Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 08-16-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

The book has 63 pages of citations in the endnotes which constitutes a hefty 18% of the entire book; however, critics like Australian Bishop Paul Burnett, New Testament scholar who has authored several books on the historical Jesus, have argued that a good proportion of them are out of date, stating that "Like the Gnostics, Freke and Gandy have a mystical mindset and therefore oppose Christianity as grounded in history," and "They hate the idea that the incarnation of the Son of God and his resurrection could have been a matter of actual flesh and blood and time and place."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries

Kettles calling pot black?

Ray Moscow · 08-16-2007, 03:14 AM

Well, since I know Tim slightly, I can say that he never seemed to me to "hate" the ideas of incarnation and resurrection at all. He just looks at them metaphorically, as I do.

Maybe he's been harbouring some secret "hatred", but I rather doubt it. He always seemed pretty logical and reasonable to me.

Ray

Clivedurdle · 08-16-2007, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Clive: please do not cite Gore Vidal's novel as evidence. It's FICTION, incorporating whatever the conventional wisdom was from his youth about Christian origins.

Citing Freke and Gandy will not get you much further with most of the posters on this thread.

The above from Toto on the Mithras thread provoked this thread!

I wonder if F&G have had their well poisoned. What is all this reactive stuff about?

(And stuff may be fiction - but if it makes a coherent argument...)

Toto · 08-16-2007, 12:52 PM

Freke and Gandy are promoting what they think is a better version of Christianity. I liked the Jesus Mysteries. But they are not dedicated scholars, and they rely on sources that do not stand up to historical verification.

For more information on this train of thought, check out Richard Carrier's essay on Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors.

Quote:

There is great need of new work in this area. There really is a huge gap in modern scholarship here--this is one of the few subjects untouched by the post-WWII historiographical revolution. Most scholars today consider the subject dead, largely for all the wrong reasons. And there is little hope. The subject is stuck in the no-man's-land between history and religious studies, whose methods and academic cultures are so radically different they can barely communicate with each other, much less cooperate on a common project like this.

...

I suspect that if all of the historical research were done properly, Freke and Gandy could write essentially the same book. But it hasn't been done yet.

vsop44 · 08-16-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Freke and Gandy are promoting what they think is a better version of Christianity. I liked the Jesus Mysteries. But they are not dedicated scholars, and they rely on sources that do not stand up to historical verification.

...

In January 05 , Peter Gandy was the author of the month on the Graham Hancock forum and he replied to many questions from board members , here is one link to some of the questions and answers . If anyone is interested there are a few more links . The sources that he quotes below , seem to me quite reliable !

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/...?f=8&i=70&t=70

Author: Peter Gandy (81.153.48.---)
Date: 27-Jan-05 07:19

snipped:

Our sources for The Jesus Mysteries were mostly the ancient sources themselves, Plato, Philo, Celsus etc, rather than commentary on them. IMO it is only be setting Christianity in the context in which it was born that it can be understood, and that context was Pagan and more specifically Greek. Paul's Christology is almost impenetrable, a fact granted by most Christian scholars, but set it alongside the Mystery religions and it begins to make sense.
Peter

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2007, 03:14 AM	#2
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	Well, since I know Tim slightly, I can say that he never seemed to me to "hate" the ideas of incarnation and resurrection at all. He just looks at them metaphorically, as I do. Maybe he's been harbouring some secret "hatred", but I rather doubt it. He always seemed pretty logical and reasonable to me. Ray

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.