bonadeanotloggedin wrote:

>Freke and Gandy have been discredited over and over...

Sez who? Gee, that is so easy to say. I can use that same argument:

"Bart Ehrman's book on whether Jesus existed has been discredited over and over..."

(I can cite several very lengthy and critical reviews that do that.)

It must be a powerful argument. Mormon apologists keep members quiet by using it:
"Fawn Brodie has been discredited over and over..."
"It has been shown again and again that there is no DNA problem with the Book of Mormon..."

And of course, if I suggest that bonadea (whether logged in or not) should actually READ Freke and Gandy, she will reply (as she usually does when someone suggests she look at evidence disagreeing with her) that she does not want to waste her time.

I cant link on this device, but you can google Freke and Gandy and come up with a lot. Check out the Wiki article especially the section on the reception of their book. Lots of scholars are quoted. There are plenty of other articles as well.

BTW I did read their book and it was nonsense.Even the talisman they used on the cover has been exposed as a fake. They pull theories out of their butts and present them as fact.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 02:40PM by bona dea.

But you don't mind when Bart Ehrman pulls ideas out of his butt, which is all of the time, twists them around in nonsensical ways, and then reply to anyone who points it out as saying, So what?


Bart, possibly one of the biggest oxymorons in his field claiming that he's an I-don't-know agnostic while simulataneously claiming that there is a historical Jesus. HOw can he know that? By offering ridiculous points that he alleges is proof and reasons to back his bizarre statement.

That's not an agnostic, that's a mixed-up person.


so what?

lol

He's clueless about most points he refers to, but As long as they've got a history degree it's all good with you, it appears.


Bona, if you'd use the same amount of critique on Bart Ehrman as you do with other people who object to Bart-like theories you'd be enlightened. I guarantee it!
:)

You might want to consider dumping ole Bart. He's a dead end street and an anchor. Embarrassing actually.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 02:11PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

Frankly, I can't take criticism seriously from someone who thinks Atwill has any credibility.

Your Boy Erhman states the best evidence for a historical Jesus are the Gospels.

Tell us how you determine what in the gospels is false and what is correct and how did you come to the conclusion in a historical Jesus?

Please leave logical fallacies out of your explanation

I have trouble taking criticism from someone who thinks Jesus was the result of a mushroom induced vision or whatever. That is worse than Atwill. Now good bye to both you and Joan.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have trouble taking criticism from someone who
> thinks Jesus was the result of a mushroom induced
> vision or whatever. That is worse than Atwill. Now
> good bye to both you and Joan.


....But you will take guidance and inspiration from the religion that was an outgrowth of an ancient mushroom cult. Do you have any trouble with Santa Claus and Christmas trees ? Thank god, that they have no connection to the mushroom origins of Christianity.

I have said repeatedly that I do not believe Jesus was anything more than a human being like the rest of us. What part of that do you not get?

bona dea wrote: "Even the talisman theynusenon the cover has been exposed as a fake."


Is this an established fact? You make this statement like it has been conclusively proven to be a forgery, but from what I have read the authenticity has been questioned, but NOT conclusively proven.

Facsimile 3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bona dea wrote: "Even the talisman theynusenon
> the cover has been exposed as a fake."

But is it as big of fake as Joe SMith and his MORmONISM......

I read that it has been established. I dont have the reference and am at work right now

You might google Orpheus Talisman for more info. What I read said it was medieval.

You probably need to double-check your source. I suspect that you are misremembering the degree of certainty, and would invite you to edit your original post to avoid overstatement.


The following quote is from a Christian apologetics website:

"While it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that the amulet is a fake, when you couple the anachronistic image with the dodgy Italian provenance, it becomes impossible to treat is as anything other than extremely suspicious."

http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm


Incidentally, the appeal to the bent arms and legs as evidence that it is medieval fails to account for the bent arms in the famous Alexamenos graffito (just an observation, and NOT intended to distract from my advice above):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Alexamenos_trazo.png/140px-Alexamenos_trazo.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Alexorig.jpg/140px-Alexorig.jpg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2014 04:13PM by Facsimile 3.

You may be right. I will check it when I am home and have time. Even if it is correct there are many other problems particularly the, suppposed resemblance to Mithras

Fellas, fellas,
This is not merely an argument of fact and fiction, but a battle to protect and validate something dear. I propose there be a common ground of mutual respect.

saanhetna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fellas, fellas,
> This is not merely an argument of fact and
> fiction, but a battle to protect and validate
> something dear. I propose there be a common ground
> of mutual respect.


word

^ top ^

The world is full of surprises.

I opened this assuming Richard Packham would be saying about the opposite of what I find.

Mr. Packham, could you share why we should read Freke and Gandy? I'm curious. What did you find so compelling?

Also, if you could, because I can't seem to find anything on them, please share where they studied. Wiki says Gandy holds an M.A. in "classical civilization" but fails to say from where. I haven't heard of it put that way before. And for some reason Freke hasn't a page on himself. One reason I ask is because Acharya S was caught lying about her alma mater.

I would think it quite obvious to someone of your ability and knowledge that given how scant our information is about Jesus and his time you'd be a little skeptical right off the bat with people who propose to spin conspiracy theories taking place at that time. My goodness, it's hard enough to spin theories about conspiracies taking place in our own time, like JFK or the Gulf of Tonkin etc.

I don't know anything about the background of either Freke or Gandy. I was impressed by their book. To accept or reject a book based solely on the author's academic credentials strikes me as being either the "ad hominem" fallacy or the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

That Archarya S lied about her alma mater is 100% irrelevant.

I did some checking on the Orpheus medallion that appears to be fake. I also found Freke's response, in which he points out that the use of the medallion on the cover was a kind of afterthought, and played no significant role in their arguments. I found the lengthy criticism pointing out that medieval depictions of Jesus' crucifixion did not have bent arms and legs. That seems to be beside the point, since the medallion was not a depiction of Jesus' crucifixion, but rather Orpheus'.

It does appear that F & G erred in not being more careful about the Orpheus medallion. That seems to me no reason to reject the entire book. Remember that Michael Quinn's book on "Early Mormonism" included a Hofmann forgery, but we benefit from the rest of the book. Same with the Tanners' "Changing World," also including a Hofmann forgery.

I have found quite a few critiques of their book. Those critiques are mostly characterized by facile dismissals ("an old idea that has long ago been discredited"), pro-biblical bias ("It's not biblical!" said one), ad hominem ("F & G are 'popularizers'").

I'm not sure that they convinced me that Gnostic Christianity was the original version of Christianity, but their comparison of the Gnostics and the oriental mystery religions was extensive and well documented. (One critic said we don't know much about the mystery religions because they were secret. But we DO know a lot, because of their Christian critics who described them.) Their summary of the lack of evidence for Jesus' existence is not really new, but is an excellent overview. (Personally, I don't care whether he existed or not: see my article "What About Jesus?" at http://packham.n4m.org/jesus.htm ).

The endnotes are 60 pages of fine print. Hardly an asset for a "popularizing" book.

As to "conspiracy theories," I tend not to be a believer in conspiracies. But there are conspiracies. Joseph Smith and his family are an example.

Another benefit I got from their book and the descriptions of the Gnostics and the mystery cults was how similar they were to the Mormon temple cult. I found that ironic, since James E. Talmage in his book "The Great Apostasy" excoriates the Gnostics as heretics. Modern Mormon apologists, however, are beginning to point to those very features as evidence that Mormonism is indeed a restoration of early Christianity.

I don't believe it is a fallacy to ask for academic credentials from authors who write books about history. History is an academic subject with competing paradigms, methodologies etc. Knowing if a British historian is out of Cambridge or Oxford or the London School of Economics tells us a lot about what we will find before we open the book, for example. Also, their is a very specialized training involved with ancient history due in part to languages no longer extant, to say the least.

I'm not saying lay people can't write history, but academic credentials matter just as much to understanding historians as it does to understanding scientists. Besides, why can they not reveal it? Everyone quite readily reveals their credentials, even to lie about them. Why the secret? Archarya's lying about her credentials is relevant because there is a pattern with these Jesus conspiracy writers. Where did Earl Doherty go to school, for example. In a world where everyone with a résumé reveals their education it is beyond odd that authors of an academic subject would either lie or conceal their own. And yes, that is enough for me right there to not open their books.


No doubt the gnostics are interesting! My interest was sparked while reading Augustine's palpable vitriol as he travesties them. Who were these people that gave him such a rise?

Hans Jonas, "The Gnostic Religion", if you haven't already.

Cheers,

Human

Thank you ,Human. Exactly

I don't expect anybody to pay any attention to anything I write about Mormon history or doctrine or theology.

I don't have degrees in religion or history. My degrees are in German language and literature and law.

So please don't read anything I write, unless it's about German or law.

On second thought, even in those fields I never held a chair at a university.

So just ignore me. Sorry I bothered you.

despite his sarcastic remark.

Nobody says you have to have a PHD in a field to have a valid opinion, but that said credentials,peer review etc do count. When I am sick I go to.my doctor,not my lawyer and I wouldnt consult my doctor if I were to be charged with a crime. By thensamentoken a peer reviewed historian who has the respect of other historians probably knows more about historical subjects than someone without that education.

The word "probably" is revealing.

In my experience with Mr. Packham, via his website, I can assure you he has done his homework.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2014 05:06PM by moose.

I have read his website too amd he is very good when discussing the Mormon church and less so on historic Jesus, who is a scholar and how to tell a reputable theory or scholar from a hack making stuff up. None of us are good at everything. I respect Richard and his views on Mormons and think he needs to do more research on ancient history and the methods used to determine fact.He might also consider growing a thicker skin

I'll just leave that unwarranted statement to speak for itself and a certain poster's proclivity.

And I'm done. I don't usually work in concrete.

The alternate degrees speak to something, but the nude parasailing is what gives you the time to reflect -

Your writings about the church are good. Just because many of us dont agree with you on Freke and Gandy doesnt mean we dont value your opinions on other things. BTW, you were rather snotty with me and by assuming I dont read anything I dont agree with. The only time I have said that I wouldnt read a book was re Carrier and that had to do with the ridiculous price of the thing. I may well read it when the price is less for a paperback than I pay for most hardbacks or when the price of a hardback isnt close to $100.

I agree the paperback price is steep (and there's apparently no eBook edition), but I'm plowing through it now, and Carrier is, if nothing else, thorough. For sheer length, I guess the price is worth it. I think in the future historicists will have to come to terms with Carrier. Half way through, I see where he's going, and he has me strongly back in the mythicist camp.

As I've said before, I'm interested in the issue, but I have no emotional dog in this fight. Even if there was once an itinerant Jewish preacher who got himself executed by the Romans, he has nothing (except the name) to do with the god-man of Christianity--that entity is unquestionably mythical. And Carrier does a good job of explicating where the god-man myth came from with both Pagan and Jewish sources. Philo and Paul, for example, apparently had very similar cosmological views.

Pretty-dense-reading-but-well-constructed-ly yrs,

S

I have read Carrier's website and have seen some of his videos. Frankly, I am not that impressed,but when I can get his latest on my Kindle of get a used paperback or a new one for a reasonable price I will read it. I have limited income and limited space and there are lots of books I would rather have, frankly. We all get to pick and chose.Unfortunately I dont have an unlimited incomemor unlimited space and just about every spare inch of my house is filled with books already. I very seldom buy paper books any more for that reason.