It’s obvious that you’re lying because I posted several criticisms that were not just “egregious attacks and name calling by his critics” that are just “nitpicking.” You also have claimed to have read the responses, yet I have and come away with a different conclusion than you do. That says that either we are not reading the same critics or you’re just lying to save face. Considering you have shown several times your ignorance on the subject I am inclined it’s the latter than the former. Simply own up to the fact that you have not read the criticisms of Ehrman’s work and just commit to reevaluating your own position. What’s so hard about that?
And because I don’t completely agree with your contention as expressed by your mythicist champion Doherty I’m somehow lying? Yes, I read his comments on Vridar. You didn’t have to post them but while we’re at it here’s one from Ehrman as a partial refutation of both Carrier and Doherty:
It was never my intent to get into a pissing contest between two bible scholars,but let’s suffice it to say that from MY research including books and references from the Jesus Seminar the Quelle, The L Gospel, Josephus, studies of the Roman Empire, of the Greek influence on literature from that era and the newest Debate in the five views of Jesus’s existence, I am convinced at this time that there was an historical Jesus. Likewise I see a trend dating from scholarly works over the last thirty years that there is indeed a humanist agenda as refuted by Doherty and this motivates their desire to discount an historical Jesus. I’ve also read many peer reviewed papers on historical topics but few as sanguine as this topic which leads me to believe that indeed there is an agenda driving the mythicists. Now here’s the dichotomy, as an atheist and a secular humanist I do however agree with Doherty’s claim concerning the harm that religion has historically been done in the name of Jesus. On that point I’m definitely with him. Oh, and BTW, I never lie to save face. What would be the point? If my conclusions are wrong I’ll freely admit it and change my stance as I have on the nature/nurture argument. I will
admit however that I haven’t read Doherty’s book. There, you caught me! I will however, and Price’s also. I have listened to Price’s podcast on the Human Bible however. I did post that I’m no bible scholar and have no intentions of ever pursuing that line as my interest lies in other fields of historical research but you’ve piqued my curiosity. I’ll get back to you after downloading both books.