Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 10-29-2002, 06:36 PM

Leonarde --

And you're ignoring the many ANCIENT HISTORIANS, like Michael Grant, E.P. Sanders, Dominic Crossan, Raymond Brown, and others associated with the Jesus Seminar who readily concede that the evidence for Jesus is extremely poor and difficult to work with. Why anyone should accept your single scholar instead of accepting the general and clear consensus in the field is a little beyond me. If that's all you have, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

As for your point about their being errors in history, you have a point. If all we had to contend with were factual errors in the NT we wouldn't be having this disagreement. What you seem to want to avoid at all costs is the notion that the NT is primarily a theological document. I understand you perfectly: you are trying to turn the bible into a historical reference that is far more reliable than it really is. Your refusal to recognize the basic critical principle that supernatural events are never considered historical is a prime example of your biblical boosterism at the expense of reality. I'm afraid I have you pegged quite well.

Radorth · 10-29-2002, 06:40 PM

Carrier acknowledges the validity of Geivitt's argument that an other wise in explicable event is a miracle.

Carrier on Geiveyt's "hypebole"

Quote:

But when it comes time to apply this argument to reality, Geivett goes overboard. For instance, in defending the possibility that it would be reasonable to accept that there is no unintentional or human cause for an event, he brings up Quine's notion of a "recalcitrant" experience which is "one that stubbornly resists explanation within the framework of a given paradigm or web of beliefs" (182). All well and good. But then he doesn't show even a hint of sarcasm or qualification when he calls the resurrection of Jesus "a recalcitrant experience of the highest order," so "bodacious" that "if [it] doesn't count as a violation of presumed natural law, then nothing does" (183). This is an astonishingly absurd statement. Certainly even he can think of something that is more certainly a violation of natural law than a mere resurrection, which is accomplished on a regular basis today using CPR and electric defibrillators, and which is also known to happen naturally, however rarely.

A mere resurrection? Is Carrier just trying to be funny? Is he suggesting Jesus did exist and rise from the dead then, but it was a NATURAL occurrence?

Well hey, now we're getting somewhere. Chistians and atheists can call a truce!! We can finally room together!! Jesus existed, and so did thousands of disciples and the apostles, and the only REAL problem we have is whether the resurrection was just a natural event. That would mean Jesus and the apostles were simply mistaken.

I like this Carrier guy. Can't wait to hear his take on the feeding of the 5000.

Ther is one little itsy-bitsy problem though. There were was no CPR equipment or defillabrators back then. So I guess we are down to resurrections which happen "naturally, however rarely." Thus, to discount Geivett's reasoning using Carrier's, all we have to believe is that the resurrection of Jesus simply a rare but natural event. Right?

I love these links you guys give. They totally contradict ten other theories, and in this case, all the arguments against life after death, or the possibility of resurrection. Carrier has simply opened a can of worms, which I'm sure he will not lift a finger to reclose.

Rad

Family Man · 10-29-2002, 06:48 PM

Let's see --

Julius Caesar wrote volumes about his own life, much of which still exists.

Accounts of many other contemporaries of Caesar, including Cicero -- a sometime ally, and sometime enemy who was murdered by Caesar's partisans -- provide independent accounts of Caesar's actions.

Numerous biographies written in ancient times, including some whose authors were alive at the time.

Numerous artifacts specifically connected to Caesar.

Against that we have the fantastic stories of the NT written decades after the alleged events and the Shroud of Turin, which "probably" was his -- not.

Christian wishful thinking indeed is alive and well.

Family Man · 10-29-2002, 06:52 PM

Quote:

A mere resurrection? Is Carrier just trying to be funny? Is he suggesting Jesus did exist and rise from the dead then, but it was a NATURAL occurrence?

Still need that remedial reading course, don't you Radoth.

leonarde · 10-29-2002, 06:56 PM

Posted by Family Man:

Quote:

Numerous biographies written in ancient times, including some whose authors were alive at the time.

Gee, I should hope so!

Cheers!

Family Man · 10-29-2002, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Posted by Family Man: Gee, I should hope so!

Cheers!

If you wish to nit-pick, just rewrite the sentence that that is reads "at the time Caesar was alive."

leonarde · 10-29-2002, 07:36 PM

I was just funnin' ya; must we all be solemn on
these threads even when we are being (semi)serious?

Cheers!

lpetrich · 10-29-2002, 08:43 PM

Radorth snickers that Richard Carrier talks about a "mere" resurrection, and seems to think that RC accepts that Jesus Christ's alleged resurrection had happened.

However, he discusses that question in more detail in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml" target="_blank">Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection</a>.

Richard Carrier starts off with a shortened version of his arguments that contains:

Quote:

... In 520 A.D.� an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that.� In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead.� No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. ...

And discusses such considerations as:

* The Event is not Proportionate to the Theory.

Even if the Supernatural Exists.

No Miracles Today Implies None Then. (Mother Teresa never worked St-Genevieve-scale miracles)

A Message for All Would be Sent to All, and No Infallible Being would Entrust Fallible Minions as Couriers.

* The Evidence Casts Suspicion on the Event being a True Resurrection.

Including discussion of the question of witnesses being willing to die for their beliefs. Islamic martyrs, Japanese kamikaze pilots, ...

* The New Testament Casts Suspicion on Jesus Actually Appearing After Death

Including discussion of the possibility of a spiritual resurrection.

* Addenda rebutting Various Counterarguments

"You are wrong because the Bible is infallible." RC points out the Bible's errancy.

"I will dance with glee in Heaven as you roast in Hell!"

"Lunatic, Liar, or Lord?" RC points out additional possibilities like fallibility.

Changed Lives. RC points out that the same thing happens with converts to various other creeds.

Radorth · 10-30-2002, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Radorth snickers that Richard Carrier talks about a "mere" resurrection, and seems to think that RC accepts that Jesus Christ's alleged resurrection had happened.

OK, let's try again:

In order to use his logic to defeat Geivitt's, you must accept that a resurrection is no big thing. And I will continue to snicker until skeptics admit this obvious problem with his argument. It doesn't matter what he believes. It is what he says we MUST believe in order to defeat Geivitt's argument that the resurrection is a "recalcitrant" event. If you do not believe the resurrection is an explicable and naturally ocurring event, then Geivitt's argument wins, as even Carrier admits.

Get it now? Do you guys even read these links before you put them up? You might want to see if you agree with the link before posting, particularly if it contradicts your own premises.

Rad

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Ion · 10-30-2002, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

...
In order to use his logic to defeat Geivitt's, you must accept that a resurrection is no big thing.
...
Rad

It is a big thing: if true, then it is unique.

It's just that there are no consistent accounts for it to make it believable, and "...all the tribes on the earth..." didn't see it.

In Matt 24:30, Jesus allegedly prophesized that "...all the tribes on the earth..." were going to see Jesus' resurrection during that lifetime.

Jesus' resurrection and other miracles, must be the feat of the Invisible Man to historians, because only a religious cult later on claims that they happened, and today's prayers within this cult consider that they keep happening.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

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

10-29-2002, 06:36 PM	#181
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Leonarde -- And you're ignoring the many ANCIENT HISTORIANS, like Michael Grant, E.P. Sanders, Dominic Crossan, Raymond Brown, and others associated with the Jesus Seminar who readily concede that the evidence for Jesus is extremely poor and difficult to work with. Why anyone should accept your single scholar instead of accepting the general and clear consensus in the field is a little beyond me. If that's all you have, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. As for your point about their being errors in history, you have a point. If all we had to contend with were factual errors in the NT we wouldn't be having this disagreement. What you seem to want to avoid at all costs is the notion that the NT is primarily a theological document. I understand you perfectly: you are trying to turn the bible into a historical reference that is far more reliable than it really is. Your refusal to recognize the basic critical principle that supernatural events are never considered historical is a prime example of your biblical boosterism at the expense of reality. I'm afraid I have you pegged quite well.

10-29-2002, 06:48 PM	#183
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Let's see -- Julius Caesar wrote volumes about his own life, much of which still exists. Accounts of many other contemporaries of Caesar, including Cicero -- a sometime ally, and sometime enemy who was murdered by Caesar's partisans -- provide independent accounts of Caesar's actions. Numerous biographies written in ancient times, including some whose authors were alive at the time. Numerous artifacts specifically connected to Caesar. Against that we have the fantastic stories of the NT written decades after the alleged events and the Shroud of Turin, which "probably" was his -- not. Christian wishful thinking indeed is alive and well.

10-29-2002, 07:36 PM	#187
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I was just funnin' ya; must we all be solemn on these threads even when we are being (semi)serious? Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.