BH: To demonstrate which of two possibilities is the case: that you don't know very much, or that you cannot do "your own research" to re-verify all the things you think you know.
D: But I haven't claimed that things written in the EB are things I know.
BH: What I care about is whether the assertions I believe are well-defended.
D: Interestingly, that is not something you have so far managed to establish.
D: The only source you have offered
D: If the EB had, in fact, based their conclusions on the true scholarly consensus, they would have admitted that neither the date nor the location of Jesus' birth can be determined with any certainty but that a critical examination of the evidence from the Gospels seems to suggest that he was born in Nazareth.
BH: They discuss the conflicting evidence and conclude: "There is also historical evidence of a census carried out about 8 BC. With all of this in mind, many sources estimate the year of birth as 7-6 BC. [..] They note: according to a very old, reliable tradition, the village of Nazareth [..] was the hometown, and then certainly also the birthplace, of the 'Nazarene'"
Both Matthew and Luke's attempts to place his birth in Bethlehem are clearly motivated by a theological desire [...] makes several claims that are not supported by any non-Christian source [...] admits that Jesus' location of origin (i.e. Nazareth) was a source of doubt regarding his identity [...] Of course, if you truly cared about whether the assertions of your sources were well-defended, you would already know this.<bg>
What I have questioned is the wisdom of relying on what you believe to be the consensus of scholarly opinion without making any effort to determine the basis for that consensus.
We should, however, be cautious in accepting their CONCLUSIONS unless we understand the basis.
BH: Truth is about consistency with the largest majority of the evidence, and part of the evidence is the aggregate output of the academic process (as distinct from the opinions of the rabble). Facile mentions of the bandwagon fallacy cannot magically make irrelevant the accumulated body of human scholarship.
but I've seen no evidence that you are even aware of the nature of that accumulated body of scholarship, let alone the evidence given in the Bible.
Perhaps I have been mislead by your reference to "anonymous" letters attributed to Paul and your focus on the Paul described in Acts as though that was the best evidence of the historical individual.<bg>
BH: you either don't know very much, or cannot re-verify the consensus you accept for all the things you think you know.
D: I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude this
EB: many sources estimate the year of birth as 7-6 BC.
D: [..] I don't think you have to be a professional scholar to recognize the numerous flaws in such convoluted reasoning.
D: The vast majority of scholars conclude that the historical Jesus, assuming one existed, was most likely born in Nazareth.
D: You "cleverly" inserted another quote from me in reprinting my words (i.e. "The truth is not determined by a vote.") but you seem to have missed the point entirely. My reference to the conclusion of the scholarly consensus was not in an effort to establish the truth of the claim.
My reference was an effort to point out your own inconsistency. For this subject, you have clearly NOT relied upon the scholarly consensus but on an encyclopedia entry.
BH: They note: According to a very old, reliable tradition, the village of Nazareth [..] was the hometown, and then certainly also the birthplace, of the 'Nazarene'".
D: So you misquoted them before? If this is what they truly claim, then they have done a better job researching than it appeared when you initially (mis?)quoted them.
BH: Despite uncertainity over when/where Jesus was born, "the vast majority of scholars" conclude that he was born.
but, as I've suggested, Doherty makes an excellent case that this claim has been more of an assumption rather than a conclusion based on a critical examination of the evidence.
[Carrier] agrees that Doherty has revealed the majority view to be in serious need of better support and that his contrary thesis cannot be easily dismissed.
BH: By 'anonymous' I was contrasting your "single individual [..] attributed to Paul" with Paul of Tarsus.
D: I still don't understand your use of "anonymous"
Your initial statement included no reference to either "Tarsus" or "Acts".
you FIRST wrote: "If we discovered some new epistle that made odd statements about Paul, would you suddenly doubt Paul's historicity?"
You didn't specify that you meant the Paul described in Acts until the letter dated April 1st
BH: Do you claim that everything Acts says about Paul is ahistorical?
D: Not necessarily
And thus my question about Paul indeed makes sense.
but it should not be taken over or against what Paul tells us in his own letters.
if you had simply checked the website I offered, you would find that the first article begins with the exact quote from Behe's book
"There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems." (pg. 179, 'Darwin's Black Box')
Perhaps a more kind consideration of this statement is that it is a significant exaggeration but I find it to be deliberately misleading at the very least.
I stand by my conclusion no matter how undiplomatically it was worded.
I'm tired of this tangent. My original statement about creationists deliberately making false claims was specific to the original, religiously motivated creationists and not intended to include the more recent ID incarnation.
Again, I enjoyed your rebuttal of Turkel and only had a question about your "eminently conceivable" statement. You have answered that question to my satisfaction so I'll continue on in search of information that might weaken Doherty's case.