Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
He's shown his ignorance. If David had actually searched the web he would have found that Isis was considered the Great Virgin (hwnt.), and that hwnt. is a term exclusively given to a virgin for the purpose of making clear that a virgin is what is intended by the term. Now he knows. But the question is will he acknowledge the defeat and correct accordingly or curl up into an apologetic shell and pretend that nothing happened?
This is just one parallel mind you.
Each of them go the same way for the most part. These parallels are not made up out of thin air, rather they're known by certain scholars who have voiced these meanings despite the fact that doing so is found unfavorably by the church. Apologetic denial is a dead end path, plain and simple...
_________________ 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.
They don't think the web has any reliable information. They think the web is all bunk, but where do they think people who post the information get their information? Well... It can be found off the web too, in books that are reliable and they are even printing them. BTW, has anyone read Nailed:Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald? I met the man at Skepticon in November and he is much appreciative of Acharya's work even. Great guy, but he did site Carrier, Price, and others in his book, which I haven't quite finished yet, but he has done some very good work. I haven't seen him site Acharya yet, but I'm only half way through his book, if even that far.
_________________ Mriana
Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison
One has to look only at the the Challenge itself to see nobody can even meet the challenge.
Quote:
I'll take anything which strongly suggests that the "parallel" claim truly existed sometime prior to the 1st century A.D. For example:
1) Versions of their stories in which we can read about them actually doing these things, provided that the stories are generally agreed-upon by scholars to be pre-Christian. This is the one I'd most like to see. If the deities are truly believed to have done these things, you would think there would be stories somewhere in which they do it.
2) Any information coming from scholarly sources who are not specifically trying to prove parallels to Jesus, for example: a) General mythology books and websites, provided they have no Christ-myther agenda (sorry, I won't accept Wikipedia or similar forums, since there's no way to determine whether the individual doing the posting is a Christ-myther or not). If it's a book, I must be able to acquire it from my local library, or you can mail me the book or e-mail me copies of the pages in question. I won't spend my own money on it (this is to prevent someone from naming some impossible-to-find book and then calling foul on me for not going on a wild and expensive goose chase to get it - remember, I am asking YOU to provide the evidence.) b) Scholars (Christian or not) who work for a university who agree that the parallels are valid. c) Anything coming from a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.
3) Photographs of heiroglyphs showing them clearly doing these things (I've seen Christ-mythers claim such hieroglyphs exist for Horus, but every time I ask them to send them to me, I never hear from them again).
Overall, I expect any evidence you provide me with to be something that a reasonable, skeptical and unbiased person (say, someone who is neither a Christian nor a Christ-myther) would accept as convincing evidence that the deity in question was believed, in pre-Christian times, to have done those things. Simply quoting a Christ-myther, or quoting one Christ-myther who quotes another Christ-myther (and so on) obviously will not count. I am expecting evidence that clearly existed prior to and separate from Christ-mythers.
His statement about what evidence he will accept a parallel "which strongly suggests that the "parallel" claim truly existed sometime prior to the 1st century A.D." is the very first way which we can tell nobody can or will be able to meet this challenge. What if we find a savior god in Antarctica that sprouted at around 500C.E. that exactly parallels Jesus in a lot of ways, whats going to happen then? Is it invalid because it's placed after "1A.D.?" The better way to put forth this claim of evidence would be that it "existed sometime prior to" Christians evidenced to have actually come to said land. Such as the evidence we have of the first Christian Missionaries going to India or Africa. This would be more reasonable, he seems to think that just because a mythological deity gives rise after "1A.D." that therefore the Deity had to been influenced by Christianity and not the other way around. Also, didn't the majority of narrative happen when Jesus was 30 and not when he was born? Also the date is even wrong, if that is supposed to be Jesus' birth, why not have the date start anywhere between 6B.C.E.-6C.E.?
One of the points of evidence is very interesting in which he will accept is "versions of their stories in which we can read about them actually doing these things, provided that the stories are generally agreed-upon by scholars to be pre-Christian." This seems to be the most ignorant one of them all, first of all, this will only apply to specific god's and deities on the list which would be Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus and Zoroaster (at least for a small part and I'll explain why in a sec), the other god's on the list don't have anything about their lives actually written in a free flowing narrative, not do some of these have almost any religious texts (Mithras in particular has only one hymn to him, but the texts of Mitra can be used for Mithras for syncretic reasons), and some of them do have texts (in the case of Attis, and Horus) but they are so scattered and the majority of their attributes which we do most of our interpretations come from supplemental pictorial events that the texts are describing as well.
I find it be very interesting however that he describe pre-Christian as anything before "1A.D." and I'm not even going get into the conundrums of this claim because of the obvious absurdities in it. However what does he even mean by "agreed-upon by scholars?" Doesn't he mean academics in the field of research, because "scholars" even refers to students... or doesn't he know that? Also one thing that is very interesting is who is the middle-man who is examining this evidence? It doesn't seem like he even mentions as such, and it looks like the only "scholars" he will actually accept are those of Christians who believe and whom which are ready, willing and able to deny the existence of said parallels (since he endorses J.P. Holding, a non-academic in the fields of study trying to critique academic works based on the fact that they deny the inerrency of the bible). So who are these "agreed-upon scholars" King David 8? Are they people you pick to begin with, or are they people who would agree with you no matter what? Are they also academics in the fields that are relevant, such as comparative mythology and comparative folklore? Or are they "evangelical" New Testament "academics" who are not even trained in the study of myth and have already made a presupposition against this kind of claim?
Another point of evidence you would accept is "any information coming from scholarly sources" which would be great if you didn't say right after that statement that it must be a source "who are not specifically trying to prove parallels to Jesus." Well where else would we get an academic sources for this stuff, certainly we won't get it from a single academic source, however the strongest area of academia that points this stuff out is comparative mythology and comparative folklore. It's interesting that you are saying we can use any academic source to prove your contention in correct but we can't use comparative mythology and comparative folklore to show that our contentions do in fact hold up in that field study, what a way to tie our hands behind our backs and then ask us to hand you evidence when we can't even use our hands to begin with.
And yet again you state that as long as "they have no Christ-myther agenda" is very interesting, what does someone's own agenda or particular point of view on the origins of Christianity have to do with the supposed pagan parallels aspect? This seems to be a classic case of attacking the person who conducted the study instead of attacking his sources he used for a study to make it valid. "Oh wow, looks like you proved me incorrect," says King David 8, "let me just go ahead and transfer this to your bank account... wait a second. This guy has a Christ Myther Agenda/is an academic trying to prove the parallels, sorry no $1,000 for you." This is exactly how I see any scenario going whenever you provide an academic source saying the parallels are valid, even if he has no "Christ Myther Agenda" he can still opt out by saying they were "trying to prove the parallels." Another thing I would like to point out in this is who decides what source has a "Christ Myther Agenda" or is an academic trying to "prove the parallels?" If it is you then we are at the mercy of someone who apparently doesn't want to lose $1,000 and you will be determined to keep it. Also if the person is appointed by you, then it is a sure fire chance that this said person will be someone who already agrees with you, this nullifying the need for a third party.
One thing Kind David 8 doesn't seem to get nor understand is that mythologies and stories about deities and god's are only available now because of the method of reconstructing those mythologies now. An example would be the very many images of Zeus, how do we know how to describe Zeus? Because we have seen pictures of him, without said evidence we would never been able to reconstruct his image fully, just like some of the myths of impregnation that Zeus does... some of these are never alluded to in texts but we know they happened and we also know that some are actually contradictions of older myths.
I am not going to attack his clarifications on what he means because he apparently has it in a way that unless we provide a myth of another god that is in exactly the same way told as Jesus, comes before 1A.D. along with everything being 100% the same with only names being scratched out, because that seems to be the only evidence he will accept based upon what he means in the clarifying his terms, and they also seem to be based upon his own interpretations of the words, not based on an etymological structure, not based upon what the academic community agrees upon, its based on his terms.
So in summary, KD8 never bothered to consult any academics in the relevant fields of study to structure this challenge, seems to use very loose words and not getting into specifics and finally his challenge is structured to where you can never actually win it.
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
It's funny to plug this discussion of Isis's virgin mother status in here. It's a primary source, pre-christian by his own standards, and hwn.t has been proven several ways over to mean "virgin" therefore Isis is calling herself "The Great Virgin" just as the said scholars have interpreted it. We can go right on down the lists one by one. He doesn't seem to realize that there are very specific reasons for each of the claims listed on those lists. They weren't made up out of thin air as he'd like to assert. That's just one more lie to toss on top of his growing pile...
_________________ 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.
What if we find a savior god in Antarctica that sprouted at around 500C.E. that exactly parallels Jesus in a lot of ways, whats going to happen then? Is it invalid because it's placed after "1A.D.?"
Like Quetzalcoatl. Post-christian, but PRE-Colombian. With no contact between the Meso-Americans and Christians prior to Colombus, the parallels sure as hell ain't the result of one borrowing from the other. And they are too numerous and similar to be coincidence either. The parallels that Quetzalcoatl and other elements of the Meso-American culture shares not only with xtianity, but also with with Egypt, for me, demonstrates more so than any other gods we've discussed how all of these elements are astrotheological in nature.
Because even though the Meso-Americans didn't encounter xtianity until after Colombus, what was always visible in BOTH Central America and in the Mediterranean/Europe/Egypt/etc., were the heavens. The sun, moon, and stars were available for the Central Americans to anthropomorphize LONG before Jesus ever existed. When both cultures are based on the same phenomenon at their root, it comes as no surprise that they developed many of the same elements in the stories of their dying & rising gods.
And yeah, all of these challenges remind me of Ray Comfort's fiasco years ago when he offered several thousand dollars to anyone who could demonstrate that the Bible contains any contradictions. Needless to say, he was overwhelmed by the onslaught of contradictions and errors that were mailed to him, and so he tried to hash over semantics, and was like 'noooo... I don't have to pay up because I made it clear in my challenge that I am the SOLE judge, you have to convince me and me alone, and I'm not convinced, so you lose."
What WOULD have convinced Ray?
He didn't say.
What WOULD have constituted a contradiction in his eyes?
He didn't say.
How did he account for the contradictions that were presented to him?
He didn't. He just brushed them aside by saying things like [paraphrasing]"Please! You really think that when you stand before god on judgement day and he asks you why you didn't believe his word, that saying 'well, uh, god, you know hares don't chew their cudd', is going to make any difference before god?", and "these contradictions are about as impressive as a two man wave at the superbowl!", and so on. You get the jist.
I've learned not to expect anything more from anyone else ever offering such a challenge. An that's in regards to ANYTHING of this nature, religious or not, any contest that is for the purpose of persuading the one offering the challenge of the validity of an opposing position, I do not give any credibility to. The challenger already has something to lose and so there is a bias to be expected when that's the case.
These kinds of things are just propped up so that people don't have to actually do any heavy research or critical thinking, don't have dig and dig to actually get the facts they claim they seek. They can instead just fore go that whole necessary process and hand wave it all away by saying, "just take up the _____ challenge then".
As much I like James Randi and his lectures and what not, I feel this same way about his million dollar challenge as well, and word through the grapevine is that he can be quite UNscientific in his screening process for rejection or acceptance towards applicants to his challenge.
That's not to say everyone he rejected had some genuine ability nor that every person Randi has rejected was the victim of Randi's biased knee-jerk reactions to their claims, I'm just sayin'...
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
The idiocy with these guys is unbelievable at times.
KD8 wrote:
Isn't the Jesus story just a retelling or 'copycat' of earlier godmen stories?
"No. The first time I heard this theory, I was in a chat room and a person came in listing comparisons between Jesus and Horus (such as that Horus was also born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, resurrected someone named El-Azarus, was crucified and resurrected, etc.). Wanting to see if this was true, I hit a few websites about Egyptian mythology so I could read the Horus story for myself. None of them gave any such details, and even said things which clearly contradicted this person's claims. I also went to my local library, and even a bookstore, looking at books on Egyptian mythology, and found nothing in the way of comparisons to Jesus.
This is what really gives him away as not knowing very much about religion in the first place.
As confessed here in the discussion, KD8 was raised without religion by an atheist mother. He wasn't some well read atheist with a great knowledge of comparative religion and mythology and an atheist because of his knowledge of just what a copy cat religion Christianity and others really are, rather he was just some joe average kid without a clue one way or the other and an atheist in that sense, the sense of ignorance about religion as opposed to knowledge of it. So no wonder he had such a knee jerk reaction when confronted with comparative mythological paralles between the Jesus myth and others.
KD8, how do you respond to the outcome of this thread so far?
_________________ 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.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
More great posts from you all - thanks for chiming in again.
From the first page:
'Christian era' and 'pre-christian'
Quote:
"In discussing the "Christian era," it should be noted that such a period differed widely in diverse places. For example, while the Christian era in Rome began in earnest during the fourth century, with the endorsement of Constantine, the country of Lithuania remained pre-Christian until the 14th- 15th centuries. Moreover, the dating of the "Christian era" did not exist until the 6th century, when Christian monk Dionysius attempted to discern the year of Christ's birth. Hence, the idea of the "Christian era" and "pre-Christian" times depends on the location in question, and using phrases like "during the first century" is misleading in that no such division existed at the time."
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Did King David 8 chicken out on us? Or maybe he's busy doing the family thing over Christmas break? I thought he would've come back by now to set us straight.
Anyway, here are a few more things I didn't address in my post at the top of this page (5).
KingDavid8 wrote:
"Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage."
"The Pyramid Texts speak of “the great virgin” (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)"
Hwn.t can mean "virgin", but it can also mean simply "young woman" or "maiden". So which does it mean when applied to Isis? Well, since in all versions of the story on which she gives birth to Horus, Osiris is considered to be the father, then obviously it doesn't mean "virgin".
That argument by KD8 has been completely ripped to shreds here previously by our friends Tat Tvam Asi, GodAlmighty and his videos, Voice of Reason and Vishnu, who all handily demonstrate the utter ignorance of KD8 throughout this very forum thread.
Quote:
"One thing non-expert, non-mythologist, shallow net-surfers like our Christian friend kingdavid8.com doesn't know is that in many pre-xian Pagan religions a female could regain her virginity via sacred union with God."
KingDavid8 wrote:
Okay, but that's nothing like what happened to Mary, making this point irrelevant. The Gospels make it clear that Mary had never known a man until after Jesus was born. When it calls her a "virgin", this is what it's talking about. It's not claiming that she had gone from non-virgin status to virgin status. Neither is there any evidence that Isis herself was "re-virgined" in this matter, making this point even more irrelevant.
In KD8's comment above we see several things:
1. KD8 once again, as per usual, just cannot find it within himself to acknowledge that he knew absolutely nothing about that little factoid.
2. The same old typical Christian narrow minded hand-waving dismissal from KD8 who's only interest is to shore up his faith in Christianity at all costs. His comment demonstrates that KD8 has absolutely no intention of meeting us half way - he has already admitted that he has absolutely no relevant qualifications, credentials or language skills yet he has no intention of learning the facts on the great many issues brought up throughout Acharya's work or Zeitgeist Part 1. In short, KD8 has no intention of working WITH US in good faith. Meaning, he has no intention of being fair or honest. I say that because take note how KD8 doesn't ask any questions like, "could you expand on that and explain to me why or how it's relevant?" It's reasons like that that I mention KD8 pretending to be some sort of expert on these issues.
3. KD8 displays how quickly he is willing to dismiss relevant credible evidence before even attempting to understand more about it. As I stated earlier: "KD8's typical response to everything is his normal knee-jerk reaction to immediately dismiss everything." And we know why - so he doesn't ever have to pay up.
4. A prime example for why KD8 should not be in any position to decide what is or isn't credible evidence for his own CMer challenge. As I stated before: "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."
While the mystery of "pre-xian Pagan religions a female could regain her virginity via sacred union with God," isn't directly related to Mary it most certainly is relevant due to the fact that the CONCEPT of giving a virgin birth to a savior son of god certainly was borrowed from pre-Xian Pagan religion. The fact remains that according to the ancient Egyptian religion Horus was born of a virgin. That's what the average ancient Egyptian believed and they would probably be offended by KD8's blasphemous comments. KD8 is still just stuck on his strawman "copycat" argument and can't get passed it because that's all he knows.
Do you really believe that Isis got it on with Osiris after being cut into 14 pieces and put back together again? What would you say if someone told you that after Jesus' crucifixion that Mary Magdalene got it on with Jesus in the tomb? Would you believe that too? We're talking about myths, which are allegory for natural phenomena. It always amazes me how often that point needs to be reiterated because people constantly forget.
KD8 needs to read the quote below very slowly and as many times as it takes until it all sinks in:
Critics continually reveal that they possess a very shallow understanding and little knowledge of the subject at hand and should therefore not be considered "experts" of any sort. For example, on the issue of the virgin birth, Christian defenders rant about pretended distinctions between the words "virgin," "maid" and "young woman," all the while treating a mythical motif as if it were a historical fact. They display no comprehension whatsoever of the ancient mythical concept of parthenogenesis, as widely discussed by scholars behind the walls of academia and above the heads of the masses.
Despite all the noisy dissension, the fact will remain that the idea of a Parthenogenetic Creatrix - a VIRGIN MOTHER - predates Christianity by eons. Possibly more than 5,000 years in fact, in the mythology surrounding the very ancient Egyptian goddess Neith. This concept will likely go above the heads of those who continually wish to make the Virgin Mother into a mortal Jewish woman, but these are the facts, and once they are understood, an elegant and sensible mythical motif reveals its glorious self to the world.
For more on the issue of the Virgin Mother of the World who dates back many thousands of years prior the Christian imitation of same, please see the following article:
Note that Neith is a form of Isis, and that through this common motif of a parthenogenetic creatrix, the issue of Isis's virginity is settled. We are discussing MYTHS here, not human women with body parts. The fact will remain that it has been discerned or depicted from remotest antiquity that "God" was a female who could create out of herself, without the assistance of a male. Undoubtedly, that is likewise how many ancient cultures at first viewed the mortal woman's ability to procreate, although I'm sure the smarter among them could have figured it out. Nevertheless, the female virginal creator is an understandable concept.
As I say, once you "get it," it's an elegant and sensible concept, albeit one that may require higher intelligence. Those who do not "get it" need to stop pretending to be experts on this subject. They are not.
To reiterate, Neith is a form of Isis and the motif of her as the "great virgin" as mentioned here: "The Pyramid Texts speak of 'the great virgin' (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)," from the book, Christ in Egypt page 152, is referring to a concept that goes back 7,000 years at least. It's not just Neith but many other goddesses who are manifestation of this ancient virgin-mother idea, including Isis, Neith's alter ego.
Quote:
"The Pyramid Texts speak of "the great virgin" (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)" ...
"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares:
"I am the great virgin"
"The Egyptian goddess who was equally ‘the Great Virgin’ (hwnt) and ‘Mother of the God’ was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus]." - Dr. Witt, an Egyptologist
- Christ in Egypt, page 152
* The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old.
Here's a thread explaining more on plate 9 with Isis herself saying: "I am the great virgin"
I'll go ahead and share this video once more with a modern Egyptologist since KD8 ignores it like the plague. Here's a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus. And, at 5:30 you'll see a stone carving of Isis as she hovers over Osiris in the form of a bird to receive the divine seed (notice there's no 'member') of Osiris. Mojsov then says, "It's a miraculous birth of the savior child."
Considering these facts, we know exactly what the Egyptian word hwn.t means: VIRGIN, as in procreating without the assistance or need of a male. It's an old pre-Christian mythical motif - get over it and pay up, KD8.
Quote:
"Also, the fact remains that BILLIONS of Christians have celebrated Jesus' birth on Dec 25th. Does kingdavid8.com celebrate Christmas and Easter? Those are certainly the most popular Christian holidays and the both originate from Pagan religions. kingdavid8.com better run to tell all the Christians to stop celebrating those Pagan holidays."
KingDavid8 wrote:
If "Event A" is celebrated on the same day as "Event B", that doesn't mean a celebration of "Event A" is secretly a celebration of "Event B". My birthday happens to be on the same day as Robert Johnson's birthday and "VE (Victory in Europe) Day". That doesn't make my birthday a celebration of the other events. Since there are only 365 days in a year, it hardly matters what day we celebrate Jesus' birthday on - it's going to correspond to something else.
Another distraction fallacy. KD8 did not answer the question or deal with the issue at hand. KD8 is flat wrong in his Event A and B analysis. The fact remains that the concept of the sun god being born around the winter solstice was already a popular, well known motif even in the first century during Jesus' supposed time and that is the point. The Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that the December 25th date comes from the sun god Mithra:
Catholic Encyclopedia on Natalis Invicti:
Quote:
"The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism."
Also referred to as Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, which means the "birthday of the unconquered sun."
Catholic Encyclopedia on Mithra:
Quote:
"Sunday was kept holy in honour of Mithra, and the sixteenth of each month was sacred to him as mediator. The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season."
* Notice the word "REBIRTH," which means that the sun was perceived to have died & resurrected.
My #1 through 4 from above can be reiterated here too.
Quote:
KingDavid8 wrote:
"However, there is no evidence that these three stars were called the "Three Kings" prior to Jesus' time, nor even prior to the 19th century, for that matter."
Quote:
This is a pretty bold claim for one who has no relevant qualifications, formal training or credentials. What languages did you research that led you to those conclusions?
As he is in the other instances noted above, KD is wrong here again. Orion was called the Three Kings in French - Les Trois Rois - by at least as early as the 18th century. And it was called the same in Latin by at least as early as the 17th century.
KingDavid8 wrote:
Love the response. He's basically saying that instead of the "Three Kings" name being nineteen centuries too late be relevant, it's only seventeen centuries too late to be relevant. But I'll fix that on my site.
Notice how KD8 is incapable of acknowledging that he was wrong claiming that there was no evidence for the stars being called "Three Kings" "even prior to the 19th century"? I provided only what was needed to prove him wrong so, rather than admit he was wrong he constantly insists on willful ignorance. KD8 is clearly too lazy to do any research for himself as biblical Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 60:1-6 sounds just like a description of the Kings birth narrative described in the Gospel of Matthew. The dating for the book of Isaiah ranges from the 8th century BCE to the 6th century BCE demonstrating that KD8 really doesn't know much about the bible either.
Quote:
Isaiah 60:1-6:
1 "Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. 2 See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the LORD rises upon you and his glory appears over you. 3 Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. 4 “Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you;your sons come from afar, and your daughters are carried on the hip. 5 Then you will look and be radiant, your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come. 6 Herds of camels will cover your land, young camels of Midian and Ephah. And all from Sheba will come, bearing gold and incense and proclaiming the praise of the LORD.
1 Sounds like it's talking about the sun preparing for it's resurrection/re-birth after the winter solstice. 2 Sounds like it's talking about the darkest or shortest day or longest night of the year i.e. the winter solstice and the re-birth or resurrection of the sun god as well as 3 through 5, which also is the prophecy of the kings who follow the "star in the east" or "star of Bethlehem," also further emphasizing the glory of the resurrection/re-birth of the sun god. And 6 mentions the gifts of gold and incense - which are frankincense and myrrh. Get it KD8? Or is the bible now considered a pesky Christ-Myther source that you will not accept?
Here's a quote from Bishop Spong on page 18:
Quote:
"...no reputable biblical scholar today would seriously defend the historicity of these magi. This story, which is told only in Matthew, has about it all the marks of an interpretive sermon, developed rather dramatically from a passage in Isaiah 60."
So, there we have it from a well-known authority that this pericope is a mythical motif using the Old Testament as a blueprint in order to "fulfill prophecy." Bishop Spong goes on to say on page 19:
Can you guess who else had a star announce their birth? Osiris, Horus and others! This issue has also been addressed in The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) on page 18 #14 and page 53 #24 and on page 55 #26. As an example:
Quote:
"...Old Testament scriptures held up as ―prophecy of the coming messiah discuss ―kings as coming with gifts, such as Psalm 72:10: ―The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. The first to mention the magi as ―kings was Tertullian in Adv. Marcion (3.13), referring to Psalms (67:30, 72:10) and to Isaiah (60:3): ―And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. The magi as ―kings was further emphasized by St. Caesarius of Arles (6th cent.): ―Ille magi reges sunt—these magi are indeed kings."
- The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010), page 53 #24
Quote:
"Their identification as kings in later Christian writings is linked to Old Testament prophesies such as that in Isaiah 60:3, which describe the Messiah being worshipped by kings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi
So, will KD8 come back with more distraction fallacies and his typical hand-waving dismissals all in bad faith or will he say "Humm, I was not aware of that. That's very interesting, I wonder where the writers of Isaiah got those concepts from?"
Images from ZG1 Sourcebook:
We have an Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for Orion, with three-looped string and star (Budge, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 638)
The baby Sokar approached by Ptah-Sokar-Osiris at the winter solstice (Wilkinson, Manner and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, III, 18; Murdock, The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar, 34)
Quote:
"The fact is that the parallels aren't a carbon-copy, some are closer than others."
KingDavid8 wrote:
And most of them, for each deity, are altogether false.
LMAO, you love that typical hand-waving dismissal don't ya, KD8 - it's the easiest thing to do isn't it? You don't have to know anything about anything to just repeatedly dismiss everything huh KD8.
KingDavid8 wrote:
Luva says, "First of all, you'll notice that KD8 was not honest with Acharya and did not mention that he had never read her book."
What's dishonest about me not mentioning that I never read her book? If I claimed I had, when I hadn't, then that would be dishonest. If I claimed I hadn't, when I had, that would be dishonest. But I neither claimed nor implied that I hadn't read her book, since I hadn't. I guess I'm not sure how Luva considers that to be "not honest".
Most decent people with integrity and character would consider it DECEPTIVE KD8. Your comments on your own website lead people to assume that you have read her books when the fact is you have not read even one. It's deceptive and intellectually dishonest.
KingDavid8 wrote:
Basically, Luva has no problem making up claims about myself and my website in order to make me look dishonest.
I don't need to make anything up at all to make you look dishonest, KD8. You do that all by yourself. I simply quoted you from your very own website and point out the obvious. Readers may decide for themselves if I've made anything up to make you look bad.
KingDavid8 wrote:
But the fact remains that the majority of Christ-myther claims about Horus and the other deities have no evidence to back them up. If there was evidence, you would think that Christ-mythers would be only too happy to share it with me.
LMAO, we have provided plenty of evidence right here in this very thread to prove you wrong. Read through the thread very slowly and as many times as it takes until it all sinks in, KD8.
It is dishonest for you not to include the fact that you've never read a single book of Acharya's on your website. Your have the responsibility to inform the readers of your website with such significant facts.
I don't like having to be really harsh but people like KD8 have it coming. When he realizes what he's been doing on his website and when he's at least willing to make an attempt to see our point of view then, we can get along and have a more decent conversation. But, until then ... KD8 deserves it.
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
He was stopped dead in his tracks from the looks of things. And I've started sharing this thread as an example of the ass back ward logic that goes into offering rewards for evidence of pagan parallels...
_________________ 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.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
KingDavid8 wrote:
"I come from an atheist background (my mom, who raised me was one, and I was an atheist until I was 20)."
What exactly do you mean when you say that you were raised an atheist? How did your mom raise you to be an atheist, specifically? What does that even mean? Please explain that one further. What convinced you to convert to Christianity -or maybe you did it for your wife and family? Did your mom ever convert to Christianity as well, if so, what convinced her? If not, why not? Oh right, I think I remember reading on your website that she was agnostic now. Why hasn't she made the giant leap of faith to Christianity?
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Now, back to the list. What KingDavid8 doesn't realize is that Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection is a nearly 600-page book all about the Osiris/Horus list and Zeitgeist Part 1 regarding all the Egyptian claims and even many more. Some of it has already been shown in The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ as well as The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010). I've provided links to several excerpts and articles in the list below and what's not there may be found in the books. KD8's challenge has been met many times over but, since he's never read a single book by Acharya S he still doesn't know that and doesn't want to know, frankly.
* 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. * His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). * He was of royal descent. * At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years. * Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated. * He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns"). * He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead. * Horus walked on water. * His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child." * He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa." * Horus was transfigured on the Mount. * He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected. * He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," "the “Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc. * He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion. * He came to fulfill the Law. * Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One." * Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."
They were trying to explain these pre-Christian, ancient hieroglyphs in such a way that even Christians authorities would understand. Justin Martyr did something similar around 150 CE in his First Apology:
Quote:
"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you [PAGANS] believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...."
If we put this paragraph into a list, like the one above, it would look something like this:
Jesus Christ
* Jesus was the Word. * He was the first-born of God, produced without sexual union. * He was crucified and died. * Christ rose again and ascended into heaven.
So, when Acharya or anyone else makes a list like that, they are simply following Justin's lead. Who were these "sons of Jupiter" about whom Justin and the other Christians "propound nothing different" in their lists of attributes about Jesus?
The parallels do not have to be exact carbon copies and, in fact, it's absurd to expect them to be. These concepts have evolved over time with similarities and differences due to environment, culture and era. The point is that the CONCEPTS existed throughout the Egyptian religion and influenced many religions, including and especially Christianity.
So, what we have today is the same thing; people like Acharya S and many others still being abused and derogated for trying to explain the Egyptian myths in a format that Christians can relate. Some Christians (even some atheists) simply can't deal with it and have knee-jerk reactions or worse.
Christ in Egypt is nearly 600 pages and contains almost 2,400 footnote/citations to primary sources and expert commentary on them from a wide variety of backgrounds & expertise, including many Christian scholars, from over 900 bibliographical references to scholarly journals, books, articles etc and 60+ images and a map.
"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."
"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
I totally understand why KD8 was taken back when confronted with mythicism, but that's certainly no excuse to take off lying and slandering people simply because they choose to question the authenticity of the Jesus myth. It just isn't right to run around claiming to have defeated arguments which have NOT been defeated at all. At least we have documentation of how the exchanges actually result for future reference.
_________________ 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.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Here's more of KD8's expertise. It looks like he's taken another list and tried to address it with his constant, no it isn't type responses - meanwhile, as usual, I don't think he even knows that this list also came from Acharya's books and that's why I said previously in my original post here that "a majority of his website is centered around criticism of her works" even though, as I stated, KD8 doesn't even realize it since he's never read any of her books:
Quote:
Code:
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Sun/Zodiac stories? http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusSun.html
"This is an interesting one. It claims that the story of Jesus is based on the sun and zodiac itself. For some reason, these lists always point out the similarity of Jesus being the 'son' of God, showing this parallel to the word 'sun'. Of course, this homonym exists only in the English language which wasn't around in the 1st Century, so this one can be easily dismissed. As for the others:
1. The sun 'dies' on the 22nd of december, the winter solstice, when it stops it's movement south, to be born again three days later on 25th december when it resumes it's movement northwards. This period was originally in the star sign of VIRGO, hence the....born of a VIRGIN.
KingDavid8 wrote:
First of all, the sun doesn't move. The Earth does.
Actually, the sun does move with the entire solar system and the galaxy. Nevertheless, we are, as KD8 rightly points out, "referring to the movement of the sun IN RELATION to the Earth." It's important to note that the root definition for SOLSTICE means "SUN STANDS STILL."
"And besides all of that, Jesus' resurrection happened in the spring, not in December."
LOL, in order to make Jesus appear to be historical Christians had to deal with issue regarding the winter solstice death/re-birth with the Easter death/resurrection. Pretty simple when you think about it for 2 minutes.
KingDavid8 wrote:
"As for the period being 'originally in the sign of Virgo', Virgo is from August 23rd to September 22nd. I've never heard of the winter solstice happening in the fall. "
LMAO! KD8 once again displays his utter ignorance, biases and prejudice with another typical hand waving dismissal, as per usual. Before leap years were included in calendars, the astrological signs would move around the calendar year. So, in ancient times Virgo was certainly a zodiac sign during the winter solstice - as they all were at some point enabling new versions or twists to the myths. So, that often gets people confused today.
Now, what I find most interesting is that on his website KD8 claims to have taken an astronomy course in college yet, he seems to know very little about it or how it relates to calendars, such as the case here. It's his typical jump to preconceived assumptions first - always assuming the worst i.e. KD8 trying to paint Acharya as making it up. That's where all these "Acharya made it up" claims come from - people like KD8 who have no clue what they're talking about. So, like KD8, if people don't find the answer in 5 minutes or less at an encyclopedia they conclude that Acharya must be making it all up. All this without ever reading Acharya's books themselves - such as the case with KD8. He has been claiming for around 8 years that Acharya is not only wrong but, making it up yet, KD8 has not read a single book of hers as I've made clear many times throughout this thread. And that's why I've decided to thoroughly address KD8 and his website here for all to see because some people can't figure out just how dishonest KD8 and others like him are on their own.
Quote:
2. The sun is the light of the world, cometh on clouds and every eye shall see him, wears a corona-crown of thorns and "walks on water" when it sets.
KingDavid8 wrote:
"Yes, it's the light of the world, but clearly not in the same sense that Jesus is. It doesn't 'cometh on clouds', but is far above the clouds. Every eye (at least the non-blind ones) DO see the sun, not SHALL. There are no thorns on the sun, and it doesn't walk on water. Is the critic arguing that if you're standing on the shore watching the sun set over the ocean, it appears to walk on water? Well, what if you're watching it set over a desert, or a city, or a mountain? Does the sun also walk on deserts, cities, and mountains?"
Here again is another example confirming that KD8 has absolutely no intention of ever being objective or making any effort to understand at all. Before electricity the sun certainly was the light of the world. The sun appeared to be with the clouds or on the clouds - that's one way of looking at it before we knew better. The thorns are obviously the rays of the sun and the sun walking on water is simply the suns reflection off the water, which clearly does not happen in the 'desert, city or mountain' because there is nothing to reflect off of. Still, the sun does shine there too.
Please, make at least some effort to grow up just a little, KD8. He's not even trying to see any of these myths from the view point of the ancients at all. Yet, KD8 has no problem with Jesus as the son of God, born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the blind & sick, raised the dead, was crucified on a cross and resurrected 3 days later soon to return. KD8 believes all of that without hesitation and it is just cultural bigotry and prejudice. So, only an invisible Jewish guy can bypass all the universal laws of physics? -even though we now know that these myths were a way for the ancients to personify natural phenomena. It's so simply that even kids can understand it - so long as they're not brainwashed with religious fundamentalism.
The rest of KD8's responses are just more of the same juvenile troll type attitude so, I see no point in wasting more of my time going through them all but, I'll address a few.
Quote:
5. The sun passes through the vernal equinox at easter at which time the sun is resurrected.
KingDavid8 wrote:
I wasn't aware that the sun died, or that people thought it did. The author of this list is taking words associated with Christianity and using them to create non-existent comparisons. All we really have is that the sun passes through the vernal equinox at Easter. Is Jesus supposed to have passed through the vernal equinox at Easter? Does anything which passes through the vernal equinox at Easter die and get resurrected? Besides that, Easter never falls on the vernal equinox, but is always later (sometimes over a month later).
The sun's death/re-birth/resurrection motifs are all obviously figurative or metaphorical allegory symbolic of natural phenomena - even the ancients knew that. KD8 demonstrates the 'dumbing down' here. Until the dating of Easter began to factor in the lunar phase of the new moon, Easter used to be around the vernal or spring equinox; either way, demonstrating its astrotheological significance *NOT* about a historical Jesus.
I'm burned out on having to spoon feed KD8 due to his own refusal to read the books for himself.
The comment below originally came from an article written in 1993 by Acharya S, which eventually evolved into chapter 11 in The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, beginning on page 149. It bears repeating as it is vital for it all to sink into the melons of the masses so that they may eventually "get it."
Quote:
The "Son" of God is the "Sun" of God:
"The reason these various narratives are so similar, with a godman who is killed or "crucified" and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 companions or "disciples," is because these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the world because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the gospel fable is in large part merely a rehash of a mythological formula revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.
For instance, a number of the world's sacrificed, suffering or crucified godmen or sun gods have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"). This motif represents the ancient recognition that (from a geocentric perspective in the northern hemisphere) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if it continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God"189:
• The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north. • In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."190 • The sun is the "Light of the World." • The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him." • The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind," as well as the "healer" or "savior" during the day. • The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.191 • The sun "walks on water," describing its reflection. • The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass annually. • The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12. • The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.192 • The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.
Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus." The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity."
"Yes, it's the light of the world, but clearly not in the same sense that Jesus is.
In terms of mythology(which is what the New testament is too), yes it is light in the same sense Jesus is, AND is literal light as well. Apollo, after his syncretism with guys like Helios & Horus, was a sun god. You know the most obvious reason why this syncretism with sun gods occurred, and why it was so easy to turn Apollo into a sun god? Because he was the god of light. Yes, the type of light, like that which comes from the sun, hence the aforementioned syncretism, but also, by extension, he was the god of ENlightenment, i.e., the light of truth, of knowledge. Apollo was the god of truth, prophecy, medicine, and the fine arts such as music & poetry. So yes, Apollo was the sun, the light of the world in a physical sense as well as a metaphorical sense.
Quote:
It doesn't 'cometh on clouds', but is far above the clouds.
That is so grasping at straws. To the folks writing the myths, they couldn't tell the difference. The sun also isn't pulled by a chariot, yet they still depicted it as such, whether pulled by Helios's chariot, or by Jesus's chariot(as seen in many early basilicas).
Quote:
Every eye (at least the non-blind ones) DO see the sun, not SHALL.
They SHALL see it if it's night time, since they DO not see it then. Are you serious? What is the difference in meaning here other than present vs future tense?
Quote:
There are no thorns on the sun,
There are no thorns on a king, yet Jesus was still given the crown of thorns BECAUSE he was a king. The crown of thorns RESEMBLED a king's crown(some crowns), the king's crown didn't have to literally have thorns to be a parallel. Same with the sun, the rays it appears to give off when you look directly at it RESEMBLE thorns, and the spikes on certain crowns.
Quote:
and it doesn't walk on water. Is the critic arguing that if you're standing on the shore watching the sun set over the ocean, it appears to walk on water? Well, what if you're watching it set over a desert, or a city, or a mountain? Does the sun also walk on deserts, cities, and mountains?"
Jesus did. He also walked on all the things you mentioned, yet he STILL also walked on water. You fail. Apollo & Helios also walked over cities and mountains, etc., yet they were STILL representations of the sun. If a sunset over the sea is actually what inspired the walk on water scene, then it seems like it would only need to do so in the area where the storyteller is, and not for the entire earth.
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
Talk about grasping at straws.
_________________ 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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
