Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 03-19-2004, 09:37 PM

We are discussing Licona's site (linked in the OP) and giving Carrier's thread some traffic

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-19-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WinAce
Personally, if I was Pilate and learned of some nutjobs running around saying the guy I just had crucified came back from the dead, the *last* thing I'd be concerned with is debunking that nonsense. I'd probably just order them to be hunted down and made an example of, too.

Failing that, I might realize who I'd killed and convert, like in that 3rd century and up Christian literature

Which makes me curious--how do apologists explain the fact that Pilate (not to mention the Sanhedrin) continued to be an ass for years afterwards till his atrocities finally caught up with him? You'd think all those earthquakes and all hell breaking loose would have an impact on his behavior.

But...but...but we have Thallus!

Vinnie · 03-19-2004, 09:48 PM

Licona's section on bias is straight caricature:

Quote:

3. If we reject the content of a book because the author has biases, then we would have to reject most of what we know of the past, since the author is writing on a subject precisely because he/she has interest in it.

This has no respect for "genre" and the "laurels of an author". Everyone has bias by default but not all biased works are of the same caliber. Plus we have with the grain // against the grain criteria for a reason.

Quote:

2. Even some skeptics testified that Jesus had risen and had appeared to them.

Not sure how this helps.

Quote:

Paul was an unbiased witness. In fact, his bias had been against Christianity; so much so that he was persecuting believers. But he converted because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him. James, too, was an unbeliever, who became a Christian because he believed Jesus rose and appeared to him.

Unfortunately Paul having a vision explains the "primary autobiographical" testimony and the confirming picture in acts just as well. An actual resurrected Jesus need not be behind this.

Of course, Licona naturally couples this with the empty tomb.

[quote]1. Recognizing a bias or agenda on the part of an author does not automatically merit the conclusion that he has distorted the facts. [/quot]

True but showing where the evangelists repeatedly did this does.

This debate (slaughter?) should be a no contest if this is the extent of Licona's argumentation.

Vinnie

Toto · 03-19-2004, 10:05 PM

It's a PowerPoint presentation.

What skeptic saw the risen Jesus?

WinAce · 03-19-2004, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
What skeptic saw the risen Jesus?

Me! And if you just abandon all that materialist nonsense and have a bit of faith, you will too! Behold...

The Risen Lord Jesus Christ miraculously appearing on a bandage... or a mere blood stain? You decide!

Vorkosigan · 03-19-2004, 10:24 PM

That is NOT Jesus, that is Sai Baba! A pox on thee, heretic!

Vinnie · 03-19-2004, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WinAce
Me! And if you just abandon all that materialist nonsense and have a bit of faith, you will too! Behold...

The Risen Lord Jesus Christ miraculously appearing on a bandage... or a mere blood stain? You decide!

OMG!!!! ITWS ELVIS! I LOVE YOU, KING!!!!!

ELVIS!!! ELIVIS!!! ELVIS!!!

SING FOR ME!!!!

Toto, he says Paul was a skeptic which is hysterical in one sense and accurate in another.

The reasoning is as follows: Paul = hostile witness cause he persecuted church. Even F.F. Bruce used this (NT Docs). The evidence to convince a critic and persecutor must have been especially strong it is argued.

There isn't much fuzy about this but vision (subjective as opposed to objective to use Licona's terms) explains this just as well. Paul had a "religious experience". Next.

Also James (J's bro) is said to be a skeptic. This is presumably from GJohn which says Jesus' brothers did not believe in him and from GMark where Jesus' family thought he was nuts and tried to grab him.

Unfortunately, we have no writings from James. We have a Rez experience posited by Paul and GosHebrews (circa 80ish???). He must be merging these with Mark and John or probably just merging Paul with Mark and John as GHebrews aint in da canon so it MUST be extremely later and uber-dependent on the canonicals like Thomas

Vinnie

Toto · 03-19-2004, 11:50 PM

Another Liar for Christ

Quote:

"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which He appeared to them as the risen Christ." -Atheist New Testament Scholar Gerd Lüdemann, 1995

Ludeman does not describe himself as an atheist, and he thinks that the disciples' experiences were a mass hallucination.

Quote:

"The credibility of the apostle Paul's testimony that he also had an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus is recognized by virtually all scholars.

Wait a minute. Is he claiming that Paul's experience was anything other than a vision? How can he claim Paul as proof of the resurrection? But he does - he claims Paul among the people who saw Jesus alive after his tomb was found empty.

Quote:

Likewise well recognized is that James, the brother of Jesus, was an unbeliever before he thought that he, too, met the risen Jesus. Seldom are any of these occurrences challenged by respected critical scholars, no matter how skeptical."

And our evidence for this is . . . the gospels!

Quote:

"All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history."-William Wand, Oxford University, 1972) (% of scholars from 1975-Present who agree: ~75%)

The only evidence for the empty tomb is . . again, the gospels. And where did he get that statistics? I am unable to find a mention of a church historial William Wand on the internet, although there are several Bishops of that name.

Well, I don't see much of a debate here, but Veritas will fill up Ackerman Union Ballroom at UCLA, and some of those lost undergraduates will sign up with the CCC.

Richard Carrier · 03-20-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Richard - do you have an organization supporting you? I saw a veritas debate involving Robert Price, and the Center for Inquiry had a literature table there that I though was useful.

CFI-West is the group who tapped me for the debate. I suppose they might do something along those lines, but I'm not involved in that end of things. There are other debates on subsequent days (ID, etc.), so I'm sure CFI is relatively involved.

Muad'Dib · 03-21-2004, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Carrier
There are other debates on subsequent days (ID, etc.), so I'm sure CFI is relatively involved.

*sigh* There has to be a better use for the Ackerman ballroom than an ID debate. Ah well.

I'll be at your debate, in any case.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2004, 09:37 PM	#11
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	We are discussing Licona's site (linked in the OP) and giving Carrier's thread some traffic Vinnie

03-19-2004, 10:05 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It's a PowerPoint presentation. What skeptic saw the risen Jesus?

03-19-2004, 10:24 PM	#16
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	That is NOT Jesus, that is Sai Baba! A pox on thee, heretic!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.