Dave31

The new sourcebook guide for Zeitgeist part 1 is relevant to the case for mythicism

"Here is the new sourcebook guide for Zeitgeist part 1 (ZG1) with new highly respected and credentialed scholarly sources, citations and bibliography added. Also new images have been added among other new references. These new sources render all of the anti-ZG1 videos and reviews etc obsolete. The anti-ZGers and other critics will need to start all over."

New Sourcebook for ZG1 edited and expanded upon by Acharya S

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence

New ZG1 Sourcebook short video clip

Dave31

I thought some here might be interested in these responses to two professional historians, one being Dr. Richard Carrier:

Response to Richard Carrier on the 'ZEITGEIST Sourcebook'

Also, here's another professional historian from the Christian side who also steps into it to thoroughly embarrass himself with a collage of monumental errors

Dr. Chris Forbes on Zeitgeist part 1

Dave31

The best argument for the gospel dates appear to be for a 2nd century composition as explained in the article below. And a late date for the gospels is also part of the case for mythicism.

Toto

Discussion of Irenaeus split to here. (PM me if a post is misplaced.)

Dave31

Here's an article on Mithra that is quite relevant to the mythicist position

Mithra: The Pagan Christ

Dave31

A little snippet into some early American history of the Founding Fathers interest in mythicism:

Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Jesus Mythicists?

mod note: please continue any discussion of the founding fathers in this thread

Kapyong

Gday folks,

It's the same ol' crap - subjective and misleading and innacurate.

Consider the classic birth of Horus date argument :

Sourcebook: "We learn from one of the most famous historians of the first century, Plutarch (46-120 AD/CE), that Horus the Child—or ―Harpocrates,‖ as was his Greek name—was ―born about the winter solstice, unfinished and infant-like...(45)"

Note (45) = Plutarch 65 -

65 In this way we shall undertake to deal with the numerous and tiresome people, whether they be such as take pleasure in associating theological problems with the seasonal changes in the surrounding atmosphere, or with the growth of the crops and seed-times and ploughing; and also those who say that Osiris is being buried at the time when the grain is sown and covered in the earth and that he comes to life and reappears when plants begin to sprout. For this reason also it is said that Isis, when she perceived that she was pregnant, put upon herself an amulet346 on the sixth day of the month Phaophi; and about the time of the winter solstice she gave birth to Harpocrates, imperfect and premature,347 amid the early flowers and shoots. For this reason they bring to him as an offering the first-fruits of growing lentils, and the days of his birth they celebrate after the spring equinox. When the people hear these things, they are satisfied with them and believe them, deducing the plausible explanation directly from what is obvious and familiar.

So, Acharya quotes the passage
"and about the time of the winter solstice she gave birth to Harpocrates"
(which clearly means somewhat AFTER it.)

but conspicuously FAILS to note what follows :
"and the days of his birth they celebrate after the spring equinox"

The whole POINT of the passage is about NEW GROWTH, and Plutarch says they celebrate his birth when the lentils first fruit.

Here we see AcharyaS deliberately mis-represent the data and carefully quote-mine Plutarch to avoid admitting what he REALLY said.

Horus' has several birth dates in egyptian tradition. Naturally AcharyaS only quite-mines what agrees with her.

As usual.


K.

Dave31

Well, you clearly have nothing but contempt for Acharya S and would never acknowledge that she may be right about anything anyway. Still, you are easily proven wrong simply by reading the ZG1 Sourcebook preface.

The Sourcebook was specifically for Zeitgeist part 1 which was addressing the ZG1 transcript on page 15 of the Sourcebook:

Rather than immediately jump to preconceived conclusions and always assume the worst in your little gotcha game, you could've simply asked about it politely and I would've guided you to her book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, which has a subsection that addresses that specific issue entitled, "Dual Birthdays of Horus."

She didn't mention it there in the ZG1 Sourcebook because it was completely irrelevant. You can stop constantly trying to smear her now.

Kapyong

Gday,

Irrelevant ?!

So - when discussing the birthdate of Horus, a source discussing the bithdate of Horus is "irrelevant" ?!

When citing Plutarch for a December 25th birthdate of Horus, a comment by Plutarch that Horus birth is celebrated in Spring is "irrelevant" ?!

It's 100% completely relevant - and it shows AcharyaS is wrong.


No, just for her false claims.


Bollocks.
I am easily proved right by reading Plutarch.

AcharyaS claimed :
Plutarch cites December 25th as birth of Horus.

Reality:
Plutarch mentions two dates :
"and about the time of the winter solstice she gave birth to Harpocrates, cimperfect and premature, amid the early flowers and shoots. For this reason they bring to him as an offering the first-fruits of growing lentils, and the days of his birth they celebrate after the spring equinox."

AcharyaS falsely represented her source by ignoring much of what he wrote. A common habit for her, and one of the reasons no-one takes her seriously.


"Broadly speaking" ?
What nonsense.

AcharyaS' OWN SOURCE that SHE cited as evidence for a December 25th date actually gives ANOTHER date - spring time (along with a vague reference to around the solstice.)

In short AcharyaS source Plutarch DISAGREES with her - of course she simply ignores that fact, like you do.


What?
You said it was IRRELEVANT !
So then why did AcharyaS deal with it?
Which is it?
Irrelevant or not?


AcharyaS then dishonestly claims there are "many other" ancient sources for a December 25th birthdate of Horus - but fails to cite a SINGLE ONE !

Her research is poor, her claims are often wrong, her scholarship is pathetic.


Kapyong

stephan huller

I have a question - I have always assumed that mythicists are essentially saying that there was no Jesus (i.e. that he is a 'myth' like Hercules) or that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. Why identify the tradition as 'mythicist,' 'mythical'' or as 'mythicism'? Wouldn't 'hoax' be more impropriate? There are myths about king Minos and he was loosely based on a historical person. So too Theseus etc. I never understood why the equation with 'myth' here if you want to say there never was a historical Jesus.

If you say 'beauty myth' or the 'myth' that money brings happiness yoiu aren't really saying that there isn't such a thing as beauty or that money doesn't bring happiness (it certainly does). You are simply saying that there are limits to the power of beauty and money.

I have never understood the choice of terminology. The 'historical Jesus' position isn't entirely accurate either. Various religious traditions emphasize a divinity to Jesus which can't be construed as 'factual' in the mundane sense.

I think the whole categorization is as bad as Irenaeus's list of heresies and sects. Why not change the categories.