patcleaver

When believers in Historical Jesus demand Primary Sources then it just makes me laugh my ass off.

Do you believe that primary sources are required to justify beliefs?

Do you believe that primary sources are required to justify arguments?

Where is your primary source for historical Jesus?

What is your justification, beyond bald hypocrisy, for demanding that Alesiah provide a primary source for her beliefs about the mere content of ancient astrotheological superstitions; when you do not provide any primary source for your belief that one of these ancient superstitions were based on a real person?

She is only asserting that ancient people believed these things, while your asserting something far beyond what she is asserting.

You assert that one of these ancient superstitions had some basis in fact.

Where is your primary source for historical Jesus?

A primary source is an artifact contemporaneously generated by an historical fact that it evidences, or a document written immediately after an historical fact that it evidences, without any reasonable suspicion that it is not reliable.

What artifacts were contemporaneously generated by the existence of your historical Jesus?

What documents were written contemporaneously with or immediately after the life of historical Jesus?

It is far more likely that Alesiah's unsupported assertions about contents of ancient beliefs are true, then your silly unsupported belief that superstitions such as Thor, Heracles, Dionysus, Zeus, Adonis/Tammuz, Attis, Horus, Nimrod, Mithras, Jesus or whatever are historical persons.

patcleaver

I do not disagree with what you said, but in this forum, when you make a positive factual statement, and do not cite a reference, then its likely that someone will ask you for a citation. You can ignore the comment, or admit that you do not have a citation, or provide the citation, or whatever.

I think that requests for evidence generally adds to the quality of the debate. It helps prevent urban legands and myths from being accepted as facts.

There is nothing wrong with asking them to clerify what fact they want a citation for. You do not need to provide citations for things that are well known. There are people who will try to waste your time by asking for citations as a debating tactic and then ignore your citations. There are other people who are collecting citations for "their paper" and just want you to do the grunt work for them.

If you want to claim that there are "December born sun gods" then someone will likely ask you to name those gods and cite the ancient source where it says that they were born in December.

If you claim that some component of the Jesus story is more likely from Pagan sources then a Jewish sources, then you should provide arguments and facts to support your assertion.

Citations to non-acedemic internet sites are not usually accepted as reliable. Citations to popular books on religion and mythology are not usually accepted. Academic books and peer reviewed publications are usually accepted.

There are some rude people in this forum - you are going to see some ignorant comments - try not to get upset.

Do not take it personally, everyone here gets stoned.

Jeffrey Gibson

And then there are people who will post long and absolutely uninformed critiques of things they have not read and who will lay claim to knowledge and linguistic skills they do not possess.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

Sounds a lot like superstition to me. Why does 'life' need to celebrated?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gurugeorge

The question, Jeffrey, is the cash value of wholly relative terms like "uninformed", "knowledge" and "linguistic skills" in the context of discussions on a part-public, part-scholarly forum like BC&H, and the degree to which your admirable monomania for intellectual rigour is relevant, versus the degree to which it's simply an irritating distraction, in the context of exchanges of ideas between scholars and interested laypeople.

Sometimes it's highly appropriate. Other times you just remind me of Cato the Elder

Alesiah

Some of the gods born in December are listed in this post. Didn't you read it?

http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/AB-Solstice.php

OK, I'll use scholarly sites....I can understand the request... I'm in the medical/dental field and that's all we use for research....

This is a long thread..I didn't read all the posts here on this Horus/Jesus topic so you'll have to direct me to read any counters.. For example, staying on topic...wasn't Horus one of the December born gods...and born of a virgin mother....

We have the story of "Isis and Osiris" yet, Horus's mother, seemed to be identified as the goddess Neith, a virgin mother and Neith worship dates back some 7000 years...In the Book of the Dead, chapter 66..... Stated: I know that I have been conceived by Sechit and that I am born of Neith..

BTW, if I don't answer quickly it's because I'm caring for my husband who has last stage lung cancer...and no he never smoked...
In other words, if I'm silent it's not because I don't have an answer, it's because I have limited time....

Jeffrey Gibson

No I didn't -- largely because I asked you to give me the names of these gods. I did not ask to be sent to a site where I had to hunt for them.

On top of that, both Andrew and I have asked you to tell us where in the primary sources the stories which speak of several gods being born conceived in Spring and born in December can be found. The site you sent me too doesn't say. Not a single one of its claims is backed up with a reference to or citation of a primary source.

Umm ... that's what we've asked you to document.


My condolences.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

There is no credulous belief in or reverence for supernatural entities described. :huh: Sounds like a recognition of our place in the world symbolized by a change in the day:night ratio indicating the coming spring.

I guess it doesn't if one is so depressed and unhappy that it doesn't seem like a wonderful, albeit short, unearned opportunity.

I thought having Jesus in your heart was supposed to make one happy. :devil1:

CartesianFart

This thread goes nowhere. It is as something of a person coming in here trying to either support or deny the established proposition that there is a similarity of the character of Jesus and Horus, when in fact the mere word "coincidence" is not even being considered. I would say that if a person A wants to assert the notion that the historical Jesus character is a hybrid of other historical Characters, is in fact doing what his will wants him to do: that is to denounce the legitimacy of the existance of the historical man named Jesus, Christianity, Religion, or all of them for his own ideological purpose.

Anyone can make anything similar. It takes a clever man to do it, and a stupid person to be bedazzled by the ideal aspect of it.

Toto

Hi Cartesian - not all threads sparkle with intellectual brilliance. Our apologies.

If you don't find the word "coincidence" it might be because all of the participants know that is the default position.

But what is this "legitimacy" of which you speak?