Carrier vs. Rent-an-Apologist on Historicity of Jesus

[toejam]

You cannot divorce one of 'Paul's' claims from any other, in regards to their trustworthiness, they all stand or fall together.

Like I said, not even Carrier goes this far. Carrier is happy to use Paul as evidence for what he believes the original Christians thought about Jesus.

[Leucius Charinus]

You cannot divorce one of 'Paul's' claims from any other, in regards to their trustworthiness, they all stand or fall together.

Like I said, not even Carrier goes this far. Carrier is happy to use Paul as evidence for what he believes the original Christians thought about Jesus.

Carrier may at the moment be happy to "assume the historicity of Saint Paul" but there are other scholars, modern and historical, who do not make this assumption. These academics state their reasons to be suspicious of the authenticity of all the Pauline letters (not just the known "Pseudo-Pauline" letters). Their arguments are varied. The most recent author AFAIK is Thomas Brodie. His arguments have been discussed in threads here if you're interested In examining their exhaustive refutation.


LC

[Blood]

The debate was worthwhile because Horn actually studied Carrier's arguments and found their weak spots, unlike most of these debates where the apologist just reads from a standard orthodox script.

I believe Horn said that Carrier's argument connecting Paul's beliefs to Ascension of Isaiah would be relevant if Paul ever alluded to that text, but of course he doesn't, nor does AoI allude to Paul. That knocked some of the wind out of Carrier I think.

And I agree with what was said above. The audience cannot be expected to have ever heard of apocryphal texts like "The Life of Adam of Eve" and AoI, so most of the debate went over their heads.

[outhouse]

, so most of the debate went over their heads.

Agreed.

I was pausing and researching while watching, just to check out those minor details being nailed to the wall for observation.

[stevencarrwork]

Horn has pegged carrier as a liar right from the beginning. [using sources dated later then the origins of the movement]

If this is true, then Carrier has no credibility what so ever.

edit

Carrier tries to dig himself out of the dishonesty hole he dug, but im not convinced by his explanation of Ascension of Isaiah, nor Philo

Does any source in the New Testament predate the origins of Christianity?

[outhouse]

Horn has pegged carrier as a liar right from the beginning. [using sources dated later then the origins of the movement]

If this is true, then Carrier has no credibility what so ever.

edit

Carrier tries to dig himself out of the dishonesty hole he dug, but im not convinced by his explanation of Ascension of Isaiah, nor Philo

Does any source in the New Testament predate the origins of Christianity?

If you cannot answer the obvious, why ask others?

What does that have to do with my statement?

[stevencarrwork]

Horn has pegged carrier as a liar right from the beginning. [using sources dated later then the origins of the movement]

If this is true, then Carrier has no credibility what so ever.

edit

Carrier tries to dig himself out of the dishonesty hole he dug, but im not convinced by his explanation of Ascension of Isaiah, nor Philo

Does any source in the New Testament predate the origins of Christianity?

If you cannot answer the obvious, why ask others?

What does that have to do with my statement?

Because you said it was dishonest to use sources which are dated after the origins of Christianity.

Which means you are calling every New Testament scholar in the world dishonest, and 'has no credibility what so ever' (sic)

All because they use documents in the New Testament, which , of course, are dated after the origins of Christianity - which makes those scholars 'dishonest' , using your criterion of 'using sources dated after the origins of Christianity' = 'dishonest person'

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What does that have to do with my statement?

Since all Christian literature post-dates the alleged life of Jesus it's fallacious to object to the Ascension of Isaiah on that grounds and a non-sequitur to call it "dishonest" unless Carrier is actually lying about the dates (something which apologists do all the time with regards to the New Testament, by the way).

[outhouse]

What does that have to do with my statement?

Since all Christian literature post-dates the alleged life of Jesus it's fallacious to object to the Ascension of Isaiah on that grounds and a non-sequitur to call it "dishonest" unless Carrier is actually lying about the dates (something which apologists do all the time with regards to the New Testament, by the way).

He was, and got caught, red handed.

Watch the first 15 min, where he gets busted.

stevencarrwork just threw out a "no true Scotsman" and I was grinding him over his lack of comprehending what I wrote in context to how Carrier got busted in the vid..

[outhouse]

Because you said it was dishonest to use sources which are dated after the origins of Christianity.

Your taking me out of context. You would have to have watched the video and understood it, then you would understand my statement.


I will give you I should have wrote it out better and been more descriptive, I assumed people who posted in this thread would actually know what they were debating in context to the OP.