Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-02-2009, 06:27 PM

I always knew Jeffrey Gibson were one of them Christians.

spin · 12-02-2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I am a what???

Brownie points to the best response in 100 words or less. (Decorous responses only, please.)

Dr spin

JoeWallack · 12-02-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

It's amazing how avowed Christians like, for example, GakuseiDon, Roger & Jeffrey, can hold onto ridiculous beliefs among you all, but you never harp on them. You only go after Acharya S, a female author who doesn't believe that a Jewish guy 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin, raised people from the dead, walked on water, himself rose from the dead and flew off into heaven - as GD, Roger and Jeffrey believe. Meanwhile, you attempt to ridicule Acharya, who doesn't believe these ridiculous things which have no credible evidence to substantiate the claims at all. Ever heard of people throwing rocks at glass houses? You guys are on absolutely no moral high ground whatsoever - and *THAT* is what's really funny here.

JW:
Well this is where you are right Dave, except that Jeffrey is a Right Reverent Agnostic (fully expecting Jeffrey to "correct" the grammar). For Christ's sake, will someone please explain to me why it's okay to call AS a crank and not Roger and GD when they are the ones who believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying?

That being said the difference is when Roger and GD claim the Impossible, no one here cares what their evidence is for it. On the other hand, when AS makes Possible claims, people here do care what her evidence is. AS' problem, not confined to her, is that she resists criticism. This prevents her scholarship from being better than her. Case in point is the Birth Narrative at Luxor. She did not know (even after writing books on the subject) that the wall carvings are accompanied by hieroglyphics which explain the carvings. After she found out by coming here to try and defend herself she never admitted that she did not know there were hieroglyphics. This misleads fans like you. This put you in the ridiculous position of thinking she has some significant criticism of Dr. Carrier that is being ignored. She just needs to read Brunner's book and add the hieroglyphic information to her analysis. The scholarly question is where is the better parallel to the Infancy Narratives, the Jewish Bible or Luxor? The potential reward is huge and Christian Bible scholarship assumes the Jewish Bible is the answer. AS has the huge advantage that her conclusion is correct. Luxor is an exponentially better parallel than the Jewish Bible. She just needs to demonstrate it. She better hurry up or I'll have Dr. Carrier do it first. Hint for AS - Brunner wrote in the book that more study is needed as to the significance of Luxor in the development of other religions (hint, hint).

Until AS does this you should stop worrying about AS' criticism of Carrier's English commentary of Brunner's mixed German translation and commentary of Hieroglyphic parallels at Luxor to Hatsheschtup.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Dave31 · 12-02-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

JW "For Christ's sake, will someone please explain to me why it's okay to call AS a crank and not Roger and GD when they are the ones who believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying?"

Bingo!

Quote:

JW "except that Jeffrey is a Right Reverent Agnostic"

I never see him admit his own beliefs... I only see him get anal retentive & attack everybody else. Seems mostly negative & unpleasant IMHO. Jeffrey just comes off as an angry Christian to me.

Quote:

JW "Case in point is the Birth Narrative at Luxor ... This put you in the ridiculous position of thinking she has some significant criticism of Dr. Carrier that is being ignored. She just needs to read Brunner's book and add the hieroglyphic information to her analysis."

Joe, you haven't read Christ in Egypt or even her response to Carrier's Luxor article, have you? She does discuss the wall carvings and accompanied hieroglyphs - she also read Brunners book which is precisely how she found Dr. Carrier's monumental egregious error:

Quote:

"...in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)."

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

Quote:

JW "Hint for AS - Brunner wrote in the book that more study is needed as to the significance of Luxor in the development of other religions (hint, hint)."

She mentions something like that in CIE. Others say something similar ... Budge, for example, in the Preface:

Quote:

"Over a century ago, renowned British Egyptologist Sir Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934), a Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum, as well as a confessed Christian, remarked that a study tracing the "influence of ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and mythology on Christianity" would "fill a comparatively large volume." Since Dr. Budge's time, for a variety of reasons, including the seemingly irreconcilable academic gap between historians and theologians, no one has taken up the call to produce such a volume—until now...."

XIE - Preface
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/ciepreface.html

Quote:

avi "What does matter is the EVIDENCE."

I can agree and that's what she writes about in her books. Someone has created this ZG1 wiki page but, of course, there's much more in her work that could be posted. So, the evidence is there and Acharya S and many others have cited it. The rest is up to others. You can lead of horse to water ...

Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-03-2009, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

For Christ's sake, will someone please explain to me why it's okay to call AS a crank and not Roger and GD when they are the ones who believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying?

I'd be grateful if you could point out where either Roger or GDon have stated that this is something they actually believe.

I'd be even more grateful if you could actually demonstrate that the NT is anywhere intent to proclaim "that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying".

You might be able to make a case that 3rd & 4th century Christians, and certainly post Chalcedon Christians, thought that this was the case. But the writers of the NT??

Jeffrey

dog-on · 12-03-2009, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

For Christ's sake, will someone please explain to me why it's okay to call AS a crank and not Roger and GD when they are the ones who believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying?

I'd be grateful if you could point out where either Roger or GDon have stated that this is something they actually believe.

I'd be even more grateful if you could actually demonstrate that the NT is anywhere intent to proclaim "that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying".

You might be able to make a case that 3rd & 4th century Christians, and certainly post Chalcedon Christians, thought that this was the case. But the writers of the NT??

Jeffrey

You mean before it was fashionable to conflate JtC with GoD?

Are there any of those kinds of Christians left?

Oh yea! Muslims and Jews...

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-03-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'd be grateful if you could point out where either Roger or GDon have stated that this is something they actually believe.

I'd be even more grateful if you could actually demonstrate that the NT is anywhere intent to proclaim "that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying".

You might be able to make a case that 3rd & 4th century Christians, and certainly post Chalcedon Christians, thought that this was the case. But the writers of the NT??

Jeffrey

You mean before it was fashionable to conflate JtC with GoD?

What I meant (and mean) was perfectly clear. Now perhaps you'd like to say something substantive on the issue? Where does any NT writer proclaim "that god sacrificed himself to himself" for any purpose, let alone "in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying"?.

Jeffrey

dog-on · 12-03-2009, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You mean before it was fashionable to conflate JtC with GoD?

What I meant (and mean) was perfectly clear. Now perhaps you'd like to say something substantive on the issue? Where does any NT writer proclaim "that god sacrificed himself to himself, let alone in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying"?.

Jeffrey

Why would they when it was not yet the rage to conflate Jesus with God.

The grim circle of death only appears later, at least based on my understanding of the timeline.

On the other hand, Christians can quote you chapter and verse...

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-03-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What I meant (and mean) was perfectly clear. Now perhaps you'd like to say something substantive on the issue? Where does any NT writer proclaim "that god sacrificed himself to himself, let alone in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying"?.

Jeffrey

Why would they when it was not yet the rage to conflate Jesus with God.

The rage?? Are you saying that proclamations about Jesus being true God and true man such as we find being issued at Chalcedon were merely the result of a fad?

In any case, may I take you then as saying that Joe is wrong in his (implied) assertion that the NT proclaims "that god sacrificed himself to himself", let alone "in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying"?

Jeffrey

dog-on · 12-03-2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Why would they when it was not yet the rage to conflate Jesus with God.

The rage?? Are you saying that proclamations about Jesus being true God and true man such as we find being issued at Chalcedon were merely the result of a fad?

In any case, may I take you then as saying that Joe is wrong in his (implied) assertion that the NT proclaims "that god sacrificed himself to himself", let alone "in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying"?

Jeffrey

No Joe is not wrong, but Christians, whose argument he is spoofing, obviously are.

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

12-02-2009, 06:27 PM	#31
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I always knew Jeffrey Gibson were one of them Christians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.