Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" out in June

[Blood]

On the subject of the book itself -

"On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt"

The subtitle makes me cringe: a timid recapitulation of a solid (but itself boring) title. Hopefully the contents are better.

I suspect the subtitle was suggested by the publisher. Since non-historicity is still considered radical within theology, the publisher probably thought it would be better to "soften the blow" by putting the thesis in a "doubting" cast.

[Blood]

Wow, you've already read the book before it was even released? That truly is a miracle. Praise Jesus!

Why do I need to read the book?

The synopsis claims that the author makes a case that Jesus didn't exist.

This argument is about 140 years old, as far as I can tell, and it just keeps getting trotted out as if it's something new.

Christian historians and critics have usually responded with indifference because the premise is so ridiculous. Not until the 70s or later did Christian apologists begin attempting defense of the Bible.

I say this is a ill-conceived strategy. My strategy is based on Sun-Tzu: never disrupt the enemy when he is destroying himself. I applaud all atheist efforts to try to claim Jesus didn't exist. It tells us exactly who and what atheists are.

The "age" of an idea is of no consequence to the validity of the idea. Belief in astrology is 5,000 years old. Belief in DNA is only 60 years old. Which one is more valid?

This thread is about a book that you haven't read and apparently have no intention to read. Fine. There are other threads you can contribute to.

[Mental flatliner]

The "age" of an idea is of no consequence to the validity of the idea. Belief in astrology is 5,000 years old. Belief in DNA is only 60 years old. Which one is more valid?

This thread is about a book that you haven't read and apparently have no intention to read. Fine. There are other threads you can contribute to.

You missed my point.

I wasn't as entertained by the fact that all the frauds turn out to be Jesus-haters. I was entertained by the idea that this obsession with Jesus is 140 years old, and you can still be duped as if it were something new.

The less education you have, the more defenseless you are against this kind of thing.

[Blood]

The "age" of an idea is of no consequence to the validity of the idea. Belief in astrology is 5,000 years old. Belief in DNA is only 60 years old. Which one is more valid?

This thread is about a book that you haven't read and apparently have no intention to read. Fine. There are other threads you can contribute to.

You missed my point.

I wasn't as entertained by the fact that all the frauds turn out to be Jesus-haters. I was entertained by the idea that this obsession with Jesus is 140 years old, and you can still be duped as if it were something new.

The less education you have, the more defenseless you are against this kind of thing.

I'm not aware of anyone on this forum stating that the Christ Myth Theory is something new. Can you point to a post where you believe that is said?

[Mental flatliner]

The "age" of an idea is of no consequence to the validity of the idea. Belief in astrology is 5,000 years old. Belief in DNA is only 60 years old. Which one is more valid?

This thread is about a book that you haven't read and apparently have no intention to read. Fine. There are other threads you can contribute to.

You missed my point.

I wasn't as entertained by the fact that all the frauds turn out to be Jesus-haters. I was entertained by the idea that this obsession with Jesus is 140 years old, and you can still be duped as if it were something new.

The less education you have, the more defenseless you are against this kind of thing.

I'm not aware of anyone on this forum stating that the Christ Myth Theory is something new. Can you point to a post where you believe that is said?

I don't see a need.