No it isn't. His work has numerous detractors.
Fine ignore Ehrman's blog and responses.
So?Debates does not equate truth.
Yes it does. People have known debates do not lead to truth in evercase since the Greeks. Look up what a rhetorician is.Responded to on Bart's blog
This was about Maurice Casey's work
The arguments are years old as the spat between Bart and Richard is years old.
Ignore Bart, it's years old, no debates, you're going in circles here.
Those ideas on debates are ridiculous.
Every time Carrier debates someone I can see spots where their logic fails.
Stuff like, a long winded version of this:
Guy: "it says in the gospels"
Carrier: "the gospels are not reliable history"
Guy: "but the gospels say.."
then I go, "oh, he's debating a crazy person". See? Then I learned something.
Of course Carrier has detractors? Every new theory has that?
He has a new and better theory with more accurate historical information. He explains in his work many assumptions held by the field were based on poor facts.
Then sometimes in debates we see proof of this.
No it wasn't. Carrier's views are still a fringe in Biblical scholarship. Carrier is a mythicist. You went on a tangent and ignored what I first posted attacking Bart in a vain attempt to undermine my points about Carrier. Points you never refuted. Try again son.
Your "points" on Carrier are this:
"No he isn't."
Wow. How could I ever refute that?
Yes Carrier is fringe? So was general relativity. After his book came out we have to wait, watch debates, see what points other historians make.
So far his work is solid and the only actual evidence against him are faulty apologist arguments.
His book does not prove Jesus is a myth nor has it even shifted mainstream views.
You disparaged mythiistc earlier.
"Like the worst of mythicist literature, you will come away after reading it with more false information in your head than true, and that makes my job as a historian harder, because now I have to fix everything he screwed up."
You compared Bart's book to that of the type Carrier himself writes. Hilarious.
Oh boy. That's Carriers review of Bart's book. I thought you might actually get that. And there are piles of bad mythicist literature out there.
One reason why Carrier is so good is he DEBUNKS IT.
He also exposes many of Bart's "mistakes" and corrects many of his errors on that video. Which you did not listen to nor did you read Carrier's blog on ALL of their exchanges and why Ehrman is wrong.
Even if you can't get to Ehrman's errors I've more than shown Carrier holds his own. I can't argue vast generalizations like what's happening in this post.
I don't even see the point of getting involved in that Carrier vs Ehrman debate at all, I don't want to do that. I've shown Carrier to be "good". That's plenty. Arguing for someone who isn't me is kind of a waste of time.
Carriers work claims 3/1 in favor of myth. He doesn't claim 100% proof, just that it's most likely.
His information has held up in debates with other scholars which is one way to see that he's on the correct path.
If debates don't work for you then fine, good luck with that.
I'm skeptical here of your motivations. Are you siding with Ehrman because you believe he is a better historian or because you believe in Jesus as a divine being and Bart's work better supports you religious beliefs?
Assertion.
Have you heard of a mistake?
You're catching on. Lots of mistakes.
