(August 28, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.

First, Carrier is not the point.

The point is that you haven't spent years at university learning the methodology to evaluate written sources from different periods of time. You don't know the different genres, as has been proven by missing the mark on my question and you don't know how to extract useful information from a totally biased text.

(August 28, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, that would only mean that people have speculated about Jesus' genealogy. Joseph had a biological father (who died young) and a legal father who married Joseph's mother according the Levitical law.

You're making this up. Nothing hints at that at all.

Quote:The point is that you haven't spent years at university learning the methodology to evaluate written sources from different periods of time.

True.  What he did is listen to a fucking shithead like Habermas and decide that he knows everything.  The xtian asshole is a well known psychological type.

Wait, guys! I finally found it!

Some solid evidence for Jesus! Now where was it...

Ah shit, I shredded it. I got it mixed up with my junk mail. Oh well, I've told you that there was evidence, so that should be enough. It was an eye witness account of a guy who heard someone talking about some other evidence, which was really good apparently. Why would he lie about something like that?