Luke places Jesus’ birth under Quirinius.
But the rest of your post is good. I’ll consider it.
But I’m telling you the consensus, not what Luke says.
1 Like
Gotch you. Also thanks to all posting in this thread, it’s been very interesting for me to follow!
1 Like
OK, but other than the Gospels, where is the information about Jesus coming from, such as that he was born under Herod’s rule?
Here is Richard Carrier on why the Gospels are myth
An hour and a half? Considering your and Carrier’s arguments have been paralyzingly unconvincing to this point, I’m not wasting my time watching such a long video. Why don’t you write out some of his evidences for yourself? If you want to simply post hour long dialogues, then perhaps have a treat in William Lane Craig’s utter destroying of Carrier (even Carrier later admitted he lost the debate):
1 Like
You can find Carrier’s historicity debates. Carrier (and I 'm with him on that) admits the myth can’t be proven with 100% certainty. I mentioned already that i’m a 20% historicist and 80% mythicist. If you want to debate mythicism, I think you would be better served on forums with better advocates for it than just myself.
Regarding winning debates, Carrier acknowledged that he lost to Craig, but only because Carrier could not address all of WLC’s claims in the time allotted. I think Kent Hovind would probably win most of the debates on evolution because evolutionists won’t be able to address all of his claims in the time allotted. I’m not saying WLC is a very fast talker like Hovind, but, he makes many of the claims that take longer time to refute than to claim.
“Regarding winning debates, Carrier acknowledged that he lost to Craig, but only because Carrier could not address all of WLC’s claims in the time allotted.”
That’s just an excuse. Sean Carroll had more then enough time to get his points across in his debate with Craig.
What mythicist forum would you recommend? I’ve been debating countless mythicists for a long time and all of them have the same, weak and unconvincing arguments. If anything, you’re one of the more sophisticated ones. But it’s not a matter of sophistication, it’s a matter of fact that they’re wrong. You could have the most sophisticated person in the world defend mythicism, but it would still be unconvincing for the same reason why Einstein trying to prove 2+2=5 would turn out unconvincing.
Are you referring to the same debate, where Sean Carrol had slides with Alan Guth saying the universe is probably eternal while WLC tried to use Guth’s theorem to argue it had a beginning?
At around 1:05 mark there is the slide in question
As far as Mythicist forums, I would recommend Richard Carrier’s blogs and ask your questions there.
Sean Carroll did better against Craig than anyone else ever has. Of course, Carroll is wrong about the infinitude of the past – Guth sometimes, every now and then will give you a past-eternal claim, but Vilenkin clearly says that it’s virtually certain that the universe had a beginning. Guth’s claim contradicts his own model. To be fair, the BGV Theorem doesn’t necessitate a beginning, but it provides significant evidence. I’ve seen Carroll say "the biggest problem for the eternal theory is asking “why did it do nothing and suddenly big bang?” He proceeded not to give a reason which was quite deafening. But this isn’t the place to debate Carroll, Craig, or that other stuff (that should be left towards a different thread that you could create if you want).
Carroll had more than enough time to address Craig. So did Carrier, but Carrier’s uses time as an excuse. Carrier stunningly seems to have enough time when he debates other people than Craig on the historicity of Jesus.
You should check out Mythicist Milwaukee, they have pretty good arguments and they hosted the Ehrman-Price debate a year ago.
I went to the mythicist milwaukee website and couldn’t find a forum. Could you link me to it?
They have a Facebook page.
Do they have a forum though? I could hardly waste my time on a mythicist facebook page.
I know that the organization itself exists. But I can’t seem to find any forum they have.
This is the kind of content presented by Mythicist Milwaukee. This is all standard bottom-feeding mythicist drivel.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
1 Like
The fact that they give such credence to the idiotic “Zeitgeist” movies, and to Dorothy Murdock’s crazy writings, shows you just how out of touch with reality they are.
2 Likes
I didn’t know they promoted our good friend (sarcasm) Murdock’s stupidity 
I mean, yeah, I know they promoted Carrier and Price, but Murdock? Really? She uses the conspiracy fallacy (yeah, I invented that) to justify why no one takes her seriously. “Because all academics know the truth, but they have an agenda to hide it”. Sounds like YECs and supporters of ID to me.
And Zeitgeist is just stupid.
Yeah, bottom feeders as I said. Not exactly top shelf mythicism. And Dorothy Murdock, what a character. Believed that Atlantis was real, and the world used to be populated by blue skinned genius pygmies. Also sadly put her faith in pseudoscience when she had cancer, and consequently died from it (ironically on December 25). Just goes to show how poor thinking on the part of mythicists can actually be lethal.