Posted by:
ificouldhietokolob
(
)
Date: February 26, 2015 05:00PM
bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read all of Ehrman's book on jesus and Carrier's
> critque as well as Ehrman's reply. Carrier was an
> uninformed ass and Ehrman refuted every thing of
> substance he said.
Yes, calling someone an "uninformed ass" is terrific scholarship, and it refutes someone's arguments logically and effectively.
Oh, wait...no it doesn't. It's just another ad-hominem, without actually addressing any of the arguments. I also notice you didn't address any of the facts I presented showing your claims false. How about that.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794I'm really trying to understand your "position" here. Why such a "religious" defense of an historical jesus, to the point that you use fallacies, make things up, etc? Me, I have no "skin" in the game. Other than intellectual curiosity, I don't *care* if there was an actual "Jesus" or not. I don't find the claimed evidence that there was one convincing, and I get rather frustrated with the dishonesty, fallacy, and nonsense that gets offered up in defense of "historicity."
What's your deal?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 05:02PM by ificouldhietokolob.