For a correct analysis of the star myth see Adair, Star of Bethlehem, with Adair, “The Morning Star and the Womb of Dawn” in the journal Biblica.

For a correct analysis of the role of magi in Matthew’s (and it is only Matthew’s) myth see my Proving History, p. 314 n 31 with 199–203. In short, their inclusion is a commentary on Daniel.

What is your opinion on the following “parallels” in the birth narrative of some gospels (sorry, this text got much longer than intended, but so much more could be said about these 2 points):

Magi: See visit of Tiridates, the designated king of Armenia (of the Persian royal house) in Rome in 66 CE, receiving the crown of Armenia and venerating Nero as god. Most famously, Tiridates, being himself a Magi, brought a selection of Magi along. This most glorious encounter (along with great festivities and a triumph) sealed an “eternal” peace with the Persians, formerly the eternal nemesis of the Roman Emperors, and on which had rested the hopes for a renewed independence of the Israel. Is it a coincidence, that the desperate Jewish revolt bringing about the destruction of the temple broke out immediately thereafter? Besides, Nero was allegedly initiated into the Zoroastrian mysteries by the magis (according to Pliny’s account). Star of Bethlehem: See “Star of Caesar” (Sidus Julis) in 44 BCE, which was not a myth, but – according to astronomers – a fact (extremely bright comet named C/-43 K1. In my humble (and somewhat researched) opinion, the Christian narrative not only adopted everything necessary from the Septuagint, but also the most impressive narratives surrounding the divinity of the Roman emperors, which were always (at least) sons of god (divus filius). After all, Jesus had to be not only the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy, but also at least as glorious as the emperors, which were venerated particularly in the Aegean region, where (Pauline) Christianity developed (thanks to C.J. Comthwaite for this insight re geographical of emperor’s cult).

Give me one example of any falsehood I have stated about Acharya or her work that wasn’t already corrected. And explain how I can be biased against her when I supported her personally (example, example).

LOL, not buying Richard … you have a bad habit of not telling the truth about the works by Acharya since 2004. Your biases is blatantly obvious and you’ve admitted on video in public that you have no intention of looking into astrotheology because you said you find it “dull.” Nobody should trust you on astrotheology or Acharya’s work as you have zero credibility on both. You actually make things far worse for mythicists and are in fact a terrible representative of mythicism.

So…no Egyptologist today agrees with your crazy shit. Got it.

“I have yet to see any living Egyptologist cited who disagrees with anything I actually said. If you can find one, let me know.”

argumentum ad verecundiam hmmm…given the prodigious intellect that Richard Carrier commands, I am surprised that he often commits this fallacy, continuously. Obviously, he is able to summon all manner of minutia to destroy any sort of work that comes from outside the hallowed walls of the ivory tower, yet he appeals to authority (especially “peer review”) and the related ad hominem argument to discredit anyone working outside of academia who lacks its sanctioned authority. And just because he has so many tools and tricks of his profession with an unusual talent to remember and communicate them like a samurai wielding a katana does not mean he is also leaving out many details. And just because he wields this o-katana does not make him the final word on any of this information. It’s this totalizing discursive style in his writing that bothers me the most.

I am curious what he thinks of the Egyptologists’ dating of the Great Sphinx of Giza. How old does he think this is? What if someone made a different assessment who was not an Egyptologist, and yet was denounced not on the merit of her/his work, but instead because he was not from this academic gang? So, if Richard Carrier is reading this, can he tell me his opinion of old the Giza Sphinx might be?
Please keep in mind that a non-Egyptologist did study the Sphinx with evidence-based science and came up with markedly different conclusions as per the dating, yet these have been totally ignored and opposed by the Egyptology gang.

How about the issue of red shift and the “Standard Model” of cosmology? And what about the cosmic inflation theory? Has he looked into the electric university theory (aka plasma cosmology) and the work of Halton Arp? If he has, is Arp’s work invalid because his fellow astronomers kicked him out of the gang because it did not pass the holy grail of peer review? Can group think become insular and blind to its own ideological constructs and does this ever happen in academia? And where do a lot of these scientific and other breakthroughs come from? By conforming to a thought community’s ideology or by breaking from it?

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?

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

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4709&p=29296

Congratulations on the superb reviews you have received for On The Historicity of Jesus. I have just ordered a copy and look forward to studying it.