joel
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 70
|
Post by joel on Apr 30, 2012 12:56:02 GMT
The immature teenager in me giggles inside every time I see the phrase "penis-nosed cock" (cock is slang for penis in America, not sure about elsewhere). Especially when people are arguing over it so seriously.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 30, 2012 13:20:41 GMT
(cock is slang for penis in America, not sure about elsewhere) Same in Australia and the UK. Probably Canada as well.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Apr 30, 2012 17:48:43 GMT
Well, I went to my local Waterstones (bookshop) today, and I have ordered a copy of Bart's book. I have to wait 3 weeks though. 3 weeks!! I've got to get me a Kindle. Still, I should have just about finished Marcus Borg's Jesus by then.
Coming back to Allegro. I remember when it first came out, and got massive coverage in all the weekend broadsheets here, as did Eric von Danikens "Chariot of the Gods". I dunno, you wait for an out of this world theory, and TWO come along at once! And as for Velikovsky, let's not even go there!
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 30, 2012 17:58:15 GMT
Which is the latest Doherty book by the way, is it 'Jesus: Neither God Nor Man' (2009)?
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 30, 2012 18:03:36 GMT
Which is the latest Doherty book by the way, is it 'Jesus: Neither God Nor Man' (2009)? I think that is correct although from what I gather they all seem to be the same book written sideways or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 30, 2012 18:38:49 GMT
Here's a good quote with obvious relevance to mythicism:
Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science. Henry H. Bauer
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 30, 2012 19:55:42 GMT
Reading through Ehrman's work I'm finding it (unsurprisingly), a lot better than Carrier, Doherty, and Godfrey claim. I'm also finding some fairly dramatic omissions by Carrier and Godfrey when quoting Ehrman.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 1, 2012 7:30:14 GMT
My response on Carrier's blog. Carrier has responded at last, and I have lost no time in replying. I though I would reply to Neil on his blog as well. He made this claim about Ehrman (emphasis mine). I pointed out the following quotations from Doherty's book.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 1, 2012 17:17:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 1, 2012 17:48:22 GMT
I read that one a couple of days ago. He is definitely slipping; this one is even more limpwristed than the last one. Cases in point: * 'Ehrman finally does what he should have done originally (take note of this trend: it confirms the entire point of my original critique), and asks an expert': but since Carrier claims that what the expert says is wrong anyway, it's clear that Ehrman consulting an expert was no guarantee that he would get the right answer anyway * 'Osiris is a dead god who still “lives again” and visits and converses with the living': Carrier backing away from his original claim that Osiris was resurrected * 'Ehrman says his views are the standard in the field, but in defense of the claim he still only names one advocate (Smith)': no he doesn't name only one advocate * 'he was “only” referring to the sources he had previously enumerated': no, Ehrman was referring to the sources he was about to enumerate, not the sources he had enumerated nearly 200 pages ago * 'Here Ehrman agrees with everything I said and insists it was just a typo': no, Ehrman did not say it was a typo * 'Ehrman stated a blanket generalization that Doherty never says something that in fact he frequently says–even explicitly about the whole issue of whether any scholar he cites agrees with his overall thesis': no, Ehrman made no such blanket generalization
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 1, 2012 18:07:14 GMT
Cerrier seems to have adopted the shotgun approach: fire off as much buckshot as possible, hope that you hit something, and claim you hit everything.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 2, 2012 9:45:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 2, 2012 11:14:11 GMT
I'm also taken by surprise by Verenna's approach; it's extremely hostile for a non-expert talking about an expert: Now look what you made me do (both posts currently in the moderation queue).
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 2, 2012 12:03:12 GMT
Verenna says:
But Ehrman has already dealt with this. He's even provided a quote from an expert in the field who categorically states that Pilate could not have been both:
Verenna also says:
This has been blatantly ripped out of context. Verenna wants us to believe Erhman made the categorical claim that we have no such records from the ancient world. In reality, he did made no such claim.
Ehrman's point was that we do not have a large number of detailed Roman records for everything, as he explains in his fuller reply to Carrier:
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 2, 2012 17:15:56 GMT
My response on Carrier's blog. Carrier has responded at last, and I have lost no time in replying. I though I would reply to Neil on his blog as well. He made this claim about Ehrman (emphasis mine). I pointed out the following quotations from Doherty's book.
|
|