Zwaarddijk

Why should I have any say on that?

tanya

ok.

Let's turn it around, so you can observe how this sentiment appears, at least to me:

What's the best reason to bother reading anything written by Stephan Huller on this forum? You know that half of it will be either scatological else overtly sexist, and the other half will be about Alexandria and Clement. Sprinkle a little Marcion here and there, and voila: what's the point? Why bother reading him?

See, I don't like this kind of derogatory summary.

There are elements of truth there, but the real fact is, Stephan Huller is a guy with a lot to contribute, to the substance of this forum. He offers a unique perspective, and 6/10 threads, to which he contributes, I learn something by reading his submissions.

Sometimes he makes me laugh. That's not a bad thing. Why not? No reason to be always so unfriendly. Ok, his idea of jocularity inevitably involves something demeaning about women, but, he's not always wrong, even then. For example, the business about Acharya S entering an all male club. This is not completely far fetched, is it?

So, I for one, do not think ill of Stephan, though, I acknowledge we may well be walking on different sides of the street, when attending the same congress somewhere.....

I simply think it wrong, on this forum, to bad mouth another participant, unjustly. I want Stephan to quote Acharya S., showing me, as he does so well, with Clement, HOW she errs, in what way her references omit important scholarship, WHICH new studies contradict her findings. I need a concrete example, no more palaver.

I would find that far more informative than asking how her book will assist us in understanding Christianity. Would Stephan prefer to read Journey of a Soul (or via: amazon.co.uk) to learn about Christianity?

Toto

Leave humor to the professionals.

I don't know if any of her books would help you understand Christianity. Christianity has been a big success as a religion because it can adept itself to any situation and absorb cultural influences like a sponge. You've seen how hard it is to pin down anyone as to what it really is.

Acharya S has a theory of Christian origins that seems to resonate with a lot of readers.

There are some people here who think that Acharya is influential enough to care about whether what she says is correct. If you disagree, you probably have better things to do with your time.

Toto

The thread is about your blog.

But if it turns into personal comments, it might be closed or removed from this forum.

stephan huller

So the answer is she's influential. Fair enough

Toto

She says she's influential. GDon says she's better at self promotion than Doherty.

She was interviewed in Atwill's documentary, although it was never clear why.

aa5874

Please, don't don't make us laugh. Your claims about the success of Christianity is based on imagination. You seem to have forgotten about Constantine.

When was Christianity a success?? What year??

Against the Galileans It is like everybody agrees with Ehrman, and Doherty. Come on, Toto you are just posting rhetoric.

GakuseiDon

Probably Atwill thought it would add credibility to his documentary. She already has a name out there, so provides a ready-made audience. I guess that is also why Doherty and Dr Price said such nice things about her work.

Interestingly, Acharya S rejects Atwill's theory. She writes here (my bold below):
http://freethoughtnation.com/contrib...ah-thesis.html

I do concur [with Atwill] that Christianity was created significantly for political reasons, but there is no scientific evidence that the canonical gospels were written by any Flavians, whether Josephus or otherwise, as they do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the last half of the second century. The works of Josephus factor into the picture when the author of Luke-Acts apparently uses them in order to flesh out the tale with "real history."

Yes, as one can see, I do not go around smearing and sullying the reputation of other scholars and mythicists with calumny and libel, as others have done to me, mendaciously and dishonestly pretending to be experts on my work without even having read it. One of my goals in doing this work, in fact, is to bring people together in a sense of intellectual exchange, rather than the typical competition that we see so abundantly and that has gotten us nowhere...

In this quest to unravel Christian origins, the evidence leads us to factor in the biographical details of many individuals, both historical and mythical. This compilation includes not just one emperor/caesar but several, such as Julius Caesar (100-44 BCE) and Caesar Augustus (63 BCE-14 AD/CE), both of whom were likewise considered to be saviors or "messiahs," the Greek epithet being soter. Many other historical figures such as Ptolemy Soter bore this epithet of "savior" or "messiah," and many gods were likewise called "Savior," such as Dionysus and Serapis. Their "biographical" details must also be included in this analysis, as must be those of Horus, Mithra, Attis, Buddha and numerous other figures, not a few of whom resolve themselves to sun gods.

Decades earlier than the time of emperor Titus, some of the "biographical" details attached to the story of Jesus were circulating about the previous emperors Julius and Augustus Caesar...

The bottom line is that a fairly small percentage, if any, of the Titus biography was used in the creation of the gospel story and that the Flavians, including Josephus, did not compose the canonical gospels as we have them.

and

... a few of the biographical details are similar between Vespasian/Titus and Jesus, leading to the notion that the Chrestos movement at the end of the first century may have had to do with the Flavians...

What it appears happened is that by the end of the second century, the Chrestos movement had been intertwined with the Christos faction, so that would explain the very few "biographical" details that might have come from Vespasian/Titus.

So there you go. The Gospel writers used bits from Vespasian/Titus, Augustus, Julius Caesar, Dionysus, Serapis, Horus, Mithra, Attis, Buddha and numerous other figures, like Beddr(o?)u of Japan and Deva Tat of Siam, not to mention Thor, Balder, and a host of others from the wonderful world of Kersey Graves. Throw in the Pygmies, the sky people, the works of Josephus, Gospel stories derived from the OT as well as from astrotheology, including the movement of the stars and planets and the Zodiac, and, bloody hell! those guys were busy! Also add in influences from Homer as required. Did I leave anyone out?

aa5874

Yes, you left out a lot. You don't know what you are talking about. Please just go and get familiar with Greek/Roman mythology.

You forgot Zeus, Perseus and Danae.

You forgot the Sons of Jupiter, Mercury, Bacchus, Hercules, the Sons of Leda and Dioscuri, or Bellerophon who ascended to heaven on Pegasus.

You forgot to tell us what Ancient thought about the Jesus story.

Did you not say you were interested in what Ancient thought??

Like Acharya S, Ancient Jews thought the Jesus story was indeed a Greek/Roman Fable.

Examine Dialogue with Trypho LXVIII Jesus and Perseus were born of a virgin.

Like Acharya S, the Ancient Christian Justin Martyr admitted the Jesus story was nothing different to Greek/Roman Fables.


First Apology You need to understand that the very Ancient Greeks and Romans worshiped Mythological Gods born of virgins, born of mortals, that ascended to heaven.

Jesus was probably the best Myth Fable known to the Ancients.

Acharya S appears to be RIGHT based on Ancient Sources.

Ehrman is dead wrong.

The Jesus character appears to be a Greek/Roman Myth.

Jesus was born of a virgin, the Son of God, that ascended to heaven.

Have I forgotten anything??

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God the Creator. See Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

Gakuseidon, tell us what Ancients thought about the Jesus story.

Tell us about the thoughts of the Ancients like Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius.

They all thought Jesus was a Son of a God.

Vorkosigan

Literature always has extensive resonances and influences. Your sarcasm is basically an announcement that you don't understand.