Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:09 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:56 pm
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmThe New Testament actually *wasn'ṭ* edited by a specific group of editors. That's actually literally impossible because of how widespread the books of the NT were almost immediately.
??? is k saying that the NT was never brought together for editing because all the bits remained scattered .... so we have.....? I thought that sort of remote hyperlinking was only possible in the internet age.
Don't discount telepathy -
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm Oh come on dude, we both know that church father citations of the NT are often from memory and sloppy.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"It's more than an assumption. It is based on something in a version of Gal 2. And on other things, by several scholars"

Yeah several scholars the most recent one from the 1950s LOL. If you need to go back that far to find someone who agrees with you, that's basically an admission that 99.99999% of scholars weren't duped by your snakeoil dude. You got McGuire from the 50s. By the way, I'm honestly curious: WAS McGuire a real scholar? I don't know. Deterring and Robert Price aren't real scholars dude, so that's a red herring. And I already commented on O'Neil earlier, he just completely got his facts wrong and used arguments, not from evidence, but based on what he personally thought made the text make more "sense". The one time he cited manuscript evidence, he just misrepresented the manuscript in question.

By the way, I googled the whole Galatians 2:1 "again" thing. It's just some crap made up by Raphael Lataster. I knew the whole thing was BS, LOL.


_______

"Ask nicely and I just might."

Yeah freaking right dude, regardless of how nicely I talk you somehow keep responding to me on points you feel like you can score a point in, but the moment I post anything even remotely challenging, you go real silent.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by neilgodfrey »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:25 pm "Ask nicely and I just might."

Yeah freaking right dude, regardless of how nicely I talk you somehow keep responding to me on points you feel like you can score a point in, but the moment I post anything even remotely challenging, you go real silent.
Do I go silent? Maybe I never bothered to read where you said anything serious in your comments. Do you really think I read every word of yours?

But ask nicely ... play by the rules you learned in kindergarten ... say sorry.... and please.... :-)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by neilgodfrey »

Just like Tim -- I offered to debate him in a moderated venue on the sole condition that he refrain from insult. That was the only condition.... that's just too much to ask of some people ;-)

Without their narcissistic bully-boy face they have nothing to work with. Just go away and say, Hey, I won! He refused to debate me!:-)

Nope. I am serious. Be nice, revise your kindy rules, and we can have a serious discussion. But I don't think you want that.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pm "Yes, it is."

Sorry dude, saying "Yes it is yes it is" isn't evidence nor an explanation. The presence or absence of the word "again" from a bunch of off-hand memory citations of Galatians 2 (which you haven't yet provided a scholarly reference for yet) means, quite literally, nothing. It has no implications. It does not imply that the Jerusalem visit in Gal. 2 was the first one, or that there was never one prior.
The implication is that the original text did not have "again" in 2:1 and that, accordingly, the original text did not have a prior visit. While it is possible that the original text both lacked "again" and had a prior visit, it's less likely. That's the reason the word "again" was added, to make the visit in 2:1 sound more natural, given the earlier visit that was added to the text later. To put it another way, the fact that the word "again" is lacking here is something unexpected on the non-interpolation hypothesis and expected on the interpolation hypothesis.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pm"In Galatians 2:6, Paul says of his visit to Jerusalem, taken 14 years after he began, that "they added nothing to my message.""

That verse literally refutes you, as does Gal 2:9 which I already noted refutes you.
Except for the fact that neither thing refutes what I've said, sure.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pmAs you literally show in this very verse, Paul appealed to the pillars not adding anything to his message as evidence for the validity of his message.
I'm glad you're following along. Paul had his own message, independently, to which they had nothing to add.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pmThe idea that Paul couldn't have met James in Gal 1is wishful thinking at best.
Dude, bruh, wishful thinking, impossible, obviously, literally, completely, LOL -- beep, boop, beep beep, bop.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pmIt's also self-contradictory. After all, how the hell can they add nothing to Paul's message in Gal. 2:6 unless Paul met them? And of course, if Paul could meet them once, he could meet them twice. Or maybe it was the same meeting. Who knows. You're just messing this all up.
Now you're saying "if Paul could meet them once, he could meet them twice"? Take a breath before posting. You can do better than that.

In the original text, the meeting, after fourteen years, was described in what is the second chapter of Galatians.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pmTo believe in Marcionite priority, an idea ridiculous on its face, you need to believe that after Marcion, all of Paul's letters were mass-interpolated within a few years across the whole Mediterranean without leaving a trace.
You still have provided no evidence for your beliefs about the transmission of Paul's letters.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pm"When you say "completely wrong" and "literally impossible," you misuse these terms, just as you misuse the term "obviously." What you obviously mean is that it contradicts your beliefs, and you have no arguments against it, so you have to rely on hyperbole."

But I do have an argument, and I literally and obviously just mentioned it. Namely, the NT was *never* under the selection of a single group of editors.
You're just repeating assertions now. You haven't presented any evidence or argument.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pmAnyone who says otherwise, is talking out of their arse.
And, yet, you still have provided no evidence for your beliefs about the transmission of Paul's letters.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"The implication is that the original text did not have "again" in 2:1 and that, accordingly, the original text did not have a prior visit."

The thing is, that doesn't actually follow, nor does it follow that if one of them *was* interpolated, it would be the Jerusalem reference in 18-19.

And remember, your evidence that the word "again" is not in the original is that it doesn't appear in some church father citations. But you've now repeatedly ignored the fact that church father citations are notoriously unreliable, sloppy, and from memory. And you don't even have evidence that the church father citations DID omit the word "again". I took a look into it, and that's just something that Lataster said in a footnote without a citation. There is, quite honestly, nothing here.

"I'm glad you're following along. Paul had his own message, independently, to which they had nothing to add."

I'm sorry my guy, it's over on this one. "I'm going to repeatedly cite the pillars as confirming my message" isn't the same thing as "completely 100% independent don't need the pillars". And neither option is incompatible with anything in Galatians 1:18-19, where Paul only mentions that he met Peter and James. You just don't have any evidence dude. I mean, it's freaking hilarious that something this arbitrary and slender qualifies as "evidence". But anything goes for mythicism, right?

"Now you're saying "if Paul could meet them once, he could meet them twice"? Take a breath before posting. You can do better than that."

Dude, what are you talking about? LOL.

"Dude, bruh, wishful thinking, impossible, obviously, literally, completely, LOL -- beep, boop, beep beep, bop."

ROFL, is that your interpretation of what robots say? Go outside.

"You still have provided no evidence for your beliefs about the transmission of Paul's letters."

What evidence do I need, besides the literal whole corpus and reception of Paul's letters across the entire geography of the Roman Empire from start to finish, all with the sole exception of a single hyper-controversial dude that everyone thought was a fraud who both edited his corpus of Paul and Luke?

I'm sorry to tell you this dude. But "Marcionite priority" is a *logistically impossible*. I'm going to explain it to you again, keep up: you need to believe that between 140 AD, to just a few decades later, all copies of all Paul's letters were mass interpolated, and that this was unanimously accepted across every single church, sect, faction, language, and region, with the sole exception of Marcion's surviving collection. That is, of course, impossible.

"You're just repeating assertions now. You haven't presented any evidence or argument."

I mean, you're confusing things again here dude. If you're the one claiming that a singular group of editors single-handedly edited the NT corpus, the burden of proof is on you to make that claim. And good luck, 'cause there isn't an ounce of evidence behind that. If there was, why not just cite it?


________________________

"Do you really think I read every word of yours?"

I do, LOL. Sorry dude, your rules are irrelevant to me. When it comes to Carrier, everyone ABSOLUTELY has to definitely address him, despite the fact that he's a thousand times more insulting than I am. But if I'm insulting? Nah, can't respond then! But people DEFINITELY should be responding to Carrier. Good job on exposing yourself again dude. Go write more articles to mythicist echo chamber and continue telling them about how literally every single god damn passage disconfirming your space theory is automatically interpolated, ROFL. And never forget, you got tricked by a freakin pianist about whether or not there was a Nazareth in Jesus' time.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by neilgodfrey »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:54 pm
"Do you really think I read every word of yours?"

I do, LOL. Sorry dude, your rules are irrelevant to me. When it comes to Carrier, everyone ABSOLUTELY has to definitely address him, despite the fact that he's a thousand times more insulting than I am. But if I'm insulting? Nah, can't respond then! But people DEFINITELY should be responding to Carrier. Good job on exposing yourself again dude. Go write more articles to mythicist echo chamber and continue telling them about how literally every single god damn passage disconfirming your space theory is automatically interpolated, ROFL.
You missed my posts criticizing Carrier's insulting language. You also missed my post about how an interpolation theory for Romans 1:3 demolishes Carrier's key element in his theory -- which I reject as you've also missed. (You don't read much of what you claim to know about, do you.) But no, sorry to deflate your ego, but I really don't read every word of yours. Probably less than half of what you write and that's too much.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"You missed my posts criticizing Carrier's insulting language."

Nope, I saw them. You still expect people to respond to Carrier, despite his insulting language.

Neil Godfrey:

"Yeah Carrier is super insulting and I disapprove 100% but people should respond to him ya know."

Also Neil Godfrey:

"naw bro i aint gunna respond to someone super insulting loool"


"You also missed my post about how an interpolation theory for Romans 1:3 demolishes Carrier's key element in his theory "

ROFL you gotta be kidding me dude? You just came up with another ridiculous reroute to the same basic conclusion of trying literally anything to dispatch Romans 1:3 from debunking the ridiculous space Jesus theory. There's nothing "KEY" about the space theory of Carrier for Romans 1:3, it's just the particular excuse he happened to come up with. If he didn't have that, the obvious liar he is, he'd just do what you do and claim it's an interpolation. The "key" part of his theory is not that it's talking about space sperm, but that it somehow has to not count.

"But no, sorry to deflate your ego, but I really don't read every word of yours. Probably less than half of what you write and that's too much."

Oh come on dude you know you can't resist reading my responses to you LOL. But what REALLY gets you up at night must be the glee of contributing to Carrier's Patreon in the morning ! Ohhh the joyy you must get !!
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by neilgodfrey »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:08 pm
Oh come on dude you know you can't resist reading my responses to you LOL. But what REALLY gets you up at night must be the glee of contributing to Carrier's Patreon in the morning ! Ohhh the joyy you must get !!
Oh god! Now it's my turn!!!! ROFL!!!

(big boy don't keep nobody's rules -- he's reel tuff and big, wins all the chicks that way -- even got hisself expelled from kindergarten. bit cheese here!!!)

Oh boy karavan, you are the clown! Sorry mate, mythicism is simply not my obsession and people who think they win by mere assertions and insults and riducule don't excite me at all. Sorry fella. :facepalm:
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"Oh god! Now it's my turn!!!! ROFL!!!"

You're old dude, it doesn't work when you do it.

"Sorry fella"

No problem mate LOL, but it's going to be hard to convince people that mythicism "simply" is not your obsession when you write mountains of blog posts every time a paper comes out questioning Carrier.

You should pick up a skill man. Try to use Excel to fit an equation or two. Learn a bit of Python.
Post Reply