> Thanks Susan.
> Mark said he thought that this was my reading /
> interpretation / conclusion of the ancient
> Egyptian pharaonic divine birth myth.
> He is mistaken: it is the conclusion of various
> eminent academics whose expertise is in the period
> immediately preceding the birth of Christianity,
> in a place that was a stone's throw from
Matt, as I said you you, directly, you did a fine job of articulating the Hatsheput-Jesus 'coincidence' well, and I also acknowledged that I can see why this connection would lead some to conclude the purely mundane narrative, which is that the Jesus birth narrative was 'borrowed' from this particular source.
One thing that fails to impress here, is your use of language, regarding this being the opinion of "eminent" scholars. Such rhetoric may pass in certain circles, but for me, as one who has spent ample time in advanced education circles, I have LONG SINCE known that there is no correlation between academic attainment and the proper (fuller) use of reason.
Nonetheless, let me extend what I had written to you to include these various scholars: You present a very good mundane explanation, regarding why the Jesus story may have been borrowed from Egypt.
That said, I wonder how many of these eminent scholars entered this investigation with a flawed, limited a prior assumption: that being that there is no God, that miracles don't occur, and that, therefore, the ONLY explanations that are 'rational' are mundane ones. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Academics - not all but many - are famous for such secular thinking. In the most depraved cases they completely ignore enormous bodies of evidence that suggest the contrary. That being the case, their entire approach is flawed because it is arbitrary, and all of the degrees and memberships to elite academic circles won't change that one bit.
Of course, many of the academics who practice this kind of thing are well aware of the arbitrary-nonscientific foundation of their approach. And so, rather than admit to that, they seek to conceal it, because they know that exposing one's presuppositions levels the playing field.
In the one corner, you have yours truly, who will say upfront that explanations for various occurrences can be either supernatural or mundane in nature.
In the other, you have types like yourself: who insist that only mundane explanations are possible. Remember when you once told me that 'miracles' don't occur? That, after I told you that I had directly experienced one. And just so we're clear, what I'm referring to was not what I described to Malcolm regarding my Easter Sunday experience. That episode will not be discussed here either, btw. For now, I wish to remind you of a recent post that you apparently have chosen to ignore, or, more likely, I presently think, cannot answer to in any credible mundane way. Such evasion, if it is that, is wholly in keeping with the individuals I am referring to in this paragraph.
"To my understanding, one modern example would appear to be Fatima. Are you familiar with the basic story, and how might you explain that episode in mundane terms?"
Rather than answer this, or at least attempt to, you seem to have ignored it. Then, in your next reply to me, here, rather than speak to me directly, as we had throughout this thread, you choose to speak to me through Susan. This is more passive-aggressive bullshit, as far as I'm concerned. Answer me directly on these points, or our discussion in this thread is over.
My larger point is this. Christianity is rich, very rich, in episodes that suggest non-mundane interactions. Rarely are we able to work with information as public as what the Fatima episode appears to be. It comes as no surprise that there will be some academics who insist on ignoring such episodes because, as I was saying, the facts don't conform to the their very narrow, arbitrary (and generally concealed) dogmatic suppositions.
Willful ignorance not a function of intellectual prowress. It is wholly unrelated to academic attainment. When taken to its illogical extreme, which in this case entails ignoring all of the alleged miracle stories that occurred after the lives of Jesus and the apostles, the stage is set to attack the foundations of traditional Christianity. And well, since, or as they will say, It is unscientific and not 'rational' to even consider supernatural intervention or, more generally, non-mundane explanations, it follows that the entire New Testament or - carefully selected parts - 'must' be BS. The net result in this discussion, is that the Virgin birth of Jesus must be an example of cultural appropriation. Yawn.
When it comes to Fatima, I haven't heard of any convincing counter arguments, or ways of explaining, in mundane terms, which what was "much, much more likely," to use your own words in regards the virgin birth.
Perhaps you've heard one, Matt. Or, maybe you agree with Tom, that it was all a "mass hallucination." That doesn't sound very mundane to me. Maybe it does to you. I (and other reasonable thinkers, credentialed or not) would require evidence of mass hallucinations occurring before. Let's see the evidence showing that there are precedents for this. Or, let's hear your other mundane explanation, Matt. You have the stage. In fact, you've had it for a couple of days now.
At this point I would be inclined to believe that you haven't carefully considered the Fatima story. I say this because it has been rather well-buried. If that is correct, you are likely the victim of mass willful ignorance, as this is surely the kind of story that 'historians' like the ones I mentioned above would certainly ignore, because the details aren't easily refuted and don't fit inside their arbitrarily defined, narrow conceptual box.
1. But that doesn't have to stop you from taking a close look now, does it!?. Get back to us on Fatima, if you will. I'd love to hear a good mundane explanation. As I just showed you, through my handling of this 'virgin birth' thread, I have no problem being willing to acknowledge good mundane explanations - when I hear one.
2. Here's something else for you to consider. In this case I would ask for two things:
First, tell us what you see in this video: [www.youtube.com]
Second, tell us what you think the mundane explanation might be.
> If the Bible story of the Exodus is to be
> considered an historical fact then it is no
> surprise that the Canaanite tribe of Israel (those
> who fled Egypt under Moses and who settled in
> Canaa) are the only tribe to have believed in
> resurrection because this belief was
> appropriated and assimilated from the dominant
> Egyptian culture under which, according to the
> Bible, these Israelites had been enslaved for
> It would seem that when they fled Egypt, the
> Israelites took more than their possessions!
"Seem," in your opinion.
3. By the way, have you been following the Shroud of Turin discussion? - and please don't even mention the long-since falsified 1988 dating results (another thing that some "eminent scholars" seem to keep throwing out there.)It would seem that your side is losing that debate badly, my friend.
4. And that reminds me. According to Numbers, we can assume that about 2 million Jews were involved in the Exodus. If this is fiction - and I will be the first to acknowledge that the story is bizarre - then can you tell me how such a bizarre story became regarded as historical fact?? What's the prevailing mundane explanation there, Matt? Don't you think that some people in such a large group would have sought make it known, even covertly, that this story was installed at some point, if it were pure fiction...? Of course, you would! There's ample precedent for that.
Regrettably, and just so you know, you've disappointed me by addressing me through Susan. As such, unless you answer these 4 questions directly - as I have done here to you, throughout - know that you can expect me to drop this discussion, albeit with the proviso that we may chat again on another subject, if I think you have anything intelligent to say.
In the meanwhile, have a nice day, week, month etc... Mark