Yes, I really am debating Richard Carrier...

[Andius]

Hoozah!

[Benson Shays]

The debate video is online!

[jpholding]

The debate video is online!

Very good. I listed it as a favorite on my channel (just Part 1, that should be enough for everyone to get to it all).

[Manwë Súlimo]

Perfect. Now all the world can see Turkel admit to being a Mary. How gay.

[Benson Shays]

Perfect. Now all the world can see Turkel admit to being a Mary. How gay.

Somehow the ominous music accompanying the audio clip from freefromallgods doesn't fit the video.

[jpholding]

Noted the activity over at DJ's blog on this...Harry McCall still hasn't got a grip on the concept of ritual purity, I see...

This ManhattanMC is a real wacko:

We can only hope Dr. Carrier gets a well paying job (with tenure) soon so he doesn't have to debate fools for money in the future.
Holding read a prepared opening statement and then gave an obviously prepared response to the interpolation of the 'woman taken in adultery' (which was almost certain to be mentioned) and responded to none of Dr. Carriers points.

Uh....yeah....that's typical in debates, moron. Mike Licona does prepared statements, and he's the one who gave me tips. So does William Lane Craig. If I didn't do that he'd say I was obviously unprepared for the debate.

This wasn't really a debate. Without his data base, search engines and his 'road rage' insults (apparently fostered by and hidden behind net anonymity-nobody in his physical condition would dare say the things he says online in person) Holding is a toothless paper tiger.

If it wasn't really a debate, then no one won. Yet he later calls it a "clear win" for Carrrier. Funny too how he indicates here that "my" databases, etc equip me, which I have said all along, countless times. So by facetious implication, when I have those things, Skeptics always lose to me. Sounds good to me.

However, of course, if you happen to think that the widely acknowledged interpolation Mark 16:8-9 isn't 'significant', hand wave away the 'harmonization' argument, buy the invented excuses for such interpolations as the 'woman taken in adultery' (being an oral tradition that somehow no one ever thought to include previously?) with no supporting evidence, ignore the many disputes among the best scholars that would seem to indicate that even if we ' have what they had ' we can't even really agree about what 'that' says, and if you imagine that any two bible scholars will ever agree on what is 'significant', I readily suppose you might disagree.

Too bad he's not into explaining why that part of Mark IS significant. It isn't. Re John 8: Invented excuses? I'll tell that to the scholars I got it from. And yes, moron...the nature of oral tradition was such that no one WOULD consider it necessary to include something in a text; the society was primarily oral, and adding in something new like John 8 would not be the default, but the exception. Typical graphocentric prejudice.

And of course, the usual "boohooo look at all the diversity" appeal that subs in this camp for depth critical analysis of positions.

Further, it seems to me that throwing the proposition onto the fulcrum of 'significance' is to opt for Loki's wager-none will agree about where to cleave that neck.

Same as above. This is their excuse for not thinking critically.

Question:
Doesn't ' Peace on earth and good will towards men' have a very different theological sub-text than 'peace to men whom god pleases' ? They would seem to me to be two very different statements about the relationship between man and 'god'.

Dah....yes, but it doesn't really make any difference, as I said in a Forge post:

Another: Luke 2:14 could read “peace on earth, good will towards men” or “peace on earth, good will for men with whom he is pleased.” (I take that reading from the NET Bible; Carrier has it as, “for whom God pleases” on his slide, which I take to be a mistake.) Carrier describes the latter reading as less lofty and more ominous. But this evaluation would not be possible unless we had the later reading, so what would we be missing if the second reading had never existed? Beyond that, it is patently obvious that God, as a patron, would express His good will only towards those that please Him. Indeed, in my own view, the former reading causes my theology far more difficulty than the latter one.

So the further defining social context hands down would tell us which reading is to be preferred, if the mss data did not.

BTW-I've seen Holding argue for biblical inerrancy on several occasions-even going so far as to endorse Philip Comfort's views on the subject. This emphasis on 'significance' represents an evolution' for him.

Yeah, my investigation into how ancient people understood language and communication did cause a refining and correction of certain views about inerrancy, though I didn't actually think the standard Harold Lindsell version of thee doctrine was that sound to begin with. And that's a problem? If you don't do stuff like that, these wackos call you a closed-minded fundamentalist. If you do, on the other hand, they crow about it as though it were some sort of victory too.


Finally, a funny comment from sir_russ:

Holding is a lunatic.

I wish Carrier would slow down. He knows this material so well that far too often even complex concerns are delivered so fast that the listener can't absorb it.

Gee....isn't that what I 've been saying is a major problem with debates all along?

[Benson Shays]

Apologetics blogging is easy when you have Loftus underlings - that's what I'm calling them now, as should you all - providing so much potential material. I was able to crank an entire post out of ManhattanMC's softball arguments.

[Benson Shays]

Somebody condensed the debate into one video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phj5H9NycdY

[Premo316]

A question, Why not just some how incorporate the PowerPoint slides of over the debate video?

[Benson Shays]

A question, Why not just some how incorporate the PowerPoint slides of over the debate video?

I've got another debate in the works. Are you volunteering your services?

[Premo316]

No, I was just wondering if it would be possible to incorporate the PowerPoint slides into the debate video.