I'm not saying that the information is correct or incorrect, either way.
No, not even the fanatics who love the film are stupid enough to defend its truthfulness. This says plenty right there.
I'm just saying that your primary beef seems to be a lack of sources and it looks to me like the creator/s have their ducks in a row. . . meeting every single one of your objections.
Are you on crack or something? They have yet to list a single original source. In the 1800's access to Egyptian texts were not easily accessible. But today they are. Which ones are they relying on so we can verify? They never say. Naming a fellow myther as a source is a complete joke! If LDS apologists kept making wild claims about Book of Mormon and referenced only other LDS apologetic books, would you accept it or would you go ask bona fide archaeologists?
I listed eleven points of falsehood that are in no way substantiated.
What exactly do you think you have provided above? I said the Bible never refers to three kings, and this remains true. You respond with the stuff above that still doesn't change the fact that I was right. In fact a click on the link in your post confirms what I said: "it is not said in the Bible how many Magi there really were."
Helllooooo? Mcflyyyyy?
And you completely ignored the eleven points of falsehood. Gee, how convenient.
Whether later Christians created a tradition about three kings isn't something you can pin on the New Testament. What is likely is that later Christians like Origen tried to add prophetic validity to Christ's birth by applying Psalms 71. Further, there is no reason to believe these kings were considered stars, which is teh real hurdle this book never really overcomes. The Bible clearly refers to these kings as speaking human beings. Stars don't ask questions (Matt 2:1). Stars don't have their own country (Matt 2:12) Stars don't try to deceive people (Matt 2:16). And again, the link in your quoted text provides a long detailed article about the mago, but nothing to suggest they were themselves, stars.
This silly explanation that the kings were really the stars, is just the wild imagination of the mythers who have taken Massey as some sort of authority, for some strange reason. Here is where they make this illicit leap in logic:
"If the Bible does not denote these things exactly, then why is it traditionalized as such? Why the "Three Kings"?
Great question that doesn't deserve stupid answers. But let's see the logic in their rationale. Here goes...
In part, it would seem that these notions were set in motion by church fathers such as Origen and Tertullian.
Yes, they are the earliest sources for this tradition, and the tradition was numerical, not metaphysical. Meaning, they were set on the number but they never denied the fact that these magi were humans. Let's keep going...
However, if one steps back to examine the pagan mythological tradition that preceded Christianity
Ah ha, here we go. The basis that develops the entire argument. The basis that is unproved.
the 'traditional' notion of there being "Three Kings", rather than an unknown number of "Magi / Wisemen" comes more clear, as these literary characteristics existed in other saviors of paganism.
Where? When? Drum roll please.....
Now- are their any pre-Christian religious traditions that denote the same idea? If there are, then the characteristics of the prior tradition(s) was, in all odds, an influence and thus the ramifications of those characteristics would carry over as well.
The answer is yes, as B. Walker points out in regards to the Osirus/Horus myth of Ancient Egypt:
"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..."
[ Walker, Barbara: The Womans Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Harper, p748-754 ]
Osris' coming was announced by three wise men? Holy Hell!! It must be amazing how no Egyptologist alive is aware of such a thing, yet this femenist atheist whose expertise is in, oh you're going to love this one.... knitting (ROFL!!) Yes, this is the source for the lost connection between Christ and Osris!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_G._Walker_(author))
A woman who publishes knitting guides. That's some authority!
This is why I think you and GoodK and the rest of the jokers are not worthy of respect. You do not think critically. You accept anything in print that sings your tune without even thinking to question whether or not you're being scammed. You would have my sympathies if it were not for the fact that you help propagate this crap as if it has a shred of scholarly value. The fact is some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, but they do not know anything about wise men or a star in the east.
Why doesn't your source cite the original source? Meaning, the ancient Egyptian work which details this information? Why is it that all we get are more atheists citing each other? This is crap scholarship that likes to keep secrets. If Walker did cite an original source in her book, then Achrya is obligated to share that source with us. But round and round we go, after decades none of you come clean with your original source documents. All you do is cite another lame duck pseudo scholar whose only claim to fame is poetry or knitting, or some other unrelated field of expertise.
In conclusion, the notion of the 'Three Kings' visiting Jesus after following his birth star is, in fact, an astronomical allegory that was a part of the Egyptian mythology prior to the advent of Christianity. Even though the Bible does not denote 'Three' or 'Kings' exactly, the traditional, pagan nature of it is obvious... which also explains why the tradition of 'Jesus visited by the Three Kings' is so widespread today.
This is such a howler. Oh, paganism did it? How the heck do they define paganism anyway? Where is the evidence that Tertullian and Origen were at all interested in mimicking Ancient Egyptian myth, which predates Christ by many, many centuries? There would be no purpose in this whatsoever, and the authors avoid all of this necessary investigation while sweeping it under the rubric of "paganism." What pagan cults in Christian lands worshiped Osris? What about all the biblical evidence to the contrary? Oh, it must have been allegory. Whatever adjustments that need to be made for the theory to work (sound familiar Book of Abraham apologists).
Again, only the loons will buy into this. They don't care if it is right or wrong, they like the tune.
A single link. Guess what's present? Books, page numbers, links to more information. . . It's like. . . I don't know, someone knew what they were doing.
No they don't. You have not refuted anything I have said. I said this wasn't biblical, and your own source agrees. Your source does not prove it was actually the original bibl;ical allegory either. Instead it relies on fellow atheist mythers whose expertise ranges from poetry and Hungarian basket weaving!!
Way to go BryanInks!
I'm sorry, but you don't really have much credibility with me.
And just who in the hell considers you credible?
For you to say this about me... well, I take it as a compliment the same way I would if charity said it.