Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-24-2004, 04:05 PM

Comment: Was Christ's life based on pagan myths? is a long examination of Tom Harpur's Pagan Christ.

Quote:

Harper does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn, who he describes as "the most erudite, most eloquent, and most convincing . . . of any modern writer on religion I have encountered in a lifetime dedicated to such matters."

Who is Alvin Boyd Kuhn? He, along with Higgins and Massey, is given the title 'Egyptologist,' and is regarded by Harpur as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century . . . [towering] above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religious." Kuhn, he writes, "has more to offer the Church than all the scholars of the Jesus Seminar together. More than John Spong . . . C.S. Lewis . . . Joseph Campbell or Matthew Fox. I remain stunned at the silence with which his writings have been greeted by scholars."

As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who earned a PhD from Columbia University by writing a dissertation on Theosophy. A prodigious author and lecturer, he had difficulty finding a publisher for his works; most of them were self-published. His only link with an institution of higher learning was a short stint as the secretary to the president of a small college.

The article goes on to refute most of the basis of the claimed Horus-Jesus connection.

Quote:

While the image of the baby Horus with Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. The image of Mary and Jesus is not one of the earliest Christian images, and, at any rate, there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born. And the New Testament Mary was certainly not a goddess (like Isis).

There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was 'a fisher of men' -- or that his followers, the King's officials, were ever 12 in number. KRST is the word for "burial" ("coffin" is written "KRSW"), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title "Christos" or the Hebrew "Mashiah".

Evoken · 06-24-2004, 04:43 PM

That is a good article thanks for posting it Toto.

I didn't know about the word KRST, good to know what it means. As for the rest of the article I covered it in the post I made in the first page of this thread. I gave up with the Osiris/Horus comparision, there is nothing to be found there and as far as parallels go, I think Mary is the only Christian character that owns something to the egyptian myths and to Isis in specific.

Mathetes · 06-24-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAsimisI

I didn't know about the word KRST, good to know what it means.

I suspect that KRST and Christ sound only close in English, but possibly not in ancient Greek. A Chi is not a Kappa. The first sound of χ�?ιστός is an aspirated palatal, not the simple palatal of the "k" in English. The etymological "h" in "Christ" is there to mark this. The closest thing in English would be to try to pronounce a "k" and an "h" at the same time. An ancient ear would have perceived "kh" and "k" as two different sounds.

In New Testament times, the sound may have changed to the "ch" of the Scottish word "Loch"... Still not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It was found written on a memorial, but had nothing to do with Horus. IIRC it meant something like "good".

In case it helps, χ�?ηστός in Greek (with an eta) means "useful, good".

Here is the reference.

GakuseiDon · 06-24-2004, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

I suspect that KRST and Christ sound only close in English, but possibly not in ancient Greek. A Chi is not a Kappa. The first sound of χ�?ιστός is an aspirated palatal, not the simple palatal of the "k" in English. The etymological "h" in "Christ" is there to mark this. The closest thing in English would be to try to pronounce a "k" and an "h" at the same time. An ancient ear would have perceived "kh" and "k" as two different sounds.

In New Testament times, the sound may have changed to the "ch" of the Scottish word "Loch"... Still not the same thing.

In case it helps, χ�?ηστός in Greek (with an eta) means "useful, good".

Here is the reference.

Thanks for that. I think I was getting the meaning of "Chrestus" confused with "KRST". I think you are right: it would be surprising if the Egyptian "KRST" sounded much like the Greek "Christ", even aside from the meanings being radically different.

Evoken · 06-24-2004, 06:59 PM

Thanks for clarifying that Mathetes.

Magdlyn · 06-24-2004, 07:25 PM

Oddly, when I asked CX (I believe it was) for any online articles refuting The Jesus Mysteries, he implied historians would not waste their time posting such online, but only in scholarly journals. Why then do we have a somewhat detailed refutation of a somewhat similar book, The Pagan Christ from Mr W. Ward Gasque, co-founder of Regent College in Vancouver, said to be an historian of early Christianity, courtesy of canadianchristianity.com?

as per his comments:

Quote:

That prior to the fourth century "it was believed that the coming of the Messiah, or Christ, was taking place in the life of every person at all times."

"It was believed" is too general. By whom was it believed? Every single Xtian? Certainly this was Paul's clear message, ie: "the secret now revealed is, Christ in you." Whether the common person grasped this esoteric message is questionable. I understnad this was reserved for the pneumatic knowers, not the milk sipping psychics.

Quote:

That nearly all of the most creative leaders of the earliest church were pronounced heretics and reviled by "those who had swept in and grabbed control of [church] policies."

"Nearly all" may be pushing it, but certainly there was a huge power struggle between catholics, docetists, gnostics and various pagan groups. And the struggle goes on til this day.

Quote:

That "apart from the four Gospels . . . and the Epistles, there is no hard, historical evidence for Jesus' existence coming out of the first century at all."

Calling the 4 canonical gospels and the epistles hard historical evidence is laughable.

Quote:

That "Paul's Jesus lacks any human quality for the very reason that, in Paul's understanding, he was not a human person at all."

Yes, Paul's Jesus does seem docetic.

Quote:

Presumably, the Jewish, Unitarian, secular and many very liberal Christians who happen to be recognized scholars have no axes to grind regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived, or whether most of the ideas found in the Bible stem from Egyptian or other Near Eastern religion.

If one were able to identify all of the non-Christian members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be unlikely [sic, evidence please?] that you could find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

Leaving out the fact that the majority can be wrong, and the fact that I am not a trained historian, but just a mom, self-taught, and that I admittedly do not know what a "major learned society" exactly is, I can think of 3--Price, Spong, Campbell. Whoops, Spong is actually a Xtian who thinks Jesus is a spirit peson and not a man. Hm. If all these implied oh-so-open minded members of major learned societies think the 4 gospels are hard historical evidence for Jesus' existence, well, then we are shit out of luck. I thought historians were looking for non-Biblical evidence tho? Is he implying Jewish and UU and atheist historians are just as brainwashed by the Sunday School version of the NT as the Xtians are? Who is this Jesus they all so ardently believed walked those dusty roads? One of many non-descript Cynic style disgruntled Jewish prophets carrying a very common name?

Quote:

Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

Hm again, seems most of us here, laymen that we are, would disagree with that! Sounds like this reviewer has some Xtian wool pulled over hs eyes.

GakuseiDon · 06-24-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Oddly, when I asked CX (I believe it was) for any online articles refuting The Jesus Mysteries, he implied historians would not waste their time posting such online, but only in scholarly journals. Why then do we have a somewhat detailed refutation of a somewhat similar book, The Pagan Christ from Mr W. Ward Gasque, co-founder of Regent College in Vancouver, said to be an historian of early Christianity, courtesy of canadianchristianity.com?

CX's comments were:

Quote:

I suspect:

A)Most academicians do not publish rebuttals and such on the internet. They do so in academic journals, at symposia and seminars, etc.

B)I doubt most biblical scholars, secular or otherwise are all that interested in refuting TJM. Just as very few professional academics have address doherty's work.

Note the word "most". There are some parallels here with Daniken's "Ancient Astronauts" theory. One of the comments when it was in vogue in the '70s was that if the AA theory wasn't true, then where were the scholars rebutting it? As CX said, most scholars simply weren't interested. There is a lot of information to show that the AA theory is not feasible, and scholars who have rebutted specific parts of it, but, AFAIK, there still isn't any peer-reviewed work that rebuts Daniken's AA theory as a whole.

Magdlyn, I'm retiring from rebutting the Christ Myth, at least on this forum, but I do have The Jesus Mysteries. I don't mind discussing it, since I think it is easy to show that it is a load of old cobblers. If you like, we can go through my 'favorite' section, "Death of the Godman" (starts around p60 in the paperback edition). Let me know, and I'll start a new thread.

Magdlyn · 06-25-2004, 04:12 AM

Yes, please start a new thread, and please call it "The Jesus Mysteries: load of old cobblers." I love that!

I read this book about 3 yrs ago, as my introduction to non-orthodox interpretation of the gospels and Paul. I had read general things about it in Campbell, but this book really knocked my sox off. Now, in the clear light of day, I would love to see where is is inaccurate, and where it is accurate. Or if it is entirely cobblers.

I constantly read here cranky hints that it sucks, but very few specifics.

Thanks.

LP675 · 06-25-2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Leaving out the fact that the majority can be wrong, and the fact that I am not a trained historian, but just a mom, self-taught, and that I admittedly do not know what a "major learned society" exactly is, I can think of 3--Price, Spong, Campbell. Whoops, Spong is actually a Xtian who thinks Jesus is a spirit peson and not a man.

Two questions.

Dose anyone think “scholar�? is an apt term to describe Spong? I though he just sprouted popular stuff. I honestly don’t know, (he has made himself a stench in the nostrils of the circles I move in, and isn’t treated seriously).

Does Spong think Jesus has only ever been a spirit person? (whatever that would mean). I was under the impression he definitely believed Jesus was a real man, but didn’t rise from the dead physically.

06-25-2004, 07:07 AM

Magdlyn, I might join the new thread as we are having a similar conversation.

LP, Spong's work is largely popularist although he does base himself largely on mainstream liberal scholarship. He certainly believes Jesus existed although he shows a lack of discernment to what he puts his name to. He is a prat as well, but that's by the by.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

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

06-24-2004, 04:43 PM	#32
Evoken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: ............. Posts: 2,914	That is a good article thanks for posting it Toto. I didn't know about the word KRST, good to know what it means. As for the rest of the article I covered it in the post I made in the first page of this thread. I gave up with the Osiris/Horus comparision, there is nothing to be found there and as far as parallels go, I think Mary is the only Christian character that owns something to the egyptian myths and to Isis in specific.

06-24-2004, 06:59 PM	#35
Evoken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: ............. Posts: 2,914	Thanks for clarifying that Mathetes.

06-25-2004, 04:12 AM	#38
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Yes, please start a new thread, and please call it "The Jesus Mysteries: load of old cobblers." I love that! I read this book about 3 yrs ago, as my introduction to non-orthodox interpretation of the gospels and Paul. I had read general things about it in Campbell, but this book really knocked my sox off. Now, in the clear light of day, I would love to see where is is inaccurate, and where it is accurate. Or if it is entirely cobblers. I constantly read here cranky hints that it sucks, but very few specifics. Thanks.

06-25-2004, 07:07 AM	#40
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Magdlyn, I might join the new thread as we are having a similar conversation. LP, Spong's work is largely popularist although he does base himself largely on mainstream liberal scholarship. He certainly believes Jesus existed although he shows a lack of discernment to what he puts his name to. He is a prat as well, but that's by the by. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.