Infidelis Maximus: "They, of course, being the “evangelicals” they are, ignored my request and began responding to my post on their site rather than doing what I asked. I stopped by there tonight and discovered this. I’ve therefore decided to take one of the lengthier responses there, one by TruthBeTold, and post it here, along with some responses of my own. I will post a note back on their site linking this post, and we’ll see what happens. I wrote: “Hi there, I'm the poster of the interview with Acharya S you've been referring to over on my Infidelis Maximus blog. I'd like to better understand why you dislike her so much. I'm seriously interested in understanding where all the vitriol comes from. I can't believe it's simply that she's an outspoken nonbeliever.”

TBT: See how smart and unpredictable Imbecilis Maximus is? He is so unpredictable he used the terms I suspected he would: primarily terming me an evangelical Christian. Now he goes on quoting my posted response to his request:

Posted TWeb response: Greetings Infidelis, I'm glad you asked.
It's not of my personal history of Acharya (which I have yet to engage in). Moreover, she is an unstable individual who just has a harshness against anyone who opposes her. You can have a good look at her website to see that almost every response article to her critics are filled with attacks on that person's morality, intelligence and credibility.

Infidelis Maximus: "Do you think this could have anything to do with the fact that most of her critics are doing exactly what you’re doing here and attacking her personally to begin with? Could it merely be tit for tat? You get exactly one sentence into your response above before you begin attacking her personally. How would you like her to respond to that?"

Look how Imbecilis defends her, "most of her critics attack her personally"? Oh, cry me a river! I am ever so guilty of offending her majesty's graces. Of course where does Mike Licona attack her personally? "Oh goodness! Mike Licona calls Acharya 'a skeptic with an interest in mythology', what a vicioucous person he is!" It will be up for the viewers of the site to determine whether Imbecilis' thesis is correct, in which I directly point them to the article Acharya's critics: her responses

Posted TWeb response: Also Infidelis, Acharya's information isn't neccessarily accurate, I'm not an historian so I can't criticize her work 100%, and in some areas she does seem to be spot on in her criticisms, but basic knowledge tossed in with falsifiied garbage still makes you wrong.

TBT: I find it amusing that Imbecilis here is so flipping stupid and lazy that he automatically assumes that I'm a Christian because I think Acharya S is crazy and uncredible. Also, there are many Christian intellectuals who don't find a problem with believing that the Bible has errors and contradictions in it. So this may come as a shock to Imbecilis, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge that there are scholars who believe what they believe in for a reason and not just because the Bible says so. In addition, he enjoys to love all over Acharya by calling her a "great scholar", or at least, that is what he is implying. Bull, Acharya S is by no means a "great scholar" nor could she be dished in with anyone else otherwise. Imbecilis is so moronic and ignorant that the great gaping holes in Acharya's research are much bigger than he would like to realize. Above all, Acharya S has a Bachelor's Degree from some unknown place that she tries to pass off as IV League, not to mention she just loves to coat herself with titles and often fashions herself as an "expert" when the errors she makes are goliath. The point of the matter is that Acharya does not appreciate anyone unless they agree with what she says, regardless if they have higher credentials than she does. Acharya quotes people who agree with her presuppositions, and passes along the steorotypical nonsense that no doubt Imbecilis falls for. Try answering this Imbecilis: would you listen to Kent Hovind who claims to have a PhD from an uncreditted university and also claims to have been a high school science teacher for fifteen years on refuting the theory of evolution? No wait, I know exactly what you are about to say: "No, I wouldn't, because I don't subscribe to a book full of mythological nonsense and I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." I'm also willing to bet that now that I've caught him on this act before he can say anything, he will go on and whine about how "look! look! he put words in my mouth!" Watch and see people. Just watch and see.

Posted TWeb response: "I can however give you one specific bit of knowledge that Acharya probably does not know: if you have seen that little YouTube video of "Who would today worship a burning ball of gas? They call themselves.....'the Christians'", she attempts to make a connection with the crown of thorns that were placed on Jesus' head according to the gospel narrative with "rays of the sun", which is simply false."

Infidelis Maximus: "It’s not false. It’s a matter of dispute. You know the difference, right? We don’t know for sure either way, but this speculation is out there on the fringe."

TBT: "IT'S A MATTER OF DISPUTE"??? Imbecilis must have thought I made this up on the top of my head! You see here kiddies, he's so ignorant he does not even know that this fact is backed up by the evidence found in the Jewish Talmud! Even more stupid is that he would like to pretend to acknowledge this and then come up with a distinction: "You know the difference, right?" What difference? I am talking about Jesus as a historical person, Acharya wants to "disprove" his existence on the basis that Christians believe he was a supernatural person. Oh, indeed, there is a difference Imbecilis, but after being drawn in by Acharya's spiderweb he cannot even give hypothetical consideration that Jesus existed as a mere man and not as God. Imbecilis Maximus does not even see that there are other apostates out there who accept Jesus' existence but no longer believe him to be supernatural and divine. However, Acharya has duped him so much that he's now convinced that there is a difference between writing about other persons with thornbushes as an act of publically humiliating "mentally ill" individuals in the Jewish Talmud as opposed to the same thing being written about Jesus Christ because he claimed he was God! To rebut his comment on Acharya's newfound awareness on this very detail, I also believe that 1) scholars now concur that Caiaphas and Pilate had relations in working together and 2) the 'thornbush' could have been used for people who cause disruptions, I will have to recheck my sources on that one, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with the whacky notion of "sun rays." He will more than likely make the same desperate plea in defense of the poor materials of Jesus-mythery and will agree with Acharya when she says that Christ's crucifiction "represented the 'crossification' of the sun through the level of degrees in the zodiac" and seeing the reported crucifictions of peoples mentioned in the Jewish Talmud as "realistic and historical" not having anything to do with the zodiac, of course. And how will Acharya plan on explaining where the "astrotheology" lies in the gospels where it says that Jesus' body was removed from his cross? Or he may desperately point and say "look! the early Christians fabricated the Christ figure out of the Jewish Talmud!"

Posted TWeb response: "Also what she gets wrong in that video is making another farce connection between the Jesus figure and the date of December 25 (ask Acharya to explain how this date got there in the first place and why it isn't found in the Biblical doctrine) by creating the concept that the "sun dies on December 22 and is 'resurrected' on the 25", sorry, to do the math correctly, if the sun "dies" on December 22 and is "resurrected" on the 25, that would put Jesus at a total of four days during that period. Because the day Jesus dies is literally on "the first day" which then goes into the 23 (dead of course) then followed by the 24 (still dead) and finally the 25 (resurrection). That's a total of four days if you count them all, with the death day as the first day and the resurrection as the final. In the NT, Jesus says that the time of his death to the coming of the resurrection will be similar to the three days Jonah spent in a whale's stomach, well consider this: Jonah was consumned by a whale on the first day, was inside the whale on the second, and was spewed from without on the third, see how it works? December 25 isn't the traditional date that we know of considering Christ's death, it's Easter, so the whole "dying and resurrecting sun" point is just irrelevant nonsense with mathematical error. Again: ask Acharya why these dates are associated with Jesus yet we cannot find them directly in doctrine, if she wishes to validate her version of the Jesus-myth."

TBT: "You people" he says. He is still wallowing in his own ignorance by wrongly dismissing me as a Christian. And as the date of Christ's birthday goes, he is also wrong. Let's quote the gospel of Luke shall we? Luke 1:26 "In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee." Now do you see the part highlighted in red? The gospel of Luke specifically states "the sixth month", going by the Jewish calendar, that very month is called "Elul" and is around August-September. Given that it logically takes a human fetus to develop into an infant a total of nine months, Jesus would have been born around May-June, that's not anywhere close to December 25. The time of December in the Jewish calendar is the ninth month "Kislev", which is not found anywhere in Matthew or Luke, the only two gospels that speak of both Jesus' geneology and birth. If he wants to do more special pleading and say "that's assuming the author of Luke was Jewish!" Then the only other calendar he could have used would have been either Greek or Roman, which are practically the same thing. The Greek/Roman calendar is the same calendar we use in modern times, so by Luke's specifications of the "sixth month" and going by an alternative calendar (as he may try to argue being a Jesus-myther undoubetly), Jesus' conception would have been around June. Going by a nine month development period for a typical human embryo we would arrive at Jesus' birth being somewhere near March. How does Imbecilis Maximus rebut my argument? By stating that the Catholic Church accepts this date as authentic. WELL, DUH! Does he know why it's called "Roman" Catholicism? Did he bother to think that the Romans were pagan before Christianity? Did he bother wondering about Constantine's conversion with the follow up conversion of the Romans to Christianity? I wonder why Catholicism has so many pagan elements in it, but I'm not going to go into details now just to answer his blabbering, I'll let him figure out the equation all by his own intelligent self. Next here he tries to point out that I am "clinically insane" for saying that the story of Jonah was "literal", as if that makes any relevant difference. It seems to me that Mr. Imbecilis Maximus is hurt and enraged by the fact that I talk bad about one of his non-atheist self-proclaimed scholars and would like to direct the argument on something completely unrelated. He also misses the fact that the connection between Christ and the story of Jonah is found in the NT. Why does a literal or metaphorical context even matter with the Jonah story? To me, it could be either way, I could care less. He also wants it to seem as though living human whale ingestion is logically impossible, of course there are tales of humans being temporarily devoured by large whales. Whether those are true or not, I do not care, whether or not Jonah was a literal story isn't even a part of the argument! Yet Imbecilis calls this an "idiotic argument" on my part.

Posted TWeb response: "And just to reiterate, when she talks of Price's "bizarre background" because he claims to have been a former Christian makes him a uncredible "mythicist" she shoots herself in the foot in the midst of her ad-hominen propaganda that she doesn't even realize most Jesus-mythers are former Christians. It shouldn't take you long to see that this person indeed has some serious problems and issues and calls herself an "expert", why would a serious scholar keep projecting the word expertise onto themselves? I say if you are an expert, let the work decide that for you, practice integrity, instead we just see that Acharya is desperate to grab onto whatever sources and whip them up into "The Christ Conspiracy" batter mix. If you want to see some good reasons for why Acharya is a quack, then I point you to the website link on my signature."

Finally, to end this pointless and endless debate, Imbecilis wishes to target my TWeb profile settings and perpetuatly continues to ignorantly call me a Christian: