GakuseiDon

The problem here, though, is that there ARE reasons for why a Christian would be prone to "flights of fancy" to find similarities. Many Christians in the 19th C WANTED to show commonalities between religions, to show that "all was one".

I just don't see you factoring their bias into account. But, the bottom line is that you shouldn't have to. If those 19th C authors gave their primary sources, you can use those sources. If they didn't, then you use their claims at your risk. As one reviewer writes of your "Suns of God" (my emphasis):

"Again and again, Acharya finds herself hemmed in by old writers who never elevated their claims above the level of hearsay (as she herself points out)... Lundy, Higgins, Inman, Graves, Doane, etc., they all claim they have read or heard this or that, but none of them can site a single source document. Acharya seems generously inclined to believe them. I don't... [D]id they get rid of all the evidence only after Doane, Graves, and the others had managed to see it? It is not that I distrust these old researchers. It's just that I cannot agree or disagree with their evaluation of evidence they do not share with me."

If they list their sources, then why not use them? And if they don't, how do you know that you can trust them? You call them "pious Christians" in your work, but don't appear to recognise that this may be a reason FOR them to indulge in flights of fancy.

ApostateAbe

The order matters in this case. If parallels are claimed, then parallels they need to be. It is not enough to just imagine them.

schilling.klaus

no, it doesn't, only apologistic charlatans claim that it does.

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

I think it should be pointed out that the conclusion that Sharpe was knowledgeable at all, let alone "extremely" knowledgeable about Christian history and doctrine does not follow from the fact, if fact it is, that Sharpe was a good Egyptologist.

The degree of his knowledge about Christian history and doctrine can only be ascertained by an examination of what he has to say about those subjects, not what he said about matters Egyptian.


Umm, what?? In which of the earliest manuscripts of Matthew do Matt. 1-2 not appear?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm sure Richard Carrier will be interested to know that he is "an apologist(ic) charlatan".

In any case, Klaus, why should anybody accept as true anything you claim?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

Is this how you guys welcome the nice lady to BC & H? You cannot even leave her with something to hold on to, even if her work is clearly manure? Be nice.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd be grateful if you could point out any post here that contains "the irrational hysteria and vitriol" against you that you speak of, let alone (and more importantly) that comes close in character, form, tenor, and tone to the attack against IIDB members that you engaged in here.

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

No Robots

I only meant that your position has some thought behind it, not that it has any real merit. After all, how many gods weep?

Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. Did anyone else's irony meter just break?

Jeffrey

ApostateAbe

The order matters. If the visit from the god happens after the pregnancy has already occurred, then there is, like, not nearly the parallel that Acharya S claims. If Acharya S claims an order of events in Egyptian mythology, and the facts do not check out, then we need an explanation.