His work leading to the conclusion of being a mythicist
His work is uncontested. People are trying. So far he's correct.
Ehrman does on his blog. Debating is not required.
Ehrman clearly wants nothing to do with Carrier.
Carier put him to bed and it's up to Ehrman to answer for his lies.
Ehman responded to the book years ago.
No, he did not respond to all of the lies Carrier exposed. He also refuses to debate Carrier.
Debate does not equate truth nor result in it as it is not a method of research. An audience of layman accepting a view is irrelevant.
It's not a secret society in an ancient language? It's all historical information. What are you talking about? The scholars debate using their research. Carrier is so good that even a layman can see his opponents being destroyed.
Your statement about debates is so ridiculous, it actually makes no sense? It's history not quantum electrodynamics?
In that video I posted anyone can understand that Carrier is exposing Ehrman for a person who is not telling the truth.
Ehrman - “we don’t have a single description in any source of any kind of baptism in the mystery religions”
Carrier - "I proved sin-remitting baptisms had long been a component of the Bacchic mysteries and were in some way a feature of Osiris cult as well, and were then known to be a component of several other mystery religions. As I concluded regarding Osiris:.."
Ehrman - “we have numerous, independent accounts” of Jesus, and that all these sources are “in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic,” and “dated to within just a year or two of his life”; and he concludes, “historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.”
Carrier - "The last statement is indeed true: that
would be pretty astounding. It’s just that the first statements are not true. We have no such sources. Ehrman knows this. So he is deliberately misleading the public with his choice of words. He is misrepresenting merely possible, and purely hypothetical sources (whose exact and complete content is unknown to us), as if they were sources we
have, and as if we
know those hypothetical sources were “numerous” and “independent” and “date within a few years of his life” (we do not know that at all). I then summarized several of the problems with relying on these “hypothetical” sources to prove Jesus really existed. Such evidence is simply not “astounding.” It is in fact deeply problematic. And it grossly misleads the public to say otherwise."
Ehrman criticized this book as well in a reply to Carrier's own book. The one you think Ehrman never talked about.
I know the whole story. Ehrman stopped defending himself. Not only that Ehrman NEVER dealt with his latest book, your argument is years old?
Ehrman on Historicity Recap • Richard Carrier
In one case I have concluded I was too harsh. But in every other case my criticisms have stood without valid rebuttal. Most were simply ignored (and thus no rebuttal was even attempted). For others, attempts to rebut them have only generated increasingly ridiculous errors of facts and logic to waggle our head at. Which in the end has only made historicists look just like the hack mythicists they rightly critique. This is not the way to argue for the historicity of Jesus. And as if to confirm this unreasonable bias, Ehrman has refused to even address my peer reviewed, academic press book
On the Historicity of Jesus (published
at the University of Sheffield)..
Link Summary
My articles in this series up to when Ehrman stopped responding are (in chronological order):
Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism (21 March 2012)
McGrath on the Amazing Infallible Ehrman (25 March 2012)
Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic (19 April 2012)
Ehrman’s Dubious Replies (Round One) (27 April 2012)
Ehrman’s Dubious Replies (Round Two) (29 April 2012)
Other pertinent articles of mine since will be linked below where relevant. Except for my assessment of the
Ehrman-Price Debate (2016) which contained nothing new, and thus required no further mention here. But it represents another good summary of the state of this debate (not despite but even because Ehrman says nothing new in it), and the most recent to date. One should also read my discussion of Ehrman’s failure to grasp how probability arguments work (in
Two Lessons Bart Ehrman Needs to Learn about Probability Theory).
-:-
Pre-Book Debate
This debate began when Ehrman published an article for the
Huffington Post that was a travesty of errors and inaccuracies, in an attempt to promote his book. I criticized that article in my first critique. Ehrman attempted a weak response to that, which I then addressed in Round One, but the only substantive response attempted was by James McGrath, which I addressed separately. These rebuttals met with no substantive reply from either of them.
Here is the breakdown of the points I made and their attempt to deal with them:
and so on. Educate yourself or not, I don't care. But your original point on Carrier was bunk. I have shown this.
Did Jesus Exist is not a mythicist book. Carrier is considered the mythicist as he doubts there was historical Jesus. I question your grasp of the content here as you are blasting the one you supported a few comments ago.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about?
Of course Carrier is a mythicist? His work has shown Jesus to me most likely myth.
Ehrman has written some good books but his Did Jesus Exist book is full of false information.
He will never debate Carrier because he knows he'll get whooped and exposed.
There is more $$$ in demonstrating Jesus did exist. Why else would he be so dishonest?
