It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:22 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 400 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:46 pm
Posts: 79
Acharya wrote:
Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter."


Bart Ehrman wrote:
My comment on this entire discussion was simple and direct: “There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up.”


Acharya wrote:
(Note that I do not say here or elsewhere that the bronze sculpture itself is a symbol of St. Peter, but only the cock or rooster....


Acharya wrote:
I apologize for the ambiguity, but I was not in error here, despite the constant attempts to make me appear as such



Bart Ehrman wrote:
And so my offhand statement about this particular one was that the Vatican does not have a statue of Peter as rooster with a hard cock for his nose.


Bart Ehrman wrote:
Still, the one thing this bit of nastiness has shown me is that even though I seem to stir up controversy everywhere I go and with everything I write, I really don’t like conflict. I would much prefer that we all simply get along and search for truth together. But alas, the world does not appear to be made that way. And I seem to be a lightning rod for criticism.


Acharya wrote:
All we are doing here is spinning wheels, but it would figure that I've managed to get everyone all freaked out and distracted over a phallic symbol.


Jesus wrote:
"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks"


Kyballion wrote:
"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

_________________
I am the Wind that blows over the Sea;
I am the Wave of the Deep;
I am the Bull of the Seven Battles;
I am the Eagle upon the rock;
I am a Tear of the Sun;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Everywhere
The whole time I've recognized the assertion to mean that the sun was considered "The Savior of the world" and this statue in the Vatican serves as a remnant of that type of pre-christian thinking. The rooster and morning wood phallus symbols are addressed to the sun, the savior in ancient thinking.

And when Murdock pointed out that there's a cock faced rooster in the Vatican, the cock itself being a symbol later associated with the myth of St. Peter, I never got the impression that she was trying to claim that the Greek statue was itself a statue of St. Peter, in order to intentionally represent St. Peter. But then again that's because I wasn't in any haste to find an opportunity for a straw man to try and beat down.

What did occurr to me is that this statue looks like a remnant of ancient pre-christian solar worship where the sun-god was consider the savior the world, the Vatican came into possession of it at some point during it's pillaging of the ancient pagan temples of the Empire, and those in the know tend to understand how things like the myth of St. Peter corresponds to things like this older pre-christian solar worship statue addressed to 'the rising sun'. It looks like this type of solar symbolism from the ancient world had been usurped by Christianity during the common era along with it's myth of St. Peter, which, actually comes in behind the sort of more ancient ideas represented in this statue, so as to usurp these older Patriarchal solar worship symbols addressed to 'the rising sun'. Is it really that difficult to understand? I mean seriously, this is too difficult for a well educated PhD to follow along without missing the entire point? That's pretty sad actually.....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:00 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 826
http://www.clovertlcs.org/CTLCS%20Saints%20Symbols.htm states "The crossed keys are usually assigned to Saint Peter because of the word of the Lord to him in Matthew 16:19. Other symbols for Saint Peter are the inverted cross; the crowing cock; and the church on a rock."

Clearly, to say the crowing rooster is a symbol of Peter is a simple factual observation. The rooster symbolises Peter, so any statue of a rooster in the Vatican of a rooster can reasonably be interpreted as linked to Saint Peter, just as a statue of an ox, lion or eagle can reasonably be linked to Luke, Mark and John respectively, as their symbols.

The statue in question here is shocking, partly because of the pun it makes between the rooster and the penis. But what we see here is a deeper concern. There is a trend among the conventionally religious to assert that all non-patriarchal readings of scripture are irrational and invalid, that feminist interpretation should just be ignored. Ehrman seems to be implying that Acharya's agenda in including this item in her book is to mock patriarchal religion, and that this is her real error in his view.

There are subconscious factors in play here, and analyzing them is speculative. Historically, Christianity has been an extremely misogynistic religion, relegating its idolised woman to the contradictory position of the virgin mother in a world where only men of property had rights. Part of the mythicist agenda is to expose how such phallocratic assumptions reflect a pre-modern superstitious worldview in which women are chattels of men, as per the Ten Commandments.

Opening up theology to a genuine dialogue with modern rational views, for example on the equality of the sexes, naturally produces a hostile response, often in ways that are not fully understood by those who spout them. The Historical Jesus is a foundation for a patriarchal mythology that seeps through into current attitudes even for people who claim to support equality. Ehrman's assumption that this book could be tossed off with a cavalier disregard for detail is one indicator of the irrational contempt he displays for the content of the debate over the historical Jesus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:27 am 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:46 pm
Posts: 79
Robert Tulip wrote:
The statue in question here is shocking, partly because of the pun it makes between the rooster and the penis. But what we see here is a deeper concern. There is a trend among the conventionally religious to assert that all non-patriarchal readings of scripture are irrational and invalid, that feminist interpretation should just be ignored


I've been thinking along the same lines lately. Its not a trend, its always been that way. But I do think that women have a different way of reasoning than men do, in that women are more intuitive. Often that intuition is dead on and they make great leaps of logic, based on insight and gut feelings. Proving how they got there step by step is the problem.

Robert Tulip wrote:
There are subconscious factors in play here, and analyzing them is speculative.


Yes, but I would like to speculate, if I may. Everybody gets a little disoriented when trying to combine the subject of Jesus Christ with a rooster-headed bust of an erect penis that in former times would be considered pornographic. They read quickly through it because it is verboten.

That said, the caption could be read in two ways. Acharya herself described it as ambiguous.

Ehrman was mistaken in saying that the statue didn't exist, so to get himself out of it, he turned his own statement into something ambiguous; thus turning the same trick, so to speak.


Robert Tulip wrote:
Part of the mythicist agenda is to expose how such phallocratic assumptions reflect a pre-modern superstitious worldview in which women are chattels of men, as per the Ten Commandments.


Seriously? I was unaware of this.

Personally, I think that tying feminism into mythicism is not the way to go. And I say that as a woman.

I am not a scholar, nor a doctor, only ridiculously well read if that counts for anything at all. A freethinker.

As a lay person, I honestly do not care if Jesus existed or not. Ehrman says there was a historical person who bore little resemblance to the Christ of the scriptures. Murdock says he didn't exist at all. No difference to me. Hope I am not being anti-feminist by saying so!

What I want to hear is Ehrman admit that the Bible is rife with astrology and that it is based on the vestiges of a pre-historic religious sky-worshiping cult. I don't see how thinking that there was an actual doomsday preacher named Jesus who is used as a character in ancient wisdom literature detracts from that.

But I realize that once he does that, I can no longer use him as my first step in establishing that the Bible is not without error, which is milk for the babes who aren't ready for the meat of astrotheology. First they have to be convinced that the Bible is not supernaturally inspired and preserved.

In the meantime, this debacle of a debate on Peter the Cock will not elevate either author in the eyes of the targeted audience.

I spent the weekend reading books on the Kennedy assassination, just to clear my mind. I'm having a hard time thinking of this as a vast right wing conspiracy on par with the inquisition. I mean, I can just hear Ben Witherington laughing up his sleeve.

Can I not love both Acharya and Ehrman, and the others, Price, Doherty, Eisenman, and Carrier too? And while I'm at it, see the humor in this situation that is so sadly lacking when we get into scholarly discussions?

In the meantime, it is so encouraging to see how millions have been informed that the story of Jesus is the story of the sun. Literally, more and more each day I am seeing this expressed by bloggers and on message boards. Millions more have been informed of the dubious history of the Bible and the forgeries and errors contained within it.

And we can and will continue to find more archaeological artefacts and astrological symbols in the Bible, and continue to find more ancient manuscripts, errors, interpolations, and versions of the Bible. For me, this is what is relevant and exciting.

_________________
I am the Wind that blows over the Sea;
I am the Wave of the Deep;
I am the Bull of the Seven Battles;
I am the Eagle upon the rock;
I am a Tear of the Sun;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2134
So, now Joe Hoffman is jumping into the fray. With my past experience with the man, in which he displayed a rather rude lack of integrity and civility, I'm not much interested in his opinions on this subject or any other. He is like Ehrman - not very knowledgeable about the massive mythicist body of literature, despite his pretensions otherwise.

In any event, I haven't read the enclosed link, and I'm passing along the comments of another here. The rancor of these exchanges is repulsive, but somewhat amusing as well. These guys are in a serious "pissing contest" here - and fixated on the erect cock. Like I say, very amusing - Carrier is now an "impetuous amateur!" :twisted:

Quote:
My, what a cornucopia of (promised) riches!

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/20 ... -scholars/

I just loved Hoffmann's closing promise:

"This little rant ... will be followed next week by three essay-length responses to Richard C. Carrier’s ideas: The first by me, the second by Professor Maurice Casey of the University of Nottingham, and the third by Stephanie Fisher a specialist in Q-studies. We will attempt to show an impetuous amateur not only where he goes wrong, but why he should buy a map before starting his journey. Other replies will follow in course, and we invite Carrier, his fans, and anyone else interested in this discussion to respond to it at any stage along the way."

And no doubt Hoffmann and co., like Ehrman, would rather be doing "more serious work" than responding to the rabble that seem to be rudely kicking their way through the polished mahogany door of their gentlefolk's club.

Ken

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:30 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Everywhere
What a freaking straw man fest going around the internet right now. But I suppose it's good in the grand scheme of things because it has served to draw loads of attention. These idiots are basically trying to struggle their way out of quick sand at the moment. The more they fight, the more they sink.

I was just reading over the link to Hoffman's blog and taking note of how many ways he will be following along behind Errorman and falling on his ass likewise. Pushing uncertainties as if they are certain will get him nowhere in this game. And this little take down attemp on Carrier will be amusing. A Q specialist? Get the f**k out town Hoffman! A speculation specialist rather. Does this nimrod think that he's going to firm up Errorman's assertions about Q into something certain? Who knows. But I'll probably read through and watch him go down with the ship trying....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:48 pm 
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
A Q specialist? Get the f**k out town Hoffman! A speculation specialist rather. Does this nimrod think that he's going to firm up Errorman's assertions about Q into something certain?


This is ironic considering I would assume you as well as many others value the hypothetical Documentary Hypothesis(JEPD). I mean the speculation appear to be the same (with the exception of us being able to point to ancient sources that could serve as the proxy for these edited and stylistic variants. Don't get me wrong, we have more evidence to establish the Documentary Hypothesis than the Q Sayings, but it is still within the same ball park of speculation.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 556
One interesting comment from Ehrman's blog (the only one that, on the surface, might seem like a legitimate criticism):

http://ehrmanblog.org/acharya-s-richard-carrier-and-a-cocky-peter-or-a-cock-and-bull-story/#post-comments
(He also posts essentially more or less the same thing here:
http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=history&thread=934&page=5#11569
as well as here:
http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=history&thread=934&page=5#11569
so those are obviously debunked by the following as well.)
Jonathan Burke wrote:
Dear Bart; (if I may be so bold), thank you for this clarification. I spent some time going through Dorothy Murdock’s references. I noted at once that her research method involves random searches through Google Books; in fact she even embeds the links to the books in question, so you can see clearly the search terms she used, proving that she was punching words into Google Books and hitting the search button hoping to get lucky.

A number of these works are available on Google Books only in limited, or even snippet view, so it’s clear Murdock doesn’t own them, hasn’t read them, and is simply searching for key words in Google Books for any references related to the subject at hand. I would suggest this is not standard academic research procedure, even though Carrier appears to approve.


Well, either that or she does own the books or at the very least has read them (possibly from a library) and thus already knows what to look for when searching in Google Books, and is embedding the links to Google Books for convenience and to make the passages visible to her internet audience. No need to scan, crop, and upload the pages herself when they are already available on Google Books.
Jonathan's grasping at straws to try and make an unsupported criticism here. After all, Acharya also embeds links from Google Books to...

HER OWN BOOKS! That she has written HERSELF! Would this Burke fellow have us believe Acharya, quote, "doesn't own" and "hasn't read" those books too? Even though she wrote them herself? All just because she made use of the convenient service of Google Books, for the very reason Google has provided such a service?

And likewise her own books are also, quote, "available on Google Books only in limited, or even snippet view", so again, the significance of her sources being on a limited preview setting is none whatsoever.

Jonathan Burke wrote:
One reference Murdock did not cite is Panzanelli & Scholosser, ‘Ephemeral bodies: wax sculpture and the human figure’ (2008). This book refers explicitly to the ‘notorious “Vatican Bronze”‘ (p. 121), and the image shown is the very image cited by Murdock (p. 122), yet when we turn to the page on which the statue is described we find the image which Murdock claims is hidden in the ‘Vatican Treasury’ is in fact, ‘a phallic monument in the Gabinetto Segreto, Museo Archeologico Nazionale Napoli, supposedly recovered at Pompeii/Herculaneum’ (p. 122).
Image
Image

Not only is there no reference to Peter, but we finally find that the the image is not hidden in the ‘Vatican Treasury’, but is in the Gabinetto Segreto in Naples, the collection of sexual and erotic artifacts found in Pompeii.

This is even more interesting since Pompeii was only excavated in the late 18th century, so 17th century sources such as ‘Romanum Museum’ (1692), couldn’t possible be referring to the same artifact. So all those later works relying on the 17th sources as evidence for this artifact are wrong, and all those later works relying on 18th and 19th century sources claiming this is kept in the Vatican are also wrong.


A few problems here.

The National Archaeological Museum of Naples OWN WEBSITE says that the Gabinetto Segreto (Secret Room) was established in 1821.
http://museoarcheologiconazionale.campaniabeniculturali.it/glossario/ploneglossarydefinition.2008-06-09.8351409625/
That's 35 years AFTER Richard Knight published the Discourse on the Worship of Priapus, as part of An Account of the Worship of Priapus, in 1786, which references the statue as being at the Vatican.
So it's quite impossible for the statue to have been at the Gabinetto Segreto 35 years before the Gabinetto even existed.

Also of interest here is a statement from Knight's The Progress of Civil Society, published in 1796, so still predating the Gabinetto by decades. This is from page xxi of the preface.
Quote:
":and as for the plates, they having been mostly copied from other publications, executed at the expense, and published under the authority of the Popes, or the kings of Naples, the defense of them does not belong to me. The most objectionable of them, and the only one which contains any thing like profaneness, was copied from De la Chausse's Museum Romanum, of which three editions have been published at Rome within this century, and from which the plate in question has been again published in the great collection of Graevius and Gronovius. It represents the male human organs of generation erect upon the head of a cock, in lieu of a beak, which head grows out of a bust of a man: beneath it, on the base, is written SOTER KOSMOU - SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. The original, from which it is taken, is an antique bronze, preserved in the Vatican palace, where it has been publicily exhibited for near a century, without corrupting any one's morals or religion, that I have heard of. It did, indeed, once disturb the conscience of a superannuated cardinal, who requested Benedict XIV to remove this profane SOTER from his sacred seat in the pontifical palace; but that excellent pope, and most worthy man, replied, with his usual pleasantry, that he had no authority over such a personage; being himself but his vicar."


So Knight stated explicitly that the artifact was under the jurisdiction of Naples, yet also said it had been on PUBLIC display at the Vatican for nearly a century, therefore, Mr. Burke was correct when he wrote "the image is not hidden in the 'Vatican Treasury' ", because it IS in the Gabinetto, while in Knight's day it WAS in the Vatican Palace, and it was not HIDDEN, it was on PUBLIC display, so thus his claims were easily falsifiable at the time and thus charges of falsehood towards him are unwarranted.
He also cites Chausse's Museum Romanum (Volume One), published in 1690, more than a century EARLIER than 1796, and thus, if Knight is correct, then the statue was NOT in the Vatican at the time of Chausse's publication, and it was no longer at the Vatican after 1821.
So a likely scenario is that it was was moved to and put on display at the Vatican sometime in the early 18th century and then was removed from the Vatican and relocated to the Gabinetto Segreto back home in Naples, under whose jurisdiction it had always belonged. It's not like Knight was hiding the fact that it was in Naples or was ignorant of that fact, so Mr. Burke pointing out that the artifact belongs to Naples is just moot. Knight acknowledged that fact, and yet he still said that it had been on public display at the Vatican for nearly a century by 1796.

And as noted earlier, he cited Chausse's Museum Romanum (Vol. 1) as one of his sources, which was published in 1690. Now, Mr. Burke claimed "so 17th century sources such as ‘Romanum Museum’ (1692), couldn’t possible be referring to the same artifact."

Oh really? Did Mr. Burke even bother to check Chausse's Museum Romanum?

Image

(Here is Chausse's description in Latin and Google Translate's attempt at English)

Image
Image

Nope, that's clearly the same artifact, and remember, the above illustration was published in 1690.
And as an added bonus, in the same section of the book, just 10 pages after Chausse's plate of the cock statue, appears this little gem as well:

Image

Look familiar? It should. It is clearly the exact same object also described and illustrated above by Panzanelli & Scholosser whom Mr. Burke cited. It likewise appears here in Chausse's book, and so just like the cock statue plate, also dates to 1690. So if Mr. Burke had wanted to argue for an entirely separate yet identical statue of the cock head (even with an identical inscription and everything), that, while not impossible, would itself be improbable enough, but add to that the probability of the other phallic artifact (a griffin[?]) depicted by Panzanelli & Scholosser in that exact same portion of their book is likewise a distinct yet identical object to that in Chausse's book makes such a probability next to impossible in my opinion. Occam's Razor indicates that both objects in Panzanelli & Scholosser's work are the same as those depicted in Chausse's work in 1690.

So unless Mr. Jonathan Burke or anyone else can present a convincing case for interpolation or forgery and the like for this part of Mr. Chausse's work, then here we have indisputable PROOF that this bronze cock-headed solar statue of Priapus existed in 1690, 96 years BEFORE Knight's Discourse on Priapus, 106 years BEFORE his Progress of Civil Society, and 131 years BEFORE the establishment of the Gabinetto Segreto.
That's plenty of time for it to have had a residency at the Vatican and yet still end up at the Naples Archeological Museum, where it allegedly is today.

So there is absolutely NO contradiction between Knight and Panzanelli & Scholosser on this particular point.

So why then did Mr. Burke fail?

It appears that it is because he got hung up on where Panzanelli & Scholosser mentioned in passing the notion that this cock statue was discovered either in Pompeii or Herculaneum, both of which were excavated after Chausse wrote his book.

The problem for Mr. Burke is that he apparently overlooked one small but significant word right there in Panzanelli & Scholosser's description of those two phallic artifacts (even after Burke himself wrote it in quotation, lol)...

Image
Image

"supposedly".
Obviously by their choice to employ that word, Panzanelli & Scholosser are communicating a degree of skepticism towards the claim that these two artifacts were discovered in Pompeii or Herculaneum. Or to borrow some of Burke's own wording, "note again the scholarly caution over the unsourced and unsubstantiated claim". Yet Mr. Jonathan Burke treated that claim as though established fact when the very source he has cited doesn't even display such confidence in said claim, but seems to communicate just the opposite- a healthy bit of skepticism. And it is good that they did so, because that leaves them an out. They never actually said that the cock statue was for certain found in Pompeii or Herculaneum, only that it supposedly was, and so now that I have demonstrated that it was indeed known before the excavation of those two sites, Panzanelli & Scholosser's book is still correct. Unlike Mr. Jonathan Burke, who is now shown to be flat out wrong. And to continue in his position without bringing forward any further (and stronger) evidence would be to deny the logical law of succinctness or parsimony.

Jonathan Burke wrote:
Naturally any sources claiming this has anything whatever to do with Peter, are also wrong; please note that despite all Murdock’s sources, she didn’t provide any which made such a connection.


She also says that she NEVER EVEN CLAIMED IT WAS PETER IN THE FIRST PLACE. So combine that with everything else I have presented above, and the rest of Mr. Burke's post that follows here after is already rendered null & void and thus I will refrain from reposting it here. If you so chose you can follow the link and read the rest of his dubious post for yourselves.

Update: It appears he made a couple of attempts to respond to my irrefutable rebuttal to him, so if you wish, you can read my pwnage of that here (warning- it's looong & tedious): CLICK


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Everywhere
VOR wrote:
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
A Q specialist? Get the f**k out town Hoffman! A speculation specialist rather. Does this nimrod think that he's going to firm up Errorman's assertions about Q into something certain?


This is ironic considering I would assume you as well as many others value the hypothetical Documentary Hypothesis(JEPD). I mean the speculation appear to be the same (with the exception of us being able to point to ancient sources that could serve as the proxy for these edited and stylistic variants. Don't get me wrong, we have more evidence to establish the Documentary Hypothesis than the Q Sayings, but it is still within the same ball park of speculation.

Of course DH is complete speculation, just like Q. And DH may well be complete bunk through and through when considering a far more simple and elegant alternative explanation such as:


Errorman was trying to use speculative Q material in order to prove that Jesus existed. He failed. This nimrod now wants to confront Carrier's assertions by bringing a Q specialist. Just what exactly does he think he is going to prove with a specialist in Gospel source speculation? It will be interesting to see where Hoffman tries to take this one...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2134
Thank you for doing that, GA. I hope you linked to your thoughtful and helpful post at the blog in question? Looks like you dug up some great stuff there.

What utter nitpicking nonsense. How is any of that bilge a "legitimate criticism?"

Yes, of course, I avail myself of Google Books - does this person not do likewise? How foolish that would be. Ditto for any other scholar who does not use Google Books. Please find me a scholar who doesn't use Google Books, or the public library, or a university library, but who owns all the books he or she cites? And please find me one who reads all of every book he or she cites? Remember, we are not dealing with reviews here, in which we pretend to read the books we are criticizing but in reality have only had assistants pass us "Cliff Notes" of them. We are dealing with REFERENCES, and REFERENCES can be an entire book, a paragraph, a sentence or a single word, such as a dictionary. Do you read the entire dictionary before you use it to define a single word?

Completely lunacy.

And, of course, I link to the books, so that everyone can see the quotes for themselves - oh no! She actually cites her work!

What's next? The fact that I'm alive at all, perhaps?

And, yes, again, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THE STATUE WAS PETER.

Are these people obsessed?

Ehrman was wrong, period, and continues to be.

Moving on.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 556
No problem.

And LOL, Ehrman replied to that post-
Quote:
Bart Ehrman April 24, 2012
Wow. VERY interesting! Thanks so much! Pretty hard to get around all *that*!!


Not really. Took me only a couple of hours. And I'm just a layman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:59 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 826
I can well imagine that Acharya is feeling extremely upset about this discussion. I would encourage her not to worry. Jesus had to go through the harrowing of hell to prove his integrity, and these HJ losers are being exposed as a pack of pharisaical posers.

For a start, Ehrman's insulting question "Did she draw it herself?" indicates to readers that Acharya is to be viewed as some sort of untermensch, beneath contempt, a subhuman scapegoat to be despised and rejected, worth only mockery and scorn, perhaps crucifixion. If Ehrman, and those like him, regarded Acharya as a human being, he would have had the simple decency to contact her, perhaps just by posting on this board, to ask his insulting fallacious slanderous question. Instead, he uses the full weight of his scholarly reputation to publish it, giving readers the impression he has done his research, and that he has been unable to find out if Acharya drew it herself.

We can imagine an innocent reader thinking 'why would Professor Ehrman say this, he must be at his wits end trying to get information out of this uncooperative woman'. The real back story here is that Acharya is under an interdict from the new academic dogmatists, such that anyone who speaks approvingly of her work is at risk of similar exclusion. This is not the way free and rational intellectual discourse is meant to work. The old paradigm is on its last legs, and Ehrman is trying to breathe life into a corpse.

karmachameleon wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
Part of the mythicist agenda is to expose how such phallocratic assumptions reflect a pre-modern superstitious worldview in which women are chattels of men, as per the Ten Commandments.

Seriously? I was unaware of this. Personally, I think that tying feminism into mythicism is not the way to go.
The term phallocratic is one of those terms from French feminists like Luce Irigaray, whose discussion of phallogocentrism was lampooned by Alan Sokal as postmodern nonsense. The trouble with writers like Sokal (and Ehrman and Carrier) is that they are part of a vast patriarchal mythology whose influence is invisible to them because they see it as just an inevitable part of how the world works. Writers such as Barbara Walker or Mary Daly or Luce Irigaray perceive a basic error in the patriarchal myth, that the doctrine of the logos serves secular power interests.

Acharya has punctured the coherence of patriarchy by questioning its redeeming essence in the story of the historical Jesus. An attack on patriarchal logic leads its defenders to exclude the attacker as irrational by definition. Is not the attack on logos or reason the essence of unreason? This is a theme that Irigaray picked up from an otherwise intensely patriarchal philosopher, Martin Heidegger, via Jacques Derrida.
Quote:
What I want to hear is Ehrman admit that the Bible is rife with astrology and that it is based on the vestiges of a pre-historic religious sky-worshiping cult.
I don't think you are going to see Ehrman agree on this point. Richard Carrier's attack on Freke and Gandy is based precisely on his rejection of this point. Carrier sees that he cannot join the guild brotherhood if he gives credence to such speculation. The evidence is irrelevant: Carrier and Ehrman explode in irrational fury well before anyone gets to discuss evidence with them on this topic.
Quote:
I don't see how thinking that there was an actual doomsday preacher named Jesus who is used as a character in ancient wisdom literature detracts from that.
It does detract, because it involves accepting a historicist mythology for which there is no actual evidence that meets any normal historical standards of external corroboration. Further, Acharya's reconstruction of the invention of Jesus by the Therapeuts of Alexandria provides a highly promising line of research which is based on rejection of the evemerist seed idea. I consider the non-existence hypothesis to be central to our ability to open a sensible discourse about the astrotheological meaning in the New Testament. So while we cannot yet totally exclude any historical figure, it should be viewed as an extremely dubious fantasy that does detract from our ability to get at the truth of the ancient sources on Jesus Christ.

Quote:
In the meantime, it is so encouraging to see how millions have been informed that the story of Jesus is the story of the sun. Literally, more and more each day I am seeing this expressed by bloggers and on message boards. Millions more have been informed of the dubious history of the Bible and the forgeries and errors contained within it. And we can and will continue to find more archaeological artefacts and astrological symbols in the Bible, and continue to find more ancient manuscripts, errors, interpolations, and versions of the Bible. For me, this is what is relevant and exciting.

Acharya is a pioneer in putting these empirical findings into a rational framework. That is why she is such a lightning rod for criticism from the vested interests. No one will ever be convinced to change their opinion until there is an alternative narrative explanation that is coherent, consistent and compelling. That means there needs to be a debate about the social myths that continue to inspire conventional thinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 556
LOL, well that didn't take long-

Image

Image


The other posts were approved, but not the one refuting Burke's post, which Ehrman praised. So let it be known here and now: assuming Ehrman moderates his own blog, then he saw the post linking to this thread and to the refutation of Jonathan Burke's argument. So at the very least he is aware that there is a refutation, and there's a chance he has actually read it as well. So if any future replies from Ehrman on this topic do end up employing any of Mr. Burke's arguments in that post, then Ehrman would be doing so not ignorantly, but obstinately. He would be using it knowing full well ahead of time that it is already debunked, hence he would be willfully using debunked argumentation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:25 am 
Offline
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:13 am
Posts: 5
Inventing Jesus: An Interview with Bart Ehrman

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/5890/inventing_jesus%3A_an_interview_with_bart_ehrman/

Quote:
But, what I show is that if you have a properly historical approach to, for example, the gospels of the New Testament, you realize fairly quickly that these are based on earlier written accounts, and that those earlier written accounts were based on oral tradition that go back even earlier. Some of these oral traditions make better sense when they’re translated back into Aramaic, Jesus’ own language—which means that even if the gospels are 30 to 40 years later they’re based on sources that go back to very near the time of Jesus in Palestine. So, that’s one kind of source.


Quote:
All of that shows that the mythicists who claim that Jesus was made up 30 years later in Egypt, or some other claim—that simply can’t be right. We have evidence of people telling stories about Jesus in Palestine within a year or two of the traditional date of his death.


Quote:
In part, because we have very little evidence, if it exists at all, that there were any dying and rising gods in the pagan world. I also argue that Jesus could not have been invented as a dying and rising god because the earliest Christians didn’t think he was God.


Quote:
I think Jesus gets used by everybody who claims to be Christian for their own purposes. Most of the time this is an abuse of Jesus. It’s not respecting what he really stood for. It’s manipulating his message for one’s own advancement, and I don’t think that’s a good thing.


more strawmen and misrepresentation!

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Everywhere
Thanks for the link. I found something that you left out of the quote which is pretty critical here:
Errorman wrote:
I look at the Apostle Paul. His writings were 20 years after Jesus’ life, but Paul himself converted to be a follower of Jesus within a year or two at the latest of Jesus’ death— which means that people were telling enough stories about Jesus for Paul to convert a year or two later.

And so immediately the question of why Paul didn't have anything much to say about Jesus' life begs to be answered. Pauls Jesus was a heavenly figure as Doherty well explains in detail. So if there were stories floating around they most certainly did not deal with historicity or it would have been included in Paul.

Errorman wrote:
All of that shows that the mythicists who claim that Jesus was made up 30 years later in Egypt, or some other claim—that simply can’t be right. We have evidence of people telling stories about Jesus in Palestine within a year or two of the traditional date of his death.

But what kind of stories? Historical stories or heavily mythological stories? And the Alexandrian Hypothesis of Murdocks assumes that there were Therapeutan mystics at work with allegorical stories (as described by Philo) possibly before the turn of the common era and through the beginning of the first century. There's no claim that Jesus was invented 30 years later in Egypt. It was a long process leading to works started around the end of the first century and reworked until appearing into the literary and historical record during the second half of the second century. Errorman hasn't even got his facts straight yet at this point.

Errorman also really screwed by skimming Doherty or just taking cliff notes from students and I'd love to see those two schedule a debate on the matter. The way things are going at the moment with Doherty disecting Errorman chapter by chapter there may well be a public debate at some point. And judging by the claims I see from Errorman he'd come very unprepared to such a debate.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 400 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support