It is currently Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:05 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
I enjoyed reading Dr Ehrman's summary, but it really is a tissue of fantasy and insult. Bart has decided what he wants to believe, and then decided to ignore the facts and evidence in order to justify his fantasy. In two pages of polemic, he repeatedly insults the intelligence and integrity of readers who have analysed the questions and who do not accept threadbare arguments from authority. Here is my commentary.

BE: “people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and … the American president is, in fact, a Muslim … is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?”
• Rhetorical slur #1: Compare your opponents to cranky idiot NeoNazi conspiracists. Good one Bart. Nice collegial tone. But hey it’s a free country and religious vilification is perfectly legal, especially when directed against mythicists.

BE: “Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists … maintain that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes
• Rhetorical slur #2: Imply it is all a nervous addiction, rather like shooting up smack, while magnanimously accepting that some of these vice-ridden fools who doubt the Historical Jesus story accept its inventors were well-meaning.

BE: “Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in … any cognate field … two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. … not a single mythicist … teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.”
• Rhetorical slur #3: Assert the closed shop has a monopoly on wisdom. Of course no one outside the old craft guild can produce respectable work? Could the meal ticket of guild entry involve a measure of bullying about not challenging conventional views?

BE: “views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”
• Rhetorical slur #4: Creationism. Even though mythicists (for example Earl Doherty) produce books that focus entirely and rigorously on evidence. Creationism. Just say it again a few times in place of real argument. Warming up to the pulpit here. Just cast them into the outer darkness to wail and gnash their teeth, and see how those mythers like them onions.

BE: “deniers of Jesus are … denouncers of religion”
• Rhetorical slur #5: Ignore the wide range of views about religion among mythicists, and suggest they just have a chip on their shoulder about the church. Some who recognise the absence of evidence for Jesus could even see the recognition of the duplicity and confusion of the early church as a way of restoring some integrity to Christianity, to make it more believable, and to show its continuity with the long sweep of prior culture. Whether Jesus Christ is good is a separate question from whether he is real.

BE: ”what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority … than to claim that the … founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?”
• Rhetorical slur #6: When a paradigm shifts, people recognize that many people of good will have accepted false information. It is not maligning their views to say they have no evidence for them, if that is in fact the case. Just because believers are mistaken does not mean their views are necessarily malignant.

BE: “The view, however, founders on its own premises.”
• Rhetorical slur #7: Claim moral high ground by asserting your opponent is guilty of elementary failure of logic – patronize them as mere beginners whose simple mistake can be corrected by the distinguished condescension of the enlightened scholar.

BE: “…You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.”
• Rhetorical slur #8: I had not heard of Sandra Fluke until I just googled her. No one mentioned Jesus until a generation after his supposed death. Bart seems not to understand the difference between hearsay and evidence.

BE: “biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.”
• Rhetorical slur #9: Imply Jesus Believers have solved the riddle of the refiner’s fire, (to introduce another Biblical metaphor), even though the quest for the historical Jesus is among the most unreliable of scholarly traditions, with rampant projection of desire to paper over absence of evidence. Historians have not ‘devised’ ways of yielding any reliable information about Jesus Christ any more than about Sir Galahad.

BE: “With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)”
• Rhetorical slur #10: Lying is the right word here. There are no contemporary accounts, only propaganda such as Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others who display a transparently political agenda in order “that you may believe”. Bart is winding himself up here into propaganda. Numerous? Independent? Really?? Real scholars would invite some of these pariah mythicists who question these claims to publicly debate them instead of hiding in coward’s castle.

BE: “sources like that are is [sic] pretty astounding”
• Rhetorical slur #11: But the astounding sources do does [sic] not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims also require evidence. Pity there is none for Jesus.

BE: “…Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it. ”
• Rhetorical slur #12: Dismissal of the debate around the unclarity of the phrase “brother of the Lord” with reference to James. Even the great early Church Father Origen of Alexandria said at Contra Celsus, Chapter 47, “Paul … regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not … by blood … as because of his virtue and doctrine.” Such a flimsy reed to hang the entire existence of Christ upon.

BE: “Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions). ”
• Rhetorical slur #13: The continuity between the mythic archetype of Jesus Christ and earlier dying and rising saviors is not simple, and cannot be simply dismissed like this. The fertility cult of the annual celebration of victory of life over death at spring fed into numerous ritual myths, of Osiris, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Krishna, etc. The death of the old year each winter and the birth of the new year each spring is not imaginary, it is real and pervasive. But Christians, with their alienated anti-naturalism, have lost touch with this natural root of religion in the actual cycles of the earth.

BE: “... The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. ”
• Rhetorical slur #14: Insulting our intelligence. The Gospels aimed to be persuasive. They had to tell a story that was believable. While it was possible to convince people that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead, it was not possible to convince them that Jesus was victorious over Rome. People actually knew this could not be because Rome beat Israel. The post hoc requirement was to revise the grand triumphant hope into an explanation of defeat, by seeing the hidden victory within defeat, in the ability of the story of the crucified god to destroy the moral legitimacy of empire.

BE: “The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. ”
• Rhetorical slur #15: Well, maybe more a mistake than a slur. What about all the Isaiah texts in Handel’s Messiah – he was wounded for our transgressions, despised and rejected, surely he has borne our grief? The idea that prophets are ignored is a persistent mytheme in the Old Testament, and the cross is an updating of this idea for the Roman context.

BE: “…virtually every sane historian on the planet … has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence... Jesus certainly existed. ”
• Rhetorical slur #16: Critics are insane. Scientifically, evidence can be plausible, persuasive or compelling. We have compelling evidence for abundantly corroborated scientific facts that match to theory with high predictive status. We only say something is compelling when we know it to be true without doubt. The traditional story of Jesus, far from being compelling, is farcical, involving numerous made up miracles that are not historically possible. But Saint Bart can sort the chaff from the kernels to tell us which bits are “compelling”, which are merely persuasive, which are plausible, which are dubious, and which are obviously invented and untrue. His supersonic sonar radar of faith delivers absolute certainty, ‘confidence in things not seen’, as the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it. The far more compelling framework is to see the whole story as myth, meeting deeply felt political needs in the context of Roman conquest, emerging from the syncretism of the defeated myths of Israel, Egypt and Greece, gradually elaborated into a religious conviction that was able to smash all doubt and construct a fallacious fantasy of faith that has dominated much or most of our planet for these last two millennia.  Mythicism is about deconstructing the fantasy, applying scientific method, and coming to a plausible explanation of the origins of Christianity. Sticking to the tired old nostrums of faith may play to the gallery of vested interests, but it does not do anything to convince anyone who wants to rely on evidence and reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:32 am 
Dear Robert,

Very well done, and thank you!

Sadhu! Sadhu!


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:18 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 559
So does Ehrman think the Docetists were anti-religious?

Does he think they were conspiracy theorists?

If the evidence we have for a historical Jesus TODAY is so allegedly overwhelming and indisputable, then how much MORE evidence would there have been available to those who lived at the time of the apostles?
And yet, the first generation of docetists were contemporaries with the apostles, and are even mentioned in the New Testament, and they still did not believe in a historical flesh & blood human Jesus.

So were they being obstinate to this vast amount of evidence? And if there was so much evidence available, one has to wonder why the author of the epistles of John so conspicuously declined to cite any of it when trying to refute them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
The Savior of the World

In Ehrman's ebook Did Jesus Exist?, he mentions me several times and attempts to dismiss my research through ridicule and smears. Of course, Ehrman made no effort to contact me at all - I am easily found and answer questions all the time.

I'm sure I will respond to everything he spews against me, but right now, let me just address the following smear and falsehood on his part, which he makes in connection with the image in my book The Christ Conspiracy of a bronze statue of a cock with a phallus for a nose, styled "Savior of the World." Quoting me first, he says:

Quote:
"'Peter' is not only 'the rock' but also 'the cock,' or penis, as the word is use 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.]

In the first place, Erhman's writing is rudimentary, and he includes a typo: The word should be "treasury." Secondly, he apparently couldn't even be bothered to check the reference I included there for the image, which I assuredly did not draw myself. (The comments in the (parentheses) and [brackets] above are Ehrman's, although one wonders why he uses both.) A smear, no doubt, to go along with his conclusion that books like mine "love to make things up." This statement itself is simply puerile. My book doesn't "love" anything, and I have carefully cited almost everything in it. Unlike Ehrman, I don't have any editors, so there are typos in my book. He should not have any excuses, however, for his sloppiness. Apparently, his editors and legal department don't have a problem with libeling someone as "laughable" as me.

The image in question is referenced to "Walker, WDSSO." If you go to the Bibliography - that's something one would think "real scholars" (Ehrman continually plays the credentialism card to make me appear unintelligent and unqualified) could do without any assistance - you will find a citation of Barbara G. Walker's The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects. If Ehrman had bothered to follow up in his exhaustive "research," he would have discovered the Peter-cock image in Walker's book, on p. 397:

Quote:
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." 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.

Again, so much for Ehrman's "scholarship" in which he cannot even trace a citation and read for himself but instead implies I just made it all up.

Frankly, Walker's writing sounds far more scholarly and intelligent than does Ehrman's. Moreover, Walker cites the image as "Knight, pl. 2." Following up in a scholarly fashion, we look at the bibliography by Walker, to discovery the book in question:

Knight, Richard Payne. A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus. New York: University Books, 1974.

Consulting an earlier edition of Knight's book, we find on p. 32 a discussion of the object in question:

Quote:
...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 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, which is hand-drawn because of its age, printed when photography was still not entirely feasible for publishers.

Image

On page 35, Knight mentions the "celebrated bronze" again:

Quote:
...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:

Quote:
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 find more information in Peter Lang'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 Rome 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.

Even though I obviously did not make up the image, which I cited and which is obviously known in scholarly circles - nor was I erroneous in reporting that the figure is housed in the Vatican - Ehrman continues his smear by remarking:

Quote:
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.

Again, not only did I not make anything up, but everything is carefully cited for the most part (not as much as my later books, but certainly my research is better even in CC than is Erhman's in the book in question, as we can see from his shoddy "scholarship" here).

Instead of resorting to erroneous contentions and unprofessional ridicule, one would think that a "real scholar" would be curious about this artifact and actually do the due diligence, rather than simply dismissing it with libelous remarks.

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

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Here are some more articles/press releases to chew on:

Author Bart Ehrman's Latest Work 'Did Jesus Exist?' Makes a Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

Quote:
In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus discovered here may not be the traditional Jesus taught about in churches and schools —but he did exist, whether society excepts him or not.

"Vigorously defends," with fallacies, calumny and falsehoods!

Here's the rest of this press release:

Quote:
Each week for the last several years, leading New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has received at least a handful of inquiries about the existence of Jesus—did he really exist? Was he real? And, if so, who was he?

The answer, to Ehrman, is obvious: of course he existed, of course he was a real human being. So then why is he asked these same questions at each public appearance? Why do his critics, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and certain scholars continue to promote—persistently and loudly—the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing but a mythical figure?

In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (March 2012; Hardcover; HarperOne), Ehrman aims to end the argument once and for all, offering decisive textual evidence for the existence of Jesus. Compiling and examining biblical texts and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular arguments against the life of Jesus, proving that he existed—though not necessarily as mainstream Christianity has made him out to be.

According to Ehrman:

Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother subscribes to, or the Jesus of the stained glass window, or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist, or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local mega-church, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him.

Sure to surprise his critics and spark vigorous debate amongst his fans, Did Jesus Exist? is a groundbreaking work that will serve as a vital resource for anyone interested in Jesus, the Bible, and the birth of Christianity.

About the Author
Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus, God’s Problem, Jesus, Interrupted, and Forged. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus and has been featured on a variety of top media outlets. He lives in Durham, N.C.

Select Praise for Bart Ehrman:

“Ehrman’s clarity is something to emulate.” — Lisa Miller, Newsweek

“[A] serious inquiry.…Ehrman pursues it with an energy and goodwill that invite further conversation with sympathetic and unsympathetic readers alike. This book (God’s Problem) neither trivializes its subject nor demonizes those who have a different view of it, which is more than can be said for the efforts of those fashionable atheist writers whose major form of argument would seem to be ridicule.” — Stanley Fish, New York Times

“Ehrman’s career is testament to the fact that no one can slice and dice a belief system more surgically than someone who grew up inside it....There’s something delicious (for nonbelievers, anyway) about the implacable, dispassionate way that Ehrman reveals how the supposedly ‘divine truth’ of Christianity was historically constructed.” — Salon.com


Here's another one:

Quote:
Book explores question: “Did Jesus Exist?”

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case.

These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.

Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.

Serious historians of the early Christian movement — all of them — have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. This is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

And so, with “Did Jesus Exist?” I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him.

Read more: The Herald-Sun - Book explores question “Did Jesus Exist ”

He "thinks evidence matters," yet he just couldn't follow my citation on the Albani bronze before he maliciously smeared me with accusations of fabrication.

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

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:29 pm
Posts: 2
Good stuff Robert. Thank you!

It's all about the eight glasses of water a day. Sounds great until you think a bit and realize it's a bloody myth that even doctors promote. Meme's happen.

As far as consensus, I'm glad Copernicus and Bruno weren't interested in consensus but the truth. People say Acharya has a big ego. Ain't no big ego, but like with Bruno and Copernicus, it's called cojones!

And has anybody noticed that Bart's last three books are basically the same book with often the same exact working. It's getting to be the Bourne Messiah!

Miguel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:18 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 559
Guess who else is unimpressed with Ehrman's latest work- http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

I found this little bit most interesting...
Quote:
But first I must remark on the significance of all this. Ehrman intimates that any professor who entertains this hypothesis will be fired or otherwise never hired, that he will in effect suffer career persecution. He does not say this with sadness, but with glee, satisfaction even. Indeed Ehrman’s own article represents a variety of this persecution: ridicule and the slandering of credentials. Thompson may have only felt free to be honest about his views after he retired, when no one could fire him or persecute his career. I personally know a few professors who themselves also feel this way: they do not touch this topic with a ten foot pole, precisely because they fear the kind of thing Ehrman is doing and threatening. They do not want to lose their jobs or career prospects and opportunities. They do not want to be ridiculed or marginalized.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:08 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
That is interesting.

But aside from that, Carrier pretty much roasted Erhman. It's going to be funny when all of the book reviews start pouring in. In a way I think that Ehrman is just so green when it comes to mythicism that he really had no idea of what the backlash would be to his assertions. Ehrman says himself that it was just a few years ago (post ZG I assume) that he started getting questions about Jesus' historicity and he was taken back by it all. That immediately paints a picture of ignorance on his part.

Has he debated Doherty on the topic of mythicism before? I don't recall. He ought to though. It would be very educational for Ehrman...

:lol:

This book release is such a joke so far.

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

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Be sure to read my new blog post - and feel free to pass it around. There will be more to come addressing the rest of Ehrman's calumny, sloppy "scholarship" and shallow "research."

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

Someone might owe me an apology for the libelous accusation of fabrication. :shock:

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

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5198
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
That was a great blog, Acharya. It exposes Bart Ehrman's egregious and sloppy "scholarship." It figures that Ehrman would bring a pea shooter to a cock fight. He surely plucked that one out just to embarrass you with but, it backfired and he embarrassed himself instead. I'm glad you addressed so quickly in your blog.

Ehrman didn't read Christ Conspiracy, he just gathered whatever dirt he could to smear you with. Much of it has little to nothing to do with your case for mythicism anyway - that image of the cock thing is a perfect example. He makes no real mention of astrotheology ... he uses the word but, never addresses the thesis in any meaningful way. He merely plucks out a list of straw man arguments to knock down.

Many other freethinkers are very disappointed with Ehrman's new book as well:

Quote:
Bart Ehrman’s Huffing and Posting Against Mythicism

"Ehrman has unwittingly demonstrated that so much of his work on the historical Jesus is built on a foundation of sand. Of course he needs to come out fighting. Attack may be the best hope for defence when the rationale for one’s life’s work is at stake."

"Richard Carrier remarks:

"No competent mythicist makes this claim. Rather, they claim that virgin-born gods were a common phenomenon in the region at the time and dying-and-rising gods were a common phenomenon in the region at the time (in precisely the way these were not anywhere else, e.g. in ancient China), and so for Jews to suddenly start claiming they have one, too, looks pretty easily explained in terms of standard theories of cultural diffusion. ... Ehrman appears to be denying this, and as such is making himself look like a crank again–in fact like an ignorant Christian apologist spewing contrafactual propaganda."

Bart Ehrman : Did Jesus Exist?
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=310772

Bart Ehrman's new book - did my prophecy come true?
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=312749

From where I stand, Bart Ehrman has just ruined his credibility with his new book attacking mythicists and mythicism. He will pay for it in your 2nd edition to Christ Conspiracy.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
LOL! :D

Christian Lindtner actually posted a comment PuffHo saying that Ehrman's "underlying sources of the Gospels" are not in Aramaic but Sanskrit. Some dingbat, not knowing whom he was addressing - a 30+-year Sanskrit scholar! - makes a dumb comment afterwards. Now Christian knows what I go through!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Li ... 86300.html

Quote:
Lindtner:

“Sure, we have "sources lying behind the gospels" - not in Aramaic (as Dr Ehrman claims), but in Sanskrit as pointing out on http://www.jesusisbuddha.com. Cf. also Prof. Michael Lockwood´s learned book Buddhism´s Relation to Christianity, Chennai 2010. - Luke 10.38 is a direct translation from the Sanskrit.
Lindtner”

Here's the dingbat, trying to paint Lindtner as a "evangelical author" who is "misinterpreting Sanskrit!"

Quote:
sana-dana:

utter b.s. - its just another one of the western evangelical authors mis-interpreting sanskrit texts to suit their own cause. Buddha or Mahabharata happened 500 and 3500 years before the claimed life of a false character called jesus - so, in effect there is no correlation between the both.

Stay tuned for my lengthy review/summary/commentary on Lockwood's Buddhism's Relation to Christianity, which contains a great deal of Lindtner's work. Ehrman and others will undoubtedly get their knickers in a very bad twist after this one.

In the meantime, I re-posted my link to my Washington-Jefferson mythicist article on FB and commented:

If he can take time out from his onslaught of ridicule and calumny against modern mythicists, perhaps Bart Ehrman will go after THESE exalted figures for their apparent questioning of the "historical" Jesus? Of course, not being an expert on mythicism, Ehrman evidently had no idea about THIS fascinating research - and neither would you, if you left it up to the hallowed halls of academia.

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

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5198
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Here's what our friend Dr. Robert Price posted in Acharya's blog The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican:

Quote:
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!

- Dr. Robert Price

I have to agree with Dr Price here that Errorman's book, Did Jesus Exist? will ultimately ruin his credibility as I mentioned above.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:29 pm
Posts: 2
I'm going to try to get him on Aeon Byte, perhaps in a debate forum if he will accept. Of course he will be treated very well, like all guests, and his words can further damn him if he comes. Bart was very gracious the first time, squeezing me in between classes and skipping lunch.

Like I say-- Never go against a mythicist when truth is on the line. You will eventually lose and become freed.

Miguel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:21 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
Miguel, it would be great if you could get Errorman to debate with either Murdock or Doherty.

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

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:53 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1987
Location: U.S.A.
That could be a really interesting debate.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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

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