First of all, stahrwe, you need to be honest for once and admit that
you are a Christian - it's quite obvious. Only a Christian would deny the fact that Dr. Robert M. Price is a bible scholar. He has two Ph.D.'s, one in Systematic Theology and another Ph.D. in New Testament scholarship. (By the way, how come you only made two posts at that Christian forum? Were you banned? Not even other Christians can stand you?)
It's clear as glass you've got an irrational axe to grind with Price, Acharya, Massey and anyone else who disagrees with your delusion. The fact is you're not as smart as any of those individuals and you can't keep up with them intellectually AT ALL. That means you're not a sufficient judge of anything they write - where are your impeccable credentials that make you a proper judge of any of this scholarship? Please provide primary sources, not just the words of your Xtian fundy buddies.
You ain't that bright, kid, and you ain't qualified to judge this scholarship in the least. It's obvious you're a troll who believes THE God of the universe came to earth 2,000 years ago through the womb of a 12-year-old virgin Jewish girl, walked on water, raised the dead, transfigured on a mount, resurrected and flew off into heaven. That being said, again, you're not in any position to judge anything of an intellectual manner.
I will, however, respond to the factual material you raise - even though we've responded to it umpteen times over the past years. You haven't read it, and you won't read it this time either, before coming back with the same discredited objections from people who believe in ridiculous fairytales. That's why you're a troll.
Most Egyptologists today are very specialized and have not studied Massey's work in depth. They're not qualified to pass judgment on it either - and if
they aren't, you sure aren't.
None of us is going to do your research for you, but Acharya/Murdock has already provided the proof where many of Massey's contentions have been backed up by Egyptologists - because HE USED THEIR WORK. What part of that did you not understand? The proof from primary sources and credentialed Egyptologists is outlined in her nearly 600-page book Christ in Egypt - that's one of the main reasons for the book in the first place. The fact that you have to ask these questions shows you haven't read it, so stop pretending you know all about it. You don't.
stahrwe wrote:
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
You should follow your own advice. Massey was very highly peer reviewed by the top Egyptologists of his day. A factoid that people like you insist on omitting. Again, most of Massey's work has been substantiated by modern Egyptologists independently. If you read Christ in Egypt you'd already know that.
Name them. Cite Massey's contemporaries who agree with him. Primary references only.
The proof about Massey's scholarship is in the article that's the subject of this thread - but you haven't even read it before you came in here with your personal attacks and snide comments. That's all you have, isn't it? Some person ended up in an insane asylum, therefore Gerald Massey is wrong. Well, how many Christians are in insane asylums, stahrwe? I guess that proves Christ was wrong or didn't exist. Your first post here was completely ridiculous and everything you've posted since then validates that you didn't even read the article that's the subject of this thread. Your posts merely show your own lack of integrity and honesty - do you ever look in the mirror for an honest assessment, or is your blind belief enough to make you believe you're all knowing, brilliant and infallible?
Here's the
link to the article about Massey that shows exactly WHO peer-reviewed his work - the names are there. There's more in
Christ in Egypt, but you won't read that either - I don't believe you CAN read Acharya's works because they are WAY over your head in intelligence and scholarship.
What part of the following are you unable to understand?
Quote:
In these intensive and meticulous efforts, Massey studied the work of the best minds of the time--all towering figures within Egyptology, especially during Massey’s era, when most of them were alive and some were familiar with his work. These celebrated authorities in Egyptology whose works Massey studied and utilized included: Sir Dr. Budge; Dr. Brugsch-Bey; Jean-François Champollion; Dr. Eugene Lefébure; Dr. Karl Richard Lepsius; Sir Dr. Gaston Maspero; Dr. Henri Edouard Naville; Sir Dr. William Flinders Petrie; Dr. Thomas Joseph Pettigrew; Sir Renouf; le vicomte de Rougé; Dr. Samuel Sharpe; and Sir Dr. John Gardner Wilkinson, among many other scholars in a wide variety of fields. As other examples, Massey also used the work of Sir Dr. J. Norman Lockyer, the physicist and royal English astronomer who was friends with Budge and knew Egypt well, along with that of Dr. Charles Piazzi Smyth, royal Scottish astronomer and professor of Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh. Massey further studied the work of Reverend Dr. Archibald Sayce, professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford, as well as that of famous mythologist Sir Dr. James George Frazer, although he did not agree with their conclusions. He likewise cited the work of Francois Lenormant, professor of Archaeology at the National Library of France, as well as that of comparative theologian and Oxford professor Dr. Max Müller, philosopher and Jesus biographer Dr. Ernest Renan, and Christian monuments expert Rev. Dr. John Patterson Lundy.
Gerald Massey was very influenced by the work of Dr. Samuel Birch (1813-1885), archaeologist, Egyptologist and Keeper of the Department of Oriental Antiquities in the British Museum. The creator of the first alphabetically arranged Egyptian dictionary, Dr. Birch also was the founder of the prestigious and influential Society of Biblical Archaeology, to which belonged many other notables in the fields of archaeology, Assyriology, Egyptology and so on. Much of this eye-opening work on comparative religion, in fact, emanated from this august body of erudite and credentialed individuals. Birch held many other titles and honors, including from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. His numerous influential works on Egypt, including the first English translation of the Book of the Dead, were cited for decades in scholarly publications.
In the "Introduction" to his book The Natural Genesis, Gerald Massey writes:
The German Egyptologist, Herr Pietschmann…reviewed the "Book of the Beginnings"... The writer has taken the precaution all through of getting his fundamental facts in Egyptology verified by one of the foremost of living authorities, Dr. Samuel Birch, to whom he returns his heartiest acknowledgements. (Massey, NG, viii)
Dr. Richard Pietschmann was a professor of Egyptology at the University of Göttingen, an impressive "peer reviewer" for one of Massey's early works on Egypt. By verifying his "fundamental facts" with Birch, Massey appears to be saying that his work was also reviewed by Birch, with whom he enjoyed a personal relationship expressed in his letters. Indeed, following this statement in The Natural Genesis, in his "Retort" to various attacks he endured, Massey remarked:
As I also say in my preface [to The Natural Genesis] I took the precaution of consulting Dr. Samuel Birch for many years after he had offered, in his own words, to "keep me straight" as to my facts, obtainable from Egyptian records. He answered my questions, gave me his advice, discussed variant renderings, read whatever proofs I sent him, and corrected me where he saw I was wrong. (Massey, Gerald Massey's Lectures, 251)
It is evident from these remarks that a significant portion of Massey's work was "peer reviewed" by the eminent Dr. Samuel Birch, a remarkable development that should be factored into the assessment of Massey’s work. With such developments, it becomes evident that it is not the quality of Massey’s work at issue, since it is obviously sound, but that his conclusions as to the nonhistoricity and unoriginality of the Christian religion do not sit well with his detractors. This latter fact is critically important to bear in mind when studying Massey's works, especially since he largely discovered and developed parallels between the Egyptian and Christian religions, crucial data that may have otherwise been left to lie fallow based on occupational considerations by the vested-interested professionals upon whose work Massey relied.
Massey was likewise personally friendly with Sir Lockyer (1836-1920), as well as Dr. Birch's protégé Assyriologist Dr. Theophilus Goldridge Pinches (1856-1934). Naturally, among these various scholars of his era, Massey also had his critics, including, apparently, the devout Roman Catholic Renouf, who evidently was a mysterious anonymous Egyptologist who spewed calumny and vitriol at Massey, essentially calling him a lunatic. That Massey was so well known as to draw such attention and ire speaks to his efficacy, rather than his incompetence. As he himself said in his retort to such vituperation, "Such damnation is dirt cheap! Also, the time has passed for denunciation to be mistaken for disproof." (Massey, GML, 250) In his "Retort," Massey also made the following observation, which readers of this present work might wish to keep in mind as well: "I had already warned my readers that they must expect little help from those Egyptologists and Assyriologists who are bibliolaters first and scholars afterwards. Bibliolatry puts out the eye of scholarship or causes confirmed strabismus," the latter term referring to a vision disorder. "Bibliolatry," of course, refers to "Bible worship," while "bibliolaters" are "Bible worshippers."
In his scholarly works on Egypt, in addition to the available Egyptian sources, Gerald Massey utilized numerous other ancient texts, including Judeo-Christian writings such as the Bible, as well as those of early Church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome. Massey also cited non-Christian, Jewish and Gnostic writers such as Herodotus, Philo, Pausanias and Valentinus, along with writings such as the Talmud and the Hindu Puranas.
Acharya provides all the citations in her book - and I'm not going to repeat them here at the demand of a Christian troll who mindlessly repeats the same lies over and over again. You'll have to get off your lazy Xtian troll ass and do some research yourself. But, again, you won't, because you too
afraid of what you'll find.
stahrwe wrote:
Much has been made about the 40 page explanation that Murdock concocted. That is a ruse. A forty page explanation is only intended to confuse the discussion in an attempt to make refutation impossible.
Will Murdock give permission to quote CiE in full in order to refute it?
Which "40-page explanation" are you talking about? You can't even express yourself properly, so what makes you believe you're smarter than any of the people here you're criticizing? Are you talking about the chapter on
Horus being crucified? I doubt you'll even understand the concept. But here we go again - the point is not that there are any ancient texts that tell the story of Horus being thrown to the ground and nailed to a cross. The point is that Horus, like so many other gods, including Osiris, was shown in CRUCIFORM, with his arms outstretched, just like Christ. That means the god on a cross or in cross-shape is a pre-Christian MYTH that was adopted into Christianity. As you'll read in the article linked about Horus "crucified," even the early Church fathers talked about this MYTHICAL theme.
CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES MADE THIS COMPARISON BETWEEN CHRIST ON THE CROSS AND THE ROMAN GODS ON CROSSES. Oh, I forgot - you won't actually
read the article linked above, before you come back with the same obnoxious personal attacks and ignorant comments. I suppose you'll be attacking Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Minucius Felix now for making this comparison? I won't hold my breath for your endless ranting against these CHRISTIANS for doing that. I'm sure you'll just come back with some concocted ruse. (Christianity is a concocted ruse, by the way.)
We've had this discussion many times over and there are a lot of threads on the subject on this very forum.
Cruciforms/Gods on CrossesThat's all there is to it, but someone like you who blindly believes a supernatural fairytale with no evidence just won't get it - please provide us with the primary sources that prove the ridiculous and supernatural claims of Christianity? We want the original gospels, please, with a certificate from God saying they were written by the people who they're claimed to be.
I bet if you had been brainwashed by stories about Hercules since you were a child, you'd be in here arguing how Hercules is the real Son of God, without any proof whatsoever.
And since when has permission been needed by Christian trolls to refute anything? They're just so conceited and arrogant - their blind belief in Jewish fairytales makes them think they're smarter than everyone else - they don't need no stinkin' permission to quote others and spread lies about them.
By the way, in order for you to quote something and refute it,
you'll actually have to READ it. Do you think you can handle that? Otherwise, attacking people's work you've never read is known as
intellectual dishonesty. If you can prove to us that you've actually read the material in question, not only will we be shocked - since your other posts show that you have NOT read anything relevant AT ALL before pretending to be an expert on the subject - but you might stand a chance of staying on this forum. If not, you can take your trolling elsewhere.
stahrwe wrote:
I am not commenting on Massey's character. I commented on his scholarship and how it was preceived by his contemporaries.
You did no such thing. You quoted a malcontent - probably a Christian - who, like you, probably hadn't even read his work. There was NO factual material in the mindless personal spew you posted here - that's a typical Christian troll tactic. Where are the facts in your post? Not one - just a bunch of personal attacks.
You remind me of the apologists addressed by Ken Humphreys in his article here:
Quote:
Christian Apologetics - Fundamentally Flawed
Logical fallacies and semantic trickery are the very essence of Christian apologetics, exploiting a general ignorance of science and responding to the desire for quick-fix salvation and something easy on the brain cells.
Deceiving the Unsophisticated by TrickeryThe supposed 'evidence' of Jesus's existence can fill many pages. The $multi-billion industry of religion quite predictably has its lionized defenders of the Faith. Two favourites of the Born Again are pastor Lee Strobel –The Case For Christ – and minister Josh McDowell – Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Neither pretends to a scientific impartiality. Beyond a self-claimed 'hard-nosed objectivity' they make an avowedly partisan case for their evangelist cause. But for all the fulsome praise heaped upon contemporary Apologists by a grateful Christ Incorporated the evidence of their case collapses under scrutiny. The sophistry and flimflam deceive only the gullible and the uninformed – but, then, that is the essence of religion.
The Apologists have no store of unknown Jesus artifacts, no cache of Jesus's secret memoirs– though they do have shrewd allies in the relic-fabrication industry, so this may change! Rather, their circus tent is filled with nothing more substantial than subterfuge and suspect logic. What holds it all together is that universal super glue – Faith.
I am sick and tired of trolls and have absolutely no patience for them anymore, stahrwe. Go find a different place to post your trash. My spidey senses knew this was going to be the end result of you coming here after you got banned for all your trash over at Booktalk. You never seem to learn.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
