|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 15, 2013 0:28:33 GMT
My guess is that Acharya realized this guy might outflank her in the lunatic fringe market and she needs to reject him firmly to re-establish herself as the "go to" source on Jesus with the tinfoil hat crowd. Very good point. The market for crazy is only so big, and once you're establish you need to protect your share.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 15, 2013 7:32:16 GMT
Actually, with respect to Verenna, it seems this silliness by Atwill is doing quite a lot of good to Verenna's e-reputation. He is being upheld as a scholar and historian at several blogs and a HuffPo opinion article. Yes but virtually any idiot can be an authority on history on HuffPo: *Cough cough*Nice article Tim. And all the comment was positive! Where were some of your greatest "admirers"?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 15, 2013 14:01:29 GMT
New madness: ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jacobovici-and-wilsons-lost-gospel.htmlJacobovici and Wilson's "Lost Gospel" The book's subtitle is Jesus' Marriage to Mary Magdalene, Bride of God. and the book blurb tells us a little more (emphasis original):
In a startling follow-up to the New York Times bestseller The Jesus Family Tomb, a historical detective story that unravels a newly translated document filled with startling revelations and fascinating detail about the life and times of Jesus.Though if The Romans invented Jesus, (as Larry Hurtado observes) how could He have married Mary Magdalene?
|
|
mt
Clerk
Posts: 26
|
Post by mt on Oct 15, 2013 17:00:53 GMT
Wait, more Dan Brown stuff?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 15, 2013 18:34:35 GMT
Wait, more Dan Brown stuff? Evidently you have not grasped the full import of this new discovery: The Lost Gospel takes the reader on an exciting historical adventure through this highly informative ancient manuscript. The authors were easily able to decode the basic symbolism, but what the authors eventually discovered is as surprising as it ground-breaking: the confirmation of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene; the names of their two children; the towering presence of Mary Magdalene (who was a Gentile priestess), a serious plot on Jesus’ life in 19 C.E. prior to the crucifixion; an assassination plot against their children; Jesus’ connection to political figures at the highest level of the Roman Empire—Emperor Tiberius and his protégé Sejanus; and a religious movement that antedates that of Paul—the Church of Mary Magdalene.I think this will put to rest the theory that the Romans invented Jesus. MMMM... this may seem a silly question but how old was Jesus in 19 C.E.? Why would there be a plot on his life? Was he hogging the bathroom and refusing to revise for his exams?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 16, 2013 19:56:36 GMT
Yes but virtually any idiot can be an authority on history on HuffPo: *Cough cough*Nice article Tim. And all the comment was positive! Where were some of your greatest "admirers"? It was hidden in the "Science" section. If it was in "Religion" I imagine the gadflies would have swarmed by now.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 23, 2013 2:47:56 GMT
Meanwhile Godfrey has flown into a fury and unleashed a torrent of outrage directed at Verenna, Carrier (whom he refers to derogatively as 'Dick'), and Hurtado. Godfrey recycles his typical objections to people who disagree with him; they are appealing to authority, they are cabalistic members of 'the guild' seeking to discredit anyone challenging their authority, and their tone is wrong. He never actually addresses the arguments of Verenna, Carrier, or Hurtado against Atwill's claims, other than to admit grudgingly that 'Carrier shows he is more than capable of addressing and burying Atwill’s arguments without any personal insult', 'Carrier is on still stronger ground when he points to the simpler alternative explanations for some of the “quandaries” Atwill is attempting to address', and 'Carrier’s conclusion is valid' (he makes one half-hearted attempt at rebutting one of Verenna's points, 'No, it is not true that the Pax Romana was disturbed by Jews on only two occasions, as Tom writes', but provides no details). Most ironic was this objection Godfrey raised against Carrier. An astute observer on Godfrey's blog quoted Godfrey's declared policy on discussion of DM Murdock's claims. Predictably, Godfrey immediately defended his decision to take the same action for which he had condemned Carrier.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Oct 24, 2013 11:41:32 GMT
He never actually addresses the arguments of Verenna, Carrier, or Hurtado against Atwill's claims, other than to admit grudgingly that 'Carrier shows he is more than capable of addressing and burying Atwill’s arguments without any personal insult', 'Carrier is on still stronger ground when he points to the simpler alternative explanations for some of the “quandaries” Atwill is attempting to address', and 'Carrier’s conclusion is valid' (he makes one half-hearted attempt at rebutting one of Verenna's points, 'No, it is not true that the Pax Romana was disturbed by Jews on only two occasions, as Tom writes', but provides no details). Good grief. Is Godfrey genuinely taken in by Atwill? Does he honestly buy the argument? That would be an impressive feat of reality denial, even for him.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 24, 2013 14:44:09 GMT
I think Godfrey thinks Atwill's bunkum as well, but he just wants to be querulous. He'd fit in well here.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 24, 2013 23:40:05 GMT
I think Godfrey thinks Atwill's bunkum as well, but he just wants to be querulous. He'd fit in well here. This. Godfrey has to be a contrarian since he has already staked his reputation on being a lone gun and the sole pillar of enlightenment in a world of ignorance. Additionally, Godfrey can't openly challenge Atwill because he relies on the same form of argument as Atwill, and also relies on the idea that uneducated unqualified amateurs are more reliable commentators in specific fields than qualified professionals. You will note this is the point on which he spends the most time in his criticism of what Verenna, Carrier, and Hurtado wrote. He's not so much defending Atwill (whose arguments I suspect he knows are junk, though he cannot afford to say so), as defending himself.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 30, 2013 13:51:25 GMT
I expect this post from Verenna will throw Godfrey into another rage.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 31, 2013 18:37:59 GMT
I expect this post from Verenna will throw Godfrey into another rage. Good to see that the little jerk who used to bill himself as an "ancient text expert" and the "resident scholar" of the oafish "Rational Response Squad" now has more of a clue of where he sits in the scheme of things. It's a pity his former mentor Artie Ziff doesn't get a similar perspective.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 1, 2013 3:52:34 GMT
Good to see that the little jerk who used to bill himself as an "ancient text expert" and the "resident scholar" of the oafish "Rational Response Squad" now has more of a clue of where he sits in the scheme of things. It's a pity his former mentor Artie Ziff doesn't get a similar perspective. Yes, quite ironic that he is displaying more learning than Richard Carrier. He still has moments of pontificating self-absorption, as when he posted his homework online for the world to admire (complete with self-adulating name drops such as 'I drew heavily upon the translations by Hurbory and Noy and lengthened it considerably'), but he's certainly more readable than Carrier.
|
|