Apologists Take Swift Kick In The Nuts

[Joshpantera]

Sorry Meikko, I've been away. I see that you've applied some more of your 'logic and reason' to my posts in the same manner that you consider 'logic and reason' when approaching Murdock. So I suppose I'll try to continue to engage this Murdock issue and I'll start off by saying that what you consider sound logic and reason is not necessarily the same as what I'd consider sound logic and reason. You're towing a certain perspective that I can see that you really believe in your own mind, but that I question entirely in my own. 

 

So in attempt to try and reach out and better explain my perspective against the perspective you've laid out, I'll quote you're understanding of the argument and then respond with the relevant section from CiE - because I have a copy on my book shelf along side Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, and the rest of the comparative mythology and religion section. 

 

You must have missed where it's obvious that I know this and acknowledge that Murdock does not believe Jesus ever was born, and you must have missed the fact that nowhere do I attribute that belief to Murdock. This is a pretty significant misunderstanding on your part, as your entire criticism of my post falls flat. Murdock's beliefs regarding Jesus are irrelevant to the claim dealt with in that particular context.

 

That may be the case. I just said that because you're talking as if she thinks there's some real birthday for Jesus when she knows that there isn't and goes on later to describe that Dec 25th is the most popular (a mythic date) and then goes on to explain all of the diverse dates leading up to concluding on Dec 25th which also lend evidence to the mythic nature of the idea of Jesus' birth. That's simple enough.

 

But you seem to be sticking hard to suggesting that she wants Dec 25th as the oldest date and will "quote mine" in order to get there, as something that was there from the beginning of the myth which is clearly not the argument she's making. It can go to the gospels but they aren't the oldest. That's why by the logic and reason of some one who owns this book they would not agree with your evaluation of what's being said. She was not using Kellner in that manner for that reason. 

 

So I understand that you're not directly quoting Murdock below, but this is what you gave me for a general understanding of how you think the argument goes: 

 

Let's look closer at the context! The structure, essentially, could be summarized as an exchange along these lines - this is pseudo-dramatized, so don't think I am ascribing direct quotes to Acharya here. Acharya's claims (or those of her ideological allies) are represented by lines starting out with 'A', the "opponent"'s lines start out with O.

 

A: The claimed birth date for Jesus, 25 Dec, demonstrates that Jesus is a mythical saviour figure, based on earlier saviour figures in ancient paganism.

O: But 25 Dec as his birth date is a later addition, added in part because it gave a convenient excuse to steam-roller all over popular pagan celebrations held during the solstice. The Jesus character was already fully formed by the time this idea was added.

A: Here, see what Kellner says. He says 'all the churches and sects celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 Dec!' Thus debunking your argument!

 

My point is that using Kellner's statement as valid debunkage of O's argument in this case is misleading, as Kellner does not state anything that would debunk O's utterance. NOTHING. In fact, later on in Kellner, you find him giving good ammunition to O, rather than A. Thus it is a quote mine, she's inserting the idea that Kellner basically says the Dec 25 date is doctrinally held as Jesus' birth date.

 

If she's not quote-mining Kellner, she's strawmanning O. Both approaches are fallacies.

 

Just considering my previous statement above, you're already off on the wrong foot here and not understanding her argument. The very point you keep going back to about her saying 'look here at Kellner's statement, from the beginning all churches believed that Dec 25th was Christ's birth.' You were careful not to quote the part about her listing each and every known Christian belief about Jesus' birth date. Because that right away makes ill-logic out of what you're alleging. 

 

I'll quote it again below:

 

The truth is that, as is typical of myths, Christ’s birthday from the earliest times of his conception has been variously placed, on a myriad of dates such as: January 5th, January 6th, March 25th, March 28th, April 19th, April 20th, May 20th, August 21st, November 17th and November 19th.[347]

S, Acharya; Murdock, D.M. (2011-01-29). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Kindle Locations 2202-2205). Stellar House Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

 

What you've done here is taken her opening paragraphs where she's starting out with popular belief's and then moving on from there. You will find that you really did quote mine her and take her completely out of context regarding how she uses Kellner. 

 

What I'll do is browse through the chapter starting with the opening paragraphs in question and run through the actual context of the argument she's making in a linear motion from the beginning to end of her point. 

 

CiE page 79 " Although many people remain unaware of the real meaning of "Christmas," one of the better-known correspondences between pre-Christian religion and Christianity has been the celebration of the god's birthday on the 25th of December. Nevertheless it has been argued that this comparison is erroneous because Jesus Christ was not born on Dec 25th, an assertion in itself that would come as a surprise to many, since up until just a few years ago only a minuscule percentage of people knew such a fact. Indeed over the many centuries since the holiday was implemented by Christian authorities, hundreds of millions of people have celebrated Jesus' birthday on Dec 25th. ...In this regard, a century ago Dr. KA Heinrich Kellner, a professor of Catholic theology at Bonn stated concerning "Christmas," or "The feast of our lords birth," that the "whole church and all of it's sects agree in observing Dec 25th as this date."  This type of proclamation came in America only after a hard-fought battle for nearly a century in which certain fundamentalist Christian groups strenuously objected to Dec 25th for Christ's birthday, specifically because te date was too Pagan, before "Christmas" became an official federal holiday in 1870....

 

So as I'm reading this I can see that she's simply starting out with an over view of the history of Christmas becoming a holiday and how it reflects the winter solstice time of year. There's no sense at all of her trying to argue that from the beginning the church observed this date as Christ's birth. You come along pointing out that it was a later edition and think you've some how debunked her argument, which, is just silly when the context is applied. You've simply agreed with what she was actually writing in the first place, by agreeing that Dec 25th was a later edition that was eventually agreed upon as the date of choice.

 

I'll go along further to see where she's heading beyond the opening statement of orienting the history of the holiday:

 

Although it took a long time for "Christmas" to catch on, it was not particularly long before the significance of the date - i.e., the winter solstice - had been completely severed to the point where very few people were aware of its existence. So it was for the bulk of humanity up  until recently, largely because of the efforts to educate about the true meaning of "Christmas" as the winter solstice. 

 

In actuality, it would be highly refreshing for the facts regarding the true meaning of Christmas to be known around the world: to wit, "Christmas"- or the winter solstice - represents the birth of the sun god dating back thousands of years. In other words, as Christian apologists who claim Christ was not born on December 25th must agree, Jesus is not the "reason for the season," which is precisely the point of this discussion."

 

Wow!!!

 

Are you telling me that you in fact read all of the surrounding material including simply reading down the next page in order to see what exactly the point she was making? I'm not sure you did so Miekko, otherwise you would have known that the point here is that Jesus is NOT the reason for the season. A valid point indeed. Although people have ignorantly thought so over the years - including the official church and all it's sects as she pointed out earlier.

 

She wasn't suggesting that Jesus is the reason for the season from the beginning of the church and all it's sects and quote mining Kellner for that purpose as you allege, Miekko, in fact the very opposite is how the book turns out.

 

So when I say that I don't understand what you mean as "logic and reason" I say so from an intellectually honest perspective as one who owns and has read the book you're trying to give a review on. Logic and reason has shown me that you've not read the relevant material but have jumped to assumptions that are simply not accurate in the end. And from that same inaccurate foundation you've tried to apply the same ill-logic and ill-reason towards the posts that I made earlier. So you've misrepresented me in the same manor that you've misrepresented her.  I contend that I have been on a firm foundation concerning 'logic and reason' the entire time. 

 

The point here is that from an incorrect foundation the mind can snowball out of control to the point where everything is turned upside down and ill-logic and ill-reason will be mistaken as sound logic and sound reason. And I think that's where you wound up right up until this point in time where I've shinned a light on the problem.

 

And I'm wondering whether reading the book closely can then bring to light where you went wrong with your assumption about her argument and in so doing help get you to get back on course again?

 

I'll continue to follow along with the point that she's actually making:

 

In addition, since it is our contention that the character in the gospels called "Jesus Christ" is mythical, it is quite futile to argue that December 25th is not the "real" date of his birthday, since myths do not have "real birthdays." The truth is that, as is typical of myths, Christ's birthday from the earliest times of his conception has been variously placed, on a myriad of dates such as: January 5th, January 6th, Match 25th, March 28th, April 19th, April 20th, May 20th, August 21st, November 17th and November 19th. Many if not all of these dates are, like December 25th, mythological and astrotheological, representing milestones in the cycles of the sun, moon, planets and so on.

 

So this is not turning out the way you've portrayed in your review nor your assessment of what I was trying to say in my previous posts, eh Miekko?

 

She goes on to quote the Catholic encyclopedia talking about how in the 3rdcentury (200-258) Cyrprian stated, "O, how wonderfully acted the Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born....Christ should be born."  Then later in the 4th century the Catholic encyclopedia stated that "Chrisostom...says:...But our Lord, too, is born in the month of December...the eighth before the calends of January [25th December]..., but they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered  as Our Lord...? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice." 

 

So she notes that looking back into why the church decided on Dec 25th are for reasons such as some of this subject matter from the 3rd and 4th centuries. She goes on to note why the Christians were having to try and rebut the pagans over their selection of Christ's birth as the pagan sun gods birthday. She quotes some more history by showing that the earliest church commemoration had it at various times from September to March, until 354 AD when Pope Julius I assimilated the festival with that of the birth of Mithra (Dec 25th) in order to better Christianize the empire. So far the points that you thought you were making against her you were in fact making along side of her because nothing so far shows anything contrary to either what you have said about the history of Christmas or what Kellner delves into after the section quoted. In fact, all she's done so far is the very same thing Kellner does with his work in pointing out the true history behind Christmas. There's no quote mine and certainly not for the reasons that you've alleged Miekko. The more I read of the chapter the more intellectually dishonest your review seems to be, although you stated that you haven't really read it so it's not technically an intellectually dishonest claim because you honest about not reading the whole thing. 

 

So at this point in the book she's outlining how Christ's birthday was not formalized until the 4th century and that it demonstrates a deliberate contrivance by Christian officials to usurp other religions, as she contends the very religion of Christianity was invented by human being to do. She goes on to point out that the Dec 25th birthday was in conjunction with the nativity of John the Baptist at the summer solstice, or June 24th, per the Catholic calendar of festivals. The placement of Christmans and John's nativity as six months apart comes from Luke 1:24-27, in which it is said that John's mother conceived six months before Mary. She also point out that at John 3:30 the writer has the character of John the Baptist says of himself and Jesus: "He must increase, but I must decrease."  This tends to shed light on the possibility that when these gospels were being written some cryptic mystery school type of intention was probably being expressed to where John is the summer solstice and Jesus is the winter solstice. These are points that led into decisions that were later made by the church to place the holidays and festivals on the dates that they were later placed. 

 

The gospels were a later edition behind Paul, but by that time it appears that there were attempts to solarize the Jesus myth. The Pauline epistles as studied by Doherty and Carrier turn out to have a type of celestial Jesus at the base of it, where they imagined a being who lived up in the heavens as a savior figure. So between there and the later gospels it's not hard to see why they would have filled in more blanks and associated this celestial savior with the pagan sun gods because the whole thing is intertwined from the outset, from the earliest recollections of Christian ideas coming out of Hellenistic Jewish thought. 

 

She goes on to note that prior to Dec 25th as a celebration for Jesus, the winter solstice was claimed as the nativity for a number of other gods and godmen, including the Perso-Roman god Mithra. Another was Dionysus and another Apollo. This grained into Osiris, as Plutarch stated (35, 364E) "Osiris is identical with Dionysus." So then she outlines pre-Christian era winter solstice festivals. Then she notes that there's been a lot of confusion in the debate with apologists nit picking the winter solstice dates Dec 21st, Dec 22nd, and 25th. There have been just plain ridiculous attempts to say the solstice is the 21st of 22nd so the 25th has nothing to do with it. She outline why Dec 25th was the birth of the sun because it represents the end of the winter solstice where the sun no longer appears to stand still but moves one degree to the north. The days begin to increase thereafter and ancient people celebrated this. The gospel writers seems to have alluded to it in Luke and John as a way of latching on to this popular myth, and by the later centuries the church was pushing for it and eventually it became a national holiday here in the USA.

 

The point here is that it's been pagan all along and Jesus is NOT the reason for the season even though so many people have thought so in ignorance. 

 

The rest of the chapter she spends showing how this traces back to Egypt by showing what Plutarch has to say about Harpocrates (the horus child) was "born about the winter solstice, unfinished and infant-like." Harpocrates being a Greek word, which in the Egyptian is "Her-pa-chruti," etc., meaning "the morning sun." She notes how there has been much censorship of Plutarch stating this. Then she looks at Epiphanius (c. 310 - 403 ad/ce) where he wrote some pretty candid stuff. In Panarion adversus Haereses (51, 22.4-11) I'll let you read through all of the sources but what happens is that she gets a hold of a case where later editions have been heavily censored. Because in the original Ephiphanius gives a testimony of observing in Alexandria a celebration of the god Core which involved crosses and a virgin birth to the baby sun god Aeo which was carefully left out of late editions. The relevant passages are on pages 86 -87.

 

And on page 88 Murdock writes: 

 

Hence, in the Epiphanius passage we possess a case of deliberate and egregious censorship of an author's work apparently for the specific purpose of preventing information damaging to the Christian tradition from being known. We contend that there have occurred many such instances of censorship concerning numerous correspondences between Christianity and pre-Christian religion, which is another reason why, if some of these important "mysteries" were nonetheless well known in ancients times, they are not today. This particular example of textual tampering removed not only the reference to the Pagan winter-solstice celebrations in Egypt and Greece but also Epiphanius's discussion of the Pagan virgin birth associated with it. Thus, in one fell swoop reference to two highly important parallels between Christianity and Egyptian religion were obliterated from the historical record... .Fortunately, the earlier manuscript of Epiphanius survived, and we also possess the testimony of Plutarch, as well as that of the writer Macrobius in the fourth century, to verify the facts concerning the Egyptian winter-solstice festival.

 

Moving forward she goes over Horus as the morning sun and how he's born every morning, the most important of which is the day after the winter solstice when the sun shows signs of increase in hours. And goes over more of the points associating this back to ancient Egypt which is the point of the book. She concludes the chapter saying on pages 115 and 116:

 

From the abundant evidence provided by ancient testimony, hieroglyphs, calendars, monument, myths, clocks and festivals, it is clear that the Egyptians celebrated at the winter solstice the restoration, resurrection, renewal or reburth of the sun in one form or another, including as Re, Osiris, Sokar or Horus, at many points in their history from some 5,000 years ago into the common era. it is also apparent from the censorship of various texts over the centuries that there have been serious and prolonged attempts to hide these salient facts.

 

The end of the chapter. 

[miekko]

I still disagree with you over this, but if I withdraw the post, will you discuss some other of her mistakes instead? As a sign of good will, I withdraw it now!

[Joshpantera]

Of course you'll withdraw it Miekko because what's the alternative? 

 

I've spelled out in black and white terms why your allegation of her quote mining Kellner to prove a point that she never tried making is incorrect at best. Is there an alternative to withdrawing a quite obvious straw man? 

 

Listen, I have the feeling that the rest of your reviews follow from similar incorrect foundations. But I'd gladly look them over and apply what I consider a logical approach. 

 

You see, you had a preconceived idea of what you thought Murdock was arguing when you quote mined her opening paragraphs. Since you did not follow through with the rest of the chapter you had no idea that your preconceived idea of what she was using Kellner's quote for was in fact incorrect.

 

Look, I stand behind my original question of posing to you why would you take off trying to attack a fellow ex-christian doing the good work of informing people on the hypocrisy and airing out the dirty laundry of the Christian religion?  

 

You answered because no one should lie in order to show that Christianity is wrong.

 

But there was no lie to be found where you alleged that there was one. So in the end mud was thrown at a fellow ex-christian who is simply taking Christian apologists to task.

 

That wasn't exactly a correct thing to do was it? 

[miekko]

I still maintain it is a fucking error, and I will back that up later on. She is using Kellner as a response to what she perceives as a false argument - that's exactly how she uses it, and that's why it's wrong. Let's drop that for now and go on to some other error of hers. Be happy that you've managed to get me to retract the post! I still do not think you are right, but it seems honey works better than vinegar.

 

How about the errors in Chapter 16 of The Christ Conspiracy? http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2013/09/the-christ-conspiracy-ch-16-etymology.html

 

I am still convinced that my argument re: that particular quote mine is correct, but I have enough of her errors lined up to debunk all of her works - and I am convinced there will be enough of them in Christ in Egypt to last the careful examiner several months of work to find them all.

[Joshpantera]

I still maintain it is a fucking error, and I will back that up later on. She is using Kellner as a response to what she perceives as a false argument - that's exactly how she uses it, and that's why it's wrong. Let's drop that for now and go on to some other error of hers. Be happy that you've managed to get me to retract the post! I still do not think you are right, but it seems honey works better than vinegar.

 

How about the errors in Chapter 16 of The Christ Conspiracy? http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2013/09/the-christ-conspiracy-ch-16-etymology.html

 

I am still convinced that my argument re: that particular quote mine is correct, but I have enough of her errors lined up to debunk all of her works - and I am convinced there will be enough of them in Christ in Egypt to last the careful examiner several months of work to find them all.

So you've basically just confirmed my earlier suspicion that you looked at the opening paragraphs with an intent on calling her wrong. You saw what looked like low hanging fruit and went for it. But the branch fell down on you as it were. 

 

Look I'm not a linguist so trying to judge that review would require more knowledge than I have. After browsing your review I can say that I wouldn't get too involved in trying to argue points for that old book until she prints the 2nd edition because she obviously thought that a 2nd edition is in order. What I know about the 1999 Christ Conspiracy book is that she wrote it as an introduction to the mythicist position for a friend and it turned out to get more attention than she expected. It was written basically out of what she had in personal library and before the vast online searching was full swing. Although by the time she wrote Christ in Egypt she went and tried to dig up Gerald Massey's sources and wrote a chapter on him because he's one of the 19th century writers that caught a lot of flack in the CC book. That was better possible in this day and age with better technology and research capability.

 

Having been well read on Joseph Campbell and others before I saw her books a lot of the subject matter was a given - about the interconnection of myths and so on. 

 

But this thread is about an entirely different book called the Amen Creed which is about Egypt and is focused on providing a lot of the source material that apologists have demanded. That's why I see it as a swift kick in the nuts. Such as the virgin Neith issue that the author covers very closely. You have guys like JP Holding swearing up and down that there is no evidence for a pre-christian virgin birth and they argue up and down that the Egyptian religion does not provide that. And all the source material both ancient and modern is provided in his free online ebook. He's tagged all of the apologists and Richard Carrier and Robert Price and others at his blog page. He wants everyone to survey the source material so that the claim that there is no such thing will finally rest. 

 

Now in all of this I see people like you basically taking the side of the apologists by trying to tear down the comparative mythologists who are taking them to task. Why? What you're doing is looking for any little problem either real or perceived and trying to harp on it to illegitimatize the opposition to Christianity. It's like you're working for the apologists if you stand back far enough and look at this from an outside perspective. As I read these reviews I see a very strong urge on your part to jump very quickly at any perceived error even when it turns out not to have been an error in the first place or something so minor that it doesn't even change the thesis.  

 

I'll post the paragraph that you insist on finding fault with, again, and show you how I think there's no legitimate way that you possibly could call this an error while keeping to an honest position on your part: 

 

CiE page 79 " Although many people remain unaware of the real meaning of "Christmas," one of the better-known correspondences between pre-Christian religion and Christianity has been the celebration of the god's birthday on the 25th of December. Nevertheless it has been argued that this comparison is erroneous because Jesus Christ was not born on Dec 25th, an assertion in itself that would come as a surprise to many, since up until just a few years ago only a minuscule percentage of people knew such a fact. Indeed over the many centuries since the holiday was implemented by Christian authorities, hundreds of millions of people have celebrated Jesus' birthday on Dec 25th. ...In this regard, a century ago Dr. KA Heinrich Kellner, a professor of Catholic theology at Bonn stated concerning "Christmas," or "The feast of our lords birth," that the "whole church and all of it's sects agree in observing Dec 25th as this date."  This type of proclamation came in America only after a hard-fought battle for nearly a century in which certain fundamentalist Christian groups strenuously objected to Dec 25th for Christ's birthday, specifically because the date was too Pagan, before "Christmas" became an official federal holiday in 1870....

 

She's outlining some of the outfall from the zeitgeist movies where some protestants have quickly jumped to respond to the accusation of Jesus as a solar myth. Because it became popular to compare Jesus' birth to Mithra and others the apologists were quick to point out that the Catholics created the Dec 25th birthday and that it doesn't represent the real birthday of Jesus. She's simply covering what the apologists have done and then responding to their defense. It's silly because everyone basically thinks that it is, as Kellner points out, but in actuality it isn't which is what Kellner goes on to say and which Murdock goes on to say in her own moving forward. 

 

The only point is to outline the stupidity of the apologists. Because if you know more about the argument she's speaking to then you know that on one hand you have a ton of people fighting tooth and nail to "keep Christ in Christmas" as the bumper stickers say. And on the other hand you have these apologists trying hard to keep Christ out of Christmas by basically admitting in their dilemma that Christ is NOT the reason for the season because the Catholics placed it, incorrectly in their view, at the end of the winter solstice which is a pagan festival. She did not use Kellner to pawn them as you've asserted but rather as a source to show how wide spread this belief is among churches even though it's not accurate. And how some Christians are fighting for Jesus as the reason for the season while others are strictly opposing it. She's used the quote in the same context that Kellner was speaking from and that you or I would use it as well. Because we all understand the history of Christmas and how it's a winter solstice festival taken over by Christianity as the birth of Christ and which later became wide spread to all the sects. 

 

You were just slightly off by not reading the chapter fully enough to understand that she wasn't using Kellner in the way that you first assumed with your A and O argument. That particular argument is a straw man the way you have it arranged. And so retracting the post is a smart move on your part. 

 

A: The claimed birth date for Jesus, 25 Dec, demonstrates that Jesus is a mythical saviour figure, based on earlier saviour figures in ancient paganism.

 

(this is true to the context of what she's saying) 

 

O: But 25 Dec as his birth date is a later addition, added in part because it gave a convenient excuse to steam-roller all over popular pagan celebrations held during the solstice. The Jesus character was already fully formed by the time this idea was added.

 

(she also says this so it's not in opposition to what she's saying. Yes, by the 3rd and 4th centuries she outlines a fully formed myth being used empire wide to usurp the pagan festivals) 

 

A: Here, see what Kellner says. He says 'all the churches and sects celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 Dec!' Thus debunking your argument!

 

(she never used Kellner in that way. She only used him to show how the apologists that deny Dec 25th are contradicting the Christians who are fighting to keep "Christ in Christmas" as she goes on to explain) 

 

My point is that using Kellner's statement as valid debunkage of O's argument in this case is misleading, as Kellner does not state anything that would debunk O's utterance. NOTHING. In fact, later on in Kellner, you find him giving good ammunition to O, rather than A. Thus it is a quote mine, she's inserting the idea that Kellner basically says the Dec 25 date is doctrinally held as Jesus' birth date.

 

(And so by the time of your conclusion the fact that you were wrong in your first assumption of how the argument goes invalidates the entire conclusion you've made based on an incorrect foundation) 

 

Trying to maintain that it still "is a fucking error" isn't as wise a move.....

[Orbit]

I have read this entire thread and still have no clue what you guys are on about. Carry on.

[Joshpantera]

I have read this entire thread and still have no clue what you guys are on about. Carry on.

Well, the tread is supposed to be about the new ebook The Amen Creed which is satire about the Egyptian religion and how influential it was to the formation of everything we now consider original to Christianity. It's a good read. It really takes the apologists to task. 

 

But Meikko saw that I mentioned that the author of the Amen Creed had read Christ in Egypt and felt inspired to follow through with what became the Amen Creed and then decided to rail road the thread into a smear campaign against the author of Christ in Egypt. And then all of the back and forth about him accusing the other author DM Murdock of all these allegations that have to do with books that are entirely out of context to this thread.

 

The last bit is about the book CiE which I mentioned as an inspiration for the Amen Creed so I suppose that it is within the context of the discussion. And his bad review turned out completely unwarranted in the end.....