dog-on

Ad hoc. You are assuming that, "The crucifixion would have been a fact already well-established among Christians".

Analyst

I have heard it suggested that the original reference was to a death implied by a figure of speech involving a tree, rather like our "Hang 'Em High". The crucifixion story then was a misreading of the phrase as literal rather than figurative.

ApostateAbe

OK, that is the first I heard that theory. People say all kinds of weird things about Jesus based on scant evidence and speculation, but I think it would be best to stick with the authority of reputed critical scholars well-educated in the field.

ApostateAbe

Yes, I make that assertion based on the pattern that cult followers keep very good tabs on the death of their leader. Assuming that Jesus really did die of a crucifixion, it is not a fact that would be forgotten among Christians, and any account that claims otherwise would seem ridiculous. What is your opinion?

dog-on

If Jesus did exist, was actually crucified and had followers while he was alive that continued to follow him after his death, I would agree.

But, there are quite a few assumptions, in that statement, that would need to be proven, before an actual case was made.

patcleaver

Analyst should have to prove his statement before it can be accepted as true. I am sure he is really only looking for someone who can verify his weak recollection.

Your appeal to the authority of Bible Scholars is a joke. The field is in disrepute. Most Bible scholars have irrational prejudices about their field that render their opinions worthless. They believe things about their field without evidence and even in contradiction to the evidence. Evedence is suppressed because they contradict the superstion of other scholars. The methodologies accepted in the field are epistemologicaly flawed. Why would anyone respect the consensus of a field where rumors and forgeries and fiction are considered good evidence?

An appeal to the consensus of Bible Scholars about the Bible is no more legitimate than an appeal to the consensus of astrologers about the future or a consensus of theologians about the nature of ghosts.

aa5874

So, is that the reason why they wrote about the resurrection and the transfiguration of Jesus?

The resurrection and transfiguration appear to be extremely silly and unconvincing yet the authors of the Gospel did not leave these fictitious events out of their stories.

And, further Jesus was called a God, the son of a God, as found in the Gospels, and declared to be virgin-born by the church writers, was it not very silly and unconvincing for the authors to write that the son of a God was crucified and that the son of God died?

The crucifixion of a God is silly and unconvincing and was written because people believed silly things in antiquity and even today.

jjramsey

And one can extend this to Carrier's following syllogism:

Major Premise 2: A report is either invented or it is true.
Minor Premise 2 (= Conclusion 1): The castration of Attis was not invented in late classical Italy.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, the castration of Attis is true.

Of course, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. What Carrier has really shown here is that he has glossed over whether the report of something purportedly embarrassing originally came from the people embarrassed by the report.

aa5874

And that is exactly the point, when the criterion of embarrassment is applied, the conclusion will not follow the premise.

So, make any premise, with elements of embarrassment, apply the criterion of embarrassment, the conclusion will not follow.

The final nail in the criterion of embarrassment.

jjramsey

Actually, Carrier's point was that absurd conclusions do logically follow when the criterion of embarrassment is used as a premise. He is attempting a reductio ad absurdum. For the conclusion to not follow from the premises is fatal to such an argument.