Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 400 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Get out the popcorn and enjoy the show - again!

Let the bickering continue...

Ehrman’s Dubious Replies (Round Two)

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

Footnote 69: "Some are actual cranks, such as Acharya S. However, historicists who call mythicists "cranks" tend to go quiet when asked if they mean Richard Carrier."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f ... sus_Christ

Of course, Acharya is still being smeared in the talk page area and could use some help there too -
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Evide ... sus_Christ

The link below is a way to create a rationalwiki page for Acharya S.
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?tit ... &redlink=1

Would anyone like to offer to help creating a rationalwiki page for Acharya St? If so, PM me and I'll help out.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
They keep using the word "seed" for a man named Jesus existing. I guess they don't know that there are at least three or four different types of myth? Legend, folklore, and I forget the other one(s). Obviously, whoever wrote that "rational wiki" never studied mythology. I would have allowed them to get away with with legend or folklore, in place of myth, if they preferred, but "seed"? Come on. We aren't talking about Johnny Appleseed, which is at best folklore, but if they want to talk about "chopping down cherry trees", which is legend... Obviously, whoever wrote the wiki account does not know what myth is or means, as well as the various types of myths. I really get very tired of taking people to the very beginning of Mythology 101 just to explain what a myth is. It's almost as bad as not understand the various miraculous birth stories.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
^ True dat, Mriana.

I've had to create a terms and definitions post here a few years ago in the "Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position" thread. Very few people understand the various meanings and definitions of "myth." We started off the Mythicist Position video addressing the meaning of "myth" in hopes that people would become more aware.

For only $100,000 we could have a full page advert in the USA Today Newspaper letting everybody know - an on going joke between Acharya and I. :lol:

Actually, it has gone up since we first started joking about it. It's $125k now for a black & white Monday through Thursday yet, $242k over the weekend in color. We're still trying to figure out why the Illuminati, Satan, Lucifer and the Ice Capades aren't helping us out. The crazies love to claim we're in with them but, I have yet to see any of those benefits at all.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Hey folks, please pass around, post and share the mythicist position video:



Here's the other one created by our dear friend who passed away in the fall. It's exactly the same video - Mythicist Position video

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
There's been a discussion of this book on Bob Price's "Bible Geek" group on Facebook.

The participants were discussing a debate with Ehrman, and Price advocated having Doherty, Carrier and Zindler take on Ehrman. At which point, I jumped in:

Quote:
"Right! But it should really be Richard or Frank Zindler or Earl. It'll never happen, though."

Now wait a minute, my beloved Robert M. Price! Ehrman attacked and dismissed me pretty cheaply, and I've been rebutting his erroneous remarks quite sufficiently. I also know the comparative religion material better than pretty much anyone else, so let me have at him, please!

:)

Don't forget my recent rebuttal of Ehrman's criticisms here:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... canon.html

I also commented thus:

Quote:
And here's another rebuttal -

Does Justin Martyr quote the gospels?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... spels.html

And another:

Does Josephus prove a historical Jesus?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... jesus.html

And another:

The Son-Sun strawman
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... awman.html

And another:

Bart Ehrman: 'Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible'
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... sible.html

And who can forget this classic?

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... tican.html

This last one has gotten some 26,000 hits - looks like some people might be interested in my opinion!

Bob came back with a couple of comments:

Quote:
Robert M. Price: I would dearly love to see Acharya debate Ehrman! She'd make him eat his words but good!

And:

Quote:
Robert M. Price: All the research Ehrman skipped, Acharya had already done--in spades!

Another person chimed in - thankfully, with Bob's presence, apparently, no one's attacking me there. How refreshing to have a mature discussion!

Quote:
Ed Suominen: But, but...sputter...she's not...(waves hands)...credentialed!!!

Another person added:

Quote:
Raymond Dickey: As Ehrman said, she's 'not a scholar', despite her years of doing scholarly research. (OK, I'm not one to judge such things, but I don't think 'not a scholar' is accurate at all. Argue with her specific points, but don't just blow her off flippantly.)

I then responded:

Quote:
Thanks, beloved Bob and others!

Yes, the credentialism argument - I call it "Revenge of the Nerds." The bullied have become the bullies. I resent this blatant bigotry.

NEWSFLASH: I was a good enough student to get into a competitive college, earn a degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, and gain entrance into the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, where I studied with the most renowned experts in the field of ancient Greece - in Greece. Most of the students were older and were PhD candidates. I was the second youngest person accepted that year. I excavated at the site of Corinth, where Paul supposedly addressed the Corinthians, and, unlike many of the other students, I spoke Greek, so I could communicate with the Greek workmen on the site.

Here's a forum thread about my education:

viewtopic.php?t=2640

My professors and schools have been disturbed by my mythicist stance and have essentially disowned me - perhaps THAT fact explains why I did not pursue my studies? I would have been HAMSTRUNG in the same way we see Ehrman and the rest. Does anyone recall what happened to Dr. David Strauss and Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor when they argued against a historical Jesus? One lost his occupation and the other was imprisoned.

I studied under some very excellent professors in both college and post-graduate school. So, all of these institutions and scholars were all incompetent idiots to accept me into their programs? Studying with these institutions and individuals made me a SCHOLAR.

As I've responded elsewhere, Ehrman apparently doesn't know the dictionary definition of "scholar" in his unseemly credentialist snobbery.

Here's the definition of "scholar" - one would think a "real scholar" would know it:

Quote:

1. a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

2. a student; pupil.

3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship.


There's nothing there about having a PhD or even a Master's. This snobbery constitutes more credentialism and defamation.

We can see from my rebuttals who is the more "erudite person" on this subject of mythicism. And if he's a "real scholar" yet can't do the research I've done - instead defames me - then I'd rather be considered a "non-scholar" or, perhaps, an "above-scholar."

If I'm not even a "student; pupil" that would be quite insulting to my professors in college and post-graduate school. Oh, and by the way, I had a couple of scholarships during that time.

I AM a scholar - I'm just not a professionally brainwashed scholar.

Here's a forum thread on the credentialism fallacy:

viewtopic.php?p=18804#p18804

Note that Robert M. Price is quoted there as well.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:01 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
For only $100,000 we could have a full page advert in the USA Today Newspaper letting everybody know - an on going joke between Acharya and I. :lol:

Actually, it has gone up since we first started joking about it. It's $125k now for a black & white Monday through Thursday yet, $242k over the weekend in color. We're still trying to figure out why the Illuminati, Satan, Lucifer and the Ice Capades aren't helping us out. The crazies love to claim we're in with them but, I have yet to see any of those benefits at all.

I've pointed that out to apologists many times. Let's get this straight, the mythicists are in league with the devil, the ruler of this world and it's MONEY. So we ought to be rich beyond belief and the most popular thing going around in this world, right? I mean come on, denying that Jesus ever existed historically, that should be the numero uno priority on the devil's deception list shouldn't it?

So why is the very opposite true?

Why are mythicists a small minority in this world without any financial funds to speak of who have between little to no pull whatsoever with big government?

These guys can't even think their accusations all the way through to the logical conclusion. If there's a devil, rest assured, that devil is obviously FOR the Christ myth as based on at least some real history and against, very much against, the notion that Jesus never existed at all. Therefore Jesus as history is popular and Jesus as myth is unpopular in this world....
:lol:

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
^ Indeed, where's all of our lobbyists and special interest groups tossing money at Congress and Academia to give us special treatment and privileges? Instead, we suffer from utter discrimination as demonstrated here in our Mythicist Challenge Petition in the section titled: F) Recent examples of discrimination against mythicists.

The fact is, we are only after the truth no matter what that is so, we would NEVER be in league with any type of dishonest devil, Satan, Lucifer anyway. If Jesus or Zeus or Horus all really existed, then, we would be fine with that if that's what the credible evidence proved. However, the opposite is true and we have no problem with that either.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Brilliant insights, FTL and Tat.

Not long ago, I walked around with a (drilled) HOLE in my tooth for FOUR YEARS because I didn't have the funds to fix it. That was not fun, I can assure you. I only got it fixed because of a kind supporter.

It's a constant struggle - I operate on a shoestring budget with all the attendant issues. I was born with a wooden nickel in my mouth. My parents were children of the Depression, hardworking and intelligent, but mighty poor. They were able to work us up to a very nice town in a great home - an old renovated Colonial, about 200 years old now - through the sweat of their brows and minds. We were always cash poor - and I remain with few assets. I've dedicated my life to bringing forth this information WITHOUT monetary interests. I would have done much better had I been a lawyer or doctor, etc. - average sanitation workers fare much better than me, bless their hearts - but that was not my passion.

Still the idiotic calumny goes on.

We who perceive the following mythicist summary simply aren't allowed to exist, apparently!

The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament represents a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple people is no one.

That's all there is to it, really! It's not scary. Booooo! :twisted:

And putting it all together and bringing it to the public with little money - now that's the real trick. Thank goddess for the internet, or none of us would probably know this fascinating information, certainly not to this extent. With the net, how can we compete with all these powers-that-be who in reality want nothing to do with us. How does exposing their shenanigans benefit the elite?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Let's take a look at where believers think the devil has been active over the years and compare:

1) Egyptian Empire.
2) Babylonian Empire (Babylon!!!).
3) Roman Empire (Babylon the Great!!!)
4) United States.
5) UN
6) And, finally, the Mythicist Position.

:lol:

Hmmm.

Let's see.

Large scale and wealthy empires, lots of riches to boot, world super powers, and a fringe minority of mostly poor people self publishing books and debating on the internet.
:lol:

Has the devil droped his sights just a bit lately or what?

Morons.......

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 12:30 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
Oh well, the great scholar Richard Carrier apparently did not consider this comment up to standard for publication on his blog.

Robert Tulip wrote:
I've just posted this comment at Richard Carrier's blog

Richard, you are still too charitable to Ehrman on Peter and the rooster.

A typical ancient Roman sculpture of Saint Peter is at http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2172/1798 ... d98674.jpg sourced from http://www.rome101.com/Topics/Christian/Magician/

Peter has a rooster at his feet, a device used to say to us 'this is Saint Peter'. (He is also using a magic wand, but that is another matter.) If we see another ancient Roman statue of a rooster, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to assume that it references Saint Peter in some way, especially if it contains a man or anthropomorphic details. If someone says it has nothing to do with Saint Peter, they really have no basis unless there is some related evidence excluding Peter.

Perhaps the sensitivity around this arises from people who wish to maintain respect for Saint Peter as the claimed rock of the Roman Catholic Church, and who see links to symbols of virility as somehow distasteful and out of character. But then there would be many victims of clerical sexual assault who would disagree, in view of the behaviour of Peter's successors.

This debate does reference sexual politics, and I would suggest much of the scorn directed towards Murdock is because of her promotion of feminist readings that are regarded as culturally unacceptable. As seen in her most recent rebuttal of Ehrman's comments on Justin Martyr - http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contri ... spels.html
- this line that Murdock is just incompetent won't wash.

Re Freke and Gandy, you may have seen Neil Godfrey's recent commentary at
Code:
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/carrier-versus-ehrman-reflections/


I think Neil has a good point regarding robust discussion and politeness, but also, as one who gave The Jesus Mysteries five stars in my review - http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UVE1IPRUQIXA - I feel you miss the point they are making. In my review I state "The question here turns on the most plausible explanation for the rise of Christian faith. Freke and Gandy argue there was originally an inner church that only revealed part of its secret teachings to the public outer church. The ignorant masses called for signs and wonders before they would take any interest in new ideas. The early church serviced this mass demand for a new wondrous religion with the allegorical story of a historical messiah. The aim was to attract members to the cult, so secret mysteries could then be revealed to initiates. The Gospels as we have them were written for the outer church, as a simplified and `dumbed-down' historicized account of the inner spiritual myth. As Christianity spread, Freke and Gandy argue the outer church took on a life of its own, gradually losing contact with the secret mysteries. The `orthodox' soon found a source of temporal power in denial of the inner church teaching that the story of Christ was a cosmic myth. By allying with the ignorant, the Church Fathers isolated and suppressed the cosmic mysticism of the old inner church, which they branded as Gnostic heresy."

This seems to me to provide a coherent and plausible support for Freke and Gandy's broader arguments on how Christianity evolved within its wider pagan milieu. Just disparaging them as 'bad' looks like a distaste for analysing the cosmological aspects of the Christ Myth, and fails to engage with this sound analysis.

Regards, Robert Tulip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 12:33 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Are you sure it's not still pending? He hasn't approved any comments for that page yet. I left one there as well, just telling him "good job". I assume it's just still pending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
I think GA may be right, Robert. I've thought that Carrier censored me twice already and in both cases it was just pending and he eventually did post the comments.

Now who could it be that confused us both so cleverly. Oh, I don't know, could it be:


:twisted:

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:53 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Of course I'm right. I'm Almighty.

Carrier has approved both our comments, and responded to yours Robert.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:49 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
GodAlmighty wrote:
Of course I'm right. I'm Almighty.

Carrier has approved both our comments, and responded to yours Robert.


Fair enough, he just put them all up in one batch today. Here is his response to me, and my comments on it.

Richard Carrier wrote:
My problem with Freke and Gandy is that they repeatedly burn us with false claims (I started fact checking them and found so many errors I gave up bothering; I no longer trust the book). Murdock, likewise, indiscriminately conflates 19th century scholarship with contemporary and makes implausible inferences left and right. So, no, I do not see them as able to persuade professionals. They only make mythicism look ridiculous and that only makes my job harder. If they were more rigorous and constructed their arguments with more care, attending to modern methods and logic and recent scholarship, they might do better. But that hasn’t happened.
But we see that when Ehrman tries to present a basic critique of Acharya, he gets burnt with his own errors. This statement about Acharya, and about Freke and Gandy whose views overlap with Acharya's starts to look rather like the apologist argument that the Christ Myth Theory has already been rebutted so doesn't have to be taken seriously. It it were so easy, you would think even Tektonics would be able to come up with something more than the same tired old credentialism and observation that they disagree with apologists. Carrier's comments on the Luxor material were sloppy and incendiary, giving the impression he has an emotional attitude which does not engage with the evidence when it comes to Egyptian mythic origins.
Quote:
That’s a separate matter, though, from whether Ehrman misrepresented her arguments or position on Justin Martyr, for example. See the contrary view. But Ehrman’s statement is, I agree, hyperbolic: “quotes” the Gospels is arguably inaccurate, and “the” Gospels is open for debate, since we don’t actually know which Justin was employing of the three dozen Gospels there were. But then Murdock piles on to these reasonable points too many speculations (that his calling these memoirs “gospels” is an interpolation; that he can’t possibly be paraphrasing the canonicals; etc.).
The linked site just asserts without evidence that Justin used the four canonical gospels. The so-called 'speculation' is based on the observation that Justin accurately quotes and names his Old Testament sources, but when it comes to the New Testament his sources do overlap with our gospels, but also depart from them sufficiently to make it clear that Ehrman's lambasting of Acharya on whether Justin knew the Gospels is completely uncalled-for.
Quote:

I doubt Ehrman is at all motivated by her feminist angle (there are plenty of those within established academia). Indeed, from how badly he handles her material, I would doubt he is even aware of any of her feminist content. He was too careless and cursory in reading her to have even a superficially correct view of what she said, much less one deep enough to get its feminist points.
The 'feminist angle' I was referring to was "promotion of feminist readings that are regarded as culturally unacceptable". Acharya is in my view far more evidence-based than some other writers on goddess religion. I think she gets lumped in with this whole genre in a way that is very unfair. Many feminists also see this material as unwelcome because they just don't like religion. I know this from my mother's experience as a feminist theologian (Marie Tulip). This leads me to the view that it is not right to say critics of Acharya are simply misogynist, it is more that they consider analysis of goddess mythology to be irrational, and so reject it specifically on emotional grounds, while still engaging with female and feminist scholars who do not discuss goddess mythology.
Quote:
On the statue, the cockerel is also a symbol of Priapus (this isn’t the only example), and none of the examples you give depict Peter as being the cockerel, but as being in the presence of one, which makes sense as that is what the Gospels say. It is a wholly invalid inference to go from “Peter near a cock depicts a Gospel scene” to “Peter would be depicted as having the head of a cock and the nose of a penis and would be called the savior of the universe,” the latter being a wholly inappropriate title for Peter (it would only be true of Jesus), but typical of Priapus, who was also associated with cock and penis imagery. The conclusion is that this is far more likely a statue of Priapus and had nothing to do with Peter or Christianity.
Carrier is right here that this statue is more likely about Priapus than Peter, but the key point here is that Ehrman was clutching at straws to come up with examples of Acharya's supposed incompetence, and with this one he ended up eating crow.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 400 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group