LIBEL and should never have been here in the first place. It's only posted here to poison the well.

Here's what Dr. Robert Price had to say about this issue regarding Bart Ehrman:

“Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works.”

– Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’

Richard Carrier defended Acharya on this issue in the book too:

“At the very least I would expect Ehrman to have called the Vatican museum about this, and to have checked the literature on it, before arrogantly declaring no such object existed and implying Murdock made this up … She did not make that up. The reason this error troubles me is that it is indicative of the carelessness and arrogance Ehrman exhibits throughout this book … [Ehrman] often doesn’t check his facts, and clearly did little to no research. This makes the book extremely unreliable. A reader must ask, if he got this wrong, what other assertions in the book are false? And since making sure to get details like this right is the only useful purpose this book could have had, how can we credit this book as anything but a failure?”

http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/#comment-11233

She more than proved her case against Bart Ehrman so, it is pure biases for Ehrman's smears to be posted here.

Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel?
http://freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/

[[Special:Contributions/97.94.225.154|97.94.225.154]] ([[User talk:97.94.225.154|talk]]) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

== Scholars who've actually studied her work tend to be supportive ==

Wiki: "Her theories have been poorly received by mainstream scholars"

It is highly suspicious that such a negative comment is in the opening remarks, simply poisoning the well.

Scholars who've actually studied Acharya's work tend to be supportive:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of "Christ in Egypt"
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S"
- Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology, review of "Christ in Egypt"

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock,author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'."
- Aron Ra, The Ra Men podcast EP10 - Did Moses Exist? with D.M. Murdock

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, astronomer and director at Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles, 'In Search of Ancient Astronomies,' page xiii. Also quoted in "Suns of God," page 26

[[Special:Contributions/97.94.225.154|97.94.225.154]] ([[User talk:97.94.225.154|talk]]) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
:Note the word "mainstream" which may differ from the opinions in blurbs on her websites and books. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's very dishonest as none of these so-called "mainstream scholars" have ever actually studied her work. Plus, the fact that the citation leads to Dr. Robert Price who is one of her biggest supporters. It should be removed because it doesn't belong here. It's dishonest.

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's, review of "Christ in Egypt"
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm


==Other religions understood themselves as allegory==
[[Special:Contributions/97.94.225.154|97.94.225.154]] ([[User talk:97.94.225.154|talk]]) 18:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


"She asserted the pre-Christian religious civilizations understood their myths as allegorical"
== Acharya's response to Carrier should be here ==


Can anyone put a citation for this? I'm curious what book she says this. [[User:RemyRemyr|RemyRemyr]] ([[User talk:RemyRemyr|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 23:28, 20 August 2021‎</small>
"Atheist activist and Christ mythicist Richard Carrier criticized her use of the inscriptions at Luxor to make the claim that the story of Jesus birth was inspired by the Luxor story of the birth of Horus.[20]"


== Christmas death ==
Richard Carrier's criticism of Acharya S/Murdock consists of sloppy and egregious errors:


An IP editor has several times in the last couple of years inserted a comment in the article about the fact that the date of the subject's death, December 25, is also the traditional birth date of Jesus. (I am assuming this is one editor on non-fixed IPs, because the content and IP info are all similar.) These additions are invariably sourced to [[WP:RS|non-reliable]] websites, dead links, and/or pages that do not mention the coincidence. I've just reverted similar additions twice today, so I am opening this discussion to provide more explanation and allow for discussion. To the IP editor, I recommend looking at our guidelines about [[WP:SPS|self-published]] sources and why they are not appropriate for this purpose. To add this commentary, there should be a reliable, non-self-published source that not only gives the date of her death, but also specifically remarks about the coincidence that you want to highlight. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 23:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
"...However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)..."


== Western and Christian Bias in Article ==
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html


The article focuses on M D Murdock's view about Christ and Chritianity. Perhaps looking at her work from a broader perspective will deepen the readers understanding. [[Special:Contributions/86.1.197.249|86.1.197.249]] ([[User talk:86.1.197.249|talk]]) 18:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Acharya S mopped the floor with Richard Carrier making him look like a fool due to the fact that he has never actually read a single book of hers:


== Her theories are overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream historians, textual critics, and archaeologists, but have been well received by other Christ mythicists such as Robert M. Price, a fellow of the Jesus Project. ==
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771


Surely this is too sweeping a statement for an encyclopedia? At least deserves a few references. As others say in talk, the article reads like a hit job [[Special:Contributions/92.11.182.76|92.11.182.76]] ([[User talk:92.11.182.76|talk]]) 04:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Acharya's rebuttal used to be cited and linked here but, it has been removed.


:Documentation is below in the section on reception. Note no one can seem to come up with mainstream historian, textual critics, or archaeologists who do support her theories. Admittedly it could be rephrased which I've done. I would note that most mainstream historians etc don't even bother actively rejecting as she is so obviously not competent (as Ehrman points out). [[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 05:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/97.94.225.154|97.94.225.154]] ([[User talk:97.94.225.154|talk]]) 18:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:04, 10 July 2024

Other religions understood themselves as allegory

[edit]

"She asserted the pre-Christian religious civilizations understood their myths as allegorical"

Can anyone put a citation for this? I'm curious what book she says this. RemyRemyr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 20 August 2021‎

Christmas death

[edit]

An IP editor has several times in the last couple of years inserted a comment in the article about the fact that the date of the subject's death, December 25, is also the traditional birth date of Jesus. (I am assuming this is one editor on non-fixed IPs, because the content and IP info are all similar.) These additions are invariably sourced to non-reliable websites, dead links, and/or pages that do not mention the coincidence. I've just reverted similar additions twice today, so I am opening this discussion to provide more explanation and allow for discussion. To the IP editor, I recommend looking at our guidelines about self-published sources and why they are not appropriate for this purpose. To add this commentary, there should be a reliable, non-self-published source that not only gives the date of her death, but also specifically remarks about the coincidence that you want to highlight. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western and Christian Bias in Article

[edit]

The article focuses on M D Murdock's view about Christ and Chritianity. Perhaps looking at her work from a broader perspective will deepen the readers understanding. 86.1.197.249 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her theories are overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream historians, textual critics, and archaeologists, but have been well received by other Christ mythicists such as Robert M. Price, a fellow of the Jesus Project.

[edit]

Surely this is too sweeping a statement for an encyclopedia? At least deserves a few references. As others say in talk, the article reads like a hit job 92.11.182.76 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation is below in the section on reception. Note no one can seem to come up with mainstream historian, textual critics, or archaeologists who do support her theories. Admittedly it could be rephrased which I've done. I would note that most mainstream historians etc don't even bother actively rejecting as she is so obviously not competent (as Ehrman points out). Erp (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=1233664960"