Layman

Perhaps it is because when I tried to discuss something with you, you proceeded to lecture me about Marcan priority and the synoptic problem. Something that anyone who has read my posts on this thread would know that I agree with.

I ask you about your assertions on Mark and you give me arguments about the Gospel of Matthew.

I'm skeptical that meaninful conversations with people who cannot converse about the topic they originally raised is possible. It certainly does not appear to be worth the effort.

Toto

Gentlemen, let's keep this thread on the stated topic and not get diverted into criticizing each other's perceived deficiencies.

Back on topic, I'm sure that Ms. Fredriksen appreciates the advice to grow some balls.

Back to a slightly more serious mode, I see that Layman is again claiming that Michael Grant is an atheist. This has been questioned before, and I do not recall anyone coming up with a clear indication of his religious position.

Layman

If it's a problem for you Toto, just replace it with the term "secular."

And perhaps you should keep your Moderator posts and your own personal jabs in different posts?

Amaleq13

Carrier wrote (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tml#Conclusion):

"However, I think the fault is more with historicists who have stubbornly failed to develop a good theory of historicity. By simply resting on the feeble laurels of prima facie plausibility ("Jesus existed because everyone said so") and subjective notions of absurdity ("I can't believe Jesus didn't exist!"), the existence of Jesus has largely been taken for granted, even by competent historians who explicitly try to argue for it. The evidence is selectively mined for confirming evidence, and all challenging evidence is ignored, especially when it is weird. But Doherty deals with the weird evidence in a way few historicists ever have. In fact, I have never seen any historicist case made by comprehensively explaining all the evidence in this way. At present, historicists "can" account for all the evidence, but they do so at great cost to their theory's merits, building ad hocness, or diminishing scope, power, or plausibility. Worse, each problem by itself would not be serious, but to have to resort to such excuses for hundreds of such problems is very serious indeed, a problem DMT avoids.

And it is for these reasons I am forced to rule against the historicist case, even if by a small margin. Maybe someone can finally take Doherty's thesis seriously and develop a single, coherent theory of Jesus' existence that explains all the evidence as well as Doherty's theory does, or better. As I have not seen it tried, I cannot say it can't be done. But someone is going to have to do it if they want to refute Doherty. Merely picking at his arguments, and again flinging prima facie plausibility and subjective notions of absurdity at it like they were heavy artillery, is not going to work.

Finally, all this is not to say that the historicity of Jesus has been refuted or that it is now incredible. Many arguments for historicity remain. They simply are not as abundant, strong, and coherent as Doherty's thesis, no matter how abundant, strong, and coherent they may be."

Forgive me if I take Carrier's opinion of the seriousness of Doherty's position and the efficacy of the scholarly community's responses over yours, Layman.

Toto

Layman - it was a question, not a personal jab. I just remembered that the question was raised and not answered, so you might want to classify it as part of my moderator-bookkeeping function.

spin

This certainly does not appear to be worth the effort.


spin

Layman

Right, and forgive me if I take the rest of the scholarly communities' positions over Carrier's.

An appeal to an authority of one among thousands. Wow.

spin

Why don't you break out of your vicious cycle and start using evidence for a change?


spin

Toto

This has been split from the Frederiksen thread. If it doesn't shape up, it will be closed.

Toto

All parties are advised that this is not a productive use of bandwidth.

It is not a fixed rule, but one sentence replies are discouraged. Personal characterizations are almost always inappropriate, even when justified.

Edit: All comments about moderation have been removed as off topic.