DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/11435
This is Carrier's realistic assessment of the debate. Like I say, it's too bad Ehrman doesn't man up and debate the actual knowledgable scholar on this.

Philo Sofee wrote:http://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/11435
This is Carrier's realistic assessment of the debate. Like I say, it's too bad Ehrman doesn't man up and debate the actual knowledgable scholar on this.

I know Carrier is very smart and all that s***, but is he an expert in New Testament studies and history? Is he a University professor? He may be right, but I think he needs to convince his peers first.

Thanks for posting this, Philo Sofee. It's interesting to see that at least my impression of Robert Price's performance was not completely biased. ;)

Reading through his assessment, I have to say it may have made for a better debate if he was there instead of Price but it's also much easier to sort out counterarguments from an armchair than at the podium so who knows if it would have been a knock down fight or just a different way of talking past one another.

I do think it's telling Carrier failed to respond to the one place Bayesian Probability came in the Q&A because it's the one place he is specifically mentioned by both parties. One would think he'd have taken some time to address the argument.

oh s***! Bob price is just one year older than Bart Ehrman. Poor Bob.

Philo Sofee wrote:http://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/11435
This is Carrier's realistic assessment of the debate. Like I say, it's too bad Ehrman doesn't man up and debate the actual knowledgable scholar on this.

Uh, are you saying that Bob Price is not a knowledgeable scholar?

I agree with Kishkumen on this. Of the three, Carrier, Fitzgerald and Price, Price is the one who knows his stuff when it comes to Christian origins specifically. Philo, I really don't understand your approach here.

Did you listen to the presentations I linked to above? I think it might just change your opinion of Robert Price. When it comes to early christian origins, he really is in another league altogether, and I mean that as no disrespect to Carrier.

DoubtingThomas wrote:

Philo Sofee wrote:http://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/11435
This is Carrier's realistic assessment of the debate. Like I say, it's too bad Ehrman doesn't man up and debate the actual knowledgable scholar on this.

I know Carrier is very smart and all that s***, but is he an expert in New Testament studies and history? Is he a University professor? He may be right, but I think he needs to convince his peers first.

is the only way to be correct these days is be a university professor?

Kishkumen wrote:

Philo Sofee wrote:http://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/11435
This is Carrier's realistic assessment of the debate. Like I say, it's too bad Ehrman doesn't man up and debate the actual knowledgable scholar on this.

Uh, are you saying that Bob Price is not a knowledgeable scholar?

No I'm not. But it's obvious he's in no shape to actually debate. Whereas Richard Carrier most certainly is capable of holding a very good debate. But Bart Ehrman withholds. It's not a surprise.

Mary wrote:I agree with Kishkumen on this. Of the three, Carrier, Fitzgerald and Price, Price is the one who knows his stuff when it comes to Christian origins specifically. Philo, I really don't understand your approach here.

Did you listen to the presentations I linked to above? I think it might just change your opinion of Robert Price. When it comes to early christian origins, he really is in another league altogether, and I mean that as no disrespect to Carrier.

I think I am being misunderstood. I'm well aware that Price is very knowledgeable about Christian Origins. His book pre Nicene New Testament is simply outstanding. But I'm also aware that Richard Carrier is also very knowledgeable about Christian Origins. But because he doesn't teach at a university he is pooh poohed. It's just too bad that's all.

Philo Sofee wrote: is the only way to be correct these days is be a university professor?

Not necessarily, but like I said he needs to convince his peers first. If he fails to convince them, why on Earth should he convince us?