Susan had quoted my response to you which ended "It really is fascinating stuff!"
Because of the various sub-threads and the fact our conversation had progressed since the post she linked, I responded to Susan and was not, as you wrongly and mistakenly believe, addressing you indirectly. I simply explained how you had responded to the material with which you were presented. That is writing about your response, not addressing you indirectly as you have mistakenly asserted and reiterated. Perhaps you should read once again the opening of that post to clarify for yourself your error in this respect. Here it is:
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 Jerusalem.
The point I made is that you confused the academic interpretation with my own interpretation. You had asked for more information about the pharaonic divine birth mythos and I furnished you with it.
As for your dismissal of it as a mere 'coincidence', I put it you: which part of the AE narrative is the singular 'coincidence' you acknowledge? Is it:
* The anunciation?
* the mystical, divine impregnation?
* the adoration with three men bearing gifts?
because there are several key commonalities here. That much is unequivocal.
Why on Earth would I have "addressed you indirectly" when, as you wrote yourself, we were enjoying a pleasant exchange?
That is, until you presumed to know my intention, added 2 to 2 and came up with 9.
PS: I noted that you did not comment on the miracle captured by many on video and camera, performed before eyewitnesses without wires, at a site of Christian pilgrimage in South America. Why is that? Please offer your views.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10-May-19 09:04 by eyeofhorus33.