Steven Carr

This is from a review of the Carrier-Craig debate

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...rrier-and.html

'Craig slams him on this, noting that Carrier is confusing revelatory with visionary. Paul in Galatians says he saw the resurrected Jesus, using the same words that Mary Magdalene does.'

Is this true? Which are the 'same words' in Galatians that are used by Mary Magdaelene?

Clearly Craig wanted to give the impression that he had checked this out carefully. It was not a misstatement. There must be something behind it.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think he got the book wrong. It's 1 Corinthians, not Galatians.

In John 18:20 Mary Magdalene says "I have seen the Lord" (Eoraka ton Kurion).

In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul says "Have I not seen Jesus the Lord?" (Ouxi Iesoun ton Kurion hemon eoraka?)

The only part of Galatians I can find where Paul says anything close to personally seeing Jesus is in 1;12 where he says he received the Gospel by "revelation" apocalupseos. In 1:16 he says that God "revealed his son to me" using the same verb (apocalupsai). I can't find Paul using the verb eoraka anywhere in Galatians so I'm guessing that Craig meant Corinthians.

Diogenes the Cynic

BTW, is there a way to code Greek on this board or do people just transliterate?

Layman

The error is mine, not Craigs. I'll review the section and modify my review accordingly. Probably this weekend.

Toto

Carrier gives some comments on the mini-debate here. The producers cut the original 14 minutes down to 7, which hardly seems adequate for this subject.

The issue of the quality of the experiences of the risen Christ was a major topic in the UCLA Veritas Forum debate between Carrier and Greg Licoma, and Carrier will be publishing more on the topic.

The issue is also discussed in On Jewish concepts of resurrection and a thread on the Carrier-Licoma debate.

As to Layman's blog, Layman says there Carrier went through Doherty's book as a professional historian and awarded him a judgment on points, but it was obvious that he wanted a historicist to come back with a rejoinder. He has spent most of his professional life assuming that there was a historical Jesus, and any other assumption would have made a 7 minute debate unwieldy, if not impossible. Since Carrier is not committed to the mythicist position, I don't think it is disingenuous of him to be arguing based on common assumptions.

Which of the three versions in Acts did Carrier claim to be historically accurate? Or was he relying on the vague statements in Paul's epistles?

Steven Carr

In http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rection/3.html
Carrier writes 'Since Paul's own writings are earlier and more authoritative concerning his own life than Acts, which was written by another man almost certainly after Paul had been dead for some years, all the accounts given in Acts are highly suspect, especially any claims that others saw the same light as Paul or heard "something" (that they could not understand).'

Seems Layman misreports Carrier as well as Craig. That is only fair I suppose.

Layman is now writing on his blog ' Craig was either pointing out that Acts uses the same term to say Paul had "seen" Jesus that is used for Mary in the Gospel of John or pointing out that 1 Cor. 15 uses the same term for "appeared" as all the gospels do for Jesus' appearances (Luke 24:34; Mark 16:14; Matt. 27:53), as well as Acts uses to describe Jesus' appearance to Paul (Acts 9:17).'

Layman is not at all certain what Craig said, but he know that whatever it might have been, it slammed Carrier.

Was Craig really chastising Carrier for taking Acts to be accurate on what Paul had seen , and then saying that Acts describes how Paul had 'seen' something??? Surely not even Craig would have such double-standards.

As for Craig saying that the word for 'appeared' in 1 Cor. 15, is also in the Gospels and Acts 9:17, well, let us be charitable and assume that Layman is misquoting him again.

The word is 'optonomai', and a derivative does indeed appear in 1 Cor.15 (but the word in 1 Cor. 15 is *not* in the Gospel resurrection stories).

But if the appearance in Acts is not of a physical Jesus, but merely of a light, then why would Craig try to refute Carrier by claiming that it is the same word in Acts as in 1 Cor. 15? That would be a *huge* own goal.

the word for appeared in 1 Cor.15 does appear in other places in the Bible. It is almost exclusively used for a vision.

Matthew 17:3 . Moses and Elijah 'appeared' to Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. Were Moses and Elijah bodily resurrected when they 'appeared' to Peter? If they were, what happened to their bodies? Did they die again? If they were not bodily resurrected when they 'appeared' to Peter, why is it beyond all doubt that Jesus was bodily resurrected when he 'appeared' to Peter?

Acts 2:3. Tongues of fire 'appeared' to Peter and rested on each one of them. Did real , physical fire come down from Heaven and rest on Peter, when it 'appeared' on Peter? Were the apostles heads physically on fire? If not why did Jesus physically appear to Peter when he 'appeared' to Peter?

Acts 6:2. The God of glory 'appeared' to our father Abraham. It seems that God was in the habit of making bodily appearances. Either that or 'appeared' in 1 Cor. 15 does not mean a bodily appearance.

Acts 16:9. And a vision 'appeared' to Paul in the night. This says straight out that Paul and 'ophthe' mean a vision. Did the man from Macedonia physically travel to Paul when he 'appeared' to Paul?

Revelation 11:19 The Ark of the Covenant 'appeared' within his Temple. The whole of Revelation is a vision, and we have another use of 'ophthe' to mean vision.

Revelation 12:1. A great portent 'appeared' in heaven. Still more visions.

Revelation 12:3. And another portent 'appeared' in heaven. Still more visions.

One thing the New Testament insists upon is that Peter and Paul were precisely the sort of people to have dreams and visions and to act upon those dreams and visions as though they were real. (Acts 10, Acts 16 etc.)

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-7, Paul boasts of the revelations he has received. He went up to the third heaven (Where's that?) and heard and saw all manner of things - including visions and revelations of the Lord.

Steven Carr

I'm pretty sure there is a way to post Greek, but I just make wild guesses - as befits my meagre knowledge of Greek.

Toto

Layman appears to have responded to some of the above posts on his blog site, unless someone posted similar comments there.

Kosh

Am I the only one that noticed the irony of Layman's comment?:

Toto

I have obtained a copy of the transcript, which may or may not clear anything up.

On the ad hominem:

Craig gave Platinga's argument that God must have provided some way of knowing him.

RICHARD CARRIER: I don’t have that evidence. God hasn’t spoken to me. I haven’t had the Holy Spirit inspire me to believe that Jesus has risen from the grave. . . .

LEE STROBEL: Okay, Bill?

WILLIAM CRAIG: Right, well for a person with an open mind and an open heart whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly, will come to belief in God. But that doesn’t mean that this is irresistible. It’s not going to overwhelm you.

RICHARD CARRIER: But you’re essentially saying that I have a closed mind, a closed heart and my cognitive faculties aren’t functioning. I mean, that’s just an ad hominem. As far as I know…

After which they apparently talk over each other.

Is Craig actually saying that anyone with an open mind and an open heart will necessarily believe in god? That's certainly a convincing argument - if you believe in god, already, it would convince you not to bother trying to understand the unbelieving point of view. [/irony]

But I am not sure why Layman thinks that this is not an ad hominem. Craig is saying that anyone who does not believe in god (his god in particular) is personally inadequate.

On the Galatians confusion:

RICHARD CARRIER: Well just, just very quickly, uh, I mean we have no eyewitness account of what the original Christians actually saw accept from Paul, and Paul describes it in very visionary terms, and he doesn’t mention any other kind of appearances. In Galatians he says it was a revelation of Jesus Christ that was not an encounter with flesh and blood.

Carrier is obviously referring to Paul's statement in Galatians that he received his gospel from no man, etc.

But then there is this confusing exchange, just under the deadline for their time limit, which I have edited slightly for clarity.

WILLIAM CRAIG: Oh he doesn’t say that though Richard, does he? I mean he says that, I have seen Jesus our Lord. It’s the same words Mary Magdalene uses when she reports what she saw to the Disciples.

RICHARD CARRIER: and he calls it a revelation. He uses the word revelation.

WILLIAM CRAIG: Yes. Yes, it’s a revelation. Right.

RICHARD CARRIER: He doesn’t say he met him, I mean, you don’t think that he met…?

WILLIAM CRAIG: But you can’t equate that with vision can you?

RICHARD CARRIER: But you don’t think that he met like, like the Doubting Thomas, that he touched the physical body of Jesus and handled the wounds, do you?

LEE STROBEL: Okay, we’re out of time.

RICHARD CARRIER: Do you think that’s true?

LEE STROBEL: Answer that question, Bill.

WILLIAM CRAIG: I don’t believe that on the basis of what Luke says in Acts, but then that assumes that Luke is writing historically accurate information, and then you have to believe the rest…

RICHARD CARRIER: Do you think he’s not?

WILLIAM CRAIG: …of Luke says about the resurrection.

RICHARD CARRIER: Do you think Luke is not writing accurately?

WILLIAM CRAIG: I, I think he is.

LEE STROBEL: Okay, gentlemen…

WILLIAM CRAIG: And therefore I accept his account of the empty tomb, and so forth.

Craig does not identify his quote as coming from Galatians. Carrier does not indicate that he accepts the historicity of Acts, but he asks if Craig does. This is a bit of a trap, because Acts indicates that Paul had only a vision of Jesus, not an encounter with Jesus' body in any form. It is not clear what Craig's position is on the historicity of Acts' version of Paul's conversion, or how he reconciles it with the rest of his argument.