Wow, I didn't realize that it was possible to screw things up as badly as labarum312 has done with his "Why I Don't Take Zeitgeist Supporters Seriously" series. He's either completely ignorant or getting things way, WAY wrong on purpose. Video 6 is especially worse than wrong and innocent viewers of that crap need to be made aware of just how bad his video series really is.
* In video 6 labarum312 /Albert starts off trying to make the case that the creation of the new Sourcebook with updated sources is somehow "historical revisionism." labarum312 claims that "Acharya is trying to re-write history" and accuses Acharya of contradicting what she said in her previous books published before ZG1. Of course, these are all false. The Sourcebook was created for several reasons, one of which was due to the fact that critics whined so much about some of the original sources for a variety of reasons. So, Acharya said, no problem, and provided many modern and highly respected and credentialed sources as was necessary. In fact, it's all spelled out in the part 1 preface of the Sourcebook.
"...This effort includes much new source material drawn from primary sources as well the works from credentialed authorities in a variety of relevant subjects. Indeed, I have strived to include the best and most thorough, scholarly and modern sources wherever possible, with the result that many authorities cited here possess credentials from respected institutes of higher learning, and their publishers are some of the most scholarly in English (and other languages), such as:
Oxford University/Clarendon Press
Princeton University Press
Cambridge University Press
Cornell University Press
Yale University Press
University of Chicago Press
University of Pennsylvania Press
University of Wisconsin Press
Johns Hopkins Press
Harcourt, Brace & Co.
MacMillan & Co., etc.
This Sourcebook thus provides relevant primary-source material and citations from respectable and credentialed authorities, along with germane images to support the first part of ZG’s contentions. There are over 150 sources cited in this Sourcebook, in nearly 350 footnotes...."
- Acharya S, Preface for The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook Part 1: The Greatest Story Ever Told
(Those who really know what academia is will recognize the list above as the best of the best and most highly respected institutes of higher learning. Hand-waving dismissals will not suffice)
There is no "historical revisionism," whatsoever, rather, clarification and loads of high quality sources that substantiate not only ZG1 and Acharya, but also, the original sources as well. Isn't that what people like labarum312 were crying for? Now, of course, they complain about the new sources just to claim "historical revisionism." It's dishonest and despicable.
* Then, at 4 minutes labarum312 proves to us that he's still confused by calendars. He can't seem to grasp the concept that the winter solstice is the winter solstice regardless of calendar dates. He's constantly confused on complex calendars rather than focusing on the natural phenomena of the solstice itself. It's as if he thinks inaccurate man-made calendars were created first then the winter solstice afterward.
* At 6 minutes he tries to claim that because the Egyptian calendar wandered, Horus' birthday must not have been celebrated at the winter solstice. He tries to claim that the "January 6th date didn't occur in Egypt until the later 3rd century" CE and that the "Dec 25th date didn't occur in Egypt until the 4th century" CE. He tries to claim that the association of these calendar dates with the winter solstice are wrong because they're "based on anachronistic uses of the Gregorian calendar."
It's just ridiculous, this guy is either nuts or just making a special effort to distort the facts. He needs to get out more.
* At 8 minutes labarum312 tries to argue that there's no such thing as a fixed winter solstice followed by three days (Yep, it's clear he's going off the deep end trying to make another utterly fallacious argument here). He claims it's all due to the "slippage of the calendar" not a natural phenomena "constant," claiming therefore, that "their entire argument is bogus."
Nevermind the fact that for years scholars have referred to this 3 day period where the god is symbolically dead in a cave or tomb and then resurrected as a "triduum," which is discussed in 'Christ in Egypt.' labarum312 has that book but apparently skipped that part since it is inconvenient to his case.
* At 19 minutes labarum312 tries to argue that ZG1, Acharya and her sources such as Gerald Massey all originally claimed that Horus was nailed to a cross and crucified between two thieves in the same way Jesus was and have since ZG1 "debunkings" changed their position and made up something new.
It should be a red flag to anyone who's paying attention to the fact that labarum312 made no attempt to provide even a single quote by ZG1, Massey or Acharya claiming that Horus was nailed to a cross and crucified between two thieves exactly the same way Jesus was. That's because that's not what they said. It certainly is what some people assumed they were saying but, that's why Acharya clarified it in 'Christ in Egypt' in a 30 page chapter entitled, "Was Horus "Crucified?"Was Horus "Crucified?" (an excerpt)Who Is Gerald Massey? (an excerpt)
What really stands out to me is that people like labarum312/Albert make no effort to understand Acharya's work, her sources or ZG1; rather, they go way out of their way to MIS-understand it. Attempting to be objective and understand what's really being said seems to be a position of last resort. I can almost hear them scream something like "I'll understand it over my dead body" type of thing. They're perfectly fine with making blogs and videos lying about ZG1 and maliciously smearing Acharya but, to make an effort to understand what ZG1 and Acharya's work is really about is just too much to ask.