Posted: Nov 29, 2015 11:51 am
by proudfootz
Byron wrote:
Rumraket wrote:The question is so amazingly boring. I bought Carrier's first book 'Proving History', but couldn't finish it despite three attempts to read it through. Not because Carrier is a bad writer, but fuck me the entire subject of Jesus historicity is vomit inducingly stale and uninteresting.

Agreed, but since the rejection of Jesus' existence is also a rejection of the academic method, I'm glad there's people with the will to keep fighting it (since I can find no way to engage with mythicists and their "agnostic" fellow-travelers -- they won't even offer an alternative methodology they want followed -- I've long given up).

Patently false.

Work such as that by Dr Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster are peer reviewed. That hardly constitutes a rejection of 'the academic method'.

Indeed, Dr Carrier has written extensively on his methodology, but apparently some are too smug to be bothered reading about it even when they have been informed such detailed explanations have been published.

It seems some 'Jesus historicists' are content to remain ignorant. :coffee:

Perhaps it is these people who should be called 'denialists' when they confidently pronounce such falsehoods that fly in the face of known facts.