Freethought Nation

most credentialed academics don't deem Holding worth their time

That's right, nobody in their right mind would waste their time on Holding.

No, that was directed at "credentialed academics" like Carrier.

Yeah, I suspected as much.

I'm not too familiar with Carrier. I had The God Who Wasn't There once upon a time, and liked what he said. But man, from what I've gathered on here, he's as bad as Ehrman in that he places peer approval in higher priority than logical conclusions from the facts. They both seem transparent in their fear of being academically blacklisted by treading into forbidden waters, so to speak.

And I just may take you up on your offer to corroborate on this, when the time rolls around.

Me: I find it very interesting that Holding here show's his true colors by making denigrating comments to the reviewer instead of getting into a dialogue. I had always wondered why Holding never got any degree beyond a Masters in Library Science, these comments pretty much show it. Holding, you need to drop the snide, arrogant and denigrating comments towards a persons character and actually address what is said otherwise you end up looking like a child who can't take criticism.

Holding: A dialogue with Grubb, with what HE is saying??

I guess there's only two questions to ask: What psychiatric medications do you have prescriptions for? And why have you stopped taking them?

Me: So Holding, your going to attack my character instead of taking an obvious criticism? Not much else I can expect from someone who lied about their review of Price's work "Deconstructing Jesus" when you stated that Price believes Jesus was killed by his Apostle when he is clearly using an interpretive study to put forth an obvious reconstruction of the scapegoat ritual as is laid by Bultman, but never applied to the Gospels themselves. Are you only interesting on those comments that support you (i.e. kiss your ass apologetically) or are you going to take criticism where it is do?

Holding: Snooooree...what "character" would that be that you have? Papa Smurf? Interesting charge there re Price, do you mind quoting it? There seems to be nothing of the sort in my review onsite at http://www.tektonics.org/books/pricedeconrvw.html and I certainly haven't reviewed the book on Amazon. Of course, if you're a fan of Price you're automatically a lunatic anyway, of the sort who thinks making an arrogant pose is an "argument".

Me: It doesn't surprise me one bit that you removed the statement there, you have been known to have removed statements from your reviews and articles silently when people accuse you of misrepresenting someone and then you claim you haven't. Didn't think you think so low as to remove it to increase your credibility when in reality you lowered it. I read it as apart of your review of the book after I read Deconstructing Jesus, I had to face palm so hard when I got a headache. As far as me being a lunatic, well I'm sorry but that my dear friend is simply an associative ad hominem.

Unlike you however I have read the works of Martin Noth, Raphael Patai, Robert Graves, Walther Eichrondt, Mark S. Smith, Philip R. Davies and many other sources that are academic of the Bible, comparative mythology, literary critics, etc... I have even read some of the sources you seem to give to debunk the whole pagan parallel aspect of Christianity, yet I find it interesting that it's not the sources you use that make me think your a joke, but its what you don't mention. For example, the old acclamation that there are no dying rising gods before the 2nd century, which is a position you yourself support, yet one of the sources used being Dr. Mettinger, actually states the very opposite.

This is why I find you arrogant Holding, you cite Christian Apologists in a round about manner that is tautological and acting as if they are experts in some manner and then go around and making long candid rebuttals to books and papers that could be summed as "[insert name here] is wrong and I'm going to selectively quote and reference my sources and ignore the fact that many of them corroborate the claim I am debunking." This is why nobody in the academic community takes you seriously Holding, because you have an academic understanding to that of the beginning of the end of the Inquisitional area when the age of enlightenment began than that of modern academia.

I find the very fact that I have given a simple criticism of you, and yet here you are denigrating my character instead of taking the criticism as it is as a reason that reminds me of why I never bothered to purchase your book "Shattering the Christ Myth" in the first place (I have read it in fact, just haven't owned it yet), its because any criticism will just encourage a snide remark from yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/review/RR29UBIBEE ... TARK0PBYG2

OK I've read that three times now and Holding doesn't make any sense. It is like he speaks/writes much but says little. In other words, he didn't say anything with all those words. Gee, I've never read any of his books nor do I have any intentions to read any of his books, but I wonder, do his books read much the same?