Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The book is now available and waiting for your informed review. We have already heard your blind reviews.

You mean I quoted some of Bart's book?

How come nobody is coming up with all the solid references Bart provides?

I did prophesy that the book would be toast by Wednesday. It is only Tuesday. Give some time for the prophesy to be realised.

judge · 03-20-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I think in Abe's quaint way, he is pointing out that my prophecies came true - that Ehrman would not attempt to take on Doherty's Top 20 Silences.

Instead, we have Ehrman rebutting mythicist arguments without even cluttering up his pages with rebuttals.

Just think. At one time Ehrman wrote books like 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' with references to opposing arguments, indexes and all sorts of that scholarly stuff.

The book is now available and waiting for your informed review. We have already heard your blind reviews.

We now look forward to Steven carr's review in his own quaint way.

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

We now look forward to Steven carr's review in his own quaint way.

Another person who concedes that all my prophecies about the book came true.

But to be honest, not even I ever envisaged a world where Bart Ehrman would release a book claiming Aramaic traditions predate the Gospels, because the Gospels contain Aramaic words.

Cut me some slack, here. How was I supposed to guess that that would happen?

judge · 03-20-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm personally still (just barely) in the HJ camp. I was hoping for the best marshaled and updated argument possible, because I think it's sorely needed,

Why is it sorely needed?

Quote:

The basis for the HJ case is what it is, though. We all know it - Josephus, Tactitus, Paul calls James"brother of the Lord," criteria of dissimilarity with baptism by John ("they wouldn't have made it up"), and failed "this generation" prophecy.

But the general public don't know these things.

Quote:

People are either persuaded by this data or they are not. I think that the real evidence for HJ is painfully slender

The real evidence for virtually any ancient figure is painfully slim.

ApostateAbe · 03-20-2012, 03:16 PM

Steven Carr, did you know that Richard Dawkins' anti-creationist book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (or via: amazon.co.uk) contains not a single reference to Kent Hovind's many geological evidences for Noah's Flood?

judge · 03-20-2012, 03:27 PM

In the part of the world I come from I have never met anyone who has the slightest clue who Earl Doherty is. Doherty is unknown, his work is pretty much irrelevant.
Sometimes one might come across a Murdoch book.
Quite a few people though may have seen or heard of "Zeitgeist".

Therefore for someone like Ehramn, who writes pulp for the masses, it seems best to ignore Doherty who is irrelevant to the masses and focus on the obvious reasons why Jesus is considered historical.

aa5874 · 03-20-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

...The real evidence for virtually any ancient figure is painfully slim.

People are beginning to "SING".

People are coming out of the "closet".

Real evidence is PAINFULLY SLIM for an HJ of antiquity.

You got to deal with your PAIN.

Tell EHRMAN.

aa5874 · 03-20-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

In the part of the world I come from I have never met anyone who has the slightest clue who Earl Doherty is. Doherty is unknown, his work is pretty much irrelevant.
Sometimes one might come across a Murdoch book.
Quite a few people though may have seen or heard of "Zeitgeist".

Therefore for someone like Ehramn, who writes pulp for the masses, it seems best to ignore Doherty who is irrelevant to the masses and focus on the obvious reasons why Jesus is considered historical.

In my part of the world atheists are irrelevant.

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

In the part of the world I come from I have never met anyone who has the slightest clue who Earl Doherty is. Doherty is unknown, his work is pretty much irrelevant.
Sometimes one might come across a Murdoch book.
Quite a few people though may have seen or heard of "Zeitgeist".

Therefore for someone like Ehramn, who writes pulp for the masses, it seems best to ignore Doherty who is irrelevant to the masses and focus on the obvious reasons why Jesus is considered historical.

So the publicity claims Ehrman ignored mythicist arguments when he wrote his book?

Strange that when I prophesied that Ehrman would not give the historicist explanation of Doherty's Top 20 Silences, nobody popped up to say Ehrman would be duty bound to pretty much ignore Doherty.

Still, I'm sure Earl will deal with what Ehrman did write about him.

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Steven Carr, did you know that Richard Dawkins' anti-creationist book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (or via: amazon.co.uk) contains not a single reference to Kent Hovind's many geological evidences for Noah's Flood?

So your claim is that Ehrman made a big show of refuting mythicists, but only the most stupid fool expected him to deal with mythicist arguments?

Instead, Bart makes a deal out of pointing out that there are Aramaisms in the Gospels, just like there are German words in the Hitler Diaries, so Jesus must have said them.

Because Jesus spoke Aramaic...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2012, 03:16 PM	#85
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Steven Carr, did you know that Richard Dawkins' anti-creationist book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (or via: amazon.co.uk) contains not a single reference to Kent Hovind's many geological evidences for Noah's Flood?

03-20-2012, 03:27 PM	#86
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	In the part of the world I come from I have never met anyone who has the slightest clue who Earl Doherty is. Doherty is unknown, his work is pretty much irrelevant. Sometimes one might come across a Murdoch book. Quite a few people though may have seen or heard of "Zeitgeist". Therefore for someone like Ehramn, who writes pulp for the masses, it seems best to ignore Doherty who is irrelevant to the masses and focus on the obvious reasons why Jesus is considered historical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.