Steven Avery

End of story.
The supposed "connections" to "historical processes" and "professional historians" amd "historical debate processes" were all Sauron's projections.

Also discussed at ..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...54#post4253954

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron I was responding to your claim.

The same "claim" about "historical debate processes, etc" that was not my issue ?

Sauron, you are truly amazing.

Try to keep this thread for the Carrier 'Nativity' stuff. With the Tabor probability taking the front-burner today (elsewhere) I would like to keep this thead ready and focused.

In fact, I would request the mods to remove all the "historical debate processes" diversions away from this thread. 7 to 9 posts back and the next one forward and probably 50 more if I tell Sauron the same error he made again and again, as in the above link. Better on its own thread than trying to derail a solid thread.

Please don't merge it with Doug's thead either, since that one had some real discussion (In fact, you could remove some of the same junque off of that.) We need a special thread -

"Sauron's Professional Historical Debate Processes BOP Old Folks Home"

BOP - Burden of Proof

Shalom,
Steven

Sauron

Not hardly; you don't wiggle off the hook that easily. You still made a claim about the historical process, even if this isn't your "issue".

Whether it was your "issue" or not is irrelevant.
You still made the claim.
It's hardly my fault that you made claims on more than one topic.

No, you interjected a claim about burden of proof in the context of historical evaluation of ancient texts. You have yet to justify your statement about burden of proof.

I'm sure you'd love a forum where you could make claims about where the burden of proof lies, without having anyone raise questions or ask for some support behind your assumptions. Do you really think the mods will give that to you?

Toto

Search on Google for Richard Carrier Date of the Nativity, and this thread shows up. Does this thread actually have any value? I see praxeus shooting spitballs at Carrier, but little more.

I think there is a basic difference of approach. Steven Avery is proud to be an apologist and an inerrantist, and his principle complaint is that Carrier does not take apologetic arguments seriously enough, or treat them with enough respect. Carrier, however, is a historian and an academic, and has made his opinion of apologetics very clear here.

Steven has asked for posts that he considers off topic to be split off. I would prefer to dump this thread into Elsewhere as lacking serious content. Any comments?

Amaleq13

Technically, I suppose Steven should have started this thread in the Feedback forum so that Carrier would be automatically notified and have the opportunity to respond.

mountainman

Neither can "affected" historians perceive the pseudo chronology
tendered, bound and distributed with the holy scriptures while
at the same time the intellectual works of the academic Porphyry
were burned by edict..............................2007 = 325 + 1682.

Steven Avery

And I would say that it is just my acceptable service in appreciation to the beauty of God's word. As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who is touched daily by the scriptures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto and his principle complaint is that Carrier does not take apologetic arguments seriously enough

Clearly you have little idea of this thread. I will be happy to summarize more up-to-date where we are, including the problems in the Carrier article.

Your attempted sleight-of-hand summary above is relevant only in regard to one aspect, the driveby "contradictions" that Richard Carrier grossly mishandles. Even after five years. Not that he doesn't pay attention to "apologists" - < edit> . Even the skeptic rah-rah crowd hasn't made a real attempt to defend the worst of the drivebys, the Simeon - Anna - Herod claim. <edit>

However the drivebys are only one aspect of the Nativity discussion, important mostly for the psychological attempt to rally the skeptic forces and what they show about bias in the Carrier paper. Other issues are far more important in terms of the structure of the paper. The drivebys were given a lot of extra ink here only because of a distraction smokescreen attempt, which belongs off this thread, as requested. Why not take that stuff out, it does not belong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto ... Carrier, however, is a historian

Please note that Toto did not follow the Richard Carrier claim that he is a "professional historian".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto .. I would prefer to dump this thread into Elsewhere as lacking serious content. Any comments?

There is a lot more to cover in the Richard Carrier article. I have been a bit busy with the Tabor probability stuff and a computer upgrade and porting project and waiting for some research materials .

And I am especially waiting for the mods to do the proper step and simply clean up this thread so it is not necessary to put new material and the needed summaries on a new thread. Rather they seem to prefer to play skeptic politics. Asking for some sort of response or vote on a forum that of course is heavily skeptic-based-and-biased and ultra-Carrier-simpatico. Wanting to hide the problems. Instead they should just do their jobs and pull out the stuff that doesn't belong.

That is .. it would be helpful if the moderators would actually "moderate" the thread by removing the off-topic material rather than trying to come up with an excuse to hide the exposed sores. If they want a point-to-point analysis in addition to the organically developed study here, that would be a sensible request and direction and quite fine.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Steven - it seems to be the consensus of the mods that we will not be "cleaning up" the thread for you, and will not protect you from people who disagree with you.

I can't find a coherent line of thought in this thread in any case. A lot of it seems to be Steven talking to himself in his own private language (Driveby? "organically developed study"? ) and throwing out vague insults.

eta - yes Carrier is a professional historian, but it doesn't matter if he is a professional or an amateur. It is clear that he has approached this using the methodology of the study of history.

Johnny Skeptic

I contacted Richard about this thread several days ago. He told me that he is too busy to read it now, but may do so in the near future.

Steven Avery

There is some actual of legitimate counterpoint in the threads directly related to the Richard Carrier 'Nativity' article, even at times defending his paper. Good back-and-forth.

The "disagreement" that should be taken off this thread (if the mods acted consistently) is on essentially unrelated issues, like the two posts directly above and the "historical process debating professional whatever" thing a bit further above.

<I think you are correct in this instance and have split off the potential tangent about Jesus' birth stories being based on pagan myths here.

PS Please stop discussing moderator action within the thread.>

Anyway, the stubborn mod decision will simply end up in making more threads on the Carrier 'Nativity' paper. This will be is needed for clarity since the planned concise summaries and additional material should not be buried in irrelevant (to the Carrier article) stuff like the posts directly above.

Perhaps our mods will then scurry to try to bring those needed new threads into this one .

Not sure which way the Skeptic Protection Society will go.
It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

For Toto, a vocabulary enhancer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/driveby
drive-by
casual; superficial; offhand: a drive-by news analysis.

A fine word for the 3+ auxiliary and unsupported contradiction
claims of Richard Carrier. Clearly a scholarship-oriented analysis
should at least do with the drivebys what Carrier attempts to do
(incompletely) with the main discussion of the thread ..

Properly show the historical and interpretative references
for the accusation and the responses.

Shalom,
Steven Avery