Originally posted by FMF
I 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. ...[text shortened]... e tasked with spreading the word". I can see how it made sense to those writers 2,000 years ago.
Two thousand years down the road and just 2.4 billion people claim to be Christians and 5 billion do not.
Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
If what you are arguing is the case then there is an historical Jesus. Carrier's argument is that there is not an historical Jesus. The point is that while that argument might undermine the resurrection (personally I don't think so) it does not undermine the historicity of Jesus. There are a number of ways of approaching that, but talking about the resurrection story being implausible isn't one of them. For an atheist not to believe that one is a given. For an atheist not to believe there was a person called Jesus of Nazareth who had a following and was executed by the Romans is somewhat different, and I don't think it can be achieved by trying to pick holes in the resurrection story.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree, but as I note above, the debate was not about the historicity of Jesus but about the resurrection story specifically.
For an atheist not to believe there was a person called Jesus of Nazareth who had a following and was executed by the Romans is somewhat different, and I don't think it can be achieved by trying to pick holes in the resurrection story.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm not sure what you are talking about. I accept the historicity of Jesus. I didn't think that was what Carrier was talking about.
If what you are arguing is the case then there is an historical Jesus. Carrier's argument is that there is not an historical Jesus.
Edit: Oh I see twhitehead has beaten me to it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadbased on elements of the gospels that were clearly made up
Do 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.
I am sure you can find other mythical figures with similarly specific stories if you look.
evidence nil
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFWell, 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.
[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]
Its a thought. And in response to the thought, I would say -
Yes, I love the Lord Jesus and have a vested biased toward Him.
Having confessed that I protest a little.
What makes sense, regardless, is that the manner in which Jesus behaved over the period of 40 days from the time of His having raised from the dead and His ascending to heaven, has much consistency with how He manifested His new state to the world.
If you look at Luke, Acts, and John you should see that over the 40 day period from His rising, He appeared and was hidden to the disciples' sight. They saw Him. And then He vanished from their sight. What was He doing?
He was training them to live with Him in a new mode. Though they cannot always SEE Him He is nonetheless WITH them. He trained the disciples to live by His unseen presence.
He trained them well. They became the solid foundation lay for a Christian church which must pass through centuries of opposition from all sides.
Acts said He appeared over a period of 40 days with many infallible proof of His resurrection. ... many infallible proofs. A proof that He desired to pass down the ages was that men would learn to live by His invisible presence.
A sensational grandstanding in the center of Jerusalem may have met our priorities as sensationalists. God was interested in the testimony of men and women who could not be shaken because they walked by FAITH and not by SIGHT.
He said He was with them all the days, even to the consummation of the age.
He lived IN the followers as the Spirit of Christ.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere have been thousands of myths and legends concocted over the millennia.
How 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 Ma ...[text shortened]... ee
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate
How many of them have you [not a historian of any stripe] heard of?
Thus how significant do you think your "I can't think of any right now" position is?
Also, Carriers claim is that [as was common at the time] people claimed to have visions
and dream revelations from and of deities/angels/spirits/whatever which lead to new sects
and splits and religions popping up all over the place as different people had visions of different
things. A solution sometimes used was to essentially ret-con the stories to make the divine
figure a flesh and blood person who actually existed on Earth and that the prophets were not
people who just had visions but were people who actually met the person in question.
And thus the keepers of the religion gain much more control because they can say to anyone
claiming a 'vision' that "no we actually met the guy and that's not what he said".
Making such a claim requires both that this person exist at a specific time and place AND that
this person didn't do anything that would be clearly and demonstrably false. [like claiming that
this figure defeated the Roman empire and literally 'save' the Jewish peoples from it's tyranny.]
There are many examples of this kind of thing occurring at that time in history and the Jesus
myth fits the pattern perfectly.
The relative probability of the myth hypothesis vs the historical hypothesis is thus higher.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo can we take it that:
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]
--------------------------------------
First "we can take it" that I am not reluctant to discuss a video link about Richard Carrier, as you insisted. That's the first thing "we can take."
1. Richard Carrier has his facts right
--------------------------------------------------
I don't think I ever said he had absolutely no facts right.
We can take that also.
I haven't touched the matter of his making Jesus a copycat dying and rising god rehash.
That is where , in the other debate with Gary Habermas, I thought he didn't seem to know the facts.
Mind you, that was in another link which was not the last one I posted between Craig and Carrier.
2. The irony does exist and is most likely constructed deliberately either by the author of the Gospel or by God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not argue at all that some symbolism was employed by the Evangelists.
Here's an example. In the sign that Jesus did which John says was the first sign He performed in John 2, the chapter begins with the words -
"And the third day a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee ... " (John 2:1)
Here Jesus performed the sign of turning water into wine. And John writes -
"This beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed into Him." (v.11)
1.) It is difficult to know what the writer means by the words "And the third day". We do not really know "the third day" from WHAT day.
Is it a symbolic literary device of some kind? I would say with Richard Carrier, Yes. Probably "the third day" has some symbolic connection to Jesus being raised from the dead on the third day.
I allow the writer to include this "hint, hint, hint" in his style of recording what Jesus did.
It doesn't mean what is being told did not happen.
2.) Since John writes that this sign was "the beginning of signs" , it was being referred to to establish an underlying principle, a beginning, a basic operating procedure about the life and ministry of Jesus, which in my opinion is that the Son of God came to turn our death into life.
Water turned into wine signals death turned into life.
Maybe someone interprets it differently. Maybe someone thinks there is no need for interpretation. But, that John is probably employing symbolism, I would not argue against.
And other cases abound in the Gospels.
3.) John most likely, deliberately recalled and selected details which help help to establish his particular burden about Jesus. John says in the end of his Gospel that Jesus did more things then could be written in enough books to fill the whole world. But THESE particular things you are reading, are reading for the writers purpose that we may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and may have life in His name.
So it is propaganda. History can be propaganda too. And there is false propaganda and there is true propaganda. Needless to say I take John as propaganda of the TRUE type.
His message is to be propogated. And he does employ some literary devices in that effort -
IE. "And the third day ..." -
Latter in the very same chapter Jesus tells the people that in THREE DAYS He will raise up His body if they destroy it.
"The Jews then answered and said to Him, What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things?
Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then the Jews said, This temple was built in forty-six years, and You will raise it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body." (John 2:18-21)
Sure, John used the three day motive to hint at something about Christ's resurrection and Christ changing death into life.
Verse 1 - "And the third day" ... He changed six pots of water into six pots of sweet wine.
Verse 19 - "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
At the time of these events, the significance was probably not noticed by the learning disciples. But afterwards, they grasped deeper significance. And this is indicated by the admission of verse 22.
"When therefore He was raised from the dead, HIS DISCIPLES REMEMBERED that He had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken." (v.22)
Years latter, as an aged man, the apostle John selected aspects of the life of Jesus and employed some symbolic writing too, to convey his true propaganda for generations to be enlightened as he was.
I simply disagree with Richard Carrier that such obvious usages of symbolism HAS to mean that fiction is being written.
I'll give it to Dr. Carrier that a lot of history we know is not written this way. I'll concede that. But I would follow that record of the life of Jesus Christ is not a typical human life, nor did He do typical human things.
I see no reason to think this HAS to be evidence of myth writing.
I think you are treading on dangerous ground there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it is dangerous ground. I'm willing to tread it.
That some men said -
"Guys, this is big. I mean this is really big, this Person Jesus. We are going to write a history of this Person as nothing has ever been written, because no one ever was like this Person Jesus of Nazareth."
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your final statement is unfair and a reversal of what William Lane Craig pointed out. It was Richard Carrier who did not stick to the agreed upon topic of debate. So I think your final accusation against Craig has it exactly BACKWARDS.
As to the first part of your paragraph, you seem to be looking for a record of the life of Jesus which has all the humdrum "who cares?" earmarks of an ancient atheist tasked to write such things.
I regard John as writing a biography of an astounding Person whose impact on his own life was great. He was aged and knew he was about to depart from this earth. And he set about to pen down an extraordinary life of an extraordinary Person.
I can comment on his examples, one by one, as I am allowed time
Originally posted by sonshipAnd I have noted that it is not a video in which he defends the hypothesis that Jesus is not a historical character. I have also noted that nothing in the video supports your earlier claim:
First "we can take it" that I am not reluctant to discuss a video link about Richard Carrier, as you insisted. That's the first thing "we can take."
And to those interested, cross examinations from a few experts who can stand up to Richard Carrier is in order:
I don't see any discussion of this cross examination or 'standing up' to him. Do you feel that in that video William Lane Craig was able to either cross examine or stand up to him? I haven't watched the whole thing, but it is clear from the part I watched that Carrier had a solid case.
I don't think I ever said he had absolutely no facts right.
We can take that also.
We can at least agree that you didn't point out any errors in his facts.
I allow the writer to include this "hint, hint hint" in his style of recording what Jesus did.
It doesn't mean what is being told did not happen.
...
Needless to say I take John as propaganda of the TRUE type.
...
I simply disagree with Richard Carrier that such obvious usages of symbolism HAS to mean that fiction is being written.
What Richard Carrier shows is that the most rational explanation (and in some cases, the only rational explanation) is that fiction is being written. But what you appear to be missing is that Richard Carrier does not require for his argument that you accept that it is DEFINITELY fiction. The debate was all about whether or not the documents, when viewed from a non-theistic stand point support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Clearly they do not. Richard Carrier is a historian and is viewing the documents from a historical perspective and asking what the best interpretation is. So far you have given me no reason to disagree with him.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Some misc. comment to googlefudge:
Also, Carriers claim is that [as was common at the time] people claimed to have visions and dream revelations from and of deities/angels/spirits/whatever which lead to new sects and splits and religions popping up all over the place as different people had visions of different things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I find it curious that some modern people seem to think they invented skepticism in the 20th Century. People 2,000 years ago could be cynical and skeptical about someone's vision too. Just because so-and-so claimed a vision doesn't mean all first century folks automatically harbored no skepticism about it.
It should be asked if, say, Paul, who authored some 13 of the 27 New Testament books, encouraged everyone to have visions or easily gave credence to them. According to his advice to the church in Colossi, he did not encourage congregations to run after every so called vision someone claimed to have:
" Let no one defraud you by ... dwelling on the things which he has seen, vainly puffed up by his mind set on the flesh, And not holding the Head [Christ] ..." (See Col. 2:18)
Did Paul speak of his vision of Christ ? Yes, on occasion.
Did Paul urge everyone to go out and have visions and bring all their visions to the meetings of the churches ? No.
He warned the Colossians, some people are vainly puffed up by a natural mind ( a mind set on the fallen flesh ) and not at all "spiritual", who may stand upon this or that "vision" they claimed, of angels or something else.
Paul says such excessive attention to visions could "defraud" the Christians of their experience of Christ.
Furthermore, Paul had visions which he apparently KEPT PRIVATE for about 14 years. In his Second Corinthian letter, he says he is being FORCED by them, in their skepticism of the authenticity of his apostolic authority, to speak as a bragging fool. He mentions some unusual experiences which he seemed to have not TOLD the congregation about for fourteen years. And he does so very reluctantly.
" What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord but as if in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting." (2 Cor. 11:17)
He is saying, that if some so-called more super qualified "apostles" are boasting, he is forced to have to speak like a fool and show that he has genuine experiences of a supernatural type. And these experiences he did not previously brag about to anyone.
" To boast is necessary, though indeed not expedient; yet I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I know a man in Christ, FOURTEEN YEARS AGO (whether in the body I do not know, or outside the body I do not know; God knows) such a one was caught away to the third heaven.
And I know such a man (whether in the body or outside the body, I do not know; God knows), That he was caught away into Paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not allowed for a man to speak.
On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on behalf of myself I will not boast, except in my weakness." (2 Cor. 12:1-5)
1.) Rather than this being frequently spoken of as an extraordinary vision of experience of Paul, he kept the matter quiet for 14 years. This is not the behavior of one out and out encouraging visions, dreams, and unusual supernatural encounters as the daily stuff of spiritual life.
2.) Paul PREFERS to boast in how, through the weakness he suffered in various adverse situations, Jesus Christ gave him the grace to endure hardships. If he would boast it would be in how Jesus empowered him in all of his human frailty while working for the kingdom of God.
The issue is "What did the Apostle really encourage?" Though he had transcendent visions, transcendent visions was not the daily staple he taught the congregations under his care to go chase after.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
A solution sometimes used was to essentially ret-con the stories to make the divine
figure a flesh and blood person who actually existed on Earth and that the prophets were not people who just had visions but were people who actually met the person in question.
And thus the keepers of the religion gain much more control because they can say to anyone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this means that Christ was fictional. The opposition of religion TO Jesus testifies that, yes, the religionists were power hungry, jealous, controlling, and held tightly to their positions.
It is true that some of this bad behavior has infested the church to this very day.
I don't blame it on Jesus nor do I count it as proof that Jesus was a fictional myth.
The fact that the religionists hounded Him and persecuted Him to Calvary's execution shows His opposition to that degradation rather than His compliance with it. He stood apart from it. And that should be the point the dullest reader should get from reading the four Gospels.
claiming a 'vision' that "no we actually met the guy and that's not what he said".
Making such a claim requires both that this person exist at a specific time and place AND that this person didn't do anything that would be clearly and demonstrably false. [like claiming that this figure defeated the Roman empire and literally 'save' the Jewish peoples from it's tyranny.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I read the New Testament, I see that there is some place for people having a vision.
Visions are not exalted to the high heavens as googlefudge implies.
The Apostle Peter does refer to his experience on the mount of transfiguration, when Jesus was transfigured before the sight of the three disciples. But rather than place too much emphasis on that experience, he instead points his readers to the words of Scripture. And Scripture at that time was mainly the Hebrew Bible.
Here Peter talks about the experience:
"For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to him by the magnificent glory:
This is My Son, My Beloved, in whom I delight.
And this voice we heard being borne out of heaven while we were with Him in the holy mountain.
And we have the prophetic word made more firm, to which you do well to give heed as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the morning star rises in your hearts;
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of one's own interpretation; For no prophecy was ever born in the will of man, but men spoke from God while being borne by the Holy Spirit." ( 2 Peter 1:17-21)
While Peter does speak of the mount of transfiguration vision, his final emphasis is NOT on that so much. Rather it is on the Scripture and its prophecies. He says his vision made "more firm" their belief in what the prophetic Scriptures taught.
He is not encouraging everyone to chase after visions. He is encouraging them all to take seriously the words of the prophetic Scriptures, mainly at that time the Old Testament.
The existence of the Christian church should not be blamed so much on thousands of people claiming unusual supernatural visions.
What about the 500 that Paul said saw the risen Jesus at one time in First Corinthians 15? It should be obvious that it is hard for 500 hundred people to have the identical same hallucination at one time.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Secondly, Paul tells his audience that MOST of those witnesses are still alive at the time of his writing to confirm or deny what Paul is saying.
" And that He [Christ] appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep ..." (1 Cor. 15:5,6)
This is not "Once upon a time in a far off galaxy". This is " I am writing to you people that the majority of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus are alive at the moment you are reading this letter. The majority can vouch ye or nay to the validity of what I am writing to you about Christ's resurrection. "
And again, like Peter, his more chief supplied source to nourish their confidence is SCRIPTURE -
" For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES;
And that He was buried , and that He has been raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ... etc. etc." (vs. 3-5)
Eyewitness is important, no doubt.
Scripture is more important.
Recall Jesus words to the scientific Thomas who demanded empirical proof before he would believe any longer.
" Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)
By far, the epistles of the New Testament are aimed at nourishing belief in the Scripture's word, not to the exclusion of vision, but certainly over any emphasis on visions. (The book of Revelation might be an exception).
Originally posted by sonshipCarrier makes it clear that Paul himself claims to have had such visions and specifically states that his information came from such visions. He also mentions that such visions were so common that Paul had to try and rein them in. So it seems that you are at least in agreement that people claiming such visions was common place at the time.
It should be asked if, say, Paul, who authored some 13 of the 27 New Testament books, encouraged everyone to have visions or easily gave credence to them.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
And I have noted that it is not a video in which he defends the hypothesis that Jesus is not a historical character. I have also noted that nothing in the video supports your earlier claim:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The video of which I have made several comments has Carrier argue that certain literary devices mean the Gospels are myth. Because of this Jesus is not a fictional myth, according to Carrier's arguments on
me:
And to those interested, cross examinations from a few experts who can stand up to Richard Carrier is in order:
I don't see any discussion of this cross examination or 'standing up' to him.[/b]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are trying to dictate what I must discuss.
I am discussing certain arguments of Carrier which I understand you to insist I wouldn't do.
You're moving the goalpost around as I expected.
Do you feel that in that video William Lane Craig was able to either cross examine or stand up to him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're are trying to dictate what I must discuss.
I put up a link to a Carrier debate with Craig.
I made my comments about his ideas.
I don't need to reiterate verbatim William Lane Craig's arguments to satisfy your strict setting of criteria for discussion.
Ignore me if you want by claiming I have to be talking about something else to met your dictates.
I haven't watched the whole thing, but it is clear from the part I watched that Carrier had a solid case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave reasons for my not agreeing with your "solid case" assessment of some of his arguments. You can ignore them if you wish by insisting I should be writing about something else.
I will look into his case about Cleopas in Luke as I find time.
He says the Cleopas story is some rehash of some secular writing.
I don't know anything about that and would have to watch again to see if Craig addressed it.
We can at least agree that you didn't point out any errors in his facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment about wrong facts was concerning a video which I did not supply as the last video which I suggested you watch before I discussed it.
I told you that before. The video concerning which I thought Gary Habermas exposed errors in Carrier's facts was another one.
In the video I made comments on I was not trying to highlight erroneous facts. I was discussing concepts of Carrier about the mythic nature of the Gospels.
Just before this series of posts I have made I specified which video you should watch which I would discuss:
Start at about 31:00 of Richard Carrier's talk here in his debate with Craig.
And I'll tell you the problems I have with his arguments.
Evidence and argument is not persuasion. I don't promise you that you are going to accept any "proof" of anything. And that is especially the case when you can move the goalpost around indefinitely.
But if you want to defend Dr. Carrier, I think his way of inventing motives for the Gospel writers supplying certain details of the Gospel accounts tells us much more about his skepticism than anything else.
Start at 31:00. And I'll enumerate the assumptions made by Carrier that I think a purely his own skeptical imagination.
What Richard Carrier shows is that the most rational explanation (and in some cases, the only rational explanation) is that fiction is being written.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. What he shows to a significant degree is that he begins to reason excluding the possibility of God. he continues his analysis without consideration of the possibility of God. And he comes to his conclusions without consideration of the possibility of God.
He rationalizes with Atheistic presuppositions.
And that is why William Lane Craig concludes his (I believe) first rebuttal with the statement that the main question is "How open are you to the existence of God?"
Check me on it:
I suggest you listen to the comments of Craig beginning at around 59:40.
Backing up even further to Craig's full rebuttal would be nice but I don't expect you to be impressed.
Craig calls some of Carrier's methods "ad hoc" as a professional historian.
But what you appear to be missing is that Richard Carrier does not require for his argument that you accept that it is DEFINITELY fiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed that he said something like that.
But I cannot remember in WHICH video he distanced himself from a complete non-existence of Jesus concept.
Suffice it to say in the video I last supplied he argues for mythic fictional writing of the Gospels.
I have absolutely no desire or intention to misrepresent Richard Carrier.
I think discussion calls for a fair representation of the arguments presented.
The debate was all about whether or not the documents, when viewed from a non-theistic stand point support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Clearly they do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you didn't watch it all. Right ?
So I take the above comment as wishful thinking on your part.
Richard Carrier is a historian and is viewing the documents from a historical perspective and asking what the best interpretation is. So far you have given me no reason to disagree with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To repeat what I said above - Evidence and discussion is not persuasion.
I am not waiting for you to admit "proof" of anything which goes against your stubborn atheistic viewpoint. Others reading along and looking at the video can make up their own minds.
Only this can I give Dr. Carrier - Yes the Person involved is atypical and even extraordinary. And no other history of any other figure quite seems to be like Jesus.
If it is asked "Why don't [EDITED] the biographies of Jesus read exactly like those of say Julius Ceasar ?"
The don't read the same because there are light years of difference between Julius Ceasar and his personality and Jesus of Nazareth in His personality.
Atheist often tell me " But extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence!"
How about they also require extraordinary historical documentation too ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Carrier makes it clear that Paul himself claims to have had such visions and specifically states that his information came from such visions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul's writings and Luke's record of Paul's testimonials indicate Paul referred to his vision of Christ which knocked him on the ground in the presence of others. They knew something was going on, but they didn't know what.
Proportionally, how much space does Paul give in his epistles to the fact that he saw Jesus in His resurrected and glorified state ?
I am no sure of what point you are making in this short post. But I think my response is that by far the greater emphasis on Paul's giving veracity to the whole teaching of Jesus is -
1.) Consistency with Old Testament promises and teaching of Scripture.
2.) The changing of lives Christ was able to do on people's lives.
In the very early written epistles to the church in Thessalonica Paul repeatedly asks the Thessalonians to remember what kind of people the apostles were when they stayed with them.
If you read that First Thessalonian letter, rather than Paul harp on his experience on the road to Damascus, he constantly reminds the young church - what kind of high level of morality he and his co-workers had in their midst. They loved them, like Christ. They cherished them, like Christ. They did not take any advantage of them, like Christ. They were upstanding, upright, and of impeccable integrity, like Jesus Christ.
In essence he reminds that " You remember how we lived and worked among you Thessalonians. Why we were just like Jesus Himself."
Now this is a historical document. This is a window into the minds and goings on of a first century congregation.
According to the ideas of Carrier and others like him, what we should have expected was Paul constantly telling them about how he had this extraordinary experience of seeing Jesus in unspeakable brightness on his way to Damascus.
Paul points much more to the work of Jesus Christ on his life and on the lives of his fellow apostles, as witnessed by the highest ethical living they displayed. And he boldly reminds his reading audience of this as few of us would dare to do.
My point is that the evidence for the reality of Christ being alive and available is by far MORE along the lines of the witness of changed lives. Yes, he does mention his road to Damascus experience. Much more he argues, in essence - "Look what Jesus can do to transform a human soul. Can't you see that Jesus is alive and experiential ?"
Dr. Richard Carrier's priorities that God should do something dramatic in a large stadium, so everyone can nod, and go off to business as usual, with this objective information about Jesus, is one thing.
God and Christ's priorities that the proof of His reality be His power to save men from a fallen sinful life of vanity and emptiness, to communities of living like Jesus, is another.
He also mentions that such visions were so common that Paul had to try and rein them in. So it seems that you are at least in agreement that people claiming such visions was common place at the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what ? I am not suppose to agree with anything Carrier may say?
From the letter to the Colossians, which, incidently, Paul requested to be read to another church, as they circulated his letters around, he is concerned that the wild chasing of visions should be avoided.
He doesn't say they should be avoided for their own sake. He says they should be avoided in the church life because they might distract and defraud the believers from a normal enjoyment of the reality of Jesus Christ.
I think this is significant evidence, historically, for the reality of Jesus Christ as alive and available - which is the central message of the New Testament.
If we only had the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John we would not have the impression that Jesus is no longer on the earth. Neither Matthew or John record His ascending to heaven.
Matthew's final words -
" ... And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20b)
The documents on one hand, say that Jesus ascended to Heaven to be the exalted Lord of all. The documents on the other hand say that He is still here on the earth to be experienced, though He cannot be seen.
An extraordinary Person requires extraordinary historical writings about Him.