Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:30 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:13 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
GodAlmighty wrote:
that would include folks like Joseph Campbell, would it not?

Yes. The undercurrent here, as I read it, jumping back to consider the big picture, is that mainstream academia has established criteria for respectability and reputation which owe their origin to established unspoken philosophical assumptions of the scientific enlightenment. A massive part of this set of assumptions is that the 'hermetic' methods of earlier thought are rejected a priori as irrational, so anyone who takes hermetic ideas seriously, through a non-disdainful analysis of Egyptian myth for example, has to be hounded out of polite society as a scapegoat. Writers like Campbell and Carl Jung, and also the nineteenth century scholars who argue for Egyptian sourcing of Christian myth, are excluded from academic discussion on this flimsy basis, simply because they take the hermetic traditions seriously. Discussing taboo topics places any scholarly career in peril.

Just looking at Kersey Graves as an example, it seems clear that the real objection to his work was his assertion that Jesus Christ has a mythical archetypal continuity with earlier god men. Speculative errors he may have repeated are just used as excuses to draw attention away from his big ideas.

The back story here is that Carrier is trying to signal to prospective university employers that although he is interested in speculative alternative theology, this does not extend to any genuinely heretical ideas. So, he aims to systematically traduce Murdock for taking seriously the argument that deeply held assumptions of Western Civilization may be groundless. You can see how the emotive bigots pile on at Carrier's blog, with comments alleging Murdock is some sort of corrupt would-be guru. All Murdock is doing here is to follow the evidence trail, and seeking the bare minimum of polite respect and dialogue instead of insane defamation. Carrier started it by calling all analysis of Egyptian parallels in the nativity stories "mania", hardly calculated to open a respectful collegiate conversation.

One toadying comment says mockingly "Carrier is making a big mistake by alienating Murdock." Yes he is making a big mistake, simply because the quality of his scholarship is so weak compared to hers, he focuses on small issues and misses the big picture, he ends up looking like an ignorant suckup, and he forgoes the opportunity to learn something and encourages others to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:30 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
I went to Carrier's blog and pointed out that he's stumbled into more error this go around. He accuses Murdock of suggesting that Luxor was re-written and totally different than the previous nativity scene. She never said that. That was a complete straw man that he won't let go. He has a link to the very response she made here which has a detailed break down of the out of Egypt theory. It's not like everyone can't see that he'd raised a straw man. I pointed out that she's said all along, in her work, that the Luxor inscription simply left out the bulk of the "sexy" parts. And then the "sexy" parts became more and more absent in birth houses as the popped up going into the first century and beyond.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
I finally read some of that last (?) hate-speech spewed by Carrier - some nasty person posted it on PZ Myers's blog link to my "Phallic Savior" article.

I should say that Carrier's demented trash psychoanalyzing me for having the audacity to point out HIS BLUNDERS constitutes DEFAMATION. The man's frankly a disgrace, and I'm fed up with it. He picks a fight with me, makes mistakes, and when I point out his errors - which no "real scholar" should make - he attacks me personally with all manner of sleazy and vicious misogynistic trash.

If you ask me, this stranglehold of academia represents the real "Revenge of the Nerds." The arrogance, conceit and discrimination in the hallowed halls is APPALLING. These personality problems seem to be commensurate with the amount of wedgies these nerds got in high school.

It is because of THIS unpleasant type of BULLY that I did not pursue my studies and obtain a Master's and PhD. I simply did not want to be around such sociopathic individuals.

In the meantime, while Carrier's ranting like a depraved madman, he STILL made the mistakes and is incorrect in his Judeo-Greek parallelomania.

Here's one a fan on Facebook writes about this fracas:

Quote:
Barb Iversen: ...there are some ppl who need to bash others in order to build themselves up. pitiful, pitiful, pitiful. you are the supreme scholar - in fact, you've sent the standard of what historical research is! i'm so impressed with you that i didn't dare write a book bc i knew i could never come close to the scholarly work you have done. this surprises me to no end that YOU, of all ppl, could have ANY naysayers. you rock, girl! don't let anyone tell you different. ♥ ♥

Here is my little diatribe called "Academiafascism."

Let's speak about the academiafascists, the sociopaths who occupy the hallowed halls of academia and make sure no one else is let in. Who disparage people because they've rejected the academiafascist process and struck out on their own. Who exact their "Revenge of the Nerds" on society by becoming the bullies themselves, displaying arrogance and conceit commensurate with the wedgies they received in high school.

I'm constantly assailed by academiafascists. I can name two who have been vomiting all over me lately, waving their little pea shooters around and lobbing stink bombs over my fence, before running away. I keep catching them, but they bring back their bigoted buddies and throw more stink bombs at me.

The hallowed halls have become hollow hells.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:02 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
While I like PZ as a science professor, PZ followers can be a pretty tough, among other things. They can't or won't believe they are the other side of the coin of Fundamngelicals. They often act just like religious Fundamngelicals, except they are the atheist version. Not all atheists are like them though. Trust me, I was called everything from an asshat (that's funny) to worse over an article I wrote.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:20 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Acharya wrote:
These personality problems seem to be commensurate with the amount of wedgies these nerds got in high school.

:lol:

I can only image what kind of dorks little Errier and Errorman were in school. Looks like they're trying to be tough now and lay down the law.

But all for naught....


_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
I'm glad to hear I'm not alone, Mriana. There seem to be fundamentalists Christians in there as well. Whatever they are, they certainly are hateful and nasty. Giving freethought and atheism a bad name - just what we need.

And, of course, someone on Bob Price's FB page had to make disparaging remarks about all the odd comments on my blog. 'Tis true that I don't attract public remarks from many of the numerous pastors, priests, seminarians and scholars who have told me they read my work - some of them are too frightened, even though they can post anonymously. Instead, the more, shall we say, "spiritual" people tend to post there. What can I say? I wasn't meant to be a snooty academiafascist who looks down upon the unwashed masses. I like - and AM one of - the "little people."

LOL, Tat!

And this Scientific American article might explain the insane rubbish being spewed at me by the academiafascists as well:

Why Interacting with a Woman Can Leave Men 'Cognitively Impaired'

Quote:
Movies and television shows are full of scenes where a man tries unsuccessfully to interact with a pretty woman. In many cases, the potential suitor ends up acting foolishly despite his best attempts to impress. It seems like his brain isn’t working quite properly and according to new findings, it may not be.

Researchers have begun to explore the cognitive impairment that men experience before and after interacting with women. A 2009 study demonstrated that after a short interaction with an attractive woman, men experienced a decline in mental performance. A more recent study suggests that this cognitive impairment takes hold even when men simply anticipate interacting with a woman who they know very little about....

:twisted:

Sometimes I feel like I've got an annoying little dog constantly humping my leg...



Here's a worthy quote from a friend on FB - notice how she finally saw through the unseemly efforts at silencing me through defamation.

Quote:
Liz Snow: I used to be dumb in the past and I didn't take a chance on your books because I listened to awful things people said and gave you a bad reputation.But recently I have read many of your books and I loved them all a lot:) You write in a simple fun way for the average person to understand. But your work is excellently referenced. Thank you Acharya S for helping me to realize how sexist men can be to women historians and its important to read controversial books on my own instead of only reading negative reviews about a book. I do regret not reading your books sooner because you are now one of my favorite authors:)

Here is why I am attacked by fellow mythicists and other nonbelievers - like I say, jealousy. They can only hope to have that kind of impact. Transparent as glass - and they should not be allowed to get away with their despicable defamation trying to prevent women like this one from reading my books. For shame!

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:41 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
There is much room for analysis of subconscious motives in this strange debate.

It should be a simple matter of intellectual respect and politeness for Richard Carrier to engage in discussion of differences of opinion with DM Murdock about the influence of Egypt on Christian myth.

But no, Carrier has apparently assessed that his reputation can best be enhanced by distancing himself from Murdock by using the most aggressive, rude and violent language possible. Murdock is hardly presenting ideas that are flagrantly wrong, and in fact on investigation it appears that her end of the specific debate is correct. This in itself gives grounds for worry about Carrier's mental stability, self-awareness and honesty.

To say, as he did, that anyone who argues for Egyptian influence on the birth narratives is guilty of "mania", and then to follow this up with florid attacks on the sanity of those who question this violent language, calling Acharya "paranoid" and refusing to resile from this aggressive and baseless slur, is entirely uncalled for in collegiate intellectual debate.

There is obviously something else going on here, some hidden agenda, whether conscious or unconscious. I think Acharya has explained it well by asking about the role of misogyny. Feminism is a big issue for the Christ Myth Theory. The myth of the historical Jesus was used by the church as the basis for its patriarchal dogma, its elevation of Mary into an imaginary virgin mother, and its overall use of obscurantist supernatural claims to justify an oppressive social order and moral theology of body and spirit centered on ideas about sexuality and sin. These ideas have a metaphysical psychology, operating at deep cultural symbolic level.

There may well be a temptation for those seeking academic respect to think to themselves, lets leave the patriarchal theology to one side, and just focus on narrow problems of historiography. Such people will object to anyone who sees the deeper philosophical cultural problems as central.

I get the impression that Carrier sees the debate in a testosterone-charged framework in which bigger questions of cosmology, psychology, philosophy and culture are ruled out. His objection to Acharya seems to be about her assertion that these big questions are important. So the Luxor question functions partly as a symbol for some unspoken deeper questions about cultural and personal positioning.

When Carrier began his tirade by the flat assertion that there are no possible Egyptian influences on the Gospel Birth Narratives, and then pompously and rudely responded "Go away" when I politely asked him about this, it really made me wonder what is going on. It seems Richard thinks he has a comprehensive explanation that excludes Egypt. That is just absurd, but it may help to explain the outbursts of irrational rage that he uses in place of conversation.

There are a range of Egyptian typologies in the birth narratives, from Isis as the perpetual virgin, to the holy family, to the comparison with Moses in the massacre of the innocents. The Luxor diagrams expand this by showing the strong continuity of motifs such as the annunciation. I still plan to go back through this material in more detail, as it is an intriguing piece of subterranean conflict emerging into view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:27 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
tat tvam asi wrote:
I don’t know Richard, you seem to have a knee jerk reaction type of response which opens the door to stacking more error as you go along. She clearly laid out a situation where The oldest birth cycle inscription included some “sexy” parts, about century later Amenhotep III repeated the older birth sequence leaving the bulk of the “sexy” parts out. And from there many Greco-Roman nativity type birth cycles follow behind these older Egyptian ones and continued right into the common era and beyond. And she feels that this evolution of nativity scenes starting in Egyptian may have influenced the gospel effort, especially in light of the mountain of evidence she presented in CiE for Alexandrian origins through Philo’s “Therapeutae” and the various “collegia” brotherhood network spread throughout the entire region.

This is hardly grounds for you to then respond that Murdock thinks that Amenhotep III complete re-wrote the older nativity scene. You are in fact beating away at a straw man in this case, wildly swinging at that. Just calm down. Take a breath. Leaving out the bulk of the “sexy” parts of the older inscription in no way constitutes suggesting that it was re-written. And through this you continue to miss the point which is that over time there was a tendency to present these birth cycles ‘without sexual’ intercourse. Finally, arriving at the gospel myths, we find the result of an evolution starting in Egypt and spreading around where kings were conceived by a God and less sexual in nature through time. That’s what she had already presented in her books.


Richard Errier wrote:
tat tvam asi: She clearly laid out a situation where The oldest birth cycle inscription included some “sexy” parts, about century later Amenhotep III repeated the older birth sequence leaving the bulk of the “sexy” parts out.

He did not, though. The long redaction is already coy; the short redaction is simply an abbreviation of the same coy narrative, and has proportionally as many hints as before (as I quoted an example of). All the differences between them can be explained by simply that fact: abbreviation. By contrast, so radically changing the fundamental character of the story (from sexual to asexual conception) would require explicitly stating what has changed, not simply abbreviating it. As otherwise anyone of the time who read the short redaction would understand it in light of the long one, the latter being already the one most familiar and established. Her theory therefore defies all probabilities. That it is based on additional speculations only makes it less likely. Because by comparison, my theory (which every Egyptologist agrees with) requires none.

And she feels that this evolution of nativity scenes starting in Egyptian may have influenced the gospel effort, especially in light of the mountain of evidence she presented in CiE for Alexandrian origins through Philo’s “Therapeutae” and the various “collegia” brotherhood network spread throughout the entire region.

I am not getting into what’s wrong with all of the latter; it’s just more bad methodology. And like I said, I don’t have time for this nonsense. The only issue here is “may have influenced” is a useless theory (anything “may” have influenced; what we want to know is what did). By contrast, we can show causal and conceptual influence from the OT and surrounding (non-Egyptian) pagan and political teachings to explain every feature of the Gospel nativities. Thus, her theory rests on a vague and unprovable “maybe,” while the more obvious and mainstream theory rests on abundant facts and sound inferences.

This is what I mean by the difference between good and bad methodology. Indeed, had she actually argued a mere “maybe” she would be on stronger footing. But she does not. She insists with absolute certainty that she is right, and everyone who suggests otherwise is an incompetent liar out to get her.

It would actually be fruitful to discuss the plain evidence of Egyptian divine nativities around the era of Christ what the evidence plainly indicates without excess ad hoc assumptions (along the lines of the quality scholarship of Frankfurter’s 1998 Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance), and not speculations or radical new interpretations, but what experts already conclude, from citing current peer reviewed literature or equivalent, then maybe trace this status quo back to Luxor show change over time, and then compare this with other nativity traditions in surrounding cultures (including Jewish, e.g. Moses), to see if any differential influence can be indicated. But she doesn’t do any of this. She relies on hundred year old articles by amateurs declaring certainties, doesn’t summarize the current state of scholarship on key pieces of evidence or Egyptian belief, and she doesn’t test her theory against alternatives (such as that Matthew is weaving adaptations from the narratives of Moses, Balaam, Daniel, and Hellenistic kings, using provably extant Jewish holy spirit and divine son theology).

What a schmuck!!! In other words Errier thinks that she ought to do exactly what she's already done in CiE by showing what well respected Egyptologists already conclude, citing from many current peer reviewed literature or equivalent, and tracing it all back to Luxor showing change over time like I just pointed out to the guy. A simple reading of the book in question would have settled it, I think. But then again Errier has a strange way of "skimming" through information and perhaps the book wouldn't do him any good anyways. I don't know.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:30 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 39
Quote:
(Extracts from) Academic Hypocrisy
By Thomas Sowell


Quote:
When my academic career began, half a century ago, I read up on the academic market and discovered that there was a chronic over-supply of people trained to be historians. There were not nearly enough academic posts available for people who had spent years acquiring Ph.D.s in history, and the few openings that there were for new Ph.D.s paid the kind of salaries you could get for doing work requiring a lot less education.

My own pay as a beginning instructor in economics was not high but it was certainly higher than that for beginning historians.

Now, 50 years later, there is a long feature article in the February 17th issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education on the chronic over-supply of historians. Worse yet, leading university history departments are resisting demands that they keep track of what happens to their students after they get their Ph.D.s — and inform prospective Ph.D.s of what the market is like.

If any business operated this way, selling customers something that was very costly in time and money, and which the sellers knew in advance was almost certain to disappoint their expectations, academics would be bursting with indignation — and demanding full disclosure to the customers, if not criminal prosecutions.

But The Chronicle of Higher Education reports "faculty resistance" to collecting and publishing information on what happens to a university's history Ph.D.s after they leave the ivy-covered walls with high hopes and low prospects.
At a number of big-name universities — Northwestern, Brown and the University of North Carolina's flagship campus at Chapel Hill — at least one-fourth of their 2010 history Ph.D.s are either unemployed or their fate is unknown.

At Brown University, for example, 38 percent of their 2010 Ph.D.s are in that category, compared to only 25 percent who have tenure-track appointments.

For people not familiar with academia, a tenure-track appointment does not mean that the appointee has tenure, but only that the job is one where a tenure decision will have to be made at some point under the "up or out system." At leading universities, far more are put out than move up.

There are also faculty appointments that are strictly for the time being — lecturers, adjunct professors or visiting professors. Half the 2010 Ph.D.s from Duke University and the University of Pennsylvania have these kinds of appointments, which essentially lead nowhere. They are sometimes called "gypsy faculty."

Finally, there are Ph.D.s who are on postdoctoral fellowships, often at the expense of the taxpayers. They are paid to continue on campus, essentially as students, after getting their doctorates. More than one-fourth of the 2010 Ph.D.s from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins and Harvard are in this category.

At least these universities release such statistics. A history professor at Rutgers University who has studied such things says: "If you look at some of the numbers published on department Web sites, they range from dishonest to incompetent."

But apparently many academics are too busy pursuing moral crusades in society at large to look into such things on their own ivy-covered campuses.


Source:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022112.php3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:05 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
Here is a comment I have posted on Carrier's blog.

Richard, you are the one who started your first post on this theme accusing Murdock of "mania". Why do you then complain when she asks why you are out to get her? Will you weasel out of that by saying that trashing somebody's reputation is not trying to get them?

By the way, I was rather mystified by your attempt to explain away the connection between Mary and Isis in the Lazarus story. You state "John is not saying 'Lazarus was Osiris and Mary was Isis.' Rather, he is saying Lazarus and Mary are real and Osiris and Isis are not."

Do you believe that the author of the Gospel of John believed that Jesus was real? If you accept the mythicist hypothesis, would it not make more sense to suggest that the gospel authors were aware that they were writing fiction, and did not realize how literally their words would be taken? At what point do you think the transition from fiction to belief occurred?

It seems to me more likely that in John, Lazarus is a coded symbol for Osiris (through 'el-azar'), giving ongoing life to the old myth. This looks like the sort of parallel that would have been well known at the time, but for some strange cultural reason was kept secret, and was then repressed, ignored, forgotten and denied.

Murdock has written informatively on this Osiris=Lazarus parallel, including on the two Maries. As with the Luxor material, I fear you are too hasty in jumping to condemn her with your 'mania' suggestion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:57 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
tat tvam asi wrote:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... mment-6633

“…make a joke and I will sigh and you will laugh and I will cry” – Ozzie Osbourne Paranoid.

The whole paranoia thing is pretty much laughable at this point. But honestly, you did initiate this entire Luxor debate Richard. You decided to lash out at her for whatever reason and you made several errors in the process. It sounds like you heard complaining about Murdock from your peers in the past and decided to put up a stone wall right then and there. Others who have done the same but then decided to actually read her work, follow the citations and source material, have had major changes in opinion, such as Robert Price.

What you’re doing is hardly different from Bart Ehrman has just done recently. Ehrman completely screwed up by thinking he could take a cheap shot at Murdock and because he didn’t bother to follow through with checking the citations and sources a public mockery has resulted with Ehrman being termed “Errorman” at this stage of the game. And guess what, you’ve been dubbed Richard “Errier” in likewise fashion.

You guys are both trying to use academic bullying and it’s not working out too good for either of you. I read where you blogged about Ehrman acting like a closet homosexual abusing open homosexuals. Well come on, how is what you’re doing any different than what “Errorman” is doing? Do tell…

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 39
Quote:
The Wisdom of Egypt Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen [Publisher BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005]

Edited by Anthony Hilhorst and George H. van Kooten

Quote:
All the papers together highlight the Egyptian subject matter, back- ground or provenance of many Jewish, Early Christian and Gnostic texts. Covering a broad spectrum of themes, genres and traditions, they show that Egypt was a vibrant point of reference, sometimes even a focal point and cradle for Jews, Christians and their thought. They impressively demonstrate the extent to which Egypt was involved in the formative stages of Judaism and Christianity and, at the same time, that it was far from isolated from the wider developments in the ancient world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:49 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 39
The Birth Bower and Mamissi-Chapels in Ancient Egypt

What stood out to me:

Quote:
There are clear parallels between the birth scenes venerated within mamissis and the Gospel account of the birth of Christ and the role of the Virgin Mary.We might also tentatively track a line of inheritance from the mamissi into the tradition of Lady chapels within many Mediaeval Catholic cathedrals, including the usual position outside the main processional space leading to the holy of holies or high altar.


The writer of the above does provide some excellent sources at the end of the article.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Oh dear! Someone had better tell Richard Carrier we've got a case of parallelomania here! How DARE these people suggest there's a connection between Egyptian religion and Christianity, specifically as concerns the nativity!

Quick, call the parallelomania police!! Write out long tickets citing these folks for operating without a PhD!

natselection1st wrote:
The Birth Bower and Mamissi-Chapels in Ancient Egypt

What stood out to me:

Quote:
There are clear parallels between the birth scenes venerated within mamissis and the Gospel account of the birth of Christ and the role of the Virgin Mary.We might also tentatively track a line of inheritance from the mamissi into the tradition of Lady chapels within many Mediaeval Catholic cathedrals, including the usual position outside the main processional space leading to the holy of holies or high altar.


The writer of the above does provide some excellent sources at the end of the article.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
^ :lol:

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group