Freethought Nation

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

It is currently Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:00 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
H. M. Trismegistus wrote:
Do you still think my understanding of Egypt in relation to Acharya's work on Egypt is shallow now sir?

I've only read this one article of hers, and this is just the beginning on how I went I went to myself "okay, now I'm starting to see why people complain about her work a lot."


Shallow mindedness indeed Mr. One Article Willy.

You don't seem to understand that the term "Bible" can refer to any given collection of religious writings. "Any" given collection of religious writings. The Egypt religious writings are no exception of course. Hence, a reference to the "Egyptian Bible" stands as a valid way of speaking to the general masses or anyone for that matter. They can easily 'get it'. Some Christian people may think of something like the Upanishads of India as a Hindu Bible, a Hindu collection of sacred religious writings. They may think of it as being secondary to their bible, but a type of bible nonetheless.

I don't see any problem with Acharya referring to the Book of the Dead as an Egyptian bible and I'm sure that "the pious" can easily understand what she meant by it. The very fact that you would zero in on this and try to negate her on it shows that you've come here with a chip on your shoulder and something to prove. You're trying to analytically scrutinize her every word and doing a piss poor job of it so far.

You did in fact give us "more of the same" with your second post. It didn't hit on anything worthwhile to be quite honest. You've told us all of about jack squat in your attempt at elevated yourself as some kind of saviour who's going to get the message out to the world properly because Acharya has somehow fallen short of this task. :lol:

There's only way to find out. Start publishing books about the Egyptian religion in comparison to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and see how "the pious" respond to you on u-tube and various conversational forums.

Will they all get your message and throw their belief's aside immediately to come and join you and your superior knowledge, or will you get the exact same treatment as anyone else who states that religious mythologies are not to be taken literally because they merely point to the deep mystery of life and existence, via symbolism based around the sun, moon, stars, planets, elements, people....

If you are indeed on our side, then get with the program and start reading through Acharya and everyone else who deals with the astrotheological structure of mythology / religion so you can at least bring some sort of valid critique to the table.

Until then you'd probably be best to chill out and not try tearing peoples work apart under the guise of care and concern. :wink:

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:39 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:29 pm
Posts: 6
Quote:
Geez Trismegistus, no appreciation whatsoever ah? I get the sense that your second post closely resembles the first which has already been addressed. Rephrasing the first posts isn't going to change my response.

Okay, so basically what you're telling me is that 1. You're not really interested in Acharya's work at all - which would explain why you have so many misunderstandings of it, and 2. You're obsessed with what the "pious" might say or think. Please define this "pious" you keep speaking of in a more specific way. What religious background are you coming from? And why are you obsessed with what they might say or think?


Didn’t read what I wrote eh?

I clearly say I think her work is worthy endeavor. If I was totally disinterested in her work I wouldn’t have read the article. Yet you ignore this? There’s a difference between being interested in someone works and finding it necessarily to exam it all. Is this something you don’t understand or is it something you just ignore? I was familiar with the likes of Gerald Massey and the solar phenomenon of the Egyptian far before I knew who Acharya was. Contrary to what you implicitly seem to think, she is not an authority on the matter. Stop attempting to establish that she is and that I must read her works to truly understand.

Why does my background matter, it’s totally irrelevant. I don’t mind answering the question. But it’s interesting that you think is this important?

It’s not so much that I’m “obsessed,” as you interpret it, with the pious. You understand what the term means don’t you? Many apologists will fit the bill quite fine. By using pious I’m referring to anyone that fits the description, not anybody specifically so I don’t understand why you think I need to be specific here. One can conjure you’re being pious for Acharya right now. Not really saying you are, just using the word in context. I would like to see people reach mutual understandings about Egypt and the origins of Western Theology. I don’t believe Acharya’s, or Zeitgeist’s, sensationalist approach is the way to do it, at least on serious academic level. It actually gives people more ammo to deny it because it’s lack of exhaustive analysis.

Quote:
And I get the sense that there's a 3rd - that you're attempting to set yourself up as some kind of expert in Egyptology and you're trying to teach us/Acharya some sort of lesson?


Your feeling is wrong trust me.

Quote:
Are you seriously bringing the "bible" thing again? You really seem stuck on this issue. Christians who get hung-up on the use of the word "bible" - that is their problem as the definition makes clear. Again, the word "bible" as already made categorically clear is not defined as “the ultimate law or authority” nor does it belong to Judaeo-Christianity nor does any book have to be similar to the OT or NT to be considered a "bible." For example, The Diabetic Bible Cook Book.


Look, dude, in a perfect world your logic is right. We don’t leave in a perfect world. Words don’t have objective meaning. Dictionaries are listing of words that humans have assigned meaning too. They don’t exist on their own, we make them exist. Humans give words meaning by perception and interpretation. You as well as I know perfectly well that the comparison can easily be misinterpreted and that no modern Egyptologist will condone doing it and probably label it misleading.

Are you going to keep skirting around that fact or are you going to either find a modern Egyptologist that condones doing so or concede the point? When you respond to me with something other than you’re unsupported/superficially supported opinion, then I will listen to you. I already said I don’t find doing so wrong. I said it gives people reason to criticize her work and thus not listen to her. And no I don’t mean this example alone will give people this door way. It is this type of scholarship, however, that does.

Quote:
It is called The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day for a reason is it not? Your argument on the "bible" issue just seems absurd and irrelevant. Are you demanding everyone else adhere to your beliefs on this issue or just us here? Your goal is for Judaeo-Christianity to own the word "bible" all to themselves?


More of your conjuring. Here’s the funny part though. If I actually thought that Judaeo-Christianity own the word “bible” why wouldn’t I get angry or displease at the “Linux Bible” that I brought up as an example. I mean seriously, did you really think about my responds or did you just replied thinking that you’re somehow some authority that I must listen and learn from? I will listen to thoughtful responds, this is not one.

Quote:
You'll need to be more specific - I have yet to see "the pious" tear her works apart. I have yet to see the pious respond in an objective unbiased manner. The agenda of the pious is blatantly clear - to shore-up the faith at all costs.


Well duh. Here’s the problem though. You cannot just say they’re unobjective and biased. You have to actually support it. Ideologies of Acharya and the Jesus Myth Hypothesis are not mainstream. You have to actually support them. You can’t, for a second, think that calling them bias is going to make the case clear. It’s a two way street. People are tearing apart Acharya in the unscholastic realm with sites like
Code:
http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info
, Zeitgeist’s imdb’s forums, the rational responds squad, all the time). As far actual scholarship, most scholars (that I’ve seen anyway) don’t even take her seriously. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m not implying that she shouldn’t be taken seriously either. But lets get real now. There’s a reason why they take scholars like Robert Price and Richard Carrier seriously and not her, and it’s not some massive Acharya conspiracy either.

By the way, yes, I have read your conversation with Hawkins and no you don’t make a convincing case to those that are not coming from your perspective to begin with, ihmo. And that’s the opinion of someone that identifies with (not necessarily believe) the Myth Hypothesis. You did exactly what you’re doing with me now. Skirt around the request for evidence and assert your own opinions, which are based of some alleged authority of Acharya (an others that agree with her), as truth. That’s exactly what the Christians do with the bible. Stop the special pleading.

Quote:
Okay, so you haven't studied the works of Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum. And nothing in the foreword suggests that Goelet has either - you're only confirming what I already gave you from the footnote in Acharya's The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1. It's typical for scholars to want THEIR interpretations and/or translation to be preferred. And since Budge isn't around to defend his work 100 years later it should be no surprise that interpretations & transliterations and methodology have changed - it still doesn't make Budge wrong.

And, I own the latest 2001 edition to The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day. They seem to appreciate Budges work in a number of ways.


Wrong, so very very wrong. Let me reveal your biases. (it’s apparent you didn’t read the forward, and yet you past judgment, which you’re complaining that I do of Acharya.)

1. I have read Budge. Did you not read me when I said I used Budge before? Are you even paying attention? I do not study him extensively. I study modern Egyptology extensively. I still have his works and I still have read parts of them. I have no need to exam every detail of budge; we simply have more info available to us now.

2. Dr Goelet did not use his own translation and I didn’t say that he did. Here’s what actually happened. Wasermen wanted to use Budge. (I said this) Dr Goelet advised that he shouldn’t because the system Budge used for his translations is outdated (I also said this). Therefore they got together and used Raymond O Faulkner. Faulkner is dead. There’s absolutely no biases here happening whatsoever ever and the fact that you keep assuming that is, is likely a reflection and psychological projection of your own biases. Not only is Faulkner dead, the translation is an “optimized” version that takes several other translations into account. You have no case. You can concede the point now.

3. I never said Budge wasn’t useful and I specifically said he’s still used. All I said was avoid him for more controversial things, like a professional would. Translations are not the only thing problematic with Budge. I am no here to go over critics contentions of Budge, as I am not again him. But do you real think using him is going to make people believe you? That is why he should be avoided, not because I say so, sir.

Quote:
Are you trying to incorporate a straw man fallacy here or is this just an accident? Nowhere did I even imply that anybody "fundamentally relies on Budge." That is an absurd request.


I was speaking in the context of specifically for the Sun God point. Pay attention now. When I used myself as an example using Budge I said that I used others in addition to Budge to back me up. Acharya should do the same, specifically for a point, not simply in general. Otherwise people are going to rail on her and call her work sloppy. I don’t even think they’re justified in doing this. That doesn’t stop it from being a valid criticism however.

Quote:
I get the sense that you did not read my earlier response or you're not paying any attention. If you're not interested in our responses then why are you here? What is your point in being here posting questions if you're just going to ignore the responses? You're not here for any clarifications at all are you? Why don't you come clean and tells us who you are and why you're really here?


So basically you’re getting a feeling then you assume it’s true? That’s not very smart sir. I have thoroughly read your post and spent time responding to them. You can’t assume your misconceptions as true then question me about it.

I actually am here for clarifications and I’m disappointed. I took the time to write on these boards thinking that I was going to cut past false perception of Acharya and get some useful info to help me in my own endeavors. Excuse me for having high standards and expectations which I honestly am starting to believe you’re not able to meet. Perhaps Acharya herself and can speak. I understand she must be very busy. Perhaps her book (that you brought up) will have (valid) evidence that I seek.

You don’t need to know personal things about me. However I will say I might come off hard but that’s because I know the challenge supporters or identifiers of the Myth Hypothesis will face and I have came under such scrutiny myself. If you don’t believe that I don’t identify then read my post here:

Code:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/P825/


The reason why I love Egypt has nothing to do with basing it of the connection to Christianity however. I come from an urban inner city with extremely high crime rates. As a kid the city had “correction” schools that were alternative schools over the neighborhood schools. I went to one of these alternative schools. The school was an Afro-Centric one and my introduction to Re, Osiris, Ma’at, etc happened there when I was only 7. If anything my natural agenda would be to promote Afrocentricism, which I actually reject to most extents. I did not start making the connection of Western Theology to Egypt until my early teens. I now believe the connection is strong but needs far more rigorous scholarship. I do no claim to be an authority, which is why I quote the opinions of authority, and thoroughly explain my interpretations of primary sources, which you still haven’t done.

I thought this place was possibly an avenue. I believe I was wrong now.

Quote:
Well, you're no authority on Budge, you're no authority on Egyptology, you're no authority on Acharya's work - so where do you get-off telling anyone what or who should be avoided? You don't really seem to know much about Budges work beyond the opinions you've heard from others who have never studied Budge. And, modern Egyptologists who attempt to dismiss Budge often have their own interpretations & transliterations and methodology. That's the scholarly community for you - they're not above competition and claim to fame.


Hahahaha. Are you serious?

Quote:
You were wrong the first time and you're wrong again now too. Horus, Ra, Atum, and Osiris represent the daily physical cycle of the sun. Then there's the yearly cycle etc. To deny the physical aspects of the sun, moon etc is to cut-off any chance of fully understanding what the Egyptians gods concepts and principles were largely based. It's not the only one but it is certainly one of the most important. To deny it is simply absurd.


What makes you think I deny the physical? I said it is a lower order of necessity if you actually read what I typed. That is why the gods are not limit to specifically physical object because it’s all about the thoughts (sprits) the physical (images) invoke. Just because I realize that the orientation of the Egyptians was inner, not outer, doesn’t mean I deny the physical.

Are you really going to just ignore the quote of Dr. Allen I just gave to you and primary sources of the Egyptians I just gave to you? If you own the latest version of the book of the dead then it’s time you start backing yourself up with some analysis of the evidence. Dr. Allen doesn’t even agree with you. Re is the sun as an object. Osiris is the powers that are manifested through the sun. The kings embodied these powers as the Egyptians felt an emotional connection to the cosmos, which was especially the role of kingship. That does not make Osiris literally the sun. Their is a difference and its unscholastic misrepresentations like yours that gets people to call this kind of scholarship sloppy. The Egyptians thought that their gods was literally unseen, unnamable, invisible forces that birthed the order of material world in the first time. Budge himself even supports this, if my memory servers me right he thoroughly goes over this with Shu and Tefnut in Legends of the Gods.

Don’t you dare patronize me with your superficial understanding. Egyptologist do not back you up and you’re probably just projecting your own superiority complex on to me. I have quoted Egyptologist. I have quoted the Book of Going Forth of Day. I have explained my reasonings. You, sir, have done none of this. All you have done is sit there and speak of your perceptions and dogmatically preached them as the axiomatic truth with out a shred of serious discourse on your part.

You haven’t provided a shred of evidence, that I haven’t refuted, to back your claims ups. Don’t start any circular logic with me. You have blatantly begged the question. I gave you primary sources of Osiris - as the king - in The Book of Going Forth by Day versus Re as the sun. Do you want another?

Quote:
O you gods who are in Abydos, the whole and complete company, come joyfully to meet me and see my father Osiris whom I have recognized and from whom I have come forth. I am this Horus, Lord of the Black Land and of the Read Land, I have taken possession entirely of Him who cannot be conquered, whose Eye is victorious over his enemies, who projects his father who is saved from the floodwaters and also his mother; who smites his enemies, who drives away the robber thereby, who counters the strength of the Destructive One; ruler of multitudes, monarch of the Two Lands, who smoothly takes possession of his father’s house. I have been judged and I have been vindicated, I have power over my enemies, I get the better of those who would harm me, my strength is my projection. I am the son of Osiris


Things like smiting the enemies and such was clearly the role of the Kingship, who the Egyptians saw as being connected through the sun, through the ka. “my father Osiris whom I have recognized and from whom I have come forth.” That is a distinct difference than literally being the sun. That is the role Re. The freaking word Re means Sun for crying out loud. That is why Re is the chief sun god. Osiris doesn’t symbolize the Sun. Osiris symbolizes the power of the kingship manifested through the sun. Osiris is the dead, deified, freakin’ king, and you inability to accept this is absolutely aburd.

Quote:
In some passages the king’s identification with divinity is directly stated; for example, “The king is Osiris in a whirlwind” and “the Osiris-king Men-ma’at-Re [Sety I] is Re [and vice versa]” (both from the Litany of Re). In referring to the decreased pharaoh as “the Osiris-king So-and-So”, the text indicate his metamorphosis into Osiris, who was reborn as king of the afterlife and was the divine force associated with the fertility of the earth and eternal cycles of growth.

The deceased pharaoh was also identified with Re, the supreme deity who was born every morning and died every evening. The king’s identification with the supreme earthly and solar deities of the Egyptian pantheon suggests that the king in death embodied the duality that characterized the ancient Egyptians cosmos. The deified ruler represented both continuous regeneration (as Osiris) and the daily cycle of rebirth (as Re). In their understanding of the cosmos, the ancient Egyptians were accustomed to each of their deities possessing a multiplicity of association and roles. It was natural extension of this concept for them to view the deified pharaoh in a similar way.
Silverman, Ancient Egypt, p111.

How many times am I going to have to tell you this? This is not my opinion. This is what every Egyptologist on the planet acknowledges.

The book I am quoting from is an authoritative text published by oxford and has the opinions of 12 Egyptologists with doctorates in the field. Osiris manifests his powers of kingship through the sun.

But no….No, only you, and your holy knowledge of the Egyptians, and detailed gnosis of 100 year old material, may serve as the truth because it just happens to be your inaccurate opinion. Come on. You’re level of discussion on the matter is no better than Christian apologists who shove their bible and more importantly their interpretation of the bible down people’s throats simply because, magically, they believe it so it must be right.

If you want to go against authorities, find. It’s the first step to progress, which I admire. I have no problems with this at all. But please, please be ready to back yourself up and so far you have not done this adequately at all. Not only have you not done this at all, it doesn’t even stop the Jesus the Horus connection. I don’t even understand why you’re so against just admitting it.

Quote:
That is ANOTHER aspect as well that we've never denied. There's no need to make this more complex than it really is. Unless you've seen Horus, Isis, Osiris and Jesus lately, they all supposedly exist in a different realm - the ancients never said they saw Osiris walking down main street - but they did consider him the sun at night. Same as they considered Horus the sun in the morning etc. Of course, Christians made their best attempt to make it appear as if Jesus existed but they've never been able to substantiate that claim with valid evidence that stands up to scrutiny.



This is where your superficial understanding starts to really show. You say that you grant the notion that the Egyptians thought there gods exist in a different realm, yet you call Osiris literally the Sun. If they exist in a different, realm - that you acknowledge - then how is that they actually experience the Sun then? Remember they thought this realm was only accessible by dreams, visions, and death, etc. One or two things are happening here.

1. They exist in a different, unseen realm, and the sun isn’t the god, though the principles of many gods are in part based on the sun (the truth, that experts agree on).

2. The sun is the god (your opinion) and you contradicted yourself by saying you grant that they existed in different realm.

You either go with 1 and admit that I’m far more accurate than you and that my understanding actually grasps the complexity of the Egyptians while you oversimplify it with this obsessed focus on the sun (like Akhenaton – the heretic in Egyptians eyes).

Or you stick to your convictions and continue to contradict yourself while supporting scholars who simply didn’t have as much info that we have today in combination with scholars that don’t even agree with you (as I’ve demonstrated).

Which one of these people do you want to be?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:34 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:29 pm
Posts: 6
Quote:
Shallow mindedness indeed Mr. One Article Willy.

You don't seem to understand that the term "Bible" can refer to any given collection of religious writings. "Any" given collection of religious writings. The Egypt religious writings are no exception of course. Hence, a reference to the "Egyptian Bible" stands as a valid way of speaking to the general masses or anyone for that matter. They can easily 'get it'. Some Christian people may think of something like the Upanishads of India as a Hindu Bible, a Hindu collection of sacred religious writings. They may think of it as being secondary to their bible, but a type of bible nonetheless.

I don't see any problem with Acharya referring to the Book of the Dead as an Egyptian bible and I'm sure that "the pious" can easily understand what she meant by it. The very fact that you would zero in on this and try to negate her on it shows that you've come here with a chip on your shoulder and something to prove. You're trying to analytically scrutinize her ever word and doing a piss poor job of it so far.


What I think has nothing to do with it, which you conveniently ignore the fact that I said I see nothing wrong with the comparison. I don’t believe, however, that our critics are going to see things the same way. They’re going to perceive it as one more attempt (to the totality of them all) at some false attempt to distort evidence in some ad hoc reasoning. If I recall right Mike Licona already thinks this and as much as you might not like/trust/agree with the man, he does suppose valid arguments that need to be addressed outside ad hominens and circular logic. Theologians don’t exactly like the idea of their theology being based in Egypt. They will use superficial comparisons of Acharya's against her, and they have reason to do so. You’re criticizing me because she gave them ammo? What sense does that make?

PS, it was an example how they’re going to interpret her scholarship. The greater point is not the bible comparison. The greater point is her critics perception of her scholarship.

The scrutiny I give is nothing compared what people that simply don’t like notions of their precious god being compared to Egypt will give.

Quote:
You did in fact give us "more of the same" with your second post. It didn't hit on anything worthwhile to be quite honest. You've told us all of about jack squat in your attempt at elevated yourself as some kind of saviour who's going to get the message out to the world properly because Acharya somehow fallen short of this task.


I’m going to be nice and ignore this.

Quote:
There's only way to find out. Start publishing books about the Egyptian religion in comparison to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and see how "the pious" respond on u-tube and various conversational forums.

Will they all get your message and throw their belief's aside immediately to come and join you and your superior knowledge, or will you get the exact same treatment as anyone else who states that religious mythologies are not to be taken literally because they merely point to the deep mystery of life and existence, via the sun, moon, stars, planets, elements, people.


Just for the record my goal is not to convert anyone. I have no reason to do such a thing. I do desire that people thoroughly understand the issue (Egypt), and as I’ve stated in the link I posted at Stupid Evil Bastard, I actually did think about writing a book on the subject. I have plenty enough notes to do so. Perhaps if it was my profession I would. However that fact that I have no strong desire too shows that my goal isn’t to “elevate myself as some kind of saviour who's going to get the message out to the world properly because Acharya somehow fallen short of this task” as you conveniently, and falsely, conjured for me. Gee, thanks.

Quote:
If you are indeed on our side, then get with the program and start reading through Acharya and everyone else who deals with the astrotheological structure of mythology / religion so you can at least bring some sort of valid critic to the table.


Uhhhh…dude, Acharya is not the first person the go over the astrotheologial nature of mythology. She might have been to you. I knew this far before I knew who she was. The likes of Don Culpitt and Dr. Magee (of ask why) introduced me to the topic. The likes of Dr. Sertima introduced me to Massey. I’ve only known who Acharya was recently, after watching Zeitgeist and seeing people's reaction to it. After reading Dawn of Astronomy by Norman Lockyer, I seriously doubt I need to “get with the program” by reading Acharya. (you should read the book, it’s a good read) Are you suggesting specific indoctrination? If so, you’re not sounding very different than the bible thumpers that claim you must read their bible to “get with the program.”

Quote:
Until then you'd probably be best to chill out and not trying tearing peoples work apart under the guise of care and concern.


It’s tough love buddy. My parents might be at fault with that one. It’s how they raised me and my father would be short of anything but proud at how critical I am. ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:16 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Quote:
Uhhhh…dude, Acharya is not the first person the go over the astrotheologial nature of mythology. She might have been to you. I knew this far before I knew who she was.


Who said anything about Acharya being the first, or only one, to deal with astrotheology? I sure didn't. Let's take a closer (or "deeper" if you will) look at what I said:

Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
If you are indeed on our side, then get with the program and start reading through Acharya and everyone else who deals with the astrotheological structure of mythology / religion


By "our side", I mean the truthbeknown nation forum which you are on right now. And by Acharya and EVERYONE ELSE I don't mean Acharya alone, nor Acharya as the FIRST to speak about the astrotheological structure of religion. And by getting with the program, I only mean to suggest that you better have at least read through a book or two before you decide to conclude that some of these Christian apologists have debunked and refuted Acharya's writings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

Look, a lot of these Christian apologists don't even read her work before taking off trying to debunk her. By you coming onto the forum and announcing that you haven't read her work yet you wish to negate it you then come off like one of these apologists who have no real basis for trying to refute anything. You could get a used book somewhere, or find one for free, or do whatever you feel like doing, but you should at least read through something before coming onto an authors forum trying to suggest that an authors work is misleading.

Do any of these apologetic videos actually refute anything in reality, or are they merely playing straw man argument games and pretending to have fully defeated "The Evil Luciferians" :lol:

Can you provide a few examples of something that Acharya has written about that has actually been refuted by an apologist? Let's stop being vague about it and cut right to the chase.

What exactly have these apologists refuted?

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Trismegistus "Didn’t read what I wrote eh?"

I did and it's clear that you have a superiority complex issue.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I clearly say I think her work is worthy endeavor. If I was totally disinterested in her work I wouldn’t have read the article. Yet you ignore this?"

You think you've really achieved something by reading one article out of a 600 page book with 1,800 footnote citations to references and primary sources plus, 3 other books. You're really full of yourself aren't you.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I was familiar with the likes of Gerald Massey and the solar phenomenon of the Egyptian far before I knew who Acharya was...she is not an authority on the matter. Stop attempting to establish that she is and that I must read her works to truly understand"

Okay so you HEARD of Massey so you're an expert on his work now too? Actually she is an authority - you don't know that because you've never studied her works - as you've already admitted of course, you wouldn't know that because you've only read one article yet, you think you're some sort of expert now. You can only be some kind of bumbling fool to think you can come here and offer legitimate criticisms of works you know nothing about. You've been wrong everytime you've criticized her work yet you claim authority on the issue. Sounds like someone from the RRS like Reok who claims to be a "historian and ancient text expert" with merely a high school education and then go on to smear others works he knows nothing about in blogs.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Why does my background matter, it’s totally irrelevant. I don’t mind answering the question. But it’s interesting that you think is this important?"

As Tat said, you've obviously come here with a chip on your shoulder. I'd like to know more about where you're coming from.
Quote:
Trismegistus "It’s not so much that I’m “obsessed,” as you interpret it, with the pious. You understand what the term means don’t you?"

No need to get juvenile, I just asked a simple question to be more clear as "pious" is a very vague term. Your rigid stance to this broad term is even worse than before. If you think you can waltz in and unite "the pious" and get them to agree with you then you're dreaming or have other issues. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time. You don't have much experience with these issues at all do you.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I don’t believe Acharya’s, or Zeitgeist’s, sensationalist approach is the way to do it, at least on serious academic level. It actually gives people more ammo to deny it because it’s lack of exhaustive analysis."

And again you speak from ignorance. I know, you just can't help it. It seems to be your style. If you're the expert then, where's your inerrant scholarly book accepted by both the pious and academia?
Quote:
Trismegistus "I mean seriously, did you really think about my responds or did you just replied thinking that you’re somehow some authority that I must listen and learn from? I will listen to thoughtful responds, this is not one."

Everytime you bring-up the "bible" issue you only further embarrass yourself. And now, I'm getting the sense that your a teenager in high school. Are you a friend of Reok?
Quote:
Trismegistus "Ideologies of Acharya and the Jesus Myth Hypothesis are not mainstream. You have to actually support them."

First of all, this entire comment is a clear demonstration that you have utterly no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Acharya's work.
Quote:
Trismegistus "People are tearing apart Acharya in the unscholastic realm with sites like zeitgeistresponse.info, Zeitgeist’s imdb’s forums, the rational responds squad, all the time)"

Yes, I've seen them - they THINK they've torn something apart because they don't know Acharya's work or anything beyond encyclopedia entries. I have yet to see a single counter argument based on objective, non-biased serious research. Reok *IS* the "candidate" he mentions in his blog that unnecessarily smears Acharya, "who would discredit the movement" ... with his "poor and sloppy scholarship" - he knows nothing of her work. Yet, he, like you, purport to be an expert on it. How can he call his diatribe a "review" when he's never studied her work? It's laughable. When myself and others called Reok out on his utter intellectual dishonesty concerning Acharya's work at RRS - HE BANNED ALL OF US. Reok at the RRS is an embarrassment to all Freethinkers & mythicists - It's laughable :lol:
Quote:
Trismegistus "As far actual scholarship, most scholars (that I’ve seen anyway) don’t even take her seriously."

You haven't seen much - you've made that categorically obvious. Reoks favorite scholars Dr. Price, Earl Doherty and many others think quite highly of Acharya's works. The fact that her work isn't mainstream comes as no surprise as it challenges the status-quo. And universities get much of their funding from religious organizations.
Quote:
Trismegistus "There’s a reason why they take scholars like Robert Price and Richard Carrier seriously and not her, and it’s not some massive Acharya conspiracy either."

It appears that Carrier goes around telling people to stay away from her work. And, LOL, he's never actually read any of her work either. Only what people have sent to him via e-mail or what he's stumbled across in forums. Reok gets his info about Acharya from Carrier - not the source. They're both "sloppy" and offer "poor scholarship" - when it comes to Acharya's work. Now, Carrier considers himself a "mythicist." It seems he's irrationally biased against Acharya's work before he's ever read it.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I have read your conversation with Hawkins and no you don’t make a convincing case to those that are not coming from your perspective to begin"

I wasn't trying to make a convincing case for Acharya's work at the RRS and I made it clear that there was no need for me to do so with such a dishonest blog - I merely pointed out the FACT that Reok has never read Acharya's works and therefore, knows nothing about it. His blog is nothing but an intellectually dishonest smear. He's an embarrassment to Freethinkers and mythicists. He's a perfect example of how not to be.
Quote:
Trismegistus "You did exactly what you’re doing with me now. Skirt around the request for evidence and assert your own opinions, which are based of some alleged authority of Acharya (an others that agree with her), as truth. That’s exactly what the Christians do with the bible. Stop the special pleading."

There's no need to share evidence with every punk kid who comes along with a superiority complex & a chip on their shoulder demanding it - read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested. She has 4 books totaling over 1,900 pages with Acharya making her case with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references and primary sources and 1,442 bibliographical sources, not to mention photos.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Wrong, so very very wrong. Let me reveal your biases."

Ah, you just admitted you've never studied Budge so it's not so very wrong - no biases needed. I did actually read the foreword. You just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Budge & others as you've demonstrated repeatedly so far.
Quote:
Trismegistus "1. I have read Budge."

Skimming Budge for quotes to mine does not a study make. Acharya has actually studied minute details of Budge, Massey & others along with ancient and modern scholarship. You don't know that because you've never studied her work.
Quote:
Trismegistus "2. Dr Goelet did not use his own translation"

Nor did I say he did.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I actually am here for clarifications"

No, you're not.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Excuse me for having high standards and expectations"

LOL, ROTFLMAO!!! :lol: You sound like reok - criticize works you know nothing about and when it has been demonstrated to him, he continues to claim to be an expert. LOL - you're really funny, I hope you stick around for comedy relief.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Perhaps Acharya herself and can speak."

Why does she need to respond to every kid who comes along who refuses to actually study her work? You don't think she has far better things to do?
Quote:
Trismegistus "You don’t need to know personal things about me."

I didn't ask personal things about you, aren't you paying attention? I said, as you quoted, "I get the sense that you did not read my earlier response or you're not paying any attention. If you're not interested in our responses then why are you here? What is your point in being here posting questions if you're just going to ignore the responses? You're not here for any clarifications at all are you? Why don't you come clean and tells us who you are and why you're really here?"

I'm still waiting for an honest answer. It's blatantly obvious (apparently to everyone but you) that you came here with some motives. Why don't you just be honest about it?
Quote:
Trismegistus "If you don’t believe that I don’t identify then read my post here..."

Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus Posted on 12/23/2008 "Before you discredit websites you should take the time to read its contents and determine if it should be taken seriously or not."

I'm not so sure that you and this HMT are the same person. If it is you then you seem to have a hypocritical double-standard at play here. It appears that when it comes to Acharya's work criticism of it are legit without ever having read any of her works at all. However, websites, now that's a different story according to you - explain.

Maybe I need to PM or post to that person to ask if these are the same people?
Quote:
Trismegistus "I do no claim to be an authority, which is why I quote the opinions of authority, and thoroughly explain my interpretations of primary sources, which you still haven’t done."

Right, like the "bible" issue you're so hung-up on - you seem to be hung-up on that more so than anyone else. I hate spoon-feeding people - especially those who aren't sincerely interested in the first place. I see no reason to share primary sources with you - you can read the works like anybody else would who's actually interested.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Just because I realize that the orientation of the Egyptians was inner, not outer, doesn’t mean I deny the physical."

Okay, so now you're changing your position - because earlier you wrote that "the physical was irrelevant."
Quote:
Trismegistus "If you own the latest version of the book of the dead then it’s time you start backing yourself up with some analysis of the evidence..."

It's already been done - 4 books to date with 1,900 pages of Acharya making her case with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references and primary sources and 1,442 bibliographical sources, not to mention photos. You don't know any of this because as already made categorically clear you've never read her work so you speak from UTTER ignorance. I guess you don't realize how badly you're embarrassing yourself here.
Quote:
Trismegistus "...Dr. Allen doesn’t even agree with you. Re is the sun as an object. Osiris is the powers that are manifested through the sun. The kings embodied these powers as the Egyptians felt an emotional connection to the cosmos, which was especially the role of kingship. That does not make Osiris literally the sun. Their is a difference and its unscholastic misrepresentations like yours that gets people to call this kind of scholarship sloppy. The Egyptians thought that their gods was literally unseen, unnamable, invisible forces that birthed the order of material world in the first time. Budge himself even supports this, if my memory servers me right he thoroughly goes over this with Shu and Tefnut in Legends of the Gods."

You're not completely accurate but still, you're preaching to the choir - again, you don't know that because you don't know anything about Acharya's works.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Don’t you dare patronize me with your superficial understanding. Egyptologist do not back you up..."

Blah, blah, blah more superiority and authority from upon high from he who has not clue what he's talking about since he's never studied Acharya's works. Acharya's latest book about Egypt is full of Egyptologists. Please, do make at least some effort to get a clue when you can.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html
Quote:
Trismegistus "You, sir, have done none of this. All you have done is sit there and speak of your perceptions and dogmatically preached them as the axiomatic truth with out a shred of serious discourse on your part. "

You may consider checking yourself at some point - making authoritative statements about works you admit and demonstrate you know utterly nothing about. You have an enormous amount of research yet to do.
Quote:
Trismegistus "No, only you, and your holy knowledge of the Egyptians, and detailed gnosis of 100 year old material, may serve as the truth because it just happens to be your inaccurate opinion. Come on. You’re level of discussion on the matter is no better than Christian apologists who shove their bible and more importantly their interpretation of the bible down people’s throats simply because, magically, they believe it so it must be right."

Keep making trash comments like that and you'll need to go. Again, You may consider checking yourself at some point - making authoritative statements about works you admit and demonstrate you know utterly nothing about. You have an enormous amount of research yet to do.
Quote:
Trismegistus "If you want to go against authorities, find. It’s the first step to progress, which I admire. I have no problems with this at all. But please, please be ready to back yourself up and so far you have not done this adequately at all."

And again, You may consider checking yourself at some point - making authoritative statements about works you admit and demonstrate you know utterly nothing about. You have an enormous amount of research yet to do.
Quote:
Trismegistus "You say that you grant the notion that the Egyptians thought there gods exist in a different realm, yet you call Osiris literally the Sun. If they exist in a different, realm - that you acknowledge - then how is that they actually experience the Sun then?"

One or two things are happening here.

1. They exist in a different, unseen realm, and the sun isn’t the god, though the principles of many gods are in part based on the sun (the truth, that experts agree on).

2. The sun is the god (your opinion) and you contradicted yourself by saying you grant that they existed in different realm.

...Which one of these people do you want to be?

You're clearly confused - Acharya's 600 page book with nearly 2,400 footnote/citations to references and primary sources and over 900 bibliographical sources containing scholarly books and journals etc addresses these points and much more. All 4 books to date total 1,900 pages with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references & primary sources, utilizing over 1,442 bibliographical sources by respected authors/ publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals and dozens of illustrations. - you need it as you have much to learn grasshopper.

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

:wink:

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:57 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:29 pm
Posts: 6
Quote:
I did and it's clear that you have a superiority complex issue.


So I have a complex because I point how experts disagree with you and that you’re too stubborn to admit it, or too lazy to write even a simplistic responds to research that’s already done? Nice. All you keep doing is say “go read her book.” That’s like a student casually asking an instructor what’s a prime number and the instructor implying “go read my [superiors’] book on mathematics.” What I asked for was not something difficult, and if you knew your stuff in and out as much as you pose like you do you’d be able to give me something decent.

From this and your failure to so before I find it highly probable that you’re simply self-aggrandizing, or unbelievably stuck up or lazy. Take your pick. From this it’s evident that I’m wasting me time here as you simply don’t know as much as you’d like people to believe. I have noted that her new book may be of value (as already stated) and I may consider it in the future.

Quote:
You think you've really achieved something by reading one article out of a 600 page book with 1,800 footnote citations to references and primary sources plus, 3 other books. You're really full of yourself aren't you.


Laughable. I didn’t for one second act like I knew everything about Acharya’s work and the criticism I made was specific to the article that I read. Yes, I can criticize an article that I have read. I never criticized all her work in general and if you think that I did it’s because of your blatant misinterpretation of what I wrote. If I thought she was such a horrible scholar then why I would consider reading her book specifically in hopes of “finding the evidence that I seek?”

All I said was that by reading the article I’m beginning to see why OTHER PEOPLE criticize her.

Can you even comprehend what you read? Or do you simply have an insane case of inane, selective interpretation?

Quote:
Okay so you HEARD of Massey so you're an expert on his work now too?


I’ve read, and defended before him too. And as you probably don’t recall, with your selective interpretations and all, agreed that his works are valuable. I said Dr. Sertima introduced me to Massey to establish the fact that contrary to the vibe here, Achayra is not the messiah of the subject matter. The argument has been around for a long time, and people have been aware of for a long time as well.

Where do you get off trying to fabricate some notion that I think I’m a “Massey expert.” I never say this nor act like I do. Stop making up blatant misconceptions.

Quote:
Actually she is an authority - you don't know that because you've never studied her works - as you've already admitted of course, you wouldn't know that because you've only read one article yet, you think you're some sort of expert now. You can only be some kind of bumbling fool to think you can come here and offer legitimate criticisms of works you know nothing about.


I can read. I’m starting think that you can’t. You have no idea what I have read about Egypt. I have the full right to make a criticism - of her article - which you extrapolate as me downplaying all her work. Are you going to keep playing that card or are you actually going to read (and understand) what I write?

Acharya is not an authority. Show me one credible educational institution that acknowledges that she is, and then we can talk. The members of the Jesus Seminar doesn’t even acknowledge her as an authority. Until you can do this, keep believing your own delusions buddy. And again, that is not an attack on her, as I’ve ready said I feel her and the subject matter should be taken seriously but it does you or anyone on this board any justice to fancifully imagine that any scholar or educational institution considers her an authority.

Quote:
She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. One of the most intriguing claims made repeatedly in these books is that among the mythical predecessors of Jesus as a crucified god were the Buddha, the blue-skinned Krishna, and Dionysus. Is there any basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again, she does not explain where they come from, much less why no available book on Buddha, Krishna, or Dionysus contains a crucifixion account. . . . When Murdock speaks of the ‘Christ Conspiracy,’ she means it. She really believes that ‘people got together and cooked up’ early Christianity like a network sitcom. And who were these conspirators? The, er, Masons (pp. 334 ff.). It is remarkable how and where some people’s historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt. But it gets much, much weirder than that. We start, in the last chapters, reading bits and pieces drawn from James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchen, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia; and of course all that stuff about the maps of the ancient sea kings. The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney.


Yes, I know the quote is out of context and yes I know that Price has said this. Still, it gives me reason to question, which I thought that coming here would put those questions to ease.

Quote:
You've been wrong every time you've criticized her work yet you claim authority on the issue.


I am wrong because you say I’m wrong in spite of the fact that I argued my case and experts agree with me. Yet you say I am, thus I must be because I haven’t read your holy woman’s books. And I have a superiority complex? Yes, yes that’s it.

And the sad part is that you can’t see that is the same fundamentally flawed logic mentality that the Christians do. What are you? An ex minister? I find it probable considering how good you are art preaching.

Quote:
Sounds like someone from the RRS like Reok who claims to be a "historian and ancient text expert" with merely a high school education and then go on to smear others works he knows nothing about in blogs.


Not that I know too much about Rook but does he actually claim to be an expert or is that just something you put in his mouth for him like you’re doing me?


Quote:
As Tat said, you've obviously come here with a chip on your shoulder. I'd like to know more about where you're coming from.


I didn’t have a chip on my shoulder when I came in here but I’m started to get one now considering how ridiculous you’re being. I had no idea I was going to have to argue something as simple as Osiris is not literally the sun. I love to see you go in Oxford and get laughed at for that position, maybe then you’ll wake up. I’m getting sarcastic because quite frankly this place seriously disappointed me and the reasoning here is almost identical to Apologist just on a different side of the equation.

I’ve explained about as much personal information as I’m going to. For the sake of titles, however, I consider myself a Free-thinking Non-Realist when it comes to religion and my interests in Egypt stems from my childhood. The last thing I’ll say is that my college degree is in Computer Science specializing in Web Technologies. I am web developer and I have programmed mods for these very forums that we speak on in the past. If I had malicious attent I would have simply hacked this board as phpBB 2.x is easily exploitable software through Perl, and I doubt this board is running anything higher than +14. I have never been religious at any time and my life and I grew up an atheist where now I consider myself a nontheist. (See Don Culpitt)


Quote:
No need to get juvenile, I just asked a simple question to be more clear as "pious" is a very vague term. Your rigid stance to this broad term is even worse than before. If you think you can waltz in and unite "the pious" and get them to agree with you then you're dreaming or have other issues. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time. You don't have much experience with these issues at all do you.


What makes you think that me posting on this board was me thinking that it had a direct barring on “uniting the pious?” It was, in my eyes, one step in my own endeavors to the advancement of knowledge. What’s going to “unite the pious,” as you put it, wasn’t me posting in this board. It was, in part, the advancement of knowledge in of it’s self. Which sir, you have failed.

Quote:
And again you speak from ignorance. I know, you just can't help it. It seems to be your style. If you're the expert then, where's your inerrant scholarly book accepted by both the pious and academia?


This is just more of you conjuring these silly things that I never claim and can’t have said it any more as plan as day that I don’t claim it. Yet, you persist with your conjecture, and you claim I have the complex? I want you to do me a favor. I want you reread my post two+ months later after I’m long gone so you can finally begin interpreting it differently with a different set of eyes.

Hopefully then, you will you see how ridiculous you’re being.


Quote:
Everytime you bring-up the "bible" issue you only further embarrass yourself. And now, I'm getting the sense that your a teenager in high school. Are you a friend of Reok?


I’m just going to let you be wrong and conjure up your false perceptions here.


Quote:
First of all, this entire comment is a clear demonstration that you have utterly no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Acharya's work.


So tell me, you actually think that the Jesus Myth Hypothesis is mainstream in scholarship? Are you even serious? I have to be reading something wrong. Even Price wouldn’t make that ridiculous claim. Even the entire Jesus Seminar (whom last I left of Acharya was a member of) wouldn’t even make such an absurd claim. I don’t even think Acharya herself would say that.

Quote:
Yes, I've seen them - they THINK they've torn something apart because they don't know Acharya's work or anything beyond encyclopedia entries. I have yet to see a single counter argument based on objective, non-biased serious research. Reok *IS* the "candidate" he mentions in his blog that unnecessarily smears Acharya, "who would discredit the movement" ... with his "poor and sloppy scholarship" - he knows nothing of her work. Yet, he, like you, purport to be an expert on it. How can he call his diatribe a "review" when he's never studied her work? It's laughable. When myself and others called Reok out on his utter intellectual dishonesty concerning Acharya's work at RRS - HE BANNED ALL OF US. Reok at the RRS is an embarrassment to all Freethinkers & mythicists.


Recall that I putt Rook’s website in the “unscholastic” category. I see also that you failed to speak on the behalf of the other two sites as well. While certainly sites like zeitgiestresponds.info are rubbish and perhaps Rook is as much rubbish as you make him out to be, that still doesn’t stop the power of persuasion of opinion. They do raise some valid points, even being unscholastic and you’re a silly man if you think they are not persuading people’s opinions and thus perceptions. Contrary to what you probably think, perception is important. Now if the extent of your interaction with Rook is that one topic that I read then he banned you because:

1. You couldn’t provide the evidence that he asked. Henceforth you…
2. You used circler logic (like you’re doing with me.)
3. You’re fabricating his position (like you’re doing with me).
4. Demanded that he must read her book to understand the topic. (like you’re doing with me).

And probably more that I don’t remember.

1. When asked you couldn’t provide the evidence, it’s that simple. Give it up.
2. You keep persisting that Acharya’s “authority” must be accepted, dogmatically, and it doesn’t. And even her My Space buddy criticizes her for “boldly stating conjuncture as fact” and he identifies with the woman. Given your skill level at logic, you seem to think this is acceptable. It isn’t. You’d be laughed, like Bill Craig, at any creditable educational institution (as Bart Erham pointed out).
3. Rook isn’t even against Acharya (like me). Acharya’s “authority” is not evidence. He had valid concerns that you failed to answer. (like you’re doing with me).
4. Acharya is not the only one to address the issue and nobody is by any means required to know all of her work to understand the topic. As stated Dr Sertima published in 1994 about Massey, G.R.S Mead, (and others) and the connection of Christ to Egypt. People have been writing about it for the last century. Were do you think her sources are coming? Dr. Magree gives an extensive online resource about Sun Gods and the very notion brought up decades ago (Frazer). http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0310SunGod.php

Quote:
You haven't seen much - you've made that categorically obvious. Reoks favorite scholars Dr. Price, Earl Doherty and many others think quite highly of Acharya's works. The fact that her work isn't mainstream comes as no surprise as it challenges the status-quo. And universities get much of their funding from religious organizations.


And biblical scholars think highly of works that we find laughable all the time do they not? A good scholar checkmates there opponent’s into acknowledging the plausibility of their opinions. Richard Carrier is a primary example. Even the most pious of pious like Licona admitted that Carrier is an “outstanding scholar with an IQ higher than his own.” Now that’s impressive. What does Licona think of Archayra. I think you’re well aware of that. You can proceed to ad hominem him now and complain about him not “getting” her work without any type of legit rebuttal whatsoever now.


Quote:
It appears that Carrier goes around telling people to stay away from her work. And, LOL, he's never actually read any of her work either. Only what people have sent to him via e-mail or what he's stumbled across in forums. Reok gets his info about Acharya from Carrier - not the source. They're both "sloppy" and offer "poor scholarship" - when it comes to Acharya's work. Now, Carrier considers himself a "mythicist." It seems he's irrationally biased against Acharya's work before he's ever read it.


Please provide the evidence of this. He is indeed cautions that readers are critical of Graves work and he does so with good reason. (not saying that I have anything against graves)

Now I do remember him writing an article several years back about Acharya’s comparison of the Miracle Birth to Luxor. He is critical of her but I don’t remember him advising to stay away from her. If I remember correctly the article did have some errors in his comprehension of the Egyptian Religion in general, but I don’t know if the same can be said of Acharya’s work.

If so this is exactly the type of thing I’m talking about. If Acharya went into a more detailed analysis, people wouldn’t have to worry about piecing together the information that she did and distinguishing conjecture/speculation over fact. You can’t expect all scholars to be gods of every detail of every subject but they better damn sure cover their own subject well enough where people don’t perceive flaws so easily. That was exactly my criticism – her just stating something as though it’s totally factual with out adequately covering her logic to get to the conclusion, and I used the Osiris thing as an example.

Not to judge all of her work with this example, but to express concern about what happens if she does.

Apparently you’re too thick headed to get that.

What Diodorus said 2000 years ago (and after a couple hundred years of hellenization) along with a Myth that the Egyptians more than likely never believed literally is not enough. The Egyptians used metaphors and personifications like cake. They actually thought doing so brought them closer with the gods. All evidence indicates that they did not literally think Osiris walked the earth except as the legendary first King that Osiris embodied as a principle, because Osiris is a principle.The only case Acharya has here is that the meanings of the metaphors got corrupted by the Greeks – which is exactly what find probable and I sat here dealing with your rubbish hoping that you would touch on this concept.

I find it likely that you haven’t because you can’t. You won’t give a source because you’re probably well aware that the source is highly subjective in nature and open to various interpretations, which I believe you want to establish you/Acharya’s interpretations as “the truth.”

Quote:
I wasn't trying to make a convincing case for Acharya's work at the RRS and I made it clear that there was no need for me to do so with such a dishonest blog - I merely pointed out the FACT that Reok has never read Acharya's works and therefore, knows nothing about it. His blog is nothing but an intellectually dishonest smear. He's an embarrassment to Freethinkers and mythicists. He's a perfect example of how not to be.


Okay I’m glad that this wasn’t your best.

Quote:
There's no need to share evidence with every punk kid who comes along with a superiority complex & a chip on their shoulder demanding it - read the books like anybody else would do who's actually interested. She has 4 books totaling over 1,900 pages with Acharya making her case with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references and primary sources and 1,442 bibliographical sources, not to mention photos.


The very that fact that you think I’m a “punk kid” because “it must be so since I thought it, brilliance!” shows your own superiority complex. And given this comment now I beginning to think you’re just full of yourself.


Quote:
Ah, you just admitted you've never studied Budge so it's not so very wrong - no biases needed. I did actually read the foreword. You just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Budge & others as you've demonstrated repeatedly so far.


I can concede the point that you read the forward. However I raise the point of, if you read the forward, how is that you made the mistake of thinking Dr. Golet wanted his translation used?

Either:

1. You’re made a far-fetch, ridiculously conjured case by purposely exploiting what you read. It says in there as plain as day what translation was used. How in the world can he be biased if he’s not even promoting his own translations.
2. You’re reading compression is terrible and you actually didn’t catch it.
3. You’re lying.

This is the type of stuff that’s the reason why I’m not taking you seriously, neither should anybody.

Quote:
Skimming Budge for quotes to mine does not a study make. Acharya has actually studied minute details of Budge, Massey & others along with ancient and modern scholarship. You don't know that because you've never studied her work.


There you go with that again. Please quote where I said or implied this? I have no need to know ever detail of Budge. You have no idea what I’ve read of Budge and I haven’t even quoted him. I know this is painfully hard for you but please stop jumping to your ridiculous unsupported conclusions. I know details of modern Egyptologists.


Quote:
Nor did I say he did.


You clearly implied it by bringing up your bias theory. Nice try.


Quote:
No, you're not.


I will, for the record, let this serve as your down blinded superiority complex. Since apparently now, I’m some “high school kid friend of rook” which you seemingly accept without a shred of evidence other than the belief in the superiority of your own conjecture. If I’m then say it, why do you think I’m here?

Please, get off yourself.

Quote:
You sound like reok - criticize works you know nothing about and when it has been demonstrated to him, he continues to claim to be an expert. LOL - you're really funny, I hope you stick around for comedy relief.


It’s apparent that I don’t need to waste my time with this place any further.


Quote:
Why does she need to respond to every kid who comes along who refuses to actually study her work? You don't think she has far better things to do?


I think she’ll know what she’s talking about way better than having to deal with the likes of you.

Quote:
I didn't ask personal things about you, aren't you paying attention? I said, as you quoted, "I get the sense that you did not read my earlier response or you're not paying any attention. If you're not interested in our responses then why are you here? What is your point in being here posting questions if you're just going to ignore the responses? You're not here for any clarifications at all are you? Why don't you come clean and tells us who you are and why you're really here?"

I'm still waiting for an honest answer. It's blatantly obvious (apparently to everyone but you) that you came here with some motives. Why don't you just be honest about it?


I told you what my motives are. I really don’t know what else you want me to say. Do you want me feed your ego and say that I’m a high school dropout friend of this Rook guy and your so brilliant for being able to see past the façade and get the truth?

You know I actually think I want you to think this. It serves as a testament of how absolutely ridiculous you are as you think because you “thought of something logical” by god Scotty, it must be right!


Quote:
I'm not so sure that you and this HMT are the same person. If it is you then you seem to have a hypocritical double-standard at play here. It appears that when it comes to Acharya's work criticism of it are legit without ever having read any of her works at all. However, websites, now that's a different story according to you - explain.


It’s the same person. And, once again, if you could comprehend what you read, I said it depended on the content of the website when responding to that European guy. And considering the knowledge level at the place I felt plausible websites where convenient.

Don’t even for a second get on your (psychological projected) superiority complex and act like websites are “less.” Not saying that you are. Just don’t if you have that in mind. Even scholars recommend good websites.

I will not be coming back to these forums. If you really want to actually test your theories (instead of just assuming they’re right because they are and you’re great like that), then post on that board with the same user name. I will respond to you specifically as I still check it occasionally. I don’t believe the system has private messaging.

Not only that, just for fun why don’t you make your case out there? Acharya S gave a little intro, be a good puppy and follow. Defend your master. Demand to all that they must read and conform to the holiness that is her book. Even better, do so at the Zeitgeist imdb board. I would love to see you get into it with some members there.

Quote:
Right, like the "bible" issue you're so hung-up on - you seem to be hung-up on that more so than anyone else. I hate spoon-feeding people - especially those who aren't sincerely interested in the first place. I see no reason to share primary sources with you - you can read the works like anybody else would who's actually interested.


More lack of comprehension. Disregarding.

Quote:
Okay, so now you're changing your position - because earlier you wrote that "the physical was irrelevant.


If you could actually comprehend what I write, I said this

Quote:
Essentially, all Egyptian gods are deified concepts/principles. The physical is irrelevant. The physical simply serves as a mental stimulus to invoke “the perfect thoughts” as the Egyptians were realist about ideas. Basically, the Sun is a sign of many gods given the context of its use as an IMAGE. Osiris, along with every Egyptian god is an evolving deified principle which sometimes, yes, the Sun served as the material object to invoke the “right thoughts.” The Egyptians didn’t think that the sun was Osiris anymore than a Christian thinks a cross in a cathedral is Jesus.


Now seriously.

I want you to stop, breath, and look at those words.

Read every word.

Stop. Breath again and reread them.

Then I want you to think, and consider all else that I wrote.

Quote:
They didn’t think Osiris was, literally, the sun. That was my point. And that’s why I said the physical is irrelevant. You surely took my words a little out of context. They thought the gods actually lived in an entirely different realm. This is evident and consistent in all Egyptian texts as they believe they would actually encounter the gods in death (which they conceived as an alternate consciousness). Physical objects were manifestations of the gods; they are in lower order of necessity. The light is so important because it invoked the “proper thoughts and feeling” of the divine substances, which were conceived of as innate abstractions. They were indeed realist about these abstract objects such as ideas and feelings so they spoke in a realistic manner about them. They had to be “perfected” through activating the ka (heka).


“Irrelevant” when you actually consider the context of how I was writing is saying “not as important, secondary, mundane, undivine as the divine to them was the divine substances – the gods, who manifested physically.

It took you THIS long for you to see this?

You, sir, are being absolutely asinine with your superiority complex. If you weren’t so absolutely stuck on yourself, you might actually have a chance at comprehending what I write. Now, just for further elaboration, I shall quote the professionals (which you clearly aren’t):

Quote:
The Egyptians did not believe that a stone statue of Amun-Re was the god himself any more than a Christian believes that a crucific is Christ. The divine image in Egyptian religion served as a place in which the deity could momentarily manifest himself or herself. In the same way, the sacred Apis bull was a temporary living manifestation of the god Ptah. As such, it could be used in ceremonies and to procure oracles. Significantly, at the bull’s death, it would be buried with great solemnity and quickly replaced by another Apis bull. The deity manifests himself in the living monarch, and when the chief intermediary between the gods and men.


Let’s exam this.

1. You acknowledge that the deity is a concept/principle.
2. What you either aren’t acknowledging or don’t quite understand is that concepts/principle were considered REAL by them, not a figment of the mind. Divine principles were a divine substance, the netjers. (as evident in the Eternal Return)
3. They therefore thought that the neters would manifest into physical objects and sensations.
4. The physical is there for not divine. The neters are. The freakin word translate as gods.

Moustafa Gadalla, who writes anti-establishment mainstream connecting-Egypt-with Christianity scholarship material (and did it way before Zeitgeist and Acharya) all the time has expound on the definition.

Quote:
a divine principle/function/attribute of the One Great God. Incorrectly translated as god/goddess.


http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/glossary.html

Maybe if you weren’t so hung up on Budge you’d understand things like this.

Quote:
You're not completely accurate but still, you're preaching to the choir - again, you don't know that because you don't know anything about Acharya's works.


I’m far more accurate than your Osiris = the sun which any Egyptologist will laugh at how over simplified that is if you took a ridiculous rigid stance for it like you did.

Quote:
It's already been done - 4 books to date with 1,900 pages of Acharya making her case with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references and primary sources and 1,442 bibliographical sources, not to mention photos. You don't know any of this because as already made categorically clear you've never read her work so you speak from UTTER ignorance. I guess you don't realize how badly you're embarrassing yourself here.


Because since apparently Acharya is Jesus, as in our lord and Savior now, one must know her works to know the topic.

I’m going to make this perfectly clear and if you respond with more conjunctures then oh well because it’s not likely I’m coming back.

Acharya has a bad rep. Don’t even act like this isn’t the case. Now a huge part of this reputation, especially among conservatives Christians, is due to their own blatant biases. We all know this. Here’s the problem, Christians are not the only people making valid criticisms as discussed before.

Now I know you guys already have it in your mind the criticisms are not valid because didn’t read blah blah blah. We get it already and that’s fine if that’s your point of view.

But, as Price (who has wrote an introduction to one of her books if I’m not mistaken) has stated, She is way too quick to conjure things without sufficient explanation. It might be sufficient to you guys, but it sure as hell isn’t sufficient to the other side of the equation, nor, as evident, people on the freethinking atheist side as well. I don’t care how many footnotes and references she has. Quantity is not the same as quality.

So now I come on these forums after reading her article thinking something along the lines of “well there’s gotta be more explanation to the whole Osiris thing because that was kinda rushed, let me see what it is.” Lord behold I get on here and I get a poser (yourself, and I will concede the point when you demonstrate that you actually know what you’re talking about instead of baseless ranting about how inaccurate I am because apparently you have to agree with Acharya in totality to be “accurate”) that can’t even comprehend what I write, and I get attacked for not conforming to (hate to break it to you) an authority that Acharya doesn’t have. Even if you consider her an “authority” even “authorities” need to have valid explanations. What I seen thus far is not valid, and arguably deceptive.

THE CONTEXT THAT I AM SPEAKING IS DIRECTLY TO WHAT I HAVE READ

DO NOT MAKE UP MORE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THIS

ARE WE CLEAR?

I wanted a preview of more, and I made this clear in the beginning. I have no reason to waste my time reading Acharya books if it turns out that her books are problematic, subjectively conjured interpretation of questionable sources. It does me absolutely no good. And considering the level of baseless conjuring I’ve seen here, I’m starting to think her critics have a valid point. Now I want to makes this absolutely clear:

I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT HER BOOKS ASCRIBE TO THE FORMER STIGMA ATTRIBUTED TO HER

All I wanted was for you guys to give me good reason to believe that the stigmas are false and all you did was give me that exactly the opposite and get paranoid about your petty stupid “he’s with Rook” notion.

Nobody buys the car with an over intense salesmen claiming whom claims that the test drive is rough because “I don’t truly understand cars.”

With that said.

I will wait until her new book about Egypt is thoroughly reviewed. I will evaluate the reviews and then see if it will be worth my time reading.

I shall call this experience “A meeting the Acharya apologists” in my mind, and you may laugh, judge, and make all sorts of ill wills against me as you please. I’ll guess I’ll just have to activate the ka.

Good Day


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:36 am 
Offline
Hermes

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:21 am
Posts: 150
Location: Italy
Trismegistus maybe you should avoid arguments Ad auctoritatem and Ad judicium. Let's stick to the facts.


For example here is an interesting take on Osiris:

Quote:
The Reassembly of Osiris

Many Hymns attest to the reassembly of Osiris by Horus and Isis. Note that the reassembly is not limited to Isis. These Hymns may be compared with the material from Plutarch.

Hymn 357:
O! Osiris the King, Geb has given you your eyes, that you may be content with the eyes of this Great One in you; Geb has caused that Horus give them to you, so that you may be pleased with them. Isis and Nephthys have seen and found you. Horus has reassembled you, Horus has caused Isis and Nephthys to protect you, they have given you to Horus and he is pleased with you. It goes well with Horus in your company in your name of `Horizon from which Ra goes forth'; in your embrace in your name of `Inmate of the come back to you, assign it to yourself, and may it belong to you. Isis has reassembled you, the heart of Horus is glad about you in this your name of 'Foremost of the Westerners', and it is Horus who will make good what Seth has done to you.

Hymn 364:
Horus has reassembled your members for you, and he will not let you perish; he has put you together, and nothing shall be disturbed in you; Horus has set you up, and there shall be no unsteadiness.

Hymn 367:
O! Osiris the King, Geb brings Horus to you that he may protect you and bring to you the heart of the gods; may you neither languish nor groan. Horus has given to you his Eye that you may take possession of the Wrrt-crown by means of it at the head of the gods. Horus has reassembled your limbs and he has put you together, and nothing in you shall be disturbed. Thoth has laid hold of your foe for you, he having been decapitated together with those who are in his following, and he will have no mercy on him.

Hymn 485C:
O! Horus who is upon the sdsd, give me, your hand that I may ascend to Nut. (O! Nut,) set your hand on me with life and dominion, that you may assemble my bones and collect my members. May you gather together my bones. . . . there is no limb of mine devoid of God. May I ascend and lift myself up to the sky as the great star in the midst of the East.

The Moon God

Hymn 412: you belong to the stars who surround Ra, who are before the Morning Star, you are born in your months as the moon, Ra leans upon you in the horizon.

Here Mercer shows a different phrasing. He puts it thus:

You belong to the nhh'w-stars, the servants of Ra, who are before the Morning Star. You will be born as your new moons like the moon, while Ra leans upon you in the horizon.

This difference is important because Faulkner, in the interests of literary beauty, has sacrificed a phrase that provides information about the connection between Osiris and the moon. Faulkner substitutes "months" for "new moons," an interpretation on his part. Osiris is not the moon, but his rebirth, new moon by new moon, is like the birth of the moon. Osiris is connected to a monthly moon cycle; each new moon is a remembrance of his rebirth (not birth).
Mercer literally holds to the nhh'w-stars, which he cannot identify, but which are shown as the servants of Ra, while Faulkner rearranges the entire phrase to eliminate the lack of identification and substitute "the stars who surround Ra." Faulkner practices such alteration repeatedly throughout his translations, taking scholarly liberty for literary nicety, thus sacrificing our understanding.

Hymn 437:
Awake for Horus! Arise against Seth! Raise yourself as Osiris, as a spirit, the son of Geb, his first-born! You arise as Anubis who is on the baldachin, the gods (Ennead) tremble at you, the three-day festival is celebrated for you, you are pure for the New Moon, your appearing is for the monthly festival, the Great Mooring-post calls to you as to Him who stands up and cannot tire, who dwells in Abydos.

Compare with Mercer:

Wake up for Horus; stand up against Seth. Raise yourself as Osiris, like the spirit, son of Geb, his first-(born). Stand up as Anubis, who is on the min-w shrine, before whom the Ennead tremble. The three beginnings (divisions of the year) will be celebrated for you. Purify yourself on the day of the new moon; you dawn on the first of the month. The great min.t-(stake) mourns for you, as for him who stands without being tired, who resides in Abydos.

Again we see the differences in interpretation that Faulkner interposes into the text, preventing us from making assessment of the phrases for ourselves.
Again we see how Osiris is exhorted to be pure for his dawning (rising) into rebirth at the beginning of each month. This event is celebrated in heaven as much as it is on earth.

Hymn 610 (A variant of Hymn 437):
Awake for Horus! Stand up for Seth! Raise yourself, you eldest son of Geb, at whom the Two Enneads tremble! Stand up, O! Herdsman, for whom the three-day festival is celebrated! May you appear for the monthly festival, may you be pure for the New Moon festival.

Hymn 685:
This King is hale, the Herdsman stands up, the month is born, Spa lives. I have prepared arourae so that you may cultivate barley, you may cultivate emmer; this King will be presented therewith for ever.
Apparently, the ancient Egyptians felt that the health of Osiris in his monthly rebirth was important to the yield of grain.

From Mercer:

Hymn 483:
Raise yourself up, Osiris, son of Geb, his first-born, before whom the Great Gods tremble. You purify yourself on the first of the month, you dawn on the day of the New Moon, for you will be celebrated at the three beginnings, (divisions of the year.)

Again we see the importance of the rebirth of Osiris at the new moons. He is asked to be pure to ensure the cycles of the earth.
A few passages concerning the Moon as the symbol for Osiris may be found in the Papyrus of Ani, dating to 1500 BC.

CHAPTER II. (1) THE CHAPTER OF COMING FORTH BY DAY, AND OF LIVING AFTER DEATH. Says Osiris Ani: "Hail, Only One, shining from the Moon! (2) Hail, Only One, shining from the Moon! Grant that this Osiris Ani may come forth among the multitudes which are round about you; (3) let him be established as a dweller among the shining ones; and let the underworld be opened unto him. And behold Osiris, (4) Osiris Ani shall come forth by day to do his will upon earth among the living."

We can see the nature of the symbolism. He shines in the heavens through his power and might. He is among the multitudes of celestial personalities. He will do his will upon earth among the living.

CHAPTER VIII. (1) THE CHAPTER OF PASSING THROUGH AMENTA, AND OF COMING FORTH BY DAY. Says Osiris Ani: "The hour openeth; (2) the head of Thoth is sealed up; perfect is the eye of Horus. I have delivered the eye of Horus which shines with splendors on the forehead of Ra, (3) the father of the gods. I am the same Osiris, dwelling in Amenta. Osiris knows his day and that he shall not live therein; nor shall I live therein. (4) I am the Moon among the gods; I shall not come to an end. Stand up, therefore, O Horus; Osiris hath counted thee among the gods."

He is the moon among the gods because of the brilliance of his splendor, second only to Ra who is symbolized by the sun.

CHAPTER LXXX. (1) THE CHAPTER OF CHANGING INTO THE GOD WHO GIVETH LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS. Says Osiris, the scribe Ani, triumphant: I am . . . I have led away the darkness captive by my might. I have upheld the Eye when its power waned (7) at the coming of the festival of the fifteenth day, and I have weighed Sut in the heavenly mansions beside the Aged one who is with him. I have endowed (8) Thoth in the House of the Moon-god with all that is needful for the coming of the festival of the fifteenth day.

He led the darkness of the night away by his glorious shining. The festival of the fifteenth day is the Full Moon, when he is in his highest magnitude. The Eye here may infer Ra; if his power should wane Osiris would take his place to keep the heavens lit.

We can now examine the Plutarch myth with greater benefit.
Clearly, we have only allusions, not explicit statements. Neither the Pyramid Texts nor the Papyrus of Ani offer details for us to understand the foundation of the moon myth. But the allusions agree with the myth in their elements; they do not deny the myth.
Plutarch recognized that the 28-year life of Osiris was a moon cycle, and that the 14 pieces into which his body was dismembered were the 14 days of the decline from full to new moon. In other words, Osiris was killed at the Full Moon. The association of Osiris as the Moon God then takes on a particular significance. Jesus was killed the day before the observance of the Passover, at the Full Moon.
There are many striking parallels between the myth of Osiris and the New Testament record of Jesus.
Both were killed by supermortal enemies. For the Egyptians it was Seth; for Christians it was the Devil
Jesus was crucified at the full moon, Passover. Osiris was dismembered at the full moon.
Jesus was in his 30's when he was killed; Osiris was 28.
Both suffered bodily harm: Jesus was crucified; Osiris was dismembered.
Both rose from the dead.
Both returned to their home in heaven.
Jesus is recognized by Christians as God and Creator; Osiris was recognized by the ancient Egyptians as Creator and Ruler of the Heavens.
Both had the power to raise human mortals from the dead.
The ancient Egyptians appealed to Osiris for eternal life. Christians appeal to Jesus for eternal life.
I, for one, cannot accept that these detailed parallels were an accident of time. Neither can I accept that the apostles of Jesus fashioned his story to such detailed parallel. They did not even know of this material, let alone borrow it! The many passages from the Old Testament show that we have an on-flow of events that spans hundreds and millennia of years. An immortal heavenly being is unfolding a revelation of his human life, death, and resurrection that spans the Judeo-Christian religious texts, not limited by the narrow vision of a few ignorant fishermen.
The evidence requires that the ancient Egyptians had an account of the events of Jesus thousands of years before the event, but that their memory became distorted and mythologized. I call it debased prophecy.
Other parallels exist but outside of the scope of this presentation. For example, Horus became the enemy of Set; they engaged in a great battle in the heavenly realms. There was war in heaven.

Rev 12:7-8 -- Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

Set was a rebel god. Horus was the son of Osiris, and his protector. The images fit those of Melchizedek of the biblical account, not always named. See Psalm 2, 72, 110, and so on.

http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisjesusIV.htm

What do you think? Have you some sources that contraddicts that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:43 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
H. M. Trismegistus wrote:
Osiris is also not “essentially the sun.” If Osiris was essentially the sun, then why would Ra be the Sun as well? Why would Horus be the sun as well? Did they think that all three where “essentially the sun?” Not exactly.


H. M. Trismegistus wrote:
So now I come on these forums after reading her article thinking something along the lines of “well there’s gotta be more explanation to the whole Osiris thing because that was kinda rushed, let me see what it is.”


Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
This is a common misunderstanding with folks trying to understand the Egyptian gods. Few understand how the Egyptians viewed their gods - folks simply don't realize how interchangeable they are and what they're representing or symbolizing, in this case, the sun. For example, Horus is the sun at sunrise until 12 noon when the sun is at its "most high" and becomes Ra. At 6 Ra becomes Atum until mid-night when Atom becomes Osiris the god of the underworld (night). And then, Osiris becomes Horus in the morning to start all over again.


Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
This is the same for Yahweh as Acharya points out earlier in "Sons of God". Even Yahweh had lunar aspects left over from earlier cult times even though his solar cult aspects where emphasized as the religion progressed. So in the case of Yahweh, Osiris, and the Buddha, it appears that both lunar and solar symbolism was applied.

And in the case of Osiris it appears that to the ancients he represented the sun as it burrows through the underworld of the earth every night (midnight through sunrise), when the suns light is reflected off of the moon causing the monthly moon phases.

So what I'm getting out of this so far is that Osiris is solar even though one can find lunar aspects associated with him that are left over from earlier times, but that doesn't make Osiris any less solar in the grand scheme of things.


Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
That's right Tat - even the ancients knew that the light coming from the moon was actually being reflected from the sun. That's why we have the solar-lunar interchangeability at play here.

That fact is missed by most folks who simply don't have that depth of knowledge. They often get confused on the solar-lunar interchangeability by not making the connections.


Now add Descartes quotation:

Quote:
Says Osiris Ani: "Hail, Only One, shining from the Moon! (2) Hail, Only One, shining from the Moon!


Once again, the light shinning from the moon is a reflection of the suns light during the evening hours, or simply when the sun is in the "underworld".

Quote:
Osiris Ani shall come forth by day to do his will upon earth among the living.


This may refer to the moon being visible during the day at certain times, when, once again, the light of the sun is being reflected off of the moon giving the moon the appearance of illumination. But in any case, this all appears to lead right back to the interchangeability of solar and lunar personifications in world mythology - Egypt being no exception.

Trismegistus, one thing that I'd like to add here is that I've gone ahead and read through Christian apologetic books just for the sake of seeing what they're up to. I didn't believe that, "The Case For Christ", had any real substance in it, yet I read the book at my grandmothers request in order to see what was being presented as evidence for Jesus. In the end I didn't feel that any credible evidence was provided. But I read the book in any case and therefore have an opinion based on knowing as opposed to not knowing. :wink:

But if I had heard some people saying that, "The Case For Christ", was bunk, and then wandered into a forum and declared that it's all bunk because I heard some people saying that it's all bunk, and told everyone on the forum that I don't actually feel like reading the book because I already know that it's all bunk, how could I expect to have my opinion taken seriously by anyone on the forum? Could I then turn around and demand that everyone on the forum read through my posts very carefully when I didn't even have the dignity to read through the book before offering my opinion? I could, but I would have made myself look like a bit of a hypocrite like yourself by coming on here and trying to slander Acharya's research when you haven't even read so much as a short e-book like The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist part 1.

Hopefully you'll find it in yourself to have the dignity to go ahead and read the new "Christ in Egypt" so as you can offer us a much more educated opinion of Acharya based on your own first hand knowledge of the material presented in the book.

I'd be much more interested in your opinion if it were based on an actual critique of the book itself, not skimming an article or accepting Christian apologetic hear-say.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Trismegistus "So I have a complex because I point how experts disagree with you and that you’re too stubborn to admit it..."


LOL, that's just it - you THINK you've refuted something when you haven't - because you don't know what you're talking about and that has been demonstrated repeatedly and you still THINK you've refuted something. You're just like the biased, bigoted "pious."

Quote:
Trismegistus "All you keep doing is say “go read her book.”


That would clarify your severe misunderstandings of her work since you know nothing about it. All you're doing is quote mining so you can claim experts disagree with her. You're unaware that Acharya now has 4 books totaling over 1,900 pages with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references & primary sources, utilizing over 1,442 bibliographical sources by respected authors/ publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals and dozens of illustrations. "Christ in Egypt" alone contains 600 pages with nearly 2,400 footnotes/citations utilizing over 900 bibliographical sources.

Quote:
Trismegistus "Not that I know too much about Rook but does he actually claim to be an expert or is that just something you put in his mouth for him like you’re doing me?"


LOL, this is where your utter dishonesty shows itself - I've quoted you every step of the way so you're accusations are far beyond just inaccurate. You may have some serious issues that you need to tend to. I quoted Rook too - he had it on the front page of his blog in big bold letters saying: "Historian and ancient text expert" - he has caught hell for making such a claim with a mere high school education. Now, I see he's actually added to it: "Historian, bible and ancient text expert"
Code:
http://www.rookhawkins.com/1.html


I think he had it here too:
Code:
http://www.rookthehistorian.blogspot.com


He also calls Richard Carrier his "hero":

Quote:
Pissed...Submitted by Rook_Hawkins on August 26, 2006

"In my position, life is not so easy. People who have heard me speak on the subject of History and read my writings on Historically based material, know I know my stuff. In fact, when Richard Carrier tells me I am more learned on a particular subject then he (Gnosticism) it elevates my pride to numerical proportions unheard of. (He's my hero.)

But lets face it, we all know I'm a self-taught think-tank with a wealth of knowledge and not much in the ways of credentials. Usually, nobody cares, because the fact is...I'm damn smart. But when I get called a fraud based on the fact that I am an acclaimed expert in this field, it burns me up..."
Code:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/pissed


Quote:
Trismegistus "I know the quote is out of context and yes I know that Price has said this" ... "I am wrong because you say I’m wrong in spite of the fact that I argued my case and experts agree with me."


LOL, the only reason you had to stoop so low as to post that old trash from Dr. Prices first review of Christ Conspiracy is because you've got nothing else to offer here beyond trash and your tactic of quote mining out of context quotes while being ignorant on Acharya's work. Dr. Price took that down YEARS AGO! LOL, and he later wrote the foreword to her third book Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ

And here's the audio from Acharya & Dr. Price together on the Infidel Guy Radio Show

Again, you haven't refuted anything but you're completely unaware of that fact.

Quote:
Trismegistus "I’m just going to let you be wrong and conjure up your false perceptions here."


Speaking of conjecture, that's all you've had to offer since you've been here!!! I'm tired of your juvenile style of argumentation.

Quote:
Trismegistus "you actually think that the Jesus Myth Hypothesis is mainstream in scholarship?"


LOL, more of the same conjecture and fallacies. There's no point in responding to you it's an utter waste of time. You're stuck on your presumptions and intellectual dishonesty - facts be damned. You're simply impossible to have a sincere discussion with - you either don't read the posts here or you don't comprehend what you read - OR you doing it on purpose just for argument sake which would signify some potential mental issues.

Quote:
Trismegistus "Now if the extent of your interaction with Rook is that one topic that I read then he banned you because:

1. You couldn’t provide the evidence that he asked. Henceforth you…
2. You used circler logic (like you’re doing with me.)
3. You’re fabricating his position (like you’re doing with me).
4. Demanded that he must read her book to understand the topic. (like you’re doing with me)."


1. He wasn't interested in evidence backing-up Acharya - his only interest was to write an intellectually dishonest blog smearing her to make himself look superior - like what you've been doing here.
2. Make it up however you need to.
3. I quoted him and I quote you. You're accusations are utterly dishonest and I've had it with your totally dishonest superiority complex.
4. It just common sense - everyone who has attacked her work without studying it has made monumental egregious errors from R. Carrier to Reok to you.

Quote:
Trismegistus "1. When asked you couldn’t provide the evidence, it’s that simple."


I've already addressed this and it was addressed in reoks dishonest blog. So you're bringing it and the rest of your trash because you've got nothing else but trash to offer. reoks blog is trash as he even admitted he'd never read the book he claimed to be writing a "review." And the Dr. Price review is trash as he removed it YEARS AGO! Again, I've already pointed this out so you very clearly are only here to be an ass.

Quote:
Trismegistus "A good scholar checkmates there opponent’s into acknowledging the plausibility of their opinions."


She has done that - of course, you'd actually need to study her works to know that. That's why Dr. Price and Earl Doherty consider her work quite valuable.

Quote:
"We sorely need a new History of Religions School for the 21st century, to apply modern techniques to this important ancient material. Perhaps this book will help bring that about."

- Earl Doherty, in a review of Acharya's "Christ Conspiracy"
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvTCC.htm


Quote:
Trismegistus "Licona admitted that Carrier is an “outstanding scholar with an IQ higher than his own.”


Licona has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted and it wouldn't take much of an IQ to be "higher" than Liconas. I don't see Carrier as having a high IQ demonstrated by the fact that he dismisses Acharya's work out of hand without having read it and his criticisms of it have been sloppy and contain egregious errors. It demonstrates his irrational biases against her work that he has never read - again I've explained that many times now and it never seems to sink into your head - which demonstrates once again that you had no intention of coming here for any "clarifications" at all.

Quote:
Licona has been refuted here http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm
and here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1158

"First of all, Mike Licona is not a credible individual, as his stated life's mission is to 'prove' that a Jewish man was 'the' God of the cosmos, and was born of a virgin and raised from the dead - a ridiculous premise that is unprovable.

"Secondly, Licona's methodology of 'debunking' my work included making random phone calls to professors, reading them a couple of sentences taken out of context, such that they pronounced my book to be 'ridiculous' and made other disparaging comments about my person, and then hanging up. As an example of this unethical behavior of Licona - during which time he apparently also identified some of these 'ridiculous' sentences as mine when they were not - we received the following response from one of his main 'sources' in his attempts at discrediting me, Professor Edwin Bryant. When we asked Prof. Bryant about this affair concerning Licona, my work and Bryant's derogatory comments, Bryant responded as follows:

"'I somewhat remember receiving a phone call from someone sometime back requesting my views on Krishna in connection with a book he was critiquing. I had no time or interest to read the book to which he was referring, nor was I criticizing the book itself, as you suggested in a previous email since, not having read it, I had no grounds to do so. As a scholar of the Krishna tradition, I felt duty-bound to answer his questions, which I did, and gave my opinion of the views he represented to me regarding Krishna's supposed crucifixion. There are no traditional sources indicating Krishna or any avatara of Vishnu was crucified. If western authors from (I assume) the colonial period have published claims that there are alternative folk narratives that do represent such a version of events, then the onus is on them to provide specific references to these sources if they are to be taken seriously by scholars.

"'best wishes, Edwin Bryant'

"Obviously, Licona was not as cozy with these scholars as the impression he gives in order to depict himself as an authority. Nor did he give much a disclosure concerning my arguments, which Bryant acknowledges he has never read. Moreover, again, my book 'Suns of God' goes into greater detail regarding this issue in particular, much of which data I would think would be fascinating to a 'scholar of the Krishna tradition.' In specific, I address the assertion concerning the depiction of Krishna as 'crucified' or in cruciform.

"Please also see my rebuttal of Licona vis-a-vis my work -

"'It is obvious that apologist Licona's main tactic in refuting The Christ Conspiracy is to attack my credibility, constantly misrepresenting statements from my book and website in order to make me look absurd. Such is a classic tactic of apologists and other used-religion salesmen attempting to sell their shoddy goods to an unsuspecting public. Apologists are not generally trained to think independently or to refute facts but to assail the credentials and credibility of the individual who does not buy such shoddy goods. In other words, don't bother them with the facts or the science, they will simply retort that your hair is the wrong color or you will be punished by God or some other playground rubbish.'

"In any event, even if a few assertions from my work are shown to be in error, and I admit to being fallible, the general premise - to wit, Jesus Christ is as mythical as Hercules - remains sound and unrefuted."
- Acharya S


Quote:
Trismegistus "Please provide the evidence of this. He is indeed cautions that readers are critical of Graves work and he does so with good reason. (not saying that I have anything against graves)"


As I stated, Carrier has never studied Acharya's works nor has he studied Kersey Graves works either. Carrier tells you at the top of his Graves page:

Quote:
"[Editor's note: This is a conflation of three responses which were made by Richard Carrier to feedback and e-mail involving questions about the scholarhip of Kersey Graves, in particular, and about scholarship, in general, in the subject area about which Graves concerned himself in The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors.]"
Code:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html


So, all that from 3 e-mail exchanges w/o ever actually studying Graves work to investigate where his info was coming from. Acharya has actually done that and she may be the only one to ever have done so.

In Carrier's article titled, "Brunner's Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication" - he tells you straight away it's a "brief review"

Carrier starts off with "I was asked by someone ... to check up on a claim made by some authors on the internet that the nativity of Jesus derives in part from a very ancient Egyptian inscription at Luxor."

And again, all Carrier did was read one paragraph from Acharya's first book that was e-mailed to him.
Code:
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html


Acharya's response is included at the top. which links to here:

Quote:
"However, 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


Here's a thought, maybe Carrier should've actually read the material *BEFORE* criticizing it - it might have saved him from the "poor and sloppy scholarship" if his article could be called scholarship at all. There's an obvious double-standard at play here. Acharya is held to impossible standards yet, Carrier and reok can make egregious error after egregious error and nobody says a word about it. If Achayra makes *ANY* mistake her entire body of work is dismissed out of hand. These guys owe her an official apology. Acharya has never done anything to them yet they attack her quite viciously. Again, it's a monumental embarrassment to all Freethinkers and mythicists.

Quote:
Trismegistus "If Acharya went into a more detailed analysis, people wouldn’t have to worry about piecing together the information that she did and distinguishing conjecture/speculation over fact."


So, as just demonstrated once again above - rather than constantly blame Acharya for your own ignorance maybe you, reok and Carrier can organize a little book group and actually study her work for once and for all so that you may all stop the false assumptions based solely on your own negligence of having no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Acharya's works. Again, how many times must this be explained to you for it to sink in?

Quote:
Trismegistus "What Diodorus said 2000 years ago..."


Yeah, yeah you've never actually studied that either have you.

Quote:
Trismegistus "how is that you made the mistake of thinking Dr. Golet wanted his translation used?"


Again, this has already been addressed - what is your major malfunction? Nowhere did I say it was his translation used. Your argument is a straw man.

Quote:
Trismegistus "Please quote where I said or implied this?"


It's in your own post - you said you used Budge for the Mary thing at the same time you mentioned you hadn't ever actually studied Budge. So, you quote mined to get what you wanted. It's in your own post and then you keep making these stupid accusations like this: Trismegistus "I know this is painfully hard for you but please stop jumping to your ridiculous unsupported conclusions." You gotta go - I've just had enough of your BS. I could have a more interesting conversation with the kids at the playground.

You sound much like that "GreNME" guy - somebody sent me this a while back - http://uneducatedpunks.tripod.com after he did pretty much what you're doing here for like 35 pages of nonsense at some other forum.

So Trismegistus, we've established that;

1. when it comes to Acharya's work you have no clue what the hell you're talking about - same with Carrier and reok.
2. Your knowledge of Egypt leaves much to be desired.
3. You're a pompous ass who keeps repeating the same already addressed or dead or irrelevant comments.
4. Your comprehension is either bad or you do it on purpose for argument sake.
5. You were never here for any "clarification"

On & on it goes - I'm done with the absurd and juvenile game Trismegistus has created.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
"The Reassembly of Osiris" is a nice find Descartes. Here's "Parallels Between Osiris and Jesus -- Part I"

http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisandjesus.htm

The other links are at the bottom. :wink:

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Mriana "You know, I think I'm beginning to understand why Islam is lunar. If I remember correctly, Muhammad and his group moved around mostly at night, even hid in the shadows, hid their women under black sheets, etc etc.

Like the Buddha's birth story, which is unarguably celestrial, the stories of Muhammad actually took place in the night sky. Doesn't make the disgusting book more appealing, but that would explain why it is lunar."


Keeping in mind that many desert cultures view the sun as the devil - due to the severe heat. Many of them traveled by night under the moon light.

Lets also keep in mind that Ancient Egypt was originally a luscious landscape that experienced desertification over time.

The Jews and Muslims adhere to lunar calendars while Christianity adheres to a solar calendar. In some respects, that's what this comes down to - who will be the dominant religion? A lunar religion or the solar religion? Muslims want the Jews eliminated because they want THEIR lunar cult to be the dominant lunar religion.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:12 am 
Offline
Hermes

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:21 am
Posts: 150
Location: Italy
Quote:
Plutarch recognized that the 28-year life of Osiris was a moon cycle, and that the 14 pieces into which his body was dismembered were the 14 days of the decline from full to new moon.


Another interesting parallelism of Osiris with Jesus is the VIA CRUCIS, composed of 14 stations. Here in Italy is pretty popular, because every year on Easter the Church reenacts it in the streets of Rome. And in most of the churches you can find the 14 stations of the Via Crucis.


The Stations themselves are usually a series of 14 pictures or sculptures depicting the following scenes:

1 - Jesus is condemned to death
2 - Jesus receives the cross
3 - Jesus falls the first time
4 - Jesus meets His Mother
5 - Simon of Cyrene carries the cross
6 - Veronica wipes Jesus' face with her veil
7 - Jesus falls the second time
8 - Jesus meets the daughters of Jerusalem
9 - Jesus falls the third time
10 - Jesus is stripped of His garments
11 - Crucifixion: Jesus is nailed to the cross
12 - Jesus dies on the cross
13 - Jesus' body is removed from the cross (Deposition or Lamentation)
14 - Jesus is laid in the tomb and covered in incense.




Image
Image
Image


Image

Image

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/lit ... is_en.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross
http://www.itmonline.org/bodytheology/stbrigid.htm
http://www.sangiuseppefaenza.it/Chiesa/Via_crucis.htm
http://www.lmegallery.com/cross.html
http://www.usccb.org/nab/stations.htm
http://www.ordinedeltempio.it/viacrucisrennes.htm
http://www.rennes-le-chateau.org/enigmes/stations.asp
http://www.rennes-discovery.com/church4.htm

Sometimes is called VIA LUCIS ("The Way of Light"):

"The Way of the Cross (Via Crucis) follows the course of Jesus' passion, death, and burial; it is observed by the devotion to the Stations of the Cross, a collection of 14 images which are to be found in virtually all Catholic churches. The Way of Light (Via Lucis) celebrates the most joyful time in the Christian liturgical year, the fifty days from Easter (the resurrection) to Pentecost (descent of the Holy Spirit). The idea for depicting the Way of Light was inspired by an ancient inscription found on a wall of the San Callisto Catacombs on the Appian Way in Rome. This cemetery is named for Saint Callistus, a slave who eventually became the 16th pope (217-222). The inscription found at Saint Callistus comes from the first letter St. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth (around 56 A.D.), in response to the report that some members were denying the Resurrection. The full statement in the letter is (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ):

[...]I delivered to you as of first importance what I had been taught myself, namely that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, and then to all the apostles. Last of all, he appeared to me, too, as though I was born when no one expected it.[...]"

source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=486

VIA LUCIS:

Station 1 : Jesus rises from the dead (Matthew 28:5-6).
Station 2 : Women find the empty tomb (Matthew 28:1-6).
Station 3 : The risen Lord appears to Mary Magdalene (John 20:16).
Station 4 : Mary Magdalene proclaims the Resurrection to the apostles (John 20:18 ).
Station 5 : The risen Lord appears on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-27).
Station 6 : The risen Lord is recognized in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:28-32).
Station 7 : The risen Lord appears to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36-39).
Station 8 : The risen Lord gives the disciples the power to forgive (John 20:22-23).
Station 9 : The risen Lord strengthens the faith of Thomas (John 20:24-29).
Station 10 : The risen Lord says to Peter, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17).
Station 11 : The risen Lord sends the disciples into the whole world (Matthew 28:16-20).
Station 12 : The risen Lord ascends into heaven (Acts 1:9-11).
Station 13 : Waiting with Mary in the Upper Room (Acts 1:12-14).
Station 14 : The risen Lord sends the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:2-4).

source: http://www.itmonline.org/bodytheology/vialucis.htm

Incidentally, the egyptologist Gerald Massey wrote a poem called:

VIA CRUCIS VIA LUCIS

http://gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/dpm_ ... t2.htm#071


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:51 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
Hi Acharya, thanks for resurrecting this important topic - Is Lazarus a remake of Osiris?.

As you know, Osiris is also discussed by Tom Harpur in The Pagan Christ. I have the impression that Harpur has a more positive spin, that understanding Egyptian origins enables a more empirical Christology, and that the eternal Christ is central to human identity.

My suspicion here is that the rejection of Osiris is part of a Western pathology of prejudice against Asia. Noting that the Norse Gods were called the Aesir, a word also very similar to Osiris and Asia, I wonder if urban Christianity, in its efforts to impose uniformity on diverse rural populations, used Osiris as a talisman of the mystical and mythic and eastern, while claiming that Christianity was rational and logical and western. But, Saint John embeds Osiris at the heart of his gospel, in the same point relative to his text as Jesus comes relative to the Bible as a whole. The mythic battle between east and west saw Osiris as the secret leader of the east.

Osiris was denigrated by the west in its official script while homage was still paid by the renaming of Osiris as Lazarus, of Isis as Mary, of Nephthys as Martha, and of Horus as Jesus. Denial of this renaming is a central problem in the hypocrisy of Abrahamic faiths, which face a contradiction between their claims to truth and their rejection of the wider religious heritage of the world that supports the origins of their own faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

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