Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[JairCrawford]

@Succubus No I got that. I read the article as well. I just thought since it was a little OT maybe it deserved its own thread.

Yay now Road will scream conspiracy 

"But they would have noticed "

"Erebus had to destroy or alter a billion made up copies " 

"Biblical criticism are recent therefore fuck the evidence " 

"He's just skeptical" 

Blah blah blah blah

---

 Tim O'Neil. 

 Tim O'Neil is a fucking moron 

Little Timmy being shown he knows nothing 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

To be fair, I did say I wanted to compare and contrast views on the topic.

[Amarok]

@Succubus No I got that. I read the article as well. I just thought since it was a little OT maybe it deserved its own thread.

Yay now Road will scream conspiracy 

"But they would have noticed "

"Erebus had to destroy or alter a billion made up copies " 

"Biblical criticism are recent therefore fuck the evidence " 

"He's just skeptical" 

Blah blah blah blah

---

 Tim O'Neil is a fucking moron 

Little Timmy being shown he knows nothing 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

To be fair, I did say I wanted to compare and contrast views on the topic.

Well that's true he simply repeats the same points over and over even when they have been answered .

[TimOneill]

Oh, yeah. Tim O'Neil.  That was that Jesus freak shithead who was here for a while acting like he knew everything.  You know, RR, he wasn't  very impressive in person and your regurgitated posting of his bullshit is even less so. He didn't last long.

Try again.

Gosh. So, despite being an atheist, I'm a "Jesus freak shithead"? How exactly does that work?

And I "wasn't very impressive in person"? I seem to recall that our last exchange ended with me tearing the crappy self, published nonsense article you tried to use a new one and then you ... fell silent. Anyone who wants to can read the exchange HERE.

But since I've found you talk a good game when you think you're talking behind someone's back, let's see if you can do any better this time. Here is my article on why the "Lack of Contemporary Mentions" Mythicist argument doesn't work:

Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

Let's see if you can actually articulate a coherent counter argument to what I say there, as opposed to making sneering noises. Good luck.

[Losty]

👀

[The Valkyrie]

👀

👌👈

[TimOneill]

---

 Tim O'Neil. 

 Tim O'Neil is a fucking moron 

Little Timmy being shown he knows nothing 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

And here is my detailed reply to that weak hit job by Carrier:

"Richard Carrier is Displeased"

Please read that carefully and then get back to us if you still want to substantiate your profound opinion that I am merely "a fucking moron".

[Amarok]

Oh, yeah. Tim O'Neil.  That was that Jesus freak shithead who was here for a while acting like he knew everything.  You know, RR, he wasn't  very impressive in person and your regurgitated posting of his bullshit is even less so. He didn't last long.

Try again.

Gosh. So, despite being an atheist, I'm a "Jesus freak shithead"? How exactly does that work?

And I "wasn't very impressive in person"? I seem to recall that our last exchange ended with me tearing the crappy self, published nonsense article you tried to use a new one and then you ... fell silent. Anyone who wants to can read the exchange HERE.

But since I've found you talk a good game when you think you're talking behind someone's back, let's see if you can do any better this time. Here is my article on why the "Lack of Contemporary Mentions" Mythicist argument doesn't work:

Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

Let's see if you can actually articulate a coherent counter argument to what I say there, as opposed to making sneering noises. Good luck.

No your way worst Timmy

And your derpy propaganda site makes me laugh

---

---

 Tim O'Neil is a fucking moron 

Little Timmy being shown he knows nothing 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

And here is my detailed reply to that weak hit job by Carrier:

"Richard Carrier is Displeased"

Please read that carefully and then get back to us if you still want to substantiate your profound opinion that I am merely "a fucking moron".

Bawhaha 

Carrier owned you

The only weak piece is yours

[TimOneill]

No your way worst Timmy

Pardon? Incoherent mangled English and lack of actual argument noted. You're off to a flying start.

---

Carrier owned you

I posted my detailed reply that shows he did not "own" me at all just 4 minutes ago. It's 9551 words long. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't even read it.

[Amarok]

No your way worst Timmy

Pardon? Incoherent mangled English and lack of actual argument noted. You're off to a flying start.

---

Carrier owned you

I posted my detailed reply that shows he did not "own" me at all just 4 minutes ago. It's 9551 words long. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't even read it.

Lack of me caring about your opinion of my spelling or grammar in English (my fourth language) and simply linking me to your weak sauce articles were you engage in literary masturbation. Your off to a flying start .

No you posted a bullshit piece of literal salve from the scorching Carrier gave you .And i have already read articles on your shitty little site ages ago i needed a good laugh and you did not disappoint  .You have been repeating the same Anti Mythicism nonsense forever. Give it up dude your the Michael Behe of Anti Mythicism .

[RoadRunner79]

I'm curious, if Carriers methods are valid, and Bayesian probability is a good method for studying history.  Then by Carriers own attestation, there are many bad mythicists scholars out there making many horrible arguments.  Given this, then Carrier has to overcome a high probability that he is just a crank "scholar" with poor reasoning capabilities.  Therefore the correct coarse of action would be to; a priori label as a crank, and to look for any small justification to hold to that position.  We would raise the bar, ignoring anything that conflicts with our Bayesian findings, and hold him to an implausible level which he must then overcome.  

Or we could go the traditional route, address the evidence and reasoning on their merits, and judge his assertions based on the poor logic, and cherry picked evidence that make them up.  Addressing the arguments directly, rather than an end run around to discredit anyone who disagree's, and quibbling over minutia, that isn't involved in the topic at hand to begin with.