Toto

You cut out the substance of the remark.

Abe has a pattern in this forum. He posts insulting and inflammatory comments about mythicists and scholars who do not confirm his prejudices. When he is called on the insults, he admits that he doesn't actually know a lot about the subject matter. Then he announces that he's going back to graduate school (in a technical field, nothing to do with Biblical studies or history.) Then a semester passes, and the cycle repeats. :banghead:

There's no "personal twitting" there.

Chaucer

And your remarks here are going at the poster and not at the substance of his arguments. Plenty of posters here write from a perspective of partial knowledge rather than professional knowledge. ApostateAbe is hardly alone. If all those of partial knowledge were to be disallowed here, discussion on this forum would virtually cease.

Chaucer

Toto

I don't have a personal problem with Abe.

I gave you the substance of his arguments - insults. And also factual errors. Every time he posts I have to spend time correcting his mistatements of facts.

At one time he tried to pretend that it was personal - we just have different perspectives. But we don't. He just has a fixed idea that mythicism is some sort of intellectual fallacy that he is called upon to fight by any means necessary, even though he doesn't understand it, doesn't understand historiography, has no training in the area.

Chaucer

That could be a description of many a myther I've read -- in addition to sweeping key pieces of data under the rug to buttress their arguments.

Chaucer

Toto

Getting back to the OP, this is not a description of Carrier, who has researched the area enough to have changed his position in the face of new evidence, and has formal training in the area.

Chaucer

But whose duly video'd lecture does have its share of unfortunate misdirection through sheer carelessness in letting a key piece of data drop out of sight from the audience, however much he may have addressed that missing data in the past.

Chaucer

Toto

There is no misdirection.

You seem to assume that the mere mention of Jesus called Christ in Ant 20 is an overwhelmingly significant piece of data. But you haven't supported this idea at all, in spite of being asked.

If this mention is so signficant, where are the scholarly papers supporting its signficance?

hjalti

Chaucer, why all this hostility towards the good ol' mythers? Sure, I can understand how one could be annoyed by ignorant zeitgeist-spewing parallelomaniacs. But why this hostility towards down-to-earth mythicists like Carrier and Toto?

spin

This thread is all about your carelessness, not Carrier's. Your careless reading of his informal statements along with the injection of your assumptions, obviously not held by Carrier is what is spread from one end of this thread to the other. You were burdened with such a drive to disparage the guy, you forgot to read what he actually said. You're in no position to talk about carelessness.

Chaucer

This is NOT about reading Carrier. This is about HEARING what he plainly says in one of his lectures, and he DOES leave out a key piece of data, and he consequently leaves a wholly misleading impression as a result. It's sheer sophistry to pretend otherwise. I applaud ApostateAbe for being so forthright in calling out the Emperor on his "new clothes". He's the real freethinker around here.

Chaucer