|
Post by peteri on Nov 2, 2017 22:56:35 GMT
Obviously you were insinuating that I'm dishonest. That may be obvious to you, but it is not the point of what I have been saying. I'm sorry if anyone else drew that inference. I think throwing around accusations of lying, as you are prone to do, is a worse thing than lying itself. I still think you should examine why you are prone to accuse others of lying, and reflect on whether the normal human tendency to assume that others are thinking the same way as you has anything to do with it. I repeat that this is NOT to suggest dishonesty on your part. Peter.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 3, 2017 15:32:01 GMT
I think throwing around accusations of lying, as you are prone to do, is a worse thing than lying itself. I still think you should examine why you are prone to accuse others of lying, and reflect on whether the normal human tendency to assume that others are thinking the same way as you has anything to do with it. I repeat that this is NOT to suggest dishonesty on your part. If I understand correctly, you are referring to two things I've said on this thread regarding people's honesty: - The early Christian cult was deceitful.
- Bart Ehrman is guilty of libeling DM Murdoch.
It's important to scrutinize both of these parties because both have been adopted as sources by those who espouse Jesus as being historical. If either one of them cannot be relied upon to tell the truth, then any argument based on their word becomes very shaky. In the first case, I think that the early church played fast and loose with the truth to make Jesus out to be a real person. As a result, the historicist position which bases its claim that Jesus was a real man has no good source to rely upon as far as the New Testament is concerned. In the second case, I have documented how Bart Ehrman libeled DM Murdock to make his case that Jesus is historical. Since he lied, he cannot be trusted as a source of information about Jesus either. Again, if you wish to substantiate Jesus as real, then Bart Ehrman cannot be trusted to do so. So I'm not just accusing these people to be spiteful: I'm scrutinizing them as sources of credible information for this debate. If they can be exposed as dishonest, and they are exposed for their dishonesty, then any part of a historicist argument for Jesus that depends on the integrity of the New Testament writers or Bart Ehrman fails.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 3, 2017 17:46:30 GMT
Did she sue him for this 'libel'? Libel usually involves defamation by written or printed words. Defamation involves lowering the reputation of a person. Would it have been possible to lower the reputation of the late D.M. Murdock (God rest her) in regard to her knowledge of the historicity of early Christianity or any academic subject remotely touching on the topic?? Are you are lawyer? Are you qualified to judge legal matters as well as historical ones?
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 3, 2017 22:01:47 GMT
Did she sue him for this 'libel'? I don't believe Acharya ever got the chance to sue Ehrman. I think she was way too classy a lady to do that; instead she just exposed his dirty deed by letting the world know. In this case the libel occurred in Did Jesus Exist page 24. In classic historicist style Ehrman went straight for the jugular hoping to take out a person who dared to falsify his beloved belief. That sounds about right. After reading The Christ Conspiracy I can see it's obvious that Acharya had a very wide range of knowledge of mythology and how it relates to Christianity. Have you read any of her books? She surely could have lost a lot from anybody libeling her. In any case, it's the book that matters rather than the author. I wouldn't care if Bozo the Clown wrote a book about Christianity; as long as the book is good and informative, I think it's worthwhile to read. No. I don't know how qualified I am in either field, but I know better than to libel anybody. Not only is it grounds for a lawsuit, but it's unfair and immoral as well. As far as being qualified to judge history, I'd say that at the very least I realize that gods and their magic men probably never existed save in the words of their creators. That's a very clear truism that the self-proclaimed experts on this thread don't seem to get. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 4, 2017 2:58:55 GMT
If you wish to put your faith in Ehrman, then go ahead and believe him. I don't need to put my faith in him, I can see for myself what Murdock wrote. TI 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 of course I saw the graphic, I was one of the people who followed up on Murdock's "research" of it and described how woefully inaccurately she had described her "research". And yes Murdock was saying that :"the statue depicted a symbol of Peter, the "cock"". What you have missed is that she later completely denied that she had said it was a symbol of Peter. * 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" He is not twisting what she wrote. You even agreed that she said this statue was a symbol of Peter "the cock". It isn't hypocritical because Ehrman does not rely on, or appeal to, his own expertise when assessing the historicity of Jesus. He relies on, and appeals to, the expertise of relevant professionals. Occasionally he brings his own expertise to the issue, when he assesses the New Testament texts, and he has the relevant qualifications for such assessment. This is in sharp contrast to someone like Murdock, who was so incompetent that she would sometimes represent sources as independent when they were actually quoting each other, and misleadingly referred to people as "scholars" when they had no scholarly qualifications at all. Here's an examination of the alleged "numerous scholarly references" for her claims. 1. Walker, ‘The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects’ (1988): This is not a scholarly work at all. Walker is not even a scholar; her academic qualifications are in journalism, and the only subject in which she is recognized as an expert is knitting. Walker’s book is full of unsubstantiated personal claims deriving largely from her own imagination. Walker cites a 1972 reprint of a work by Knight, ‘An Account Of The Remains Of The Worship Of Priapus : Lately Existing At Isernia in the Kingdom of Naples: In Two Letters’ (1786). Knight is a witness to the existence of the statue, but unlike Murdock he says absolutely nothing about it being anything to do with Peter. 2. Knight, ‘An Account Of The Remains Of The Worship Of Priapus: Lately Existing At Isernia in the Kingdom of Naples: In Two Letters’ (1786): Since Murdock had already cited a work citing Knight, listing Knight independently was redundant. Murdock was inflating artificially the number of works she cited. Knight was tutored at home and was never awarded a university degree, so he was not a scholar. However, his wide experience with antiquities as a collector of ancient coins and bronze statues at least means he was more educated on the subject than Walker the knitting expert. 3. Williams, ‘A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature’ (1994). This is a scholarly work on a completely different subject. It refers to the existence of the statue, citing a work by Fuchs, ‘Geschichte der Erotischen Kunst’ (1908), so it is not an independent source. 4. Fuchs, ‘Geschichte der Erotischen Kunst’ (1908). Murdock had already cited a work citing Fuchs, so listing Fuchs independently is redundant; again, Murdock was inflating artificially the number of works she cited. Additionally, Fuchs had a law degree, no qualifications in the field in which he was writing, and never held an academic appointment, so this is not a scholarly source. 5. Erlach, Reisenleitner & Vocelka, ‘Privatisierung der Triebe?’ Sexualitat in der Fruhen Neuzeit’ (1994): This work cites an unidentified ’18th C. engraving’ (p. 206, mistakenly referred to by Murdock as p. 203), which is almost certainly Knight, so this is not an independent source. Published in 1994, this source says that the statue is ‘still housed in the Vatican’s secret collection’ (p. 206), but as we shall see there is no evidence it was ever in the Vatican ‘secret collection’. Murdock has clearly never read this book herself, and failed completely to identify it properly; she wrongly attributes authorship to ‘Peter Lang’. In fact, Peter Lang is the name of the publisher. Murdock can't even get basic facts straight. If she had any real familiarity with scholarship, she would have immediately recognized Peter Lang as the name of a world famous scholarly publishing house. 6. Jones, ‘The Secret Middle Ages’ (2002): Murdock quotes Jones referring to the ‘notorious Albani bronze said to be held in the Vatican Museum’ (p. 75), emphasis mine. Here is a scholarly work striking a note of caution concerning the popular story of the statue being held at the Vatican, and now the story is that it is said to be held in the ‘Vatican Museum’, not in a ‘secret collection’. However Jones provides no source for the story, and says nothing about the statue having anything to do with Peter. 7. Stephens, ‘Public Characters of 1803-1804’ (1804): Murdock quotes text from this book referring to a print of the statue in question in ‘De la Chaussee’s Museum Romanum, printed at Rome, in folio, in 1692’ (p. 127). This text quoted by Murdock was contained in an letter printed several times previously, originally written by John Almon and published in his book ‘A Letter to J. Kidgell, Containing a Full Answer to His Narrative’ (1763). The book by Stephens which Murdock quotes is not a scholarly work, and nor is the letter by Almon (who was a journalist). Almon says nothing about the statue ever being in the Vatican and nothing about it having anything to do with Peter. 8. De la Chausse ‘Museum Romanum’ (1692): Murdock provides an image of the text on page 75 (volume 1), describing the statue in question. However, De la Chausse was not a scholar, he was a collector and cataloger of antiquities; furthermore, he does not say anything at all about the statue ever being in the Vatican. 9. Middleton, ‘The Miscellaneous Works of the Late Reverend and Learned Conyers Middleton’ (1752): Middleton was a clergyman, this is not a scholarly work, and it says nothing about the statue ever being in the Vatican and nothing about it having anything to do with Peter. His only source for the statue is De la Chausse, whom he cites (volume 4, p. 51). 10. Carlobelli, ‘The Image of Priapus’ (1996): Murdock quotes Carlobelli citing De la Chausse as an early source for the illustration of the statue (p. 67). However, apart from the fact that this is not an independent source (again we find De la Chausse is the source), Carlobelli says nothing about the statue ever being in the Vatican, and nothing about it having anything to do with Peter. 11. Wall, ‘Sex and Sex Worship (phallic Worship): A Scientific Treatise on Sex, Its Nature and Function, and Its Influence on Art, Science, Architecture, and Religion-with Special Reference to Sex Worship and Symbolism’ (1922): Murdock quotes Wall referring to ‘the representation of a bronze figure of Priapus which was found in an ancient Greek temple’ (p. 438), a photograph of which is shown in the book. Wall says nothing about the statue having ever been in the Vatican, and nothing about it having anything to do with Peter. The image in the photograph differs from the sketch in De la Chausse’s work, prompting Murdock to comment that this is ‘a photograph of what appears to be the original bronze statue (or at least its twin)’. Wall was a pharmacist with no scholarly qualifications; this is not a scholarly source. This is actually the only photograph Murdock shows, and even she expresses uncertainty that it is a photograph of the actual statue to which she is referring. 12. A source is cited by Murdock as ‘Studies in Iconography (7-8:94), published by Northern Kentucky University’: The work is a journal to which Murdock clearly had no access, since she omits the name of the author and title of the article in the journal, whilst linking to the snippet view of the work available on Google Books. Murdock quotes text saying ‘This object was published under papal and royal authority, exhibited for a time in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and is now said to be held inaccessible in the secret collections of the Vatican’, but without broader context it is impossible to see if the author cited any source for the claim. Nevertheless, again we find scholarly caution; the statue is ‘said to be held inaccessible in the secret collections of the Vatican’. Summary of Murdock's alleged "numerous scholarly sources" for the claim that this is a statue of Peter, held in the Vatican's secret collection. * Half of them are not scholarly sources at all: Walker, Knight, Fuchs, Stephens, De la Chausse, Middleton, Wall * Only two are independent sources: De la Chausse, Knight (and Knight is dependent on De la Chausse for the illustration he presents his own book); the other sources either cite one of these two, or cite no source at all
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 4, 2017 3:01:14 GMT
As far as being qualified to judge history, I'd say that at the very least I realize that gods and their magic men probably never existed save in the words of their creators. That's a very clear truism that the self-proclaimed experts on this thread don't seem to get. Firstly there are no self-declared experts here, and secondly you've been told repeatedly by people here that "gods and their magic men probably never existed save in the words of their creators". So you're not being honest about how you're representing people here.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 4, 2017 15:26:48 GMT
I don't need to put my faith in him, I can see for myself what Murdock wrote. It's important to read the books in question. Again, I have read them. You need to cite your sources. Let's take another look at those sources. On page 168 of The Christ Conspiracy: Again, the caption under the sketch of a penis-nosed statue appears on page 295(b) of The Christ Conspiracy. It reads: Here's what Bart Ehrman wrote on page 24 of Did Jesus Exist: Now, is Ehrman correct in his implying that DM Murdock said that there is a “penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican”? No. All you need to do is read what DM Murdock actually said about this issue. On page 168 of The Christ Conspiracy she doesn't even mention a statue! Her caption under the sketch of the statue on page 295(b) states that the statue is a statue of “the cock” and not a statue of Peter like Ehrman falsely states. DM Murdock is correct! Go back to the caption; the caption states that the statue depicts “the cock” as a symbol of St. Peter. She never said that the statue is a symbol of St. Peter—only that the cock is a symbol of Peter. I'm at a loss as to how I can make this evidence any clearer. Go ahead and believe what you want to. In that case let's skip Ehrman all together. After what he did to DM Murdock, I don't know if I'll ever believe anything he writes or says ever again. Have you read any of her books, or do you just read what other people have to say about her work? When I read The Christ Conspiracy (the whole book) I often was incredulous about Acharya's claims. So I did web searches to check those claims, and in almost every case I found sources that agreed with her. I'm not really an apologist for her, and I'm sure that she, like anybody else, has made mistakes. Nevertheless, she has a lot to say about the parallels between Jesus and other religious figures most of whom are recognized as having never existed. I can't just deny all she has to say especially when it agrees with what so many other people who have investigated the historicity of Jesus have to say. Again, if we are to quibble over sources, then why rely on the word of fanatical and anonymous religious cultists to base a belief in the “historical” Jesus? (You know—how all those “scholars” base their belief in a real Jesus by reading the New Testament?) You are engaging in special pleading by rejecting DM Murdock's sources as “unscholarly” while basing your own position in the religious propaganda of the early Christian church.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 4, 2017 15:40:38 GMT
... there are no self-declared experts here... Wrong again. Here's what you said on page 2 of this thread: Who said that? Let the facts speak for themselves! It's been a long thread, and I cannot remember everything people may have posted. If I get something wrong about what has been posted, then my error lies not in dishonesty but forgetfulness. Is it important that you portray me as dishonest? Is any dishonesty on my part evidence for a historical Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 4, 2017 18:21:01 GMT
I don't need to put my faith in him, I can see for myself what Murdock wrote. It's important to read the books in question. Again, I have read them. You need to cite your sources. Looks take another look at those sources. On page 168 of The Christ Conspiracy: Again, the caption under the sketch of a penis-nosed statue appears on page 295(b) of The Christ Conspiracy. It reads: Here's what Bart Ehrman wrote on page 24 of Did Jesus Exist: Now, is Ehrman correct in his implying that DM Murdock said that there is a “penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican”? No. All you need to do is read what DM Murdock actually said about this issue. On page 168 of The Christ Conspiracy she doesn't even mention a statue! Her caption under the sketch of the statue on page 295(b) states that the statue is a statue of “the cock” and not a statue of Peter like Ehrman falsely states. DM Murdock is correct! Go back to the caption; the caption states that the statue depicts “the cock” as a symbol of St. Peter. She never said that the statue is a symbol of St. Peter—only that the cock is a symbol of Peter. I'm at a loss as to how I can make this evidence any clearer. Go ahead and believe what you want to. The point is, why would Murdock include that picture if she weren't claiming that there be a connection? Including random images to clarify what a cock looks like would be highly appropriate for a children's book, but children are not Murdock's audience. (It probably would also be a difficult image to get into any children's book that isn't self-published.) The fact that 1) she claims that the name "Peter" means "penis", 2) she highlights the meaning "penis" that the word "cock" can also carry, 3) her heavy-handed insistence that the cock is a "symbol of Peter" (more correctly, it's a symbol of Peter's denial/betrayal) and 4) the rather conspicuous example of a rooster with a phallic beak all suggest that she's hinting at a stronger relation, no? Or do you think that she was listing all these banal facts to just convey "golly, what a big coincidence, but I'm sure it doesn't mean anything"? In any case, her comments about "Peter" relating to the penis are inane; this is purely based on the English word "peter" (not the name "Peter") and this meaning doesn't even date to before the 19th century. Neither the Latin (Petrus) nor the Greek ( Petros) could be associated with the meaning "penis". But, worse for Murdock, Peter's original nickname in Aramaic would not have even resembled the English "peter", because the Gospel writers all used a Greek translation of the Aramaic word kêfâ. This also lacks any phallic associations. One could construe countless of meanings for anything with this 'method' of jumbling tosh together and it would all be equally invalid.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 5, 2017 0:24:35 GMT
The point is, why would Murdock include that picture if she weren't claiming that there be a connection? Archarya includes a lot of illustrations in her book. They help to clarify what she's discussing in the text. See the attachment for two good examples of these illustrations. I don't believe illustrations of penises are appropriate for children's books. Sadly, Acharya isn't here to answer your questions. The best you can do is read the book. It is an interesting set of relations: Peter's denials are signaled by the cock, and his name means "rock." I'm not an etymologist, but there might be something to what Acharya is saying. That's a very good critique of the potential misuse of the name "Peter"! What Acharya actually says on page 168 is that "peter" is used as slang for the penis "to this day." She quotes Walker as saying: In any case, all you've done is demonstrate that Acharya may have misused or misunderstood the word "peter." I don't believe that does much damage to her thesis that Jesus didn't exist. I never thought she was perfect, and I myself find some of what she says to be hard to swallow. That's the way human knowledge progresses, though: people have something to say, they say it, and then we agree or disagree. You may wish to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn to see how this process works. We may be in for a paradigm shift in Biblical studies. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 5, 2017 13:15:47 GMT
Jagella, I don't know how qualified I am in either field, but I know better than to libel anybody. Not only is it grounds for a lawsuit, but it's unfair and immoral as well.If you are not a lawyer, how do you know it is a 'libel'? What is your obsession (you have posted an image that is presumably meant to be of her?) with the late D.M. Murdock who has been widely ridiculed for her opinions on the historicity of Jesus? See e.g. below by the late atheist scholar Maurice Casey: rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-maurice-casey/Dorothy Murdock, who writes also under the name of Acharya Sanning, has a significant following too. As well as her books, she has a blog. This includes “Who is Acharya S?”. Here, describing herself with typical mythicist modesty as ‘the coolest chick on the planet’, she claims to have a BA degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Nonetheless, when she gets to dating the Gospels, Murdock declares that ‘all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time – first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE….If the canonical texts as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts.’ The criterion of not being mentioned in other texts is an important mythicist weapon. It embodies the fundamentalist assumption that the Gospels should have become sacred texts immediately, and therefore quoted by all extant Christian authors as fundamentalists quote the New Testament.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 5, 2017 15:43:00 GMT
If you are not a lawyer, how do you know it is a 'libel'? Sandwiches, I don't need to be a lawyer to know what rape or murder is. In the same way, I'm a layman who understands libel as writing something false about another party. I saw Ehrman doing that to DM Murdock, and I documented that libel on this thread. As I see it, innocent people should be defended against assailants. Well, that's obviously a loaded question. I don't know how defending Acharya amounts to an "obsession" any more than attacking her is an obsession. Yes, she's been ridiculed. Does that prove her wrong? I suspect there may be some sexist elements in her opposition. Thanks for the link. Maurice Casey is welcome to his opinion. He might be right. I can use that essay when I discuss how the "historicist empire strikes back against the mythicists" in my book. For now, let me say that scholars are by definition very knowledgeable people who have earned degrees in accredited institutions. New Testament scholars can tell you a lot about the New Testament--who wrote what when and what does it say. One thing they're really not qualified to do though is to tell you how true the New Testament might be. Sure, they have their opinions, but that's all they have; opinions. To me it's just plain foolish to uncritically accept what they have to say. I have my opinion too, and my opinion is that the logic used to argue for a real Jesus is fallacious, and the evidence is ridiculously weak. Frankly, the position that Jesus is historical seems to me to be a scam. In the chapter The Response to Crisis in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Thomas Kuhn tells us on page 78: And on page 80: It appears that something like what Kuhn speaks of here is happening in New Testament studies. We have the historical-Jesus defenders confronted with the anomaly of myths that often closely parallel the New Testament yet predate the New Testament. These defenders also must deal with the fact that Jesus is apparently unheard of when he is believed to have lived. They have devised modifications of their historical-Jesus theory to eliminate conflicts with these anomalies. For example, they downplay the myths by focusing on the inevitable differences between the myths and the New Testament Jesus. They explain away the lack of evidence for Jesus among the historians of that day by arguing that many other people of that century weren't mentioned either. And historicists have divested Jesus of his integral nature as a god in order to make him seem more plausible as a real person. In the second quotation, we see another possible parallel between scientists and New Testament scholars when confronted with anomaly. Historicists assume a real Jesus (the current paradigm). The various puzzles regarding the existence of Jesus must be solved within the paradigm of his existence. If people like Richard Carrier or Robert Price fail to fit the Jesus of the New Testament into the existence paradigm, then they are blamed rather than the theory that Jesus existed. It appears that Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman are doing just that--they characterize mythicists as "unscholarly" or not qualified to examine the existence of Jesus. We may be in for a paradigm shift in New Testament studies.
|
|
kj
Clerk
Posts: 9
|
Post by kj on Nov 6, 2017 5:23:44 GMT
Nov 5, 2017 9:43:00 GMT -6 jagella said: I somehow doubt it rises to the level of legal libel (in the US). There are specific requirements for that- it's not just saying something bad about a person, or even saying something which may be interpreted as false about a person. I'm not a lawyer either, but there have been a couple fairly high-profile cases recently in the news which were more egregious than anything Ehrman said about Murdock and they were dismissed as not qualifying. Other jurisdictions (notably the UK) have lower thresholds, but I have to believe that "scholarly disagreement" almost never makes it to the level of libel. I suspect there aren't. Do you have any evidence for this, other than the obvious (i.e. she's a woman)? Or are you just impugning the motives of people with whom you disagree? None of them have posted pictures of her (or any other person whose writings have been discussed here), so why did you? Why did you not post a picture of Ehrman, for that matter?
This paragraph effectively summarizes most of what you've said on this thread. And some of the sentences are actually true. Your definition of scholar is way too limiting. A scholar is one who studies- so scholars tend to be knowledgeable people, but not all of them have degrees. And fewer of them have degrees in all subjects in which they would be considered scholars. Also, not everyone with a degree is a scholar- or even very knowledgeable, even if their degree is from an accredited institution. There's a term in academia- "idiot with a Ph.D." It's worse with undergrad degrees, because they're easier to obtain. Scholarship is its own qualification- I've seen papers by Nobel prize winners rejected because they were not good papers, even though they were written by good scientists, and I've seen papers by people working out of their garages published. Good scholarship either adheres to or improves the standards of its field, irrespective of the educational background (or even history) of the practitioner.
Some New Testament scholars may well be as narrowly focused as you say. But I bet a substantial fraction of them have spent a significant amount of time studying the history of the time, and can tell you a lot about the historical consistency of the New Testament. Scholarship is almost never about opinions, so to say "They have their opinions, and I have mine" is unpersuasive. My opinion is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds (given suitable times for averaging) to all systems on all scales. Is that all I have- an opinion? Does my degree in physical chemistry make it more than an opinion? Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of physicists and chemists would essentially agree with that statement make it more than an opinion, or is that just another resort to "science by vote?" Why are the "opinions" of those who believe the evidence supports the existence of a historical Jesus less believable?
Early on, you were provided with a link to Tim's summary of the issue from his History for Atheists blog. It appears you didn't bother to read it. He directly addresses a lot of the objections you have raised, for the simple reason that you're not the first to raise them. He even directly addresses some of the arguments of Acharya S/Murdock. Tim has degrees in history from an accredited institution. He is a very knowledgeable person. So he is a scholar, by your definition. He summarizes the arguments and the evidence, and discusses why the consensus is what it is. Why do you reject his analysis out-of-hand, and cling to that of the somewhat eccentric Murdock/Acharya S? Are you sure that it isn't confirmation bias (people who agree with me tend to be smarter than those who do not)?
These two sentences are puzzling. Your claim is that there should be more evidence for Jesus than other historical figures of the time? Why would that be? You also denied to be conflating the human Jesus from the supernatural Jesus just days ago, but now you seem to claim that by evaluating the evidence for a human Jesus was only done to "make him seem more plausible as a real person," which is practically equivalent to the assertion that if the supernatural Jesus doesn't exist, then the human Jesus didn't either. That is quintessential conflation. The question of whether a historical Jesus- a preacher who advocated for reform of the Jewish system- existed and was the model for the development of Christianity is of significant historical interest. Because, be it good, bad, or indifferent, Christianity played a major role in shaping the modern world, it is interesting to know if it was based on a historical person, or a hodgepodge of people. The influence on the world is independent of any supernatural questions about Jesus.
At times you seem to be portraying the Mythicists as persecuted people, and you referred to yourself as "gadfly" recently. Combined with your reference to Kuhn, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that people are either religiously or inertially bound to the notion of a historical Jesus and this "new" notion of Jesus having not existed is a groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting realization akin to the notion of continental drift. In addition to sounding von-Daniken-esque, it's simply wrong. The position that there was no historical Jesus is not a new creation. It's not as though nobody considered the notion before. It's not "heretical" in any practical sense- the statement "the historical Jesus existed" cannot be proven false. There are literally millions of people from that era (estimates I can find suggest a half-million Jews in Judea at the time) whose individual existences cannot be documented. So those who want to believe in a historical Jesus in order to believe in a supernatural Jesus can always do so without actually contradicting the historical record (which can only speak definitively of those who did exist, not of those who did not. I suppose you could find evidence for a real Jesus Hoax in the form of documents from people claiming to have made the whole thing up. Ludlum had something like that as a plot element in one of his books, if I recall correctly.) The use of such statements always reminds me of the quote attributed to Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 6, 2017 16:00:40 GMT
She never said that the statue is a symbol of St. Peter—only that the cock is a symbol of Peter. * " Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" So what you are claiming is that it's a statue of something which is a symbol of Peter which is not a symbol of Peter. Perfectly logical. I have read her works myself. When I read The Christ Conspiracy (the whole book) I often was incredulous about Acharya's claims. So I did web searches to check those claims, and in almost every case I found sources that agreed with her. Firstly you can't have done much research. As you can see I quickly found an instance in which she misrepresented or completely misunderstood all but two out of the sources she used. Most of them didn't even say what she claimed they said. And even when you do find sources which agree with her, you often find that those sources are unreliable, or simply wrong. I can't just deny all she has to say especially when it agrees with what so many other people who have investigated the historicity of Jesus have to say. Wow, sounds like you're appealing to numbers here; "All these people agree with her, so she can't be wrong". I thought you said this was the wrong way to argue? Again, if we are to quibble over sources, then why rely on the word of fanatical and anonymous religious cultists to base a belief in the “historical” Jesus? (You know—how all those “scholars” base their belief in a real Jesus by reading the New Testament?) You are engaging in special pleading by rejecting DM Murdock's sources as “unscholarly” while basing your own position in the religious propaganda of the early Christian church. Firstly this isn't a matter of quibbling over sources, it's a demonstration of how badly she misunderstood or misrepresented her sources, mainly because she was ignorant of what she was reading. Secondly I don't need to "rely on the word of fanatical and anonymous religious cultists to base a belief in the “historical” Jesus", and that's not what historians do either. They don't base their belief in a real Jesus just by reading the New Testament. So there's no special pleading here.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 6, 2017 16:17:56 GMT
Wrong again. Here's what you said on page 2 of this thread: That is me saying (correctly), that I know more about that subject than you do. That is no remotely close to me saying I am an expert. So you were making a completely untrue claim. You claimed this thread had self-declared experts, but no one here has claimed to be an expert. You're not remotely trustworthy. And this is even before we get to your attempt at deception, trying to fool people here into believing you could read Greek when in fact you can't. Here are several examples. * Only some of those who accept Jesus existed believe he was "the god of the Christian religion" * You seem to be struggling to differentiate between a historical preacher on whom the magic man is based and the figure in the gospels * Accepting the existence of Jesus as a historical being does not indicate acceptance of him as God or Son of God or validation of the Christian religion * At any rate, the question of whether the backstory of Jesus is what the Gospels claim is distinct from that of whether a historical person called Jesus was a central figure in a "reformist" sect which arose from the area near Nazareth * Which is more likely to exist, a human being or a god? * Zeus was not believed to be both god and man, and Jesus was not believed to be both god and man until well into the second century at earliest * You seem to be conflating the two issues- whether there was a historical Jesus and whether he was the Messiah- and arguing that since the latter is false, the former must also be You really don't seem to be paying attention to anything posted by other people. Is it important that you portray me as dishonest? No, but it is important that I call you out on your dishonesty. Remember, you came here deliberately trying to deceive people. You can't get away with that here. Is any dishonesty on my part evidence for a historical Jesus? No that's completely ridiculous.
|
|