Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know someone is losing a debate when they completely ignore the facts presented, and start attacking the messenger. Facts don't change based upon who is stating them. Take off your conspiracy theorist hat for a few minutes, and actually assess the information being presented.
You know someone is losing a debate when they completely ignore the facts presented, and start attacking the messenger. Facts don't change based upon who is stating them. Take off your conspiracy theorist hat for a few minutes, and actually assess the information being presented.
I think all that Pagan stuff is wayyy off and not something i will follow or believe.
If Christianity was nothing more than a forged religion borrowing elements from other existing myths, it should have died out long ago along with the more established myths.
You have said this before and then, like now, you have not substantiated it in any way. You just assert it and run. Why "should" it die out if this were so? I see no reason to think it "should".
Actually applying Natural Selection to Memes I can think of many reasons why it should NOT die out. It is a survival thing. When a religion picks the most effective and pernicious elements of other myths and religions, it is combining what was most fit..... what lent most to the survivability.... of those other religions. Hence I would expect a stronger more lasting product to arise, not a weaker prone to death one like you do.
Further we see much diversity within Christianity. There are over 33000 recognized branches, churches and sects of it. This similarly lends to its ability to survive as diversity is a strength in Natural Selection.
So really, I am agog to hear your basis for assuming it should just have died out if false. I see no reason to think this, and plenty of reason to think the opposite.
You have said this before and then, like now, you have not substantiated it in any way. You just assert it and run. Why "should" it die out if this were so? I see no reason to think it "should".
Actually applying Natural Selection to Memes I can think of many reasons why it should NOT die out. It is a survival thing. When a religion picks the most effective and pernicious elements of other myths and religions, it is combining what was most fit..... what lent most to the survivability.... of those other religions. Hence I would expect a stronger more lasting product to arise, not a weaker prone to death one like you do.
Further we see much diversity within Christianity. There are over 33000 recognized branches, churches and sects of it. This similarly lends to its ability to survive as diversity is a strength in Natural Selection.
So really, I am agog to hear your basis for assuming it should just have died out if false. I see no reason to think this, and plenty of reason to think the opposite.
Apparently you didn't get the message from last week. I am DONE talking to you.
Apparently you didn't get the message from last week. I am DONE talking to you.
And yet you are here replying to me again, which belies the lack of truth behind your claim. As does the post you replied to only _yesterday_. So forgive me if your "message" is not one I am in a position to take seriously.
However no one is forcing you to reply to me and my replies to you are written not just for you but a general audience. ANYONE can respond to my questions, even if you lack the capability to do so.
So back to the topic! The contention is that if Christianity is made up of many plagarized components of dead religions and myths that it therefore should itself have died out too.
The open question, unanswered by Jeff here, is why we should assume this to be so, especially given the reasons I just laid out for why it should not be so.
And even if it "should" be so that the religion should die out.... why does that mean that it should have died out _by now_? That is also left unclear in Jeffs assertion here. Perhaps it is already in it's death throes?
So the two questions are........... given assumption X that it is made up of plagiarized components of dead religions and myths.... why "should" we expect it to die out too..... and why "should" we expect it in a time line before now?
Unfortunately all I am seeing is an assumption with no substance and I wonder can we find any.
I'm not going to answer blow for blow the apologists epistles above, but I would suggest before they congratulate themselves on destroying an atheists viewpoint, read "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur.
Who is Harpur? Only a renowned biblical scholar, an ordained pastor, who has a Doctorate in Theology, and was a professor of religion.
Credentialed and credible in other words.
I have. Just more parallelism claims, with few cites of primary source texts, just more appeals to Massey and Kuhn'c misstatements. He gets dates and eras all wrong, and jumps to false conclusions just as they did.
You asked me to read a book (which I already have), can I suggest you read the following short review of Harpur's book by another scholar:
8-17-04
The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?
by W. Ward Gasque
Mr. Gasque holds a Ph.D. from Manchester University (UK). A graduate of Harvard University’s Institute for Educational Leadership (1993), he is President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies.
Tom Harpur began his career as an Anglican priest and professor of New Testament at Wycliffe College, Toronto. Just over thirty years ago, he moved from academia into journalism. Today, he is perhaps the leading religion writer in Canada.
The Pagan Christ is the story of his discovery of the writings of one Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963) and two earlier writers (Godfrey Higgins [1771-1834] and Gerald Massey [1828-1907]), who argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion.
Toward the end of the third Christian century, the leaders of the church began to misinterpret the Bible. Prior to this, no one ever understood the Bible to be literally true. Earlier, in keeping with all other religions, the narrative material of the Hebrew and Greek Bible was interpreted as myth or symbol, read as allegory and metaphor rather than as history.
According to Harpur, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. He claims that virtually all of the details of the life and teachings of Jesus have their counterpart in Egyptian religious ideas. He does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions nor appeal to any of the standard reference books in Egyptology or to any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn (and Higgins & Massey).
Who is Alvin Boyd Kuhn? He is given the title ‘Egyptologist’ and is regarded by Harpur as “one of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century” [who] “towers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world’s religious.”
As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who was an enthusiastic proponent of Theosophy, a prodigious author and lecturer, who self-published most of his books.
Not being myself an expert in Egyptian religion, I consulted those who are about their views of contribution that Kuhn, Higgins and Massey have made to Egyptology and whether they thought some of the key ideas of The Pagan Christ well grounded. So I sent an email to twenty leading Egyptologists — in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria.
I noted as a sample the following claims put forth by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):
•That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian “Iusa,” which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves".
•That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ.... He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."
•That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.'"
•That “the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and ... this word, when the vowels are filled in., is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."
•That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE"
•Only one of the ten experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey!
Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942).
Another distinguished Egyptologist wrote: “Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets. He goes on to refer to Kuhn’s “fringe nonsense.”
The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ.
Ron Leprohan, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, pointed out that while “sa” means “son” in ancient Egyptian and “iu” means ‘to come,” but Kuhn/Harpur have the syntax all wrong. In any event, the name ‘Iusa’ simply does not exist in Egyptian.
The name ‘Jesus’ is Greek from a universally recognized west Semitic name (“Jeshu’a”), borne not merely by the central figure in the New Testament but also by many other people in the first century.
While all recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born.
There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was ‘a fisher of men’ or that his followers (the King’s officials were called ‘Followers of Horus”) were ever twelve in number.
KRST is the word for “burial” (“coffin” is written “KRSW”), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title “Christos” or Hebrew “Mashiah”.
There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC, so Harpur’s reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. (Elsewhere Harpur refers to “Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE” and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that “the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age.” In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.)
Kuhn/Harper’s redefinition of “incarnation” and rooting this in Egyptian religion is regarded as bogus by all of the Egyptologists with whom I have consulted. According to one: “Only the pharaoh was believed to have a divine aspect, the divine power of kingship, incarnated in the human being currently serving as the king. No other Egyptians ever believed they possessed even ‘a little bit of the divine’.”
Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources. The notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey, or some other long-out-of-date work.
Furthermore, Harpur's notes abound with errors and omissions. If you look for supporting evidence for a particular point made by the author, it is not there. Many quotations are taken out of context and interpreted in a very different sense from what their author originally meant (especially the early church fathers).
Acording to Harpur, Christian scholars have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that there was an actual Jesus who lived in history. First, he insists, there was "the greatest cover-up of all time" at the beginning of the fourth century; and thousands of Christian scholars are now participants in this on-going cover-up.
This perspective misses the fact that, for several generations, there have been professors of religious and biblical studies who are Jewish, Unitarian, members of every Christian denomination -- and many of no professed religious persuasion. And there are no religious tests for chairs in Egyptology. Presumably, the Jewish, Unitarian, secular and many very liberal Christians who happen to be recognized scholars have no axes to grind regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived, or whether most of the ideas found in the Bible stem from Egyptian or other Near Eastern religion.
If one were able to survey of the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.
Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ on the work of self-appointed "scholars" who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words. In short, Harpur's book tells us more about himself than it does about the origins of Christianity (or Judaism).
- See more at: History News Network | The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?
And yet you are here replying to me again, which belies the lack of truth behind your claim. As does the post you replied to only _yesterday_. So forgive me if your "message" is not one I am in a position to take seriously.
However no one is forcing you to reply to me and my replies to you are written not just for you but a general audience. ANYONE can respond to my questions, even if you lack the capability to do so.
So back to the topic! The contention is that if Christianity is made up of many plagarized components of dead religions and myths that it therefore should itself have died out too.
The open question, unanswered by Jeff here, is why we should assume this to be so, especially given the reasons I just laid out for why it should not be so.
And even if it "should" be so that the religion should die out.... why does that mean that it should have died out _by now_? That is also left unclear in Jeffs assertion here. Perhaps it is already in it's death throes?
So the two questions are........... given assumption X that it is made up of plagiarized components of dead religions and myths.... why "should" we expect it to die out too..... and why "should" we expect it in a time line before now?
Unfortunately all I am seeing is an assumption with no substance and I wonder can we find any.
Well I had a small glimmer of hope that you would be able to respect someone's wishes and stop prodding me to continue futile correspondence with you. If you want to make a general audience response to my posts then by all means, but no, every post you make is a directed at me personally in a condescending manner. I have no more tolerance for that kind of garbage.
Well I had a small glimmer of hope that you would be able to respect someone's wishes and stop prodding me to continue futile correspondence with you.
I am doing no such thing. I am responding publically to public discourse on a matter. No one is compelling you to respond to it. This is a group discussion forum, and replies to a persons posts do not demand further replies of that person. ANYONE in the group discussion can take up ANY part of the discussion at ANY time.
If you do not wish to reply to me, simply do not. The power is yours. Use it.
Again can we return to the topic and not this off topic false feeling you have of being persecuted by me? Again there is two questions open relevant to the actual topic of the thread:
1) If a belief system is made up of components that it has assimilated from previous belief systems that are now dead..... is this a reason to expect the newer system to become dead also? I see no reason to think it is, but it is a relevant question to the OP and the thread topic. Very much so.
2) Further to 1, if we answer "Yes" to that question, is there THEN any reason to expect that it should have happened _by now_? That is to say if we expect it to die, but it has not yet died, does this mean our expectation was false..... or would it simply mean it has not happened _yet_ and the expectation is still valid?
Two questions very pertinent to the OPs topic, especially as you have used assumptions of the answer to 1 AND 2 as substantiation for the historicity of not just Jesus but the miracles claimed in his name.
I am doing no such thing. I am responding publically to public discourse on a matter. No one is compelling you to respond to it. This is a group discussion forum, and replies to a persons posts do not demand further replies of that person. ANYONE in the group discussion can take up ANY part of the discussion at ANY time.
If you do not wish to reply to me, simply do not. The power is yours. Use it.
Wow dude, your exact words were:
"You have said this before and then, like now, you have not substantiated it in any way. You just assert it and run."
You are not using public discourse. You are addressing me specifically. You use the term "YOU" and then make the condescending remark that I'm running away as if my faith is so weak.
Are you going to deny your own words now? Again, stop making it about me personally and just address the point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
