mountainman

Hey Z do you have anything complimentary to say about Acharya in a professional sense, or are you doing a drive-by with a shot gun down a one way street?

Where can we read about your own opinions on all this evidence?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

If we compare this image to those of Jesus at Dura Europos, that looks like Jesus to me.

Perhaps someone has made a mistake?

Wasn't Jesus just as important as this Sol Invictus upstart?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Robert Tulip

I checked Z's source on this one, Ezekiel 23. See especially commentaries on v33

Unfortunately for Z, it appears he started off by reading (skimming?) the text, then cut out the key bits of it, then forgot he had done that, then started rampaging around under his troll bridge because he forgot what he had forgotten.

Ezekiel 23 quite clearly uses prostitutes as allegory for nations, and that is all Acharya explains at p131 of CC. Z cut out the key text at his blog in order to present a false distortion. It is a disturbing case study in bad analysis.

spin

Geez, Robert, I don't really see why you bothered. The rubbish that D.M. wrote on the subject is simplistic and at times ridiculous. She's trying to sell the fact that there is allegory in the bible, well, doh! But she's trying to sell that there's a lot more, when we find allegory principally in the prophets. Pointing out that Paul uses allegory in Gal 4 is merely reading his indication ("these things are allegory") regarding Hagar and missing the point that when there are no such indications in Paul, there is no justification for one to take his Jewish references as allegory, for if he needed to say that this was allegory, he's saying the rest isn't. But plain ignorant is her comment, referred to by Zwaarddijk: "a number of other biblical places, nations and tribes are frequently referred to allegorically as “he” or “she,”" Tell me Robert, how do you say "it" in Hebrew??? This is such a blunder, it is embarrassing, and it is followed with "which makes it difficult to figure out whether the speaker is talking about a person, group, place or thing." I suppose context, especially in Hebrew, is of no help. :huh:

Robert Tulip

Assessment of allegory in scripture or poetry is entirely a matter of context. Just my quoting this comment out of the context of its post makes it harder for readers to assess what it means. The whole question of the extent of use of symbolism, including as a way to understand context, seems to me one of the most interesting questions regarding mythicist interpretation.

Some points of allegory are obvious, and are explained as such in the Bible. Ezekiel's example here of Israel as whore is fairly direct. The parable of the sower, with the fertile ground as the receptive hearts of the faithful, explains in words of one syllable why the Bible makes systematic use of allegory.

But then, when Jesus says everything told to the general public is allegory (Mark 13), the meaning is far more contested. Taken literally, this statement suggests that the birth and passion narratives are fictional, but that reading has been traditionally anathematised as docetic heresy.

Assessing the extent and meaning of allegory in scripture engages with cultural politics and philosophy in ways that confront some unexamined assumptions about religion and history. I wish people could be cooler and more dispassionate in discussion of such matters, without jumping to extreme opinions that are not well backed up by the material under study. Spin's comments above about blunders etc are a case in point, as they are too compressed, opinionated and opaque to enable any coherent response. As Palin said to Cleese, this isn't an argument.

outhouse

Her work isnt worth a decent rebuttle so you get what you get.

Your talking about someone who has no real training in historical methods and scholarships, and is trying to recreate history from ignorance.

All the while targeting the ignorant as her prime audience.

Robert Tulip

The more plausible reading is that people with your dismissive attitude are the ignorant ones, rejecting astral interpretations without understanding them. It appears that you endorse the John Cleese argument method, since you seem to think that engaging on facts is infra dig.

Too often in religious debate people jump to such dismissive conclusions without having a clue what they are talking about. There is extensive solar imagery in Christianity, but it is hidden by cultural taboos. People who are trapped by the taboo cannot see outside their cave.

outhouse

Nothing further from reality then what you posted. The reason I dismiss her work is because I recognize garbage when I see it, not because of a specific mentality.


I have a passion for this and have been trying to gain a education on the topic from those who know more then me.


The problem with many here following mythicism is that they seem to have a conspiracy mentality. Even then there are some that do have knowledge and i respect them despite what i personally feel as their "arrow being pointed in the wrong direction"

Unlike you, I dont attack knowledge and education because it differs from my view. I have a lot to learn, and thus have a open mind.


You were right about one thing, the ignorant love to talk about why they remain ignorant and fight any reason to change that position.


I think all cultures to some extent have solar imagery as you feel like calling it. But that is not the foundation in which Christianity grew from. It factually grew from Judaism by Hellenistic people who not only found Judaism appealing but that of one all powerful god. because they were not Jews they modified Judaism to meet their needs.

Its obvious they didnt do this with solar worship and all the nonsense passed off instead of the teachings right in front of you.


I often wonder if a conspiracy mentality doesnt blind people to reality.

outhouse

Which is hillarious and a statement from ignorance.

The first thing a Proffessor im following atm states is "dont trust anyone"

Zwaarddijk

Robert Tulip, how about when Acharya quotes P.J. Casey, Understanding Ancient Coins: an introduction for archaeologists and historians, 1986, and inserts her own writing into the quote??

The bit I am talking about:

Coin evidence is one of the more underrated methods of archaeology, yet it provides a superior dating system for a number of reasons, including that coins do not disintegrate over time. Unfortunately for Christian propagandists, the coin evidence for early Christianity is nil:

"[The] close consideration of coin evidence may shake the foundations of the literary narrative. This is because coins are produced with immediacy in response to events, whereas the literary record is composed after the event, often much after, and can suffer from bias if not outright distortion or suppression of facts." Why, no Christian coins [dating to the] 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries C.E.? Because the "events," were literary events (Fiction!)--only!"^clxxviii

Casey only wrote "[The] close consideration of coin evidence may shake the foundations of the literary narrative. This is because coins are produced with immediacy in response to events, whereas the literary record is composed after the event, often much after, and can suffer from bias if not outright distortion or suppression of facts.", yet Acharya inserts the rest of the quote, has it indented like the rest of the quote, and uses a device USUALLY ONLY USED TO CLARIFY WORDING IN A QUOTED BIT IN HER OWN ADDITION TO THE TEXT - the square brackets in her own wording ("[dating to the]") are misleading. As said, they're usually used to mark alterations or additions to a text, but here, it's her own text she's marking alterations in. The presence of such square brackets *both generally in academic literature and throughout the rest of both the Christ Conspiracy and the Suns of God* mark that you're adding things to what someone else says.

Why mark that you're adding things to what you yourself are saying - in a bit you've marked as though it were a quote from someone else, with indentation including your own bit AND the reference coming after your own statement? I see two options:
-really shitty editing
-intentionally misleading quotation

So which is it? The fact that there's four things that serve to mislead the reader suggests to me it's not an accident:
- Acharya *never* otherwise uses quotation marks when quoting someone in an indented quote, and the only occasions quotation marks occur in indented quotes are when the quoted source quotes someone else
- It is common practice to use square brackets when altering someone else's stuff, as I already said, and these square brackets are in her own text, creating the impression she's clarifying someone else's text
- Her own text is added in the indented bit
- The source is given after her own text

How about that, Robert? Are we looking at a downright fabricated quote here? I guess you won't admit to it, but I hope you genuinely realize that this is exactly that. Maybe you're too proud to admit it, and that's ok as long as you realize what it really is.