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
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: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm "butt-hurt O'Neill"
enough to send one running to the outhouse.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

"enough to send one running to the outhouse."

ughh ... what?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

karavan,
Once again, you reveal an unwillingness to represent the claims of your opponents fairly in order to insult your opponents. I have been ignoring your words for the past several months, but when I saw that you were interacting with Ms. Hansen, I abandoned my old policy in order to learn whether you were interacting with her more politely. I said as much during my first reply to you today – but you ignore such a claim in favour of accusing me of dishonesty. I could accuse you of various things, but I will not.
As for the fact that we are both pseudonymous, that is true. But I am not the one claiming to be an expert on anything here. Rather, I claim to be an interested amateur who am a Buddhist, basing my questions and claims on things that I have read (which I cite). You, on the other hand, are implying that you are an expert insofar as you can settle not only the degree of respect owed to Dr. Carrier (where you might actually have a case if you were to abandon hyperbole and insults against him in favour of calmly refuting his claims and building a case that he should not be respected), but also whether Mahayana Buddhism’s origins can be compared to Christian origins, what date should be assigned to the Ascension of Isaiah, and whether it is reasonable to doubt that Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. Given that you do this without naming yourself, without being polite, and without citing all relevant information against a named person who is polite, willing to name herself, and actively seeking citations about claims, I feel reasonable in noting these differences.
However, I will consider PMing to you my name if you PM to me the following: a promise to refrain from insults; a legally binding contract to pay to Peter Kirby a fee of US$500.00 if you insult another user upon this forum; and an admission that your alleged education in Buddhist healing was so defective that you confused Shakyamuni Buddha and Amitabha Buddha.
That brings me to the following five areas in this thread where you have revealed yourself to be uninterested in researching what your opponents claim.
1. When I pointed out that Dr. Carrier had in fact published since his book “On the Historicity of Jesus” by citing his later publications, you tried to dismiss them as self-published pamphlets rather than doing the research to learn that they are standard trade-paperback books, hundreds of pages long, published by Pitchstone Books. You also, bizarrely, insisted that we should read into your claim a reference to academic publishing, even though your post had made references to publishing simplicitor.
2. When Neil Godfrey claimed to disagree with Dr. Carrier about some things, rather than asking him for evidence or seeking evidence of this within his blog vridar, you accused him of lying.
3. When I cited Amitabha Buddha as a non-historical heavenly saviour figure whom a hypothetical heavenly saviour Jesus (whom I no longer accept as the best explanation for the evidence) could be compared to, rather than taking literally 1 minute to do an internet search and learn that Amitabha Buddha and Gautama Buddha are different, you leaped to accusing me of bad historiographical methods because, as you claimed, Buddha was a historical figure. Whosoever taught you about Buddhist healing must have been very unorthodox (or maybe very dedicated to the Tipitaka), given the importance of Bhaiṣajya-guru-vaiḍūrya-prabhā-rāja (nicknamed the Medicine Buddha, and presented by Gautam Buddha within the Mahayana Buddhist canon as a heavenly saviour figure similar to Amitabha Buddha) within most Buddhist healing.
4. When I cited texts and authors to justify the origins of Mahayana Buddhism that I was presenting, you said that unless I were to present to you the precise passages from the sources, you would believe that I was making up my parallels. In this way you combined insults and unwillingness to research what your opponents were claiming.
5. When you accused various people of disgusting incompetence for presenting a certain dating of the Ascension of Isaiah, you revealed that your belief about when that text should be dated was based upon Litwa, who cited no source or reasoning for his claim; you in this way ignored the diversity of opinions by scholars about when the Ascension of Isaiah was written and revealed your unwillingness to look beyond Litwa.
It is ultimately subjective determining who won an argument, but I think that I revealed you to be a fool some months ago in the following three ways.
1. By providing carefully cited evidence that Neil Godfrey disagrees with Dr. Carrier.
2. By challenging you to provide me with a single pre-gospel, non Q, text portraying Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death – and then pointing out how you misrepresented my argument as my claiming that the Revelation to John claimed that Jesus was not a apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death. If you in fact provided such a source, then I have not read it because you are on ignore list and no person has PMed to me your citation. But even in such a case, your incorrectly claiming that my argument claimed that the Revelation to John claimed that Jesus was not a apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death and my response to that remains
3. By providing to you evidence that Amitabha Buddha (heavenly Buddha in Sukhvati) and Gautama Buddha (founder of Buddhism in ancient India) are separate figures with different relations to history – as even you conceded.
Jointly, these three features reveal you to be arrogant and unwilling to properly comprehend or research what your opponents say – in turn suggesting that your assessments of the evidence are as useful as a bling man’s assessment of an elephant. I consider that to be my triumph, and judging by the responses of other people to your claims within this thread, I am not the only one finding your reasoning defective.
As for your assertion that I automatically agree with Dr. Carrier, this is false. He and I disagree about monogamy, materialism, the sectarian affiliations of Mozi, the name that Gautama Buddha had, and whether Jesus walked upon the Earth.
I will ignore you after this again, but feel free to PM me with a promise to refrain from insults and I will de-ignore you permanently.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

karavan, these sources reveal that the dating of the Ascension of Isaiah is in no way as settled as you were claiming when you relied upon Litwa. I apologize for not citing them in my main reply to you.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:31 pm
karavan wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 6:13 pm Anyways, if you're going to drop by and comment on the early dating of the AoI per Norelli, then can you also comment on what you think about the AoI in relation to the mythicist use of it? Are mythicists right to propagate it as a space Jesus? Or what?
As per Norelli?

The person who virtually founded the modern studies of the Ascension of Isaiah was Robert Henry Charles and it was he who dated the AscIsa in the first century (with final redactions being made in the second) and his analysis was long generally accepted in the field.

Another who advanced the study of the AI a little farther was Jean Daniélou and he also dated the vision to the first century.

Then David Flusser came along and linked the AI to the Qumran sect.

P.C. Bori acknowledged the possibility of the Vision being composed at the end of the first century.

R. G. Hall places the final redaction early in the second century but the original parts could have been first century.

A. Acerbi places it around the turn of the century (first to second).

M. Knibb dates part of the AI to the first century.

Norelli's date of the Vision to the first century is found in his conclusions after discussing the history of scholarship and the discussions at conferences on the AI held in the 1980s/90s. (Norelli also has some searing critiques of certain English language scholarship on the AI.)

If you are going to talk about the Asc of Isa it would be more productive if you actually did some homework instead of prooftexting from the first text you assume represents the opinion of the entire field.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

I almost wish that I were as dishonest as karavan thinks me to be, so that I could secretly follow eir posts directly within this thread after today. But given eir severe defects in reasoning and love for insults, such a thing, in addition to being dishonest, would be uninformative and probably causing bad emotions against em that would be better saved for more important situations in my life.

But e should repent of eir rage and insulting ways, like Angulimala repented from killing and evil magic!
Last edited by ABuddhist on Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

Ah yes you're abandoning your "old policy", you're sounding like the Soviet Union there dude LOL.

"I am not the one claiming to be an expert on anything here"

And I did? But if you would like my true identity, I am Dr. Prof. Sir Bigman the Biggest. You can address me as Colonel, though.

"who am a Buddhist"

...

"if you PM to me the following: a promise to refrain from insults; a legally binding contract to pay to Peter Kirby a fee of US$500.00 if you insult another user upon this forum; and an admission that your alleged education in Buddhist healing was so defective that you confused Shakyamuni Buddha and Amitabha Buddha."

You went full retard. Never go full retard. By the way why did you offer to PM me your real name? I don't care LOL.

Everything else I already addressed months ago, let it go dude. You're not going to be getting your revenge in a Round 2.

Anyways, the only thing I cared about when re-entering this thread was Chris's opinion on if the AoI supports a space Jesus. Got that answer, and I've engaged in literally zero other useful interactions here since. Until something else relevant to me comes up, cya lads!
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 »

karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm 1) calling Carrier delusion[al] 2) his theories gibberish
can you actually show me TIM THE GUY YOU'RE CLAIMING THIS IS BASED ON saying that?
My point isn't just that you have said said those things in relation to Carrier here, it's that those descriptors or words are ones which Tim O'Neill commonly uses

eg. especially in relation to gibberish - https://twitter.com/search?q=%40timonei ... ery&f=live

Here's O'Neill calling "Carrier's reading of Romans 1:3" delusional - https://twitter.com/TimONeill007/status ... 4053986306,

calling Raphael Lataster a delusional weirdo - https://twitter.com/TimONeill007/status ... 2063968257,

and someone else - https://twitter.com/TimONeill007/status ... 7450476544

karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm the phrase "Tim-ism"
  • rhymes with jism
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:26 pm
karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm 1) calling Carrier delusion[al] 2) his theories gibberish
can you actually show me TIM THE GUY YOU'RE CLAIMING THIS IS BASED ON saying that?
My point isn't just that you have said said those things in relation to Carrier here, it's that those descriptors or words are ones which Tim O'Neill commonly uses

eg. especially in relation to gibberish - https://twitter.com/search?q=%40timonei ... ery&f=live

Here's O'Neill calling "Carrier's reading of Romans 1:3" delusional - https://twitter.com/TimONeill007/status ... 4053986306,

calling Raphael Lataster a delusional weirdo - https://twitter.com/TimONeill007/status ... 2063968257,

and someone else - https://twitter.com/TimONeill007/status ... 7450476544

karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm the phrase "Tim-ism"
  • rhymes with jism
This exchange is yet more evidence that karavan cannot be bothered to research what eir oponents say. E could have searched Mr. O'Neill's writings for evidence of his using the words "delusion[al]" and "gibberish". And no, I have not broken my promise to ignore karavan (whose posts have for months appeared to me with no other words than "karavan, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post. Display this post.") - I rather reply to what MrMacSon wrote while quoting karavan.
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 »

ABuddhist wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:53 pm karavan,
. . . .
As for the fact that we are both pseudonymous,....
It is one thing to be anonymous in order to avoid some threat or risk towards one standing among professional or family or personal associates, but to use anonymity as a cover to hide one's identity while flinging insults and abuse towards others, as does karavan, is outright cowardice.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

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

Post by nightshadetwine »

I think I know who this Karavan character is. He's this apologetic nutcase that goes by "korvexius" and "chonkshonk" on r/academicbiblical. You can tell it's him because he always uses words like "destroyed" and "garbage". He's your typical immature internet dork. Dude is really strange. He's obsessed with mythicism - thinks it's delusional to question whether Jesus existed but completely rational to believe some dude that lived over 2000 years ago was god and rose from the dead! You're all definitely wasting your time with this guy. He just gives anyone who disagrees with him attitude. I've seen him get "destroyed"(as he always likes to say) by the user "AllIsVanity" on r/academicbiblical.
Post Reply