Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[RoadRunner79]

That is absolutely horrible logic.  
No wonder most historians wouldn't  give Carrier the time of day.

Just because you are a shithead who can't understand basic English does not mean that anyone has to pay attention to your apologetic horseshit.  Let me know when you grow up.... if ever.

Fairy tales are not true, sonny.

LOL....OK.

Why is it, that you don't think that I understand English?    Is you default to just attack the person, and where they come from?  
None of what you said, here, makes the argument any better, or clarifies anything about it.   If anything; one might speculate, that this indicates more of an emotional reason, rather than a rational one for the conclusion.

[Amarok]

LOL....OK.

Why is it, that you don't think that I understand English?    Is you default to just attack the person, and where they come from?   
None of what you said, here, makes the argument any better, or clarifies anything about it.   If anything; one might speculate, that this indicates more of an emotional reason, rather than a rational one for the conclusion.

So a long paragraph devoid itself of any substance

---

That is absolutely horrible logic.  

No wonder most historians wouldn't give Carrier the time of day.

Which you provide no real criticism of just snark

---

I agree. Carrier completely ignores the obvious fact that the churches already believed a basic set of facts about Jesus. The fact that the churches existed are concrete evidence of this. IN addition, Paul's greeting in nearly every one of the letters reiterate this. Paul was not writing a 'Letter to the Editor' to introduce people to Jesus. They obviously had that background knowledge.

Accept they didn't and the existence of the early church has already been addressed by Carrier several times it does not make the case you want .So it is you who is ignoring  facts not Carrier .

[RoadRunner79]

LOL....OK.

Why is it, that you don't think that I understand English?    Is you default to just attack the person, and where they come from?   
None of what you said, here, makes the argument any better, or clarifies anything about it.   If anything; one might speculate, that this indicates more of an emotional reason, rather than a rational one for the conclusion.

So a long paragraph devoid itself of any substance

---

That is absolutely horrible logic.  

No wonder most historians wouldn't give Carrier the time of day.

Which you provide no real criticism of just snark

You one to talk :ROFLOL

Also, you may note;  I did explain why in another post, as I have before with Min.

[Amarok]

So a long paragraph devoid itself of any substance

---

Which you provide no real criticism of just snark

You one to talk :LOL

Also, you may note;  I did explain why in another post, as I have before with Min.

No the thing i'm adressing was spot on thus it was valid criticism

No you really didn't you just made a bunch of arrogant claims about Carrier all of which are in error . and Min wiped the floor with you every time thus far and your attempts here have failed here as well .

[RoadRunner79]

You one to talk :LOL

Also, you may note;  I did explain why in another post, as I have before with Min.

No the thing i'm adressing was spot on 

No you really didn't you just made a bunch of arrogant claims about Carrier all of which are in error . and Min wiped the floor with you every time thus far you attempts here have failed you as well

The only claim I made I made about Carrier was that his historical peers, don't have much respect for him.  I thought that this was fairly well known (it seems that Ehrman wants nothing to do with him).  But if you would like to dispute that, be my guest.    However I think the more important issue is the bad logic.  We have been over the argument from silence a number of times.   It can be valid, but usually from mythicists, it is not.  Then there is the assumption that Paul wrote to tell the Romans the Gospel.   This is not a Gospel, hence it is normally found in the section labeled as "Epistles".   There was already a church in Rome, who knew the Gospel, and where believers.  There is a lot of bad logic in this though.   There is also the argument from silence, where just because someone does not say something, it doesn't follow that mythiciists can make up whatever they want to fill the gap. 

I'm happy to discuss, if you have some particular point that you think makes a logical case from this argument though.

[Amarok]

That is absolutely horrible logic.  

Or you simply horrible at understanding it and logic in general .I'll bet on that as your criticism of Carrier are in fact the horrible logic .

No wonder most historians wouldn't  give Carrier the time of day.

Yeah because historic fact is built on popularity and not reason .Something most historians when studying the bible have shown a shocking  lack of .

---

The only claim I made I made about Carrier was that his historical peers, don't have much respect for him.  I thought that this was fairly well known (it seems that Ehrman wants nothing to do with him).  But if you would like to dispute that, be my guest.    However I think the more important issue is the bad logic.  We have been over the argument from silence a number of times.   It can be valid, but usually from mythicists, it is not.  Then there is the assumption that Paul wrote to tell the Romans the Gospel.   This is not a Gospel, hence it is normally found in the section labeled as "Epistles".   There was already a church in Rome, who knew the Gospel, and where believers.  There is a lot of bad logic in this though.   There is also the argument from silence, where just because someone does not say something, it doesn't follow that mythiciists can make up whatever they want to fill the gap.  

I'm happy to discuss, if you have some particular point that you think makes a logical case from this argument though.

1. I don't care if he's respected by his peers that has no bearing on if he's right or not and no you have made claims about Carrier .Ehrmans already been shown to be a idiot by Carrier and is just bitter over it same as is Tim O Neil and Maurice and whole host of others he's shown are wrong.

2. No you have made shitty chants of the argument of silence which Min has destroyed and Carrier has done even harder .This frail complaint  fails 

3. There is no statement here Carrier has not addressed least of all the church in Rome .None of it helps the case of a historic Jesus .

4. No  you don't want a discussion you want to play apologist games every debate with Min has proven that .

[Minimalist]

Why is it, that you don't think that I understand English?

Because plain as it was you clearly could not comprehend either Carrier's or the author he was quotings point.  Your precious fucker "paul" doesn't know shit about the later jesus story which was concocted by the so-called gospel writers.

When you can grasp that come back and play with the adults.

[RoadRunner79]

Why is it, that you don't think that I understand English?

Because plain as it was you clearly could not comprehend either Carrier's or the author he was quotings point.  Your precious fucker "paul" doesn't know shit about the later jesus story which was concocted by the so-called gospel writers.

When you can grasp that come back and play with the adults.

Yes, and I explained why this was bad logic.   It no more follows, than you thinking that I don't understand English, because I don't agree!   I understand what he is trying to say; it is just bad logic, and bad history.

[Amarok]

Yes, and I explained why this was bad logic. 

No you didn't you have just ranted standard apologist tripe that Carrier already addressed 

  It no more follows, than you thinking that I don't understand English, because I don't agree!  

No your responses do that 

 I understand what he is trying to say; it is just bad logic, and bad history.

Clearly you don't because your counters suck that's not disagreement that's a fact .And no you have only shown your own bad logic and bad history

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, and I explained why this was bad logic. 

No you didn't you have just ranted standard apologist tripe that Carrier already addressed 

  It no more follows, than you thinking that I don't understand English, because I don't agree!  

No your responses do that 

 I understand what he is trying to say; it is just bad logic, and bad history.

Clearly you don't because your counters suck that's not disagreement that's a fact .And no you have only shown your own bad logic and bad history

Where you not just criticizing for lack of substance in a post?

 Anyway, if you want to discuss any of those reasons you claim for why the counter arguments are not good, or to offer the logic for why the original claim is, feel free.  

However at this point you two have been telling me about Carrier for quite a while now, and haven't provided anything that puts him here on earth or makes him real.    I think he is a myth.  Conjured up to give some appeal to authority to the mythicists hooey. Now unless you want to tackle the argument, rather than go after the person, I'm done.