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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike
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.
..........................
Your reviewer only addresses one part of "The Pagan Christ", and if you have read it, you know that is the case. You, and the reviewer, have ignored all the other references Harpur outlined of other born of virgins, died, resurrected entities and religions.
Your reviewer only addresses one part of "The Pagan Christ", and if you have read it, you know that is the case. You, and the reviewer, have ignored all the other references Harpur outlined of other born of virgins, died, resurrected entities and religions.
Why?
It seems to me that you are a hard core conspiracy theorist, and thus no amount of evidence will satisfy your willful ignorance. There's a very good reason that the Zeitgeist movies promote both the 9/11 myths and pagan Christ myth -- they take the same level of willful ignorance and conspirator logic.
Take off your conspiracy hat for a few minutes, and consider which said is putting forward the better argument.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike
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.
.......
From the comment section in that article:
Quote:
"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)."
There are a number of problems with this passage, the most glaring being that the book Harpur cites by Kuhn as being most germane to his subject, "Shadow of the Third Century" was not published until seven years (1949) after the publishing date of Mr. Pratt's book (1942). None of Mr. Kuhn's book's were published before the first edition of Mr. Pratt's work (1925)
(SEE Page 220 of Harpur's book)
Furthermore, to characterize Harpur's work as one which focuses strictly on Egypt is a gross misrepresentation. I have read a grand total of 40 pages of the book (plus accompanying endnotes) and have already come across pre-Christian references to Zoroastrianism, Sri Lankan, Siamese and Japanese faiths, Persian religious practices, Mithraism, Pre-Colombian religious practices within the Americas as recorded by Cortez, and innumerable references to the belief systems of the Greeks and Romans.
This is not splitting hairs. Mr. Gasques has missed perhaps THE central contention of Mr. Harpur's work, namely, that the Christ story, from nativity through resurrection, is predated by not one but a multitude of ancient faiths from around the world.
Furthermore, Mr. Gasque, while claiming to contact 10 academic authorities with his questions, chooses to directly quote only one:
Quote:
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.”
Despite the fact that this is the ONLY direct quote in the entire article, Mr. Gasque fails to provide us with the closing brackets of the quotation in order to indicate where the authors' and his own thoughts may be seperated, but also fails to name the author.
Of the two other academic he cites, he spells Ron Leprahan's name incorrectly.
Further while he claims universal support from his viewpoint from the responding academics, he does not deign to back this up with a solitary properly attributed quotation. Further, he only names two of these individuals.
Mr. Gasque also mischaracterizes Mr. Harpur's assertions when he states that
Quote:
"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"
What Mr. Harpur in fact says is that the ancient Roman historian Herodotus describes the Egyptian precursor to Jesus as "one of the eight great gods who were described in the papyri as having existed almost twenty thousand years ago." (SEE pg- 39) While one could argue these dates, the dates are not Harpur's, but Herodotus'.
In light of the litany of errors in Mr. Gasque's work where he at least ATTEMPTS to provide a coherent rebuttal, dismal as those attempts may be, it is difficult to trust him when he states that there is "no evidence" for horus' virgin birth or that Mr. Harpur's work is full of errors and omissions.
Those are rather succinct and irrefutable comments of fact. They also echo my previous short comment that Gasque ignored the other references to miraculous births/deaths/resurrections that were common in ME mythologies.
There are a number of problems with this passage, the most glaring being that the book Harpur cites by Kuhn as being most germane to his subject, "Shadow of the Third Century" was not published until seven years (1949) after the publishing date of Mr. Pratt's book (1942). None of Mr. Kuhn's book's were published before the first edition of Mr. Pratt's work (1925)
(SEE Page 220 of Harpur's book)
Furthermore, to characterize Harpur's work as one which focuses strictly on Egypt is a gross misrepresentation. I have read a grand total of 40 pages of the book (plus accompanying endnotes) and have already come across pre-Christian references to Zoroastrianism, Sri Lankan, Siamese and Japanese faiths, Persian religious practices, Mithraism, Pre-Colombian religious practices within the Americas as recorded by Cortez, and innumerable references to the belief systems of the Greeks and Romans.
This is not splitting hairs. Mr. Gasques has missed perhaps THE central contention of Mr. Harpur's work, namely, that the Christ story, from nativity through resurrection, is predated by not one but a multitude of ancient faiths from around the world.
Furthermore, Mr. Gasque, while claiming to contact 10 academic authorities with his questions, chooses to directly quote only one:
Despite the fact that this is the ONLY direct quote in the entire article, Mr. Gasque fails to provide us with the closing brackets of the quotation in order to indicate where the authors' and his own thoughts may be seperated, but also fails to name the author.
Of the two other academic he cites, he spells Ron Leprahan's name incorrectly.
Further while he claims universal support from his viewpoint from the responding academics, he does not deign to back this up with a solitary properly attributed quotation. Further, he only names two of these individuals.
Mr. Gasque also mischaracterizes Mr. Harpur's assertions when he states that
What Mr. Harpur in fact says is that the ancient Roman historian Herodotus describes the Egyptian precursor to Jesus as "one of the eight great gods who were described in the papyri as having existed almost twenty thousand years ago." (SEE pg- 39) While one could argue these dates, the dates are not Harpur's, but Herodotus'.
In light of the litany of errors in Mr. Gasque's work where he at least ATTEMPTS to provide a coherent rebuttal, dismal as those attempts may be, it is difficult to trust him when he states that there is "no evidence" for horus' virgin birth or that Mr. Harpur's work is full of errors and omissions.
Those are rather succinct and irrefutable comments of fact. They also echo my previous short comment that Gasque ignored the other references to miraculous births/deaths/resurrections that were common in ME mythologies.
There are certainly indications that some of the Jewish stories are contained in the earlier writings of other religions. It's actually quite interesting that a similar thread runs through dozens of faiths--to me more indicative of man's desire to know God, than indicative that there is no God.
As for the Christian faith, a more interesting study is to read the Essene writings about a Teacher of Righteousness and then postulate whether Jesus had spent time with the Essenes (which I personally believe) and patterned some of His own thinking and His own presentation of Himself after those writings. It's almost impossible to get the majority of Christians to think globally about how God might be working as they tend to condense all down into the rather limited books of the Bible.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
cupper--
Your religion is atheism and science. You will never believe in any other religions or Jesus.
Neither are a religion.
To have a religion, one needs faith. Science one needs to understand.
As far as atheism, please advise what the dogma is?
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts
Those are rather succinct and irrefutable comments of fact. They also echo my previous short comment that Gasque ignored the other references to miraculous births/deaths/resurrections that were common in ME mythologies.
(...)
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts
"There's just one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."
- Captain America, re Thor, in Joss Whedon's script for The Avengers
In (the atheist) Joss Whedon's script, he actually expresses the best refutation of Robert's commonly quoted atheist trope.
Thor, and all the other mythical pagan Gods to which you and he refer, are something less than the conception we are discussing. They are mortal men writ large, with human appetites and lusts and desires. They do not possess ominipotence, nor omniscience. They are not eternal. They are not infinite. They are not large enough to merit comparison with the monotheistic understanding of God, who is the same conceptual entity based on attributes whether one is Christian, Jew, or Muslim, and whose attributes require than there can be only one, as logic tells us there can be only one non-contingent, omnipotent, and omniscient being.
Roberts' problem is a simple category error.
I contend that you, Stephen Robert, Richard Dawkins, and I are all theists. I just believe in one more God than the rest of you.
Re "The Pagan Christ," feel free to suggest any parallels you find as either good evidence or proof that Jesus, Herod, or Pontius Pilate were all literary inventions. I'll wait right here.
I would note, however, the same proviso I require in dealing with all conspiracy theory believers, when you assert the authority of Kuhn, Masey, or Harpur:
Conspiracy theorists, whether 9-11 "Truthers," believers in Moon landing hoaxes, Jesus Mythicists, or whatever, like to try to convince by weight of presented evidence. They feel that if they just throw enough supposed bits of evidence out there, it will convince the credulous, and even if some is later disproven, there will still be enough left over bits that may convince someone.
That's not the standard of evidence that is appropriate. If someone advancing a claim knowingly presents something that has demonstrably be shown to be falsified, such as the claim that Horus was born on December 25...why should we believe anything else they say?
I am reminded of a popular pseudo-documentary that was put out by Waco Conspiracy nuts, where the producers showed aerial footage of the siege of the Branch Davidian compound to make a claim that the FBI deliberately used flamethrowers mounted on National Guard APCs to start buildings burning. And sure enough, the video shows an APC knocking over an outlying building in the compound which appears to go up in a big flash of fire. Seemed like pretty damning evidence.
Until "60 Minutes" showed the unedited clip, which showed that the flash of light was obviously a metal roof that flipped over, catching a bright reflection of the sun that looked, if you edited out the portion afterwards, like a burst of flame.
The producers then removed that film segment from later editions of the documentary, and said that the remaining "evidence" still showed that their claim was true.
Bull-hockey. They would have to have knowingly edited that piece of video to create a false impression in the mind of viewers. You shouldn't get a second chance to try to lie to me after you've been caught at it once.
The same rule applies with Harpur - if he passes on a lie that has repeatedly been disproven (like the December 25 claim) - why should we give any credence to anything else he claims?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike
"There's just one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."
- Captain America, re Thor, in Joss Whedon's script for The Avengers
In (the atheist) Joss Whedon's script, he actually expresses the best refutation of Robert's commonly quoted atheist trope.
Thor, and all the other mythical pagan Gods to which you and he refer, are something less than the conception we are discussing. They are mortal men writ large, with human appetites and lusts and desires. They do not possess ominipotence, nor omniscience. They are not eternal. They are not infinite. They are not large enough to merit comparison with the monotheistic understanding of God, who is the same conceptual entity based on attributes whether one is Christian, Jew, or Muslim, and whose attributes require than there can be only one, as logic tells us there can be only one non-contingent, omnipotent, and omniscient being.
Roberts' problem is a simple category error.
I contend that you, Stephen Robert, Richard Dawkins, and I are all theists. I just believe in one more God than the rest of you.
Re "The Pagan Christ," feel free to suggest any parallels you find as either good evidence or proof that Jesus, Herod, or Pontius Pilate were all literary inventions. I'll wait right here.
I would note, however, the same proviso I require in dealing with all conspiracy theory believers, when you assert the authority of Kuhn, Masey, or Harpur:
Conspiracy theorists, whether 9-11 "Truthers," believers in Moon landing hoaxes, Jesus Mythicists, or whatever, like to try to convince by weight of presented evidence. They feel that if they just throw enough supposed bits of evidence out there, it will convince the credulous, and even if some is later disproven, there will still be enough left over bits that may convince someone.
That's not the standard of evidence that is appropriate. If someone advancing a claim knowingly presents something that has demonstrably be shown to be falsified, such as the claim that Horus was born on December 25...why should we believe anything else they say?
I am reminded of a popular pseudo-documentary that was put out by Waco Conspiracy nuts, where the producers showed aerial footage of the siege of the Branch Davidian compound to make a claim that the FBI deliberately used flamethrowers mounted on National Guard APCs to start buildings burning. And sure enough, the video shows an APC knocking over an outlying building in the compound which appears to go up in a big flash of fire. Seemed like pretty damning evidence.
Until "60 Minutes" showed the unedited clip, which showed that the flash of light was obviously a metal roof that flipped over, catching a bright reflection of the sun that looked, if you edited out the portion afterwards, like a burst of flame.
The producers then removed that film segment from later editions of the documentary, and said that the remaining "evidence" still showed that their claim was true.
Bull-hockey. They would have to have knowingly edited that piece of video to create a false impression in the mind of viewers. You shouldn't get a second chance to try to lie to me after you've been caught at it once.
The same rule applies with Harpur - if he passes on a lie that has repeatedly been disproven (like the December 25 claim) - why should we give any credence to anything else he claims?
I see that you utterly dismiss all of Harpur's book, but only talk about Houris. As far as conspiracy theories, I will let you draw whatever connection you want, rational or otherwise, as I didn't, and never would, bring them up.
So, how about those zombies though? I notice you have studiously avoided discussing them.
I see that you utterly dismiss all of Harpur's book, but only talk about Houris. As far as conspiracy theories, I will let you draw whatever connection you want, rational or otherwise, as I didn't, and never would, bring them up.
So, how about those zombies though? I notice you have studiously avoided discussing them.
I think you have me confused with another poster. As you asked what outside references there were to resurrections that you called "zombies", provided you with a lengthy description of two extra-biblical sources to the same, and when you claimed that Josephus was unreliable in the same thread, I also provided you ample evidence that he provides good historical extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. You had no reply and have avoided the thread ever since.
In the same thread, you claimed that the Romans were excellent record keepers and that there was voluminous Roman records, uh, somewhere, and demanded to know why there was no record of Jesus if He existed. I then provided the names of four claimants to the title of Messiah in or around 1st century Palestine, all of whom (unlike Jesus) required a substantial Roman military response. By your standards there should be ample textual evidence, right?
I quite reasonably asked you to provide me 4 Roman textual references for each of these individuals, which should be easy if you were correct in your assumptions. The Roman historians of 1st century Palestine should be all over those guys.
The response from you?
(*crickets*)
Your inability to respond is good evidence that the only good sources we have for that period and era are, as I said, the Biblical texts and Josephus (the only historian to mention those 4 pseudo-messiahs). For the reasons I explained to you, we don't have ANY other histories of the time and place - so why would you expect to see Roman interest in the life of a Jewish Rabbi until after His death, when his followers became a problem to the Roman empire - which is exactly what we find in the historical evidence.
To have a religion, one needs faith. Science one needs to understand.
As far as atheism, please advise what the dogma is?
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts
Of course believing in science alone is a religion as well as atheism. Faith in science and in "there is no God" takes just as much faith as believing in God. Science can't explain everything but many just believe because science says that makes the most sense, as far as they can explain things. Believing everything came from nothing also takes faith, much more faith than things came from something---an intelligent being which is God.
The quote you posted makes no sense.
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.
