- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Feb 16
At the end of one rebuttal Craig refers to Three Absurd Thesis. The third of which I do not fully agree with Craig.
I think Carrier has some ground to say what he said from an understanding of Paul's epistles. And given the chance, I would explain to William Lane Craig that I understand why Carrier said what he said about the Christians resurrection as it relates to us being a part of God.
I do not have the education of either professor in their fields. But that doesn't prevent me from discussing certain things with either one if I had the chance.
The third of the three "Three Absurd Thesis" of Carrier, I might want to discuss with William Lane Craig, that perhaps it was not absurd.
I don't think discussing it with Carrier would mean too much to him. But I could be wrong.
IMO the rebuttal of Carrier against Craig at 1:00:41 is impressive, though I don't agree with it all.
It should be followed, IMO, by view the rebuttal of Craig towards Carrier immediately after.
I take some issue with Craig (not Carrier) in his critique of what he calls the Three Absurd Thesis of Carrier at the conclusion of this round.
The ideas Carrier has about the Gospel writer re-writing the story of Daniel and the lion's den, is very curious. Some other parallels Carrier wants to draw between Old Testament chapters and accounts of the life of Jesus, I agree with Craig, seem to go off the rails in speculation.
Craig, I think answers quite well Carrier's contention that women WERE aloud to testify in court. Many Christian apologist have said the testimony of women was not counted very highly. They were not allowed to testify in court.
I first read this from Josh McDowell. And have heard it before. Carrier tries to refute this historically. IMO Dr. Craig's rebuttal on this evidence 200 years after the death of Jesus, written by Josephus was very limited evidence.
The women were permitted to testify one of two things - their virginity when married, I think, and the death of their own husbands.
Anyway, I can see why some skeptics would be impressed with Richard Carrier's presentation in some instances.
Twhitehead said I really don't want people to watch the debate, or some such similar thing. That is absurd.
Take the time to watch the debate entirely, as I am going over it again -
Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? William Lane Craig verses Richard Carrier
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Feb 16
4 edits
Okay, here is something I would disagree with William Lane Craig about in this debate.
In making his closing argument he says that Richard Carrier is wrong to connect Psalm 22 with the account of Jesus crucifixion because the Gospels do not say that Jesus was nailed to the cross. He may have been tied for all we know.
I would ask William Lane Craig about Paul's letter saying that the the offenses against sinners were nailed to the cross:
"[Christ] Wiping out the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, NAILING IT TO THE CROSS." (Col. 2:14)
That is not in the four gospel accounts. But Paul seems to identify Christ's crucifixion with the "nailing" of certain things to Christ's cross. I think it indicates Jesus had nails put into Him when He as crucified.
By the way, Thomas requested to see the holes in the body of the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus appeared and told Him to put his hands in the holes.
I think that argues that He was nailed. And that IS in the Gospel of John.
I wonder what William Lane Craig would say to that ?
Or was it "hole" singular, as in the wound caused by the spear?
Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
John 20.
24 Feb 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt's a reasonable enough point, I know of no other mythological figures whose presence on Earth is that exactly pinpointed. In all the other myths I know of the timings are somewhat hazy. If you know of one then quote the myth. You need their birth and death known to within about 5 years.
There have been thousands of myths and legends concocted over the millennia.
How many of them have you [not a historian of any stripe] heard of?
Thus how significant do you think your "I can't think of any right now" position is?
Also, Carriers claim is that [as was common at the time] people claimed to have visions
and dream revelations from ...[text shortened]...
The relative probability of the myth hypothesis vs the historical hypothesis is thus higher.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think that only tells us about your ignorance of mythical figures. I also find your 'birth and death' requirement suspiciously arbitrary. If I knew of a mythical figure whose date of ascension to the throne was well specified but his birth date was unknown you would have excluded him merely because the important facts in his life were different. So you are not really asking for a mythical figure whose dates are well known but whose important story points are similar to Jesus' (birth and death).
It's a reasonable enough point, I know of no other mythological figures whose presence on Earth is that exactly pinpointed. In all the other myths I know of the timings are somewhat hazy. If you know of one then quote the myth. You need their birth and death known to within about 5 years.
You must also accept that the date for the Birth of Jesus is only known to a reasonable accuracy because of intense study due to it being a major religion, and has been a matter of much debate in the past. The very fact that you don't put it at zero AD speaks to this.
Take a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf
Does he count? If not, why not?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think so. By this time each debater is going over things rather quickly.
Do you mean the third rebuttal or the rebuttal to the third Absurd Thesis?
Bill Craig refers to so rather dense things in his final statements he has all under "Three Absurd Thesis".(spelling?)
The third one he goes over very quickly. IF I understood both men, I would want to discuss it with Bill Craig. I might say "Actually, Carrier may have a case here. Though his conclusion of a mythic fictional Christ I would never agree to."
No, I do not see any teaching equating the transfiguration of the body to be like an Alien creature bursting out of the human body. But that transfiguration means God's life spreading into man in its communicable attributes, yes, I do think Paul taught such a thing essentially.
I would agree with Craig's criticism of Carrier that he needs to learn to read the lines of the NT before he reads between the lines. Carrier does come up with some wild parallels. Just "wild" is how some of them appear to me.
For instance - saying that Jesus is a retelling of the story of Daniel in the lion's den.
No, the death and resurrection is not the retelling of the story of Daniel in the lion's den. However ... the Bible is culminating up from many characters who lead up to a climax in the Son of God.
And this is what Jesus Himself taught. That is that something greater than David was with them. Something greater than Jonah was with them. Something greater than Solomon was with them. Something greater than the temple was with them.
In other words, what God did through many Old Testament patriarchs and prophets and men of God were like steps up to the Son of God. In many ways these people and their experiences foreshadowed, or served as prefigures of God's Son.
Could this be historically true or just theologically true? That would probably be an argument. I think it could be historically true. It depends on whether or not you consider a transcendent God could have foreknowledge and providence over history.
Look at the life of Joseph in Genesis. Before the fact, his life has so many uncanny similarities with that of Jesus. I don't think they backward retrofitted the life of Jesus to look like that of Joseph. And that, I think, is what Carrier believes.
IE. Some literary back retrofitting to Old Testament stories was being employed in the biographies of Jesus. I would say "No Dr. Carrier. But the uncanny similarities are evedence that God exists and knows exactly what He is doing and wants to do."
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's a two century range you donkey. I'd already mentioned Alfred and given a tighter range for him than the Beowulf myth. You need to find someone who is placed in history within a very precise timeframe.
I think that only tells us about your ignorance of mythical figures. I also find your 'birth and death' requirement suspiciously arbitrary. If I knew of a mythical figure whose date of ascension to the throne was well specified but his birth date was unknown you would have excluded him merely because the important facts in his life were different. So you ...[text shortened]... this.
Take a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf
Does he count? If not, why not?
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo need for the insults.
That's a two century range you donkey.
You clearly did not read the Wikipedia page.
The dating of the events in the poem has been confirmed by archaeological excavations of the barrows indicated by Snorri Sturluson and by Swedish tradition as the graves of Ohthere (dated to c. 530) and his son Eadgils (dated to c. 575) in Uppland, Sweden.
And he was simply the first mythic figure I thought to look up.
How about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Christopher
his death is known within two years I believe.
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by twhitehead
No need for the insults.
You clearly did not read the Wikipedia page.
The dating of the events in the poem has been confirmed by archaeological excavations of the barrows indicated by Snorri Sturluson and by Swedish tradition as the graves of Ohthere (dated to c. 530) and his son Eadgils (dated to c. 575) in Uppland, Sweden.
And h ...[text shortened]... ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Christopher
his death is known within two years I believe.
I think that only tells us about your ignorance of mythical figures.I regarded that as an insult. You include insults in your argument and then take offence when insults are returned.
Beowulf is an epic poem set in an era, you cannot deduce accurate dates for his life from the poem. You can from the Gospel narrative. The Wikipedia page concerning St. Christopher seems to indicate an historical figure.
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhy, are you a mythical figure expert? You sure don't seem to be given that you don't know any whose dates are fairly specific. If you are not, it is not an insult, just stating the obvious. I am certainly very ignorant of mythical figures and had to look up the ones I have listed.I think that only tells us about your ignorance of mythical figures.I regarded that as an insult.
You include insults in your argument and then take offence when insults are returned.
It wasn't intended as an insult. Name calling, on the other hand, has no excuse.
Beowulf is an epic poem set in an era, you cannot deduce accurate dates for his life from the poem.
But the Wikipedia page does.
The Wikipedia page concerning St. Christopher seems to indicate an historical figure.
Well now you are creating an obvious fallacy. Every time I find a mythical figure that meets your conditions you can announce that they 'seem to be an historical figure'.
How are we ever going to know if they are mythical or not?
OK, lets try:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Alexandria
Donald Attwater dismisses the "legend" of St. Catherine, citing the lack of any "positive evidence that she ever existed outside the mind of some Greek writer who first composed what he intended to be simply an edifying romance."
Wikipedia also lists:
Born c. 287
Died c. 305
Is she mythical enough for you?
Another source says Maxentius was Roman Emperor from 306 to 312 so I don't know how he managed to martyr her in 305. But I am sure that could be resolved with a little research.
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadCalling someone ignorant is an insult. Not being an expert in a field is not the same as being ignorant.
Why, are you a mythical figure expert? You sure don't seem to be given that you don't know any whose dates are fairly specific. If you are not, it is not an insult, just stating the obvious. I am certainly very ignorant of mythical figures and had to look up the ones I have listed.
[b]You include insults in your argument and then take offence when insu ...[text shortened]... ow he managed to martyr her in 305. But I am sure that could be resolved with a little research.
No the Wikipedia page doesn't. It gives approximate dates for burial mounds for some characters mentioned in the poem, this isn't enough to deduce dates for Beowulf's birth and death.
It's not a fallacy. Carrier's claim is that there was no historical Jesus. The Wikipedia page has the following line:
The legend of Saint Christopher records two important historical facts that identify him with the historical Saint Menas.So there appears to be an historical St. Christopher. This puts him into a different category.
Maxentius' father, Maxmian, was the senior Emperor from 285 to 305, I think the article is trying to say that Maxentius was administering it. Alternatively the writers of the page just got them confused. I don't think Catherine is likely to be an historical figure, especially since the breaking wheel probably didn't exist before about 600, the Romans would just have crucified her if they wanted to be nasty. When I first posted I was thinking more in terms of people or beings with supernatural attributes, which isn't something attributed to Catherine.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut pointing out that someone is ignorant of a certain topic or field is not.
Calling someone ignorant is an insult.
Not being an expert in a field is not the same as being ignorant.
Actually, it is being ignorant of, or at least partially ignorant of, that field.
No the Wikipedia page doesn't. It gives approximate dates for burial mounds for some characters mentioned in the poem, this isn't enough to deduce dates for Beowulf's birth and death.
And Wikipedia gives a somewhat different date for Jesus' birth than you did, outside your own criteria of certainty.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus#Date_of_birth
It's not a fallacy.
It is fallacy. You are assuming that anyone whose dates are well known must be historical and then demanding counter examples to something you assume. Any counter example will be discarded as violating the assumption.
So there appears to be an historical St. Christopher.
No, there is a historical St Menas who might or might not be the origin for some of the myth.
This puts him into a different category.
I am sure you can put every possible mythical figure I come up with in a different category on some grounds if you try hard enough.
When I first posted I was thinking more in terms of people or beings with supernatural attributes, which isn't something attributed to Catherine.
She is a Saint which gives her supernatural attributes by definition.
Again, you are using the 'your example isn't exactly Jesus therefore I exclude it' tactic. Why didn't you simply say 'I'm not including women'?
Must I find a mythological figure whose name starts with a 'J'?
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBeowulf fought Grendel in 515 CE. The next year he went on a raid against the Franks led by Higelac. in 519 CE Beowulf ascended to become King of the Geats.
That's a two century range you donkey. I'd already mentioned Alfred and given a tighter range for him than the Beowulf myth. You need to find someone who is placed in history within a very precise timeframe.
25 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes you can. Beowulf's poem references specific historical events.I think that only tells us about your ignorance of mythical figures.I regarded that as an insult. You include insults in your argument and then take offence when insults are returned.
Beowulf is an epic poem set in an era, you cannot deduce accurate dates for his life from the poem. You can from the Gospel narrative. The Wikipedia page concerning St. Christopher seems to indicate an historical figure.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygelac
It is precisely Hygelac's presence in the poem [Beowulf] which has allowed scholars to tentatively date the setting of the poem as well as to infer that it contains at least some points of historical fact.