Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:02 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 8:12 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:14 am
Posts: 35
Thank you Robert.

So, does Carrier have a point about the inscription recovered in a 1962 excavation by Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea? Does it prove that Nazareth already existed in the 70's?

Ken Humphreys doesn't think so. He does mention the 1962 excavation & inscription:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

I think Humphreys has a point, but I'm not completely sure.

What about the other points that Carrier made in the podcast program that I posted earlier*?



*I underlined the main points in Carrier's response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
As expected, Dick Carrier only loves his own chapters.

Code:
Zindler-Price Anthology: Contra Ehrman
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3522

The juicy bits from Carrier:

Dick Carrier wrote:
"I required a disclaimer to be included (in the Foreword generally and in the first paragraph of my chapter specifically), since I do not endorse much of what gets said elsewhere in this book. I was sure of this even before I read it, but having at last read it I can now confirm my expectation was correct. In fact, I consider much of it terrible. But it is fair enough to say that each chapter represents the best of what you can expect from each contributor of late. So if you want to see what each mythicist author is most often like in their manner of argumentation and quality of research, this is the anthology for you, although at 567 pages from disparate authors, it can be a challenge to get through."

Dick Carrier wrote:
"My own take on this book’s content has more to do with its utility: it has almost none in my view. The authors represented in its pages are Richard Carrier (myself), D.M. Murdock, Frank Zindler, Robert Price, Earl Doherty, David Fitzgerald and Rene Salm. Most of what they argue is not very well argued or is too introductory or tangential or needlessly verbose to maintain the average reader’s interest. And what you won’t find here is anyone actually summarizing their theory of Christian origins and the evidence they think supports it. Granted, that was not the overall purpose of the anthology (I was only paid for my critical material on Ehrman, for example), but at nearly 600 pages it does seem odd not to have included anything along those lines."

Example: The Nazareth Obsession

"One of the worst contributions is by Salm, yet this is representative of the kind of problem frequently encountered in this book. Here he burns over 40 pages attempting to argue there is no evidence for Nazareth in the early first century and yet never once even mentions, much less addresses, the priestly inscription (of around 300 A.D., in Hebrew) proving it existed in 70 AD–when it was recorded as one of the towns that took in priests after the destruction of the temple and the outlawing of its rituals. There was no temple to house priests nor any temple cult for priests to attend after the first Jewish War, so obviously they were more likely relocated in 70 AD, not 132 AD (much less later)–although some scholars have attempted “arguments from incredulity” for the latter conclusion, I find those arguments quite dubious myself."

[Bibliographic Note: For the original publication of this inscription see Michael Avi-Yonah, "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea," Israel Exploration Journal 12.2 (1962): 137-39. And for a good summary of the best case made for the later date of this priestly resettlement, by someone who then goes on to argue that the inscription's content actually in fact predates Jesus (!): Uzi Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee (2009), pp. 404-20.]

"In fact, numerous chapters by several authors in this anthology attack the historicity of Nazareth, and none of them mention this inscription (Murdock, on page 390, is even explicitly unaware of its existence). This is the kind of thing I’m talking about: what use is any of this lengthy and disorganized argumentation against Nazareth if it can’t even be bothered to address the best evidence we have for it? There are many other faults in Salm’s chapter (many errors of logic), but that one is fatal enough. Which is a shame, because buried under his fallacies and hyperbole and omissions of key evidence are some valid points about the shoddiness of the archaeology of Nazareth and its demonstrably suspect motives. (Although the latter still cannot sustain the certainty Salm exhibits.)

Note to future mythicists: if you are going to write a chapter or article on a subject, make it comprehensive enough to be required reading on that subject. That means: don’t leave key evidence out of it, and be a better Devil’s Advocate of your own arguments as you write them, to ensure they aren’t easily shown faulty or hyperbolic, and that they exhibit the caution and self-awareness of their weaknesses any good scholar should rightly expect.

Dick Carrier wrote:
"Price produces two elegantly written chapters that are a charm to read as always, although a bit rosy in their treatment of the contributing mythicists and a bit harsh on Ehrman, but they are still more just summaries of the anthology and its function. Murdock ably surveys the “phallic savior” fiasco (Ehrman stuck his foot so far down his throat on this one she could hardly go wrong at this point), but her chapter on Nazareth is hopelessly flawed (even when it contains some worthy insights, readers won’t know how to tell which)...."

I cannot agree with Carrier claiming Acharya's chapter on Nazareth (pages 389-404) is "hopelessly flawed" - that's just another over-the-top, absurd insult that we've come to expect from Carrier. Dick Carrier doesn't explain a single error to show why it's "hopelessly flawed" at all. Having read the chapter, I thought her points on the Samson parallel of a "Nazarite/Nazarene" as well as a specific religious sect (pages 401-4) and the blatantly obvious solar mythology that went with it was quite powerful, rendering the concept of a town or city of Nazareth for Jesus to be from, completely obsolete, which is pretty much what Carrier himself was saying about Nazareth. So, what's the point for her to mention the so-called evidence that Carrier himself claims is irrelevant anyway? See, Dick Carrier just cannot find it in himself to ever say anything decent about Acharya or her work.

So, knowing the history of Carrier and his treatment of Acharya and her work, I seriously doubt he even read it. If anything, he skimmed it about as well as Bart Ehrman did her book, 'The Christ Conspiracy.' What utter arrogance, Richard Carrier is an embarrassment to all freethinkers and mythicists everywhere and owes us all an official apology.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 7:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
I gather from the lack of interest that people are burned out about Carrier's shenanigans.

Dave Mack at the Bible Geek FB group asked me my opinion about this subject, expressing that he was "shocked and surprised" at my Nazareth article, to which I responded as follows:

Why would one be surprised and shocked? I am constantly venturing into the numerous aspects of the Christ myth, from soup to nuts, including analyses of the literary record dating back thousands of years.

My forum is FULL of such posts, which I circulate here and elsewhere on a regular basis. On my forum, in fact, I discussed this very article months ago, as it was composed a year ago. I've even made this Nazareth article available through an "ebook special," again available almost a year ago.

As concerns Carrier's putrid and irrelevant "review," several of us have been having an email flame war now for a few days. All I can say is that Carrier's opinions are absolutely worthless, that he is an ignoramus, and that such sociopathic behavior is disgraceful and a poor reflection of the field.

I will also disclose that I told him in no uncertain terms that he and his acolytes will not be dominating this field. But you should see what Doherty had to say - his frankness in approaching this arrogant megalomaniac and bitter pill was quite refreshing.

In any event, anything Carrier has to say is not only dismissible and irrelevant, but also in this case it is contemptible, as his conceited airs of superiority are positively sociopathic, sorely aggrieving Zindler, who lost his wife of 48 years during this publishing process. I know for a fact that HE (Zindler) is shocked and stunned by this display of hatred and disrespect.

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributi ... -died.html

Carrier and "Rook" are simply disgusting. I have ZERO interest in their vicious opinions. Based on Carrier's previous MENDACITY and DISHONESTY, I would be surprised and shocked if he even read my article in the first place. In my estimation, it is his brain (and social skill) that is "hopelessly flawed."

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 10:48 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:14 am
Posts: 35
Quote:
As concerns Carrier's putrid and irrelevant "review,"

I share Acharya's sentiment in that I see Carrier as quite contemptible.


Quote:
On my forum, in fact, I discussed this very article months ago, as it was composed a year ago. I've even made this Nazareth article available through an "ebook special," again available almost a year ago.

Is Acharya referring to this very page? If not could you post some links?


Quote:
Carrier and "Rook" are simply disgusting. I have ZERO interest in their vicious opinions.

Yes, I concur, they are disgusting, and are ignorant of the scientific method. But it is this empirical method & scientific pursuit that lead me to post Carrier's March podcast in order to try to falsify one of my favorite assertions on the existence of Nazareth in the first part of the 1st century.

I understand Acharya's explanation of the term Nazarene in relations to an incorrect Nazareth naming is a valid one, but in science a theory gets stronger when different types of evidence are present, i.e., the theory of evolution has the genetic, fossil record, comparative anatomy, the geological record, etc... I'm just trying to do the same thing with my Nazareth contention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 11:38 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Hot off the press-
Code:
 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/richard-carriers-review-of-bart-ehrman-and-the-quest-of-the-historical-jesus/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 12:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
GodAlmighty wrote:
Hot off the press-
Code:
 http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/richard-carriers-review-of-bart-ehrman-and-the-quest-of-the-historical-jesus/

LOL, thanks for that - did you also post that at the Facebook Bible Geek?

I thought Neil did a good job, once again, same as with the Tom V blog. One very important focus was the fact that Dick Carrier may have been the only paid contributor but, then turned right around, not only to write a scathing review of the book he is a contributor of in a book that he required a disclaimer saying: "I do not endorse much of what gets said elsewhere in this book" but, tells his readers in his blog/review not to buy the book but if they do, be sure to use his link so he can get more money that way:

Quote:
Academic professionalism or strictly business?

"One might wonder about the professionalism of a scholar who publishes a scathing review of a book to which he has contributed and advises his readers they are better off not bothering with it. (Professionalism, in my view, extends to treatment of one’s colleagues as much as it does to how one approaches one’s job.) But Dr Carrier clears the air on this point at the outset of his review. His relationship with the other contributors of this volume, and in particular with its editors, is entirely a business one. He stresses that he sold the rights to his article to them so they could make use of it:

The rights to my contribution were procured through a single-payment contract, so I won’t be getting any royalties from the sale of this book . . .

I was . . . paid for my critical material on Ehrman . . .

So unlike the other contributors in having made his money from the book before it was published, our reviewer advises those he elsewhere calls “his fans” how they can purchase the book in a way that will still allow him to get further $ from each sale:

(if you want to buy it and still want me to get a cut, then you can buy it through the above link, which is to the respective sales page in my Amazon store, where I get a kickback on any sale),

So it’s entirely a business relationship, not a professional one....."

When one reads both of Godfrey's blog/review of Tom and Carrier's review they will begin to see the classic sociopathic behavior at play there. Why the hell did Carrier even contribute to the book in the first place then? Perhaps the book would've been better off without him - maybe Dr. Zindler, Dr. Price, Earl Doherty, Rene Salm etc., will think twice before ever including him on anything next time? Neil Godfrey goes on to say:

"One is left wondering why a professional ever consented to his name being included in the book’s pages at all. One does begin to wonder how much he was paid."

Perhaps Zindler should ask for that money back and do a 2nd edition leaving Carrier out completely? Let this be a fair warning to others in any possible future projects demonstrating that neither Richard Carrier nor Tom/Rook have the capacity to play well with other mythicists, as Carrier will demand to be paid, then, write a scathing review dissing all the other contributors and then, tell others not to buy the book but, go on to tell his fan-boys who do plan to buy the book to use his link so he gets a kickback anyway. Carrier & Tom both could've at least waited a few months before pissing all over this mythicist book response to Bart Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?' They could've said a few positive things about the book before blasting it and all the mythicist authors in it. I've said before and I'll say it again, both Carrier and Tom are an embarrassment to all freethinkers and mythicists everywhere and owe us all an official apology.

Neil goes on to call Carrier's review "careless," "obnoxious," "reckless," "slanderous" and arrogant.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
- Attributed to Abraham Lincoln

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 1:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
More from Godfrey:

Quote:
Another irregular verb: I am honestly devastating; You are personally attacking

Now the book’s clearly stated purpose is advertized in the title and explained in the Introduction by Robert Price. It is primarily a response to Bart Ehrman’s shoddy treatment of works by mythicists in DJE?. Ehrman’s book was written for a popular audience. It was not for scholars. Indeed, one of the principle faults of the book is that in many places it suppresses evidence or oversimplifies scholarly arguments in ways that almost certainly would mislead many lay readers. Carrier knows this and calls Ehrman out on it. So do the other contributors. They are responding to Ehrman’s distortions of their work. Serious questions remain unanswered if we accept at face value Ehrman’s insistence that he really did read all the mythicist books he claims he did.

I would have thought that such responses and exposures of shoddy argumentation and misrepresentations are not by definition “venom and disgust” and certainly not “personal attack”. Yet Dr Carrier implies they are “personal attacks” since he concurs with Verenna’s conclusion that the book is 600 pages of venom and disgust aimed to character assassinate. This, says Dr Carrier, is a “warranted” complaint (if “maybe a little excessive”.)

Yet the harshest treatment of Ehrman is found in Carrier’s chapter –

I found more than a few indications of general incompetence (including failures to fact-check, sloppy and careless writing and analysis, illogical arguments, self-contradictory assertions, all by the scores). Yet he dismisses my criticism as an unwarranted personal attack. This has led me to wonder: does he regard his exact same treatment of others as an inappropriate personal attack that they didn’t deserve? Or as simply a demonstration that the books he examined are incompetently written, a perfectly valid thing to demonstrate and conclude, and exactly what I did — but that he in his response attacks me for doing?

Ehrman acted like a Christian apologist . . .

Several times Ehrman conceals facts from his readers that are damaging to his case . . . .

Ehrman demonstrates how little we can trust his knowledge or research when he says such silly things like . . .

But that’s just the beginning. This one flawless contribution — the only one worth Verenna’s praise, is the only one that accuses Bart Ehrman of being a liar.

2. Lying to Cover Up Your Mistakes. . .

I don’t actually believe him when he says he didn’t mean to say . . . . after his careless and irresponsible scholarship . . . .

On that point I suspect he is lying. . . .

I consider this good evidence that he is now lying . . . .

Establishing oneself as someone who prefers dishonesty to admitting mistakes is not the way to argue for historicity. Neither is so thoroughly failing at the job of informing the public on the actual facts.

3. Lying to Cover Up Your Mistakes. . .

I do not believe he is telling the truth. . . His excuses are destroying his reputation. What else has he misrepresented? What else has he fudged, screwed up, or lied about? . . .

His reply only dug his hole deeper, illustrating further his probable ignorance, dishonesty, and illogicality. . .

Of his two contradictory responses, the first is probably another lie. . .

So his first response is probably dishonest . . . . badly misinforming the public on the relevant facts . . .

If you’re Dr Richard Carrier, PhD in ancient history at Columbia University, this is called being “as devastating as ever” (see my previous post) and all part of the supposedly solitary worthwhile chapter in the book.

When I search for the word “lying” in the Kindle version of this volume I see that it only appears in Dr Carrier’s chapter, the only one said by both V and C to be worthy. The only times it is used elsewhere is in a biblical quotation, such as when Paul said he was not lying. Yet if you’re a lesser mortal who avoids this personal character attack, choosing instead to simply stick to exposing “failures to fact-check, sloppy and careless writing and analysis, illogical arguments, self-contradictory assertions” with respect to how Ehrman treated your work, then in the eyes of V and C you are hell-bent on “character assassination”.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 2:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
MightyAgrippa wrote:
Quote:
On my forum, in fact, I discussed this very article months ago, as it was composed a year ago. I've even made this Nazareth article available through an "ebook special," again available almost a year ago.

Is Acharya referring to this very page? If not could you post some links?

Sorry, that was part of a temporary "ebook special" last year that is no longer available.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 3:06 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:14 am
Posts: 35
Thanks GA & Freethinkaluva22!

I got part of my answers with the new found link below where Salm addresses the Caesarea inscription among other important issues:

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/just-a-h ... -1-2-2013/

I'm gonna have to purchase Salm's book in order to zero in my scientific quest. Also, I'm happy to hear Salm's announcement of his second book on Nazareth as a fabricated town of Jesus to be published in 2014.

About Carrier, he is just a disgrace to his field. What the … did he even bother to be an author of the recent book? Hugh! Totally unwarranted distasteful review of his! I now understand Emiliano Zapata more clearly when he stated during the Mexican Revolution “Perdono al que roba, al que mata, pero al traidor jamas.” in English “I forgive the thief, the murderer, but never the traitor.” LoL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 7:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Oh good, thanks for sharing that link to Rene Salm, MightyAgrippa.

Here's a small taste of the Salm/Carrier exchange:

Quote:
"... You’re looking at the Nazareth issue through some cock-eyed lens where the Caesarea inscription is central, and you berate everybody for not seeing it that way. (Gee, Acharya and I didn’t even mention it!) You call it “key evidence”, “proving [Nazareth] existed in 70 AD,” write that my not mentioning it is a “fatal error” and an example of “many errors of [my] logic.” You’re wrong on all these counts, and I wonder about YOU as a logical thinker. You even give opinion that weakens your own position (Leibner). Weird…

Another reason to question your logical ability is that you seem to be missing the vital mainstays of my argument: (1) the oil lamps are all post-25 CE; (2) the tombs are all post-50 CE; (3) no artefacts are demonstrably before 100 CE; and (4) the venerated area of Nazareth is riddled with tombs. It’s really not about the Caesarea inscription at all… For the record, that’s your Holy Grail but is a fairly minor consideration in the Nazareth discussion when compared to these other elements."

- Rene

Just a Head’s Up: The Salm-Carrier exchange (May 1-2, 2013)
http://www.mythicistpapers.com/just-a-h ... -1-2-2013/

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 8:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
I'm rusty on the Nazareth debate, but at first glance that does indeed seem weird to appeal to the Caesarea Maritima inscription when the gospels likewise attest to Nazareth and far predate that inscription.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 8:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Here's Acharya's initial review of the BEQHJ book: New book about Bart Ehrman and the Christ myth! Please pass it around.

Feel free to discuss her chapter on Nazareth, as well as the chapters on Nazareth by Zindler and Salm or any other works on Nazareth here in this thread. Keep in mind that the entire point behind addressing the Nazareth issue in this book was due to Bart Ehrman's book, remember what the title was? Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, that's right, don't forget the 'Jesus of NAZARETH' bit. Here are all the mentions of Nazareth from Ehrman's book at Google books. Obviously, the BEQHJ book was a response to that. It's as if neither Carrier nor Tom Vern ever understood that very basic factoid. It's hilarious that these two guys always attempt to set themselves up as the 'goto guys' when obviously they are not. They certainly are, 'legends in their own minds.' :lol:

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:20 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
Carrier's arrogance in his attack on Salm and Acharya and others regarding Nazareth is breathtaking.

In my view, the most reasonable hypothesis is that Nazareth was invented to conceal the Gospel references to the proscribed Nazarene sect. These references were unwelcome both for the Romans due to politics and for Christians due to the gnostic 'watcher' content and the desire to distance themselves from Roman perceptions of subversion. The construction of Nazareth conveniently enabled Christians to say "Jesus the Nazarene" meant "Jesus of Nazareth", deflecting the explosive politics and serving the ever-growing crude historical agenda of Jesus as actual person.

It makes complete sense that Nazareth originated after the Gospels within a mythicist framework. Christians had abundant motive and opportunity and means to establish the town, building a Potemkin home for their imagined saviour. But Carrier audaciously presents a quasi-apologetic assertion that a late inscription is historical evidence for Nazareth at the supposed time of Jesus. In the context of how gullible faith-based arguments have perverted reasoning on this topic, such "evidence" deserves to be taken with a few pillars of salt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:42 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
^I also posted this comment at Vridar, but Neil thought it was so embarrassing that he deleted my name from it. He didn't explain why. :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:40 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
I posted the following reply, which prompted Mr Godfrey to delete the entire exchange, "saving me from public embarrassment" he says. Apparently Neil finds the views I have copied here about the myth of Nazareth unacceptable on his blog. Very strange. It seems he thought he could insult me as beneath contempt, but when I asked for an explanation he deleted the exchange. And Godfrey has the hide to criticise Carrier, Hoffmann, McGrath and Ehrman for similar behaviour.

Quote:
Code:
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/richard-carriers-review-of-bart-ehrman-and-the-quest-of-the-historical-jesus/


Neil, I do not consider my comment #14 embarrassing, and am happy to debate its content if anyone can show how it conflicts with any evidence or logic. I also posted a version of this comment at Free Thought Nation, so anyone wanting to know can easily use google to work out it is by me. As I said, it is a hypothesis. Could you explain why you think it is embarrassing? I am here to learn.
Rene Salm has explained in fairly simple terms in this thread why Carrier’s comments about Nazareth do not engage with the body of evidence. I have corresponded at some length with Rene at the Yahoo Jesus Mysteries Group about the origins of Nazareth, and while I have not read his book, I find his views compelling as summarised in his online material.
I do have more speculative views about the Biblical midrashic links of Nazareth to Isaiah 11:1 and 1 Samuel 1.11, but again, I see these views as entirely legitimate within a framework of explaining how and why Jesus Christ was invented. I might feel embarrassed if anyone can point to real evidence that I have carelessly overlooked, but as you well know, theological criteria of embarrassment differ considerably from what is acceptable in rational discourse.
Cordially, Robert
Comment by Robert Tulip — 2013/05/10 @ 4:10 pm | Reply


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group