|
Post by sankari on May 8, 2012 17:25:24 GMT
Fort:
It's not difficult to see why Carrier took issue with this, when you'd previously said:
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 8, 2012 19:17:55 GMT
My latest to Carrier:
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 8, 2012 21:01:49 GMT
Fort: It's not difficult to see why Carrier took issue with this, when you'd previously said: Indeed, that's what confused me at first, but that paragraph clearly refers to the preceding one. From the context it's perfectly clear that Fortigurn referred to Carrier's statement that Ehrman's rebuttal is false. But now I think that Carrier has craftily used the phrase to shift the topic by altering its meaning. Fortigurn didn't mean to say Carrier defended Murdock hook, line, sinker, but only on that point (which is correct).
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 9, 2012 2:47:10 GMT
It's not difficult to see why Carrier took issue with this, when you'd previously said: As you quote, I previously said 'defending Murdock’s claim'. It's clear that Carrier's trying to evade your points by changing the subject and he took your words out of context at the end, but I'm not sure I got it all right. The claim you were addressing was "Ehrman’s statement that there weren’t “many councils” to decide the NT canon is, read literally, false.", but he pretended you claimed he defended her in general? Yes. Indeed, that's what confused me at first, but that paragraph clearly refers to the preceding one. From the context it's perfectly clear that Fortigurn referred to Carrier's statement that Ehrman's rebuttal is false. But now I think that Carrier has craftily used the phrase to shift the topic by altering its meaning. Fortigurn didn't mean to say Carrier defended Murdock hook, line, sinker, but only on that point (which is correct). Correct.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 9, 2012 3:06:13 GMT
As you quote, I previously said 'defending Murdock’s claim'. Yes, and I take your point but most people would still describe this as defending Murdock.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 9, 2012 3:37:26 GMT
Yes, and I take your point but most people would still describe this as defending Murdock. I don't think most people would describe it as defending Murdock in the way Carrier did; he deliberately generalized a statement I had made very specific. ignorantianescia understood.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 9, 2012 19:03:50 GMT
Jerry Coyne just wrote:
Anyone know who these "several scholars" are?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 9, 2012 21:11:46 GMT
Yes, and I take your point but most people would still describe this as defending Murdock. I don't think most people would describe it as defending Murdock in the way Carrier did; he deliberately generalized a statement I had made very specific. ignorantianescia understood. True, but I understood it only because I reread all relevant parts again and again to check the context of both your and Carrier's claim. It can't be detected if read casually - which is the sneaky part. Maybe I was too harsh by projecting craftiness on Carrier, he could have misread some part, but on the other hand he must have been aware he was scrambling. It might be smart if you submitted another post in which you clarify this difference briefly, so casual readers will detect it as well. If that post would be rejected, then I think it's safe to speak of intentional unfairness.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 9, 2012 21:15:52 GMT
Jerry Coyne just wrote: Anyone know who these "several scholars" are? Carrier, Price (?) and... well, that's it really, AFAIK. I suppose some would include Dorothy Murdock, but calling her a 'scholar' requires a greater generosity of spirit than I possess.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 9, 2012 21:20:12 GMT
Carrier, Price (?) and... well, that's it really, AFAIK. I suppose some would include Dorothy Murdock, but calling her a 'scholar' requires a greater generosity of spirit than I possess. Nowadays, some people consider Hermann Detering a scholar as well. But as far as I know, the field he has a PhD in is Theology, not NT studies or ancient history. Which is of course brilliantly ironic, since so much is made out of "Christian bias" in academia by the Mythicists. Yet now they put their money on an ultra-liberal Protestant preacher.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 10, 2012 0:36:34 GMT
So the other "scholars" are just people who were already mythicists?
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 10, 2012 8:16:12 GMT
So the other "scholars" are just people who were already mythicists? Yeah, or mythicist sympathisers (e.g Carrier).
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 11, 2012 0:30:32 GMT
With a final flurry of insults and profanity, Carrier has abandoned the exchange with me.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 11, 2012 0:44:11 GMT
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 11, 2012 6:11:04 GMT
With a final flurry of insults and profanity, Carrier has abandoned the exchange with me. But ... but ... he is the "world renowned" Richard Carrier! It says so on his webpage! They wouldn't let lies on the internet, would they? Isn't there a law against that sort of thing? I mean how could the equal of Aristotle and Hume be wrong on this. How dare we mere mortals question anything from Richard the Fair? ;D
|
|