Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-30-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What's fair about Craig's sophistry? He won't debate the reliability of the gospels because he wants to use the underlying assumptions of the historical critical method, in particular the criterion of embarrassment, which assumes that there is some historicity of the gospels, without having to actually defend it. So he can rely on an argument based on the gospels but claim that he is NOT basing his argument on the reliability of the gospels. Craig missed his calling - he should be defending the AIG bonuses.

:lol: I agree, to a certain extent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Carrier started talking about Barabbas because it is a clear indication that the gospels were not written as history. If the gospels do not even pretend to be history, there is no reason to think that the empty tomb is historical - is there? How else would one make this argument?

As Craig points out in the link I gave earlier, that's a whole different question. Parts of the Bible may be unreliable, but that doesn't mean that the events recorded on the Empty Tomb were unreliable. Craig gave reasons for why he thought they were reliable. Carrier talked about Barabbas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How the hell is this proselyzing?

IMO Carrier didn't appear to be interested in the debate topic. He was more interested in promoting his view that the Gospels exhibit a different authorial intent than recording fact. Not so much to prove that the Resurrection didn't occur (again, what does Barabbas have to do with that?), but to promote Jesus Mythicism. At least, that's how I see it.

Steven Carr · 03-30-2009, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

IMO Carrier didn't appear to be interested in the debate topic. He was more interested in promoting his view that the Gospels exhibit a different authorial intent than recording fact. Not so much to prove that the Resurrection didn't occur (again, what does Barabbas have to do with that?), but to promote Jesus Mythicism. At least, that's how I see it.

So Craig produces 4 facts, and Carrier tried to show the Gospels were not interested in recording facts, and this was totally irrelevant?

Are we allowed to spread generally inaccurate reports of Don's postings and use these generally unreliable reports as a basis for 'facts' about Don?

Toto · 03-30-2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

As Craig points out in the link I gave earlier, that's a whole different question. Parts of the Bible may be unreliable, but that doesn't mean that the events recorded on the Empty Tomb were unreliable. Craig gave reasons for why he thought they were reliable. Carrier talked about Barabbas.

I don't recall that Craig gave any reason except the consensus of scholars. And those scholars use either the historical critical method which assumes that the gospels contain history and that history can be recovered; or Biblical Inerrancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How the hell is this proselyzing?

IMO Carrier didn't appear to be interested in the debate topic. He was more interested in promoting his view that the Gospels exhibit a different authorial intent than recording fact. Not so much to prove that the Resurrection didn't occur (again, what does Barabbas have to do with that?), but to promote Jesus Mythicism. At least, that's how I see it.

Craig tried to pin Jesus Mythicism on Carrier, but Carrier stated that it was a hypothesis that he thought should be explored, but for this debate, he would assume that there was a historical Jesus.

You must have been listening to a different debate. Or you missed that point.

GakuseiDon · 03-30-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't recall that Craig gave any reason except the consensus of scholars.

You're right. I think a debate on the general reliability of the Gospels would have been a more interesting topic, and it's a shame they didn't do it. I agree that Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable. But that wasn't the topic of the debate, and Craig stuck to the topic while Carrier didn't. Anyway, I'd like to see Craig defend the general reliability of the Gospels at some stage.

blastula · 03-30-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't recall that Craig gave any reason except the consensus of scholars.

You're right. I think a debate on the general reliability of the Gospels would have been a more interesting topic, and it's a shame they didn't do it. I agree that Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable. But that wasn't the topic of the debate,

If that wasn't a topic of the debate, then neither were Craig's so-called "facts."

Craig might as well have referred to Watchtower texts and said they all agree it was a fact that Jesus rose from dead.

Then you would have come back after and said that in Craig's arguments there was no need to defend the reliability of the Watchtower texts since it was not the topic of the debate.

As Craig likes to say, <mocking tone>THAT'S ABSURD!</mocking tone>

Toto · 03-30-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't recall that Craig gave any reason except the consensus of scholars.

You're right. I think a debate on the general reliability of the Gospels would have been a more interesting topic, and it's a shame they didn't do it. I agree that Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable. But that wasn't the topic of the debate, and Craig stuck to the topic while Carrier didn't. Anyway, I'd like to see Craig defend the general reliability of the Gospels at some stage.

What is going on here? I say A, therefore B. You agree on A, and on my logic, but you don't change your conclusion.

If you agree that

"Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable"

how can you say that Carrier did not stick to the topic of the debate?

GakuseiDon · 03-30-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

You're right. I think a debate on the general reliability of the Gospels would have been a more interesting topic, and it's a shame they didn't do it. I agree that Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable. But that wasn't the topic of the debate, and Craig stuck to the topic while Carrier didn't. Anyway, I'd like to see Craig defend the general reliability of the Gospels at some stage.

What is going on here? I say A, therefore B. You agree on A, and on my logic, but you don't change your conclusion.

If you agree that

"Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable"

how can you say that Carrier did not stick to the topic of the debate?

Because Barabbas has nothing to do with the Resurrection. What you keep missing is that Craig was relying on the specific passages relating to the Resurrection being reliable. Carrier was arguing around the general reliability of the Gospels. It's not that Carrier was wrong -- if Carrier could have shown that the Gospels were completely unreliable, then yes, that would have trumped Craig nicely. But it would have been a completely different debate. As Craig writes:

Were my reasons for preferring the topic of the resurrection over the topic of the historical reliability of the Gospels illogical? I think not. With regard to (i), when Richard says, "defending the resurrection requires establishing a number of premises, including the reliability of the Gospel accounts," he needs to add, "with respect to specific events" (unless, as he notes, one plans to make a case for Jesus' resurrection without appeal to the Gospels, as my doctoral mentor Wolfhart Pannenberg in fact does1). If you're going to appeal to the Gospels in making your case, then obviously you need to show that the Gospels are reliable with respect to the specific events you are claiming to be historical. But a case for the historicity of the specific events underlying the inference to Jesus' resurrection doesn't depend on establishing the general historical reliability of the Gospels."

If you like, summarize Carrier's arguments against the specific events relating to the Empty Tomb. You'll see that Carrier was carrying on a different debate. Anyway, it isn't a big deal. I agree that Craig's case relies mainly on the Gospels, and that reliance ought to be established. Craig didn't do so in this debate, and he needs to do so.

Toto · 03-30-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What is going on here? I say A, therefore B. You agree on A, and on my logic, but you don't change your conclusion.

If you agree that

"Craig's points relying on the Gospels would fail if he couldn't show that the Gospels were reliable"

how can you say that Carrier did not stick to the topic of the debate?

Because Barabbas has nothing to do with the Resurrection. What you keep missing is that Craig was relying on the specific passages relating to the Resurrection being reliable. Carrier was arguing around the general reliability of the Gospels. It's not that Carrier was wrong -- if Carrier could have shown that the Gospels were completely unreliable, then yes, that would have trumped Craig nicely.

I think that is what Carrier was aiming at. Barabbas was just an example of NT text derived from the Septuagint, and I think he did say that he could trace every element of the NT His argument might have been a little too complex to fit into the the debate format.

Quote:

But it would have been a completely different debate. As Craig writes:[indent]Were my reasons for preferring the topic of the resurrection over the topic of the historical reliability of the Gospels illogical? I think not. <repetitious stuff snipped>

Obviously I disagree.

Craig did not want to debate the reliability of the gospels because he would fall flat on his ass. The general reliability of the gospels is well beyond debate - they are just unreliable.

Decypher · 03-31-2009, 05:20 PM

My thoughts on this: if Carrier makes a case against the general reliability of the gospels, then that seems to (prima facie) undermine the reliability of the resurrection accounts along with it. Does that not put a big burden of proof on Craig to show that the specific parts about the resurrection are reliable? So the issue of general reliability does seem to be relevant to me.

Anyway, Craig wants to use the (supposed) resurrection as an argument for the Christian god. I will point out that the Hebrew Bible doesn't say that signs are a guarantee of a prophet of God. It actually mentions the ability to give signs, post-Torah, in connection with false prophets. If we look at the actual Bible criteria on how to recognize who is/isn't a prophet of God, Jesus doesn't look so good. For example, Deuteronomy 18 says that false prophecy shows a false prophet. (Simple enough, but it makes good sense.)

Meatros · 04-08-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Which is fair enough...

GDon is apparently saying that people can now write generally unreliable reports of his postings and he is perfectly happy for people to use these generally unreliable reports of his postings to get facts about what he believes.

After all, why should people show that their reports about him are generally reliable before demanding that these reports be accepted as factual?

Provided there is a 'kernel' of truth in them, what's the problem?

I am being unfair, of course.

It is OK for Craig to use generally unreliable reports when trying to see if Jesus was raised from the dead, but people should never write generally unreliable reports of GDon's postings and expect Don to still take you seriously.

The earliest Gospel, Mark, has the absurdity of the Romans allowing an executed criminal to be released each passover.

This guilty criminal being released on that year just happens to be called 'Son of the Father', while the real 'Son of the Father' is about to be killed, although innocent.

Just how much does the author have to signify that this is all myth and parable before Craig will stop claiming it is irrelevant that nobody can show any evidence of the existence of half the cast in Mark's Gospel , as that is all 'chaff' to be sifted from the 'wheat'

I just listened to the debate and I was astonished by this fact. Craig basically blew past it with an appeal to authority.

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

03-31-2009, 05:20 PM	#49
Decypher Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: England Posts: 688	My thoughts on this: if Carrier makes a case against the general reliability of the gospels, then that seems to (prima facie) undermine the reliability of the resurrection accounts along with it. Does that not put a big burden of proof on Craig to show that the specific parts about the resurrection are reliable? So the issue of general reliability does seem to be relevant to me. Anyway, Craig wants to use the (supposed) resurrection as an argument for the Christian god. I will point out that the Hebrew Bible doesn't say that signs are a guarantee of a prophet of God. It actually mentions the ability to give signs, post-Torah, in connection with false prophets. If we look at the actual Bible criteria on how to recognize who is/isn't a prophet of God, Jesus doesn't look so good. For example, Deuteronomy 18 says that false prophecy shows a false prophet. (Simple enough, but it makes good sense.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.