Chaucer

I find it rich that Spin inserts an exchange concerning his blog into AAbe's thread on Bart Ehrman, and yet he imposes some kind of saliva test on which people who are already active in this dialogue may view it and which ones may not. Anyone who is active in this thread should be able to view his blog, once Spin himself makes overt reference and linkage to it, as HERE.

If any participants here are denied access to a blog that Spin himself has inserted into this public discussion, then this exchange becomes virtually a private exchange and not a public one. Either let all participants here view this blog, or take the whole exchange private, now.

No, I'm not letting this go. It's unconscionable.

What are we here? A rationalism board, or a colloquy for virtual priests talking of their sacred mysteries and expecting others to just watch silently in hushed awe? I thought we were rationalists and skeptics here, and we don't lick other people's shit, thank you very much. OPEN UP YOUR FUCKING BLOG NOW, OR TAKE THIS FUCKING PRIVATE.

Chaucer

GakuseiDon

That's fine (though obviously I would disagree.) Even Richard Carrier seems to think that the mythicist case is only slightly more likely than the historicist case. I simply can't comprehend the thinking of someone who believes that the evidence for a historical Jesus is so close to zero that it is comparable to winning the lottery.

Toto

You will see his actual numerical estimate when his book is published. When he reviewed Doherty in 2002, he seemed to think that the mythicist case only had a slight edge. Now he seems to think that it is much more probable.

That's why this discussion is going nowhere. You have no solid evidence, you have no evidence that even makes it more likely that there was a historical Jesus, and you have no way of evaluating the probability of a historical person given your evidence, but you want to cumulate all of your inconclusive evidence and claim that it is "overwhelming."

Chaucer

That is

N-O-T

an established fact. It is an

O-P-I-N-I-O-N.

You write here as if it's more than that, and writing in that insufferably matter-of-fact way is

U-N-C-O-N-S-C-I-O-N-A-B-L-E.

Chaucer

aa5874

I just want you to know that not only HJers have OPINIONS.

It is U-N-C-O-N-S-C-I-O-N-A-B-L-E for one to repeatedly make UNSUBSTANTIATED claims after it has pointed out that:

1. "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is NOT authentic based on Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" X.17 and "Against Celsus" 1.47 and 2.13.

Based on Origen, words of Josephus are missing. That is NOT an opnion, it is a fact based on Origen.

2. Tacitus "Annals with Christus and "Christians" was MANIPULATED based on EXAMINATION carried out. The letter "E" was partially erased or manipulated to look like an "I".


It is U-N-C-O-N-S-C-I-O-N-A-B-L-E for one to make UNSUBSTANTIATED claims about HJ.

Do you have a CREDIBLE source of antiquity for HJ or even a CREDIBLE OPINION from antiquity about Jesus?

"Paul" said he was NOT the Apostle of a man so you can't even use the opinion of "PAUL".

Toto

The OP of this thread was about a hypothetical e-book that Ehrman might or might not be publishing (it could have been a joke, for all we know.)

It has now descended into a battle of CAPITALs and f!o-r^m~a*tt=i?n+g.

Please start a new thread if you have anything substantive to say.

Frank

the formatting battle (man, I'm doing a project right now in C++, combined with this shit, promises to produce dreams of formatting and syntax monsters).

Kapyong

Gday,

Wow - capital, underline, italic, bold - and with dashes - whoa, aa never tried anything THAT good - certainly makes your posts more convincing than his.

How can he possibly match that ?
Does this forum supporting flashing text?


Kapyong

Doug Shaver

I am inclined to call it an overstatement, but I would similarly evaluate "overwhelming." I can be pretty sympathetic to people who find mythicism unpersuasive, but when they say it's just out of the question, I have to wonder whether they've given the evidence a fair analysis.

Chaucer

This has now become a private exchange on a public thread -- untenable. If those who are "in" around here wish to discuss Spin's blog, let them give full quotes from the blog whenever and wherever they reference it. Otherwise, TAKE IT PRIVATE. I said I'm not letting this go, and I meant it.

Spin has every right to decide who reads his blog and who doesn't so long as its contents are not a matter of public discussion. In this case, not only are its contents evidently a matter of public discussion, it was Spin himself who put it there. This is why any further public discussion of this private matter is an abuse of this thread, an abuse of this board, and an abuse of closed-out posters like Avi and others, until everyone posting in this thread -- repeat, everyone -- can participate.

Either quote all -- all -- pertinent sections of the blog whenever posters of the inner priesthood choose to post publicly on this matter here, or make the blog accessible to all -- all -- who participate in this thread, or TAKE THIS PRIVATE.

Those others here who feel the same about this should also speak out, now, against this patent abuse. It is past time for everyone to challenge it.

Chaucer