Freethought Nation

Not necessarily, but I do believe that one should consider the possibility of such things.



And I come from an atheist background (my mom, who raised me was one, and I was an atheist until I was 20).



Same with Hannibal. Fortunately, contemporary evidence isn't the only kind of evidence there is.



Sure there is, if we consider ALL types of evidence, including internal evidence and what other authors have written about the Gospels. Even irreligious scholars like Bart Ehrman date the Gospels to within the 1st century (Ehrman says they were written 30-65 years after Jesus' death, which puts them to within the 1st century).



No, we have the stories where Jesus is virgin-born, baptized, crucified, resurrected, etc. For Horus, Mithra, etc., we don't have the stories. For Jesus, it's a question of whether the evidence is valid or not. For the mythicist claims, it's a question of whether the evidence even exists in the first place.



I'm willing to accept that reality, as soon as someone can show me that there is significant reality to be found in the mythicist claims.



So far, I haven't seen that it's built on anything but thin air. But even if this one turns out to be valid, that still leaves the vast majority of the mythicist claims without evidence.



If I was just trying to protect it, then I wouldn't be here asking you all for evidence against it, would I?

Of course you would!!! That's why you're here to begin with. You are trying to protect the virgin mother Mary from being exposed as a remake of the mother Isis during the Christian era. You are asking for evidence against the original status of Mary because you think that you have an argument powerful enough to refute claims that Isis was a virgin mother before Mary. You've already concluded that your argument is sound and then came here making demands for evidence. And why would you do such a thing? Well for starters:


So you were lacking in God belief until age 20, at which point I assume you converted to Christianity. Being raised atheist, did you know very much about religion? And if you did know a lot about mythology and religion why did you choose to join Christianity in the first place? Was it because of all of the strong evidence and sound reason that Christianity provides above and beyond all other religions in order to substantiate its claims? Please do tell...

This is all very telling so far in terms of why you're fighting so hard to refuse the obvious evidence that Isis was regarded as an eternal virgin mother goddess, being perpetually virgin in the mythos as Neith before her. She's the dawn goddess giving birth to the morning sun, pure and "immaculate". She's immaculate because she represents something in the mythos, and that is the virgin, or clean and pure dawn from which Horus, the morning sun, rises every morning. The most important morning of the year for the sun being about the time of year when the sun rises noticeably one degree to the north after descend to the south marking the beginning of longer days ahead - the very time of year we are in right now as a matter of fact. Isis's mythological husband, Osiris, representing the sun on it's journey from midnight until morning (through the underworld beneath the earth) at which point the sun goes from being Osiris of the underworld to Horus the morning sun born at the immaculate dawn.

This is mythology!!! The wife and husband aspect is entirely mythological and serving allegorical purposes pertaining specifically to the second function of a traditional mythology, the cosmological function!!!

In this mythology one figure that represents an aspect of nature is being portrayed as married to another figure which represents another aspect of nature, and the female goddess wife character is playing the role of the clean and pure virgin dawn that gives birth to the morning sun. That's why Isis declares that she is the great hwn.t at Abydos!!!

It's to say that she is the virgin dawn, and they mean very much to use the term hwn.t as the most powerful way of expressing "VIRGINITY" in the Egyptian langauge when addressing virgin dawn, and to also state very clearly elsewhere that she is "immaculate" and that she has given rise to the sun without having her veil or garment lifted as well!!! And they are doing all of this in order to express a reference to the virgin dawn from which the sun rises in the morning. That's why it doesn't make sense when taken and analyzed as literal history and what a literal marriage ought to be, it isn't. These allegorical myths are pertaining to the movements of the sun serving the cosmological function of a traditional mythology, plain and simple.

Let's look at what your argument does to the context of this obvious solar myth?

Isis is the great 'young girl' who is young, but not a virgin - not pure and clean (immaculate) - and who represents the dawn giving rise to the sun, which, is something that is viewed as pure and clean in ancient times. But Isis herself is not pure and clean, even though she is the dawn giving rise to the morning sun and whose conception of the sun is never given as a physical bodily conception in any imagery known to Egyptology!!!

And virgin girls, who have NOT had sex in life, are required to play the role of Isis because they are pure and clean like the virgin dawn. But according to you Isis herself, who these virgins are playing the role of all while having her name written on their arm to make perfectly clear that they are playing the role of Isus, was not herself pure and clean like the girls portraying her. According to you Isis was just representing the virgin dawn mother of the morning sun (as stated @ Abydos) as an unpure, unclean, violated, non-virgin, who was sexually active with her husband and not a virgin.

You've butchered the entire context of a solar myth coming sun worshipping and nature worshipping people in order to try and make it conform to what you'd prefer to believe. You think that by admitting that Mary runs parallel to Isis that you'd have to surrender your new found faith as a Christian. But what about Justin Martyr? Did he have to surrender his faith simply because he had to admit that the Jesus story was a bit of a johnny-come-lately? No. He just admitted the parallels and tried to blame them on the devil trying to create Jesus-like tales before Jesus arrived. You'd probably have better luck sticking to a Martyr type apology instead of running yourself out of rope the way you're doing in this thread.


GodAlmighty's recent number 7 edition to the video series:

_________________
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?

No, it is not irrelevant, it is corroborative with the other evidence, just as a christian would consider the fact that Mary's conception of Jesus was allegedly non-sexual to be corroborative with the fact that she had previously been called a parthenos to try and deduce that she's meant to be viewed as a virgin mother.
In fact, that's the point of the miracle really, that sex was not needed to conceive Jesus, her alleged virginity just emphasizes that such is the case, seems it's her virginity that compliments her miraculous pregnancy, not vice-versa, her non-sexual pregnancy is not being used to supplement her status as a virgin. The point being, Christ's non-sexual conception is more important to the story than Mary's status as a virgin.
And such is also the case in the conception of Horus, the authors of the early version of the tales, and the artists of the relevant depictions, clearly went out of their way to show that Isis's ba is what gets pregnant while her body stands off to the side in order to emphasize the fact that she did not physically copulate with Osiris. Given the fact that she is demonstrated to be a virgin mother at Sais & Abydos, this leads to the succinct conclusion that one of the reasons, if not the only or most important reason, was in order to preserve Isis's virginity. The nature of Horus's conception is very relevant to whether he was virgin born or not, because if he was the product of sex, then in that version, such as some of the ones recorded by Plutarch, he would clearly not be virgin born. So your statement was wrong, this is plenty relevant. But of course, the job does not stop there, but, neither does the evidence, since her virginity must be demonstrated on top of this non-sexual birth, and it has been demonstrated, at Sais, Abydos, and the Songs papyrus.
You go on to admit that when sex cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, the most succinct conclusion is that a virgin birth is what is intended by the story teller, as in the case of Perseus's birth.
The one and only objection you've brought to the table in regards to this being the same case with Isis, is her marriage to Osiris. This has been rebutted by the fact that she calls herself the great virgin. In response to that, you exchange deduction for induction, and try to argue, against the scholarship of folks of like Botterweck, Becking, etc., that hwnt cannot mean virgin in this one and only exception, because Isis is married.
But as Vishnu pointed out to you, Botterweck demonstrated that marriage does NOT nullify the hwnt's meaning as "virgin". We saw how in Botterweck's work that even though Queen Ahmose was married, she was still a virgin because she was a hwnt. She had not yet copulated.

So yes, inspite of your hair splitting attempts to try and distance "hwnt" from "virgin" on account of a marriage, here an actual scholar(unlike ourselves) has proven that your argument does not work. Marriage does not deter hwnt from meaning virgin. And so just like Queen Ahmose, yes, as Botterweck also told us, Isis IS indeed the Great Virgin, and she said so after already having given birth to Horus. So case closed, and this refusal of yours to acknowledge the Abydos passage as the proof that it is of Isis status as both a virgin and a mother is untenable.


Incorrect. Now had you only moved that word "just" over to between "doesn't" and "mean", and then put an "also" into it's former spot, then your statement here would've been correct. As per Merriam-Webster's dictionary & thesaurus, virgin and virginal are listed as synonyms, as is clean, but sinless is not. However, I am granting that, since I too have heard immaculate used in that way as well, although that may just be a colloquial thing. But that aside, the point here is that immaculate does also include virginity.
We know full well that when immaculate is used in reference to Mary(in times prior to the invention of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, such as in the writings of Hippolytus & Methodius) it is in reference to her status as a virgin. Plus given that the same epithet there given to Isis would be given to Mary centuries later for the very reason of denoting her virgin status, Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that Isis likewise had the epithet for such a reason, given how well her virgin motherhood was established(which is indisputably well), especially in places like Sais & Abydos.


Had you clarified better with a "always" or "only" in front "meant", I might agree with this statement, and even then that would be the fault of the ones who composed the epithet. Tertullian refers to just plain ol' jane doe christians as having "immaculate virginity", plus Tertullian is writing before the development of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, he doesn't appear to even regard Mary as sinless, let alone regular john & jane does to be sinless, since we're all allegedly sinners, that being why we need Christ, as they say. So even if redundant, he is clearly not implying that these virgins are sinless by his use of "immaculate".


If you mean by that explicit phrase, "virgin mother", then of course not, and same with the New Testament in regards to Mary. And likewise, same as with the New Testament, the passage is clearly intended to denote virgin motherhood inspite of the lack of such an explicit phrase as that in your question.


Yes, that being shown by the inscription to which we are referring. As several ancient sources have shown us, such as Plutarch, Diodorus, and even as early as Herodotus in the 5th century BC, Horus was syncretic with Apollo/Helios. It is also demonstrated in artifacts, such as the gems mentioned in this catalogue- "HORUS, as Helios, standing on a starred spheroid flanked by serpents", "HORUS, as Helios, in a quadriga preceded by Phosphorus".

So there's no disputing that Helios is also Horus. So the only thing left in which one could possibly try and dispute is Isis's statement that no one has uncovered her robe/lifted her veil. What do you take that to mean? That smacks of euphemism, not at all unlike the biblical euphemism "thou shalt not uncover her nakedness". uncovering the robe is clearly referencing sex, she is stating that no one has had sex with her, that she is a virgin.
"On Mankind, Their Origin and Destiny" p. 468-





So you clarify that you in fact did not intend anything significant by it. Very well then. Although that is admittedly weird and unbecoming that I ended up phrasing it exactly the same way in the "rephrase". Must have had a Freudian slip of sorts. But no matter, as you have clarified that nothing in particular was being implied by that word choice.


I'm really not amazed that you continued in your pattern of obstinacy here and refused to see how weak your argument here is. You didn't even address one of the main points in this portion of my post, and it is against parsimony as it is making assumptions beyond what the text implies, i.e., your "many other things", when no such things are implied by the text. As I stated, you are engaging in special pleading here for just that one and only thing in the list of requirements. The significance of the virginity could only "as easily have been in regards to many other things" as easily as it can be the case that the girl is given the name Isis could "have been in regards to many other things", and not because this is a feature of Isis herself. You have offered no justification for why you separate the feature of virginity from the list of requirements(and understandably so, since there is no justification) and apply an ad hoc criticism to it while not applying the same criticism to the other features of the list. They COULD have named the girl Isis for any number of "other things", they COULD have just drawn letters out of a hat, and the ones picked just coincidentally happened to spell Isis. The name COULD be due to any irrelevant unsubstantiated reason you can pull out of your ass, but based on the context of the passage and the law of parsimony, the simplest explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is that these features were required because they are features of Isis herself. She is given the name Isis because Isis is Isis, that is indisputably obvious, as is the fact that she should be beautiful, and that she should be a virgin, and etc. on down the list. There is no break in the passage when it gets to the virginity requirement, no reason to make any special pleading for that one feature above any of the rest.



I find this interesting that you appealed to other religions, as that once again makes you guilty of using "a completely different story" to try and bolster your applications of those stories features to this story right here. Something your previous posts tried to staunchly forbid.


No, the requirement to be pure was already addressed earlier in the list of the requirements distinct from the virginity stupilation, and so was clearly not the objective of listing virginity in the requirements. It says that they must be females, they must be "pure of body", and they must be virgins, and so on.

Plus the implication of what you're arguing here makes a false dichotomy. I mean, when you admit that "virgins are considered better", well, yeah EXACTLY, hence Isis had this feature as well, but not merely demonstrated by this papyrus though, but also in corroboration with everything else brought up so far.


Again, another false dichotomy. The succinct "idea that it mean Isis herself was a virgin"(and that Isis herself was named Isis, etc.) wouldn't exclude the religious sacredness of these requirements. The very fact that they are in emulation of a goddess would seem to indicate that, yeah, they are trying to offer their best. There just really is no apparent dichotomy here between these two things as your statement seems to want to imply.
Casting someone who they would consider superior would be a part of offering their best to Isis, stands no reason from the text why this would not be the case.

For instance, while your allowing appeals to "completely separate stories", i.e., other religions, as I pointed out last time, in literature I've read, catholic monks and nuns take vows of celibacy in emulation of (their perception of)Christ himself. And their emulation of him is a very part of their efforts to offer their best to him. There just really isn't any dichotomy here at all. There just doesn't stand any reason why emulating your deity for religious purposes would be exclusive and not inclusive of an attempt to offer your best to said deity.


Something never denied or argued against. It is simply that such factors are not stated in the Songs papyrus's list of requirements, the requirements clearly have correlation to Isis herself, there is no justification for making exceptions to this for the feature of virginity, and so the fact you point out here is not the case with the requirements listed in this text.

And in some versions she is a virgin mother. That much is without question.


Again, this was already covered when I addressed how things not required were clearly of no consequence. Had they required she have the same hair color as Isis, then that would fulfill three, and had they required her to have the same eye color, that would fulfill four, and so on. But they clearly weren't trying to just score high numbers on some meticulous checklist, numbers were not what was important.
These other details were obviously not listed because they did not matter. Eye color, Hair color, husband, children, were clearly not of any consequence to the authors. And hair color in particular did not matter since the girls were told to wear wigs made of long ram's wool. Anyway, the details listed clearly were of consequence to the authors and clearly in emulation of Isis.
She is named Isis because Isis is named Isis.
She has to be a female because Isis is a female.
She has to wear wig of long flowing ruffled ram's wool because the text states that Isis & Nephthys are the two girls with flowing ruffled hair, and the usage of their hair is significant to the story, since it describes how Isis & Nephthys show their mourning of Osiris by tying the curls of their hair into knots/braids, and later on it describes how they used their hair to clean the torn pieces of Osiris's corpse.
Clearly this requirement for them to name themselves Isis and to wear wigs of hair resembling the description of Isis's hair is because these ARE attributes Isis, and attributes which play a significant role in the story, unlike any other meticulous details not listed which are clearly of no consequence.
And there is no reason to think anything less of any of the other requirements in the list.

"Per mythology", she's named Isis. That much is without question. At Sais and Abydos, she is a virgin(in spite of being a mother). That much is without question. So finding these two details listed as requirements for portraying Isis comes as no surprise and Occam's razor leads us to the firm conclusion that these are to be understood as attributes of Isis herself, including the virginity, which is made all the more undeniable by the fact that the text itself, as well as other texts(and even supported by Herodotus), let us know that these rituals of the mourning of Isis for Osiris took place in...
SAIS. The very place where the aforementioned temple to Isis bears the inscription of Isis herself claiming to be both a virgin and a mother. So, although you appear to have repealed your prohibition against corroborating "completely different stories" from different places, even if such a ludicrous stipulation were to be humored, that is not the case here. Isis called herself a virgin mother in Sais, her rituals for mourning Osiris took place in Sais, the Songs of Isis & Nephthys mentions in passing that it's rituals are taking place in Sais, so when this same text has Isis depicted as a virgin, Occam's Razor points out to us how things things are corroborative and further supports the fact that this requirement in the Songs text is put there, just like its other requirements, because these were understood to be attributes of Isis.

But getting back to your statement that including a married woman with a kid would've outscored a virgin, the text reveals to us why they did not cast someone who already had a kid, and so no, a married mother with children would have only fulfilled ONE attribute of Isis that a virgin(most likely) could not, thus would only be tied with virgin at 1-1. But as I said, scoring points was clearly not the objective of the requirements.

A woman who already had a kid would not have properly corresponded to Isis for these particular rituals, because within the narrative of these songs, the birth of Horus occurs. That's only part of the story though, not it's central plot. The main plot is the mourning for Osiris, then the collection of his pieces and reassembling him, and then trying to raise him from the dead. These texts also reaffirm the belief that Osiris was reborn in Horus as Budge confirms. In particular, Column 13 has Isis & Nephthys pleading for the deceased Osiris to return to them and to his temple, during which time the birth of Horus occurs, indicating to us that their request for Osiris to return was fulfilled in Horus, for he is born again and lives on in his son. Throughout the songs Isis prophesied of all the great things Horus will do that are typical of his mythos, i.e., defeat Seth, become king, raise Osiris, etc.
Anyway, the point is, as the ritual begins, Isis has not yet had child. Horus has not yet been born. His birth takes place during the course of the ritual, during which, btw, intercourse is never even alluded to, and Isis & Nepthys are given the titles of birds, and based on the artistic depictions of the conception of Horus, we know why, because, as the Pyramid Texts also tell us, it was Isis's ba, Sothis, in the form of a bird, that conceives Horus.(Perhaps that's part of the reason why Horus has a bird's head).
This text of the Songs papyrus is highly corroborative with everything else we know about this scenario. And most of all, it is corroborative with Isis herself claiming to be a virgin mother in Sais.


Only as unlikely as giving her the name Isis is related to any idea of Isis being named Isis, or giving a wig of ruffled long flowing hair is related to the fact that Isis has the same ruffled long flowing hair which she uses to clean Osiris's corpse, etc., etc.


Same false dichotomy already addressed above, plus the requirement that she be pure is listed in the list distinct from the requirement that she be a virgin.


No, I didn't miss that point, that point missed any relevancy to the papyrus, and as I have already more than sufficiently demonstrated, and as the text conspicuously clear about- those required features correlated to Isis herself. So that fact that other instances of portayal have not abided by such is inapplicable to this text's requirements. But what you have entirely failed to demonstrate, against the conspicuously clear implications of the text, is any justification for your special pleading for singling out virginity from the rest of the list.


Irrelevant based on what has already been addressed above. You continue to want to try and swing this papyrus towards theater instead of religious ritual. They weren't trying to break box office records or win an Oscar or make a good film, etc.


Such a statement leads me to deduce that you either haven't seen Superman Returns or other Kate Bosworth films, or at the very least, not a good quality version, and/or you saw it but just didn't pay attention to it, and/or just don't know what heterochromia is.


And with that statement you have revealed that you have lost the plot. There was no audience here. This was not a "play", and there was no "audience", the text gives no indication of anyone else being present other than the participants. And given this is a religious ceremony taking place in a temple, it's reasonable to think that priests and priestesses would have had some role in it as well. These were the mourning rituals for Osiris afterall, a major religious observance. In fact, the text tells us these rituals took place on what is in our calendar, December 25th to the 29th. So this was really like their Christimas, in a manner of speaking. This did not have some audience like that in a play, you keep trying to turn this thing into a theatrical perfrmance and use theatrical language like play and actress, when really this is just not the case. They weren't "acting" as Isis in kind of theatrical sense anymore than the Pharoahs of the Pyramid Texts "acted" as Horus, Osiris, or Ra.


Agreed, since, as just stated, there was no "audience", they weren't putting on a performance to entertain a crowd, or to do anything for a crowd. These things were done in worship of the gods, and especially Isis & Osiris in this case. These weren't put on for approval of some audience anymore than the Mithraic Mysteries or the Cybele Mysteries were done for the sake of an audience, since Faulkner says of this papyrus that these were part of the Osirian Mysteries. There is no indication that there was ever an "audience" for any of these rituals, other than those who served in some capacity in the ritual itself. And to liken that to an audience for a theatrical play or movie is painting with a brush so wide it doesn't even fit on the canvas. And even the participants being taken into consideration, the rituals were not being done for their entertainment or whatever, it was being done to worship their gods.



Already addressed further above.


Nope indeed, as this was already addressed further above, and is grasping at straws.


Already addressed further above as well.
Indeed, and this was never the argument. You have yet to demonstrate any justification for your special pleading for this one and only attribute on the list in the face of corroborative evidence and logical parsimony. And this lack of justification is to be expected, since there is none.


Incorrect, we do have something similar for Isis, which has been referenced here time and again.


Which we do have, and so my point has been made, time and again. At Sais(both Isis's temple and from the Songs Papyrus) and Abydos we have the texts demontrating that she is both a virgin and a mother. And as Botterweck demonstrated to us from an Egpytian primary source, marriage does not deter hwnt from meaning virginity/abstinence, and Queen Ahmose was a virgin inspite of being married, and Botterwekc tells us we know this because she was a hwnt.


Indeed you wouldn't have argued that since Isis is not having Ra's kid, but Mary IS having Jehovah's kid, and so your attempted analogy here does not correspond and makes it all the more transparent that you are engaging in kettle logic.


It sure is suggested more, for the reason already mentioned above. Isis is not having Ra's kid, and in fact she has no interaction with Ra at all during that scenario in any text I've ever read. But Mary IS having Jeohavah's kid. Your flawed analogy does not correspond. And it's interesting that you acknowledge through this statement that just having a kid with someone is not indicative of sexual intercourse between them, neither for Mary & Jehovah nor Isis & Osiris. The only thing you've ever been able to try and bring to the table was the fact of their marriage, but Isis being a virgin mother at Sais and in the Songs, and being a virgin mother at Abydos nullifies that as any kind of contention, as does the case of Queen Ahmose being a virgin/hwnt in spite of being married. And so the one and only thing you even had to try and argue against Isis virgin motherhood doesn't even work. You've got nothing. Her statements concerning her virgin motherhood remain validated.


Then you have not seen the inscription at Sais, the Songs of Isis & Nephthys, or plate 9 from Seti's temple in Abydos.


Again, you acknowledge that having someone's kid does not suggest sex at all. But you have yet to acknowledge the same in regards to marriage it's failure to suggest sex at all, especially in the cases of Queen of Ahmose, Isis, in which we have explicit statements letting us know they were virgins in spite of marriage, and in Mary's case in which we have strong implication that she was too.

And the only reason you could even say something so counter-intuitive such as having someone's baby does not suggest sex at all, is because you have removed this scenario from human experience, and into the realm of the supernatural in which the constraints of human experience are removed and pretty much anything is possible thus there is no apriori bias to be had.

And yet, the only evidence that supports your claim that marriage is a strong suggestion of having had sex is... human experience. Here, in regards to divinities, you have distanced pregnancy from what we observe in human experience, i.e., pregnancy ONLY ever happens by sex(before the invention of artificial means), yet you have refused to likewise distance marriage from what we observe in human experience, but rather have maintained the evidence of human experience in regards to marriage in order maintain your apriori bias. And in such, your double standard is revealed.
If it's pregnancy- sex being our only means to produce that just doesn't count, and sex "is not suggested at all", but if it's marriage, oh yeah, that one's okay, we can appeal to the record of human experience on that one.
Nah, there's no evident justification for this special pleading of yours. Though true to form for you.



Incorrect. Even without an explicit statement of "Osiris knew not Isis until after Horus was born", we still have all the aforementioned things, the inscription at Sais, and at Abydos, etc.



Yep. Isis's virgin motherhood, proven by all the things reference previously in this post.



Incorrect. We do have other things suggesting it, all of which have been referenced earlier, time and again.



The double standard here has already been exposed above. Pregnancy and sex go together like a penis and vagina as well, and yet you've never claimed that unless the text specifically says the couple having the baby was abstinent, you would never just assume it. And you have just assumed it for Jehovah and Mary.
But that aside, we do have the proof of her abstinence by way of her statements that she is a virgin mother.



And the terms are all used in the SAME given context, and hence they mean the same thing, that is WHY the various translators can use the various word to translate the same passage, because none of the meaning is lost. Otherwise, they are doing just that, changing the meaning of the text. Hence no meaning is lost when Faulkner translates the Pyramid Text phrase as Great Maiden while Botterweck translated it as Great Virgin. Yet that is what you tried to argue from the outset with your whole "hwnt is also maiden" thing, you were trying to pass it off as if the meaning should be different, when, as you just conceded here, they are synonyms and "mean the SAME thing in a given context", this given context being, Utterance 389 from the Pyramid Texts. Synonyms can only be interchangeable when the meanings in their definitions overlap. And the place in which the definitions of virgin and maiden overlap is in regards to sexual abstinence-


But sexual abstinence is not the only place where almah, bethulah, and parthenos overlap with each other, they also all three extend beyond that to women who have engaged in sex, either by getting laid by Heracles, raped by invading armies, or are examples of adulterous women. Yet sexual abstinence IS the ONLY place where these three words overlap with hwnt, as there has yet to be such a case demonstrated in which hwnt means someone who has engaged in sex. As the Vishnu fellow pointed out to you, or rather, as scholar Johannes Botterweck pointed out to you, hwnt is the absolute best word in Egyptian to denote virginity and even denotes virginity in the face of marriage.



Yes, maiden does mean virgin, as already demonstrated above, and even you concede "their definitions are similar enough that the terms can mean the SAME thing in a given context", this is still the same given context, thus they mean the same thing. You are hyperextending what was argued. It was never put forward that synonyms always mean the same thing universally irrespective of the context. But given that our discussion of hwnt has never veered off of context, that much should have gone without saying. But with as often as you have lost the plot on sub points through out this exchange, it comes as no surprise that you did the same here.



Already addressed above, and, EXACTLY, it is only in those times when "they often are" virgins that they can be interchangable with virgins. It is where they overlap that no meaning is lost in interchanging them. Hence no meaning is lost from Botterweck's translation as "virgin" to Mercer's "damsel" and so on. This "damsel" in the Pyramid Texts IS a virgin, afterall she cannot copulate and only got pregnant by lightning or moon light. Same with Botterweck's translation of the Abydos passage, which is the ONLY English translation I've seen. If someone were to come along and translate it as maiden, no meaning is lost or changed since they are synonyms. Should someone come along and translate it as "whore" or "loose" or "easy", or anything at all that is not synonymous with virgin, THEN we have a problem. But so far, no problem, no meaning is lost from virgin to maiden. Hwnt is still virgin, and has yet to demonstrated to mean otherwise.



You're wrong, actually, that is not what I think or have ever put forward, as already expounded upon above.



Already expounded upon above. Virgin is more exclusive than damsel, as you go on to say something similar, a damsel can be a virgin or non-virgin, but a virgin can never be a non-virgin. Hence for damsel to be interchangable with virgin and no meaning be lost, then the part of damsel's definition that is being invoked by it's usage can only be the definition that matches with virgin. Hence Luke 1:27's parthenos could be translated as a virgin or maiden or damsel and no meaning is lost. But in a case of a parthenos that has been raped for instance, cannot be translated as damsel OR virgin, as the meaning WOULD get lost in translation.

But alas, we have no such instance of a hwnt getting raped, or getting laid at all. Hence, as it stands now, hwnt only means virgin and thus can only properly be translated as such or some synonym thereof.



No, not as is hwnt, since as I was clearly contrasting there, I never "went beyond" that with hwnt, only with almah, bethulah, and parthenos as they are the only ones here that even can go beyond that. And I even demonstrated that they only go beyond just virgin NOT on account of being translated as maiden, damsel, etc., but on account of actually being able to demonstrate cases that with no ambiguity have these nouns engaging in sexual activity. This was never done with hwnt. Again you have confused yourself about what was said.
Damsel, lass, and maiden DO necessarily mean virgin when it is the situation that they are interchanged with virgin, for, as stated, a virgin can NOT ever mean a non-virgin. It is damsel, lass, and maiden that must step down to where virgin is, virgin cannot step outside it's boundaries to include everything they also include, otherwise, meaning is lost on that word. If they are being used interchangably with virgin it is because they are accomodating to virgin's meaning, as virgin cannot do the vice-versa and ever include non-virgins.

Maiden here DOES necessarily mean virgin-


And likewise, maiden in Faulkner's Pyramid Texts DOES necessarily mean virgin, as this maiden cannot copulate and only got pregnant through non-sexual supernatural means.

And IF maiden were to be interchanged with virgin here(since it has yet to be), it too would necessarily mean virgin since virgin can never mean non-virgin, and a hwnt has yet to be shown to refer to anything other than a virgin, as Botterweck has demontrated. Not even marriage was able to change that fact.



No, I did not, as just addressed above.



Married OR virgins, then no, of course not, since hwnt only means virgin. No OR to it, no dichotomy there, as Queen Ahmose proves.



Yep, it cannot, and how so is because it can only ever be demonstrated to mean virgin, as Botterweck has shown.



Until they are used interchangably with virgin, in which case they mean virgin, as virgin is more exclusive than just young woman. As already expounded upon above.



Again with this pitiful strawman. I never once argued that almah, bethulah, and parthenos can refer to non-virgins just on account of them being translated as damsel or maiden, it is because it can actually be demonstrated when a parthenos has engaged in sex, or a bethulah has been raped, etc. But this has never been demonstrated with hwnt.



No, as already addressed above. Virgin can never be a non-virgin as damsel can. Hence if they are used interchangably, it is because they accomodate to virgin, as virgin cannot do the vice-versa in regards to a non-virgin.

This maiden can never be anything other than a virgin, forever-http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5278427969_85a1e4a41d_z.jpg Interchanging maiden with virgin does not expand virgin's meaning, it specifies which of maiden's multiple meaning is being invoked, it is making maiden more exclusive, it cannot make virgin more inclusive.



Incorrect, as alreay explained earlier, the reason why being translated as virgin "doesn't mean that they ONLY apply to people who had not yet had sexual intercourse" is because it can be demonstrated in no ambiguous terms that a parthenos has slept with Heracles or Ares, or that a bethulah has been raped, or that an almah is an example of an adulterous woman, etc. No such thing has ever been demonstrated of hwnt. It's only ever been used to denote virginity, in particular, fertile virginity, as Botterweck notes, hence a virgin too young to have kids would not be a hwnt inspite of being a virgin. So in that respect, hwnt is even more exclusive than the English word virgin, as Botterweck notes, just biological virginity is not enough to get in this club, pre-pubescent virgins need not apply.



Just like Mary. And married, just like the virgin/hwnt Queen Ahmose. You yourself even earlier conceded, just because a chick has someone's kid, "sex between them is not suggested at all."

Pregnancy doesn't suggest sex at all.

And Ahmose proves marriage is not sufficient to deter the fact that hwnt means virgin.



Already addressed above. Damsel or lass could only even be made interchangable with virgin when it's meaning as "virgin" is the meaning being invoked. A virgin can never mean a lass who is not a virgin, but a lass can mean a virgin who is a virgin. Moreover, damsel or lass isn't even used to refer to Isis, it used to refer to Nut, who's virgin motherhood Osiris is inconstestable. She cannot copulate, hence she got pregnant by non sexual means, such as moon light. Hence nothing is lost in the meaning of the passage whether we read Botterweck's translation as great virgin or Faulkner's translation as great maiden, etc.
It has never been demonstrated that hwnt has ever been used for someone who has had sex.



We sure did, the inscription at Sais in which he declares herself to be a virgin and yet also mother of Helios/Horus.



No, as pointed out time and again, being married has no bearing on the fact that hwnt denotes virginity, as was the case with the married virgin/hwnt Queen Ahmose.



Already addressed throughout above.



Yes, there is evidence, though it's not necessary as hwnt indisputably denotes virginity even in the face of marriage. But yes, at Sais she was seen as a virgin mother.



Actually, yes you can, and yes it does work that way, although the Sais & Abydos inscriptions can and have stood on their own as proof of her virgin motherhood, they are simply corroborative with everything else.
But anyway, to expound upon what I just said, yes it does work that way. Different versions of stories in ancient mythology are not regarded by academia as antithetical, but rather, as corroborative, as different versions which supplement each other, even when contradictory on certain points.
And to begin here on this point, I will quote historian Prof. Elizabeth Vandiver in her Teaching Company lectures-


And to bring this closer to our specific topic, concerning Horus, Egyptologist Edmund S. Meltzer wrote-





The only thing you have ever been able to try and point out as any remote possibility of indication of sex with Osiris is her marriage to him. And that has been proven to not work time and again here, as Botterweck did in the case with Ahmose.


Already addressed further above.


No, it is not, as already pointed out. Her being abstinent until the birth is at best implicit, never explicit to all without dicrimination. Only her abstinence with Joseph is explicit. And even if parthenos were as strong an indicator of virginity as hwnt(which I have demonstrated, it is not), she is never called a parthenos after the annunciation.


Sure it can, and has been, both at Sais, Abydos, and in the Songs papyrus.


No, that's what the text is saying. I have merely pointed out to you that obvious fact of what it says.


No, I recognize as being like how Genesis has Eve being the mother of us all. And had she born her children by parthenogenesis, it's quite easy for her to have been a virgin mother to everyone. Much like Gaia, which, given the Hellenistic nature of this inscription, it seems to bear influence from this image of Gaia as the mother of all, especially as per Hesiod's version since he explicitly states she gave a virgin birth to her first three children, though after that she took up sex, but what is relevant is her being the first female from whom all things living have descended and that she did have parthenogenesis, and we see this same idea having been transferred to Isis here in Sais. But moreover, as I mentioned, and was the point of that portion of my post, she gives special emphasis to Helios, who by way of syncretism, is also Horus, whom we know Isis did not just "ultimately create", she biologically gave birth to him, as she even makes reference to in inscription, "the fruit I bore". Fact remains, this inscription has been identified as Isis, this inscription makes it clear that she is a virgin, and this inscription makes it clear that she has given birth to Helios(or Horus the Elder, pick your flavor), hence she is indisputably a virgin mother here.


And our position here has never been exclusive to just sex with Osiris, as the definition of hwnt or virgin has never been exclusive to just abstinence from Osiris. Not would her statement that no one has lifted her veil be exclusive to just Osiris.
But unfortunately for Mary, Matthew 1:25 is just exclusive to Joseph.
And also unfortanely for Mary, parthenos is more ambiguous than hwnt, and thus fails us in indicating that she was completely abstinent, unlike hwnt does for Isis.


Sure, as shown to you many times- "Ever memorable should be the inscription at the base of the statue of the Egyptian Isis at Sais: "I am the goddess Isis, the Mother of all the living. No man hath lifted my veil, and the fruit I bore was Helios."
"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: 'I am the great virgin'."
Hwnt does not make exceptions for who the hwnt is abstinent from. Unfortunately, parthenos doesn't indicate absitence at all, but has been used to refer to women who can be demonstrated to have already had sex. Such a thing has yet to be demonstrated of hwnt.


Which you have received time and again, portrayed as a virgin, while assisting Seti alongside her full grown son-"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: 'I am the great virgin'."
Virgin + her child=virgin mother.


Which you have received time and again, and referenced above, yet you have indeed tried your best to "misinterpret" and "misunderstand" them, in spite of how unambiguous they are.


Well, that was rather tedious and less than enjoyable. I'm not sure how much time I can keep devoting to such long exchanges in text format. So as far as the 'last word' goes, you can go ahead and have it. I've kind of grown weary of such drawn out back & forth and it has become abundantly apparent that neither side can produce anything sufficient to satisfy the other, so I'm going to just agree to disagree at this point and go ahead and punch out.

I would give up at this point, it seems like KD8 is only interested in rationalizing away evidence along with create strawman argument as smokescreens without providing any evidence at all. How much evidence did we provide? Enough to fill a 500GB HDD if one looks hard enough. How much evidence does KD8 provide? Not even a single 1bit of information comes from him. Ever heard that evidence needs to be refuted with evidence?

I knew KD8 wouldn't live up to his end of the bargin, in fact his challenge of "evidence" proves as much that not a single person can meet it.

^For real. I was surprised he at least admitted that Perseus was born of a virgin and that Horus did have a non-sexual birth, since that is far more than most Christians are willing to admit.

On a side note:

Mary Magdalene whore/prostitute?

Who is Mary Magdalene?

For 1500 years Christians considered Mary Magdalene a reformed prostitute. That may have been part of a campaign by the early church to keep women out of the clergy. Nevertheless, for 1500 years Christians considered Mary Magdalene a reformed prostitute.

Identification of Mary as a prostitute or whore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

"In Roman Catholic tradition, Mary of Bethany is identified as Mary Magdalene, while in Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions they are considered separate persons.[57] "Mary of Bethany" itself is an anachronism, as she is just referred to as "Mary" both in Luke 10:38-42 and the Gospel of John."

"The identification is mainly based on the Gospel of John. The Mary appearing in Bethany is introduced in John 11:1 only by her first name, as if her identity was self-evident."

"Since 591 A.D., Mary Magdalene has been identified in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church as an adulteress and repentant prostitute."

"Seventh-day Adventists, who consider the three women to be the same. They also believe that Jesus was the one who cast the seven demons out of her."

Luke 8:2 "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,"

Now, back to Mary, Jesus' mum:

Also, lets not forget that only two of the gospels even mention the "virgin birth." Mark and John do not include Jesus' birth narrative - only Matthew and Luke do. Why not all four?



Who is the Virgin Mary?

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

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

^You can also add "known date of resurrection - yes", to that list, as Caesar was believed to have resurrected and ascended to heaven on the day of his funeral as his body was cremated. This resurrection is depicted on coins minted that same year, it shows Nike snatching his body out of the flames of the cremation pyre and carrying it up to heaven. And this is another parallel Justin Martyr acknowledges.

Yes, the old compare Jesus to someone else from the ancient world is played out and doesn't work. Jesus is claimed to have been famed far and wide and with people coming out of their graves and the assorted other miracles - including the claim to be Yahweh incarnate walking the earth - that certainly would have prompted someone to write something about at least some of this during his lifetime as these events were unfolding. But there's nothing!!! There's only a vague Pauline savior cult with no life details which eventually produces the gospel writings that are not quoted or acknowledged until well into the second century. It shows all of the signs of an evolving religious sect that plugged in more and more details with time. The God of the universe here on earth couldn't do any better than that??? Did he plan out in advance that he would come to the earth and provide no contemporary evidence so that people would have to rely on forgeries and late dated texts as proof that he was ever here??? Rely on weak forgeries and non-contemporary source materials or go to hell for not believing in this story with so little evidence to support it??? Those of us who have since moved on know all too well where this path leads in the end. And it seems that KD8 has yet to realize 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?

Tat Tvam Asi "Jesus is claimed to have been famed far and wide"

That's right Tat, I'm reminded of:

In over 20 passages throughout the canonical gospels claiming Jesus was famed far and wide not a single one has ever been substantiated with credible evidence.


Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.

The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition?

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

Very good point and thanks for bringing it up. We have a thread I completely forgot about titled, Of Caesars, Plato and Divine Births where we could certainly add this information. I'd love to have an image of those coins there.

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

And I mentioned the new ZG source book which goes over the entire transcipt to part 1 of the movie earlier so here's a link to that just in case any one browsing this thread hasn't already seen it or wasn't aware of it at all:

Zeitgeist part 1 & the Documented Evidence

Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One (much of this comes from Acharya's books and her sources)

The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)

_________________
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?

BTW, the image above comparing the historical evidence between Caesar and Jesus came from this website Jesus never existed - just scroll down. Maybe we need to make our own image to include more of the facts?

I love the images of those coins so, I'm going to re-post Vishnu's comment & image from the Of Caesars, Plato and Divine Births thread:



So, to reiterate, here in Caesar we have a pre-Christian motif of a divine birth, son of god, savior, bringing the "good news" (evangelia), who was murdered, resurrected and ascended into heaven to be with the gods.

Julius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, becomes a God

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

It's funny to reflect back on the top of the thread now after having KD8 come here personally trying his best to dismiss this one particular parallel between Horus and Jesus:

1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.


What a complete idiotic rebuttle this turned out to be in the end. The very opposite of KD8's assertion is true. That's the main point of consideration when reflecting on his intial claim.





Then KD8 went on further to claim:




And KD8 knew nothing about Isis's "Ba" doing the conception of Horus, not her physical body, wooden phallus version or otherwise. Nor did he know the fact that "hwn.t" is shown to refer to a sexual virgin regardless of marriage, and for obvious reasons because she's the virgin dawn giving birth to the sunrise in the mythology. In all of this so-called 'searching for the truth' KD8 somehow missed the open evidence for Isis's virgin mother status in mythology until deciding to come here and cross paths with the likes of us, the dreaded "Christ Mythers".

I just checked and found our thread on the first page of a search for "King David 8.com": Link

And on the second page of a google search for "King David 8": Link

At least the public can tune in and see how it went for him every time they search his name or website.

_________________
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?

I finally read King David8's supposed "response": "Response To FreeThought Nation's Critique of my Website"
That was more like one endless distraction fallacy than any type of response. I love how KD8 omits 99% of what I posted on the first page of the forum here and goes for the distraction fallacies instead of making any effort to have a grown-up conversation about the actual evidence and scholar commentary that proves him wrong. Notice how KD8 refused to acknowledge (beyond a footnote count change or other insignificant things) a single point I made on actual evidence &/or scholarly commentary that may be valid, or that I may have been right about anything at all or even provided some information he never knew? KD8's typical response to everything is his normal knee-jerk reaction to immediately dismiss everything. That's because KD8 has no intention of being objective, rational, reasonable, logical or honest - it demonstrates that KD8's modus operandi is the typical Christian hand-waving dismissal of the mountain of facts and evidence that proves him wrong, and that's because KD8 has no intention of ever paying up or admitting Christianity is a fraud. KD8 is more interested in his little anti-"Christ Myther" pissing contest.

So, while KD8 didn't counter anything on topic in any meaningful way, I suppose I'll have to waste more of my time going through it anyway:

I made no mention of KD8's website page numbers or percentages of this or that - because it's completely irrelevant. According to the Wayback Machine, King David 8 has mentioned: "Acharya S, the author of "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold," from the beginning. KD8's oldest archives mention Acharya S and her book Christ Conspiracy. Her response to KD8's very own e-mail to Acharya is dated "(9/1/02)" - that was over 8 years ago, and KD8 still hasn't read a single book of hers.

So, King David 8's main complaints (distractions) seem to be:

1. My comment: "a majority of his website is centered around criticism of her works"

2. "Only one page deals specifically with Acharya S"

3. I "completely misrepresent" him and his website "which anyone who has been to my site would know is not the case." (even though I quoted him consistently in context, which he did not do in his response).

First of all, KD8's website tells a very different story. And I'm not talking about "675 pages or (less than 5%)" I don't care about that crap. Notice how KD8 advertises at the very top of his homepage: "Copycat Challenge! Win $1000!"

When you go to that link King David8 says:

Of course those "seven common lists" all came from Acharya's work. If that isn't a significant part of KD8's website then, why is that particular link the ONLY one advertised at the top? And why has KD8 been going all around the net posting it everywhere for years now and trying to get others to do the same, if it's not a significant part of his website? I don't see anything else advertised at the top beyond the homepage, which advertises his recent additions, where we find that a majority of them are centered around Zeitgeist Part 1, and Acharya's lists in one way or another. Readers can make their own decision on #3 but, I can't believe KD8 actually has the nerve to complain about my comment in #1 & 2 above? Seriously?

But wait, there's more from the homepage:


So more than half of KD8's "recent additions" have been about Zeitgeist &/or Acharya's lists. And, of course, lets not just gloss over the fact that Acharya was a significant source for ZG1. So, anytime KD8 is mentioning ZG1 it's probably related to Acharya's work too.

But wait, there's more - According to the Wayback Machine and KD8's oldest web pages that show up dated Jun 10, 2004:


I love KD8's comments here:


LMAO at "I have no idea"

"I created most of my website before I even knew about Acharya S or Zeitgeist."

So, from where I stand KD8 is wrong - embarrassingly wrong. My comment: "a majority of his website is centered around criticism of her works," seems to be spot on (especially since I was never talking about web pages or % anyway; nice attempt at another distraction though) - even if KD8 doesn't fully realize that for himself yet. I have just thoroughly demonstrated that even the oldest archives for KD8's website mention Acharya S and quoted it above so KD8 can't lie his way out of it. Plus, the fact that most of his "recent additions," at least since '08 (since that's all that show up), have been relevant to ZG1 &/or Acharya's lists.

Expert?

KD8 has set up his "Christ-Myther Challenge" in such a way that KD8 and KD8 alone gets to decide what is or what isn't credible evidence. So even if the most highly respected and highly credentialed top Egyptologist in the world sent an e-mail to KD8 he could still do his typical hand-waving dismissal.

King David8 was honest about one thing: He has conceded that he has absolutely no relevant qualifications, formal training, credentials or relevant linguistic (language) skills whatsoever. That's significant because it shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about. KD8 is totally reliant upon Christian apologists - and shallow scanning of encyclopedias, which he proudly cites as some authority. So, all he's done is some encyclopedia surfing, and he thinks he's expert enough to judge a "challenge!"

The fact is that KD8 knows nothing about comparative religion, mythology, archeoastronomy, archaeology, astrotheology, Pagan religion and their origins, history and evolution. In short, KD8 is not any sort of go-to guy for anything related to religion. He doesn't even know much about the origins, history and evolution of Christianity yet, he has the temerity to presume that his OPINION is enough, and that his personal FAITH is all that he needs to critique highly respected & credentialed scholars who are trained in these areas of expertise. I get the sense that just because KD8 is capable of creating a website and loading it with Christian apologist material and encyclopedia entries somehow that puts him on par with top scholars in their field of study. It doesn't.

So, there's no independent group with any qualifications or credentials and without bias or prejudice to weigh the evidence presented objectively & fairly. KD8 makes all the judgment calls himself even though, as he admits, he has absolutely no relevant qualifications or credentials to make any such judgment calls. KD8 alone gets to play the role of the judge, jury and executioner.

KD8 has never read a single book by Acharya S

KD8, it's blatantly obvious that you've never actually read a single book of hers just by reading your comments on your website, which show you don't know the information in her books. And, in all your ranting about my comment you still never admit it. I'll reiterate what I said on the first page here, the free online excerpts and articles DO NOT contain all of the details - THAT IS WHAT THE BOOKS ARE FOR.

KD8's Blatant Dishonesty and Misrepresentation

Now, here's what I really said; take note of what all KD8 purposely omitted:

Notice how KD8 also omits what I stated on the first page here at the forum? Pay close attention to this comment by KD8:

Notice how KD8 didn't mention a single footnote or provide the evidence to substantiate his claim? This is very significant because: 1) KD8 has never actually read her book; and 2) I suspect that this comment originally came from elsewhere (if so, KD8 provides no source) by others who also have no idea what they're talking about, and KD8 decided to reproduce it without even checking. Thus, here we have a prime example of severe dishonesty and misrepresentation, i.e., KD8 showing his true colors.

King David 8 is constantly misrepresenting Acharya S and her work - probably due to the fact that he hasn't read a single book of hers. KD8 wears his utter ignorance of her work and this subject in general like some sort of proud badge of honor. His ignorance on the subject is his very best evidence against mythicism. So long as he knows almost nothing about it then apparently, it can't be for real. It's akin to sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling, "La, la, la, la." KD8 has been doing just that for over 8 years now.

So, we have thoroughly debunked KD8, and KD8 has helped us do that so - a thank you goes out to him for that - and we're not even finished yet. KD8, you sir, are completely irresponsible and not to be trusted on this subject in any way whatsoever. In the end, you are like a child demanding to be spoon-fed the material because you REFUSE to actually read it for yourself and you consistently blame everyone else for your ignorance rather than take any responsibility yourself.

I'll be back to expose more of KD8's nonsense soon.

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