jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 1, 2017 15:25:10 GMT
Murdock was. That statue is not of "the Cock, symbol of St. Peter". In the very article to which you link, Murdock acknowledges it is not a statue of of Peter, and then goes on to claim that she didn't really mean it was of Peter. An embarrassing retreat. It keeps getting worse! Ehrman said there was no such statue. There is such a statue. Did you read the quotation from Ehrman's book that I posted?
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Nov 1, 2017 15:26:07 GMT
DM Murdock has exposed Ehrman's lible. He should have been more careful in his phrasing, it was a little ambiguous. The artifact to which she was referring is in the Vatican, but it does not correspond to its description as a "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock." Since I would expect Bart Ehrman to be aware of the existence of many weird ancient fertility figures, and that the Vatican has such things in its collection, I would interpret his sentence to mean that there was nothing corresponding to that description rather than denying the existence of the particular thing she had in mind. You seem fond of accusing others of dishonesty. Have you heard of psychological projection? Peter.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 1, 2017 16:12:17 GMT
Murdock was. That statue is not of "the Cock, symbol of St. Peter". In the very article to which you link, Murdock acknowledges it is not a statue of of Peter, and then goes on to claim that she didn't really mean it was of Peter. An embarrassing retreat. It keeps getting worse! Ehrman said there was no such statue. There is such a statue. Did you read the quotation from Ehrman's book that I posted? Yes I did read the quotation. I followed the entire exchange when it first happened. Here's what happened. 1. Murdock claimed there was a statue of "the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" in the Vatican. 2. Ehrman said there was no "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock" in the Vatican. 3. Murdock posted her image of the "cock" statue she had claimed was of Peter. 4. Ehrman rightly pointed out it was not a "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock", just as he had said. 5. Murdock, caught out, now claimed she hadn't really meant it was a statue of Peter.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 1, 2017 17:15:53 GMT
It keeps getting worse! Ehrman said there was no such statue. There is such a statue. Did you read the quotation from Ehrman's book that I posted? Yes I did read the quotation. I followed the entire exchange when it first happened. Here's what happened. 1. Murdock claimed there was a statue of "the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" in the Vatican. 2. Ehrman said there was no "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock" in the Vatican. 3. Murdock posted her image of the "cock" statue she had claimed was of Peter. 4. Ehrman rightly pointed out it was not a "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock", just as he had said. 5. Murdock, caught out, now claimed she hadn't really meant it was a statue of Peter. Did you ever think of actually reading what Acharya S (DM Murdock) said in her book? On page 295 of The Christ Conspiracy the caption under the sketch of the statue in question states: Ehrman did write that there is no such statue. (Again, you need to actually read the books.) In addition, we see from the caption that Murdock never said that the statue was an image of Peter. The cock is Peter's symbol. So you are wrong on 3 above, and Ehrman got 2 and 4 wrong. You post so many errors that I could spend all day correcting them. I suppose that's what it takes to clean up after some cherished notion that happens to be wrong. Attachments:
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 1, 2017 21:40:53 GMT
The artifact to which she was referring is in the Vatican, but it does not correspond to its description as a "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock." I think you may be confusing who said what. The description "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock" is Ehrman's description, not Murdock's description. I hope you realize that there's no reason for the statue to fit Ehrman's description. There's no reason for Ehrman to be confused about what Murdock had in mind. The sketch of the statue and its caption is in her book. In case you miss my other post, see the attached graphic which I took directly out of The Christ Conspiracy.I have heard of psychological projection, all right. I've seen enough of it. If you wish to attack me as dishonest, then go ahead and try to prove it. You won't get far, but you can try. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Nov 2, 2017 0:51:11 GMT
The artifact to which she was referring is in the Vatican, but it does not correspond to its description as a "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock." I think you may be confusing who said what. The description "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock" is Ehrman's description, not Murdock's description. I hope you realize that there's no reason for the statue to fit Ehrman's description. This is pretty silly. It doesn't matter what Murdock's exact words were or Ehrman's either. Murdock wanted to tie the fertility figure to St. Peter. Ehrman said that there weren't any such fertility figures connected with St. Peter. Oh, if I wanted to attack you, I'd do it directly. I was pointing out that when you find yourself flinging around accusations of dishonesty (as you have been), a bit of self-reflection is in order. Peter
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 2, 2017 3:16:21 GMT
Did you ever think of actually reading what Acharya S (DM Murdock) said in her book? On page 295 of The Christ Conspiracy the caption under the sketch of the statue in question states: Yes I read it. If you had read my post you would have seen that I quoted those words directly. I said "Murdock claimed there was a statue of "the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" in the Vatican". I already said that. He said "There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere". That statement is correct. No. She said explicitly that this penis statue was "a symbol of Peter". She also said "‘Peter’ is not only ‘the rock’ but also ‘the cock,’ or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day", making it clear that she identified this statue with Peter. When challenged on this by Ehrman, she doubled down and presented the image. Then he pointed out it was not "of Peter", and she tried to claim she never said it was of Peter, saying she had phrased her original claim badly. But look at how she changed her tune. * First claim: " Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" * Subsequent claim (when challenged by Ehrman): "I do not say here or elsewhere that the bronze sculpture itself is a symbol of St. Peter" Those two claims are patently in contradiction with each other.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 2, 2017 14:03:39 GMT
It doesn't matter what Murdock's exact words were or Ehrman's either. In that case considering what they actually said doesn't matter to you. You seem to have your mind made up. It is interesting that you didn't take me up on my challenge to prove I'm dishonest. I'm still wondering how I have been dishonest. You are right, though; we all need to maintain our own integrity.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 2, 2017 14:53:53 GMT
* First claim: " Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" * Subsequent claim (when challenged by Ehrman): "I do not say here or elsewhere that the bronze sculpture itself is a symbol of St. Peter" Those two claims are patently in contradiction with each other. If you wish to put your faith in Ehrman, then go ahead and believe him. I recently read The Christ Conspiracy (you know, the actual book), and I thought it was very clear that Acharya was referring to a statue that depicted a symbol of Peter, the "cock," rather than Peter himself. Did you see the graphic of the statue in question that I posted? Yes, Bart stated: Where Bart errs is that he is implying that the statue Acharya discusses in her book is not in the Vatican. Yes, he describes it as a "penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock," but in so doing he is twisting what Acharya wrote. In other words, he is making a straw-man fallacy. This error on Ehrman's part is very sloppy scholarship. I think it's obvious that he wishes to fend off mythicism even if his effort involves deceit. He's lucky he wasn't sued for libel. I first remember becoming acquainted with Bart Ehrman on YouTube. He was debating apologist William Lane Craig about the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. Of course Craig affirmed it was a historical event while Ehrman argued it cannot be considered historical. Although I agree that the resurrection of Christ probably never happened, Ehrman based his whole argument on that improbability. His logic is that since miracles are the least likely explanation for some historical claim, then any non-miraculous explanation should be preferred. I disagree. It's entirely possible that miracles can happen, and if a miracle does happen, we might know it if the evidence is strong enough. For example, using Bart's logic, my winning the lottery twice cannot be accepted as historical. It's way too improbable! However, if I have the two winning tickets, then that's very strong evidence that I did indeed win the lottery twice despite how improbable it might seem. In the same way, miracles might be proved with many unbiased witnesses, film, tangible evidence, testing, etc. Considering Bart's sloppy logic and scholarship, his credibility as an authority on the existence of Jesus is in question. Frank R. Zindler has pointed out that Ehrman has no formal training in anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, or history. ( Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, Page 206) Although such lack of formal training on Ehrman's part doesn't make him wrong about the historicity of Jesus, it does seem hypocritical considering how he smears the mythicists as being unqualified to examine the historical Jesus. I should also point out that I've been said to be unqualified to discuss the historicity of Jesus by the other members on this thread, yet I'm sure those members would be only too happy to accept what Ehrman has to say not realizing he may not be qualified either!
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Nov 2, 2017 15:35:01 GMT
It doesn't matter what Murdock's exact words were or Ehrman's either. In that case considering what they actually said doesn't matter to you. You seem to have your mind made up. The trouble with the exact-words-game is that no one ever plays it to the bitter end. They insist on exact words only until they get the implication they want to see. Fortigurn is better at exact-words then I am, and he seems to me to be winning the argument. I simply observe that Ehrman does not appear to have claimed the non-existence of a sculpture, or its non-presence in the Vatican. Why should I? I won't provide evidence that you are the rightful emperor of the United States either. I did not claim you were dishonest. I said that you seemed fond of accusing others of dishonesty. I noted that people who are very free with accusations against others are often projecting, and I suggested that you think about that. Peter.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 2, 2017 17:57:04 GMT
Fortigurn is better at exact-words then I am, and he seems to me to be winning the argument. I simply observe that Ehrman does not appear to have claimed the non-existence of a sculpture, or its non-presence in the Vatican. You need not rely on your judgment as to who is winning an argument. I'd recommend you go to the original sources to see what the truth is. The root of this issue can be found on page 168 of The Christ Conspiracy where Acharya first discusses “Peter the cock.” You can then find the sketch of the statue in question on page 295(b) of that book. Next, get a copy of Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman. On page 24 of that book you will find Erhman's critique of what Acharya said. Finally, on pages 63-71 of Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth you can find a detailed rebuttal by Acharya. Obviously you were insinuating that I'm dishonest. I try my best to maintain a reputation for integrity. I don't wish to have baseless and very prejudicial opinions tarnish that reputation. Getting back to the issue (and I'm not the issue), I don't believe the historicity of Jesus will ever be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. There will always be those who insist Jesus existed, and there will be doubters. There's no proof either way. If there was a Jesus, then he's lost to history. I'll continue to pursue this topic, nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 2, 2017 19:34:10 GMT
Bless you, you are are free to believe what you wish, and to ignore the evidence.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 2, 2017 20:29:20 GMT
Bless you, you are are free to believe what you wish, and to ignore the evidence. Speaking of ignoring the evidence, did you take the advice I gave to Pete above? I'm busy reading a lot of books from both sides of this issue. Are you?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 2, 2017 20:46:40 GMT
Bless you, you are are free to believe what you wish, and to ignore the evidence. Speaking of ignoring the evidence, did you take the advice I gave to Pete above? I'm busy reading a lot of books from both sides of this issue. Are you? Well, Jagella, There are two schools of thought. On the one hand there is Geza Vermes , Maurice Casey, Bart Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, Paula Fredriksen, James Dunn, Richard Bauckham etc etc with Professorships from leading universities and numerous published books and peer-reviewed articles and from the whole spectrum of Jewish, atheist, agnostic and Christian beliefs, all of whom I have read closely and reflected on. And on the other hand there is you and the late D.M. Murdock. Having thought it over long and hard, I will go with the former.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 2, 2017 21:38:23 GMT
Speaking of ignoring the evidence, did you take the advice I gave to Pete above? I'm busy reading a lot of books from both sides of this issue. Are you? Well, Jagella, There are two schools of thought. On the one hand there is Geza Vermes , Maurice Casey, Bart Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, Paula Fredriksen, James Dunn, Richard Bauckham etc etc with Professorships from leading universities and numerous published books and peer-reviewed articles and from the whole spectrum of Jewish, atheist, agnostic and Christian beliefs, all of whom I have read closely and reflected on. And on the other hand there is you and the late D.M. Murdock. Having thought it over long and hard, I will go with the former. I'm sorry if I confused you. I was asking if you've read the particular materials I cited that relate to this penis-statue issue. I've done my best to cite and document the evidence. I'm not a psychologist, but it appears to me that the support for the historical Jesus as expressed on this thread results from cognitive dissonance. I've seen people act like this before: they have a pet theory that they cherish and refuse to give up. The result is often hostility directed toward me, the gadfly who rouses the torturous doubts. The "faithful" may react with scorn involving insults and attacks on my character. If I post evidence for my position, a common reaction is to either ignore that evidence or twist it to try to deflate the damage it may do to the pet notion that they are hoping to safeguard. The opposition often involves several individuals who engage in group-think hoping that strength in numbers can overcome superior argumentation. If all that doesn't work, then ultimately I may be banned to silence my repugnant point of view. It's much like the fable of Jesus. His opposition couldn't beat him fairly, so they silenced him.
|
|