It is currently Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Oh boy, here we go with Richard Carrier exposing his ignorance and biases against Acharya S/Murdock again. This time in the comment section of his Luxor Thing blog. It starts with:

Quote:
31. Slimy Man July 25, 2014

"I was about to buy this book. I noticed the author’s name and recalled you pulling her up on a few things in the past. I asked this question about Ehrman’s ‘Did Jesus Exist’, but would you recommend reading this book, despite its misconceptions? I guess this question actually has two parts:

1) Is there enough solid information within this book to warrant reading it; perhaps with your criticisms as a lens through which to read the remainder?

2) Would this book be worth reading strictly as a sceptic to see where people often go wrong, using your post and background knowledge as references? Or, as was my worry regarding Ehrman’s book, is the risk of accidentally internalising bad information too great a risk for someone who is still somewhat of a layman with regard to ancient history?"

Slimy Man needs to be made aware of the fact that Dick Carrier has never read Acharya's book, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection or any other book of hers as exposed HERE and HERE. Carrier takes what others have e-mailed him or posted in his blogs and uses it to make fallacious strawman arguments and, apparently, none of Carrier fanboys have ever checked his claims and just accepts whatever he says without question.

Richard Carrier's response:

Richard Carrier wrote:
"Which book are you referring to? Murdock has several. I don’t recommend any. She doesn’t adequately demarcate what is well documented from what is not, so a lay person can’t vet her own information so as to tell the difference between what is her own idiosyncratic assumption, claim, or interpretation, and what is established already in the field, or actually demonstrated by a source, etc. And she doesn’t do research well (e.g. over-relies on antiquated scholarship and doesn’t do contemporary literature surveys). And this makes things harder for a lay reader, not easier. You will get more confusion and misinformation than accurate data (and you won’t know which is which)."

How would Carrier know when he has never actually read a single book of hers? He is clearly regurgitating his standard smear campaign he has become so fond of over the last 10 years. Here Carrier is once again intellectually dishonest; just ask him what specific books of hers he has actually read, and if he's honest, he'll tell you none. So his comments on her work tend to include smears, libel and defamation. Carrier is incapable of discussing her work without making derogatory or condescending remarks, as anybody who has been at his lectures when her name pops up already knows. He is obviously jealous of her, due to the fact that she's actually better at this than Carrier is, and he cannot deal with it. It's truly sad too, because Carrier's constant attempts to "poisoning the well" with Acharya's work is just an epic disservice to freethinkers, atheists, assorted mythicists and the field of mythicism - they all need to call him out on it.

It appears that Robert Tulip posted:

Robert Tulip wrote:
"Richard, I’m surprised you offer such a sweeping dismissal of Murdock’s work. Her recent book Did Moses Exist? is excellent, presenting a rigorous analysis of the origins of the Moses myth in the much older story of Dionysus. The Christ Myth Theory involves work in philosophy and theology as well as in your speciality of history. I think you are far too hasty to denigrate alternative perspectives which it appears you have not closely studied and do not understand. With Best Wishes, Robert Tulip."

Richard Carrier's response to Tulip:

Richard Carrier wrote:
"Sigh.

I don’t have enough time in the world to expose all the crank theories in the universe.

“Moses was based on Dionysus” is right up there with “Jesus came from a flying saucer.”

If Murdock has fooled you into thinking there is a convincing argument for this, then you either don’t know sound reasoning when you see it, or you didn’t check her facts. Probably both.

If she wrote a book arguing that the Moses myth was partly lifted from the Sargon myth, then we’d be back in the mainstream. Because that is almost certainly true. But Dionysus? Please.

Just for example: Murdock’s claim that Dionysus parted the Red Sea and crossed it with a crowd of people (“he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude of men, women, and children”) has absolutely no evidence for it. At. All. Her entire specious methodology for trying to invent this claim out of completely unrelated evidence (and the sloppy scholarship of hundred-plus-year-old tomes, sometimes books written two or three hundred years ago!) is a classic example of why she simply is not to be trusted by anyone as a scholar. This is pure crank. Instead of checking the actual ancient sources, Murdock simply believes what Voltaire says, for example, hook, line and sinker. Voltaire cites no sources for any of his claims.

In ancient evidence Bacchus changed the course of some rivers (or in earlier accounts changed them into wine to get his enemies drunk), and crossed a river dryshod by building a bridge over it and likewise a sea by crossing in a boat, and none of this in Egypt, and he calmed the Indian Ocean and crossed it (in some accounts with an army) in the normal way (in ships/vessels). He did not “part” any of these much less cross their bottom “on foot” with a “multitude.” Even the actual tales appear to have arisen after the conquests of Alexander the Great (no prior myths have any clear knowledge of these claims or his conquest of India), by which time the Moses story had already long been written, but even those stories in India bear no resemblance to the Moses story. By the time a story appears that Bacchus dried some rivers to cross them (still not in Egypt), it was the 17th century, and the author claiming it (Bochartus) was badly confused (he says Nonnus says this in his epic about Bacchus, but no, he doesn’t…Nonnus mentions the monster Typheus drinking a river dry; not Bacchus; not Egypt; and not at all the same story).

Please, stop buying crank scholarship. Check facts. And if you can’t, because the author doesn’t tell you where their ancient sources are, well, then if they are claiming something remarkable, you know they probably don’t have any ancient sources."

Code:
That Luxor Thing
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/294/comment-page-1#comment-431172

Richard Carrier is not qualified to comment on the work by Acharya S/Murdock with any authority or competence whatsoever, due to the fact that he has not read a single book of hers. Keep in mind that this is the same guy going around proclaiming:

Quote:
"The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... So, I say, if you want a simple rule: Basically, if you don't hear it from me, be skeptical of it."

- Richard Carrier, "The Historicity of Jesus," youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os (3:10)

There are plenty of other scholars performing work as good as and often much better than Carrier's, including Murdock. No wonder fellow mythicist Earl Doherty declared that Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus."

Oh, I just love this one:

Richard Carrier wrote:
"Moses was based on Dionysus” is right up there with “Jesus came from a flying saucer."

:lol: I may have to add that to my post: Stupid Things Richard Carrier has Said and Done

It looks to me like Carrier merely skimmed the Wikipedia article link below but, as usual, glosses over anything that might suggest Carrier is wrong:

Quote:
"Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, Robert M. Price, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#P ... ristianity

Note that the one hotlink Carrier provides in his comment is the first link from the external links section in that Wiki article, "Theoi Project, Dionysos." So, Carrier skimmed the Wiki article and skimmed a link, and then went on to make spurious comments with authority about a book he has never read, as if he's some sort of expert on the subject. I have news for you: He is not an authority on this subject, and he inadvertently admits his utter ignorance in the process.

Take note that Carrier just cannot comment on Murdock's work without insulting people who have read it for themselves and know for a fact Carrier is wrong, so, in this case he insults Robert Tulip, who is actually quite well educated:

Richard Carrier wrote:
"If Murdock has fooled you into thinking there is a convincing argument for this, then you either don’t know sound reasoning when you see it, or you didn’t check her facts. Probably both."

Carrier's comment above reveals his own ignorance on the subject, as Acharya cites highly respected scholars discussing the Moses and Dionysus parallels. Carrier is just oblivious to them because he has never studied the subject.

Richard Carrier wrote:
If she wrote a book arguing that the Moses myth was partly lifted from the Sargon myth, then we’d be back in the mainstream. Because that is almost certainly true.

She does spill plenty of ink discussing the Sargon myth, which Carrier would know, if he actually had read her work. Once again, he reveals he is dishonestly and ignorantly making declarations about work he hasn't studied.

Richard Carrier wrote:
Murdock’s claim that Dionysus parted the Red Sea and crossed it with a crowd of people (“he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude of men, women, and children”) has absolutely no evidence for it. At. All. Her entire specious methodology for trying to invent this claim out of completely unrelated evidence

When one actually reads "Did Moses Exist" (DME) for oneself they'll realize all the work she has done and just how wrong Carrier is to the point of recklessness. In the first place, he seems to have reading comprehension issues, conflating the words of Voltaire with those of Murdock, e.g., here: "he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude of men, women, and children." That's VOLTAIRE's writing, not Murdock's. Carrier can't even keep it straight. He also makes mistakes of priority, apparently taking the Moses tale on face value and believing that the Exodus really happened in the 13th century BCE, supposedly before the Dionysus myth was composed. Using REAL scholarship, Murdock shows that conclusion to be anachronistic. Dionysus and wine-god myths predate the composition of the Moses myth by centuries.

Richard Carrier is simply not a reliable, credible or trustworthy source on the work by Acharya/Murdock:

Quote:
"Over the centuries, many scholars have noticed correspondences between Dionysus/Bacchus and Moses..."

- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 273

Starting on page 273, "The Dionysus Connection," Murdock compiles loads of ancient sources one would think a historian would appreciate, such as tracing the stories about the god Dionysus and wine-making back 7,000 years ago. She cites sources such as Homer from around 900 BCE and over 50 other sources making the case for the Moses-Dionysus Connection, any objective and non-biased scholar interested in the subject would truly appreciate. Needless to say, when Carrier ignorantly claims "Instead of checking the actual ancient sources," that's precisely what she did, proving once again that Carrier will say anything to smear, defame or "poison the well' of Acharya/Murdock and her work because Carrier has been getting away with it for 10 years without ever being held accountable. He really needs to be called out on it by others, especially other scholars.

Quote:
Exodus into the Sea

"As early as Homer, we read that, like Moses, Dionysus and his devotees were pursued into a ruddy sea by an angry king. While Moses and his crew are chased towards the holy mountain of Sinai, Bacchus and his followers are driven down the sacred mount of Nysa. Like Moses’s kingly pursuer, the Greek god’s persecutor, the tyrannical Spartan ruler Lycurgus/Lykourgos, dies a horrible death. Other writers of antiquity who refer to the battle between Lycurgus and Dionysus include Aeschylus, Ovid, Seneca, Pausanias, Pseudo-Hyginus (3rd cent. AD/CE) and Nonnus.

"In The Iliad (6.129-143), composed around 900 BCE, the character of Diomedes describes the homicidal king driving the god and his followers down the Nysean hill:

"...all of them shed and scattered their wands on the ground, stricken with an ox-goad by murderous Lykourgos, while Dionysos in terror dived into the salt surf, and Thetis took him to her bosom, frightened, with the strong shivers upon him at the man’s blustering. But the gods who live at their ease were angered with Lykourgos, and the son of Kronos struck him to blindness, nor did he live long afterwards, since he was hated by all the immortals."

"Lycurgus’s punishment for dishonoring the gods was firstly to murder his own wife and daughter in a fit of madness, “in the belief that they were spreading vines,” and secondly to die horribly by being eaten by wild animals.

- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 347

Quote:
The Ruddy Sea

"As we have seen, in his Hercules Furens (899-900), Seneca calls Bacchus “the tamer of Lycurgus and the ruddy sea...” Seneca translator Miller notes that the “ruddy sea” refers to the body of water that Dionysus “crossed when he conquered India.” Seneca’s original Latin for “ruddy sea” is rubri maris, the word rubri or “ruddy” connoting redness, as in the Red Sea. If Dionysus was “born” in Egypt, then he could be said to cross the Red Sea when his viniculture cult found its way to India. Here is one possible meaning of the motif of crossing the Red Sea; there are others, apparently.

Don Allen avers that Nonnus “probably had the crossing of the Red Sea in mind when he wrote of his hero that ‘he took to his heels and ran in fear too fast to be pursued/until he leaped into the gray waters of the Erythraian Sea.’”

It should be noted that the phrases “Erythraian Sea” and Rubrum Mare are used in antiquity to describe the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.

Since antiquity, comparisons have been made between the Spartans and Jews, including their legislators, about which subjects Dr. Louis H. Feldman notes:

"In the first place, there is the parallel...between their respective lawgivers, Moses and Lycurgus, both of whom (Diodorus 1.94.1-2) claimed a divine origin for their laws... Moreover, both Lycurgus and Moses (according to Hecateus, apud Diodorus 40.3.6) instituted a rigorous training program for their youth."

"Diodorus related that there were those who claimed Lycurgus, Solon and Plato “borrowed from Egypt many of those laws which they established in their several commonwealths.”

- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 348

Quote:
"The Bacchus story also contained remarkable similarities to Mosaic attributes and legends. For, as Bochart pointed out, both Bacchus and Moses were born in Egypt, shut up in an ‘ark,’ and put on the waters. Both fled from Egypt toward the Red Sea and had serpents (in Moses’ case, a bronze serpent). For both, water flowed from a rock and milk and honey were provided. Both were called legislators, turned sticks into snakes, saw light in the darkness, and had unknown tombs..."

- Dr. Gerald R. McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods (91)

- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 331

I guess we'd better tell the credentialed professor with a real job in academia, Dr. McDermott, that his citation of comparisons between Moses and Dionysus - done since antiquity - is equivalent to saying Jesus came from a flying saucer!

Yeah, Acharya cites older works, as one would think a true historian would appreciate, since she's chronicling the history of the subject. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, however, Murdock does not rely on them, as she continues to dig up the ancient primary sources across a variety of languages and the most modern as she does in her book, Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver. Carrier would already know this fact if he ever read a single book by Acharya/Murdock. I think it's time for Richard Carrier to grow-up and stop hate'n all the time on Acharya/Murdock. It's just a malicious lie to claim she is trying to "invent" anything. She absolutely does not ever need to do that and she meticulously cites her sources so, shame on Carrier for such ignorant and hateful comments.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Moses or Dionysus?

"He was said to be born in Egypt and was “saved from the waters” in a small box or chest. He had two mothers, went to “Arabia” and battled Egypt. He was considered a “divine prophet,” and wherever he marched, the “land flowed with wine, milk and honey.” He carried a magical rod that he could change into a serpent. He fled to the Red Sea, escaping from a tyrant, who was killed. He divided the waters of the rivers to cross dryshod. He was ordered by a deity to “destroy an impious nation. He “engraved his laws on two tables of marble.”

All of these things were said in ancient times about the Greek god Dionysus.

These commonalities and dozens more are drawn from ancient primary sources and can be found in my book "Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver" at http://DidMosesExist.com

The story of Moses does not show up in the literary or archaeological record until after the sixth century BCE. It is absent in the Bible until the later prophets. There are inferences of a MYTHICAL Exodus tale without all the details and without a Moses prior to that; however, these elements evidently come from Canaanite myth in significant part.

Meanwhile, Dionysus is traceable to at least the 13th century, and the Greeks were in the Levant beginning at that time. The stories of a wine deity predate that era by eons, however. Moreover, Moses evidently is based significantly also on the Babylonian demigod Gilgamesh.

All of these aspects are treated in detail in my book "Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver."

- DM Murdock

https://www.facebook.com/acharyasanning ... 51/?type=1

Image

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:19 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
This is all that need be said going into it: Richard, do you remember when Ehrman accused Murdock of making up the phallus headed roaster bust? And you looked into it and came to her defense proving that she had not made it up out of thin air? Well you may want to look closely at the evidence provided in DME because the two instances aren't different from one another. She's not making up any of these claims.....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
That's right, Tat Tvam Asi, Richard Carrier's criticisms of Acharya's work is on par with the sloppy scholarship and egregious errors found in Bart Ehrman's criticism, such as: The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

Here's the latest with Carrier showing his true colours again.

Robert Tulip wrote:
On Richard’s question about the evidence for derivation of Moses from Dionysus, my book review of Murdock’s Did Moses Exist? linked below notes the issues of timing and ancient prevalence of the myths to indicate that partial derivation of the Moses myth from Dionysian traditions is a probable hypothesis.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PFCVC4RIFMSL

Carrier responds:

Richard Carrier wrote:
In your entire analysis you fail to cite a single ancient source describing anything about Dionysus that relevantly parallels the story of Moses.

How do you not notice this fatal flaw? You are missing the key premise in the whole argument.

If you can’t even figure out how logic works, what’s the point?

It does not even look like Carrier read Tulip's review. The relevant points from Tulip's review:

Quote:
20. This cultural evolution towards patriarchal regimentation set the scene for the construction of the Moses Myth. From relatively peaceful societies where religion had provided a controlled social structure for experience of ecstasy and a cosmology to interpret nature, the new conflicted times required that ecstasy be shunned as dangerous and dissolute, and that nature be placed within the supernatural framework of a violent God of wrath. This agenda of social control used the Moses story as its founding myth of a God of volcano and storm. But earlier Jewish religion was much more Dionysiac, recognising the importance of wine as a source of pleasure. And indeed, Murdock provides a fascinating array of common features between Moses and Dionysus. In an extraordinary list of 46 similarities between Moses and Dionysus drawn from sources such as Homer, Pausanius, Cicero, Diodorus, Apollodorus, Macrobius, Euripides, Strabo, Seneca, Arrian and other ancient and modern writers, Murdock demonstrates such detail of structure and intent as to show that the Moses myth was in large part constructed on Dionysian origins.

Quote:
23. To illustrate the controversy in all this material, one commentator has claimed that the suggestion the myth of Moses drew on stories of Dionysus should be dismissed as ludicrous. This example is well worth more detailed debate. There is evidence of the worship of Dionysus dating from the second millennium BCE, but Moses is not mentioned for nearly a thousand years after that. Dionysus was wildly popular across the Mediterranean, with hundreds of early extant mentions and images, figuring prominently in Homer and Hesiod, and filling the Moses role of lawgiver. The Greek historian Herodotus, fifth century BCE, says the cult of Dionysus came to Greece from Egypt, and that Dionysus was one of the main Gods of the Arabs. There is no mention of Moses before the Babylonian captivity. The Encyclopedia Judaica reports the cult of Dionysus was widespread among Jews. Grapes, the object of the Dionysus cult, were grown in Israel for thousands of years before Christ, featuring in the Christ Myth in the water to wine miracle at the wedding at Cana and in the transubstantiation of wine into the blood of Christ in the sacrament.

24. The range of ancient authors listed above indicate the abundant fertile sources for the Biblical authors to construct Moses as a divine hero. Murdock’s thesis about the cultural evolutionary antecedents for Moses applies sound scholarship to confront deep prejudice. Dismissal of this new systematic approach to Biblical studies is careless, to put it mildly. This example alone of the connections between Moses and Dionysus shows that Murdock has provided fascinating insights into the nature of religious thought, and the need for a comprehensive paradigm shift in discussion of religious origins. Did Moses Exist is a magnificent and courageous work of sound scholarship, based on deep insight into the actual nature of religious evolution.

So after review, there was nothing inaccurate with Tulip's comment saying:

"...my book review of Murdock’s Did Moses Exist? linked below notes the issues of timing and ancient prevalence of the myths to indicate that partial derivation of the Moses myth from Dionysian traditions is a probable hypothesis."

Tulip's review listed 10 ancient sources and acknowledged that there were more in the book:

"...list of 46 similarities between Moses and Dionysus drawn from sources such as Homer, Pausanius, Cicero, Diodorus, Apollodorus, Macrobius, Euripides, Strabo, Seneca, Arrian and other ancient and modern writers, Murdock demonstrates such detail of structure and intent as to show that the Moses myth was in large part constructed on Dionysian origins."

Carrier responds with utter biases and shows no interest whatsoever in the subject matter or the book and instead insults Robert Tulip for even mentioning it. Carrier uses Tulip's review to make a strawman fallacy argument as a means to deny and dismiss the entire subject out of hand. Tulip merely posted a review of Did Moses Exist and cited 10 sources for the Moses/Dionysus parallels in it.

An objective person who was interested would want to read the book for oneself but, not Carrier. It's categorically clear that Richard Carrier will deny, refuse and dismiss anything by Acharya S/Murdock no matter how many ancient primary sources she provides, no matter how much commentary on those primary sources by highly respected, credentialed and qualified scholars she provides, it's just never ever enough for Carrier, which is nothing less than a poisonous, biased, hypocritical double-standard on the part of Carrier, which is what fundy Christian apologists do. Go figure. We should never expect any such objectivity from Dick Carrier. He's an embarrassment to the field of mythicism. It just seems pointless for anybody to seek Carrier's approval on a subject Carrier has publicly admitted on video that he has no interest in and despises.

Again, this is the same guy going around in lectures and on video saying:

Quote:
"The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... So, I say, if you want a simple rule: Basically, if you don't hear it from me, be skeptical of it."

- Richard Carrier, "The Historicity of Jesus," youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os (3:10)

This is the same guy claiming to be a historian, who has never held a single job as a historian, and has admitted he has no interest in the history of the subject.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
- Albert Einstein



Image

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:11 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
I'm reading through my copy of DME. It may take some time to complete due to a busy work schedule but I'll be chipping away at it in the evenings. And eventually weighing in on these reviews and debates...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
I'm reading through my copy of DME. It may take some time to complete due to a busy work schedule but I'll be chipping away at it in the evenings. And eventually weighing in on these reviews and debates...

Always good to have your views, Tat.

Ya know, Carrier may not know it (since he has never actually read her books, but I have read Carrier's books) but he agrees with Murdock/Acharya S on about 90% but, people would never realize that by listening to Carrier since all he has to offer are malicious smears and an endless stream of derogatory comments on her work. They both agree that Jesus is most likely a mythical character and that the bible is mostly myth.

What Carrier disagrees with is the astrotheology aspect, even tho Carrier himself claims the "Celestial Jesus is the most credible theory." However, we cannot over-look the fact that Carrier has publicly admitted he has no interest in astrotheology so, he has lost all credibility on that front miserably:

Carrier Has No Interest in Studying Astrotheology

In a 2014 video, Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat (53-54m), Carrier admits he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology, as he finds it "dull." That's basically an admission that he has never studied the subject. Therefore, Carrier is not an expert and is unqualified to comment on the subjects of astrotheology and its relationship to mythicism with any authority or competence whatsoever. He says he "could never write a book on the subject" - ain't that the truth!

Since Carrier is so deferential to Doherty - who actually has read some of Murdock's books - maybe he should listen to Earl's comments about Murdock and astrotheology, as here:

Quote:
"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S, especially Suns of God."

- Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man: The Case for a Mythical Jesus (2009; 153)

Or how about these?

Quote:
"I have no objection to postulating a 'prehistoric' (i.e., prior to our earliest horizon on Christianity) phase to the heavenly Christ cult in which observations of the heavens helped shaped the Christ myth... Acharya has that aspect of things sewn up!"

"Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion.... We sorely need a new History of Religions School for the 21st century, to apply modern techniques to this important ancient material. Perhaps this book [Christ Con] will help bring that about."

"Personally, I was fascinated by the window she provided onto the old History of Religions school of the 19th century, something we've largely lost sight of since mainstream academia circled its wagons in the early 20th century and drove them into eclipse. I think Acharya has done invaluable work in bringing them back into the light, as she has the unduly neglected field of astrotheology."

- Earl Doherty

Richard Carrier is simply not a reliable or credible source on the subjects of Jesus mythicism, astrotheology or Murdock's work. His irrational war on astrotheology and Acharya S based on his own admission of biases and willful ignorance is an embarrassment and disservice to the entire field of mythicism. If Carrier is not interested in the astrotheological origins of religious concepts, perhaps mythicism is not the best field for him.

Carrier also has a problem with the SOME of the parallels but, certainly not all of them since he cites several parallels himself. I constantly get the vibe that it's always ok if Carrier does it but it's never ok if Acharya does; like how Carrier constantly bludgeons her to death over 18th century sources, meanwhile, Carrier's big claim to fame right now is his use of Bayes Theorem, which originates from the 18th century! "Bayes' theorem is named after Thomas Bayes 1701–1761". :shock: How much more hypocritical can he possibly be? It appears Carrier is unaware of the fact that Acharya's discussion of 18th/19th century works were discussing PRIMARY SOURCES!

Pagan Parallels: Achilles Heel of Christianity

I suppose it could potentially be a worthwhile endeavor to sus out what they agree upon instead of always focusing on the few differences. It could be funny to ask him to explain what he can acknowledge Acharya S is correct about instead of smearing her all the time because that alone could expose the fact that Carrier has never read her books. At this point, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Carrier attempted to claim they don't agree on anything ... just to be a dick.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:33 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
That would be an interesting pursuit. And then maybe post a link at his blog page and see how he response to that.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support