Godfrey writes:
I understand that the quote has been taken from a post designed to "exalt" what Richard Carrier has well defined as being:
But in this case the Godfrey's claim about the TF is blatantly false. Can of grace we say that for any other Sign Prophet his mention in Josephus "can tell us nothing more than what was being said about him some sixty years after he was supposed to have lived"? Absurd!![:tomato:]( "Tomato")
![:confusedsmiley:]( "Confused Smiley")
Not only that. Once secured the historicity in such solid way (by a genuine TF), the criteriology (the Criterion of Embarrassment in primis) would make surely, definitely more sense when applied to the Gospels. The Embarrassment would be really about the man and not about an earlier sectarian view.
Thoughts?
(A passage found in a work by the Jewish historian Josephus, even if only partially authentic, can tell us nothing more than what was being said about Jesus some sixty years after he was supposed to have lived.)
I understand that the quote has been taken from a post designed to "exalt" what Richard Carrier has well defined as being:
vague language and gut feelings, leaving us to have to model the logic of what you argue for any point in history in order to discern if it is valid and sound. And when we do do that, we find it’s Bayesian
But in this case the Godfrey's claim about the TF is blatantly false. Can of grace we say that for any other Sign Prophet his mention in Josephus "can tell us nothing more than what was being said about him some sixty years after he was supposed to have lived"? Absurd!
Not only that. Once secured the historicity in such solid way (by a genuine TF), the criteriology (the Criterion of Embarrassment in primis) would make surely, definitely more sense when applied to the Gospels. The Embarrassment would be really about the man and not about an earlier sectarian view.
Thoughts?
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Mon Jan 06, 2025 8:52 am