Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman did not make an error. Once more, Acharya misidentified a statue of Priapas as Peter. Ehrman's statement that there is no "Peter the cock" in the Vatican archives is accurate. Acharya did "make up" that identification based on a nonsensical attempt to try to identify "Peter" with "penis" by way of a rooster. She offers no evidence for her assertions that Petros was used to mean "penis" in Hellenistic Greek or that Peter the Apostle, ostensibly a celibate priest in Christian tradition, was ever identified as a penis or with any other Priapic associations.

Peter was also never called a "world savior."

Acharya has no basis at all for identifying that statue as Peter, and if Ehrman didn't know about the existence of that particular Pripapus sculpture, it's of no consequence since it has no evidentiary relevance.

outhouse

the mythers are trying to dig deep on this one, problem is, like usual, there digging in the wrong yard

stephan huller

I have theory about Ehrman coming on to this forum and posting that comment last week. I am very sure I am right but let me ask everyone something. The name 'Ehrman' is Finnish right? http://www.finnflats.com/contact/

If so, I know.

JonA

What's to take seriously?

Roger Pearse

It is tedious how abusive the defenders of Acharya S, like Dave31 (and the other Acharya groupies), all are. I suppose they believe that if they come themselves with filth, most people will be reluctant to come too close.

mountainman

You must take your own advice on new (and old) evidence discoveries (i.e to be cautious) until the claims are thoroughly investigated.

See the separate thread on Acharya's blog entitled The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

Bart Ehrman himself (in another of his books) was happy to publish Epiphanius attestation to a text entitled "The Great Questions of Mary", which has the same, if not far more dramatic, phallic explicitness with direct reference to Jesus .

aa5874

Again, we see the diversion tatics. HJers know what Acharya S writes but cannot present the EVIDENCE from Ehrman's book to blow away the MYTHERS.

The supposed greatest HJ Scholar wrote a book to blow away Acharya S but but nobody is talking about what is inside the book.

The pages of Ehrman's book MUST be blank or got blown away.

mountainman

A theory in the field of ancient history, based on the ancient historical evidence, in which the hypothesis of an historical jesus may be peer-reviewed by ancient historians, not just by a circus tent of "Biblical Historians". The hypothesis of an HJ has yet to be demonstrated as a viable hypothesis to explain all the evidence. All Bart Ehrman did was to wave his hands about in the air and pontificate to the people inside the "Big Top".

Robert Wahler

Hebrew Matthew has Joseph as Jesus' biological father in the genealogy section of chapter one, v 1:16. See Howard's "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew", or go to Stanford Rives' OGM (Original Gospel of Matthew) website, or Taborblog, "Hebrew Matthew" website.

Hebrew Matthew also has a properly elevated John the Baptist (he was the gospel's initiating Master of Jesus, and a savior himself) at 17:11 (Elijah will "save all the world" not "restore all things"); Paul's after-his-death salvation-from-Jesus doctrine as the "AntiChrist" (24:5-15), teachings merely "concerning" Jesus ("concerning me" omitted in the Greek); and an obvious reference to mystic meditation: "asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake", at 17:2 in the Transfiguration account.

Robert Wahler

How 'bout "Jesus of NAZARETH" in his subtitle? Josephus never mentioned it, but did 45 other hamlets near Sepphoris. It's Jesus the NAZIRITE, not Nazarene.