If a secularist were to debate Doherty, Richard Carrier would be the best bet. I think he said that he's reviewing Doherty's book as we speak. If he comes out disagreeing with Doherty, a debate between he and Doherty would be far more useful than Brian's "debate."

Carrier would be perfect. Very knowledgeable and probably acceptable to Doherty.

I think Richard Carrier would be a very poor choice. Most of what I've read from him is very sloppy. He's more of an on-line apologist for freethinkerism than a serious historian or thinker.

I'd much rather see Doherty debate an NT historian (secular or not, it really doesn't matter), someone with a thorough knowledge of 2nd Temple Judaism, Greek, the Pauline epistles and Paul's theology, the methodology of "historical Jesus" studies, etc. Doherty could do this any time on the crosstalk list were he not afraid.

SecWebLurker

Mr. Carriers credentials:

B.A. History (minor in Classical Civilization), UC Berkeley (1997)

M.A. Ancient History, Columbia University (1998)

M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University (2000)

Perhaps you don't like or agree with his positions, but suggesting that he's not a "serious" historian is simply rude and disrespectful. If this is all you can do to berate his arguments (and he has many articles available on the web) then he doesn't have much to fear.

Thanks madmax but I'm already aware of Carrier's credentials. I don't consider him a serious historian (I wouldn't care if he had a PHd. which he probably will one day) because most of what I've read of his is just sloppy freethinkerism, as I said - much of it completely out of his field...

SecWebLurker

Just curious, SWL. What are your credentials for such a sweeping generalization? And you wouldn't happen to be a theist would you? Haven't noticed. Which, to extend my remarks to Layman, wouldn't disqualify you from expressing your views. But it does place them in a certain perspective, to me not very credible.

Hi JubalH,

I don't need to have credentials to make any of the statements I made, nor did I make a sweeping generalization.

JubalH: And you wouldn't happen to be a theist would you? Haven't noticed. Which, to extend my remarks to Layman, wouldn't disqualify you from expressing your views. But it does place them in a certain perspective, to me not very credible.

SWL: Now that, on the other hand, is a sweeping generalizaton. LOL.

SecWebLurker

Lance

In other words, ossification of the brain is a normal state of theists, by and large.

Just what the hell do you theists think any NT historian's perspective is by and large anyway? Virtually 100% of the field is some sort of Christian, which almost says by definition that the perspective is slanted.

Well your certainly entitled to your opinion of course. Naturally most of us will find that opinion worthless until such time as you actually back up your accusations in regards to Mr. Carrier.

As I understand it, the Sec Web has an open invitation for articles in support of theism and I would think they would accept a well written rebuttal of any of Mr. Carriers writings. I know they would certainly link to such rebuttals. If you believe you have such a strong case and saw fit to contact one of the Sec Web managers I expect they would accomodate you.



[This message has been edited by madmax2976 (edited May 26, 2001).]

Lance wrote: what the hell do you theists think any NT historian's perspective is by and large anyway? Virtually 100% of the field is some sort of Christian, which almost says by definition that the perspective is slanted.

SWL: No, it doesn't say that at all. In fact, a liberal Christian scholar might just as well be biased against every tenet of the traditional Christian faith - they might seek to rid us of 'the smothering clouds of historic creeds,' the 'dark ages of theological tyranny,' and the 'dictatorial tactics of the Southern Baptist Convention and other fundamentalisms.' [The Five Gospels, 7-8] - and thus, in every sense but that relevant to the question of Jesus' existence, be slanted towards the skeptical end of issues.

SecWebLurker