Dave31

I understand your view due to your extreme biases and hatred against ANYTHING by Acharya S, so, in your view 'Acharya couldn't possibly be published in any peer review scholarly journal, therefore, this must either be a mistake or it just can't possibly be a scholarly journal,' however, you are wrong as usual. Section 1 is definitely a peer reviewed scholarly journal whether you like it or not - that's why after the "call for papers" it took two years for it to get published due to the peer review process. Btw, every scholarly journal is a collection of essays of some sort or another. So, your questioning of the integrity of the journal is unwarranted, but it's no surprise coming from you, especially since you're not a scholar of any type whatsoever.

As much as you hate to have to read this Acharya has now been published in several peer reviewed scholarly journals and there's just nothing you can about that fact beyond deny it and make up crap like you did above attempting to imply it's just a meaningless "anthology." Well, that's just another insult tossed at Acharya as well as all the other scholars in that peer reviewed scholarly journal.

Perhaps you could stay out of this thread in the future as you have plenty of other anti-Acharya threads here to post your hate.

ApostateAbe

Is it cool if I post my hate in the same thread where you post your apologetics? Cool, thanks. Anyway, I do make a distinction between "journal" and "anthology," but it is also not so relevant, because, even if Acharya S somehow managed to get published in a "peer-reviewed scholarly journal," it may not lend her any more credibility except among people who merely like that academic-sounding catchphrase. In truth, not all peer reviewed scholarly journals are the same, and they vary in quality, all the way from highly trustworthy, thoroughly fact-checked and reputably staffed, all the way down to not worth the paper they're printed on. That is because any group of fringers can set up their own publications and "peer" review the articles. Creationists have done that, and I call those journals "self-reviewed." The catchphrase really should be "reputable peer-reviewed journals," as in they are respected generally by the academic community of state-accredited schools.

Toto

I think it is good that D.M. Murdock is paying attention to her critics. Her thesis has not been disproven, and possibly can't be - so it is not on a level with creationism.

The difference between scholarship and playing around is that scholars invite criticism and use it to sharpen their arguments. This is why Abe is not classed as a scholar.

aa5874

My position has been absolutely firm that NOT all writings of antiquity were manipulated by the Church just as you accept the Talmud .

The contents of "Against the Galileans was NOT composed by the Church. Cyril of Alexandria merely made references to the writings of Julian just like YOU make references to the Talmud.

ApostateAbe

That would make it even worse than creationism. It would be "not even wrong."

aa5874

The HJ argument is worse that creationisn. Creationists do NOT discredit the Bible.

HJers like you and Ehrman Discredit the Creationist Bible and ridicule Creationists but use the very same Creationist Bible for the history of HJ of Nazareth.

How illogical.

HJers don't realize that Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator. If Jesus of Nazareth was NOT God the Creator then the Creationist Bible is NOT Credible.

It was Jesus of Nazareth, baptized by John, and crucified by Pilate that Created Adam and Eve in the same Bible that HJers use for their HJ of Nazareth the Apocalyptic preacher.

If Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher then the Creationist Bible is not credible--Jesus of Nazareth was God the Creator in the Bible.

Why are HJers using the Creationist's Bible although it is NOT Credible???

The answer is rather simple--HJers are like Creationists

HJers Created their Jesus from the Creationist's Bible

HJers and Creationists are NO different. They use the same Bible and Believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.

But, There is one big glaring difference--HJers know the Creationist Bible is a source of Perjury.

Toto

I meant that if it can't be proven wrong, it is because of the lack of surviving evidence, not because it is untestable.

Duvduv

How do you know apart from your polemic? Why not examine the content and context ?

Dave31

It's obviously fair to say much of the ancient past has been destroyed for a variety of reason due to war, age and censorship as Acharya has acknowledged that fact herself but, Acharya's thesis can't be proven wrong - not because of a lack of surviving evidence, but rather, due to the existence of primary sources and scholar commentary on them substantiating her claims, which is why Acharya S is gaining more and more scholars to her side, such as Dr. Robert Price and many others.

Robert M. Price: What I think of Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

spin

Yo, Dave31. Do you condone what that inept foulmouth, Freethinkaluva22, did on Freethought Nation, when he decided based no evidence that I was another poster, ie Seirios, and, without checking, removed work I posted and deleted my account? Don't you think he should resign, lacking all the skills necessary to work with other people? Wouldn't I be right in describing him as an incompetent limp noodle who is not capable of administering a toilet trip, let alone a forum? If he came here, I should treat him like the bungling know-nothing he acts there, shouldn't I?