ApostateAbe

I get a commission from the mythicists for marketing their books.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, and maybe he really did think that, or at least he suspected it. To his credit, he chose his words more carefully in the text of his book.

aa5874

It is most fascinating that ApostateAbe is still talking about Acharya S when Carrier has destroyed Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" as the worst of all arguments for an historical Jesus.

When Carrier gave Acharya S negative reviews we have perhaps thousands of posts from HJers applauding Carrier.

HJers accept Carrier's reviews as extremely credible.

They cannot now reject Carrier's devastating review of Ehrman.

Ehrman is the worst defender of the argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus is without logic.

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is based on sources that are admittedly Riddled with accounts of Jesus that most likely did NOT happen.

And, now it is NOT only Carrier but multiple Scholars.

We appear to have a consensus.

Whether HJ, MJ or Agnostic many Scholars appear to have distanced themselves from Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Adam

Sorry, aa,
But I so rarely read your posts (even for comic relief anymore) that I missed your list where

Robert Tulip

Hi Abe. I have found this rooster debate to be a fascinating piece of cultural politics.

My mother was a feminist theologian. She led a commission on the status of women in the Uniting Church in Australia, in which she started off with the assumption that Jesus was a feminist because of the life affirming statements in the Gospels, but ended by concluding that the church is the primary social and political bastion of the patriarchy.

DM Murdock similarly presents a feminist analysis of religion, and I think this is a big part of why her critics like Ehrman use arguments of such banal quality against her. Ehrman’s accusatory tone on this Peter debate is almost like he is insisting she weighs more than a duck. Arguments of this sort indicate that while Ehrman may consider himself a rooster today, tomorrow he will be a feather duster.

The rooster is the symbol of Saint Peter, because of the famous story in all four Gospels of his cowardly triple denial of Christ before the cock crowed. This symbol of Peter’s cowardice is abundantly attested in ancient art. So wherever we find a piece of religious art that uses a rooster, the association with Peter can be considered. A bit like in American politics where an elephant symbolises the Republican Party.

The association with the penis is far more controversial, and requires that we analyse the place of Peter in Christian theology as the key to the patriarchal takeover of religion. The penis symbolises male identity and power.

Essentially, in the Gospels Peter is used to symbolise male idiocy, how the church failed to understand the teachings of Christ. This is why Jesus says to Peter “get thee behind me Satan, You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." (Matthew 16:23). Readers will recall that Peter received this Satan rebuke for suggesting that Jesus did not have to go through the dying and rising saviour routine.

Just before this, (v19), Jesus supposedly anointed Peter as pope for calling him Christ. I have to admit that this succession story reminds me somewhat of the misgivings that Lenin had about Stalin. We also have the dumb story at the transfiguration where Jesus shone like the sun and Peter said words to the effect of ‘great, lets build a church’. And then Peter chops off a slave's ear when Jesus is arrested, earning a further rebuke from Christ for his violent use of the sword.

As mythical pope, Peter started the tradition of Christian patriarchy, the idea that women are subhuman, not fit to represent god. So it makes perfect sense on this score that the priapus rooster statue should remind us of Peter, because it combines his attributes of cowardice, denial, bluster, violence, stupidity and arrogance, as shown by the male chauvinism of the church.

stephan huller

I don't know where to start with this nonsense. But I will take it from the last paragraph:

If Peter mythical (= non-existent) then he could not have started the patriarchy. This is a superficial understanding of the historical process. Misogyny in the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot be attributable to a single person. Women were viewed as inferior long before Peter.

Take your issue up with Moses and various other related Semitic cultures. Your idea that all cultures say the same thing is on trial here. While some cultures say similar things many do not. The value of women is one such 'difference of opinion.'

,

I love this segue.

Yes I think that settled the issue once and for all. Based on your arguments it is must be true that this stupid thing is a symbol of St Peter. Are you actually convinced by anything you say? This isn't even a coherent argument. I can't even see how any of these things are related. But then again I haven't seen the light of truth.

aa5874

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

See http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress....-on-with-bart/

spin

You haven't inserted your head far enough. Awkward I know, but just keep trying. You'll eventually see it.

ApostateAbe

Thank you for that. 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.

Jeffrey Gibson

In the FWIW department, Walker makes no such claim in the reference cited (in the entry "cock" on p. 397 of her book). To say that Walker claimed the statue she speaks of (whom she also does not identify as Priapus) is a statue of Peter is a wholesale misreading/misrepresentation of her text (which, BTW, itself contains questionable claims about Greek words. Here is what she actually said.

Leaving aside the questionable linguistic claims about the meaning of πατήρ/ patḗr (where does it ever in Greek designate the "male principle"?) and πέτρα (a large and solid “rock, ” or the individual cliff or a stony and rocky mountain chain, let alone the claim that Peter's name was Pater (??) or in any way derived from Pater (er ... his name was Simon/Simeon/Cephas/Petros = πέτρος = isolated rocks or small stones, including flints and pebbles for slings) and the fact that Peter was never designated or known as "the saviour of the world, note that Walker makes no identification of the statue with Peter or as a representation of him. To say that she does is shoddy and agenda driven and dishonest scholarship at best and making things up at the worst.

Jeffrey