Comments on: Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:44:04 +0000

In reply to Cruz. Actually everyone can leave a comment you doddlehead (unless they have specifically been banned for violating the comments policy). Theirs just go to moderation first. Your folly is already adequately established there. But let's add one more nutball to your pill of nuttery: just randomly calling someone a fraud because your comments go to moderation is the behavior of a child; and doing so without any evidence establishing the claim (fraud about what?) is the behavior of an immoral child. Given the article you are commenting on, I am led to suspect you might be a Christian. I don't know. But it would be on point.

By: Cruz

Cruz — Thu, 19 Sep 2024 03:14:49 +0000

You know why patrons and select persons only can leave a comment, you are a fraud and you know it.

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:33:04 +0000

In reply to Philcoxia. Those aren't logical arguments. Clement wrote in Greek. Tacitus in Latin. Tacitus does not mention Paul. Clement does not mention any of the details found in Tacitus. We therefore cannot conclude Clement had ever even heard of the story Tacitus relates. Clement says Paul died in Spain (the "furthest bounds of the West"), in 1 Clem. 5:5-6. He does not actually mention Paul being executed. Nor ever mentions anyone dying in Rome. Ignatius does not say anything as to where Paul died or how or why or by whom. See my sections and bibliography of scholarship on Clement and Ignatius in Ch. 8 of On the Historicity of Jesus.

By: Philcoxia

Philcoxia — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:18:47 +0000

It is claimed that First Clement actually indicates that Paul was martyred in Rome, because the verbiage there is nearly identical to the account of the Neronian persecution of the Christians by the Roman
historian, Tacitus. Also, the bishop of the Christian church at Antioch, Ignatius, supposedly wrote about the martyrdom of Paul in his Letter to the Ephesians. See here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/03b8/332953617735685c779abc44a2bc8a8a7812.pdf pp. 238-240

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:32:06 +0000

In reply to Dr. Robin Harwood.

Thanks! Please send to: rcarrier@infidels.org

By: Dr. Robin Harwood

Dr. Robin Harwood — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 06:05:32 +0000

I can send a scan. What e-mail address do I send it to?

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:10:20 +0000

In reply to Robin Harwood. If you can send me an offprint (maybe a PDF or scan?) I'd appreciate it.

By: Robin Harwood

Robin Harwood — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 08:07:16 +0000

I thought I had already covered this.
See
“Dying for it.”
Philo, Vol 2, Number 2, 1999

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:31:13 +0000

In reply to Richard Carrier. (P.S. I should allow that some non-fundamentalist specialists do at least allow the possibility John was written in the 90s. But not as a definite conclusion. And they generally all agree John used Luke as a source, so the specialist dating now of Luke to the 90s puts John unlikely so early.)

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:11:39 +0000

In reply to Scott Scheule.

Wow. That’s weak. They actually aren’t embarrassed that’s their rebuttal?

I especially like how he insists there are specialists on John alive today who date it before 100 AD. And then doesn’t name a single specialist on John alive today who dates it before 100 AD.

I will assume he means fundamentalists. I don’t count fundamentalists as reliable scholars. Any more than I count astrologers as reliable astronomers.