Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stringbean · 09-28-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

GakuseiDon "I think those three working together, with Carrier and Verenna..."

Definitely not! Rook Hawkins / Tom Verenna most definitely doesn't deserve to be part of it at all in any way shape or form. He has done nothing for starters. His only qualifications are a high school diploma. I still remember when he used to claim on his blog or website that he was a "Historian, bible and ancient text expert." This kid is a scholar wannabe. Why this kid ever got the attention of Carrier, Price, Dawkins etc may be the most interesting thing about him.

Regarding Acharya's work, all Rook has ever done is maliciously smear here. Having Rook/Tom be apart of this would be no different than having GakuseiDon be apart of it. So, rather than ruin the project with someone like Rook, who has nothing to offer, it would be a far better choice to select scholars like Dr. Robert Eisenman, Ken Humphreys etc.

I would not recommend Freke & Gandy either.

While I agree about Hawkins I do not know much about this Tom Verenna guy. Any one got any links to some of his work? The next question is how do we go about getting this started? I checked the domain "The Mythical Jesus: Five Views".com is available if thats what we should use? I also have or own I guess you could call it jesusneverexisted.info whichever one you think we should go with? I will buy the domain if you want to go with the first one?

GakuseiDon · 09-28-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

GakuseiDon "I think those three working together, with Carrier and Verenna..."

Definitely not! Rook Hawkins / Tom Verenna most definitely doesn't deserve to be part of it at all in any way shape or form. He has done nothing for starters. His only qualifications are a high school diploma. I still remember when he used to claim on his blog or website that he was a "Historian, bible and ancient text expert." This kid is a scholar wannabe. Why this kid ever got the attention of Carrier, Price, Dawkins etc may be the most interesting thing about him.

I agree with Toto. Tom Verenna has grown a lot since his Rook Hawkins days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Regarding Acharya's work, all Rook has ever done is maliciously smear here. Having Rook/Tom be apart of this would be no different than having GakuseiDon be apart of it.

The idea is to have people sympathetic to the idea of mythicism but with differing views reviewing each others' work. I don't think that Verenna describes himself as a mythicist exactly, but he is largely agnostic on the subject. That he and Carrier disagrees with Acharya S would be a good reason to include them. There would of course need to be ground rules, like no malicious smearing. But I think most would be able to get along with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

So, rather than ruin the project with someone like Rook, who has nothing to offer, it would be a far better choice to select scholars like Dr. Robert Eisenman, Ken Humphreys etc.

I would not recommend Freke & Gandy either.

Why not Freke & Gandy?

GakuseiDon · 09-28-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wells does not describe himself as a mythicist any more. But then Robert M Price contributed to the book on the historical Jesus.

Tom Verenna has grown quite a bit since his "Rook" days. He is now working towards a degree and no longer describes himself as a mythicist, but more of an agnostic. His blog is worth reading.

There is already a sort of mythicism forum, run by Rene Salm, involving Doherty and Price and Frank Zindler, for mythicists who are interested in this sort of interaction of ideas with the hope of refining them into a better academic theory of mythicism. The group sponsored a recent essay contest, but I haven't heard of any activities lately.

I don't see how the others would work in this environment. Acharya S comes from a New Age background, where criticizing someone's ideas seems to be considered impolite.

Freke and Gandy are New Age religious leaders. Tom Harpur is an Episcopalian. I read this group as more religious than academic, more interested in gnosticism for its own sake.

I agree with you on Tom Verenna. I included Acharya S, Freke and Gandy and Tom Harpur for their visibility but also for the variety of their views, which is what made the "Five Views" book so interesting. But scholars along the lines of Carrier and Price would be more preferable.

Stringbean · 09-28-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wells does not describe himself as a mythicist any more. But then Robert M Price contributed to the book on the historical Jesus.

Tom Verenna has grown quite a bit since his "Rook" days. He is now working towards a degree and no longer describes himself as a mythicist, but more of an agnostic. His blog is worth reading.

There is already a sort of mythicism forum, run by Rene Salm, involving Doherty and Price and Frank Zindler, for mythicists who are interested in this sort of interaction of ideas with the hope of refining them into a better academic theory of mythicism. The group sponsored a recent essay contest, but I haven't heard of any activities lately.

I don't see how the others would work in this environment. Acharya S comes from a New Age background, where criticizing someone's ideas seems to be considered impolite.

Freke and Gandy are New Age religious leaders. Tom Harpur is an Episcopalian. I read this group as more religious than academic, more interested in gnosticism for its own sake.

I agree with you on Tom Verenna. I included Acharya S, Freke and Gandy and Tom Harpur for their visibility but also for the variety of their views, which is what made the "Five Views" book so interesting. But scholars along the lines of Carrier and Price would be more preferable.

Quote:

Tom Verenna has grown quite a bit since his "Rook" days.

Damn! I should have been able to put two and two together the Verenna name did not ring a bell at first.

Well do you want to start the site or what?

Stringbean · 09-28-2011, 04:30 PM

Oh well guess not. I offered anyway. It was a great idea!

Toto · 09-28-2011, 04:39 PM

I don't think that mythicism is developed enough for that website. Acharya S has tried to claim the term, others have their own formulations. Mythicism is just one end of the spectrum of theories of Christian origins.

Stringbean · 09-28-2011, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that mythicism is developed enough for that website. Acharya S has tried to claim the term, others have their own formulations. Mythicism is just one end of the spectrum of theories of Christian origins.

Yeah you maybe right there. But I think I am going to venture off and try it anyway, maybe a forum at first then more later. I mean what the hell can it hurt? It will either flop or take off like a bat outta hell. I do have the domain jesusneverexisted.info I can use plus 9 or 10 more that I have though I do not think they would fit the idea. Well off to do some brain storming, later.

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that mythicism is developed enough for that website. Acharya S has tried to claim the term, others have their own formulations. Mythicism is just one end of the spectrum of theories of Christian origins.

Acharya S did NO such thing.

ACharya S pointed out that "mythicism" PREDATES her and acknowledged other mythicists.

Quote:

...."Although many people may not be aware of the long-term and voluminous studies involved in what is called "mythicism," the questioning of the Bible as representing mythology goes back several centuries.

Much of the major work in this field has occurred in Europe, especially in France and Germany.

In France, at the end of the 18th century appeared the multi-volume work of Professor Charles François Dupuis (1742-1809), who put together a massive amount of evidence showing that many of the ancient gods and goddesses were solar in nature and that biblical characters such as Jesus shared numerous aspects in common with these deities.

Dupuis was followed by Count Volney (1757-1820), both of whom tutored French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who himself is reported as having stated that it was a "big question" whether or not Jesus Christ really existed......

Stringbean · 09-29-2011, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that mythicism is developed enough for that website. Acharya S has tried to claim the term, others have their own formulations. Mythicism is just one end of the spectrum of theories of Christian origins.

Acharya S did NO such thing.

ACharya S pointed out that "mythicism" PREDATES her and acknowledged other mythicists.

Quote:

...."Although many people may not be aware of the long-term and voluminous studies involved in what is called "mythicism," the questioning of the Bible as representing mythology goes back several centuries.

Much of the major work in this field has occurred in Europe, especially in France and Germany.

In France, at the end of the 18th century appeared the multi-volume work of Professor Charles François Dupuis (1742-1809), who put together a massive amount of evidence showing that many of the ancient gods and goddesses were solar in nature and that biblical characters such as Jesus shared numerous aspects in common with these deities.

Dupuis was followed by Count Volney (1757-1820), both of whom tutored French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who himself is reported as having stated that it was a "big question" whether or not Jesus Christ really existed......

Your right. She never claimed the term as her own. In her books she just as expounded on the position and brought it light more than in the last few years.

Dave31 · 09-29-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The idea is to have people sympathetic to the idea of mythicism but with differing views reviewing each others' work. I don't think that Verenna describes himself as a mythicist exactly, but he is largely agnostic on the subject. That he and Carrier disagrees with Acharya S would be a good reason to include them. There would of course need to be ground rules, like no malicious smearing. But I think most would be able to get along with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

So, rather than ruin the project with someone like Rook, who has nothing to offer, it would be a far better choice to select scholars like Dr. Robert Eisenman, Ken Humphreys etc.

I would not recommend Freke & Gandy either.

Why not Freke & Gandy?

I have to wonder if the only reason you say that is because he constantly smears Acharya S, which probably gets you excited, therefore, he must be grown up according to you. He's not, he's still smearing her in his recent blogs.

Again, Rook doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in this thread. Plus, as you rightly point out he no longer claims to be a mythicist. But that is probably to gain what he thinks is credibility among the scholarly circles he's wanking with due to the fact that those circles consider mythicism "fringe," which would ruin his scholar wanna be agenda.

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/for...p=23765#p23765

As pointed out in the link below, Rook sure spends a lot of time writing blogs on topics he claims he hates such as 'Aliens Built the Pyramids,' 'Alien Astronauts,' 'Zeitgeist' and 'Atlantis.' He constantly posts blogs on those topics to just to bludgeon those he doesn't like. Mostly due to the fact that he doesn't have anything interesting of his own to discuss. It's his attempt to bring everybody else down to his level. For example, his ‘Debunking Zeitgeist’ Resource Page, is there solely to make direct and indirect jabs at Acharya S. Some of the sources he cites are way over the top with obnoxious malicious smears and libel such as the 'Conspiracy Science' website, which just calls her a "liar" at every turn after misrepresenting the info. I love this one about Ferseus

Rook includes the Skeptic Magazine article on Zeitgeist but refuses to post Acharya's response.

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History)

He knows all the responses exist but won't post them due to extreme biases against Acharya. Yet, he'll post any trash he can find against her. Rook/Tom still refuses to put posts through at his blog. Those who prove him wrong as well as point out his utter dishonesty and biases get banned from his forums, blogs etc.

If Rook had any integrity on this issue he'd at least cite her responses and the links below to provide a more balanced view but, a balanced, fair and intellectually honest critique is obviously not was Rook/Tom is interested in. Lets not forget that Rook/Tom nor Carrier have even read Acharya's work. So, I doubt Rook/Tom or Carrier could ever uphold the prerequisite not to smear Acharya S, a fellow mythicist. They've been doing it for years without ever having actually read her work.

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence

The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)

Freke & Gandy have gone off in a completely different direction. I seriously doubt that they'd even be interested in a mythicist project. That's why I say I wouldn't recommend them.

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

09-28-2011, 04:30 PM	#455
Stringbean Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Southern United States Posts: 149	Oh well guess not. I offered anyway. It was a great idea!

09-28-2011, 04:39 PM	#456
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't think that mythicism is developed enough for that website. Acharya S has tried to claim the term, others have their own formulations. Mythicism is just one end of the spectrum of theories of Christian origins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.