• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

#98: Aug. - Sept. 2011 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:There are a number of problems here . . . Of course there are pagan gods and myths but my point is that if Jesus actually was the divine son of God,performing miracles etc he would automatically score high on the scale relative to mythical gods and heroes being part of the benchmark.
And my point is that no one with any credibility is going to consider the possibility that Jesus might really be a god any more than they would consider that Zeus might really be a god. What's being discussed is Jesus as a person or myth. Carrier's use of the Rank-Raglan scale is to examine these historical/mythical figures along this axis only.

How much time does Carrier actually spend talking about the Rank-Raglan scale in his book? I suspect it takes up only a few pages in an entire book. I can grant you the argument that Carrier tweaks the Rank-Raglan to better fit his argument, but it still leaves the rest of the book you need to address. And you haven't read the book.

And, even more important, the argument is not Jesus was definitely a myth. The argument is Jesus was probably a myth. Carrier, if anything, is painstaking in framing his arguments in terms of probability. This is the basis of his Bayesian logic. In SENSE AND SENSIBILITY WITHOUT GOD, Carrier lays out the criteria for historical evidence and there is not a single item of the listed categories of evidence for Jesus. We can only lay down an argument from probability. There are very few certainties in history. For example, we can have reasonable confidence that Julius Caesar actually existed. With Jesus, the picture is far murkier.
Flann 5 wrote:The argument that miracles make it myth not history is just an assertion of a naturalistic philosophical worldview. Both atheistic and theistic worldviews need to be justified, not assumed.
Flann, as much as you like to think of the two sides as equal, they are anything but. The naturalistic worldview is supported only by evidence. In the whole history of science, we have never once concluded a supernatural explanation. So the naturalistic worldview is abundantly justified whole your beliefs in an inerrant Bible and in Jesus as a deity may be personally meaningful to you, but are not justified by any objective means, and are not even addressed by mythicists or historians. I don't think you are capable of seeing your beliefs critically or objectively. They are too near and dear to you.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

geo wrote:And my point is that no one with any credibility is going to consider the possibility that Jesus might really be a god any more than they would consider that Zeus might really be a god. What's being discussed is Jesus as a person or myth. Carrier's use of the Rank-Raglan scale is to examine these historical/mythical figures along this axis only.

How much time does Carrier actually spend talking about the Rank-Raglan scale in his book? I suspect it takes up only a few pages in an entire book. I can grant you the argument that Carrier tweaks the Rank-Raglan to better fit his argument, but it still leaves the rest of the book you need to address. And you haven't read the book.
Though I haven't read this book of Carrier's I'm familiar with his views from his youtube talks. Apparently he devotes a considerable chunk of his book to Rank Raglan,going by Marshall's comments in the article I linked. As I say it's usefulness is dubious given the kinds of scores that are thrown up for Harry Potter and J.F.K. as I exampled, and tweaking would be putting it mildly.

And yet many millions of people do believe that Jesus is God including many scholars and intelligent people so they obviously considered it,and I don't see why that should lessen their credibility.

Carrier has a negative position that Jesus very probably didn't exist and a theory which undergirds and leads him to this view adapted from Doherty's thesis.
It's important then to look at his thesis and how it lines up with the evidence,and what evidence he accepts or excludes and the basis he does this on. He does promote the pagan copycat theory too.

I know you don't like videos but for anyone interested in the subject who may like these kinds of debates,Carrier recently debated Craig Evans on whether Jesus existed historically or not. It's a whopping two and three quarter hours long and I haven't actually watched it yet myself.

http://www.ksutv.kennesaw.edu/play.php?v=00030027 I can't get this link right. Try googling Ratio Christi debate, Did Jesus exist,if interested.
,
geo wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
The argument that miracles make it myth not history is just an assertion of a naturalistic philosophical worldview. Both atheistic and theistic worldviews need to be justified, not assumed.



Flann, as much as you like to think of the two sides as equal, they are anything but. The naturalistic worldview is supported only by evidence. In the whole history of science, we have never once concluded a supernatural explanation.
Who's we Geo,and why narrow it to science? Christians obviously haven't concluded this. You would have to be omniscient,omnipresent and existent for all history to be able make that a statement of certainty.

Just one supernatural miracle,anywhere,anytime would be enough to sink your philosophical worldview.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Aug 29, 2016 4:30 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

http://www.booktalk.org/post158226.html#p158226
Flann 5 wrote:I've provided reasons for why the parallel claims for Horus and Christ are false based on the primary sources for the Horus myth. You try to make it seem like it's just presentation problems, but the claims are for parallels such as that Horus was born on Dec.25th, was conceived non sexually to a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, was crucified, buried for three days and physically resurrected. You tack on to this that Horus raised Lazarus from the dead and had a temptation in the wilderness paralleling Christ's temptations. All I want from you then is evidence from primary sources for all these claims. D.M.Murdock did make these claims and so do a lot of mythicists. http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins4.htm#foot40c
I note that here you have added in a bunch of Gospel myths which are not in the linked source. Your argument that Jesus Christ was a real person, not an evolved myth, is utterly contradicted by all real ancient evidence. Murdock analysed details of how Christ evolved from Horus at some length in Christ in Egypt. The Egyptologist Gerald Massey focused on the strong definitive parallels which abundantly prove the case. He then also argued speculatively for some additional congruent parallels where the evidence is not so direct. The tactic of the biased religious critic is to completely ignore the strong main parallels between Jesus and Horus and address only those, such as the twelve, which are more speculative. That is an abuse of scholarly method aiming to bolster the predetermined opinion that Jesus Christ was an actual person rather than a mythological construction. The overall framework that Jesus and Horus are both sun gods with virgin mothers who performed many of the same miracles is readily proven with ancient evidence.
Flann 5 wrote: I'm still waiting for your explanation for the origin of the universe and the laws of nature.You think the laws of nature did everything but where did they and the universe originate?
That question involves a total failure of method. We cannot know how the universe came into existence. The best methods we have to approach this problem are those of science. But to imagine an external creator being, and then to link that imagined fantasy with the monotheist mythology of ancient Israel, should have zero credibility as a relevant contribution to rational understanding. A far more plausible explanation of ancient Jewish monotheism is that it evolved from Egyptian sun worship. Seeing the laws of nature as the foundation of cosmic order, and therefore of moral order, is a far more cogent hypothesis than claims of supernatural divine revelation. The emergence and evolution of monotheism is a scientific problem in sociology, anthropology, psychology and politics, not a question for astrophysics.
Flann 5 wrote: [O’Neill] has excellent arguments against the standard mythicist arguments but it's quite obvious to me that he's no Christian apologist.
Sorry, when I said O’Neill’s alleged atheism looks like tactical cover for a fundamentalist religious perspective, I did not at all mean that he is a Christian apologist, but rather that he is deeply confused and approaches these issues with a religious method, not a scientific method. His intense emotional hostility toward rational analysis of the existence of Jesus Christ is religious in tone. Anyone who resorts to abuse of scholars who see the obvious fraud in the text about Jesus in Josephus does not deserve to be taken seriously.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Murdock analysed details of how Christ evolved from Horus at some length in Christ in Egypt. The Egyptologist Gerald Massey focused on the strong definitive parallels which abundantly prove the case. He then also argued speculatively for some additional congruent parallels where the evidence is not so direct.
Hi Robert, Contemporary scholars of Egyptology know nothing of these claimed parallels of Massey's and neither he nor you provide the primary sources for all the claims. Born of a virgin in a cave Dec 25th etc. So the onus is on you to prove the claims of these alleged parallels of Jesus life with Horus, by referencing the primary sources they are found in.
Otherwise I'm afraid it's just bluff.
Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
I'm still waiting for your explanation for the origin of the universe and the laws of nature.You think the laws of nature did everything but where did they and the universe originate?


That question involves a total failure of method. We cannot know how the universe came into existence. The best methods we have to approach this problem are those of science. But to imagine an external creator being, and then to link that imagined fantasy with the monotheist mythology of ancient Israel, should have zero credibility as a relevant contribution to rational understanding.
So you cannot know how the universe came into existence but somehow you do know that it happened naturalistically. But how reasonable is that? Something that didn't exist somehow created itself!

Now I certainly grant that the God hypothesis is that of inference to the best explanation, but I see neither reason or scientific merit in a nonexistent universe creating itself.

But what I find with some atheists is an almost indignant expression of shock at the very idea that God could have created the universe because that's "unscientific".

It's a naturalist philosophical world view with it's own presuppositions.
Like I said these worldviews need to be justified not dogmatically declared. The question is then which worldview corresponds with reality and can rationally account for reality?
I'm going to link the Gordon Stein debate with Greg Bahnsen again because the philosophical foundations for worldviews are critical to this question.
I will add that the atheist Gordon Stein was commended by Jerry Bergman very warmly. Bergman left activist atheism when he became a Christian and was basically shunned by his former fellow activists. Stein was the exception who kept in touch with him and was unfailingly courteous towards him,
Anyway here's that debate for anyone who missed it previously. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anGAazNCfdY
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:Contemporary scholars of Egyptology know nothing of these claimed parallels of Massey's and neither he nor you provide the primary sources for all the claims. Born of a virgin in a cave Dec 25th etc. So the onus is on you to prove the claims of these alleged parallels of Jesus life with Horus, by referencing the primary sources they are found in.
Isis was considered a perpetual virgin. There is ancient material that associates the birth of Horus with the December solstice.

Acharya’s excellent factual essay on Horus at http://www.truthbeknown.com/horus.html contains extensive documentation of ancient sources such as Plutarch, Macrobius and Epiphanius.

Plutarch wrote “"About the time of the winter solstice, Isis gave birth to Harpocrates." Murdock wrote “There are many other artifacts in Egypt that demonstrate Horus's association with the winter solstice, including his temples aligned to the rising sun at that time of the year. Indeed, the Horus/winter-solstice data is so extensive that I was compelled to include a 40-page chapter in Christ in Egypt entitled "Born on December 25th."

The blindness to this simple material by Christian believers is truly astonishing, illustrating how they refuse to see any evidence that destroys their assumptions.

The big difficulty here is that Egyptology is a guild (rather like Christian theology) to which entry requires conformity. There are vast problems in Egyptology such as how the pyramids were built and the status of magic. Interest in ideas such as those of Massey is regarded with great hostility by the Egyptology guild, which is why Acharya, like Massey, has been so comprehensively shunned by academia.

It is not about the intrinsic merit of the ideas, but rather the cultural politics that associates them with taboo areas, especially in this case the heretical Docetic critique of Christian dogma. There is a serious lack of follow up, other than by Acharya, to Massey’s pioneering research on the comparative religious question of the relationship between Egyptian myth and Christianity.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
Contemporary scholars of Egyptology know nothing of these claimed parallels of Massey's and neither he nor you provide the primary sources for all the claims. Born of a virgin in a cave Dec 25th etc. So the onus is on you to prove the claims of these alleged parallels of Jesus life with Horus, by referencing the primary sources they are found in.


Isis was considered a perpetual virgin. There is ancient material that associates the birth of Horus with the December solstice.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in Egyptology or it's religions and myths and am reliant on professional scholars and Egyptologists in relation to these claims.

They don't agree with Massey and Murdock on their claims but refute them. You are entitled to rely on Massey if you want to.

Isis may have been "considered" a perpetual virgin but it should be clear that the Horus conception is undoubtedly sexual and by definition is not a virginal conception and birth.

Mary was not a perpetual virgin and this was a later development in Catholicism which developed the cult of Mary and shows real signs of pagan influences.
The Christian primary sources are the old and new testaments where we find that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Mary was married to Joseph.
It's preposterous and false to claim she was a perpetual virgin.

In line with this cultic teaching they then insisted that in the gospels accounts his brothers and sisters were really cousins. But the Greek word that is used is adelphoi for brothers. Adelphos means a brother according to Strong's and other Greek dictionaries.

http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/13-55.htm

Incidentally one of Jesus' brothers is named James, but Carrier thinks he can just dismiss this too by categorizing the gospels as myths.
Curiously, according to Carrier the gospel of Luke is of the genre of "myth",but according to him, the sequel Acts by the same author suddenly changes to the genre of "historical fiction"!

Murdock talks about artifacts but this can be confusing since we have to determine whether they are pre-or post Christian for starters.
The Luxor temple engraving is a matter of interpretation and even Carrier who advocates the pagan copycat thesis, along with Egyptian scholars again disagree with Murdock's interpretation.

And the Catholic co-opting of the pagan festival in making December 25th Jesus "birthday" is entirely unwarranted from the gospels accounts themselves, which give no date for this.
If the gospel writers really were promoting pagan ideas shouldn't they have put his birthday on Dec 25th?
Robert Tulip wrote:The blindness to this simple material by Christian believers is truly astonishing, illustrating how they refuse to see any evidence that destroys their assumptions.

The big difficulty here is that Egyptology is a guild (rather like Christian theology) to which entry requires conformity. There are vast problems in Egyptology such as how the pyramids were built and the status of magic. Interest in ideas such as those of Massey is regarded with great hostility by the Egyptology guild, which is why Acharya, like Massey, has been so comprehensively shunned by academia.
So there are conspiracies in academia against mythicists by N.T. scholars, classical historians,and Egyptologists!
Robert Tulip wrote:It is not about the intrinsic merit of the ideas, but rather the cultural politics that associates them with taboo areas, especially in this case the heretical Docetic critique of Christian dogma. There is a serious lack of follow up, other than by Acharya, to Massey’s pioneering research on the comparative religious question of the relationship between Egyptian myth and Christianity.
First of all N.T. scholars are not all Christian conservatives but include many agnostics and atheists like Ehrman. The very contentions between the Conservative and Liberal scholars on issues like the dating of the gospels and Acts, should be enough to tell you that.

It's frankly absurd to say that Egyptologists, Classical historians and liberal N.T. scholars are the slightest bit concerned about defending against Docetism.

While no expert, I find the arguments of the scholars in these fields more persuasive than those of the mythicists like Gerald Massey, who is outdated, apart from his not sourcing his claims in any credible way.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:I certainly don't claim to be an expert in Egyptology or it's religions and myths and am reliant on professional scholars and Egyptologists in relation to these claims. They don't agree with Massey and Murdock on their claims but refute them. You are entitled to rely on Massey if you want to.
No, you are incorrectly using the term “refute”. The claims of Massey and Murdock have not been refuted, but have been distorted, ignored and denied. This is a typical syndrome in cultural politics where unacceptable research is marginalised. It is a fallacy to assume that traditional authorities are correct and that there is no need to analyse the evidence for new claims.
Flann 5 wrote: Isis may have been "considered" a perpetual virgin but it should be clear that the Horus conception is undoubtedly sexual and by definition is not a virginal conception and birth.
Again, incorrect. Murdock provides abundant proof of Egyptian sources venerating Isis as the Perpetual Virgin. That is core to the myth. It is absurd for you to bring in the rhetorical terms “undoubtedly” and “by definition” when these are flatly contradicted by ancient evidence, and rest only on a misreading of Plutarch’s account of Isis and Osiris.
Flann 5 wrote:
Mary was not a perpetual virgin and this was a later development in Catholicism which developed the cult of Mary and shows real signs of pagan influences.
The Christian primary sources are the old and new testaments where we find that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Mary was married to Joseph.
It's preposterous and false to claim she was a perpetual virgin.
Now you are just using your inerrant Christian assumptions and prejudices against pagan myth. Those methods have no value in this debate since it is precisely those methods which Murdock’s findings challenge. You cannot assume Jesus existed in order to prove Jesus existed. That is the fallacy called begging the question.
Flann 5 wrote:
If the gospel writers really were promoting pagan ideas shouldn't they have put his birthday on Dec 25th?
Great question. My opinion is that there is abundant astral/solar material concealed within the Gospels, but the authors felt that the agenda of achieving popularity required that all of this core Gnostic teaching be carefully hidden. So I think that the winter solstice Christ birth predates the Gospels, since we see it in the Horus myth, but the Gospel authors chose to leave that as one of the secret ideas reserved for conveyance from mouth to ear.
Flann 5 wrote: So there are conspiracies in academia against mythicists by N.T. scholars, classical historians,and Egyptologists!
This is not a matter of conspiracy, which is just a term of abuse which you maliciously inject into the conversation. That is like saying that Newtonian scientists a hundred years ago were in conspiracy against Einstein, where the reality is that they just did not understand the new ideas and wished to preserve their own obsolete paradigm. Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift does not accuse adherents of old paradigms of conspiracy but rather accounts for their resistance as a natural conservative reaction against new and surprising ideas.
Flann 5 wrote:
N.T. scholars are not all Christian conservatives but include many agnostics and atheists like Ehrman. The very contentions between the Conservative and Liberal scholars on issues like the dating of the gospels and Acts, should be enough to tell you that. It's frankly absurd to say that Egyptologists, Classical historians and liberal N.T. scholars are the slightest bit concerned about defending against Docetism.
Docetism is the belief that Jesus only seemed to appear in the flesh. It was rejected as heresy as early as the letters of John. Exactly what “seemed” means is actually quite a complex story, and if Docetism involves Christ Myth Theory then these conventional scholars could be expected to react negatively, given the extreme hostility of the Christian church to the assertion that Jesus was fabricated.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: Docetism is the belief that Jesus only seemed to appear in the flesh. It was rejected as heresy as early as the letters of John. Exactly what “seemed” means is actually quite a complex story, and if Docetism involves Christ Myth Theory then these conventional scholars could be expected to react negatively, given the extreme hostility of the Christian church to the assertion that Jesus was fabricated.
Docetism shouldn't be taken as evidence that Christ Myth theory had roots in the Mediterranean world of 2,000 years ago. CMT is distinctly modern, something which I believe even Richard Carrier concedes. There is no good evidence from the period for a belief that Jesus was a made-up character. Even Roman polemic writers who despised Christians never advanced that claim. If anything, docetism emphasizes the existence of Jesus by constituting an argument about the particular nature of that existence. Asserting that his body was not really there, as one variety of docetism has it, is very different from saying that he could have been known by no one, because no such identity existed.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in Egyptology or it's religions and myths and am reliant on professional scholars and Egyptologists in relation to these claims. They don't agree with Massey and Murdock on their claims but refute them. You are entitled to rely on Massey if you want to.


No, you are incorrectly using the term “refute”. The claims of Massey and Murdock have not been refuted, but have been distorted, ignored and denied. This is a typical syndrome in cultural politics where unacceptable research is marginalised. It is a fallacy to assume that traditional authorities are correct and that there is no need to analyse the evidence for new claims.
Hi Robert. In the article I linked earlier various contemporary scholars of Egyptology were questioned on these claims and disagreed with them, from their knowledge of these things. I'll leave it at that as we just don't agree on this.
Robert Tulip wrote:Flann 5 wrote:

Mary was not a perpetual virgin and this was a later development in Catholicism which developed the cult of Mary and shows real signs of pagan influences.
The Christian primary sources are the old and new testaments where we find that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Mary was married to Joseph.
It's preposterous and false to claim she was a perpetual virgin.


Now you are just using your inerrant Christian assumptions and prejudices against pagan myth. Those methods have no value in this debate since it is precisely those methods which Murdock’s findings challenge. You cannot assume Jesus existed in order to prove Jesus existed. That is the fallacy called begging the question.
My point is that it's evident from the gospel accounts that Mary is not portrayed as a perpetual virgin,not withstanding pagan beliefs about such things, or later claims to this effect.

As I've said Carrier's claim that the gospels are of the genre of myth are strongly disputed by scholars like Burridge and Bauckham.

So his dismissal of James as the brother of Jesus in the gospels as myth is questionable, and particularly in view of Paul,Josephus and other's confirmations of this.

The evidences supporting an early date for Acts and therefore the gospels also are further problems for Carrier's thesis and mythicism generally.If these are early then eyewitness testimony is relevant and all fabrications are subject to immediate and fatal
refutation by early contemporaries.
It's interesting the sheer variety of attempts to explain Jesus' life and the rise of Christianity. Oddly, Bart Ehrman is often little more than a hairsbreadth away from the mythicists and even Carrier in term of his arguments.

He explains the post death appearances of Christ as real but psychologically induced this being a variant on Carrier's hallucinations theory.
He like the mythicists, uses the Apollonius of Tyana story to try to undermine the historicity of the gospel accounts while still trying to assert the historicity of Jesus!
He seems persuasive and trades on his reputation as an N.T. scholar and textual critic which he is.

However, he sensationalizes and exaggerates the problems in his view of textual transmission and reliability, and has to rein them in when challenged by an equally well qualified textual critic like Dan Wallace.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... und-three/

Robert is right in identifying the vituperation often expressed on these issues which seem more like battles of ego's than scholarly debate at times.
David Marshall get's a bit heated here but he has some valid criticisms to make about Ehrman's use of Apollonius of Tyana.
http://www.christthetao.blogspot.ie/201 ... dents.html

Bart explains the early belief in the divinity of Christ as stemming from their psychologically induced visions of him and their then supposing his resurrection and deification.
He uses as a proof text, Paul's writing in Romans 1 of Jesus being appointed/declared the son of God by the resurrection from the dead.
The following response may seem rather tedious to most people, but a close examination of Ehrman's thesis highlights the flaws in his arguments and even scholarly ineptitude,dare I say.
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CostaT01.pdf

Finally, he ducks the problem of having to explain the empty tomb by relying on questionable information about crucifixion and burial in Jerusalem in Jesus' time,contrary to the known evidence about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC1GyMXDfzM

Many are impressed by Bart Ehrman's arguments but these too need to be examined and questioned.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Unread post

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection - by D.M. Murdock”