Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and Hospitals!

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and Hospitals! January 22, 2016

Christianity’s giftAtheist whiners like me are quick to point out the problems that religion causes within society—crimes become righteous acts when done in the name of God, believers attack the boundary between church and state, a believer who thinks that beliefs can be justified through faith rather than evidence opens their mind to parasitic mental baggage, and so on.

But let’s be fair. Christians will point out that their religion created universities and hospitals. Setting aside the negatives about religion, surely these institutions are a substantial addition to the Christian side of the ledger.

Now consider the pro-social motivations within Christianity versus those within the secular community. British author Malcolm Muggeridge said,  “I’ve spent a number of years in India and Africa where I found much righteous endeavour undertaken by Christians of all denominations; but I never, as it happens, came across a hospital or orphanage run by the Fabian Society [a British socialist organization], or a humanist leper colony.”

Original universities

Let’s consider the challenge that we have Christianity to thank for creating universities and nurturing them as they developed into the centers of education and research that they are today.

The oldest continuously operating university is the University of Bologna, Italy (1088), followed by universities at Oxford, England (1096), Salamanca, Spain (1134), and Cambridge, England (1209). Though there were institutions of higher learning in other old civilizations such as Greece, Byzantium, China, India, and the Muslim world, Wikipedia’s list excludes them because they are sufficiently different to make comparisons difficult, and evidence suggests that the seed that eventually grew into the modern university was the medieval European version, not similar institutions from other cultures.

Universities at Oxford and Paris began with the disciplines of theology, law, medicine, and the liberal arts. To see their unabashedly Christian environment, though, consider an example from several centuries later.

Cambridge in the time of Newton

The story of Isaac Newton illustrates how dissimilar medieval universities were from modern universities. Both Oxford and Cambridge in the seventeenth century required its fellows to be ordained Anglican priests. Newton was a Christian, but he didn’t accept the Trinity. This made him a heretic, which was no minor matter at that time. Only an exemption granted by the king in 1675 allowed Newton to accept the Lucasian chair at Cambridge without taking holy orders. Demanding that physics professors also be priests highlights the difference with universities today.

Don’t imagine that Christianity was a burden for Newton, however. Though he revolutionized science and has been called history’s greatest physicist (or even scientist), Newton devoted more time on theology than science and wrote more than two million words about religion. His Christian beliefs are proudly cited by many apologists.

What then was the result of all that theological work from such a great mind? Nothing. He might’ve spent that time playing solitaire for what it taught him about reality and the good it did for Humanity.

Christians also point to other important Christian scientists from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment and into the Industrial Revolution without showing that their religious beliefs drove their discoveries in any way. As far as science goes, those scientists were just modeling their environment (like drinking wine or wearing clothes).

Early American universities

Harvard (1636) was the first university in the United States. It was founded by Christians to train clergy. Most of the first universities in this country were founded the same way.

106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose.

The universities that Christians point to with pride are today guided with a very different principle than this declaration by Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, the first president of Princeton: “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” Christian universities with a Christian purpose are no gift to humanity, and today’s prestigious universities have turned their back on their original focus of creating clergy.

Modern universities

Changed though modern universities are, we can get a glimpse at the environment at medieval universities by looking at modern Christian colleges. Just like Cambridge in Newton’s day, Biola University demands that each undergraduate student “be an evangelical believer in the Christian faith (the applicant’s statement of faith will be articulated in the personal essay section of the application).” The PhD application for one discipline at Liberty University asks for church membership, an essay documenting the applicant’s “personal salvation experience,” and agreement with the school’s doctrinal statement. These universities aren’t interested in honest inquiry if they must create a safe space that protects their conclusions.

Here is rule #2 of Harvard College’s student rulebook (1636):

Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of him (Prov. 2:3).

That is the house that Christianity built. It wasn’t Christianity but secular thinking that created the modern university that we’re proud of.

Continue with a discussion of Christianity’s impact on hospitals here.

But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore,
comes in and thinks she’s wise,
and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit,
who can help us, then?
Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor,
because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.
— Martin Luther

Photo credit: Pantelas, flickr, CC


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • epicurus

    I think I heard somewhere (a teaching company course I think), that universities in the west started because of a need to train people in Canon Law, which the church/state was really starting to get going on. It’s a fuzzy memory for me, so please don’t blast me if I’m wrong.

    • Robert Templeton

      I know that your avatar beckons back to an older time but even after Christianity shrouded Roman society, there was still society that had to take place. It was swept under the rug for a long time but eventually, as matters turned back to, you know, real world things like making money, controlling those pesky peasants, orchestrating armies against your best enemy state neighbor, they realized that maybe the Romans had something going on there. You know, laws and organization and skillz and all of that information that allowed a dictatorial, um, er, totalitarian, okay, uh, papal state to function reasonably within a large and diverse population without simply eradicating them all (and losing all of the profits, tithes, and portions of their labors). It behooved them to have the intelligencia (the lawyers, scholars, astrologers, alchemists, masons, and whatnot) stratifying their domineering regimes. That is the impetus. Let us not forget. Canon law as well as an institutional need for maintaining power.

  • MNb

    “evidence suggests that the seed that eventually grew into the modern university was the medieval European version.”
    Yeah – but the seed of that medieval European version can be found in the medieval muslim world – specifically

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain#Medieval_Toledo_after_the_Reconquest

    So what we have is a gradual development that probably can be traced back to ancient Greece and its athenea (which of course were not anything like modern universities).
    Exactly what we would expect.
    If christianity was crucial for the development of science we would have seen several major scientific discoveries in Constantinople between say 400 and 1200 CE.

    • A Muslim educational community in Christian hands makes an interesting data point in favor of not-Europeans being the source of our modern universities.

      As for the lack of scientific discoveries, I agree. There’s a book Cathedral, Forge, and Water Wheel that talks about some of the important developments during this period–not that there were many but that there were more than zero. The cathedral building of the 1200s is particularly interesting (though more engineering than science). Clearly, the church could push something when it wanted to.

      • Greg G.

        Does that book claim that the water wheel was invented during the medieval times?

        http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/waterwheels/ says the Romans had water wheels and the Chinese had water wheels powering billows for the casting of farm implements in the early first century.

        • Good question. It’s been a while.

          My guess is that the Chinese example would be irrelevant since the book is focused on Europe (responding to the argument that there was no progress during the Middle Ages). As for the Roman example, I’d guess that the point would be that it was widely implemented only in the Middle Ages.

        • Pofarmer

          You really need to look at how much stuff was lost, though. The ability to make spring steel and calculate spring rates for different applications? Lost. The ability to make concrete? Lost. The ability for rudimentary anesthesia and anatomical knowledge? Lost.

        • And when did the quality of road infrastructure in Europe return to that of Roman times? Wasn’t it the 17th century?

        • Greg G.

          http://www.anvilfire.com/bookrev/index.php?bodyName=gies/cathedral.htm&titleName=Cathedral%20Forge%20and%20Waterwheel%20by%20Gies

          This is a review of the book which says that Gies and Gies gave credit to the Chinese for their inventions and says the Europeans improved them and sold them back to the Asians.

          Looks like you can get the book as a pdf:

          http://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/07/17/cathedral-forge-and-waterwheel/

        • Speaking of the Chinese, I’ve read interesting arguments that give some priority for moveable type to the Koreans.

      • TheNuszAbides

        i’m remembering (but not finding an appropriately wordy breakdown) where Carrier draws a distinction between science and invention, which of course makes those developments a less relevant ‘feather in the cap’ of christian dominance.

    • TheNuszAbides

      per this quote in Part 2:

      Christian medicine did not advance past that of Galen, the Greek
      physician of 2nd century who wrote medical texts and whose theories
      dominated Western Christian medicine for over 1300 years. Not until the
      1530s …

      and Islam at least had Ibn Sina in the 11th c. … whose oeuvre was cluttered with alchemy, but of course, so was Newton’s …

  • Brian Westley

    Re: citing Newton’s beliefs, I also like to point out to Christians that his writings on physics are still used today, so why don’t they pay any attention to his religious writings and follow Arianism?

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      so *unfair* of you to demand CONSISTENCY! 😉

    • Greg G.

      He did write about a couple of epistles which are discussed HERE.

      Those interpolations are noted by the NRSV but they don’t mention Newton.

  • L.Long

    Right! They started BUSINESSes of healing and learning which both grew beyond their hate and bigotry. You know those wonderful houses of healing that men get what they need and women are denied it!! Schools where they teach JESUS but don’t allow stem cell learning. So what has the belief in a gawd gave US!!!! besides hate bigotry and intolerance!!!??? Their universities nor their hospitals impress me as RELIGIOUS as they are businesses not religious, Teresa has shown us real religious hospitals in India.

    • So
      what has the belief in a gawd gave US!!!! besides hate bigotry and
      intolerance!!!???

      I think you’ve answered your own question. How are you going to hate the Jews and fags with any intellectual pride without the church to back you up with its “Cuz God” justifications?

  • Oddly enough, when I’m doing martial arts, gardening, or yelling at a recalcitrant printer at work, I’m really not thinking of atheism. Those of us without religion mostly (I don’t, anyway) don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it, and we get together with other people or accomplish tasks for other reasons. Certain bloggers excepted.

    Therefore, great accomplishments are not often performed by atheists per se any more than by southpaws or people with two middle names. Any large group not identifiable by religion is going to contain a number of non-believers.

    The multiple sites of the University of California, the US interstate highway system, and cell phone coverage are all great achievements – and that’s where you will find the atheists. But you shouldn’t expect us to identify ourselves as atheist while doing such things than you would left-handed folks to do so.

    • Lefties had their own time in the spotlight when the “sinister” left side was thought to be evil. Won’t it be nice when atheists are given as much attention as them?

    • rubaxter

      Yeah, but if you just had the right religion you’d been questioning Jeebus in loud terms why you were being thwarted by the printer with some real chance of getting resolution, right?

      I guess what you’re really talking about are the temporarily athiests?

  • alverant

    Also 1) we didn’t have the resources to build hospitals/universities back then and we still don’t have them today

    2) The public attitude towards Atheists/Humanists would insure that even we had the resources the outcry would be so great such an institution could not be created

    3) Even if one was built if one was built it would go under quickly because of said prejudice.

    • Pofarmer

      I’m ashamed to say that we had a county, publicly funded hospital here, and it got bought out by a Catholic chain.

      • And progress takes a step backwards! The same happened to my local hospital.

    • 3) Ignaz Semmelweis pioneered antiseptic procedures for doctors and hospitals and he reduced the mortality rate from 10-35% down to less than 1%. “Dramatic improvement” doesn’t begin to describe it. But he wasn’t part of the medical inner circle of the time, and only decades later with Lister and Pasteur did his ideas and practices become widespread.

    • RichardSRussell

      I beg to differ with your use of “we” in your Point #1. “We”, the people of this country (USA), have tremendous resources, which we’ve used to build thousands of hospitals, clinics, universities, and colleges. And the majority of them were built by governments using tax money. Were they built “in the name of God”? Not at all. Like our government, they are secular institutions, motivated, financed, constructed, and operated without god belief (in other words, a-theistically), solely because they were good for society. I’ll stack the University of Wisconsin up against Liberty University any day of the week in terms of the amount of good it’s done.

      • alverant

        And how about in Renaissance Europe? Did Atheists have the resources to build hospitals back then?

        • RichardSRussell

          Nope. The governments at the time were for the most part working hand in glove with the various established churches, so they weren’t atheistic. It took a long, painful process to separate church and state, and even today most of the world hasn’t managed to pull it off. But it’s one of America’s great gifts to the world that we set it as a standard and proved it could work.

        • Pofarmer

          I Don’t think people fully appreciate just how radical the idea of separation of Church and State was in the day.

        • MNb

          Evidence:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_Koerbagh

          In what was the most liberal country of the world in that century.

        • RichardSRussell

          “Liberal” is a good choice of words. We Americans had our revolution in 1776. In 1789 the French (partly inspired by the American experience) staged their own, which went sailing right past “liberal” and all the way to “radical”. It had a different set of problems but in its turn gave rise to the most successful revolution in the history of the planet — peaceful, persuasive, a model of reason, and now within 5% of universality without a shot being fired. I refer, of course, to the metric system. Now if only we could get all the citizens of the formerly most liberal nation on Earth to get on board with it. I know! We just have to make it seem like it’s God’s will. And I think Ashleigh Brilliant has already explained how: “If God had wanted us to use the metric system, he would have given us 10 fingers.”

        • Off topic, but on the topic of revolutions, I recently read, “Think the Muslim world needs to “reform?” Think again.”

          In short, it says to be careful what you wish for. Wahhabi Islam was a reform, for example, and that’s not been pretty.

          Religious reformations are usually a stripping away of accretions to get back to basics, but some of those accretions are often rules that make religion more reasonable. The author says that what we in the West should want is a revival where the traditions and history of Islam are celebrated.

        • RichardSRussell

          I’m less interested in a revival than in an arrival: one of reason. Old-timey Islam is still ignorant superstitious nonsense, even if less dangerous than the modern crusaderite variety.

        • Pofarmer

          Did you read the new article by Aron Ra on going to the UAE? Pretty interesting.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’d be somewhat glad for a resurgence of the Mu’tazilites … not that anything could guarantee that they wouldn’t cook up their own ‘white-paper’ equivalent for apostate-killing or some such. they would at least be more interesting to share a discussion with, as Jesuits are usually more grounded in reality than JWs, for example.

        • epicurus

          Islam need an enlightenment period, not a reformation. The protestant reformation didn’t really bring about any tolerance, other than “well, after endless fighting neither side is strong enough to wipe out the other, so we will have to have a restless peace, but if we could, we’d wipe you out if we got the chance.”

        • Islam did have an enlightenment, but that ended with the attacks from the Mongols in 1258 that forced a retrenchment.

          “if we could, we’d wipe you out if we got the chance.”

          “And it’s not like we didn’t try. The 30 Years War cost 2% of the world’s population.”

        • epicurus

          The Mongols! I was on vacation in October travelling through Central Europe and in Krakow Poland saw an old church that was one of few remaining buildings people hid in while the city burned from the Mongol Raid. Brutal.

        • MNb

          What I want for all countries in the world and specifically the ones with a muslim majority (but also North Korea) is what you Americans started: secularism, defined as separation of state and religion. That’s what made it safe for Anton Constandse in the early 1920’s to write a monograph called The Misery of Religion. At the other hand Koerbagh could get locked up 250+ years before because the Dutch Reformed Church was the state church. It made RC a same-clandestine church.
          As long as that doesn’t happen neither reform nor revival of traditions will help.

        • TheNuszAbides

          double points for Ashleigh Brilliant reference.

        • Wasn’t atheism illegal back then? With atheists being a tiny, underground fraction of the population, they didn’t have the power to do much of anything.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Depends on where you were and the definition of atheism being used. Making atheistic, ergo heretical, remarks was not in ones best interests for sure. But it’s a bit hazy to say atheism was illegal per se.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#Renaissance_and_Reformation

          While studying Christopher Marlowe I had reason to look into the subject a wee bit.

        • TheNuszAbides

          of course not, but that was only half of your 1).

    • TheNuszAbides

      expecting most theists to grasp those points is like expecting the typical knee-jerk ‘patriot’ to grasp the difference between a political ideology and corrupt regimes categorized as supposed examples of that ideology.

  • rubaxter

    To see how Learning and Inquiry were to The Church, all you have to do is research what Da Pope did when the students started questioning his business plan/dogma. Things got VERY nasty, especially in places like Paris.

    Nowadays, even THE Catholic University of America had, at one time, a huge Middle Eastern contingent in the student body, including, strangely, Iranians and Iraqis in the Nuclear Engineering Dept.

    Gee, who’d have thought the Catholic Church was educating all them Evil Heathens in how to blow up the World (no, they weren’t even Jeebus Freaks)?!

  • Atheists and humanists don’t generally feel the need to plaster their name on things. Of course, if we looked as secular charities (that no doubt contain some atheists and humanists) that would be telling. Additionally, despite their faults socialist states contributed resources to developing countries, including to build hospitals, schools, etc. This is naturally ignored. It is also maddening that this claim is made and then, when atheist/humanist volunteers show up they are then sometimes turned away. Apparently only volunteers of the same convictions need apply. Is this perhaps subconsciously to insure only they get credit?

    • if we looked as secular charities (that no doubt contain some atheists and humanists) that would be telling.

      It’s not much of a stretch to see government programs like Social Security and Medicare as “secular charities.”

      • I was thinking solely of NGOs here, but yeah.

  • Bruce Gorton

    The thing that always gets me with that style of argument (including when we talk about great artworks, because it is essentially the same) is this:

    For centuries atheism was illegal, and in the US atheists couldn’t always testify in court. This effectively stripped atheists of all rights before the law.

    And yet to this day we have Christian assholes declaring how they built universities and hospitals, and look at the great religious artworks their religion inspired!

    Christianity systematically stunted the moral, intellectual and artistic growth of the western world – and once that boil got largely lanced by the rise of secularism and the enlightenment, declared that it was owed credit for the works it allowed.

    • Pofarmer

      It’s actually worse than that. Catholic theologians will actually try to lay claim to the philosophies that allowed the enlightenment to happen. Ignoring that it was tossing out most of their other philosophies that made the difference.

      • Otto

        Rule #1 is take all of the credit and none of the blame.

        • Greg G.

          At work when I work with someone, I always say that we will split up the job down the middle. “You do all the work and I’ll take all the credit.”

        • Greg King

          Lol.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Rule #1 is take all of the credit

          while simultaneously attributing it to the benign intervention of Yahwehjesus (#fauxhumblebrag)

          and none of the blame

          while simultaneously reiterating that We’re All Sinners (#withextrafauxhumilityontop)

        • Otto

          Soooo true

    • Korus Destroyus

      There’s no evidence of Christianity systematically stunting the moral, intellectual and artistic growth of the western world. In fact, it’s the opposite — Christianity is responsible for its gigantic growth during the medieval and renaissance period. This includes the creation of the modern university.

      Secularism and the enlightenment wasn’t as responsible for where the Western world is now as much as Christianity is. The Enlightenment’s two major values, natural rights and individualism, were borrowed from Christian theology, and so any success of the Enlightenment is, in part, due to Christianity (there really is no Enlightenment without natural rights and individualism).

      • Bruce Gorton

        Bullshit.

        Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe from about 380 AD, when the Romans adopted it as their state religion.

        The Renaissance started around 1300. Between these periods the artwork was largely cartoonish shit, that was objectively worse in terms of realistically depicting just about anything than the art produced during the Roman era.

        It was only with the black death wiping out about half the population, coupled with the knowledge raided by the crusaders, that Europe even started to get its act together.

        The advances in knowledge that led to our current status quo were largely down to the rediscovery of a lot of Latin and classical Greek texts, coupled with the introduction of Arabic mathematics. That is why we generally write 1,2,3,4, and not I,II III,IV.

        So far as individual rights are concerned one of the biggest advance during the medieval period was the Magna Carta – which was so “Christian” it was annulled by a papal Bull in 1215.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Bullshit.”

          This is the most ridiculous, clownish and cartoonish comment I’ve ever read in my life. I can’t believe someone can say “It was only with the black death wiping out about half the population, coupled with the knowledge raided by the crusaders, that Europe even started to get its act together” and believe they have the tiniest comprehension of the Middle Ages period. Looks like you’ve never heard of John Philoponus.

          Your entire comment can be refuted with incomprehensible ease. You reference a ‘Renaissance’ that started around 1300 (in fact, the exact meaning of ‘Renaissance’ is among debate by scholars), and that before the black plague in the 14th century, Europe had cartoonish art, development, and everything. Total bull. There were three renaissances — three — before the one we know about today. What about the Carolingian Renaissance in the 9th century? Ever heard of that, kiddo? Or the Ottonian Renaissance of the 10th century? What about the renaissance that’s actually called the ‘twelfth century renaissance’?

          https://torch.ox.ac.uk/how-long-and-how-great-was-twelfth-century

          What about the invention of the modern university in the late 12th century? That you claim the artwork then was “cartoonish shit” shows you up for the total lunatic you are. Perhaps you’ve never looked at the artwork in the Hagia Sophia — constructed in the 6th century and was the largest building for almost a thousand years after its construction.

          http://www.oxfordartonline.com/page/medieval-art-and-architecture

          “So far as individual rights are concerned one of the biggest advance during the medieval period was the Magna Carta – which was so “Christian” it was annulled by a papal Bull in 1215.”

          I almost got cancer from reading this. The popes were “annulling” everything back then, you cuck. That’s because the pope wasn’t exactly working on just religion, but was also quite the political figure. Why don’t you mention what some other popes did for human rights? Why not mention the fact that the annullment of the Magna Carta had nothing to do with human rights at all — but was against its promulgation of the King’s Right, that is, the idea that the king receives his authority to rule from God?

        • Bruce Gorton

          We generally refer to the Italian Renaissance because that is the one that actually stuck, but okay:

          Your first example, the Hagia Sophia – take a look at the proportions in the art.

          http://ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/sites/default/files/IMG_0007.JPG

          By the Carolinian renaissance, the first you list, well here’s an example of the artwork:

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Raban-Maur_Alcuin_Otgar.jpg

          Ottonian art:

          https://ka-perseus-images.s3.amazonaws.com/0b97ce05ee963259ccffa6d4778da8ade79ac673.jpg

          Now Roman Art:

          http://knowaboutart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ara-Pacis.jpg

          When it comes to the technical side of it, just getting the proportions right, the Romans were better. I stand by what I said.

          Not only that, but what sparked the Carolingian? What was Charlemagne aiming at? Reviving Roman learning and culture.

          You claim natural rights and individualism were the corner stones of the Enlightenment, borrowed from Christianity, which one could just as well argue is collectivist.

          Natural rights, ever hear of Cicero or the Stoics? This was a concept that goes back to ancient Greece and certainly wasn’t a major part of the Christian west throughout the medieval period, just ask the Jews.

          Individualism includes the concept of liberalism – which was a direct rejection of established authority – including established religion. You’re taking rejection as inspiration.

        • Korus Destroyus

          That artwork from the Hagia Sophia, Carolingian, and Ottonian you posted, is excellent for ancient art. Your comparison to the Roman art is not a comparison at all because your comparing two totally different forms of artwork — medieval mosaics and painting to Roman sculpting. If you compared medieval mosaic to Roman mosaic, the different wouldn’t have been very big at all, if even there.

          If you want to compare Roman sculpture to something medieval, compare it to medieval sculpture. It’s true that physical realism wasn’t an aspect of early medieval sculpting, but it certainly was an aspect of the Gothic art and sculpting that emerged in the 12th century. And the Gothic art from this period is certainly comparable to what the Romans did in terms of physical realism.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_art

          But you can’t compare Roman physical realism to a Carolingian mosaic that wasn’t even aiming at physical realism.

          You give the medieval people far too little credit. They gave us the university, international law, three renaissances, the invention of spaces between words and lower-case words, Gothic art, etc, etc, all before the Black Plague ever came around.

  • Sophia Sadek

    The medieval colleges were pretty pathetic. Giordano Bruno was harshly treated by scholars when he took his act on the road to debunk Peripatetic doctrine all the way to Oxford and back. Galileo took more flak from academics over Sun spots than he took from the Vatican over a moving Earth. Rabelais became famous by skewering the collegial boneheads at the University of Paris.

    • TheNuszAbides

      The medieval colleges were pretty pathetic.

      i doubt Sturgeon’s Law is restricted to modernity.

  • And let’s not forget the way hospitals are used to enforce Catholic belief over standard best medical practices when it comes to women’s health and everyone’s end of life decisions…

  • James

    Hum. My BA and MS both came from universities that required statements of faith and that could have expelled me had they gotten the notion in their heads that I was not authentically part of their tribe. I guess that makes me a fundamentalist in their eyes…

    • rabbit

      I think that is true of many people. It’s expedient to keep your beliefs to yourself. It isn’t really anybody else’s business anyway. Many people, especially guys and people under 40 simply don’t think about religion at all. Saturday is for playing tennis or golf and Sunday is for running errands. The rest of the week is for going to work, dealing with personal relationships, reading, watching TV, and surfing the Net. If somebody asks them, they will probably offer the religion of their youth just because it’s the easiest way not to talk about something that really doesn’t matter to them. Thus, polls say 40% of people attend church, but churches admit it is closer to 17%

  • Erp

    It was members of the Fabian Society who founded the London School of Economics. Not an orphanage or hospital but still fairly useful. Malcolm Muggeridge btw is the person who propelled Mother Teresa to international fame.

    • Pofarmer

      Over new Kodak film?

    • Two helpful factoids that are new to me. Thanks.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Malcolm Muggeridge was a silly old ignorant pervert that made a complete arse of himself with the Archbishop of of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood, on “Friday Night, Saturday Morning” when he and the silly holy roller discussed the “The Life of Brian” with Python’s John Cleese and Michael Palin.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeKWVuye1YE

      Pervert because…

      http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/20/bbcs-malcolm-muggeridge-groped-women-uncontrollably-claims-book

      Don’t get me started on the dirty weasel’s sycophantic antic’s with that rotten piece of crap Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

      • MNb

        Give MM some credit. He inspired an excellent sketch.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U

        • Ignorant Amos

          A bit of a stretch crediting Muggeridge if ya ask me…but yeah, great skit indeed.

        • MNb

          More than a bit, I’d say.

        • Greg G.

          The video that IA posted was interesting, but it should be watched before seeing this one.

        • MNb

          Nope. I myself didn’t. But you’re right for people who for one or another reason are not familiar with christian and especially catholic (or similar ones, like anglican) authorities and stereotypal phrases. I bet my female counterpart wouldn’t really understand it, even if she has seen Mr. Bean and some John Cleese stuff.

  • Greg King

    Very interesting. I know very little about how universities were first started, and how they evolved.

    “Atheist whiners like me are quick to point out the problems that religion causes within society—crimes become righteous acts when done in the name of God, believers attack the boundary between church and state, a believer who thinks that beliefs can be justified through faith rather than evidence opens their mind to parasitic mental baggage, and so on.”

    Very well said for several reasons. First, because it is true. True about how religion is used to justify crimes, and deny human rights. The Oregon museum siege I have heard very little about the armed occupiers religion (I haven’t watched a lot of the coverage of it so I may have missed some things they reported on), and I would be willing to bet they are religitards, devout believers in Jesus. If an atheist, or a Muslim, does something bad, a crime, the corporate news media is sure to obsess about it, even if they aren’t sure about the profile of the violator. Second, you go right at the far right pc police and whine. Love it. How dare you assert your feelings, thinking, and use evidence to back them up. Love the phrase “parasitic mental baggage”. One of my favorite words, or one I came across recently is religitards.

    I just wanted to let you know that I tried to share your essay to my FB page, but I couldn’t. I clicked the “Like” FB button below your essay, but the FB window pop-up is mostly blocked by the advertising on my right. I can’t click on “Share” on the FB pop-up window, to share it to my FB page. Patheos messed up. I don’t have time to figure out how to fix this or get around it, but I was able to share your essay to my G+ and Twitter pages.

    • Thanks for the tip about Facebook not working right with the Patheos link. They’re very anxious about failed opportunities for social media sharing the word. Feedback for this kind of thing should go to feedback@patheos.com

      Could you let them know?

      • Greg King

        Yes, I will. Thanks for the feedback email address.

      • Greg King

        I let them know.

    • Pofarmer

      If you are talking about the Oregan Militia. Bundy (the leader)is radical Mormon who thinks he’s taking to God. What could go wrong?

      • Greg King

        That is right, someone told me that…I forgot…thanks for refreshing my memory Pofarmer.

  • ningen

    Look at the problem many religious colleges are having with statements of faith. An increasing number of people are asking whether an antecedent commitment to certain religious doctrines is antithetical to the spirit of proper intellectual inquiry. There are cases where hiring institutions miss out on superior-quality faculty because the candidates are unwilling to sign such statements, or refrain from applying for positions there in the first place.

  • Pofarmer

    Hey Bob, thought you might be interested in this article on Catholic Health chains.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/the-growth-of-catholic-hospitals-by-the-numbers

    This sure seems to be giving theCouncil of Catholic Bishops a lot of clout.

  • XCellKen

    Please indulge my cherry picking for a minute

    I am always amused whenever I hear anything about Liberty University.

    My Facebook BFF is a graduate of Liberty University. She is an Atheist, and an Anarcho-Communist. While I disagree with her extreme political views, I am definitely down with her Atheism.

    Last year, she received her Master’s Degree in Behavioral Neuroscience. Someday, she will receive her PHD.

    Almost forgot to mention, she is also a porno film actress.

    Disclaimer- She does not represent Liberty University, etc

    • Ignorant Amos

      Interesting.

      Is/was she overt about her private interests within the school?

      Seems that everything you BFF on Facebook represents, goes against everything the Liberty University stands for imo.

      http://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/?PID=6907

      Of course all you and I are going on here is anecdote, or do you know more, talk is cheap ya know, how reliable is this friend of your’s testimony that she is, in fact, what she is claiming to be?

      • XCellKen

        All I know is that she once told me that there are plenty of students at Liberty that are not totally into the Right Wingery. She also told me she went there because she received a scholarship. I have no idea what she talked about while attending, etc.

        If she is “faking it”, as you seem to be implying, then she is going to great lengths to pull of this scam. Such as renting a cap and gown, and posing with everybody at her university during graduation ceremonies, etc. Also, she regularly posts about topics related to her major, and has exhibited advanced knowledge in this field. Something a Catfish would not be able to pull off.

        As to her choice of employment, well, I have seen a few of her cinematic masterpieces.

        Sorry I can’t divulge more details. I would not wanna be responsible for outing her

        • Glad2BGodless

          She sounds like a character from an unpublished Robert Heinlein manuscript.

        • XCellKen

          Is that a good thing, or a bad thing ???

        • Glad2BGodless

          That is in the eye of the beholder

      • epicurus

        You would think an anarcho-communist atheist would refuse to even consider one of the most right wing religious colleges -whose founder would have condemned everything she believes- just on principle – scholarship or no. Throw her having made some porn films into the mix when in this internet age someone will identify her (oops forgot that christians don’t look at porn) and it all sounds like a recipe for disaster. Although, I have met people who call themselves atheists, and anarchists because they think it sounds cool, not because they’ve actually spent much time thinking about it. I suspect that’s probably where she is at.

        • XCellKen

          No, you would be wrong about her not thinking about it

        • epicurus

          Do you think she would write something anonymously that wouldn’t give her identity away about her experience at liberty for you and you could put then put it up here?

        • XCellKen

          I’m pretty sure she would not do that, but I’ll ask. She was all up my ass last week for revealing one of her secrets to a mutual “friend”, and it wasn’t even something which I thought was that secret

        • I’d also be interested to hear more. The path from belief (I assume she had some, somewhere; otherwise, why Liberty?) to nonbelief as well as the experience of Liberty university through the eyes of a nonbeliever would be interesting.

          I recently looked into what taking an online class at Liberty would entail. I like hanging around Christians to understand their worldview better, but I won’t lie if a faith statement is required.

        • XCellKen

          Your assumption is WRONG. She had no previous belief of which I am aware.

          She isn’t just some overaged rebellious teen saying “I am an Atheist and Anarchist” just to piss off her parents.

          She went there because they gave her a scholarship…PERIOD. Hard to believe but true

        • OK

        • XCellKen

          I live in the middle of the oil capital of the world. Texas is quite Red. I am not, I guess I should move ???

        • XCellKen

          Since she hasn’t attended Liberty for several years, and now has a Masters Degree from another college, why would she care what Christians may think ? What will Liberty do, retroactively rescind her degree ?

      • That was my question as well. My guess is that she more or less bought into it but then fell away after she was out. XCellKen, does this sound plausible?

        • XCellKen

          No, she never bought into it

  • Ignorant Amos

    Test

    • Ignorant Amos

      Bob, I’ve a comment that won’t post.

      Every time I attempt on whatever thread I get this red warning box…

      Oops! We’re having trouble posting your comment. Check your internet connection and try again.

      Any thoughts on the reason?

      • Greg G.

        I have solved that by opening a new window or a different browser sometimes. Was the post you are replying to deleted? That happened to me recently but it became clear when I read the error message. I had one post that wouldn’t go through when it had several links to books on Amazon, so I think it was thought to be spam.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Could be that…the comment has 3 links to news articles I have cited. First time I’ve experienced this particular Disqus foible. I’ll see if removing them make a difference.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Here’s the comment offending comment sans links…

          I don’t see the point in your initial comment.

          If she is “faking it”, as you seem to be implying, then she is going to great lengths to pull of this scam.

          Your friend was living a lie if all you say about her is true and Liberty was in the dark, so she was “faking it” one way or the other.

          Something a Catfish would not be able to pull off.

          Not that it matters, but don’t be so naive.

          Now there is a trend currently in the UK where atheists are prepared to lie in order to get their youngsters into faith schools for various reasons.

          “There were lots of parents with children aged about two to five, but virtually none aged eight to 10, because by then they had got a place or hadn’t, so there was no point going to church unless you were religious,” says Penman, from Woking, Surrey. “I didn’t pretend to be a Christian for several years because I wanted to offend anyone, or because I thought it was fun. I did it because I wanted my son to attend the local state primary.”

          In London, God has all the best schools. But to get into one of these schools, you have to prove you are a good Christian, and so it is that the atheists get all hypocritical. They become church deacons and go to church every Sunday, not because they genuinely believe in God, but to be seen to be doing what used to be called “good works”.

          Christians who are offended by my behaviour – and I’ve heard from plenty – perhaps need to become a little more realistic, because every Sunday across the country churches are full of families doing exactly what I did. If churches do not want bogus Christians coming through their doors there’s a simple solution: stop using religion as a criteria for admission to state schools.

          All people lie, fact, who they lie to is a different matter.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seems the links were the problem.

        • Greg G.
      • Maybe try the links in separate posts, one apiece? Maybe Disqus has some sort of anti-spam metrics and you’re on the naughty list? I really have no idea.

        Let me know if it continues to be a problem without workarounds, and I’ll ask the IT people.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Here’s the comment with one link…

          I don’t see the point in your initial comment.

          If she is “faking it”, as you seem to be implying, then she is going to great lengths to pull of this scam.

          Your friend was living a lie if all you say about her is true and Liberty was in the dark, so she was “faking it” one way or the other.

          Something a Catfish would not be able to pull off.

          Not that it matters, but don’t be so naive.

          Now there is a trend currently in the UK where atheists are prepared to lie in order to get their youngsters into faith schools for various reasons.

          “There were lots of parents with children aged about two to five, but virtually none aged eight to 10, because by then they had got a place or hadn’t, so there was no point going to church unless you were religious,” says Penman, from Woking, Surrey. “I didn’t pretend to be a Christian for several years because I wanted to offend anyone, or because I thought it was fun. I did it because I wanted my son to attend the local state primary.”

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9904282/The-parents-who-cheat-at-school.html

          In London, God has all the best schools. But to get into one of these schools, you have to prove you are a good Christian, and so it is that the atheists get all hypocritical. They become church deacons and go to church every Sunday, not because they genuinely believe in God, but to be seen to be doing what used to be called “good works”.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/tom-hodgkinson-in-london-god-has-all-the-best-schools-and-so-it-is-that-the-atheists-get-all-9202634.html

          Christians who are offended by my behaviour – and I’ve heard from plenty – perhaps need to become a little more realistic, because every Sunday across the country churches are full of families doing exactly what I did. If churches do not want bogus Christians coming through their doors there’s a simple solution: stop using religion as a criteria for admission to state schools.

          All people lie, fact, who they lie to is a different matter.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seems like this link is causing the problems…

          Christians who are offended by my behaviour – and I’ve heard from plenty – perhaps need to become a little more realistic, because every Sunday across the country churches are full of families doing exactly what I did. If churches do not want bogus Christians coming through their doors there’s a simple solution: stop using religion as a criteria for admission to state schools.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/i-faked-religion-to-find-a-school-2093403.html

          Disqus is a law on to itself.

        • epicurus

          Would you happen to be using Opera web browser? Last year I read a comment by someone who was having trouble with it relating to Disqus.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No, am using Chrome at the minute.

        • Greg G.

          I had a problem posting with Chrome an hour or so ago. I had to break the post in two parts. Actually, three parts but the first part was due to time restraints.

        • Greg G.

          I tried Opera. I forget why I decided not to use it. I have Opera and Opera Mini on my phone. I recall that the Mini didn’t work but I downloaded the other Opera later. I don’t have any bookmarks in it so I don’t use it.

        • epicurus

          I tried opera a few years ago but wound up going with Firefox and Safari (macbook and iPhone). I also cannot remember the reasons.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It seems Google Chrome might be having problems talking to Disqus. My last comment in reference to the DSS refused to load…then I tried it on Microsoft Edge and it displayed no problem.

          Seems strange though still. I’ve been using Chrome for years with no issues until these past couple of days, and even then, with just a couple of comments. It’s a quandary, no doubt.

        • epicurus

          Since Chrome loves to auto update, my first reaction is to say some new update is screwing it up, but one would think others would be having problems, so who knows.

        • Greg G.

          I had a problem with Chrome last night after I had rebooted my computer. It opened a window, went to Cross Examined from my links homepage, and posted a comment with a link to SMBC. Then I opened the 10 Recent Comments. 9 ly Susan’s opened while the other 9 went 404. Even second tries did the same. Her post was in the middle. When I closed the browser and reopened it, everything was fine.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          Wow

          “Back in Merton, a regular at the church I once so diligently attended recently emailed me, mainly to accuse me of “conning and lying” to get my children places at the local Anglican school and “proudly admitting you exploited the old and infirm” (I had volunteered for the car rota to help the elderly get to and from church).”

          Volunteering to help the old and infirm is now exploiting them?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Volunteering to help the old and infirm is now exploiting them?

          Only if you are a heathen doing it for the purpose of promoting ones chances of getting ones children through an antiquated selection process and into a particular school.

          But it’s just fine and dandy if the exploitation of the old and infirm is for the purpose of accruing browny points for the purpose of promoting ones chances of getting an imaginary mansion in the sky with the imaginary big flowing white beardy sky daddy in the after life…or at the very least, keeping one out of the other imaginary hot and fiery place where an imaginary red hot poker gets inserted in ones arse for an eternity by the other imaginary geezer with the red skin, horns, and a pointy tail.

          The sheer hypocrisy of such fuckwits knows no bounds.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Edit: to add second link

        • Looks like the comment worked fine. Did you start with one link and add the second?

          If there’s still a problem, summarize it, and I’ll pass it along to the IT people.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye, a posted the comment with first link.

          Then edited to add second link and edit notification. Second link added, but edit notification wouldn’t display.

          Then edited again to add third link, which also refused to display.

          Disqus gremlins at their work.

        • OK–I’ve asked the experts.

        • Try it now to see if 3 links are allowed. Links should be allowed for everyone, but you were added to the whitelist, so this problem shouldn’t recur.

    • Greg G.

      I can’t see this.

  • Jonney Shih

    And what about hospitals? like the 300 bed that St Basil built with all the facilities?

    • There’s a link at the bottom to the post dealing with hospitals.

  • Korus Destroyus

    This is one of those posts that seem wildly self-contradictory. After basically admitting universities almost entirely wouldn’t exist today without Christianity, the author ridiculously goes on to claim that “secular thinking” is what created modern universities, because … Christians shifted the focus of their studies from theology to encompassing more than just theology. The pains it takes to credit secular thinking with much of any accomplishments of the modern world is really insufferable.

    • The pains it takes to credit secular thinking with much of any accomplishments of the modern world is really insufferable.

      Then I marvel all the more at your patience to read through it.

      The first Christian universities aren’t what we think of today as “universities.” Is that a difficult or controversial concept?

      • Korus Destroyus

        The only thing I marvel at is the illiteracy of your response. What you said depends on your definition of ‘university’. By the same logic, hospitals in the ancient world aren’t real hospitals because modern hospitals are so different. Of course modern hospitals and modern universities are so much different from the ancient ones. The hospital and university underwent tremendous evolution over the last thousand years. You seem to be trying to imagine away the real point — that is, without the Christians creating those universities, the modern universities we have today wouldn’t exist precisely because they are directly derivative of their precursors invented by the Christians.

        An apt analogy, to try to help you understand all this, would be evolution. Humans come from our great ape ancestors. But if the ape ancestors never existed, we wouldn’t have ever evolved. Likewise, if the original Christian universities never existed, our modern universities wouldn’t exist today. Is that a difficult or controversial concept?

        • I adore the insults! They really add a seasoning of Christian love to your comments.

          What you said depends on your definition of ‘university’.

          So the earliest European “universities” in the 13th century weren’t really universities? That’s fine. That doesn’t change my argument much.

          Of course modern hospitals and modern universities are so much different from the ancient ones.

          Yup, and it’s because they’ve replaced religion by science. They are respected institutions today precisely because they did so.

          without the Christians creating those universities, the modern universities we have today wouldn’t exist precisely because they are directly derivative of their precursors invented by the Christians.

          You just finished saying that the definitions of “university” and “hospital” need to be examined. So those first prototypes made by Christians actually weren’t universities or hospitals. Or are you changing your argument now?

          Back to your point, no, modern universities did evolve from Christian universities, but it’s trivial to imagine modern universities developing on their own, without any religious version as an incubator.

          Likewise, if the original Christian universities never existed, our modern universities wouldn’t exist today. Is that a difficult or controversial concept?

          It’s certainly not obvious to me.

        • Pofarmer

          Here’s kind of the thing, though. There was no other way for those institutions to be. Non beleivers would be excommunicated and harrassed or killed out right. The institutuions simply couldn’t form. The clergy and the Church at the time had immense power. Benjamin Franklin wanted to Start the first Secular college in the U.S. but he couldn’t get support for it. So he wound up with Whitehouse forming the first Non Denominational college in the U.S., Penn State, which was still near scandalous. Hell, it wasn’t until land grant colleges in the 19th century that Secular colleges really became a thing.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Here’s kind of the thing, though. There was no other way for those institutions to be. Non beleivers would be excommunicated and harrassed or killed out right.”

          No they wouldn’t. Also — what on Earth are you talking about? People were fully capable of building educational institutions before Christianity. Ever heard of Plato’s Academy? Or perhaps the question can be changed a little. Why was the university a product of the Christian West? Why not China?

          “Benjamin Franklin wanted to Start the first Secular college in the U.S. but he couldn’t get support for it.”

          Incredible. So it took until the 18th century for secularists to actually care about education.

        • Pofarmer

          Depending on the time period you are talking about, the Church controlled most aspects of society, including education. Hell, the U.S. had a war over this on it’s Southern Border in the 20th Century.

          Well, which Plato’s academy? The one Justininan shut down with this edict?

          We wish to widen the law once made by us and by our father of blessed
          memory against all remaining heresies (we call heresies those faiths
          which hold and believe things otherwise than the catholic and apostolic
          orthodox church), so that it ought to apply not only to them but also to
          Samaritans [Jews] and pagans. Thus, since they have had such an ill
          effect, they should have no influence nor enjoy any dignity, nor acting
          as teachers of any subjects, should they drag the minds of the simple to
          their errors and, in this way, turn the more ignorant of them against
          the pure and true orthodox faith; so we permit only those who are of the
          orthodox faith to teach and accept a public stipend.

          http://www.bede.org.uk/justinian.htm

          Incredible. So it took until the 18th century for secularists to actually care about education.

          No, you dishonest hack. It took that long to get free of ecclesiastical control so it was even possible.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Depending on the time period you are talking about, the Church controlled most aspects of society, including education.”

          And we got the scientific revolution out of that. Ooops?

          “Well, which Plato’s academy? The one Justininan shut down with this edict?”

          Perhaps you should try re-reading the source you cited and try not to blush. Hint: you cited a Christian apologetics website.

          As I noted earlier, it certainly wasn’t impossible for anyone outside of the church to start some sort of educational center. It happened with Plato before Christianity even existed. In fact, in the 9-11th centuries, the Muslim world even opened a few universities of their own. So why was it that it was the Christians themselves whose constructions and systems lead to the modern university? Why couldn’t some Syrian or Chinese dude get the job done? The longer you try avoiding giving Christianity the credit that it’s due, the longer your arguments will suffer.

        • Pofarmer

          And we got the scientific revolution out of that. Ooops?

          After 1700 years and the false start of Aquinas, and Hume, and Bacon, and all those who gave enough breathing room to make it possible. Ooops. indeed.

          As I noted earlier, it certainly wasn’t impossible for anyone outside of the church to start some sort of educational center. It happened with Plato before Christianity even existed.

          Gee, what changed? Could it have been Christianity existing with it’s concentration on Orthodoxy and scripture? Nah. I mean, they wouldn’t have copied over math texts to print Bibles, would they? Nah.

          Why couldn’t some Syrian or Chinese dude get the job done?

          Because they didn’t have a Hume refuting the bad work of previous religious philosophers like Aquinas? Because they didn’t produce a Bacon who came up with the start of a coherent system of producing knowledge? Hell, it took the rediscovery of the Greeks to jumbstart something like science in Europe. History is often a story of unique and uniquely capable individuals. Could be just luck of the draw. Lacking an individual or two in the chain it may never have happened. This is actually how a book called “The Gospel of Ireland” gives the Catholic Church credit for the Enlightenment, by setting up the philosophers who would go on to develop the systems that led to it. That’s all right. But then don’t oppose what you started.

          the Muslim world even opened a few universities of their own.

          And fundamentalism largely ate them. Maybe we just got lucky? There’s also the situation of the Black Death, which tended to loosen the hold of the clergy through their obvious inability to deal with it. There’s tons, and tons of reasons why. I seriously doubt those “christian Universities” intended what ensued.

          The longer you try avoiding giving Christianity the credit that it’s due

          I do. The methods they were founded on are no longer relevant to mondern discovery and haven’t been for going on 400 years.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “After 1700 years and the false start of Aquinas, and Hume, and Bacon, and all those who gave enough breathing room to make it possible. Ooops. indeed.”

          After 1,700 years? LOL, the scientific revolution isn’t something that happens overnight. Why didn’t the scientific revolution happen in India? Or China? Or the Muslim world? Or Africa? Or the Americas? Why in Europe by Christians doing science in the name of Christianity? And I don’t quite know what you mean “the false start of Aquinas, and Hume, and Bacon”. These three are classical intellectual figures of antiquity, especially Bacon when it comes to the scientific revolution.

          “Gee, what changed?”

          Ugh, nothing changed at all. Plato’s Academy operated until the 6th century until it got shut down by Justinian. And by the time that happened, many more schools and educational institutions were built. What exactly do you think changed?

          “Because they didn’t have a Hume refuting the bad work of previous religious philosophers like Aquinas?”

          Ugh, Hume started the scientific revolution by arguing against Aquinas? Atheist history is one of the crankiest things I’ve ever read, really. If it makes you feel any different, all of science is based on the assumption that Hume was actually wrong.

        • Pofarmer

          all of science is based on the assumption that Hume was actually wrong.

          Do tell.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Hume didn’t believe it was possible to establish any causal relationship. Without cause and effect, there is no science. Tectonic plates are detected by the effects they produce in the world through their movement, collisions, etc. Evolutionary mechanisms are all causal — natural selection, mutations, gene transfer, etc. The big bang, etc, everything in the physical world is based on the pure principle of cause and effect. If it is impossible to know that X caused Y, you can’t do science.

          Please respond to the rest of my points, by either contending them or agreeing with me.

        • Pofarmer

          everything in the physical world is based on the pure principle of cause and effect

          Uhm. No. That’s so bad it isn’t even wrong.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Please expand further than more buzzwords. And if it’s not wrong, it’s right. 🙂
          Hume was wrong, plain and simple. Science necessitates it.

        • Hmm. I’m beginning to think that Christianity might actually be a force for ill when it comes to universities.

          Who’d’ve known? Certainly not Mssr. Destroyus.

    • epeeist

      After basically admitting universities almost entirely wouldn’t exist today without Christianity

      Actually many universities wouldn’t exist today if it wasn’t for the edict of Charlemagne which forced monasteries and other religious institutions to start schools. The edict was passed because too many of the religious were illiterate and too few religious establishments undertook any teaching.

      • Korus Destroyus

        What kind of nonsense is this? Charlemagne’s edict proves secular thinking created universities? Huh?

        You amazingly did not actually refute anything. As Bobby boy pointed out, 106 of the first 108 universities (or something) were started for Christian purposes. Not under Charlemagne, all this happened much later. So without this Christian education, our world would be largely devoid of progress today.

        “The edict was passed because too many of the religious were illiterate and too few religious establishments undertook any teaching.”

        This sounds like history fiction in many ways, not least of which because the illiteracy rates were always so high and your reference to ‘the religious’ seems disingenuous. Provide some credible references and then I’ll evaluate the validity of your claim, which actually has nothing to do with this topic in the first place.

        • How hard is this? The credibility and usefulness of a university is in proportion to how far it has left its Christian roots behind. Christian universities teaching Christian bullshit to Christians do zilch to help advance our understanding of reality.

          Contrast that with the best-respected universities today. (Hint: bible colleges aren’t in that set.)

        • Korus Destroyus

          “How hard is this? The credibility and usefulness of a university is in proportion to how far it has left its Christian roots behind.”

          This is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve read in a while. Harvard, Oxford and the others still teach theology, biblical studies, etc. It’s just that they expanded a lot from there so they teach a bunch of other things and their creed is secular now. It seems to me, Bob, that you still haven’t come to grips with the fact that there wouldn’t be a Harvard or Oxford without Christianity.

          I think I should repeat the same fact again since you find it really hard to wrap your head around. Without Christianity, there would be few serious universities around today. That means we can credit one of the greatest advancements of humanity (like hospitals) to Christianity. For some reason, you made a bunch of other statements that I need to dispatch of before posting, you seem to have simply misunderstood some of the things I wrote.

          “So the earliest European “universities” in the 13th century weren’t really universities? That’s fine. That doesn’t change my argument much.”

          No, I said “It depends on your definition of ‘university'”. I didn’t say they weren’t universities, I said they were direct precursors to the ‘modern university’. That’s what I said. And I’m right. You later make the same confusion about my claims, at one point even implying I had changed my argument. Hopefully you understand my words at this point.

          “Yup, and it’s because they’ve replaced religion by science.”

          Huh? When did the university ever declare “we’re replacing religion with science”? To diagnose this statement, I’d have to get into the origins of the conflict thesis (the idea that there is a conflict between science and religion) which was invented by non-historians in the early 19th century. To put it in the simplest terms, the idea of a conflict between science and religion is a modernist invention that historians of science relegate to the trash bin. So this statement, by definition, appears to be invalid. Are you aware of the works of historians of science?

          “Back to your point, no, modern universities did evolve from Christian universities, but it’s trivial to imagine modern universities developing on their own, without any religious version as an incubator.”

          That’s actually not very trivial at all, since there wouldn’t exactly be anything to “develop” from without the Christian precursor, similar to the fact that humans wouldn’t have ever evolved if it wasn’t for our ape ancestors. Please explain how this is exactly trivial. The real question should be why you’re simply unable to give credit to Christianity where it’s due. Any success is something that apparently needs your secular antidote or something.

        • This is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve read in a while. Harvard, Oxford and the others still teach theology, biblical studies, etc.

          I really have to explain to you how Harvard is different from a Bible college?

          If you get amused by ridiculous comments, you might want to have a go with your own.

          you still haven’t come to grips with the fact that there wouldn’t be a Harvard or Oxford without Christianity.

          Correct. You’ll have to explain it to me sometime.

          If you’re making the very narrow point that Harvard used to be a religious school and has changed, sure, I get it. Harvard wouldn’t be here if it Harvard weren’t started as a religious school. My point is about our modern university system.

          Without Christianity, there would be few serious universities around today.

          The modern university is built on evidence, not faith or dogma. You’re saying that without Christianity to start things off in the wrong direction, we’d have few universities? I must be underestimating the difficulty of the idea of a school. Haven’t they been around for millennia?

          When did the university ever declare “we’re replacing religion with science”? To diagnose this statement, I’d have to get into the origins of the conflict thesis (the idea that there is a conflict between science and religion) which was invented by non-historians in the early 19th century.

          Huh? Are you saying that religion is a valid way to understand reality?

          The real question should be why you’re simply unable to give credit to Christianity where it’s due.

          I did. Read the article. You seem to imagine that modern secular universities wouldn’t exist at all (or would be a tiny shadow of themselves) without Christian universities. If Christians can say, “Hey, let’s pool some money and start a center of learning for our silly religion” then I don’t know why others, centuries later, can’t say something similar about science. Is that a far more counterintuitive idea than I appreciate?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is there some big fascination with religious institutions founding education establishments that I’m missing?

          If there is, then the credit goes to the Muslims. By two centuries.

          The university as an autonomous self-governing institution first was developed as religious institutions (madrasahs) that originated in the medieval Islamic world. But, Europe did not fall far behind these Islamic developments, as Italy founded its first university approximately two centuries after the first university developed in Morocco.

          University of Al-Karaouine: Located in Fes, Morocco, this university originally was a mosque founded in 859 by Fatima al-Fihri, a woman. It developed into one of the leading universities for natural sciences. It wasn’t until 1957 that the university added mathematics, physics, chemistry and foreign languages. This university is considered the oldest continuously-operating degree-granting university in the world by the Guiness Book of World Records.

          The Puritans opened the first school in America, whoopty-fucking-do, so what.

          The first public school built in the United States was the Boston Latin School, completed in 1645, according to the Freedom Trail Foundation. The school was founded in 1635, and students attended classes in the home of the headmaster until the building was finished.

          The school offered a free education to boys, regardless of their families’ financial situation. Girls were educated at home and were not permitted to attend the school, the foundation notes. Some famous founding fathers attended Boston Latin, including Samuel Adams, John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin. The building was demolished in 1745, but the school has continued in other locations. A statue of Franklin marks the building’s original School Street location.

          Boston Latin has graduated notable Americans in the fields of politics (both local and national), religion, science, journalism, philosophy, and music. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, five were educated at Latin: Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Hooper, and Paine.

          Those were some enlightened forward thinking dudes right there.

        • Is there some big fascination with religious institutions founding education establishments that I’m missing?

          All I can figure is that thinking up the idea of a school is really, really hard, so without Christianity inventing shitty universities, we wouldn’t be able to shape them into good universities, so thank you, Jesus.

          Since schools have been around long before Christianity, I’m not following. But don’t tell Korus. It makes him peevish.

        • epeeist

          All I can figure is that thinking up the idea of a school is really, really hard

          Well when the Academy and the Lyceum have been closed down you don’t have a lot to work from.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Correct. You’ll have to explain it to me sometime.”

          Perhaps it would do you a favor to re-read your own blog, where you figure out that Harvard was started out as a Christian missionary-training school. So there wouldn’t be a Harvard if it wasn’t for the Christian missionaries. That’s not particularly hard to figure out.

          “If you’re making the very narrow point that Harvard used to be a religious school and has changed, sure, I get it. Harvard wouldn’t be here if it Harvard weren’t started as a religious school. My point is about our modern university system.”

          I know. And I’m telling you the modern university system is directly derivative of the prior Christian precursor.

          “You’re saying that without Christianity to start things off in the wrong direction, we’d have few universities?”

          That’s exactly what I’m saying.

          “Huh? Are you saying that religion is a valid way to understand reality?”

          No, I said that the conflict thesis (idea that there has been some sort of historical conflict between science and religion) is rejected by every historian of science in every university in the world. Shouldn’t a man of science like yourself know anything about its history? Of course, besides that point, religion is in fact a valid way to understand reality.

          “I did. Read the article.”

          You mean the article where you go to insufferable lengths to try to discredit Christianity’s accomplishment?

          “then I don’t know why others, centuries later, can’t say something similar about science.”

          Imagination is a great thing to have, especially when ‘SCIENCE’ is written on your underwear, but the complexity of the history of the educational system couldn’t comprehensibly have ever been boiled down to “HEY GUYS, LET’S BUILD A UNIVERSITY FOR SCIIIIECCNE!”

        • ”You’re saying that without Christianity to start things off in the wrong direction, we’d have few universities?”
          That’s exactly what I’m saying.

          Me, too.

          No, I said that the conflict thesis (idea that there has been some sort of historical conflict between science and religion) is rejected by every historian of science in every university in the world.

          That’s nice.

          You mean the article where you go to insufferable lengths to try to discredit Christianity’s accomplishment?

          I love discrediting Christianity’s achievements, particularly when it’s shooting fish in a barrel and I’m responding to an asshole like you.

          Hmm. I wonder how our conversation would’ve gone if you’d approached things differently. Was Jesus as big an asshole as you?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Me, too.”

          So you agree with me? Good, that was one long debacle. At least I’ve been able to change your mind, doesn’t happen often with the irreligious kin I must say. What say you we start talking about your article on hospitals and Christianity?

          Apparently I’m a douchebag. I’ve had that problem for some time now. Perhaps it’ll get fixed up soon, hopefully at least. I, at least, don’t like being a douche.

          “I wonder how our conversation would’ve gone if you’d approached things differently.”

          Probably better.

        • that was one long debacle.

          It was. And it was all in the original post all along. Frustrating, isn’t it?

          At least I’ve been able to change your mind

          Wrong again.

          I, at least, don’t like being a douche.

          OK, good to hear. I interpret this as an honest, non-sarcastic comment, so I’ll reply in kind.

          I more or less mirror the person I’m responding to. A forcefully stated rebuttal is fine, but snark and insults right from the beginning have me doing the same . . . and downhill it goes from there. The same conversation happens, but it’s less pleasant for me, and a new agenda item (humiliate the other guy) pops up. I’d rather not have to satisfy that one.

          Probably better.

          Best of luck in making that happen.

        • Michael Neville

          Maybe you should read some of the comments. Nobody is denying that Harvard started as a Christian school. Is it a Christian school now? This is a yes or no question and your final grade will depend on you guessing right.

          If you’re claiming there isn’t a conflict between religion and science then you’re just showing your historical ignorance. Does the name Galileo mean anything to you? Are you aware that he was brought before the Inquisition and made to renounce heliocentrism?

          Did you know that Copernicus held off publishing his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until just before his death because he was afraid of being brought before the Inquisition. Nor was the Catholic Church the only critic of Copernicus. John Calvin and Martin Luther both denounced Copernicus for being “ungodly” in removing the Earth from the center of the universe.

          Darwin was denounced for replacing Genesis with evolution. The famous debate on evolution between Bishop Samuel “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley has been described by Diane Purkiss as “the first time Christianity had ever been asked to square off against science in a public forum in the whole of its history”.

          In modern times we have people like Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute demanding that science education be replaced by teaching religious mythology. These conflicts between religion and science are just off the top of my head. So you’re wrong, religion is in conflict with science and has been for centuries.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Maybe you should read some of the comments. Nobody is denying that Harvard started as a Christian school. Is it a Christian school now? This is a yes or no question and your final grade will depend on you guessing right.”

          The answer is no. The question seems like a red herring to my point anyway, which again, it looks as if you entirely did not follow. My point is that the advancement of the university into the modern world was entirely spearheaded by Christianity. This is all true. Again, there wouldn’t be a Harvard without Christianity. Do you happen to know how significant that is?

          “If you’re claiming there isn’t a conflict between religion and science then you’re just showing your historical ignorance. Does the name Galileo mean anything to you?”

          There was never a conflict between science and religion. Let a professor take the stage for just a second, before I address Galileo.
          “The idea that scientific and religious camps have historically been separated and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science.” -Lawrence Principe, Professor of the History of Science, Medicine and Technology at John Hopkins University
          The Galileo trial is one of the most misrepresented events of history by atheistic non-historians (even more than the entire Giordano Bruno thing). I’d recommend reading something written by a historian. A few details should be suffice here: in Galileo’s time, there was almost zero evidence for heliocentrism. The evidence was quite stacked against it, in fact. Yet Galileo used this fringe theory at the time to reinterpret the Bible and attack major church figures, and so he was put under house arrest (which, ironically, is where he wrote his most significant scientific works). The church figures explicitly stated that if heliocentrism was supported by evidence, they would entirely side with Galileo (in fact, a significant number of them already did). Galileo’s theories were only proven almost a century after his death, and at that point, the church fully accepted his findings. This is going to be a lengthy comment already so I’ll direct you to something you can read in my next response.

          “Did you know that Copernicus held off publishing his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until just before his death because he was afraid of being brought before the Inquisition.”

          Pure fiction, never happened. This is just atheist bad history. Apparently you don’t even know what the Inquisition is. You also get your claims on Darwin basically wrong. There is so much historical confusion in your comments that I’ll continue addressing it later until I get another response from you. Until then, make sure to study that Lawrence Principe quote I posted very nicely.

        • Michael Neville

          Principe is wrong. Galileo was brought before the Inquisition on a charge of heresy for promoting heliocentrism. And “almost no evidence” does not equal “no evidence”. The evidence was not as strong as it is today but heliocentrism explained the orbits of the planets much better than geocentricism. Also Principe is either ignorant or lying when he said “Galileo’s theories were only proven almost a century after his death, and at that point, the church fully accepted his findings”. It wasn’t until 1992 that the Catholic Church finally decided that Galileo was right and that his “vehement suspicion of heresy” was revoked. Galileo died in 1642, 1992 350 years later.

          It seems to me that you’re the one doing “bad history”. Maybe you should take a history of science class before you try to bullshit us further.

          Also I notice that you didn’t even try to explain away the reaction by Calvin and Luther to Copernicus, nor did you attempt to gloss over clerical anti-Darwinism, which continues to this day.

          You’re not as knowledgeable and intelligent as you think you are. But your arrogance knows no limits.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Principe is wrong.”

          +++SEIZURE INDUCED+++

          Let’s see that quote again.

          “The idea that scientific and religious camps have historically been separate and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science.” -Lawrence Principe, Professor of the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology at John Hopkins University

          You’re not just saying Principe is wrong. You’re saying every bonified academic to have seriously studied and contributed to this subject, who intricately know the details of all the topics we’re discussing, are all wrong, and you, who know little to nothing about them, are actually in the right.

          “Galileo was brought before the Inquisition on a charge of heresy for promoting heliocentrism.”

          Galileo’s trial had nothing to do with the Inquisition. And I already explained everything we need to know about the Galileo trial in my previous comment.

          “Also Principe is either ignorant or lying when he said “Galileo’s theories were only proven almost a century after his death, and at that point, the church fully accepted his findings””

          Complete garbage. Firstly, Principe never said that, I did. Re-read the comment. You’re also wrong about the Catholic Church’s acceptance of heliocentrism somehow magically occuring in 1992. No, a public revokment of the 1600’s trial occurred in 1992. It’s been centuries since there was a geocentrist Pope or something.

          “Also I notice that you didn’t even try to explain away the reaction by Calvin and Luther to Copernicus, nor did you attempt to gloss over clerical anti-Darwinism, which continues to this day.”

          The idea of Copernicus fearing to publish his work is so absurd it’s hard to seriously consider it. Pope Clement VII himself tried to get Copernicus to publish his works faster. I’m not aware of the reactions of Calvin or Luther to Copernicus, but if you have evidence that historians somehow glossed over that shows their writings slowed scientific progress, feel free to share it.

          “You’re not as knowledgeable and intelligent as you think you are.”

          Says the guy who thinks he knows more on this than academia. The conflict thesis (the idea that there has been some sort of historical conflict between science and religion) was made up by early 19th century secularists. You’d do yourself an enormous favor by reading the scholarly monograph titled Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (2nd ed. 2017, edited by Gary Ferngren). The chapter perhaps most relevant to you would be the one about Galileo himself coauthored by Richard Blackwell and Michael Shank. The entire chapter is actually available online, just scroll down to pg. 100 in the book on Google Books. Buy the entire book while you’re at it.

        • Michael Neville

          Galileo’s trial had nothing to do with the Inquisition.

          Now you’re just flat out LYING! Here’s a translation of Galileo’s first disposition [LINK]. It begins:

          Summoned, there appeared personally in Rome at the palace of the Holy Office, in the usual quarters of the Reverend Father Commissary, fully in the presence of the Reverend Father Fra Vincenzo Maculano of Firenzuola, Commissary General, and of his assistant Reverend Father Carlo Sinceri, Prosecutor of the Holy Office, etc.

          Because the word “Inquisition” had received such a bad press, in 1542 the Vatican renamed it the “Holy Office”. Same people, same job, different name. Incidentally nowadays it’s the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but still entrusted with matters pertaining to faith and morals, the judgment of heresy, the application of canonical punishment, and the examination of books and prohibition of those held dangerous to faith and morals.

          Don’t bother to respond to me again. I’ll deal with idiots, I’ll deal with the ignorant, but I won’t deal with someone who LIES. You’re blocked.

        • Korus Destroyus

          It looks as if you were right on the thing about Galileo being a part of the ‘inquisition’. Although I’m still right in the sense in that Galileo was not part if the inquisition, in the sense of the ‘inquisition’ meaning what modern people think it was — this kind of huge movement to find and capture heretics and force them to recant. Galileo wasn’t part of that ‘inquisition’. To nuance this a bit more, the idea of the inquisition was constituted in the 13th century, and it really was just a process of judicially investigating any public crime — i.e. basically what courts do today. The real problem appeared when the courts started applying the rules of the Inquisition to charges of heresy. I think, to make sure we’re getting things on point here, that I’ll quote from a recent paper authored by the historian Henry Ansgar Kelly:

          The primary decretal governing inquisition comes from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, which also established the regulations of sacramental confession and the seal of secrecy. Inquisition was intended for the prosecution of public crimes, but when it was adapted to pursuing heresy, the rights of suspects were regularly disregarded, and, rather than being charged with public crimes, they were forced to incriminate themselves, even on secret deeds and previously unuttered beliefs. When first summoned in 1616, Galileo was not questioned, but merely warned not to espouse heliocentrism. In 1632, Holy Office investigations resulted in a summons, and when he appeared in April 1633, he was interrogated without being charged. His formal trial took place on May 10, and his guilty plea of favoring heliocentrism without heretical intention triggered an automatic examination of his private beliefs under torture (in his case, threat of torture), a new procedure adopted by the Holy Office around the turn of the seventeenth century.

          This is part of the abstract. The full paper is here:
          https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F5BB9632FA3F4C34B33C119A401EB3BC/S0009640716001190a.pdf/galileos_nontrial_1616_pretrial_16321633_and_trial_may_10_1633_a_review_of_procedure_featuring_routine_violations_of_the_forum_of_conscience.pdf

          Seeing you, Michael, conflate an honest and easy-to-make mistake with ‘LYING’ is quite frantic. Since I’ve dealt with all your arguments now, the best I can do is hope you’re a bit more open to conversation rather than blocking people outright when your beliefs are challenged.

        • epeeist

          As Bobby boy pointed out, 106 of the first 108 universities (or something) were started for Christian purposes.

          Do you see me denying that? My point was that many of these universities did not come into being sui generis, they came from monastery schools and that quite a number of monastery schools were established because of Charlemagne.

          This sounds like history fiction in many ways

          And yet it takes little to check, for example this site.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Sorry that I didn’t doublecheck your blog source. Apparently, your sources say that the monasteries (i.e. Christian education institutions) were reformed into the first universities (which were still Christian at this point). So at one point does Charlemagne’s actions do anything but prove the Christian role in these institutions?

        • epeeist

          You seem to claiming a causal warrant for Christianity creating universities. Now there is no dispute that the universities were created in a Christian milieu (a milieu where it was almost impossible to be anything but Christian), but as I pointed out the universities grew out of monastery schools which were founded as a result of an edict by Charlemagne. Was Christianity the reason that the monastery schools were started, or did Charlemagne start them because he thought that education should be developed and the monasteries had suitable buildings?

          As has been pointed out to you, you ignore institutions such as

          Al Quaraouiyine and Al-Azhar universities. Among other things the Arabic and Persian world was responsible for preserving and extending the work from Greek institutions such as the Academy and Lyceum.

          In other words, the founding of educational institutions is a lot more complex than your simplistic claim.

          You might want to have a look and see what the syllabuses were in these early universities, did everyone get a dose of theology or was this reserved for advanced study?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You seem to claiming a causal warrant for Christianity creating universities. Now there is no dispute that the universities were created in a Christian milieu (a milieu where it was almost impossible to be anything but Christian), but as I pointed out the universities grew out of monastery schools which were founded as a result of an edict by Charlemagne.”

          And Charlemagne did it for religious purposes. Do you know how much of a zealot Charlemagne was? So what you’re talking about is really a Christian thing, reinforcing my point. And if it wasn’t for Christianity anyways, where was Charlemagne exactly going to get those monasteries from to turn into educational institutions? So it looks to me as if in every path you try to lead us, we get stuck with Christianity again.

          “As has been pointed out to you, you ignore institutions such as Al Quaraouiyine and Al-Azhar universities.”

          When did I ignore these? I gave them full credit. I said that the Islamic world was fundamental in producing the concept of the university. How is that ignoring it? Perhaps you should read my words a little more carefully. And of course, I never said that Christians founded the educational system. I only said the obvious. That is, although the educational system barely existed once Christianity came onto the scene, it was Christianity itself that took the already existing educational system and almost single-handedly turned it into what it is today. And that’s all true. Harvard and Cambridge started out as Christian schools. And those two universities account for like, over a fourth of Nobel Prize winners. Or something. Now that I’ve clarified myself a lot more (I thought I had already made myself dead clear), would you mind actually trying to engage with my views rather than the caricature you painted? It appears to me as if you’re responding to what you wanted me to have said, rather than what I actually said.

        • epeeist

          And Charlemagne did it for religious purposes.

          And yet again you make an assertion that needs a causal warrant, which of course you don’t supply.

          That is, although the educational system barely existed once Christianity came onto the scene

          It didn’t? And yet we can point to the existence of education in ancient Greece (μουσική and γυμναστική), we can also point to things like the bayt al-hikmah in Baghdad as well as the mutakallimun in the same society.

          You might want to look at Gerard of Cremona’s comments about the state of education in medieval Europe and the “poverty of the Latins”.

          it was Christianity itself that took the already existing educational system and almost single-handedly turned it into what it is today

          So nothing to do with, say, the advance of exploration and trade or the gradual elimination of Aristotelianism?

          Harvard and Cambridge started out as Christian schools. And those two universities account for like, over a fourth of Nobel Prize winners.

          And we are back to non causa pro causa. What has the fact that Harvard and Cambridge currently have a high number of Nobel winners got to do with their founding? If you want to go down that route then it is worth noting that only 1.2% of undergraduates at Cambridge now study theology and religion while 17.9% study natural sciences (Source). So what did researchers at Cambridge win Nobel prizes for? (Hint: it wasn’t for theology or religion). Unless you can show otherwise we don’t even know whether of the Nobel laureates credited Christianity with their prize.

          I thought I had already made myself dead clear

          Oh, you had made yourself clear; it was just that your post was grossly simplistic and made as an attempt to rationalise a particular position.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And yet again you make an assertion that needs a causal warrant, which of course you don’t supply.”

          What on Earth do you mean causal warrant? Without Christians creating monasteries, what on Earth would Charlemagne going to convert into an educational institution? Again, credit goes to Christianity. And as I noted earlier, Charlemagne was a Christian zealot who did what he did to propagate Christianity. What do you think was exactly being taught in those educational institutions Charlemagne converted?

          “It didn’t? And yet we can point to the existence of education in ancient Greece (μουσική and γυμναστική), we can also point to things like the bayt al-hikmah in Baghdad as well as the mutakallimun in the same society.”

          I don’t detract, the educational system barely existed once Christianity came onto the scene. Do you know how illiterate the Greeks were? Sure, there was Plato’s Academy and a handful of others that only wealthy aristocrats could afford to get an education from, but not much beyond that. Islamic education did pretty good around the 9th-12th centuries but Christianity quickly overtook the Islamic world from there on (especially once the Islamic zealots started declaring mathematics a product of Satan among other things).

          “So nothing to do with, say, the advance of exploration and trade or the gradual elimination of Aristotelianism?”

          Huh? You’ll have to expand a little more on that and what exactly you’re arguing, since I’m sniffing a non-sequitur.

          “And we are back to non causa pro causa. What has the fact that Harvard and Cambridge currently have a high number of Nobel winners got to do with their founding?”

          Strawman fallacy. Harvard and Cambridge were both founded for Christian purposes. My point was — imagine what would have happened if it wasn’t for the Christians founding these institutions? We wouldn’t have all those major Nobel Prize winners that we have today as a result of Harvard and Cambridge. No Christianity == no Harvard/Cambridge == all those major discoveries either would have never have happened, or simply taken much longer to have happened. There’s a pretty clear causal relationship.

          “Oh, you had made yourself clear; it was just that your post was grossly simplistic and made as an attempt to rationalise a particular position.”

          I think it’s pretty clear now that this is nonsense.

          “EDIT: Just a small addition, how about Imperial College, what has its founding got to with Christianity? You might note the list of Nobel prizes that its staff have won. This would include Abdus Salam…”

          Although I don’t see the direct relevance of Imperial College, it’s worth pointing out a pretty basic fact — the secular university was basically invented around the early 19th century (Imperial College is then founded in the early 20th century). The secular university is a direct derivative of the earlier Christian precursor, the evolution of the university into the modern period would have been impossible without the Christian precursor. It’s just like the evolution of humans. Our evolutionary precursors are the great apes, but if it wasn’t for the existence of the great apes, we wouldn’t have ever existed either. Likewise, if it wasn’t for the existence of the Christian precursor, Imperial College (and every other secular university) would not have existed, at least not until much much longer. The Christian university is a direct precursor of all modern education. No Christian precursor = No Imperial College = No Abdus Salam.

        • epeeist

          What on Earth do you mean causal warrant?

          Seriously? You make a claim that Christianity was causal in the creation of universities, this requires actual evidence plus a warrant that shows the evidence is relevant to the claim. All you have presented so far are assertions.

          And as I noted earlier, Charlemagne was a Christian zealot who did what he did to propagate Christianity.

          Accepted, but again you need to show that the reason Charlemagne ordered to creation of monastery schools was Christianity. Truman was a Baptist who ordered the dropping of atomic bombs. Can I therefore say it was his Christianity that was responsible for the order or might there possibly have been another reason?

          Do you know how illiterate the Greeks were?

          About the same as those in Middle Ages?

          Sure, there was Plato’s Academy and a handful of others that only wealthy aristocrats could afford to get an education from, but not much beyond tha

          And this was different to the Middle Ages and Medieval cultures how exactly?

          Huh? You’ll have to expand a little more on that and what exactly you’re arguing, since I’m sniffing a non-sequitur.

          No, what you are detecting is your non causa, pro causa fallacy. Could Christianity have been the cause of the creation of universities in the West? Yes it could. Could it have been the requirement to deal with the needs of those who required maps, new methods of navigation, the assimilation of material coming out of Arabia and Persia (especially things like medicine), the need for people skilled at law etc. etc. Of course it could. That’s why I find your claims (which you don’t back up) simplistic. As I have said elsewhere you deliberately minimise those things that don’t fit your preferred narrative.

          Strawman fallacy.

          Nope, just point out the gaping non sequitur between your claims about the formation of these institutions and what they currently do. I could equally claim that the rise of institutions such as the universities of Paris, Bologna, Oxford and Cambridge were due to the decline of religious influence during the humanistic renaissance, the Enlightenment and our current era.

          Harvard and Cambridge were both founded for Christian purposes.

          So you assert.

          My point was — imagine what would have happened if it wasn’t for the Christians founding these institutions

          Which again is rather different from saying that Christianity was causal in the founding of these institutions. As I have said before, I have no problem with admitting that these institutions were formed in a Christian milieu, it was hardly possible for it to be otherwise. But as I have said above, you make simplistic claims about Christianity being causal and ignore any other possibilities. Nor do you actually provide any evidence to support your claims.

          The secular university is a direct derivative of the earlier Christian precursor

          So you assert, but once again you offer no justification for your claim.

          the evolution of the university into the modern period would have been impossible without the Christian precursor.

          And the Christian precursor would not have been possible without the precursors in the Islamic Golden era or institutions such as the Academy and Lyceum in the Greek period. See how assertions work?

    • Ignorant Amos

      The pains it takes to credit secular thinking with much of any accomplishments of the modern world is really insufferable.

      Ahem…the Muslims started the first university in the world, two centuries before the first Christian university. There were two more Islamic universities founded before the Christians thought it was a good idea too. And get this, they were teaching science…of a sort.

      1. University of Al-Karaouine: Located in Fes, Morocco, this university originally was a mosque founded in 859 by Fatima al-Fihri, a woman. It developed into one of the leading universities for natural sciences. It wasn’t until 1957 that the university added mathematics, physics, chemistry and foreign languages. This university is considered the oldest continuously-operating degree-granting university in the world by the Guiness Book of World Records.

      2. Al-Azhar University: This university, located in Egypt, is the world’s second oldest surviving degree-granting institute. Founded in 970-972, this university serves as a center for Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning. Al-Azhar university concentrates upon a religious syllabus, which pays special attention to the Quranic sciences and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad on the one hand, while also teaching all modern fields of science.

      3. Nizamiyya: This series of universities was established by Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk in the eleventh century in what is now present-day Iran. The most celebrated of all the Nizamiyya schools is Al-Nizamiyya of Baghdad, established in 1065 in Dhu’l Qa’da and that remains operational in Isfahan. But, this was just one of many Nizamiyyah schools — others were located in Nishapur, Amul, Mosul, Herat, Damascus, and Basra. The Nizamiyya schools served as a model for future universities in the region, and al-Mulk often is seen as responsible for a new era of brilliance which caused his schools to eclipse all other contemporary learning institutions.

      4. University of Bologna: This university was the first higher-learning institute established in the Western world in 1088. The term, “university,” was coined at its creation. Located in Bologna, Italy, this university led the Western world in educational innovations until the period between the two World Wars. At that time, leaders called upon the university to forge relationships with institutions in more advanced countries to modernize and re-invigorate its educational philosophies. This university met the call and, today, is considered a leader in the European university system.

      Now get yer spoon out and prepare to eat copious amounts of humble pie.

      • Korus Destroyus

        Sorry, which part of the quote you provided from me get debunked by what you just posted?

        • Ignorant Amos

          None of it. Nor did I suggest it did.

          I cited that bit of your comment because it is dripping with irony, given the rest of you comment which seems to be suggesting that without Christianity, there would be no universities. Modern universities are nothing like the universities of medieval Christendom over half a millennia ago. That’s due to secularism. And if you want to give Christianity praise for being the forerunner of the concept of the university, guess what? Ya can’t.

          So what is the point you are trying to make?

        • Korus Destroyus

          You actually did suggest it did, after you ended your comment with, after listing out all your data, “Now get yer spoon out and prepare to eat copious amounts of humble pie” as some kind of triumphant victory.

          “I cited that bit of your comment because it is dripping with irony, given the rest of you comment which seems to be suggesting that without Christianity, there would be no universities.”

          No, I simply said there would be many, many fewer universities than there currently are without Christianity, not that there would be entirely zero. And that’s a simple fact. How many universities exist today in the Muslim world? It’s clear that the movement, although it had tremendous credit to the Islamic world during its conception, was spearheaded by Christianity. That is all true. The latter part of your comment suggests you entirely misunderstood this point of mine.

          “Modern universities are nothing like the universities of medieval Christendom over half a millennia ago. That’s due to secularism.”

          When did I suggest modern universities were the equivalents of the medieval ones? And your little history isn’t actually even close to being accurate anyways, since the secularism of the university started in the middle of the 19th century, hardly the medieval period.

        • I simply said there would be many, many fewer universities than there currently are without Christianity, not that there would be entirely zero. And that’s a simple fact.

          If Christianity didn’t build universities, there would be zero religious colleges, so that’s an (obvious) point in your favor.

          I’m missing the “simple fact” part, though. If there were no religious Harvard, how likely would there have been a secular college in Boston that had a similar trajectory?

          The only interesting thing you seem to be saying (and you’re saying it so proudly that I wonder if you really understand it) is that a Harvard or Princeton might’ve developed later without Christianity nurturing it, but it just wouldn’t have the bullshit faith phase in the beginning. So instead of starting in 1638 as a religious college, Harvard might’ve been started in 1800 as a secular college. A school that followed that rough path was MIT, started in 1861 in Boston as a secular school (government supported, I believe) in response to the Industrial Revolution.

          Looking at the bigger picture, MIT was founded on an already-established European model of technical colleges.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_research_universities#European_university_models_in_the_19th_and_20th_centuries

          The development of secular universities would’ve been different, but I see little evidence that it would’ve given us a radically different university system than the West has now.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “If Christianity didn’t build universities, there would be zero religious colleges, so that’s an (obvious) point in your favor.”

          Well, there still would be religious colleges (Muslim world, right?). But as you seem to admit now, there would be a loooot let universities today. Including no Harvard or Cambridge. Etc.

          “I’m missing the “simple fact” part, though. If there were no religious Harvard, how likely would there have been a secular college in Boston that had a similar trajectory?”

          Imaginary history is impossible to determine. In my guess, there would never have been one — someone else would have built something there or something (or maybe other Christians, lol).

          “but it just wouldn’t have the bullshit faith phase in the beginning.”

          Well your panties are clearly in a bunch. I guess I’m not the only douche here, aren’t I?

          “A school that followed that rough path was MIT, started in 1861 in Boston as a secular school”

          Ugh, you mean after the Christians had already established the concept of the modern university? Credit is due to the secularists who founded MIT — they know where to use Christian inventions in order to succeed.

          “The development of secular universities would’ve been different, but I see little evidence that it would’ve given us a radically different university system than the West has now.”

          Little evidence? Ugh, LOL. That’s like saying humans would “probably” have evolved even without our ape ancestors. Good luck with that. Maybe there would be 30 universities or something if it wasn’t for the Christians. Certainly no MIT, which wouldn’t have existed without the precursors. It looks as if you need to be pushed a little more before you finally give full credit where it’s due.

        • Imaginary history is impossible to determine.

          Except for you.

          I guess I’m not the only douche here, aren’t I?

          Life’s a mirror.

          Ugh, you mean after the Christians had already established the concept of the modern university?

          Nope. You’ve admitted yourself that whatever the Christians developed, it wasn’t the modern university.

          Credit is due to the secularists who founded MIT

          And the non-religious people who developed the model a century earlier.

          Maybe there would be 30 universities or something if it wasn’t for the Christians.

          You make a very compelling, evidence-rich case. Who could deny it?

          Certainly no MIT, which wouldn’t have existed without the precursors.

          MIT was a secular school built with government money to address a social problem—training students to cope with the new reality of an Industrial Revolution world.

          So what does Christianity get credit for? Inventing the concept of school?

          It looks as if you need to be pushed a little more before you finally give full credit where it’s due.

          Oh, goody. Handwaving and bloviating, round 2.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Except for you.”

          Huh? You were the one who brought up imaginary history my friend, i.e. magically coming to the conclusion that it would have been “trivial” for universities to have come around like they are now.

          “And the non-religious people who developed the model a century earlier.”

          Ugh, the model for MIT came from the Christian precursors, not the secularists. Sorry bud.

          “You make a very compelling, evidence-rich case. Who could deny it?”

          I just made an approximation — without Christians to start all the universities and such, why would there be many universities? It’s like saying — if Christianity didn’t invent hospitals, why would we assume there would be too many of those today? Perhaps we could get to the bottom of that without producing misattributed Martin Luther quotes, eh?

          “So what does Christianity get credit for? Inventing the concept of school?”

          More like rapidly expanding it from the miniature concept it was before the Christians started thinking about it. It’s like the book. The book had been existed a bit before Christianity came onto the ground, but Christianity made one of the greatest revolutions in the following manner: taking the book and turning it into a global phenomenon. The reason why the Christians did this is that it is easier to put all the books of the Bible in book format rather than having some 60 scrolls in a box. If you look all over history and society, you’ll find many things existed in miniature, highly localized frames, and then when the Christians came along, they took it and changed the world. This is true on so many levels. This is what I want you to give credit for.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Huh? You were the one who brought up imaginary history my friend, i.e. magically coming to the conclusion that it would have been “trivial” for universities to have come around like they are now.

          You are the one that stated that without Christianity there would be something like only 30 universities in the world. That is imaginary history.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You actually did suggest it did, after you ended your comment with, after listing out all your data, “Now get yer spoon out and prepare to eat copious amounts of humble pie” as some kind of triumphant victory.

          Nope. That is your reading that into my comment what is not there. When I bothered to explain my meaning, you choose to accept my explanation. Probably because it doesn’t fit your assertion.

          No, I simply said there would be many, many fewer universities than there currently are without Christianity, not that there would be entirely zero. And that’s a simple fact.

          How could you possibly know that. The Crusades might have contributed to the stifling of Muslim educational endeavours and the rise of their religious fundamentalism. The Mongol’s have also been blamed in the demise of the Islamic Golden Age.

          But let’s be honest about this, the Islamic universities were created for reasons the Christian ones were not.

          The various Quranic injunctions and Hadith, which place values on education and emphasize the importance of acquiring knowledge, played a vital role in influencing the Muslims of this age in their search for knowledge and the development of the body of science.

          How many universities exist today in the Muslim world?

          What? A few I suppose… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_educational_institutions …who cares?

          How many Christian colleges are there? Lots… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_seminaries_and_theological_colleges …who cares?

          How many secular colleges are there? lots too….what doers it matter?

          Why is any of that relevant?

          You do realise that lots of Muslims attend secular uni’s too, right?

          How many of the top 100 universities are secular?

          https://thebestschools.org/features/100-best-universities-in-world-today/

          I don’t think the Roman Catholic founder of Cambridge had these sort of guys being on the universities alma mater in his mind when cutting the ribbon on the first day of opening…Christopher Marlowe, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Augustus De Morgan, G.H. Hardy, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, James Watson, Roger Penrose, Bertrand Russell and Stephen Hawking.

          It’s clear that the movement, although it had tremendous credit to the Islamic world during its conception, was spearheaded by Christianity. That is all true.

          You must be using a different definition of “spearheaded” than the one I’m familiar with. The Muslims had the first university 200 years before the first Christian university. The Muslims had the second university over 100 years before the first Christian university. The Muslims had the third university 23 years before the first Christian university. Now, as an old army dude, the spearhead lead the way. The spearhead was second, third, or fourth. The concept of the university is Muslim. The Islamic world lead the way (spearheaded) with the first university model.

          University of al-Qarawiyyin, also known as Al Quaraouiyine. According to the UNESCO and Guinness World Records, this is the oldest university still operating in the world. It was founded in 859 by Fatima al-Fihri, the educated daughter of a wealth Muslim trader, and currently serves as one of the leading universities of the Muslim world. In 1963, the university was given recognition by Morocco’s modern state university system.

          The latter part of your comment suggests you entirely misunderstood this point of mine.

          No misunderstanding on my part. Nowhere in this thread, as far as I can tell, did you even mention the Muslim contribution, let alone give any credit. Your argument is, that without all those Christian scholastic institutions of education teaching religion back in the day, there would be very few secular institutions of higher learning today. That’s a fact. It’s unsubstantiated bunkum. Without the concept created by an Islamist, what makes you so sure a Christian would have come up with it? And if an Islamist and Christian can independently conceive the idea, then so can a secularist. Is it your assertion that had the Christian faith had died out, or been usurped by another religion, then we would be still living in the Dark Ages?

          When did I suggest modern universities were the equivalents of the medieval ones?

          Nice quote mine. I never said ya did. It is an observation I’m making. . That both have very little in common. That the reason they are so different is down to secularism. Modern secular universities have more in common with the ancient Muslim model.

          And your little history isn’t actually even close to being accurate anyways, since the secularism of the university started in the middle of the 19th century, hardly the medieval period.

          Not a point my “little history” was trying to make, I’m well aware of when secularism began in the modern education system, wiki is handy for that, so pah!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#Modern_universities

          Where did I say that secularism started in the medieval period. While it is true that the actual secularism of universities started in the 19th century, an argument against which I’ve seen no one here make, the foundation of that secularism began much earlier, with the enlightenment. But none of this makes any difference to the issue at hand.

          There were institutions of higher learning well before the first Christian university. The first Christian university is just a data point in a timeline of higher institutional learning. If you want to be reductionist on this, then Christian learning owes to an earlier time and culture.

          Let’s use an analogy. Medieval Christian doctors, such that they were, used to believe all sorts of mad stuff. Christian doctors in medieval times knew squat. Now that’s not to say there was some Christian doctors during the history of doctoring that didn’t assist in the advancement of that worthy enterprise. But Christians didn’t invent the concept doctoring, just like they didn’t invent the concept of learning institutions. Modern day doctoring looks nothing like the first Christian doctoring, or even the doctoring that Christians got from an earlier culture from even earlier.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Nope. That is your reading that into my comment what is not there.”

          Ugh, it is exactly there. Claiming otherwise is a waste of time. You seem genuinely shocked your argument didn’t get me.

          “How could you possibly know that.”

          Pure logic. Christianity built like, at least as Bobby says, some 106/108 of the first universities (or something). If Christianity didn’t build those, then you must have some serious blind faith that the production rate of universities would have been quite explosive in the 19th century once the idea of secular education got around. Funnily enough, all the people building those secular universities were educated in the originally Christian ones, LOL. Why can’t you just give Christianity credit where it’s due? Universities are almost entirely a product of Christianity. As are hospitals and orphanages. And the Crusades didn’t stifle the Islamic Golden Age. Pick up a history textbook, man.

          “What? A few I suppose… https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… …who cares?”

          LOL. Do you think that is a lot of universities in the modern age given the enormity of the Muslim world? I mean, sheesh, there’s like 6 universities in the entirety of Pakistan in that link. That’s almost nothing. I live in Canada. We have a fraction of Pakistan’s population and 96 universities. You really are resting your hopes on a whole bunch of nothing.

          “I don’t think the Roman Catholic founder of Cambridge had these sort of guys being on the universities alma mater in his mind when cutting the ribbon on the first day of opening…Christopher Marlowe, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Augustus De Morgan, G.H. Hardy, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, James Watson, Roger Penrose, Bertrand Russell and Stephen Hawking.”

          A lot of those are Christians there bud. But either way, I must ask: Did you just inadvertedly prove the enormity of importance of Christianity building Cambridge? I mean, it sounds to me like we wouldn’t have those guys without that Catholic guy. Is that significant for you?

          “Where did I say that secularism started in the medieval period.”

          Ugh, you dated the Christian university to the medieval period. I quoted you doing so. Another mistake. Let it go. Your doctor analogy also only proves my point, since the health system was only originally pushed because of Christianity (the thing that invented hospitals). Do you want to imagine living in a world without hospitals? So without Christianity, we wouldn’t have too many doctors around now since it was originally the Christian incentive to care for others that lead to the expansion of that thing, even if ‘healthcare’ itself wasn’t founded by Christians. Christianity just takes a little thing and changes the world with it. Like that charismatic local preacher in Jerusalem a couple thousand years ago.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ugh, it is exactly there.

          Whaaaa? It’s exactly there now? You originally said that my comment “suggested” it, perhaps you could revise your use of words if you don’t know their definitions as used in common parlance. That’s the second time.

          Claiming otherwise is a waste of time.

          Now you are telling me what I meant to say, not what I claim the meaning of what I said. To repeat your comment above, it’s exactly there.

          You seem genuinely shocked your argument didn’t get me.

          I’m not shocked at anything at all. I was pointing out that the Christians didn’t invent the concept of the university. So if anyone deserve the credit for inventing the university, it’s the Muslims. You’ve been consistent throughout this thread in stating that Christianity get the credit for the modern secular university system, because lot’s of them are in buildings or carry the name of a once upon a time scholastic institution. That is just silly pants. Secular universities are no more like medieval Christian universities than medieval Christian universities were like the Muslim universities before them. Even the university template has evolved into a different animal today.

          Islamic universities →→ Christian universities →→ Secular universities

          To the time I’d pointed out the Muslim contribution to the setting up of the university system, I hadn’t seen your acknowledgement on this thread. Of course you have since, so to that ends, my argument actually did get you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pure logic.

          Nah…imaginary history you mean.

          Christianity built like, at least as Bobby says, some 106/108 of the first universities (or something). If Christianity didn’t build those, then you must have some serious blind faith that the production rate of universities would have been quite explosive in the 19th century once the idea of secular education got around.

          Pure logic, my arse. The thing is, there was an “explosion” of secular universities in the 19th century.

          Moving into the 19th century, the objective of universities evolved from teaching the “regurgitation of knowledge” to “encourag[ing] productive thinking.” Two new university models, the German and the post-Revolutionary French Grandes écoles, arose and made an impact on established models such as the Russian and Britain – especially the newer foundations of University College London and King’s College London. Both have been connected with the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, the raise of the bourgeoisie during industrialization and the decline of classical medieval Scholasticism but used rather different approaches. Such free thinking and experimentation had notably already begun in Britain’s oldest universities beginning in the seventeenth century at Oxford with the fathers of British scientific methodology Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle, and at Cambridge where Isaac Newton was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics & Physics.

          Overall, science became the focus of universities in the 19th and 20th centuries. Students could conduct research in seminars or laboratories and began to produce doctoral theses with more scientific content. According to Humboldt, the mission of the University of Berlin was to pursue scientific knowledge. The German university system fostered professional, bureaucratically regulated scientific research performed in well-equipped laboratories, instead of the kind of research done by private and individual scholars in Great Britain and France. In fact, Rüegg asserts that the German system is responsible for the development of the modern research university because it focused on the idea of “freedom of scientific research, teaching and study.”

          You are making unsubstantiated assertions about what you think happened vis a vis what did happen once religion started to lose it’s grip on the European education system.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Age_of_Enlightenment

          Funnily enough, all the people building those secular universities were educated in the originally Christian ones, LOL.

          LOL all you like…that’s a non sequitur…but anyway, the universities they were educated in were Christian in very little but name only and where else would were they expected to get that non-Christian education. And then why do you think they felt the need to build secular universities?

          Why can’t you just give Christianity credit where it’s due?

          I have no problem giving credit where it’s due. This isn’t an atheist thing, I’ve already tipped my hat to Islam. No one here has denied the influence that Christianity had on establishing the university system in Europe, but you are giving too much credit where it isn’t due.

          The Wright brothers might have been the first to get a powered flying machine off the ground, but the idea wasn’t original, and while all the work they done is praise worthy, if they hadn’t done it, someone else would’ve. And there is very little left when placed in comparison to a modern jet fighter.

          Universities are almost entirely a product of Christianity.

          Not todays universities. And by your logic, Christian universities are a entirely a product of Islamic universities, unless you can demonstrate no influence and the idea grew independently in Christendom.

          The modern secular university owes more to Wilhelm von Humboldt “the Francis Bacon of revival learning”, than it does to Christianity or Islam.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_education

          And I don’t think Humboldt was much of a Christian, definitely a Hellenist. His brother most certainly wasn’t a Christian.

          Faith can be interested in results only, for a truth once recognized as such puts an end to the believer’s thinking. ~Wilhelm von Humboldt

          “If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when the bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has been changed.” ~ Robert G. Ingersoll

          As are hospitals and orphanages.

          Non sequitur

          And the Crusades didn’t stifle the Islamic Golden Age. Pick up a history textbook, man.

          Your reading for comprehension skills stink. I didn’t say they did, I said they might have. And I don’t know what history textbook you have in mind…citation please…but in the meantime…

          It was during the Islamic Renaissance, that the armies of Genghis Khan (13th Century), in their terrific inroad, entered the Arabian Peninsula from Asia, and destroyed the most important universities and massacred the learned men. This happened at a time when the eastern boundaries of the Empire were but lightly guarded, the forces of the Turkish rulers having been drawn westward by the constant menace of the Crusades. Once the frontiers were passed, there was practically no one to oppose such powerful invaders.

          The appeal by some erring theologians turned the tide back, declaring reason and its entire works to be bankrupt. They declared that experience and reason that grew out of it were not to be trusted. As a result, free scientific investigation and philosophical and religious toleration were phenomena of the past. Schools limited their teaching to theology. Scientific progress came to a halt.

          During this same period, the European Crusades (1097-1291) assailed Islam militarily from without. Cordoba fell to Spanish Christians in 1236. When the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1256 (or 1258) the Islamic Empire never recovered. Trade routes became unsafe. Urban life broke down. Individual communities drew in upon themselves in feudal isolation. Science and philosophy survived for a while in scattered pockets, but the Golden Age of Islam was at an end.

          http://irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/golden_age_of_islam.htm

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Pure logic, my arse. The thing is, there was an “explosion” of secular universities in the 19th century.”

          That’s because secularism universities came into existence in the 19th century, buddy boy. It’s going to be an “explosion” if you go from 0 to any number. Your extensive Wikipedia quotes simply are not reliable, please read a scholarly book and get back to me as I’m not even in the mood of reading Wikipedia. Feel free to use Wikipedia’s citations, so long as they’re reliable in this discussion.

          “Your reading for comprehension skills stink. I didn’t say they did, I said they might have.”

          That’s an amazingly dishonest attempt to evade accounting for why you got something wrong. It appears you don’t even understand the extent of the Crusades in the first place if you think they stifled the Islamic Golden Age, LOL.

          You then quote ‘irfi.org’, a website the Islamic Research Foundation International that aims “Seeking Advancement of Knowledge through Spiritual and Intellectual Growth”. This is another unreliable source. And the sources it provides at the bottom really pushes the extent of unreliable citations. Part of your quote basically proves what I said, but since I don’t tolerate discussing unreliable information, you’re going to have to go back to the drawing board.

          Something I find very profound is the fact that your research simply consists of googling random websites. I suppose I should assume you’ve seriously yet to figure out what constitutes valid citation and what doesn’t.

          “Islamic universities →→ Christian universities →→ Secular universities”

          This is an oversimplification par excellence, but it’s basically true and my point remains correct.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          This is great stuff. I’m really enjoying going through your post history even if your prolificacy means I likely won’t excavate the comments on The Exodus. ☺️

        • Ignorant Amos

          About ten years ago, in my RDFRS days, the Exodus stuff was my bread and butter. I had masses of articles on the subject…but moving between a number countries and changing computers who can remember how many times, files get lost.

          No serious scholars think it is an historical event…even leaving all the woo-woo stuff aside.

          Even esteemed Rabbi’s like David Wolpe and Zev Farber agree that the Exodus…especially as described in the OT, didn’t happen.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wolpe#Historicity_of_the_Exodus

          Rabbi Dr. Zev Faber on Faith and Biblical History

          This shift goes deeper than questioning miracles or allegorically interpreting tales such as the Garden of Eden with its talking snake. It runs deeper than the realization that the Torah contains difficult and seemingly contradictory accounts of certain events. Over the past few decades, much of the narrative of ancient Israel’s origins, from the patriarchs to the conquest, including the Exodus, the wilderness experience and Sinai, have proven problematic to reconstruct as historical. Certain accounts have been subject to re-characterization as legend or constructed memory, and not necessarily historical fact.

          ETA: https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/rabbi-dr-zev-farber-on-faith-and-biblical-history/

        • epicurus

          It’s amazing!

        • Ignorant Amos

          LOL. Do you think that is a lot of universities in the modern age given the enormity of the Muslim world? I mean, sheesh, there’s like 6 universities in the entirety of Pakistan in that link. That’s almost nothing. I live in Canada. We have a fraction of Pakistan’s population and 96 universities. You really are resting your hopes on a whole bunch of nothing.

          If you could just but read for comprehension.

          What? A few I suppose… https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… …who cares? [emphasis for full effect]

        • Ignorant Amos

          A lot of those are Christians there bud.

          Nope they’re not. Not even nearly right. Could you learn to read for comprehension?

          Even if they were all Christians, that would still be irrelevant to my point.

          But for giggles and laughs…

          Christopher Marlowe – atheist

          http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj08articles/jl08_04_farey_road_to_deptford.pdf

          Isaac Newton – Unitarian heretic…ergo…Christian or not, my comment still applies…

          “I don’t think the Roman Catholic founder of Cambridge had these sort of guys being on the universities alma mater in his mind when cutting the ribbon on the first day of opening…

          Charles Darwin – Unitarian heretic, who later atheist…ergo…my comment still applies…

          “During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.” ~Charles Darwin

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Charles_Darwin

          Augustus De Morgan – atheist

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan

          G.H. Hardy – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/G._H._Hardy

          Srinivasa Ramanujan – Hindu

          Alan Turing – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Alan_Turing

          Francis Crick – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Francis_Crick

          James Watson – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/James_Watson

          Roger Penrose – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Roger_Penrose

          Bertrand Russell – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

          Stephen Hawking – atheist

          http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

          If you are so wrong about something so simple as this, what else are you wrong about?

          But either way, I must ask: Did you just inadvertedly prove the enormity of importance of Christianity building Cambridge? I mean, it sounds to me like we wouldn’t have those guys without that Catholic guy.

          Nope.

          The point is, that if that Catholic guy’s model of university had been maintained, none of these guys would have been tolerated. Furthermore, they’d been plying there thinking at that time, they would have been burned at the stake.

          Is that significant for you?

          Nope.

          These guys were an anathema to medieval Christian universities, so we wouldn’t have had those guys, along with copious amounts of likeminded Christians. Is that significant enough for you?

          Those guys were here in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

          Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Nope they’re not. Not even nearly right. Could you learn to read for comprehension?”

          Instead of turning into an instant baby, try and read. You included Isaac Newton. Newton isn’t a Christian? Is this guy serious? And Newton was never a heretic. That is honestly one of the most profoundly ridiculous things I’ve heard on this thread in some time. You really need to open a book, perhaps to the part where Newton got knighted. And even still, the list is irrelevant — it only reinforces my point that without these Christian founded educational institutions, we wouldn’t have had a lot of the greatest minds in the history of science. The fact that a few of them were atheists hardly rebuts my point (Russell was a philosopher rather than a historian, but that’s further besides the point).

          “The point is, that if that Catholic guy’s model of university had been maintained, none of these guys would have been tolerated.”

          Citation needed.

          “These guys were an anathema to medieval Christian universities”

          They weren’t, and none of them lived in the medieval period either. And finally, you appear to have finally figured out that Christianity is credited with the rise of the university. At the very least you were unable to rebut me, which is basically a concession.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Instead of turning into an instant baby, try and read.

          Listen soft bot, you are the one that needs to learn to read ya fuck useless cunt.

          You said…

          “A lot of those are Christians there bud.”

          Nope. Not a lot, not half, nor even some. One, just one.

          You included Isaac Newton.

          Yep.

          Newton isn’t a Christian?

          I never said Newton wasn’t a Christian ya lying turd. I said he was a Unitarian..which is like, ya know, a flavour of Christianity ya dofus.

          Is this guy serious?

          Yeah, dead serious…now if you could just learn to read what I write and not what ya think I write…things will be grand.

          And Newton was never a heretic.

          Oh he was a heretic alright. How can you be so asinine with just one head. To a 13th century Roman Catholic, Unitarianism was heretical.

          https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/isaac-newton-heretic-the-strategies-of-a-nicodemite/BA5CEF06E00988913933426A1F5A3CA6

          That is honestly one of the most profoundly ridiculous things I’ve heard on this thread in some time.

          Who cares, you are the dumb know nothing fuck here.

          You really need to open a book,…

          Spoooiiiing!

          …perhaps to the part where Newton got knighted.

          non sequitur

          Go away now you are boring the tits off me.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ignorant Amos finally loses it:

          “Listen soft bot, you are the one that needs to learn to read ya fuck useless cunt.”

          How much substance does this have? Well, not very much.

          “Oh he was a heretic alright. How can you be so asinine with just one head. To a 13th century Roman Catholic, Unitarianism was heretical.”

          Newton lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, quack. He was literally knighted by the Queen. So much for a heretic, LOL. You can cherry pick different periods where different beliefs were not accepted, the fact remains that Newton wasn’t a heretic.

          Either way, your comment seems to have escaped my point. Your comment only proves exactly what I said — imagine if all those intellectuals you mentioned … never happened. No Cambridge may have meant we wouldn’t have seen the great insights of Hawking, Penrose, and many others. We owe an inordinary amount to Christianity.

        • Greg G.

          Newton lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, quack. He was literally knighted by the Queen. So much for a heretic, LOL. You can cherry pick different periods where different beliefs were not accepted, the fact remains that Newton wasn’t a heretic.

          From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views

          Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[118] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.[119]

          and

          In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. [123] Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says, “Isaac Newton was a heretic. But … he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs.”[119] Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an anti-trinitarian.[119]

        • Ignorant Amos

          How much substance does this have? Well, not very much.

          Just enough for purpose.

          Newton lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, quack. He was literally knighted by the Queen.

          I know when Newton lived. I don’t care who knighted him, or that he even got knighted, his knighthood is irrelevant. Billy Connolly is a knight and he’s a overt atheist.

          Unitarian Christianity is heretical to Catholicism. Because it is Protestant in nature. Though Trinitarian Protestant’s reject this and themselves declare Unitarians as heretics. Protestantism is a listed heresy to Catholicism. Ya know, which was the Christian flavour followed by the guy who founded Cambridge in the 13th century. Which, if you had the ability to read for comprehension, you’d understand the point I was making. But you are just too stupid to grasp.

          So much for a heretic, LOL.

          LOL all ya want…it just compounds your fuckwittery.

          http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/what-is-heresy

          You are the one who is making an arse of himself.

          You can cherry pick different periods where different beliefs were not accepted, the fact remains that Newton wasn’t a heretic.

          Except the evidence is on my side. Even if I grant you that Newton was not a heretic, it makes absolutely no difference to the point I made…and you are still wrong/lying when you made that nonsense statement…“A lot of those are Christians there bud”…demonstrating that you are as thick as pig shit and noting you say can be taken seriously.

          Either way, your comment seems to have escaped my point. Your comment only proves exactly what I said — imagine if all those intellectuals you mentioned … never happened. No Cambridge may have meant we wouldn’t have seen the great insights of Hawking, Penrose, and many others. We owe an inordinary amount to Christianity.

          Only because you are one imbecilic know nothing motherfucker. You are doing imaginary history again. So my turn. Imagine if the shackles of Christianity had been cast off university learning 800 years ago. What advances might we have expected? You’re assumption that without Christianity these guys would never have happened, is ludicrous. How many brains like Hawking and Penrose have been lost because the religious jackboot of Christianity was upon the throat of rational and critical thinking for all those centuries?

          If you want me to stand on the shoulders giants, Christian ones are not broad enough, and get yer spoon out and eat humble pie, because Christianity too had to climb onto the shoulders of earlier giants.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I know when Newton lived. I don’t care who knighted him, or that he even got knighted, his knighthood is irrelevant. Billy Connolly is a knight and he’s a overt atheist.”

          LOL. Talk about radical evasion of reality. Newton was knighted. Which means he was not accused of heresy. Pure and simple logic. Newton keeping private some of his beliefs is flat out irrelevant to the fact that his scientific work wasn’t hindered by the minutest detail by Christians. So, try again, where is the fictional conflict you’re talking about?

          “Unitarian Christianity is heretical to Catholicism. Because it is Protestant in nature.”

          Huh? The rest of that paragraph is simply invented out of thin air, making it pointless to respond to. You need to learn what a citation is. By the way, the very modern concept of heresy is a product of the 2nd century cataclysm between Christianity and Judaism, which clearly demonstrates that the concept is foreign to Christianity and an ecclesiastical production.

          “Even if I grant you that Newton was not a heretic, it makes absolutely no difference to the point I made”

          Of COOOOOOURSE it does. It shows you’re radically in love with making things up, which is basically everything you’ve said up until now.

          “Only because you are one imbecilic know nothing motherfucker.”

          Sorry bucko, ask your mommy to make you feel better.

          “Imagine if the shackles of Christianity had been cast off university learning 800 years ago. ”

          Then Harvard wouldn’t have been founded in the 17th century, quack. In fact, we’d still have almost no universities since most Christian universities were founded in more recent periods. You lose again.

          “What advances might we have expected?”

          Virtually nothing, considering that the secularists weren’t even interested in the university until the 19th century.

          “How many brains like Hawking and Penrose have been lost because the religious jackboot of Christianity was upon the throat of rational and critical thinking for all those centuries?”

          Please explain how Christianity was upon “the throat of rational and critical thinking” for all those centuries. The idea that science has been in some sort of historical conflict with religion is known by historians of science to have been invented in the early 19th century, but atheists, being the (ir)rational thinkers that they are, swallowed the conspiracy whole.
          “The idea that scientific and religious camps have been historically separate and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science.” -Lawrence Principe, Professor of the History of Science, Medicine and Technology at John Hopkins University

          “If you want me to stand on the shoulders giants, Christian ones are not broad enough, and get yer spoon”

          Priests founded the fields of genetics, heliocentrism, the big bang, and more. Try again.

        • Greg G.

          LOL. Talk about radical evasion of reality. Newton was knighted. Which means he was not accused of heresy.

          That is because he was not open about it. It was discovered in his writings posthumously. If he was open about it, he would have lost his position. He was a heretic and he knew it so he kept quiet.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “That is because he was not open about it.”

          Which means he wasn’t considered a heretic. Checkmate.

          “He was a heretic and he knew it so he kept quiet.”

          This is basically no different from some of the creationists in the universities. They never mention they are creationists because they would get fired if they did (((Gunter Bechly))), but it doesn’t impede on their scientific work. At all. So what’s your argument? Who cares if Newton kept his Unitarianism secret? How is this even of the slightest relevance to the discussion of the Christian university?

          “Still waiting for you to address this question. You have made several long posts without addressing it. It appears you are trying to dodge by throwing up smokescreens and diversions.”

          Ugh, no, I just didn’t see it, since your responses are equally long and it isn’t easy to respond to every sentence. Anyways, I was pretty sure I gave the evidence, but it turns out that I posted the evidence to some other person replying my comments (Ignorant Amos). So I’ll just copy and paste the evidence I gave him here:

          Literally everyone has made it. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong. There are countless early, independent sources for Jesus, so much so that there is only a single Jew in the entire 1st century that is more well documented than Jesus (i.e. Josephus). From Paul’s letters, we know of several early creeds regarding Jesus that were circulating in the early 30’s AD, originating within years if not months of Jesus’ reputed crucifixion (such as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Phillipians 2:6-11, etc). There are also several Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus also originating in the 30’s AD that are preserved in the Gpspels, meaning that whether or not Jesus even said them, during the 30’s AD, there was a local Aramaic community in Palestine that was circulating information regarding a Jewish preacher named Jesus. All of these sources are independent and are radically close to the time of Jesus death. There is not a single non-existent figure in history to have so many independent sources close to their deaths. There is more evidence for Jesus than for Hillel, Akiva ben Yosef, Pythagorus, and Hannibal combined. That’s why mythicism is considered so ridiculous by academics.

          “No, they do not have evidence for Jesus. They have literature.”

          I could say the same thing for Josephus or almost every other ancient figure to ever live. Literature is evidence. I want to call you some things for saying that, but your respectful behavior impedes me from doing so. There are exactly two types of evidence that exist for the ancient world. Archaeology and text (literature). There’s even a new open-access journal called Archaeology and Text published by Lehigh University.
          https://archaeology-text.cas2.lehigh.edu/
          There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for almost any other figure of His period. Pythagoras isn’t mentioned a single times until almost 80 years after his death, whereas we have creeds circulating about Jesus within months of the reputed crucifixion. There’s no comparison. Doesn’t it concern you that 99% of all mythicists are invested atheists? This concerns me just as much as it concerns me that 99% of creationists in academic biology are invested evangelicals.

          “What I linked to is the work of other scholars. Price simply arranged their conclusions in verse order. Instead of addressing Price, address his sources. He gives the references.”

          Hold on, hold on. Answer this: do you think there is a scholar besides Price who thinks the entire Gospel of Mark is a midrash?

          “Luke was wrong about eyewitnesses. His sources were Mark, Matthew, John (though he mostly rejected and refuted it), Deuteronomy, other OT sources, Josephus, primarily Antiquities of the Jews, plus he makes some references to other Greek literature.”

          This almost gave me a seizure to read. There are a few scholars who think Matthew was one of Luke’s sources (for the sake of the following paragraph I will assume he did in order to curbstomp this argument), but Luke predates both John and Josephus (the idea that Luke used Josephus is another one of Carrier’s little fictions). It’s blatantly easy to refute the idea that Luke used John or Josephus — simply look at how he uses Mark and Matthew. He copies them verbatim, word for word. There is not a single verbatim quotation Luke has of John or Josephus, even though we know that’s how he used his sources. And there goes another Carrierian fantasy. Anyhow, I never said Luke was right about eyewitnesses. He is, but that’s besides the point. He clearly writes that there have been “many” works before him to undertake compiling information about Jesus, which must mean that there were several written accounts regarding Jesus before Luke. Mark was one of them, and Matthew really wasn’t, but even if he’s included, we know without a doubt that there must have been more. These other sources, whether there’s 3 or 300 of them, are entirely called L, M, and Q. Q doesn’t necessarily exist, L and M necessarily do.

          “Thanks for refuting your claim from http://disq.us/p/1q225x2 that “Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.” Pick a position so I can decide to refute it or agree with it.”

          Work a little better on reading my comments. Every professor in every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe thinks Jesus existed. I’m clearly talking about living scholars, not Bauer who died in 1882. Please go ahead and try to refute this.

          “No, it wasn’t. The book that has been claimed to refute it explicitly says that it doesn’t address the arguments.”

          This is pure fantasy and was said without a figment of substantiation. Mythicism was raised in the late 19th and early 20th century, there were a few advocates of it back then. They were refuted then and there. Some scholars, of course, outright dismissed these theories, others refuted them then and there. If they weren’t refuted, there would still be real scholars who hold to mythicism. There aren’t. Your attempt to salvage the academic respectability of mythicism will endlessly fail.

          “Oral sources cannot be dated, they can only be assumed. Paul got his information from the OT.”

          This is all so ridiculous it’s really hard to even know how you think. I’m assuming you’re saying “Paul invented Jesus based off of what he read in the OT.” This obviously never happened, to see how Paul used the OT, see Richard B. Hays classic work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). Paul’s usage of scripture is very well understood. Paul did not invent Jesus based off of the scriptures, he went to the scripures to find confirmation of what he already knew about Jesus. Oral traditions cannot be dated with precision, only relativiely, which is why there’s a 5-year possible range for Paul’s creeds and a 10-year range for the Aramaic traditions, relativiely speaking. Scholars have adduced overwhelming evidence that these traditions are very early. So much so that even Carrier fully agrees with their earliness. Please go ahead and overturn the scholarly literature on this subject.

          Your words on the Phillipians hymn is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve quite frankly ever read. You must search the depths of Deuteronomy and Isaiah to find the slightest wording similarities between Phillipians and Deuteronomy. The Phillipians hymn is a fresh composition. You actually consider something like this a genuine comparison:

          taking the form of a slave,
          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

          Oh Lord. If it wasn’t already obvious, all of what you wrote on the hymn was invented (or possibly ripped out of Price’s manifest stupidity). On this subject, I just realized that I must refer you back to Hays book. As I wrote earlier, Paul’s usage of the OT is understood incredibly well. Price’s mental gymnastics have apparently failed to take into account any of the scholarship on Paul.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which means he wasn’t considered a heretic.

          So the fact that someone who is gay stays in the closet means they are not gay?

          Wise ta fuck up.

          This is basically no different from some of the creationists in the universities. They never mention they are creationists because they would get fired if they did (((Gunter Bechly))), but it doesn’t impede on their scientific work. At all.

          Not an argument anyone here made ya dopey Dime Bar. That’s your strawman you want to drag us all down the rabbit hole with.

          So what’s your argument? Who cares if Newton kept his Unitarianism secret? How is this even of the slightest relevance to the discussion of the Christian university?

          None…you are conveniently ignoring the reason he was on my list in the first place.

          And because you are a dishonest retarded moron, here it is again…

          “I don’t think the Roman Catholic founder of Cambridge had these sort of guys being on the universities alma mater in his mind when cutting the ribbon on the first day of opening…

          Try reading and digesting that comment for comprehension soft boy.

          Newton was a Unitarian Christian that would have been a heretic to the founder of Cambridge. The fact that Cambridge had changed even that dramatically that it allowed heretics in, all Church of England Christians were heretics to the Roman Catholics btw. Is testimony to the fact that Christianity was a changing factor to the university concept.

          Checkmate indeed.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “None…you are conveniently ignoring the reason he was on my list in the first place.”

          Not to mention the fact that your list is irrelevant in the first place, you argued Newton wasn’t a Christian, or something. Anyhow, I’m going to go and read a paper on Newton’s heresy today in order to make sure I know the exact facts concerning this discussion. I doubt you’ve read any scholarly information on this yet.

          “And because you are a dishonest retarded moron, here it is again…
          “I don’t think the Roman Catholic founder of Cambridge had these sort of guys being on the universities alma mater in his mind when cutting the ribbon on the first day of opening…”

          I know what you said. But it’s irrelevant. It only proves that without Christians founding Cambridge, we wouldn’t have a number of the renowned scientists that Cambridge gave birth to. As I pointed out earlier, you’ve simply proven my point. What exactly is the argument behind your statement?

          “Newton was a Unitarian Christian that would have been a heretic to the founder of Cambridge.”

          For all we know, the founder of Cambridge was a Unitarian. But that’s still irrelevant. You’re clearly trying to throw off the point of the conversation — Christian advancement of the university. The fact that one of the founders would have had theological disagreements with some unknown future student is flat out beyond the relevance of any of this.

          “But you are fundamentally dishonest.”

          Sorry, you’ve lost your mind. I’ve stated the hard truth every time in this conversation, the fact that almost every sentence you wrote has been logically torn to shreds isn’t an excuse to call others liars.

          “Just one example is your stupid claim that most of the list of Cambridge scholars I cited were Christians.”

          Actually, my exact word was ‘many’, not ‘most’. It appears as if you’re the only one guilty of dishonesty, or at least ignorance. Anyhow, it appears as if you found a single peripheral mistake in the entire corpus of my responses to you at this point. Is this an accomplishment? Whether or not one, two, or all of them are Christians is utterly peripheral to my argument. So it simply doesn’t matter that I single word I said wasn’t exactly right on this, it just doesn’t matter to my overall argument. Why have you been latching on to this little tiny thing for the last several days?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Answer this: do you think there is a scholar besides Price who thinks the entire Gospel of Mark is a midrash?

          Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the gospel : Mark’s world in literary-historical perspective

          Or Dale Miller and Patricia Miller, 021: The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity)

          Here’s another couple… https://vridar.org/2011/08/05/midrash-and-gospels-3-what-some-jewish-scholars-say-and-continuing-midrash-tales-of-the-messiah/

          http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_myintro.html

          http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Here’s another couple”

          >posts vridar link

          Vridar is a serious disease. Anyways, that’s besides the point. Now that you’ve cited two books, please quote them demonstrating that the authors consider the entirety of the Gospel of Mark a midrash like the lunatic Price. Your Michael A. Turton links obviously aren’t scholarly papers. The Vridar link also provides no works that think the entirety of the Gospels are a midrash — not even coherently close. I saw the first name, Jon D. Levenson, and immediately realized the link wasn’t saying anything comprehensibly similar to Price.

          By the way, do you even exactly know what midrash is?

        • Greg G.

          I gave you the link to the Price article. The Dale Miller and Patricia Miller book is one of the books in the references. If you ilook at the article, you will find where Price is referencing their book.

          From Price’s introduction:

          Earlier scholars (e.g., John Wick Bowman), as many today (e.g., J. Duncan M. Derrett), saw gospel echoes of the ancient scriptures in secondary coloring here or redactional juxtaposition of traditional Jesus stories there. But the more recent scrutiny of John Dominic Crossan, Randel Helms, Dale and Patricia Miller, and Thomas L. Brodie has made it inescapably clear that virtually the entirety of the gospel narratives and much of the Acts are wholly the product of haggadic midrash upon previous scripture.

          You complained to me about a lack of references but when references are given, you can’t be bothered to even read the introduction of the article.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You complained to me about a lack of references but when references are given, you can’t be bothered to even read the introduction of the article.”

          I can’t be bothered to read someone elses books. Either way, some observations: Crossan doesn’t think anything near the entire NT is a mirashic composition and that’s that. Brodie is a mythicist who gave up on scholarship in 2014. I tried to access Dale/Patricia Miller’s book, but there was no preview on Google Books. So, since Price’s words cannot be trusted, I still want a citation from one of the Miller’s or Crossan (Randal Helms has no qualifications in history) where they state that they think it is almost all midrashic. If this quotation is provided, I will accept the claim without discussion (unless, of course, I see a totally misrepresented quote).

        • Greg G.

          I can’t be bothered to read someone elses books.

          There’s your problem.

          Crossan doesn’t think anything near the entire NT is a mirashic composition and that’s that. Brodie is a mythicist who gave up on scholarship in 2014. I tried to access Dale/Patricia Miller’s book, but there was no preview on Google Books.

          So what if no single author says that the whole Gospel of Mark is based on midrash. Price shows that combined, they cover almost all of Mark as a product of midrash.

          Randal Helms has no qualifications in history

          Randel Helms is qualified in literature. The Gospel of Mark is literature, not history.

          If this quotation is provided, I will accept the claim without discussion (unless, of course, I see a totally misrepresented quote).

          “The New Testament gospels and the Acts of the Apostles can be shown to be Christian haggadah upon Jewish scripture, and these narratives can be neither fully understood nor fully appreciated without tracing them to their underlying sources, the object of the present article.” –Robert M. Price

          That’s from the article I linked you to. The article goes on to demonstrate the fact by showing that major parts of the gospels and Acts are derived from OT sources. Why demand a quote from a scholar when the evidence of the claim is laid out in front of you?

          I ask you for evidence for a real Jesus. You do not provide any. I provide evidence that Jesus is made up. You won’t look at it. What are you so afraid of?

        • Pofarmer

          What are you so afraid of?

          Intellectual honesty, is my guess. He has precious little of it.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “There’s your problem.”

          So it’s my responsibility to get your citations for you?

          “I ask you for evidence for a real Jesus. You do not provide any.”

          Actually, that’s flat out false. I provided a huge paragraph proving Jesus existed. You tried responding it, and then I thwarted your response. Apparently, you either did not see my refutation of your maddened words at all, or otherwise evaded it. I’ll simply repost it.

          “He was a heretic and he knew it so he kept quiet.”

          This is basically no different from some of the creationists in the universities. They never mention they are creationists because they would get fired if they did (((Gunter Bechly))), but it doesn’t impede on their scientific work. At all. So what’s your argument? Who cares if Newton kept his Unitarianism secret? How is this even of the slightest relevance to the discussion of the Christian university?

          “Still waiting for you to address this question. You have made several long posts without addressing it. It appears you are trying to dodge by throwing up smokescreens and diversions.”

          Ugh, no, I just didn’t see it, since your responses are equally long and it isn’t easy to respond to every sentence. Anyways, I was pretty sure I gave the evidence, but it turns out that I posted the evidence to some other person replying my comments (Ignorant Amos). So I’ll just copy and paste the evidence I gave him here:

          Literally everyone has made it. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong. There are countless early, independent sources for Jesus, so much so that there is only a single Jew in the entire 1st century that is more well documented than Jesus (i.e. Josephus). From Paul’s letters, we know of several early creeds regarding Jesus that were circulating in the early 30’s AD, originating within years if not months of Jesus’ reputed crucifixion (such as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Phillipians 2:6-11, etc). There are also several Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus also originating in the 30’s AD that are preserved in the Gpspels, meaning that whether or not Jesus even said them, during the 30’s AD, there was a local Aramaic community in Palestine that was circulating information regarding a Jewish preacher named Jesus. All of these sources are independent and are radically close to the time of Jesus death. There is not a single non-existent figure in history to have so many independent sources close to their deaths. There is more evidence for Jesus than for Hillel, Akiva ben Yosef, Pythagorus, and Hannibal combined. That’s why mythicism is considered so ridiculous by academics.

          “No, they do not have evidence for Jesus. They have literature.”

          Oh my goodness. Literature is evidence. I want to call you some things for saying that, but your respectful behavior impedes me from doing so. There are exactly two types of evidence that exist for the ancient world. Archaeology and text (literature). There’s even a new open-access journal called Archaeology and Text published by Lehigh University.
          https://archaeology-text.ca
          There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for almost any other figure of His period. Pythagoras isn’t mentioned a single times until almost 80 years after his death, whereas we have creeds circulating about Jesus within months of the reputed crucifixion. There’s no comparison. Doesn’t it concern you that 99% of all mythicists are invested atheists? This concerns me just as much as it concerns me that 99% of creationists in academic biology are invested evangelicals.

          “Luke was wrong about eyewitnesses. His sources were Mark, Matthew, John (though he mostly rejected and refuted it), Deuteronomy, other OT sources, Josephus, primarily Antiquities of the Jews, plus he makes some references to other Greek literature.”

          This almost gave me a seizure to read. There are a few scholars who think Matthew was one of Luke’s sources (for the sake of the following paragraph I will assume he did in order to curbstomp this argument), but Luke predates both John and Josephus (the idea that Luke used Josephus is another one of Carrier’s little fictions). It’s blatantly easy to refute the idea that Luke used John or Josephus — simply look at how he uses Mark and Matthew. He copies them verbatim, word for word. There is not a single verbatim quotation Luke has of John or Josephus, even though we know that’s how he used his sources. And there goes another Carrierian fantasy. Anyhow, I never said Luke was right about eyewitnesses. He is, but that’s besides the point. He clearly writes that there have been “many” works before him to undertake compiling information about Jesus, which must mean that there were several written accounts regarding Jesus before Luke. Mark was one of them, and Matthew really wasn’t, but even if he’s included, we know without a doubt that there must have been more. These other sources, whether there’s 3 or 300 of them, are entirely called L, M, and Q. Q doesn’t necessarily exist, L and M necessarily do.

          “Thanks for refuting your claim from http://disq.us/p/1q225x2 that “Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.” Pick a position so I can decide to refute it or agree with it.”

          Work a little better on reading my comments. Every professor in every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe thinks Jesus existed. I’m clearly talking about living scholars, not Bauer who died in 1882. Please go ahead and try to refute this.

          “No, it wasn’t. The book that has been claimed to refute it explicitly says that it doesn’t address the arguments.”

          This is pure fantasy. Mythicism was raised in the late 19th and early 20th century, there were a few advocates of it back then. They were refuted then and there, where some scholars simply dismissed its fallacies out of hand. If they weren’t refuted, there would still be real scholars who hold to mythicism. There aren’t.

          “Oral sources cannot be dated, they can only be assumed. Paul got his information from the OT.”

          This is all so ridiculous it’s really hard to even know how you think. I’m assuming you’re saying “Paul invented Jesus based off of what he read in the OT.” This obviously never happened, to see how Paul used the OT, see Richard B. Hays classic work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). Paul’s usage of scripture is very well understood. Paul did not invent Jesus based off of the scriptures, he went to the scripures to find confirmation of what he already knew about Jesus. Oral traditions cannot be dated with precision, only relativiely, which is why there’s a 5-year possible range for Paul’s creeds and a 10-year range for the Aramaic traditions, relativiely speaking. Scholars have adduced overwhelming evidence that these traditions are very early. So much so that even Carrier fully agrees with their earliness. Please go ahead and overturn the scholarly literature on this subject.

          Your words on the Phillipians hymn is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve quite frankly ever read. You must search the depths of Deuteronomy and Isaiah to find the slightest wording similarities between Phillipians and Deuteronomy. The Phillipians hymn is a fresh composition. You actually consider something like this a genuine comparison:

          taking the form of a slave,
          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

          Oh Lord. If it wasn’t already obvious, all of what you wrote on the hymn was invented (or possibly ripped out of Price’s manifest stupidity). On this subject, I just realized that I must refer you back to Hays book. As I wrote earlier, Paul’s usage of the OT is understood incredibly well. Price’s mental gymnastics have apparently failed to take into account any of the scholarship on Paul.
          ___________
          Now that I’ve reposted this, I must address some of the truly lunatic things you’ve just said.

          “Randel Helms is qualified in literature.”

          This is a shameless evasion of the fact that Helms has no qualification in history. Trying to make an excuse as ridiculous as this is hardly going to help you.

        • Greg G.

          So it’s my responsibility to get your citations for you?

          Not what I’m saying. You complained when I didn’t add links. I put in the links and you don’t read them. Am I supposed to copy the whole page so you don’t have to click a link?

          Actually, that’s flat out false. I provided a huge paragraph proving Jesus existed. You tried responding it, and then I thwarted your response. Apparently, you either did not see my refutation of your maddened words at all, or otherwise evaded it. I’ll simply repost it.

          It didn’t have evidence. It didn’t have any argument from the evidence.

          Oh my goodness. Literature is evidence. I want to call you some things for saying that, but your respectful behavior impedes me from doing so. There are exactly two types of evidence that exist for the ancient world. Archaeology and text (literature).

          The gospels are literature derived from literature that came from tales about other people and characters. The stories are midrash combined with mimesis. Mark used Aramaic words and Latin words but usually explained the Aramaic but not the Latin, telling us his audience knew Latin but not Aramaic. He explained the name “Bartimaeus” so his readers knew what “bar” meant. The Gethsemane prayer opens with “Abba, Father” so his readers know that abba means father. So when Barabbas is introduced, the reader knows his name means “Son of the Father”, just like Jesus. See Leviticus 16:5-22 for the Atonement Day ritual for the for taking away the sins of the nation. One goat is killed and one is released into the wilderness. That is followed by the Mocking of Jesus which is modeled on the Mocking of Carabbas in Philo’s Flaccus VI. Apparently Mark used Philo for the mocking, adapted the name by changing the first letter, and made up Barabbas and Bartimaeus, too. This is one example but it’s pericope after pericope using this method.

          Literally everyone has made it. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong. There are countless early, independent sources for Jesus, so much so that there is only a single Jew in the entire 1st century that is more well documented than Jesus (i.e. Josephus). From Paul’s letters, we know of several early creeds regarding Jesus that were circulating in the early 30’s AD, originating within years if not months of Jesus’ reputed crucifixion (such as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Phillipians 2:6-11, etc). There are also several Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus also originating in the 30’s AD that are preserved in the Gpspels, meaning that whether or not Jesus even said them, during the 30’s AD, there was a local Aramaic community in Palestine that was circulating information regarding a Jewish preacher named Jesus. All of these sources are independent and are radically close to the time of Jesus death. There is not a single non-existent figure in history to have so many independent sources close to their deaths. There is more evidence for Jesus than for Hillel, Akiva ben Yosef, Pythagorus, and Hannibal combined. That’s why mythicism is considered so ridiculous by academics.

          What early independent sources are there for Jesus? Paul’s letters are not about a first century preacher/teacher. He loves to talk about Jesus. He uses “Jesus”, “Christ” or either combination once for every five verses but he gives little information and nothing that does not come from the OT. I showed that the creeds are based on OT verses, not from oral tradition. I even showed that the Philippians Hymn is derived from verses from Isaiah except for the mention of the crucifixion.

          Give me book, chapter, and verse for the examples of Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus that are preserved in the gospels, please.

          There seems to be more evidence for Frodo Baggins, Clark Kent, and Luke Skywalker than for Jesus.

          This is all so ridiculous it’s really hard to even know how you think. I’m assuming you’re saying “Paul invented Jesus based off of what he read in the OT.” This obviously never happened, to see how Paul used the OT, see Richard B. Hays classic work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). Paul’s usage of scripture is very well understood. Paul did not invent Jesus based off of the scriptures, he went to the scripures to find confirmation of what he already knew about Jesus. Oral traditions cannot be dated with precision, only relativiely, which is why there’s a 5-year possible range for Paul’s creeds and a 10-year range for the Aramaic traditions, relativiely speaking. Scholars have adduced overwhelming evidence that these traditions are very early. So much so that even Carrier fully agrees with their earliness. Please go ahead and overturn the scholarly literature on this subject.

          Fine. Here is everything Paul knows about Jesus, a sample of where he says it and examples of where the information can be found in the OT. Can you point out anything he tells us about Jesus that I missed? This is just the “authentic” Pauline epistles but the other epistles are the same way:

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12* > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10*
          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7
          Made of woman, > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5
          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26*, Habakkuk 2:4*, Leviticus 18:5*
          Was rich, became poor > 2 Corinthians 8:9 > Zechariah 9:9
          Was meek and gentle > 2 Corinthians 10:1 > Isaiah 53:7
          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9*
          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11
          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49*, 2 Samuel 22:50*, Deuteronomy 32:43*, Psalm 117:1*, Isaiah 11:10*

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9
          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23*
          Died for sins > 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20 > Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:12
          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9
          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Corinthians 13:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5
          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8*

          (* indicates that New Testament passage contains a direct quote from the Old Testament)

          1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is set off because it appears to be part of a large interpolation, borrowed from Luke who got it from Mark. 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 sets up a pattern but the third iteration of the pattern is completed in 1 Corinthians 11:30-31 showing an interpolation seam.

          That confirms for us that Paul wasn’t lying when he said he didn’t get his information from human authority. He insists he got it from the writings of the prophets. He says he got it from revelation from the Lord Jesus but the “Lord said” type verses show that he meant “the Lord said it in the scripture”. Then Paul argues that his knowledge is not inferior to the “super-apostles”. That is pretty ballsy if he thought they actually knew Jesus. It implies that he knew they got their information the same way he did… they read it in the scriptures.

          Your words on the Phillipians hymn is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve quite frankly ever read. You must search the depths of Deuteronomy and Isaiah to find the slightest wording similarities between Phillipians and Deuteronomy. The Phillipians hymn is a fresh composition. You actually consider something like this a genuine comparison:

          Have you never read Paul’s letters and compared his quotes and allusions to the OT verses in the footnotes. I use familiar English translations that are based on the Hebrew texts while Paul usually used the Septuagint and often paraphrased them to suit the point he wanted to make. Did you overlook that the last five lines of the Hymn come from Isaiah 45:22-25?

          Price had nothing to do with that.

          This is a shameless evasion of the fact that Helms has no qualification in history. Trying to make an excuse as ridiculous as this is hardly going to help you.

          The gospels are not history. You don’t need an historian. They are fictional literature. Helms is more qualified to comment on fictional literature than historians are.

          I missed this:

          This almost gave me a seizure to read. There are a few scholars who think Matthew was one of Luke’s sources (for the sake of the following paragraph I will assume he did in order to curbstomp this argument), but Luke predates both John and Josephus (the idea that Luke used Josephus is another one of Carrier’s little fictions). It’s blatantly easy to refute the idea that Luke used John or Josephus — simply look at how he uses Mark and Matthew. He copies them verbatim, word for word. There is not a single verbatim quotation Luke has of John or Josephus, even though we know that’s how he used his sources. And there goes another Carrierian fantasy.

          People who doubt that Luke used Josephus look at a half-dozen examples and cry “coincidence”. But there are too many when you look at them all. If they were coincidence, we would expect them to be fairly evenly distributed in the gospel. But they are rare to non-existent in the parts of Luke that are common to Mark and Matthew so they are concentrated in the other 25% of Luke. The “coincidences” in Acts are even greater. A few might be coincidence but dozens establish a pattern that must be explained. Many are combinations of factoids taken from nearby passages. Since we can date Antiquities to the mid-90s, that Matthew used it for his nativity story, and that Luke used Matthew, Luke is more likely to be a second-century work. The early dating of Luke is based on the faulty assumption that it has oral traditions from eye-witnesses.

          The nativity story of Matthew is modeled on the Moses nativity story where the Hebrew boys were being killed. But Exodus doesn’t have Moses’ father being warned in a dream. Josephus’ account does. (Remember that Josephus told Vespasian that he thought V was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Messiah coming out of Judea, so he was big on adding in prophecy stuff.) The Josephus account tells about Herod killing members of his family because of a prophecy that scared him about him being replaced as king. Those Pharisees apparently were the model for the Magi. A small thing is that the items involved in the temple rituals are described in the OT and by Josephus in Antiquities but the order that Matthew gives for the gold, frankincense, and myrrh are in the order that Josephus mentions them, not the order they are mentioned in the Bible.

        • epeeist

          You complained when I didn’t add links. I put in the links and you don’t read them.

          Ah but what you didn’t do was use the correct HTML to show that it was a “blessed link” rather than just an ordinary one. A good proportion of the Christians we get here either don’t or won’t read ordinary links.

        • Greg G.

          Ah but what you didn’t do was use the correct HTML to show that it was a “blessed link”

          The HTML only needs to make the page more difficult to read but the main required characteristic is random UPPERCASE* words.

          * I think that should be the proper spelling of “UPPERCASE”. I also think the word pronounced “abbreviation” should be spelled “abbrev.”

        • Since “monosyllabic” is on its face contradictory, I propose it be spelled “mo.”

        • Greg G.

          How about “worng?”

        • Whoa–that’s way too meta for me, man. I’m freakin’ out … !

        • Pofarmer

          KD has very carefully cherry picked his sources and decided that the one’s he agrees with are credible. Can’t be screwing that up.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Not what I’m saying. You complained when I didn’t add links. I put in the links and you don’t read them. Am I supposed to copy the whole page so you don’t have to click a link?”

          I’m not talking about the links. I’m talking about the books themselves. By the way, your response was so long at least part of your response got cut off. You should check that out, as I clearly can’t respond to something I can’t see.

          “It didn’t have evidence. It didn’t have any argument from the evidence.”

          It had pretty overwhelming evidence, to which you continue hopelessly struggling to respond to.

          “The gospels are literature derived from literature that came from tales about other people and characters.”

          Sorry, what? Are you saying that the Gospels used the Old Testament? That hardly changes anything. Literature/text is evidence. That’s a pretty basic concept of historical studies. Perhaps you’re speaking nonsense and are unable to articulate your actual point, that is, you’re really trying to say something about the genre of the Gospels — that they are of some sort of literary genre and have nothing to do with historical writing. Is this your claim?

          “What early independent sources are there for Jesus? Paul’s letters are not about a first century preacher/teacher. He loves to talk about Jesus. He uses “Jesus”, “Christ” or either combination once for every five verses but he gives little information and nothing that does not come from the OT. I showed that the creeds are based on OT verses, not from oral tradition. I even showed that the Philippians Hymn is derived from verses from Isaiah except for the mention of the crucifixion.”

          Ugh, no, your comparison of the Philippians hymn has been demonstrated to be flat out laughable. Since you understand Paul’s writings so little, I referred you to the classic book in academia on how Paul used the Old Testament — Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays. This work has sparked a revolution in the studies of Pauline use of the OT. The mental gymnastics you cited to try to compare the hymn to other OT verses is ridiculous, and contradicts Paul’s known exegesis of the OT. Please see the book. Carrier himself knows pretty straight-forwardly that this is a hymn — literally all Pauline scholars do, this isn’t debated. Paul’s letters are all about a first century preacher. That’s flat out obvious. Paul says things that don’t appear in the OT, such as that Jesus, the Messiah, is God. There is no mention of a divine Messiah in the OT. Paul says Jesus is crucified. There is no crucified Messiah in the OT. Paul says Jesus has “Twelve” followers/disciples (in 1 Cor. 15:3-7). Where is a Messiah with a specific set of twelve followers in the OT? The outrage quadruples when you try to relegate a passage in 1 Corinthians as an interpolation that doesn’t fit your presupposition. The absurdity of your comments is showing.

          Also, please cite your source for where you got the comparison with the Phillipians hymn from. I want to know whether or not it comes from the crackpot Price. You go on to try to connect things of Jesus in Paul with the OT. Some of the things you said are so blatantly stupid that I simply cannot. For example:

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23

          Oh God. Deuteronomy was written before crucifixion was even invented. Deuteronomy 21:23 doesn’t mention crucifixion. I searched up the verse. It talks about hanging customs. The number of seizures your comments give me is really hard to deal with. Paul always cites the OT verses he thinks mention Jesus. That should be enough to dissolve the rest of your comparisons that aren’t based on quotations. You then go on to make a most ridiculous assertion without the tiniest fragment of proof:

          “1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is set off because it appears to be part of a large interpolation, borrowed from Luke who got it from Mark.”

          Appears to be an interpolation? No, it’s not an interpolation. As all textual critics in the world know, this is authentic. The only reason, of course, why it is tried to be set off as an interpolation is because none of this is mentioned in the OT. It’s presuppositional apologetics. Yes, the passage is authentic. You then go on to make many errors regarding what Paul says are his sources, which will be responded to at a later time considering already the length of this.

          “Have you never read Paul’s letters and compared his quotes and allusions to the OT verses in the footnotes.”

          I’ve read an academic book on how Paul uses the OT. Again, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-H-A-Y-S. You haven’t the slightest clue what you’re talking about.

          “Did you overlook that the last five lines of the Hymn come from Isaiah 45:22-25?”

          LOLWHAT? Please put on some glasses. Phillipians 2:10a, not the last five verses, cites Isaiah 45:23b, not Isaiah 45:22-25. It is closesly intertwined with the rest of the creed, so that the quotation of the OT in the entire hymn only lasts about half a verse.

        • Greg G.

          I’m not talking about the links. I’m talking about the books themselves. By the way, your response was so long at least part of your response got cut off. You should check that out, as I clearly can’t respond to something I can’t see.

          It’s there.

          It had pretty overwhelming evidence, to which you continue hopelessly struggling to respond to.

          I think you quoted present day people. That is not primary evidence.

          Sorry, what? Are you saying that the Gospels used the Old Testament? That hardly changes anything. Literature/text is evidence. That’s a pretty basic concept of historical studies. Perhaps you’re speaking nonsense and are unable to articulate your actual point, that is, you’re really trying to say something about the genre of the Gospels — that they are of some sort of literary genre and have nothing to do with historical writing. Is this your claim?

          It is how the texts are used. Mark’s method is to take a passage from some Greek literature or OT scripture and mix it with some other OT scripture to invent a pericope. For example, the mass feedings are based on Elisha’s mass feeding in 2 Kings 4:42-44. It is also modeled on the feasts attended by Odysseus’ son, Telemauchus, in Homer’s Odyssey. Why two feasts? Telemauchus attended two feasts, he walked to one and sailed to one, as does Jesus. Why 4000 and 5000? One of the feasts specifies that the soldiers sat in nine groups of five hundred, so it seems that Mark rounded up and down. Mark 6:30 even has them sitting in ranks.

          Price gives the references to the books and articles on the page I linked. MacDonald points out the similarities with Homer. Other authors point out the similarities with the OT scripture. Considered together, you can see how Mark was working.

          Paul’s letters are all about a first century preacher. That’s flat out obvious.

          Nope, he says nothing about a recent person from Galilee nor a preacher/teacher.

          Paul says things that don’t appear in the OT, such as that Jesus, the Messiah, is God.

          Paul says things that don’t appear in the OT, such as that Jesus, the Messiah, is God.

          Can you cite the verses? There are many places where Paul quotes OT verses about the Lord while pretending they are about Jesus.

          Romans 16:25-27
          25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen.

          Paul tells us that he knows Jesus from the scriptures. He never says he knows about him any other way.

          There is no mention of a divine Messiah in the OT.

          The promises of somebody coming to sit on David’s throne are numerous. Here are a few of the passages: Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:2-5a, Ezekiel 21:26-27, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Jeremiah 33:14-17, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zechariah 14. Also see Jewish Wars 6.5.2 and Jewish Wars 6.5.4 which is apparently referring to Testament of Judah 24:1–6 which shows that the Messiah was not just a Christian idea.

          Paul says Jesus is crucified. There is no crucified Messiah in the OT.

          Paul demonstrates why he thinks Jesus was crucified in Galatians 3:6-14 where he cites OT verses. His logic is very flawed. Why doesn’t he tell them to ask James or Cephas about the crucifixion? Somebody told the Galatians that Jesus was not crucified and the only people he talks about are the Jews in the circumcision faction (Gal 2:12, that is, the people James orders around:

          Galatians 6:12 (NRSV)12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

          It is the circumcisers who argue against “the cross of Christ”. That is why Paul is so sarcastic toward James and the circumcision faction.

          Galatians 5:11-12 (NRSV)11 But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

          Galatians 5:11-12 (NIV)11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

          Paul says Jesus has “Twelve” followers/disciples (in 1 Cor. 15:3-7). Where is a Messiah with a specific set of twelve followers in the OT?

          No it doesn’t. You are reading the fictional gospels back into the epistles. It says nothing but “the twelve”.

          The outrage quadruples when you try to relegate a passage in 1 Corinthians as an interpolation that doesn’t fit your presupposition.

          Bible scholars point out the seams and say it is an interpolation. I agree with them that it is an interpolation. It is based on OT passages anyway, so I wouldn’t need to do it for the reasons you accuse me of.

          The absurdity of your comments is showing.

          You are flailing and not hitting anything so far.

          Also, please cite your source for where you got the comparison with the Phillipians hymn from. I want to know whether or not it comes from the crackpot Price. You go on to try to connect things of Jesus in Paul with the OT.

          I started with the NIV footnotes and followed them. One of them referred to Isaiah 45 and I noticed the whole end of the hymn was quoting from Isaiah 45:22-25. I saw some other passages that look like they came from Isaiah so I stuck with it. Some seem strained but not so much as some of Paul’s paraphrases.

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23

          Oh God. Deuteronomy was written before crucifixion was even invented. Deuteronomy 21:23 doesn’t mention crucifixion. I searched up the verse. It talks about hanging customs. The number of seizures your comments give me is really hard to deal with. Paul always cites the OT verses he thinks mention Jesus. That should be enough to dissolve the rest of your comparisons that aren’t based on quotations.

          The New Testament authors tended to use the Septuagint. Paul uses some whacked out logic in Galatians 3. He cites several verses to establish that following the law was a curse. Then he uses Deuteronomy 21:23 that says hanging on a tree is a curse. So Jesus must have become the same curse as following the law. Paul was using equivocation of the word curse to nullify the need to follow the law. The Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 21:23 uses the word for “tree”. The Septuagint and Paul use the Greek word “ξύλον, (xylon)” which can mean tree, wood, or cross. 1 Peter 2:24 uses the same word and it is translated as “tree” or “cross”.

          As all textual critics in the world know, this is authentic.

          Here’s a list (not necessarily an exhaustive list) of 1 Corinthians passages that some textual scholar or another has argued at some time was interpolated:

          ◦1 Corinthians 1:2
          ◦1 Corinthians 1:2b
          ◦1 Corinthians 1:12
          ◦1 Corinthians 1:16
          ◦1 Corinthians 2:6-16
          ◦1 Corinthians 4:6
          ◦1 Corinthians 4:17
          ◦1 Corinthians 6:3
          ◦1 Corinthians 6:14
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:8
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:11ab
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:14
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:17
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:17-24
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:29-31
          ◦1 Corinthians 7:36-38
          ◦1 Corinthians 8
          ◦1 Corinthians 10
          ◦1 Corinthians 10:1-22
          ◦1 Corinthians 10:4b
          ◦1 Corinthians 10:13
          ◦1 Corinthians 10:17
          ◦1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1
          ◦1 Corinthians 10:29b-30
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:2-16
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:5b-6
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:10
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:11
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:11f
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:13-15
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:16
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:23-26
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:23-28
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:27-32
          ◦1 Corinthians 11:30
          ◦1 Corinthians 12:31-14:1
          ◦1 Corinthians 13
          ◦1 Corinthians 14:33-38
          ◦1 Corinthians 14:33b-35
          ◦1 Corinthians 14:34-35
          ◦1 Corinthians 15
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:3-11
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:2
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:5b
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:2lf
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:21-22
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:29-34
          ◦1 Corinthians 15:45-49
          ◦1 Corinthians 16:22

          Stop exaggerating. You don’t know what you are talking about.

          LOLWHAT? Please put on some glasses. Phillipians 2:10a, not the last five verses, cites Isaiah 45:23b, not Isaiah 45:22-25. It is closesly intertwined with the rest of the creed, so that the quotation of the OT in the entire hymn only lasts about half a verse.

          Philippians 2:10 has “every knee should bend,
          Isaiah 45:23 has “every knee shall bow”

          Philippians 2:10 has “in heaven and on earth and under the earth”
          Isaiah 45:22 has “all the ends of the earth”

          Philippians 2:11 has “and every tongue should confess”
          Isaiah 45:23 has “every tongue shall swear”

          Philippians 2:11 has “to the glory of God the Father”
          Isaiah 45:25 has “In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall triumph and glory”

          You seem to be working really hard to unsee the similarities.

        • Korus Destroyus

          By the way, I accidently reposted a response. Ignore that.

          “It’s there.”

          No, it isn’t. No quotations were offered from the books themselves.

          “It is how the texts are used. Mark’s method is to take a passage from some Greek literature or OT scripture and mix it with some other OT scripture to invent a pericope. For example, the mass feedings are based on Elisha’s mass feeding in 2 Kings 4:42-44.”

          Umm, no it’s not. Since I mentioned Richard B. Hays earlier, he has also written two widely received books on how the Gospels used the OT (Reading Backwards, BPU 2014 and Echoes of Scriptures in the Gospels, BPU 2016). I’ve read Reading Backwards. The genius in these two books is quite manifest. Anyhow, please read an academic monograph on how the Gospels use the OT before saying such absurd things in the future. The mass feeding has no origins from Mark in the Elisha passage — the tradition is mentioned independently in Mark and John, meaning it predates both.

          “Nope, he says nothing about a recent person from Galilee nor a preacher/teacher.”

          It’s obvious you’ve accepted the enormous conspiracy of Carrier that Paul thought Jesus was some celestial being who lived and was crucified by demons in outer space before the world began, which is obvious patent nonsense to every Pauline scholar in the world. Carrier fails to address basically anything, and basically bases this idea off of his extravagant misreading of Philo of Alexandria. At one point, Paul outright says Jesus is more recent than Abraham.

          Galatians 3:14: in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

          Please tell me. Is Abraham also a celestial preexistent being in Paul?

          “Paul demonstrates why he thinks Jesus was crucified in Galatians 3:6-14 where he cites OT verses. His logic is very flawed. Why doesn’t he tell them to ask James or Cephas about the crucifixion? ”

          Oh Lord, please read the passage you just cited and try not to cry out. You’re not talking about Galatians 3:6-14, you’re only talking about Galatians 3:13, and Paul explains the relevance of the passage he quotes — that Jesus became a curse. Not that Jesus would be crucified. Your mental gymnastics are really a flurry, such as that you try to suggest Paul would have cited James or Cephas as a sort of proof for the crucifixion after he already said he confirmed with the pillars that the gospel he preached was identical to theirs. In other words, he’s already done exactly what you think he should have. RIP – Greg.

          “No it doesn’t. You are reading the fictional gospels back into the epistles. It says nothing but “the twelve”.”

          1 Corinthians 15:5: and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
          Please read a book. And as I noted elsewhere, the idea that the Gospels are fiction is long debunked. Richard Burridge has demonstrated in the 1990’s that the genre of the Gospels is ancient biography. He single-handedly created the consensus on this with his groundbreaking research.

          “Bible scholars point out the seams and say it is an interpolation. I agree with them that it is an interpolation. It is based on OT passages anyway, so I wouldn’t need to do it for the reasons you accuse me of.”

          Please re-read your statement. Biblical scholars don’t think 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is an interpolation, Robert crackpot Price does. Textual critics don’t question the authenticity of this passage. It is also not based on the OT “anyway”.

          “Paul uses some whacked out logic in Galatians 3. He cites several verses to establish that following the law was a curse. ”

          Sorry Greggy, your idea that Paul used “whacked out logic” is based on your failure to understand the complexity on Paul’s usage of the OT — which is why you need to read Hays. Paul never says following the law is a curse. He says the law is a curse, and that Jesus became a curse to free us from the law.

          “The Septuagint and Paul use the Greek word “ξύλον, (xylon)” which can mean tree, wood, or cross. 1 Peter 2:24 uses the same word and it is translated as “tree” or “cross”.”

          No, Paul cited the passage as ‘wood’ as it is clearly written in both the Hebrew and LXX. This is pretty basic stuff. The passage doesn’t mention crucifixion, either in the Hebrew or the LXX. There is no crucifixion mentioned anywhere in the OT. This is so simple that it blows my mind to see you questioning it.

          “Here’s a list (not necessarily an exhaustive list) of 1 Corinthians passages that some textual scholar or another has argued at some time was interpolated:”

          The rest of your comment gets cut off, so I can’t see any citations at the bottom. In all likelihood, you offered no citations, since you’re only quoting Price’s crackpot theory. Textual criticism has existed for 200 years in NT scholarship, you can probably go back to the 19th century and find half of Paul argued by one crackpot or another as an interpolation. Textual criticism is much more evolved nowadays, of course. Please cite a modern NT scholar arguing for the inauthenticity of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Once you do that, you’ll have established the position as a radical minority claim rather than complete Price-derived crackpot theory. Go ahead.

        • Greg G.

          Umm, no it’s not. Since I mentioned Richard B. Hays earlier, he has also written two widely received books on how the Gospels used the OT (Reading Backwards, BPU 2014 and Echoes of Scriptures in the Gospels, BPU 2016). I’ve read Reading Backwards. The genius in these two books is quite manifest. Anyhow, please read an academic monograph on how the Gospels use the OT before saying such absurd things in the future. The mass feeding has no origins from Mark in the Elisha passage — the tradition is mentioned independently in Mark and John, meaning it predates both.

          How can you recommend Hays if he missed the Elisha mass feeding? Mark based the multiplication of loaves on that. John matches up with Mark point for point better than Matthew and Luke do for the order of events, so that is evidence that John copied Mark. That Mark’s account also has elements from Homer (as does many other pericopae) that it is a Markan invention, not an oral tradition. There are many other such cases. When Peter is denying Jesus, it is sandwiched around Jesus being slapped around and ordered to “Prophesy!” while his prophecy is being fulfilled. John uses the same literary sandwich device but missed the irony of the prophesy order.

          It’s obvious you’ve accepted the enormous conspiracy of Carrier that Paul thought Jesus was some celestial being who lived and was crucified by demons in outer space before the world began, which is obvious patent nonsense to every Pauline scholar in the world. Carrier fails to address basically anything, and basically bases this idea off of his extravagant misreading of Philo of Alexandria. At one point, Paul outright says Jesus is more recent than Abraham.

          It’s obvious that you do not know what you are talking about as I do not agree with the celestial being. I read it that Paul was reading the Suffering Servant texts as a long hidden mystery that his midrash turned into an actual literal story about a servant who suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected after 3 days, mostly from Isaiah 53, Hosea 6:2, and Zechariah 3. But he claims that Cephas saw it first, followed by the twelve (he never says they are apostles and he never used the word “disciple”), the 500, and James all before he did and he tells you twice that it is “according to the scripture”.

          Galatians 3:14: in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

          Please tell me. Is Abraham also a celestial preexistent being in Paul?

          That is stupid. He is referring to the blessing of Abraham, not a blessing from Abraham.

          Oh Lord, please read the passage you just cited and try not to cry out.

          Explained before.

          1 Corinthians 15:5: and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
          Please read a book. And as I noted elsewhere, the idea that the Gospels are fiction is long debunked. Richard Burridge has demonstrated in the 1990’s that the genre of the Gospels is ancient biography. He single-handedly created the consensus on this with his groundbreaking research.

          Read the Bible more carefully. Paul uses the same word for the “appeared to” for all of the others that he uses for himself so he doesn’t see their “appeared to” to be different than his own. His “appeared to” is from the OT. He says right in the passage twice that it was “according to the scripture.” He is not saying that Jesus manifested to them. He is saying they read the stories as midrash.

        • Pofarmer

          Burridge. Yet another priest.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “How can you recommend Hays if he missed the Elisha mass feeding?”

          I haven’t read his Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, but if he doesn’t mention it, that should at least be a sufficient enough problem for you.

          “John matches up with Mark point for point better than Matthew and Luke do for the order of events, so that is evidence that John copied Mark.”

          Sorry, that’s jargon reasoning. “Mark and John mention a similar event, therefore John copied Mark” — a total non-sequitur. It’s been long noted that John and Mark are independent. That’s why scholars put great importance on the fact that the Synoptics are synoptic. Please show a single quotation John provides from Mark. Only one. John regularly quotes the OT, so you should not have trouble confirming your hypothesis here. Mythicist nonsense is really tiring. With you guys, I hear every conspiracy theory shouted out at the exact same time, whereas less loony atheists simply disparately accept some conspiracies and are able to not accept some others. There is, as is rightly noted, overwhelming evidence against the idea that John copied Mark, since at some points, the information he gives flatly contradicts Mark’s side of the story among too much other things. If John and Mark independently attest a story, it predates both of them.

          “When Peter is denying Jesus, it is sandwiched around Jesus being slapped around and ordered to “Prophesy!” while his prophecy is being fulfilled. John uses the same literary sandwich device but missed the irony of the prophesy order.”

          Huh? Please cite the passages to show whether or not there is even a figment of evidence of usage here. It appears as if you’ve flatly failed to realize that literary devices are common to all writings of ancient biography, not just Mark so that the only way it could appear in John is if John used Mark (not to mention you haven’t even cited the passage yet).

          “It’s obvious that you do not know what you are talking about as I do not agree with the celestial being. ”

          So where on Earth do you get the nonsense that Jesus isn’t a ‘recent being’? Not to mention, this flatly contradicts the fact that Paul makes it clear Jesus is more recent than Abraham (and he also makes it clear he is also more recent than Moses and David). Furthermore, Paul knew Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel rather than Jesus.

          “That is stupid. He is referring to the blessing of Abraham, not a blessing from Abraham.”

          When did I say “blessing from Abraham”? Not to mention, that’s the exact same thing anyways. And that’s not even the point of citing the passage. Please open your eyes.
          Galatians 3:14: in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
          God blesses Abraham, and then after Abraham receives his blessing, Jesus comes and transmits the blessing of Abraham from him to the contemporary ecclesiastical church. This is because Paul believed that Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, and therefore by baptizing ourselves in Jesus, and “putting on Christ” as Paul said, we also put on Abraham’s blessing and therefore receive Abraham’s blessings even though we are not his descendants and are merely gentiles.

          “Read the Bible more carefully. Paul uses the same word for the “appeared to” for all of the others that he uses for himself so he doesn’t see their “appeared to” to be different than his own. His “appeared to” is from the OT. He says right in the passage twice that it was “according to the scripture.” He is not saying that Jesus manifested to them. He is saying they read the stories as midrash.”

          LOL! No, Paul says Jesus appeared to Peter, then the twelve, then to the 500, then to James, then to him (or whatever order). Your statements on this passage make zero freaking sense at all. This has nothing to do with reading the OT. Please put aside Price’s crackpot theories. Paul is saying Jesus appeared to all these people. That’s what he’s saying. None of this is from the OT. Seriously? Freaking “appeared to” is from the OT? LOL. Not to mention, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is an early creed that originated, likely from the Jerusalem apostles, to prize the resurrection of Jesus as it happened and subsequent appearances to proclaim to the world.

          I have a very important thing to tell you. You need to wash out your brain from everything you’ve ever read from Price. Every mythicist I talk to shocks me from how little they know about the scholarship and how easily they fall to such ridiculous ideas. Your intellect will instantly increase by two orders of magnitude once you drop these conspiracies and think straight.

          “It sounds like you are whining just to make busy work. I gave you the link to Price’s article which is the heart of his book The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems”

          I’m not talking about Price’s freaking book. Someone told me that people other than Price believe the entirety of Mark is a midrash, and then named those books. I asked for quotations from those books where they, not Price, say they think the entirety of Mark is midrash. It’s really not that difficult.

          “You cite creeds that may have just come from Paul’s stump sermons.”

          No, Paul says he “received” what he is “passing” on. The Greek words he uses are the basic rabbinic terms for the reception and transmission of traditions.

          “I am saying that the gospels use midrash and mimesis for creative writing to make up events for a fictional story. They use the Old Testament, Paul’s letters (Matthew uses James), Greek literature, plus Josephus.”

          Oh Lord, mimesis? Are you also a Dennis MacDonald fanboy? The Gospels never use Paul, James, Greek literature, or Josephus. Ever. To disprove this, all you need to do is show one quotation. Just one. This shouldn’t be difficult at all since the Gospels love quoting their sources everywhere. I can show you three different times where Paul flat out quotes from Greek literature. See 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Acts 17:28 for obvious examples (there’s also one in Titus). See? One of those quotes is in Acts. So it’s obvious Luke has no trouble quoting Greek authors or any others for that matter when he uses them. Of course, you can’t offer a figment of evidence for your claims. Only highly vague comparisons that usually require a bit of gymnastics.

          “Thanks, and there are echoes of Plato in Paul’s letters, too.”

          Oh Lord help me. Citation needed.

          “The rest is a repeat of your previous post already answered.”

          Ugh, no it hasn’t. This is a nifty trick to getting away from the fact that everything you’re writing is being taken apart. Your words regarding the Phillipian hymn, Paul somehow magically citing a crucifixion passage from a document composed before crucifixion was invented, the totality of zero evidence or scholars for the claim of interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, which we both know was invented by you in order to account for another conspiracy — i.e. Paul only says things in the OT, etc, etc, etc.

        • richardrichard2013

          quote :
          “Mark and John mention a similar event, therefore John copied Mark” — a total non-sequitur. It’s been long noted that John and Mark are independent.

          lol, john could be DEPENDANT on the same source mark was dependant on even if one did not dependant on the other, but if john is AWARE that his SOURCE is dependant on OT , then john is GOING to add in DETAILS mark missed out on.
          i don’t know about john copying mark, but there it is very possible john is REBUTTING mark .

          https://vridar.org/2017/12/21/how-john-used-the-synoptics-the-first-temptation-vs-the-first-sign/

          https://vridar.org/2014/11/15/how-john-used-mark-investigating-the-methods-of-the-fourth-evangelist-part-3/

        • Greg G.

          I haven’t read his Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, but if he doesn’t mention it, that should at least be a sufficient enough problem for you.

          Do you think the Feeding of the 5000 and the Feeding of the 4000 were actual events? If not, why would 2 Kings 4:42-44 not be an inspiration for it? How do you rule out the possibility?

          Sorry, that’s jargon reasoning. “Mark and John mention a similar event, therefore John copied Mark” — a total non-sequitur.

          Nope, it’s not a similar story, it is element after element in the same order. John used Mark, too, just differently than Matthew and Luke. Mark 6:30-44 and John 6:1-15 have teh same order of details:

          •A crowd followed.
          •Disciples worried about the crowd going hungry.
          •Disciples were concerned about the cost of feeding the crowd.
          •They had five loaves and two fish.
          •Jesus ordered the people to sit…
          •…on the grass.
          •Jesus divided the bread and the fish.
          •All were sated.
          •The leftovers were collected and filled twelve baskets.
          •There were five thousand people.

          The most significant variation in the order is that John gave the 5000 figure where Mark mentioned that the people sat in groups of hundreds and fifties.

          The number of similar pericopae is significant and in mostly the same order. Only the Cleansing of the Temple is moved far out of Markan order:

          John the Baptist
          Mark 1:1-6
          John 1:19-23

          The Baptism of Jesus
          Mark 1:9-11
          John 1:29-34

          Return of Jesus to Galilee
          Mark 1:14-15
          John 4:1-3

          First Disciples of Jesus
          Mark 1:16-20
          John 1:35-51

          Take up Your Mat
          Mark 2:11-12
          John 5:8-9

          Feeding the 5000
          Mark 6:30-44
          John 6:5-15

          Jesus’ Walk on Water
          Mark 6:45-52
          John 6:16-21

          Healings at Gennasaret
          Mark 6:53-56
          John 6:22-25

          Jesus Was Asked for a Sign
          Mark 8:11-12
          John 6:30

          Healing the Blind with Spit
          Mark 8:22-26
          John 9:1-7

          Palm Sunday
          Mark 11:1-11
          John 12:12-19

          Cleansing of the Temple
          Mark 11:15-18
          John 2:13-25

          Anointing of Jesus
          Mark 14:3-9
          John 12:2-8

          The One Who Hands Jesus over
          Mark 14:17-21
          John 13:21-30

          Last Supper
          Mark 14:22-25
          John 13:1-20

          Jesus in Gethsemane
          Mark 14:32-42
          John 18:1

          The Kiss of Judas
          Mark 14:43-45
          John 18:2-9

          Arrest of Jesus
          Mark 14:46-49
          John 18:10-12

          Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus
          Mark 14:53-65
          John 18:13-24

          Peter’s Denial
          Mark 14:66-72
          John 18:13-27

          Jesus Delivered to Pilate
          Mark 15:1
          John 18:28

          The Trial Before Pilate
          Mark 15:2-5
          John 18:29-38

          Between Jesus and Barabbas
          Mark 15:6-15
          John 18:39-40

          The Mocking by Soldiers
          Mark 15:16-20
          John 19:1-16

          Carrying the Cross
          Mark 15:21-22
          John 19:17

          The Crucifixion
          Mark 15:22-32
          John 19:18-27

          Jesus’ Death
          Mark 15:33-41
          John 19:28-37

          The Burial of Jesus
          Mark 15:42-47
          John 19:38-42

          The Women at the Tomb
          Mark 16:1-8
          John 20:1-18

          Sorry, that’s jargon reasoning. “Mark and John mention a similar event, therefore John copied Mark” — a total non-sequitur. It’s been long noted that John and Mark are independent. That’s why scholars put great importance on the fact that the Synoptics are synoptic. Please show a single quotation John provides from Mark. Only one. John regularly quotes the OT, so you should not have trouble confirming your hypothesis here.

          The second longest word for word, letter for letter, jot for jot, and tittle for tittle phrase in Mark and John in the mGNT is “ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με” quoting Jesus at the Last Supper, not an OT quote. The first word, “ἀμὴν” for “truly” is repeated in John and the previous word in each verse is identical, too. Mark has Jesus dying after the Passover meal while John has Jesus tried, crucified, and dead before the Passover meal for theological reasons, that is, to make Jesus like the Passover Lamb instead of the scapegoat scenario in Mark. However, the Passover offering is not a sin offering. If the oral traditions can’t keep the day straight, why would you expect the sentence be verbatim?

          With you guys, I hear every conspiracy theory shouted out at the exact same time,

          You are just ranting. Calm down. Few mythicists say it was a conspiracy. I certainly don’t. I think they were sincere, deluded theists. The early Christians were just a sect of Messianic Jews who thought Jesus had lived around Isaiah’s time and the generation after the war thought Jesus was a first century person.

          Huh? Please cite the passages to show whether or not there is even a figment of evidence of usage here. It appears as if you’ve flatly failed to realize that literary devices are common to all writings of ancient biography, not just Mark so that the only way it could appear in John is if John used Mark (not to mention you haven’t even cited the passage yet).

          Yes, there were lots of literary devices. John used the same literary device on the same story. Mark’s sandwiches result from his use of chiastic structure which often makes an ironic point.

          So where on Earth do you get the nonsense that Jesus isn’t a ‘recent being’? Not to mention, this flatly contradicts the fact that Paul makes it clear Jesus is more recent than Abraham (and he also makes it clear he is also more recent than Moses and David).

          Yes, he does.

          Furthermore, Paul knew Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel rather than Jesus.

          No, he didn’t. He read it as a hidden mystery disguised as an allegory. That is why is said above that the early Christians thought Jesus lived and died around Isaiah’s time. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul says that Jesus died for sins according to the scriptures. Which scriptures is Paul talking about? The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was wounded for iniquities and crushed for transgressions. How else would Paul know that someone died for sins if it didn’t tell him in the scriptures. Paul goes on to say that he was buried and rose on the third day according to the scriptures. Again, which scriptures? Isaiah 53:9 says the grave of the Suffering Servant was with the wicked and his tomb was with the rich. They later verses of Isaiah 53 suggest that he actively intercedes for sin which implies resurrection. Hosea 6:2 is the most likely verse to get the risen on the third day.

          When did I say “blessing from Abraham”?

          You didn’t say “blessing”. I pointed out to you that the text you referenced says “blessing”. I think you are imagining that we disagree on this point.

          LOL! No, Paul says Jesus appeared to Peter, then the twelve, then to the 500, then to James, then to him (or whatever order). Your statements on this passage make zero freaking sense at all. This has nothing to do with reading the OT. Please put aside Price’s crackpot theories. Paul is saying Jesus appeared to all these people. That’s what he’s saying. None of this is from the OT. Seriously? Freaking “appeared to” is from the OT? LOL. Not to mention, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is an early creed that originated, likely from the Jerusalem apostles, to prize the resurrection of Jesus as it happened and subsequent appearances to proclaim to the world.

          Twice it says in the passage that it is “according to the scriptures”. Now work out which scriptures. The word for “appeared to” is more often used to mean “seen” and that would be the scriptures. You are reading the fictional gospels and Acts back into the scriptures.

          I have a very important thing to tell you. You need to wash out your brain from everything you’ve ever read from Price. Every mythicist I talk to shocks me from how little they know about the scholarship and how easily they fall to such ridiculous ideas. Your intellect will instantly increase by two orders of magnitude once you drop these conspiracies and think straight.

          I know about the scholarship but any scholar who thinks a dead Jesus appeared to the 1 Corinthians 15 crowd is not doing scholarship, they are doing religion. That is the part the historians reject as superstition.

          I’m not talking about Price’s freaking book. Someone told me that people other than Price believe the entirety of Mark is a midrash, and then named those books. I asked for quotations from those books where they, not Price, say they think the entirety of Mark is midrash. It’s really not that difficult.

          None of the authors of the books has compared their findings with the others. They each approached it from their own facet. It’s like the blind men who describe the elephant from a single point. Price combines all of their work to show that each of them are right in their own way. Helms, for example, points out how the NT stories are based on OT stories but assumes that the text in between comes from oral tradition. But if you read that after reading MacDonald’s book, you realize that much of what Helms assumes is oral tradition is elements borrowed from Homer.

          Why do you need someone to tell you something instead of just looking at the evidence in front of you?

          No, Paul says he “received” what he is “passing” on. The Greek words he uses are the basic rabbinic terms for the reception and transmission of traditions.

          Paul also insists that he got nothing from human authority. What he means by “received” is from the Lord through the scriptures that he read using midrash.

          Oh Lord, mimesis? Are you also a Dennis MacDonald fanboy?

          You should really look at the link I gave you.

          The Gospels never use Paul, James, Greek literature, or Josephus. Ever. To disprove this, all you need to do is show one quotation. Just one. This shouldn’t be difficult at all since the Gospels love quoting their sources everywhere.

          You keep criticizing without understanding what you are criticizing. Maybe you should approach this from a more informed position. Mimesis doesn’t quote, it borrows elements from a story usually from the nearby in the text. For example, Acts 21:38:

          Acts 21:38 (NRSV)
          38 Then you are not the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?”

          The Egyptian is mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.6 where it says he led some followers to the Mount of Olives. About four hundred were killed so that may have been exaggerated. It was noted near the beginning of the section that some general imposters and deceivers led people into the wilderness. The Sicarii, “assassins” in this translation, are described a couple of section later in Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.10. It seems that Josephus invented the word “sicarii” because their swords resembled the Roman sicae [sickle].

          I can show you three different times where Paul flat out quotes from Greek literature. See 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Acts 17:28 for obvious examples (there’s also one in Titus).

          I can show you 18 places where Paul shows knowledge of Plato and Aristotle without having to pretend Acts and the Pastorals are actually what Paul wrote or said.

          “Thanks, and there are echoes of Plato in Paul’s letters, too.”

          Oh Lord help me. Citation needed.

          Romans 5:6-8 (NRSV)
          6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

          Plato, Symposium, section 179c
          and without doubt what Homer calls a “fury inspired” by a god in certain heroes is the effect produced on lovers by Love’s peculiar power.

          “Furthermore, only such as are in love will consent to die for others; not merely men will do it, but women too. Sufficient witness is borne to this statement before the people of Greece by Alcestis, daughter of Pelias, who alone was willing to die for her husband, though he had both father

          Romans 8:5 (NRSV)
          For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

          Galatians 6:8 (NRSV)
          If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

          Plato, Phaedo, section 69c
          “from all these things, and self-restraint and justice and courage and wisdom itself are a kind of purification. And I fancy that those men who established the mysteries were not unenlightened, but in reality had a hidden meaning when they said long ago that whoever goes uninitiated and unsanctified to the other world will lie in the mire, but he who arrives there initiated and purified will dwell with the gods. For as they say in the mysteries, ‘the thyrsus-bearers are many, but the mystics few’;”

          Plato, Phaedo, section 81c
          “And, my friend, we must believe that the corporeal is burdensome and heavy and earthly and visible. And such a soul is weighed down by this and is dragged back into the visible world, through fear of the invisible and of the other world, and so,

          Romans 7:22-23 (NRSV)
          22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

          Plato, Laws, Book 1
          Cleinias: Moreover, there is a victory and defeat-the first and best of victories, the lowest and worst of defeats-which each man gains or sustains at the hands, not of another, but of himself; this shows that there is a war against ourselves going on within every one of us.

          Romans 12:4 (NRSV)
          For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function,

          Plato, The Republic, 370
          “It would not, by Zeus, be at all strange,” said I; “for now that you have mentioned it, it occurs to me myself that, to begin with, our several natures are not all alike but different.

          1 Corinthians 9:16 (NRSV)
          If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me – the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first.

          1 Corinthians 9:24 (NRSV)Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it.

          Plato, The Republic, X. C. 13
          But such as are true racers, arriving at the end, both receive the prizes, and are crowned.

          1 Corinthians 12:14-17 (NRSV)
          14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

          Plato, Protagoras
          “Is virtue a single whole, and are justice and self-control and holiness parts of it, or are these latter all names for one and the same thing?”

          Plato, Protagoras
          Does each also have its particular function? Just as, in the parts of the face, the eye is not like the ears, nor is its function the same; nor is any of the other parts like another, in its function or in any other respect: in the same way, are the parts of virtue unlike each other, [330b] both in themselves and in their functions? Are they not evidently so, if the analogy holds?

          1 Corinthians 12:25 (NRSV)
          that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another.

          Plato, The Republic, 462
          And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.3 For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connections stretching to the soul for ‘integration’4 [462d] with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole, though it is a part that suffers, and that is how we come to say that the man has a pain in his finger. And for any other member of the man the same statement holds, alike for a part that labors in pain or is eased by pleasure.

          1 Corinthians 13:12 (NRSV)
          For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

          Does each also have its particular function? Just as, in the parts of the face, the eye is not like the ears, nor is its function the same; nor is any of the other parts like another, in its function or in any other respect: in the same way, are the parts of…

          Plato, Phaedo [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          I dare say that the simile is not perfect — for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas, sees them only “through a glass darkly,” any more than he who sees them in their working and effects.

          2 Corinthians 4:4 (NRSV)
          In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

          Plato, The Republic, 514[514a]
          “Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern1 with a long entrance open2 to the light on its entire width. Conceive them as having their legs and necks fettered3 from childhood, so that they remain in the same spot, [514b] able to look forward only, and prevented by the fetters from turning their heads. Picture further the light from a fire burning higher up and at a distance behind them, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them a road along which a low wall has been built, as the exhibitors of puppet-shows1 have partitions before the men themselves, above which they show the puppets.” “All that I see,” he said. “See also, then, men carrying2 past the wall [514c] implements of all kinds that rise above the wall, and human images

          2 Corinthians 7:2 (NRSV)
          Make room in your hearts for us; we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged anyone…

          Philippians 1:21 (NRSV)
          21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain.

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this?

          Philippians 1:23 (NRSV)
          I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better;

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.

          Philippians 3:19 (NRSV)
          Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.

          Plato, Republic, Book 8, section 546a
          “How?” “Somewhat in this fashion. Hard in truth it is for a state thus constituted to be shaken and disturbed; but since for everything that has come into being destruction is appointed, not even such a fabric as this will abide for all time, but it shall surely be dissolved, and this is the manner of its dissolution. Not only for plants that grow from the earth but also for animals that live upon it there is a cycle of bearing and barrenness for soul and body as often as the revolutions of their orbs come full circle, in brief courses for the short-lived and oppositely for the opposite; but the laws of prosperous birth or infertility for your race,

          1 Thessalonians 5:15 (NRSV)
          See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.

          Plato, Crito [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.

          Ugh, no it hasn’t. This is a nifty trick to getting away from the fact that everything you’re writing is being taken apart. Your words regarding the Phillipian hymn, Paul somehow magically citing a crucifixion passage from a document composed before crucifixion was invented, the totality of zero evidence or scholars for the claim of interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, which we both know was invented by you in order to account for another conspiracy — i.e. Paul only says things in the OT, etc, etc, etc.

          I answered all that bullshit in another post. You copied the same stuff.

        • richardrichard2013

          what you said is similar to :

          Mark’s two narratives in which Jesus feeds thousands of people by multiplying loaves of bread (6:30-44 and 8:1-10) finds an obvious — and often recognized — parallel in the Elijah-Elisha narrative. The shared details are numerous. All three stories take place in a context where food is needed. In each story, only a small amount of food is available, with each story specifying the amount. Both Elisha and Jesus give instructions that the small amount of food be distributed, and in all three stories, the instructions are met with doubt/hesitation. In all three stories, the food is distributed to and eaten by a large number of people, with each story specifying the number of people present. Finally, at the end of each story, an abundance of food remains. These shared narrative details, as well as the shared order of events are laid out clearly in the chart below.

          That the Markan pericopes are dependent on the Elijah-Elisha narrative is strongly supported by the criteria of shared narrative details and shared narrative order. To deny such dependence seems impossible. Certainly there are differences between the two stories, but these differences are easily explained, and do not stretch the bounds of Greco-Roman imitation. Mark has clearly expanded what is a brief episode in the Elijah-Elisha narrative, adding and changing a number of narrative details. Some of these changes can be attributed to to Markan intensification of the Elijah-Elisha account — an intensification that reflects that Jesus is greater than Elisha. . . . . Mark has taken a relatively simple miracle episode from the Elijah-Elisha narrative, and given it a prominent and significant place in the gospel. . . .

          It seems impossible to deny that the Markan evangelist has used the 2 Kings account of Elisha multiplying bread as a pattern for his double account of Jesus doing the same thing. That the Elijah-Elisha narrative is a literary source for Mark at this point in the gospel is virtually certain.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “lol, john could be DEPENDANT on the same source mark was dependant on even if one did not dependant on the other, but if john is AWARE that his SOURCE is dependant on OT , then john is GOING to add in DETAILS mark missed out on. ”

          More assertions without a tiny figment of proof. As has been shown many times, Mark and John are independent sources, which means a story mentioned in both predates both. And there is no possibility that John is rebutting Mark, since he 1) would have agreed with everything it said and 2) hadn’t ever read it. Vridar is a website full of pseudohistory and so I won’t bother clicking on your links. Academic citations are more valuable to me.

        • Greg G.

          I’m not talking about the links. I’m talking about the books themselves. By the way, your response was so long at least part of your response got cut off. You should check that out, as I clearly can’t respond to something I can’t see.

          You said above:

          I can’t be bothered to read someone elses books.

          It sounds like you are whining just to make busy work. I gave you the link to Price’s article which is the heart of his book The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems. There’s a bibliography at the bottom of the page. I’m not at home and not near my library so I can’t do a proper citation. You should be able to work it out just from the titles on Price’s Midrash article.

          It had pretty overwhelming evidence, to which you continue hopelessly struggling to respond to.

          You cite creeds that may have just come from Paul’s stump sermons. You read the gospels back into the epistles. There is nothing that is convincing, let alone overwhelming.

          Sorry, what? Are you saying that the Gospels used the Old Testament? That hardly changes anything. Literature/text is evidence. That’s a pretty basic concept of historical studies. Perhaps you’re speaking nonsense and are unable to articulate your actual point, that is, you’re really trying to say something about the genre of the Gospels — that they are of some sort of literary genre and have nothing to do with historical writing. Is this your claim?

          I am saying that the gospels use midrash and mimesis for creative writing to make up events for a fictional story. They use the Old Testament, Paul’s letters (Matthew uses James), Greek literature, plus Josephus.

          Since you understand Paul’s writings so little, I referred you to the classic book in academia on how Paul used the Old Testament — Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays. This work has sparked a revolution in the studies of Pauline use of the OT.

          Thanks, and there are echoes of Plato in Paul’s letters, too.

          The rest is a repeat of your previous post already answered.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Not what I’m saying. You complained when I didn’t add links.”

          No, I’m saying you failed to cite the books on what you claim those books said. I’m not talking about links.

          “It didn’t have evidence. It didn’t have any argument from the evidence.”

          Actually, it had overwhelming evidence. You are still struggling to address even one point.

          “The gospels are literature derived from literature that came from tales about other people and characters.”

          Are you just saying the Gospels cite the OT? Sorry, that’s practically irrelevant. Literature and archaeology are two types of evidence in the ancient world. That’s a basic fact. Perhaps you’re trying to talk about the genre of the Gospels. If so, your thoughts are hardly coherent and you need to try to reformulate them. After some discussion and a few non-sequiturs, you strangely conclude Bartimaeus and Barabbus were “made up”. This is flat out ridiculous, since both these names are known Jewish names from 1st century Palestine. There’s literally a burial in the first few decades of the 1st century, in Jerusalem, with the name ‘Barabbus’, which crushes the Carrierian nonsense.

          “What early independent sources are there for Jesus? Paul’s letters are not about a first century preacher/teacher. He loves to talk about Jesus. He uses “Jesus”, “Christ” or either combination once for every five verses but he gives little information and nothing that does not come from the OT. I showed that the creeds are based on OT verses, not from oral tradition. I even showed that the Philippians Hymn is derived from verses from Isaiah except for the mention of the crucifixion.”

          Umm, sorry? I already exposed the flying mental gymnastics you had to try to use to compare the Phillipians hymn with those verses in the OT. In short, there is literally zero comparison. The texts are not similar in the slightest way. I also explained to you earlier that it is very well known how Paul used the Old Testament. I referred you to the classic monograph in academia in Pauline studies on Pauline use of the OT, that is, Richard B. Hays Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (1989 Yale University Press). Your Robert Price crackpot theory on how Paul supposedly used Phillipians is in overwhelming contradiction to how Paul uses the OT everywhere else, and for that matter, how any Jewish literature has ever used the OT in ancient history. Please read this book before posting nonsense like that again.

          “Can you point out anything he tells us about Jesus that I missed?”

          Most of what you wrote is crackpot nonsense anyways, but it’s rather obvious. Jesus is crucified. There is no crucified Messiah in the OT. Jesus is divine. There is no divine Messiah in the OT. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is a huge slap in the face to your theory, and you basically deal with this by asserting without the tiniest figment of evidence that it’s an “apparent interpolation”, one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard in a while. It’s all authentic, as textual critics know. This is simple textual criticism, the passage is authentic. I’d hate to ask, but ever heard of Bart Ehrman?

          “That confirms for us that Paul wasn’t lying when he said he didn’t get his information from human authority.”

          Sorry, what are you talking about? He tells us he passed on human traditions — i.e. creeds and hymns. And you, unsurprisingly, entirely circumvent 99% of the creeds in Paul and try to just discuss a single one — the Phillipians hymn, who not even crackpots as crazy as Carrier think is not a hymn. It’s really just Price, who of course, is not only not a Pauline scholar, but is a failed academic entirely who has never published once in an academic press.

          “People who doubt that Luke used Josephus look at a half-dozen examples and cry “coincidence”.”

          No, there’s no coincidence because there’s not one valid comparison to begin with. I’ve seen all the ridiculous comparisons. As I wrote earlier, Luke is dead straight forward in how he uses other texts. He just cites them verbatim. Every time. There is not one exception to this. The comparisons with Josephus are so abstract, vague, and dissimilar to anything Luke has ever written, that it is no wonder why only crackpots like Carrier think Luke used Josephus. He basically has to believe this.

          “The Josephus account tells about Herod killing members of his family because of a prophecy that scared him about him being replaced as king.”

          That’s a well known historical fact about Herod the Great. He was paranoid towards of his rule and so did away with numerous family members he had that he believed were trying to thwart his rule, and even planned a massive massacre on the Jewish religious authorities (which he failed to execute).

          “The gospels are not history. You don’t need an historian. They are fictional literature. Helms is more qualified to comment on fictional literature than historians are.”

          More patent excuses. Helms has no qualifications in this area. Helms is just a nutty conspiracy theorist who has failed to get real historians to notice him. The idea that Helms is more qualified to talk about history than historians is an idea that can only be said by a mythicist. And the idea that the Gospels are all fiction has been debunked for decades now, it’s no longer taken seriously by real historians. Finally, we have to acknowledge some of the craziest comparisons that have ever been seen:

          “Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23*”

          Oh Lord. Deuteronomy was written before crucifixion was even invented. The idea that crucifixion is mentioned in the OT is something so absurd that it can hardly be even taken seriously. Please read the Deuteronomy passage you cited and try not to choke on your own embarrassment.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “There’s your problem.”

          So it’s my responsibility to get your citations for you?

          “I ask you for evidence for a real Jesus. You do not provide any.”

          Actually, that’s flat out false. I provided a huge paragraph proving Jesus existed. You tried responding it, and then I thwarted your response. Apparently, you either did not see my refutation of your maddened words at all, or otherwise evaded it. I’ll simply repost it.

          “Still waiting for you to address this question. You have made several long posts without addressing it. It appears you are trying to dodge by throwing up smokescreens and diversions.”

          Ugh, no. I gave overwhelming evidence. Here it is again:

          Literally everyone has made it. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong. There are countless early, independent sources for Jesus, so much so that there is only a single Jew in the entire 1st century that is more well documented than Jesus (i.e. Josephus). From Paul’s letters, we know of several early creeds regarding Jesus that were circulating in the early 30’s AD, originating within years if not months of Jesus’ reputed crucifixion (such as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Phillipians 2:6-11, etc). There are also several Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus also originating in the 30’s AD that are preserved in the Gpspels, meaning that whether or not Jesus even said them, during the 30’s AD, there was a local Aramaic community in Palestine that was circulating information regarding a Jewish preacher named Jesus. All of these sources are independent and are radically close to the time of Jesus death. There is not a single non-existent figure in history to have so many independent sources close to their deaths. There is more evidence for Jesus than for Hillel, Akiva ben Yosef, Pythagorus, and Hannibal combined. That’s why mythicism is considered so ridiculous by academics.

          “No, they do not have evidence for Jesus. They have literature.”

          Oh my goodness. Literature is evidence. I want to call you some things for saying that, but your respectful behavior impedes me from doing so. There are exactly two types of evidence that exist for the ancient world. Archaeology and text (literature). There’s even a new open-access journal called Archaeology and Text published by Lehigh University.
          https://archaeology-text.ca
          There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for almost any other figure of His period. Pythagoras isn’t mentioned a single times until almost 80 years after his death, whereas we have creeds circulating about Jesus within months of the reputed crucifixion. There’s no comparison.

          “Luke was wrong about eyewitnesses. His sources were Mark, Matthew, John (though he mostly rejected and refuted it), Deuteronomy, other OT sources, Josephus, primarily Antiquities of the Jews, plus he makes some references to other Greek literature.”

          This almost gave me a seizure to read. There are a few scholars who think Matthew was one of Luke’s sources (for the sake of the following paragraph I will assume he did in order to curbstomp this argument), but Luke predates both John and Josephus (the idea that Luke used Josephus is another one of Carrier’s little fictions). It’s blatantly easy to refute the idea that Luke used John or Josephus — simply look at how he uses Mark and Matthew. He copies them verbatim, word for word. There is not a single verbatim quotation Luke has of John or Josephus, even though we know that’s how he used his sources. And there goes another Carrierian fantasy. Anyhow, I never said Luke was right about eyewitnesses. He is, but that’s besides the point. He clearly writes that there have been “many” works before him to undertake compiling information about Jesus, which must mean that there were several written accounts regarding Jesus before Luke. These other sources, whether there’s 3 or 300 of them, are entirely called L, M, and Q.

          “Thanks for refuting your claim from http://disq.us/p/1q225x2 that “Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.” Pick a position so I can decide to refute it or agree with it.”

          Work a little better on reading my comments. Every professor in every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe thinks Jesus existed. I’m clearly talking about living scholars, not Bauer who died in 1882. Please try to refute this.

          “No, it wasn’t. The book that has been claimed to refute it explicitly says that it doesn’t address the arguments.”

          This is pure fantasy. Mythicism was raised in the late 19th and early 20th century, there were a few advocates of it back then. They were refuted then and there, where some scholars simply dismissed its fallacies out of hand. If they weren’t refuted, there would still be real scholars who hold to mythicism. There aren’t.

          “Oral sources cannot be dated, they can only be assumed. Paul got his information from the OT.”

          I’m assuming you’re saying “Paul invented Jesus based off of what he read in the OT.” This obviously never happened, to see how Paul used the OT, see Richard B. Hays classic work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). Paul’s usage of scripture is very well understood. Paul did not invent Jesus based off of the scriptures, he went to the scripures to find confirmation of what he already knew about Jesus. Oral traditions cannot be dated with precision, only relatively, which is why there’s a 5-year possible range for Paul’s creeds and a 10-year range for the Aramaic traditions, relativiely speaking. Scholars have adduced overwhelming evidence that these traditions are very early. So much so that even Carrier fully agrees with their earliness. Please go ahead and overturn the scholarly literature on this subject.

          Your words on the Phillipians hymn is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve quite frankly ever read. You must search the depths of Deuteronomy and Isaiah to find the slightest wording similarities between Phillipians and Deuteronomy. The Phillipians hymn is a fresh composition. You actually consider something like this a genuine comparison:

          taking the form of a slave,
          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

          Oh Lord. If it wasn’t already obvious, all of what you wrote on the hymn was invented (or possibly ripped out of Price’s manifest stupidity). On this subject, I just realized that I must refer you back to Hays book. As I wrote earlier, Paul’s usage of the OT is understood incredibly well. Price’s mental gymnastics have apparently failed to take into account any of the scholarship on Paul.

          “Randel Helms is qualified in literature.”

          This is a shameless evasion of the fact that Helms has no qualification in history.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “There’s your problem.”

          So it’s my responsibility to get your citations for you?

          “I ask you for evidence for a real Jesus. You do not provide any.”

          Actually, that’s flat out false. I provided a huge paragraph proving Jesus existed. You tried responding it, and I refuted your response. Perhaps you simply missed it. Here it is reposted:

          “Still waiting for you to address this question. You have made several long posts without addressing it. It appears you are trying to dodge by throwing up smokescreens and diversions.”

          Ugh, no. I gave overwhelming evidence. I reposted it here:
          https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/governor-of-the-city-archaeology-find-made-bible-corroborated-again/#comment-1384

          “No, they do not have evidence for Jesus. They have literature.”

          Oh my goodness. Literature is evidence. Let me help you out. There are two types of evidences that exist for antiquity. Archaeology and text (literature). There’s even a new open-access journal called Archaeology and Text.
          https://archaeology-text.ca
          Pythagoras isn’t mentioned a single times until almost 80 years after his death, whereas we have creeds circulating about Jesus within months of the reputed crucifixion. There’s no comparison.

          “Luke was wrong about eyewitnesses. His sources were Mark, Matthew, John (though he mostly rejected and refuted it), Deuteronomy, other OT sources, Josephus, primarily Antiquities of the Jews, plus he makes some references to other Greek literature.”

          Oh Lord. There are a few scholars who think Matthew was one of Luke’s sources (for the sake of the following paragraph I will assume he did in order to curbstomp this argument), but Luke predates both John and Josephus (the idea otherwise is another one of Carrier’s little fictions). Look at how Luke uses his sources — Mark and Matthew. He copies them verbatim, word for word. There is not a single verbatim quotation Luke has of John or Josephus, even though we know that’s how he used his sources. And there goes another Carrierian fantasy. Anyhow, I never said Luke was right about eyewitnesses. He is, but that’s besides the point. He clearly writes that there have been “many” works before him to undertake compiling information about Jesus, which must mean that there were several written accounts regarding Jesus before Luke. These earlier sources called L, M, and Q.

          “Thanks for refuting your claim from http://disq.us/p/1q225x2 that “Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.” Pick a position so I can decide to refute it or agree with it.”

          Work a little better on reading my comments. Every professor in every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe thinks Jesus existed. I’m clearly talking about living scholars, not Bauer who died in 1882. Please try to refute this.

          “No, it wasn’t. The book that has been claimed to refute it explicitly says that it doesn’t address the arguments.”

          This is pure fantasy. Mythicism was raised in the late 19th and early 20th century. They were refuted. Only some scholars simply dismissed its fallacies out of hand. If they weren’t refuted, there would still be real scholars who hold to mythicism. There aren’t.

          “Oral sources cannot be dated, they can only be assumed. Paul got his information from the OT.”

          I’m assuming you’re saying “Paul invented Jesus based off of what he read in the OT.” This obviously never happened, to see how Paul used the OT, see Richard B. Hays classic work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). Paul’s usage of scripture is very well understood. Paul did not invent Jesus based off of the scriptures, he went to the scripures to find confirmation of what he already knew about Jesus. The idea that oral traditions can’t be dated to a relative period is more ridiculous fiction not found in the scholarly literature. Scholars have adduced overwhelming evidence that these traditions are very early. So much so that even Carrier fully agrees with their earliness. Please go ahead and overturn the scholarly literature.

          Your words on the Phillipians hymn is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve quite frankly ever read. The Phillipians hymn is a fresh composition. You actually consider something like this a genuine comparison:

          taking the form of a slave,
          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

          Oh Lord. The mental gymnastics is fascinating (ripped out of Price’s manifest slowness). I must refer you back to Hays book. As I wrote earlier, Paul’s usage of the OT is understood incredibly well. Price’s mental gymnastics have apparently failed to take into account any of the scholarship on Paul.

        • Pofarmer

          You fucking dishonest, ignorant, lying, douche nozzle.

          Brodie is a mythicist who gave up on scholarship in 2014.

          , the Provincial continued the sanctions on Tom Brodie – that he
          withdraw fully from ministry and from all forms of teaching, writing, or
          making public statements.

          Brodie didn’t give up on scholarship you fucking moron. He was sanctioned, and had to stop all teaching and scholarly activities or, basically, lose his retirement, which would have been everything, since as a dominican he’d taken a vow of poverty and would have had nothing.

          Ignorant cunt.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You fucking dishonest, ignorant, lying, douche nozzle.”

          Pick up some decency before embarrassing yourself with these words.

          “Brodie didn’t give up on scholarship you fucking moron. He was sanctioned, and had to stop all teaching and scholarly activities or, basically, lose his retirement, which would have been everything, since as a dominican he’d taken a vow of poverty and would have had nothing.”

          I had never heard of Brodie’s sanctioning. Now, the Order simply cares for him while he ceases these activities, apparently. I was referring to his blog, where in 2014, he wrote an article claiming that he didn’t want to do anything regarding history anymore (or biblical history?) and wanted to pursue other things.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “There’s your problem.”

          So it’s my responsibility to get your citations for you?

          “I ask you for evidence for a real Jesus. You do not provide any.”

          Actually, that’s flat out false. I provided a huge paragraph proving Jesus existed. You tried responding it, and I refuted your response. Perhaps you simply missed it. Here it is reposted:

          “Still waiting for you to address this question. You have made several long posts without addressing it. It appears you are trying to dodge by throwing up smokescreens and diversions.”

          Ugh, no. I gave overwhelming evidence. I reposted it here:
          https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/governor-of-the-city-archaeology-find-made-bible-corroborated-again/#comment-1384

          “No, they do not have evidence for Jesus. They have literature.”

          Oh my goodness. Literature is evidence. Let me help you out. There are two types of evidences that exist for antiquity. Archaeology and text (literature). There’s even a new open-access journal called Archaeology and Text.
          https://archaeology-text.ca
          Pythagoras isn’t mentioned a single times until almost 80 years after his death, whereas we have creeds circulating about Jesus within months of the reputed crucifixion. There’s no comparison.

          “Luke was wrong about eyewitnesses. His sources were Mark, Matthew, John (though he mostly rejected and refuted it), Deuteronomy, other OT sources, Josephus, primarily Antiquities of the Jews, plus he makes some references to other Greek literature.”

          Oh Lord. There are a few scholars who think Matthew was one of Luke’s sources (for the sake of the following paragraph I will assume he did in order to curbstomp this argument), but Luke predates both John and Josephus (the idea otherwise is another one of Carrier’s little fictions). Look at how Luke uses his sources — Mark and Matthew. He copies them verbatim, word for word. There is not a single verbatim quotation Luke has of John or Josephus, even though we know that’s how he used his sources. And there goes another Carrierian fantasy. Anyhow, I never said Luke was right about eyewitnesses. He is, but that’s besides the point. He clearly writes that there have been “many” works before him to undertake compiling information about Jesus, which must mean that there were several written accounts regarding Jesus before Luke. These earlier sources called L, M, and Q.

          “Thanks for refuting your claim from http://disq.us/p/1q225x2 that “Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.” Pick a position so I can decide to refute it or agree with it.”

          Work a little better on reading my comments. Every professor in every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe thinks Jesus existed. I’m clearly talking about living scholars, not Bauer who died in 1882. Please try to refute this.

          “No, it wasn’t. The book that has been claimed to refute it explicitly says that it doesn’t address the arguments.”

          This is pure fantasy. Mythicism was raised in the late 19th and early 20th century. They were refuted. Only some scholars simply dismissed its fallacies out of hand. If they weren’t refuted, there would still be real scholars who hold to mythicism. There aren’t.

          “Oral sources cannot be dated, they can only be assumed. Paul got his information from the OT.”

          I’m assuming you’re saying “Paul invented Jesus based off of what he read in the OT.” This obviously never happened, to see how Paul used the OT, see Richard B. Hays classic work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). Paul’s usage of scripture is very well understood. Paul did not invent Jesus based off of the scriptures, he went to the scripures to find confirmation of what he already knew about Jesus. The idea that oral traditions can’t be dated to a relative period is more fiction not found in the scholarly literature. Scholars have adduced overwhelming evidence that these traditions are very early. So much so that even Carrier fully agrees with their earliness. Please go ahead and overturn the scholarly literature.

          You actually consider something like this a genuine comparison:

          taking the form of a slave,
          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

          Oh Lord. The mental gymnastics is fascinating. I must refer you back to Hays book. As I wrote earlier, Paul’s usage of the OT is understood incredibly well. Price’s mental gymnastics have apparently failed to take into account any of the scholarship on Paul.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Waste of time. Everything against KD’s position get’s ad hom’d, hand waved away, or completely ignored. That many of the sources provided to him are supported by scholarly bibliography seems lost on him…or he doesn’t check that far.

          I was reading in Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” last night about such astute scholars as Walter Bauer, who turned 1600 years of the scholarship in Christian studies on it’s head, to the scepticism of the academics of his day. Subsequent textual discoveries, e.g. the Nag Hammadi scriptures, have not only supported Bauer’s thesis that heretical Christianities were as popular as the proto-orthodox, but were even more so. Rome was the big player on influencing the change to what eventually became the orthodox RCC that won the day. History was then manipulated and bastardised to suit the victors. Modern scholarship has shown that Bauer’s thesis didn’t go far enough.

          Through studies of historical records Bauer concluded that what came to be known as orthodoxy was just one of numerous forms of Christianity in the early centuries. It was the eventual form of Christianity practiced in the 4th century that influenced the development of orthodoxy and acquired the majority of converts over time. This was largely due to the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine I and consequently the greater resources available to the Christians in the eastern Roman empire capital he established (Constantinople). Practitioners of what became orthodoxy then rewrote the history of the conflict making it appear that this view had always been the majority one. Writings in support of other views were systematically destroyed.

          Bauer’s conclusions contradicted nearly 1600 years of writing on church history and thus were met with much skepticism among Christian academics such as Walther Völker.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bauer

          Thus, Christian beliefs such as Gnosticism and Docetism sat alongside what later got into the NT. No real life Jesus required, no physical Resurrection required, plenty of folk around the Empire thinking the story was about a phantom Jesus. How can that be if the gospel story was as so well established as to what folk like KD would like to think it had been?

          This is now accepted thinking among modern secular Biblical scholars according to Ehrman.

          Ehrman knows this, so I don’t get why he is so certain that an apocalyptic itinerant preacher was required to hang all the gospel supernatural bells and whistles upon. Especially when the evidence doesn’t stack up the way he portrays it. Something else is at work there methinks.

        • Pofarmer

          Ehrman knows this, so I don’t get why he is so certain that an
          apocalyptic itinerant preacher was required to hang all the gospel
          supernatural bells and whistles upon.

          Especially when the literature that we have indicates that the Gnostic/Docetic beliefs were more than likely the original ones. Nearly all the “early” literature that we have is either agnostic or supports this point. It isn’t until later, quite a bit later, that the tales of the Earthly Jesus pop up. If you date the Gospels by attribution, instead of by internal testimony, they date to somewhere in the middle of the second Century. Therefore the “historical” Jesus they were making up would have been a hundred years earlier. Plenty of time and distance to construct a myth. I’d like to see these biblical “scholars” date “Gone with the Wind” the way they date the Gospels. They would be too early by a century, just like I believe they are on the Gospels.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed. What later became known to us today as the heresies, were originally the orthodox beliefs, and the proto-orthodox was heretical.

          It’s fascinating stuff reading how the whole flim-flam came about.

        • Ignorant Amos

          LOL. Talk about radical evasion of reality. Newton was knighted. Which means he was not accused of heresy. Pure and simple logic.

          You see, if you could actually read what I said and not what you think I said, this would be a lot easier.

          Where did I say he was accused of heresy?

          He was a de facto heretic, because Unitarian Christianity is heretical to Roman Catholicism and at the time Cambridge was built, Britain was a Catholic nation. Why is this so difficult for you?

          Newton keeping private some of his beliefs is flat out irrelevant to the fact that his scientific work wasn’t hindered by the minutest detail by Christians. So, try again, where is the fictional conflict you’re talking about?

          Newton had to tell lies about his religious beliefs in order to get into Cambridge. He had planned to leave before completing his studies in order to avoid being ordained, which all students at the time had to be by law. That statute was subsequently amended enabling Newton to continue. Basically, Newton told lies to get into, and stay at Cambridge. He misrepresented his beliefs otherwise his ass would’ve been out on the street.

          Pure and simple logic? From you? That’s hilarious.

          Newton keeping private some of his beliefs is flat out irrelevant to the fact that his scientific work wasn’t hindered by the minutest detail by Christians. So, try again, where is the fictional conflict you’re talking about?

          You are one stupid ignorant cunt making up shite I never said.

          Someone else made the point that if Newton had worn his religious foibles on his sleeve, he would not have been able to get into Cambridge. That’s a fact.

          Of COOOOOOURSE it does. It shows you’re radically in love with making things up, which is basically everything you’ve said up until now.

          Spoooooiing. Irony meters are exploding everywhere.

          You lied when you claimed, “A lot of those are Christians there bud.”…just one on the list was a Christian, but to the founder of Cambridge he would have been a heretic, pure and simple.

          Then we have a lot of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, fuckwittery.

          Priests founded the fields of genetics, heliocentrism, the big bang, and more. Try again.

          And yet more wrong fuckwittery.

          Genetics, nope…
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

          Heliocentrism, nope…
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

          The Big Bang, nope… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

          Try again,

        • epeeist

          No Cambridge may have meant we wouldn’t have seen the great insights of Hawking, Penrose, and many others.

          That would be the (atheist) Roger Penrose who was at Oxford…

        • Korus Destroyus

          “That would be the (atheist) Roger Penrose who was at Oxford…”

          I’m just repeating the list that guy gave. Either way, Oxford was also probably founded by zealous Christians (it wasn’t even until the 19th century until the first secular university was founded), so really we have here a distinction without a difference. Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, the credit to Christianity remains.

        • “BME, The oldest University of Technology, founded in Hungary in 1782”

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Budapest_Tech_Univ_central_K_building.jpg

        • epeeist

          Either way, Oxford was also probably founded by zealous Christians

          Given the time and place that it was founded then it is hardly surprising that it was founded by Christians. But this is rather different from saying that Christianity was causal in the founding of the university.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What did ya call the big fella on RDFRS that was a medieval historian? It would be handy to have him around now in order to keep me right here.

        • epeeist

          What did ya call the big fella on RDFRS that was a medieval historian?

          Cartomancer. Yes, it would be useful to have him in on this discussion, but I haven’t heard from him for years.

          My contributions on the topic mainly come from an interest in the history of natural philosophy and science.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Cartomancer…the very chap. Highly educated and astute individual.

          Wasn’t he part of the clan from the Dawkins forum that you all met up with in meat world?

        • epeeist

          Yeah, in the centre with the waistcoat in this picture.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some amount of intellect around that table.

        • epeeist

          Some amount of intellect around that table

          Well yes, but there again if one has faith then why is there a need for intellect?

        • Ignorant Amos

          He got his PhD at Cambridge, he is emeritus professor of math at Oxford iirc.

        • Greg G.

          Do you think that is a lot of universities in the modern age given the enormity of the Muslim world? I mean, sheesh, there’s like 6 universities in the entirety of Pakistan in that link. That’s almost nothing. I live in Canada. We have a fraction of Pakistan’s population and 96 universities. You really are resting your hopes on a whole bunch of nothing.

          The link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_educational_institutions , is to “List of Islamic educational institutions”, not educational institutions in the Islamic region.

          You can find lists of educational institutions in Pakistan at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_educational_institutions_in_Pakistan which is a list of lists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The clown can’t read. And is woefully dishonest.

          @Michael Neville was spot on with this one when he said….

          I’ll deal with idiots, I’ll deal with the ignorant, but I won’t deal with someone who LIES.

          Korus is all three.

        • Greg G.

          He holds himself in high esteem, especially his intelligence. He assumes he is so smart that any random thought that pops into his head must be correct, so he starts typing. Kinda like POTUS on Twitter.

        • Pofarmer

          That’s why I quit responding to him. Fundamentally dishonest and not afraid to lie. Life’s too short for that shit.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “not afraid to lie”

          Poor Pofarmer. Once your argument is stifled, the opponent must be castigated as a liar (amongst other things) in order to maintain your little paradigm. None of this would have happened if you had simply honestly asked me questions, looking for my insights, instead of bursting into the conversation with ill-thought arguments only to have them vaporized. We could have had an intellectual discussion, and instead you sidelined that in order to try to ‘DEBUNK’ me, and now that it’s clear to us both that I was correct, your only escape-gate is to demonize me. This behavior is far too common in internet atheist blogospheres where open conversation and reason is regularly oppressed.

        • Pofarmer

          looking for my insights

          Hahahahahahahah

        • Korus Destroyus

          Another immature response. I can only offer one thing — and that is for you to actually try having conversations in the future, not debates.

        • Pofarmer

          Dude, you came here being a know it all douche and got caught out. Own it,

        • Korus Destroyus

          Good God. Perhaps my hopes that your response would actually have some maturity got shot down. Was I a douche? Ugh, yes. Was I the only douche? Nope. Basically everyone in the conversation (perhaps there is one exception), given what I’ve read, was a total douche.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But you are fundamentally dishonest.

          Just one example is your stupid claim that most of the list of Cambridge scholars I cited were Christians. When I demonstrated that you were talking bubbles, you went off on a tangent down a rabbit hole about Newton and his heretical beliefs.

          You still haven’t acknowledged that your original assertion, that my list was mostly Christians, was erroneous ya dishonest douchebag.

        • Korus Destroyus

          That’s a lot more than I ever thought Pakistan had. Nevertheless, your link reveals virtually every single one of those universities was founded in the modern period, well after Christians had advanced the concept of the university.

        • epeeist

          Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

        • Korus Destroyus

          Re-read my comment.

        • epeeist

          Thanks but one reading is sufficient.

          You provide nothing to substantiate your implicit claim that Christianity had any causal influence on the formation of universities in Pakistan. Hence it is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or more generally an instance of non causa pro causa.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ugh, no. Where do you think the Pakistani university came from? The ground? The university was a Christian institution until the early 19th century, which is when the secular university was founded. From there, the secular university rapidly expanded not only throughout Europe and North America, but to the rest of the world. To even suggest that the Pakistani university was independent of the European university would be a flaggering ignorance of history.

          I went back to the Wikipedia page on Pakistani universities, and I found something that was just a little too funny. The second university to ever be founded in Pakistan around today is Forman Christian College. LOL. On top of that, almost all Pakistani universities were founded post-2000, making it beyond clear that Pakistan already had a very obvious structure and development of the university available to them when they wanted to start expanding their educational institution.

        • epeeist

          Where do you think the Pakistani university came from?

          Well let’s see; you are a newly independent country, the colonial power has now departed. Do you start a new university because you need to train your teachers, administrators and lawyers as well engineers and architects to build your infrastructure and yes, theologians for your newly formed Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Or do you do it because of the fact that Christians purportedly started universities in the West?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The university was an Islamic institution before it was a Christian one, so pah!

        • Korus Destroyus

          So you’re telling me that Pakistani universities are derivative of 11th century Islamic universities? LOL. Anyways, I’ve already long noted the first four or so universities were Muslim (then things rapidly changed) and I’ve carefully made sure not to contradict that fact.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you’re telling me that Pakistani universities are derivative of 11th century Islamic universities?

          Whaaaa? Where do you get your fucked up thinking from?

          LOL.

          You’re a gibbering eejit.

          Anyways, I’ve already long noted the first four or so universities were Muslim (then things rapidly changed) and I’ve carefully made sure not to contradict that fact.

          First three universities, so ya can’t even get that right, even though it has been pointed out…and for some unknown reason, you failed to mention the earlier Muslim institutions when you dropped in and started laying all the turds you have done since getting here…so I’m calling you a liar on this one.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Whaaaa? Where do you get your fucked up thinking from?”

          What a ridiculous response. Please see the conversation you were responding to if you couldn’t understand that point. One of the strangest things about you is how you intrude on my other conversations, and then simply embarrass yourself. For example:

          “What medical practices did the Christians found, or sweepingly expands the progress on, that the Muslims didn’t get from the Greeks…the same source as the Christians?”

          I’ve already written widely here that this included, easily, hospitals and the university. This has already been established long ago, and I’ve shown directly from academia that these are the facts. Please stop writing such stupidity.

          The most embarrassing thing you posted, of course, was Lawrence Krauss’s bitter post-loss video on Craig “lying” or some ridiculous nonsense like that. I’ve already seen this video, and it’s clear Krauss has lost his mind after Craig sweeped him after a few debates. Craig has already demonstrated Krauss is a liar live in his debate with him, when he showed that Krauss misrepresented Vilenkin’s emails and intentionally left out the parts that make it clear the universe had a beginning. Krauss can’t be trusted on much of anything that isn’t written in his physics papers.

          “But hey, don’t shoot the messenger, take it up with the scholarly expert in archaeology from the IAA, apparently that’s exactly what he is saying.”

          There’s no messenger. None of the sources you cite say Bethlehem wasn’t around in this time, it just says the stratum of these period aren’t located in a discussion on the Bethlehem of Galilee (you never gave any scholarly sources for these claims, of course, your research amounts to googling media reports). As I explained to you earlier, the emperor Hadrian sacked Bethlehem in the 130’s AD during the Bar Khoba revolt. Please explain how Hadrian sacked a non-existent city. Your conspiracies are so outlandish I can hardly even imagine how you fell for them. And please explain why none of your media sources and blog posts (all your sources) actually never say Bethlehem didn’t exist in this time.

          “Bwaaahahaha…a ridiculous citation that in the very next sentence basically confirms what you said. You can’t be taken seriously anymore.”

          The staggering madness of your comments is seriously hard to digest. I clearly demonstrated, over and over again, that your research skills have failed to get any better since the start of this conversation, since the Huffington Post is what you consider reliable. And then I pointed out the very article you cited actually agrees with me. I have no freaking idea how these failures in your argument show I can’t be taken seriously. This is literally hallucinatory.

          “I post that link to show that I know what an acknowledgement was.”

          No, you didn’t know what endorsement is, you said the endorsements were actually “just blurbs” or whatever stupidity was written in your comment, and then I explained to you that’s exactly what an endorsement is, a short blurb endorsing the research, and then you googled an article explaining what endorsement was after all this occured to “prove” you already knew.

          To continue proving you have literally zero knowledge on academia, you ask me the qualifications in history of literally James Charlesworth, Richard Hays, Gerd Theissen, Stanley Porter, Daniel Wallace, and Craig Evans. This is close to making me lose my consciousness given how stupid it is. James Charlesworth has written the standard volume on pseudipgrapha in the intertestamental period (apocryphal texts of the OT world). Daniel Wallace has written the standard work on koine Greek grammar (the Greek from the period of 300 BC – 300 AD). Richard Hays has written the standard work on how New Testament authors, especially Paul, used and understood the Old Testament (Hays has actually done a lot more than this, he is one of the greatest NT historians/scholars to ever live actually and is not only a professor, but the dean of his department at Duke). Craig Evans has published over 600 scholarly articles, that itself explains why he is world renowned in the field. Gerd Theissen has written widely and contributed in many NT fields, he has received a number of awards for his advancements. Stanley Porter has similarly written widely in many fields. Search up their names in Google Scholars and look in awe how much their work is cited.

          Compare all these guys to Richard Carrier, who has published, in his entire lifetime, like 6 papers, and have been cited in the single digits. And this guy is your master. How does this baby compare to any of the aforementioned men? You later admit that you cannot explain the contributions of any of the scholars above who have endorsed Licona’s book. From this moment forward, I will call you ‘rookie’, since when it comes to anything that has to do with the academia we’re discussing, you’re a flat out rookie. You later write that under Licona’s conditions, the tales of Herodotus must be given the same credence as the Resurrection, which proves that rookie also hasn’t read Licona’s arguments.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a ridiculous response. Please see the conversation you were responding to if you couldn’t understand that point.

          Your point is ridiculous. To begin with, Muslim universities began in the 9th century, not the 11th. Pakistan is a fairly modern country. Are you saying that the universities in Pakistan are derivative of the 11th century universities in Europe? No more than Caltech.

          One of the strangest things about you is how you intrude on my other conversations, and then simply embarrass yourself. For example:

          This doesn’t seem to bother you when anyone else does it. But get this, we have an open forum here. Everyone gets to respond to any comment they wish. It isn’t intruding ya dopey twat.

          “What medical practices did the Christians found, or sweepingly expands the progress on, that the Muslims didn’t get from the Greeks…the same source as the Christians?”

          I’ve already written widely here that this included, easily, hospitals and the university. This has already been established long ago, and I’ve shown directly from academia that these are the facts. Please stop writing such stupidity.

          To begin with, none of that answers my question…try reading for comprehension…AGAIN!

          The Christians no more expanded on the hospital or university than the Muslims were doing. The early Muslim universities were doing and teaching far more than the early Christian universities. They were far superior. Christians didn’t come up with the concept of the hospital. Heretical Christians fleeing Christian persecution by Justinian actually had their medical academy closed. Muslim hospitals were the ones making the sweeping expands in progress. The Christians copied them.

          As for an academic source…a real historian…Jonathon Lyons…

          https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/medicine/early-islamic-medicine

          Islamic thought and learning transformed medieval Christendom beyond recognition, Lyons writes. A key import was natural philosophy, the precursor to modern science, and the idea that came with it: the notion of a university as an intellectual, cultural and social institution. Roger Bacon, the 13th-century English scientist and philosopher, travelled through Muslim Spain dressed as an Arab and was among the first to teach natural philosophy in Paris. Without these imports, Lyons says, the Renaissance would not have been possible and European “progress” as we know it would have been inconceivable. The Arabs gave Europeans their ideological and intellectual identity – indeed, Lyons suggests, “the West” itself is a Muslim invention.

          http://www.ihams.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=433%3Athe-house-of-wisdom-how-the-arabs-transformed-western-civilization-&catid=3%3Aihams-scientific-articles&Itemid=28&lang=ar

        • Ignorant Amos

          The most embarrassing thing you posted, of course, was Lawrence Krauss’s bitter post-loss video on Craig “lying” or some ridiculous nonsense like that.

          This is the most embarrassing thing I’ve seen posted on any forum for a number of years. You should’ve let it slide.

          I’ve already seen this video, and it’s clear Krauss has lost his mind after Craig sweeped him after a few debates.

          Oh fer fuck sake. I don’t care. That has nothing to do with Craig’s blatant lies from his own mouth on the video. You’ve just made the fallacy of the non sequitur and ad hominem. Strike one.

          Craig has already demonstrated Krauss is a liar live in his debate with him, when he showed that Krauss misrepresented Vilenkin’s emails and intentionally left out the parts that make it clear the universe had a beginning.

          Oh fer fuck sake. I don’t care. That has nothing to do with Craig’s blatant lies from his own mouth on the video. You’ve just made the fallacy of the non sequitur and ad homenim again. Strike two.

          Krauss can’t be trusted on much of anything that isn’t written in his physics papers.

          Oh fer fuck sake. I don’t care. That has nothing to do with Craig’s blatant lies from his own mouth on the video. You have just made the fallacy of the non sequitur and ad hominem yet again.

          The evidence in that video is irrefutable. Craig lied through his eye teeth. Tried to back track and made an arse of himself, like you are doing here, in the process. Strike three…yer out.

          You have just reduced what little credibility you might have had here to dust. Trying to defend the indefensible, what a Dime Bar.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s no messenger. None of the sources you cite say Bethlehem wasn’t around in this time, it just says the stratum of these period aren’t located in a discussion on the Bethlehem of Galilee…

          I’m putting this down to your illiteracy again.

          Intrigued, I [Oshri] researched the archaeological evidence for Bethlehem in JUDEA at the time of Jesus and found NOTHING. This was very surprising, as Herodian remains should be the first thing one should find.

          When no archaeological material can be found for inhabitancy during a certain period of time in a given locality, scholars deduce that no one was living there. This is basic stuff.

          (you never gave any scholarly sources for these claims, of course, your research amounts to googling media reports).

          What? An abstract of a paper published in The Archaeological Institute of America isn’t a scholarly source? You are a cretin.

          https://archive.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html

          As I explained to you earlier, the emperor Hadrian sacked Bethlehem in the 130’s AD during the Bar Khoba revolt.

          Did he? Have you a source for this sacking?

          Please explain how Hadrian sacked a non-existent city.

          Where did anyone say it was non-existent. You really must brush up on your reading for comprehension, you are shite at it. Neither Oshri, nor I, said it was non-existent. It was not inhabited is his claim. It didn’t exist as an inhabited city.

          But anyway…

          Anno…crazy isn’t it? I mean, how can a senior archaeologist make such a statement when it must be so obvious that it existed? Maybe he means that no one was living there, at least in large enough numbers to leave anything that represents a town? Like I said, I’m just the messenger.

          Your conspiracies are so outlandish I can hardly even imagine how you fell for them.

          Whaaa? A senior scholar in the field of archaeology claims that there is no evidence that Bethlehem was inhabited during the time of the Jesus yarn and you accuse me of an outlandish conspiracy? Wise to fuck up. Where did I say I support Oshri’s findings one way or the other? You are really so pig shit thick. All I said was that it would burst your boiler, and it has…you are a fucking gift…so easy.

          Take it up with the expert…Oshri…he’s the one making the claim.

          And please explain why none of your media sources and blog posts (all your sources) actually never say Bethlehem didn’t exist in this time.

          Oh, I don’t know…maybe because that’s irrelevant. All Oshri has said is that there is no archaeological evidence of anyone having lived there during the first century BCE through the first century CE…a time when Herodian artefacts should be visible, but aren’t. He says nothing about there being no derelict buildings.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The staggering madness of your comments is seriously hard to digest. I clearly demonstrated, over and over again, that your research skills have failed to get any better since the start of this conversation, since the Huffington Post is what you consider reliable. And then I pointed out the very article you cited actually agrees with me. I have no freaking idea how these failures in your argument show I can’t be taken seriously. This is literally hallucinatory.

          Because you are engaging in the ad hominem method of fallacious argumentation.

          You can’t just poo-poo a source because it makes a cunt out of ya. What you need to do is demonstrate why it should not be taken seriously. I’m wondering if you’ve ever done any scholarly writing. If you actually had, you’d know that citing newspaper articles is perfectly normal. The Harvard method of citation gives instructions on how it should be done properly. This is an internet forum, remember? If you have an issue with a source…whatever it is, you need to demonstrate why it is wrong, and that has fuck all to do with where it came from. So stop yer fucking whining and get yer back into it.

          You, Mr. Dumbfuck…slated the HuffPo citation because it is the HuffPo, that’s an ad hom, then in the next breath, claimed that same source as supporting your position. The thing is, you can’t even recognise the level of yer own fuckwittery. You hoisted yerself on yer own petard. Dime Bar.

          That the article agrees with you is irrelevant soft boy. I wasn’t posted in order to refute anything you said. I posted it to demonstrate that I’m aware of what a “blurb” is on a book. I don’t give a fiddlers fuck if Licona’s book had 100 blurbs endorsing it. He isn’t doing proper history, because proper history has nothing to say about the veracity of supernatural events, it can only report on what was believed about those supernatural claims, get it, and his argument is being rebutted on that point. That there is a long list of woo-woo merchants that want to suck Licona’s dick on this matter, mean absolutely fuck all.

          “I post that link to show that I know what an acknowledgement was.”

          No, you didn’t know what endorsement is, you said the endorsements were actually “just blurbs” or whatever stupidity was written in your comment, and then I explained to you that’s exactly what an endorsement is, a short blurb endorsing the research, and then you googled an article explaining what endorsement was after all this occured to “prove” you already knew.

          Pick up a dictionary ya fuckin’ clown…

          https://www.thefreedictionary.com/blurb

          You think I’ve never read a book with an endorsement on it it? Are you on crack? I’m sitting here looking at a library of books and not one of them is a work of fiction. I’ll pick one, my personally signed copy of Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth

          A couple of the blurb’s written about that book…

          “With characteristic flair and passion, Dawkins has put on a stunning exhibition of the evidence for evolution. In his own words, ‘Evolution is a fact… and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it'” (Dr Alice Roberts, Biological anthropologist, author & broadcaster)

          Dawkins combines an artist’s wonder at the virtuosity of nature with a scientist’s understanding of how it comes to be. – Matt Ridley, author of Nature via Nurture.

          This is the book Richard Dawkins needed to write and many need to read … clear, absorbing and vivid. – Lord Harries of Pentregarth (formerly Bishop Richard Harries).

          You are a moron that needs to focus on incidentals, because your main argument has been tore to shreds.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “What you need to do is demonstrate why it should not be taken seriously. I’m wondering if you’ve ever done any scholarly writing.”

          I don’t have any degrees in historical fields but I have published a professional article in a historical encyclopedia. What is your scholarly writing in history?

          “You, Mr. Dumbfuck…slated the HuffPo citation because it is the HuffPo, that’s an ad hom, then in the next breath, claimed that same source as supporting your position.”

          Wrong and wrong. HuffingtonPost is an unreliable source. That means its information can’t be trusted. So why do you trust it? It would be the equivalent of citing a blog. How on Earth do you know the information on that thing has any validity? And I stated, not that your source provides evidence that my position is true, I simply stated it agrees with me. So why on Earth are you trying to cite it? And if you cited it, why don’t you believe it when it says I’m right?

          “He isn’t doing proper history, because proper history has nothing to say about the veracity of supernatural events, it can only report on what was believed about those supernatural claims, get it, and his argument is being rebutted on that point. That there is a long list of woo-woo merchants that want to suck Licona’s dick on this matter, mean absolutely fuck all.”

          I’ve already explained how Licona is one step ahead of you on this, since he’s already published a scholarly paper on historians and supernatural claims. I have even referenced you to it. Until you respond to it, I cannot think even you can believe that historians aren’t doing history when it comes to what is regarded as the supernatural.

          “You think I’ve never read a book with an endorsement on it it? Are you on crack? I’m sitting here looking at a library of books and not one of them is a work of fiction. I’ll pick one, my personally signed copy of Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth…”

          Not very surprising you like Dawkins. Anyhow, if you apparently know what an endorsement is, why on Earth did you say that the endorsements were not endorsements but just blurbs? And if you want to claim that you didn’t say this, then simply stop talking about it in your responses. It’s a waste of space in these discussions.

          “Did he? Have you a source for this sacking?”

          Perhaps our beloved Paul Maier will explain this one for us:
          “Earlier still, in the 130s, the pagan Roman emperor Hadrian tried to desevrate the Jewish and Christian holy places but, ironically, thereby preserved their identity! After he had put down an insurrection by the Jewish nationalist and would-be Messiah, Bar-Khoba, in A.D. 135, Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and paganized all known holy places of Jews and Christians, erecting a temple to Venus at the site of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and a grove dedicated to Adonis over the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem.”
          Paul Maier: The First Christmas: The True and Unfamiliar Story, pg. 47

          So Hadrian after stomping Khoba’s insurrection began converting Jewish and Christian places of worship into pagan sites, including Jewish and Christian structures located and built in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. So how were the Christians exactly worshipping in a non-existent city?

          “Where did anyone say it was non-existent. You really must brush up on your reading for comprehension, you are shite at it. Neither Oshri, nor I, said it was non-existent. It was not inhabited is his claim. It didn’t exist as an inhabited city.”

          Huh? So someone was built a city at Bethlehem and no one bothered to live there? Why wouldn’t anyone inhabit such fertile land located in such a holy place in Jewish tradition? And Oshri never says it wasn’t inhabited, either, simply that there are no archaeological remains. I am curious as to whether Oshri has made these statements in any of his scholarly work. If Bethlehem didn’t exist until something like 500 AD, then how did Jerome live there for 30 years?

          I did some more digging, and found that many scholars all have estimates on the population of Bethlehem during Jesus’ time. For example:
          “Estimates of the total population of Bethlehem in the first century are generally under 1,000”
          R. T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Gospel of Matthew
          “[If] population of Bethlehem were about 1,000 at the time (and that is a high estimate),”
          Thomas Graves, “A Story Ignored: An Exegesis Of Matthew 2:13–23,” – Faith and Mission 05, no. 1 (Fall)
          Many scholars (general example: W.F. Albright) usually put it in the hundreds, maybe around 300. My skeptic-meter is going through the roof.

          “As for the Krauss thing regarding the absolutely blatantly irrelevant podcast of Craig that has nothing to do with any arguments of the sort (it’s amazing Krauss even knows it exists, which means he must have been aggrssively looking for something to put against Craig), Craig has already responded by saying he did in fact make a misunderstanding:
          After a very full day at a Pastor’s Conference yesterday in Adelaide, Jan and I finally have a bit of a break. This gives me a chance to address one of the personal charges that Krauss issued in his opening speech of the Brisbane event.
          It concerns a mistake which I had already realized and corrected some time ago. When Kevin Harris and I recorded our podcasts reviewing the movie “The Unbelievers,” we worked off an audio recording someone had made of the movie. So we could not see who was actually speaking. I mistook who was speaking in an exchange between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell and so misinterpreted the exchange. When we became aware of the mistake, we immediately corrected the podcast so that the misattribution was no longer made. However, Krauss obtained a copy of the initial uncorrected podcast during the few days it was public and played it during his opening speech, followed by the clip from the movie showing what had actually taken place. He construed this as deliberate misrepresentation and distortion on my part, thereby impugning my character.
          The mistake was mine, and I regret it. It was, however, an honest mistake, self-corrected as soon as we became aware of it. It was not deliberate misrepresentation or distortion as Prof. Krauss charged. I explained this to him personally after the Dialogue, but he remained unmollified. It will be interesting to see if he brings it up in the Sydney Dialogue.”

          So, Craig made a small misunderstanding and explained it personally to Krauss during their conversation, and yet Krauss went on making public accusations against Craig anyways. This really shows what you could do to an atheist if you make it obvious their arguments don’t work.

          “Pakistan is a fairly modern country. Are you saying that the universities in Pakistan are derivative of the 11th century universities in Europe? No more than Caltech.”

          That the modern university is derivative of the Christian precursor is exactly what I’m saying.

          “This doesn’t seem to bother you when anyone else does it. But get this, we have an open forum here. Everyone gets to respond to any comment they wish. It isn’t intruding ya dopey twat.”

          Sure it is. I’m not trying to get my notifications blown up when everyone wants to respond to everything I say.

          “The Christians no more expanded on the hospital or university than the Muslims were doing. The early Muslim universities were doing and teaching far more than the early Christian universities.”

          LOL. The level of historical ignorance it takes to think that the universities never progressed beyond the 11th century Islamic institution until the period of the modern university (19th century) requires a breathtaking ignorance of the advancement of the university and science in precisely this period. Perhaps you’ve never heard of a single breakthrough done in Christian universities, such as, perhaps, the founding of the scientific method in the 16th century.

          The first sweeping advancement in hospitals/medicine occurred when it was founded by pagans in the BC period. But until the Christian period, hospitals were of enormously tiny significance (basically almost none existed and they couldn’t do much to begin with) and anyone who got sick basically died. The second sweeping advance in the hospitals/medicine was spiralled by the Christians in the 4th century.
          “The second great sweep of medical history begins at the end of the fourth century, with the founding of the first Christian hospital.”
          Albert R. Jonsen: A Short History of Medical Ethics, pg. 13
          I suppose that settles that. I have no time to get into the monumental advancements of medicine and the hospital by the Christians until the modern period, and how it dwarfs the Islamic accomplishment.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t have any degrees in historical fields but I have published a professional article in a historical encyclopedia. What is your scholarly writing in history?

          So you are not qualified in history. What my scholarly writing is in is irrelevant. The point is, I’ve have written essays at university level for marking. On Cleopatra, Christopher Marlowe’s “Dr. Faustus”, Michael Faraday, Cezanne, Pugin, to name a few.

          If you know anything about the subject then you should know what is acceptable as a source, how to cite it, and how to construct a bibliography. Both wiki and newspaper articles are acceptable sources. I know, I’ve used them, and dropped no marks or got criticism for doing so.

          Wrong and wrong. HuffingtonPost is an unreliable source. That means its information can’t be trusted.

          Like I said, you are wrong, and I’ve demonstrated that fact.

          OU Harvard guide to citing references

          10 Online/electronic materials

          10.1 Personal or organisational websites
          10.2 Online documents
          10.3 Blogs
          10.4 Wikis
          10.5 Twitter
          10.6 Podcasts

          http://www.open.ac.uk/libraryservices/documents/Harvard_citation_hlp.pdf

          So why do you trust it?

          Because the author is a trustworthy source you moron.

          Brooke Warner
          Publisher of She Writes Press; President of Warner Coaching Inc.; Author of ‘What’s Your Book?’ and ‘Green-Light Your Book’

          So until you can demonstrate why I shouldn’t trust her, fuck off with your bullshit. And again, you stated that it supported your position.

          It would be the equivalent of citing a blog.

          Bwaaahahaha…what, like you citing your blog ya mean and citing the unqualified Tim O’Neill’s blog in that blog? Hoist by yer own petard yet again. What a doughball. See10.3 on the list of Harvard guide to citing. Yep…it’s blogs.

          How on Earth do you know the information on that thing has any validity?

          You are a funny guy. How do you know any source has validity? You cite Tim O’Neill’s blog on your own fer fuck sake. You are a dishonest cretin.

          And I stated, not that your source provides evidence that my position is true, I simply stated it agrees with me.

          So it is a reliable source then? Like I say, you’re a cretin.

          So why on Earth are you trying to cite it?

          This is getting excruciatingly frustrating. I really wish you could read a combox for comprehension.

          Because for some reason known only to you, you’ve insisted at least twice that I don’t know what an endorsement is…I FUCKING WELL KNOW WHAT AN ENDORSEMENT IS…capiche?

          I don’t give a shite about the endorsements on Licona’s book. They are irrelevant. It’s the Self Appreciation Society. Now will you give over about all the wonderful endorsements by biased Christian fuckwits with a predisposition to believe the Resurrection is true. The fact that you are impressed isn’t impressive.

          And if you cited it, why don’t you believe it when it says I’m right?

          Right about what? That books get endorsement? I don’t care. I cited the article to demonstrate I know what a blurb is, I have a library of non-fictional books…many have endorsements. I’d be more impressed if Licona’s book was endorsed by secular historians.

          James Tabor, an historian who is a Christian, is honest enough to admit that the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural is beyond the purview of the historian. Something, like many other things that contradict your position, you conveniently ignored. Get James Tabor’s endorsement on Licona’s fantasy and you’ll pique my interest. Otherwise piss off with this nonsense, it is getting utterly tedious.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve already explained how Licona is one step ahead of you on this, since he’s already published a scholarly paper on historians and supernatural claims. I have even referenced you to it. Until you respond to it, I cannot think even you can believe that historians aren’t doing history when it comes to what is regarded as the supernatural.

          I don’t care. Licona is biased. His argument in support of the supernatural are nonsense.

          Secular historians and honest Christians admit that the supernatural is beyond the historians remit. They can only report what people believed happened, not whether or not it actually happened. The supernatural and miracles are the least likely explanation for any given phenomena.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Perhaps our beloved Paul Maier will explain this one for us:
          “Earlier still, in the 130s, the pagan Roman emperor Hadrian tried to desevrate the Jewish and Christian holy places but, ironically, thereby preserved their identity! After he had put down an insurrection by the Jewish nationalist and would-be Messiah, Bar-Khoba, in A.D. 135, Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and paganized all known holy places of Jews and Christians, erecting a temple to Venus at the site of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and a grove dedicated to Adonis over the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem.”
          Paul Maier: The First Christmas: The True and Unfamiliar Story, pg. 47

          So Hadrian after stomping Khoba’s insurrection began converting Jewish and Christian places of worship into pagan sites, including Jewish and Christian structures located and built in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. So how were the Christians exactly worshipping in a non-existent city?

          None of which supports the sacking of an inhabited Bethlehem during the first century, so pah!

          Why should I trust your source? What’s his source?

        • Pofarmer

          erecting a temple to Venus at the site of the Holy Sepulcher in
          Jerusalem and a grove dedicated to Adonis over the Grotto of the
          Nativity in Bethlehem.”

          I’d like to see the actual evidence on this, because it’s my understanding that these sites didn’t exist in any way until much later. Just looking through Maiers’ CV, it looks like he wrote a lot of what can best be described as devotional work.

          Edit. So it looks like the source for this claim is Eusebius, as the Christians were rededicating Pagan sites during Constantines rule.

        • Greg G.

          From a reader’s review of Maiers’ book at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/912128.First_Christmas

          This book features a discussion between a mother and son about the Christmas story. The text of Luke 2 is read during their discussion, and I like that it is set off in italics so those unfamiliar with the story can have clarity about what words are actual Scripture.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s 96 pages. I’m tempted to see if I can find it as a pdf.

        • Greg G.

          I can’t tell if it sounds more like cutting edge research or a creative writing assignment. Can you?

          It’s 96 pages.

          How much of that is Luke 2? I think that is the longest chapter in the New Testament.

        • Pofarmer

          Reading the other reviews. It sounds like apologist mush.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If it gives KD a boner, it will definitely be apologist mush…it won’t be history, that’s for sure.

        • Pofarmer


          From Publishers Weekly

          This informative gift book is much better than its
          introduction might lead readers to suspect; Maier lays out a traditional
          Christian apologetic approach, using tools such as archaeology and
          history to prove the trustworthiness of the Bible. In the chapters that
          follow, he analyzes the Nativity through the lenses of economics, law,
          literature, geography and even meteorology, claiming that this composite
          reveals the “unfamiliar story” of Christ’s birth. Some readers may
          quibble that Maier bases his claims on a rather selective reading of the
          evidence, but most will enjoy the rich detail he offers about daily
          life in Palestine around the year 5 B.C.

        • Greg G.

          rather selective reading of the evidence

          cough

        • Pofarmer

          Uh huh. Is that what you call “Damning with faint praise?”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not very surprising you like Dawkins. Anyhow, if you apparently know what an endorsement is, why on Earth did you say that the endorsements were not endorsements but just blurbs?

          Holy fuck you are one asinine individual. Where did I say that endorsements were not endorsements but just blurbs? You fascination with making shite up is flabbergasting. Nothing you say can be trusted as being honest.

          An endorsement is a blurb. The two are synonymous. I said I don’t care about Licona’s endorsements because they are biased. Simple as that.

          And if you want to claim that you didn’t say this, then simply stop talking about it in your responses. It’s a waste of space in these discussions.

          It is you that keeps dragging it up. Give over about it. If you can show where I said an endorsement is not an endorsement but just blurbs, I will unequivocally apologise, but I very much doubt you can do that. Because it is a lie. The HuffPo piece supports my assertion that they are one and the same thing. As does the dictionary reference I provided. You are wrong yet again, but I doubt you’ll acknowledge that with an apology, you lying Christian bastards very rarely do.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “An endorsement is a blurb. The two are synonymous.”

          Then what on planet Earth were you complaining about earlier? And it doesn’t matter whether or not you care about the endorsements of Licona’s book. Seriously. They prove it is academically rigorous, simple as that.

          “None of which supports the sacking of an inhabited Bethlehem during the first century, so pah!
          Why should I trust your source? What’s his source?”

          As Maier’s quotation shows, in the early 130’s AD Hadrian sacked Bethlehem. Yet, according to your sources, the stratum of Bethlehem date from something like the 6th century BC to 500 AD (I forgot the precise numbers). Therefore, considering this, and the fact that Jerome lived in Bethlehem for 30 years as well as another of our sources, it’s obvious your source gives zero evidence there was no habitation of Bethlehem in this time period. And for someone to think that Bethlehem didn’t exist in the 1st century would ridiculously cause them to need to think Bethlehem was immediately built between 100-135 AD when it got sacked, of which there is no archaeological evidence. Maier, as we both acknowledged earlier, is a world renowned scholar. He lists that event as a commonly known fact, which, well, it is. It’s even mentioned in the Wikipedia page on Bethlehem. Later, in the early 4th century AD, Constantine’s mother Helena rebuilt Bethlehem. So, from what I know, it’s clear Bethlehem was occupied all the way until the 130’s AD, when it was crushed, and then uninhabited until Helena rebuilt it in the 320’s AD. That’s the basic historical account.

          “I don’t care. Licona is biased. His argument in support of the supernatural are nonsense.”

          Please show how they are nonsense. Licona is biased. You’re probably more biased. And the master, Carrier, is most biased of all. Bias is irrelevant. Arguments are what matter. That of course was your own creed, until, well, I mentioned Licona.

          “Secular historians and honest Christians admit that the supernatural is beyond the historians remit.”

          ALERT: BLANKET STATEMENT DETECTED

          “If you know anything about the subject then you should know what is acceptable as a source, how to cite it, and how to construct a bibliography. Both wiki and newspaper articles are acceptable sources. I know, I’ve used them, and dropped no marks or got criticism for doing so.”

          These sources are hardly ever used on the academic level. If they are used, the author makes sure that they are fine. Wikipedia defines itself as an unreliable source (I know this since I used to do editing at the site), and I flat out don’t trust a bunch of the garbage in media sources considering how egregious some of that stuff is, especially stuff that gets pumped out of Macleans. My motto is that if it’s true, a scholar in the last fifty years probably mentioned it somewhere. That’s more then reasonable. Or at least a source that is vetted by scholars.

          “Bwaaahahaha…what, like you citing your blog ya mean and citing the unqualified Tim O’Neill’s blog in that blog? Hoist by yer own petard yet again. What a doughball. See10.3 on the list of Harvard guide to citing. Yep…it’s blogs.”

          LOL. Not only does O’Neill have a degree here, but O’Neill’s blog has endorsements from actual professors, including James McGrath and Larry Hurtado. And as it is, yesterday, O’Neill utterly crushed mythicism yet again with this masterful new post:
          https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
          It’s quite amazing how easily O’Neill sees through Carrier’s bungled mess.

          “James Tabor, an historian who is a Christian, is honest enough to admit that the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural is beyond the purview of the historian.”

          Oh please, it’s obvious with criticisms like these you don’t even know Licona’s argument. Licona says that the event can be affirmed without historically establishing a supernatural cause. So Licona basically says that with his method, you don’t actually affirm the supernatural, even if you affirm the resurrection — you simply withhold from giving any explanation for why the resurrection occurred, since you cannot historically say it was supernatural.

          “Indeed. No more of a loon than the founders of Christianity. And yet the Book of Mormon is better attested than the NT.”

          Are you trying to seriously say something as maddeningly ridiculous as this? The Book of Mormon was written in the modern period when there’s an actual printing press. Please show me a single document written in the time of the NT that is as well attested as the NT. Hint: The NT is the best attested document of the ancient world. Seriously.

          “Has the requisite qualification…is an evangelical Christian…he ain’t doing history when condoning the Resurrection as an historical event. Likely due to his Christian bias.”

          This is crap and irrelevant. Carrier is a vapidly biased, failed scholar, and yet he’s your master. Evans, on the other hand, is a distinguished professor and world renowned scholar in the field of NT studies who has published over 600 papers. The bias of Evans hardly comes close to the bias of your masters, and yet his scholarship exceeds their by many folds. Try and keep up.

          “I don’t care what Ehrman has to say about everyone else’s credentials. It is a straw man. Deal with the arguments being made. You are a hypocrite. You cite a wholly unqualified internet jerkoff in Tim O’Neill, then poo-poo anyone Ehrman claims isn’t qualified to engage in the debate. Wise ta fuck up.”

          As I’ve noted earlier, I’ve actually published something in this, which does give credibility. Thompson hasn’t convinced any scholar he’s right. I’m not reading a book like Thompson’s since I have more important monographs and papers to read in the meanwhile (of which I can hardly keep up with). Seriously, if you think the radically minimalist non-NT scholar Thompson has found out something so amazing that NT scholars have magically missed, that happens to perfectly align with his preconceived ideology, then please repeat his arguments here. It turns out that the publisher of Thompson’s book is not even an academic publisher, meaning that Thompson’s book hasn’t even been peer-reviewed. Why on planet Earth should I care about it then if Thompson couldn’t even find an academic publisher for his work? I simply don’t have the time to go through everything ever written by the crazy mythicist camp. And it’s not even like Thompson is a mythicist. Thompson doesn’t even think mythicists deserve to be discussed with. LOL. Your source is highly problematic for so many reasons it’s hard to articulate them all.

          Seriously dude, my goodness. You continue exploding over my citation of Tim O’Neill, when you’re using Neil Godfrey’s website vridar. I mean, you can’t even compare credibility here, Godfrey is like a kooky fish compared to O’Neill. My sources are much better than yours, plain and simple. All you’ve done is say you don’t trust scholars that affirm the resurrection, which I couldn’t care less about, I care about evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          what on planet Earth were you complaining about earlier?

          If you could just stay focused for a wee minute you might understand a bit more. But once again, you’ve lost the plot.

          Five days ago I replied to you with this comment…

          A dozen? For one, there’s not a single monograph I know that has ever been published with a dozen endorsements from top scholars. Except Licona’s book.

          You are talking about “blurbs”.

          Is that because the author and publisher struggle to find enough people to endorse aka “blurb” them?

          https://www.huffingtonpost….

          The link was to demonstrate to you that an endorsement and blurb are the same thing. And that there is such a thing as too many of them. From the article…

          Number of blurbs

          There is indeed such a thing as too much of a good thing when it comes to praise. If you have 20-30 blurbs, they don’t all need to go on or in your book. There are other purposes for blurbs besides being in print in your book (Amazon, for instance). For first-time authors, I recommend anywhere from three to six blurbs on your back cover, obviously pared down in length if you have six or more. I also recommend no more than a single praise sheet, front and back. Readers are not going to be interested in wading through three to four pages (six to eight front and back) of blurbs by people they’ve never heard of. Be discerning and exhibit self-restraint.

          My question is then about why do other monographs not have an impressive amount of endorsements, is it because the author or publisher can’t find anyone willing to endorse? No, it isn’t.

          Now you keep fucking wittering on about the issue and how I don’t know what blurb is, when I’ve demonstrated that I do. Repeatedly.

          And it doesn’t matter whether or not you care about the endorsements of Licona’s book.

          So why bring them up then?

          It matters to me ya moron, and for the purposes of this argument, it matters that you grasp the concept why I don’t give a shite.

          Seriously. They prove it is academically rigorous, simple as that.

          Are you for real?

          Only to the Self Appreciation Society. To everyone on the planet who doesn’t believe the supernatural event called the Resurrection took place, it is a pile of steaming crap. Including honest Christian historians. Simple as that.

          ETA: deleted paragraph.

        • Ignorant Amos

          As Maier’s quotation shows, in the early 130’s AD Hadrian sacked Bethlehem.

          No it doesn’t. But even if it did, it doesn’t make it the case that Hadrian sacked Bethlehem of Judea. The archaeology shows that there was no one living there at the time…according to a senior archaeologist in the IAA.

          Yet, according to your sources, the stratum of Bethlehem date from something like the 6th century BC to 500 AD (I forgot the precise numbers).

          Is there something mentally deficient about you that you can’t read other peoples comments properly.

          Aviram Oshri claims he has investigated Bethlehem in Judea and can find no evidence that there was anyone living there at the time Jesus was supposed to be getting born there. But at another site also known as Bethlehem in Galilee, he has discovered finds from that same time. He concludes that the place of Jesus birth has been mistakenly attributed to the former, instead of the later.

          Therefore, considering this, and the fact that Jerome lived in Bethlehem for 30 years as well as another of our sources, it’s obvious your source gives zero evidence there was no habitation of Bethlehem in this time period.

          Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and propose that he didn’t just pull all this from out of his arsehole and no one thought to ask him just what he basis his thesis on.

          And for someone to think that Bethlehem didn’t exist in the 1st century would ridiculously cause them to need to think Bethlehem was immediately built between 100-135 AD when it got sacked, of which there is no archaeological evidence.

          Nope…that’s just your imbecilic thinking. You have not demonstrated that Hadrian sacked Bethlehem in Judea.

          Maier, as we both acknowledged earlier, is a world renowned scholar.

          No I didn’t. I know nothing about the guy other than he endorses a book about the veracity of the supernatural. That makes him a fuckwit in my opinion.

          He lists that event as a commonly known fact, which, well, it is. It’s even mentioned in the Wikipedia page on Bethlehem. Later, in the early 4th century AD, Constantine’s mother Helena rebuilt Bethlehem. So, from what I know, it’s clear Bethlehem was occupied all the way until the 130’s AD, when it was crushed, and then uninhabited until Helena rebuilt it in the 320’s AD. That’s the basic historical account.

          I don’t care. If the archaeology doesn’t support that assertion, then it is wrong. Now I’m not making the argument that the archaeology doesn’t support the history you put forward, Oshri is doing that. I’m just relaying the point. You do know that history is not an exact science, right? You do know that lots of recorded history has turned out to be erroneous, right? I use the example of an event as recently as 1991 to demonstrate this fact. Bravo Two Zero.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Two_Zero

        • Pofarmer

          FWIW, Maier looks like a typical apologist.

          He previously served as Third Vice President of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

          Of course he did.

        • Ignorant Amos

          LOL. Not only does O’Neill have a degree here, but O’Neill’s blog has endorsements from actual professors, including James McGrath and Larry Hurtado

          O’Neill has a degree in medieval literature ya doughnut. I don’t care who endorses his blog.

          James McGrath is another lying toad. Both he and Hurtado have a predisposition to belief in the Resurrection. I have McGrath’s book on the issue. They are both biased and not doing history when supporting the supernatural. O’Neill is at least honest on this point.

          And as it is, yesterday, O’Neill utterly crushed mythicism yet again with this masterful new post:

          It’s quite amazing how easily O’Neill sees through Carrier’s bungled mess.

          I realise you believe that to be the case, but O’Neill has done fuck all of the sort. And you are repeating yourself, probably because you are slavering at this point.

          I take it you are the Jimmy in the comments section? It’s amazing how you are happy to jump into bed with anyone when they support your position, but are happy to disregard them when they are contrary…both O’Neill and Ehrman on this occasion.

        • Pofarmer

          So, looking at the wikipedia page on Bethlehem is interesting. Now, I don’t typically trust wikipedia on this sort of stuff.

          Bethlehem was destroyed by the Emperor Hadrian during the second-century Bar Kokhba revolt; its rebuilding was promoted by Empress Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, who commissioned the building of its great Church of the Nativity in 327 CE.

          But, then there’s this.

          Some scholars hold the view that this site was one that had originally
          been dedicated to Adonis-Tammuz and Christians had taken it over.[26]

          n 326–328, the empress Helena, consort of the emperor Constantius Chlorus, and mother of the emperor Constantine the Great, made a pilgrimage to Syra-Palaestina, in the course of which she visited the ruins of Bethlehem.[8] The empress promoted the rebuilding of the city, and Eusebius of Caesarea writes that she was responsible for the construction of the Church of the Nativity.

          so, basically, 200 years after the supposed sack of a supposed city, the Empress was shown a site she was told was Bethlehem and decided to put a shrine there. I doubt if anybody at that time actually knew or cared one way or the other, considering that I’ve not ever seen written record of it. And this all goes back to Liar for Jesus Eusebius.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye…ave read that Wiki page. A lot of this stuff is assumption and speculation without support.

        • Pofarmer

          I started reading KD’s O’Neill link, even as much as I loathe O’neill, and I wasn’t surprised at what I found. I’m a little sad that O’Neill has been tricked by the whole apologists as scholars bunch. He talks about the Testimonium Flavianum and the “Jesus, the Messiah” In section 20 that is about Jesus Ben Damneus. Number one, it’s a pretty clear interpolation. Number 2 it’s never attested until after Eusebius, even though Origen had Eusebius copy and used Josephus pretty extensively. In other words, not only was it inserted, but we probably know exactly WHO inserted it, or had it inserted. Makes me a little sad, for him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          O’Neill’s argument have been decimated by folk other than Carrier. Paul Hopper has shown the TF to be not original to Antiquities. I’ve no sympathy for O’Neill at all, he’s a prick.

          Fuckwits like KD are easily impressed by such shite. But even Ehrman states Josephus is too late to add anything to the historical Jesus debate.

          As you know, Carrier wrote a peer reviewed paper on it in Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2012 pp. 489-514 | 10.1353/earl.2012.0029

          https://muse.jhu.edu/article/492357

          More here… https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

        • Greg G.

          The Testimonium Flavianum is never mentioned by Origen but “the brother of the so-called Christ” is discussed by Origen a few times.

          But without a mention of “Christ” anywhere else in Antiquities, it would only make sense to Christians, which Josephus wasn’t as stated by Origen, so it was probably interpolated into Origen’s copy before he got it.

          But the TF has Eusebius’ fingerprints all over it.

        • Pofarmer

          This is Carriers take on it, which, who knows?

          As one of my articles linked above notes, I think it’s slightly more
          likely the insertion was made by Pamphilus, Eusebius’s teacher and
          predecessor, before Constantine. This was a dedicated Christian library
          at the time (in Caesarea), founded by Origen early 3rd century. So they
          didn’t need a state sponsor to motivate their meddling. Eusebius would
          have just inherited the books at that library in the state Pamphilus
          left them. But yes, it’s also possible Eusebius is the forger, and for
          political purposes.

          So he thinks Eusebius got it with the addition already in it.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

        • Pofarmer

          I may try to read his article, if I can find it not behind a paywall.

          Technically Origen does mention Josephus as a witness to Jesus, as a
          witness to James, but what Origen attributes to Josephus actually comes
          from Hegesippus (and contradicts Josephus). I demonstrated this in my
          peer reviewed article on the matter (reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ). Origen shows no awareness of the James passage now in Josephus.

        • Greg G.

          I have believed that Origen was talking about Josephus saying that Jesus was the brother of James for a long time, but reading it in a new light, it looks like he is getting the brother of Jesus from Galatians and the mention of James being killed from Josephus but it is not clear at all that he is quoting Josephus about James and Jesus being related. I am going to have to re-study it from that perspective.

          I think The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus, by Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D., establishes that the TF was written in two layers, one based on the Emmaus Road episode in Luke 24, and a second layer of embellishment. Goldberg rejects that it could be forged because he is incredulous that anybody from the time could imitate Josephus so well, so he says they had a common source.

          But The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus, by Ken Olson, shows that Eusebius often used terms and phrases that Josephus used, including phrases from the underlying layer and the embellished layer. Those are the fingerprints I am talking about.

          > > > Going to look up Hegesippus quotes now.

        • Greg G.

          A filthy rich person comes to your village and is willing to pay handsomely to see where the events of a myth happened, it shouldn’t be difficult to find someone to point them out.

        • Pofarmer

          It really sounds like they just wanted to get rid of a filthy pagan monument.

        • Greg G.

          I think Helena was being a gullible tourist. She probably accidentally started the whole industry of taking Christian’s money to see a splinter of the cross or the skull of John the Baptist. She practically invented the first in a long line of P. T. Barnum’s.

        • Joe

          Especially as this rich and powerful person arrived with her mind seemingly made up.

          “Yes, here was where my ancestors had a magnificent palace, which was to be my inheritance, cruelly taken from them in the sacking!”

        • Joe

          I don’t like O’Neil’s arguments. If he seems to think such a person as a historical Jesus (a non-supernatural wandering prophet) wouldn’t leave any evidence, why are we even discussing such a person at all?

          His, and other secular historicist’s, arguments seems to rest on entirely ignoring the two-millennia old global phenomenon of Christianity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh please, it’s obvious with criticisms like these you don’t even know Licona’s argument.

          I’m going with his argument in the Dilahunty debate.

          Licona says that the event can be affirmed without historically establishing a supernatural cause.

          Whaaa? So why is part one of his argument in the debate with Dilahunty spent trying to demonstrate the empirical veracity of the supernatural?

          So Licona basically says that with his method, you don’t actually affirm the supernatural, even if you affirm the resurrection — you simply withhold from giving any explanation for why the resurrection occurred, since you cannot historically say it was supernatural.

          FFS…the Resurrection is a supernatural assertion by default. This is just pure fuckwittery. To affirm the Resurrection, one is de facto affirming the supernatural.

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec9.htm

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you trying to seriously say something as maddeningly ridiculous as this? The Book of Mormon was written in the modern period when there’s an actual printing press. Please show me a single document written in the time of the NT that is as well attested as the NT. Hint: The NT is the best attested document of the ancient world. Seriously.

          http://www.dominiquefalla.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/whoosh.png

        • Ignorant Amos

          Please show how they are nonsense.

          He relies on anecdotes for a starter.

          Licona is biased.

          Indeed.

          You’re probably more biased.

          I doubt it.

          And the master, Carrier, is most biased of all

          Demonstrating your ignorance. Carrier was an evangelical Christian who lost faith. But he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to mythicism. Forced to read Docherty’s thesis, he began to investigate and it was only then that he found the scholarship is not all it was cracked up to be.

          Bias is irrelevant.

          Of course bias is relevant ya onion.

          Arguments are what matter.

          Correct. But endorsements of an argument based on bias do not.

          That of course was your own creed, until, well, I mentioned Licona.

          Nope, your lying again. My “creed” is that arguments matter, not credentials. An argument stands or falls on it’s own merits. Criticising those making the argument because of their credentials is a fallacy of the straw man ad hominem kind.

        • Greg G.

          My “creed” is that arguments matter, not credentials. An argument stands or falls on it’s own merits. Criticising those making the argument because of their credentials is a fallacy of the straw man kind.

          Indeed, it is the classic ad hominem fallacy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My bad…ad hominem is what I meant to say.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Secular historians and honest Christians admit that the supernatural is beyond the historians remit.”

          ALERT: BLANKET STATEMENT DETECTED

          Oh…a blanket statement endorsed by yer man Licona ya mean?

          Most biblical scholars and historians hold that the investigation of a miracle report lies outside of the rights of historians acting within their professional capacity. In this essay, I challenge this position and argue to the contrary.

          http://risenjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/JSHJ_012_01-02_Licona.pdf

        • Ignorant Amos

          These sources are hardly ever used on the academic level.

          ALERT: BLANKET STATEMENT DETECTED

          So you’ve moved the goalposts now. More disingenuous and fallaciousness. The fact remains that they are a legal source of information in scholarly writing and anyone who has written at a scholarly level should know that. You didn’t.

          If they are used, the author makes sure that they are fine.

          So now they are used as sources then? You are a cretin. You are all over the place. How can anyone take anything you say seriously anymore.

          Wikipedia defines itself as an unreliable source (I know this since I used to do editing at the site),…

          I know how Wikipedia defines itself, it’s right there on the Wiki page covering the subject ffs. Nevertheless, universities accept Wiki references as legit. Suck it up.

          …and I flat out don’t trust a bunch of the garbage in media sources considering how egregious some of that stuff is, especially stuff that gets pumped out of Macleans.

          I don’t care what you think or trust. It is irrelevant. My claim is that those three sources, Wiki, Newspapers, and blogs, are legit and acceptable in third level academic writing in spite of your protestations, and I proved it. So you are wrong…again.

          The HuffoPo article was fit for purpose, so ya can fuck off with this continued fuckwitty ya Dime Bar.

          My motto is that if it’s true, a scholar in the last fifty years probably mentioned it somewhere. That’s more then reasonable. Or at least a source that is vetted by scholars.

          I give zero fucks what your motto is, that is just another non sequitur in a long list of them. Don’t you get embarrassed by all the fallacious arguments you make? You should.

          The HuffPo piece was written by Brooke Warner.

          https://www.linkedin.com/in/warnercoaching

          If you think there is anything erroneous in the article, address it it, otherwise go take your pathetic head for a shite.

        • Pofarmer

          .and I flat out don’t trust a bunch of the garbage in media sources
          considering how egregious some of that stuff is, especially stuff that
          gets pumped out of Macleans.

          That WAS a perfectly good Irony meter. Fuck.

          But stuff by a bunch of Priests and Preachers at seminary and divinity schools. No bias there. No siree………

          Clown.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Has the requisite qualification…is an evangelical Christian…he ain’t doing history when condoning the Resurrection as an historical event. Likely due to his Christian bias.”

          This is crap and irrelevant.

          Of course it’s relevant.

          Carrier is a vapidly biased, failed scholar, and yet he’s your master.

          You don’t have a clue, do ya? Jesus being an historical guy won’t change a thing as far as Carriers atheism goes. The miracle working god guy in the NT is made up nonsense, regardless. No bias required.

          You can say “failed” scholar as many times as you like, you need to show why he is a failure.

          And the “he’s your master” shtick is wearing very thin now ya cretin.

          Evans, on the other hand, is a distinguished professor and world renowned scholar in the field of NT studies who has published over 600 papers.

          Again, what part of “I don’t care” do you not comprehend? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a highly respectable man of letters, but he was a fuckwit for believing in fairies…get it?

          The bias of Evans hardly comes close to the bias of your masters, and yet his scholarship exceeds their by many folds.

          I don’t give a rats ass, believing in woo-woo makes him a stupid fuckwit.

          Try and keep up.

          Spoooiiinnng!

        • Ignorant Amos

          As I’ve noted earlier, I’ve….blah, blah, blah, ad nauseam bullsht…blah, blah, blah…

          Colour me totally not giving a shite anymore.

          Seriously dude, my goodness. You continue exploding over my citation of Tim O’Neill, when you’re using Neil Godfrey’s website vridar.

          Whose exploding here, not me…I’m pishing myself laughing at your shooting yerself in the foot with every comment you make. You are a lying hypocrite. Everyone on the other side of your position is either unqualified, unemployed, or some other bullshit criticism, you also poo-poo every source I cite…then you go and cite your blog and the blog of an unqualified, unemployed blogger. Wise ta fuck up. You are a dishonest joke.

          I mean, you can’t even compare credibility here, Godfrey is like a kooky fish compared to O’Neill.

          I know in your fucked mindwankery you actually believe that, but it is ballix.

          Since it is endorsements that give you a thrill, check out the endorsements at Vridar…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Mroczek

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Joseph_Hoffmann

          http://russellgmirkin.com/

          http://ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/80/47

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moles

          united.edu/portfolio-item/anthony-le-donne/

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_DeConick

          My sources are much better than yours, plain and simple.

          Nah….but I still don’t care. I only care about what you can demonstrate with evidence.

          All you’ve done is say you don’t trust scholars that affirm the resurrection,…

          Do you trust scholars that believe that Joseph Smyth got golden plates off the angel Moroni and a magic hat and seer stone spectacles to aid deciphering them on the veracity of that claim?

          Do you trust scholars who believe that Mo rode a flying horse to visit an archangel to get the message of Allah on the veracity of that claim?

          Do you trust scholars who believe in a six armed elephant headed god and reincarnation on the veracity of that claim?

          The Resurrection is a supernatural claim and anything pertaining to the veracity of that claim is not evidenced supported opinion.

          …which I couldn’t care less about, I care about evidence.

          Bingo…yet it is a claim not demonstrated in anything you’ve presented on this forum to date.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Whose exploding here, not me…I’m pishing myself laughing at your shooting yerself in the foot with every comment you make. You are a lying hypocrite. Everyone on the other side of your position is either unqualified, unemployed, or some other bullshit criticism, you also poo-poo every source I cite…then you go and cite your blog and the blog of an unqualified, unemployed blogger. Wise ta fuck up. You are a dishonest joke.”

          The amount of hysteria it takes to write this is maddening. O’Neill is unemployed? LOL. I happen to personally know the academic employment O’Neill has, and so this couldn’t sound crazier to me. O’Neill has credentials in history as explained earlier, his blog is endorsed by scholars, etc etc, all the elements of good work and research. The fact that all your sources are either unqualified or unemployed or are bloggers

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ignore the last response I posted, I accidently sent it before finishing it.

          “Whose exploding here, not me…I’m pishing myself laughing at your shooting yerself in the foot with every comment you make. You are a lying hypocrite. Everyone on the other side of your position is either unqualified, unemployed, or some other bullshit criticism, you also poo-poo every source I cite…then you go and cite your blog and the blog of an unqualified, unemployed blogger. Wise ta fuck up. You are a dishonest joke.”

          It takes some maddening hysteria to write this. I personally know the academic employment of O’Neill, and so reading that he is unemployed like your master Carrier sounds crazy to me. As I’ve noted earlier, he has credentials, his blog is endorsed by scholars, etc etc. Almost all the elements of good research. The fact that all your sources are either unqualified or unemployed or just blogs with nothing more to them should really make you stop and reconsidering who is and who isn’t brainwashing you.

          “Since it is endorsements that give you a thrill, check out the endorsements at Vridar…”

          Anyways, I must admit that this came as a bit of a surprise to me. This is the first time in a long time that you’ve been able to demonstrate a capacity for serious reasoning.

          “Do you trust scholars that believe that Joseph Smyth got golden plates off the angel Moroni and a magic hat and seer stone spectacles to aid deciphering them on the veracity of that claim?”

          Depends. Show me their evidence published in academic forums and I’ll look at it, and then I’ll evaluate my position on such a thing. Oh wait, the only supernatural event with secular, peer-reviewed support is the resurrection.

          “The Resurrection is a supernatural claim and anything pertaining to the veracity of that claim is not evidenced supported opinion.”

          Of course it is, see Licona’s book that is drowned in evidence.

          “You don’t have a clue, do ya? Jesus being an historical guy won’t change a thing as far as Carriers atheism goes. The miracle working god guy in the NT is made up nonsense, regardless. No bias required.”

          The God of the NT is clearly the correct God and your attempt at responding is downright laughable, but this is such a vapid attempt at changing the conversation I couldn’t have made one up better myself. Carrier’s atheism has nothing to do with this, it’s the fact that he’s hopelessly biased to tiers that are surpassed by Licona, Evans, myself, and every other Christian in both American continents combined. And yet you complain about the bias of some of the people that I cite, demonstrating your endless hypocrisy and cherry picking.

          “I don’t care what you think or trust. It is irrelevant. My claim is that those three sources, Wiki, Newspapers, and blogs, are legit and acceptable in third level academic writing in spite of your protestations, and I proved it. So you are wrong…again.”

          You didn’t prove crap. You referenced me to a Harvard page on how to cite specific pages. I can show you academic institutions explaining how to cite YouTube videos. All of that is irrelevant. Blogs are not reliable sources. Wikipedia, as you are forced to admit, is unreliable. These sources can be cited depending on very certain circumstances, and that’s the limit. See? The fact is that I’m looking for reliable sources. Evidence. Preferably stuff that has passed peer-review. Does it need to be in a journal or published by Cambridge to be used? No, but that is highly preferable. What I’m saying here is so obvious that it’s just logically incredible you deny any of it.

          “Most biblical scholars and historians hold that the investigation of a miracle report lies outside of the rights of historians acting within their professional capacity. In this essay, I challenge this position and argue to the contrary.”

          Key word: most. Which means there are secular scholars that take the opposite position. Which means I’m right.

          “He relies on anecdotes for a starter.”

          LOL! You mean his little story in the prologue about using certain words in court? The point of Licona’s argument has gone flying over your head.

          “Demonstrating your ignorance. Carrier was an evangelical Christian who lost faith. But he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to mythicism. Forced to read Docherty’s thesis, he began to investigate and it was only then that he found the scholarship is not all it was cracked up to be.”

          The fact that you believe this almost archetypal-sounding story demonstrates how mythicists are so amazingly gullible. Carrier ALWAYS had a feeling for the mythicists ever since he lost his mind and started hating theists. He read Doherty’s book, which is downright ridiculous considering the fact that he should have been focusing on actual history in a period of time that would have been critical for him actually getting into an academic career, and very, very quickly started mingling, and then becoming obsessed with mythicism. Kicking and screaming? Your gullibility is literally boundless if you believe that. Just so recently, Carrier’s vapid bias got exposed once again by a scholar:
          https://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/richard-carriers-reading-problems-an-example/
          Basically, some scholar published a pretty critical review of Carrier’s book on Jesus historicity, which level-headed people know is a mess. So Carrier, in his response to Gullotta’s paper on discussion of this review, called Peterson “fawningly Christian” and some other ridiculous stuff (like saying that her Christian bias is evident from her scholarly works). Turns out, the author of the post above was one of the editors of the journal that the critical review got published in, and he points out that the author of the paper was an atheist. So Carrier flat out made the entire story up, lied through the grits of his teeth to publicly attack someone who criticized his stupid ideas. That’s unashamed bias, plain and simple. I watched one of Carrier’s debates with some guy from CatholicAnswers, and once one of Carrier’s mangled misuses of some ancient 1st century BC document was outright exposed by a commentary on that text, Carrier’s response was “A Christian wrote that commentary”. Seriously. This guy is a joke.

          “Whaaa? So why is part one of his argument in the debate with Dilahunty spent trying to demonstrate the empirical veracity of the supernatural?”

          Are you insane? Please re-watch the debate, Licona explicitly states you can affirm a supernatural event for yourself, but professionally, you cannot actually affirm the supernatural cause. Read his book. Or his paper. Or actually focus when Licona is talking instead of snoring, only to wake up and start cheering once Dillahunty starts his speeches.

          “O’Neill has a degree in medieval literature ya doughnut. I don’t care who endorses his blog.

          James McGrath is another lying toad. Both he and Hurtado have a predisposition to belief in the Resurrection. I have McGrath’s book on the issue. They are both biased and not doing history when supporting the supernatural. O’Neill is at least honest on this point.”

          What kind of downright stupidity is this? McGrath is not a “lying toad”, as your master would like you to believe. He is an actual professor and scholar. And Hurtado is world-renowned. And O’Neill’s blog has nothing to do with the resurrection. How on Earth can you get so many things wrong? And it’s incredible how this guy is complaining about the people who endorsed O’Neill’s blog, all of whom are successful historians, when apparently you haven’t bothered seeings the endorsers of Godfrey’s blog. Do you know …… anything about them? Needless to say, they are downright radical minimalists on most issues.

          “I realise you believe that to be the case, but O’Neill has done fuck all of the sort. And you are repeating yourself, probably because you are slavering at this point.”

          Emotions aren’t arguments. O’Neill destroyed Carrier. Why hasn’t Carrier been able to respond? Carrier was quick to explode when O’Neill wrote a comment under Ehrman’s blog, but now that O’Neill has produced many very long and irrefutable crushings of his thesis, he has suddenly gone silent. Why?

          Since virtually everything you’ve written has been debunked at this point, it’s hard to see why I should keep responding to the disasters that you take seriously. You thought Bethlehem was uninhabited in Jesus’ time. You were immediately crushed, offered no apologies. You tried to respond to Licona. You were crushed, exposed as having zero awareness of scholarship, revealed as having failed to even read any of his material, and were shown to only be able to reinforce your presupposition of “HURRR DURR SUPERNATURALISM ISNT HSITORYTYTR” — something Licona already debunked in a paper. You claimed so many things that have been revealed as incredible nonsense and still have failed to change your mind about any serious issue. It’s been demonstrated you accept every single mythicist conspiracy, without exception. You are unable to offer refutations to any arguments provided. All you do is post links to the sprawling chaos that is Vridar and Carrier’s refuted mythicist thesis and … that’s it. This is a serious waste of my time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Huh? So someone was built a city at Bethlehem and no one bothered to live there?

          The practice it takes to be that stupid must be time consuming. Are you seriously proposing that cities have never been abandoned only to be inhabited again later?

          The Bethlehem of Galilee would be one such place.

          Jerusalem?

          Have you never heard of the “ghost towns of China”?

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339536/Ghost-towns-China-Satellite-images-cities-lying-completely-deserted.html

          Your incredulity knows no bounds.

          Why wouldn’t anyone inhabit such fertile land located in such a holy place in Jewish tradition?

          Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it was because it wasn’t such a holy place. It makes no difference.

          And Oshri never says it wasn’t inhabited, either, simply that there are no archaeological remains.

          Listen soft boy, when people inhabit a place in large numbers, city size in fact, they leave archaeology as evidence. That’s how the discipline works.

          I am curious as to whether Oshri has made these statements in any of his scholarly work.

          I don’t care all that much where he says it, the fact is, he says it.

          If Bethlehem didn’t exist until something like 500 AD, then how did Jerome live there for 30 years?

          Did Jerome live there for 30 years? Which Bethlehem? And again, no one has said that it didn’t exist. Just that the evidence points to that it didn’t exist as an inhabited city. The claim is that there is no archaeological evidence that it was inhabited, when there is an expectation that it was. Deal with it.

          I did some more digging, and found that many scholars all have estimates on the population of Bethlehem during Jesus’ time. For example:
          “Estimates of the total population of Bethlehem in the first century are generally under 1,000”
          R. T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Gospel of Matthew
          “[If] population of Bethlehem were about 1,000 at the time (and that is a high estimate),”
          Thomas Graves, “A Story Ignored: An Exegesis Of Matthew 2:13–23,” – Faith and Mission 05, no. 1 (Fall)
          Many scholars (general example: W.F. Albright) usually put it in the hundreds, maybe around 300. My skeptic-meter is going through the roof.

          I don’t care. A settlement of 1000 folk will leave archaeological finds. Remains of a Neolithic settlement have been found in my own home town.

          There are multiple sites in the area where evidence of prehistoric settlements have been uncovered, most notably at Lough Mourne just north of the present-day town. Here, a number of crannogs were uncovered during draining of the lough in 1881, as well as several ancient structures and a wooden canoe – all thought to be late-Neolithic in origin.

          https://carrickfergushistory.co.uk/

          If there is no evidence on the ground that people lived in Bethlehem of Judea at the time under consideration, then people didn’t live there. If there is evidence that people lived at a different Bethlehem at the time, then the figures may just as well apply to that other Bethlehem…the one in Galilee. There is plenty of made up nonsense in gMatt. It is not a history book.

        • Pofarmer

          R. T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Gospel of Matthew

          Obviously someone deeply worried about historical accuracy.

          Rather than being a “commentary on commentaries,” The Gospel of Matthew
          is concerned throughout with what Matthew himself meant to convey
          about Jesus and how he set about doing so within the cultural and
          historical context of first-century Palestine. France frequently draws
          attention to the distinctive nature of the province of Galilee and
          the social dynamics involved when a Galilean prophet presents himself
          in Jerusalem as the Messiah.

          Sounds like typical question begging circular nonsense.

          I’ll be darned.

          Richard Thomas France (2 April 1938 – 10 February 2012) was a New Testament scholar and Anglican cleric.[1][2] He was Principal of Wycliffe Hall Oxford from 1989 to 1995. He also worked for the London School of Theology.

          Yet another Priest.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._T._France

        • Pofarmer

          Thomas H. Graves

          Professor of Philosophy of Religion
          Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

          Obviously strong Archaeological credentials.

          And that’s actually the only reference to him that I can find.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=7F6fCBN5uqsC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=Thomas+H.+Graves++Professor+of+Philosophy+of+Religion+Southeastern+Baptist+Theological+Seminary&source=bl&ots=BaavDnlKOV&sig=zI6bMAlBHyQSY2G8LSo-8OYkWXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQnLrhzrLZAhUG04MKHYqfCsEQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20H.%20Graves%20%20Professor%20of%20Philosophy%20of%20Religion%20Southeastern%20Baptist%20Theological%20Seminary&f=false

          Aaaannnnnnddddddd another Pastor. Southern Baptist flavor this time, although it looks like he may have been trying to work against the fundies.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Credentials only matter and are important when they matter to his argument, by knob heads logic. His dishonesty and rank hypocrisy is outrageous.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s almost inexplicable how the can’t understand that others might sort of accuse their “scholars” of bias.

          I also remembered the other day, I’d read, I think it was Sanders, arguments for the Aramaism’s in the gospels, and I remember thinking, WTF? It’s pretty much circular made up bullshit with whatever “criterion” they can pull out of their ass.

        • Greg G.

          But… but… but… Jesus spoke Aramaic so if there is a trace of Aramaic in the gospels, it must have come from Jesus because nobody else spoke Aramaic in the first century.

        • Ignorant Amos

          As for the Krauss thing regarding the absolutely blatantly irrelevant podcast of Craig that has nothing to do with any arguments of the sort (it’s amazing Krauss even knows it exists, which means he must have been aggrssively looking for something to put against Craig),

          Now yer just taking the pish.

          Craig has already responded by saying he did in fact make a misunderstanding:
          After a very full day at a Pastor’s Conference yesterday in Adelaide, Jan and I finally have a bit of a break. This gives me a chance to address one of the personal charges that Krauss issued in his opening speech of the Brisbane event.
          It concerns a mistake which I had already realized and corrected some time ago. When Kevin Harris and I recorded our podcasts reviewing the movie “The Unbelievers,” we worked off an audio recording someone had made of the movie. So we could not see who was actually speaking. I mistook who was speaking in an exchange between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell and so misinterpreted the exchange. When we became aware of the mistake, we immediately corrected the podcast so that the misattribution was no longer made. However, Krauss obtained a copy of the initial uncorrected podcast during the few days it was public and played it during his opening speech, followed by the clip from the movie showing what had actually taken place. He construed this as deliberate misrepresentation and distortion on my part, thereby impugning my character.
          The mistake was mine, and I regret it. It was, however, an honest mistake, self-corrected as soon as we became aware of it. It was not deliberate misrepresentation or distortion as Prof. Krauss charged. I explained this to him personally after the Dialogue, but he remained unmollified. It will be interesting to see if he brings it up in the Sydney Dialogue.”

          Demonstrating that you haven’t watched the video of Krauss I posted and have no comprehension of it’s contents, thus proving you are every bit as dishonest as WLC…liars for Jesus one and all. Krauss addresses Craig’s pathetic excuse in the video.

          Krauss pulls Craig’s that excuse apart ya fuckwit.

          As for not knowing that it wasn’t Dawkins speaking when he said it was, wise ta fuck up…Dawkins voice is very distinctive, but regardless, only a stupid bastard would ignorantly attribute a name to a person that they were unsure of who was saying what. What followed from Craig is fucking weaselling of the highest order.

          But you keep digging this hole yer in, because it demonstrates just how much of a dishonest prick you really are and I couldn’t wish for better evidence.

          Craig is a lying misrepresenting toe-rag as demonstrated in the video a number of times…you attempts to defend him puts you in the same character. Wise up, watch the video before commenting further and making an even bigger embarrassing arsehole of yerself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Pakistan is a fairly modern country. Are you saying that the universities in Pakistan are derivative of the 11th century universities in Europe? No more than Caltech.”

          That the modern university is derivative of the Christian precursor is exactly what I’m saying.

          That the Christian precursor is derivative of the Muslim precursor is exactly what I’m saying.

          That the university began in the Muslim world and then onto the Christian world is academic to todays universities. Where the science that was getting done in academia in the Christian world contradicted accepted theology, it was stifled. Both Protestant and Catholics stifled scientific progress.

          Even before the 1543 publication of De revolutionibus, rumors circulated about its central theses. Martin Luther is quoted as saying in 1539:

          “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon … This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

          The works of Copernicus and Zúñiga—the latter for asserting that De revolutionibus was compatible with Catholic faith—were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of March 5, 1616 (more than 70 years after Copernicus’ publication):

          “This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga’s In Job … Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus [De revolutionibus] and Diego de Zúñiga [In Job] be suspended until corrected.”

        • Korus Destroyus

          “That the Christian precursor is derivative of the Muslim precursor is exactly what I’m saying.

          That the university began in the Muslim world and then onto the Christian world is academic to todays universities. Where the science that was getting done in academia in the Christian world contradicted accepted theology, it was stifled. Both Protestant and Catholics stifled scientific progress.”

          Actually, that never happened. The Draper-White conflict thesis that there was some sort of historical conflict between science and religion is the laughing stock of modern historians of science.
          “The idea that scientific and religious camps have historically been separate and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science.” -Lawrence Principe, Professor of the History of Science, Medicine and Technology at John Hopkins University
          I’ve presented this quote a few times now. Why can’t history just be accepted by you? There was no stifling of the sciences. None. Never. Ever. Zero. Zit. Nadda. Didn’t happen. The idea was invented in the 19th century. Nil.

          Back when Copernicus presented his theory, there was zero evidence it was true. In fact, there was evidence against it. It was a fringe thesis. Galileo then came along, and also tried to support the theory — his main evidence being the waves of the ocean. Galileo’s support for heliocentrism was also scientifically flawed, though his conclusion was correct. The first real proof of heliocentrism came almost a century after Galileo’s death, and when that happened, no one doubted it in the Church. Because there was actual evidence. And by the way, both Copernicus and Galileo were pushed by the Popes of the times themselves to publish their theses, which flagrantly cyclops modern atheist hysteria.

          “Demonstrating that you haven’t watched the video of Krauss I posted and have no comprehension of it’s contents, thus proving you are every bit as dishonest as WLC…liars for Jesus one and all. Krauss addresses Craig’s pathetic excuse in the video.”

          Krauss fails to address anything. As I noted earlier, Craig basically said that he made a little mistake. Krauss then, after losing a debate with Craig, finally loses his mind and tries to publicly shame Craig, after Craig explicitly demonstrated Krauss lied about Vilenkin’s emails.

          “Craig is a lying misrepresenting toe-rag as demonstrated in the video a number of times…you attempts to defend him puts you in the same character. Wise up, watch the video before commenting further and making an even bigger embarrassing arsehole of yerself.”

          Sorry, rookie, you need to get a hold of yourself. In Craig’s thirty+ years of public conversation, all you can do is point to a single small error in an unreleased podcast that was brought to you by Krauss’s emotional tantrum. This is the depths of atheist hysteria and proves just how good Craig is at demolishing atheistic ideology. It just can’t discuss the evidence, so it has to attack the character, it’s an ad hominem fallacy ad infinitum.

          “Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it was because it wasn’t such a holy place. It makes no difference.”

          What is the stupidness that I’m reading. Bethlehem wasn’t a holy place? The Jews at the time were reading an OT that said that their future Messiah, savior at the end of times, was going to be born in Bethlehem, since King David himself was originally born in Bethlehem. Please restrain yourself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          To continue proving you have literally zero knowledge on academia, you ask me the qualifications in history of literally James Charlesworth, Richard Hays, Gerd Theissen, Stanley Porter, Daniel Wallace, and Craig Evans. This is close to making me lose my consciousness given how stupid it is. James Charlesworth has written the standard volume on pseudipgrapha in the intertestamental period (apocryphal texts of the OT world). Daniel Wallace has written the standard work on koine Greek grammar (the Greek from the period of 300 BC – 300 AD). Richard Hays has written the standard work on how New Testament authors, especially Paul, used and understood the Old Testament (Hays has actually done a lot more than this, he is one of the greatest NT historians/scholars to ever live actually and is not only a professor, but the dean of his department at Duke). Craig Evans has published over 600 scholarly articles, that itself explains why he is world renowned in the field. Gerd Theissen has written widely and contributed in many NT fields, he has received a number of awards for his advancements. Stanley Porter has similarly written widely in many fields. Search up their names in Google Scholars and look in awe how much their work is cited.

          That’s all very impressive…NOT! It has fuck all to do with the issue here…a bunch of non sequiturs.

          You have not answered my question. What are their qualifications in the discipline of history?

          You are the wanker that insists on hyper-specific qualification.

          They are blurbing a book that is asserting an historical claim that is abusing how far the remit of an historian can go. It all might give you a major stiffy, I could give zero fucks. People who believe in supernatural woo-woo are fuckwits on that point of contention, regardless of any intellect in another area.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Compare all these guys to Richard Carrier, who has published, in his entire lifetime, like 6 papers, and have been cited in the single digits.

          I give zero fucks. A million papers and 20 million citations…address the arguments, not the man.

          Honest scholars will admit the problem.

          In 2012, Davies weighed in on the Christ Myth Theory debate in the article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com. He applauded the book Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus edited by Thomas L. Thompson writing “the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear,” criticizing scholars like Bart Ehrman who write with near certainty about Jesus’ existence, and concluding “I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_R._Davies

          Did Jesus Exist?

          http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml

          And this guy is your master.

          Nope…and you are an imbecile for saying as much.

          How does this baby compare to any of the aforementioned men?

          For the umpteenth time, I don’t give a flying fuck. I refer you again to Thomas L. Thompson.

          Alfred Wegener was poo-poo’d as a kook and outsider by just about all the esteemed geologists of his day. Continental Drift, now better known as Plate Tectonics, is accepted science today.

          You later admit that you cannot explain the contributions of any of the scholars above who have endorsed Licona’s book.

          Their contributions are irrelevant, why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? You are making another fallacious argument, the argument from authority. The authority is fallacious because some of it isn’t qualified, and all of it is biased.

          But you still had to misrepresent me in your paraphrase. You are disingenuous.

          What I said was…

          “I give zero fucks what there collective contributions are if it is tainted by supernatural woo-woo. Believing the Resurrection is believing in supernatural woo-woo. It is not doing history.

          …and you asked…

          “Anyways, can you, off the top of your mind, explain the contributions of a single one of these scholars I named?

          …and I answered…

          Nope, nor is it relevant. It’s a non sequitur. Sir Issac Newton’s interest in alchemy has no relevance on his contribution to physics. Get it?

          From this moment forward, I will call you ‘rookie’, since when it comes to anything that has to do with the academia we’re discussing, you’re a flat out rookie.

          Call me what you want. I was a soldier for many, many years. I have a very thick skin and what someone like you choose to call me is of no consequence because what you are is on full display for everyone to witness.

          You later write that under Licona’s conditions, the tales of Herodotus must be given the same credence as the Resurrection, which proves that rookie also hasn’t read Licona’s arguments.

          If Licona’s arguments are different from those in his debates, please outline where, otherwise the same standards apply to any supernatural claim.

          Why aren’t you a Mormon?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I give zero fucks. A million papers and 20 million citations…address the arguments, not the man.”

          I’ve done that countless times, such as when I debunked the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ fiction Carrier wrote on my blog in a detailed response. Many other scholars have easily spotted the problems in his ideologies.
          https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/james-the-lords-brother-and-mythicism/
          And the fact that Carrier has published like 6 papers ever is greatly important. Carrier is the definition of someone who has a degree from a university and then failed the rest of his life in his career. And yet you trust this guy enormously. And yet, with someone with as little credibility as Carrier as your master, which really sets the bar low for who you’re going to trust on what, you decided to question the credibility of Charlesworth, Hays, Evans, Theissen, Porter, and others. These are scholars of such renown that it is almost unimaginable that you collectively reject them (at least initially did, until I educated you regarding who they were) but so unwittingly follow Carrier’s maddened ideas.

          “I refer you again to Thomas L. Thompson.”

          Ehrman has already weighed in on Thompson’s non-credentials in the NT and that his theories that convince no scholar in the field. By the way, do you know how much of a minimalist Thompson is in OT studies?

          “Their contributions are irrelevant, why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? You are making another fallacious argument, the argument from authority. The authority is fallacious because some of it isn’t qualified, and all of it is biased.”

          Of course they’re qualifications are relevant. I never made used an argument from authority, I can’t quite understand where you found the words written in my comments “Licona proved the resurrection because X endorsed his argument”. I’m referring to the qualifications of the monograph to show it is academically rigorous.

          “If Licona’s arguments are different from those in his debates, please outline where, otherwise the same standards apply to any supernatural claim.”

          You mean the debates he won? Anywho, simply reading Licona’s book should help you out. It is a pretty long book so I couldn’t hope to articulate it here. Or you could read his written dialogue with Bart Ehrman on the reliability of the Gospels (where they also focus on the historicity of the resurrection) for a basic go-through of his argumentation. The dialogue can be accessed through this link from Licona’s website:
          risenjesus.com/gospels

          “Why aren’t you a Mormon?”

          Because I think Joseph Smith was a loon. Back to the renowned scholars who have endorsed Licona’s book:

          “You have not answered my question. What are their qualifications in the discipline of history?”

          All of the overwhelming advancements I have cited are “qualifications in the discipline of history”. Are you talking about degrees relevant to the NT and history degrees? Evans, for example, has both. But what’s the point? Their advancements to the study of history are so mounmental that these are in fact the qualifications we must look at. Contributions to the field is how to determine whether someone is successful in a field after they receive their degree. Edward Witten only has a PhD in physics, but has made contributions to the field of mathematics more significant than almost any actual mathematician (he won the Fields Medal). So that settles whether or not Witten is authoritative on mathematics, much as Charlesworth overwhelming contributions to history prove he is authoritative in history. And Charlesworth has a PhD anyways. Perhaps the title of his dissertation should tell you whether or not it has to do with history:
          A Critical Examination of the Odes of Solomon: Identification, Text, Original Language, Date
          Since everything Charlesworth has ever published is basically on history, what’s your argument? Anyhow, his degrees are in the subjects of ancient religion and philosophy, Greek, Coptic, Semitics, Syriac, biblical studies, and New Testament. So all history. I could go one by one with the others I mentioned, but I don’t need to since they’re all some of the renowned scholars in the historical field we’re talking about.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve done that countless times, such as when I debunked the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ fiction Carrier wrote on my blog in a detailed response. Many other scholars have easily spotted the problems in his ideologies.

          Bwaaahahaha….the Dunning -Kruger effect.

          You’re a muppet. That blog post is full of nonsense.

          I don’t see any response from Carrier on that link.

          Tim O’Neil is not an historian.

          The TF is an interpolated forgery that only fuckwits believe to be original to Josephus.

          The “James the brother of the Lord” passage is easily/better explained as fictive kinship. Does it make sense that even if Paul understood Jesus as existing physically, but divine, born of a perpetual virgin and the mating of a god, that he would have blood siblings?

          And it’s not an idea original to Carrier, no matter how much you want to discredit him.

          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

          The James ossuary? Experts are divided on the authenticity of the inscription on the box. Even if it is authentic to the early Christian era, no one is denying that there was Christians in the first 100 years of Christianity reading a gospel that claimed Jesus had brothers. People were forging stuff then as they are now, half the NT is evidence of that and there are plenty of forged non-canonical scriptures that also attest to early Christian forgery. We are supposed to believe the convicted forger who owned it, had an artefact of such importance sitting on a shelf at home since before 1976 and didn’t think it had any value until more than 25 years later. Wise ta fuck up.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You’re a muppet. That blog post is full of nonsense.

          I don’t see any response from Carrier on that link.

          Tim O’Neil is not an historian.

          The TF is an interpolated forgery that only fuckwits believe to be original to Josephus.

          The “James the brother of the Lord” passage is easily/better explained as fictive kinship. Does it make sense that even if Paul understood Jesus as existing physically, but divine, born of a perpetual virgin and the mating of a god, that he would have blood siblings?”

          In this entire ranting, there isn’t a single response to a single detail or argument I made. Please, you’ll have to do a lot better than that. In writing that post, I have also had some direct discourse with scholars themselves, and so I know exactly what I’m saying, unlike yourself, who we’ve already established and seen you admit knows nothing about scholarship. Again, try to respond to my arguments. It would be better if you posted your ‘responses’ in the comment section of the essay I wrote itself on the blog, by the way. O’Neill, by the way, has bashed Carrier out of existence. It is not even close. Carrier has still been unable to respond to O’Neill, who of course has degrees in history and is a former academic recruiter at a university. Since O’Neill doesn’t publish in history, though, as he says, he’s only a historian in the most general sense of the term, but that doesn’t matter anyway — it appears as if you’ve found yourself guilty over what you endlessly try to accuse me of, “ad hominem fallacy”. In your words, attack the argument, not the man. LOL!

          There is no living Josephan scholar who thinks Antiquities of the Jews XX.9.1 is a “forgery”. And XX.9.1 isn’t an interpolation either, you’re confusing this with Josephus other reference to Jesus in XVIII.3.3, the passage with all the miracles of Jesus and non-Jewish words, etc, which also isn’t forged but just interpolated. Carrier takes a very small minority position in scholarship which holds XVIII.3.3 is entirely forged, which is forgivable on some days, but the fact that he makes these similar debunked claims by O’Neill about XX.9.1 is, in fact, unforgivable. You’ll have to do better than, for example, this:

          “The James ossuary? Experts are divided on the authenticity of the inscription on the box.”

          I make that pretty clear in my article and I also made it pretty clear that this is tangential to my case. Again, you’ll have to respond to the evidence I reveal in the article that in the entire 1st century, every single word written about James the brother of Jesus assumes that he was of Jesus’ actual family. All the attestation supports this. The Ossuary is one extra possibility of support I threw in there since it exists. Again, go to the comments of that essay and respond to the arguments, not a single of which you have yet to address. All you’ve done is made your common stream of mythicist assertions with zero substantiation, all of which you’ve gotten from your master Carrier without a teensy tiny bit of fact-checking.

          Again, the arguments clearly show Carrier is debunked. Please try to respond to the arguments and the evidence cited for them. Carrier is only able to convince the uneducated on this issue.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There is no living Josephan scholar who thinks Antiquities of the Jews XX.9.1 is a “forgery”.

          That’s nice. But since nowhere did I say it was a forgery, I’ve no idea what ta fuck you are wittering on about. Why do keep making such an asshat of yourself by making up shite I never said?

          And XX.9.1 isn’t an interpolation either, you’re confusing this with Josephus other reference to Jesus in XVIII.3.3,…

          I’m not confusing anything ya clown, you are are the one making shite up in your head and applying it to me. So let’s try this again. What I said is…

          The TF is an interpolated forgery that only fuckwits believe to be original to Josephus.

          The TF is short for the Testimonium Flavianum. The Testimonium Flavianum is the offending passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3. So the only person getting confused here is you.

          …the passage with all the miracles of Jesus and non-Jewish words, etc, which also isn’t forged but just interpolated.

          You are too much…how can anyone be so dumb with just one head?

          What is an interpolation do you think? I’ll give you a clue…An interpolation, in relation to literature and especially ancient manuscripts, is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original author.

          When writing something into another persons text and pretending it is by the original author, one is being fraudulent.

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm

          Carrier takes a very small minority position in scholarship which holds XVIII.3.3 is entirely forged, which is forgivable on some days,…

          What, so it is forged? The consensus of scholars is that it is partially forged.

          As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

          “…the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars.”

          “Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it ‘a pure Christian forgery.’ Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with later Christian additions.”

          Arthur Drews writes…

          “In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not.”

          And it matters not, Ehrman makes about the only sensible comment in DJE? when he says the mentions of Jesus in Josephus are to late to matter.

          ….but the fact that he makes these similar debunked claims by O’Neill about XX.9.1 is, in fact, unforgivable.

          O’Neill debunks nothing of the sort.

          Carrier undo’s the lying shitebag in the following takedown…

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

          Now go away with you nonsense.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “That’s nice. But since nowhere did I say it was a forgery, I’ve no idea what ta fuck you are wittering on about. Why do keep making such an asshat of yourself by making up shite I never said?”

          No clue what you’re talking about. I pointed to XX.9.1 and you said that the Testimonium Flavium is a forgery or something. But that passage isn’t the TF, XVIII.3.3 is. Stop swearing and think a little.

          “What is an interpolation do you think? I’ll give you a clue…An interpolation, in relation to literature and especially ancient manuscripts, is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original author.”

          Where did I deny that? Think a little. There is an interpolation in the TF. Though it doesn’t encompass the entire TF. That’s what I said.

          “What, so it is forged? The consensus of scholars is that it is partially forged.”

          That’s what I’m saying. “Partially forged” == i.e. there’s an interpolation in the TF.

          Do you know which part of the TF is considered authentic?

          “O’Neill debunks nothing of the sort.
          Carrier undo’s the lying shitebag in the following takedown…
          https://www.richardcarrier….
          Now go away with you nonsense.”

          AHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          You didn’t even read O’Neill’s articles, it looks like. Perhaps you have yet to realize that O’Neill’s response is actually a response to that article itself. Let me give you a quick rundown. O’Neill pointed out how Carrier is a moron on Ehrman’s blog. Carrier responded with the stupidity above. O’Neill then blazingly destroyed Carrier in one of the first articles on his blog titled ‘Richard Carrier is Displeased’.
          https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/

          O’Neill wouldn’t have written a single article about Carrier if it wasn’t for Carrier’s insipid attempt to totally misrepresent every word he wrote. Please read the above article, where Carrier’s post is taken apart.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No clue what you’re talking about. I pointed to XX.9.1 and you said that the Testimonium Flavium is a forgery or something. But that passage isn’t the TF, XVIII.3.3 is.

          You have nowhere in this forum pointed out anything of the sort. What I said is…

          The TF is an interpolated forgery that only fuckwits believe to be original to Josephus.

          Which it is. If Josephus made no Christ reference in the TF, then the reference to James the brother of Christ in Book 20.9.1 is a scribal interpolation because Josephus did not leave stand alone terms like that without explanations.

          The Josephus argument is a red herring. Ehrman admits that it is irrelevant to the historicity argument. Move on already.

          Stop swearing and think a little.

          Fuck off and quit the tone trolling.

          “What is an interpolation do you think? I’ll give you a clue…An interpolation, in relation to literature and especially ancient manuscripts, is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original author.”

          Where did I deny that? Think a little.

          You don’t seem to be able to think at all.

          There is an interpolation in the TF. Though it doesn’t encompass the entire TF. That’s what I said.

          What you said, and what I was replying to, is…

          …the passage with all the miracles of Jesus and non-Jewish words, etc, which also isn’t forged but just interpolated.

          That’s what I’m saying. “Partially forged” == i.e. there’s an interpolation in the TF.

          Except that isn’t what you said, is it soft bot…isn’t forged but just interpolated…get it? Why do you so blatantly lie?

          You didn’t even read O’Neill’s articles, it looks like.

          I started to…but then my stomach started to churn with the bullshit.

          Perhaps you have yet to realize that O’Neill’s response is actually a response to that article itself. Let me give you a quick rundown. O’Neill pointed out how Carrier is a moron on Ehrman’s blog. Carrier responded with the stupidity above. O’Neill then blazingly destroyed Carrier in one of the first articles on his blog titled ‘Richard Carrier is Displeased’.

          Carrier showed where O’Neill fucked up and lied. O’Neill admits he fucked up right from the get go and stated he apologised for it. Does that mean Carrier has no right to respond?

          O’Neill’s rant is his opinion on the peer-reviewed article, which he is certainly entitled to, but the paper was peer-reviewed for a scholarly journal, sio I trust the peer-reviewers to have done their due diligence.

          And you have been caught lying yet again. Since I’ve read down through the comments someway too, I noticed you had this to say…

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

          So Carrier did respond, just not the way you would’ve liked.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You claimed Carrier wrote a detailed response in your blog. No such detailed response was at the link you provided. Did Carrier provide a detailed response in your blog or not?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You claimed Carrier wrote a detailed response in your blog. No such detailed response was at the link you provided. Did Carrier provide a detailed response in your blog or not?”

          I have no clue which part of my blog you’re talking about. If you want to discuss my blog, do it in the comment section under the blog itself, and quote the words you’re responding to.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve done that countless times, such as when I debunked the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ fiction Carrier wrote on my blog in a detailed response.

          Right…what a difference some punctuation makes. So what you meant to say is…

          I’ve done that countless times, such as when I debunked the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ fiction Carrier wrote, on my blog in a detailed response.

          Yeah, scholarly writer, my arse.

          If you want to discuss my blog, do it in the comment section under the blog itself, and quote the words you’re responding to.

          It’s hard going interacting with all your bullshit here. Stop soliciting, it will get you banned as it is against @BobSeidensticker:disqus house rules.

        • Korus Destroyus

          YEAH. I’m starting to get used to this stuff you do.

          “Yeah, scholarly writer, my arse.”

          What?

          “It’s hard going interacting with all your bullshit here. Stop soliciting, it will get you banned as it is against Bob Seidensticker house rules.”

          Never solicited. You’re free to decline. But it’s impossible to respond to all the nonsense you write on a single forum. You can either discuss it or you don’t have to.

          Anyhow, in the next response you give, it’s downright impossible to respond to anything you said since you provide such small quotations of what I wrote. So I flat out don’t know the context of what you’re responding to in some cases. You’re going to have to rewrite your response. Except next time, quote more of what I wrote when responding. So I can actually know what you’re responding to. Here’s what I can get:

          “O’Neill holds no degrees in history. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania.”

          So he has a degree in history. And he has academic employment.

          “Your rank dishonesty is unbelievable. Tim O’Neill’s arguments have been debunked. He was even banned from this site for his asscrankery. He is not to be taken seriously.”

          Debunked where? On Carrier’s post that has been shredded? I’ll repeat the question again. O’Neill explained how Carrier is a moron on Ehrman’s blog. Carrier is so emotional he had to respond to even comments on other blogs he hates, that’s what his entire “asscrankery” gibberish is about. So O’Neill exposed Carrier in that post for lying through his teeth, being a huge narcissist, and destroyed all his arguments. The question is almost here. Carrier was willing to respond to even comments O’Neill wrote, but now that O’Neill has wrote an entire section devoted to Carrier, Carrier is suddenly silent. Why?

          Where is the debunking?

          O’Neill proved Carrier is wrong. He proved it. That’s why Carrier can’t address O’Neill anymore. He has nothing to say. Mythicism is dead. The refutations of mythicism are there for everyone to see. Still have trouble realizing why historians think mythicism is bunk? Jesus existed. Plain and simple. Get over it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Never solicited. You’re free to decline. But it’s impossible to respond to all the nonsense you write on a single forum. You can either discuss it or you don’t have to.

          Posting your blog and making to requests to go there to interact is soliciting, doofus.

          Anyhow, in the next response you give, it’s downright impossible to respond to anything you said since you provide such small quotations of what I wrote

          So ya can’t remember what you write yourself? It was only a day ago….here… https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/yeah_but_christianity_built_universities_and_hospitals/#comment-3764323561

          “O’Neill holds no degrees in history. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania.”

          So he has a degree in history. And he has academic employment.

          Nope. He readily admits he isn’t a qualified historian. He is employed as an administrator fer fuck sake, not an historian, or even in a teaching role. Give this bullshit credential nonsense up will ya? You are looking silly.

          Debunked where? On Carrier’s post that has been shredded?

          Not what I read in O’Neill’s rant.

          I’ll repeat the question again. O’Neill explained how Carrier is a moron on Ehrman’s blog. Carrier is so emotional he had to respond to even comments on other blogs he hates, that’s what his entire “asscrankery” gibberish is about.

          He’s not allowed to defend himself then? You whine about his responding and you whine when he ignores. Wise up.

          So O’Neill exposed Carrier in that post for lying through his teeth, being a huge narcissist, and destroyed all his arguments.

          No he didn’t. It’ll take a lot more than a blog post to destroy Carriers argument and most of that rant was concerned with personal attack.

          The question is almost here. Carrier was willing to respond to even comments O’Neill wrote, but now that O’Neill has wrote an entire section devoted to Carrier, Carrier is suddenly silent. Why?

          You are repeating your lie again Jimmy boy…you posted Carriers reply on O’Neill’s blog.

          O’Neill proved Carrier is wrong. He proved it. That’s why Carrier can’t address O’Neill anymore. He has nothing to say. Mythicism is dead. The refutations of mythicism are there for everyone to see. Still have trouble realizing why historians think mythicism is bunk? Jesus existed. Plain and simple. Get over it.

          You’re crazy. Which Jesus existed?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Posting your blog and making to requests to go there to interact is soliciting, doofus.”

          Telling you where I will and will not have certain discussions is not soliciting, doofus.

          Doofus: Nope. He readily admits he isn’t a qualified historian.
          O’Neill: No. At least, not in anything but the broadest sense of the word. I do have training in the historical method, I have studied historiography and I have read widely in the work of leading professional historians in ancient and medieval history, the history of science and the history of Christianity and its theology. But I am not presenting original research of my own here or putting my own re-interpretive spin on any historical topic. Instead, I’m drawing on over 35 years of reading on a range of topics relevant to the history of western religion and seek to curate summaries of current expert scholarly positions on those subjects. It’s the qualifications and expertise of the historians and scholars I cite and whose work I draw on that are relevant here.

          So, O’Neill combines his degree in history to be able to simply review what scholars are saying. O’Neill is an academic recruiter at a university (now some global medical institution). He does not present original research, he only reviews scholarly facts.

          “He’s not allowed to defend himself then? You whine about his responding and you whine when he ignores. Wise up.”

          Strawman Fallacy. Never said he can’t defend himself. He tried to defend himself … by lying about O’Neill. So O’Neill refuted him.

          “No he didn’t. It’ll take a lot more than a blog post to destroy Carriers argument and most of that rant was concerned with personal attack.”

          Wrong again. O’Neill’s “blog post” is long enough so that it explores & debunks Carrier, so badly that Carrier still can’t respond to O’Neill. Why?

          “You’re crazy. Which Jesus existed?”

          Typical mythicist tactic. Jesus, as in, the first century Jewish preacher, had some followers who thought He was the Messiah, proclaimed the end of the world and got crucified, and is the subject of the Gospel accounts.

          “Which it is. If Josephus made no Christ reference in the TF, then the reference to James the brother of Christ in Book 20.9.1 is a scribal interpolation because Josephus did not leave stand alone terms like that without explanations.”

          Non-sequitur. As O’Neill showed in his debunking of Carrier, Josephus used stand alone terms without explanations literally all the time. There is no evidence of interpolation in XX.9.1, and there is only evidence it is authentic. Scholarly consensus, as we just went over, says there is an interpolation in XVIII.3.3 but it is partially authentic. Wise up.

          “Except that isn’t what you said, is it soft bot…isn’t forged but just interpolated…get it? Why do you so blatantly lie?”

          Lie? So disagreeing with your conspiracy is ‘lying’? Forgery =/= interpolation. Forgery is when an entire account is inserted. Interpolation is when a pre-existing account is just changed up. You’ve already admitted you know nothing about scholarship and history, so I’ll explain interpolation a bit more for you. Imagine this text:

          blah blah blah blah blah carrier is a loser blah blah blah

          Now, let’s say something changes that to this:

          blah blah blah blah blah carrier is a BIG loser blah blah blah

          The account is an interpolation because some scribe (i.e. me) took an account that already existed, and just changed it a little bit. Same thing with the TF. Josephus wrote some things about Jesus. A later Christian interpolated the passage by adding in a few extra elements. That is well known by the vast majority of Josephan scholars. Then, little ol’ Carrier comes along, farts, and then says that actually it’s all forged. So Carrier once again has to adulterate scholarship to make things fit just right with his mythicism.

          “Carrier showed where O’Neill fucked up and lied. O’Neill admits he fucked up right from the get go and stated he apologised for it. Does that mean Carrier has no right to respond?”

          More lies. Typical of a follower of Carrier. O’Neill “lies” when he mixed up the two Ananus’s? If he lied, then why is there documentation he publicly acknowledged the error a year before Carrier ever brought it up?
          http://armariummagnus.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html?showComment=1435818880247#c8836758833958287168

          So O’Neill didn’t lie. Strike one. So, does this note have any affect on O’Neill’s debunking of Carrier? Nope. Strike two. So, did you read O’Neill’s debunking of Carrier, and proceed to address nothing except the very beginning of the section before O’Neill even starts his debunking of Carrier? Yep. Strike three, you’re out. This is why mythicists lose. Please post your comments about O’Neill under O’Neill’s blog. With near certainty, O’Neill will respond. I will have a very entertaining time reading O’Neill skewer you.

          “O’Neill’s rant is his opinion on the peer-reviewed article, which he is certainly entitled to, but the paper was peer-reviewed for a scholarly journal, sio I trust the peer-reviewers to have done their due diligence.”

          Argument from authority fallacy, cherry picking fallacy (since there are peer-reviewed articles specifically saying Carrier is wrong). And again, this proves you’ve refuted yourself once again. Licona’s paper on historians and the supernatural is peer-reviewed. So, using your own logic, “while you, oh very ignorant Ignorant Amos are entitled to your slightly crazed disagreements, Licona’s paper is peer-reviewed, and therefore I, Korvexius, trust the peer-reviewers have done their due diligence, therefore rendering all criticism obsolete.” And presto, you lose. Again.

          “So Carrier did respond, just not the way you would’ve liked.”

          Actually, he responded exactly the way I liked. He bungled so badly that I’ve re-read O’Neill’s articles several times now just because his crushing of Carrier is so good. I literally could not have been more glad that Carrier lost so badly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Telling you where I will and will not have certain discussions is not soliciting, doofus.

          Pointing out your continued errors is getting really tedious and time wasted I’ll never get back.

          While linking to third party sources, even someone else’s blog, is allowed. Promoting one’s own domain is soliciting. It is frowned upon. Requesting that members leave the current forum to go and engage on your forum, twice, is soliciting and Bob doesn’t like it. It is exactly the same as if you were a bar owner entering the competitions establishment and handing out flyers for your own place. It’s bad form. Put your blog details on your Disqus profile and anyone with any interest will find it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you an historian?

          O’Neill: No

          So not an historian then…like I said he said.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Typical mythicist tactic. Jesus, as in, the first century Jewish preacher, had some followers who thought He was the Messiah, proclaimed the end of the world and got crucified, and is the subject of the Gospel accounts.

          Nope, the guy of the gospel accounts didn’t exist.

          The one who did all sorts of claimed supernatural jiggery pokery, including Resurrecting and ascending into some ethereal domain called Heaven as described in the NT

          Typical mythicist tactic. Jesus, as in, the first century Jewish preacher, had some followers who thought He was the Messiah, proclaimed the end of the world and got crucified, and is the subject of the Gospel accounts.

          FTFY…Now it’s fair enough. I can accept that thesis, apocalyptic preachers were ten a penny at the time and Jesus, or the Aramaic version of the name, proving it is any particular individual is your problem.

          But not the other Jesus, as in, the first century phantom, had some followers who thought he was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances. They consequently denied Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into heaven?

          So many Jesuses.. …who’s who…will the real JC please stand up!

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Except that isn’t what you said, is it soft bot…isn’t forged but just interpolated…get it? Why do you so blatantly lie?”

          Lie? So disagreeing with your conspiracy is ‘lying’?

          What’s my little conspiracy? You are lying because and interpolation are synonymous and as I’ve pointed out you said the TF isn’t forged but just interpolated. The interpolated bits are the forged bits ya cretin…even if I grant that the whole thing in it’s entirety isn’t interpolated.

          Forgery =/= interpolation. Forgery is when an entire account is inserted. Interpolation is when a pre-existing account is just changed up.

          Depending on the how it comes to be “changed up” and for what reasons.

          You’ve already admitted you know nothing about scholarship and history, so I’ll explain interpolation a bit more for you.

          When I’m taking lessons from you, then I’ll have something to worry about.

          The interpolation in the TF is intentional with the purpose of misleading the reader. It is a forgery.

          The interpolation in the “James who was the brother of Christ” interpolation, might be a scribal error from a marginal note. If it is not intended to mislead the reader but is merely a copyist error or an accident of redaction, then it isn’t a forgery.

          Imagine this text:

          blah blah blah blah blah carrier is a loser blah blah blah

          Now, let’s say something changes that to this:

          blah blah blah blah blah carrier is a BIG loser blah blah blah

          The account is an interpolation because some scribe (i.e. me) took an account that already existed, and just changed it a little bit.

          Indeed, it is an interpolation, but it is also a forgery, because you are fraudulently changing someone else’s writing to say something they didn’t intend to say.

          Same thing with the TF. Josephus wrote some things about Jesus. A later Christian interpolated the passage by adding in a few extra elements.

          Which still makes the interpolated elements a forgery. You said it doesn’t. You are wrong.

          From a Christian source…

          In its rigorous sense, an interpolation is an insertion in a text or document with the object of obtaining backing or authority for the interpolator’s opinion or project. This is the ordinary dictionary sense of the group of words, “interpolation, interpolate, interpolator.” This is also the meaning resigned to the word by legal usage, according to which an interpolation is an insertion within a will or deed, or a molding of its text to an end distinct from the original end and aim of the text itself. The same sense is assigned to the word by diplomacy, where an interpolation is a tampering with the text of a public document by one party to it, in order to gain an advantage over the other party. Thus “interpolation” seems to imply, first, a fixed text and, secondly, a conscious or deliberate purpose to alter or twist the meaning and intention of a text, the interpolator’s aim being to slip his meaning under cover of a mind having greater authority or higher standing than his own, so securing for his own opinion or judgment a market-value above its intrinsic worth. For example, a Christian student of the second century inserted in the text of Josephus (Ant. XVIII., iii. 3) the well-known passage regarding Jesus. His object was to make Josephus a witness to Christ. This is an interpolation in the rigorous sense.

          http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc06/htm/iii.xi.htm

          Interpolations originally may be inserted as an authentic explanatory note (for example, [sic]), but may also be included for fraudulent purposes. The forged passages and works attributed to the Pseudo-Isidore are an example of the latter. Similarly, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch were interpolated by Apollinarian heretics, three centuries after the originals were written. Charters and legal texts are also subject to forgery of this kind. In the 13th Century a medieval romance, the Prose Tristan, inserted another prose romance, the Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal, in its entirety in order to reinterpret the Quest for the Holy Grail through the optics of the Tristan story.

          The question then becomes one of whether the TF is a prtial forgery or a complete forgery, while still remaining an interpolation.

          That is well known by the vast majority of Josephan scholars. Then, little ol’ Carrier comes along, farts, and then says that actually it’s all forged. So Carrier once again has to adulterate scholarship to make things fit just right with his mythicism.

          The bloody thing has been considered a forgery way before Carrier was a glint in his fathers eye.

          It should be noted, however, that prior to the Second World War, many scholars were quite willing to postulate that Josephus made no reference to Jesus at all. See, for example, Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?, p.35 (that both passages can be “suspected of interpolation”); or Charles Guignebert, Jesus, p.18 (“It seems probable that Josephus did not name Jesus anywhere”). The latter, in regarding the Testimonium as a complete forgery, suggested: “It may be admitted that the style of Josephus has been cleverly imitated, a not very difficult matter” (Ibid., p.17).ontrary to your demonising Carrier, there are others that believe the Joesephan references to Jesus are forged.

          The issue just isn’t as settled as you want to think it is…

          http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2222582X.2017.1317008

          …and get this, it doesn’t even matter…

          The last half-century of scholarship has focused mainly on whether the passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities of the Jews, Bk.18 contains an authentic original by Josephus which Christians later only made additions to. This is a bandwagon which virtually every New Testament scholar these days has hopped onto, as though the maintenance of an authentic original is seen as crucial to Jesus’ existence.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You are lying because and interpolation are synonymous and as I’ve pointed out you said the TF isn’t forged but just interpolated.”

          Huh? Correcting you isn’t lying. Listen to me. Interpolation is changing a pre-existing text, whereas forgery is inventing an entire passage/text entirely. You and I both know that your understanding of these issues is minimal. By your admission. Forgery and interpolation aren’t the same thing. Accept reality. Wise up.

          “The interpolation in the “James who was the brother of Christ” interpolation, might be a scribal error from a marginal note.”

          It’s not. This was invented by Carrier to explain away inconvenient evidence. And O’Neill debunked it.

          Later, you post a huge quotation from ccel.org, basically proving that the TF only is interpolated, and of course ccel.org never says it is forged … since it isn’t. Your quotation stunningly proves exactly what I said:

          Thus “interpolation” seems to imply, first, a fixed text and, secondly, a conscious or deliberate purpose to alter or twist the meaning and intention of a text, the interpolator’s aim being to slip his meaning under cover of a mind having greater authority or higher standing than his own, so securing for his own opinion or judgment a market-value above its intrinsic worth.

          Identical to what I said. The TF is an interpolation, and an interpolation is an alteration of a pre-existing “fixed text”. Scholars say the TF is interpolated. Carrier says it’s forged. This appears to shock you.

          “Nope, the guy of the gospel accounts didn’t exist.”

          Get over mythicism. It’s bunk. Historians know that. O’Neill exposed that. Carrier’s career is in the toilet. He just isn’t good enough at history to succeed in the academy. That’s all there is to it. You can cry ad hominem all you want. But that’s the truth about Carrier.

          “So not an historian then…like I said he said.”

          He said he is not a historian, unless you mean ‘historian’ in the most general sense of the term, in which he is. So O’Neill’s actual response is a bit more complex than what you misleadingly said.

          “Promoting one’s own domain is soliciting. It is frowned upon.”

          I get it. You don’t want to discuss it on my blog. And I don’t want to discuss it here. So let’s just not discuss it. Instead, since O’Neill posted an article in the last week on the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ thing a hundred times better than even my account, let’s discuss O’Neill’s arguments.
          https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
          By the way, why don’t you post your objections under O’Neill’s comment section? You seem to have more than enough time to call him a liar, insult him, and more behind his back. So why not man up and argue directly with him? O’Neill has confronted Carrier. And he will address you. So why not go for it? Notify me once you’ve posted your responses under his article. I must warn, though. Since I can address all your claims, good luck trying to survive O’Neill.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Huh? Correcting you isn’t lying. Listen to me. Interpolation is changing a pre-existing text, whereas forgery is inventing an entire passage/text entirely.

          You aren’t correcting me because I’m not wrong and I have supported my assertion with supporting evidence while as usual you just grind crap out without any citation. So when you can demonstrate you are right and I am wrong, you’ll get an apology…you just saying something doesn’t make it so.

          You and I both know that your understanding of these issues is minimal.

          My understanding of these issues is at least on a par with yer own. And with every comment you demonstrate that my understanding is indeed superior to yours.

          By your admission.

          Citation please.

          Forgery and interpolation aren’t the same thing. Accept reality. Wise up.

          Except when they are, as shown in my comment, so you accept reality and wise up.

          The word “interpolate” just means to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, especially deceptively or without authorization. It’s just a scholarly word, but it is committing a forgery.

          Forgery means the act of reproducing something for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose.

          Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

          Some interpolations, several interpolations, or totally an interpolation.

          Some bits forged, several bits forged, or a totally forgery.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not.

          It is.

          This was invented by Carrier to explain away inconvenient evidence.

          That you keep saying this shows you ignorance. Carrier didn’t invent it. Wise up.

          And O’Neill debunked it.

          O’Neill hasn’t debunked it. He has put up a counter argument. If O’Neill had debunked it, he needs to get himself published, because he’d have settled a centuries old debate. I know you think the sun shines out of his arse, but he hasn’t done half the miracle work you claim.

          I’m less confident about what’s going on with James in Ant. 20.200 than I am with the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, but I suspect that Eusebius is primarily responsible for the current reading of the passage. In HE 2.13.20, he reports Origen’s version of the passage, which Origen probably took from “Hegesippus” (I haven’t had time to fully absorb Peter Kirby’s very interesting hypothesis yet) and/or Clement. Most recent exegetes (Chadwick, Mason, Painter) think Eusebius took Origen’s indirect discourse on what Josephus said and changed it into a direct quotation of Josephus, but without citing it to a particular book. He then provides the passage about James in nearly the form in which it currently it exists in the manuscripts of Antiquities and cites it to the twentieth book of Josephus’ Antiquities. I think he found the passage about Ananus putting a man to death in Josephus and identified the man as the James who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, borrowing the identifier from the Origen passage he had just quoted. The man may have been named James in the original, but whether he really was or what further identification Josephus may have given him I couldn’t say.

          Sabrina Inowlocki goes over some of the changes Eusebius introduces in quoting Josephus in Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. Perhaps the closest parallel is where he glosses Josephus description of the Hasmoneans as “who are called Maccabees” (citation available on request). This theory would further entail that the alteration of the James passage was carried over into the manuscripts of the Antiquities (as I believe the Testimonium was). The plausibility of passages making their way from the Greek Eusebius Ecclesiastical History into the Greek Josephus Antiquities is aided by the fact that sixth century Latin translation of the Antiquities borrowed the translations of the Testimonium and the passage about John the Baptist from Rufinus’ existing translation of the Antiquities rather than making a fresh translation. ~ Ken Olson

          As much as you think O’Neill, the amateur historian, has totally resolved the question that has not been convincingly settled in the academy to date, he has. You are just gullible enough and easily impressed, that’s all.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Later, you post a huge quotation from ccel.org, basically proving that the TF only is interpolated, and of course ccel.org never says it is forged … since it isn’t. Your quotation stunningly proves exactly what I said:

          My quotation was made to demonstrate the definition of an interpolation in it’s strictest sense. Compare that definition to that of forgery.

          Identical to what I said. The TF is an interpolation, and an interpolation is an alteration of a pre-existing “fixed text”. Scholars say the TF is interpolated.

          Fuck sake , your comprehension skills stink. I never said anywhere that the TF is not an interpolation. I said that it also fits the definition of a forgery. There are different types of interpolation, one of which is classed as forgery.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation_(manuscripts)

          The TF is an interpolation written for fraudulent purposes…ergo, it is a forgery.

          Carrier says it’s forged. This appears to shock you.

          Carrier is right. Carrier is not the lonely scholar you imagine him to be on this point either. And no, I’m not shocked at all, I happen to think he and others that make the same argument, are right. It’s a total forgery, not a partial forgery…a total interpolation, not a partial interpolation.

        • Pofarmer

          And isn’t it interesting, as I think you’ve already pointed out, or maybe it was Carrier, I don’t remember where I read it, that before the modern Apologist/scholars got hold of it the TF, as well as the “Jesus who was called the Messiah” passage, were seen to be total forgeries. It’s not until the middle of the 20th century when they get ahold of it that the story somehow changes and they are able to divine out the “Genuine” bits. In the same way they can read Pauls mind, and know exactly what he was thinking by “James, the brother of the Lord” when they don’t even have any idea what the actual text might have said or the original intention was. They’re just making shit up and folks like KD and, unfortunately O’neill, have eaten it up and run with it as Gospel.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve certainly pointed out that them not being forgeries is a 20th century phenomena.

          Clutching at straws, even when the straws don’t make much difference.

          KD’s and O’Neill’s animosity towards Carrier is what drives them two…interesting bed partners united by a common goal. They care more about running Carriers character into the deck than anything else…like somehow it matters. From all accounts, Newton was a hateful shite, but so what? Is it a popularity contest that makes ones argument? I don’t think so.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Get over mythicism. It’s bunk.

          Get over religion. It’s bunk. When the smoking gun is produced that refutes mythicism once and for all, I’ll move on having lost nothing…can the same be said for you?

          Historians know that.

          No, they don’t…that’s you problem right there.

          O’Neill exposed that.

          I await his seminal book on the subject…hopefully he can do better than all that has come before him, but until that day, he has exposed fuck all of the sort.

          Carrier’s career is in the toilet. He just isn’t good enough at history to succeed in the academy. That’s all there is to it.

          I really couldn’t give a shite. You fuckwits seem to think it does…your a sorry bastard.

          You can cry ad hominem all you want. But that’s the truth about Carrier.

          It may well be the truth, I give zero fucks…it is still an ad hominem attack and a fallacious argument. That you want to own it tells me more about you and your mentality.

          He said he is not a historian, unless you mean ‘historian’ in the most general sense of the term, in which he is.

          Ya see this is where you make the cunt of yerself. I said he’s not an historian, O’Neill says himself he’s not an historian, but you keep saying his an historian. No I’ve no problem admitting that he is well versed in history…but it is the hyper-specific credential snobbery that you have followed Ehrman’s lead in, that fucks you up.

          So O’Neill’s actual response is a bit more complex than what you misleadingly said.

          Bwaaahahaha.

          All I said was that he is not an historian and that he says so himself. It is you that is fucking lying here and trying to mislead by contradicting both of us in claiming he is an historian. Even if I grant him the historian label, his discipline is in a subject that has fuck all to do with the subject matter under discussion. Something you go to great pains to point out in the opposition, even when they actually are more qualified than O’Neill to engage. Your two faced hypocrisy is rank stinking.

          I get it.

          No, ya don’t get it. Promoting your own place and soliciting folk here to go there is against the rules.

          You don’t want to discuss it on my blog.

          You got that right. You came here remember…do your discussing where we are.

          And I don’t want to discuss it here.

          What are ya doing here then? Do us all a favour and fuck off, your crap is getting boring anyway and I’m just about to pull the plug on your fuckwittery anyway.

          So let’s just not discuss it.

          Whateva…again, you came here, if you aren’t capable of defending yerself, then so be it.

          Instead, since O’Neill posted an article in the last week on the ‘James the brother of the Lord’ thing a hundred times better than even my account, let’s discuss O’Neill’s arguments.

          No, let’s not. I’ve engaged O’Neill before, he’s a cunt. Last time was on this forum. He didn’t get the better of me either. I’ve no interest in going to his place just to entertain you.

          If you are unable to make a claim and support it with evidence right here, then piss off. I haven’t asked you to go to another blog to argue your points…it’s more of you disingenuousness showing.

          Put up, or shut up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          By the way, why don’t you post your objections under O’Neill’s comment section?

          Because I’ve no interest. Why don’t you get yourself over to Vridar and post your objections to Neil Godfrey?

          Look, you came here spouting about how great O’Neill is and demonstrating you raging stiffy for his slam dunk arguments against mythicism. You’ve been totally cretinously bad so far.

          You have made a huge song and dance about Josephus and his forged Jesus references. The Jesus references in Josephus do nothing to support the historical Jesus…Ehrman acknowledges that himself.

          The we have the “brother of the Lord” in Paul, where you punt to O’Neill as the end all and be all of debunking. Yet where is O’Neill published on this? Cite the journal…you are the shitebag that insists on credible sources, claiming a blog, wiki, or newspaper can be dismissed, while lauding your on blog and O’Neill’s as a source. Wise up.

          In the meantime, this is what real scholars do…get published…

          Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1

          This article reviews the well-known (supposedly Josephan) mention of James as “the Brother of Jesus” (i.e. Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1.200). Here, with reference to, inter alia, the insights of Earl Doherty, Steve Mason, Peter Kirby, John Paul Meier, Nikos Kokkinos, as well as to certain key findings gleaned from critical readings of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew and Contra Celsum, I attempt to demonstrate Origen’s possible role in the creation of this long-suspected fraudulent text. In this regard, by highlighting a number of Origen’s key philosophical and theological refutations it becomes evident that apart from the unlikelihood of Josephus ever writing about James, Origen must now be considered the primary suspect for what is possibly a third century CE Christian forgery.

          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321285751_Josephus_on_James_the_Just_A_re-evaluation_of_Antiquitates_Judaicae_2091

          You seem to have more than enough time to call him a liar, insult him, and more behind his back.

          Not only behind his back…mister know nothing.

          So why not man up and argue directly with him?

          Done that already…as epeeist is prone to warn me from time to time with a G.B.S. quote…

          http://www.quotespedia.info/images/knowledge/george_bernard_shaw_knowledge_4033.jpg

          O’Neill has confronted Carrier.

          I know, he made a nuisance of himself, got banned for it. He did the same here too.

          And he will address you. So why not go for it?

          I couldn’t care less and I’m not some performing pony for you to gat snap one off over in an argument with someone else.

          Notify me once you’ve posted your responses under his article.

          Not happening, and if you don’t stop harassing me on the subject, I’ll report your sorry arse on the matter.

          I must warn, though. Since I can address all your claims, good luck trying to survive O’Neill.

          Warning not necessary, I’ve survived him before completely intact. As for your Dunning-Kruger issues, ya wanna seek some professional help on that ailment.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Because I’ve no interest. Why don’t you get yourself over to Vridar and post your objections to Neil Godfrey?”

          Umm, I did. And he banned me. You obviously have a freaking interest, considering just how obsessed you are with accusing O’Neill of all sorts of things. You then post a meme calling O’Neill a pig or something. Your fear is really showing.

          “Because I’ve no interest. Why don’t you get yourself over to Vridar and post your objections to Neil Godfrey?”

          Whether or not they support anything is not the point. They do, but that’s besides the point. They are authentic. A-U-T-H-E-N-T-I-C. The only person telling you otherwise is Carrier, who O’Neill destroyed. Why do you accept falsified claims?

          “In the meantime, this is what real scholars do…get published…”

          Then you post some 2017 paper, which is also discussed by O’Neill in his latest post. Reading the abstract of Allen’s paper, it appears as if he’s a mythicist fanboy, which no doubt means that his work will have no influence. Not to mention, he flatly contradicts Carrier’s view of the text.

          And please don’t talk about getting “published” when you defend Carrier, who has published so little in his lifetime that it is actually stunning. Anyways, back to me pointing you towards bringing your objections to O’Neill himself instead of hiding:

          “Not happening, and if you don’t stop harassing me on the subject, I’ll report your sorry arse on the matter.”

          What a crybaby. Harassing?

          “Get over religion. It’s bunk. When the smoking gun is produced that refutes mythicism once and for all, I’ll move on having lost nothing…can the same be said for you?”

          If mythicism is right, a lot will change for me. Likewise, if all my ideologies were zapped into my brain by fairies when I was a child, that would have just as great of an implication on what I can regard as true. These two scenarios are just as consequential and just as likely. Mythicism is bunk. And it is evident you’d lose a lot, since you’ve emotionally invested so much into mythicism.

          “O’Neill says himself he’s not an historian, but you keep saying his an historian.”

          No, O’Neill said “depends on what you mean by historian”. Do you mean historian in the sense of having contributed original research? O’Neill says in that sense, no. Do you mean in the general sense? O’Neill says in that sense, yes. Again, you are simplifying things which can’t be simplified without lying.

          “My quotation was made to demonstrate the definition of an interpolation in it’s strictest sense. Compare that definition to that of forgery.”

          Stricest sense? What are you talking about? That’s just the definition. You posted a quotation from ccel.org that is literally identical to what I said regarding interpolation. The alteration of a pre-existing test. This seems to shock you. Now you’re backtracking?

          “Fuck sake , your comprehension skills stink. I never said anywhere that the TF is not an interpolation. I said that it also fits the definition of a forgery. There are different types of interpolation, one of which is classed as forgery.”

          No it doesn’t. Repeating yourself won’t make it so. The Wikipedia link never says forgery is a form of interpolation, it merely says legal/charter texts are the subject of forgery. And if that wasn’t enough, the ccel.org link specifically define the interpolation of the TF as being an alteration of a pre-existing text. So it isn’t a wholesale invention. Simple.

          And for the rest of your words, yes, almost everything he says about the passage is invented wholesale to explain away an inconvenient passage for his claim. Why do you think he has stunningly come to the conclusion that XX.9.1, which virtually no living Josephan scholar questions, is an interpolation, which just so happens to so perfectly fit into his mythicist narrative? Don’t you think coincidences ever get a little too good?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Umm, I did. And he banned me.

          Why does that not surprise me.

          You obviously have a freaking interest, considering just how obsessed you are with accusing O’Neill of all sorts of things.

          My interest only extends as far as your repeatedly bringing him up on this thread. He’s an arsecrank and a douchebag. You are the one that has the obsession

          You then post a meme calling O’Neill a pig or something.

          You are illiterate. Pure and simple.

          Your fear is really showing.

          Nope…I’ve already told you, but since you are a bit simple, I’ll say it again, I’ve engaged him before, more than once. While the experience was unpleasant, I have no fear of him. He was not that impressive in any of the one on ones, I, or anyone else I seen engaging him.

          I warned you. Reported for threatening behavior @BobSeidensticker:disqus

          Whether or not they support anything is not the point. They do, but that’s besides the point. They are authentic. A-U-T-H-E-N-T-I-C.

          No idea what the incoherent slavering is about.

          The only person telling you otherwise is Carrier, …

          You’d have a bit of a point if that was true, but since it is another fantasy that has developed in that massive space between your ears, you don’t. Airhead.

          …who O’Neill destroyed.

          Yawn…I await his peer-reviewed book that supports that erroneous assertion.

          Why do you accept falsified claims?

          Because contrary to your Cloud Cuckoo Land belief that they have, they haven’t. When they have been, convincingly, I’ll go back to believing a guy called Jesus, upon which the legend that is the NT was constructed around, existed. Carriers thesis fit’s the evidence, such that evidence is, better.

          Then you post some 2017 paper, which is also discussed by O’Neill in his latest post.

          You are incredible. You complain like fuck about the calibre of sources. Complain about how unreliable blogs, wiki’s, and newspaper articles are and that you wouldn’t rely on them. Then when I offer up a peer-reviewed paper in a scholarly journal, you punt to an amateur historian’s blog post as a far superior source. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance at it’s finest.

          Reading the abstract of Allen’s paper, it appears as if he’s a mythicist fanboy, which no doubt means that his work will have no influence.

          Hmmm…this Allen? Prof. Nicholas P.L. Allen? Since you are one for comparing impeccable credentials…only when it suits you of course…read this and weep…

          http://nwu.academia.edu/NicholasPeterLeghAllen/CurriculumVitae

          …O’Neill isn’t qualified to lace up Allen’s boots ffs.

          Wouldn’t it be great if Allen did turn out to be a mythicist fanboy?

          So because he doesn’t think that passage in Josephus is authentic, he must be a mythicist fanboy…an unsupported assertion btw. So, is everyone that has the same view of that passage a mythicist fanboy? Your head is that fucked up it’s away with the fairies. Is Ken Olson a mythicist fanboy because he thinks the Josephus passages are much later forgeries? You are beginning to sound demented.

          Not to mention, he flatly contradicts Carrier’s view of the text.

          So what? Why does that matter? Especially if is right. I don’t think Carrier would be all that upset. I certainly wouldn’t.

          But again, the point flies right over your head. There are highly qualified scholars positing very good reasons why Josephus entries about Jesus are spurious forgeries and they are not mythicists, as much as I’d like that to be the case.

          What a crybaby.

          If only in meat world.

          Harassing?

          Yeah…harrassing…you came here, remember.

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

          If you can’t formulate your argument coherently here with supporting evidence all by yer wee self, then fuck off. Stop soliciting.

          If mythicism is right, a lot will change for me. Likewise, if all my ideologies were zapped into my brain by fairies when I was a child, that would have just as great of an implication on what I can regard as true. These two scenarios are just as consequential and just as likely.

          Obviously not.

          Mythicism is bunk.

          The mantra isn’t any truer the more you bang the drum.

          And it is evident you’d lose a lot, since you’ve emotionally invested so much into mythicism.

          Bwaaahahaha…I’d lose fuck all, my world view doesn’t rest upon whether Jesus was a real person or a character in a book of fiction. It is just a hobby ya silly boy. No emotional investment whatsoever. Now, if you were were talking about my favourite football team, you’d have hit the nail on the head. I’m highly emotionally invested there, including time and money. Or if you were talking about my ex-army comrades and the corps I was part of, then again, my hands are up…lot’s of emotion, time, and money invested there too. But apart from buying books to pursue my hobby that Jesus was a made up myth and time spent online with clowns like you, it never gets a mention. So behave yerself.

          No, O’Neill said “depends on what you mean by historian”. Do you mean historian in the sense of having contributed original research? O’Neill says in that sense, no. Do you mean in the general sense? O’Neill says in that sense, yes. Again, you are simplifying things which can’t be simplified without lying.

          Stop fudging this…he said “no”, because he had to. He makes such a huge issue of this issue in his infatuation with Carrier that to say otherwise would be ridiculous.

          “Are you a historian?”

          No. At least, not in anything but the broadest sense of the word. I do have training in the historical method, I have studied historiography and I have read widely in the work of leading professional historians in ancient and medieval history, the history of science and the history of Christianity and its theology. But I am not presenting original research of my own here or putting my own re-interpretive spin on any historical topic. Instead, I’m drawing on over 35 years of reading on a range of topics relevant to the history of western religion and seek to curate summaries of current expert scholarly positions on those subjects. It’s the qualifications and expertise of the historians and scholars I cite and whose work I draw on that are relevant here.

          He has just opened the door in that comment for a lot of those mythicists that you and Ehrman criticize for not having the relevant hyper-specific credentials to comment on the matter. You are a dishonest, two-faced, lying, hypocrite.

        • Pofarmer

          I would like to read Allen’s Master’s Thesis.

          Thesis:

          Clarifying the Scope of Pre-5th Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’

          ουδαϊκ

          ρχαιολογία

          (c. 94 C.E.).

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t know why…according to KD he is nothing but an untrustworthy mythicist fanboy and not worth looking at…}8O)~

          On the other hand, O’Neill is the epitome of a credentialed scholar whose blog is a fountain of unreproachable knowledge that has debunked all comers.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Stricest sense? What are you talking about? That’s just the definition. You posted a quotation from ccel.org that is literally identical to what I said regarding interpolation.

          You are too dumb for words. I’ll walk you through it.

          Thus “interpolation” seems to imply, first, a fixed text and, secondly, a conscious or deliberate purpose to alter or twist the meaning and intention of a text, the interpolator’s aim being to slip his meaning under cover of a mind having greater authority or higher standing than his own, so securing for his own opinion or judgment a market-value above its intrinsic worth.

          Fraudulent purposes…capiche?

          In context with…

          Interpolations originally may be inserted as an authentic explanatory note (for example, [sic]), but may also be included for fraudulent purposes. The forged passages and works attributed to the Pseudo-Isidore are an example of the latter. Similarly, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch were interpolated by Apollinarian heretics, three centuries after the originals were written. Charters and legal texts are also subject to forgery of this kind. In the 13th Century a medieval romance, the Prose Tristan, inserted another prose romance, the Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal, in its entirety in order to reinterpret the Quest for the Holy Grail through the optics of the Tristan story.

          There is more than one kind of interpolation…get it? Interplations done for fraudulent purposes are forgery. End of.

          The alteration of a pre-existing test.

          By interpolating a word, words, sentence, paragraph, passage, page, etc…for fraudulent purposes…is forgery.

          This seems to shock you.

          What shocks me is your total lack of comprehension skills for someone claiming to be so clever…though it shouldn’t. We get a lot of it around here when a holy roller drops by.

          Just demonstrate with evidence that what I’m saying is wrong and that an interpolation is not a kind of fraudulent forgery when done for nefarious reasons. It’s as simple as that.

          Now you’re backtracking?

          Nope…no backtracking…my position has remained constant. Interpolations that are committed for fraudulent purposes i.e. the TF and possibly the James passage, are forgeries. You claimed differently. Support your claim.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No it doesn’t.

          Except it does. Just denying it isn’t an argument.

          Repeating yourself won’t make it so.

          Repeating myself because you are slow with information uptake and comprehension skills.

          The Wikipedia link never says forgery is a form of interpolation, it merely says legal/charter texts are the subject of forgery.

          Like I said, comprehension skills are lacking. The title of the Wiki link is Interpolation (manuscripts), and what it says…AGAIN…is…

          Interpolations originally may be inserted as an authentic explanatory note (for example, [sic]), but may also be included for fraudulent purposes. The forged passages and works attributed to the Pseudo-Isidore are an example of the latter. Similarly, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch were interpolated by Apollinarian heretics, three centuries after the originals were written. Charters and legal texts are also subject to forgery of this kind. In the 13th Century a medieval romance, the Prose Tristan, inserted another prose romance, the Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal, in its entirety in order to reinterpret the Quest for the Holy Grail through the optics of the Tristan story.

          Interpolation and forgery are interpolated are used interchangeably. On a Wiki about interpolation, why mention forgery at all if it was irrelevant?

          passage:- a. A segment of a written work

          A segment i.e. a word, some words, a sentence, a paragraph, a page, a chapter…a forged bit inserted into an existing text in order to misrepresent the author. As in the TF, or the James the brother of Christ passage as per Allen’s thesis, not an accidental scribal error from a marginal note as per Carriers thesis. Get it yet.

          And if that wasn’t enough, the ccel.org link specifically define the interpolation of the TF as being an alteration of a pre-existing text. So it isn’t a wholesale invention. Simple.

          Holy jaysus feck…not relevant. Whether it is an alteration to a pre-existing text is not the point, that it is a fraudulent alteration to a pre-existing text is my point. That’s what makes it a forgery.

          The ccel.org support a partial interpolation. of course they do, they are Christians. That doesn’t make it the correct assertion. Some think the Christian references are a partial interpolation to a pre-existing text, the TF, some think that the TF is a complete interpolation into a pre-existing text, Antiquities…either way…the Christian reference is a forgery.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Quite frankly, this conversation has simply become a waste of my time. Given the fact that you misunderstand your own sources (such as ccel, which says that the TF is an interpolation in the sense of alteration of a pre-existing passage), this conversation is ultimately going to get us both nowhere. Your words have so many flaws, combined with the radical immaturity and pelting of insults, it would simply be impossible to correct them all, and I am once again reminded over and over why Ehrman, O’Neill and others see that the vast majority of mythicists as simply incapable of discussing this without fumbling everywhere. You are not even willing to bring your objections to O’Neill to O’Neill’s blog, instead preferring to hide behind these discussions where, though you get refuted, it doesn’t happen publicly. You keep saying nonsense like this:

          “…O’Neill isn’t qualified to lace up Allen’s boots ffs.”

          When the same equally applies to Godfrey, Carrier, and you combined in your attempts to digress guys with such superior qualifications like Ehrman. Not to mention, you flat out contradict your own principles on the argument from authority whenever it suits you, especially when you ridiculously go on to demand a “peer-reviewed book” from O’Neill when virtually every word you take as Gospel has been on Godfrey’s amateur blog. Your lack of consistency is impossible to engage with. Since it’s clear this conversation isn’t getting anywhere, I’m just going to end it off right here. You said you’ve actually engaged O’Neill before — if there’s anything I’d spend my time reading anymore from you, it would be that actual conversation. But it appears as if, since then, O’Neill has frightened you away, which means you probably wouldn’t post that conversation for me to read anyways. O’Neill has debunked Carrier. It’s as simple as that. Carrier can’t respond for a reason. Being scared to bring your objections to O’Neill himself doesn’t change this. You can have the last word here, it would just be impossible to go on with you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Quite frankly, this conversation has simply become a waste of my time.

          Quite frankly I couldn’t give a fuck, I’m here to show the lurkers that you’re a two faced, lying, disingenuous, incapable arse wipe who can’t defend his own fuckwittery, so pah!

          Given the fact that you misunderstand your own sources (such as ccel, which says that the TF is an interpolation in the sense of alteration of a pre-existing passage), this conversation is ultimately going to get us both nowhere.

          I misunderstood fuck all of the sort and I’ve explained in detail my reason for citing the ccel source. That you are too dumb a fuck to comprehend that reason is just one of a long line of examples that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are…Mr. Dunning-Kruger.

          ALL interpolations are an alteration to an existing text. The ccel claims the TF is an existing Josephus text that has been interpolated. That interpolation is a fraudulent forgery. Others claim the whole passage is a fraudulent forgery, either way, my citing that source was not to make that argument. My purpose for citing that source was to demonstrate using the first paragraph what your fellow Christians deem what an interpolation to be. I don’t know how may ways I can explain that fact to an fuckwit and them still not get it. The argument is that certain types of interpolation is forgery, not whether the TF is a partial forgery or a total forgery, that is a separate argument…get it yet soft boy?

          Your words have so many flaws, combined with the radical immaturity and pelting of insults, it would simply be impossible to correct them all,…

          Ah, the tone troll card gets played. Just piss off to Croydon and be done with it. All you’ve done since you’ve got here is nitpick on silly details that are largely irrelevant. Mostly because you sound off without checking out whether the thing you say is pure nonsense.

          … and I am once again reminded over and over why Ehrman, O’Neill and others see that the vast majority of mythicists as simply incapable of discussing this without fumbling everywhere.

          The only one fumbling here is you ya moron. Make your argument and defend it. It should be really easy, since mythicism is so pathetically wrong in your view. You are entitled to your own opinion, but opinion isn’t fact. Take the best argument against mythicism and defend it…should be easy for you since you are such an intellect.

          You are not even willing to bring your objections to O’Neill to O’Neill’s blog, instead preferring to hide behind these discussions where, though you get refuted, it doesn’t happen publicly.

          Soliciting again I see. How many times do you need to be told. If you can’t make your argument here, or bring O’Neill’s argument here, and defend it, piss off.

          Flagged.

          You keep saying nonsense like this:

          “…O’Neill isn’t qualified to lace up Allen’s boots ffs.”

          Why is it nonsense. It is a football analogy.

          Similarly adapted to everyday life is the fiercely vitriolic ‘He’s not fit to lace his boots’ , said of one person’s status or ability relative to another.

          It is to demonstrate your rank hypocrisy when it comes to credentials, something you seem to hold so high and mighty when it suits your position, but disregard when the boot is on the other foot. O’Neill is an amateur historian with dubious qualifications and Allen is a published professor in a reputable university. It is one of the go-to arguments you lot make all the time. But when someone on the other side makes it, your panties get tangled. A further example that you are a two faced, lying, disingenuous, incapable arse wipe who can’t defend his own fuckwittery, so pah!

          Now, make the argument against Prof. Allen’s thesis if you can, you can even use O’Neill’s argument if you like, but do it here and stop being a tit.

          When the same equally applies to Godfrey, Carrier, and you combined in your attempts to digress guys with such superior qualifications like Ehrman.

          Well, two out of three ain’t bad, but anyway, now the penny is finally dropping.

          I don’t punt to anyone and condemn them on there credentials, even O’Neill. I’m demonstrating how you lot operate hypocritically.

          Not to mention, you flat out contradict your own principles on the argument from authority whenever it suits you, especially when you ridiculously go on to demand a “peer-reviewed book” from O’Neill when virtually every word you take as Gospel has been on Godfrey’s amateur blog.

          You just aren’t getting this at all, are you?

          1. KD poo-poo’s mythicist arguments because he deems those
          making them as unqualified because their qualifications fall
          outside his hyper-specific criteria. Even when they are not.

          2. IA say’s, never mind that nonsense, arguments stand or fall on
          their own merits, attack the argument, not the man.

          3. KD insists that sources are paramount. Credentials and
          endorsements are all important, sources that are recognised by
          third tier educational institutes should not be entertained.

          4. IA demonstrates with EVIDENCE why KD is talking ballix.

          5. KD, as usual, hand waves away without anything in support.

          6. KD cites an uncredentialed soource, as per the hyper-specific
          criteria, and punts to not one, but two of those examples of one of
          those unreliable sources he previously suggested should not be
          used.

          7. IA points to the hypocrisy of KD for doing this fuckwittery. And
          cites a hyper-specifically qualified professor of history in rebuttal
          to his unqualified source as an example of his fuckwittery.

          8. KD poo-poo’s IA’s hyper-specifically credentialed, peer-reviewed
          published, professor of history in a reputable institution source
          with nothing but an unsubstantiated and unsupported assertion.

          9. IA points out the problem with such two-faced dishonesty.

          10. KD retorts that IA is talking nonsense and in using this example
          to show KD’s fallacious dishonesty, is engaging in the same
          fallacy.

          You are a walking joke Sonny Jim. I don’t care about O’Neill’s credentials, other than to raise them in refutation of your fuckwit position. If you think he has made a copper fastened debunking of a mythicist position, then demonstrate it and we can deal with it on it’s own merits, not on who made it. Put up, or shut up.

          Your lack of consistency is impossible to engage with.

          There’s irony meter’s exploding everywhere.

          Since it’s clear this conversation isn’t getting anywhere, I’m just going to end it off right here.

          Most definitely a wise decision. The hole you’re digging is collapsing back in on ya at this point and because you are only interested in quibbling in irrelevant details, can’t make your own case here and soliciting to another blog, you’ve become a massive waste of space.

          You said you’ve actually engaged O’Neill before — if there’s anything I’d spend my time reading anymore from you, it would be that actual conversation.

          If you look hard enough on this forum, you’ll find it. The subject of the thread is something similar to the one above. Ya never know, if ya ask Bob nicely he might even give you a pointer on where to look.

          But it appears as if, since then, O’Neill has frightened you away, which means you probably wouldn’t post that conversation for me to read anyways.

          Jaysus fuck…I’m not going to run after O’Neill to engage in his fuckwit opinion…are ya mad. You came here, remember? If you are too stupid to articulate and defend O’Neill’s position, I can understand that. But don’t expect others to go dancing to your tune on other blogs like some sort of performing seal. Never gonna happen.

          O’Neill has debunked Carrier. It’s as simple as that.

          Then show us how? Or are you afraid it won’t stand the scrutiny here? It’s your claim, put up, or shut up. It’s as simple as that

          Carrier can’t respond for a reason.

          I don’t much care. I’m sure Carrier has reason for not responding. Probably not for the reason you think though.

          Being scared to bring your objections to O’Neill himself doesn’t change this.

          Scared? Bwaaahahahaha…what age are you? The only frightened child I see here is you. Make a coherent argument and we will see how well you fair…go on, a dare ya.

          You can have the last word here, it would just be impossible to go on with you.

          I’m not interested in having the last word. I’m more interested in one of you dickheads coming here and making a coherent argument that is well supported with verifiable evidence…unsubstantiated assertions and personal opinions just don’t fly around here.

          Bye-bye now.

        • Greg G.

          Why is it nonsense. It is a football analogy.

          Similarly adapted to everyday life is the fiercely vitriolic ‘He’s not fit to lace his boots’ , said of one person’s status or ability relative to another.

          It obviously goes back to a Bible reference as John the Baptist says he is not worthy to loosen the sandals of the one who is coming. (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:7, Luke 3:16)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye…I read in a fundiegelical site that punt’s to those verses.

          https://www.evangelical-times.org/23013/he-couldnt-lace-his-boots/

        • Ignorant Amos

          Please, you’ll have to do a lot better than that. In writing that post, I have also had some direct discourse with scholars themselves,….

          So you say. Which scholars? Discourse about what?

          …and so I know exactly what I’m saying,…

          Not if you interaction on this forum is anything to go by.

          …unlike yourself, who we’ve already established and seen you admit knows nothing about scholarship.

          Dunning-Kruger

          …again, try to respond to my arguments.

          I only skimmed you nonsense.

          It would be better if you posted your ‘responses’ in the comment section of the essay I wrote itself on the blog, by the way.

          Never gonna happen, so dream on sonny Jim.

          O’Neill, by the way, has bashed Carrier out of existence. It is not even close.

          I know in you befuddled mind you believe that, but then again, look at all the other fuckwittery you believe, so I’m not surprised.

          Carrier has still been unable to respond to O’Neill, who of course has degrees in history and is a former academic recruiter at a university.

          Yeah, Carrier has responded to O’Neill.

          O’Neill holds no degrees in history. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania.

          Carrier, on the other hand, actually does have degrees in history with a B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history) from University of California Berkeley (Berkeley, CA) and Columbia University (New York, NY).

          Now will ya fuck off with your “qualifications” arguments…it is nonsense.

          Since O’Neill doesn’t publish in history, though, as he says, he’s only a historian in the most general sense of the term, but that doesn’t matter anyway —

          Of course, he’s an unqualified blogger. Handy for you that it doesn’t matter on this occasion…lying hypocrite.

          … it appears as if you’ve found yourself guilty over what you endlessly try to accuse me of, “ad hominem fallacy”. In your words, attack the argument, not the man. LOL!

          I’m pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in your position. Your rank dishonesty is unbelievable. Tim O’Neill’s arguments have been debunked. He was even banned from this site for his asscrankery. He is not to be taken seriously.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And the fact that Carrier has published like 6 papers ever is greatly important. Carrier is the definition of someone who has a degree from a university and then failed the rest of his life in his career.

          What part of your ad hominem fallacy that “I don’t care” is it that you are struggling to comprehend?

          What is it about your credentials that gives you the silly idea that you and your arguments are so superior, do you think?

          And yet you trust this guy enormously.

          He makes a more convincing argument. The other side has not rebutted it in way that makes sense. Which I would’ve thought was easy. You have to punt to Tim O’Neill ffs.

          And yet, with someone with as little credibility as Carrier as your master, which really sets the bar low for who you’re going to trust on what,…

          Tim O’Neill? What hyper-specific credentials does he have that sets your bar any higher?

          …you decided to question the credibility of Charlesworth, Hays, Evans, Theissen, Porter, and others.

          What is their credibility to verify a supernatural event as historically accurately happening?

          People whose skill is in counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin are irrelevant. They give you a stiffy and that’s nice. They are heavily biased. They are predisposed to believe in the Resurrection. I could present a litany of Muslim scholars that will claim to be able to verify other religions nonsense and I’d bet my shirt it wouldn’t sway you one millimetre towards believing their nonsense either.

          A degree is available involving Harry Potter study, but that doesn’t mean a boy wizard saved the world from dark lord.

          These are scholars of such renown that it is almost unimaginable that you collectively reject them (at least initially did, until I educated you regarding who they were) but so unwittingly follow Carrier’s maddened ideas.

          I wholeheartedly reject them if they support the idea that a man was tortured to death, lay dead for three days (one and a half?), then miraculously came alive again, was physically seen by a huge number of people, then was taken “up” into some ethereal domain to sit beside himself for all eternity. I don’t give a shit how well credentialed they are.

          All these boys …

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_Muslim_scholars_of_Islam

          …believe Mo rode a flying horse to go see an archangel and receive the word of Allah…why are they wrong? Unless you don’t think they are wrong, in which case, why aren’t you a Muslim?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ehrman has already weighed in on Thompson’s non-credentials in the NT…

          Ah we are back to the ultra hyper-specific credentials again. I don’t care what Ehrman has to say about everyone else’s credentials. It is a straw man. Deal with the arguments being made. You are a hypocrite. You cite a wholly unqualified internet jerkoff in Tim O’Neill, then poo-poo anyone Ehrman claims isn’t qualified to engage in the debate. Wise ta fuck up.

          Ehrman has been dishonest in his mischaracterisation of Thompson.

          http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tho368005.shtml

          Maurice Casey was just as bad.

          https://vridar.org/tag/thomas-l-thompson/

          …and that his theories that convince no scholar in the field.

          Another lie. Already pointed out to you…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_R._Davies#Christ_myth_debate

          By the way, do you know how much of a minimalist Thompson is in OT studies?

          Proving you don’t/can’t read what I post.

          His OT minimalism is my reason for citing him. His thesis was dismissed as “fringe” and “kook” when first presented it in the 1970’s and he was made an academical pariah who couldn’t get a job within his field of expertise for years. Something Ehrman threatens will happen to any scholar that dares to defend mythicism btw. By the 1980’s things started to change and the stuff in the OT that were presumed as historical by the consensus of scholars, weren’t. Thompson’s “fringe” and “kook” thesis from the 1970’s is now mainstream thinking in the academy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Why aren’t you a Mormon?”

          Because I think Joseph Smith was a loon.

          Indeed. No more of a loon than the founders of Christianity. And yet the Book of Mormon is better attested than the NT.

          Bob outlines how much in a two part article beginning here…

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/03/7058/

          And take the FARMS project.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Ancient_Research_and_Mormon_Studies#Peer_review_and_scholarly_credentials

          Back to the renowned scholars who have endorsed Licona’s book:

          “You have not answered my question. What are their qualifications in the discipline of history?”

          All of the overwhelming advancements I have cited are “qualifications in the discipline of history”.

          Ballix.

          Are you talking about degrees relevant to the NT and history degrees?

          Yes.

          Evans, for example, has both.

          Which I already acknowledged.

          Craig Evans,…

          Has the requisite qualification…is an evangelical Christian…he ain’t doing history when condoning the Resurrection as an historical event. Likely due to his Christian bias.

          Try and keep up.

          But what’s the point?

          The point is that you are a hypocrite.

          Their advancements to the study of history are so mounmental that these are in fact the qualifications we must look at.

          Oh…actual qualifications are only important when it comes to your argument. Get ta fuck. If any of those guy’s you’ve listed are giving credibility and supporting the supernatural as an historical reality, they are kooks.

          Contributions to the field is how to determine whether someone is successful in a field after they receive their degree. Edward Witten only has a PhD in physics, but has made contributions to the field of mathematics more significant than almost any actual mathematician (he won the Fields Medal). So that settles whether or not Witten is authoritative on mathematics, much as Charlesworth overwhelming contributions to history prove he is authoritative in history. And Charlesworth has a PhD anyways. Perhaps the title of his dissertation should tell you whether or not it has to do with history:
          A Critical Examination of the Odes of Solomon: Identification, Text, Original Language, Date
          Since everything Charlesworth has ever published is basically on history, what’s your argument? Anyhow, his degrees are in the subjects of ancient religion and philosophy, Greek, Coptic, Semitics, Syriac, biblical studies, and New Testament. So all history. I could go one by one with the others I mentioned, but I don’t need to since they’re all some of the renowned scholars in the historical field we’re talking about.

          And yet when it comes to folk like Thompson et al, folk with degrees in allied fields, they are not qualified to comment vis a vis Ehrman. Pure hypocrisy.

          I don’t care about who has what qualifications up their kazoo, I’m more interested in the arguments they make and with what they defend them. Anyone supporting the supernatural as historic is not doing history, and that includes bona fide historians.

          Your problem remains, if the supernatural is allowed onto the table, then all of it is allowed onto the table. You don’t get to dismiss everyone else’s scholars and woo-woo in favour of your own.

        • Greg G.

          Christian universities were trying to explain everything in terms of God. When Newton showed that easily observable physics could be explained without God, it opened up a whole new way of examining the world “with no need of that hypothesis“. We went from a Christian society to a post-Christian society which allowed science and technology to blossom exponentially. Universities went up all over to teach the new knowledge that became available.

        • epeeist

          It is worthwhile noting that not only science but other subjects as well advance when religion is weak, this would be true of renaissance humanism, the Enlightenment and the current period in history.

        • Pofarmer

          Surely you’re not going with the radical theory that adherence to orthodoxy stifles intellectual achievement? Oh noes.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Christian universities were trying to explain everything in terms of God.”

          Never happened.

          “When Newton showed that easily observable physics could be explained without God, it opened up a whole new way of examining the world “with no need of that hypothesis”.”

          That didn’t happen either when Newton made his findings.

          “We went from a Christian society to a post-Christian society”

          That happened in the early 20th century with the first World War, not Newton’s day or anywhere near.

          Your comment has already become insufferable to read. Your basically making this stuff up as you go. It’s so annoying to see whee-science! atheists basically chop reason and logic in order to paint their especially wrong picture of how they wish history should have went, rather than how it actually went. Next time you write something so ridiculous, either post citations from credible sources otherwise I’ll simply refer you to a Wikipedia page on formal logic.

        • Greg G.

          Your comment has already become insufferable to read.

          Thank you. Truth seems to be painful to you so it’s no wonder that you try to avoid it at all costs.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Another insufferably written comment. After pointing out that every detail you wrote was fancifully made up to fit how you wished history happened, instead of how it actually happened, and then commenting on the annoyance I have when reading your words, you transform into a fearless truth warrior who must reveal the citationless truth to my ignorant Christian eyes! Basically, I’d like you to keep me out of the archetypal culture battles that go on in your head, and let’s cut to the chase. Citations.

          Since you have not given any citations, I will now direct you to a Wikipedia page on formal logic as I explained earlier. I would not have had to do this if you simply admitted you made up everything you wrote, but since you tried to reinforce your fiction with the label of “truth” in this reply, it is all the more reason why you need to read this:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form
          I am also aware of a very well-written WikiHow article on 3 ways to become more logical.
          https://www.wikihow.com/Think-Logically

          So, let’s get back to the facts. Christianity proliferated the university. There wasn’t a magical transition in the 17th century (or whenever) from faith to “science!” And you wont give me a citation because there aren’t any foe what you’ve said. That’s my proposition. Do me a favor and agree with me here.

        • Greg G.

          I’m still laughing at

          Next time you write something so ridiculous, either post citations from credible sources otherwise I’ll simply refer you to a Wikipedia page on formal logic.
          http://disq.us/p/1q1z4mk

          when you didn’t make any citations to support your claims.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I’m still laughing at

          Next time you write something so ridiculous, either post citations from credible sources otherwise I’ll simply refer you to a Wikipedia page on formal logic.
          http://disq.us/p/1q1z4mk

          Did you just replace my Wikipedia link?

          Anyways, which claims did I lack any citation for? After catching you making up … everything … which claim of mine have I previously espoused that you want a citation for that I have somehow not provided? Craft your response carefully lest you make the same mistakes.

        • Greg G.

          Did you just replace my Wikipedia link?

          That is the link to your post that I took the quote from.

          Anyways, which claims did I lack any citation for?

          Every single one from the post that link leads to.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Every single one from the post that link leads to.”

          No, I posted a reference to this Wiki page:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form

          This page is a simple explanation of formal logic that you’d probably learn in a philosophy class. Again, which specific claims have I made that you want citations for? I’m ready to provide you with many, but you need to actually point out which ones.

        • Greg G.

          You put that link in the post that I was replying to but not in the post I was quoting from. That is why I included the link to the post I was quoting from.

          I was trying very hard to not confuse you. You have proved that goal is impossible to achieve.

        • well after Christians had advanced the concept of the university.

          Uh huh. Schools date back to antiquity, but the idea of a university is so nutty, so radical, that only Christians’ inventing universities can explain the existence of universities. Cuz no other reason than Christianity could have ever caused them. Ever.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Uh huh. Schools date back to antiquity, but the idea of a university is so nutty, so radical, that only Christians’ inventing universities can explain the existence of universities. Cuz no other reason than Christianity could have ever caused them. Ever.”

          Well, Muslims invented the university, but no one had really ever heard of them until Christianity said “hey this is pretty useful”. Besides that, you appear to be putting some words into my mouth. What you’re saying is basically like saying “oh yeah? so without einstein, we would never have special and general relativity, ever … right …” Ugh, no, we probably would eventually have gotten those two. It just would have taken a lot longer. Likewise, the works of Christianity probably shot progress and history centuries into the future, if not millennia.

        • Fred Horgan

          ?
          Are there pre-Westernization academies that function as universities in Islamic, Budhist Hindu worlds? I know they had excellent mathematic disciplines.

        • Ignorant Amos

          According to the Guinness Book of Records there is.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ugh, you dated the Christian university to the medieval period. I quoted you doing so. Another mistake. Let it go.

          Whaaaa? You did fuck all of the sort. So no, I won’t let it go ya dishonest prick.

          What you said was…

          “Modern universities are nothing like the universities of medieval Christendom over half a millennia ago. That’s due to secularism.”

          When did I suggest modern universities were the equivalents of the medieval ones? And your little history isn’t actually even close to being accurate anyways, since the secularism of the university started in the middle of the 19th century, hardly the medieval period.

          To which I replied…

          Not a point my “little history” was trying to make, I’m well aware of when secularism began in the modern education system, wiki is handy for that, so pah!

          [wiki link]

          Where did I say that secularism started in the medieval period. While it is true that the actual secularism of universities started in the 19th century, an argument against which I’ve seen no one here make, the foundation of that secularism began much earlier, with the enlightenment. But none of this makes any difference to the issue at hand.

          You really, really can’t read for comprehension, can ya?

          What I said was…

          Modern universities are nothing like the universities of medieval Christendom over half a millennia ago. That’s due to secularism.

          Now, the Medieval Period, aka the Middle Ages, run from the 5th century through until the end of the 15th century. When I went to school, that was more than half a millennia ago.

          The first Christian university was opened in 1088, that’s almost bang smack in the middle of the medieval period. That university has nothing in common with a modern day secular university other than the word university.

          Your doctor analogy also only proves my point, since the health system was only originally pushed because of Christianity (the thing that invented hospitals).

          Wise up ya clown. You are embarrassing yourself now. Pick up a history textbook.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals

          Do you want to imagine living in a world without hospitals?

          Why? Do you think that without Christianity there’d be no hospitals? You’re a Dime Bar.

          I’m surprised you want to go down this route. What use has a Christian with a hospital anyway? What about all that intercessory prayer nonsense? Why would a Christian want to extend their time on this mortal coil, thus preventing an earlier meeting with the big bejaysus fella?

          So without Christianity, we wouldn’t have too many doctors around now since it was originally the Christian incentive to care for others that lead to the expansion of that thing, even if ‘healthcare’ itself wasn’t founded by Christians.

          Wise ta fuck up.

          Christianity just takes a little thing and changes the world with it.

          You really believe this shit your peddling, that’s the sorry part.

          Who knows how far advanced medicine, and science in general, would be today if it hadn’t been stagnated by Christian fuckwittery?

          Medical stagnation in the Middle Ages

          Causes of medical stagnation in the Middle Ages included:

          the loss of medical knowledge/ bad doctors

          the forbidding by the Church of dissection, and its encouragement of prayer and superstition)

          the encouragement by the Church of prayer and superstition

          the emphasis on ‘authority’ rather than on observation and investigation

          the lack of resources to build public health systems
          social disorder and war, which disrupted communication and learning

          The Church played a big part in medical stagnation in the Middle Ages. It discouraged progress by:

          forbidding dissection of human corpses

          insisting that people agree with the writings of Galen
          encouraging people to rely on prayers to the saints and superstition to cure them of disease

          encouraging the belief that disease was a punishment from God – this led to fatalism and prevented investigation into cures

          But on the up side…

          However, the Church did encourage people to go on Crusades, meaning that people travelled to the Middle East. Here they came into contact with Muslim doctors, who were significantly more skilled than their counterparts in Britain.

          Dammit…those darned Islamists getting there first again, who’d have thought it?

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/shp/middleages/medievalcivilisationrev3.shtml

          In Europe the medieval concept of Christian care evolved during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries into a secular one.

          Theology was the problem. The Protestant reformers rejected the Catholic belief that rich men could gain God’s grace through good works – and escape purgatory – by providing endowments to charitable institutions, and that the patients themselves could gain grace through their suffering.

          After the dissolution of the monasteries in 1540 by King Henry VIII the church abruptly ceased to be the supporter of hospitals, and only by direct petition from the citizens of London, were the hospitals St Bartholomew’s, St Thomas’s and St Mary of Bethlehem’s (Bedlam) endowed directly by the crown; this was the first instance of secular support being provided for medical institutions. It was at St. Bartholomew that William Harvey conducted his research on the circulatory system in the 17th century, Percivall Pott and John Abernethy developed important principles of modern surgery in the 18th century, and Mrs. Bedford Fenwich worked to advance the nursing profession in the late 19th century.

          Like that charismatic local preacher in Jerusalem a couple thousand years ago.

          Who if existed, definitely wasn’t a god, and whose message all Christians ever since have bastardised.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Whaaaa? You did fuck all of the sort. So no, I won’t let it go ya dishonest prick.”

          That’s exactly what you did. It doesn’t take dishonesty to let something go. You retrieve your own words for me:

          “Modern universities are nothing like the universities of medieval Christendom over half a millennia ago. That’s due to secularism.”

          According to this statement, the reason why our modern universities are not equivalent ot the medieval universities is because of secularism. By implications, you’re claiming that without secularism, we’d still have the medieval universities. Got it yet? Either way, this particular point has become superfluous to the conversation.

          “Why? Do you think that without Christianity there’d be no hospitals? You’re a Dime Bar.”

          I double-checked my sources, and it appears as if my original claim needs a little more nuance. According to Albert Jonsen of the University of Washington:

          “the second great sweep of medical history begins at the end of the fourth century, with the founding of the first Christian hospital at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and concludes at the end of the fourteenth century, with medicine well ensconced in the universities and in the public life of the emerging nations of Europe.”
          A Short History of Medical Ethics 2000: pg. 13

          So while the founding of the concept of the medical institution had occurred, the Christian faith proliferated and brought it into the modern world. This is much like the modern university — while it scarcely existed in some primitive form before Christianity, its transition into the modern world was really carried on the back of theologians. Now, I have found a discussion on this by the historian C. Ben Mitchell who says that Basil of Caesarea founded the first hospital, so I’m going to look a little more into this to see if I really can sweep the entire point.

          You try to claim some sort of medical stagnation occurred during the medieval period. Your source of course is vastly unreliable on this issue — the media outlet BBC, which even espouses the myth of the forbidding of dissection. Even Wikipedia finds its way around that nonsense:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissection#Christian_Europe
          As Jonsen writes, medical science stagnated from the 2nd-7th centuries because of the crumbling of the Roman Empire, but after then, it appears to have started taking off again. The idea of superior Muslim doctors is seemingly ridiculous to me. Jonsen goes on to say things that contradict basically the entire BBC article you cited. I’m probably going to buy Jonsen’s book so I can read its entirety rather than only what I can see from the Google Books preview (barely a 6th of the book). Either way, it appears as if I was basically right.

          “Who if existed, definitely wasn’t a god, and whose message all Christians ever since have bastardised.”

          The level of nonsense here is hardly possible to surmise the error. There is no “if” regarding the existence of Jesus, fringe mythicist fantasy is really beyond any serious relevance here. Jesus was God, like it or not. Christianity was the single greatest force of the advancement of humanity (through human rights, universities, hospitals, charity, and much more) that the history of the world has ever seen. This is admitted by Jewish, irreligious, and Christian historians. Only internet atheists seem to disagree. As Jesus said, you will know the truth of something by its fruits.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s exactly what you did.

          No it really wasn’t. Only by lying about what I said, can you make your claim fit.

          It doesn’t take dishonesty to let something go.

          More reading issues is it? The dishonesty is on your part, but I can see why you are keen for me to let it go. It’s just one point that showcases your lying tactics. Baby Jesus is crying.

          “Modern universities are nothing like the universities of medieval Christendom over half a millennia ago. That’s due to secularism.”

          According to this statement, the reason why our modern universities are not equivalent ot the medieval universities is because of secularism.

          Nope.

          You are the champion of straw manning.

          Look, “nothing like” and “not equivalent” are not synonymous.

          Compare the medieval Cambridge of 1209 to the modern Cambridge of 2018 and you will find nothing that is the same apart from the name. That’s due to secularism.

          By implications, you’re claiming that without secularism, we’d still have the medieval universities.

          Nope, I’m doing no such thing ya moron. I have no idea what sort of universities we would have, nor do you, but that is not relevant. That would be imaginary history. The fact is, as universities became more and more secular, moving away from Christian influence and theological instruction, they got better. Christian input stifled progress.

          Got it yet?

          I sincerely wish you could.

          Either way, this particular point has become superfluous to the conversation.

          If you say so.

          According to Albert Jonsen of the University of Washington:…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_R._Jonsen

          No bias there then.

          You try to claim some sort of medical stagnation occurred during the medieval period. Your source of course is vastly unreliable on this issue — the media outlet BBC, which even espouses the myth of the forbidding of dissection.

          Given your a Cannuck, your ignorance about the BBC could be forgiven. But your inability to check a source for what it is cannot.

          BBC GCSE Bitesize is a teaching aid for secondary level education qualifications.

          https://www.bbc.com/education

          I can’t imagine that not one teacher instructing in the country, or those responsible within this arm of the BBC, hasn’t noticed this glaring error.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OptEth-pPnc

          Time stamp 27:45.

          Even Wikipedia finds its way around that nonsense:

          In Britain, dissection was illegal.

          In medieval Europe, when it was illegal and even when it wasn’t, it was culturally frowned up.

          The dissection of human cadavers for medical purposes has a long history. Herophilos and Erasistratos, Greek physicians working in Alexandria in the 200s BCE, seem to have been the first to systematically dissect human bodies. Dissecting humans was forbidden in the Roman Empire, so people such as Galen used the bodies of apes. In both the Islamic and medieval Christian worlds, dissection was culturally taboo. However, the work of individuals such as Ibn al-Nafis in the 1200s indicates that some form of human dissection was being carried out.

          http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/dissection

          The first 1000 years of Christianity, dissection was prohibited. Not until 1315 was there an officially sanctioned dissection.

          Mondino de Liuzzi (1270-1326) performs the first officially sanctioned public dissection in Bologna in the presence of medical students and other spectators; responsible for reviving investigation through dissection and inclusion of dissection in the medical curriculum of the University of Bologna.

          http://www.agaillinois.org/dispo.htm

          That was towards the end of the medieval period.

          Either way, it appears as if I was basically right.

          Nope. You were wrong…again. Not only is the hospital not a Christian first, but the Christians stifled medical advancement until late Middle ages, the beginning of the Renaissance.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Compare the medieval Cambridge of 1209 to the modern Cambridge of 2018 and you will find nothing that is the same apart from the name. That’s due to secularism.”

          There’s actually a lot similar. Cambridge was a top university then, it’s a top university now. Philosophy and theology were taught in Cambridge then, philosophy and theology is taught to Cambridge now. Basically everything is the same except for the secularism, LOL (and more course options, obviously).

          “No bias there then.”

          I went through the Wikipedia page, and two things caught my eye: 1) Jonsen’s qualifications are ridiculous. 2) Jonsen was a priest in the 60’s. Basically, nothing’s changed, and Jonsen has still written “the book” on the history of medicine in academia. Oh yeah, and the book I cited was published by Oxford University Press, has received lavish endorsements by many scholars, including the New England Journal of Medicine, and has received hundreds of citations.

          “BBC GCSE Bitesize is a teaching aid for secondary level education qualifications.”

          And still isn’t a reliable source. If what you were saying had any claim on reality, you would easily be able to find an academic publication (like I did) where your views are attested. It really would not be very difficult at all.

          “In Britain, dissection was illegal.”

          Citation needed. And that’s an oversimplified statement to say the least. You must at least also comment on when it became illegal. You also provide a later reference that never says it was illegal — in fact, your reference seems to assume it was legal, by stating it was “culturally taboo” in the Islamic and Christian world (though that is irrelevant).

          As for your agaillinios citation, I’m still debating a little whether or not this qualifies as reliable. It’s certainly not in an academic book or journal, which shouldn’t be difficult to access. Either way, it appears as if your citation says that dissection was outlawed under the pagan Romans, not the Christians, so would be irrelevant even if correct. Of course, I don’t see a reason to think it is correct.
          UPDATE: I have found scholarly article on division and dissection during the medieval period. I will read it until my next response to you. Since there’s no reason to keep it for myself, I’ll give you a link to the paper as well so you can also read it:
          https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/34295185/Park-Life_of_Corpse-1995.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1518304036&Signature=WsJ58zKGMIxZQ9a0H5dHVAsI%2FPk%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Life_of_the_Corpse_Dissection_and_D.pdf

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s actually a lot similar. Cambridge was a top university then, it’s a top university now. Philosophy and theology were taught in Cambridge then, philosophy and theology is taught to Cambridge now. Basically everything is the same except for the secularism, LOL (and more course options, obviously).

          The structure and methods of teaching ya doughball.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Citation needed. And that’s an oversimplified statement to say the least. You must at least also comment on when it became illegal.

          It’s right there in the source citation you provided.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissection#Britain

          You also provide a later reference that never says it was illegal — in fact, your reference seems to assume it was legal, by stating it was “culturally taboo” in the Islamic and Christian world (though that is irrelevant).

          If people weren’t doing because religions frowned upon it, then religion is at fault. At a time when one could be burned at the stake for crossing a religious taboo, this was a big deal. Even if the taboo was only inferred.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “If people weren’t doing because religions frowned upon it, then religion is at fault.”

          The religion wasn’t the cause of what made it ‘taboo’, that was simply the viewpoint of the period. Anyways, as I wrote earlier, I’d read the paper I referred you to regarding dissection in Europe. To make it straightforward, the first unambiguous documentation of dissection/autopsy took place in the latter 13th century, with dismemberment for burial happening even before that. The ‘cultural frowning’ on dissection had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, according to Katharine Park (the scholar who authored the paper I referred you to), the ‘Christian frowning’ on dissection was actually something that happened later, and only occurred as a result of the fact that dissection was already culturally taboo.

          But it would be misguided to assign any constitutive power to those [theologial] debates; they reflected rather than shaped more widely held attitudes in their respective cultures concerning the nature and the life of the corpse. (pg. 22)

          It would be best if you read the full paper. I also found a paper on dissection in the Islamic world during the medieval period, but since it’s over 40 pages I’ll either read it later today or some other time. It appears, at the very least, that your attempt to discredit Christianity by arguing from dissection has come to a crashing halt.

          “At a time when one could be burned at the stake for crossing a religious taboo, this was a big deal.”

          Sorry bucko, this never happened. I mean, seriously? Did you genuinely convince yourself that you’d get burned at the stake for crossing a religious taboo during the medieval period?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry bucko, this never happened. I mean, seriously? Did you genuinely convince yourself that you’d get burned at the stake for crossing a religious taboo during the medieval period?

          Indeed I did, because apparently that’s what happened and what Christians did. They even dug up a corpse to burn it ffs.

          Civil authorities burned persons judged to be heretics under the medieval Inquisition. Burning heretics had become customary practice in the latter half of the twelfth century in continental Europe, and death by burning became statutory punishment from the early 13th century. Death by burning for heretics was made positive law by Pedro II of Aragon in 1197. In 1224 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, made burning a legal alternative, and in 1238, it became the principal punishment in the Empire. In Sicily, the punishment was made law in 1231, whereas in France, Louis IX made it binding law in 1270.

          As England in the 15th century grew weary of the teachings of John Wycliffe and the Lollards, kings, priests, and parliaments reacted with fire. In 1401, Parliament passed the De heretico comburendo act, which can be loosely translated as “Regarding the burning of heretics.” Lollard persecution would continue for over a hundred years in England. The Fire and Faggot Parliament met in May 1414 at Grey Friars Priory in Leicester to lay out the notorious Suppression of Heresy Act 1414, enabling the burning of heretics by making the crime enforceable by the Justices of the peace. John Oldcastle, a prominent Lollard leader, was not saved from the gallows by his old friend King Henry V. Oldcastle was hanged and his gallows burned in 1417. Jan Hus was burned at the stake after being accused at the Roman Catholic Council of Constance (1414–18) of heresy. The ecumenical council also decreed that the remains of John Wycliffe, dead for 30 years, should be exhumed and burned. (This posthumous execution was carried out in 1428.)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning#Christian_states

        • Korus Destroyus

          Sorry, perhaps I have to requote myself before you blush:

          “Sorry bucko, this never happened. I mean, seriously? Did you genuinely convince yourself that you’d get burned at the stake for crossing a religious taboo during the medieval period?”

          Where in your ridiculously long Wikipedia quote does it ever say that religious ‘taboos’ get you burned at the stake? Do you know the difference between a taboo and a state crime? Or did you actually mistake the clear words above as questioning the act of burning at the stake itself?

        • Ignorant Amos

          To make it straightforward, the first unambiguous documentation of dissection/autopsy took place in the latter 13th century…

          Indeed. Therefore there was very little dissection that took place for 800 years of the medieval period. And very little in the Christian period before that. Bingo!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Link doesn’t work.

        • epeeist

          Link doesn’t work.

          If you look under the covers the link is to academia.edu, this is a social networking site where virtually anyone can get virtually anything published.

        • Korus Destroyus

          I don’t know which link you’re talking about. Re-post it for me.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • epeeist

          Philosophy and theology were taught in Cambridge then, philosophy and theology is taught to Cambridge now.

          Engineering was taught at Cambridge then, and it is taught there now. Computer Science was taught at Cambridge then and it is taught there now. Economics was taught at Cambridge them and it is taught there now.

          Oh, wait…

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Engineering was taught at Cambridge then, and it is taught there now. Computer Science was taught at Cambridge then and it is taught there now. ”

          I don’t know about engineering, but seriously? Is there a mistake as comprehensible as claiming that computer science was taught in Cambridge close to the period of its founding? Do you know how recent the computer is?

          Your response will either constitute an overwhelming realization of error, or a simple admission that you were somehow unable to understand I was talking about Cambridge, in that quote, during the period of its founding, and contrasting it with now. No, computer science was not taught at Cambridge then.

          “Oh, wait…”

          Please tell me.

        • epeeist

          Your original claim was that there was similarity between the university when it was founded and how it is now, to quote you “Philosophy and theology were taught in Cambridge then, philosophy and theology is taught to Cambridge now”.

          Of course you ignored the fact that other subjects are taught, that the entry to the university now is different to when it was founded, that women are now admitted (my elder daughter was at Girton College), that the university is now collegiate but was not when it was founded, that it is now governed by a Council of the Senate rather than a Caput Senatus etc.

          Even the denomination of Christianity that was involved in its formation didn’t survive intact, Catholicism was replaced by Anglicanism and the there were those that had Puritan leanings during the time of the civil war.

          Once again you are shown to avoid material that doesn’t support the narrative position you hold.

        • Michael Neville

          There’s the further point that it wasn’t until the 18th Century that teaching faculty at Cambridge were required to be ordained clergy (Isaac Newton needed Royal permission to forgo this requirement).

        • epeeist

          Yeah, there is loads more (how many members of the medieval university rode bicycles?) but I just couldn’t be arsed. Between us there is enough to show that he is using a weak analogy and that as such his position doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

        • Greg G.

          He is only looking at the similarities. But doing that could show the opposite, that the structure did not originate with Christianity as it is basically a teacher telling stuff to students that goes back to the ancient Greeks and probably beyond.

        • Pofarmer

          The Ancient Sumerian’s and Rgyptians had a written language. You would think they would have had some sort of structure for teaching that and passing it on.

        • epeeist

          it is basically a teacher telling stuff to students that goes back to the ancient Greeks and probably beyond.

          We haven’t even got to that as yet, I poked him on it but he didn’t respond. The syllabus would have included the Trivium (logic, grammar and rhetoric) at the lower level and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Only when you had mastered these do you move on to philosophy and theology. Both the trivium and quadrivium are derived from Plato’s ideas on the liberal arts and from Pythagoras when it comes to mathematics.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Of course you ignored the fact that other subjects are taught”

          Actually, I never said that there were no other subjects besides theology and philosophy. Why do you think I made that implication? And if anything, the existence of other subjects that existed then and now (certainly not computer science, which you assumed for whatever reason) only proves that it is more similar than I initially made it out to be, further buttressing my point. So you’ve only supported my argument if anything. I don’t know what source told you that engineering was originally taught at Cambridge, but either way, it poses no problem for my claims.

          And I think I did exaggerate pretty misleadingly when I said everything was the same besides the religiosity. Either way, it would be ridiculous to claim that everything is different, which was the claim I was responding to.

        • epeeist

          Actually, I never said that there were no other subjects besides theology and philosophy.

          No you didn’t, you just omitted to mention the fact, along with all the other things I mentioned. In other words you only chose the evidence that supports your position, you suppressed the evidence that runs counter to your position.

          But you aren’t really interested in how and why universities were founded, what the truth of the matter is. All you are concerned with is making an ideological claim regardless of whether there is anything in its favour or not.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “No you didn’t, you just omitted to mention the fact, along with all the other things I mentioned. In other words you only chose the evidence that supports your position, you suppressed the evidence that runs counter to your position.”

          Actually, I didn’t suppress an iota of a detail. I simply gave philosophy and theology as two examples. I never said those were the only two courses ever taught during the earliest years of Cambridge that are still around now. Of course there were more. And the fact that there is more proves my point, not refutes it. It mystifies me how you think I am somehow trying to suppress points that prove my arguments.

          “But you aren’t really interested in how and why universities were founded, what the truth of the matter is. All you are concerned with is making an ideological claim regardless of whether there is anything in its favour or not.”

          This is more of the rivetting nonsense I usually hear in the comments section. I’ve already outlined my argument in numerous comments. You picked a single detail at which to challenge me on, and whoopity whoo, you were wrong.

        • epeeist

          Actually, I didn’t suppress an iota of a detail.

          OK, lets accept this and assume that the facts about Greek and Islamic educational institutions were unknown to you. Now personally when the facts change then I change my opinion. What do you do?

          As for philosophy and theology in the early, Christian universities the things you would have been taught to start with were the Trivium and the Quadrivium, these were the “liberal arts” from Plato’s Republic, Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric; then mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music. All of these are associated with Plato, Pythagoras and Plato. So where is the Christianity in this?

          The philosophy syllabus would have included more Plato as well as the Stoics, once translation of the works from Greek and Arabic it included the writings of Aristotle and the Stoics. Again, where is the Christianity in this?

          Theology? This would surely have included the works of Augustine who draws largely on Plato and the neo-Platonists as well as the Stoics (his City of God is based upon the Republic of Zeno of Citium).

          I’ve already outlined my argument in numerous comments

          No, like most theists who come here you have made assertions that you have not substantiated. As I have said to you before I want evidence that the sole cause of the founding of universities in the West was Christianity and I want a causal warrant that shows your evidence is relevant.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “OK, lets accept this and assume that the facts about Greek and Islamic educational institutions were unknown to you.”

          Sorry, it was unknown to me that the 1100’s universities didn’t teach computer science? LOL

          “Now personally when the facts change then I change my opinion. What do you do?”

          Change my opinion. I’ve done it a lot of times, especially once I started reading the academic literature which was pretty challenging to many of the things I thought.

          “As for philosophy and theology in the early, Christian universities the things you would have been taught to start with were the Trivium and the Quadrivium, these were the “liberal arts” from Plato’s Republic, Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric; then mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music. All of these are associated with Plato, Pythagoras and Plato. So where is the Christianity in this?”

          The fact that the fields weren’t pioneered by the Christians does not mean that Christianity did not advance them. That’s like saying Jane Goodall was the pioneering anthropologist of our understanding of human-like characteristics in primates, therefore later anthropologists after Goodall did not advance anthropology from there at all. After the Greeks pioneered these fields, it was the Christians who took them and advanced them until the modern period (with some contributions from the Muslims). I don’t need to mention, for example, Francis Bacon, who is the father of the scientific method itself and wrote this less than positive essay about atheism:
          http://www.bartleby.com/3/1/16.html

          “Theology? This would surely have included the works of Augustine who draws largely on Plato and the neo-Platonists as well as the Stoics (his City of God is based upon the Republic of Zeno of Citium).”

          Huh? Are you implying that anything conceivably close to all that Augustine wrote is derivative of Plato? This is seriously the most absurd exaggeration I’ve ever read about Augustine. The idea that the advancement of the world during the Christian period somehow was magically drawn from the Greeks is just an internet myth that has its roots in an intellectual inability to credit the Christians with what they made.

        • epeeist

          Sorry, it was unknown to me that the 1100’s universities didn’t teach computer science?

          You need to improve your reading comprehension, I stated that it was the existence of Greek and Arabic institutions of education that were unknown to you.

          The fact that the fields weren’t pioneered by the Christians does not mean that Christianity did not advance them.

          Two points here, firstly you will note that these subjects all come from Greek institutions of education that enormously pre-date Christian schools and universities. Secondly, nobody is denying that the Christian schools and universities didn’t advance them, but this was largely after translations from the Greek and Arabic became available from Arabic and Persian institutions of education where considerable development had already taken place.

          Are you implying that anything conceivably close to all that Augustine wrote is derivative of Plato? This is seriously the most absurd exaggeration I’ve ever read about Augustine

          And once more you exhibit your lack of reading comprehension. I didn’t say that all he wrote is derivative of Plato, simply that he drew upon him. The fact that he did so, as well as drawing upon the neo-Platonists and Stoics is largely uncontroversial.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You need to improve your reading comprehension,…

          Exponentially.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You need to improve your reading comprehension, I stated that it was the existence of Greek and Arabic institutions of education that were unknown to you.”

          I was more than familiar with them. Somehow I still remain to see any significance of this and how any of my points are disqualified by their existence.

          “Two points here, firstly you will note that these subjects all come from Greek institutions of education that enormously pre-date Christian schools and universities. Secondly, nobody is denying that the Christian schools and universities didn’t advance them, but this was largely after translations from the Greek and Arabic became available from Arabic and Persian institutions of education where considerable development had already taken place.”

          What is your definition of ‘enormously predate’? And what about the fact that there were only a tiny few of them? And again, the collective Christian advancement of all these fields radically dwarf the contributions of every other civilization combined before the modern era. Christians pioneered the scientific method in the 16th century.

          “And once more you exhibit your lack of reading comprehension. I didn’t say that all he wrote is derivative of Plato, simply that he drew upon him. The fact that he did so, as well as drawing upon the neo-Platonists and Stoics is largely uncontroversial.”

          The fact that he drew some things here and there from Plato is of almost zero relevance to the fact that theology taught in the Christian universities doesn’t owe the Greeks much at all besides a few nuanced philosophical details here and around. Are you aware, for example, how much of Greek religion was radically denounced by the Christians? Christian theology owes Judaism, not Hellenism. Plain and simple. You give the Greeks more credence than they deserve and the Christians less credence than they deserve. Not surprising, since I’ve seen your kin hopelessly try to put excess attention on the accomplishments of the Greeks and Muslims and ignore the fact that all of that combined can’t equalize the Christian contribution. Why can’t you simply outright admit that the Christian civilization was the greatest, most productive and progressing civilization in human history? It sounds like a shickle to modern atheist fantasies about the past, but it’s the pure truth, unadulterated by irreligious imagination.

        • epeeist

          I was more than familiar with them

          And yet you didn’t mention them as precursors to Christian educational institutions, strange that.

          What is your definition of ‘enormously predate’?

          Plato’s Academy was founded in 387BCE and Aristotle taught at the Lyceum from 335BCE, not only predating Christian educational institutions but Christianity itself.

          And what about the fact that there were only a tiny few of them?

          How many universities were there in medieval Britain?

          And again, the collective Christian advancement of all these fields
          radically dwarf the contributions of every other civilization combined
          before the modern era.

          Christian advancement or advancement in Christian countries? If you are claiming that Christianity was causal in the advancement then you need to do rather better than an unsubstantiated assertion.

          As for “radically dwarf”, you again ignore possible contributions from other sources such as the availability of texts, renaissance humanism, the development of trade and contact with other civilisations. Which of these (or others for that matter), were proximate causes and which were distal causes?

          Christians pioneered the scientific method in the 16th century.

          The scientific method? There is no such thing. As it is Bacon’s Novum Organum decried the Aristotelianism taught in Christian universities in favour of inductive logic and with the eventual aim of improving social structures through the advancement of knowledge and trade.

          The fact that he drew some things here and there from Plato

          Seriously? You might want to read the Standford entry on Augustine, he was a neo-Platonist. One has to wonder how much, if anything, about Augustine.

          You give the Greeks more credence than they deserve and the Christians less credence than they deserve.

          So which civilisation is responsible for the production of subjects such as logic, physics, metaphysics, ethics and philosophy, all of which were taught in Christian universities? On what was Scholasticism based and developed?

          You give little or no credence to the fact that all of this is interlinked, that the whole edifice is built on many parts from many different sources.

          Why can’t you simply outright admit that the Christian civilization was
          the greatest, most productive and progressing civilization in human
          history?

          It is rather too early to say, come back to me when it has been around as long as the Egyptian, Indian or Chinese civilisations.

          As it is one might ask whether this productivity and progression is linear or whether it has bursts. Is there a burst during the renaissance when Catholicism is weakened by the reformation? Does modern science develop apace when religion is strong or during the time of the Enlightenment when it was weak? Is the current progress in science due to the strength of religion or the fact that religion, certainly in developed countries, has largely been marginalised?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And yet you didn’t mention them as precursors to Christian educational institutions, strange that.”

          Because I said the Islamic institutions were precursors to the Christian ones. Please stop trying to make yourself think that I’m some evil character trying to suppress the facts.

          “How many universities were there in medieval Britain?”

          Ugh, lots. Oxford, Cambridge. Compared to precisely zero universities in the pagan period. Should I bury you now?

          “Christian advancement or advancement in Christian countries?”

          Both. Have you read the article we’re writing under? Harvard, for example, was founded for the purpose of training Christian missionaries. Oxford and Cambridge have similar origins. Christian advancement. There wasn’t even a single secular university until the late 18th century.

          “The scientific method? There is no such thing. As it is Bacon’s Novum Organum decried the Aristotelianism taught in Christian universities in favour of inductive logic and with the eventual aim of improving social structures through the advancement of knowledge and trade.”

          LOL. There is no such thing as the scientific method? Now we’re getting on the fringe of things. It’s utterly incredible what atheists can imagine in order to try to give as little credit as possible to Christianity. Of course there is “the” scientific method, even if there isn’t some internationally recognized creed on the word-for-word steps on how to execute it. There is also a historical method. All scientists assume the scientific method, which was principled by Bacon.

          “As for “radically dwarf”, you again ignore possible contributions from other sources such as the availability of texts, renaissance humanism, the development of trade and contact with other civilisations. Which of these (or others for that matter), were proximate causes and which were distal causes?”

          Causes for the advancement of Christian civilization? That’s clearly entirely irrelevant. I’m simply saying Christian civilizations contributions dwarf the contributions of every other civilization combined besides that of the modern era. And that’s true. Obviously, Christian civilization benefited from the creation of trade networks after Constantinople fell and their hegemony in the Americas, among other things, that’s not in dispute. What is being said is that Christian civilization > all other non-modern civilizations. This is pretty simple.

          “Seriously? You might want to read the Standford entry on Augustine, he was a neo-Platonist. One has to wonder how much, if anything, about Augustine.”

          Again, that only affects the philosophical details of his works here and around. The vast majority of what he wrote is Christian stuff about Christian things and Christian matters. That takes up a significantly greater portion than his detailed philosophical ravings to which he was a follower of Plato’s ideals. I just find it absurd you try to put the theological credit of Augustine to Plato. Does that mean all the theological credit of Paul goes to the Old Testament authors? Of course not.

          “You give little or no credence to the fact that all of this is interlinked, that the whole edifice is built on many parts from many different sources.”

          This simply isn’t true, I’ve repeated and acknowledged it many times. I’m simply pointing out, as I have to repeat over and over, the pagan civilizations advancements does not remotely equate to the advancement of Christian civilization. The foundation blocks are important, but without the castle they don’t have much of a use.

          “It is rather too early to say, come back to me when it has been around as long as the Egyptian, Indian or Chinese civilisations.”

          Do you think these three civilizations have done more advancement before the modern period than Christian civilization? By the way, Egypt was a Christian country for several centuries, even well into the Muslim conquest.

          “Does modern science develop apace when religion is strong or during the time of the Enlightenment when it was weak?”

          These two things have nothing to do with each other. Sciences explosion started well before the Enlightenment started, what happened afterwards was simply a continuation of what the Christians already had rolling. And before the Enlightenment, it was the Church itself that was funding the world of science. Without the boost provided by the religious Church, you can forget about any Enlightenment happening.

        • epeeist

          Because I said the Islamic institutions were precursors to the Christian ones

          Actually I don’t think you did, as far as I can tell you acknowledged the fact once the existence of these institutes was pointed out to you.

          Ugh, lots. Oxford, Cambridge.

          So that would be two then (as it is you have forgotten St. Andrew’s), which is the same number as I have mentioned in Athens and also neglects the Pythagoreans on Samos and the school in Miletus.

          Have you read the article we’re writing under? Harvard, for example, was founded for the purpose of training Christian missionaries.

          Hardly surprising given the background of the population at that time.

          There is no such thing as the scientific method?

          No, have a look at how science is done now compared to the time of Francis Bacon, look at how William Whewell envisaged how science should be done, compare this with the writings of, say, Popper and compare his ideas with his students Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos. Look at the difference between these authors and Thomas Kuhn. There are commonalities but a number of differences. You might also want to look at the sociology of science exemplified by something like the “strong programme”.

          It’s utterly incredible what atheists can imagine in order to try to give as little credit as possible to Christianity.

          So saying that there is no such thing as the scientific method is an attack on Christianity?

          What is being said is that Christian civilization > all other non-modern civilizations.

          No, what is being asserted is that “Christian civilization > all other non-modern civilizations”, you haven’t specified how you measure “greater”, nor have you justified your claim.

          That takes up a significantly greater portion than his detailed philosophical ravings to which he was a follower of Plato’s ideals.

          And yet I offer evidence of his neo-Platonism, whereas you offer what? More unsubstantiated opinion.

          Do you think these three civilizations have done more advancement before the modern period than Christian civilization?

          Tell me how you are defining “more advancement” and I’ll answer your question.

          These two things have nothing to do with each other. Sciences explosion started well before the Enlightenment started

          And yet advancement really started with Newton, whose works form the impetus for the start of the Enlightenment (try something like Anthony Pagen’s The Enlightenment or Ernst Cassirer’s The Philosophy of the Enlightenment for discussion of this).

          And before the Enlightenment, it was the Church itself that was funding the world of science.

          Was science at that time the same as it is now? Did medieval universities consider science to be rational argument on the authority of the masters (such as Aristotle) or did they actually deal in “facts” and “discoveries”?

          And was the church the only source of funding, or might the merchant adventurers of the time made a contribution? How about those looking to calculate their positions more accurately in order to produce better maps and charts (made possible by the introduction of printing). Or perhaps the newly formed scientific societies?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Actually I don’t think you did, as far as I can tell you acknowledged the fact once the existence of these institutes was pointed out to you.”

          Doesn’t matter what you think. I said Islamic universities were precursors to the Christian ones, even though it was after they were mentioned by others. Please stop trying to insist that I’m re-inventing my previous words.

          “So that would be two then (as it is you have forgotten St. Andrew’s), which is the same number as I have mentioned in Athens and also neglects the Pythagoreans on Samos and the school in Miletus.”

          I didn’t forget anything. I just didn’t mention it. What’s with you? There were zero universities in the pagan world. None. Zero. Zit. The schools you’re referring to are just that, schools. If I wanted to include all the monastic and other schools of the medieval period, the number would blow way past Cambridge, Oxford, Andrews, etc.

          “No, have a look at how science is done now compared to the time of Francis Bacon, look at how William Whewell envisaged how science should be done, compare this with the writings of, say, Popper and compare his ideas with his students Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos. Look at the difference between these authors and Thomas Kuhn. There are commonalities but a number of differences. You might also want to look at the sociology of science exemplified by something like the “strong programme”.”

          The scientific method is approximately the same. Get a hypothesis, do an experiment, see what happens and share your results. Of course, Bacon didn’t benefit from the existence of academic journals, but Bacon is the father of the scientific method nonetheless, even if they small details aren’t identical today which is a natural of the explosion of scientific knowledge since Bacon’s time.

          “No, what is being asserted is that “Christian civilization > all other non-modern civilizations”, you haven’t specified how you measure “greater”, nor have you justified your claim.”

          I’m pretty sure that’s an axiom that doesn’t need to be proven. Do you really want me to list the vast advances of Christian civilization until the modern period and how it dwarfs all the other civilizations? Or do you genuinely think it does not dwarf them?

          “Tell me how you are defining “more advancement” and I’ll answer your question.”

          Economics well-being. Scientific knowledge, discoveries and inventions.

          “And yet advancement really started with Newton, whose works form the impetus for the start of the Enlightenment (try something like Anthony Pagen’s The Enlightenment or Ernst Cassirer’s The Philosophy of the Enlightenment for discussion of this).”

          Ugh, no, this started before Newton. Newton was a pivotal figure, but it certainly didn’t start with Newton. Perhaps you would be happy to learn about some of his predecessors, like Galileo and Copernicus. Maybe the invention of the printing press which was one of the most pivotal moments in history that allowed for the scientific revolution to take place.

          “Did medieval universities consider science to be rational argument on the authority of the masters (such as Aristotle) or did they actually deal in “facts” and “discoveries”?”

          Please explain what you mean by “on the authority of the masters”.

          “And was the church the only source of funding, or might the merchant adventurers of the time made a contribution?”

          How big do you think that contribution exactly was? Perhaps you would be happier if I said “most” instead of “all”. The point hardly changes, though.

        • epeeist

          I said Islamic universities were precursors to the Christian ones

          Fine, let’s take your acceptance that there were precursors to Christian universities are read.

          The schools you’re referring to are just that, schools

          And yet somewhere like the Lyceum teaches philosophy, logic, astronomy, physics, biology, meteorology, poetry, drama, ethics, politics, psychology, and economics. In fact rather more akin to modern universities than the early Christian universities.

          If I wanted to include all the monastic and other schools of the medieval period

          You could do that of course, but only if you were interested in protecting your position rather than trying to determine what the facts of the matter are.

          The scientific method is approximately the same

          So there are differences.

          Get a hypothesis, do an experiment, see what happens and share your results.

          That’s it? That’s your definition of “the scientific method”? For some reason I am driven to thinking that this is a subject you know little to nothing about.

          I’m pretty sure that’s an axiom that doesn’t need to be proven.

          Axioms don’t, but your claim is hardly axiomatic.

          Do you really want me to list the vast advances of Christian civilization

          No, I want to you define what you mean by greater and then to justify your claim rather than making unsubstantiated assertions and expecting them to be taken as authoritative.

          Economics well-being. Scientific knowledge, discoveries and inventions.

          You think these didn’t advance under non-Christian civilisations.

          Tell me, is there an equivalent of this device that was produced in early Christian universities? How long before these Christian universities overtake Indian astronomy</u?

          Ugh, no, this started before Newton

          It did? Now I have given you a couple of references and you have given me what? Nothing but your personal opinion.

          Perhaps you would be happy to learn about some of his predecessors, like Galileo and Copernicus.

          Both figures fit moderately comfortably into the Renaissance rather than the Enlightenment period. I might give you Galileo but of course it wasn’t until considerably later that people took his model as an actual description rather than simply a method of calculation (Thomas Digges, Giovani Beneditti, Giordano Bruno and William Gilbert were among the few who one might term Copernicus-realists).

          Please explain what you mean by “on the authority of the masters”.

          Did the early Christian universities deal in rational arguments treating such figures as, for example, Aristotle and Plato as true? Or did they deal with empirical facts and discoveries?

          Perhaps you would be happier if I said “most” instead of “all”. The point hardly changes, though.

          Oh but it does, what it means is that you are admitting that there were sources of funding, other reasons for learning besides the spreading of Christianity.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Fine, let’s take your acceptance that there were precursors to Christian universities are read.”

          Great.

          “And yet somewhere like the Lyceum teaches philosophy, logic, astronomy, physics, biology, meteorology, poetry, drama, ethics, politics, psychology, and economics. In fact rather more akin to modern universities than the early Christian universities.”

          Sorry, this is plain and pure nonsense. They were nothing approaching the medieval Christian universities. Are you aware of just how much more advanced medieval Christians were over the BC pagans?

          >Get a hypothesis, do an experiment, see what happens and share your results.
          That’s it? That’s your definition of “the scientific method”? For some reason I am driven to thinking that this is a subject you know little to nothing about.

          Obviously I’ve simplified it, but you get the idea. Bacon is the father of the scientific method. Instead of denying that, why can’t we both just celebrate Bacon’s work? Screw Darwin’s day, man, where’s Bacon day?

          “No, I want to you define what you mean by greater and then to justify your claim rather than making unsubstantiated assertions and expecting them to be taken as authoritative.”

          I do this later — more advancement, technology, economics, etc. The basics of what make one civilization better than another.

          “You think these didn’t advance under non-Christian civilisations.”

          No? I never said that. They did advance. Such as the discovery of pulmonary blood circulation by the Muslims. That’s a pretty big one. It just advanced even more in Christian civilization. Since you’re being difficult, I’m going to ask you straight up. Do you think any pre-modern civilization advanced more than Christian civilization from the time of Constantine to the end of the 1700’s?

          “Tell me, is there an equivalent of this device that was produced in early Christian universities? How long before these Christian universities overtake Indian astronomy</u?”

          You refer me to something I’ve read up on a while, some useless junk that can apparently get the time of some astronomical phenomenon. Sure I can. The printing press (15th century). The mechanical clock (13th). The windmill (13th). Isaac Newton. LOL

          “Both figures fit moderately comfortably into the Renaissance rather than the Enlightenment period. I might give you Galileo but of course it wasn’t until considerably later that people took his model as an actual description rather than simply a method of calculation (Thomas Digges, Giovani Beneditti, Giordano Bruno and William Gilbert were among the few who one might term Copernicus-realists).”

          Bruno was just a crazy mystic. Anyways, the Renaissance extends into the medieval period. Galileo and Copernicus both predate Newton. I don’t really remember what the exact point of contention was here, anyways.

          “Oh but it does, what it means is that you are admitting that there were sources of funding, other reasons for learning besides the spreading of Christianity.”

          Sure, but their significance can’t be overestimated. Christians built a bunch of monasteries which were used for schooling, and then these monasteries built for Christian purposes started getting advanced and turned into universities, and then other Christians started building other universities for missionary purposes (e.g. Harvard), and then the Church basically funded the science. Why can’t we just agree on all of the things I’ve said here? None of it is wrong. It might be hurtful if you take the Draper-White thesis with any merit, but besides that it’s history.

        • epeeist

          Sorry, this is plain and pure nonsense</blockquote?

          Frankly I (and I am sure others) am getting rather bored with your unsubstantiated assertions, this being another one of them.

          Are you aware of just how much more advanced medieval Christians were over the BC pagans?

          They were? And yet you don’t say how much they had supposedly advanced. As it is, if they were more advanced then their advancement was built upon previously accumulated knowledge, the shoulders of giants and all that.

          But since you are attempting to discredit the Greeks because they weren’t as “advanced” as Christian universities. Are you aware of just how much more advanced we are today than the medieval Christians?

          Obviously I’ve simplified it, but you get the idea.

          No, what you have done is produced a parody. Certainly nothing like I learnt during my doctorate nor in any research institute or university that I have worked in.

          Instead of denying that, why can’t we both just celebrate Bacon’s work?

          You mean you would like to get off the hook of pretending you know something about scientific methodology. I have no problem celebrating Bacon’s work, but let’s remember he named his work the Novum Organum. Why did he do this? Because he saw himself as updating Aristotle’s Organon which gave an inductive/deductive method for empirical data.

          Such as the discovery of pulmonary blood circulation by the Muslims. That’s a pretty big one.

          And of course there is a huge amount more (try something like Edward Grant’s A History of Natural Philosophy for a detailed exposition).

          Since you’re being difficult, I’m going to ask you straight up. Do you
          think any pre-modern civilization advanced more than Christian
          civilization from the time of Constantine to the end of the 1700’s?

          No, you only think I am being difficult because I won’t accept your assertions, as much as anything because you won’t (or can’t) substantiate them.

          As it is I am not playing your dates game. Why should I accept a cut off of the end of the 1700’s? The major advance in science took place after this, a time when the influence and authority began to decline.

          You refer me to something I’ve read up on a while, some useless junk
          that can apparently get the time of some astronomical phenomenon.

          You class the Antikythera mechanism as a piece of junk? Now you probably don’t have a lot of credibility here but what you just had plummeted. You really ought to have a look and see what was being done from the 11th century onwards to try and do what the mechanism did.

          The printing press

          You might want to look at the history of printing in the Tang dynasty in China, also the screw press in Roman times.

          The mechanical clock (13th)

          First documented in 8th century China, built by Yi Xing

          The windmill

          Documented as being used for grinding grain and drawing water in 9th century Persia.

          Bruno was just a crazy mystic.

          Again I would refer you to Edward Grant’s book. He was rather more than just a mystic. However your attempt to poison the well is noted.

          I don’t really remember what the exact point of contention was here,

          It was you who raised these two figures to start with, so I’ll leave you to determine that.

          Why can’t we just agree on all of the things I’ve said here?

          Or in other words why won’t won’t I simply accept what you have said without demur. Quite frankly because you have made a load of unsubstantiated assertions about a subject which you obviously know little about. This you do in an attempt to provide a post hoc rationalisation for a particular narrative.

          It might be hurtful if you take the Draper-White thesis with any merit, but besides that it’s history.

          But I have never made an appeal to any kind of conflict theory. All I have essentially said is that knowledge is cumulative and comes from multiple sources. That Christian schools and universities have contributed to the sum of our knowledge but to claim it causal (another thing that you haven’t been able to justify) is rather over-egging the pudding.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “They were? And yet you don’t say how much they had supposedly advanced. As it is, if they were more advanced then their advancement was built upon previously accumulated knowledge, the shoulders of giants and all that.”

          Really? So in my previous comment, I never mentioned the invention of the windmill, mechanical clock, etc? Please. You need to read my comments a little better, since I explicitly do this. The medieval Christians were in a much more advanced state than the BC pagans. You later say something equally mangled: “Are you aware of just how much more advanced we are today than the medieval Christians?” — umm … when did I say we weren’t? I expect an answer.

          “No, what you have done is produced a parody. Certainly nothing like I learnt during my doctorate nor in any research institute or university that I have worked in.”

          A parody? LOL! No, I simply simplified the scientific method. It’s not a terribly complicated thing.

          “You mean you would like to get off the hook of pretending you know something about scientific methodology. I have no problem celebrating Bacon’s work, but let’s remember he named his work the Novum Organum. Why did he do this? Because he saw himself as updating Aristotle’s Organon which gave an inductive/deductive method for empirical data.”

          Actually, I do know something about it. Nothing you said here really changes the fact that Bacon was the father of the scientific method. And he has been known as such since at least the time of Voltaire.

          “You might want to look at the history of printing in the Tang dynasty in China, also the screw press in Roman times.”

          Send me a resource. The printing press was invented by medieval Christians in the 15th century, this is pretty simple and well-known. There was no printing before that. Perhaps you should have actually read a Britannica article or something before mangling again, which says, oh perhaps:
          “The earliest mention of a printing press is in a lawsuit in Strasbourg in 1439 revealing construction of a press for Johannes Gutenberg and his associates.”
          https://www.britannica.com/technology/printing-press
          A screw press is not a printing press. I mean, seriously dude? The invention of the printing press is one of the most critical moments in the history of the transition from the pre-modern to modern period. When I mentioned the invention of the mechanical clock, you said:

          “First documented in 8th century China, built by Yi Xing”

          This is another plainly wrong statement. Even a quick check through Wikipedia would have confirmed what I said regarding the mechanical clock, windmill, etc. See the monograph God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science for an overview on these things and more. This has book has won so many awards from academic societies that it is a clear must-read.

          “You class the Antikythera mechanism as a piece of junk? Now you probably don’t have a lot of credibility here but what you just had plummeted. You really ought to have a look and see what was being done from the 11th century onwards to try and do what the mechanism did.”

          I called it a piece of junk because it looks like a piece of junk. LOL. Anyhow, I explained the mechanism of that thing in my previous comment, so I’m well aware of what it does. That mechanism, if I’m not mistaken, was built about 300 BC. So, from 300 BC to 300 AD (which is about when the Christians inherited the pagan world), where is the further ‘advancement’? In this 600 year period, not a fascinating amount had been done outside of philosophy.

          “But I have never made an appeal to any kind of conflict theory. All I have essentially said is that knowledge is cumulative and comes from multiple sources. That Christian schools and universities have contributed to the sum of our knowledge but to claim it causal (another thing that you haven’t been able to justify) is rather over-egging the pudding.”

          Actually, I didn’t say that Christian civilization is the entire “causal” entity of all knowledge. Just that it contributed more than the other pre-modern civilizations. This isn’t a terribly incredible claim. The Christian influence on the university, hospital, etc, cannot be underestimated.

          “As it is I am not playing your dates game. Why should I accept a cut off of the end of the 1700’s? The major advance in science took place after this, a time when the influence and authority began to decline.”

          I’m just dating what I’m talking about to about midway through the Industrial Revolution. Do you want a different timeline to work with? Propose whatever you like and we’ll look at it.

        • epeeist

          You later say something equally mangled: “Are you aware of just how much more advanced we are today than the medieval Christians?” — umm … when did I say we weren’t? I expect an answer.

          You dismiss the “pagans” because they were less advanced than the Christian societies of the 11th century onwards. I dismiss the Christian societies of the 11th century to the start of the Enlightenment because they are less advanced than we are now.

          A parody? LOL! No, I simply simplified the scientific method. It’s not a terribly complicated thing.

          Says the person who I suspect has no science beyond grade school and definitely has no comprehension of the philosophy of science. Let’s ask a question here, how would you approach, say, a drug trial compared with a test of Bell’s inequalities?

          Actually, I do know something about it. Nothing you said here really changes the fact that Bacon was the father of the scientific method.

          But strangely enough it was me, yet again, who provided an exposition of the subject. We seem to be repeating you making an unsubstantiated assertion, me providing a counter to your assertion with evidence and you then claiming you knew all about it.

          Send me a resource. The printing press was invented by medieval Christians in the 15th century, this is pretty simple and well-known.

          You might want to try this page or this one.

          A screw press is not a printing press.

          No of course it isn’t, but Gutenberg’s press used a screw press. Did he invent this, or did he use something that was already in existence?

          This is another plainly wrong statement.

          It is? So this site is wrong?

          See the monograph God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science for an overview on these things and more. This has book has won so many awards from academic societies that it is a clear must-read.

          A book that I am aware of but have not read, so given that you are citing it I presume you have read it. Which awards has it won? I am aware of it having a significant number of good reviews but some poor reviews as well.

          I called it a piece of junk because it looks like a piece of junk

          When under the sea you have been for the same amount of time… Look as good, you will not.

          So, from 300 BC to 300 AD (which is about when the Christians inherited the pagan world), where is the further ‘advancement’? In this 600 year period, not a fascinating amount had been done outside of philosophy.

          And the Christian world had an immediate replacement for the mechanism by 300CE or did it have to wait a little while longer?

          Just that it contributed more than the other pre-modern civilizations. This isn’t a terribly incredible claim. The Christian influence on the university, hospital, etc, cannot be underestimated.

          And once again you use your undefined term “more than” and couple it with your usual unsubstantiated assertion.

          I’m just dating what I’m talking about to about midway through the Industrial Revolution.

          Seriously, 1700 is half-way through the industrial revolution? I think most of the museums around here (I live just outside Manchester in the UK, one of the centres of the industrial revolution) would be rather surprised. The date they give for the start of the revolution is normally around about 1760 (which coincidentally was about the time my house was built), you might try this site for more details.

          But it you want to do this why don’t you have a look what progress was made over 250 year blocks starting at 0CE.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You dismiss the “pagans” because they were less advanced than the Christian societies of the 11th century onwards. I dismiss the Christian societies of the 11th century to the start of the Enlightenment because they are less advanced than we are now.”

          No, you misunderstood me. I never dismissed the pagans. Their advancements were quite important. I’m just saying that their advances were surpassed by Christian civilization. That’s really all I’m saying.

          “Says the person who I suspect has no science beyond grade school and definitely has no comprehension of the philosophy of science. Let’s ask a question here, how would you approach, say, a drug trial compared with a test of Bell’s inequalities?”

          I’m not a physicist or drug expert, but what relevance do these two have with each other at all?

          “But strangely enough it was me, yet again, who provided an exposition of the subject. We seem to be repeating you making an unsubstantiated assertion, me providing a counter to your assertion with evidence and you then claiming you knew all about it.”

          Huh? You didn’t really provide any evidence at all. You just accused me of oversimplifying the scientific method (or something) and left it at that. Except that’s not even the point.

          “You might want to try this page or this one.”

          Your LiveScience link (the one I read) outright agrees with me. For example;

          Europeans, however, took to movable type quickly. Before the invention of the printing press — sometime between 1440 and 1450 — most European texts were printed using xylography, a form of woodblock printing similar to the Chinese method used to print “The Diamond Sutra” in 868.

          So, according to LiveScience (your source) at this point, the printing press had not yet been invented. LiveScience also later calls Gutenberg’s creation “the first printing press”, and also explains the revolutionary advances of the printing press beyond the previous forms of printing. Especially since, Gutenberg’s creation allowed for the first time, mass printing at a lower cost. So your source agrees with me. So does Britannica. Your second link, which also doesn’t say anyone before Gutenberg invented the printing press, says that Gutenberg’s advances is referred to as the most important advance of the millennium. Are you sure you believe what your own sources say?

          “A book that I am aware of but have not read, so given that you are citing it I presume you have read it. Which awards has it won? I am aware of it having a significant number of good reviews but some poor reviews as well.”

          Nah, haven’t read it yet (though I know its gist believe it or not). Anyhow, it’s won the 2010 Royal Society Prize for Science Books and the 2011 British Society for the History of Science prize. That is quite enormously significant.

          “And the Christian world had an immediate replacement for the mechanism by 300CE or did it have to wait a little while longer?”

          It waited a little longer. But it happened. And it was quite more than what the pagans had ever done when it did happen. Do you disagree with this?

          “And once again you use your undefined term “more than” and couple it with your usual unsubstantiated assertion.”

          More than: more economic progress occurred in this time, more significant inventions and discoveries were made, etc. It’s quite well known that, using Edward Grant’s words, the Middle Ages laid “the foundations of modern science” (title of one of his books).

          “Seriously, 1700 is half-way through the industrial revolution? I think most of the museums around here (I live just outside Manchester in the UK, one of the centres of the industrial revolution) would be rather surprised. The date they give for the start of the revolution is normally around about 1760 (which coincidentally was about the time my house was built), you might try this site for more details.”

          From what I’ve seen, the industrial revolution started at 1760 and ended 1820-40. So 1800 is ‘about’ halfway through. Again, if you want to work with a different timeline before the modern period, feel free to suggest one.

        • epeeist

          I never dismissed the pagans. Their advancements were quite important. I’m just saying that their advances were surpassed by Christian civilization.

          Well yes, but around we go again. Were the advances that were made in Christian societies built upon the foundations that the “pagan” and Islamic laid or were they completely independent? If you have no problem with the former then we have no argument.

          As it is it looks as though a non-Christian society in science in the near future.

          I’m not a physicist or drug expert, but what relevance do these two have with each other at all?

          But if there is such a thing as the scientific method and it is so simple then surely you be able to show that both my examplars follow the same methodology.

          Europeans, however, took to movable type quickly. Before the invention of the printing press — sometime between 1440 and 1450

          The usual crass dishonesty in quote mining the article to get one sentence that agrees with your narrative, you ignore the initial invention and the development of movable type in China. Did printing catch on more quickly in Europe? Yes (and the article explains why). Was printing and movable type invented in China before Europe? Yes, without question.

          Anyhow, it’s won the 2010 Royal Society Prize for Science Books and the 2011 British Society for the History of Science prize

          Except of course it didn’t. It was short-listed for both prizes but one neither (Source and Source).

          More than: more economic progress occurred in this time, more significant inventions and discoveries were made, etc

          And again with the value judgements. Let us ask, with the economic pressures, knowledge and capabilities of, say, Chinese society circa 1000CE was it possible for them to develop something like the spinning jenny? How is the spinning jenny “more significant” than the invention of the spinning wheel?

          From what I’ve seen, the industrial revolution started at 1760 and ended 1820-40.

          Your earlier comment seemed to indicate 1700 as the midpoint of the industrial revolution.

        • Greg G.

          Except of course it didn’t. It was short-listed for both prizes but one neither

          Dam homonyms.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Also, forgot to respond to one more thing about the mechanical clock:

          “It is? So this site is wrong?”

          Given that your reference is to a top 10 or top 9 or something list from china.org that provides no sources, I don’t see why I’d think I would take the source with credibility. According to James Hannam in God’s Philosophers:

          Water clocks and other timekeeping devices had been built by the Romans and Chinese but the mechanical clock was something new.

          I found a PDF file of Hannam’s book online (how I got that quote above), but the font is so messed up I can’t tell which exact page this quote comes from. Here’s the PDF link:
          http://1.droppdf.com/files/SzQL1/god-s-philosophers-james-hannam.pdf

        • epeeist

          Given that your reference is to a top 10 or top 9 or something list from china.org that provides no sources, I don’t see why I’d think I would take the source with credibility.

          And that’s it, you make a guilt by association move and use that to dismiss the claim. As it is it is fairly easy to find details about Yi Xing on your reference site of choice.

          I note that you haven’t responded to my invitation to essentially produce a histogram of “progress” against 250 year time blocks. That wouldn’t be because it doesn’t look good until beyond 1250CE would it? If Christianity is such a force for progress then why didn’t it happen in the millennium after the death of the purported Jesus?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And that’s it, you make a guilt by association move and use that to dismiss the claim.

          That’s how KD rolls with sources…unless it is him doing the citing, which he does very rarely, in which case sources he casually hand waves away as unreliable in others without checking, become perfectly acceptable. He is dishonest.

          As it is it is fairly easy to find details about Yi Xing on your reference site of choice.

          Nah…far easier to dismiss facts by the ad hominem method of argumentation.

          I note that you haven’t responded to my invitation to essentially produce a histogram of “progress” against 250 year time blocks.

          But then he’d have to admit that the most progress has happened in the last 250 years when secularism took over the tiller, and that wouldn’t do at all.

          That wouldn’t be because it doesn’t look good until beyond 1250CE would it?

          Yip.

          If Christianity is such a force for progress then why didn’t it happen in the millennium after the death of the purported Jesus?

          The post Jesus pre-Dark Ages and Dark Ages ya mean?….

          Petrarch wrote that history had two periods: the classic period of Greeks and Romans, followed by a time of darkness in which he saw himself living. In around 1343, in the conclusion of his epic Africa, he wrote: “My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. This sleep of forgetfulness will not last forever. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance.” In the 15th century, historians Leonardo Bruni and Flavio Biondo developed a three-tier outline of history. They used Petrarch’s two ages, plus a modern, ‘better age’, which they believed the world had entered. Later the term ‘Middle Ages’ – Latin media tempestas (1469) or medium aevum (1604) – was used to describe the period of supposed decline.

          Seem’s as though people living through those times were aware of the issue anyway.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And that’s it, you make a guilt by association move and use that to dismiss the claim. As it is it is fairly easy to find details about Yi Xing on your reference site of choice.”

          What on planet Earth? Saying you cited a non-credible source is not “guilt by association”. And please explain how Wikipedia is my reference site of choice. I’ve referred to it like, perhaps once or twice in my innumerable comments here. Anyhow, I later went on to quote James Hannam saying that while these earlier civilizations had time-measuring devices, the actual invention of the mechanical clock occurred in the 13th century (or was it 1300? already forgot). So that should settle exactly what both our sources are talking about.

          “Well yes, but around we go again. Were the advances that were made in Christian societies built upon the foundations that the “pagan” and Islamic laid or were they completely independent? If you have no problem with the former then we have no argument.”

          Of course it used some of the earlier built foundations. Otherwise, Christian civilization would have had to reinvent civilization. I simply do not know how many times I’m going to have to repeat that I’m not dismissing pagan civilization. I’m saying that their contributions did not equal that of Christian civilization. Which should be flatly obvious. You must start reading a little better here.

          “But if there is such a thing as the scientific method and it is so simple then surely you be able to show that both my examplars follow the same methodology.”

          You asked me to relate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle with drug trials. Or something. There’s not relevant to each other at all. And you misspelled exemplars. If you’re asking about the scientific method, you don’t need to mention these two totally separate sciences. Drug trials explore the safety and effectivity of drugs, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says you cannot know the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. The scientific method can be discussed totally without reference to either of these. Again, the scientific method is not some sort of whiz magic. Examine some information. Develop a hypothesis to explain that information. Find out some sort of experiment you can run to test your hypothesis. Execute the experiment. Examine the results, and see whether or not they are in line with the hypothesis. There’s a bunch of ways to do this, use control samples and all whatnot. Draw your conclusions and disseminate your findings. No magic. Pretty simple.

          “Except of course it didn’t. It was short-listed for both prizes but one won neither (Source and Source).”

          You’re right, it was shortlisted for both awards. That is, nevertheless, significant. And the author is highly credible, not to mention. I didn’t cite some run-of-the-mill monograph.

          “I note that you haven’t responded to my invitation to essentially produce a histogram of “progress” against 250 year time blocks. That wouldn’t be because it doesn’t look good until beyond 1250CE would it? If Christianity is such a force for progress then why didn’t it happen in the millennium after the death of the purported Jesus?”

          That would take pretty long and I simply don’t feel like it. Acceleration of progress started going off after the 1200’s, simply because at this point the collapse of the Roman Empire, which surely had major effects, had finally begun to rescind. It’s pretty similar to Islamic civilization. Going pretty well until the darned Mongols in the 13th century (or something). Totally tarnished their golden age. And whether or not it went off after 800 or 1200, it’s quite irrelevant. Do you think there was some sort of decline of Christianity at 1250? Of course not, Christian civilization wins out in the end and that’s exactly the point I’ve been making this entire time. One will have to wonder when you even expressedly disagree with my position yet, since it appears as if you’re trying to play it safe and not outright disagree.

        • epeeist

          Saying you cited a non-credible source is not “guilt by association”

          But you never provided any justification for the claim it was “non-credible”, hence the accusation of guilt by association.

          Anyhow, I later went on to quote James Hannam saying that while these earlier civilizations had time-measuring devices

          So a quote mine from a book you admit you haven’t read is supposedly sufficient to settle the issue…

          Of course it used some of the earlier built foundations

          So you are agreeing with the position that I set out, that knowledge is essentially cumulative and is built by different societies at different times. This being so, why are Christian societies somehow special?

          You asked me to relate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle with drug trials

          Bell inequalities actually.

          As it is the methodologies are different, the former would be dealt with using something like a Hempel D-N covering law while the latter would use an I-S covering law. It becomes more and more apparent that your knowledge of science and its methodologies is extremely limited, hence the hand waving.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It becomes more and more apparent that your knowledge of science and its methodologies is extremely limited, hence the hand waving.

          Ironic, given his moniker on his own blog.

        • epeeist

          Pressed the “Post” button too early.

          I didn’t cite some run-of-the-mill monograph

          I didn’t say you did, simply that it has had both positive and negative reviews.

          That would take pretty long and I simply don’t feel like it.

          Nice piece of phrasing, why shouldn’t we read it as “but I am unable to provide a justified explanation. As it is your claims about the Roman empire didn’t seem to stop the development in Persia and the Arabic countries did it? As it was the end of the Islamic “Golden Age” was as much due to the rise of theocracy as anything else.

          Do you think there was some sort of decline of Christianity at 1250?

          I didn’t say that. According to you Christianity is a major force that drives progress and yet it took 1250 years to “win out” and even then it could only do so on the back of translations from the Greek and Arabic.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What on planet Earth? Saying you cited a non-credible source is not “guilt by association”.

          He means that you are hand waving away the data just because you believe it is associated with what you think is a non-credible source. It’s your favourite, the ad hominem fallacy. Is the data wrong? If you think it is wrong, then explain why?

          And please explain how Wikipedia is my reference site of choice. I’ve referred to it like, perhaps once or twice in my innumerable comments here.

          Since you very rarely support your claims with evidence, it is possible to perceive that the couple of times you have cited a source and them being Wiki’s, that Wiki is your reference site of choice.

          Anyhow, I later went on to quote James Hannam saying that while these earlier civilizations had time-measuring devices, the actual invention of the mechanical clock occurred in the 13th century (or was it 1300? already forgot).

          Well, it depends on how one defines the term “mechanical clock” in this case.

          If Hannam said that the mechanical clock occurred in the 13th century, or even 14th century, then he is wrong. There were mechanical clocks well before the 14th century. What was a first when talking about the history of the mechanical clock was the type of escapement. What you should have said is “all” mechanical clock. But so what, that was just a step in the timeline of the development of the modern time piece. Since no one knows who invented the first “all” mechanical clock for sure, your claim for Christianity is moot.

          The earliest known clock with a water-powered escapement mechanism, which transferred rotational energy into intermittent motions, dates back to 3rd century bc in ancient Greece; Chinese engineers later invented clocks incorporating mercury-powered escapement mechanisms in the 10th century, followed by Iranian engineers inventing water clocks driven by gears and weights in the 11th century.

          The first mechanical clocks, employing the verge escapement mechanism with a foliot or balance wheel timekeeper, were invented in Europe at around the start of the 14th century, and became the standard timekeeping device until the pendulum clock was invented in 1656. The invention of the mainspring in the early 15th century allowed portable clocks to be built, evolving into the first pocketwatches by the 17th century, but these were not very accurate until the balance spring was added to the balance wheel in the mid 17th century.

          So that should settle exactly what both our sources are talking about.

          Nope. Cite how your source can be checked for accuracy, don’t just through out a book and an author…you could be making up anything. Let me show ya…

          The Middle Ages were an era of invention and rapid technological change. For example, spectacles, the mechanical clock and the windmill were all invented in thirteenth century Europe.

          http://jameshannam.com/

          But it isn’t as simple as that.

          An important component of this and other devices, which was essential to the creation of mechanical clocks, was the ‘escapement’ which James Hannam defines as a ‘spinning crossbar that allows the gear wheel to turn by only one notch for each of its rotations. Each time the gear moves on by one notch, there is one tick of the clock and the weight driven shaft can turn by a very small amount. A series of other gears translate the turning of the gear wheel into the movements of the hands on the clock face”.

          Su Sung’s eleventh century clock had one of the little beauties, but there seems to be some ambiguity over when and how they first came to the Western world, but they seem to have been here by the 13th century. However, it is here that another problem arises, which is that the Latin word for a ‘clock’ used at this time ‘orologium’ could refer to any time piece, mechanical or non-mechanical, or water driven. This means that tracing the origin of the development of mechanical clocks in Western Europe rather difficult.

          Now someone who we do know that was instrumental in the advancement of the clock was a guy called Christiaan Huygens. But he was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_clock

          Now a guy known as the Scientist Pope has been credited with building the first mechanical clock in the west. Pope Sylvester II is an interesting individual. He went to the Muslims to get his education and learned all manner of science from them. He was also a bit of a humanist who was posthumously castigated as a sorcerer and a Devil-worshipper, earning him the nickname of the Magician Pope. Something later Christian clerics went to pains in order to rectify.

          When Gerbert showed an aptitude for mathematics, his abbot sent him south to Spain. He spent three years near Barcelona, whose Christian count had signed a treaty with the Muslim caliph of Cordoba in 940. For more than 35 years, the Muslim and Christian kingdoms of Spain were at peace. Trade and scientific exchanges flourished.

          Islamic Spain was an extraordinarily tolerant culture in which learning was prized. The Royal Library in Cordoba, just west of the Great Mosque, contained 40,000 books. (By comparison, the greatest Christian library in Europe held only 690.) Many of the caliph’s books came from Baghdad, known for its House of Wisdom, where for 200 years works of mathematics, astronomy, physics and medicine had been translated from Greek, Persian and Hindu and further developed by Islamic scholars.

          https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-marie-brown/when-the-pope-was-a-scien_b_790366.html

          Now there was a guy who tried to advance science in the Christian world.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you misspelled exemplars.

          Nah, he didn’t. Ya nitpicking fool.

          archaic variant of exemplar:1

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/examplar

          When being pedantic it is somewhat prudent to check first before firing from the hip, saves ya getting egg all over yer fizog.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Amos, as I said earlier, I have no interest discussing these matters with you anymore. You’re far too close-minded and ignorant. Your own Merriam-Webster link refers to ‘examplar’ as an archaic variant of exemplar, as in, no longer in modern use. I’m simply not dealing with this anymore.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Amos, as I said earlier, I have no interest discussing these matters with you anymore.

          News flash…it’s not all about you…others need to witness your fuckwittery.

          You’re far too close-minded and ignorant.

          Spoiiiinnng!

          Your own Merriam-Webster link refers to ‘examplar’ as an archaic variant of exemplar, as in, no longer in modern use.

          You are a tit. No where does it state it isn’t in use anymore. Obviously it is in use, epeeist used it ya halfwit. You are not the arbiter of the English language ya moron. Epeeist lives in the old world and he gets to decide what words he uses and their definition.

          I’m simply not dealing with this anymore.

          And yet here ya are…dealing with it…Bwaaaahahahaha.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course it used some of the earlier built foundations. Otherwise, Christian civilization would have had to reinvent civilization. I simply do not know how many times I’m going to have to repeat that I’m not dismissing pagan civilization. I’m saying that their contributions did not equal that of Christian civilization. Which should be flatly obvious. You must start reading a little better here.

          But without those earlier foundations, where would your Christian contributions be? You want to claim all sorts of prizes for Christianity, great, but you have to demonstrate that it was their Christianity was causal and without it, things would have stopped developing or been worse.

          What we are saying is that ALL civilisation has been instrumental in the contributions made by humanity. Worldviews don’t seem to matter. Inventive folk abounded regardless of whatever woo-woo they followed or believed.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Acceleration of progress started going off after the 1200’s, simply because at this point the collapse of the Roman Empire, which surely had major effects, had finally begun to rescind. It’s pretty similar to Islamic civilization. Going pretty well until the darned Mongols in the 13th century (or something).

          1) “The 1200’s” and “the 13th century” are synonymous.

          2) It’s interesting to me that you seem vaguely aware that the teeter-totter between East and West began dipping heavily in the latter’s favor in the middle of the 13th century AND that that East was dealing with the Mongols in the middle of the 13th century….but also seem to draw no link between the two.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “1) “The 1200’s” and “the 13th century” are synonymous.”

          Ugh, I never said they weren’t in what you quoted me in:

          Acceleration of progress started going off after the 1200’s, simply because at this point the collapse of the Roman Empire, which surely had major effects, had finally begun to rescind. It’s pretty similar to Islamic civilization. Going pretty well until the darned Mongols in the 13th century (or something).

          “2) It’s interesting to me that you seem vaguely aware that the teeter-totter between East and West began dipping heavily in the latter’s favor in the middle of the 13th century AND that that East was dealing with the Mongols in the middle of the 13th century….but also seem to draw no link between the two.”

          Ugh, so the Mongols screwing over the Arabs allowed Bacon to invent the scientific method? Huh, that’s interesting. Anywho, I’m not sure where or not it was during the 1200’s. That’s the date epeeist proposed, and so for the time being I have no trouble accepting it. Anyhow, if you have a connection to draw between the two events, I’m all ears.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Ugh, I never said they weren’t in what you quoted me in:

          Why the “ugh” – I didn’t claim that you had “said” otherwise.

          The two were wholly un-linked in your post, however, and the disjoint descriptions/absence of “also” or “at the same time” makes it quite easy to believe that they were un-linked in your mind as well.

          Ugh, so the Mongols screwing over the Arabs allowed Bacon to invent the scientific method?

          Everything that happened prior to Bacon doing his work might have been crucial to the work Bacon did being remembered as having been done by Bacon.

          Have you never heard of Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect?

          Btw, wrt “Bacon [invented] the scientific method”:

          espite the disagreements about approaches, scientific method has advanced in definite steps. Rationalist explanations of nature, including atomism, appeared both in ancient Greece in the thought of Leucippus and Democritus, and in ancient India, in the Nyaya, Vaisesika and Buddhist schools, while Charvaka materialism rejected inference as a source of knowledge in favour of an empiricism that was always subject to doubt.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

          Anywho, I’m not sure where or not it was during the 1200’s.

          I’m assuming that the “it” you’re referring to is [the inflection point between Eastern Dominance and Western Dominance], and: to be sure there are multiple “points” with cases to be made for them.

          Anyhow, if you have a connection to draw between the two events, I’m all ears.

          Yes. Among the variables which allowed Western Europe to snowball into the powerhouse which helped destroy the Ottoman Empire decisively was the fact that the East was ravaged by the Mongols in a way that the West was not.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Why the “ugh” – I didn’t claim that you had “said” otherwise.”

          So why mention that 1200s = 13th century if you weren’t intending I made a mistake?

          “The two were wholly un-linked in your post, however, and the disjoint descriptions/absence of “also” or “at the same time” makes it quite easy to believe that they were un-linked in your mind as well.”

          Ah, I see. A misunderstanding. That is no problem.

          “Everything that happened prior to Bacon doing his work might have been crucial to the work Bacon did being remembered as having been done by Bacon.

          Have you never heard of Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect?”

          Yes, I’ve heard of the butterfly effect. But in history, causal events only happen when there’s evidence to back them up. Again, how was Bacon’s work dependent on Mongols invading the Muslims? How do the two events relate? As for atomism in ancient Greece, atomism = /= the scientific method. The ancient Greeks never ‘formed a hypothesis, tested it, and made conclusions on their results’. There was a lot of math in the ancient Greek world (which is how they figured out the Earth is spherical), but there was no science in any modern sense of the term. Consider how Democritus came up with the theory of the atom. Did he do any science? Nope, it was all philosophy. He reasoned that if you kept dividing something, eventually you would get to the fundamental unit that can no longer be divided anymore, and he called this the ‘atomos’ (or something). 0% science, 100% philosophy. That’s why, up until the 17th century (or something), what we call ‘scientists’ were actually called ‘natural philosophers’. In fact, one of Newton’s most important works was called Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (english translation of the name). Aristotle and Augustine weren’t doing science, they were doing philosophy. I’m pretty sure any textbook on the history of science explains that science is a relatively modern phenomenon.

          “Yes. Among the variables which allowed Western Europe to snowball into the powerhouse which helped destroy the Ottoman Empire decisively was the fact that the East was ravaged by the Mongols in a way that the West was not.”

          Ah, I see. So if the Mongols didn’t invade, the Muslims would have done it first? Quite honestly, I can reason the exact same way, just going back a little earlier in history: if the barbarians didn’t constantly invade and ravish the Roman Empire and cause its collapse, then the Christians never would have ever been no. 2 in science and we would have gotten to the moon much earlier. And I still don’t see how the collapse of Islamic science would have done anything but make it harder for the Christians to do it on their own. I still have yet to read a very certain book I have access to on science during the Middle Ages.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Why the “ugh” – I didn’t claim that you had “said” otherwise.

          So why mention that 1200s = 13th century if you weren’t intending I made a mistake?

          The fact that [I didn’t claim that you said otherwise] doesn’t mean you didn’t make a mistake.

          Ah, I see. A misunderstanding.

          I doubt it, but it’s not important enough to me to keep talking about.

          That’s why, up until the 17th century (or something), what we call ‘scientists’ were actually called ‘natural philosophers’. In fact, one of Newton’s most important works was called Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (english translation of the name).

          I love that you think you’re explaining news to me.

          I’m pretty sure any textbook on the history of science explains that science is a relatively modern phenomenon.

          I doubt it. I’m sure that all textbooks claim that “modern science” is “modern”….because….duh.

          Did he do any science? Nope, it was all philosophy.

          Assuming you’re well-representing everything that Democritus came up with (a big “if”) – the twain are less far apart than you’re pretending here. You’ll get to that later in your post, but will seem to have forgotten by then how it retroactively hurts you here.

          The ancient Greeks never ‘formed a hypothesis, tested it, and made conclusions on their results’. There was a lot of math in the ancient Greek world (which is how they figured out the Earth is spherical)

          Lol.

          Wait.

          So, explain to us how “they figured out the Earth is spherical” without having “formed a hypothesis, tested it, and made conclusions on their results”.

          But in history, causal events only happen when there’s evidence to back them up.

          No.

          Ah, I see. So if the Mongols didn’t invade, the Muslims would have done it first?

          You thought that that question made sense here? Why?

          Further: why ask such a nonsense question after having written “Ah, I see.”? For the sake of pure irony?

          Quite honestly, I can reason the exact same way

          You have no idea how I’m reasoning.

          just going back a little earlier in history: if the barbarians didn’t constantly invade and ravish the Roman Empire and cause its collapse, then the Christians never would have ever been no. 2

          Some of the “barbarians” were “Christians”. Some of the “barbarians” invaded before “Christians” were a thing. Your comment doesn’t make any sense.

        • epeeist

          That’s why, up until the 17th century (or something), what we call ‘scientists’ were actually called ‘natural philosophers’.

          Note him making things up here, it is something he does often. “Scientists” was a term invented by William Whewell in the 19th century not the 17th. Lying doesn’t seem to be a problem to him.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I love that you think you’re explaining news to me.”

          What’s with the rhetoric? Did you not get my point by mentioning the fact that the ancient Greeks, contrary to your claims, were not doing science?

          “Assuming you’re well-representing everything that Democritus came up with (a big “if”) – the twain are less far apart than you’re pretending here. You’ll get to that later in your post, but will seem to have forgotten by then how it retroactively hurts you here.”

          If you want to throw empty rhetoric at me possibly misrepresenting Democritus, try backing it up so that I won’t be bothered next time. I’m quite fascinated that you don’t know this about Democritus, since here in Canada, we’re taught this stuff in 10th grade.

          “So, explain to us how “they figured out the Earth is spherical” without having “formed a hypothesis, tested it, and made conclusions on their results”.”

          The YouTube vid ‘How did Ancient Greek Philosophers Know the Earth was Round?’ explains it pretty well. No forming hypotheses, testing, etc. One of the arguments used for a round earth back then was basically this: if you look at the Earth’s shadow on the moon, it’s a round shadow. So the Earth must be round. Smart thinking? Yes. Scientific method? No.

          “Some of the “barbarians” were “Christians”. Some of the “barbarians” invaded before “Christians” were a thing. Your comment doesn’t make any sense.”

          Good job on failing to understand my point. My argument has nothing to do with the views of the barbarians. It equally stands whether or not they were Christians or total atheists. Go ahead and scroll up to see my argument again.

        • Korus Destroyus

          One more thing: China isn’t ‘overtaking the US in science in two years’, as your (ironically) 2011 source would have you think. Publishing more papers doesn’t necessarily equal more advancements — as far as I’m concerned, the US is still decidedly doing more of the groundbreaking stuff and winning the Nobel Prizes. Could they be surpassed in the future? Sure. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows, quite frankly. I’m Canadian, BTW.

        • epeeist

          Publishing more papers doesn’t necessarily equal more advancements

          No of course not, as the article notes the quality of the papers may not be as high as those from the west are they are not cited as often. Nevertheless the trend in numbers, quality and citations is increasing.

          as far as I’m concerned, the US is still decidedly doing more of the groundbreaking stuff and winning the Nobel Prizes

          And your opinion is worth more than the data and the article and the figures who were quoted there.

        • Greg G.

          Nearly 40% of the Nobel Prizes won by Americans are being won by immigrants to the United States.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2017/10/08/immigrants-keep-winning-nobel-prizes/#4623d374117b

        • epeeist

          Nearly 40% of the Nobel Prizes won by Americans are being won by immigrants to the United States

          What KD doesn’t take into account are two of the principle reasons for western universities doing so well, cash and prestige. Once Chinese universities can provide both of these then they will start attracting people who can win Nobel prizes (or Fields medals). As a comparison, have a look at the list of Novel prizes won by Japan, their first was in 1949, but they are now winning prizes on a regular basis.

          Of course facts don’t matter when you have a narrative to push.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And your opinion is worth more than the data and the article and the figures who were quoted there.”

          Since when are Nobel Prizes ‘my opinion’?

          “I didn’t say you did, simply that it has had both positive and negative reviews.”

          God’s Philosophers has had negative reviews? Has it had any negative reviews from actual historians?

          “Nice piece of phrasing, why shouldn’t we read it as “but I am unable to provide a justified explanation. As it is your claims about the Roman empire didn’t seem to stop the development in Persia and the Arabic countries did it? As it was the end of the Islamic “Golden Age” was as much due to the rise of theocracy as anything else.”

          Huh? Is this serious? Perhaps the collapse of Rome didn’t affect the Arabs and Persians, because ugggghhhh the Arabs and Persians weren’t living in the Roman Empire? Seriously dude. You’re much more likely to feel the effects of the collapse of the empire if you’re actually a member of that empire that’s collapsing. And that the Islamic Golden Age went down just when the Mongols started ravaging them isn’t much of a coincidence.

          “I didn’t say that. According to you Christianity is a major force that drives progress and yet it took 1250 years to “win out” and even then it could only do so on the back of translations from the Greek and Arabic.”

          As I explained earlier, it takes some time to rescind to the front of the world when your empire collapses. And even prior to the 1200’s, Christians made some major advancements, including commencing the second sweep in medical progress of world history around 400. And that the progress of Christians was done on the back of the translations is quite humorous to say the least.

          “But you never provided any justification for the claim it was “non-credible”, hence the accusation of guilt by association.”

          Actually, I did provide justification. Go back to my previous comments. You referred to a random top 9 article on some china.org website that provided no sources for its information. That’s non-credible. And as I said earlier, my quote from Hannam settled this anyways. To which you responded:

          “So a quote mine from a book you admit you haven’t read is supposedly sufficient to settle the issue…”

          OH Lord. Please explain how I quote-mined Hannam, or apologize for the false accusation.

          “So you are agreeing with the position that I set out, that knowledge is essentially cumulative and is built by different societies at different times. This being so, why are Christian societies somehow special?”

          They’re special becauseeeeee their contributions exceeded the contributions of all other pre-modern civilizations? I don’t know when I’ll have to stop repeating myself here.

          “Bell inequalities actually.

          As it is the methodologies are different, the former would be dealt with using something like a Hempel D-N covering law while the latter would use an I-S covering law. It becomes more and more apparent that your knowledge of science and its methodologies is extremely limited, hence the hand waving.”

          The nonsense I’m reading is about to blow my brain out. You note two totally unrelated things, and ask me to relate them (or something). I basically say there’s nothing similar about them — what on planet Earth are you talking about? Here, you respond “oh yeah, they are quite different… therefore it’s more and more apparant your knowledge of science and methodologies is extremely limited, hence the hand waving.” Your sweeping jumps in logic simply are going to need to be dismissed. In my previous comment, I gave a more in-depth explanation of the scientific method to try to appease you. Seemingly, you glossed right over it in your response. Why? And what one thing have I said that reveals some sort of limited knowledge? Perhaps we should go back to the fact that as I explained, Gutenberg invented the printing press, and you tried to rebut it by sending me to sources that … say Gutenberg invented the printing press. I’m not sure the accomplishments you’ve made so far, if any, in this conversation.

        • epeeist

          Since when are Nobel Prizes ‘my opinion’?

          I gave you an article which referenced a survey by one of the oldest scientific societies in the world, Your response was “China isn’t ‘overtaking the US in science in two years’, as your (ironically) 2011 source would have you think.” You ignored the findings detailed in the article and provided nothing to back up your claim. Why then should I take it as anything more than your opinion.

          God’s Philosophers has had negative reviews? Has it had any negative reviews from actual historians?

          So one is only allowed to make negative reviews if one is an historian but presumably positive reviews are OK from anyone. As it is I have seen reviews from a variety of people, some scientists and some whose background I don’t know. If you do want a criticism by an actual historian you might try this one.

          Perhaps the collapse of Rome didn’t affect the Arabs and Persians, because ugggghhhh the Arabs and Persians weren’t living in the Roman Empire?

          Ah, so Pontius Pilate was never Prefect of Judea and Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony were never Cleopatra’s lovers. As it is you betray your lack of credibility and expose your dishonesty again, here is a list of countries in the Roman Empire.

          And even prior to the 1200’s, Christians made some major advancements, including commencing the second sweep in medical progress of world history around 400.

          Citation required.

          You referred to a random top 9 article on some china.org website that provided no sources for its information. That’s non-credible.

          Ah, you wanted it to provide citations. Fine, I’ll remember that is the kind of thing you require in the future. Especially when you make assertions for which you provide no references or justification.

          Please explain how I quote-mined Hannam, or apologize for the false accusation.

          Did you get the quotation from the book or from a site that quotes the book?

          EDIT: I hate the machine I am currently being forced to use, I will be glad when I can get back to one with a decent keyboard. Anyway, I pressed the “Post” button too early.

          To continue:

          They’re special becauseeeeee their contributions exceeded the contributions of all other pre-modern civilizations?

          And yet again you make a value judgement. as I have asked before – with the economic pressures, knowledge and capabilities of, say, Chinese society circa 1000CE was it possible for them to develop something like the spinning jenny? How is the spinning jenny “more significant” than the invention of the spinning wheel?

          You note two totally unrelated things, and ask me to relate them (or something)</blockquote

          No, I asked you to say how "the scientific method” that you keep saying is simple would apply to these two scenarios, something that your obviously incapable of doing. Ah, but I just remembered you are “not a physicist or drug expert” so given your implication about Hannam, namely that only people from the same domain of discourse are allowed to make negative comments then we can dismiss your comments on the topic.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I gave you an article which referenced a survey by one of the oldest scientific societies in the world, Your response was “China isn’t ‘overtaking the US in science in two years’, as your (ironically) 2011 source would have you think.” You ignored the findings detailed in the article and provided nothing to back up your claim. Why then should I take it as anything more than your opinion.”

          Huh? All I said was # of papers doesn’t necessarily mean overtaking in scientific advancement. And it doesn’t. And you agreed with that. This is hardly just my opinion. Nowhere did I ignore anything. I just simply pointed out more papers =/= more science. Do you find that controversial?

          “So one is only allowed to make negative reviews if one is an historian but presumably positive reviews are OK from anyone. As it is I have seen reviews from a variety of people, some scientists and some whose background I don’t know. If you do want a criticism by an actual historian you might try this one.”

          That surely qualifies as a historian criticizing it. Nonetheless, my point stands. Shortlisted for major academic awards, most reviews by historians very positive, and some more. No book is without its critics.

          “Ah, so Pontius Pilate was never Prefect of Judea and Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony were never Cleopatra’s lovers. As it is you betray your lack of credibility and expose your dishonesty again, here is a list of countries in the Roman Empire.”

          How is that “dishonesty”, you dinkus? So I made an error. On a point that was peripheral to my main argument. It’s not as if the Arabs and Persians continued prospering after the Roman Empire collapsed. It took until centuries later for the Islamic Golden Age to start. I suppose every time you make an error, it must be attributed to your dishonesty, such as your words on the mechanical clock and the printing press.

          “Ah, you wanted it to provide citations. Fine, I’ll remember that is the kind of thing you require in the future. Especially when you make assertions for which you provide no references or justification.”

          Since it was an online website, OF CCOOOOOOURSE I wanted citations. The rest of your comment is just useless rhetoric, given that almost all of your citations go to random websites you find through a quick 2-minute Google search.

          “Did you get the quotation from the book or from a site that quotes the book?”

          From the book. There’s a PDF of the book online. So I just found the part that talks about mechanical clocks and quoted it. Again, show me where I “quote-mined” Hannam or rescind your claim against me.

          “And yet again you make a value judgement. as I have asked before – with the economic pressures, knowledge and capabilities of, say, Chinese society circa 1000CE was it possible for them to develop something like the spinning jenny? How is the spinning jenny “more significant” than the invention of the spinning wheel?”

          You can’t take two isolated inventions, you have to take the sum total of the inventions. The scientific method, the printing press (which again, ahem, one of your own sources called the most important invention of the millennium), Isaac Newton and the other scientists of his period he represents, the mechanical clock, the windmill, etc, etc, etc. Do you think ancient China beats this?

          “the scientific method” that you keep saying is simple would apply to these two scenarios, something that your obviously incapable of doing. Ah, but I just remembered you are “not a physicist or drug expert” so given your implication about Hannam, namely that only people from the same domain of discourse are allowed to make negative comments then we can dismiss your comments on the topic.”

          More handwaving and not enough addressing my point. I can explain the scientific method prett easily in reference to drug trials alone, or Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle alone. Is that what you want me to do? If so, consider it done by my next response. The problem is that you’re seemingly asking me to relate these two totally unrelated things through the scientific method. Please stop with the rhetoric.

        • Korus Destroyus

          One last thing: on your recommendation, I will read Edward Grant’s history of natural philosophy. I probably wouldn’t have, except I took a look and the full book is available online in PDF:
          http://14.139.206.50:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/2290/1/Grant,%20Edward%20-%20A%20History%20of%20Natural%20Philosophy,%20From%20the%20Ancient%20World%20to%20the%20Nineteenth%20Century.pdf
          Which is something I always love seeing. So I will read it. But not now, as I currently am reading through other academic books. Currently on Zolondek’s We Have Found The Messiah, a recent and well-endorsed NT monograph.

        • epeeist

          One last thing: on your recommendation, I will read Edward Grant’s history of natural philosophy

          It is quite a good book, though it peters out towards the end.

          You might also want to try a history of science book from a scientist who taught a history of science course, namely Steven Weinberg’s To Explain the World and a discussion of how and why science started to advance in David Wootton’s The Invention of Science.

          Grant doesn’t cover India or China in his book, the only thing I have is the Cambridge Illustrated History of the World’s Science, Cambridge is well respected on the history of science.

          Finally, if you think that Bruno was just a mystic you can find some of his writings in Milton Munz’s Theories of the Universe.

          EDIT: removed a grocer’s apostrophe.

        • Michael Neville

          The add-on to include HTML in a combox no longer works in Firefox 58, does anyone know of a replacement?

          No I don’t and I miss BBCode Extra as well.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I read your man’s chapter on medieval medicine. He gives plenty of credit to Islam’s influence on Western European Christian medical practices during the medieval period.

          Also this…

          The field of medicine would not have gone far in the Islamic world without the dedication of Muslim scholars who made numerous advances and discoveries that have enhanced our understanding of healthcare. Muslim physicians, for example, were among the first to differentiate between smallpox and measles, as well as diagnose the plague, diphtheria, leprosy, rabies, baker’s cyst, diabetes, gout and haemophilia. While Europe still believed that epilepsy was caused by demonic possession, Muslim doctors had already found a scientific explanation for it. Muslim surgeons were also pioneers in performing amputations and cauterisations. They also discovered the circulation of blood, the use of animal gut for sutures and the use of alcohol as an antiseptic. Other Muslim innovations include surgical instruments and glass retorts, as well as the use of corrosive sublimate, arsenic, copper sulphate, iron sulphate, saltpetre and borax in the treatment of diseases.

          At the forefront of Muslim discoveries in medicine was Ibn Sina. His discovery that tuberculosis was contagious and could be transmitted through the air earned him a position as one of the greatest physicians of all time. Even to this day, the quarantine methods he introduced have helped to limit the spread of infectious diseases. The one thing that Muslim doctors did want to spread, however, was their knowledge, which is why manuscripts became so important. Illustrated in colour and sometimes illuminated in gold, manuscripts served as a fascinating visual record that provided useful information about the human anatomy, including the skeletal system, nervous system, veins, arteries, intestines, organs and muscular system.

          In all fairness, Christians founded the first medical school in 6th century Persia, but that was because they were heretical Christians who fled the Emperor Justinian’s persecution and his closure of the School of Edessa.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

        • Korus Destroyus

          “He gives plenty of credit to Islam’s influence on Western European Christian medical practices during the medieval period.”

          Of course he does. But that’s not relevant to my point — Christianity basically founded the explosion (or “sweep”) of medical practice, and then that spread to Muslim lands that refined it further. And eventually, it came back to the Christian lands who carried the rest of it to the modern period. There’s a very clear pattern in the ancient world with progress:

          1. Christianity basically founds, or sweepingly expands the progress
          2. The Muslims adopt and expand it from the 9th-12th centuries (these dates might not be exact since I don’t know the exact period this happened in)
          3. The Christians adopt those advancements regarding that progress, and then launch us into the modern period

          This is true for education, medicine, etc.

          And please stop citing Wikipedia. I’m not wasting my time reading Wikipedia articles anymore. Go to the citations list under those articles and reference that instead. Wikipedia is unreliable, plain and simple.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christianity basically founded the explosion (or “sweep”) of medical practice, and then that spread to Muslim lands that refined it further. And eventually, it came back to the Christian lands who carried the rest of it to the modern period. There’s a very clear pattern in the ancient world with progress:

          1. Christianity basically founds, or sweepingly expands the progress

          2. The Muslims adopt and expand it from the 9th-12th centuries (these dates might not be exact since I don’t know the exact period this happened in)

          3. The Christians adopt those advancements regarding that progress, and then launch us into the modern period

          Citation?

          What medical practices did the Christians found, or sweepingly expands the progress on, that the Muslims didn’t get from the Greeks…the same source as the Christians?

          And please stop citing Wikipedia. I’m not wasting my time reading Wikipedia articles anymore. Go to the citations list under those articles and reference that instead. Wikipedia is unreliable, plain and simple.

          Fuck off. What you do is your prerogative, but you don’t get to dictate to anyone else on here on, your not the internet police. I don’t tell you what to use and how to cite. Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for third level educational essays, the Harvard method even gives instructions on how to properly cite a wiki citation, so wiki will do for an internet forum. If your too lazy to dig further on a point you believe to be untrustworthy, hard cheese.

        • Greg G.

          Medicine in Europe improved when they got a hold of the Greek knowledge stolen from the Muslims during the Crusades.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yep…a detail pointed out to KD along with citations about a week ago, but he conveniently ignores anything counter to his position, or hand waves it away.

          Another excellent source I recently came across, by the author of The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization

          https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/medicine/early-islamic-medicine

          But even looking at Wiki makes a mockery of KD’s position.

          Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe

          During the high medieval period, the Islamic world was at its cultural peak, supplying information and ideas to Europe, via Andalusia, Sicily and the Crusader kingdoms in the Levant. These included Latin translations of the Greek Classics and of Arabic texts in astronomy, mathematics, science, and medicine. Other contributions included technological and scientific innovations via the Silk Road, including Chinese inventions such as paper and gunpowder.

          The Islamic world also influenced other aspects of medieval European culture, partly by original innovations made during the Islamic Golden Age, including various fields such as the arts, agriculture, alchemy, music, pottery, etc.

          One of the most important medical works to be translated was Avicenna’s The Canon of Medicine (1025), which was translated into Latin and then disseminated in manuscript and printed form throughout Europe. It remained a standard medical textbook in Europe until the early modern period, and during the 15th and 16th centuries alone, The Canon of Medicine was published more than thirty-five times. Avicenna noted the contagious nature of some infectious diseases (which he attributed to “traces” left in the air by a sick person), and discussed how to effectively test new medicines. He also wrote The Book of Healing, a more general encyclopedia of science and philosophy, which became another popular textbook in Europe. Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi) wrote the Comprehensive Book of Medicine, with its careful description of and distinction between measles and smallpox, which was also influential in Europe. Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi wrote Kitab al-Tasrif, an encyclopedia of medicine which was particularly famed for its section on surgery. It included descriptions and diagrams of over 200 surgical instruments, many of which he developed. The surgery section was translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th century, and used in European medical schools for centuries, still being reprinted in the 1770s.

          Other medical Arabic works translated into Latin during the medieval period include the works of Razi and Avicenna (including The Book of Healing and The Canon of Medicine), and Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi’s medical encyclopedia, The Complete Book of the Medical Art. Mark of Toledo in the early 13th century translated the Qur’an as well as various medical works.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

          See there…1025 was 63 years before the first university in Christendom opened and 70 years before the first Crusade.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

          The role of Christians…heretic Christians, was in spite of Christianity, with the emperor Justinian’s persecution and closure of, get this, the closure of an academy.

          Islamic medicine drew upon Hellenic medical tradition to form its own. Likewise, medieval and early modern scholars in Europe drew upon Islamic traditions and translations as the foundation for their medical enterprise. It was through Arabic translations that the West learned of Hellenic medicine, including the works of Galen and Hippocrates. Of equal if not of greater influence in Western Europe were systematic and comprehensive works such as Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine, which were translated into Latin and then disseminated in manuscript and printed form throughout Europe. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries alone, the Canon of Medicine was published more than thirty-five times.

          https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/arabic/med_islam.html

          KD’s arguments are a joke at this point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If what you were saying had any claim on reality, you would easily be able to find an academic publication (like I did) where your views are attested. It really would not be very difficult at all.

          The exploration of the human body fascinated medieval surgeons. The need to find out what is inside of a human being drove the few brave with strong stomachs to dissection of the deceased. Unfortunately, this practice was strongly advised against by the Catholic Church.

          The Church was against any sort of manipulation of dead bodies. During the Crusades, it was a common practice to cook out human bones in order to facilitate return of remains to homelands for proper burial. Many popes not only condemned dissection, but sometimes even went out of their way in order to stop it. The popes who acted most against dissection were Innocent III, Gregory IX, Sixtus VI, and Bonifatius VIII. Some of them acted on the threat to “excommunicate anybody who dissected a human body or cooked out human bones.” Additionally, “a kind of inquisition resulted in which anyone found guilty of molesting the dead was burned at the stake or otherwise severely punished”

          Citing…. Kevorkian, Jack. The Story of Dissection. Philosophical Library, Inc. New York, 1959. As it’s source.

          Hmmmm… “a kind of inquisition resulted in which anyone found guilty of molesting the dead was burned at the stake or otherwise severely punished”

          Probably no issue in medicine has caused as much controversy and dilemma–scientifically, educationally and morally–as dissection of the human cadaver. (1-5) For most of recorded history and within the various medical traditions, dissection of human bodies was forbidden and often harshly punishable by law. Even when dissection was permitted and tolerated, ‘ … the motivating reasons for doing them were by no means uniform’. (6) It was a long time before human dissection was introduced into Western medicine. Yet, for a brief period, two scientist-physicians in Hellenistic Alexandria during the third century BC, Herophilus and Erasistratus, performed such dissections. Only some 15 centuries later was the practice re-introduced in Western medicine. (7)

          (6.) Kevorkian J. The Story of Dissection. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959.

          (7.) Von Staden H. The discovery of the body: human dissection and its cultural contexts in Ancient Greece. Yale J Biol Med 1992; 65: 223-241.

        • Korus Destroyus

          At last, you’ve been able to provide academic citations. This should have happened a lot earlier, and one of your quotes seems to have come from this blog:
          http://maggietron.com/medievalmedicine/surgery.php
          (after all, there’s almost zero chance you actually read an academic book on dissection from 1959)

          Anyhow, I’ll just repeat two important details here. As your sources clearly demonstrate, dissection immediately ceased, not under Christians or during any Christian period, but under the pagan laws of the world before the rise of Christianity. As Staden writes;

          As suddenly as the practice of dissection appeared within medical and scientific milieu, it as rapidly disappeared following the deaths of its two chief protagonists, Herophilus and Erasistratus. The reasons for cessation are as complex as those for inception. (7) Curiously, dissection and vivisection (if ever the latter was performed) ceased despite persistence of the factors contributing towards their introduction. (7) To account for this sudden reversal in outlook and practice, additional factors must be recalled and considered.
          Apparently, some Alexandrian Greeks harboured strong sentiments about the transgression of old values and taboos. Their dissatisfaction became so vocal and bold that they even challenged the Ptolemaic autocrats. In addition, significant intellectual changes concerning medical theory and practice were beginning to take root.

          https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Herophilus+of+Chalcedon+and+the+practice+of+dissection+in+Hellenistic…-a0176902685

          So, it was the pagans who outlawed dissection in Europe and the Christians who brought it back in the 13th century (although the practice, if I’m not mistaken, had also originated in the Islamic world as well before this). Furthermore, as I’ve shown earlier, it’s understood by historians that in the Christian period where dissection was viewed negatively, the Christian condemnation actually reflected the pre-existing cultural taboo against dissection, rather than the other way around, and so it was never Christianity itself responsible for the original cessation of dissection.

          But it would be misguided to assign any constitutive power to those [theological] debates; they reflected rather than shaped more widely held attitudes in their respective cultures concerning the nature and the life of the corpse.

          Park, Katharine. “The life of the corpse: division and dissection in late medieval Europe.” Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences 50.1 (1995): 132.

          Now, I hate to have so quickly stomped on your argument, but I must still admire the fact that you are capable of using scholarly sources, though you likely get the references from websites rather than actually read them. Nonetheless, that’s a good change.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The level of nonsense here is hardly possible to surmise the error.

          When you can demonstrate the level of nonsense here is in error, you’ll have warrant for your claim. You might even get some converts. But until then, pah!

          There is no “if” regarding the existence of Jesus, fringe mythicist fantasy is really beyond any serious relevance here.

          Nope. Put up or shut up.

          Jesus was God, like it or not.

          Hitchens Razor applies…

          “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” ~Christopher Hitchens

          Christianity was the single greatest force of the advancement of humanity (through human rights, universities, hospitals, charity, and much more) that the history of the world has ever seen.

          Ballix.

          This is admitted by Jewish, irreligious, and Christian historians.

          Citations please.

          Only internet atheists seem to disagree.

          I give zero fucks about what you think, only about what you can demonstrate with evidence…so get yer back into it, you’ve failed so far.

          As Jesus said, you will know the truth of something by its fruits.

          Nope. Some unknown person, later named Matthew for convenience, who never met the person they claim said it, are quoting someone called Jesus said that. It’s hearsay at best. But most likely made up fiction.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Nope. Put up or shut up.”

          Put up? LOL. Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe. I’ve read the arguments, and written about mythicism thoroughly enough. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong, and it isn’t until you get to the higher echelons of the mythicist hierarchy until you start finding paragraphs that make some coherent sense.

          But apparently, you somehow haven’t been told by your mythicist masters that mythicism is a little fringe whee! nonsense position:

          “Citations please.”

          Here’s two.

          “I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing.” -Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

          “The view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.” -Maurice Casey, Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham

          Want more? I have dozens of quotes waiting. Anyways, you continue to lose your mind:

          “Nope. Some unknown person, later named Matthew for convenience, who never met the person they claim said it, are quoting someone called Jesus said that. It’s hearsay at best. But most likely made up fiction.”

          Since the Gospels are essentially reliable, we can have good trust given the historical evidence that Jesus really did say that. On this, I’d refer you to the long written debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona on TheBestSchools. It’s a fantastic discussion on the reliability of the Gospels and Licona takes it.
          https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-new-testament/
          It’s a long read, I have to warn. But very good.

          So, as I said earlier (or Jesus did), you can know the truth of something by its fruits. Is it really a magical coincidence that Christianity single handedly lead to the worldwide proliferation of the hospital, university, charities, created the orphanage, was almost the originator of human rights in history, was the only religion to convert an entire empire without a stand of force (i.e. Roman Empire), and single-handedly follows the fulfiller of OT prophecy, Jesus Christ, whom is literally the greatest human to have ever lived? The Resurrection is also well-substantiated, and at least one Jewish scholars has admitted it is the most substantiated miracle in all of history. Christianity is the only religion that says God loves you unconditionally, and where God acted for you first, not the other way around. This is the glory of following Christ.

        • Pofarmer

          The Resurrection is also well-substantiated, and at least one Jewish
          scholars has admitted it is the most substantiated miracle in all of
          history.

          What a bunch of fuckin stupidity. After that, there’s simply nothing you regurgutate than can be trusted.

          Christianity is the only religion that says God loves you unconditionally

          That’s why he created hell for me. Fuckin moron.

          was the only religion to convert an entire empire without a stand of force

          Christianity certainly spread by force, and enforced it orthodoxy by force, and increased it’s boundaries by force, and punished heretics with force. I. Just. Can’t. Even.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Pofarmer, get your panties out of a bunch and start thinking.

          “That’s why he created hell for me. Fuckin moron.”

          Hell is called judgement. Love doesn’t mean you get away with your evil. I’d sentence anyone I know to prison for life if they commit murder, regardless of my love for them.

          “Christianity certainly spread by force, and enforced it orthodoxy by force, and increased it’s boundaries by force, and punished heretics with force. I. Just. Can’t. Even.”

          Re-read my words. Then you might be able to even.

          “was the only religion to convert an entire empire without a stand of force”

          Christianity had engaged in no force to spread as it converted the Roman Empire (i.e. by 350 AD). Force by Christian leaders only appeared in later periods — up until the Edict of Milan constituted under Constantine the Great, it was the Christians themselves who had been the victims of discrimination, prejudice, oppression and persecution. See the Alexamenos graffiti c. 200 AD, for example. I would also quote what you said regarding my words on the resurrection, but it is simply too immature.

        • Pofarmer

          Dude. You’re one in a long line if brain washed, self righteous folks who have outsmarted themselves to come here. That you can’t sort your religious fantasizing from reality is no surprise.

          Eternal punishment for finite crimes is not “love”. It’s barbarity.

          The truth of the matter is, at this point you’ve been caught out as the lowest sort of apologist, a fanatic. I can’t trust anything you say, and in real life I’d be extremely wary of any dealing with you. Good day.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Dude. You’re one in a long line if brain washed, self righteous folks who have outsmarted themselves to come here. That you can’t sort your religious fantasizing from reality is no surprise.”

          It takes many years of swallowing atheistic ideology to be able to say something like that.

          “Eternal punishment for finite crimes is not “love”. It’s barbarity.”

          This sounds like a slanted opinion to me.

          “The truth of the matter is, at this point you’ve been caught out as the lowest sort of apologist, a fanatic.”

          Oh, no! Foiled again! On a more serious note, it’s obvious you totally jumped the gun on your misunderstanding of my previous comment, and thought I said that Christians never used violence in history, rather than what I actually said — i.e. that Christians never used violence in converting the Roman Empire (i.e. from 30 – 350 AD). You jumped the gun on me and now it’s clear that your notion of what I said is not identical to my actual argument, which puts you in the position of having totally gone off on me and no longer having a reason for actually having done so. Perhaps I can help warn you not to make your intentions so clear next time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh, no! Foiled again! On a more serious note, it’s obvious you totally jumped the gun on your misunderstanding of my previous comment, and thought I said that Christians never used violence in history, rather than what I actually said — i.e. that Christians never used violence in converting the Roman Empire (i.e. from 30 – 350 AD).

          Except when they did use violence to convert, mostly with other Christian sects. So once again, you are wrong.

          “During the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison. Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.” ~Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities

          In the history of Christianity there have been many ways to resolve the contradictions between Jesus being God, and Jesus being divine. In the centuries before the concept of the Trinity was invented, docetism was one belief professed by the very first Christians. It is the idea that Jesus was divine, but that to interact with the corrupt world was given the appearance of Humanity. A lot of scripture supports this view. St Paul wrote that the Son came “in the likeness of flesh” (Romans 8:3). Joseph didn’t impregnate Mary because Jesus didn’t come from any physical seed. The reason Jesus didn’t write anything himself or baptise anyone (John 4:1-2) is because he was a phantasm and could not. The evidence is that docetist Gospel of Peter was more widely read by the first Christians than Mark’s. Despite their early popularity, after the rise of Cappadocian and Pauline Christianity the docetists were forcibly silenced and mostly eradicated.

          http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/docetism.html

          Yes. Well, the early Christians did have turf wars over who had it right and you see this from the very beginning. The Apostle Paul and his opponents in Galatia, who say, “Wait a minute, Paul told you a very simplified gospel, it makes it easy for you to become a member of this new group, but we know, after all, that if you’re really going to be a real Christian, first you have to be a real Jew and that means, you have to be circumcised and you have to keep certain regulations out of the Torah. So Paul has not got it right.” Paul said, “No, you don’t understand how radically new this thing is, which God is doing here.” [And] again in Corinth, people come and say, “No no, you don’t understand, Paul isn’t really quite what he claims to be here and now we’re here to put it right.” So, from the very beginning, it seems Christianity has different ways of construing what it’s all about, which will lead to divisions and lead to conflict.

          Who wins – in some sense, nobody wins, in the sense that the result of this is schisms and ultimately, some very nasty things in the history of the church, eventually the use of force and violence…. History is always written by the victors; if one wanted to be very cynical about it, one would say “All right, the people who finally managed the most power and the most persuasive abilities win out and they write the history, which defines everybody else as a heretic.” and one would have to say there’s a great deal of truth in that. [On] the other side of it… is that who wins, finally, is the side that embodies the widest support of people [for] their way of symbolizing Christian truth, and so there’s there’s a kind of strange democracy involved here. Obviously distorted by imperial power from the 4th century on but nevertheless, a strange kind of democracy involved… It is the usage of the local churches that eventually determines which books will be included in the New Testament, for example, and which will not be included, which point of view about Jesus has the widest support and therefore will also gain political power because there are people in various places that support that. It’s a very complicated picture, obviously. ~Wayne A. Meeks: Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University

        • Michael Neville

          Sometimes I wonder if KD is a liar or just so ignorant and stupid that he believes his lies.

        • Pofarmer

          Just well indoctrinated and thoroughly delusional, I’d imagine.

        • Greg G.

          Put up? LOL. Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.

          Which of them arrived at the conclusion of a historical Jesus after they became a scholar? Which of them arrived at that conclusion as children? More importantly, what evidence did they use to arrive at that conclusion besides the consensus of scholars itself?

          From Did Jesus Exist as Part One:

          Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise.  –Bart Ehrman

          But when Ehrman tried to do it, he relied on imaginary evidence to arrive at the conclusion.

          If no scholar has actually studied whether Jesus actually existed, the consensus is based only on the fact that none have questioned it. The consensus is merely based on the consensus. The historical Jesus is a circular argument.

          Instead of quoting scholars that have never actually questioned the proposition, try citing the evidence. There really isn’t much. You can rule out the extrabiblical evidence because it is dependent on the gospels. The gospels are dependent on the literature of the day, most of which was already centuries old and had nothing to do with any first century person. Ehrman’s independent sources are: Mark, Q, M, L, sayings source, passion narratives, and protoThomas. We have evidence of Mark. The others are imagined by assuming there was a historical Jesus and that Mark and the other gospels are about him. That’s how circular it is.

          That leaves the epistles which do not support the gospel story of an itinerant preacher/teacher from Galilee. They only refer to Jesus in references and allusions to OT scripture, never as a recent first century person.

          Even the citation of the opinion of professors in colleges is circular because they don’t hire anyone who questions the existence of Jesus.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Which of them arrived at the conclusion of a historical Jesus after they became a scholar? Which of them arrived at that conclusion as children? More importantly, what evidence did they use to arrive at that conclusion besides the consensus of scholars itself?”

          Wait, what? This is a highly mangled question, it seems to require psychoanalyzing scholars to know when they received their particular views on something so obvious. It would be like asking “When did Roman historians first conclude Alexander the Great existed? Did they do that during childhood or only after becoming scholars?” The answer is that the evidence is so overwhelming that it’s not something that’s even questioned in the field, it’s basically axiomatic. And to date, not a single person has been able to put together an adequate explanation for a single element of our documentation for Jesus.

          To more directly answer your question, I should refer to G.A. Wells. Although he isn’t a historian of any relevant field to early Christianity, he use to be one of the “big figures” of mythicism, and he was a Professor of German at some important university. He was a fully bonified scholar (unlike the unemployed blogger Carrier or the even bigger disaster of Price). Then, he eventually read the works of J.D.G. Dunn, and came changed his mind on the historicity of Jesus. So it seems as if although mythicists have failed to convince a single real historian on the existence of Jesus, historians have managed to convert the most qualified mythicist in the world entirely indirectly. That is a big testament to the intellectual disaster of mythicism.

          “But when Ehrman tried to do it, he relied on imaginary evidence to arrive at the conclusion.”

          Actually, he relied on irrefutable evidence. I’ve read his book. The rest of your paragraphs are so blatantly ridiculous that I will address them all tomorrow — it’s 2 AM right now and I’m tired. Tomorrow, I’ll be sure to crumble mythicism. I’ve already converted many mythicists, usually because humans are generally reasonable and they abandon nonsense once it is shown to be clearly nonsense. The ridiculous idea of historians blindly thinking Jesus existed is one of the most patent pieces of nonsense I’ve heard yet.

        • Greg G.

          Wait, what? This is a highly mangled question, it seems to require psychoanalyzing scholars to know when they received their particular views on something so obvious. It would be like asking “When did Roman historians first conclude Alexander the Great existed? Did they do that during childhood or only after becoming scholars?”

          Actually, no, it is not like that. Scholars determine that Alexander the Great was real because of the evidence that he existed but they reject the supernatural claims in the literature. But NT scholars typically start believing that Jesus was real as children, then go to college to learn more, and never question their initial assumption, only cherrypicking evidence to support the belief.

          And to date, not a single person has been able to put together an adequate explanation for a single element of our documentation for Jesus.

          This is not true. See New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash [Link] by Robert M. Price where he compiles studies that identify sources for the gospels stories in verse order starting with Mark. It is remarkable that so many of the sources have survived to this day.

          I have put together a list of claims about Jesus in the Pauline epistles and the OT references where the information can be found to confirm Paul’s claims of revelation from the prophets and the Lord when you understand that the revelation from the Lord is through the scriptures. I can present it if you like, but don’t complain that it is thorough.

          To more directly answer your question, I should refer to G.A. Wells.

          See G. A. Wells on mythical and historical Jesus’s [Link], which explains that Wells did not accept all of it. The Price link above covers all of Mark except the movements from one adventure to the next and the sayings of Jesus from the end of Mark 3 to near the end of Mark 4. But since we can identify sources for everything else in Mark as being not from a real Jesus, it is not compelling to assume that those sayings are from a real Jesus. They could be from some then famous Cynic who is now lost to history.

          Actually, he relied on irrefutable evidence. I’ve read his book.

          I was holding out hope that his book would spell out the formula that NT scholars used to assemble the evidence for Jesus to arrive at a compelling argument for Jesus’ existence. He did not. His theory starts with the assumption and interprets everything in that light while ignoring counter-evidence.

          Q, M, and L assume that Matthew and Luke had no ability to compose a story so they could only copy what somebody else wrote. Q was invented to account for the verbatim similarities between Matthew and Luke without having to explain the differences. But if you consider that Luke could have treated Matthew the way he treats Mark, copying some verbatim, tweaking some things, and rejecting other things (spit miracles, the naked boy in Gethsemane with Jesus, the Great Omission), and could make stuff up as well as Mark and Matthew could, then you have no need for Q, M, and L.

          I’ve already converted many mythicists, usually because humans are generally reasonable and they abandon nonsense once it is shown to be clearly nonsense. The ridiculous idea of historians blindly thinking Jesus existed is one of the most patent pieces of nonsense I’ve heard yet.

          Great! I am looking forward to it! I enjoy it when I am proved wrong. It is as exhilarating as a new discovery. All it takes is evidence.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Actually, no, it is not like that. Scholars determine that Alexander the Great was real because of the evidence that he existed but they reject the supernatural claims in the literature. ”

          That’s exactly what secular scholars do with Jesus, LOL. The fact that you think NT scholars are so conservative, as you later make clear, demonstrates quite sweepingly that you do not understand NT scholarship. I don’t know a single evangelical NT scholar who doesn’t complain about how “biased” the NT academy is against the NT. If we were having this discussion in the 1950’s, when America was still something like 96% Christian, that was perhaps the most radically secular period in NT scholarship. The fact that Rudolph Bultmann was the most influential NT scholar of the 20th century should really stop you.

          “This is not true. See New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash [Link] by Robert M. Price where he compiles studies that identify sources for the gospels stories in verse order starting with Mark. It is remarkable that so many of the sources have survived to this day.”

          Price’s little fiction is one of the most absurd things that has hit the mythicist community in a long time, and is one of the main reasons why scholars think mythicism is so ridiculous. Not only did Bart Ehrman refute Price’s thesis in Did Jesus Exist, but it’s become quite clear that Price has to stretch, chew, and squeeze lemon juice over the NT to try to find “midrash” for it. Most of the claims are straight up fiction, at some points he tries to find “midrash” by actually taking a story in the NT, and claims that it is the backwards version of a different story in the OT since he can’t find any other coherent valid parallels. Price genuinely thinks that Mark had a bunch of OT scrolls on his desk and used a little scissors to take this from here, this from there, and tape it all together into a magically coherently flowing Gospel.

          “See G. A. Wells on mythical and historical Jesus’s [Link], which explains that Wells did not accept all of it. ”

          Flat out strawman fallacy, I never said Wells accepts “all of it”. Ehrman doesn’t accept all of it. I clearly answered your question. You then provide a complete non-response to Ehrman’s book:

          “His theory starts with the assumption and interprets everything in that light while ignoring counter-evidence.”

          A statement like this, backed up by not the slightest argumentation, is what is expected out of mythicism. You go on to basically get theory regarding Q, M and L wrong, especially L. This is not about Luke being unable to write a story (God knows how many scholars you’ll be able to cite for that claim). In Luke 1:1-4, Luke unequivocally points out that there were many earlier compositions before he wrote his Gospel. When Luke says something that isn’t in Mark, the question is: where did he get it from? The ‘place’ he got it from is called L. L could be a written source, an oral source, it could be multiple sources, who knows. L is simply a designation for Luke’s sources that isn’t Q or Mark. We know these sources exist. We know L and others were aware of them. This theory is pretty straight forward and logical.

          “Even the citation of the opinion of professors in colleges is circular because they don’t hire anyone who questions the existence of Jesus.”

          This is another made-up mythicist conspiracy to explain mythicists tragic failure to attain academic respect. Fact is, there did use to be mythicist professors — a century ago, when mythicism was refuted. Bruno Bauer, who died in 1882, was a mythicist and full professor at the University of Bonn (until his academic career took a nosedive due to how poor his arguments were). G.A. Wells, while he was a mythicist, was employed. Other mythicists in non-history fields have all been employed in universities (i.e. Michael Martin and others). Mythicists cover for their conspiracy by making up more conspiracies. It’s like the creationist who tells you they don’t have professors because of some conspiracy against them.

          “If no scholar has actually studied whether Jesus actually existed, the consensus is based only on the fact that none have questioned it. ”

          See the late 19th and early 20th centuries of NT scholarship, where mythicism was raised and refuted in scholarship. It has been questioned, and it’s been settled. Another mythicist myth bites the dust.

          “The gospels are dependent on the literature of the day, most of which was already centuries old and had nothing to do with any first century person.”

          Ugh, you mean the OT prophecies? LOL. The Gospels were based on earlier oral traditions, many of which can be dated to the 30’s AD. A number of creeds in Paul’s epistles can also be dated to the 30’s. Not centuries earlier. All these early sources are derivative of Jesus, and there’s no other way to rationally explain their origin. The fact that we have multiple, independent traditions about Jesus by the 30’s AD is enough to settle the question entirely, that’s irrefutable evidence right there. Not a single non-existent figure has several early traditions circulating in their communities regarding them within years, if not months of their reputed deaths. That’s overwhelming evidence on its own, before even getting into the details. Paul converted about 2-3 years after Jesus reputed death, which means that within 2-3 years of Jesus death, Paul knew of many traditions and information already circulating about Jesus. Do you think Paul believed in an earthly Jesus?

        • Greg G.

          “Actually, no, it is not like that. Scholars determine that Alexander the Great was real because of the evidence that he existed but they reject the supernatural claims in the literature. ”

          That’s exactly what secular scholars do with Jesus, LOL.

          No, they do not have evidence for Jesus. They have literature.

          Price’s little fiction is one of the most absurd things that has hit the mythicist community in a long time, and is one of the main reasons why scholars think mythicism is so ridiculous.

          Dammit. You complain when references are not given then you don’t even look at it when it is provided. What I linked to is the work of other scholars. Price simply arranged their conclusions in verse order. Instead of addressing Price, address his sources. He gives the references.

          Flat out strawman fallacy, I never said Wells accepts “all of it”.

          You wrote quite a bit about Wells without giving the reasons he changed his mind. I merely pointed out that the change in his position wasn’t worth mentioning.

          Ehrman doesn’t accept all of it. I clearly answered your question. You then provide a complete non-response to Ehrman’s book:

          Why should I refute a book when the book has been refuted by books? I refute his main positive claim.

          A statement like this, backed up by not the slightest argumentation, is what is expected out of mythicism. You go on to basically get theory regarding Q, M and L wrong, especially L. This is not about Luke being unable to write a story (God knows how many scholars you’ll be able to cite for that claim). In Luke 1:1-4, Luke unequivocally points out that there were many earlier compositions before he wrote his Gospel. When Luke says something that isn’t in Mark, the question is: where did he get it from? The ‘place’ he got it from is called L. L could be a written source, an oral source, it could be multiple sources, who knows. L is simply a designation for Luke’s sources that isn’t Q or Mark. We know these sources exist. We know L and others were aware of them. This theory is pretty straight forward and logical.

          Luke was wrong about eyewitnesses. His sources were Mark, Matthew, John (though he mostly rejected and refuted it), Deuteronomy, other OT sources, Josephus, primarily Antiquities of the Jews, plus he makes some references to other Greek literature. From Luke 10 to Luke 18:14, he is not following Mark’s outline but is following the topics of Deuteronomy for Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem a la Moses’ trip to Canaan. Price covers it but you can reference the book where the information comes from at the link you have been afraid to look at.

          This is another made-up mythicist conspiracy to explain mythicists tragic failure to attain academic respect. Fact is, there did use to be mythicist professors — a century ago, when mythicism was refuted. Bruno Bauer, who died in 1882, was a mythicist and full professor at the University of Bonn (until his academic career took a nosedive due to how poor his arguments were). G.A. Wells, while he was a mythicist, was employed. Other mythicists in non-history fields have all been employed in universities (i.e. Michael Martin and others). Mythicists cover for their conspiracy by making up more conspiracies. It’s like the creationist who tells you they don’t have professors because of some conspiracy against them.

          Thanks for refuting your claim from http://disq.us/p/1q225x2 that “Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.” Pick a position so I can decide to refute it or agree with it.

          See the late 19th and early 20th centuries of NT scholarship, where mythicism was raised and refuted in scholarship. It has been questioned, and it’s been settled. Another mythicist myth bites the dust.

          No, it wasn’t. The book that has been claimed to refute it explicitly says that it doesn’t address the arguments.

          Ugh, you mean the OT prophecies? LOL. The Gospels were based on earlier oral traditions, many of which can be dated to the 30’s AD. A number of creeds in Paul’s epistles can also be dated to the 30’s. Not centuries earlier. All these early sources are derivative of Jesus, and there’s no other way to rationally explain their origin. The fact that we have multiple, independent traditions about Jesus by the 30’s AD is enough to settle the question entirely, that’s irrefutable evidence right there. Not a single non-existent figure has several early traditions circulating in their communities regarding them within years, if not months of their reputed deaths. That’s overwhelming evidence on its own, before even getting into the details. Paul converted about 2-3 years after Jesus reputed death, which means that within 2-3 years of Jesus death, Paul knew of many traditions and information already circulating about Jesus. Do you think Paul believed in an earthly Jesus?

          None of that is true. The story mentions Pilate who can be dated to that time from multiple sources. Oral sources cannot be dated, they can only be assumed. Paul got his information from the OT. Everything in the Philippians Hymn comes from Isaiah except for the mention of the crucifixion, which Paul explains in Galatians 3:6-14 by quoting several OT passages. The 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is saying that they saw it in the scriptures, not that they saw a manifestation. It clearly says it is “according to the scriptures”. Have you figured out what scriptures? “Christ died for our sins” is from Isaiah 53:5 & 8. He was buried comes from Isaiah 53:9. He rose on the third day comes from Hosea 6:2.

          The Philippians Hymn Sources
          Philippians 2:5-11 (NRSV)
          Isaiah or Deuteronomy Reference

          5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

          1 Corinthians 11:1
          Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

          6 who, though he was in the form of God,

          Isaiah 52:14b
          his form beyond that of mortals

              did not regard equality with God

          Isaiah 9:6b
          he is named
          Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
              Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

              as something to be exploited,

          Isaiah 53:7
          He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
              yet he did not open his mouth;
          like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
              and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
              so he did not open his mouth.

          7 but emptied himself,

          Isaiah 53:12b
          because he poured out himself to death,

              taking the form of a slave,

          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

              being born in human likeness.

          Isaiah 49:5
          and now the Lord says,
              who formed me in the womb to be his servant,

          And being found in human form,

          Isaiah 53:2
          For he grew up before him like a young plant,
              and like a root out of dry ground;
          he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
              nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

          8   he humbled himself

          Isaiah 53:3
          He was despised and rejected by others;
              a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
          and as one from whom others hide their faces
              he was despised, and we held him of no account.

              and became obedient to the point of death—

          Isaiah 53:10
          Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
          When you make his life an offering for sin,
              he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
          through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

              even death on a cross.

          Deuteronomy 21:23 (per Galatians 3:13)
          23 his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree;
          you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a
          tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land
          that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

          9 Therefore God also highly exalted him

          Isaiah 52:13
          See, my servant will act wisely;
              he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

              and gave him the name

          Isaiah 54:5a
          For your Maker is your husband,
              the Lord of hosts is his name;

              that is above every name,

          Isaiah 54:5b
          the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
              the God of the whole earth he is called.

          10 so that at the name of Jesus

          Isaiah 49:22
          Thus says the Lord God:
          I will soon lift up my hand to the nations,
              and raise my signal to the peoples;
          and they shall bring your sons in their bosom,
              and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.

              every knee should bend,

          Isaiah 45:23a
          By myself I have sworn,
              from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness
              a word that shall not return:
          “To me every knee shall bow,

              in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

          Isaiah 45:22
          Turn to me and be saved,
              all the ends of the earth!
              For I am God, and there is no other.

          11 and every tongue should confess

          Isaiah 45:23b
              every tongue shall swear.

              that Jesus Christ is Lord,

          Isaiah 45:24
          Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me,
              are righteousness and strength;
          all who were incensed against him
              shall come to him and be ashamed.

              to the glory of God the Father.

          Isaiah 45:25
          In the Lord all the offspring of Israel
              shall triumph and glory.

        • Pofarmer

          You get these guys claiming mythicism was “refuted” way back then. But what it actually looks like is the pious simply ignored ot and continued on. Else how do you have bonafied scholars like Thomas Brodie coming to the mythicist conclusion? It’s not like he never had access to the scholarship. It appears to be just one more dishonest claim.

        • Greg G.

          I was trying to think of the scholar who claims that mythicism was refuted by a book. The name Larry Hurtado comes to mind today. Neil Godfrey quoted from the book where it said the mythicism arguments were not addressed.

          If the arguments were disproved, why don’t they ever present the arguments instead of saying “consensus” ad nauseum?

        • Pofarmer

          It seems like you see this claim fairly often. “Mythicism was refuted in the 19th century” or whatever. So, I went looking one time. Truth be told, I couldn’t find a single article or book “Refuting” mythicism. The only thing I could find is that it looks like you have a bunch of believers simply ignoring inconvenient findings and carrying on as if they don’t exist. You’ll hardly find any “refutation.” I’d also be interested to see the work of these “Secular Historians” that say that Jesus was Really Realz. Because that’s something that I haven’t found either. Mathew Ferguson cleanly takes most of those arguments apart, yet still believes in the historical Jesus for the same bad literature based reasons that others in his field do.

        • Scholars determine that Alexander the Great was real because of the evidence that he existed but they reject the supernatural claims in the literature.

          Korus hasn’t really thought this through when he brings up Alexander and Jesus in the same breath. When we find two dozen cities named after Jesus contemporary with his lifetime (as was the case with Alexander), not to mention coins and busts with his likeness, then we can talk about the two of them having similar evidence for their existence.

        • Pofarmer

          The ridiculous idea of historians blindly thinking Jesus existed is one of the most patent pieces of nonsense I’ve heard yet.

          It’s not ridiculous at all. I once asked biblical scholar James McGrath how they determined that the Gospels weren’t fiction. His response was “Don’t you think that’s putting the cart before the horse? “. So, no, they’d never even considerd it. It’s simply been assumed as historical and analyzed as such for centuries. I’d propose the Gospel of Mark is just as Historical as Gone with the Wind. Jesus is Rhett Butler. The evidence for both is identicle.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “It’s not ridiculous at all. I once asked biblical scholar James McGrath how they determined that the Gospels weren’t fiction. His response was “Don’t you think that’s putting the cart before the horse? “. So, no, they’d never even considerd it.”

          What kind of interpretation of McGrath’s word is that? From what it sounds like, McGrath is saying you can’t start from the idea of fiction and work backwards to find history. The idea of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is foreign to academia. You have a hypothesis, and you test it. The results tell you if its history or fiction.

          The fact that you think this at least demonstrates one sweeping fact: you have no understanding of NT scholarship in the least. There is so much discussion about which parts of the NT is fiction and which is not that it’s quite frankly not even funny, and the burden of proof to demonstrate something historical in the NT is pretty considerable, constantly getting justified and challenged every year over and over in the leading journals and academic publishers.

          The evidence for the historicity of Jesus is practically undebatable. Countless independent traditions already by the early 30’s AD is enough to lay the debate to rest. The Gospels have been established as essentially historically reliable by at least the 1980’s (before that it was considered the opposite, and it took a long time to refute the theories of the Bultmannian school).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Put up? LOL. Every professor of every field of history in every college and university in North America and Europe.

          LOL all you like…make your case, or fuck off.

          As Robert M. Price says, and I paraphrase, “I don’t care, if they are wrong, they are wrong”.

          I’ve read the arguments, and written about mythicism thoroughly enough. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong, and it isn’t until you get to the higher echelons of the mythicist hierarchy until you start finding paragraphs that make some coherent sense.

          Then you’ll have no problem making the argument for your case that no one has been able to do to date.

          Link to where you have written your stuff.

          “I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing.” -Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

          I’ve read plenty of Ehrman. His book on Jesus existence is a demonstrable clusterfuck. But I’m intrigued that a Christian who thinks Jesus was God should cherry pick his work. Ehrman doesn’t believe Jesus was a god.

          “The view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.” -Maurice Casey, Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham

          Bwaaahahaha….Casey’s book in support of Jesus existence is an even bigger clusterfuck than Ehrman’s. Casey didn’t think Jesus was a god either.

          Raphael Lataster tears both asunder in “Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists”, aa amateur works.

          raphaellataster.com/

          Want more?

          Not if they can’t improve on those two I don’t.

          Since the Gospels are essentially reliable, we can have good trust given the historical evidence that Jesus really did say that.

          But they are not reliable. If you knew what ta fuck you were talking about, you’d know that too. And if you were as well read on Ehrman as I am you’d know that he has made a large part of his scholarship demonstrating that fact…ya fool.

          On this, I’d refer you to the long written debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona on TheBestSchools. It’s a fantastic discussion on the reliability of the Gospels and Licona takes it.

          Only in your mind does he take it. Licona was sacked for claiming the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 didn’t actually happen. So much for your man and the reliability of the gospels. Hoist by yer own petard, methinks.

          The rest of that comment is just more repetition of your regurgitated diarrhoea and fuckwit knuckle dragging preaching that has been dealt with already.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “As Robert M. Price says, and I paraphrase, “I don’t care, if they are wrong, they are wrong”.”

          Just replace ‘Robert M. Price’ in this sentence with ‘Ken Ham’, and it remains just as rational and respected in the academy. Sorry bucko, your loony master hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about. Also, see Bart Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. It happened last year and Ehrman WRECKED Price. That was so satisfying that I watched the 2 and a half hour debate like 3 times.

          “Then you’ll have no problem making the argument for your case that no one has been able to do to date.”

          Literally everyone has made it. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong. There are countless early, independent sources for Jesus, so much so that there is only a single Jew in the entire 1st century that is more well documented than Jesus (i.e. Josephus). From Paul’s letters, we know of several early creeds regarding Jesus that were circulating in the early 30’s AD, originating within years if not months of Jesus’ reputed crucifixion (such as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Phillipians 2:6-11, etc). There are also several Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus also originating in the 30’s AD that are preserved in the Gpspels, meaning that whether or not Jesus even said them, during the 30’s AD, there was a local Aramaic community in Palestine that was circulating information regarding a Jewish preacher named Jesus. All of these sources are independent and are radically close to the time of Jesus death. There is not a single non-existent figure in history to have so many independent sources close to their deaths. There is more evidence for Jesus than for Hillel, Akiva ben Yosef, Pythagorus, and Hannibal combined. That’s why mythicism is considered so ridiculous by academics.

          You go on to write that Ehrman and Casey both didn’t believe in Jesus. That’s a red herring and simply evades the fact. I guess it also escaped you that I was quoting atheist scholars to make it unequivocally clear that mythicism is considered intellectual suicide by historians, LOL. Anyways, your substanceless attacks on Ehrman and Casey’s theories really are worthless. Go ahead and, for example, refute Ehrman’s book on this issue. Go and give it a try. Carrier tried, and he basically got pounded into the wall by Ehrman in response.
          https://ehrmanblog.org/response-to-carrier/
          https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
          Carrier’s confusion is really something to be wondrous at. No wonder he’s an unemployed blogger. Ehrman, meanwhile, is a world-leading historian.

          “But they are not reliable. If you knew what ta fuck you were talking about, you’d know that too.”

          Poor mythicists really cannot keep up with much. You later claim you’re well read on Ehrman, which sounds simply confusing considering we’re about to see just how well you actually understand him as you try to rebut his arguments. Anyhow, the Gospels are considered essentially reliable by scholars. Ehrman also thinks they are ‘essentially’ reliable, simply not reliable in the sense that you can generally trust what they can say, simply that they generally paint a so-and-so picture of how Jesus actually lived (which is why Ehrman can try to reconstruct in such a detailed way what he thinks the historical Jesus was like from the Gospels). The scholarship in the last several decades, especially since 1990, has basically caused an implosion in the non-reliability sector of scholarship.

          “Raphael Lataster tears both asunder in “Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists”, aa amateur works.”

          LOL. Lataster’s self-published chaos has strangely caused zero impact on scholarship.

          “Licona was sacked for claiming the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 didn’t actually happen.”

          I’m more than aware regarding Licona’s controversy where he was basically ousted by the Southern Baptists. Please explain the relevance of this particular point. It does seem, as usual, that you equally do not understand Licona’s position nor the controversy. And how on Earth does this have to do with Licona’s blasting of Ehrman on the reliability of the Gospels? Perhaps you can also give a try to refuting Licona’s arguments.

        • Just replace ‘Robert M. Price’ in this sentence with ‘Ken Ham’, and it remains just as rational and respected in the academy.

          You’re a funny guy! When Ken Ham also has two relevant doctorates, I’ll take this seriously. Until then, you’ve got your head up your ass.

        • Korus Destroyus

          LOL. Perhaps you haven’t understood my point. They’re both as fringe as each other. Scholars don’t take Price any more seriously as Ham. They’ve both published nothing in any academic forum. I can point to creationists far more qualified than Robert Price is in biology. Take Michael Behe for example. Not only does he have a PhD, he is a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Lehigh. And Behe has published many professional papers. I’m not an ID proponent by any means, but it’s always struck me how even creationists are leagues more qualified than mythicists, which is just so indicative of the academic failure of mythicism that it isn’t even funny.

          Please try to work out logic. By the end of your journey, you’ll have abandoned mythicism. And the relevance of that Hungarian university seems nil to me, it’s a European university

        • Greg G.

          More importantly, what evidence did they use to arrive at that conclusion besides the consensus of scholars itself?

          Still waiting for you to address this question. You have made several long posts without addressing it. It appears you are trying to dodge by throwing up smokescreens and diversions.

        • it’s always struck me how even creationists are leagues more qualified than mythicists, which is just so indicative of the academic failure of mythicism that it isn’t even funny.

          (1) I’m not a mythicist.

          (2) Get your head out of your ass. Very, very few of the proponents of Creationism have a doctorate in biology (I’m talking about a leader-ish person, not just a random Christian). And just about every one of the proponents of Jesus mythicism have relevant doctorates (history, theology, NT studies).

          And the relevance of that Hungarian university seems nil to me, it’s a European university

          Ah, the No True University argument. I should’ve seen that one coming.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “(1) I’m not a mythicist.”

          So why defend that cook?

          “(2) Get your head out of your ass. Very, very few of the proponents of Creationism have a doctorate in biology (I’m talking about a leader-ish person, not just a random Christian). And just about every one of the proponents of Jesus mythicism have relevant doctorates (history, theology, NT studies).”

          You’ve lost your freaking mind. Price is the only mythicist in the world who has a doctorate in a relevant field to NT history, whereas Carrier has a doctorate in ancient history. And past these two, not a single mythicist on Earth has a doctorate in any relevant field to NT history. Please buy a brain from the local Dollarama. There are myriads more creationists with doctorates than there are mythicists who can reason. And more importantly, creationists actually have professors.

          The idea that almost all mythicists have doctorates in relevant fields is so absurd it’s hard to take you seriously, even given all you’ve already said. Where are they? D.M. Murdock? David Fitzgerald? Neil Godfrey? Earl Doherty? Thomas Brodie? Raphal Lataster? Where are all these history PhD mythicists you’re talking about? On the other hand, there are countless PhD creationists who have signed this petition against evolution. They even count among them a former member of the National Academy of Sciences (Philip Skell) and a bunch of other bonified scholars. There is not one bonified mythicist in the world.
          https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

          Again, Price is taken just as seriously as Ham. You’re going to have to live with that. Considering his arguments, it’s seriously no wonder.

          “Ah, the No True University argument. I should’ve seen that one coming.”

          Strawman.

        • Hey, this has been fun! We’ll have to have a productive debate again sometime. Or just have a productive debate sometime.

        • Pofarmer

          KD is waving the goal posts around furiously. In one post he laments that lack of serious Historians as mythicists, then dismisses Carrier because his PhD is in Ancient History, not NT History. I hate to tell him, but, more than likely, everyone he’s ever quoted on this is a NT or Biblical Scholar, not a Historian in any sense of the world. So, all of a sudden folks like Thomas Brodie and Tom Harpur and Tommy Thompson become very relevant, because they have most of the same knowledge that his selected group of non-historians have.

        • The more I learn about this stuff, the more I realize I have to learn. I listen to the Bible Geek podcast, and he brings up novels of the time, Hindu and Buddhist thinking, women’s role in society, the customs and mythology of half a dozen other Ancient Near East cultures, and on and on. A PhD in Ancient History could be very relevant to this conversation.

          But we can rest easy now that Korus has shown us that doctorates in Systematic Theology and New Testament (1 each, in the case of Price) are equivalent to nothing (the number Ken Ham has).

        • Pofarmer

          Like I said, I’ve been doing a little looking into the linkage between the Ancient Hebrew stories and Ancient Egyptian stories and also Astrology. Like Greg G. says, it’s looking more and more like a group of monotheistic Priests from Egypt migrated to Palestine and basically rewrote a lot of Egyptian mythology as Hebrew mythology. Elijah and Elisha are based on Egyptian types and sun god stories. Samson is also a Sun God story, although I don’t remember the full basis for it, but there were Egyptian gods seen with the Jaw bone of an Ass, so even that isn’t original, and in fact, is a tell. The Creation story in Genesis, as well as the flood story, look to come from Earlier Sumerian myths. The story of Jacob and Esau looks to roughly be based on the myths of Horus and Set. And biblical itinerantests will protest that all of this is “refuted” somehow or other, when what they do is just ignore it while parallel fields go on discovering all this stuff. I found a reference the other day to the “Raising the widows son.” This appears in Elijah, and maybe Elisha, and definitely about Jesus. This is a solar myth, buried right there in the Gospels.

        • Fascinating.

          I attended the local chapter meeting of Reasons to Believe (an old-earth Creationist organization). They had a video lecture “Genesis as Mission” by Kenneth Keithley. It did a good job of summarizing the similar ANE creation stories. It was so convincing that I was ready to hear him say, “And that’s why it’s clear the OT stories were copied.” But of course he didn’t. Instead, he concluded that the Bible isn’t identical to those stories, so that’s their slim hope that the Bible is actually accurate.

          It’s amazing that this stuff is actually coming from adults.

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah. People really ought to know better.

        • Joe

          everyone he’s ever quoted on this is a NT or Biblical Scholar, not a Historian in any sense of the world.

          My extensive study of unicorn biology doesn’t qualify me to operate on a horse.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just replace ‘Robert M. Price’ in this sentence with ‘Ken Ham’, and it remains just as rational and respected in the academy. Sorry bucko, your loony master hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about. Also, see Bart Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. It happened last year and Ehrman WRECKED Price. That was so satisfying that I watched the 2 and a half hour debate like 3 times.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just replace ‘Robert M. Price’ in this sentence with ‘Ken Ham’, and it remains just as rational and respected in the academy.

          Nope…and because you can’t see why means you are not rational enough to discuss it.

          https://vridar.org/2010/02/14/creationist-slurs-have-no-place-in-an-honest-mythicist-historicist-debate/

          bucko, your loony master hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

          In your opinion. You just have to demonstrate your assertion now.

          Also, see Bart Ehrman’s debate with Robert Price. It happened last year and Ehrman WRECKED Price. That was so satisfying that I watched the 2 and a half hour debate like 3 times.

          I agree that Price’s performance was poor, but not for the reasons you think.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11435

          Literally everyone has made it. Every tenet of mythicism is wrong.

          Nope. You saying it doesn’t make it so…show us the money?

          There are countless early, independent sources for Jesus, so much so that there is only a single Jew in the entire 1st century that is more well documented than Jesus (i.e. Josephus).

          Nope.

          Argument 5: Josephus is the only first century Palestinian Jew better attested than Jesus. Score 1. Ehrman never made clear why this matters even if true. I assumed it was a muddled attempt at another Argument from Spartacus (a fallacy almost unique to the whole historicity of Jesus debate; though in the Platonic realms of the ideal, it would be a valid argument, if its premises held up, so I’m giving it a point).

          See Carriers rebuttal in the link above.

          From Paul’s letters, we know of several early creeds regarding Jesus that were circulating in the early 30’s AD, originating within years if not months of Jesus’ reputed crucifixion (such as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Phillipians 2:6-11, etc).

          Even if the case, none of that points to an historical Jesus.

          There are also several Aramaic traditions regarding Jesus also originating in the 30’s AD that are preserved in the Gpspels, meaning that whether or not Jesus even said them, during the 30’s AD, there was a local Aramaic community in Palestine that was circulating information regarding a Jewish preacher named Jesus

          Jesus was the 6th most popular name in first century Palestine. Apocalyptic preachers and woo woo merchant’s were 10 a penny at the time. You can’t just make a claim without citing evidence in support of it.

          All of these sources are independent and are radically close to the time of Jesus death. There is not a single non-existent figure in history to have so many independent sources close to their deaths.

          You seem to be acknowledging the Jesus was a non-existent figure. I’m sure it is just a mistake on your part.

          This is the 10/42 apologetic that even your lot are shrinking away from, because it is fuckwittery of the highest order.

          https://celsus.blog/2012/10/14/ten-reasons-to-reject-the-apologetic-1042-source-slogan/

          There is more evidence for Jesus than for Hillel, Akiva ben Yosef, Pythagorus, and Hannibal combined. That’s why mythicism is considered so ridiculous by academics.

          Nope. There really isn’t.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You go on to write that Ehrman and Casey both didn’t believe in Jesus. That’s a red herring and simply evades the fact. I guess it also escaped you that I was quoting atheist scholars to make it unequivocally clear that mythicism is considered intellectual suicide by historians, LOL. Anyways, your substanceless attacks on Ehrman and Casey’s theories really are worthless. Go ahead and, for example, refute Ehrman’s book on this issue. Go and give it a try. Carrier tried, and he basically got pounded into the wall by Ehrman in response.
          https://ehrmanblog.org/resp
          https://ehrmanblog.org/full

          Your a funny guy. Ehrman is agnostic btw.

          http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/10/02/80-mythicist-responses-to-b-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/

          A whole book was written by those Ehrman attacked and erroneously portrayed in DJE? by way of rebuttal to Ehrmans clusterfuck of a tome.

          https://vridar.org/2013/05/04/book-review-bart-ehrman-and-the-quest-of-the-historical-jesus-of-nazareth-reviewing-the-review/

          https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ehrman-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1578840198/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518439077&sr=1-7&keywords=did+jesus+exist

          Carrier’s confusion is really something to be wondrous at.

          Your confusion is something wonder at. Perhaps reading how the argument actually played out between the two might prevent you in making an arse of yourself in the future.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

          No wonder he’s an unemployed blogger.

          Your mischaracterisation of Carrier is both typical erroneous. What you meant to say is that he is not employed in a university. And your comment is an ad hominem fallacy ta boot.

          Ehrman, meanwhile, is a world-leading historian.

          Indeed. But still makes major FUBAR’s on this particular subject, so that’s an argument from authority fallacy.

        • Pofarmer

          Ehrman isn’t an historian. He’s a NT scholar specializing on the Gospels

        • Ignorant Amos

          And that’s why his attacking Carriers credentials is all the more hilarious.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Poor mythicists really cannot keep up with much.

          I’m sure that meant something to you when you wrote it.

          You later claim you’re well read on Ehrman,…

          I claimed fuck all of the sort. You are caught making shit up and lying again. I claimed before, that I have read “plenty” of Ehrman. Of his 31 books, I own 8.

          …which sounds simply confusing considering we’re about to see just how well you actually understand him as you try to rebut his arguments.

          Just the arguments in one of his books, DJE?…which I’ve provided copious amounts of sources that have demolished his clusterfuck of a book. But have at it anyway.

          Anyhow, the Gospels are considered essentially reliable by scholars.

          Reliable for what? By which scholars?

          Edit…Disqus still playing funny buggers…or it’s my laptop.

          Ehrman also thinks they are ‘essentially’ reliable, simply not reliable in the sense that you can generally trust what they can say, simply that they generally paint a so-and-so picture of how Jesus actually lived (which is why Ehrman can try to reconstruct in such a detailed way what he thinks the historical Jesus was like from the Gospels).

          Whaaaa? You are bonkers. And Ehrman contradicts himself repeatedly on this matter.

          https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-new-testament/ehrman-major-statement/

          scholarship in the last several decades, especially since 1990, has basically caused an implosion in the non-reliability sector of scholarship.

          Indeed. Both Donald Akenson and Hector Avalos are academics who slate the attitude to bible study and the poor employment of the methods used.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I claimed fuck all of the sort. You are caught making shit up and lying again. I claimed before, that I have read “plenty” of Ehrman. Of his 31 books, I own 8.”

          That means well read. What part of logic don’t you understand?

          “Just the arguments in one of his books, DJE?…which I’ve provided copious amounts of sources that have demolished his clusterfuck of a book. But have at it anyway.”

          Mythicist ramblings are hardly enough to refute Ehrman. Since I couldn’t care less about mythicist fiction, please try to respond to Ehrman’s primary arguments yourself. I’m not wasting my time on this discussion if you can’t even articulate your disagreements with Ehrman. It’s simply incredible how a mythicist actually can think that an amateur like Lataster actually can respond to a renowned historian.

          “Reliable for what? By which scholars?”

          What on freaking Earth do you mean “for what”? For history. That’s why the term is ‘historically reliable’. And by which scholars? Basically, almost all the important ones consider them essentially reliable to be able to extract lots of history from them, even if they don’t think it’s write on everything. Major scholars like E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, James Charlesworth, etc. These are some of the biggest names in the field and they represent the consensus.

          “Whaaaa? You are bonkers. And Ehrman contradicts himself repeatedly on this matter.”

          Ugh, no he doesn’t. I’ve read many of his books, seen many of his lectures and debates and written dicussion online, and it’s all exactly the same. In fact, I only know one or two positions Ehrman has changed on in the last five years. Ehrman thinks that the Gospels are generally unreliable but we can extract a good deal of historical information from them.

          “Indeed. Both Donald Akenson and Hector Avalos are academics who slate the attitude to bible study and the poor employment of the methods used.”

          I don’t know who Akenson is, but Avalos is a full-fledged radical atheist in biblical studies. He tried to write a full book trying to convince people why the Bible is actually irrelevant in modern society (nevermind the overwhelming influence it still has). His thesis also basically refutes itself, obviously, since he wouldn’t need to have ever written the book on why the Bible is irrelevant … if it was actually irrelevant. No one would care. Avalos is a full fledged lunatic — basically every review I’ve seen of his work on this is amazingly critical. Contrary to Avalos’s hysteria, scholarship is more reliable than it has ever been. That is demonstrable, in fact.

          “I agree Price did poorly. But not for the reasons you think.”

          Actually, exactly for the reasons I think. He was debunked by Ehrman on every minuscule detail that came up. Not just debunked, flat-out crushed. I’ve already seen Carrier’s review of the debate, and it’s a sorry excuse for why Price is such an intellectual blowhard. There are so many references to Carrier’s (who is an unemployed blogger, like it or not) blog and vridar, a pseudo website of Neil Godfrey (who thinks Nazareth actually didn’t exist in the 1st century) that has errors numbering so great it’s hard to even keep up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That means well read.

          Who made you the arbiter of what it means to be well read on any individuals work?

          While being “well read” is generally a compliment, having read less than a third of his work definitely bars me from the definition of “well read”. Now, if we break Ehrman’s work down, one might have an argument that I’m “well read” on his popular writings aimed at the layperson, but even then I don’t consider myself “well read”, someone “well read” will have immersed themselves in the reading and have an extensive recall of all the contents within. Like I said, I’ve read plenty of Ehrman, but “well read” I’m not.

          What part of logic don’t you understand?

          Compared to you, I don’t understand a lot less, evidently.

          Mythicist ramblings are hardly enough to refute Ehrman.

          Well, except when they are that is…but since you are ignorant of said “ramblings”, I fail to recognise how you’d know.

          Since I couldn’t care less about mythicist fiction, please try to respond to Ehrman’s primary arguments yourself.

          Lataster isn’t a mythicist, he’s agnostic on the subject.

          Which of Ehrman’s primary arguments do you want me to address? Pick what you consider the best one and we can take it from there.

          I’m not wasting my time on this discussion if you can’t even articulate your disagreements with Ehrman.

          Well there are so many…the errors have filled books.

          What about this one…

          . . . our surviving accounts, which began to be written some forty years after the traditional date of Jesus’s death, were based on earlier written sources that no longer survive. But they obviously did exist at one time, and they just as obviously had to predate the Gospels that we now have. (pp. 78-79)

          The first problem here is that we don’t have these sources, so whatever they contained is pure speculation. What did early sources contain that was disregarded? What other early sources were there that contradicted the early sources that were used. And we know what sources the gospel writers actually did use, because we still have them today. And many of them they were not Christian.

          But he [the author of Luke] certainly liked a good deal of Mark, as he copied many of Mark’s stories in constructing his own Gospel, sometimes verbatim. (p. 79)

          The gospels after Mark are not independent contemporary sources. They are known to each other. And the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis dispenses with the requirement for hypothetical source Quelle.

          The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for hypothetical sources to be created by academics. Instead, advocates of the Farrer theory argue, the Gospel of Mark was used as source material by the author of Matthew. Lastly, Luke used both of the previous gospels as sources for his Gospel.

          More dissection on this here…

          https://vridar.org/2012/05/04/8-earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-existence-of-non-existent-sources-for-the-gospels/

          Lataster takes Ehrman’s reliance on fictitious, unreliable and non existent sources in his book.

          It’s simply incredible how a mythicist actually can think that an amateur like Lataster actually can respond to a renowned historian.

          Your personal incredulity not withstanding, I care more about the arguments that the straw man fallacy you are relying on. If you think Ehrman is infallible, then you are even denser than I suspected.

          The renowned historian made error after error…even apologising for at least one..

          • CARRIER: Ehrman neatly combines a no-true-Scotsman fallacy with a fallacy of poisoning the well, by (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting my credentials (saying my Ph.D. is in “classics” and not, as it is in fact, “history” with a specialization in ancient religion and historiography), thus making it seem as if I’m less qualified to discuss this subject than I am. As I pointed out, at the very least this demonstrates how carelessly he wrote this book, given (once again) how poorly he checked its facts.

          • EHRMAN: Apologized.

          But in most cases just went quiet.

          Ehrman exposes how careless his research for this book was by horribly bungling his treatment of a key source. He discusses the one letter of Pliny the Younger that mentions Christ, but in a way that demonstrates he never actually read that letter, and misread the scholarship on it, and in result so badly misreports the facts that this section will certainly have to be completely rewritten if ever there is a second edition.

          The error itself is not crucial to his overall thesis, but reveals the shockingly careless way he approached researching and writing this book as a whole. As I [Carrier] wrote:

          “Ehrman’s treatment of the sources and scholarship on this issue betray the kind of hackneyed mistakes and lack of understanding that he repeatedly criticizes the “bad” mythicists of (particularly his inability even to cite the letters properly and his strange assumption that both subjects are discussed in the same letter–mistakes I would only expect from an undergraduate). But if even historicists like Ehrman can’t do their research properly and get their facts right, and can’t even be bothered to read their own source materials or understand their context, why are we to trust the consensus of historicists any more than mythicists? And more particularly, how many other sources has Ehrman completely failed to read, cite, or understand properly?”

          • EHRMAN: Claims it was just a typo.

          • CARRIER: I adduce considerable evidence that he is lying.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1151#pliny

          • EHRMAN: No reply.

          One of many errors by a qualified historian.

          Ugh, no he doesn’t. I’ve read many of his books, seen many of his lectures and debates and written dicussion online, and it’s all exactly the same. In fact, I only know one or two positions Ehrman has changed on in the last five years. Ehrman thinks that the Gospels are generally unreliable but we can extract a good deal of historical information from them.

          Well yer man Mike Licona has made the statement that he has contradicted himself, he said so in a debate…is he lying…or is it you?

          Ehrman attacks Robert Price for using the “criterion of dissimilarity” negatively (on p. 187), insisting that’s a “misuse” of the criterion, and then defends using it negatively himself (on p. 293), a blatant self-contradiction. It is also fallacious reasoning. Price was using it “negatively” (in Ehrman’s sense) to show that the case for historicity from the Gospels is weak because for every story about Jesus the Christians had a motive to invent it, which is a logically valid way to argue: he is rebutting the contrary claim (that some of these stories must be true because they didn’t have a motive to invent them) and thereby removing a premise that ups the probability of historicity, which necessarily lowers the probability of historicity (by exactly as much as that premise being true would have raised it). Ehrman outright denies this (on p. 187) which betrays a fundamental ignorance of how logic works. Perhaps what Ehrman meant to say was that this argument cannot alone prove Jesus didn’t exist, but Price never says it does.

          Bart Ehrman has himself acknowledged that his book has mistakes, but complains that they don’t amount to anything worthy of a critique.

          • CARRIER: I carefully explain that hundreds of errors plague his book, and that I chose only a representative sample of them, a representative selection of all the errors in the book (and a large sample, to demonstrate I wasn’t joking about their being a lot of them), and that it was their vast number that ruined the book and made it useless to any and every reader–as I put it, a “sad waste of electrons and trees.”

          • EHRMAN: Complains that I picked on only a few mistakes and no book can be condemned for a few mistakes. Also claims I only picked random mistakes and didn’t address his “mounds of evidence” for the historicity of Jesus. Then says some other silly things.

          • CARRIER: I myself said in my review, many times, that a few errors would not condemn any book (as we all make them). But I didn’t pick on only a few mistakes; I documented a great many serious mistakes, and even the many mistakes I wrote about were, as I repeatedly said, just a fraction of all there were. A book can be condemned for that scale of error. And I did address his evidence (of which there were not “mounds” but barely a molehill), in the whole second half of my review demonstrating that his methods of arguing from it were illogical.

          • EHRMAN: No reply

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

          “In the end Ehrman ducks behind the “it was just a pop book, you shouldn’t expect it to be all accurate and the like” defense.”

          But how would the layperson that the book was directed at know that? The fuck up’s in DJE? are multitude…it’s a very poor book by a renowned scholar that I have a lot of time for, which is deeply disappointing as I was expecting a decent challenge to his opposition.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Lataster isn’t a mythicist, he’s agnostic on the subject.”

          That’s a ridiculous freaking excuse, he’s written books against the existence of Jesus. He only says that occasionally to try to get credibility. But of course, he still has none.

          “Which of Ehrman’s primary arguments do you want me to address? Pick what you consider the best one and we can take it from there.”

          Me? This is nonsense, just go ahead and respond to something Ehrman said. It doesn’t matter which argument. If you must take my lead, address what he says concerning early creeds.

          “• EHRMAN: Claims it was just a typo.

          • CARRIER: I adduce considerable evidence that he is lying.

          https://www.richardcarrier….

          • EHRMAN: No reply.”

          This is one of the most laughable things I’ve read from you in a while. Ehrman made a typo. That is so obvious that it is hardly relevant. The fact that in Ehrman’s 200+ page popular book, Ehrman at one tiny point said “letter 10” instead of “book 10” is so irrelevant it’s hilarious. The fact that mythicists are actually hanging on to this at such a level explains so much. Seriously. Ehrman didn’t reply because Carrier is an unemployed blogger who is almost irrelevant to academia. Ehrman ignores Carrier like the lacky he is. Which, to Carrier, is unforgivable, since he’s a self-obsessed narcissist. At one point, Tim O’Neill pointed out the typical failures of Carrier, and so Carrier literally lost his mind and wrote this:
          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991
          What followed from O’Neill was one of the most beautiful utter debunkings of Carrier I’ve ever read. The shredding is so bad it is almost hard to comprehend.
          https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/
          Carrier, being the narcissist he is, responds to almost every sentence even written about him. But he still has not responded to this. O’Neill’s comments are a typical example of why Carrier’s arguments are so amazingly stupid.

          The rest of your fictional conversation between Ehrman and Carrier is just insufferable to read. There’s so much fiction that there’s no point even going through it.

          “WLC isn’t a historian, yet his doctoral thesis was on “The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy” (1985).”

          Craig has five degrees. One is in Church History. Please try again, Lataster has no qualifications in anything relevant to this, nor did I mention Swinburne, and thus that is a strawman. And Craig has published a lot in history journals. I mean, a lot. Way more than Carrier has even dreamed of, even though history not only isn’t his primary field, or even his secondary field, but his tertiary field. Which is just incredible. The philosopher Craig is more academic in history than the (pseudo)historian Carrier. And Lataster flat out has never published any academic articles in any historical journals. Craig is on such another level there is no comparison. Your replies are so long and there is so much bluster at it, it becomes clear where the real gish gallop is coming from. I just can’t afford to waste so much time on someone who literally gets everything wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s a ridiculous freaking excuse, he’s written books against the existence of Jesus.

          How the fuck would you know what’s in his books, ya haven’t read any. You are typical of the sort of fuckwit who thinks he knows all there is to know. because he has read the reviews. McGrath gets caught out in this ploy all the feckin’ time. Ehrman too.

          He only says that occasionally to try to get credibility.

          That could be true, but since you have no way of knowing and have no support for such conjecture, it is the ramblings of a Christian fuckwit.

          But of course, he still has none.

          Not among imbecilic Christian fuckwits of your ilk, but the evidence that he has credibility is demonstrable, so pah!

          Me? This is nonsense, just go ahead and respond to something Ehrman said. It doesn’t matter which argument. If you must take my lead, address what he says concerning early creeds.

          This is one of the most laughable things I’ve read from you in a while. Ehrman made a typo.

          I wouldn’t doubt you’d find it laughable, but the fact remains, it was an error. Even if it was a typo. But a typo is a one off error, that’s not what happened in the book though.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1151#pliny

          That is so obvious that it is hardly relevant.

          Of course it’s relevant if it is imparting faulty information ya moron. A layperson could read the whole section in DJE? and not realise it was a typo…then go onto cite Ehrman’s typo as accurate, that’s a problem, just one, but the book is littered with them.

          The fact that in Ehrman’s 200+ page popular book, Ehrman at one tiny point said “letter 10” instead of “book 10” is so irrelevant it’s hilarious.

          I don’t think you’ve even read the book, you certainly don’t seem to know its contents. It wasn’t Ehrman at one point saying “letter 10” instead of “book 10”, that would’ve been a typo.

          “…Pliny is best known for a series of letters that he wrote later in life to the Roman emperor, Trajan, seeking advice for governing his province. In particular, letter number 10 from the year 112 CE is important, as it is the one place in which Pliny appears to mention the existence of Jesus. The letter is not about Jesus himself; it is dealing with a political problem. In Pliny’s province a law had been passed making it illegal for people to gather together in social groups… The law applied to every social group, including fire brigades….and so villages were burning.

          In his letter 10 to the emperor Pliny discusses the fire problem, and in that context he mentions another group that was illegally gathering together. As it turns out, it was the local community of Christians.”

          The fact that it was in a pop book for laypersons is why it could be considered worse. Laypersons rely on the scholar more than a scholar on another scholar. The layperson is a lot less likely to fact check.

          The fact that mythicists are actually hanging on to this at such a level explains so much.

          The fact that you are so ignorant that this is just one data point out of a litany of errors which taken as a whole means the book was a complete clusterfuck is telling.

          Seriously. Ehrman didn’t reply because Carrier is an unemployed blogger who is almost irrelevant to academia.

          Wait a wee minute…Ehrman didn’t reply because blah, blah, blah,…but then why did he reply with it was just a typo? Do you read the things you write? Ehrman didn’t reply because he had no rebuttal.

          Ehrman ignores Carrier like the lacky he is.

          Except when he doesn’t.

          https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

          You’re a fuckin’ moron.

          Which, to Carrier, is unforgivable, since he’s a self-obsessed narcissist.

          Well since Ehrman only ignores Carrier when it suits him, I’m guessing Carrier would just believe when he gets no reply, he’s won his point. Most of us would under the circumstances. Carrier being a a self obsessed narcissist is a non sequitur and an ad hominem attack…you get a twofer fallacies that time. Dime Bar.

          At one point, Tim O’Neill pointed out the typical failures of Carrier, and so Carrier literally lost his mind and wrote this:
          https://www.richardcarrier….

          Wait another wee minute…you men Tim O’Neill the unqualified, unemployed blogger whose qualifications are in Medieval literature and don’t hold a candle to Carriers?

          Point me to O’Neill’s peer reviewed book or papers, there’s a good Coco?

          You are the fuckwit who is hilarious. You are a hypocritical douche.

          Carrier ripped O’Neill a new one on the errors he made. That you think he lost his mind is flabbergasting.

          I’ve engaged O’Neill here on this forum, he got banned here, at Outshine the Sun, he got banned there too iirc, and at Strange Notions. They like him. He is not an historian, and on the subject of history, he is an unemployed, unqualified, internet blogger.

          And get this, as big an asshat as he is, he only supports the hypothesis that an itinerant preacher called Jesus existed. All the other bullshit is outside the remit of historical analysis.

          https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/#comment-1420197943

          What followed from O’Neill was one of the most beautiful utter debunkings of Carrier I’ve ever read. The shredding is so bad it is almost hard to comprehend.
          https://historyforatheists….

          Yeah, that screed is so fucking long it is book length. It is a blog by an unqualified, unemployed, blogger. Pick a point and see what we can make of it.

          Carrier, being the narcissist he is, responds to almost every sentence even written about him. But he still has not responded to this.

          What? Ya mean like Ehrman hasn’t ever responded to Carrier ya mean…hmmm!

          But maybe it’s because Carrier is aware that O’Neill is a blatent liar.

          http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/weisz-is-hypatia.html?showComment=1282615710158#c3266403299822732389

          Btw, Tim O’Neill is every bit the narcissist you claim Carrier is, he used to stalk Carrier, not that it is relevant, so pah!

          O’Neill has not replied to Neill Godfrey’s request for him to address Godfrey’s take down of O’Neill’s fuckwit review of “Nailed”.

          https://vridar.org/category/book-reviews-notes/fitzgerald-nailed/oneill-fitzgerald-debate/

          https://vridar.org/2012/01/24/david-fitzgerald-responds-to-tim-oneills-review-of-nailed/

          O’Neill’s comments are a typical example of why Carrier’s arguments are so amazingly stupid.

          O’Neill is an unqualified, unemployed, blogger…why should I take seriously anything he has to say on the subject? See how this works, dofus?

          I can see why you have got a hardon for O’Neill, he is a rabid lunatic too.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The rest of your fictional conversation between Ehrman and Carrier is just insufferable to read. There’s so much fiction that there’s no point even going through it.

          It is a record of the online interaction between Ehrman and Carrier since Ehrmans Huffpo nonsense article.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

          I know it must be excruciatingly uncomfortable for you, the facts usually have that effect on the woo woo merchants.

        • Greg G.

          When KD says “is just insufferable to read”, he means he cannot stand to read truth that refutes his faith.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Craig has five degrees. One is in Church History. Please try again, Lataster has no qualifications in anything relevant to this, nor did I mention Swinburne, and thus that is a strawman.

          Fuck, stupid is, as stupid does.

          I never said you mentioned Swinburne..or Craig…or Pantinga, or Aquinas for that matter. It was in the citation I made. If you had a modicum of reading for comprehension abilities you would know that. I was pointing out that…

          Raphael’s thesis analyses the arguments of William Lane Craig (and also Richard Swinburne) for the existence of God, and investigates Craig’s sociological impact.

          The point being, that having qualifications in an historical discipline doesn’t appear to be relevant to the issue.

          Craig’s qualification, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Church History, summa cum laude (1975). Is it relevant to the issue? I think not, but I stand corrected on my erroneous assertion that he has no qualification. Mea culpa

          And Craig has published a lot in history journals I mean, a lot.

          That’s nice…he’s still a lying fuckwit.

          Way more than Carrier has even dreamed of, even though history not only isn’t his primary field, or even his secondary field, but his tertiary field.

          Who cares?

          Which is just incredible.

          To you, I don’t doubt it. I’d be more interested in the content, if a was of a notion to find out that is, I’m not.

          The philosopher Craig is more academic in history than the (pseudo)historian Carrier.

          If you say so…I don’t care.

          Jaysus fuck. Are you Tim O’Neill in disguise. Carrier is not a pseudo historian, saying such nonsense makes you out to be a clown. He has a doctorate from a recognised university.

          And Lataster flat out has never published any academic articles in any historical journals.

          I don’t care. An argument stands and falls on it’s own merits.

          Craig is on such another level there is no comparison.

          To you I’m sure, but to me he is an intellectually dishonest douche and demonstrably so.

          Your replies are so long and there is so much bluster at it, it becomes clear where the real gish gallop is coming from. I just can’t afford to waste so much time on someone who literally gets everything wrong.

          Look, you have a choice as to which points you have time, or even want to bother to respond to. It is well apparent by this stage that you ignore the inconvenient points and focus on silly nonsense like who has what qualifications and published papers, like that matters. It is like playing trumps with a child…or the schoolyard game of my da is better than your da.

          There are folk here not taking part in the game…the lurkers…you are a lost cause to the religious mind virus, so much so, that you rely on non-believers to support your position. But right from the get go when you opened this rabbit hole I said “If” Jesus existed. If he existed or not, is just a bit of interest to me. It won’t make one iota to my disbelief. Because if there was an itinerant preacher walking around the Palestinian Levant 2,000 years ago, he wasn’t doing all the supernatural shit you think he was, nor was he a godman. And those non-believers you punt to for support, will back me up on that fact.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t know who Akenson is,…

          He’s a real historian.

          “Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen’s University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty.

          He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are
          employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.”

          And he is not a mythicist, before you start.

          …but Avalos is a full-fledged radical atheist in biblical studies.

          He’s a “fully-fledged radical” atheist? What’s one of those when writing back home?

          Would that be the same as Mike Licona being a “fully-fledged radical” theist?

          You wouldn’t be constructing ad hom again, would ya?

          He tried to write a full book trying to convince people why the Bible is actually irrelevant in modern society (nevermind the overwhelming influence it still has).

          Well he didn’t try to write the book, it’s available for purchase, so it’s been written.

          But nope, that wasn’t the point of what his book was about at all. It’s telling that you dishonestly represent your opponent at every hands turn. You are really a dense individual, totally ignorant about the stuff you say, or just an out and out liar for Jesus. Maybe even all three.

          In 2007 Avalos published The End of Biblical Studies (2007) where he argued that academic biblical scholarship was primarily an apologetic enterprise meant to provide the illusion that the Bible was still a culturally and morally superior authority. He critiqued numerous fields (translation, archaeology, history, textual criticism, literary aesthetics) arguing the discipline was permeated with pro-religionist biases.

          Your inability to understand basic concepts is telling about your intellect.

          His thesis also basically refutes itself, obviously, since he wouldn’t need to have ever written the book on why the Bible is irrelevant … if it was actually irrelevant.

          I’ve seen “reviews” that make that silly claim.

          But since you are too dumb fuck stupid to think for yourself and don’t understand his actual thesis, what you think, is irrelevant fuckwittery at this point.

          No one would care.

          I suppose perhaps not, if you were even remotely accurate with your premise on what his book about. You not, so pah!

          Avalos is a full fledged lunatic —

          Ah…there it is the ad hom again.

          …basically every review I’ve seen of his work on this is amazingly critical.

          Let me guess…reviews made by those in the peanut gallery.

          Contrary to Avalos’s hysteria, scholarship is more reliable than it has ever been. That is demonstrable, in fact.

          Which is exactly what I’d expect from the “Self Appreciation Society”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve already seen Carrier’s review of the debate, and it’s a sorry excuse for why Price is such an intellectual blowhard.

          As opposed to an unintellectual blowhard as yerself. You are entitled to your opinion. I’ve already conceded the point.

          There are so many references to Carrier’s (who is an unemployed blogger, like it or not) blog…

          If you don’t know the difference between unemployed and self-employed, I can’ help you, like it or not.

          … and vridar, a pseudo website of Neil Godfrey (who thinks Nazareth actually didn’t exist in the 1st century)…

          He does, that’s news to me. Citation please.

          … that has errors numbering so great it’s hard to even keep up.

          Another sweeping statement with no substance behind it. Since the errors are so abundant you can’t keep up…why not trot a few out and see if we can help you comprehend why they may not indeed, be the errors you think they appear?

        • Ignorant Amos

          BTW…if you are referring to Neil Godfrey’s defence of Ehrman’s erroneous attack on Rene Salm…

          https://vridar.org/2016/10/27/dear-professor-bart-ehrman-please-explain-if-you-will/

          …then wise ta fuck up.

          Rene Salm has not been refuted on his point that Nazareth, at least as described in the NT, didn’t exist at the time the holy family is alleged to have lived there. And there is no evidence that it existed where it is claimed later to have been, at that time, at all.

          And this will really burst yer boiler completely….

          Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm

        • Korus Destroyus

          “…then wise ta fuck up.”

          The meagerness of an IQ required to say something like this in a conversation is quite amazing. Rene Salm has been utterly debunked by the excavators as Nazareth. I’ve already read Godfrey’s intellectual failure of a reply, it’s another one of his pointless rantings that bring no results outside of his little fringe community.

          Godfrey and Salms fiction is pretty straight forward. The house is unpublished, good so far, and then it takes a nose-dive — “I, Salm, published a report in BAIAS debunking that!” — which has been subsequently refuted by the excavators of Nazareth themselves. The excavators of Nazareth have clearly shown, as Ehrman pointed out, that Salm failed to understand the site of Nazareth in many simple ways. Nor Godfrey nor fringe-boy Salm ever responded to that. They can’t. In fact, Ehrman also ma