Welcome! Let's have exchanges of ideas, good discussions and sharing of information. Let's be civilized throughout. Do not expect to convince others, but rather thrive to develop good arguments supported by evidence. Not allowed are insults and personal attacks.
Comments on general matters or proposal for new posts can be introduced in the INTRO POST, at bottom of last page (or use "INTRO POST" TAG at left of page, or calendar for December 2 2012).
I hope you won't mind the ads and the rarity of features (this blog is free of charge!). The Search function does not work but you can use the TAGS for finding related posts. You may not use " because that gets inscripted with back slash(es), which can then multiply. Instead type ' twice.
Apologists contend than "after three days" is the same than "on the third day". I disagree even if I think the later does not conflict with the (about) 40 hours of Jesus' death duration, which is spread on three different calendar days.
Neil Godfrey issued some posts on the Vridar's blog about the Acts Seminar members' justifications for a 2nd cent. dating of 'Acts' and the author's knowledge of the Pauline epistles. I answer that here.
It took ten years for the Westar Acts Seminar to come up with the conclusion, among other ones, the author of 'Acts' knew the Pauline epistles and wrote 'Acts' in the early decades of the second century. I disagree on both points and here is why.
It was the consequence of a compromise about Jesus being 'the Son of God', between a pre-existent divinity (breaking monotheism) and just an empty honorary title: a man having God as the biological father.
It is quasi-certain two versions of 'Romans' were existing during Marcion's times, one complete, the other without the two last chapters. One conclusion is that the complete letter came first, before Marcion's version.
If "Luke" had 'Antiquities': a) Atomistic tunnel vision and total ignorance of the context would be required to make the error. b) Significant differences between the two versions of Theudas' story would not appear.
According to two examples in ancient Greek literature, secular and religious, “likeness” can be used for a man originating from human parent when allegedly, he is the result of the incarnation of a divine being.
Another example on how desperate is Doherty in his search for evidence supporting his crucifixion in heaven and the non-existence of an earthly & human Jesus (PS: Carrier follows Doherty's conclusion on that!).
I'll examine the arguments of Bart Ehrman in his new book “Did Jesus Exist?” regarding the authenticity of the main Testimonium Flavianum, which describes, among other things, Jesus as a very popular teacher with Jews & Gentiles.
A fair number of scholars (even agnostic ones) now accept Jesus was uneducated but still have him as a teacher. It is rather ironic they think that, in view of their low opinion of amateurs (even educated ones) and of their works on early Christianity.