Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

[Roger Pearse]

... Peter Kirby » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 am

"Biblical scholarship is a wankfest in the first place. Nobody can test their hypotheses, there is very little data and little hope of getting more, everyone involved rolls their eyes at the first hint of math, the people running the show are vested to the hilt, and the best work being done is the social science and text criticism stuff that nobody really cares about."

I think there is a great deal of truth in this. But it's not a feature of biblical studies per se. It's a feature of any discipline in the humanities where the political establishment of a country or time has a definite collective view on the subject. We might call that a "politicised" subject. When the data base is static, and limited; where people have to grind out PhD's by screwing the last drops out of a topic already squeezed dry by a thousand previous books, articles and dissertations, and where expressing opinions unwelcome to the establishment may mean that you will not obtain your PhD, then a subject is in trouble.

The same problem has afflicted classics at certain periods, when the same conditions obtained. The classic example is Holzberg's "Lucian and the Germans", where he shows that the consensus opinion on Lucian between 1880 and 1945 was based on one seminal scholarly article, and that this article was verbally identical with a non-scholarly article that appeared in a popular publication a few months earlier, abusing Lucian as a Jew, and written by Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

The same problem also affected patristics up to the 19th century. Thus "protestant" scholars proclaimed that the long recension of Cyprian's letters and treatises had been interpolated by the Catholics, and that the short recension was genuine; while Catholic scholars affirmed the genuineness of the long (and markedly more Papist) recension, and suggested that the short version was an epitome. Thankfully today nobody cares, and everyone accepts that both are genuine, and that Cyprian revised his publications to bolster the position of Pope Stephen after the Novatianist schism at Rome.

Underlying all this is a methodological problem, it seems to me. There is no control on contamination from this source. Our system of learning and research provides no safeguard to prevent this kind of thing. And there ought to be some. This is one reason why staying close to the ancient data has always seemed to me a sound principle. Whatever its limitations, so doing defends us against anachronism.

The hard sciences are exempt, because they require repeatability and verifiability, and their discipline permits it. If you get the same result every time you boil something in a test tube, then it is hard to corrupt. On the other hand "soft sciences" like sociology pretty much died from becoming politicised.

Lies are the fabric of all religions

They are not the fabric of my religion; and if they are the fabric of your religious position then perhaps you should find a better one.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Peter Kirby]

I think there is a great deal of truth in this. But it's not a feature of biblical studies per se. It's a feature of any discipline in the humanities where the political establishment of a country or time has a definite collective view on the subject. We might call that a "politicised" subject. When the data base is static, and limited; where people have to grind out PhD's by screwing the last drops out of a topic already squeezed dry by a thousand previous books, articles and dissertations, and where expressing opinions unwelcome to the establishment may mean that you will not obtain your PhD, then a subject is in trouble.

I had a feeling this might be your response, Roger. Cheers.

(Obvious disclaimer: the disarray in a subject as practiced does not in itself "legitimize" anything or everything in that subject.)

[Maximos]

"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. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter..."

- Justin Martyr, The First Apology, XXI (around 150 CE)

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? 259

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

The Twelve in the Bible and Ancient Mythology

Read, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor

[bcedaifu]

Christianity did not develop from paganism. It's just stupid. There is nothing more to say.

I apologize for elaborating further, when it has been decreed that there is nothing more to write.

As I scan this thread, I wonder what Lightfoot would have thought, about the submissions here?

Why are we arguing about Ms. Murdoch? Her work is excellent, as is that of Robert. Is it 100% correct? Sure not.
Is it 50% correct? I don't know, maybe not. Maybe it is only 5% correct.

That's still 5% more than I have ever contributed.

With regard to the origin of Christianity, there are both too many and too few clues, to clearly explain its development. Is it a mongrel based on Judaism? YES. Is it a mongrel based on Egyptian worship? YES. Is it related to Zoroastrianism? YES, and the list goes on and on.

The single most significant trait, of Christianity, however, the single most important aspect of this religion, which no other religion before or since, has included in its fundamental character, is the notion of the divinity of a Greek pagan demigod, Jesus, who promises eternal salvation, and rescue from an eternity in hellfire, simply by having faith in his divinity. This attribute is most certainly NOT a characteristic of Judaism. Therefore, the notion that "it is stupid" to imagine an origin of Christianity, based on Greek pagan thinking, is fundamentally at odds with the history of Platonic influence on the Jews who authored the texts, so admired on this forum: the gospels and epistles.

[Maximos]

"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. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter..."

- Justin Martyr, The First Apology, XXI (around 150 CE)

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? 259

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

The Twelve in the Bible and Ancient Mythology

Read, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor

The Mythicist Position - thread here
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=383

Pagan Parallels: Achilles Heel of Christianity

Modern Scholarship Confirming Christ Conspiracy Contentions

[Maximos]

Here's a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus.

[hjalti]

Why are we arguing about Ms. Murdoch? Her work is excellent, as is that of Robert. Is it 100% correct? Sure not.
Is it 50% correct? I don't know, maybe not. Maybe it is only 5% correct.

No, her work is not "excellent". You see, even if 50% of what she says is correct, it still makes 50% of it false, and it's false because she's just repeating some nonsense from dubious 19th century sources or even modern Atlantean experts! It's like going to a doctor who says: "The heart pumps blood and your food goes through your lungs, my homeopath told me so!" I would not go to that doctor, and that's also why nobody should read her books.

[stephan happy huller]

For God's sake is that what it comes down to? Some Egyptologist saying that there are parallels between the late cult of Jesus and a particular cult within Egyptian paganism?

The question isn't whether Christianity in the third and fourth century absorbed aspects of the pagan world around it. There is no question about this. The answer is yes. But did Christianity actually develop from paganism. The answer is no.

This is what is so annoying about these arguments. The gospel is not 'Egyptian.' It does not properly belong classified as an Egyptian text. Please develop an argument for the 'Egyptianness' of the gospel, the writings of Paul or any New Testament text.

The rituals of Christianity are not Egyptian. Please develop an intelligent and plausible argument that for the Egyptianness of the Christian liturgy.

[stephan happy huller]

LOL, please make at least the minimal attempt to make it look like you have a clue what you're talking about.

I see so you're the expert. I will ask again, is the gospel an Egyptian text?

[Maximos]

LOL, please make at least the minimal attempt to make it look like you have a clue what you're talking about.

I see so you're the expert. I will ask again, is the gospel an Egyptian text?

I would never claim to be an expert but, even I can tell that it's obvious that you certainly are not. Your biases are as transparent as glass for all to see.

Huller "But did Christianity actually develop from paganism. The answer is no."

It's called SYNCRETISM by scholars.

I'm not aware of anybody claiming the gospels are an "Egyptian text" but, I have read that parts were written for an Egyptian audience since they were likely written in Alexandria, Egypt.

Christ in Egypt: The Alexandrian Roots of Christianity