Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 04-20-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

It would obviously be helpful to actually read Acharya's blog on the issue:

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

The fact remains that Errorman accused her of making it up and even drawing the image herself when there were sources and citations right there under the image. There is just no way Ehrman could possibly have read the book and missed them. He did NOT read the book.

Did Bart Ehrman read the books?

Bart Ehrman's Book 'Did Jesus Exist?'

People are really worked up about this phallic savior thing. I didn't think it was very important, even a sideshow.

Why is it important? There are far worse things that Ehrman does in his book than misrepresent Acharya S. I admit to having not read anything by her.

Seems to me that Carrier is pointing out that Ehrman is guilty of the same errors that historicists regularly saddle mythicists with. That, I believe, is the point.

Grog · 04-20-2012, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...I agree with much of what you say here. Yes, Ehrman got Carrier's credentials wrong (on purpose? another case of sloppiness?) but it is a bit vain to go on about it. Demonstrating a greater proficiency with the material was the better show. The review was not quite the knock out punch I think could have been delivered. I am seeing better at other sites, but mostly what one would consider knowledgeable "lay people."

You mean other people delivered BETTER punches to Ehrman??? Ehrman cannot be saved [by the Bell]--the bell tolls for Ehrman.

Well, ok, it depends on what you mean by punches. The murdering of trees and electrons was a very good zinger. But in terms of laying out Ehrman's arguments and responding to them, yes. That's just my opinion. I like Carrier, don't get me wrong. But we can't all just be fanboys, can we?

Grog · 04-20-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

People are really worked up about this phallic savior thing. I didn't think it was very important, even a sideshow.

Why is it important? There are far worse things that Ehrman does in his book than misrepresent Acharya S. I admit to having not read anything by her.

Seems to me that Carrier is pointing out that Ehrman is guilty of the same errors that historicists regularly saddle mythicists with. That, I believe, is the point.

Ok. It just doesn't seem to be the most important. I think that Carrier led his critique with that point was a mistake, but I do recognize that Carrier really does, to borrow from Huller, play rope-a-dope. He saves his best for last, that's his style and he's defended it. So...ok. I do get the point. I just don't think it is a the best point. Especially when Carrier goes to great lengths to distinguish between "good" mythicists and "bad" mythicists and then leads with a defense of this phallic savior thing. I think we know where Carrier places Acharya. His arument about Doherty is much better, though. It really had a lot of meat to it and addresses the main point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

Ehrman says Earl Doherty “quotes professional scholars at length when their views prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” (p. 252). This claim is so completely false I cannot believe Ehrman read the work of Doherty with any requisite care. Neil Godfrey documents the fact (in Devious Doherty or Erring Ehrman?) that Doherty repeatedly points out exactly what Ehrman claims he doesn’t.

I have had this very same experience with James McGrath on his blog. Well, I have to go otherwise, I'd give you the example.

EDIT: Ok, I am back. So for example, I cited Lee on the Demonic Powers in Paul as to whom Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 2:8 ("rulers of this age"). I was clear to say that Lee and others argue here for Romans as proxies, inserting that idea into the text. Of course, McGrath came back with "Lee and others were not mythicists." Not my point. Carrier makes a point about this in his book "Proving History."

Steven Carr · 04-20-2012, 01:16 PM

I think Ken Humphreys did a better job in eviscerating Bart Ehrman.

Mainly by pointing out where Ehrman was forced to defend his historical Jesus by going all Habermassy on the 'evidence'.

Dave31 · 04-20-2012, 02:36 PM

Some seem very confused over the whole "phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican" issue. I think I can help make it more clear.

First, Ehrman wrote in his book that Acharya made it up and that she may have even drawn the image herself. Acharya quickly responded to it in her blog linked at the bottom pointing out the fact that under the image in her book she included:

"Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter. Inscription reads "Savior of the World."" along with the source citation "Walker, WDSSO." So, Carrier's point in bringing this up was:

Quote:

"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 couldn't possibly have read Acharya's book and fail to notice the source citation. It's sloppy and egregious and unbecoming of any reliable scholar; it's plain intellectual dishonesty.

Second, some are confused (including Carrier) that Acharya was claiming that the "statue of a penis-nosed cockerel (which she says is a “symbol of St. Peter”) in the Vatican museum." She didn't say the bronze statue itself was of St. Peter - she only said the Cock/Rooster was a symbol of St. Peter:

Quote:

"Note that I do not say here or elsewhere that the bronze sculpture itself is a symbol of St. Peter, but only the cock or rooster, as in the story of Matthew 26:34, etc., in which Peter denies Christ three times before the cock crows. In several places elsewhere in my book I provide the citation for the cock/rooster being a symbol of St. Peter."

To reiterate, some are presuming that Acharya is claiming it's a statue of St. Peter. She never said that either.

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

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And it drives me crazy that so many people think that Carrier 'trashed' Ehrman with this review. What's the matter with people? What would these people have thought if Carrier had actually written a damning piece.

Yeah, it's pretty terrible, full of nitpicks. Far better to read Doherty's responses to Ehrman on Vridar.

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Second, some are confused (including Carrier) that Acharya was claiming that the "statue of a penis-nosed cockerel (which she says is a “symbol of St. Peter”) in the Vatican museum."

Yes, and that's some weirdness right there. Carrier agrees that Acharya S is interpreting a connection between the statue of Priapus and Peter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

She didn't say the bronze statue itself was a symbol of St. Peter - she only said the Cock/Rooster was a symbol of St. Peter:

Quote:

"Note that I do not say here or elsewhere that the bronze sculpture itself is a symbol of St. Peter, but only the cock or rooster, as in the story of Matthew 26:34, etc., in which Peter denies Christ three times before the cock crows. In several places elsewhere in my book I provide the citation for the cock/rooster being a symbol of St. Peter."

To reiterate, some are presuming that Acharya is claiming it's a statue of St. Peter. She never said that either.

Then, what was the point of her showing a statue of Priapus in her book and all the talk about "peters"? :huh: It's either related to her theories about Christianity's origin or it isn't. Which is it?

Let me expand on my earlier quote from Acharya S. This is from her "The Christ Conspiracy", page 168-9:

Quote:

"Peter" is not only "the rock" but also "the cock", or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day. As Walker says, "The cock was also a symbol of Saint Peter, whose name also meant a phallus or male principle (pater) and a phallic pillar (petra). Therefore, the cock's image was often placed atop church towers." Higgins elucidates on the phallic nature of Peter the rock:

On this stone, which was the emblem of the male generative principle, the Linga, Jesus founded his church...

Furthermore, the veneration of the peter or lingam is reflective of the homoeroticism within the patriarchal cults. So fervent was this lingam-worship that the "cock" was considered the "Saviour of the World":

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 pedestral inscribed "The Savior of the World." The cock was also a solar symbol.

As stated, Peter was a remake of the Roman god Janus; thus he was associated with the month of January, "when the sun entered the sign of Aquarius, symbol of both the gate of the year and the Pearly Gate of Maria-Aphrodite.

Acharya S also writes a little earlier, on p. 156, that "the sun rising in the morning is the 'Savior of Mankind'". Then on p, 202, she writes: "As the cock who announces the risen savior, Peter is associated with the sign of Aries, when the sun overcomes the night and starts its journey to fullness."

So the topic ranges from Peter, to "peter", to the statue inscribed "The Savior of the World", to "cock as solar symbol", to Peter as remake of Janus, to January indicating Peter's association with announcing the sun.

Where does the statue of Priapus fit into this, Dave31? HOW can it fit into this, if she is not saying that the statue of Priapus is connected to Peter? What exactly is the connection of Peter to the statue of Priapus?

aa5874 · 04-20-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...I agree with much of what you say here. Yes, Ehrman got Carrier's credentials wrong (on purpose? another case of sloppiness?) but it is a bit vain to go on about it. Demonstrating a greater proficiency with the material was the better show. The review was not quite the knock out punch I think could have been delivered. I am seeing better at other sites, but mostly what one would consider knowledgeable "lay people."

You mean other people delivered BETTER punches to Ehrman??? Ehrman cannot be saved [by the Bell]--the bell tolls for Ehrman.

Well, ok, it depends on what you mean by punches. The murdering of trees and electrons was a very good zinger. But in terms of laying out Ehrman's arguments and responding to them, yes. That's just my opinion. I like Carrier, don't get me wrong. But we can't all just be fanboys, can we?

You are the one who claimed you see better "knock out punches" at other sites.

Ehrman is being Pulverised by his PEERS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

....The review was not quite the knock out punch I think could have been delivered. I am seeing better at other sites, but mostly what one would consider knowledgeable "lay people."

When Carrier claimed Ehrman was incompetent then IT WAS ALL OVER.

Dave31 · 04-20-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

"Yes, and that's some weirdness right there. Carrier agrees that Acharya S is interpreting a connection between the statue of Priapus and Peter."

No, that would be you doing your typical creating problems where none really exist thing again, as per usual. She made no claims as to the statue itself being Priapus or Peter. You guys are confusing yourselves.

The image comes from a chapter in her book called "The Bible, Sex and Drugs." You would have to actually read that chapter to see her research and her point. I'm guessing, however, that she put it in there to illustrate how the Catholic Church and Vatican - Christian entities - use sexual symbolism. She has other sexual symbols in there, as well as a discussion of sexuality in the Bible, as the chapter suggests, and in early Christianity.

Did you not notice the words "Savior of the World" there? Really can't understand the connection to Christianity? Is that fact alone not shocking to Christians, to know that there's a phallic statue that says, "Savior of the World" on it, the very title that Christ alone supposedly owns?

If that's not a depiction of Christ as the "Savior of the world?" who is it then? If it's Priapus or Abraxas, then we are admitting that there were OTHER "saviors of the world" in antiquity and that this idea is not at all new to Christianity. It's another comparative religion idea that definitely needs to be known.

That's a pretty obvious reason to include the image. I would think it would be obvious to others as well. Why wouldn't she want to put it in there, since it's pretty important and definitely relevant to Christianity.

stephan huller · 04-20-2012, 04:26 PM

Oh come on. Do you really believe that if you had a time machine you'd find that the Roman Church worshiped a penis or whatever the hell this is supposed to be? Let's stop talking about this idiotic thing. This was just placed in the book (another which I will never read) to get the same kind of sensationalism that Ehrman specializes in. The only difference is that Ehrman is a qualified expert. It's like the way celebrities are always forgiven in court for doing things the rest of us would get jail time for. Prove your worth to society and you get special treatment. That's just the way it is. Let's stop with the cock-rock.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2012, 01:16 PM	#54
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I think Ken Humphreys did a better job in eviscerating Bart Ehrman. Mainly by pointing out where Ehrman was forced to defend his historical Jesus by going all Habermassy on the 'evidence'.

04-20-2012, 04:26 PM	#60
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Oh come on. Do you really believe that if you had a time machine you'd find that the Roman Church worshiped a penis or whatever the hell this is supposed to be? Let's stop talking about this idiotic thing. This was just placed in the book (another which I will never read) to get the same kind of sensationalism that Ehrman specializes in. The only difference is that Ehrman is a qualified expert. It's like the way celebrities are always forgiven in court for doing things the rest of us would get jail time for. Prove your worth to society and you get special treatment. That's just the way it is. Let's stop with the cock-rock.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.