FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-2001, 10:27 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Petition for all who want to see Earl Doherty debate Richard Carrier.

Not sure if this has been done already, but oh well.

Respond to this thread if you would like to see Doherty and Carrier argue over the historicity of Jesus.

Also, I would personally like to see it on the Secularist versus Secularist page. There is only one lousy debate there for crying out loud!

Whether or not it is on that page though makes little difference, I still would like to read a debate between those two.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited May 31, 2001).]
 
Old 05-31-2001, 10:31 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Someone7:
Not sure if this has been done already, but oh well.

Respond to this thread if you would like to see Doherty and Carrier argue over the historicity of Jesus.

Also, I would personally like to see it on the Secularist versus Secularist page. There is only one lousy debate there for crying out loud!

Whether or not it is on that page though makes little difference, I still would like to read a debate between those two.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited May 31, 2001).]
</font>
It might be very interesting. Bring em on.

 
Old 05-31-2001, 10:46 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Er... I may be ignorant of some vital conflict between Carrier and Doherty, but given that Carrier wrote the following, I'm not sure that there's much conflict between them:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Having read [Dennis R. MacDonald’sThe Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark], I am now certain that the historicity of the Gospels and Acts is almost impossible to establish. The didactic objectives and methods of the authors have so clouded the truth with literary motifs and allusions and parabolic tales that we cannot know what is fact and what fiction. I do not believe that this entails that Jesus was a myth, however—and MacDonald himself is not a mythicist, but assumes that something of a historical Jesus lies behind the fictions of Mark. Although MacDonald’s book could be used to contribute to a mythicist’s case, everything this book proves about Mark is still compatible with there having been a real man, a teacher, even a real “miracle worker” in a subjective sense, or a real event that inspired belief in some kind of resurrection, and so on, which was then suitably dressed up in allegory and symbol.
However, the inevitable conclusion is that we have all but lost this history forever. The Gospels can no longer support a rational belief in anything they allege to have occurred, at least not without external, unbiased corroboration, which we do not have for any of the essential, much less supernatural details of the story. And if Alvar Ellegård is right (
Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. What is important is not that this can be decisively proven—nothing can, as our information is too thin, too scarce, too unreliable to decisively prove anything about the origins of Christianity. What is important is that theories like Ellegård’s can’t be disproven, either—it is one among many distinctly possible accounts of what really happened at the dawn of Christianity, which MacDonald’s book now makes even more plausible. And so long as it remains possible, even plausible, that the bulk of Mark is fiction, the contrary belief that it is fact can never be secure.</font>
It seems to me that, at best, Carrier is a figurative "weak atheist" with regard to the mythicist case, whereas Doherty is a "strong atheist." A debate between those two perspectives would be unlikely, in my mind, to produce much in the way of fireworks.

- Nathan
 
Old 05-31-2001, 10:49 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Has Carrier actually taken a position? I thought he was still working on the review. And bear in mind that even if ED is willing, he said something about being out of pocket for part (most?) of the summer.

Anyway, as I've said before, assuming Carrier disagrees, I think a debate between the two of them would be enlightening.
 
Old 05-31-2001, 11:11 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I just want to see more good one-on-one debates, period. The Secular Web used to include a number of new ones, such as those involving Michael Martin, Drange and others. Why are there so few new debates? I also liked those audio interviews.

[This message has been edited by Earl (edited June 01, 2001).]
 
Old 06-01-2001, 01:19 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Who is Doherty? I am not sure Carrier would be good at representing the facts. He is too fundamental (like Eisenman).

thanks, offa
 
Old 06-01-2001, 08:07 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Earl Doherty is one of the foremost representatives of the "Jesus Never Existed" Theory, or Christ Myth. For all you'd need to read, just go to his website, www.jesuspuzzle.com

Doherty has also published a book, The Jesus Puzzle.

Other books with essentially the same theory (or that Jesus was believed to have existed in the past but not during Pilate's time) are the Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy, The Jesus Conspiracy, by Acharya S., and many books by GA Wells.

 
Old 06-01-2001, 11:43 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I'll debate anyone on this topic:

Resolved:sentinel00 is a dashingly handsome fellow and excellent lover.

I'll take either side.
 
Old 06-02-2001, 09:12 AM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
I just want to see more good one-on-one debates, period. The Secular Web used to include a number of new ones, such as those involving Michael Martin, Drange and others. Why are there so few new debates? I also liked those audio interviews.

[This message has been edited by Earl (edited June 01, 2001).]
</font>
Well I still want to debate both of them. I promise to use spell check. I just can't figure out how to get them to agree. I can't find Doherty's site, and I haven't had time to write up a proposed topic, But I would like to do it.

I am also willing to debate you. And I've challenged someone to prove that I take my evidence of context, but that would be a bore.

So what do you want to debate Earl? I'll take you on. and I was hoping you would ask Doherty to debate me. I'm still waiting for you to respond on that. Did you not see the post?
 
Old 06-02-2001, 10:29 AM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Metacrock,

I'm not in email contact with Doherty, and I would have no pull with him anyway since I don't know him. You would have to convince him that your debating style is more formal than Nomad's. I doubt very much he'll return to debate at the Secular Web, since apparently his doubts were too well confirmed.

And as I told Nomad I don't have the time now for a serious debate.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.