(Wasn’t St. Augustine peer-reviewed?)

“Ehrman’s confidence in the sources that he has established ad nauseam as being absolutely terrible stems from the many written sources behind them.”

McGrath may have read this first; it’s the opening sentence and, well, it is clumsily formulated.

This one came through fine. Though I didn’t see the other (except as you sent by the proxy account of course).

Illness and drugs possible but not necessary. I cover the options in detail, with the science and cited scholarship, in OHJ 4, Element 15.

I discuss the meaning and context of 1 Cor. 1:23 in OHJ 12.4.

I meant “to” not “through” moderation (the previous comments just disappeared without being marked as “in moderation”). And it appears things are working again.

Not ignor’d the argument: just hadn’t got to it. But thank you for the clarification.

Speaking of confusion, not sure I understand your explication of
why Paul says for Jews Christ Crucified is a σκάνδαλον 1 cor 1. 23 hence an aversion
– Is Paul of a sect that revels in this as he does with Christ being a κατάρα ?

Is this analogus to when some pepl appropriate the ‘N’ wurd – but others might be scandalised by it?
There’s a thred in OHJ of Paul’s ‘revelations’; ‘visions’ – seems Paul was ill (temporal lobe epilepsy like Muhammad ) Heard V S Ramachandran?
Or even John Allegro and magic mushroom cult. Poor git – good skolar but career wipt out. nine the less – must’v been a fun guy….

Nope. Not me.

(And for resolving tech issues, there is a link at the top menu for submitting those. Give them as much information as you can so they can diagnose and fix whatever has happened.)

Hi,

I am having a discussion with user “Zbykow” on this thread:
http://vridar.org/2016/04/15/what-does-probably-mean-to-historians-and-forecasters/#comments
Who out of the blue hinted he is in fact you:

The issues you are struggling with are known and are addressed in the book, if you understand the reasons and disagree then you should argue them directly instead of reinventing the wheel. Thanks for the invitation, I’m not sure I feel like registering another account, but I’ve taken a look and noticed somebody already suspects I am Carrier. I’m not going to deny nor admit, but i guess that means my English doesn’t suck that bad after all.

I wonder if you could confirm if this is your account or not?

Then you ignored the argument I demonstrated with the Lincoln-Kennedy case.

Why are you using an argument I already refuted, and even citing the refutation, and yet still not even aware that it was a refutation, or why the refutation applies?

It’s of course doubly bogus not only because of the argument I made about the Lincoln-Kennedy case (which is even vastly more impressive) but also because of the principles of prophecy established even by Christian apologists themselves: obvious anticipations don’t count as prescient. As the author of the novel himself said, “the similarities were explained by his extensive knowledge of shipbuilding and maritime trend,” including the naming trends of vessels and the hubris of attempting unsinkable designs. On this principle, see Newman on Prophecy as Miracle.

(You are also confused. This only pertains, one supposes, to the reference class evidence, e.g. the Rank-Raglan identity. It does not apply to the Philo evidence. The Philo evidence establishes the existence of an archangel identified with an OT figure named Jesus with several very strange attributes, and that this predated Christianity within the same religion Christianity arose from. Unlike maritime trends, there is no way the Christians could have independently invented all the same very strange attributes for their Jesus, and not have known there already was a Jesus with those attributes in their already Jewish angelology.)