Gary Olson

Yes, yes, I have reviewed many of your posts. It appears that you make the same points over and over again, in ALL CAPS, no less.

In a fit of religious zeal, those dangdable medieval Christian scribes made changes to the original. Sounds like a plot equivalent to what the LAPD had to conjure up trying to get OJ convicted. Too bad it was a waste of court time.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

aa5874

That is the problem here. People do NOT want the FACTS to be repeated.

When some so-called experts make the same blatant illogical claims some are happy to blindly accept the repeated absurdities.

Why do people continuously repeat the same erroneous claim that Tacitus mentioned Jesus when I have SHOWED time after time that the claim is false?

It is time someone put an end to the propaganda called HJ of Nazareth.

Toto

From Richard Carrier's blog on his own book:

tanya

Welcome to the forum.

Caps, red letters, underlining, changing fonts.

But, in my opinion, one not widely held, I agree, it is the substance of his posts, not the form, which represents "the road less traveled". Paraphrasing Milton, his work is meritorious, not kingly. I have learned quite a bit from reading several of his posts, and I admire his willingness to share his ideas. On balance, aa5874 contributes a great deal to the substance of the debate.

We all have our own cross to bear...

Really?
So, all those murders of folks who endeavored to publish the bible in English, were figments of my imagination?

Please explain, why it is unimportant ("makes no difference") today, when it was obviously of crucial importance under Thomas More, who condemned to death, by burning alive at the stake, those who dared publish the bible in English.

I am thinking of the Thirty years war in Germany, which killed more people than World Wars I and II combined. What were those battles about, in the 17th century, if not the difference in opinion regarding the text of the bible?

Does the word "Inquisition" ring any bells? Hello?
Have you been to a different Hyde Park from the one I have visited, many times? Of course, some folks may argue that Jesus was not divine, but that's not what Mark 1:1 asserts, at least, not in the Byzantine majority version.

I would profit, friend, from your focusing attention, not on what you imagine "the person on the street corner" believes, but explaining WHY, (and HOW) the three different versions of the Greek text, arose.

I disagree, profoundly, with this sentiment.

a. there is only one method: excavation.
b. "old" methods were flawed, in my view, by allowing intrusion onto excavating sites, of those with a religious agenda. Items have been inserted onto such sites, for "discovery", and removed from such sites, for malevolent alteration of contents.
c. the only "new" method, which I would accept as offering a qualitative improvement, is one focused on live television coverage of the entire excavation process, to ensure that those wielding the shovels, are neither purloining artifacts, nor introducing ancient treasures for novel discovery.

If Carrier imagines that he is going to refute Ehrman based on numbers on a page, instead of text on a page, he is mistaken. He needs to focus on the TEXT, not arithmetic.

2-J

I only just saw this, sorry.

I would say it is the most compelling case because it strongly suggests the Epistles needed no human Christ, it thoroughly analyses Mark suggesting the same, and contains a thorough review of the other supposed 'historical' witnesses and puts it all into an overall plausible context. To touch on the actual strengths and the details of the analysis would take me beyond a sentence.

mountainman

AFAIK the "old methods" referred to above represent the "popular apologetic historicity criteria" (aka "Authenticity Criteria"), some of which are still used (perhaps obliviously) by Bart Erhman, and listed by Carrier as follows:

sotto voce

For entertainment purposes, surely. Not for systematic theology.

Speakers’ Corner is not 'any street corner', is it. Not that one is very liable to hear street preaching anywhere in modern Britain.

The Christian message is not the notion that Jesus is divine. It is something else.

The fundies' version?

It makes no difference, anyway. Excise it, if you want. 'The Gospel of Mark' evinces 'the Son of God' motif very early on:

'As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."' Mk 1:10-11 NIV

'When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Mk 2:5-7 NIV

aa5874

This is the sort of illogical nonsense that I detest.

How in the world can Carrier declare that Ehrman's "book may be OBSOLETE before it even hits the presses" and simultaneously claim he expects that Ehrman "will do a good job of destroying lame alternatives and bad arguments"?

Carrier claims that Ehrman's methodology is INVALID yet also state all his books are SUPERB.

These are some of the MOST ridiculous and contradictory statements that I have seen coming from a so-called Expert.

The FACT is that Ehrman's methodology is hopelessly INVALID and is already known to be obsolete.

Schweitzer has done a MOST thorough research into the Quest for the Historical Jesus and has declared that Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah had NO existence.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

No Scholar today can even come close to overturn the Work and conclusion of Schweitzer with known INVALID methodology.

Ehrman is a disaster for the Historical Jesus and should spend his time arguing against people who believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

Upon reflection, I now think Schweitzer may have erred.

The Historical Jesus of Nazareth was designed by IRRATIONALISM.

Toto

Well, E-Day is 7 days from now.

Rene Salm has posted an anticipatory review. (Interestingly, Salm argues, along with Freke and Gandy, that the docetists were actually mythicists.)

also on Vridar

aa5874

The Historical Jesus is coming soon??? Many will be disappointed again.