You mean I don't commit to what you thought you mind read me thinking. When I say "I never said" its because I never said, and you are attributing to me stuff I do not hold nor have claimed to hold. Its not that I 'don't commit to them' its that I don't hold them at all. The problem is you keep wanting me to commit to stuff you made up about me. Sorry, but I am not interested in playing that game.

I am reading through your response. And as I read, "What I mean," will be demonstrated.

tw:
What Richard Carrier shows is that the most rational explanation (and in some cases, the only rational explanation) is that fiction is being written.

me:
In which cases. Give TWO that there is no other explanation except fiction is being written in the Gospels.

If you back off now and rationalize that I don't understand what you wrote, I will probably point out that you don't want to commit to what you wrote.
TWO cases in the Gospels - IT CAN ONLY be fictional writing -

tw: Go watch the debate again, Carrier lists several.

me:
So then, if I don't accept his argument and refute it .... well, it doesn't matter because acceptance is not required. Another unassailable posture.

tw:
No, you have misunderstood. You are free to try and refute his argument. You didn't. You misunderstood his argument.

me:
This argument is something like saying "We know God could not have created the world because that would interfere with the separation of church and state."

tw:
No, not at all.
Its like saying: We know that Last Thursdayism is a perfectly valid philosophy, but if you want anyone else to buy into it, you have to provide evidence.

me:
Richard Carrier is a historian. He is also an Atheist who has a metaphysical bias that not miracle could occur in human history. Or naturalistic explanation should be sought before supernatural explanations.

tw:
Correct.

It is unlikely that the disciples proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead, would include in thier "fiction" that the opposing body of critics buried their Master.
And how do you know that? It seems perfectly likely to me.

And another thing, while I think of it. The contraversy over exactly WHERE this tomb is argues, I think, that the disciples down through the subsequent years were more occupied with the fact that He was not buried but was alive.
Or they knew he was entirely fictional. Note Carriers argument that if Jesus were a real convicted convict they would not have been so eager to announce to the world that he was walking free.

[quote]
It is Carriers position that no such 'powerful enemies of Jesus' existed because neither did Jesus.

tw:
The authorities of the time seemed remarkably unconcerned about the new cult claiming that an escaped convict was on the loose.

tw:
But I must note here that I do not need to 'commit' to explaining this to you. Its not as if I have any strong opinions on the matter.

I think Carrier makes some very good points.

It is not up to me to defend him or commit to anything. I would be interested in anyone who can show that he has made serious errors or can show that his general argument has flaws, but so far you have utterly failed to do either and seem more interested in finding a way to attack me personally by assigning to me views I do not hold or deliberately and maliciously suggesting I have said things I have not.

Sloppy writing on my part.

"Interesting" isn't enough though to establish his saying a resurrection of Jesus is [not] [edited] a good explanation for what happened in Jerusalem and to the 11 apostles.

Originally posted by sonship
That is what I mean by non-committed. This is a disguised tactic to avoid committing to two top arguments that you claim show fiction writing.

No. I do not have enough information do decide either way. I think Carrier makes a good argument in other videos that Jesus is most likely entirely mythological, but I haven't got enough knowledge in the field to know whether Carrier's arguments are well founded. I hopped to see some counter arguments but nobody wants to discuss it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give me two of your favorite arguments from Richard Carrier so it can be discussed.
I tried to ask you before. You said to go listen to the video and find several (or some such similar thing).

So I ask again. From the video, in your next post to me - two of Carrier's arguments you are most impressed with.

If you list them, I will go back and listen if I need to.

Originally posted by sonship
Give me two of your favorite arguments from Richard Carrier so it can be discussed.
I tried to ask you before. You said to go listen to the video and find several (or some such similar thing).

So I ask again. From the video, in your next post to me - two of Carrier's arguments you are most impressed with.

If you list them, I will go back and listen if I need to.

I do not have favourites. I listened to the video once and thought he made a very good argument that the gospels contain mythical material ie were made up and written for purposes other than recording history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that more than just history was being written. But history was being written too. You say "other than". I say history and more were being penned.


All I have seen so far from you in response is something along the line of "Yeah it does look mythical but maybe, just maybe, God intended it that way.'. Hence my reference to Last Thursdayism. Have you read the references I gave on that yet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I did not read about it.
I was looking for what you are not ready to discuss yet.

I do not have enough Biblical knowledge to support any of Carriers claims and do not know how well founded they are, but the fact that you didn't seem to dispute his facts, suggests he got most of it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agreed with a claim or two of his. I did dispute some of his interpretations of things.

He says, there are literary devices in the writing of the Gospels. I can't possibly argue with that. I agree.

There are probably some literary devices in The Diary of Ann Frank too.
Now some of the things Carrier pointed to as symbolism was really his imagination gone kind of wild.

The sequence of the events is different in John from Matthew. Matthew seems to have had a kind of purpose in placing events in the order that he did, to communicate a deeper meaning. So that not just history was being written, I would not disagree with.



I have no real interest in doing the necessary research to see if he is right and am even less motivated given that it would almost certainly turn out that he is right and it would not phase you one bit ie there would be no point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think happened to the body of Jesus ?
How would you explain the empty tomb ?
Do you think His disciples stole away the body and lied about the rising of Jesus ?

Do you think they actually believed He had risen but He had not ?
How did that come to be then ?
Any proposals?

Matthew tells of a story that circulated around Jerusalem until the present day that he was writing, that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus.

"And as they were going, behold, some from the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.

And after the chief priests had gathered with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, Saying, Say this,

HIS DISCIPLES CAME BY NIGHT AND STOLE HIM AWAY WHILE WE SLEPT. [excuse the caps]

And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and make sure that you have nothing to worry about.

And they took the money and did as they were instructed. AND THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN WIDELY SPREAD AMONG THE JEWS UNTIL THIS VERY DAY." (Matt. 28:11-15)

The best I can do for you is put forward my own understanding as it has always been prior to ever hearing of Richard Carrier:
The story of Jesus' birth in a manger and three wise men

following a star and coming to visit him then Herod ordering a whole lot of babies killed etc. Even the story of his mother being visited by an angel. None of that seems to me to be the sort of thing a writer many years after his death would have knowledge of.

" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us,

Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,

It seemed good to me also, having carefully INVESTIGATED all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus,

So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instruct4ed." (Luke 1:1-4)

It seems to me the best explanation is that those parts of the story were made up.

Now I am not necessarily looking at the supernatural elements of the story, but saying that if we take the story from a purely non-supernatural historical perspective, are those parts of the gospels reliable historical records or not? I say, clearly not.
Now you might very well counter that the information came to the writers via divine inspiration or some such, but that would be to entirely miss the point and misunderstand what I am saying just as you appear to not understand Richard Carriers argument.

Can I also ask you this: do you believe the story about thousands of corpses rising from the dead soon after the resurrection and roaming about through Jerusalem is a true story ie do you believe that happened?

Originally posted by sonship
No. I did not read about it.
I was looking for what you are not ready to discuss yet.

Originally posted by sonship
Excuse me. It could be written of IF Mary or Joseph or one of those shepherds or one of those GUARDS, had latter CONTRIBUTED to the journalistic research the Gospel writer was doing to recollect the history.

But how can we have a discussion if you don't know what I am saying? My point about Last Thursdayism is key to what I have been saying. I am starting to suspect you do know what it means by wish to appear ignorant so that you don't have to address it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a similar way you admit that you do not know the text of the New Testament. So it is easy for you to be impressed with Dr. Carrier who often plays fast and loose in his references to passages.

You may be impressed but I am not always that impressed because I have read carefully the NT.

I am watching even more of Richard Carrier now. I have gone on to another debate and Q and A, with questions to both debaters from the audience.


Actually those who have studied the Gospels in detail would say that it is more than just 'a kind of purpose'. There are key differences in many parts of the gospels that have to do with sophisticated literary devices or specific theologies being pushed or the target audience. For example I have heard that Matthew is targeted a Jews, whereas Mark is targeted as non-Jews.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally speaking, I have no objection to each evangelist having his own particular emphasis. And each has his own particular portrayal of the character of Jesus.
He is a King here in Matthew.
He is a Slave there in Mark.
He is a most normal and moral Man in Luke.
He is God Himself incarnate in John[b].

This and other writer specific characteristics of each evangelist has been known.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ as a very profound person requires discussion from different angles and targeted towards somewhat different interests.

This indication does not render the writing not historical.
[b]
What do you think happened to the body of Jesus ?

I have no idea. I strongly suspect that the body never went missing in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you strongly suspect that ? Do you strongly suspect there existed no body of Jesus to go missing for that matter ?
Do you suspect Jesus was never born and thus had no body to do anything ?


I think it is possible that Jesus is entirely mythological and it is possible he existed and was crucified. I think it unlikely that claims about his body being missing are historical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if you only suspect it and do not commit to it, no position is always the easiest to defend.

The early sect of the Docetists didn't believe He could possibly be physical. There reasons were not because there was no Jesus. But their reasons were that they believed He was too good to BE physical.

This is history. Your very early Christian apologetics was not aimed at critics who said "What Jesus? Who is this Jesus? We never heard of any Jesus!." Rather the very early apologetic was aimed at critics who said -

[b]"Jesus, He could not have been physical. He was too good to be material. The material world is bad. This man could not have been flesh and blood like us."

It was to this criticism that John addressed his postscript that blood and water was seen coming out of His body on the cross.

" But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. " (John 20:34)

"And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he says what is true, that you may also believe." (v.35)

" For many deceivers went out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.(v.7)

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not say to him, Rejoice! For he who says to him, Rejoice, shares in his evil works." (v.11)

" ... it would have been impossible for Christianity to come into being in Jerusalem if Jesus' body were still in the grave. The Jewish authorities would certainly have produced it as the shortest and completest answer to the whole affair. But all they could do was claim that the disciples had stolen the body. Thus, the hypothesis of religious enthusiasm, in failing to explain the absence of Jesus' corpse, ultimately collapses back into the hypothesis of conspiracy and deceit, which, Paley remarks, has pretty much been given up in view of the evident sincerity of the apostles, as well as their character and the dangers they underwent in proclaiming the truth of Jesus resurrection." W.L. Craig

" ... the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days latter."

Do you believe such an account (true or false) was indeed circulating around ?

I have not done enough research on the matter to hold an opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, with your quite superior reading comprehension to my own "abysmal" level, why don't you gird on a bit of courage and READ at least Mark or Luke from the crucifixion of Jesus to the end of those gospels.

I am up to my ears in Richard Carrier now, listening to his ideas. He writes that the real myth is that Jesus was buried in heaven ! He never was on the earth. He was a celestial mythic figure, according to Carrier, who gradually took on an earthly existence.

Now, I'll tell you what I think Richard Carrier has done. He has taken his extensive knowledge of non-canonical writings of every spurious kind and used them to say - "The Gospels were made out of these other ideas."

He has taken his knife of textural criticism to cut up in hundreds of pieces the New Testament and thoroughly separate from each other the pieces. "Divide and conquer" - an old technique. "Kill the beast, by cutting it up into pieces." Then Carrier stitches together the pieces with the threads of his voluminous knowledge of apocryphal and spurious religious writings from whatever century he wants, and tries to re-invent Jesus.

To make an analogy with, let us say, a American rock star - Elvis Presley. Now I can vouch that a rock star Elvis Presley was a real person. Yet a whole lot of nonsensical things about Elvis Presley have been said and claimed and written in scandal magazines, pop entertainment magazines, Elvis memorabilia shops, Elvis sightings, Elvis wannabe imitators, etc. etc.

Two thousand years from now, some future historian could collect all the nonsensical things written around Elvis worshippers and claim -

"It is doubtful that Elvis Presley ever existed. The myth was produced out of all this material I have researched. From this piece and that piece and this piece and that piece, gradually a historical person was concocted who never really lived."

I do not like to put the two men to compare with each other. But the point is made. Richard Carrier has lain his hands on a plethora of spurious and some more serious religious literature to argue that these are the sources of a wholly imaginary person.

He calls Paul outright a liar. "Paul lied" about this and that, Carrier says. I think Carrier is projecting his own style onto an Apostle Paul.

Originally posted by sonship
Well, with your quite superior reading comprehension to my own "abysmal" level, why don't you gird on a bit of courage and READ at least Mark or Luke from the crucifixion of Jesus to the end of those gospels.

Because I just can't be bothered. And no, it wouldn't take courage, just time. I am not scared of reading the Bible any more than you are scared of reading the Harry Potter books.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because it is a good case (if it would be) doesn't make it true.
Plenty of consistent arguments lead to conclusions which are false.


And he makes a remarkably good case.
---------------------------------------------------------

That is easy to be said by someone too apathetic to actually read the documents he is critiquing.


And would they not have a good case? Can you not think of any similar figures that were in fact mythical? Would you like me to list a few?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am more interested in realizing that historians have probably more reason to believe in the historicity of Jesus than in that of Alexander the Great or Tiberius Caesar.


And of course I believe that you project your own style onto the Bible too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two of your most prominent examples from this thread ?
Don't fall back on an argument from apathy.

(And notice, I didn't say you were necessarily wrong. I just request a couple of examples)


What you seem to misunderstand is that Carrier is not necessarily saying 'This is the only possible interpretation, and I know exactly what Paul was thinking when he wrote this'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said Paul lied.
Dr. Richard Carrier has not a tenth of the honesty Paul had, less than a tenth probably.

Here I don't care if he used the word necessarily or not.
I lost respect for the good "Dr." by so much, I find it difficult to waste any more time with him.


Instead he is giving reasonable interpretations as to what Paul might have been on about. So to counter him you need to stop repeating over and over that Carrier hasn't PROVED that the new Testament is entirely Myth, but instead provide some reason to think that your interpretation is better than Carriers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, easy for you to say, hiding behind apathy to actually have to consider the documents seriously.


And importantly, any argument you use should apply equally well to any historical document. So if I apply your reasoning to other religious books of other religions we should not suddenly change the methodology, but you should stick to the methodology and accept the conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------

You cannot examine my reasoning because you are conveniently hiding behind apathy so as not to examine the relevant documents of the New Testament.

Originally posted by sonship
Just because it is a good case (if it would be) doesn't make it true.
Plenty of consistent arguments lead to conclusions which are false.

Originally posted by sonship
Thanks. I asked for it. You provided it.
Sometime this week I'll look at it.