Talk:The Jesus Mysteries

message: "The Sunday Times, on the other hand, judged it to be one of the top 20 books available at the time of its review, and the Daily Telegraph named it Book of the Year saying that it was "An erudite and well-researched book stuffed with controversial ideas - Book of the Year"." References please. If none can be provided, I'll remove this. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the same quote from the Daily Telegraph on Amazon's review of the book. I wonder if this came from there, or perhaps both have the same source. -- llywrch 22:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: (Updating myself) Just did a quick Google on the phrase, & it's more than likely that the title "Book of the Year" is not the opinion of the Daily Telegraph, but of the reviewer, a poetess by the name of Fiona Pitt-Kethley. I found her webpage, but there's very little there that would offer help understanding her familiarity with the subject or even her critical competence. Not precisely a rousing endorsement. (Other reviews of this work can be found at http://www.bookfinder.us/review0/0609807986.html .) -- llywrch 23:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As no source is being provided for this, and due to the dubiousness of the claim that it was "Book of the Year" by the Daily Telegraph, I'm going to remove this. It most definitely sounds like it was book of the year for the reviewer. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I work for the Daily Telegraph. It had official recognition of this position. If you are willing to subscribe to our website, you will find it amongst the archives. The New Pope 21:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. If you'd be willing to source the article, that would be fine however. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. more fool the Daily Telegraph. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunday Times 2005

message: Wow. The book gets more dubious by the minute. Freke and Gandy have a BA and MA between them, and their footnotes are from (mostly) out of date books. On top of this, the gem that features prominently on their book is a forgery. I really don't think that this book would pass peer review of a historical journal. And I might point out that the quotes on the bottom of the article are from people who are not schooled in ancient history. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: ...is the question people should ask themselves when they read this book. As far as I can tell, this book had zero impact in academia, and for good reason. Anyone trained in historical methods, who has some familiarity with the ancient sources and the modern literature, can tell after five minutes with this book that it is not well researched. I don't think it should be read as history, since Freke and Gandy (esp. Freke) advertise their New Age seminars. I think it should be read as a piece of religious-seeker awaken-yourself literature where the history is irrelevant.
But people DO read it as history. And they think it is well researched simply because the authors have read a lot, and they have degrees. Its complete non-seriousness means there is no serious refutation to cite for Wikipedia. Oh well.  Maestlin 19:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This Even History? 

message: Regarding "Among common complaints..." - I'd like to see some citations there. Common complaints from whom? ^^James^^ 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quotations and links to book reviews across the spectrum. If you want a more clear attribution, use the links to create notes in the article in a way that satisfies you. The complaints are common: I have seen them many times, but not in ways that are really verifiable by WP standards. That particular phrase should be replaced. Maestlin 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding: According to some critics, Freke and Gandy make selective use of quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), use out of date scholarship, and are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda. I'd like to know who these critics are. I am guessing JP Holding is one. I'll go read his review. Who are the others? ^^James^^ 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Complaints?

message: Oops! I meant WP:RS.^^James^^ 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this blog has now become quite relevant to the article. Maestlin 21:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Revert Edit Summary  

message: I've slightly edited the article to reference my real name and to my blog, not to the Tektonics quotation of me.  
I have received an email in which Gandy admitted that the claim in Guthrie's book that the amulet is fake was highlighted by him in his copy.  That is strong enough evidence that he knew the amulet was probably fake and suppressed that information.  I am surprised that they still maintain they knew nothing about these claims.  When I have time, I'll write a full article on this sorry saga with chapter, verse and a summary of why the amulet was rejected by scholars in the first place.
For the record, I completely stand by my opinion that the Jesus Mysteries is duplicitous and deliberately misleading. --86.132.30.210 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bede here 

message: Surah Tawbah (Repentance), Chapter 9, verse 30: The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of God and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of god.” Such are the baseless things they utter with their tongues, following in the footsteps of the former unbelievers. (Translated approximately from Arabic).
The former unbelievers, might refer, to the previous prevailing religion of Osiris-Dionysus. The Quran takes a stand, of stating that Jesus did exist, he was born miraculously of a virgin birth (comparing the miracle as simpler than creating Adam initially), he was mighty prophet and a wonder-man (comparable to previous miracle prophets likes Abraham, Moses, etc). Quran make a strong point as to Jesus was not killed, but appeared to be, he was raised from the earth indicating that he is still alive and might return.
The Hadees, Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) traditions, does mention that Jesus will appear again at the end of time, to end the reign of Dajjal (today popularly known as The Anti-Christ). 
Besides these points, Jesus Mystery, in majority, doesn't contradict with the Quranic version of the Jesus and perhaps complements it to establish the fact that calling Jesus, a son of god, is largely based on the former unbelievers theory, that is Orisis-Dionysus and so is a false belief.
- Nabeel Aejaz Nabeelaejaz (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but we're discussing the article, not whether Jesus was born or not. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorable Mention in the Quran 

message: "Mystical writers" or rather "authors on mysticism" perhaps? Although they're rather gnostics, not mysticists, so maybe "gnostic authors" or "authors on gnosticism"? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystical writers?

message: The following is, IMO, editorialising:
---
While this idea may be new and controversial to today's critics, it was well known to the early church fathers. The similarity between Christianity and the Pagan Mysteries (Osirus-Dionysus, Horus, Mythras, Iris etc.) so disturbed some of the early Christian fathers, such as Justin Martyr (100 -165 CE), that some of them had to resort to the most bizarre of reasons to explain the similarity to the Pagan cults. This is what Celsus had to say about early Christianity;
"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God".
The 2nd century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, on being countered with the statement that Christianity had borrowed all its basic features from the existing cults of the Greco-Egyptico-Romano-Persian world, had this to say;
"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amongst men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirit [Satan] put forth many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvelous tales, like the things that were said by the poets".
The church father Tertullian also used the 'diabolical mimicry' excuse to explain the close similarity between Christianity and the pre-existing cults at the time. Said Tertullian:
"The devil, whose business [it] is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine".
Essentially, these early Christian apologists were saying, "So what, our religion looks similar to your religions, but we did not copy from you. The Devil mimicked our religion in your religion in anticipation of the advent of our religion". Incredible as this may seem, this was nonetheless the standard excuse given by the early church apologists; one which has basically not changed at all in the entire two thousand years of the evolution of Christianity.
---
This is interesting, but has a few problems:
* no citations
* opinion - someone's point if view - hence not neutral and frankly pushing the line taken by Freke and Gandy as if it were Wikipedia's stance.
* not entirely relevant to this book - it would be better incorporated into another article.
I've removed it, because we don't heed to argue for it against the book. If there is supporting material, then add it to the reception  section. -  Letsbefiends (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorialising  

message: The section titled "Reception" is anything but and would be better served with the title "criticism", given how selective contributors have been in what is included here. Even where a source has commented positively upon the book, David Allan Dodson as an example, the editors have carefully selected a section which clearly supports their bias that the works thesis is incorrect.  
I understand that religion and spirituality is an emotive subject and that people dislike, often passionately, having their belief system questioned but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry not a place for supporting our beliefs - whatever they might be. 
I can see little alternative but to rename this section unless anyone would like to provide some balance to it. I can do this myself  but it would take some time. Longer than more "persistent" wiki editors could do. --SlaineD (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Jesus Mysteries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070921085911/http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/ to http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070921085911/http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/ to http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified