Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

No Road both his methods and his probabilities are sound. I know that's inconvenient for your apologist agenda but too bad .

[RoadRunner79]

No Road both his methods and his probabilities are sound. I know that's inconvenient for your apologist agenda but too bad .

Then so is the above, we can judge him a crank without ever looking at his work. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

[TimOneill]

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 .

"Weak sauce articles .... literary masturbation .... bullshit piece .... your shitty little site .... Anti Mythicism nonsense"

All asserted without any supporting argument or engagement with anything I've actually said. It seems this level of gassy flatulence is about all we're going to get from you. So, another mighty blow is struck for "rationalism" ...  

Is there anyone here actually capable of detailed discussion based on the relevant source material? Or just coherent sentences?

---

I'm curious, if Carriers methods are valid, and Bayesian probability is a good method for studying history. 

No other historians use it the way he does. What does that tell you? Bayes' Theorem only works if you have objective, real world data to plug into it. It can't be used to assess whether something happened in the past by giving your prior qualitative assessments of likelihood a number and then putting that into the Theorem. That tells you nothing. It's all smoke and mirrors that no-one except Carrier and his peanut gallery of clueless fanboys takes seriously.

[Minimalist]

@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.

But you already know one side of the argument....now you need to learn the facts.

You should  listen to Bishop Warburton.... who knew in the late 18th century.

“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”

[Amarok]

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 .

"Weak sauce articles .... literary masturbation .... bullshit piece .... your shitty little site .... Anti Mythicism nonsense"

All asserted without any supporting argument or engagement with anything I've actually said. It seems this level of gassy flatulence is about all we're going to get from you. So, another mighty blow is struck for "rationalism" ...  

Is there anyone here actually capable of detailed discussion based on the relevant source material? Or just coherent sentences?

The only support i require is your article a Carriers they both stand a testaments to your inadequacy and as for engagement i pretty sure responding is engagement . As for rationalism you would not know it if it bite you on the ass . 

Is there anyone here who can actually defend Timmy's nonsense or at least do something aside saying "your spelling sucks i win "

---

No other historians use it the way he does. What does that tell you? Bayes' Theorem only works if you have objective, real world data to plug into it. It can't be used to assess whether something happened in the past by giving your prior qualitative assessments of likelihood a number and then putting that into the Theorem. That tells you nothing. It's all smoke and mirrors that no-one except Carrier and his peanut gallery of clueless fanboys takes seriously.

Yes they do regardless of what you and your feckless cheerleaders say .

---

Then so is the above, we can judge him a crank without ever looking at his work. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

What the hell are you on about?

---

@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.


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

But you already know one side of the argument....now you need to learn the facts.

You should  listen to Bishop Warburton.... who knew in the late 18th century.

“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”

Watch out Min Timmy's here to destroy us dumb "new atheists " with his super duper historian powers .

[Minimalist]

Oh fuck him and his phony fucking God.

Apologists are a dime a dozen and about as useful.

[Amarok]

Oh fuck him and his phony ducking god.

Apologists are a dime a dozen and about as useful.

But Min He's an atheist 

---

Carrier himself said it about Timmy's responses best 

If there is anything in that ridiculously long rant that even merits a response, let me know.

And there isn't Dr carrier there isn't

[Minimalist]

Oh yeah... Another one of those!

How many times have we seen that routine?

[Amarok]

Oh yeah... Another one of those!

How many times have we seen that routine?

Too many it's reached critical mass really these apologist dorks are like rabbits .I stopped taking them seriously ages ago. I put them in the same category as young earth creationists at this point .Lots of sites and books very little sense between the covers .

[TimOneill]

The only support i require is your article a Carriers they both stand a testaments to your inadequacy 

Another weak blurt. I answered Carrier's attack in detail. At length. With a careful deconstruction of his argument that showed he was dead wrong. And Carrier - who is usually on a hair-trigger to respond to the slightest criticism - has been asked how he would respond and yet has ... declined to do so. So perhaps you could actually detail how my reply to him is "inadequate". Simply blurting that it is is not an argument, I'm afraid. 

and as for engagement i pretty sure responding is engagement . 

Oh yeah, well your [sic] a poopyhead, so there!" may be 'engagement' in you are four years old, but I was asking if anyone here is capable of detailed discussion based on the source material. Yet again we see you and the other boneheaded jerk here prancing around and squealing and yet doing everything you can to avoid actually tangling with the topics at hand. If I am so "inadequate", "feckless", "bullshit" and "weak" surely my arguments could be dispatched very easily. So what seems to be the problem?

Yes they do regardless of what you and your  feckless cheerleaders say .

Gosh. Okay, please cite some of the historians who use Bayes the way Carrier does. See if you can actually back up your weak farting noises with some substance for once.

---

Oh yeah... Another one of those!

How many times have we seen that routine?

Too many it's reached critical mass really these apologist dorks are like rabbits .I stopped taking them seriously ages ago. I put them in the same category as young earth creationists at this point .Lots of sites and books very little sense between the covers .

Oh wow. So we're now reached the "you're not a real atheist, you're actually a Christian" gambit in what seems like record time. As I note every time this pathetic ruse is tried: I have a posting history as an atheist that goes back to 1992, I'm a former state president of the Australian Skeptics and I've been a paid up, subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia for many years. But if you really want to go for this weak tactic - try this: find anything that proves I am actually a Christian and not an atheist. Anything. You have 26 years worth of online material to work with, so it should not be hard to prove I'm lying. Good luck.