Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 03-29-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Nah - Protestant extremists have been accusing Catholics of being pagan for long before Acharya S.

Straw man argument - nobody claimed Acharya was the first to accuse Catholics of paganism.

Quote:

The dominant idea behind the quests for a historical Jesus has been that there was an original pure Christianity started by a good Jesus, that was almost immediately corrupted by the later followers. It doesn't do the case for a mythical Jesus at the origins of Christianity any good to show that there were mythical elements added on in the fourth century.

Another straw man argument - who ever said the only evidence was from the 4th century?

Quote:

Utu "The downside of books from the early 20th century and before being public domain is that they introduce lots of obsolete scholarship onto the Internet. Astral mythology, pan-Babylonianism, and solar mythology represent a few examples of this. This is what Acharya espouses."

You've never actually read her work have you - like so many others around here. The so-called skeptics have no biases at all do they (sarcasm). This whole "18th/19th" century claim is bogus as those who've actually read her work already know. She discusses them as well as ancient material and modern scholarship too.

Same as in her new book "Christ in Egypt" which contains over 900 bibliographical sources many of which are modern Egyptologists.
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.co...stinegypt.html

:banghead:

Toto · 03-29-2009, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

Nah - Protestant extremists have been accusing Catholics of being pagan for long before Acharya S.

Straw man argument - nobody claimed Acharya was the first to accuse Catholics of paganism.

Then why did you say "A mere decade ago Christian apologists flatly denied any comparisons at all. Now, they're finally coming out to admit things more and more, little by little" ??

Quote:

Another straw man argument - who ever said the only evidence was from the 4th century?

The same argument applies for any given date, actually.

Dave31 · 03-30-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Then why did you say "A mere decade ago Christian apologists flatly denied any comparisons at all. Now, they're finally coming out to admit things more and more, little by little" ??

Oh, I think you may have missed my point - as my earlier post explained some Christians are conceding to specific elements of Zeitgeist part 1 that they would not have admitted to just a decade ago.

Christian Apologist: "ZEITGEIST is Right"
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-is-right.html

Quote:

"The same argument applies for any given date, actually. "

Again, it seems like you're missing the point possible because you skimmed the blog too quickly? Maybe you didn't see this part:

Quote:

"While we wholeheartedly concur with Rives's assessment concerning "Traditional Christianity" adopting various Pagan holidays and doctrines, we disagree that the gospel story itself is devoid of such influences. Indeed, my work in dissecting the gospel story and demonstrating its "borrowing" from pre-Christian religions is extensive and covers much more than simply Christmas and Easter. As one glaring example, the Virgin Mother concept unquestionably existed in the Pagan world long before Christianity was created - yet, there it is in black and white in the New Testament. Furthermore, such biblical doctrines as having 12 followers, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, transfiguring, resurrecting and ascending are all present in pre-Christian Pagan religion and mythology as well. This fact is demonstrated thoroughly in my book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, which draws from thousands of pre-Christian Egyptian texts and the works of highly credentialed scholars in relevant fields."
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-is-right.html

Toto · 03-30-2009, 10:11 AM

But as evidence, you find a Christian apologists who rejects everything that the Catholics added to the putative original Jesus story.

All of the Jesus Questers seem to think that the virgin birth was an addition to the original Jesus story, as well as some elements of the gospels. And the 12 disciples and other elements have clear Jewish roots. It's not clear what you think Acharya S has added to the dialogue.

Dave31 · 04-08-2009, 10:35 PM

Quote:

"Over a century ago, renowned British Egyptologist Sir Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934), a Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum, as well as a confessed Christian, remarked that a study tracing the “influence of ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and mythology on Christianity” would “fill a comparatively large volume."

Since Dr. Budge’s time, for a variety of reasons, including the seemingly irreconcilable academic gap between historians and theologians, no one has taken up the call to produce such a volume—until now.

- "Christ in Egypt" preface

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Zms...e=channel_page

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

03-30-2009, 10:11 AM	#104
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	But as evidence, you find a Christian apologists who rejects everything that the Catholics added to the putative original Jesus story. All of the Jesus Questers seem to think that the virgin birth was an addition to the original Jesus story, as well as some elements of the gospels. And the 12 disciples and other elements have clear Jewish roots. It's not clear what you think Acharya S has added to the dialogue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.