Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-26-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

\ Carrier was absolutely right.

And you were absolutely wrong--everything Stephanie Fisher and Maurice Casey said about Ehrman destroys MJ. Ehrman vastly understated the case against Mythicism.

Erhman never had a case agianst MJ and the very facts that aa point out shows that he still does not know which side of the fence he sits on.

"Did Jesus Exist?" is riddled with logical fallacies--pages after pages after pages.

Ehrman merely presumes his Jesus of Nazareth did exist and then asserts that it does not matter what was written about his Jesus of Nazareth.

Please, examine page 209 of Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman presented a most logical fallacy.

Ehrman asserts that Apollonius existed so Jesus did.

In the same page, Ehrman asserts that "Christians saw Jesus as a divine man" but no such thing is in the NT.

The only supposed Christian that claimed he saw Jesus as a divine person saw Jesus AFTER he was resurrected. See the Pauline letters.

There is no claim whatsoever that Christians even saw Jesus or became Christians because they saw Jesus in the NT.

The author of Acts clearly stated that it was the promised Holy Ghost that started the Christian cult on the day of Pentecost. See Acts 2.

In Acts, Jesus of Nazareth did NOT have the required power to start the Jesus cult.

In Acts, Jesus left in a cloud, perhaps of dust, to heaven.

See Acts 2.41.

The Holy Ghost through Peter caused 3000 persons to be converted.

It is clear the NT is a compilation of Myth Fables about Gods and Ghosts with Jesus being one of them.

MrMacSon · 04-26-2013, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

--everything Stephanie Fisher and Maurice Casey said about Ehrman destroys MJ. Ehrman vastly understated the case against Mythicism.

Erhman never had a case against MJ and the very facts that aa point out shows that he still does not know which side of the fence he sits on.

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... " http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

aa5874 · 04-26-2013, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

--everything Stephanie Fisher and Maurice Casey said about Ehrman destroys MJ. Ehrman vastly understated the case against Mythicism.

Erhman never had a case against MJ and the very facts that aa point out shows that he still does not know which side of the fence he sits on.

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... " http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

How in the world could Ehrman, a supposed Scholar, not hear about the MJ argument?

Anyone familiar with the writings of the Jesus cult of antiquity would have known that the Jesus cult argued that Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

Ehrman must have known of writings attributed to Ignatius.

Ignatius claimed Jesus was a God and was born of a Holy Ghost.

Ehrman must know that the Jesus cult presented Jesus as a pure Myth.

In Against Celsus, Origen claimed the very same thing--that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Terullian in "On the Flesh of Christ" claimed Jesus had no human father and was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresiers" claimed Jesus was God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Aristides in "Apology" claimed Jesus was a God that hlkived in the daughter of man.

Ehrman must have known of the Wuest for an Historical Jesus.

Ehrman must have known that for hundreds of years and even today that HJers, Scholars are still lokking for their Jesus.

The Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus--is the reason for the hunting season for HJ of Nazareth that has lasted for hundreds of years even before Ehrman was born.

aa5874 · 04-26-2013, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

--everything Stephanie Fisher and Maurice Casey said about Ehrman destroys MJ. Ehrman vastly understated the case against Mythicism.

Erhman never had a case against MJ and the very facts that aa point out shows that he still does not know which side of the fence he sits on.

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... " http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

How in the world could Ehrman, a supposed Scholar, not hear about the MJ argument?

Anyone familiar with the writings of the Jesus cult of antiquity would have known that the Jesus cult argued that Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

Ehrman must have known of writings attributed to Ignatius.

Ignatius claimed Jesus was a God and was born of a Holy Ghost.

Ehrman must know that the Jesus cult presented Jesus as a pure Myth.

In Against Celsus, Origen claimed the very same thing--that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Tertullian in "On the Flesh of Christ" claimed Jesus had no human father and was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresiers" claimed Jesus was God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Aristides in "Apology" claimed Jesus was a God that lived in the daughter of man.

Ehrman must have known of the Quest for an Historical Jesus.

Ehrman must have known that for hundreds of years and even today that HJers, Scholars are still lokking for their Jesus.

The Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus--is the reason for the hunting season for HJ of Nazareth that has lasted for hundreds of years even before Ehrman was born.

Ehrman did not hear of Bruno Bauer and Aurthor Drews?

Something is just not right.

MrMacSon · 04-26-2013, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... "
http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

How in the world could Ehrman, a supposed Scholar, not hear about the MJ argument? etc

Exactly. Unless he has been truly unaware of the recent 'mythicist' movement.

Bart actually addresses your points in a recent blog-posting - http://ehrmanblog.org/explaining-myself/

Robert Tulip · 04-26-2013, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You think that the image of the bust is just a reminder of Peter. My hypothesis is that Murdock simply trusted Barbara Walker, who claimed that the statue of Priapus really is a statue of Peter. But, I don't have Barbara Walker's book, so I don't know for sure.

Abe, your "hypothesis" here should not really be dignified with that term, since it is incorrect, and based on no evidence. You really shouldn’t dress up idle speculation as a hypothesis, which should have more basis than groundless suspicion or malevolent whimsy. And with your admission that you "don't know for sure", what you really meant was you don't have a clue and are just making it up to treat Murdock as a soft target. Ehrman got in trouble for his careless comments about making things up, so you should not do the same.

I do have a copy of The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara Walker. The entry on Saint Peter is six pages long, and is full of fascinating research. On the specific "hypothesis" that you raised, Walker did not claim "that the statue of Priapus really is a statue of Peter." Her text is as follows, and it illustrates that the question of what “really is” the case in such symbolic mythological examples is far from simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Barbara Walker”

There is a ring of ritual about the story that Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crew, as though some material of the ancient sacred drama were clumsily reinterpreted. The resurrected God couldn’t enter into his kingdom until dawn. The angel of annunciation appeared as a cock “to announce th coming of the sun” as Pausanias said. At cockcrow the Savior arose as Light of the World to disperse the demons of the night. But if he tried to enter into his kingdom earlier, disrupting the cycles of night and day, the Gatekeeper would deny him… This story made difficulties for Christian theologians, when the pagans inquired why Jesus should found his church on a disciple who denied him, rather than a more loyal one. The conventional answer was that it demonstrated Christ’s power of forgiveness. But during the later persecutions, denial of Christ came to be considered the one absolutely unforgiveable crime. The cock was another totemic “peter” sometimes viewed as the god’s alter ego. Vatican authorities preserved a bronze image of cock with an oversized penis on a man’s body, the pedestal inscribed ‘the Savior of the World’.* The cock was also a solar symbol. Sun worship was evident in Christian literature, especially the ‘Gnostic Gospel’ of John. Mithraic solar symbolism entered into many papal customs. St Peter’s Chair, the papal throne, was decorated like the throne of Mithra with zodiacal signs and the twelve labors of the sun god.

* source GR Scott Phallic Worship:
A History of Sex and Sex Rites in Relation to the Religions of All Races from Antiquity to the Present Day p262

stephan huller · 04-26-2013, 10:13 PM

There are no examples of Peter being symbolized by the cock. That's like claiming that Jesus was symbolized by Satan because of the temptation narrative. I have never heard you reject any of the ideas of your cult leader. She has so many - and so many are so 'out there' (translation - stupid). Surely there is one, just one that you find objectionable.

Robert Tulip · 04-27-2013, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There are no examples of Peter being symbolized by the cock.

But this is simple and widespread and ancient. I have already given a number of examples in this thread, including one from the fourth century. Are you saying that all the Christians who say the rooster is a symbol of Peter are wrong? That is like saying Peter has nothing to do with Peter's denial, or the elephant is not a symbol of the Republican Party, or that the four evangelists are not symbolised by the bull, lion, eagle and man.

The Vatican Treasury Museum at St Peters Basilica appears to present the rooster as a symbol for Peter, but then, surprisingly, says the reference to Peter's denial "seems rather doubtful." There is apparently a clash between the obvious overt popular understanding of rooster = Peter and the theoretical meaning claimed by the church. The church has problems with symbols, understandably in this case since it shows the purported first pope as a serial liar and coward and Christ denier, hardly a good look.

Stringbean · 04-27-2013, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Erhman never had a case against MJ and the very facts that aa point out shows that he still does not know which side of the fence he sits on.

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... " http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

His not knowing about it becomes obvious when you read his writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... " http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

How in the world could Ehrman, a supposed Scholar, not hear about the MJ argument?

Anyone familiar with the writings of the Jesus cult of antiquity would have known that the Jesus cult argued that Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

Ehrman must have known of writings attributed to Ignatius.

Ignatius claimed Jesus was a God and was born of a Holy Ghost.

Ehrman must know that the Jesus cult presented Jesus as a pure Myth.

In Against Celsus, Origen claimed the very same thing--that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Terullian in "On the Flesh of Christ" claimed Jesus had no human father and was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresiers" claimed Jesus was God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Aristides in "Apology" claimed Jesus was a God that hlkived in the daughter of man.

Ehrman must have known of the Wuest for an Historical Jesus.

Ehrman must have known that for hundreds of years and even today that HJers, Scholars are still lokking for their Jesus.

The Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus--is the reason for the hunting season for HJ of Nazareth that has lasted for hundreds of years even before Ehrman was born.

Quote:

How in the world could Ehrman, a supposed Scholar, not hear about the MJ argument?

Agreed. Could it be that he is running away from the issue in order to avoid confronting it?

aa5874 · 04-27-2013, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

it seems Ehrman has never engaged with the proposition that Jesus Christ narrative is a myth-fiction

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement ... "
http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

How in the world could Ehrman, a supposed Scholar, not hear about the MJ argument? etc

Exactly. Unless he has been truly unaware of the recent 'mythicist' movement.

Bart actually addresses your points in a recent blog-posting - http://ehrmanblog.org/explaining-myself/

Actually Bart does not explain himself.

Ehrman must know that the HJ argument is not merely that Jesus existed but that Jesus existed ONLY as a complete human being and was known and accepted only as a human being by his supposed followers, and writers of the Jesus cult in antiquity.

The NT does not state anywhere that Jesus was only a human being. The very stories of Jesus were regarded as credible because Jesus was considered a Son of a God or God himself.

In the earliest stories of Jesus of gMark the author stated that Jesus admitted he was the Son of God.

In the Pauline writings it is claimed Jesus was God's own Son who was raised from the dead.

The Jesus character in the NT was not ever described as only human but as a Son of a God.

In the HJ/MJ argument--Gods are Myths.

Ehrman must explain how is it that Jesus in the NT was a figure of history when he himself has discredited the NT as a credible historical source.

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

04-26-2013, 10:13 PM	#47
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There are no examples of Peter being symbolized by the cock. That's like claiming that Jesus was symbolized by Satan because of the temptation narrative. I have never heard you reject any of the ideas of your cult leader. She has so many - and so many are so 'out there' (translation - stupid). Surely there is one, just one that you find objectionable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.