The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ hidden in the Vatican
In the first edition of my book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999), I included a chapter entitled “The Bible, Sex and Drugs” (275-295), at the end of which I provided a line drawing of a bronze, rooster-headed bust with a phallus for a beak. Under the image, I added the following caption:
Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter. Inscription reads “Savior of the World.”
(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, as in the story of Matthew 26:34, etc., in which Peter denies Christ three times before the cock crows. In several places elsewhere in my book I provide the citation for the cock/rooster being a symbol of St. Peter. I apologize for the ambiguity, but I was not in error here, despite the constant attempts to make me appear as such.)
After providing the image, I then cited it as coming from “Walker, WDSSO,” a reference to Barbara G. Walker’s The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, included in my bibliography at the end of the book.
Previous to this image (168), I had discussed this theme of the “peter” or cock, with the esoteric and “vulgar” meaning:
“Peter” is not only “the rock” but also “the cock” or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day. As Walker says, “The cock was also a symbol of Saint Peter, whose name also meant a phallus or male principle (pater) and a phallic pillar (petra). Therefore, the cock’s image was often placed atop church towers.”
The “Savior of the World” image appears in Walker’s book on p. 397, where she remarks:
It is no coincidence that “cock” is slang for “penis.” The cock was a phallic totem in Roman and medieval sculptures showing cocks somehow transformed into, or supporting, human penises. Roman carvings of disembodied phalli often gave them the legs or wings of cocks. Hidden in the treasury of the Vatican is a bronze image of a cock with the head of a penis on the torso of a man, the pedestal inscribed “The Savior of the World.”
(There follows her quote cited in the paragraph above.)
Fabricated image or ‘celebrated bronze’?
Over the years since The Christ Conspiracy was published, this image has been the periodic focus of interest. Of late, in his new book Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman has raised up this image in my book and appears to be accusing me of fabricating it. Quoting me first, he comments:
“‘Peter’ is not only ‘the rock’ but also ‘the cock,’ or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day.” Here Acharya shows (her own?) hand drawing of a man with a rooster head but with a large erect penis instead of a nose, with this description: “Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasure [sic] of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter” (295). [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.]
(The “treasure” typo is Ehrman’s, while the “sic” is mine. The other comments in brackets and parentheses are Ehrman’s.)
In insinuating that I drew the image myself, Ehrman is indicating he did not notice the citation under it in my book, clearly referring to Barbara Walker’s work. He is further implying that I simply make things up, and he is asserting with absolute certainty that no such bronze has existed in the Vatican, essentially stating that I fabricated the entire story. Contrary to these unseemly accusations, the facts are that I did not draw the image, the source of which was cited, and that, according to several writers, the image certainly is “hidden” in the Vatican, as I stated.
In The Woman’s Dictionary (397), Walker cites the image as “Knight, pl. 2,” which, in her bibliography, refers to: Knight, Richard Payne. A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus. New York: University Books, 1974.
Consulting an earlier edition of Knight’s book (1865), we find a discussion of the object in question (32):
…the celebrated bronze in the Vatican has the male organs of generation placed upon the head of a cock, the emblem of the sun, supported by the neck and shoulders of a man. In this composition they represented the generative power of the Ερως [Eros], the Osiris, Mithras, or Bacchus, whose centre is the sun. By the inscription on the pedestal, the attribute thus personified, is styled The Saviour of the World…, a title always venerable under whatever image it be presented.
Here Knight references the image as “Plate II. Fig. 3.” Turning to the back of the book, around p. 263, we find the image (right), which is hand-drawn because of its age, printed when photography was still not entirely feasible for publishers.
On page 35, Knight mentions the “celebrated bronze” again:
…Oftentimes, however, these mixed figures had a peculiar and proper meaning, like that of the Vatican Bronze…
Another source, Gordon Williams in A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery (258), comments about this artifact:
The relationship of cock and phallus is ancient. A bronze bust in the Vatican Museum, bearing the Greek inscription “Redeemer of the World” (Fuchs, Geschichte der Erotischen Kunst [Berlin 1908] fig. 103), is given a cock’s head, the nose or beak being an erect penis.
Doing our scholarly due diligence, we find the pertinent figure in Fuchs on p. 133. Hot on the trail, we discover more information in Daniela Erlach’s Privatisierung der Triebe? (1994:203) about the “small bust known as the Albani bronze, still housed in the Vatican’s secret collection…” There, we read further: “Its plinth is inscribed ‘Saviour of the World’ in Greek, and it is possibly of Gnostic import.”
In another mention of the “notorious Albani bronze said to be held in the Vatican Museum,” we learn that such Roman phallic representations are called priapi gallinacei. (Jones, Malcolm, The Secret Middle Ages, 75) As we can see, this bronze image is “celebrated” and “notorious,” which means many scholars have written about it, also stating that it is “housed” and “held” in the Vatican Museum.
Romanum Museum, 1692
Continuing the hunt, a discussion of this artifact can be found in a book entitled Public Characters of 1803-1804 (127), which comments about the “Savior of the World” inscription, written in Greek as ΣΩΤΗΡ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ, a phrase used also to describe Jesus Christ:
That inscription is found upon an ancient Phallus, of a date of much more remote antiquity than the birth of Christ. The account of this antiquity may be seen at large in “De la Chaussee’s Museum Romanum,” printed at Rome, in folio, in 1692…
The late reverend and learned Dr. Middleton, in that valuable work entitled “Germana quaedam antiquitatis eruditae monumenta, etc.” has not scrupled to give the following short account of it…
Tracing the image to De la Chaussee’s Romanum Museum, we discover a description on page 125 of volume 1:
The author follows this discussion with another about the ancient author Macrobius and his work concerning the various gods of the Roman Empire and their solar nature.
The priapus gallinaceus
A description of the statue in Latin is also provided by Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton (The Miscellaneous Works of the Late Reverend and Learned Conyers Middleton, 4:51):
Quod quidem illustrari quodammodo videtur a Symbolica quadam apud Causæum Priapi effigie, cui Galli Gallinacei caput crista ornatum, rostri vero loco, Fascinum ingens datur: cujusque in basi litteris Græcis inscriptum legitur ΣΩΤΗΡ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ. Servator orbis. Quae omnia vir doctus ita interpretatur: “Gallum scilicet, avem soli sacram esse; solemque generatricis facultatis præsidem; pudendumque ideo virile Gallinaceo capiti adjunctum denotare, quod a conjunctis solis Priapique viribus, animalium genus omne procreatum et conservatum sit, secundum physicum quoddam Aristotelis axioma, Homo hominem general et Sol.”
Here Middleton describes the “priapus effigy” as a rooster with a head crest and the inscription “Savior of the World” or Servator orbis in the Latin. A “learned man” interprets the image as a cock, a bird sacred to the sun, a symbol of fertility and generative power. We can see where the term priapus gallinaceus comes from, as it refers to the erect member of the god Priapus and the Latin word for “rooster” or “cock.” Therefore, we are discussing an entire genre of artifacts, evidently dating to before the common era and into it (Gnostic?); other such examples can be cited.
In The Image of Priapus (67), Giancarlo Carlobelli writes:
The “Soter cosmou” portrayed as the central figure appears to be an example of what the classical scholars refer to as “Priapus gallinaceus”; it may be a herm. The illustration had already appeared in De la Chausse…
Here we learn that scholars of classical antiquity have used this term, priapus gallinaceus or “priapus cock.”
Continuing our search, we find in Otto Augustus Wall’s Sex and Sex Worship (Phallic Worship): A Scientific Treatise on Sex (437) a photograph of what appears to be the original bronze statue (or at least its twin). Concerning this artifact, Wall (438) states that “this representation of a bronze figure of Priapus…was found in an ancient Greek temple…”
Hidden in the Vatican
In an article “Priapus Gallinaceus: The Role of the Cock in Fertility and Eroticism in Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages,” (Studies in Iconography, Northern Kentucky University, 1981-82, vols. 7-8, p. 94), after discussing this “Savior of the World” artifact Dr. Lorrayne Baird comments:
This object was published under papal and royal authority, exhibited for a time in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and is now said to be held inaccessible in the secret collections of the Vatican. During the public life of this bronze, officials disagreed upon the probity of the exhibit. One offended cardinal requested that the object be removed…
Dr. Baird (95) further states that “the Vatican Saviour-as-Phallic-cock was a scandalous satire on early Christians.” We are therefore justified in bringing up this artifact and wondering why it would serve as “satire on early Christians,” if not for the reasons stated here.
I obviously did not fabricate the image of this artifact, which has been known in scholarly circles for over 300 years. Nor was my contention erroneous that the figure is secreted in the Vatican, according to several authors.
Nevertheless, Ehrman continues his imputation by concluding about my book:
In short, if there is any conspiracy here, it is not on the part of the ancient Christians who made up Jesus but on the part of modern authors who make up stories about the ancient Christians and what they believed about Jesus.
As we can see, everything in my book concerning this discussion is cited and accurately represents the original commentary, as found in several publications dating from the 17th century until the present era, reflecting a tradition from antiquity. It is unfortunate when other scholars engage in libelous accusation and gross misrepresentation, of which there are a number of other instances in Ehrman’s book vis-à-vis my work.
See also my addendum: “The phallic ‘Savior of the Word’ in the Vatican revisited.”
Further Reading
Over 80 Rebuttals to Bart Ehrman’s Anti-Mythicist Book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’
St. Peter being symbolized by the cock/rooster as a Christian Symbol
The Mythicist Position Video
Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Believe Jesus was a Myth?
What is a Mythicist?
A Brief History of Mythicism
The Christ Myth Articles
Credentialism and the ‘No Serious Scholar’ Fallacy
The Christ Conspiracy second edition
Jesus’s Phallic Abs
Did Jesus Exist? forum thread
Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History
Dionysian phallus festival held in Athens for the first time in 2,000 years
Bart Ehrman errs again – this time about virgin births
Bart Ehrman: Gospels not written by eyewitnesses, no Jesus in historical record
Bart Ehrman caught in libel and lies?
97 thoughts on “The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ hidden in the Vatican”
Comments are closed.
After the separation in protestants and catholics there was an animosity or let’s say hate between the two groups which resulted in numerous wars and conflicts . In the seventeenth century it was all very fresh . When someone invented a story about this bronze figure , his only objective probably was to denigrate the church of Rome . Nothing special . Even nowadays it is ‘normal’ to invent all sorts of stories about supposed enemies .
So if one starts the story , then it is easily copied by another author , and a century later by yet another . It is better to ignore these kind of statements about this bronze before there is a real scientific investigation and a visible and measurable and weighable bronze statue of a coq head with a dick of an evolved ape . So the question remains . Why should the resources of this story be reliable ? And why is the story and the statue only about 300 years old ? And why should a ‘reverent’ be reliable , they all talk for their own religious community and have their own agenda and that is slander the catholics . That a bronze like this has been exposed is really ludicrous , people where extremely prudish in those days .
Who made this up?
Peter, you say “When someone invented a story about this bronze figure…” makes me want to ask you WHO invented it…could you send some credible proof it was invented and by who? (or is it “whom”)…
Retired aid administrator
I was educated at a Jesuit university. In some book, back then, in ‘case X’ (the locked shelves where books were located that required the prof”s permission to view) I recall a book that held a photo of the cock headed bronze figure of a man. I don’t recall anything about the bronse bust, however. But I have read references to it in other works. I have no doubt it exists. As the associations Ms. Murdock mentions are commonly known to people who read about the ancient cults and their connections to Judaism and Christiananity, I can’t imagine a true scholar trying to refute something that is well known and covered in the relevant literature.
You might want to see this Catholic art – note the phallic abs:
Then there’s this little gem:
No one needs to “slander” the Catholics – Catholicism has done a fine job sullying its own “good name.”
And which days were these when “people were extremely prudish?” The facts are as I have outlined them here: This phallic symbol represents an ancient genre. There are many such artifacts and erotic images, along with literature, from antiquity.
Cathlic Art
The rooster/Cock sings everyday and the Sunrises. So Jesus being Sun, the cock points at the sun rise ( around Jesus head). This matches the story. The rooster with cock head, looks like a pointer. May be they had it so pointed to sun rise in ancient time.
Muslims figure, the black stone, is mounted on the eastern corner of Kaaba and is pointing to moon rise, is shaped like a female vulva. So again this symbols point to moon rise.
Mary is mother Earth. The Sun was believed to be born of Mother Earth everyday. So Mary is shown as a vulva or the place of birth.
The Goddess of water was also known to give birth to Sun and the Moon, since the ancients saw they rise from oceans.
Both Sun and the Moon were thought to be pulled down on the west by the evil to the underground everyday. So mother earth would give birth to them everyday and the devil would pull them down to the west and bring darkness. So underground was thought to be the devils place.
Mr
Can we have a source please for the statuette “Madonna of the Vagina”?
Help!
I have an original engraving of priapi gallinacei, it exactly resembles your “fig3” but is by Pietro Santi Bartoli, the second engraving is also of priapus but is adorned with erotic piercings.please contact me as I am tring to learn more about this unusual image.
Ehrman’s Dilemma
Poor Ehrman, he is caught in the biggest dilemma of his life in determining if he wants to believe in God or if he really believes what he wrote on his previous book when he felt the need to say he could not accept God because of the pain that was being inflicted on human beings. Now he is picking on you because he has not yet accepted the evidence you provided in your Christ Conspiracy book of your final conclusion that Christ was a creation by the combination of a variety of human elements. The greatest
contribution that you have also made in your “CC” book was the bibliography of reference books from older authors who opened up the way to your final destination. My only advise to you is that the only certain thing in our present existence is the fact that there is life on the other side after we die, but that life has no relationship to the demands made by the gods of the old or new testaments.
Reincarnation is the final element of life no matter if you believe or not; and reincarnation terminates when the final achievements have been reached.
Peter the Cock
😛 Thought everyone knew Peter, Dick, and cock were synonymous
They aren’t in ancient Greek
maybe art
It’s probably the symbol dedicated to the original dick head.
Well, he’s certainly engaged in libel here by claiming I “make things up.” (Libel is the written defamation, whereas slander is spoken.)
Here’s the definition of “libel”:
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
Ehrman’s rant against me personally over several pages of his book is highly defamatory.
While we’re defining words, Ehrman constantly pulls out the snooty credentialism argument and has the audacity to claim I’m not a “scholar.”
Here’s the definition of “scholar” – one would think a “real scholar” would know it:
2. a student; pupil.
3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship. <
There’s nothing there about having a PhD or even a Master’s. This snobbery constitutes more credentialism and defamation.
We can see from the above article who is the more “erudite person” on this subject. And if he’s a “real scholar” yet can’t even do that simple research – instead defames me – then I’d rather be considered a “non-scholar” or, perhaps, an “above-scholar.”
If I’m not even a “student; pupil” that would be quite insulting to my professors in college and post-graduate school. Oh, and by the way, I had a couple of scholarships during that time.
I am a scholar – I’m just not a professionally brainwashed scholar.
Ehrman’s out of his league
Whooops! I was familiar with Ehrman’s books having read a few of them. But now, his smear campaign against mythicists and mythicism has just ruined his credibility. I’m seeing loads of threads and blogs by atheists and others pointing out his egregious errors. I have to wonder if he didn’t just ruin his career by attempting to save his own. He has failed miserably on all levels and he will surely pay dearly for it.
I’ve skimmed through his book at Google books until I get it myself and I know for a fact that he smears Acharya S badly and he is being held accountable for that right here in this very blog! I predict more blogs to come by Acharya as she mops the floor with Erhman when she has time.
Ehrman has really stepped into it this time. He’s way out of his area of expertise and also out of his league.
Apologize and get off the fence
Ehrman represents a large portion of the religious population who know that the gospels are man-made and yet still cling to some sort of hope that the founders were all well intentioned, righteous individuals. I suspect that he realizes that this information sheds light on the nature of the origin of christianity as being founded largely by mal-adjusted homosexual priests. Christians have been taught that homosexuality is a sin and yet here he is confronted with well researched evidence that his beloved Christianity was founded as a gay cult.
This in no way excuses his bullying tactics. The very least he can do is conduct a bit of his own research as he has apparently failed to do.
Ehrman owes Acharya S and Barbara Walker a huge apology. He also needs to get off the fence.
should anyone be surprised that the Vatican has a statue of a penis-headed cock with an erection, in an exclusive all male environment?…doesn’t seem balanced in terms of the human race, I mean, didn’t God create male AND female?…where’s the statue of the Virgin Mary’s vagina????
Great job! Acharya, can’t people get books pulped for slander like this?
Acharya is the Galileo of our times re: mythicist theories….hope no one puts her under house arrest!
Ehrman is not a freethinker…he is trapped in academia which keeps him thinking “in the box” so as not to be rejected by his “scholarly” peers. So he will remain on the fence and his future books will be rehashes.
Acharya is, to me, the best model for Freethinkers. Like Star Trek, she goes where no one has gone before…
(sounds corny but that’s all I can think of right now)
D. Simone re: Acharya like Galileo
just re-read the posts on this page and realized one of mine seems ambiguous as to its intention, i.e. am I praising Acharya or making fun of her by comparing her to Galileo and Star Trek…
I am surely applauding Acharya for her (like Galileo) earth/world shattering theories and research that backs them up. Galileo thought the earth rotated around the sun, but the Roman Catholic church demanded it was the sun rotating around God’s creation, the earth. To shut Galileo up for such heresy, the church put him under house arrest until he died. Now, to me, another great rational mind, Acharya’s, is being battered even by some of her peers, because she discovered the TRUTH and they didn’t. As for the Star Trek comparison, I never forgot the opening voice-over: …GONE WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE. That also fits Acharya’s work to me. So in case you weren’t sure: I am a fan of Acharya S/D M Murdoch
Errorman?
I am truly amazed at the mudslinging in Did Jesus Exist! And the blatant errors! I am really shocked Bart would issue a rag like this. I fear his credibility will suffer from this hack job.
By the way, at the Jesus in History and Myth conference (CFI) in March 1985, one of the speakers showed a slide of a photo of a crucifix statue from some Scandinavian church featuring Jesus suspended from what was unmistakably a huge penis!
Ehrman is only discrediting himself by making such accusations. If one is gonna accuse someone of fabricating evidence, one should first make sure the accusation is accurate. Otherwise, the person being accused can come forth with evidence showing they were right all along and that their accuser was spreading libel.
Acharya S has done a good job defending the accuracy of her claims.
Lord, please forgive me!
That guy is a real dickhead, but he does have some balls! The bronze also!
Just as Jesus was painted as a handsome man, contrary to Isaiah 53, the ancient patriarchal, or “peter-archal”, I would think that the ancient hero almost had to be known for his virile cock.
I would think that this association in the ancient world was common.
Buddha was also known for his cock ( although it was said to be concealed (Sans. kocam) un circumcised; in one instance the Brahmin Ambatha is sent to check for all the signs of a “Great Man” (Cyrus II wrongly said to be the first with he epithet “Great”) one sigh was a virile looking penis. It is also said that Ananda accidentally let some of the nuns into the Buddha’s bathing chamber where they were said to be impressed by the Buddha’s penis. O’ he’s so dreamy!
Our word ‘cock’ is said to be echoic, and if our word ‘quack’ is related to ‘cock’, it would appear to be to be echoic. Though our word for the cuckoo bird may have “come” first and it is well known that the Alexander the Great loved the cry of the Indian peacock (Sans. ‘keka’) , Krishna and Buddha are both associated with the indian cuckoo (‘koka’ ) etc..
Baaart!!
Erhman is just a poster child for the theists that use him as a basis for their silly guilt cult. Its like someone arguing that because Christoper Reeves is a real person, then its likely that he could also fly and run faster than a speeding locomotive.
Bart Ehman
I have written to Bart Ehrman a few times to get answers to the questions that I had felt were not answered in his books. Honestly, I found him to be full of himself. He mentioned something about mythicists making money off of their books, but he has written many books and also made money off of them. Honestly, I think he knows that the story of the biblical Jesus is a myth, but he wants to be the one to bring this out in the open in HIS books so he will get the credit for it.
Acharya, keep doing what you do best and let the haters stew in their own hatred. I am proud of you girlfriend!!!
Oh, my …
I’m having such a difficult time looking at the little rooster/weiner bronze and wondering what sort of uses it could be put to in the Vatican! :woohoo:
Amazed
I am always amazed by the hysteria generated by questioning or mentioning something not considered “acceptable” by the common believers in many religions, Christianity and Islam being two of the worst.
What’s so horrible about this that Ehrman feels he must personally attack another author and claim she’s lying about its existence? It is certainly not the only item in the Vatican’s collection about which eyebrows would be raised if they were commonly known to exist. Through the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has made a habit of collecting “pagan” property, perhaps simply because it’s valuable and if the religion business goes sour they can support themselves by pawning it 😉 , but the claim is so they can educate priests as to what “Satan” has brought into the world to use in deceit of believers.
In my experience, this level of diatribe, by Mr. Ehrman, is the scholarly equivalent of closing one’s eyes, covering one’s ears, and loudly singing “la, la” to avoid an inconvenient truth, or a matter which, if addressed, generates deep fear of some terrible consequence – rather like the belief that whistling boisterously while passing a graveyard will keep ghosts away. Unfortunately for Mr. Ehrman, in this case the “ghost” is bronze and deaf.
Cock, Sun, Jesus
The Cock (Rooster) is a bird, so is heavenly because it has wings and all birds are thus of the sky and reference and reflect Heaven. A cock (Rooster) can not really fly, so is a reference to mankind who is like that, heavenly, but can not fly. The Rooster is extra useful as a reference to God, Heaven, or man’s nature as singular and like the Sun, because it crows at first sun light each day. The Cock (the Phallus) is sacred because it, like the Sun references God, as one original existence, Peter, as the name of the ‘first’ Pope ‘Penis’ is another reference in the same manner. ‘Oneness’ itself reflected in and repeated in the Sun, so maleness, is close to God, reflective of God as oneness, the principle of existence. These are all ancient concepts and all connect and repeat themselves in redundant ways. As religious items, they are at least meant to remind each (male) reverent to have respect for and aspiration to be as the Sun, as the rooster and as the principle of his own cock, a reflection of oneness, looking toward God. It is much harder to know, in an obvious way, how a female reverent, in any given pagan or early Christian temple would be advised to interpret and personalize all this.
Just a sad thought
It’s the 21st century and we still need to argue over religious issues. It is sad. We had some nice years, but now the West is definitely vanishing away. We have failed and our failure is – at least in part – brought to you by the madness we call judeo-christianity.
Joe7000 – My humble opinion…
The real argument, in my opinion, is spirituality versus religiosity. A well noted atheist recently stated that he now goes to church for the spiritual uplift, not the particular religion therein, since finally understanding the true nature of mythicism over literalism.
Man is, by nature, a spiritual creature: how he ever got caught in the web of cultism (religion) is an ongoing question. It may have something to do with a few ‘Gods’ known as Anu, Enlil and Enki. But, then, what do I know?
The difference between spirituality and religiosity is quite large. Religions tend to have dogma of some sort, and are not open ended in thinking.
Most people have no clue that the vast majority of the primary tenants of the modern Christianity all started out as official HERESIES. IN CE 50 there was no “virgin birth” in common belief (it was debated), the idea of a “divine Christ” and a ‘dead and risen Christ’ were also far from settled. There was most definitely no belief in the trinity (a pope was BANISHED for that belief), and both Hell and the Devil were *not* a part of the faith because they do not exist in Judaism (in Judaism a ‘satan’ is just the person who argues the other side of debate).
So much of what was embraced by 650CE was in direct contradiction to the theology of the Church of Jerusalem (where the elders of the church were) back in the very early years.
Now most of them cannot cope with engraved markers from early in Jerusalem, that have the traditional Jewish prayer for the dead but ending with “YWVH and his beloved wife Ashera”, instead of just “YWVH”. Polytheism was the norm in early Judaism.
Then again people assume that todays theology matches that of 2000 years ago and that if far from true. They do not know that the church of Jerusalem and the missionary work of Paul were in direct contradiction. They have no idea that what is embraced today is mostly the theology of Paul.
The heads of the church of Jerusalem were *still* most definitely devout Jews, and honored all the law – yet considering it was there to serve MAN not the other way around. In fact when Paul went to see the heads of the church of Jerusalem, Paul came away disliking them and they had no idea where to ever *start* – but ALL of them went to temple together to offer sacrifice. Paul was there too. Note here that Paul said VERY STRONGLY that put their faith in the law was NOT of Christ.
Paul said one thingt, and did another to save his own skin.
Vatican Treasures
Thanks for a very informative article. I was not aware of the connections between male organs and world saviors, although I have heard Rick Santorum referred to recently as a “colossal dick”.
I’m sure there are many wondrous things hidden in the Vatican. Some that I seriously suspect are there and that I’d most like to see on display, however, will probably not make it into the light of day: the bones of Jesus.
my personal upbrimging
I am one of 10 children. I was born Oct. 20th 1930. My mother died when I was 3 yrs. old. My father remarried and had 10 more children.
At three years old I was sent to live with an Uncle and Aunt along with a sister who was 5 years old. My Uncle was a good man but my Aunt was a tyrant. My Uncle worked hard. He was a veteran of the first world war as was my father. My Uncle was seldom home as he was an Imperial oil dealer. My Aunt was a religion fanatic and a fool. she strapped me many times between the ages of 6 and 11. It took very little to turn her viciousness on. I began as a altar boy when I was 5 until the age of 13. The priest was a good man and never did me harm. I began to doubt religions authenticity at the age of 10. My aunt was a devout believer and one time told me she would give up receiving communion for Lent as she said she loved it so much. That really got me thinking. I am a non believer now and I appreciate your writings. I purchased the book the Christ conspiracy and it is very interesting. I do believe Religions will be obsolete in the far distant future if we survive on this planet before we kill each other off. If reincarnation is a fact it will be interesting to come back when religion is no more. Your writings are great and keep up your work. Be patient. It will take time. alex,,thanks
Churches are Corporations
Since all churches are incorporated they are all still under control of the romans or vatican. Stick that Peter where the sun don’t shine and your a catholic.
Bart Ehrman Has An Agenda
I am currently reading that new book by Bart Ehrman. I took offense of his comments about your research. I am so glad you are writing a rebuttal. I really dislike his smug and arrogant attitude toward you and others who he deems “not scholarly.”
However from my evaluation he has an agenda. He tries to speak as an disinterested and non-invested scholar, but he is not. How can a man who is an professor in the religion department, with a degree in New Testament not have an agenda? Ehrman needs a “historical Jesus” in some measure to justify his salary. What would happen if his very field of study was bogus? Why would anyone need to do biblical studies at the level he critiques. Anyway, if you examine his conclusion, he summizes that Jesus was a disillusioned zealot who was killed for apocalyptic non-sense. Ehrman’s Jesus is not the Jesus which you expose or the Christian religion is based on. In the end, he has not advanced anything worth reconsidering the Mythicist perspective.
Don’t worry in time, like others he will be singing your praises but with crow in his mouth.
Dr. Price if possible please arrange a debate featuring Acharya, you Mike Liacona and Bart Ehrman. It would be nice to see who be the last person standing in the marketplace of ideas
What would Jesus NOT do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngM-hZGYKgE
my upbringing cotinued
My aunt died in her 80s. I went to her funeral and felt nothing. She died shortly after a leg amputation. They are both gone now as well as my father and step mother. May they all rest in peace. I bear no grudges against any of them. Many beliefs will evaporate in time and we humans will be better off because of it.
Keep up your work and continue it. Time will tell. Alexander Alfred Jacques,, I am 81 years old and still quite active. Thanks ,,Alex
Always had problems with Ehrman
Ehrman has always struck me as an intellectual lightweight. In his discussion of the [i]Testimonium Flavianum,[/i] it was obvious he swallowed it whole, and he didn’t even give a caveat that scholars question it. In [i]Misquoting Jesus,[/i] I realized he swallows the story of the life of Christ as told in the Bible. He doesn’t question it at all.
But then, he came to Christianity as a teenager, when most people are developing some skepticism, and swallowed it so completely that he became a literalist. The man obviously has a problem with credulity.
And when you questioned his favorite story, he went into hysterics.
So What?
What is it we have against the cock here? The anointing is really about the sperm and this is all about life. I understand that somebody said really bad things about you or your book or your scholarship but I see no reason to call the phallus into disrepute. It is a symbol of life itself.
the cock “is a symbol of life itself”
Hi Rita Gorman,
I respect your opinion about the phallus being “the symbol of life itself”.
Now I have nothing against a phallus, but doesn’t a womb play a role in creating life? I think before phallic symbols were created, way back in antiquity, there first were symbols of pregnant women as well as worship of the Goddess. What looks more life creating than a pregnant woman?
In my opinion, and I hope you respect mine, the symbol of life itself would be a sculpture of a phallus entering a vagina, which is the entrance to the womb, where the sperm must attach to an egg in order to create life….otherwise a phallus symbol on its own is just another cock.
Also,please tell me where you have found anyone making assertions putting “the phallus into disrepute”?
To a person who grew up in the Roman world, the phallus was the symbol of life itself.
There was a very long period of time in which the female was venerated in wide areas of Europe, at a time with Homo Sapiens co-occupied the land with Neanderthals. The large number of venus figures from that era make this fairly obvious.
… but times changed
The rise in violent empires, based on extorting a living from the farmers became “normal” given time.
*ROME*, was one of these empires, and was a very male dominated one. Empires are about conquering, and Roman men were taught that power was everything.
Roman culture was about male power. It was a society in which people could be property (and have no power) and in which the rape of defeated soldiers was extremely common (not due to sexual desire, but to show POWER). A whole lot of sexual contact in Rome was all about the power.
Rome was nominally a Republic, but it was a republic of waring factions, ruled by psychopaths. A Caesar came to power by being the toughest and most ruthless person … the best at deceit, manipulation, cruelty and the one with the most soldiers.
Roman common societal ideas concerning sex were all also about POWER. To a Roman, sexuality was about how the “penetrated” is inferior to the “penetrator”, and many surviving writings talk about sexuality in amazing ignorant ways when it comes to anyone enjoying being penetrated (especially males). Female-female sexuality was known in Rome, but none of the writings that survive show any understanding of “how” it might be possible without a phallus – because AGAIN, to the Romans the phallus was about POWER, using ones phallus was also about power.
Roman males were known to keep child slaves as sex toys (and even castrate them to keep them looking young). This was again, a relationship of POWER.
I came to the conclusions ages ago that in the Roman Empire, the men would have been crappy lovers. Good sex is about equals, about the joy of GIVING … not simply another expression of power.
Scrambled eggs. Scrambled brains.
Have you ever tried to UNscramble an egg?
It seems like Bart Ehrman’s goal is to scramble the brains of his readers when it comes to the subject of Jesus.
That is, a large number of people will read Ehrman’s latest book which will cause their brains to become scrambled with incorrect information on the mythicists and their works.
A significant number of the scrambled brains who read Ehrman’s book will never attempt to, or will never want to, or will never be able to, unscramble their brains to attain the truth or hear the mythicists’ positions.
In that regard, Ehrman is doing such an excellent job for the Christian Industry, you’d think that they asked him to do it.
What’s with all that anti-catholicism here?
Is that for real?
I happen to be one of those who thinks that only Catholic water will do, and further that Catholic water is really all that we need, but need it to bleed.
Of course once I start I will never be done and I am sure that my reader here will be gone long before I am done, pissed of as hell then also.
Oh right, and there will be no preaching in it, I promise.
Respectfully,
Bert
No bones at the Vatican
Jesus had no bones as the second Adam, did he? So how can they be at the Vatican, you say. At least, the first Adam did not have any bones as he was created by conjecture in the conscious mind only and not until the man’s eyes were opened and could see for himself now as ‘like god’ and not until Gen.3:10 (cf Gen.2:25).
So do we not know how to read? or do we just read with our eyes.
Bert
Bones?
Wha…huh?! Let’s make no bones about it: the “Jesus” of Xtianity is a mythical creation. Thank you Acharya! But, there were undoubtedly a number of guys named Yeshua, or whatever, running around Palestine in the early post year zero period, one of whom may have had some lasting effect on the course of a Jewish sect and their relation to their Roman overlords. James Tabor’s book “The Jesus Dynasty” is an entertaining read on what this character and his family may have been like.
The Catholic Church, being what it is and being very fond of relics, would have undoubtedly secreted the first class relics of their putative founder away somewhere very secure had they been in possession of them. They would never be willing to either acknowledge this or part with their precious corpus domini once he was elevated to full deity status. A fun fictional use of this idea is Tom Robbins’ 1971 novel “Another Roadside Attraction”.
Oh, and did I mention that Charles Pierce thinks that RC Rick Santorum, the current savior-select of the Republicans is a “colossal dick”?
re: Ehrman’s Dilemma
[quote name=”Truth is painful”]Poor Ehrman… [/quote]
With you on this point, Ehrman has failed to make sense with this latest book.
[quote name=”Truth is painful”]My only advise to you is that the only certain thing in our present existence is the fact that there is life on the other side after we die, but that life has no relationship to the demands made by the gods of the old or new testaments.
Reincarnation is the final element of life no matter if you believe or not; and reincarnation terminates when the final achievements have been reached. [/quote]
Err … what? Your certain about an afterlife but nothing else?
I think your even more credulous than Ehrman at this point.
Where is the evidence for reincarnation? We are here now, when we die we are gone. Some of the energy in our bodies will go to feed other organisms but the structure is lost.
Reincarnation…yes
I leave the issue of reincarnation for you to investigate by looking for the right material to read, although I could suggest a recent book that makes things very clear. “Handbook of Afterlife by Pamela R. Heath and Jon Klimo.”
Remember that when you go the other side you still have unresolved things to fix on earth and that is the reason to come back again. Of course, you must not forget that sometimes you also miss all the good stuff that you find on earth when you you are young, strong, good looking and you love all the beautiful women that are constantly being paraded in front of your eyes in the media of the 21st century–and the same applies for the men to whom women are attracted to. Basically that is reincarnation in a nutshell–you remember how good it felt being young and you don’t mind coming back even though you might have to face some painfull issues also as you grow old once again.
I bet nobody has described reincarnation to you that way. The internet also provides on Youtube some special cases involving children who remember previous lives. And remember the works of Ian Stevenson with children who remembered previous lives.
Good luck to you!
Did you say Christ in the Gosples? I always thought that Jesus died to set Christ free and did not appear until after jesus died and bled water to prove that he was the Christ for whom Jesus died.
Oh right, and then he left so we really do not know Christ do we? Except maybe thru Rome as that is where he is now and dwells among us from there.
Or is that not English again?
Bert
The reference to [b]Priapus[/b] used in The Christ Conspiiracy is stated as sourced from Barbara G. Walker’s, [i]The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects[/i]. Walker’s companion work is the [i]Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets[/i] and under the [b]Guignole, Saint[/b] heading there is found the following: “Phallic god of Gaul, probably a French name for [b]Priapus[/b], Christianized and worshipped in his own church at Brest. Even after adoption into the Christian canon, St. Guignole remained an ithyphallic figure, from whose erect penis women scraped splinters to assist in conception charms. The priests assisted by installing a trick penis in St. Guignole’s statue, which could be lengthened secretly from behind as it was scraped away in front.”
Interestingly, the unofficial national symbol of France is the [u]cock[/u]erel (young rooster; Lat. gallus) and their capital Paris has in its etymology Par, which contains the meaning “Lord of the Phallus” and unsurprisingly finds its erect phallic representation in the Eiffel Tower!
your knowledge
Dear Acharya — I am amazed at your knowledge of Christianity and also of other religions. I am NOT a Christian so my knowledge of Christianity is not so deep, but at the same time I can be obviously unbiased as I do not have preconceived dogmas. May GOD ( in whom you believe) give you a long life and more scholarly capacity to write such eye opening articles.
Shashikant
Why not try cooperation?
Acharia and Bart: I think that you are both really great authors and it causes me considerable pain to see you squabbling over minor issues. Put your differences aside, work together, and focus on debunking religions mythology. Please!
Thank you. The issue is unfortunately not with me, as I have never attacked any of Bart Ehrman’s works. On the contrary, I have quoted his books previously, as they accurately depict the state of affairs in the creation of Christianity, such as the forgery and fraud, etc.
I did not start this rancorous business, for which there was no need at all. Nor have I continued it here, other than addressing his calumnious remarks.
Elephant in the Room
Everyone say it….Christianity was founded by gay men as a gay cult. When you add the Therapeut factor into the equation it becomes…Christianity was founded by high as a kite gay conmen as a gay cult for profit and control.
Sorry to be so flippant but it sure looks that way.
Bart Ehrman is STUCK.
Please pardon my language as you read this post. I am going to be blunt. Bart D. Ehrman is like dog chasing it’s own tail.
Why? Because the bible is a book of social control.Therefore, the bible still has Bart by the balls. Maybe it’s the fact that he has invested way too much in his energy in resentments…that only continues to grow. He is totally consumed by an illusion that is married to a futility. This is NOT a joke, however “Phallic” it may be. George Carlin said it well…and he was very blunt when he said it. In quotes “My God has a Bigger D!C’K than your God”. That is what it ALL comes right down to…
Nothing but a bunch of preening and posturing Alpha Male Jack-Offs looking for what they call…”A Good Time”… Comparing the size of their cars, wallets and…”D!*KS. In another words…Their continued experience of “Repressed Homosexuality”.
mruglypig Looking forward to the debate.
I read Dr. Ehrman’s short article on this subject in the religion section on Huffington Post and was really shocked by how little evidence he presented. His argument against the mythicist position seemed to rely entirely on the fact that academic religious and biblical studies departments contain no mythicists Well everyone knows how open academia is to revolutionary ideas that challenge the basic theories of those in charge. I thought to myself that I hope his book is better, but apparently not. It should make for an interesting debate, though. Dr. Ehrman has been on a journey coming from being fundamentalist believer to sympathetic skeptic and interpreter of Christianity, but apparently can’t go “all the way” and let go of his finished cherished (and unproven) assumptions.
I’ve written Bart Ehrman
Hi Bart.
I have emailed you a couple of other times in the past and you were always very gracious in your replies.
I had written to commend you on your books, compliment you on your courage and honesty, and to tell you that your personal journey was similar to my own as it appeared that we are the same age.
Since then, I have recommended your books to others, given them as gifts, purchased your books just for the sale, since I already knew the message, and linked to your website on a few message board discussions.
Over the last 35 years of my independent study, I’ve read many different authors and commentaries/critiques of the Bible.
To cut to the chase here, Bart, Acharya S is madder than hell at you over comments you made about her in your new book.
I’ve the greatest of respect for Ms. Murdock. I believe she likewise is a seeker of the truth who just like you and me, took a personal journey that has lasted a lifetime. I believe her courage outdoes even yours!
For her, also, I have read and recommended her books to others, made purchases just for the sale, and linked to her website.
Her journey echoes my own, in that she has independently studied, not following any pre-cut path, is close to my age, and comes from a born again background. We may not hold chairs at prestigious universities, but our hearts and minds are in it 100%.
Because of authors like Ms. Murdock and the authors she uses as her sources (many of whom I had already read before she compiled them), I was prompted to study astrology over the course of the last 6 years.
Bart, I am standing with her on this because she is right! Its as plain as the sun, moon, and stars in the sky and the symbolism used in many, many churches today. Look up!
Craig Lyons of Bet Emet ministries also has compiled a huge website of sources documenting the heavy influence of astrological symbolism that fills the Bible.
Someone commented on her website that the cock only illustrates the homosexual priesthood that is at the root of Christianity. I’ll admit, it looks just like a dildo to me!
That same priesthood began as the Chaldeans who studied the night skys trying to determine what the gods were up to. The Babylonians who perfected geometry, astrology, and mathematics, the sacred sciences. The same Magi that Daniel belonged to. The priesthood that came up with the story of Samson that bears so much similarity to the story of Jesus. Hamlet’s Mill in the sky as written about by Santillana and
von Dechend. The grain gods of James Frazer and Robert Burn’s John Barleycorn that point to nature guided by the seasons that were governed by the zodiac and tells a story of a sacrifice hung on a cross.
I know you know about this! Why are you kicking against the pricks?
You owe an apology and retraction to Ms Murdock, Bart. And you should not criticize that which you yourself are not an expert on.
Sincerely
Professorial limitations
Some years ago I approached a professor of New Testament Studies at a prestigious British university with a proposition for a PhD topic. I wanted to investigate the construction of Mark’s Gospel because I was convinced it had a zodiacal structure and was not a ‘haphazard’ collection of random periscope. ‘There’s no way I could possibly supervise your studies,’ he said, ‘because I know nothing about astrology.’ It seemed to me that this was like saying, ‘I’m an expert in 60s music but I don’t know anything about the Beatles!’ According to Franz Cumont, astrology affected every aspect of life at the time the Gospels were written, but the academic community simply chooses to ignore this uncomfortable fact and persists in reading esoteric texts as if they are history.
Hi Acharya,
I am deeply grateful to you for your work, attitude and determination in seeking the truth, and for sharing it in such a delicious and brave manner with all of us.
I am sure your efforts are helping mankind in developing a global self-awareness!
Let us hope that each one of us will find the strength to become free of prepotency and tyranny, so we can start and continue thinking and acting with greater freedom.
With Light, Love and Joy,
Mário João Russo
The five pointed cross
As long as we’re on the lines of ancient phalli, the “Saviour of the World” dildo and depiction of the crucified Christ’s Abs as an extremely well-endowed phallus (like that of Priapus), may I inform or remind you that the cross the Romans used (the [i]crux[/i]) had a projecting seat that supported the crucified by means of penetration. This is actually attested to by some of the ancient Nonchristian writers, and affirmed by various church ‘fathers’, either implicitly or, like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian, explicitly.
Is it any wonder that, when confronted with with the charge of Christians worshipping “a criminal and his [i]crux[/i], Minucius Felix in his [i]Octavian[/i] 29 strenuously denied it, saying it was “far from the neighbourhood of the truth”?
Please remove
Please remove my previous post. I regret calling Ehrman hysterical. It was neither accurate nor gentlemanly.
the Murdoch Myth
Listen! Get wise you troupe of Humpty Dumptys!
Murdoch only prints comments to advance her book sales!
sHE HAS MODERATORS to approve the comments that can
generate hot air-words! I know countless people who have made comment on this particular article and they tell me none of their comments have ever appeared. Who gives a damn about
a bronze phallic hidden in the vatican or whether Jesus Christ
was an imposter that originated in Egypt.! Its a continual word
battle and words do not mean anything. Try finding some original
worth lady and your paid commentators.
N.B. THIS COMMENT WILL QUEUE-UP FOR APPROVAL BY
SIT ADMINISTRATORS!!! oH BOO HOO BOO HOO
lancelot–the murdoch myth
lancelot, you wrote “Who gives a damn about a bronze phallic hidden in the vatican…” May I ask what are you doing reading a post you are not interested in, in the first place? What brought you to Acharya’s site, only to trash her?
And please name the “countless” people whose posts were not printed here. Maybe you should also ask them why they “give a damn about a bronze phallic…” too. By the way, Acharya was referring to a bronze SCULPTURE of a phallus not a “bronze phallic”, something many men wish they had, I’m sure.
And since your post has passed through Acharya’s “sit administrators” and printed you can stop your “BOO HOO BOO HOO”
Another nutjob for the Lard. 😮
John Conolley, just read your comment above and it seemed fine to me. Errorman certainly is out of control in his latest book attempting to address mythicism. He even libels mythicists such as Acharya S accusing her of making stuff up when a cursory check would’ve proved otherwise. That’s sloppy and egregious scholarship at minimum.
“Errorman”?! LOL! 😀
Lancelot, I do not approve comments with malicious smears, insults and other abuses. You and others seem to think that as Freethinkers and Mythicists we are suppose to accept such abuse and be treated like 2nd class citizens that are to be bullied and discriminated against. There are plenty of other places to post your hate speech, bigotry, lies, smears and abuse, but it’s not here.
We’re more interested in conversations with people interested in the facts and credible evidence. Nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post here.
Virgin Mary’s vagina? Oh yes I know ! Our lady of Guadalupe!
I have read Acharya’s Christ Conspiracy and found it to be a scholarly
work. I can truly say I didn’t receive any of the information in her book during my Catholicism classes. Acharya is the type of woman that Christianity fears and centuries ago would have burned at the stake. I myself do not support these feelings and encourage her to continue her research.
David Jude Bulger
VIRGIN MARY VAGINA STATUE FOUND!!
It is NOT in the Vatican…. go to:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/itsmeggo
I don’t understand mister Ehrman
I have purchased many of Bart Ehrman’s books, however I don’t think that I’ll be buying any more.
I have Ehrman’s new book, “Did Jesus Exist?” and I have to agree with Dr. Price, the book is a “hack job,” which certainly earns Ehrman the nickname Errorman.
What I see as the most obvious problem with the book is that Dr. Bart Ehrman simply does not know much about the case for mythicism at all. Much of that is probably due to the fact that New Testament scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism at all. So, why would anybody in their right mind ever trust a New Testament scholar on the subject of mythicism? That’s like asking an electrician to do the brick mason work on your house.
Errorman misrepresents many of the mythicists he goes after, for example, he gets pretty much everything wrong regarding Acharya’s work. But that’s probably because he didn’t actually read it as this very blog shows. He didn’t mention Acharya’s mythicist position or her articles on the history of mythicism:
The Mythicist Position ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ[/url])
Ehrman also upholds the same tired nonsense that’s been debunked repeatedly as evidence for an historical Jesus. It’s embarrassing. And they give out Ph.D.’s for this crap? It’s a monumental disservice. Ehrman’s book is going to ruin his reliability and his credibility.
Very ironic that Christianity has roots as a gay cult and now it’s extremely homophobic.
Muslim and Christians share Phalic symbols
It is interesting that Muslim’s Black stone in Kaaba (Which is their holiest sign) is shaped like female Vulva and the Christian’s is like a male Cock!
May be all Christians and Muslims shall mate, and something good could come out of it !
Dear Pope please send your regards to the Ayatoallah..:-)
I hope the offspring would not be the devil!
Christ and Islam and Phalic Symbols
Since Jesus is nothing but the Sun God. The rooster/Cock is the one that early in the morning will call and then the sun rises. Most likely they thought that Rooster was the father of Sun, where Earth was the Mother of the Sun, since sun rises off the earth (coming out of earth belly).
Interesting to note that Muslims Black stone, set on the eastern corner of the Kaaba pointing to Moon rise, (Moon Goddess, mother of fertility and Sex), is a female Vulva. All Muslims pray to it and point to it.
So now we can see Christian’s Cock and Muslim’s Vulva!
May be time has come for Muslims and Christians to mate and put their differences apart.
Peace on earth
HIDDEN IN THE VATICAN
To Bart Ehrman,
If something is HIDDEN IN THE VATICAN, how can you claim it doesn’t exist, if it is HIDDEN?
Do you have keys to the Vatican or special access priviledges…or have you ever been there at all?
Whooops, so Ehrman (aka Errorman) didn’t even read the books he was criticizing as Ehrman’s grad student assistant admits that, “Ehrman did not even read the Mythicist books but farmed them out to his grad students to read and report on.” ([url]http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25540#p25540[/url])
Are you sure she’s a virgin?
Google “virgin mary, underpass Chicago”,click on images ,and you’ll see pictures of devout Catholics worshiping an image of a vagina on an underpass in the Chicago area.
Somehow, they think looks like G-Zeus’s mom , but I’m thinking they only show…. well… only her doctor and Joseph should see these images.
I’ll leave it to you to LOL with your own observations
Acharya changed my mind…
Acharya changed my mind years ago about Christianity especially combined with my daughters atheism, which also caused me to do research about God and Christianity. We are fortunate at this time to have the internet and forward thinkers like Acharya who I not only respect intellectually and as a fellow scholar, but I find her attractive as well, as any man would.
It is Symbolic
It is essential to realize the significance of the “cock” and “vulva” as symbols. The male and female reproductive organs are so much more than that. They are symbolic of spiritual truths which the literal mind can not easily grasp. The base understanding of these as being related to mundane sex is a pitfall for certain.
If upon looking at these statues, we see merely the organs of sexual reproduction – and stop there – we miss the realization of a higher truth which is concealed/revealed by such symbols.
“It is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small.”
– Bart Ehrman, “Did Jesus Exist?” page 182
“It is true that the Gospels are riddled with other kinds of historical problems and that they relate events that almost certainly did not happen…”
– Bart Ehrman, “Did Jesus Exist?” page 184
LOL, would somebody please address these fools at ex-christian.net:
Another Specious Claim By Acharya S?
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/42580-another-specious-claim-by-acharya-s/
They’re ridiculing the image of the cock/rooster statue claiming it doesn’t exist and need this link as well as all the links from the “Further Reading” posted over there. What a bunch of idiots!
I was a huge fan of Bart Ehrman but I’ve now seen his dishonesty with my very own experience. I will never trust him again. I know other people who’ve tried to post Acharya’s responses at Ehrman’s blog and Youtube videos too but, I didn’t believe them until I saw it for myself.
I’ve tried many times to post Acharya’s response at Dr. Bart Ehrman’s blog here:
http://ehrmanblog.org/acharya-s-richard-carrier-and-a-cocky-peter-or-a-cock-and-bull-story/
Dr. Bart Ehrman absolutely [b]REFUSES[/b] to allow my comments to be posted. To me it shows just how dishonest he really is. Ehrman will not allow these to be posted:
The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ hidden in the Vatican
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/669-the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican.html
Over 80 Rebuttals to Bart Ehrman’s Anti-Mythicist Book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25719#p25719
Response to Jonathan Burke
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4336
The end result is that people are misled into believing Ehrman has had the last word on the matter when nothing could be further from the truth. People like Dr. Ehrman get all the media press while Acharya’s work proving them wrong gets omitted. I was never a fan of hers due to all the attacks on her on the net, but now, I finally see what’s REALLY going on.
These cowards hide behind their Ph.D’s in the fallacious form of credentialism even as they’ve been proven wrong repeatedly. If people knew about the utter dishonesty in New Testament scholarship there would be serious backlash. I very strongly feel that a serious investigation is badly needed.
Send this e-mail to both Harpers Publishing at feedback2@harpercollins.com and Bart Ehrman:
Libel in Ehrman’s ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ Book
Hello Harper Publishing,
I would like to launch an official complaint on a book titled “Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman.
This type of sloppy work by Bart Ehrman, who’s suppose to be a scholar, is absolutely not acceptable. Dr. Ehrman misrepresents the mythicists and their arguments he is addressing – I know this for a fact because I have their books too! But the worst treatment of all are his comments about Acharya S – he defames, smears and libels her and claims she “love to make things up.”
From Ehrman’s book page 24:
“‘Peter’ is not only ‘the rock’ but also ‘the cock,’ or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day.” Here Acharya shows (her own?) hand drawing of a man with a rooster head but with a large erect penis instead of a nose, with this description: “Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasure of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter” (295). [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 S has responded to this libel in this blog:
“In insinuating that I drew the image myself, Ehrman is indicating he did not notice the citation under it in my book, clearly referring to Barbara Walker’s work. He is further implying that I simply make things up, and he is asserting with absolute certainty that no such bronze has existed in the Vatican, essentially stating that I fabricated the entire story. Contrary to these unseemly accusations, the facts are that I did not draw the image, the source of which was cited, and that, according to several writers, the image certainly is “hidden” in the Vatican, as I stated….”
– The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ hidden in the Vatican
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/669-the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican.html
Over 80 Rebuttals to Bart Ehrman’s Anti-Mythicist Book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25719#p25719
I would like a serious response from Harper about Ehrman’s libel and what Harper plans to do about it? At the bare minimum Dr. Bart Ehrman owes Acharya S an official apology.
Thanks
The new book is finally out: Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth ([url]http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27791#p27791[/url]) [Paperback] by authors Acharya S/D.M. Murdock, Robert M. Price Ph.D. (Editor), Frank R. Zindler (Editor), Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier Ph.D., René Salm and David Fitzgerald
I just read the quote by Dr. Price calling Bart Ehrman’s comments on this issue about Acharya, “LIBEL”:
“Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works.”
– Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’
Richard Carrier defended Acharya on this issue in the book too as well as across several of his own blogs:
“At the very least I would expect Ehrman to have called the Vatican museum about this, and to have checked the literature on it, before arrogantly declaring no such object existed and implying Murdock made this up … She did not make that up. The reason this error troubles me is that it is indicative of the carelessness and arrogance Ehrman exhibits throughout this book … [Ehrman] often doesn’t check his facts, and clearly did little to no research. This makes the book extremely unreliable. A reader must ask, if he got this wrong, what other assertions in the book are false? And since making sure to get details like this right is the only useful purpose this book could have had, how can we credit this book as anything but a failure?”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026
The Priapus Affair
“In his second reply he addressed one single point in my review. And here I believe there is reason to suspect he is lying about the Priapus statue. In my review of his book I called him out for saying (certainly very clearly implying) that Murdock “made up” the statue at the Vatican that she presents a drawing of and says is a symbol of Peter. He clearly did not call the Vatican about it or research the claim at all.”
“[Bart Ehrman] said in a podcast (before my review and before Murdock herself exposed him on this) that the statue did not in any sense exist.
That’s right. On Homebrewed Christianity, April 3 (2012), “Bart Ehrman on Jesus’ Existence, Apocalypticism & Holy Week,” timestamp 20:30-21:10: at this point in that podcast, Ehrman says Acharya talks about Peter the cock and shows a drawing of a statue with a penis for a nose and claims this is in the Vatican museum, at which Ehrman declares, with laughter, “It’s just made up! There is no such s[tatue]… It’s just completely made up”.”
[P.S. After publishing this post, it occurred to me to mention as well, that in fact he gives no argument at all in his book for why Murdock is wrong to conclude this is a statue of Peter. His only argument is that the statue doesn’t exist. Which only makes sense as a rebuttal if indeed he meant the statue wholly did not exist. Otherwise, why is she wrong to conclude it symbolizes Peter? Ehrman doesn’t say. This seems to me strong evidence that he is now lying about what he really thought and meant when writing the book. Because surely he would give a reason why she is wrong. So what reason did he give?]”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1117
Bart Ehrman should be sued for libel. Maybe Dr.’s Price, Zindler, Carrier, Doherty, Acharya and the rest should start a ‘class action lawsuit’?
Thank you for the recap of those events and for caring! I agree that people should be held accountable for libelous comments, especially those who are so loose with such charges.
Ehrman libeled several people in his book with the same calumny of fabrication. His behavior was completely irresponsible.
Yes, his publishers should be made known as to the legally actionable behaviors. A class-action libel lawsuit might not be a bad idea. Any legal eagles out there interested?
.
Do not rebuke me again one time … I suggest you carefully read the patristic literature of the early centuries .. Perhaps the explanation could be right there …
To whom are you speaking, Gianni? I’ve read the patristic literature from the early centuries – in the original Greek and Latin. And you?
Explanation for what?
.
To whom are you speaking, Gianni? I’ve read the patristic literature from the early centuries – in the original Greek and Latin. And you?
Explanation for what?
——————————————–
I have read the patristic literature in the English version, since in Italy there are not Italian translations of the patristic literature.
I’m talking about the reference to the ‘cock-membrum’ as a symbol for Priapus. It should also perceive the link between Hermes and Priapus …. The Jesus of history is NOT the one described in the literature Catholic Christian, but a very different character. The founding fathers, in addition to having deified Jesus through the use of models mythological, they deeply distorted his real human profile and his real human story. Even in rabbinic literature (the one uncensored) we find a clear reference to the link between the membrum and the figure of Jesus …
(NOTE: the link between the figure of Peter and the ‘cock-membrum’, it is absolutely spurious)
Best regards,
Littlejohn
.
Thanks, but there was no “Jesus of history,” except the many “Jesuses” of Josephus and elsewhere who were not “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Say the following slowly and firmly, Gianni:
The “Jesus Christ” of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters. A composite of multiple “people” is no one. When the mythological and midrashic layers are removed, there remains no “historical” core to the onion.
You can do it, Gianni. You keep hanging around for a reason. I can guarantee you it ain’t to bring me to your point of view, because that ain’t gonna happen. I am not going to take drugs and lower my IQ, or open up my brain and dump out its contents of historical facts dating back thousands of years in multiple languages to accommodate unscientific and erroneous data. :s
Cheers.
.
One more note: The Shepherd of Hermas other was not than a priest of the cult of Hermes. In addition, the figure of the shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders, was a symbol-figure for Hermes and this I think you know better than me ….
The Shepherd of Hermas essentially proves that gospel story is fictional and based a [i]myth[/i]. The book was quite clearly pre-Christian and was reworked to stick “Jesus Christ” in there. I think the words “Christ” and “Jesus” appear in Hermas a total of four times – and that’s a long book.
In the meantime, perhaps you shouldn’t use the “sungod” email address, as you appear not to comprehend solar mythology.
[quote]”The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles…is a parody of the sun and the twelve signs of the Zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the Eastern world…. Every thing told of Christ has reference to the sun. His reported resurrection is at sunrise, and that on the first day of the week; that is, on the day anciently dedicated to the sun, and from thence called Sunday…”
Thomas Paine, [i]The Complete Religious and Theological Works of Thomas Paine[/i] (382)[/quote]
Thank you.
It is not an “unquestioned fact” that Sanskrit is the oldest living language. Sanskrit is a later version of Vedic, which is an earlier branch of the Indo-European language tree. This tree’s roots do not lead to Vedic, however.
[img]http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg[/img]
These Indo-European languages are hypothesized to come from a very old root in southern India, possibly 12,000 years ago. One such thesis is called the Nostratic hypothesis ([url]http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/420480/Nostratic-hypothesis[/url]). See also: Nostratic languages ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages[/url])
The oldest known language would be much older than Sanskrit, which appears to have taken its final shape during the third or so century BCE. Hebrew is centuries older than that.
As concerns “living” languages, again, Hebrew would be older than Sanskrit, both of which are used in religious ceremonies. Modern Hebrew is spoken, whereas Hindi is Sanskrit’s legacy, as are Urdu and other dialects.
Egyptian writings are much older than the Rig Veda, which is dated conservatively to around 3,000 years ago. There are schools of thought that believe the concepts in the Rig Veda date back to much earlier generations, but it cannot be said truthfully that the Rig is the oldest text in the world. Sumero-Babylonian stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh date to around 1800 BCE and some go further back than that. The Egyptians were writing down stories at least 5,000 years ago.
But you are correct that Sanskrit is closer to the root of many Indo-European words than are various other languages.
Hindu origin of christiniaty
It is an unquestioned fact that sanskrit is the oldest living language, the most grammatically correct language & the oldest manuscript available today is rigved (the hindu holyscript).
Pitar (sanskrit) in rigved is the title given to shiva and pitar means father (english). co incidently shiva is symbolized with THE penis and his better half shakti is the THE vegina.
just google shiva lingam and you will know.
Pitar (sanskrit) –> Father
Pitar (sanskrit) –> Petra
Pitar (sanskrit) –> Peter
Matar/Matr(sanskrit) –> Mother (mary)
Brathr (sanskrit) –> Brother
sodaryA (sanskrit) –> sister
Purohit (sanskrit) –> Priest
Bhat(sanskrit) –>abbot
isha (sanskrit) –>isah (jesus) =Lord
Christna (sanskrit) –>Christ = anointed one
nity (sanskrit) = following/rule thus christna(sanskrit)+nity(sanskrit)=christianity.
IF YOU LOOK GOOGLE MAPS FOR VATICAN THEN THE VATICAN LOOKS LIKE A VAGINA WITH A PENIS AT THE CENTER. the exact resemblance of shiva lingam from hinduism.
http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lingam-1.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M57DE-ngm8k
.
“..The “Jesus Christ” of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters. A composite of multiple “people” is no one. When the mythological and midrashic layers are removed, there remains no “historical” core to the onion…”
—————————————–
Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical character. However, the ‘Jesus Christ’ of the Catholic-Christian cult, was the result of a syncretic superposition of TWO really historic characters: namely, Jesus the ‘resurrected ‘and operator of ‘miracles’, and Christ the ‘crucified’. (a character whose historical existence is officially denied by the forger clergy, which has been done crucify by the Romans in the 30s)
“..The Shepherd of Hermas essentially proves that gospel story is fictional and based a myth..”
No, dear, the Shepherd of Hermas (and other) it is evidence that the New Testament was written by a heterogeneous team, made up of pagan priests-theologians, gnostic-jesuans traitors and survivors of the previous ‘Judeo-Christian’ cult, founded in Antioch of Syria between the 85-90 years and ceased to exist with the war of Bar Kochbah. Believe it or not, this team was referred to with the latin term LUCOS, from which the name of the fictitious evangelist LUCAS/LUKE.
Best regards,
Littlejohn
.
It has already been demonstrated – proved – to you repeatedly that there was no “historical Jesus of Nazareth.” My statement concerning the “Jesus Christ” of the New Testament as a FICTIONAL CHARACTER remains true and factual. You continue to repeat the same fallacies.
It is obvious that you are not capable of learning and that you simply parrot endlessly the same discredited assertions. Such behavior would be considered “trolling,” which is why you continue to be banned from the wide variety of resources you have accessed in order to harass me with these erroneous assertions.
Let me repeat it again for the record:
THE “JESUS CHRIST” OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS A MYTHICAL FIGURE. AS SUCH HE WAS NOT IN ANY CAPACITY A HISTORICAL FIGURE. HENCE, THERE WAS NO HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH.
What I have stated above regarding the Shepherd of Hermas remains true and factual as well: The text is part of the pre-Christian corpus that was reworked in order to falsify a “historical” Christianity. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Cheers.