Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

[MrMacSon]

Isn't that a different argument to Carrier's?

That whole passage is relevant to Carrier's 'argument/s', and anyone else that uses the Pauline texts as if 'Paul' was real; in that the passage could refer to the Pauline texts and 'Paul' as much as the gospels and 'Jesus'

"The gospels can be seen as having been intentionally written to look like history though most of their stories come from rewriting Old Testament texts. Given that understanding, the simplest interpretation that explains the literary data is to see the gospels as portrayals of a literary character. 'In essence: once the literary connection is seen, the historical explanation is unnecessary; it goes beyond what is needed to explain the data.'
. . . < snip > . . .

"I highly recommend reading Brodie's Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus after reading Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist. You'll read something that comes off as absolutely certain and then read a counterpoint that calls into question everything you were just starting to take for granted. Even if you don't agree with everything Brodie says, you can't help but recognize the reasonableness and validity of most of his arguments ..."

• A great counterpoint to Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
  by Tom Dykstra on December 25, 2012
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Quest-Hist ... 190753458X
  
  Books by Dykstra: http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Dykstra/e/B00J8SV7CA

[John T]

Dykstra is no fan of a historical Jesus. Thus we should not be surprised that he belittles Ehrman while praising Brodie. After all Brodie praises Dykstra books so why not return the favor? One hand washes the other.

"This book [Did Jesus Exsist?] stresses "criteria for historicity" but Brodie points out that the most important factor in interpreting a text is its literary context, and Ehrman's book does not lay enough stress on criteria for determining literary dependence, which is a developing theme among many biblical scholars of late."...Dykstra

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AV ... dp?ie=UTF8

Yet, after reading "Did Jesus Exsist?" it appears that Dykstra is not aware that Ehrman had sufficiently addressed his concerns (mentioned in his book-review) or he is indeed aware and is simply being dishonest in order to hock books for his mythicist friends.

I saw nothing in the book review of Brodie that warrants reading it let alone buying a book that essentially says what Ehrman says but arrives at a different conclusion without providing any substantive evidence for the contrary conclusion.

Once again I will issue the same challenge that I do for Carrier sycophants. Just what gem of new information did Brodie discover or that common fact that Ehrman has left out that proves Jesus did not exist?

John T

[perseusomega9]

lol, now watch as John T never reads a Brodie or Dykstra book yet goes on the attack.

[John T]

lol, now watch as John T never reads a Brodie or Dykstra book yet goes on the attack.

Can you give me a good reason to read one?
Once again you mock me but you just can't seem to provide any evidence to justify your faith in Brodie or Dykstra. Perhaps it is because you haven't read their works and that explains why you don't know how to respond to my challenge.

The hypocrisy of it all.

[perseusomega9]

Can you give us a good reason to attack authors you haven't read? Fucking hypocrite.

[John T]

This reminds me of the book; "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "original Jesus" a Pagan God?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy."

I was challenged to watch a video documentary on gnosticism which had a segment where Freke and Gandy laid out their augments from their book. It was riddled with historical errors and was at times just flat out deceiving. I made my comments and provided the evidence. However, I was scorned (just like you are doing now) that I couldn't judge what they said in the documentary because there wasn't enough time to go over all the details of their research and that I needed to read the book and research the footnotes before passing judgement. So, I read the book and it was even worse than the documentary.

Did perseusomega9 and other atheists/mythicists come back say, "'hey, John T you were right all along and thanks for your consideration."

Now before I waste my time/money on another book, I need some assurances that Brodie is not just another kook or is simply trying to piggyback off the works of Ehrman.

perseusomega9, have you read any of Brodie's books?
If so, what gem do they have to offer?

John T

[perseusomega9]

Glad you have a pointless analogy to share, by all means, keep attacking scholars you've never read .

In the meantime, I'll reread Dykstra's intertextual study on Mark and the Paulines and Brodie's thesis of the NT authors rewriting the Elija-Elisha narrative for this very important and obviously historical person named Jesus.

[John T]

Glad you have a pointless analogy to share, by all means, keep attacking scholars you've never read .

In the meantime, I'll reread Dykstra's intertextual study on Mark and the Paulines and Brodie's thesis of the NT authors rewriting the Elija-Elisha narrative for this very important and obviously historical person named Jesus.

Thank you for making my point about hypocrisy.

Still, by all means, I encourage you to actually read them and then come back and tell us what Ehrman and/or I got wrong.
Thanks in advance.

[perseusomega9]

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. I mean, I am the one after all who has read Brodie and Dykstra, who you are attacking, having never read them. And the ONLY reason you're attacking two accomplished scholars is because one is a mythicist and the other said, "yeah, that guys got a few good ideas". I'm sure in you're head you're not a hypocrite or committing a gazillion logical fallacies.

[John T]

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. I mean, I am the one after all who has read Brodie and Dykstra, who you are attacking, having never read them. And the ONLY reason you're attacking two accomplished scholars is because one is a mythicist and the other said, "yeah, that guys got a few good ideas". I'm sure in you're head you're not a hypocrite or committing a gazillion logical fallacies.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I meant by 'hypocrisy'.
Do as I say not as I do.

You pretend you have knowledge but you can't say what it is, yet, you expect me to read a book that you haven't read and/or understand?

Surely you will understand why I won't waste my time chasing after your red herrings.

Now if you actually have something (no need to list a gazillion logical fallacies when one will do) please go on, if not, I chose not to go down the spiral any further.

Thanks in advance.