Freethought Nation

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

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:30 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:27 pm 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 53
Do You have any idea what a troll is?

In case You forgot that you attacked first.
Quote:
You haven't put on your thinking cap very tight jwest have you, and you obviously don't understand the first thing about "The devil got there first" argument in the first place, nor it's implications.


I'm not sure what part of Christian era your having trouble understanding, but what little I have read

Quote:
You're entire argument - that the Egyptians copied the Christians - amounts to suggesting that the Christians were the first to understand the movements of the sun and to mythologize them into a God-Man story, at which point the Coptic Egyptians who didn't understand or have any clue about these solar symbols decided to go back and fudge their ancient myths to make them solar too after Christianity arrived, when they weren't already solar oriented to begin with. That's how ridiculous your argument turns out in the end when the astrotheological meaning of this symbolism is brought up.


No it doesn't. Tighten you thinking cap a little more. The Gospels in the Bible have nothing to do with astrology. My point was that Jesus never read the Coptic writings. That would be necessary fopr Him to have seen anything that makes a reference to Horus being Baptised,being born in a manger,there wise men or Horus being crucified. There is no Egyptian texts prior to the Christian era that mentions anything that can be misinterpreted as meaning that. I did not say anything about the Bibnle being based on astrology. That was Your mistaken notion. Im beginning to think that you never read her book.There is no mention of Anup the Baptiser in anythiong prior to the Christian era. I have no idea if She even mentioned Jesus stealing for the Egyptians. I think that was your misinterpretation of what she wrote about the Copts. Jesus never met a Copt.

tat tvam asi wrote:
Just a note, here's the Gospel zodiac which shows that the gospels have everything to do with astrology: http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm And this argument assumes that Jesus even existed in the first place, which has no contemporary evidence to substantiate it to begin with. An argument built on sand foundations. The chapter about Anup the Baptizer shows that you didn't even read CiE to begin with and don't know the first thing about it's content.


Robert Tulip

Apparantly you haven't read everything that I posted. I said they were not in Egyptian texts prior to the Christian era. Their not. There is no mention of a virgin birth prior to the Christian era. Isis was never portrayed as a virgin in the original texts. In fact she had a husband. She was not a sexless woman of any kind. In fact when her husband was thrown to the ground, He broke into 12 apostles, sorry, 12 pieces. She few around looking for the pieces. She impregnated Herself with a dead god penis. That woulod make it impossible fopr her top be either sexless or a virgin. Anything that says more than that is a rewritten texts.


I'll repost what I originally wrote. I'l try to type slow so everyone can keep up.
I think one important thing that Acharya failed to point out that the texts she is referring to are not as old as the texts that mention the birth of Jesus and Baptism. The Gospels were written before the Egyptian Christians rewrote the the birth of Horus. Horus was born a falcon. When the original text was written the Egyptians did not practice crucification. They knew nothing about baptism. From what I have read from Acharya so far says nothing about Jesus stealing from the egyptian relkigion. That was most likely a mininterpretation of what was actually wrote. I'll know when I have time to read all of it. So far she has said only that
paganism and Christianity were combined, which I agree with.It did not come from Jesus reading a Coptic texts that had not been written at the time.

I have no idea if the following actually came form Her book, but it was claimed to have:

"In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototype of the Virgin Mary and her Child." (Budge, 48.)


Do you understand the concept of percieved?
Do You understand the meaning of in Osiris, the Egyptian Christians found the prototype of Christ. It does not say that in the ancinet Egyptian texts Jesus found a religion He wished to follow.
I'm not sure she actually wrote this either, but siomeone stuck Her name on it:

"In the theology and art of Gnosticism Horus and Christ could easily be blended.... Aeon/Horus was born of the Virgin Isis.... Clearly in the Gnosticism which fringed Christian orthodoxy Horus and Christ could merge." (Murdock, CIE, 229.)

Do You understand the theology and art of Gnosticism was not even around at the time the Gosples were written? Jesus never saw any of them. The Gnostics merged Jesus and Horus into their religious beliefs. You do understand that it could not have been at the time of Jesus or even at the time the earliest Gospel was written.

Quote:
Note, there is no evidence of the gospels existing any earlier than when they first appear into the historical record between the mid to late second century. You also show your ass here because in CiE Murdock lays out an elaborate Alexandrian hypothesis consisting of the notion that Christianity was developed in Alexandria in large part, not in Israel by the mythological characters of the story line like Jesus and the disciples which all lack any contemporary source evidence of their existence as real historical people in the first place.


I'm beginning to think that some of the freethinkers here have misinterpreted Her words to make it fit a particular belief. So much for logic and reasoning.


I happen to believe with tha majority of what Acharya wrote. I agree that Christianity was formed out of myths. I never claimd I didn't. I do not agree that any of the Gospel writers got their myth form reading the original birth of Horus. I'm not sure that she even said that.
I do believe that the Christians in Egypt picked up on the story of Jesus and incorporated Horus into it. The original Tale wouldn't work close enough to please freethinking atheists so they changed it.

If she feels like I intentionally set out to attack her character, I will apologize to her. So far she hasn't seen fit to attack me for claiming that the Baptism of Horus was not in the original texts. I wonder why that is?


Maybe someone can help me out.

Did these quotes actually come for Acharya's book?



"...the Copts of Egypt during the early Christian centuries were known for their massive production of Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. This characteristic of the early Copts should not be surprising to us in light of the evidence of gnostic influence on the early Coptic Christian thought. The gnostics were literate people and well acquainted with ancient religions and mythology. As Christianity was spreading in Egypt, a group of these gnostic Christians apparently made an effort to tie old Egyptian myths to Christian beliefs."

That's a good point. I wish I had thought of that.




"The fusion of Horus with Judaeo-Christian features can be exemplified in Gnostic gems from Egypt....

If it was the Gnostics that tried to fuse Jesus and Horus, that would have been sometimes after the Gospels were written.


I agree that there were thousands of versions of Horus written, but if those who were paying attention know that I said the original text. There was not a thousand copies of the original written down. There was one. That means that the Tale of Horus is an accurate description. I guess Your thinking cap is in the wash.

Quote:
Note, You haven't read the Alexandrian roots of Christianity yet, your questions and premature conclusions reveal that. All of this ramble is premature and you have to actually understand the content of the book before trying to refute it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:07 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
It would help if jwest could master the use of quotation so readers can tell which parts of his/her posts come from others. The arrogance of jwest's comments like 'I will type slow' is breathtaking and insulting, especially because the assumptions behind it are false and delusory. Jwest continues with the lame argument that the popular story of Isis involves sex with the dead Osiris, therefore virgin birth is unknown in Egypt. Perhaps jwest did not notice the replies which pointed out the ancient descriptions of Isis as a virgin and mother?

Here is a comment from Acharya S on these questions:
Quote:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html
Horus and the Virgin Isis-Mery
The assertion that Horus's mother was a virgin can also be found in the Book of the Dead, chapter 66, in which the deceased identifies himself as Horus and says: "I know that I have been conceived by Sechit and that I am born of Neith."...in this ancient text we possess an identification of the mother of Horus as the goddess Neith, who is by all accounts a virgin mother from thousands of years prior to the Christian era. In fact, some scholarship provides for estimates of the pre-historic Neith's worship dating back some 7,000 years. (p. 38) Once more Budge says, "When the Egyptians embraced Christianity they saw nothing strange in identifying [Isis] with the Virgin Mary, and her son Horus with the Babe Christ." Of this apparent development and transparent usurpation of the Egyptian religion by Christians, Budge concludes: "It has often been said and written that the cult of Isis and Horus and the worship of Mary the Virgin and the Child are one and the same thing..." With all these facts in mind, the insistence that Christianity sprang up in a vacuum as a unique and new "divine revelation" appears completely ludicrous and unsustainable.


Maybe jwest thinks he/she can troll here in such an insulting way just because there is such a strong taboo preventing rational debate about the origins of Christianity, so it is easy to play like an ignorant kid who can tease the heretics, oblivious to scholarly debate, safe in the knowledge that daddy church will back up the dogma. If you have been brainwashed into believing the traditional Christian myths of the Bible as gospel truth, you need to work through the assumptions and lies that support this delusion. For myself, just two years ago I commented on a discussion board that I found the mythicism argument as likely as the moon hoax argument. Never having read the evidence, I simply could not believe that a hoax of the scale of the Jesus Myth could have been perpetrated successfully. But when you look, there is no historical evidence for Christ, against enormous evidence that the mythicist argument is the best explanation.

The apologist method of observing points of difference between Horus and Jesus is irrelevant. You have to start with the similarities, set within a modern rational framework that examines the etymology and the symbols. Apart from Acharya's books, scholarly works that provide a compelling argument for mythicism include The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, and books by Earl Doherty and Tom Harpur. All these authors express dismay at how the church seeks to prevent open discussion of Christian origins, and how apologists use ridicule and bullying to support the political spin of dogma. Behind the spin is a totally unbelievable story of a literal historical god-man. Orthodox Christianity is completely incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. By contrast, the Jesus-Horus connection is entirely compatible with modern rationality. The desperation of efforts to shore up the obsolete and incoherent narrative of Christian dogma is obvious. The churches have lost the masses by peddling lies, and cannot see that honest dialogue with critics is needed if the general public are ever to regain respect for Christianity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:54 am 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 53
Robert Tulip wrote:
It would help if jwest could master the use of quotation so readers can tell which parts of his/her posts come from others. The arrogance of jwest's comments like 'I will type slow' is breathtaking and insulting, especially because the assumptions behind it are false and delusory. Jwest continues with the lame argument that the popular story of Isis involves sex with the dead Osiris, therefore virgin birth is unknown in Egypt. Perhaps jwest did not notice the replies which pointed out the ancient descriptions of Isis as a virgin and mother?

Here is a comment from Acharya S on these questions:
Quote:
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html
Horus and the Virgin Isis-Mery
The assertion that Horus's mother was a virgin can also be found in the Book of the Dead, chapter 66, in which the deceased identifies himself as Horus and says: "I know that I have been conceived by Sechit and that I am born of Neith."...in this ancient text we possess an identification of the mother of Horus as the goddess Neith, who is by all accounts a virgin mother from thousands of years prior to the Christian era. In fact, some scholarship provides for estimates of the pre-historic Neith's worship dating back some 7,000 years. (p. 38) Once more Budge says, "When the Egyptians embraced Christianity they saw nothing strange in identifying [Isis] with the Virgin Mary, and her son Horus with the Babe Christ." Of this apparent development and transparent usurpation of the Egyptian religion by Christians, Budge concludes: "It has often been said and written that the cult of Isis and Horus and the worship of Mary the Virgin and the Child are one and the same thing..." With all these facts in mind, the insistence that Christianity sprang up in a vacuum as a unique and new "divine revelation" appears completely ludicrous and unsustainable.


Maybe jwest thinks he/she can troll here in such an insulting way just because there is such a strong taboo preventing rational debate about the origins of Christianity, so it is easy to play like an ignorant kid who can tease the heretics, oblivious to scholarly debate, safe in the knowledge that daddy church will back up the dogma. If you have been brainwashed into believing the traditional Christian myths of the Bible as gospel truth, you need to work through the assumptions and lies that support this delusion. For myself, just two years ago I commented on a discussion board that I found the mythicism argument as likely as the moon hoax argument. Never having read the evidence, I simply could not believe that a hoax of the scale of the Jesus Myth could have been perpetrated successfully. But when you look, there is no historical evidence for Christ, against enormous evidence that the mythicist argument is the best explanation.

The apologist method of observing points of difference between Horus and Jesus is irrelevant. You have to start with the similarities, set within a modern rational framework that examines the etymology and the symbols. Apart from Acharya's books, scholarly works that provide a compelling argument for mythicism include The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, and books by Earl Doherty and Tom Harpur. All these authors express dismay at how the church seeks to prevent open discussion of Christian origins, and how apologists use ridicule and bullying to support the political spin of dogma. Behind the spin is a totally unbelievable story of a literal historical god-man. Orthodox Christianity is completely incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. By contrast, the Jesus-Horus connection is entirely compatible with modern rationality. The desperation of efforts to shore up the obsolete and incoherent narrative of Christian dogma is obvious. The churches have lost the masses by peddling lies, and cannot see that honest dialogue with critics is needed if the general public are ever to regain respect for Christianity.



Maybe my arrogance had something to do with being attacked as soon as I posted.
Once again. I never said that there was not mythical connection to Christianity.
Ans since you brought it up again. The Temple text that has been misinterpreted as Isis saying she was a virgin actually said that she had not been unveiled by any mortal. She did not say that she had never been unveiled at all. The Egyptian gods had at times cohabited with mortals. Isis was merely pointing out the fact that she had not done that. She never claimed to be a virgin.
Plutarch was also brought up. He had this to say about isis:
"... but Isis and Osiris were enamoured of each other and consorted together in the darkness of the womb before their birth. Some say that Arueris came from this union and was called the elder Horus by the Egyptians, but Apollo by the Greeks." - Plutarch, Osiris and Isis.
That blows the virgin Isis/meri theory.

In the beginning I hadn't thought of doing any research on the Jesus/ Horus connected, but thanks to your admin, I did. I found a lot of sites that claim the Jesus/Horus connection has no basis. Every time I looked for something that might verify it it led back to the same few sites that led back to Achary. I guess youe wouldn't find that a little odd.

Code:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Jesus-VS-Horus&id=2162162
http://www.marysia.com/pagan/horus_myths.html
http://interoz.com/egypt/B&FHorus.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS...
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?o...
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandH...
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras....
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus...
http://www.crystalinks.com/horus.html
http://www.fruitofthenile.com/horus.htm
http://www.guardians.net/hawass/horus.ht...
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_s...
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Mit...
http://touregypt.net/godsofegypt/horus.h...
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copyc...
http://www.newton.ac.uk/egypt/email.data...
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm


Noone seems to want to endorse the Jesus/ Horus claim.

Richard Wilkinson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Arizona, calls bogus.
Code:
http://www.newton.ac.uk/egypt/email.data...


They all say basically the same thing.
"No evidence of any baptism for Horus, and no evidence of any "ministry" of Horus. Anubis (or Anup or Anpu) means Royal Child, and is usually depicted as jackal-headed or a wild dog-headed man, or a reclining black jackal. Anubis was the great protector god, guiding the soul through the underworld. He was also the Lord of embalming, and through this is connected with incense and perfumery. No baptism here. (See The Jackal Headed God or Egyptian Animal Gods)."

The Egyptian the KRST had nothing to do with an anointed one. It means soul. Krst-mes has nothing to do with christmas. Mes was "son".

Tau was used to indicate a cross, but it was not used for crucifixion. That was not an Egyptian concept until the Christian era.

I wouldn't have expected you to know much about ancient Egyptian history, but it's very easy to check out. Isis used the penis of the dead Osirus to impregnate Herself. You might want to check all of out before You call anyone lame.It will make you feel like a fool when you do get around to reading it or getting someone to read it for you.
You have preset notion that the only source you have for the Jesus/Horus connection is correct in spite of the many scholars and archeologists that claim it is bogus.


I have been convinced by the freethinkers here to put the information and sources on a web page so that others will know how full of bull you are.
Maybe you should have left well enough alone. When you start biting I will bite back. My sources are bigger than your sources.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:03 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
jwest wrote:
The Temple text that has been misinterpreted as Isis saying she was a virgin actually said that she had not been unveiled by any mortal. She did not say that she had never been unveiled at all. The Egyptian gods had at times cohabited with mortals. Isis was merely pointing out the fact that she had not done that. She never claimed to be a virgin.

Wrong, it's in the temple at Sais dedicated to Neith where she says "I am all that ever was, is, or will be, no mortal man hath me unveiled..." I quoted from a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, where Isis herself declares: "I am the great virgin." And also in the Pyramid Texts. You skipped over addressing the real issue to instead raise a straw man and try knocking it down.

Quote:
"The Pyramid Texts speak of “the great virgin” (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)" ...

"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares:

“I am the great virgin.”


And the mystery declared concerning Neith being the past, the present, and the future - which no mortal man has unveiled - is a blatant reference to the "mystery of existence", it has nothing to do with any literal sexual activity. It - just as all mythology - is written in the langauge of metaphor. And the same is true of Isis and Osiris. The main point is that this is mythology and in mythology virgin dawn goddess types are portrayed as both having children and perpetually virgin. It's a mythic motif and you've shown your ass by coming here and expressing such a blatant ignorance of comparative mythology and religion. Have you never read "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" in your so-called in depth scholarly endeavors? Pointing to another quote about 'Osiris and Isis consorting in the womb before they were born' doesn't do anything to erase all of the "Virgin" references to Neith and Isis in the mythology. It only shows that despite anything you can point to as seemingly sexual in content, nevertheless Isis declares herself "I am the great virgin." The virgin title has to do with what the mythology is trying to convey, not literal sexual activity taking place between literal physical beings. The virgin dawn which gives birth to the rising sun over and over every day, and yet the virgin dawn is perpetually virgin, has more to do with understanding why myths are arranged this way.

jwest wrote:
Quote:
"... but Isis and Osiris were enamoured of each other and consorted together in the darkness of the womb before their birth. Some say that Arueris came from this union and was called the elder Horus by the Egyptians, but Apollo by the Greeks." - Plutarch, Osiris and Isis.

That blows the virgin Isis/meri theory.

No, as a matter of fact my original post already blew your myth-understanding out of the water and you were too ignorant to have even understood what just happened. The more you post, the more you prove that. You've contradicted yourself between forums and you seem oblivious to that as well:
jwest wrote:
Tighten you thinking cap a little more. The Gospels in the Bible have nothing to do with astrology. ... I did not say anything about the Bibnle being based on astrology. That was Your mistaken notion.

No jwest, in the comparative mythology and religion forum you just recently posted:

jwest wrote:
Monday July 5

The ancient Hebrews were into astrology although you won't find many
Christians that will admit that. The Dead Sea Scrolls include a texts on astrology.
The Hebrews were not afraid to incorporate pagan beliefs into their religion.That included astrology.

Only to turn around now and claim that the bible has nothing to do with astrology. I suppose that the New Testament has nothing to do with the Old Testament then, if we are to take your first assertion that the OT had a lot to do with astrology before you tried to turn around and deny it in this forum. Obviously, the NT being a continuation of the OT would likewise have a lot to do with astrology which is well proven when you simply read the content of the NT: http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

jwest wrote:
Isis used the penis of the dead Osirus to impregnate Herself. You might want to check all of out before You call anyone lame.It will make you feel like a fool when you do get around to reading it or getting someone to read it for you.
You have preset notion that the only source you have for the Jesus/Horus connection is correct in spite of the many scholars and archeologists that claim it is bogus.

I have been convinced by the freethinkers here to put the information and sources on a web page so that others will know how full of bull you are.
Maybe you should have left well enough alone. When you start biting I will bite back. My sources are bigger than your sources.

No, the various Christian apologetic sites you've posted are not bigger sources than ours. The Virgin Isis example that I've posted applies across the board to other Egyptian and Christian parallels as well. You've exposed yourself already as not reading or understanding the content of the book CiE which was specifically designed and layed out to address all of the apologetic sources you've posted. All apologists and skeptics! It's the counter re-action to the re-action that apologists had after ZG part 1 came out on the internet. You're posting their refutation attempts and I'm posting the information which has been published afterward that demolishes their uneducated refutation attempts that were raised before the book came out. You don't even understand that stories like Isis and the penis of Osiris (basic encyclopedia entries) are but our starting point around here. Of course we know about them (basic encyclopedia entries) because that's where the investigation begins. You've presented our starting point as your final conclusion!

Listen kid, I know it's fun to try to go around to internet forums and make a big stink and rant and rave in order to see what comes of it. That's fine. But if that's what you're after then I will be glad to demonstrate what comes of it and you can take the entire thing as a learning experience. Like Robert pointed out, he originally didn't think that the mythicist argument should be taken seriously. But as he began to read all of the material for himself he began to realize just how powerful of a position it really is. You haven't read the material contained in CiE which dismantles all of these apologetic claims yet and that much is obvious. If you had then you would have created New Refutation Attempts based on the new material rather than posting the same old false assertions which have already been thoroughly dismantled. I mean "King David 8", come on. We have an entire thread about that idiot in the zeitgeist forums. He hasn't bothered to read CiE either and he pays the same price that you're now paying for not educating himself on the source material before setting out to try and refute claims of Egyptian and Christian parallels.

You can either post the specific page numbers from the book - the relevent chapters - and take issue with the primary and scholarly sources (ancient to modern) provided therein, or you can take off and troll some other forum because anything less than that is not a serious refutation. You're wasting peoples time with this thread trolling nonsense so you'd better stop it and start taking the issue seriously. To do that you have to provide the relevent quotes from the book so let's get to it.

_________________
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: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:51 am 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 53
Only to turn around now and claim that the bible has nothing to do with astrology. I suppose that the New Testament has nothing to do with the Old Testament then, if we are to take your first assertion that the OT had a lot to do with astrology before you tried to turn around and deny it in this forum. Obviously, the NT being a continuation of the OT would likewise have a lot to do with astrology which is well proven when you simply read the ........

Your blabbering.
Do you believe the New Testament was written by the same Hebrews that wrote the Old testament. Being connected to is not the same as being written by. Being a continuation of
the Old testament does not imply that it was written by the same hebrews. I take Your thinking cap is still in the wash.
The Virgin Isis example you posted did not exist except in someone's misinterpretation.
You depend on sources that are from Achary's site or lead bcak to Achary's site. What few sources are given for the book or the movie are difficult or impossible to trace. They all lead back to the same source. The links you post are not valid sources. All of them together say the same thing.

Listen kid. I don't go around forums forums doing much of anything. You assume too much. That goes for assuming that Achary's three or four sources are valid. Their mostly names that none ever heard of, or collaborators in the movie. A real secretive tight group that noone can seem to get anything from. There is no Egyptiologist that i have found that has praised the movie or the book, although claims have been made that some do. If there are any Egyptologists that believe the books or the movie is valid, why are they not posted?
The truth is that they don't exist. The scholars that can be found are as far fetched as the movie.

It wouldn't do any good to post anything new. You haven't checked out the ones I did post. I have no idea who kingdavid is, but apparantly he was buried inside the list of links I posted. Out of all of the links You managed to find one that may not be credible. Good job.

I'm not paying a price for anything. You haven't shown me anything that disputes what I posted other than sources that have a motive for agreeing with Achary. I mean come on, can't you find just one reputible source that has some credentials?
Don't bother to use Robert M. Schoch. He has already been overused and has nothing credible to add. Wallis Budge has been misinterpreted and has a stake in promoting weirdness. If you run acroos anyone that can verify the accuracy of the book or the movie let me know. I spent a day looking and found nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:10 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
jwest, there are obvious parallels between Jesus and Horus. The 'holy family' of Joseph Mary and Jesus matches the holy family of Osiris, Isis and Horus. The battle between Jesus and Satan as representatives of good and evil matches the battle between Horus and Seth. Even if it is unclear how much Christian borrowing from Egypt was deliberate, the context of thousands of years of mythology with similar structure provides a natural basis for copying, with Jesus moving into the niche formerly occupied in part by Horus.

The syncretism involved in New Testament theology is direct with the use of the Greek term Logos for Christ, but the borrowing from Egypt is far more subtle. The racist attitude in modern Europe has seen the Egyptians as barbarians and primitives, with the view that civilization started with the Greeks. Acharya is directly confronting this prejudice with evidence of the spiritual depth of Egyptian culture. Do you think Egyptian culture just disappeared meekly under the boot of Rome's cultural genocide? It makes far more sense that the Egyptians adapted to the new imperial dispensation by ensuring their Gods lived on with new names. I can't tell from your comments here how you see the genesis of the scriptures, but your argument that they are not exactly the same as the Egyptian myth in no way invalidates the thesis that Horus is a main type of Christ. Your request for mainstream authorities ignores the long history of bigotry that has led anyone who raises these topics to be branded a heretic and blasphemer. The repressive impact of church bullying is immense. Academics live in fear of the church even today, and see these issues of comparative mythology as negative and dangerous in career terms, regardless of their merits.

The role of the church in the destruction of pagan wisdom is among the greatest evils of history. The forensic work involved in putting together the pieces of Christian origins in a believable way is very difficult. Your dismissal of the Egypt connection for the Gospels reads almost like you are speaking on behalf of the curia. This debate is constrained by the stone wall of bigotry that prevents scholarly research except by those who sell their soul to the church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: jwest troll thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:43 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
jwest wrote:
Quote:
Only to turn around now and claim that the bible has nothing to do with astrology. I suppose that the New Testament has nothing to do with the Old Testament then, if we are to take your first assertion that the OT had a lot to do with astrology before you tried to turn around and deny it in this forum. Obviously, the NT being a continuation of the OT would likewise have a lot to do with astrology which is well proven when you simply read the link:........


Your blabbering.
Do you believe the New Testament was written by the same Hebrews that wrote the Old testament. Being connected to is not the same as being written by. Being a continuation of
the Old testament does not imply that it was written by the same hebrews. I take Your thinking cap is still in the wash.

I just posted a link to the gospel zodiac. It's as astrological if not more so than the OT. Jesus as the sun moving around the zodiacal year from the winter solstice is obvious and in plain view. The 12 disciples as the twelve signs of the zodiac is likewise obvious. You decided to leave out the link I see, which demolishes your position about the NT. And you also decided to avoid the two quotes you've posted which contradict one another showing your lack of consciousness in terms with keeping up with your own position. You're all over the place and now it's a matter of public record. So enjoy it and think twice before posting, always.

Jwest wrote:
The Virgin Isis example you posted did not exist except in someone's misinterpretation.
You depend on sources that are from Achary's site or lead bcak to Achary's site. What few sources are given for the book or the movie are difficult or impossible to trace. They all lead back to the same source. The links you post are not valid sources. All of them together say the same thing.

The Pyramid texts. Did you read them? They do not depend on Acharya's site, rather they are 4,400 year old religious texts which destroy apologetic opposition towards the antiquity of the Virgin Isis-Meri.
jwest wrote:
Listen kid. I don't go around forums forums doing much of anything. You assume too much. That goes for assuming that Achary's three or four sources are valid. Their mostly names that none ever heard of, or collaborators in the movie. A real secretive tight group that noone can seem to get anything from. There is no Egyptiologist that i have found that has praised the movie or the book, although claims have been made that some do. If there are any Egyptologists that believe the books or the movie is valid, why are they not posted?
The truth is that they don't exist. The scholars that can be found are as far fetched as the movie.

The truth is that they don't exist? Once again you've shown your ignorance in public:
Quote:
"The book is more extensive and encompassing than many dissertations I have read, containing over 900 sources and nearly 2,400 citations in several languages, including ancient Egyptian. The text abounds in long lost references many of them altogether new to English rendering, including de novo translations of difficult passages in handwritten German...." Robert M Price


You don't even know that there are nearly 2,400 citations in several languages and over 900 sources that you have to sift through to even begin trying to make a refutation attempt.

Quote:
"My name is Ken Feder. I am an archaeologist, and I play one on TV, as a talking head in various documentaries on the National Geographic Channel, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, ScFi, BBC Horizon, and, as it turns out, even the Weather Channel. I have written several books on archaeology, including Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience In Archaeology (about to go into its 7th edition). Frauds is revered by some and hated by others, which is an indication I must have done something right in that work.

"...having conducted research and written extensively over the course of the last thirty years, I think I have developed a good eye for recognizing valuable research that is worthy of serious consideration when I see it. And the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration.

"Everyone who reads Murdock’s Christ in Egypt should understand that the sources she cites are anything but marginal or questionable. In fact, her sources are, at least as far as I can tell, entirely within the Egyptology mainstream and many are, in fact, revered, and deservedly so, within the community of Egyptologists. The fact that these sources are mainstream, highly respected, or even seminal does not, of course, make them right about the origins of the Christ story. However, it does make them, and Murdock's thesis in which she incorporates their work, impossible to dismiss out of hand. Read her book. Criticize it if you believe it deserves criticism. But to dismiss it or get apoplectic about her thesis simply because it shocks you is plainly foolish."

Kenneth Feder, PhD
Professor of Archaeology, Central Connecticut State University

jwest wrote:
It wouldn't do any good to post anything new. You haven't checked out the ones I did post. I have no idea who kingdavid is, but apparantly he was buried inside the list of links I posted. Out of all of the links You managed to find one that may not be credible. Good job.

You posted a bunch of skeptic and apologetic websites, which you've just admitted you haven't even read yourself. You just googled up anything you could find that claims to refute the Egyptian and Christian parallels and came up with the usual material that we have already addressed around here many times over. KD8 has been thoroughly exposed by CiE and so have you and anyone else who cares to differ with the Egyptian and Christian parallels. Do you think I care to do any more than point out one or two issues with your BS jwest? I don't. You're trolling. Consider yourself lucky that your posts are even being responded to at all. As your position continues to dissolve your luck in that era may change.

jwest wrote:
I'm not paying a price for anything. You haven't shown me anything that disputes what I posted other than sources that have a motive for agreeing with Achary. I mean come on, can't you find just one reputible source that has some credentials?
Don't bother to use Robert M. Schoch. He has already been overused and has nothing credible to add. Wallis Budge has been misinterpreted and has a stake in promoting weirdness. If you run acroos anyone that can verify the accuracy of the book or the movie let me know. I spent a day looking and found nothing.


The book itself uses mainstream Egyptologists and sources throughout. It was written as such on purpose to address idiots like yourself and curb the very assertions you are trying to assert here. I told you that if you want to keep on trying to refute these parallels you're going to have to provide the page number and the respected sources and primary evidence which you are trying to dispute. You went ahead and posted anyways without doing that. You have to read CiE first before trying to refute it and you obviously haven't. So when you have read the book you can contact the admin and let them know that you do have a copy of the book and that you are ready to post the relevant quotes from the chapters containing all of the info on the Egyptian and Christian parallels. The cross, the 12, the Virgin Isis, and all of it have entire chapters devoted to each. You're just spinning your wheels trying to address material that you don't even know about in the first place.
Quote:
"In order to set the stage for the various premises of each chapter, I have included quotations at the beginnings thereof, at times both modern and ancient. After thus providing a summary of the premise, in each chapter I delve into the appropriate primary sources to whatever extent possible. In my analysis of the ancient Egyptian texts, I consulted and cross-referenced as many translations as I could find, and I attempted to defer to the most modern renditions as often as possible."

- CIE, Preface vii
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/ciepreface.html

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 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