Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 01-21-2008, 02:04 PM

Oh, so Plato is not relevant then? Why is 153 in John and guess what is discussed just before the passage I quoted above!

I note you have not responded to Britannica - not a primary source is it though!

What is this fantasy that Judaism was somehow hermetically sealed from the rest of the planet?

What is this strw man characture being thrown up.

I feel I am digging up fossils and there is a party screaming, well that isn't a dragon as described in the fourth century Ho dynasty. Well of course it isn't, but maybe, as EB comments, there is a strong relationship between solar theisms and hierarchical religions, and are not cxianity and judaism hierarchial religions?

(And by the way I thought the links between the moon and Islam were accepted - seems to be a common Islamic image!

http://mysticalkeys.com/library/Massey/massey_moon.htm

And I only mentioned Marathon as an example, not to date anything - why did you assume more than I had written?

jjramsey · 01-21-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And by the way I thought the links between the moon and Islam were accepted - seems to be a common Islamic image!

Jack Chick seems to think so, and we know what a reliable source he is.

Malachi151 · 01-21-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Casper

Star of Bethlehem?

I think a better explanation is:

Quote:

Numbers 24:
17 I will point to him, and not now;
I deem him happy, but he is not at hand.
A star shall rise out of Jakob,
and a person shall rise up out of Israel,
and he shall crush the chiefs of Moab,

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/04-num-nets.pdf

This is especially pertinent because the one giving the prophecy in Numbers is not a Jew, nor are the Magi, and also since just about every other line in this section of Matthew is a quote or allusion to a Jewish scripture.

mountainman · 01-21-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Did Philo (who is generally recognised as a "Hellenised Jew")
ever subscribe to this limited edition of Israel or did he instead
subscribe to a far more universal appreciation of Law and tradition?
What does the evidence tell us about Philo's beliefs?
Philo certainly never once mentions christianity.

Philo may have honestly believed to be still in the Jewish framework,
but he wasn't anymore.
This is not by using Greek, but by thinking in Platonic manner.

The canonical gospels are thoroughly Roman, the Jewish background
is only a hallucination in order to make the Catholic Church appear
as the goal of the prophets of the Tanakh.

The OT was very suited for Roman purposes, as the prevailing
philosophy of the Romans was Stoic, the only hellenic philosophy
that became really popular there. Already Flavius Josephus knew
that the Pharisees were very close to Stoic philosophy.
Thus Roman intellectuals could easily adopt the Tanakh.
While Gnosis was world denying, Stoa and the OT were world
affirming. This led to the Roman Catholic church as a world-
affirming organisation using the Old Testament and its Creator god,
in antithesis to the pre-Catholic Gnostic Christians who
denied the world and denigrated the Creator.

Philo supported Stoa only to some extend, but was Platonising
through and through by seeing the material existence as inferior
to the spiritual one. His God was not proud of his material
creation, only of the ideas. This way Philo needs to be seen
as Antijewish, regardless of how much he feigns to be an
observant Jew.

Klaus Schilling

Momigliano continually emphasises that most of the
Jewish people outside of Judea, and some within,
were quite Hellenised, and that this process had
been in operation for a substantial period prior to
our "time of interest" in the first few centuries CE.

Thanks for your note on the Platonic elements that
are exhibited throughout Philo.

Since this is a thread for Acharya, I'd like to try and
simultaneously stay on-topic and write the following:

Dear Acharya,

Please allow me to say a few brief words in order
to attempt to redress the balance in the perceived
nature of the ascii-exchanges arising here.

It is an age, or the dawning of an age, of Information.
This stuff is neutral by its own innate characteristics.
It is the embodied souls (ie: people) who "adapt" this
information to their own framework of ideas, concepts
and beliefs.

Where does information get us?
In some cases it makes us more opinionated.
In other cases it overwhealms us.
In yet other cases it makes us curious to determine
the ways in which this information is connected.
Some days, it depends how you approach it.
Other days, it seems to retreat and advance.
It is almost like a wave of possibilities.

Some people are differentiators.
They see the differences.
Some people are integrators.
They see the similarities.
Some people can do both at once.
They see both sides.

At the end of the day everything is an opinion.
Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses.
Everyone sees the world of information differently.
Everyone has a unique perspective to share.

Take what appears to you to be good and keep it.
What appears to you to be not good, ignore it.
Allow it to fall away. It is the dross of the process.
We are all evolving.
Everyday until its end.

I tried to give you a pearl of wisdom earlier.
Something you could research and form an opinion upon.
It was the post about the precession of the equinoxes.
The world is adrift with respect its "astrological roots".
But what does that mean?
And who is interrested?

Well, I am interested.
The stars and the universe are part of me
and part of everyone alive on Earth, and
part of every living thing. Its all connected.
But the connection to the sideral was broke.

What it means I dont yet know.
My study of astrology is the closest thing
I have done to this thing "astrotheology"
which is new to me - - sorry.

My articles are here:

Constantine and the Zero Ayanamsa estimates

The Scientific Basis of Astrology (Book Review)

Perhaps .... The Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock & Margulis)

Perhaps ... The Ocean of Light Experiment (Armchair Experiment; sci.physics 1997)

Sharing information freely and without the presence
of either intolerance or persecutionary behaviour in
the environment should be a natural condition.

And I welcome a return to this natural condition.

And in the meantime good luck in your own research
projects and in all your dealings with the world.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Acharya S · 01-21-2008, 08:43 PM

Thank you. Did Richard Carrier receive his PhD? If so, congratulations are in order.

Dr. Samuel Sharpe is indeed the source of the description for the "Nativity Scene" at Luxor, which I initially garnered from the writings of Gerald Massey. Sharpe was a well-respected Egyptologist and Bible scholar, not a "Skeptic." Nor am I a "Skeptic," as if that is some organization I belong to. I don't think that Gerald Massey described himself as a "Skeptic" either.

In any case, Samuel Sharpe was in fact a Christian known also for a translation into English of the Bible, as well as for his studies of Egyptian hieroglyphics, following on the heels of Champollion and Dr. Thomas Young. Dr. Sharpe was thus extremely knowledgeable about Christian history and doctrine, and, I would wager, not prone to erroneous flights of fancy that constitute serious admissions against the interest of his own religion: To wit, his description of the Nativity Scene at the Temple of Luxor as being profoundly similar to that found within Christian doctrine.

Apparently, while it is my work that is being nitpicked here, no one has seen fit to share the link to my own discussion of the Nativity Scene at Luxor, where I address Richard Carrier and also share the pertinent quote from Sharpe (Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, 1879, p. 19):

"In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings."

(In my response, I have included a better image from Dr. Sharpe's book, which can also be found at the link to his book provided.)

Obviously, Sharpe's assessment of the Egyptian accounts influencing the Gospel of Luke is not lost on me, for one. Nor do I believe that such an assessment should open up either of us to all manner of irrational hysteria and vitriol.

While I will certainly look closer at Dr. Brunner's assessment, as I state in my response to Carrier, I suppose it comes down to which expert one chooses to believe. Modern scholars are not free from error simply because they are modern. Nor does my entire body of work stand or fall on this one issue.

Indeed, as concerns my Christian critics, no offense is meant, but I wonder how much weight should be given to people who fervently believe that there is an invisible Jewish man omnipresently floating about in the sky? Why not a Greek son of God such as Hercules as your personal savior? Not only is it implausible that there is an invisible Jewish man floating omnipresently in the sky but such a belief would appear to represent extreme cultural bigotry.

In any event, it seems that my main audience would be elsewhere, including some individuals here who, instead of disparaging me endlessly, might actually find something interesting in my work.

Cheers.

Acharya

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Samuel Sharpe wrote in "Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity" (1863) on page 17,

Quote:

Every king of Egypt, even while living, was added to the number of the gods, and declared to be the Son of Ra, which was the title set over the second oval of his name. He was then sometimes made into the third person of a Trinity, in which case he took the place of the god Chonso. He denied that he owed his birth to the father from whom he inherited the crown; he claimed to be born, like the bull Apis by a miraculous conception....This opinion of the miraculous birth of the kings is well explained in a series of sculptures on the wall of the temple of Luxor." Sharpe then provides a reproduction of the wall scenes at Luxor and explains that in the first scene the messenger god Thoth tells the maiden queen that she is to give birth to a son. In the next scene the spirit god Kneph presents the queen with the gift of life and the queen becomes visually pregnant. In the final scene the child is born and is paid homage by three kneeling Priests who present gifts.

Here is a link to an online picture (poor quality) of the Annunciation scene at Luxor at Acharya S.'s site:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm

Acharya writes:

Quote:

Furthermore, inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the "Holy Ghost," impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts.

Here is a link to an online version of Samuel Sharpe's Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity:

http://www.touregypt.net/emac3.htm

Note that this is the Tour Egypt site. I'm not aware of any editorial comments by Tour Egypt regarding this book but the fact that they have posted it to their site implies that they think Sharpe knew what he was talking about, at least for the most part. Go to figure 28 for the online version of Sharpe's 4 sketches.

I checked with Mr. Peter Dorman, Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and he told me that to date the Birth Room reliefs are unpublished (the University of Chicago has been
authorized to catalogue most of the other Temple rooms at Luxor). He recommended Hellmut Brunner's, Die Geburt des Gottkoenigs. Agyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 10. Wiesbaden, 1964 with the comment "This is probably the best reference you can use until the Amenhotep III reliefs receive the attention they deserve."

Hellmut Brunner's, Die Geburt des Gottkoenigs. Agyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 10. Wiesbaden, 1964 is a 224 page book devoted solely to the divine birth reliefs of Amenhotep III on the west wall of the Birth Room. The book contains clearly legible sketches of all fifteen scenes and the accompanying hieroglyphic narratives.

I could see for myself that the four scenes commonly referred to by Skeptics such as Sharpe, Massey and Acharya and claimed to be the Annunciation, Conception, Birth & Adoration @ Luxor were in fact only four middle scenes which are only part of a three rowed set of fifteen scenes. Of particular interest is that the scenes in the bottom row, not mentioned by any of these Skeptics, show "contact" between the queen and Amun (the god) indicating that the queen was already impregnated, before the Annunciation by the spirit god Thoth and potentially removing perhaps the best claimed parallel to the Christian infancy narratives, Mary impregnated following Annunication from the Christian holy spirit god.

Brunner's book is in German and as far as I know has never been translated into English. As I am allergic to German I asked the noted Skeptical scholar Dr. Richard Carrier to take a look at the book in general and specifically to address whether according to Brunner's book the queen was already pregnant before the Annunciation by the spirit god Thoth. Dr. Carrier has informed me that per Brunner's book the Inscriptions make clear that the queen was indeed impregnated by Amun by the usual methodology (as much as is possible in the realm of human/divine relations) using language reminiscent of the classical "Young Frankenstein" scene:

Brunner's Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication

It would appear then that assertions in this area by Skeptics such as Sharpe, Massey and Acharya contain inadequate research and proof-texting by:

1) Only referring to four scenes when there are actually fifteen.

2) Claiming or implying that the queen was impregnated after the Annunciation by the holy spirit god Thoth when in fact the unmentioned scenes and related Inscriptions make clear that the queen was already impregnated by the Father god before the Annunciation and that the spirit god's Annunciation was only to announce impending birth and not impregnation (some of you may consider this redundant information but she was a virgin after all, at least as the story goes).

Skeptics therefore, should be hesitant to use the arguments of Sharpe, Massey and Acharya in this area.

Acharya S., I can see that to your credit you have responded to Dr. Carrier's article. I can certainly understand that with an American Public that is mainly hostile to your views in general and largely willing to dismiss you in Toto based on any/few isolated criticisms, that you are primarily concerned with your reputation. The above is enabling Christians to Summarily dismiss your General observations of outstanding parallels between Pagan and Christian Infancy Narratives which is a pity. The question that Christian Bible scholarship has always been obsessed with here is what are the parallels between Jewish and Christian Infancy Narratives. The question should be are the Christian Bible Infancy Narratives better paralleled by Pagan or Jewish Infancy Narratives?

By the way, Die Geburt des Gottkoenigs is easily obtainable in Germany.

Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

ApostateAbe · 01-21-2008, 09:49 PM

Acharya S, it is not a matter of which scholar to trust. JoeWallack went to the primary source, the very heart of your claim, and he pointed out a flaw. He claims that your cited Egyptian mythology is dismally out of order, and it does match the story of Jesus. You did not address that criticism, and you should. There is no need to pick at the straws in JoeWallack's claim. It does not matter whether Sharpe was a skeptic or a Christian. You need to get to the meat of it.

Acharya S · 01-21-2008, 10:16 PM

Before I address any criticism, Abe, please address the criticism of you making constant critical commentary about my work when you haven't even read it.

And please do provide us with a response as to why you feel it necessary to be constantly hostile towards me. As I have informed you previously, I am disinclined to be bullied into any activity through hostility, and such behavior will be ignored.

I have provided the pertinent links. Whether or not you wish to actually do the reading is up to you, but such an oversight when you make a pretense at interest in the subject serves as a reflection of your own "dismal lack of order."

It seems to me that a number of people on this list have a myopic problem with not being able to see the forest for the trees.

ApostateAbe · 01-21-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharya S

Before I address any criticism, Abe, please address the criticism of you making constant critical commentary about my work when you haven't even read it.

And please do provide us with a response as to why you feel it necessary to be constantly hostile towards me. As I have informed you previously, I am disinclined to be bullied into any activity through hostility, and such behavior will be ignored.

I have provided the pertinent links. Whether or not you wish to actually do the reading is up to you, but such an oversight when you make a pretense at interest in the subject serves as a reflection of your own "dismal lack of order."

It seems to me that a number of people on this list have a myopic problem with not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Acharya S, just simplify this matter and tell us why you think that JoeWallack is incorrect in his assessment that the order of events expressed in Egyptian mythology does not match the order of events of the gospel accounts of Jesus. Don't make this thing about the harshness of my criticism toward you, and don't make it about my own behavior patterns. It seems like you have a scholarly duty to perform here. JoeWallack put time and effort into checking your claim, and you had best provide a relevant response.

schilling.klaus · 01-22-2008, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Acharya S, just simplify this matter and tell us why you think that JoeWallack is incorrect in his assessment that the order of events expressed in Egyptian mythology does not match the order of events of the gospel accounts of Jesus.

the order is not so much relevant, as it varies from gospel to gospel, including non-canonical stories. Catholic forgers and fakers like Irenaeus had dogmatic reasons for changing orders according to their needs.

<edit>

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus · 01-22-2008, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

he's just another deceiver and charlatan of the heritage of Euhemeros.

You know what, Klaus? That's a pretty good answer!:)

Like Euhemeros, Brunner fraudulently explains gods like Jesus away by telling people that it's just an putstanding human. This procedure has already been denounced as fraudulent by Plutarch 1900 years ago.

Klaus Schilling

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

01-21-2008, 02:04 PM	#381
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Oh, so Plato is not relevant then? Why is 153 in John and guess what is discussed just before the passage I quoted above! I note you have not responded to Britannica - not a primary source is it though! What is this fantasy that Judaism was somehow hermetically sealed from the rest of the planet? What is this strw man characture being thrown up. I feel I am digging up fossils and there is a party screaming, well that isn't a dragon as described in the fourth century Ho dynasty. Well of course it isn't, but maybe, as EB comments, there is a strong relationship between solar theisms and hierarchical religions, and are not cxianity and judaism hierarchial religions? (And by the way I thought the links between the moon and Islam were accepted - seems to be a common Islamic image! http://mysticalkeys.com/library/Massey/massey_moon.htm And I only mentioned Marathon as an example, not to date anything - why did you assume more than I had written?

01-21-2008, 09:49 PM	#386
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Acharya S, it is not a matter of which scholar to trust. JoeWallack went to the primary source, the very heart of your claim, and he pointed out a flaw. He claims that your cited Egyptian mythology is dismally out of order, and it does match the story of Jesus. You did not address that criticism, and you should. There is no need to pick at the straws in JoeWallack's claim. It does not matter whether Sharpe was a skeptic or a Christian. You need to get to the meat of it.

01-21-2008, 10:16 PM	#387
Acharya S Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: USA Posts: 12	Before I address any criticism, Abe, please address the criticism of you making constant critical commentary about my work when you haven't even read it. And please do provide us with a response as to why you feel it necessary to be constantly hostile towards me. As I have informed you previously, I am disinclined to be bullied into any activity through hostility, and such behavior will be ignored. I have provided the pertinent links. Whether or not you wish to actually do the reading is up to you, but such an oversight when you make a pretense at interest in the subject serves as a reflection of your own "dismal lack of order." It seems to me that a number of people on this list have a myopic problem with not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.