(August 25, 2015 at 9:28 am)abaris Wrote: you may just as well preach to the quire,

What's a quire?...
Ah, never mind!

Quote:quire
kwī(ə)r/
noun
noun: quire; plural noun: quires

four sheets of paper or parchment folded to form eight leaves, as in medieval manuscripts.
any collection of leaves one within another in a manuscript or book.
25 (formerly 24) sheets of paper; one twentieth of a ream.

Why would Randy preach to 4 sheets of paper?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Thena323 Wrote: No? That's it...Just no? Randy, I know you can do better than this.  I could explain this little 'misconception' if I cared to. You explained it to the Baptists.  So, why not break it down for these fine people?

You can go ahead and take this one...I'm interested to see what you would say. Thanks!

You should read my post again, sir. I do not care to explain the particulars of your faith to anyone.  Isn't that your job?The question was directed towards you, after all. You shouldn't expect others to give your beliefs consideration, if you're willing to pawn off such important questions to a non-believer.

(August 25, 2015 at 8:04 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 7:53 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Meh... In Randy's case brevity is much appreciated, since on virtually all issues sooner or later he will have to fall back on dogmatism. The way I see it - the sooner, the better.

Of course, I know what his explanation is/would be - something about there being a difference between devotion to Mary and adoration of Jesus/god/holy spirit, as stated in Catholic Catechism. The thing is - he might want to start explaining this to his fellow catholics, because half of them, when asked to name the 3 persons of the Trinity - says "Jesus, Mary and Joseph", or something to that effect...

Why would anyone take you seriously when you post stupid stuff like this?

Why don't you clarify things for us, Randy?

(August 25, 2015 at 8:31 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Are professional historians able to rely on that type of direct evidence, Nestor?

If not, are they unable to learn anything about the past?

Occasionally, yes. Chemical analysis is, after all, how the once touted Shroud of Turin was exposed to be a medieval fraud. There's also archaeological evidence, which is quite direct. That's not too say that the past can't be reconstructed by the written record but it means that much greater substantiation is required than that which is contained in the Gospels - independent sources, with a variety of (conflicting) motives, helps, and even then anecdotal testimony is often called into question. Take Diogenes Laertius, for example.  

Quote:That sounds good. I assume this means that you'll be reading the NT books as first-century Christian sources.

Yes.

(August 19, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Your silly old books are evidence of nothing except your own willingness to be conned.  Grow the fuck up.

And your silly new books prove nothing except that you are willing to pay Acharya S and Richard Carrier to tell you what you want to hear.

(August 28, 2015 at 7:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And your silly new books prove nothing except that you are willing to pay Acharya S and Richard Carrier to tell you what you want to hear.

You know what, Randy? As opposed to you, these people at least know the basic ropes when it comes to evaluating historical sources. You on the other hand have proven repeatedly that you don't know anything besides blindly trusting sources confirming your opinion. If asked, you either miss the point by a lightyear of you wave the question away as irrelevant because you don't know the first thing about the methodologies employed and the multitude of problems when dealing with written sources from different periods or oral history.

That's why you missed the purpose of my question about the Vita Karoli, since you're not able to look beyond the obvious.

Edit: As I see, you had another outburst, it would do you some good to understand Tacitus in his historical context and how a historian goes about evaluating him as a source. But I guess I might be just as well talking to a wall. In fact, the Ehrman quote I mentioned earlier in this very thread could give you some clues. But, seeing that you keep repeating the same unchecked bullshit over and over, still employing the good old copy paste, I won't hold my breath.

(August 28, 2015 at 7:29 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 7:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And your silly new books prove nothing except that you are willing to pay Acharya S and Richard Carrier to tell you what you want to hear.

You know what, Randy? As opposed to you, these people at least know the basic ropes when it comes to evaluating historical sources. You on the other hand have proven repeatedly that you don't know anything besides blindly trusting sources confirming your opinion. If asked, you either miss the point by a lightyear of you wave the question away as irrelevant because you don't know the first thing about the methodologies employed and the multitude of problems when dealing with written sources from different periods or oral history.

That's why you missed the purpose of my question about the Vita Karoli, since you're not able to look beyond the obvious.

Then why is it that no scholars (atheist or theist) take them seriously? Ehrman points out that only Richard Carrier has any REAL credentials, and yet, Ehrman still thinks Carrier is a loon.

Say, what you want about me. The problem is them.