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.
In his book 'On The Historicity Of Jesus' (OHJ), Carrier argued that "woman" in Galatians 4:4 is not a real woman but an allegorical one. I disagree and commented in-situ on Carrier's passage about it.
I demonstrated there is no evidence that "brothers of the Lord", with a familial & spiritual/honorary meaning, was what Paul or his Christians (about themselves) believed, despite Carrier's objections.
Was the disturbance in the temple something that "Mark" found embarrassing but felt compelled to tell because believed true (as told by eyewitness(es)) and in order to bring an air of authenticity to his gospel?
Carrier, in his effort to show In his lecture at Purdue university, "Luke" tried to have Paul imitate and then outdo Jesus, dropped another bomb: in Acts 14, Paul is described to die and rise from the dead (just like, allegedly, Jesus).
Despite being written in the 2nd century, and greatly embellished with many fictional elements, the story of James' execution reveals a long-lasting tradition about James, the brother of Jesus, not being a Christian.
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.
No, this is not a joke. Listen about it from Carrier himself. Richard uses that in order to dispel Romans 1:3 as showing Jesus had human & earthly origin. With update from Carrier's "On The Historicity Of Jesus"
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.