outhouse

I understand we cant always get to the bottom of mythology, and jesus was written in mythology as theology. problem is these primitive saps believed alot of the mythology as reality they were so barbaric.


some mythology is 50/50 most often it leans one way or the other.

outhouse

you may be missing the point. Trying to find a all jewish core going back to the original movement would have been in Aramaic.


the contradictions are easily explainable as different people had different legends based on the cross cultural oral tradition they were using decades after his death.


much like Noah, but a real foold did happen the legnds were all based from.

while there are simularities in mythology for the flood legends, the stories are different and we see the evolution clearly of mythology.

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. You are PROMOTING Fallacies.

Bart Ehrman CLEARLY stated that his Jesus was from Nazareth and that the Gospels ATTEST the historicity of his Life.

Please Examine "Did Jesus Exist?" chapter 5--page 171--line 4-8.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible inundated by known Lies, Fiction and Implausibilities [Embellishments]

outhouse

thats because he busted her chops so bad, due to some of the worst historical work ever done on the subject


<edit>

aa5874

Carrier BUSTED Bart Ehrman. You must know that Bart is considered probably the worst by Carrier.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026/

GakuseiDon

By promoting one unified popular mythicist theory that is at odds to nearly all other mythicist theories, Carrier will find that his harshest critics will be those mythicists at odds to his own theory. Either he addresses those mythicist arguments (which will cause friction like his comments against Acharya S), or he doesn't address those mythicist arguments (in which case he will be lumped in with all the other scholars who ignore mythicist arguments).

GakuseiDon

If that is the case, then that is exciting. What parts of the mythicist argument have they critically reviewed?

Not sure why you are putting the focus on Acharya S here. If you like, I can pull out all the nice things that mythicists like Doherty and Price say about Acharya S and her works. But that's not my point. If Carrier engages other mythicists' arguments he will become a pariah. If he doesn't, he will be seen as ignoring them just like the historicists do.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Outhouse,

In his book, "Proving History," Richard Carrier cites Rene Salm three times. Besides citing him positively, he says, "Though I do not agree with all theories of either Salm, Kennard, or Laupot, their arguments on this point are correct: these are viable possibilities, as least sufficiently probable to require us to rule them out first.

What evidence do you have that Carrier "trashes Salm." Why do you think Carrier would cite the writings of a known quack?

Also Richard Price has given Salm's book an enthusiastic review. Why do you think Price would give an enthusiastic review to a known quack?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

First scholars view him as a quack, not singled out by Carrier

Carrier does find evidence salm ignores, for a historical Nazareth at jesus time. Carrier flat states there was probably a Nazareth.

salm only deals with the towns histroicity, and he is nothing more then a blogger with no credibility

aa5874

Were you NOT delighted when Carrier gave negative reviews of some mythicists' theories??
Now that Carrier has already stated that Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist? is "worse than bad" why are you not happy??

Mythicists are EXTREMELY happy that not only Carrier but even those who support the HJ argument have serious issues with claims made by Ehrman.

Perhaps, it is Ehrman who will be despised by HJers--they hardly use his book to argue for HJ.

The signs that he is being despised is becoming very evident. It is as if Bart and his book do NOT exist in the QUEST for an HJ among HJers.