- Mye tyder på at folkene som bevisst tildekket gudehovet på Ranheim, tok med seg stolpene fra stavhuset, dessuten jord fra alteret til det sted de slo seg ned og reiste sitt nye gudehov. Fordi vårt funn og de norrøne kilder passer så godt sammen, må kildene være mer pålitelige enn mange forskere til nå har trodd, sier Rønne.
Fant hedensk helligdom uten sidestykke
"Indications are that the people who deliberately covered up the god temple at Ranheim took the posts from the stave house/pole building, in addition to the soil from the altar, to the place where they settled down and raised a new god temple. Because our findings and the Norse sources work well together, the sources may be more reliable than many scientists believed," said Rønne.
(from "Archaeologists unearth 'unparalleled' pre-Christian temple in Norway" on Freethoughtnation)
Now, part of her general case against Christianity is that sources in general are not very reliable, at least not when it comes to religious traditions. Part of my case is that this is not so. If Norse sources say that Odin appeared in Upsala and presented himself as the creator of Heaven and of Earth, and was adored as such and left a posterity behind in Upsala, I disbelieve, as a Christian exactly just one thing: that his claim was correct, that he deserved the adoration he got. The rest I find totally believable.
Indeed, if I believe Jesus Christ was the real creator of Heaven and of Earth (with the Father and the Holy Ghost, as Son and Word of the Father, before his incarnation in Nazareth after Annunciation) I must believe he was correct to show complete trust in Genesis. But if I belive Moses wrote Genesis, I must believe he was correct in trusting the geneaologies, between Adam and Noah, as well as the others. And if I belive that, I must believe there is generally a case for trustworthiness even in just orally preserved genealogies, if preserved systematically enough - including, obviously, the ones that link Odin to Harald Hairfair.
That Odin tried to pose as a god poses no more problem to believe than that Simon Magus tried to do so. That he succeeded and Simon Magus failed is because Simon Magus was forestalled by St Peter (who had fasted on a Saturday for the occasion).
So far from discrediting Christianity, this article in Norske Aftenposten credits it. Oh, Acharya's own article actually is not just a translation of Aftenposten journalist Cato Guhnfeldt. I will, then, not go into her conclusions for the occasion.
19-III-2012, Feast of