Freethought Nation

I never said 1 AD, just pre-Christian. I'm fine with it being prior to Christianity itself. Certainly there was no Christianity prior to Jesus' ministry, so I wouldn't refuse evidence that dates to while Jesus was growing up.



I would accept Ovid as a pre-Christian source.



I think the main problem with Quetzalcoatl (besides our not having any pre-Columbian stories) is - how do you think the ancient Israelites would have heard about his stories to borrow from them? And as I said with Krishna, if you can prove a story arose prior to any type of Christian influence in that part of the world, I'll accept it. But another point that has to be made regarding Krishna (which I should have made above, I suppose) is that if the story arose in India around the 5th century AD, let's say, how could it have influenced the Gospel stories which were written down far earlier than the 5th century AD? Any parallels that arose in India after the Gospels were written, even if they weren't influenced BY the Gospels, certainly couldn't have been an influence UPON them. Wouldn't you agree? You basically would have to show that while the parallels were post-Christian, they were still pre-Gospels. You see what I mean?

Again, if you're saying the Jesus story was based on a certain deity's story, then the deity's story would have to have existed prior to the Jesus story for the argument to make any sense. If you want to date the Gospels to the late first century, as many do, I won't argue the point. But then you can't argue that a 5th-century story was an influence on the Jesus story.

Christianity has lobbied academia from the start and they still do to this very day. They fund many operations and 'investigations" in the field of religion and often get their way with what is acceptable and taught. That's why so many believe Jesus actually existed today without a shred of credible primary source evidence to substantiate the claims. These same special interest groups also have consistently blocked the case for mythicism from ever being taken seriously, which is another reason why astrotheology and mythicism isn't even discussed let alone taught.

Recent example of discrimination against mythicists:

Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.

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

David, there are over 900 sources in the bibliography!!!

The best thing to do is simply look at the parallels and the citations that go along with them. Leave your challenge as is. It really doesn't matter. If your requirements turn out unfair then you've already agreed to consider changing them if need be. Done, end of the story at this point time. Why this is still going on and on and around and around I don't know. We're just having fun with a friendly debate and it's really not that big of a deal.

1. Virgin Isis - checks out

2. Born in a cave / manger

Now this parallel is covered lightly in CiE as it's not the center of focus in this case:

This follows directly from Horus as the morning sun born of the virgin dawn, Isis. The idea that the sun goes down under the earth comes out of a cave seems to be the mythological source of this motif.

_________________
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?

And you believe acadamia gives in to it? Always? In every single university in every single country in the world? You think the university-level scholars often believe in the mythicist stuff, but are afraid to speak out in favor of it because they're afraid of Christianity, even in countries where Christianity is a minority?

Come on, you can't really believe this.

The case for mythicism is not being taught at all. Scholars don't even have to deal with it. In fact, it is not a requirement for New Testament or biblical scholars to study the case for mythicism in order to receive their Ph.D. Do you understand what that means? It means that they are not only not experts on mythicism but, in fact, they know almost nothing about it (same as you, KD8). Understand?

Was there something you didn't understand above in the quotes from Dr. Price and Doherty? Were they not clear enough for ya?

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia


* Added links to the footnotes are mine

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

I'm sorry, but having a lot of sources doesn't make the claims true. It largely depends on the quality of the sources.



Again, I'd like evidence for at least half of the claims before I'll respond to any individual ones.

No, we're not going to do that. We're not going to waste our time any more than necessary. All of the evidence already exists in the books that you simply refuse to read. We will go through them one at a time. You'll need to give a thumbs up to check it off the list or we'll need to discuss it further until you do.

It's still weird though because you have absolutely zero relevant credentials and are in no position to judge anything really. You (a Xian apologist) and you alone get to play the role of the judge, jury and executioner, which doesn't seem right and your criteria is absurd but, we'll work around it.

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

Yes, but trying to use this to explain why ALL university-level scholars reject mythicism, in every single university in every single country in the world, doesn't hold water. It's not far from the reason Young-Earth Creationists give for why their beliefs have zero traction in the scientific community. They like to pretend that it's some kind of conspiracy against them, and ignore the fact that the problem is with their beliefs, not with the reaction to them.



They were clear, but they clearly missed the obvious as to why mythicism isn't taken seriously - that it's not worthy of being taken seriously. It's the same reason "truthers", "birthers", "holocaust deniers", etc. aren't taken seriously, though I'm sure they like to pretend that the problem is with something other than their beliefs.



These arguments fail to explain why this kind of thing is apparently happening at every university in every country, including the countries where Christianity isn't a major religion, or even at non-religious universities in the U.S. Are you really expecting me to believe that ALL of acadamia, the whole world over, even in countries where Christianity is scarce, is so scared of Christianity that they won't speak up against it? Despite the fact that many, many members of acadamia have spoken against Christianity in other ways?

How do you explain Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina, writing so much against Jesus and Christianity if there is such pressure on university-level scholars to toe the Christian line? Did he not get the memo? Do you really think Ehrman's belief in a historical (though not divine) Jesus is out of some sort of pressure that he's succumbed to? Or do you think he secretly believes that Jesus didn't exist, but is afraid he'll get fired if he says so?

Well... In Norway where religious people in general is a minority, Christianity is commonly known as a "child belief". This term comes from Christianity as little different from other stories, analogies, metaphors, parables, and aspects coherent to the ancient cultural oral tradition still existing in Norway.

Different from this so often called "New Atheism", is that few Norwegians have felt the need to label themselves and aggressively attack different religious beliefs in such manner as this mentioned group of "New Atheists".

When it comes to academia and education, religious studies contain elements from most significant religions. The material is regarded as myths of similar ( human ) origin, containing the same stories, difference arising because of cultural/environment/time period change.


If you look to USA, where most likely the next Republican presidential candidate could be Mitt Romney. You could end up with him holding the bible at future presidential inauguration, thus proving that Christianity has embraced and evolved further according to Mythicist/Comparative mythology/Monomyth principles.
This issue is the "elephant in the room", and is rarely discussed because Mitt only represent another version of one amongst many versions of a still evolving myth.

Regarding the academia, and why religious belief is not under fire from academia, is because of peoples different faiths and beliefs are irrelevant. Only a individuals actions can be debated, not the abstract subjective reality the entire human population is experiencing.

The Norwegian museum of cultural history summarize it gently, in hope of not offending those of different faiths and beliefs, like this:

Horus is worshipped in two forms. As Horus the Elder, he is shown as a falcon or as a man with a
falcon head. He is the deification of royal power, the sun god’s manifestation on earth. Each pharaoh is identified with Horus in life, but with Osiris after his death. Horus the Elder was born at the same time as his parents because Isis and Osiris loved each other while they were still in the womb. As Harpocrates he is the vulnerable god child who grows up in papyrus thickets in the delta and must learn to protect himself from the dangers that threatened the ancient Egyptians. The image of him seated on the lap of his mother echoes a religious image familiar to our own culture —namely, Mary and the baby Jesus. The image expressed the Egyptians’ desire to bear a healthy and legitimate son who would carry on the father’s trade. On another level, he is the sun god as a child—that is, the sunrise.

http://www.khm.uio.no/utstillinger/mumi ... guder.html

_________________
Eyvitar firna - er maðr annan skal, þess er um margan gengr guma; heimska ór horskum - gerir hölða sonu - sá inn máttki munr.

Never place blame on man, because it happens to all. No matter how wise, a fool he becomes, when love steals his powers.

Hávamál

How does presenting them all at once take more time than presenting them one at a time? Especially if you're insisting that we take the time to discuss each claim one at a time before you present the next one, then wouldn't this ultimately take considerably MORE time than presenting them all at once, up front? If you need a little time to prepare the evidence, that's fine. I'll gladly leave the discussion for a while and come back when you're ready to present it. Just shoot me an e-mail when you're ready.



Are you seriously saying that I must AGREE that the claim is valid before we can move on? So if I don't agree (give it a 'thumbs down'), we'll never move on to the next one? I'm sorry, but this would mean that if you present a claim and can't meet the minimum criteria for it, we never move past it, and you never end up presenting the evidence for at least half of the list. You can't seriously expect me to agree to this. I'm here only because I want to see your evidence, and this idea practically guarantees that I won't do so.

My main problem with your idea, though, is that if you might realize, only after we've been discussing this stuff over and over for pages and pages and days and days, that we'll need to change the criteria in order for you to meet it. I think having a lengthy discussion, only to have you ask me to change the criteria, would mean wasting all of the time we spend on the discussion so far, and then having to start all over again. Wouldn't that be a waste of time? That's why I'd like you to try to meet it first, prior to the discussion. Once you attempt to do so, we can see if the criteria needs to be adjusted.

The ONLY way I'll agree to do it your way is if we agree that you will attempt to meet the challenge as-is, with no possibility of changing it further down the road. I don't want to go through what we went through the first time I was here, but at least eleven times over (assuming we're doing Horus, that is, where 11 is the minimum number of claims), only to have to change the criteria afterwards.

I must also have the ability to give a claim a "thumbs down", at which point we must move on, even if you don't like my "thumbs down", and you can't take my "thumbs down" as an excuse to quit the discussion and present no further evidence. I insist that you PROMISE to end up presenting the evidence for at least 11 of the claims, since seeing your evidence is the only reason I'm here. If you have no intention of presenting it to me, please tell me now so I'm not wasting my time.

I'm sorry KD8, but you have no idea what you're talking about. It was just explained to you that:

"The case for mythicism is not being taught at all. Scholars don't even have to deal with it. In fact, it is not a requirement for New Testament or biblical scholars to study the case for mythicism in order to receive their Ph.D. Do you understand what that means? It means that they are not only not experts on mythicism but, in fact, they know almost nothing about it (same as you, KD8). Understand?"

So, there exists no need for "ALL university-level scholars" to reject the case for mythicism because some people up top already made that decision for them before they were ever born. Understand? Nobody is even looking into it - BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO!

Then, we get people like you, KD8, who know nothing about it but regurgitate the whole 'Why don't university-level scholars agree with you?' type of crap when they simply know nothing about it because they're not required to study it in the first place.

The case for mythicism is absolutely NOTHING like "Young-Earth Creationists" or "truthers", "birthers", "holocaust deniers." We actually have a mountain of credible evidence that actually exists, of course, you KD8, wouldn't know much about that since you refuse to study it. That's why you're here now repeating the same trash you've heard others claim on the net that also haven't studied the subject such as, "it's not worthy of being taken seriously." Well, you wouldn't really know anything about it and you've proven that repeatedly over the last 8 years you've been posting the same lies on your website in order to shore up your Christian faith at all costs.


You're either not reading the posts or you're not comprehending them. There's more info in the books, which you refuse to read:

"...there have been many such establishments, including major universities like Yale and Harvard, both of which started as Christian divinity schools.1 Numerous other institutions in the Christian world were either founded specifically as Christian universities and colleges or had seminaries attached to them...."


Now you're just setting up strawman arguments. The fact remains that many major universities began as some sort Christian divinity schools and they often admit it on their own "about" page websites. I even gave you an example:

Recent example of discrimination against mythicists:

Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.

Columbia University for example:


Oh pleeez, Bart Erhman doesn't know squat about the case for mythicism. I refer you back to what I stated previously,

"The case for mythicism is not being taught at all. Scholars don't even have to deal with it. In fact, it is not a requirement for New Testament or biblical scholars to study the case for mythicism in order to receive their Ph.D. Do you understand what that means? It means that they are not only not experts on mythicism but, in fact, they know almost nothing about it (same as you, KD8). Understand?"


He has no credible primary source evidence to point to for a HJ.

I doubt it with Erhman. It certainly has happened many times in the past. You'd know more about that if you read the books you've been refusing to read for 8 years now. We will find out soon when Ehrman comes out with his new book next week and you're welcome to join that discussion.

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

KD8, it's not that university level scholars don't agree with us, it's the standard you set for university level scholars you have is frankly just silly. I mean you ask specifically for university level academics that work at a university, that makes things quite narrowing to be problematic. For example: E.A. Wallis Budge has never taken up a teaching position in his career, but he is a valid source being used as the standard for an established academic. I think it might be best if you revised it to say something like, "Academics that have had their views established in peer review at least and at most academic sources that come from the process of peer review." This would be most acceptable and I doubt anyone here would scoff at the requirement of having sources that are from academics that must peer reviewed. Which is fine, because then you can rebut the evidence by looking for papers by academics that either critique his evidence, method or conclusion or that give very unfavorable reviews by a number of other academics (a certain number would have to be established in order to meet this criteria, but I won't suggest it). This would actually refine this portion, which would mean that we would have to come up with other sources that tell us why the critique isn't a valid one. Essentially we would allow the academic community to decide what the evidence would be (noted there is a problem with that not all academic sources are in english). But I believe this would be an acceptable criteria that everyone here including could agree with.

Actually you did:

And who are these "people up top" and how do they make the decisions for every single scholar at every single university in every single country in the world?



And neither are the people who DO study it, but that doesn't stop them, does it? Why do you think it stop university-level scholars, but not the rest?



YEC's, truthers, birthers and holocaust deniers believe the evidence is on their side, as well, and, like mythicists, believe the rejection of their evidence is about something more than their evidence. Personally, I'd say that if the evidence was on the mythicists' side, getting evidence from them wouldn't require a $1000 challenge. And, heck, even after three years of presenting the challenge, no one's been willing to share the evidence. Even trying to get it from the people in this forum is a bit like pulling teeth. But, no, the problem CAN'T be with the evidence.



I'll not only study it, I'll post it to my website for all to see. As soon as someone can find it, that is.



If I'm lying, then expose me by sending me the evidence you claim I'm ignoring. I won't be able to ignore it then, will I?



Again, this doesn't explain why it's not taken seriously at non-religious institutions or in non-religious countries.



And many more did not. I'm sorry, but it's hard for you to claim that the so-called discrimination against mythicists is because SOME universities have a religious past, when the same so-called discrimination exists at universities that have no such past.



You missed my point. I'm saying that Bart Ehrman's repeatedly writing books against Christianity just shows your claim that university-level academics are afraid to face off against Christianity is bunk.



That doesn't answer my question. Do you think his REASON for his belief in a historical Jesus is out of pressure from "up top"? If so, why does he write against Christianity in other ways? Do the people "up top" allow some things, but not others?



I think the book's subtitle gives us a clue on what his stance is.