aa5874

No, No, No!!! We have RECOVERED Codices and Manuscripts from the 2nd century and later.

We no longer have to speculate.

The Jesus stories that have been recovered and dated have CLEARLY described Jesus as the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator, the Son of God who was on the Temple with Satan, Walked on sea water, Transfigured, Resurrected, Ate Food afterwards and then Ascended.

We do NOT need to speculate ---Jesus was a Mythological BS character in the Recovered Dated Codices and manuscripts.

This is NOT speculation--This is the BS that people of antiquity Believe even up to now.

Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18 KJV This is NOT Speculation---The Jesus story was a Myth Fable based on the actual Recovered dated evidence.

Those who claim Jesus was a human with a human father are Speculating. Nothing has ever been actualy recovered and dated to support the HJ claimants.

tanya

What?

Chaucer: you call this scholarship?

Absurd.

She has "shoddy referencing", but YOU will not provide a precise location where her sinful activity has occurred?

:huh:

tanya

1. Egypt with Horus, 25th century BCE, 4,500 years before present day;

2. Persia with Mithra, 5th century BCE, 2,500 years before present day;

3. Phrygia with Attis, 1200 BCE, 3,200 years before present day;

4. India with Krishna, 4th century BCE, 2,400 years before present day;

four names, four cultures, four civilizations. What do they share in common, Student Don?

They were all kingdoms, established long before the Roman Empire.

Since you claim to understand the distinction between "pseudo scholarship" and genuine scholarship, I anticipate your link to any source, refuting any of these four "deities", exposed as "historically untenable". A link to a blog isn't going to cut it. I need a document demonstrating that the attribution to supernatural powers of any one of these four figures of "history", based, as I understand it, on stone carvings, or statues, or monuments, NOT TEXT, is false, BECAUSE of ....., with a non-pseudoscholarly inquiry, based on reexamination of ancient treasures, else new excavations conducted with transparency. Show me the data. I don't think you have any. I doubt you have even ONE reference to repudiate the notion that these four figures of ancient history represented similar concepts including post mortem resurrection.

aa5874

Gakuseidon, you are really wasting time. Ehrman has written the very worse Argument for an Historical Jesus in "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman has confirmed that a human Jesus is a massive conspiracy theory where virtually everybody knew Jesus was a man with a human father and that he was dead but still believed their OWN lies for hundreds of years.

If thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans then HJers cannot explain how Jesus was singled out as a God by Jews who do NOT worship men as Gods.

Acharya S has rightly declared that Jesus was a Myth based on the actual evidence found in the NT.

Do you NOT see that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost in Matthew 1.18 and Lukw 1.26-35.

Do you NOT see that Jesus was in the beginning and was God in John 1.1.

That is Mythology--That is Jesus.

Ehrman use Myth Fables as history for his Jesus--Not Acharya S.

In the Myth Fables called Gospels--Jesus has more than a Pie in the Sky.

Jesus is building MANSIONS in the Sky.

Ehrman is a Myth Fable "historian".

John 14:2 KJV Why would Jesus lie about the mansions in heaven??

Please, the HJ argument is just a massive conspiracy theory.

Zwaarddijk

Duly note that I provide the chapter, and even the subheading of the chapter - it takes what, all of three minutes to verify that my quotations are correct - also, duly note that I provide a lot of direct quotations from her books, and anything not directly quoted will be in the close vicinity of the direct quotes.

Compare the effort you have to go if you want to check the quality of my quotations to the effort I had to go to even to start checking the veracity of the claim of British Columbian natives calling the sun "sin" - compile a list of languages spoken by first nations in British Columbia, (which it turns out is just shy of two dozen), then go on a hunt for dictionaries. Many libraries, btw, do not let people borrow dictionaries at all - you have to physically be present to read them. Which basically means I should figure out the history of the orthographies of all these languages first, figure out potential changes in the orthography since wherever she got her claim from recorded it (and since many of them only recently, if at all, have gotten standard orthographies, it's possible "sin" in some of them now would be written sn, sxn, swn, syn, ... ... who knows what all forms it might take by now. If I look it up in the English to Native part of the dictionary, this can be objected to by saying 'oh, but it's not the common word for sun, so not one you would expect at the English entry', so the only really reasonable way is to check every potential candidate word in all of two dozen languages. So there, she creates a hell of a burden for me if I want to verify things.

AM I NOT ENTITLED TO DO THE SAME TO YOU, tanya?

ISN'T THAT SOMETHING? If you'd pay me to do it, I would do it. AND YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HAVING TO READ A BIT OF A CHAPTER?

How the hell is it ok for Acharya to do what she does, but when I do a minuscule thing in imitation - viz. force the reader who wants to check whether I am misrepresenting her to read maybe a couple dozen pages of hers - you piss and moan about it? Why don't you piss and moan about Acharya doing it then? Why do different standards apply for her and for me? Is it perchance that by subjecting readers that want to scrutinize me to such a comparably small hurdle to climb, you realize what crazy hurdles I need to climb to fact-check Acharya, and this realization hurts?

And still you haven't cared to comment on the genuine problems there. The fact that she doesn't mention which language it is in is already such a frustrating thing the do that I'm almost angry.

Now, Tanya, deal with the actual arguments I present, don't just piss and moan about inconsequential details. I am not the one selling a book to credulous people willing to be parted from their money here.

Also, the little bullshit piece you quote that pretends to make it ok that there's missing sources, there's fabrications about Irish, etc etc, is about a book she says is comparable to a PhD dissertation. PhD theses are, you know, scrutinized. An opponent tries to catch any slip-up during the dissertation, to show the thesis does not fulfill the requirements of a PhD. Just see her own statement as to the value of Suns of God:

"As concerns my credentials and continuing education, I would like to consider my books Suns of God and Christ in Egypt in particular a PhD thesis in the subjects of comparative religion and astrotheology. In this regard, I sincerely hope that these important subjects become increasingly popular and taught in colleges and universities, and that others may be able to obtain relevant and appropriate credentials therein."
- Acharya S, http://www.truthbeknown.com/credenti...l#.UHVxKRnRHrc

I admit the chapter I mostly dealt with in that particular post was from The Christ Conspiracy, but similar flaws are present throughout Suns of God.

Roger Pearse

I think the most recent book is considerably better. It seems to me that she started out by just heaping up quotations from whatever book, mostly modern, suited her theory, without realising that she needed to check the sources, and think about whether the "source" was worth quoting or whether it actually worked against her.

Your quote is useful too. It means that Acharya S has no idea what is involved in a PhD thesis.

My own impression is of an uneducated woman who nevertheless is trying to lift herself by her own bootstraps and produce a work which will stand examination. That is praiseworthy. Unfortunately her motivation is that of a crank, desperate to rubbish something, rather than someone in love with learning for its own sake. If she was reading around the subject for love, rather than hate, she wouldn't fall into these pit-traps, because she would get the broader picture that she lacks. The question she has never asked is "how do we find out what happened in ancient times?" rather than "can I find something which will do down the Christians?" Perhaps you have to love history to do history.

Of course I say "hate"; in reality, I fear, we are merely dealing with a poor woman who has been debauched in obedience to the spirit of the age, and is now merely trying to rationalise away a bad conscience, rather than going back and dealing with the sin and the consequences. If so, we should feel sorry for her. Anyway, I always find it tedious dealing with arguments mainly based on someone's genitals. The arguments tend to be, erm, balls.

(That punchline took quite a bit of setting up, so I'll thank you to applaud ).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Please, you are just posting a load of BS.

You are on a smear campaign. Acharya S is NOT an uneducated woman.

It is most amusing that the very people who accept the Myth Fables in the NT as history and may be praying to Jesus for salvation are attempting to ridicule others who are trying to help them to understand that even the earliest Christians claimed Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen--they all admitted Jesus was Fathered by a Holy Ghost of God.

Please, don't waste time with your BS.

It is documented and published in antiquity that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and like the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans.

Examine the writings of Justin Martyr. Acharya S is CORRECT. The Jesus story is a Myth Fable.

First Apology CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. .

Acharya S is CORRECT. The Jesus story was a MYTH Fable and known as a Myth since the 2nd century.


Dialogue with Trypho Acharya S is CORRECT. The Jesus story is a Myth Fable.

It is a Fiction of men composed by wickedness.

"Against the Galileans" Acharya S is CORRECT. Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources of antiquity admit the Jesus was story was a Myth Fable.

Jesus was an "IT" according to Origen.

Origen's De Principiis The Jesus story is a Monstrous Myth Fable.

Yes, "IT" was a Myth indeed.

Iskander

Drinking human blood and eating human flesh does something ugly to the mind of men.


The son born of no mother to a virginal god becomes the son born of no father to a virginal woman to take the place of Isaac.

Acharya S is a great deal more humane, educated and honest that the sadistic inventors of the Vatican and their cattle farm.

Rearing cattle for profit.

-From conception a claim of ownership is made: original sin

-The young is branded: baptism

-Masochism is introduced to train the animal: confession of sins at age seven!

-Special addictive food is given to ensure obedience: blood and flesh at age seven!

-Punish-reward is introduced to keep control: confession of mortal sins to priest

-The carcass is sold for profit: purgatory

Iskander

This is a deeply insulting outburst and this forum shouldn’t be the place to do it.


I fear we are only dealing with a poor church which has been debauched in obedience to the spirit of the masturbatory celibacy.


The Roman Catholic Church in the Australian state of Victoria has confirmed that more than 600 children have been sexually abused by its priests since the 1930s


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19683925

outhouse

or simply put


she has no credibility in the field, and with the work she has produced, this isnt about to change the fact.