My caustic irony in calling Godfrey a Strong Agnostic on Jesus is that, by denying a priori a probabilistic approach, his objective ignorance about the right answer to the question "Did Jesus exist?" may become an arrogant act of dogmatism: "I cannot know if Jesus existed or not" and not at all an act of humility ("At the present, I don't know if Jesus existed or not").
It is a bit dishonest by Godfrey to use against Carrier the radical criticism's remarks about "born by woman" or "seed of David" when he writes:
...since the clear error by Carrier about that point cannot be extended on the probabilistic approach as an entire. As if the probabilistic approach was one and the same with all the Carrier's conclusions!
If Godfrey wants to criticize the Carrier's view on the Christian Origins, then he has to show an alternative scenario. Until now he has not done so. He has only reported views held by others. I fear that this means that the his only alternative to Carrier is a total absence of opinions.
It is a bit dishonest by Godfrey to use against Carrier the radical criticism's remarks about "born by woman" or "seed of David" when he writes:
And on top of all of that a few scholars have offered reasons to think that the relevant passage in Paul’s letter to the Romans about Jesus and the seed of David was a late interpolation — that is, that Paul did not write it anyway!
...since the clear error by Carrier about that point cannot be extended on the probabilistic approach as an entire. As if the probabilistic approach was one and the same with all the Carrier's conclusions!
If Godfrey wants to criticize the Carrier's view on the Christian Origins, then he has to show an alternative scenario. Until now he has not done so. He has only reported views held by others. I fear that this means that the his only alternative to Carrier is a total absence of opinions.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Tue Nov 26, 2024 10:03 pm