Jeffrey Gibson

So what. Citing is no guarantee of understanding the sources or that the sources are cited correctly and not selectively in ways which misrepresent what those sources say ot that a work that engages in citation is any good.. And there is, as I've already noted, the question of whether an author of a book who does cite "mainstream sources", is doing what good/real scholars do -- showing an awareness of, and engaging , what's in recent relevant and important sources. In AS's case, it certainly doesn't look like it.

If anything has been revealed here, it's that you've misread what I wrote, and have missed my point entirely, and have chosen instead to do what cranks do -- throw out red herrings.

My point was that the explanation that you gave for why mainstream scholarship does not, and would not, take the claims AS has made seriously -- i.e., the ad hominem claim that it's because mainstream scholars are afraid of losing their jobs, etc, if they do -- is the same explanation that Creationists and Hollow earthers put forward to account for why their claims are not taken seriously by the academy.

And there is no doubting that it is.

Have a look at what Henry Morris says in this regard on pp. 84-85 in his chapter on the Death of Evolution in his Twilight of Evolution regarding why creationsis are given little creedence in the biology and geolgfy departments in established universities and in the profesional journalsn in these fields.

Have a look at what a fellow named Marshall B. Gardner, a proponent of a hollow earth, had to say in the preface to his book 1913 book (enlarged and expanded in 1920), Journey to the Earth's Interior. There he admits that he does not expect to get a "fair hearing" for his views because of the "conservatism of scientists who do not care to revise their theories—and especially when that revision is made necessary by discoveries .. . made independently of the great universities." The scientists, he writes bitterly, "have their professional freemasonry. If you are not one of them, they do not want to listen to you."

Now, as to your being a crank, lets place what you say and how you've acted here against the definition of cranks and crank behaviour given by Marvin B. Gardner's (no relation to the hollow earther) in his author of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (or via: amazon.co.uk). (on the value of the book, see here.)


I note that elsewhere you say you have been studying astrotheology for 30 years. I am sorry that you've wasted so much of your time.


Jeffrey

outhouse

Which means absolutely nothing when taken out of context and quote mined.


Add to that we have obscure views, not followed by mainstream scholarships.


Is this not a dishonest way to promote pseudo-history just to sell books?

Jeffrey Gibson

I trust that you mean "you're" intelligent".

He does? Where?

A known apologist for what?


Mainstream what??

Really? Which of his books on the rise of Christianity have you read?

Jeffrey

outhouse

Do not attack me Jeffrey, attack my message if you can.




Do you even begin to understand how the authors from this time period often paralleled previous people, mythology and theology?

Its just how they wrote.

Robert Tulip

Mr Gibson's accusation that I and Acharya S are cranks is the purest ad hominem fallacy, and should not be tolerated on this site, since he is entirely wrong and unable to back up his claims.

Look, for Christ's sake, at what just happened this year to Thomas Brodie for outing himself as a mythicist. Brodie was sacked from his position as a Roman Catholic teacher. Look what previously happened to Leonardo Boff, Strauss, Taylor, other mythicists, etc etc. Look what happened to the fundy who was sacked last year for questioning the zombie resurrection story in Matthew. And Mr Gibson would have us believe that the Jesus Guild maintains high standards of rigour and does not bully its critics, this in a subject that is kept in asylum from normal scientific standards.

Oh but the enlightened Mr Gibson will tell us that David Strauss and Thomas Jefferson were in fact secret hollow earthers, and Thomas Brodie is a crank, as are Earl Doherty and Robert Price. They must be cranks since the curia says so. This sort of desperate insult is what people resort to when their arguments are shown up as foolish and ignorant. Those who challenge the received authority of Christian dogma are ignoramuses and deluded cranks in Mr Gibson's view, expressed on a site apparently devoted to free thought and reason.

I already mentioned the no true scotsman fallacy, which is abundantly in evidence in this thread. If anyone says Isis was a virgin, as attested by the Theological Dictionary cited above and ignored by Mr Gibson, he says they are by definition a crank. Mr Gibson has found some tame group-think academics who are unwilling to research the topic, and then ignores the refutation of his false assertion regarding the virginity of Isis.

outhouse

Jefferey

Do you understand that Hellenistic Jewish Proselytes and Pagans were the members of this movement?

For the most part they had no loyalty to Judaism while creating this new religion which was not located in a vacuum with no outside influence.


Do you understand how many Pagan ceremonies were "factually" adopted by the movement?

Jeffrey Gibson

And again I ask, what makes you so certain of this?. What informs your claim about "the way ancient writers" wrote? Actual and direct study of ancient authors' styles and manners and writing habits and use of sources? Just how many ancient authors have you read? And if you haven'tv read any of them -- or at least enough of them to get a sense of what their style was -- have you read secondary works describing and documenting not only the way ancient writers wrote but that your claim regarding the way ancient writers wrote is true.

Please forgive me, but I'm not going to take your word for what you claim until I have some reason to believe that your claim is a well informed one.


And I did "attack your message". I indicated that I do not think that the claims made within it in about Stark show any or much direct awareness of what he's written.

That you have avoided answering the particular questions I raised over the validity of these claims and about your whether you have actuallv read Stark's books only increases my suspicion that you haven't.

You have derided others here for not being suffciently well educated with respect to the matters they make claims about and said that they shouldn't be given any credence because of this.

Goose and gander time.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I rest my case.

Jeffrey

outhouse

I don't know bud, the shoe sure looks like it fits.


I may argue with him, but I agree here.

So we should let poor work and what I see as dishonesty, be promoted so that someone who isn't even a historian or scholar can try and weasel a foot in the door of historicity???


Actually he sort of has, you just don't agree.


STOP

Do not even begin to place you or the party your defending in the same league as Thomas. That is flat ridiculous.

Your only proving Jeffrey correct.


Not only that, your also out of context and off topic. Thomas was fired because he was hired to do a job and his new belief and work did not represent what he was hired to do.

It in no way effected his mythical work or beliefs, which he is free to pursue.


False again.

Under this false assumption and poor definition most scholars actually fit as apologetic's back a biblical Jesus and not the historical Jesus most scholars are investigating.

STOP

This is a educated group with diverse beliefs, we do not pander to one group or another, we surely do not harbor a biased view in any way shape or form.

But you did mention Spin was kicked out what? your home forum where only biased views are tolerated?


Here we do try and research to the limits of our knowledge and ability.



While it could be stated that Isis may have been viewed as a virgin or maiden at one point in time in the mythology, the GENERAL view and proper interpretation holds she was not viewed as a virgin, and it clearly states that in the wiki link that started this whole thread.

By the way back your statements with credibility and you could get wiki changed to fit your personal hobby horse.

Chili

You are thinking holy rollers now, evangelists. These are mythmakers, they are different and do not think like you. They are inspired to write and certainly are no copycats.