Blind Guardian missing?

@Fluminator: That is basically my understanding too. But lets not derail this discussion any further. In very broad strokes: I think one reason Christianity was rather succesful was precisely because the "orthodox" positions did not challenge Roman society all that much and thus could be integrated ...

Perhaps we are splitting hairs here. Again, all I am arguing is that on its own waving hands and saying multiple sources proves little...as we see with the resurrection (likely didn't physically happen) or birth of Jesus stories (if he existed he likely wasn't born in Bethlehem). You have to argue ...

I believe Carrier argues not that there may be only one source for the Gospels but that later sources outside the Church (e.g. Josephus/Tacitus) cannot be seen as independent....so these later sources can't be seen as adding any real evidence of Jesus existence. If historians claim sources are "ind...

IMHO I am missing exactly zero points. Didn't you read why I found the other argument more convincing? Because in the other video the professor identified specific things that were common between John and the Synoptics and explained how those specific things may be true. Well i thought most Mythici...

Ok i think i am zeroing in on your misunderstanding. You keep missing the point that those multiple sources are supposedly independent from each other. So by this logic any overlap in any specifics would have to be accidental or otherwise explainable. The factual basis is an entirely different matte...

Deeply_Dippy wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:14 pm

No.

Moving on...

True. At least if you consider the phrasing of the threadtitle.
There is no hint of that whatsoever. To my knowledge there is also no ancient source questioning Jesus´existence. I think that aspect came up in the debate.

The Historical Jesus was better than Ehrman's argument in the debate. He gave specific instances of things he thought may be true: Ehrman in the debate was more "I say there were lots of sources therefore Jesus existed, QED" and made up strawman mythicist arguments to debunk (I haven't heard the "N...

Not sure what position Carrier holds here. But if you consider the early Jesus-movement as an expression of Jewish separatism and anti-Rome and could make sense. This would entail the whole apocalyptic movements but goes beyond those. The persecution of Christians in the early days tends to be exagg...

If you go to Carrier's and Ehrman's blogs (they have gone back and forth many times, there are a lot of such claims of misinterpreting/misrepresenting each other's points... :) Carrier seems to view this debate-format as some sort of sportive event that he can win despite representing a potentially...

You are missing my point. If Jesus-figure were an invention somebody had to invent him. So there has to be a single point of origin. If you think John and synoptics are indepent than there is no explanation why they chose the same name for a mythical figure. I will try to adress other points later b...

Watched maybe half now. Seems like quite a bit willful misunderstanding of Ehrmans points. Some notes and thoughts. - While i understand that historians of ancient and medieval history deal with differing degrees of certainty i find it strange to assign specific probabilities to certain variables. I...

Richard Carrier vs. Ehrman would be a much better debate (Richard Carrier much better explains the mythicist argument)...though perhaps there is too much bad blood between the two. He has a blow by blow rebuttal of the arguments Ehrman brought up in the debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA This debate sums it up quite nicely and is fairly easy to understand for lay people. To my knowledge Price should be considered qualified but his positions hinges on quite a few extremely fringe subarguments which make his conclusions highly speculative si...

Did not yet find the time to read all your posts. so apologies if the system has been suggested already. How about splitting scores 50/50 between SoS (or other ranked distributions) and DSS. Allowing for a more meaningful reward for small nations while still rewarding to some degree the bigger power...

I would argue that an Austrian fleet in Greece is a good argument of allying Austria. If Turkey gets Greece (and thus 5 builds) it is usually > Russia unless crazy stuff happens in the north. Esspecially since Serbia is immediately under pressure. Austrias problem is that Turkey actually profits fro...

Maybe ask yourself beforehand: What do i want to convey to the audience? Might help you focus on certain speficics of the replay. Just for 1901: Russian opening moves. Austro-Italian press (if known) Why should Ger agree to a bounce instead go to Ruhr? Russian moves in Aut 1901. What is Germany supp...

First of all let me say that any such effort should be greatly welcomed by the community. So thanks for effort. Sadly i found it rather useless from an educational perspective. My main point of critique is probably that you should focus on a smaller portion of the game or a very specific topic. You ...

I mentioned it elsewhere:
Taking Triest and using that 5th built vs France is a nice option.
Basically Fleet+Army east, 2 Fleets+Army west.
It is very hard for Austria do play a hard counter here without selfdestruction.
Even in an A/I 5th italian built much more useful than Austrian.

Or the fleet gets build in Naples..
And any Fleetbuilt of Austria should upset Italy.