• In total there are 8 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 8 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

#98: Aug. - Sept. 2011 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
FTL99
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:32 pm
12
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

Thanks Robert, I'm glad that the "Preface" to Christ in Egypt is posted here. There are several significant points in Acharya's Preface that most may not quite grasp from the quotes from Joseph Campbell and Budge, an Egyptologist and professed Christian to ...

On p. vi, Acharya refers to:
"the seemingly irreconcilable academic gap between historians and theologians."
These remarks are directed at the notion that pre-WW2 scholarship is "outdated," as has been claimed by Richard Carrier, among others. It's fair to say some scholarship in this field is outdated, as it is in pretty much every field after a few years or decades, but broadstroke generalizations are patently erroneous and false. In order to determine what is "outdated," we would actually need to have many qualified people studying the subject, but modern scholarship still isn't even attempting to look at astrotheology or the case for mythicism. People need to know that New Testament and theological students are not required to study those subjects in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting scholars, theist or atheist, to be knowledgeable on these issues is often expecting too much; hence the, "irreconcilable academic gap between historians and theologians." They simply aren't even looking at these issues from an astrotheological or mythicist standpoint.

Another problem few are aware is that so many of our famous top universities actually began as religious institutions. Religion has never let go of it's stranglehold on religious studies throughout academia. It has been a losing battle to fight against the religious special-interest funding, which has had serious influence on what types of studies take place and what departments are created.

Where I'd like to see us be in 10 years ... I'd like to see academia finally create a sorely needed Department of Astrotheological Studies, which would factor in astronomy, mythology and archaeoastronomy. Archaeoastronomy was only recently added as a new department in the mid 90's.

We have a mountain of evidence demonstrating that the origins of religious concepts stem from natural phenomena, i.e., nature worship. It has evolved over time due to similarities and differences in environment, culture and era. It's just basic common sense and offers an Occam's razor explanation for the origins and evolution of religion throughout all history.

On p. vii, Murdock discusses her research methods:
"exhaustive research in the pertinent ancient languages, such as Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Coptic, while I have also utilized authorities in modern languages such as German and French."
Not many people can do that. Obviously, some can, but they don't necessarily on this subject.

Continuing in the Preface, Murdock talks about how in her other writings, she has:
"exposed various biases and censorship"
This exposure needs to be known and out in the open for all to see.
"In my analysis of the ancient Egyptian texts, I consulted and cross-referenced as many translations as I could find, and I attempted to defer to the most modern renditions as often as possible."
Can't accuse her of outdated sources. In fact, she's got something like 900 sources, in about 2,400 footnotes. From my knowledge of the subject, Murdock's used the works of the most famous Egyptologists of the past three centuries, including the most modern. She's also got biographical information on them so we know that they are credentialed in relevant fields.
"All of this work was accomplished as truly independent scholarship, without funding from any group, organization or institution, as has been the case with all of my past endeavors as well."
That means she's not restrained by any governing body, like she would be if she were at one of these biased universities and colleges. You also can't accuse her, as some Christian apologists like to do, of being part of some Illuminati or any other conspiracy group or any group of any kind. Her work is truly independent scholarship.

The Preface actually addresses criticisms of her first book, The Christ Conspiracy, which i understand Acharya is currently working on an updated 2nd edition. People still obsess on the same criticisms of her first book, even though she's written five more since then and shown where many of the original contentions come from, using a wide variety of sources from the earliest times to the most modern. This book, Christ in Egypt, is extremely well documented and very reliable in that regard.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

AlSylvester wrote:Hi again all. As quickly as I can. what Alchemy is. I found a 16 month process with 8 steps. Those steps are now our religious holidays. The process is everything about Osiris and Horus and Isis. The process became the religion. In time it became Christianity. What was done in the steps was how it was Celebrated in Egypt. The Catholic church changed some of what and how it was Celebrated, but it is easy to see and understand. Now the process was a secret! To talk about meant death. Even the alchemists couldn't for same reason. Jesus knew this and talked about it and so was 'Hung on a Tree." My point. I know the information and can read alchemy. I know from what a man said if he was one. Jesus spoke of alchemy in many, well lets just say in most of the Gnostics. You, no one knows this information. I do, after many long and hard years. I will discuss it on the forums. I would never embarrass Acharya in any way. My point is that if you knew alchemy 'The ancient magic of Egypt" you would know the man Jesus knew it. It is why he was killed as said, "he burnt his bread." If you can understand, if he was just myth, the secret knowledge wouldn't be there. Yes, I agree 100% he was tied to all of it (the mythology) as was Osiris. But, what is important, what was the myth about. That is what I found. For your information I wrote, "The Alchemy Connection" in 1978. Thought it was about seeds, it was but the seed is an egg! I can and will explain 100 things to all of you that you never heard. The Virgin Birth, Baptism, Resurrection, Easter, Christmas, Original Sin everything "Originally" is from this process. Al
That's fine if you'd like to pass on esoteric knowledge you've collected over the years, but as Robert was saying this book discussion in not the correct place for that. The Religion and Philosophy forum is where that topic needs to be. And those interested can join in the discussion there. We're sticking to the book content here on these forums dedicated to discussing the book. So let's cut off all side tracking and discuss the scholarship in CiE as everyone is trying to do right now.

Thank you.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

spoonwood wrote:I just ordered my copy from Amazon. Appears to be very... thorough. That I can recall, I've never read about or been exposed to a connection between the Christ myth and this Horus. Sounds intriguing!
Then you're going to probably have several "aha" moments as you read along. I was very taken back by all of these similarities when I first began to discover this scholarship.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

To show the intellectual context of this cultural debate, there are Christian apologists who feel that continually smearing D.M. Murdock gives them credentials among their friends.

One of the worst is a coward and fool by the name of Tom Verenna, who is happy to defame Murdock on his blog but censors any effort to correct his lies in comments to his blog.

In the linked post he states " Zeitgeist is not taken seriously (nor should it be). And their reactions have been quite similar to those of the creationist movement’s attack on the life sciences." Murdock has few ways to respond to this sort of calumny, because the people who spout it only listen to each other, and reinforce their delusions, in the time-honored tradition of Christian dogmatics. As I mentioned earlier, the dogmatists use "Zeitgeist" as a catch-all term of abuse for the Christ Myth Theory as interpreted in astrotheology.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

I don't really understand what the big shocker is about astrotheology and how ZG brought the term to popularity. You look around at the world and there's evidence of the ancients obsession with the sky all over the place. That we have evolved on this planet and during that process religions have evolved as well, is but a given. But to the entrenched it isn't such a given. Judaism and Christianity didn't simply spontaneously emerge out of nowhere, they have evolved from earlier beliefs and practices which were largely astrotheological in nature. The very social structure of Judaism (12 tribes and temple rituals and structure) modeled the 12 constellations, 12 hours of the day and night, and this was very Egyptian. Knowing that the Canaanite city-state system was Egyptian ruled and that ancient Israel seemed to emerge from the outcome of the breaking up of the Egyptian ruled city-state system, tends to shed light on why so much Egyptian mythology is present in Judaism when there's no solid evidence to place the Jews in Egypt historically. They didn't need to have ever been in Egypt to have these Egyptian mythological roots. And those roots come with astrotheological implications. That much will become quite evidence as the investigation in the book continues along...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

What we see here are deep slow currents of cultural change. Adherents of existing paradigms have emotional attachment to their belief systems, and are not amenable to examining evidence that disrupts their assumptions.

The scientific enlightenment emphasised a distinction between facts and myths, denigrating myth as false. So, when astrotheology argues that myths are allegory for natural observation, the emotional beliefs of scientists kick in to say all this discussion is irrational, and they really struggle to understand what is being discussed.

The scientific attitude has its roots in old Christian dogma, for example the claim that Noah's Ark is a historical fact while Greco-Roman mythology is imaginary fantasy. This sounds strange these days, as we all know that Noah's Ark is just as imaginary as Zeus. But transferring the discussion to the existence of Christ is a very different kettle of fish. 99% of Christians simply cannot imagine that the Gospels are fraudulent. This is so very unsettling that instincts of denial set up barriers straight away.

Astrotheology opens a path to a new paradigm regarding the relation of humanity and nature. The old Abrahamic idea of humans as superior to and separate from the natural world is very deeply ingrained, and it takes far more than evidence and argument to shift it. It is rather like the slow process of tectonic shift. Steady slow pressure over a long period eventually results in a sudden big realignment. A natural earthquake is similar to the cultural tremors that occur when the zeitgeist shifts.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

FTL99 wrote: the notion that pre-WW2 scholarship is "outdated," as has been claimed by Richard Carrier.
This Carrier fellow seems unduly polemical. It is false to assume a linear progress theory of scholarship. Reading Gerald Massey, and also the amazing work of Alvin Boyd Kuhn, it is obvious that scholarship moves both forward and backward, as older research is forgotten and interests change. Some brilliant scholars are neglected. Theology in the twentieth century simply failed to take account of what Massey and Kuhn said.

Carrier's specious argument rejecting the value of older work on Christianity and Egypt is a bit like someone saying in the fourth century that Egyptian myth was outdated because it had been superseded by Christianity, or a Russian biologist saying Mendel was outdated because he had been superseded by Lysenko...

Murdock's critique of Carrier's sexual misreading of Egyptian myth is something we might discuss when we get up to the chapter about how the Egyptian goddess Isis was the template for the virgin Mary. Carrier may not be an apologist himself, but he has engaged with casuistic theological disputes that make no sense if you take the mythicist argument seriously, such as on the supposed empty tomb on Easter Sunday.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AlSylvester
Permanent Ink Finger
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:23 pm
12
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

"99% of Christians simply cannot imagine that the Gospels are fraudulent. This is so very unsettling that instincts of denial set up barriers straight away."

The Truth is that there is more to the story. The Gospels seem fradulant because there is no scholar that knows what they are based on. Was Jesus a myth based on the Ancient Religion of Egypt, Osiris and Isis? I would think it necessary to know what Osiris was based on. As that has never been explained, how is it anyone can say what is the myth, or what is the fact of the idea and how understood. It would seem that obviously, it was based on something! Sir W. Budge said that it must have been based on something (Cleopatras Needle) but he believed that it was lost! Point, Sir W Budge believed it was based on something, but is it truly lost? How can a scholar prove anything of the past if they do not know what it all was based on? How can any of you even discuss it?

Al
AlSylvester
Permanent Ink Finger
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:23 pm
12
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

"Murdock's critique of Carrier's sexual misreading of Egyptian myth is something we might discuss when we get up to the chapter about how the Egyptian goddess Isis was the template for the virgin Mary."


In many or most of the past religions of the region discussed, most had a Virgin Birth. The above statement would seem to indicate then that all were based on Isis! For this to be True, then it would mean that Isis was the original. But, then how is it there are older religions and they also have the Virgin Birth. Seems there must be more that we need to find out before we can state what is based on which.

Al
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Unread post

AlSylvester wrote:"99% of Christians simply cannot imagine that the Gospels are fraudulent. This is so very unsettling that instincts of denial set up barriers straight away."

The Truth is that there is more to the story. The Gospels seem fradulant because there is no scholar that knows what they are based on. Was Jesus a myth based on the Ancient Religion of Egypt, Osiris and Isis? I would think it necessary to know what Osiris was based on. As that has never been explained, how is it anyone can say what is the myth, or what is the fact of the idea and how understood. It would seem that obviously, it was based on something! Sir W. Budge said that it must have been based on something (Cleopatras Needle) but he believed that it was lost! Point, Sir W Budge believed it was based on something, but is it truly lost? How can a scholar prove anything of the past if they do not know what it all was based on? How can any of you even discuss it?

Al
This comes across as if you haven't read the book and are confused about the content of the book Al. If that is the case then I can briefly point out that Murdock goes over the myths what is discovered is that Osiris is a personification of the suns journey through the night, the underworld as the Egyptians believed. They thought that the sun went under the earth during the evening and Osiris pretty much represented the sun from midnight until dawn, at which point the became Horus born of the virgin dawn. In short, the myth is based on the sun.
Al wrote:"Murdock's critique of Carrier's sexual misreading of Egyptian myth is something we might discuss when we get up to the chapter about how the Egyptian goddess Isis was the template for the virgin Mary."


In many or most of the past religions of the region discussed, most had a Virgin Birth. The above statement would seem to indicate then that all were based on Isis! For this to be True, then it would mean that Isis was the original. But, then how is it there are older religions and they also have the Virgin Birth. Seems there must be more that we need to find out before we can state what is based on which.

Al
Yes, and in Murdocks other works she discusses the various virgin mothers and indeed the virgin mother motif in general as concerns dawn Goddesses and such. But the discussion in CiE pin points a specific link between Egyptian religion and Christianity. The front cover says everything. Mary and Jesus have been fashioned to duplicate images of Isis and Horus. There is no statement saying that all virgin dawn Goddesses were based on Isis. What Robert is referring to is specific chapter about Richard Carrier which will be discussed when we reach that chapter.
Post Reply

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