Here is from Carrier's conclusion:
Quote:I know many devout Christian scholars will balk and claim to find all
manner of bogus or irrelevant or insignificant holes or flaws in my arguments,
but they would do that anyway. Witness what many Christian scholars
come up with just to reject evolution, or to defend the literal miraculous
resurrection of Jesus (which they claim they can do even with the terrible
and paltry evidence we have). Consequently, I don't care anymore what
Christian apologists think. They are not rational people. I only want to know
what rational scholars think. I want to see a helpful critique of this book by
objective, qualified experts who could live with the conclusion that Jesus
didn't exist, but just don't think the case can be made, or made well enough
to credit. And what I want from my critics is not useless hole punching but
an alternative proposal : if my method is invalid, then what method is the
correct one for resolving questions of historicity? And if you know of none,
how can you justify any claim to historicity for any person, if you don't
even know how such a claim can be justified or fal sified at all? Also correct
any facts I get wrong, point out what I missed, and if my method then
produces a different conclusion when those emendations are included, we
will have progressed Even if the conclusion is the same, it will nevertheless
have been improved.
