- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Carrier is suspicious that the name Lazarus was re-used by John. Luke. he says, used a Lazarus character first.
Now this, I admit, is an interesting thing. We do have a Lazarus in Jesus' teaching in Luke 16. He dies rests in "Abraham's Bosom" while the rich man is punished in Hades.
And we have John 11 about Jesus raising a Lazarus from the dead.
John. Carrier argues, purposely re-used this completely fictitious character and put him in another light.
I want to look into this more. But, more than one Lazarus is as possible as SIX Marys in the New Testament. You also have TWO Jesus'. You have Jesus Christ of course. And you have another Jesus whom Paul mentions as a disciple in one of his epistles.
Colossian 4:11 -
"And Jesus, [greet] who is called Justus; ..."
Oh dear. Two people with the name of Jesus in the New Testament !
I'll look into this. But more than one Lazarus named person may simply be more than one with that name.
Could John have used the name Lazarus after Luke on purpose ?
Maybe. Maybe.
John says a Lazarus, the brother of two prominent female disciples, Mary and Martha, seems like a lot of risky fabrication. The Pharisees wanted to not only kill Jesus. They wanted to get rid of Lazarus in John also, because of his being raised, many Jews believed in Jesus.
Carrier objects that the story is NOT in any of the other Gospels.
Why should all four of the Gospels only share that exact same material ?
There is overlap in many instances. Who insists that there should be nothing BUT overlap? Total overlap and repetition would more be evidence of collusion in a court of law.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Another one of Richard Carrier's complaints is that SURELY ... SURELY the resurrection of Jesus would have been done ANOTHER way. That is, according to Carrier, the account is not reliable because he thinks God should have done this or that INSTEAD.
Why didn't Jesus grandstand His resurrection before the whole city of Jerusalem ?
Why didn't Jesus do everything the way Richard Carrier says God should have done it?
Why would Jesus only appear again to a select group of already fanatical followers ?
I call this the Atheist's theory that "God should have done it MY way."
Richard Carrier's style SHOULD have been the style that God would have Christ rise.
Richard's Carrier's style of having God's Son resurrected is better, more efficient, more practical.
I'll address this below.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It should be noted that SOMETIMES after a miracle, Jesus actually did a counter intuitive action which frankly might surprise us.
Examples:
1.) Mark 8:22-26 - Jesus heals a blind man in Bethsaida. Afterwards He charges the man NOT to go into the city to tell anyone.
" ... and the man looked intently and was restored, and began to see all things clearly. And He sent him to his house, saying, Do not even enter into the village." (v25b,26)
He was to avoid a noisy public display in this case.
2.) Matthew 9:2-13 - Jesus was supernaturally transfigured before three of His closest disciples - Peter, James, and John. On the way down the mountain He strictly commands them NOT to tell anyone about the vision until after His resurrection.
" And as they were coming down from down from the mountain, He ordered them not to relate to anyone the things which they had seen, except when the Son of Man has risen from the dead." (v.9)
Jesus did not always grandstand. He sometimes had His reasons that a matter be kept concealed for a time.
3.) Matthew 8:1 - 4 - Jesus heals a leper and afterward commands the man to tell no one. But rather he should go to the priests and offer the proper gift of gratitude in the case of healing from the disease.
"And Jesus said to him, See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded, for a testimony to them." (v.4)
Jesus was interested in a vindicating testimony. But He was not only interested in the same kind of testimony. In this case the testimony Jesus desired the man to do what Moses commanded in the way of a gift brought to the priests.
4.) Mark 7:31-37 - Here Jesus took a man AWAY from the surrounding crowd in order to perform a healing upon him, opening his ears healing his inability to speak.
"And He took him aside from the crowd privately and put His fingers into his ears, and He spat and touched his tongue (v.33) ... And immediately his ears were opened, and the bond on his tongue was released and he spoke clearly.
And He charged them not to tell anyone. But the more He charged them, so much the more they proclaimed it." (v.35,36)
He had control over the physical body to miraculously heal. But He had a harder time getting them always to follow His command to keep a matter concealed.
No, Jesus was not like the TV evangelist workers who insist on continual grandstanding. Sometimes, the testimony Jesus sought was a changed soul more so than a healed body.
So, in His resurrection, it is understandable that His style was not identical to what we all insist should have happened - appearing on the steps of the Jerusalem temple before thousands.
The public miracles did occur through Peter and the apostles and Stephen and others. But there was also a place for the testifying of morally changed lives that vindicated Christ's teaching and victory over death.
This was a testimony God was also interested in displaying before Christ's former opposers from the educated classes. Unlike Richard Carrier's priorities, God wanted to show that men who had been with Jesus, had become so changed.
"And as they beheld the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were uneducated men and laymen, they marveled and they recognized them, that they had been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13)
Originally posted by sonshipWhy didn't Jesus grandstand His resurrection before the whole city of Jerusalem ? Why didn't Jesus do everything the way Richard Carrier says God should have done it? Why would Jesus only appear again to a select group of already fanatical followers ?
I call this the Atheist's theory that "God should have done it MY way."
Well, you would call it that because you have so much invested in the story that you personally happen to subscribe to. Someone else looking for evidence of divine intervention might say they are questions pointing to the fact that the story Christians believe in doesn't make much sense. No need to send a personalized pout in Richard Carrier's direction. Just a thought.
24 Feb 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWell, to be honest, it is a rather weak argument. From the above posts Carrier's argument seems to be that if God existed and Jesus was the Son of God then there should at least be fireworks to accompany the resurrection. I don't think that this follows, the theology seems to demand that there should be some doubt in the matter so the "revelation to a few" who are tasked with spreading the word makes sense.
[b]Why didn't Jesus grandstand His resurrection before the whole city of Jerusalem ? Why didn't Jesus do everything the way Richard Carrier says God should have done it? Why would Jesus only appear again to a select group of already fanatical followers ?
I call this the Atheist's theory that "God should have done it MY way."
Well, you would call it th ...[text shortened]... much sense. No need to send a personalized pout in Richard Carrier's direction. Just a thought.[/b]
Further it doesn't undermine the historicity of Jesus. It might undermine the notion that the resurrection happened, but that is a different thing. I assume he has better arguments than that one.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAgreed, but to pull out the tired old "God should have done it MY way" arguments shows that he really doesn't have a "better argument".
Well, to be honest, it is a rather weak argument. From the above posts Carrier's argument seems to be that if God existed and Jesus was the Son of God then there should at least be fireworks to accompany the resurrection. I don't think that this follows, the theology seems to demand that there should be some doubt in the matter so the "revelation to a ...[text shortened]... ection happened, but that is a different thing. I assume he has better arguments than that one.
Clearly, Christianity is not about "personal glory". And it's propagated through the years quite well on "word of mouth", without the "fireworks".
Originally posted by sonshipSo can we take it that:
If God exists, there is no reason why God in His providence could not arrange for the irony deliberately.
1. Richard Carrier has his facts right
2. The irony does exist and is most likely constructed deliberately either by the author of the Gospel or by God.
I see no reason to think this HAS to be evidence of myth writing.
I think you are treading on dangerous ground there. It clearly IS evidence of myth writing. What you rely want to say is that you don't think it is conclusive evidence as there are other possible explanations. Richard Carrier doesn't say that it alone is conclusive evidence, instead he gives a long list of examples that in sum are pretty conclusive - and notes that his time was limited and he could easily have produced more evidence but his opponent in the debate did not want to debate that topic.
Why couldn't God arrange that an ironic matter occur under His providence for this all important world event?
He could, but you do seem to concede that Richard Carrier has a point and that there is definite irony in the story.
Basically, Carrier is saying, "I just don't believe it. It is too coincidental to have happened."
No, Carrier is saying that given all the examples, the most reasonable explanation is that it is a mythical account.
In his rebuttal William L. Craig responds the the Gospels are classified by prominent scholars as biographies.
So basically he's got nothing. Noted.
Originally posted by sonshipYet you clearly do so.
I have no desire to misrepresent Carrier's views..
For some reason, Carrier thinks the two dying thieves, one on the left and the other on the right, simply HAS to be a literary device which is myth making "by definition."
That is not an accurate description of Carriers argument in the YouTube video. I suggest you go and watch it again.
Originally posted by sonshipWhich makes Carriers argument that they are not 'embarrassing details' but instead deliberate inventions to make a point, ,more believable.
The purposely inclusion of potentially embarrassing details suggests to many professional historians as evidence of authenticity.
It doesn't HAVE to be mythic symbolism.
But it certainly does look that way and you don't appear to have any counter arguments other than 'well maybe it isn't myth even if it really really looks like it is.'.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think it makes plenty of sense and is perfectly reasonable to wonder why the supposed revelation of God did not manifest itself in a way that would maximize the opportunities for the whole of mankind to achieve "salvation". Two thousand years down the road and just 2.4 billion people claim to be Christians and 5 billion do not. Some revelation that was, then.
Well, to be honest, it is a rather weak argument. From the above posts Carrier's argument seems to be that if God existed and Jesus was the Son of God then there should at least be fireworks to accompany the resurrection. I don't think that this follows, the theology seems to demand that there should be some doubt in the matter so the "revelation to a ...[text shortened]... ection happened, but that is a different thing. I assume he has better arguments than that one.
The narrative and meaning of Jesus' life that Christians subscribe to reads like a God figure that wasn't even attempting to offer "salvation" to all humans. This, to me, smacks of a story rooted in the imaginations and inclinations of a group of writers stifled by the monolithic Roman Empire, whose horizons were severely limited, and whose messiah figure's life ended in the shocking finality of execution and burial.
They would have wanted so much to cling to the hope that he had offered his followers. This was then reflected in the writings about Him that were produced well after His death.
I think it makes sense, in these circumstances, that the theology they generated in those years after their inspirational leader lost his life without there being a clear and unequivocal revelation capable of convincing the whole world [and is still unable to do it] "...seems to demand that there should be some doubt in the matter so the 'revelation to a few' who are tasked with spreading the word". I can see how it made sense to those writers 2,000 years ago.
24 Feb 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow many mythological stories are rooted that precisely in time? Jesus is specified as having been born during the reign of Augustus when they attempted to tax the region which puts his birth around 6 AD [1] and must have died either before Tiberius did as, according to Josephus, Pilate returned to Rome shortly after Tiberius' death which was 16th of March 37 AD [2, 3]. The only other one I can think of instantly is King Arthur, who must have been around after 410 AD and definitely no later than 550 AD. With Jesus we can be quite precise about when he must have lived if he is historical and I do not think that this is common in myths.
So can we take it that:
1. Richard Carrier has his facts right
2. The irony does exist and is most likely constructed deliberately either by the author of the Gospel or by God.
[b]I see no reason to think this HAS to be evidence of myth writing.
I think you are treading on dangerous ground there. It clearly IS evidence of myth writing. What you ...[text shortened]... are classified by prominent scholars as biographies.[/b]
So basically he's got nothing. Noted.[/b]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate
24 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDo you have any argument relating to that or is it just an observation? The precision for Jesus' birth date is based on elements of the gospels that were clearly made up to try an put Jesus' birth in a particular location.
With Jesus we can be quite precise about when he must have lived if he is historical and I do not think that this is common in myths.
I am sure you can find other mythical figures with similarly specific stories if you look.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtFine. Just so long as its clear that Sonships interpretation is not accurate.
There's no point. I am missing a cable and won't be able to hear the sound.
The debate is on the issue: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Carrier demonstrates pretty conclusively that the Gospels contain significant amounts of material most likely made up by the authors to make a point rather than to record history. Sonships objections that reality can seem pretty contrived if God wants it that way seem to me to be very week. Further sonship has not yet found any factual innacuracies in Carriers claims.
Carrier concludes that the gospels cannot be trusted as historical documents.
He then goes on to suggest that other New Testament documents are also not to be trusted as historical accounts in part because Paul specifically states that much of the information he has received came to him in visions and not through direct physical experiences. He also points out that the epistles never mention the 'missing body'.
He goes into a lot more detail than I can list here but his main argument is a counter argument to Craigs claim that the missing body is solid evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.