No problem... anything about me whether true or false, is really unimportant anyway. Perhaps you would prefer to continue the discussion where the other left off.
Some of the things mentioned in the quote of Carrier really have nothing to do with the mythicist's position. The darkeness that covered the land is found in the threee synoptic Gospels. So it has multiple witnesses attesting to it. There are somethings that are only recorded by Matthew however, that from a historical standpoint, I think would think the lack of corroboration would justly deserve a question mark next to it.... although I don't think that the certainty asserted by Carrier in saying "we can be sure that never happened" is justified from the relatively weak Argument from Silence. And yet again, this is an easily falsifiable claim and the argument from silence can work the other way as well. What about the silence from those who stood agaisnt the Christian movement; why don't we hear from them? Especially for the church in Jerusalem, this would have been the first thing I would bring up.
But on to the more pertinent claim about the fame of Jesus. The Gospels do say that Jesus gained a number of followers in His short 3 year ministry. And I think that this is evidenced by the quick growth of the Church; especially in the local area, such as Jerusalem. However, it doesn't have to be all or nothing as some critics like to make out. It certainly seems reasonable that in one sense, He was famous and had a following. But on the other hand, in the short time he was public didn't gather the attention of those who didn't believe. I think there is a certain presentism error that is being introduced here. Where we think that the coverage of news, blogs, and annoying people on youtube, speaking about everything and everyone should translate into this earlier time. This is why when presented with this argument from silence, I ask who specifically and which work you think that Jesus should have been mentioned in. As I mentioned before Pliny the Elder is often mentioned, but I find it laughable, that anyone who has actually looked at his work, thinks that Jesus should be covered there. As impressive and exhaustive as his early encyclopedia is; mentioning of Jesus just doesn't fit. Philo wrote mostly about ideas and philosophy. Josephus is probably the closest as a History of the Jews (and does briefly mention Jesus, which we won't get into again). But even if it doesn't; where in that work, do you think that Jesus should without question fit?
The other night, I watched the debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price. It was quite interesting. In it Dr. Ehrman pointed out, that we have better historical evidence for Jesus, than any other Palestinian Jew at that time. Really better than any other person in that area at the time. We know more about Jesus, then we do Caiaphas a predominant Jewish high priest at the time. More than Pilate (who until recent evidence was uncovered some scholars had doubted". The next closest to whom we have better evidence for, is Josephus... and that is only because he wrote a lot himself (which we likely wouldn't have had, if Christians hadn't preserved his work). Ehrman is an excellent speaker; and although I have some disagreements with some of his conclusions, he presented the case agaisnt mythicism fairly well. By the end, you could see that Price was loosing patience. And essentially appeared to say that his position was possible, and he liked his story better. The problem is the evidence they don't have or at minimum only weak evidence, and then they try to make up a story from there. At one point, Robert said something was an interpolation and Bart called him on it, and said, that you can't just call evidence which disagrees with your position an interpolation, that is not how history is done.
Some of the things mentioned in the quote of Carrier really have nothing to do with the mythicist's position. The darkeness that covered the land is found in the threee synoptic Gospels. So it has multiple witnesses attesting to it. There are somethings that are only recorded by Matthew however, that from a historical standpoint, I think would think the lack of corroboration would justly deserve a question mark next to it.... although I don't think that the certainty asserted by Carrier in saying "we can be sure that never happened" is justified from the relatively weak Argument from Silence. And yet again, this is an easily falsifiable claim and the argument from silence can work the other way as well. What about the silence from those who stood agaisnt the Christian movement; why don't we hear from them? Especially for the church in Jerusalem, this would have been the first thing I would bring up.
But on to the more pertinent claim about the fame of Jesus. The Gospels do say that Jesus gained a number of followers in His short 3 year ministry. And I think that this is evidenced by the quick growth of the Church; especially in the local area, such as Jerusalem. However, it doesn't have to be all or nothing as some critics like to make out. It certainly seems reasonable that in one sense, He was famous and had a following. But on the other hand, in the short time he was public didn't gather the attention of those who didn't believe. I think there is a certain presentism error that is being introduced here. Where we think that the coverage of news, blogs, and annoying people on youtube, speaking about everything and everyone should translate into this earlier time. This is why when presented with this argument from silence, I ask who specifically and which work you think that Jesus should have been mentioned in. As I mentioned before Pliny the Elder is often mentioned, but I find it laughable, that anyone who has actually looked at his work, thinks that Jesus should be covered there. As impressive and exhaustive as his early encyclopedia is; mentioning of Jesus just doesn't fit. Philo wrote mostly about ideas and philosophy. Josephus is probably the closest as a History of the Jews (and does briefly mention Jesus, which we won't get into again). But even if it doesn't; where in that work, do you think that Jesus should without question fit?
The other night, I watched the debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price. It was quite interesting. In it Dr. Ehrman pointed out, that we have better historical evidence for Jesus, than any other Palestinian Jew at that time. Really better than any other person in that area at the time. We know more about Jesus, then we do Caiaphas a predominant Jewish high priest at the time. More than Pilate (who until recent evidence was uncovered some scholars had doubted". The next closest to whom we have better evidence for, is Josephus... and that is only because he wrote a lot himself (which we likely wouldn't have had, if Christians hadn't preserved his work). Ehrman is an excellent speaker; and although I have some disagreements with some of his conclusions, he presented the case agaisnt mythicism fairly well. By the end, you could see that Price was loosing patience. And essentially appeared to say that his position was possible, and he liked his story better. The problem is the evidence they don't have or at minimum only weak evidence, and then they try to make up a story from there. At one point, Robert said something was an interpolation and Bart called him on it, and said, that you can't just call evidence which disagrees with your position an interpolation, that is not how history is done.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther