• April 21, 2024

Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel?

In Did Jesus Exist? (p. 24), New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman quotes my book The Christ Conspiracy and refers to an image of a bronze sculpture of a cock, commenting in brackets (except for my “sic”):

“’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.]

Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symThe quote from my book is on p. 168, while the image in question is on p. 295b. The two are not related, except that I say the cock/rooster – not the statue – is a symbol of St. Peter, explaining the “awkward” wording of the phallic image’s caption, which I deliberately did that way for just such emphasis: “Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter

Along with many other indications throughout his book, Ehrman’s conflation of the quote on p. 168 with the image on p. 295b suggests he did not even read my book but evidently farmed it out and the other works he is critiquing to assistants.

Because Ehrman apparently didn’t read my book, he also didn’t notice the citation of Barbara G. Walker’s Woman’s Dictionary of Sacred Symbols and Objects, where the sculpture image came from, suggesting erroneously instead that I drew it myself.

Ehrman obviously didn’t know that the “priapus gallinaceus” is an entire genre or that this bronze statue was in the Vatican. After being shown the evidence, he later stated the statue does exist and is in the Vatican (below), but he disingenuously pretends that his original, inaccurate reference to it being “of Peter” means he didn’t err in saying it didn’t exist:

Bart Ehrman on Facebook, 12.14Again, I never said the statue was of Peter, despite the fact that in other parts of the book (pp. 168-169 and 285) I do discuss the “peter” and “cock” symbolism, the latter in a chapter called “The Bible, Sex and Drugs.” I also include on p. 169 in a section about Peter and the phallic meaning of his name in a quote from Barbara Walker (Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, 79) concerning the bronze sculpture:

The cock was another totemic “peter” sometimes viewed as the god’s alter ego. Vatican authorities preserved a bronze image of a cock with an oversize penis on a man’s body, the pedestal inscribed “The Savior of the World.” The cock was also a solar symbol.

While the “cock/peter” is associated in this paragraph with the sculpture, it is clear from the word “preserved” that Walker means it is a pre-Christian artifact, one of the priapus genre, as discussed in my article “The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ at the Vatican revisited.” Hence, neither of us has identified or equated this priapus gallinaceus in question as a “statue of Peter,” as Ehrman erroneously asserts. In addition to its other features, a remarkable aspect of the statue is its inscription “Savior of the World,” of interest to us because it does not refer to Jesus or other Christian figure but indicates a pre-Christian salvation cult using the same language employed also to describe Christ.

Instead of apologizing for his errors and misrepresentations, Ehrman thus deflects and mocks me further, even though it is he who did not know about the priapus gallinaceus, such that he himself thus is not a “scholar of antiquity.”

Despite his unprofessional antics, Ehrman clearly defamed me by claiming that the statue did not exist, that it wasn’t in the Vatican and that I “made it up.” Thus, his comments in DJE are FALSE and libelous.

Ehrman book by Zindler and Price, with Murdock, Carrier and othersMoreover, as demonstrated in dozens of pages of my criticisms, several other of Ehrman’s remarks in DJE about my work are also false, as are many of his comments concerning the works of other mythicists, likewise rebutted in some 80 different essays. A number of these essays are included in the rebuttal book edited by Frank Zindler and Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Bart Ehrman needs to retract his falsehoods and apologize, or his book needs to be pulped.

Further Reading

The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ hidden in the Vatican
The phallic ‘Savior of the World’ at the Vatican revisited
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
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (Kindle)
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (Hard copy)
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (Forum thread)
Bart Ehrman’s Book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ (Forum thread)
Bart Ehrman errs again – this time about virgin births
Does Josephus prove a historical Jesus?

Did Bart Ehrman lie and libel?

78 thoughts on “Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel?

  1. The very statement of Dr. Errorman, “…or anywhere else expect in books like this, which love to make things up” is fallacious.

    Correct me if I’m wrong with this Acharya, but if the rumors are true that Errorman is just using cliff notes from his assistants, looking at that photo alone with the caption “symbol of Peter”, an automatic response would be the statue is Peter which makes it equivocal but I agree that if he acted like a true scholar, he wouldn’t rely on mere index card summaries but he will read the book and look on the texts and cross reference it afterwards. His use of the term “…anywhere else except in books like this…” an erroneous universal assumption, thus he committed an Existential fallacy.

    There are other stupid things Errorman said in his crappy book like:

    !. Pliny the Younnger’s letter to his boss Trajan on the assembly of “Christians” and how it affects the fire brigade in Bithynia as a proof of a historical Jesus.
    2. Pagan gods didn’t resurrect from the dead and there are not ancient sources for this mythicist claim.
    3. No baptism in mystery, pagan religions.
    4. The following are INDEPENDENT proofs of Jesus’s miraculous birth namely “Protoevangelion of James, Justin Martyr, and Q)
    5. The Gospels used sources written in Aramaic and the Aramaic sources used are written during year 30 CE.

    1. Thanks. Could you provide page numbers for those ridiculous claims? I don’t really want to pick through Ehrman’s crappy book defaming me. It frankly makes me ill.

      1. I haven’t read the book either. Fortunately, Richard Carrier provided page numbers as he lambasted Ehrman.

        1. Pliny corespondence (pages 51-52)
        2. No dying and rising gods (page 26)
        3. No pagan baptism (page 28)
        4. Independent proofs of his existence (page 87)
        5. Aramaic sources (page 88)

        1. Thanks.

          Well, I’ve read enough of it to critique the parts that addressed my work, obviously, but I couldn’t stomach the whole thing. Glad Carrier’s done that at least.

          It’s frankly pathetic that the thing continues to sell reasonably well.

        2. Ehrman doesn’t say anything about “proofs of Jesus’s miraculous birth namely “Protoevangelion of James, Justin Martyr, and Q)” on pg. 87 of his book.

          1. Fine, because I haven’t read the book you may be right but it doesn’t change the fact that the Historical Jesus of “Did Jesus Exist” by Bart Ehrman is still scanty and very problematic.

            “The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth” -Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6, 83), WWJ page 84

            Not only that, he is the epitome of the fallacy “Appeal to Authority”. For Ehramn, you’re only credible scholar if you posses a PhD and working as a tenured professor. He commits a “No-Scotsman Fallacy” for assuming that no scholar living questions Jesus’s existence. Here’s what Dr. Robert M. Price says about that who has two PhDs (Theology and NT from Drew University)

            “As for this tiresome business about there being “no scholar” or “no serious scholar” who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn’t it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion. If one is interested in the question one must evaluate the issues and the evidence for oneself.”

        3. Jon,

          Thanks for admitting your errors (see below). But isn’t it ironic that you are guilty of making the same mistakes for which you and others on this post accuse Ehrman? (i.e. not reading opponents books, and making false accusations). That seems hypocritical and disingenuous. Perhaps an apology from you is in order?

          On a different note, you are incorrect that the four gospels are the only sources regarding Jesus. For starters, you are forgetting the writings of Paul.

          1. The Pauline epistles do not represent history for they are just sayings of the main proselytizer of Christianity. Furthermore, Paul is not an eyewitness of Jesus’s life. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, five hundred saw him ascend to heaven and yet there are no contemporary records of this event. In Matthew 27:51-53, no records of zombies prancing at Jerusalem were recorded. If you’re going to refer to the few alleged secular sources of Jesus’s historicity, those few sentences do not represent eyewitness.

            1. TF by Josephus
            The alleged time of Jesus’s existence according to tradition is somewhere at year 4 BCE~33 CE. Josephus was born at year 37 CE and died at 100 CE. Also, the paragraph on TF is an abrupt interruption, and no other Early Church father mentions it except Eusebius. Furthermore, one should wonder why a devout Jew would give a product placement for Christianity?

            2. Pliny the Younger’s letter to his boss Trajan
            First of all, the word “Christos” is common prior to the common era. In fact, the Greek OT mentions “Christos” several times. Strong’s Concordance (G5547) defines it as a title, not a name. Secondly, his letter to Trajan doesn’t refer to people worshipping a man that has something to do with Jesus of the NT. Thirdly, many pagan gods are bear the epithet “Christ”, so we are dealing with “Christianities” here, not Christianity.

            3. Suetonius’s Life of Claudius
            The word “Chrestos” doesn’t mean the same thing as “Christos” even if they’re sound the same. “Chrestos” mean good, ergo “Chrestians” are good people which is not the same as “Christos”.

            4. Annals by Tacitus
            Despite the attempts to place it at the start of the second century, it didn’t appear in historical record until 14th century. Tertullian mentioned it once, but not the other Church fathers. All the alleged artifacts that connects this gruesome event to history is nothing but an archeological fraud.

            5. Thallus, Phlegon, Bar Serapion
            Thallus only reports a solar eclipse, not the darkening of the sky because of his death. Same goes with Phlegon who reported an earthquake and eclipse, not the death of a supernatural savior. Bar Serapion mentioned execution of a king, but nowhere it describes Jesus’s execution.

            6. Talmud
            The Talmud doesn’t represent history of Jesus because it only appeared during year 200 CE, where Christianity is already a thing. All it says about Jesus is hearsay.

            The Septuagint first appeared in Egypt because it was translated by Jews who are cognizant of Greek especially in Alexandria, Egypt. Within Alexandria, there’s a trade of information especially in the Hellenization of Jewish teachings. Philo of Alexandria talks about the “Logos”. Surprisingly, Philo never mentions Jesus of Nazareth but in the Gospel of John, it also talks about the “Logos”. Furthermore in Alexandria, cultures all over Levant, Mediterranean, as well as East Asia are being poured in that’s why there’s so much similarities between Christianity and pagan religions. (See Alexandrian Roots of Christianity, Christ In Egypt and an article by mythicist Ken Humphreys http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html)

            With regards to the Justin Martyr quote, you can find that in the Catholic Encyclopedia. In fact, Tertullian himself admits that pagans did washings to anoint people, hence baptism.

            “For washing is the channel through which [the heathen] are initiated into some sacred rites—of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings.”

            Now, report this to your boss Ehrman.

          2. JonM, don’t let people like David B confuse you. If there are errors in your comment then, David B needs to take it up with Richard Carrier:

            “Fortunately, Richard Carrier provided page numbers as he lambasted Ehrman.

            1. Pliny corespondence (pages 51-52)
            2. No dying and rising gods (page 26)
            3. No pagan baptism (page 28)
            4. Independent proofs of his existence (page 87)
            5. Aramaic sources (page 88)”

            And no, we are *NOT*: “guilty of making the same mistakes for which you and others on this post accuse Ehrman”

            Where are the malicious smears and libel and defamation?

      2. There are two things involved in all these discussions. One is the perennial wisdom transmitted throughout the ages by individuals such as Dakshinamurti, Krishna, Buddha, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Ramana Maharshi. As I demonstrated in my comment at Amazon to your book “Christ in Egypt”, wisdom has nothing to do with organizations, hierarchies and authorities. It’s about an individual investigation of one’s true nature.
        Concepts, mental constructions or representations are not the thing-in-itself. To live only in the field of the mental constructions is obviously to live in a world of illusion, as Vedanta says. The Sanskrit word “Maya” means “to measure”, “to evaluate”. When I evaluate what is a tree, for instance, and I am convinced that my mental representation corresponds truly to the tree, I am living under an illusion. My mental construction is just a “shadow” of the tree, so to say. The tree itself cannot be apprehended by the intellect. Kant demonstrated this fact very well.
        How can I, ignorant of myself, know what life is, what the universe is? If I do not know myself, I am contributing to create disorder in the world.
        If I want to see who I really am, I cannot look at my own self through a concept. The mental constructions have to quiet down. I have to go out of the allegorical cave, where I can see only shadows. However, the shadows are part of the totality of life, and I’ll see them outside the cave also. But I’ll not be confused and think that the shadows are the things-in-themselves, as I do when I’m living chained inside the cave.
        So, the spiritual message is a message of lucidity, fullness and freedom.
        The second thing which is involved is the wrong use of this message. It is a diabolical thing to use the message of freedom to enslave people, as Krishnamurti said.
        Do not feel bad…. The strong negation of what-is-not is an enormous contribution to the discovery of what-really-is. Your work is a gift to humanity.

        1. Thank you for sharing.

          I don’t go by that name, however, and I’ve never publicly revealed my name. Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia, with its Christian apologist gatekeepers. If I wanted people to know and use my first name, I would be using it.

      3. Actually, Ehrman never states that there are Aramaic sources written around 30 C.E. He states, “Some of these earlier written texts have been shown beyond reasonable doubt to date back at least to the 50s of the Common Era (92).” Perhaps you should quote him properly.

        1. David B, Actually, Bart Ehrman DOES claim that the Aramaic sources date back to the 30s:

          “But most significant of all, each of these numerous Gospel texts is based on oral traditions that had been in circulation for years among communities of Christians in different parts of the world, all of them attesting to the existence of Jesus. And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus.”
          – Bart Ehrman, DJE page 92-3

          David, you seem a bit selective in your quote-mining here. Speaking of quoting Ehrman properly, why couldn’t you?

          1. There is a different between written text and oral text. You are confusing the two. My original point still stands.

          2. LOL, David B, you could not be any more disingenuous. It’s pretty obvious that you are a Bart Errorman fanboy whose agenda is to shore up your faith in your beloved Jesus at all costs – even if it means being dishonest. What would Jesus say about your dishonesty?

            If you have a problem with the fact that: “Bart Ehrman DOES claim that the Aramaic sources date back to the 30s”, you’ll need to take it up with Bart Ehrman:

            “…some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus.”
            – Bart Ehrman, DJE page 92-3

            I have just checked Ehrman’s book, which I own and the quote is accurate. So, when can we expect an apology from you?

            David B, post this blog over at Bart Ehrman’s blog and give him the opportunity to respond.

        2. No. The gospels didn’t come from Aramaic sources but from Greek. All of those so-called Messiahnic prophecies aren’t prophecies but blueprints from the Greek OT (Septuagint). Evidence show that the gospels are written by Diasporic Jews who lived within Egypt, especially Alexandria. Even if the gospels are truly derived from Aramaic oral traditions, what are those Aramaic traditions?

          With regards to his “no pagan baptism and resurrection”. That’s false. One primary source for the pagan baptism and resurrection is Justin Martyr.

          “And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

          1. JonM,

            Please cite this “evidence” that you claim, “show that the gospels are written by Diasporic Jews who lived within Egypt.”

            Also, please cite and quote Justin Martyr.

      4. Ok, what about the early church fathers you wrote nothing on them. If Gospels are unreliable then why will the early church fathers quote them. Please answer.

        1. Joseph: “Ok, what about the early church fathers you wrote nothing on them. If Gospels are unreliable then why will the early church fathers quote them. Please answer.”

          LOL, that’s a completely separate blog as this one is about the utter dishonesty by a trusted scholar who has ruined his own credibility. Acharya S has plenty of blogs, articles and books about the unreliability of the gospels.

          According to scholars, greater than 75% of the New Testament consists of forgeries. Forged documents outnumber the authentic more than 3 to 1.


    2. I agree with you concerning Bart Ehrman. I watched a debate with David Wallace and Bart Ehrman. And David wallace was always point on truth with his statements and comments and sources and quotes! But this guy Bart Ehrman. The guy is always all over the place. He don’t always truly quote people word per batum. Nor does he hardly ever tell about the education and knowlege backrounds of the people he actually does quote. I dont even know why the school board allows him to teach at the college? I sure wouldn’t want him as a teacher of mine! If he was? He would not like me. I would really do my research outside of what he taught and lectured about in class. And im sure I would eventually make him look like a fool and embarase him. Not even trying to do that on purpose. When he is supposed to be a “true scholar”? God bless you!

  2. “…Ehrman needs to retract his falsehoods and apologize, or his book needs to be pulped” I vote for both. .As mentioned, Ehrman obviously did not read Ms. Murdocks book. To me, this seems like an attempt, by Ehrman to drag Ms. Murdock through the mud in order to promote his own self-interest with inferior writings and opinions. Anyone who seriously seeks knowledge regarding this, should look no further than the works of Ms. Murdock and Ms. Walker, not Ehrman, who appears to take pleasure in belittling one of the greatest minds in the research and writing of Mythicism.

    1. Did Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S) read history before writing her book? Note her historical errors:

      1. Got the birth date for Augustine wrong
      2. Was wrong about Ireanaeus being a gnostic
      3. Misinterpreted the love feast (eucharist) as a sexual rite.
      4. Got the date wrong for when Christianity was made the official religion in the Roman empire.

      When will Murdock correct these errors and apologize for them?

      1. Since you can’t even spell “Irenaeus” properly, will you retract your remarks?

        I’ve had an errata page for Christ Con online for YEARS, but you wouldn’t know that fact, and neither would Ehrman, because he didn’t even read my book. There’s a world of difference between making minor errors of fact and LYING about having read someone’s work and then LIBELING that individual with SMEARS and CALUMNY.

        1. I have read your book, and none of the errors I pointed out above appear on your errata page. Seems that you need to add a few corrections. Erroneously claims, like Irenaeus was a gnostic, is not minor, especially when it is a significant contribution to your overall thesis. However, correcting these errors would cause your entire thesis to collapse. So, why haven’t you corrected these errors?

          1. I also have a second edition in the works in which all real errors will be correct. It is false to state that correcting ANY of the errors, supposed or real, in my first edition “would cause your entire thesis to collapse.” That’s utter nonsense. If you are going to continue to post such erroneous and hyperbolic remarks, I frankly am not interested in continuing this discussion. It is clear from your comments here that you are interested not in a factual and respectful discussion but in hostility and a “pissing contest.”

            In the meantime, with your hostile and erroneous contentions you are trying to protect the reputation of someone who clearly lied and libeled me, which casts doubt on your own integrity and honesty. Anyone concerned about truth would not be piling on when someone has been wronged.

        2. You state, “It should be further noted that the vast majority of the errata are typos and not “historical inaccuracies.” This is factually incorrect, as I have also pointed out above.

          1. My comments are not factually incorrect, and your opinion is merely one of hostility. What is your intention here? Simply to pile on the abuse that Ehrman committed in his wretched screed?

          2. Actually your claims about Irenaeus being a gnostic and Augustine living at the same time as the Council of Nicea ARE factually incorrect. Furthermore, pointing out your errors (which is what I have done) is not abuse. It is part of academia.

          3. Again, I acknowledged the error with Augustine and Nicaea years ago, so quit flogging that dead horse. And I disagree with your assessment about Irenaeus and Gnosticism. You may read what I posted earlier about that subject, as there is no need for me to repeat it. I’m quite sure that you didn’t know the information in my earlier post, so stop pretending as if you do.

            You may also refrain from the condescension, insults to the intelligence and airs of superiority. Since I created an errata page a DECADE ago and just recently another one for my Moses book, I am well aware of the academic practice of correcting errors. Your remarks are more of the snide nonsense you keep repeating.

        3. I hope that you do correct these errors in a second edition. In the very least, as I have implored, you should take responsibility now. But you have only made multiple attempts to evade the issues (i.e. your distraction about an errata page and my typo regarding Irenaeaus). You have attempted to avoid the hard issues. Upon publication of a second edition, we can judge, if your thesis still stands. I have simply expressed my doubts, as you grossly misrepresent the eucharist (“love feast”) as a sexual act. This calls into question your entire section on Christian attitudes towards sexuality. On a different note, from this discussion it should be clear that I am concerned about facts, as I’ve pointed out numerous factual errors in your book as well as the posts of your “fans” (see above). None of my words have been hostile. Therefore, any disdain for my words is simply a disdain for historical integrity. I have no association with Ehrman, so it’s misguided to transpose your anger toward him, upon me. Any ill will that you have toward him should be focused in his direction and not me. Otherwise, you are misdirecting your frustration and ignoring the errors in your own work. Focusing upon Ehrman does not make your errors in research disappear.

          1. Your continued disrespect proves nothing but your own ill manners, as I am under no obligation to be addressing you in the first place. My posting of my errata page was to demonstrate that I assuredly do take responsibility for my work and acknowledge factual errors, so please quit with the phony moral high horse. Your contentions were quite WRONG in several instances, such as the patently absurd suggestion that Ehrman’s libelous remarks were equivalent to any factual errors in my work. Here you continue to compound your errors.

            I’m beginning to get the impression that you are a Christian apologist and are using Ehrman’s fallacious and erroneous work in order to assail me so that you can pretend that Christianity is historical.

            Here is what I said in Christ Con (283-294) about “love feasts” – as we can see, it is you who are “grossly misrepresenting” this issue, as you apparently did not even understand it.

            Christianity and Sex

            Because of such fervent repression, Christianity is perceived as having nothing whatsoever to do with sex. In reality, rather than the picture of peaceful, celibate devotees commonly portrayed, early Christians themselves were viewed as sexual deviants and perverts. That this perception was a problem is verified not only in the writings of the Church fathers but in the canonical Letter of Jude, in which the author is concerned with the impression given by men who were “blemishes” on Christian “love feasts”:

            “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ… just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the fleshThese are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves… ”

            Walker explains the meaning and origin of these mysterious Christian “love feasts”:

            “Agape or ‘love feast’ was a rite of primitive Christianity, adapted from pagan sexual worship. Another name for the agape was synesaktism, that is, the imitation of Shaktism, which meant the Tantric kind of love feast involving sexual exchange of male and female fluids and a sense of transcendent unity drawn therefrom. Early church fathers of the more orthodox strain described this kind of worship and inveighed against it. Some time before the seventh century, the agape was declared a heresy and was suppressed.”

            Some of the Gnostic Christian sects utilized ancient sex rituals considered vulgar by the orthodox Christian cultists and used by them to discredit Gnosticism. A number of these practices were in fact open to honest charges of lewdness, vulgarity and perversion, but the orthodox Christian movement certainly has not been devoid of such behavior, nor have been the adherents of any ideology known to mankind. Over the centuries many perversions have gone on behind monastery walls and church doors, including the ongoing abuse of young boys and girls, sexually assaulted or raped by “celibate” priests. This abominable behavior is actually a result of sexual repression, which produces obsession and sickness.

            There is nothing erroneous about the above comments – it is in the canonical letter of JUDE that the love feasts were said to include sexual behaviors. Hence, this part was not be included in the errata. Are you going to continue to misrepresent my work in this manner?

        4. You have taken responsibility for some minor errors in your book (mostly typographical), but you have not taken responsibility for major ones, such as the wrong date for Augustine in relation to the Council of Nicea or the error in stating that Irenaeus was a gnostic. Pointing out factual errors is not a matter of ill manners. Rather, it is a matter of integrity for historical studies. Being polite to you does not trump my responsibility to scholarly academic studies. Any remarks or actions by any other persons do not make your errors disappear. It is up to you to correct them. Screaming about the words of others does not fix the errors in your own text. It is up to you to swallow your pride and do the right thing here.

          1. Wow, this David B guy is a complete idiot. He says here that Acharya has “not taken responsibility for … the wrong date for Augustine in relation to the Council of Nicea” even though Acharya had already provided a link in a direct reply to him to the errata page where this minor error was corrected. For David B to repeat his calumny even where the author has done him the courtesy of showing a simple and direct correction is intensely rude and stupid on his part. That is Christian bigots for you. Faith means never having to say you are sorry.

            Again, the errata link already provided by Acharya in this thread is http://www.truthbeknown.com/christconerrata.htm It includes this: “page 60 paragraph 3, change “Gnostic, until after the Council of Nicea, when he” to “Gnostic, until he” [anachronism re Augustine and Nicaea/Nicea removed]”

            For David B to ignore this correction and repeat his error illustrates wilful disregard of facts, along the same lines as displayed by Bart Ehrman in his disgraceful book, which is little more than a political diatribe on behalf of a lost cause.

          2. Thanks, Robert. It should be noted that I acknowledged the Augustine-Nicea error elsewhere during the Ehrman fracas almost three years ago. I had not gotten to adding it to the errata page until recently.

            In any event, this obsessive individual assuredly has other issues driving him to harass me and ignore the evidence as well as the fact that I have ALWAYS been amenable to correcting errors, as proved by the existence of my errata page in the first place for the past decade or so. In this regard, I also created a Moses errata page some days before this particular flap occurred.

            Character assassination is, of course, the preferred method of this type of individual whenever logic, science and facts fail.

      2. David B, this is about Bart Ehrman getting away with libel and defamation for which there are standards and laws against. Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this blog or do you support Bart Ehrman’s total lack of ethics?

        “Bart Ehrman claims to have detected about eight errors in The Christ Conspiracy. Only one of his claims is correct, and was already long acknowledged by Acharya, an erratum regarding the dating of the Council of Nicaea. The others are just a malicious effort to misread the text.

        … Bart Ehrman constructs an entirely false tissue of lies upon these baseless slurs, falsely alleging weaknesses in coherence and evidence. Ehrman’s agenda is to justify his emotional distaste for the religious perspective that Acharya presents, due to Ehrman’s emotional commitment to literal faith in the historical existence of Jesus Christ, despite a complete absence of evidence for this faith.

        Ehrman thought he could easily find arguments to back up his naive sentiments, but genuine contestable analysis is not so simple. The lesson here is that you can take the apologist out of the Bible College, but it is often very difficult to take the Bible College out of the apologist. The real scandal is the refusal of Christian apologists to enter into respectful dialogue about their beliefs, and their tendency to backslide into preaching mode when someone disagrees with them.”

        – Robert Tulip

        1. You state, “Only one of his claims is correct, and was already long acknowledged by Acharya, an erratum regarding the dating of the Council of Nicaea.”

          First, where is this correction?
          What about the error that Irenaeus was a gnostic? Or misrepresenting the love feast?

          Unfortunately, for you and Murdock, Ehrman’s error does not make Murdock’s errors disappear.

          1. Unfortunately for you, the love feast material is being misrepresented by you. As concerns Irenaeus being a Gnostic, here is what I’ve included in the second edition of Christ Con:

            Higgins, 2.129: “Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons. He was one of the first fathers of the church who suffered martyrdom… He was an Asiatic, but was sent as bishop to Gaul. He founded or built a church in that country. This church is yet remaining at Lyons, though in the course of almost 2000 years no doubt it has undergone many alterations. On the floor, in front of the altar, may be seen a Mosaic pavement of the Zodiac, though a considerable part of it is worn away….” Irenaeus’s Gnostic involvement is indicated by his detailed knowledge of Gnostic doctrines. As an “Asiatic” it is possible Irenaeus was specifically chosen for his bishopric because he was very familiar with Gnosticism, which largely emanated out of Asia Minor. As Higgins (2.129) says: “Irenaeus was evidently a Gnostic. If he were not, how came he to place the Zodiac on the floor of his church? a part of which, not worn away by the feet of devotees, is yet remaining. He was of the sect of the Christ not crucified…. St. Paul preaches, in a very pointed manner, Christ crucified; this was in opposition to the Christ not crucified of the Gnostics… Gnosticism was the secret religion of the conclave…. Most fortunately the church has been guilty of the oversight of letting the passage of Irenaeus escape. One of the earliest, most celebrated, most respected, and most quoted authority of its ancient bishops, saints and martyrs, tells us in distinct words, that Jesus was not crucified under Herod and Pontius Pilate. This he tells us on the authority of his master Polycarp, also a martyr, who had it from St. John himself, and from all the old people of Asia.” This sect of “Christ not crucified” is Gnostic, and Irenaeus’s view in this regard is illustrated by his remarks (2.22.5) that Jesus lived until he was more than 50, accusing of “forgery” or “false opinion” those writers who contended Christ died one year after beginning his ministry. In Harvey’s Latin edition of Against Heresies, this section appears at 1.33.3. (Irenaeus/Harvey, 1.330.) See also Higgins, 2.121.

            In any event, this entire discussion could be removed – although it assuredly is of historical interest – and we can still demonstrate Christianity as ahistorical and mythical. Your obsession with this one point proves absolutely nothing and does not make Christianity historical. You are starting to sound like a troll, frankly, as you repeat yourself endlessly and irrationally.

  3. You gotta see the absurd garbage Bart Ehrman’s fanboys are posting at his Facebook to protect Ehrman’s smears, libel and defamation in their attempt to further blame her for Bart Ehrman’s very own sloppy scholarship. Good thing there are others fighting back against Errorman’s lies.

    Bart Ehrman

    They clearly do not understand what they’re talking about and are confusing separate issues regarding St. Peter and the cock/rooster, as explained in this link from above in Murdock’s “Further Reading”:


    It appears to be very easy to confuse Ehrman fanboys. All while Bart Ehrman sits back and avoids the issue because he is a coward who has no integrity or character to take any responsibility for his malicious smears, libel and defamation. I say “SUE THE BASTARD” and get his book, Did Jesus Exist pulped. No wonder New Testament scholarship is so screwed up.

    1. You ignore this quote by Murdock, “The phallus was also called ‘perron’ or “Big Peter”and represented, as we have seen, St. Peter, the “Rock” or stone lingam” (Murdock 285). Here is a direct link between Peter and the phallus, which puts Murdock in error.

      1. David B, It is clear that you have not even read this very blog you are posting in because Acharya S already addressed your confusion on page 285 in this very blog. All you needed to do was READ THE BLOG. You are confounding two separate issues.

  4. Contact Harper Collins Publishing and make a complaint about Bart Ehrman’s book.

    Harper Collins publishing really needs to demand that Bart Ehrman retract his comments containing smears, libel, defamation and false accusations of “making stuff up” from his book, ‘Did Jesus Exist’ on pages 21 to 24. Bart has been caught being unethical and dishonest and as one of the worlds most famous New Testament scholars he needs to apologize to Acharya S/DM Murdock as one can see in this blog and other related links.

    If Dr. Ehrman does not issue a public retraction and apology soon he may end up getting sued. Dr. Bart Ehrman is fully aware of the issue and has been ignoring it for two years now. Will Harper Collins publishing please ask him to take some responsibility and do the right thing?


    As far as I’m concerned Bart Ehrman has ruined his own credibility with his book DJE and if he wants to make an effort to regain that he can start with a retraction and apology. I see no reason to ever trust Dr. Bart Ehrman on the subject of mythicism.

    1. I highly doubt that Dr. Errorman or Harper Collins will retract his crappy book. I mean it sells pretty well so why bother pulling the book out of the shelves when only a tiny fraction of the populace is complaining (e.g. mythicists).

  5. AS, I would like some clarification on this because I have been observing your work for sometime now & I have repeatedly took a stance against many assertions on you. I have sent links to your Rebuttals & as well I have sent the Zeitgeist source book. Anyway this is what was said in a conversation about you since people are asking my sources which much of it links to you.

    “we all have bias. We all come to the table with our own perspectives we can’t get away from that. The best we can do is admit our bias and try to really hear out the persons we disagree with
    Id be careful with Murdoch too man. “Atheist activist and fellow Christ mythicist Richard Carrier criticized her use of the inscriptions at Luxor to make the claim that the story of Jesus birth was inspired by the Luxor story of the birth of Horus.[3”
    Ehrman says “all of Acharya’s major points are in fact wrong” and her book “is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious.”

    “You can’t really do history with mysticism. Historic jesus is one thing mysticism is another. As far as I can tell nO one in scholarship takes Murdoch seriously on this stuff. And carrier is pretty out there so his critisism seems to hold some weight too”

    Of Course I replied with links & saying these statements aren’t true.

    If I had the funds, I would meet with you (if you would of course) & try to get a more firm Serious Mythicism establishment to get scholarship in.

    1. Thanks. Richard Carrier used the WRONG inscription, and his opinion on the subject of Luxor is essentially worthless. I addressed the issue extensively in my book Christ in Egypt, but this critic wouldn’t know that fact, because he is ignorant of my work and the subject matter.

      Carrier is also an atheist who believes Jesus was a myth – does our critic agree with him? If not, then he should stop holding Carrier up as an all-knowing authority.

      Bart Ehrman LIED about my work and LIBELED me, so his opinion is worse than worthless. Again, does this critic believe Ehrman’s work dismantling the historicity of the gospel story is true? If not, he needs to stop holding Ehrman up as an all-knowing authority.

      This critic’s remarks demonstrate that he is not an expert on the subject of mythicism or my work; hence, he is ignorant and can be ignored in return.

      1. Thanks for the reply. He’s another Christian who studies some of the academics & holds high regards to NT Wright. He knows their views & not too sure why he used them to make a point when they don’t believe what he does. Maybe Because They Dog You & Since I Use excessive material from your work.

      2. Rapture, even tho Richard Carrier was kind enough to defend Acharya against Ehrman, it was more about him being mad at Ehrman for doing such a sloppy job full of misrepresentations and errors as Carrier has also smeared Acharya with error filled criticism for 10 years now:

        Stupid Things Richard Carrier has Said and Done

        “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?”

        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?]”

        Bart Ehrman should be sued for libel. Maybe Dr.’s Price, Zindler, Carrier, Doherty, Acharya and the rest should start a ‘class action lawsuit’?”

        Richard Carrier caught Bart Ehrman in a lie:

      3. I fear that you and Carrier are guilty of the fallacy of composition. Even though Ehrman was wrong about the bust in the Vatican collection, it does not mean that all other assertions he makes are in error. Each claim must be judged upon their own merits. Therefore, this error by Ehrman does not negate the errors made by Murdock in her book, which Ehrman points out.

        1. The other “errors” Ehrman supposedly discovered were NOT mistakes, as was already pointed out to you here in the previous comments by Robert Tulip. I’ve got some 30 pages of rebuttal for the rest of EHRMAN’s errors, but you will obviously ignore our responses and keep parroting the same falsehoods. Therefore, I must consider that this discussion is a waste of time. As previously stated, I would guess you are a Christian apologist making erroneous remarks in order to uphold historical Christianity and therefore are not particularly interested in the facts.

          1. I’ve ignored responses? Your primary response is to call me a “Christian apologist”, which, by the way, these ad hominem remarks do nothing to advance your case but only ignore the real issues. You ignore your error about the date for Augustine, you ignore your error about Irenaeus. You also misrepresent the eucharist (“love feast in Jude”). 1. Jude never says that sexual behavior is part of the eucharist. Rather, those engaging in sexual sins outside the church are partaking in the love feast; 2. The write of Jude condemns their actions, rather than accepting them. Showing that sexual acts are not part of the eucharist; 3. their sin within the eucharist is serving themselves and not others. You rely upon Walker’s misinterpretation, and completely ignore the context of Jude. You read into the text something that simply is not there. On a different note, I would love to see your “30 pages of rebuttal”. So far you have done little to fix these errors here.

          2. Wondering if you are a Christian apologist is not an irrelevant ad hom, as it explains your constant repeating of remarks already rebutted. You dishonestly and disrespectfully repeat the calumny suggesting I am “evading” and “ignoring real issues.” THESE remarks are ad homs impugning my integrity, and I do not appreciate them at all. Your air of superiority is egregious, and, again, I am under no obligation to answer you or entertain your constant snide inferences in this regard. You are lucky you’ve not been banned, which will likely occur as you continue to waste my time with hostile comments that have already been addressed, which, yes, you clearly are ignoring.

            The discussion of the epistle of Jude is an important historical one, and I will not be removing it as an “error” or “misrepresentation.” You seem hellbent on censoring the discussion so no one else will see it. Walker’s observations are far superior to your own on this subject, and I will stick with her scholarship, not your own biased and evident Christian views. Yes, we can read for ourselves that Jude is condemning this behavior, but you have been pretending as if it never happened and as if we made it up, which is FALSE. The facts point to the early Christians behaving in a certain manner, and Jude not liking it – that’s just his opinion of how Christians should behave.

            If you were truly interested in my responses to Ehrman, you would already have begun reading the lengthy rebuttal, which is linked in this very thread. But you clearly are not interested in facts, as you continue to pretend as if I have not addressed pretty much everything you’ve stated.

            What “error about the date for Augustine?” On p. 24, I have his life dated to 354-430, which is a standard date. That’s the sort of inaccuracy you cling to in your efforts at refuting my work. I have acknowledged the error about the Council of Nicea date, so quit parroting that nonsense as if it’s some great transgression.

            At this point, it is blatantly obvious you are trolling me and are not interested in a factual discussion.

  6. Thanks Markus. I’ll check out & send because he’s saying:

    “Here’s some more work and questions done on the work Murdoch has done. I think she is alittle over abmitiouis and too defensive. I mean this is how historical scholarship is done. Its not a personal attack. ”
    What about Ms. Murdock’s claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Penguin World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

    When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, “That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion.”(22) He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there for him could not really see it.(23)”

    I sent him this website link too. Told him to join & ask.

    1. Again, ALL of these old apologies have been addressed many times on my forums and in my books. Please feel free to do a search. Anyone who continues to repeat them is NOT an expert and thus should be pretending dishonestly to be one.

      1. I know AS, he’s not saying he’s an expert even if some of it seems as if he thinks he is. I only can answer so much because although I’ve learned a lot & have came along way from isolated perspectives a few years ago, I don’t know it all & he’s saying if your proposing new theories then the burden of proof is on you but obviously you are prepared for that & I told him these aren’t necessarily new but Revisited/revised & further explained. I will definitely read into more of the forums. I’ve read a few a few weeks ago. Anyway I’ll just post this last comment because he’s saying you haven’t answered his questions.

        “Muslims die for a story they think is true. We do that all the time. But you’re suggesting christians died for a story they knew was false. That is insanity. And leaves the question unanswered. What exactly is John and Pauls anti jewish texts? In fact Paul is very jewish in his letters and speaks to that more than once. It laces everything he says. Jesus is a very jewish messiah to Paul and the early christians. The church’s message was not hey we’re good romans. They were saying ‘hey we’re not cannibal incestuous atheists. We’re good citizens because we’re not trying to overthrow rome.’ The church was highly visible to rome especially when you have riots breaking out everywhere Paul goes to speak. Why did Nero light the streets of Rome with christian bodies set on fire and not Gnostics or any other pagan religon? These Christians were announcing their gods rule over paganism and all empires. They bowed to one King and it wasn’t ceaser. That is a problem any empire must crush.”

        “murdoch still hasn’t answered my question. I’m not saying christians dying proves anything. I’m saying christians who were frauds dyin for a false story says something about the nature of that story. Anyone can die for a belief. But to die for something you know to be false? What does she do with that?”

        1. Thanks. I haven’t answered WHAT questions? Firstly, I’m under no obligation to jump to every time someone makes demands. Secondly, I have spent countless hours answering ALL queries and comments concerning numerous subjects. If this person wants to speak to me directly, he is free to do so here, but he needs to quit with the disingenuous and disrespectful remarks like that.

          “But to die for something you know to be false? What does she do with that?”

          What I do with “that” is to say that it is an inane argument. Who died knowing anything was false? If he’s talking about the disciples, there’s no evidence that even they are historical, and the evidence points to the early martyrdom tales as largely or entirely fictional. Even if someone who heard rumors of a supernatural godman decades later died on his account, that fact does not prove the supernatural godman actually lived. People have been willing to die for all kinds of unsubstantiated rumors over the centuries.

          Practically all such Christian apologies have been addressed repeatedly within the massive body of Jesus mythicist literature created over the past several centuries. Such questions only serve to demonstrate unfamiliarity and non-expertise in the subject.

  7. “I guess my question to you is this. What is the point of a bunch of monotheistic Jews going to their deaths for a story they personally made up? What did they gain politically? What gained was suffering, poverty, false accusations, and brutal roman murder. So why all that for a story these guys made up? Why not just stay with other Jews and go zealot? That would have given tem power right away. So hat is there to gain?
    Not to mention Mirdochs response to this critisism is often how people want to see sources but sources don’t change facts. The truth is that sources do weigh in on facts. I can make the statement, ‘Horus was crucified therefore jesus copied Horus.’ But that doesn’t make it true. Horus wasn’t crucified in any real sense. If you want to say he died on a tree or his arms were spread when he died, ok. But that is not roman crucifixion. Historical facts change the truth of the statement.”

    “Yeah but see the argument of ‘bias’ isn’t really an argument. Not to mention the burden of proof is on people like Murdoch to answer the questions since they are attempting to inset new theories. I’m opening to being persuaded but so far I have had zero questions answered and I’ve seen very little to no first hand historical proofs”

    -This was commented then this link sent to me


    1. More blah, blah, blah. What is the point of thousands of Muslims committing suicide attacks in the name of Allah? Does their behavior make Islam true? All major religions of any antiquity have had their martyrs, so the martyrdom apology is fallacious. Moreover, the martyrdom tales are largely fallacious and hyperbolic.

      Someone who is barely literate is not a fit judge of my work or the subject. He does not know the comparative religion/mythology concerning Horus and is therefore not an expert.

      Here is what I REALLY say about Horus:


      See also this link about gods in cruciform:


      I have already answered all the questions in great depth, so this person’s comments simply reflect his lack of expertise on my work and the subject in general. Hence, he is not an expert and does not know what he is talking about.

      But the burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims such as that a supernatural Jewish man lived 2,000 years ago who was born of a virgin, battled with Satan in a desert, cured the blind with spit, raised the dead, walked on water, multiplied fishes and loaves, transfigured on a mount, himself resurrected from the dead and flew off bodily into the sky.

      As I say, it would be best if you raised the questions at my forum, where most of them are already answered. That would include the dumb junk from Mike Licona at the risenjesus link you forwarded. We answered it long ago, but, again, this ignoramus would not know that, as he pretends dishonestly to know my work and the subject. Please feel free to SEARCH this website for discussions of these various subjects – practically everything has already been addressed repeatedly over a period of 20 years since I’ve been doing this work online.

      1. Good points. I actually said something very similar to the Suicidal Muslims. I can’t stress enough that emotional convictions don’t prove an absolute truth just because one desires it to be. I observe it all as best as I can & weigh it in on a scale (no Libra lol) & Seems to me not Much weight is on the Christian side. I try to put evidence over mere interest. The practical truth I can’t see Christianity exempt from other mythical motifs & allegories.

        1. What’s your thoughts on Polycarp?

          “It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian,[4] that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.[5][6]Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.”

          Obviously Irenaus I’m weary of

          1. If you want to know the proclivities of the Early Church Fathers, read her books Who Was Jesus, Christ In Egypt, and her ebook “A Pre-Christian God on a Cross: Orpheos Bakkikos Gem Reexamined”

      2. I can’t register to log in on the forums for sone reason it trouble shoots, not recognizing my email address & it’s correct. It’s the same I used before? Need help lol

        Anyway I found the Polycarp forum in which I was going to post the Christian’s reply to me sending the link to the thread but I’m here because it didn’t work. This is what he said:

        “I’m really having a tough time taking these forums seriously. For instance, irenaues does not say jesus lived to be 50 years old. What he actually says is that jesus attained the level of ‘master’ by te age of thirty and identifies with those who were advanced in age. Here is his quote, “”For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?””

        “”For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God –infants, and children, and boys, and ***youths***, and ***old men***. He therefore passed through ***every age***, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. ****So likewise He was an old man for old men****, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time ***the aged*** also, and becoming an example to them likewise.”

  8. He sent me this, in which I only viewed partially for now because I need undivided attention to study it. Where I am now I can’t. Figured you may know about this.

    ” Im going to try and focus in on a few things. Almost all scholars agree that Jesus existed. Hands down this is rarely an issue only on the fringes of any conversation. Both atheist and Christian alike which throws any ideas of bias out the window immediately. The question of the gospels as eye witness accounts differs. There room for debate on this. If you want to do more than goole searches for this there is a lot of good stuff out there. Here is a massive work and great resource if you want solid scholarship… http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
    Here’s a short interview with this guy… http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/juneweb-only/123-42.0.html
    The historicity of the gospels require you to understand how ancient history works. Oral traditions floated around and then were copied down at some point. For instance, Socrates’ work wasn’t recorded until long after his death and even then we only have a handful of manuscripts to work off. We have over 25000 copies of manuscripts of the gospels as well as the dead sea scroll that show exactly how well copiest kept their work.Yes there are insertions and yes there are ‘corrections’ but nothing has been shown to be a major change in the overall narrative. Small things like an inserted story or a few small details people remembered differently. This is how history works. It isn’t a hard science. Science studies the repeatable. History the unrepeatable. You cannot find in any history a complete objective perspective. It doesn’t exist.
    Christianity is a very Jewish religion. You cannot understand Christianity without understanding Judaism. Rome had absolutely nothing to gain with Christianity. None. It would be like saying Antiochus had something to gain by the Macabees taking him out. It makes no sense. So now youre left with that question. If Rome had nothing to gain with the rise of the early church and in fact actively sought to snuff this sect out, why then would there be any connection between paganism and Christianity and why wasn’t Gnostics or other pagan sects persecuted like these Christians? An argument can be made that Rome eventually took over Christianity, which it did, in order to sanitize it because it couldn’t destroy it.But this has little to do with original stories and manuscripts. Why did these Christians die brutally for a made up story? What did they gain from this?
    Lastly, give me the primary source of the resurrection prior to Jesus that is supposedly the basis of the Christian version. I mean, a physical human being coming out from the dead with a physical body. Where did the early Christians get this?”


  9. Sorry, Acharya, but your cock and bull has been known for some time. I saw it on PZ Myers’ site years ago.


    1. Sorry, but it’s clear you didn’t even read the original article and are apparently too biased to digest its contents. Your article is sheer defamatory garbage, as opposed to the FACTS I’ve highlighted here. Moreover, you are clearly not on an expert on the subject of Jesus mythicism; hence, your unfounded and unscientific opinions can be ignored.

      Nice try – not.

  10. I regret to say that I consider your scholarship to be sloppy and amateurish and your “rebuttals” of Dr. Ehrman specious and at times very impolite and unprofessional. Resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks will hardly persuade me to reject Ehrman’s reasoning and conclusions.

    Surely you can learn to do better than this. Perhaps you need more exposure to academic debate, peer-reviewed literature and the methods of historical (rather than devotional) biblical scholarship.

    That is all I care to say on the matter.If you view this as an invitation to discourse with me, you are mistaken.

    1. I see, so you post an abusive and mendacious comment and then refuse to “discourse” with me. Obviously, you are lacking in ethics. I highly doubt you’ve read anything of mine to be making such fallacious conclusions as concerns my scholarship. If you did know my work, you would also know that many of my books and articles have been “peer reviewed.”

      Moreover, you choose a post showing how equally unethical is Bart Ehrman, who was clearly caught in lies and libel – I’m guessing that you didn’t even read this factual article before your fallacious pretense at describing its contents. It is HIS ad hom behavior that is specious, impolite and unprofessional, but you couldn’t be bothered to notice that fact in your haste to defend the person at fault and pile on his victims.

      You are correct that there is no discourse to be had with such a dishonest individual as you have demonstrated yourself to be.

      Now, what I’ve stated here about Bart Ehrman remains factual, despite your rather despicable piling on.

  11. If only I had the heart to throw in a dick joke here, but I just can’t bring myself to be such a bully.

Comments are closed.