|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2011 : 18:59:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
| So...what you're saying is that if someone refers to themselves using a phrase that has also been applied to fictional characters, that this makes the person fictional? "Morning Star" is a general word for coming into prominence, and doesn't make the person it refers to fictional. |
Aren't we looking for parallels? There are thousands of names that Jesus could have called himself, like the big dipper, but instead, he calls himself the Morning Star, the same thing that many gods before him did. Sounds like a parallel to me. |
Alexander the Great referred to himself as "King of Kings", just like Osiris did. That sounds like a parallel to me. Does this suggest that Alexander the Great never existed?
You have to realize that Christ-mythers are essentially comparing Jesus to every pre-Christian deity, of whom many have multiple stories. That's one hell of a big net, so it's no surprise that as we pore over all of these stories, a few parallels happen to pop up. But since most of the Christ-myther "parallels" have no factual basis in pre-Christian religions or mythology, this just shows that Christ-mythers themselves don't find the few valid parallels very convincing. If they did, why did they feel the need to fabricate so many more in order to bolster their case?
| You might want to read pages 68-70 Notice that it talks about Sirius. |
And what does it say about Sirius that's relevant to our discussion? |
I do not know why you brought it up to me, but you were the one that brought it up because that was addressed to me on youtube. |
No, you brought up that book and what it supposedly says about Sirius.
| I don't disagree that Isis is equated with Sirius, but that doesn't make Sirius a "significator" of Horus' birth. A significator is "a planet or a sign that is said to rule specific objects, places, people and diseases". It's a huge stretch to say that just because Horus' mother is equated with Sirius, that makes the star Sirius a "significator" of Horus' birth. |
Why would that even be something that would be relevant to the parallel david? Again, you brought this up, maybe you should explain why you were saying this. |
Ummm...because you said I lied about it?
I believe I said that in response to Zeitgeist, not to you. Zeitgeist claims that Sirius is a "star in the east", but due to the rotation of the earth, it's in the west just as often as it's in the east. Stars can reside exclusively in the north or south, but not in the east or west.
|
No, you said this as a reply to me. |
Then what did you say that I was responding to?
The author/scholar says
Page 68
"The astral rebirth of the king was in astronomical terms regarded as the heliacal rising of the royal star, that is, when it made its first appearance in the horizon following a period of invisability.
In Egypt, the heliacal rising of the stars, which is their reappearance from the netherworld is also expressed through the "birth" metaphor whereas the akronychal setting, which is the entry into the netherworld, is described as a dying of the stars! For Sirius-Sothis (sopdet)---the brightest star which was of special importance in Egypt---astronomical texts give a 70 day period of invisibility after which the star rises heliacally in the East."
So yes, the heliacal rising of -Sirius was a significator in Horus's "birth".
|
Except that Horus isn't mentioned in that passage at all. In fact, in the entire book, he's only mentioned once, and that's a few pages after this passage.
|
No, both of his parents are though and it specifically says "birth" referring to Sirius's return.
You responded to me saying this:
*Barbara G. Walker:
"Osiris‘s" coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the BELT OF ORION, which point directly to Osiris‘s star in the east, Sirius (Sothis), significator of his birth.
Yes, we should totally dismiss this because Horus was only mentioned once in that book...that is a straw man and 1/2.
Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations By Edwin C. Krupp Page 22
"Sirius revives the Nile just as Isis revived Osiris. Her time in hiding from Set is when Sirius is gone from the nigth sky. She gives birth to her son Horus, as Sirius gives birth to the new year.... "
Krupp received his degrees in astronomy from UCLA, a Master's degree in 1968 and a PhD in 1972; a bachelor's degree in physics and astronomy from Pomona College.
The ancient Egyptian pyramid texts By James P. Allen Page 441
"Sothis (Spdt "Sharp) The morning star, Sirius, seen by the Egyptians as the goddess. In Egypt the star disappears below the horizon once a year for a period of some seventy days; its reappearance in midsummer marked the beginning of the annual inundation and the Egyptian year. The star's rising was also seen as a harbringer of the sunrise and therefore associated with Horus in his solar aspect, occasionally specified as Horus in Sothis, Sothic Horus or Sharp Horus."
So yes, Sirius is a significator of Horus's birth.
Now, since we have covered every possible angle and I have proven it to you using higher scholars, the question remains:
[size=6]CAN YOU ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG???[/size=4]
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 05/26/2011 19:12:54 |
 |
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 19:01:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
| So...what you're saying is that if someone refers to themselves using a phrase that has also been applied to fictional characters, that this makes the person fictional? "Morning Star" is a general word for coming into prominence, and doesn't make the person it refers to fictional. |
Aren't we looking for parallels? There are thousands of names that Jesus could have called himself, like the big dipper, but instead, he calls himself the Morning Star, the same thing that many gods before him did. Sounds like a parallel to me. |
Alexander the Great referred to himself as "King of Kings", just like Osiris did. That sounds like a parallel to me. Does this suggest that Alexander the Great never existed? |
This is another straw man argument. We are showing the parallels, this has nothing at all to do with whether we think Jesus was a real person or not. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 19:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
| So...what you're saying is that if someone refers to themselves using a phrase that has also been applied to fictional characters, that this makes the person fictional? "Morning Star" is a general word for coming into prominence, and doesn't make the person it refers to fictional. |
Aren't we looking for parallels? There are thousands of names that Jesus could have called himself, like the big dipper, but instead, he calls himself the Morning Star, the same thing that many gods before him did. Sounds like a parallel to me. |
Alexander the Great referred to himself as "King of Kings", just like Osiris did. That sounds like a parallel to me. Does this suggest that Alexander the Great never existed? |
This is another straw man argument. We are showing the parallels, this has nothing at all to do with whether we think Jesus was a real person or not.
|
That's not a strawman. It's a fallacious comparison. But a fallacie just the same. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 21:16:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
| So...what you're saying is that if someone refers to themselves using a phrase that has also been applied to fictional characters, that this makes the person fictional? "Morning Star" is a general word for coming into prominence, and doesn't make the person it refers to fictional. |
Aren't we looking for parallels? There are thousands of names that Jesus could have called himself, like the big dipper, but instead, he calls himself the Morning Star, the same thing that many gods before him did. Sounds like a parallel to me. |
Alexander the Great referred to himself as "King of Kings", just like Osiris did. That sounds like a parallel to me. Does this suggest that Alexander the Great never existed? |
This is another straw man argument. We are showing the parallels, this has nothing at all to do with whether we think Jesus was a real person or not.
|
That's not a strawman. It's a fallacious comparison. But a fallacie just the same.
|
I was thinking straw man because of this "Does this suggest that Alexander the Great never existed" because that isn't a claim that I made here.
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."
My Position=stated parallels of Jesus/other gods
kg's presents my position as historicity of Jesus in question instead of parallels
kg claims that since Alexander called himself King of Kings as did Osiris it doesn't mean Alex didn't exist.
Therefore my position on parallels is false/incorrect/flawed.
I think that you are thinking of the comparisons of Alexander and Jesus with the fallacious comparison??
Is my thinking on this incorrect?
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 21:50:33 [Permalink]
|
| My suggestion would be for both chaningmyself and KingDavid8 to save their efforts for the more-formal debate, if we can ever get agreement on the terms. Arguments over whether things are close-enough "parallels" are for our members to decide, it seems to me, and so would be fair game for rebuttals and counter-arguments. If you both would stop posting here for a few days and instead focus more on discussing the debate format with me, we'd be able to start more quickly, with everyone being on the same page. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 21:59:14 [Permalink]
|
He's comparing Alexander the Great, who we know was a real person to Osiris, a mythological person. That's a fallacious comparison because in the Osiris comparison to Jesus, you are comparing a myth to an alleged myth, and also, that comparison isn't dependent on just one similarity, which, I think is another fallacy in his comparison. I just can't put a name on it without going through all of the fallacies. Not like I have them all on the tip of my tongue.
Since he's admitted to making the comparison himself, he's not actually strawmaning you. He would be if he made up what you were saying and then argued against it. He's trying to draw a comparison, and as I said, the comparison is false unless he can find a whole lot more similarities.
What he's doing is this:
X breaks when it falls.
Y breaks when it falls.
So X=Y Which is silly. And he knows it's silly. So he's attempting to make your comparison look silly by making that comparison. That will only work if he can do that with most or all of the other similarities that you are claiming about Horus and Jesus and pointing out that the same can be said about Alexander the Great and Horis.
If there is a stawman to be found here, it's that he's claiming that you are using only that one piece of evidence and drawing your conclusion from it. Hmmmm. On second thought. Go ahead. Throw in stawman also.  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 22:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
My suggestion would be for both chaningmyself and KingDavid8 to save their efforts for the more-formal debate, if we can ever get agreement on the terms. Arguments over whether things are close-enough "parallels" are for our members to decide, it seems to me, and so would be fair game for rebuttals and counter-arguments. If you both would stop posting here for a few days and instead focus more on discussing the debate format with me, we'd be able to start more quickly, with everyone being on the same page.
|
And yeah. I second that. And I third it as well because I can. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 22:28:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
My suggestion would be for both chaningmyself and KingDavid8 to save their efforts for the more-formal debate, if we can ever get agreement on the terms. Arguments over whether things are close-enough "parallels" are for our members to decide, it seems to me, and so would be fair game for rebuttals and counter-arguments. If you both would stop posting here for a few days and instead focus more on discussing the debate format with me, we'd be able to start more quickly, with everyone being on the same page.
|
Exactly how does one chan themselves? 
Cause I might want to do that too.
 |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 23:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Exactly how does one chan themselves? |
So long as you're not 4channing yourself, everything is okay. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 09:37:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
He's comparing Alexander the Great, who we know was a real person to Osiris, a mythological person. That's a fallacious comparison because in the Osiris comparison to Jesus, you are comparing a myth to an alleged myth, |
True, but I'm using it to argue that the alleged myth isn't a myth. My point is simply that showing that "there are parallels to mythological characters" doesn't prove that Jesus is a myth, since even known historical characters can have parallels to mythological characters.
Looking back at what I said, I am definitely guilty of oversimplifying her argument. She was definitely not saying that this one parallel proves Jesus to be a myth, so I apologize for suggesting that she did. However, the point I'm trying to make is that showing that "parallels exist" doesn't prove the mythicist point. It's certainly a cumulative argument, and a subjective one. How many "parallels" it takes to prove that the Jesus story is based on the Horus (or whatever deity) story is largely up to the individual to decide.
But what I'm hoping to prove in our upcoming debate is that the majority of the mythicist claims are false, not part of pre-Christian mythology for those deities at all. Whether I'll succeed remains to be seen, but, as far as I personally am concerned, if most of the claims are false, then the mythicist position really isn't viable. If mythicists are fabricating most of their claims in order to bolster their argument, then why have they felt the need to do so?
What he's doing is this:
X breaks when it falls.
Y breaks when it falls.
So X=Y Which is silly. |
No, I'm not saying that one is the other. The point I was trying to make is that if a parallel to a mythological character can't be taken as a piece of evidence against Alexander's existence, then it can't really be taken as a piece of evidence against Jesus' existence, either.
| That will only work if he can do that with most or all of the other similarities that you are claiming about Horus and Jesus and pointing out that the same can be said about Alexander the Great and Horis. |
Or if I can show that the claims about Horus (and others) are mostly false in the first place, which is what my part of the debate will largely be about.
I am going to stop debating with ChangingMyself in this forum, per Dave W's request. It's getting to about the time that she should be posting her evidence, and I don't want to distract her from it, since I do know that she's busy. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 10:18:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
I am going to stop debating with ChangingMyself in this forum, per Dave W's request. It's getting to about the time that she should be posting her evidence, and I don't want to distract her from it, since I do know that she's busy.
|
Good idea. And just so you know, I wasn't taking a side up there. I was just talking about fallacies of logic, which most of us commit from time to time.
And on that note:
| The point I was trying to make is that if a parallel to a mythological character can't be taken as a piece of evidence against Alexander's existence, then it can't really be taken as a piece of evidence against Jesus' existence, either. |
Sure it can as long as it's not isolated to just one parallel to one person. That would generally fail as good evidence. However, If several parallels exist, than they become accumulative from an evidentiary standpoint. It's then the accumulation or a preponderance of evidence becomes damning. That's how it is in a court of law, especially when all the evidence is circumstantial.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
THE ZG EVIDENCE...
