Casper

I took it to mean "within the scope of the OP"; any perceived defense of the scholarship in question is actually more an artifact of staying within that scope. At least that's my impression.

I'm curious about one aspect of the critisism against AS, and that is the reliance on 19th century scholarship. Is that a criticism of "shallowness" (ie: rehashing worn ideas without delving deeper) or is it because her oldr sources are all completely suspect?

Wheles for example. I never thought there was much, if any, dismissal of him (in modern secular circles) as a crackpot, other criticisms aside.

As an aside, Acharya S' style reminds me of Wheles, updated a little for the modern reader. This seemingly confrontational style has always put me off, although I see how it could a following, possibly contributing to the perception of "cult-like suport" implied in the other thread. I hesitate to read anything into it though, except that it isn't a style which holds my interest.

Clivedurdle

http://www.susqu.edu/su_press/defaul...Sexuality.html

I must seriously ask if part of the problem here might be that the critiques are of a woman.


And people seriously question the concept of an unconscious!:devil1:

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd very much like to see the Aristotle reference in context.

I wonder, Clive, if you'd be kind enough to tell me exactly where in Aristotle's works it may be found?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/...20Encyclopedia

Jeffrey Gibson

I asked for an exact citation in Aristotle, not a page from the EB and especially not one that doesn't mention Aristotle at all.

Was I not clear about this?

In case I wasn't, I rephrase: Where in the works of Aristotle -- in which book by Aristotle and in what line of that book -- do we find Aristotle speaking of Zeus-Oromasdes being opposed by Hades-Aremainius?

Jeffrey

Malachi151

This is really ridiculous and has gone on too far.

Can anyone demonstrate a single case, using primary sources, of a reliance upon or reference to an "astrotheological" motif within the New Testament texts?

Can anyone demonstrate a single case, using primary sources, of a reliance upon or reference to a "pagan god" motif within the New Testament texts?

In the letters of Paul there are dozens of direct quotes from and references to the Jewish scriptures. In the letters of Paul, Paul uses the Jewish scriptures to describe Jesus Christ, indeed the entire description of Jesus by Paul is defined by the Jewish messiah.

There are zero quotes from "pagan" sources in the letters of Paul.

In each of the Gospels there are many direct quotes from the Jewish scritpures. There are zero quotes from "pagan" sources.

In the Gospel of Mark there are multiple "hidden" literary allusion to the Jewish scritpures, dozens of them. There are no such references to any "pagan" sources. These references are carried over into the other Gospels as well since they are based on Mark.

In the various epistles we again have references to Jewish writings, no references to "pagan" writings.

In the book of Hebrews Jesus is described in overwhelmingly Jewish terms. No comparison is made of Jesus to "pagan" gods.

Jesus is described as the "Passover lamb" by both Paul and in the Gospel of John.

Jesus is killed during the Passover festival in all the Gospels.

Jesus is described as similar to the Yam Kippur sacrifice in the book of Hebrews.

The book of Revelation is patterned on the book of Daniel and is written in typical Jewish apocalyptic fashion.

Despite the supposed overwhelming importance of dates like December 25th, etc., none of these dates appear in any of the early writings, they only get incorporated into Christianity later, by pagan Roman converts.

Ironically, by trying to establish the importance of Dec. 25th, Acharya and the like only highlight the fact that this date is not given for the birth of Jesus in the Gospels, and indeed it isn't even a close possibility.

The birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew is clearly predicated on Jewish scritpures and patterned on the birth of Moses. In Luke we see it patterned again thoroughly on Jewish scriptures.

So, enough of this fooling around, come up with something substantial, or admit that this entire "the story of Jesus is based on astrotheology and pagan gods" is a farce and an embarrassment to Biblical scholarship.

No Robots

Bravo, Malachi. I mean we can argue whether or not Christ is a Jewish myth or a Jewish man, but any reasonable person would have to admit that he is 100% Jewish.

Loomis

I second the “Bravo, Malachi.” Thanks for your great posts.

Btw, is this your web site?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

That’s excellent too. Extremely excellent.

Jeffrey Gibson

delete

JoeWallack

JW:
Samuel Sharpe wrote in "Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity" (1863) on page 17,

Here is a link to an online picture (poor quality) of the Annunciation scene at Luxor at Acharya S.'s site:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm

Acharya writes:

Here is a link to an online version of Samuel Sharpe's Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity:

http://www.touregypt.net/emac3.htm

Note that this is the Tour Egypt site. I'm not aware of any editorial comments by Tour Egypt regarding this book but the fact that they have posted it to their site implies that they think Sharpe knew what he was talking about, at least for the most part. Go to figure 28 for the online version of Sharpe's 4 sketches.

I checked with Mr. Peter Dorman, Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and he told me that to date the Birth Room reliefs are unpublished (the University of Chicago has been
authorized to catalogue most of the other Temple rooms at Luxor). He recommended Hellmut Brunner's, Die Geburt des Gottkoenigs. Agyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 10. Wiesbaden, 1964 with the comment "This is probably the best reference you can use until the Amenhotep III reliefs receive the attention they deserve."

Hellmut Brunner's, Die Geburt des Gottkoenigs. Agyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 10. Wiesbaden, 1964 is a 224 page book devoted solely to the divine birth reliefs of Amenhotep III on the west wall of the Birth Room. The book contains clearly legible sketches of all fifteen scenes and the accompanying hieroglyphic narratives.

I could see for myself that the four scenes commonly referred to by Skeptics such as Sharpe, Massey and Acharya and claimed to be the Annunciation, Conception, Birth & Adoration @ Luxor were in fact only four middle scenes which are only part of a three rowed set of fifteen scenes. Of particular interest is that the scenes in the bottom row, not mentioned by any of these Skeptics, show "contact" between the queen and Amun (the god) indicating that the queen was already impregnated, before the Annunciation by the spirit god Thoth and potentially removing perhaps the best claimed parallel to the Christian infancy narratives, Mary impregnated following Annunication from the Christian holy spirit god.

Brunner's book is in German and as far as I know has never been translated into English. As I am allergic to German I asked the noted Skeptical scholar Dr. Richard Carrier to take a look at the book in general and specifically to address whether according to Brunner's book the queen was already pregnant before the Annunciation by the spirit god Thoth. Dr. Carrier has informed me that per Brunner's book the Inscriptions make clear that the queen was indeed impregnated by Amun by the usual methodology (as much as is possible in the realm of human/divine relations) using language reminiscent of the classical "Young Frankenstein" scene:

Brunner's Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication

It would appear then that assertions in this area by Skeptics such as Sharpe, Massey and Acharya contain inadequate research and proof-texting by:

1) Only referring to four scenes when there are actually fifteen.

2) Claiming or implying that the queen was impregnated after the Annunciation by the holy spirit god Thoth when in fact the unmentioned scenes and related Inscriptions make clear that the queen was already impregnated by the Father god before the Annunciation and that the spirit god's Annunciation was only to announce impending birth and not impregnation (some of you may consider this redundant information but she was a virgin after all, at least as the story goes).

Skeptics therefore, should be hesitant to use the arguments of Sharpe, Massey and Acharya in this area.

Acharya S., I can see that to your credit you have responded to Dr. Carrier's article. I can certainly understand that with an American Public that is mainly hostile to your views in general and largely willing to dismiss you in Toto based on any/few isolated criticisms, that you are primarily concerned with your reputation. The above is enabling Christians to Summarily dismiss your General observations of outstanding parallels between Pagan and Christian Infancy Narratives which is a pity. The question that Christian Bible scholarship has always been obsessed with here is what are the parallels between Jewish and Christian Infancy Narratives. The question should be are the Christian Bible Infancy Narratives better paralleled by Pagan or Jewish Infancy Narratives?

By the way, Die Geburt des Gottkoenigs is easily obtainable in Germany.



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page