"To be fair", it is wikipedia so I wouldn't draw a conclusion from it, buuuuuuttttt, Ehrman states that Carrier is one of only two Historians who argues against the existence of Jesus. A cursory look at Ehrman's blog suggests that Ehrman at any rate thinks that Carrier is talking through his hoop.
I was referring to your quoted review.They must have been very busy.
311 ratings, overwhelmingly positive.
I've told you all you have to know about Richard Carrier; if you're unable to perceive him as the charlatan he is; that is your lookout.Beyond the empty futile insults you throw around here, can you back any of this up with an actual argument?
Otherwise we'll consider it your opinion, and ignore it.
I've told you all you have to know about Richard Carrier; if you're unable to perceive him as the charlatan he is; that is your lookout.
His own work refutes itself.Point out why he's a charlatan?
Provide a point by point refutation of his thesis or STFU.
And why would you care? I thought you were one of these sh1te.. I mean 'white nationalist' types who despises Christianity? Didn't you used to refer to Jesus as "Jewsus" over on P.ie?