tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4727553277188937719..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier v. William Lane Craig Debate the Resurrection of JesusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40914721886113616622012-12-20T01:35:11.415-05:002012-12-20T01:35:11.415-05:00@ quine
Bernard Shaw once said he saw a debate be...@ quine<br /><br />Bernard Shaw once said he saw a debate between a flat earther and several other people and he (flat earther) answered every question promptly and more skillful than the opposition.<br /><br />Do you now see the fallacy in your line of thinking?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64212117789160904012010-03-02T21:03:13.056-05:002010-03-02T21:03:13.056-05:00"But this is getting ridiculous for atheists...."But this is getting ridiculous for atheists."<br />i watched allister mcgrath destroy daniel dennett at the greer heard forum. i've seen ravi zacharias hold his own with the very best muslim, hindu and buddhist philosophers. heck, even william dembski can hold his own with scientists and he's been all but excommunicated from academia.<br /><br />at some point, it's not the person or the debating skill...it's the material.bfniiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00716465039797535402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7558348796756224442010-03-02T20:59:15.138-05:002010-03-02T20:59:15.138-05:00"Jesus did not rise up from the dead."
w..."Jesus did not rise up from the dead."<br />wow. you must not be familiar with habermas or n.t. wright.<br /><br />"Craig is merely giving answers to beliefs he adopted in his teenage years for less than intelligent reasons."<br />you mean other than all the historical reasons he gives?<br /><br />"Dead people do not rise up from the grave. They can't."<br />unless a supernatural God intervened and you'll have a hard time proving that didn't happen. cue: burden of proof excuse.bfniiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00716465039797535402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15074266338183028312010-03-02T20:51:31.078-05:002010-03-02T20:51:31.078-05:00"Why doesn't he just come out and say &qu..."Why doesn't he just come out and say "I will not debate John W. Loftus.""<br />yeah, you're right. he travels the world debating the very best scholars in multiple disciplines but he's ducking you.bfniiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00716465039797535402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3710101875569876022009-03-28T07:47:00.000-04:002009-03-28T07:47:00.000-04:00Craig claims naturalists have to come up with ONE ...Craig claims naturalists have to come up with ONE theory to explain his facts.<BR/><BR/>When people come up with a theory, Craig says in debates that theory X does not explain Fact Y<BR/><BR/>And wins the debate....<BR/><BR/>From <A HREF="http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/03/27/xfiles-friday-context-context-context" REL="nofollow"> Evangelical Realism </A><BR/><BR/>'One might imagine a Holocaust denier arguing thusly: “The gas chamber theory does not explain why so many survivors report seeing widespread typhoid symptoms.<BR/><BR/> The firing squad theory does not explain the many gas chambers that were found.<BR/><BR/> The deliberate starvation theory does not explain all the corpses found with bullets in their heads. <BR/><BR/>So since all of the Holocaust theories have fatal flaws, we don’t have enough FAITH to believe that Nazis killed Jews.”<BR/><BR/> But even a Holocaust denier would not try to sell us an argument that bad.'<BR/><BR/>An excellent article, which can also blow holes in other arguments used by Craig.<BR/><BR/>Craig claims and keeps on claiming that Jews had no idea that the Messiah was supposed to die.<BR/><BR/>Yet all of this is claimed to be prophesied!<BR/><BR/>'Think about it: if David, many centuries before Jesus, had written down a prediction that the Messiah would be crucified and would rise on the third day, would it really have been such a shock for the disciples when the prediction came true?<BR/><BR/> Over and over again, the Gospels emphasize the point that those who knew Jesus best, and were most familiar with his teachings, had no idea he was going to die, because such a thought was contrary to their messianic expectations. Yet those expectations would have included a crucifixion, had the Jewish nation possessed a clear, ancient prophecy predicting it.'<BR/><BR/><BR/>An excellent article...Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4665467832344858852009-03-25T02:54:00.000-04:002009-03-25T02:54:00.000-04:00Harvey - How many cricifixions were done because t...Harvey - <BR/><I>How many cricifixions were done because the JEWS requested it historically?<BR/><BR/>Certainly there would have been a different standard for a Roman criminal or someone whom had trespassed against Roman law or defied the state of Rome...What was Pilate's declaration?<BR/><BR/>There was NO FAULT in him (Jesus) (Lk. 23:4 & 14, Jn. 18:38, Jn. 19:4 & 6) Jesus wasn't deserving UNDER ROMAN LAW of the normative treatment of a Roman criminal or someone who was defecting against the state of Rome.</I><BR/><BR/>Harvey, the 'scripture' you quote is not historical. As Joseph Campbell, our greatest historian of Earth mythologies, said: the best we can know about the historical Jesus is that he probably had a ministry after John the Baptist; and he probably was crucified. Everything else that has been layered on top of it is mythology, with not only no independent attestation outside the NT; but the NT writings all contradict each other. <BR/><BR/>One of the reasons Crossan (like Ehrman) believes there was in fact an original historical Jesus, is that the ruckus at the temple money changers would be just the thing to get him immediately crucified. During Passover, Pilate had standing orders for his men to deal with troublemakers - immediately -before the crowds could get out of control. Crossan over and over again emphasizes that few moderns would appreciate the 'casual brutality' with which a troublemaker like that would have been dispatched - without seeing the procurator. No interview, no playing to the crowds for who got crucified, no philosophical discussions - nothing. And he would not have been permitted to be buried afterwards, either. Ironically, that fits in with Paul, who was the earliest writer we have, a couple of decades before the 'gospels' were written anonymously. Here he was, closest to the rumor mill in time - and, unlike the authors of the gospels, actually knew Judea and Galilee and the local language - he never heard of the empty tomb. You really think that that rumor of an empty tomb was floating around then - and yet our earliest (and most important) author, didn't think it was worth mentioning? That's not credible. <BR/><BR/>Pilate was an unusually brutal procurator - he was removed from his job because of it, by the Roman Governor in Syria; and ordered to Rome for final judgement before the emperor and probable execution. When he arrived in Rome, in disgrace, though, the Emperor had died; and in the confusion, Pilate just melted away.Dave Huntsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18238454047860847548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83168813823571380232009-03-25T01:33:00.000-04:002009-03-25T01:33:00.000-04:00Wow, there's really some inside baseball goin' on ...Wow, there's really some inside baseball goin' on up in here! Where to start?<BR/><BR/>First, I'm not a skilled debater or a scholar and I'd be happy to debate Professor Craig anytime so long as the format and topic were appropriately chosen. Any atheist willing to agree to a debate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus might as well go ahead and seek additional sure loser forums such as debating a Scientologist on whether or not psychiatrists harm people or maybe more to the point, a grand debate with a capable Muslim cleric on the historicity of Muhammad's ascent into heaven. Heck, let's go ahead and debate the Zoroastrians on the historicity of Zoroasters ascent into heaven to receive the Law from Ahura Mazda while we're at it!<BR/><BR/>The only possible outcome of these silly debates is the equivalent of a good Monty Python sketch, except without being as funny.<BR/><BR/>Theist: My prophet arose from the dead.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: No he/she didn't.<BR/><BR/>Theist: I have very early eye witness accounts promulgated by believers along with lots of very cool hearsay from independent sources.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: So.<BR/><BR/>Proceed ad nauseum. The Atheist is always placed in the position of proving a negative -- that something didn't happen, which, of course, is the far weaker debate position.<BR/><BR/>If you simply flipped the situations and forced the Theist to argue against something, like evolution, then the Creationist is placed in the weaker position and rarely fares very well, regardless of the merits of the positions.<BR/><BR/>The key to recognizing the futility of these debates is to recognize how similarly the outcomes would be when substituting the superstitious beliefs of other major religions for whatever superstition being debated with a non-superstitious relying on simple logical deduction rather than on fantastic claims supported by dead witnesses.<BR/><BR/>I was never a student of Professor Craig's, so maybe he'll debate me on the fact that Tom Cruise is the Messiah?<BR/><BR/>I mean, really -- people arguing about the 2,000 year old "witnesses" is just such a silly exercise. I was just watching a Discovery Channel show on one of the last remaining primitive tribal communities in Africa which believes in all kinds of superstitions. In the show, one of the grass huts burns down and no less than 3 eye witnesses reported seeing a "demon" in the area just before or just after the fire.<BR/><BR/>As it turned out, a little boy left a fire burning in the hut and left it unattended.<BR/><BR/>Let's set up a series of debates about the existence of demons who burn down grass huts in the African jungle based upon these living eyewitness accounts!<BR/><BR/>Where's Eric Idle when you need him?Father Amadeushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251056231688057969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14368780645320595222009-03-24T21:56:00.000-04:002009-03-24T21:56:00.000-04:00I thought Carrier did a masterful job in his debat...I thought Carrier did a masterful job in his debate against Mike Licona, but this performance was a little disappointing. You can find the Carrier vs Licona debate as well as a whole host of other debates and audio here...<BR/><BR/>http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#WilliamLaneCraigHosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88866897908020341552009-03-24T16:49:00.000-04:002009-03-24T16:49:00.000-04:00Thanks for the clarification, John. What you say ...Thanks for the clarification, John. What you say makes sense.Joe Staubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354614785249175583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67387352463370158262009-03-24T15:49:00.000-04:002009-03-24T15:49:00.000-04:00Joe, I did not purposely try to deceive people as ...Joe, I did not purposely try to deceive people as a minister, so I agree with you. I was brainwashed. I'm not saying two different things here for the record. But there are some things I believed that I wouldn't speak. They might split the church, you know. My cousin preaches in Las Vagas, I know he's against gambling, He thinks its a sin. But he won't preach it since nearly all of his parishoners are paid from the gambling industry there. As a pastor I didn't dare say what I thought about women in leadership since I believed women could be elders. There are other things. One needs to speak on that which helps not divides. And I could not teach or preach abou the synoptic problem lest someone misunderstand me, for without a lengthy discussion of the issue I would be misunderstood.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86710371784566024362009-03-24T13:43:00.000-04:002009-03-24T13:43:00.000-04:00District Supt. Harvey Burnett : With all of that s...District Supt. Harvey Burnett : <I>With all of that said, NONE of you give any reason that the gospels, or NT in general is not reliable. All you say is that you "don't like it"...</I><BR/><BR/>Here is part of the problem. Even if I was to grant, for the sake of argument, that there is a lot of historically reliable information in the New Testament, that does not guarantee that the miraculous claims are also true and reliable. After all there has been plenty of historical novels written that have a lot of historically reliable information in them.<BR/><BR/>The more serious issue is the problem of the historical reliability of the Old Testament. You see Christianity has its basis in the OT and if it is found to be untrue in its essential claims then Christianity has nothing to root itself into, no foundation. Some of the problems of historicity include the creation account (your YEC not withstanding), Adam and Eve, the fall, the flood, the Exodus, and pretty much most of the historical events and people have little to no evidence for them and in some cases there is plenty of contrary evidence. If the prophecies of the OT have been demonstrated to not be true predictions, most being written after the event, then what basis for the OT? If its shown that the early Christians completely misinterpreted the Messianic prophecies and that none of them pointed to Jesus then again, what basis is there for the NT.<BR/><BR/>Let me offer you a challenge in all sincerity, would you carefully read and objectivity consider the arguments presented by Kenton Sparks in his book <I>God's Word in Human Word's</I> published by Baker Academic? I would gladly read and evaluate anything that you would suggest.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61102979483725339292009-03-24T13:33:00.000-04:002009-03-24T13:33:00.000-04:00John,You seem to be saying two separate things: 1...John,<BR/><BR/>You seem to be saying two separate things: 1) You were brainwashed, 2) You concealed what you knew to be true.<BR/><BR/>Having been seminary trained as you were, I know that the first claim that you made is not true. You knew the different approaches to the understanding of Biblical transmission and so did you when you preached and taught. Just as Ehrman did. What I am taking exception to here is Dave Huntsman painting pastors with the broad brush of "Elmer Gantry's". When I was a pastor I told people about the different approaches. I had no intention of decieving people or misleading so that I could attract them. And, I do not have any friends in the ministry that would do that. I would agree that there are some ministers who just don't know and probably don't want to know and then there are the Elmer Gantry types, too. But I did want to know and I enjoyed be able to compare and contrast with my people and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, I had my view and I supported that view, but not deceptively. I think I was in the norm as a pastor.Joe Staubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354614785249175583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83790681428132987062009-03-24T13:11:00.000-04:002009-03-24T13:11:00.000-04:00Joe, no. I was deceived just like everyone in my c...Joe, no. I was deceived just like everyone in my churches. The brainwashed preaching to the brainwashed.<BR/><BR/>But churches are groups of people, and in any kind of group there is something called "groupthink" going on. This is the demand for conformity. No, I did not teach or preach everything I knew. If I did I would get fired. No one but the founder of any church can say everything he thinks, and even then he needs to curtail what he says in the interests of attracting people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86570804467539156652009-03-24T12:45:00.000-04:002009-03-24T12:45:00.000-04:00John W. Loftus, Dave Huntsman wrote, "those who en...John W. Loftus, Dave Huntsman wrote, "those who enter the pastoral in all of their churches, refuse to teach what they know, and instead teach the dogma they know is not true."<BR/><BR/>As a pastor for many years did you knowingly decieve your congregations, as Dave seems to claim ministers must do in order to teach the Bible as truth?Joe Staubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354614785249175583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51783361636641485332009-03-24T11:34:00.000-04:002009-03-24T11:34:00.000-04:00Steven,Here we go withthese word associations and ...Steven,<BR/><BR/>Here we go withthese word associations and conspiracy theories again...That's ok, you're entitled...<BR/><BR/>So far as the myth theory is concerned, we shouldn't have to argue that every time, 'cause you John and others have gone round and round with that, but I will only say the evdences don't speak in favor of the mythicist hypothesis. (no matter which one) <BR/><BR/>There is not only biblical confirmation of the crucifixion but extrabiblical confirmation from at least 5 sources. even Crossan agrees that there was a cricifixion, although he scambles like crazy to reclassify it. <BR/><BR/>The Christian claims are early, especially relative to historical studies, contain embarrasing elements, whice are not prevalent elements of myth, as well as multiply attested pieces which can't be made out of "whole cloth" when others who have no interest in Christianity are confirming certain aspects of it. Then there are conversions of known skeptics who such as yourself, refused to believe if NOT for a resurrection that they saw for themselves. <BR/><BR/>I guess what I'm saying is, narrow it down to a point or two that you think is damaging and let's deal with those points. The "buckshot" is not only confusing it's a wast of time because no point is really settled. I'd like to see at least ONE attempted to be settled here on DC.<BR/><BR/>LaterDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6514104998418739462009-03-24T11:10:00.000-04:002009-03-24T11:10:00.000-04:00I think what Burnett is trying to say is that no a...I think what Burnett is trying to say is that no archaelohgists have ever found a town called Arimathea.<BR/><BR/>Ari = superior.<BR/><BR/>Mathea is based on disciple.<BR/><BR/>The 'superior disciple' buries Jesus while the other disciples clear off.<BR/><BR/>Just how much does the author have to signal that this is myth?<BR/><BR/>It is just a myth as John Bunyan's 'Pilgrims Progress' with its people called Mr. Worldly Wiseman , Mr. Legality and his son Civility in the village of Morality....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29255398087524122752009-03-24T10:51:00.000-04:002009-03-24T10:51:00.000-04:00Carr,You're in another world. There has been NOT o...Carr,<BR/><BR/>You're in another world. There has been NOT one shred of evidence out of the the over 25,000 pieces of archaeological evidence that has overturned any biblical passage. Neither form nor textual criticism has dispelled any claim made by Christianity, and those studies have continued with fervor for hundreds of years...<BR/><BR/>With all of that said, NONE of you give any reason that the gospels, or NT in general is not reliable. All you say is that you "don't like it"...<BR/><BR/>So WHAT? Cry on...There's no convicted criminal that likes the evidence levied againt him/her in court...<BR/><BR/>Pay the fine pal...do the time...evidence that you don't like is still evidence that speaks eternally...<BR/><BR/>Anthony, one thing you're gifted with is speaking and saying nothing, that evidence is available from your left over Christian writings too. (SARCASM OFF)<BR/><BR/>LaterDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45442964828851589192009-03-24T08:03:00.000-04:002009-03-24T08:03:00.000-04:00BARNETTSteven Carr you're still yet full of garbag...BARNETT<BR/>Steven Carr you're still yet full of garbage and misinformation as I see that some things truly NEVER change.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I would dispute that.<BR/><BR/>But supposing it were true.<BR/><BR/>Suppose I am not generally reliable, just for the sake of argument.<BR/><BR/>So what? How would that affect what I say?<BR/><BR/>I can even now hear Craig mocking the idea that the Gospels have to be generally reliable before using them.<BR/><BR/>Why, Craig says <A HREF="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6981" REL="nofollow">Generally Reliabe Gospels </A> '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.'<BR/><BR/>Gosh, even Burnett can see the folly of this, as he accuses me of not being generally reliable, while Craig mocks the idea that he has to show that the Gospels are generally reliable before using them.<BR/><BR/>But believer's apply the Outsider's Test to other people, and never apply it to themselves.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85875689480828291452009-03-24T07:52:00.000-04:002009-03-24T07:52:00.000-04:00(Sarcasm ON)You go Harv! Preach your righteous ind...(Sarcasm ON)<BR/><BR/>You go Harv! Preach your righteous indignation against us atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. Bring down the ire of God's wrath on us apostates....<BR/><BR/>Do you feel better? Now, start thinking with a little objectivity. And no, Harv, using CAPITAL LETTERS isn't an argument and neither is the amount of moon dust evidence of a young universe...<BR/><BR/>(Sarcasm OFF)Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62388689801418912962009-03-24T03:45:00.000-04:002009-03-24T03:45:00.000-04:00'*Can we go further than this, on the internal evi...'*Can we go further than this, on the internal evidence of the Gospel itself, in detecting features that relate it closely to Peter*? Is there any sense in which the stories are told from a Petrine perspective? Does Peter have an individual significance within the narrative, or is he merely representative of the disciples of Jesus in general?'<BR/><BR/>Wow!<BR/><BR/>I guess Harry Potter was the main eyewitness source for the Harry Potter books.<BR/><BR/>And Dr. Watson was the main eyewitness source for the Sherlock Holmes books.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for forgetting Bauckham's 'arguments' , as I didn't realise Bauckham intended such things to be taken seriously.<BR/><BR/>It is a measure of just how much the Gospels fail the a-historical texts that Bauckham has to resort to such ad hoc special pleading , using methods that would be laughed at if he applied them to 'Alice in Wonderland'.<BR/><BR/>Or even to any of the Gnostic Gospels, which Bauckham dismisses without even thinking about it.....<BR/><BR/>Where's the beef?<BR/><BR/>Now perhaps Craig-supporters can give us one person who named himself as seeing the BVM, Mary Magdalene,the other Mary, Judas, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Thomas, Joanna, Salome, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander.<BR/><BR/><BR/> Now perhaps Craig-supporters can give us one person who named himself as meeting anybody who he named as seeing the BVM, Mary Magdalene,the other Mary, Judas, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Thomas, Joanna, Salome, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander. <BR/><BR/>Why do Christians have to resort to such pathetic arguments as Bauckham's that if a book mentions person X a lot, then person X was an eyewitness for that story.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26480599878187416022009-03-23T23:44:00.000-04:002009-03-23T23:44:00.000-04:00Dave Huntsman,How many cricifixions were done beca...Dave Huntsman,<BR/><BR/>How many cricifixions were done because the JEWS requested it historically?<BR/><BR/>Certainly there would have been a different standard for a Roman criminal or someone whom had trespassed against Roman law or defied the state of Rome...What was Pilate's declaration?<BR/><BR/>There was NO FAULT in him (Jesus) (Lk. 23:4 & 14, Jn. 18:38, Jn. 19:4 & 6) Jesus wasn't deserving UNDER ROMAN LAW of the normative treatment of a Roman criminal or someone who was defecting against the state of Rome.<BR/><BR/>I haven't even dealt with the obtuse historical assumptions of Crossan and rogue historians, but certainly Jesus didn't exactly fit being "an example' according to the Romans. <BR/><BR/>LaterDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70589204910923165192009-03-23T22:41:00.000-04:002009-03-23T22:41:00.000-04:00Mr. Burnett, Dave Huntsman,You use Crossan as a so...Mr. Burnett, <BR/><BR/><I>Dave Huntsman,<BR/><BR/>You use Crossan as a source. Crossan also said that "Dog's ate the body of Jesus" </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, what he said is that in those days crucifixion was not just an execution; after all, that would just take two seconds with a sword. It was deliberate state terrorism. The crucified were put outside the city...often on one of the roads leading in, so they could be seen....and one thing they generally were not allowed to be done, is to have family take them down that very evening. Kind of defeated the whole point of doing it. And archeology backs him up: out of the several thousand crucifixions outside Jerusalem between 4 BCE and 40 CE, only a single crucified skeleton has ever been found. The animals - starting with the birds - were supposed to have their way with you first, publicly. Out of all the burial boxes found, all the graves dug up - only the one. Kind of the exception that tends to prove the rule. <BR/><BR/>Out of all the bones you could have picked with Crossan, that is probably the most inane; I don't know of a single historian who would disagree with his description of what crucifixion was in the middle east, what it's purpose was, how it was handled, etc. <BR/><BR/>Dave HuntsmanDave Huntsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18238454047860847548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62395244100480299812009-03-23T22:27:00.000-04:002009-03-23T22:27:00.000-04:00"I have read Bauckham."I highly doubt it. If you d..."I have read Bauckham."<BR/><BR/>I highly doubt it. If you did, you obviously didn't understand him. How do I know this?<BR/><BR/>"He claims the Gospel of Mark is based on the eyewitness testimony of Peter. *The proof of this is that Peter is the first named disciples in the book and the last named disciple in the book.*<BR/>This is not even an argument. It is not even rational."<BR/><BR/>It's also not his 'proof.'<BR/><BR/>Here's a small quote from the beginning of chapter 7, "The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark"<BR/><BR/>"We have seen that Mark's Gospel has the highest frequency of references to Peter among the Gospels, and that it uses the inclusio of eyewitness testimony [this is what Carr was referring to] to indicate that Peter was its main eyewitness source. *Can we go further than this, on the internal evidence of the Gospel itself, in detecting features that relate it closely to Peter*? Is there any sense in which the stories are told from a Petrine perspective? Does Peter have an individual significance within the narrative, or is he merely representative of the disciples of Jesus in general?...Here we will offer arguments purely from the internal evidence of Mark's gospel. From this Gospel's use of a *Petrine inclusio* of eyewitness testimony we already have reason **to be open to recognizing** further indications of Peter's special connection with this Gospel. **The evidence presented in this chapter *suggests* that such a connection *deserves to be given serious consideration* again**."<BR/><BR/>Chapters 7 and 8 deal with this internal evidence, while chapter 9 deals with Papias and Mark (and Matthew).<BR/><BR/>So, Carr, were you lying about having read Bauckham, or did you *completely* misunderstand him? As my quote above makes clear, he *starts* with the inclusio, then goes on to examine internal and external evidence, and ends not with a 'proof' that Mark's gospel is based on Peter's eyewitness testimony, but with the weaker claim that we need to take the notion of direct Petrine influence more seriously. So, you got his argument entirely wrong -- both his premises and his conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28702480403377458742009-03-23T22:18:00.000-04:002009-03-23T22:18:00.000-04:00Here's the debate last year - on this same subject...Here's the debate last year - on this same subject - between Craig, and Ehrman. You can see from this, why Craig picks on someone like Rick Carrier to debate these days; ; ie, an extremely studious, serious - and, extremely young and inexperienced - historian. After what happened to him with Ehrman....<BR/><BR/>Ehrman makes clear Craig is not a historian; that the people he keeps quoting and depending on are not historians but theologians; and that Craig doesn't understand the context in which ancient texts are written. (And many other things). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Dave<BR/><BR/>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rftools_de_creatione_1Dave Huntsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18238454047860847548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12400672801489436532009-03-23T21:48:00.000-04:002009-03-23T21:48:00.000-04:00John,"Such a thing is fairy tale wishful thinking ...John,<BR/><BR/><I>"Such a thing is fairy tale wishful thinking unbecoming of what best represents scholarship. He has a presumption in favor of that which he seeks to defend"</I><BR/><BR/>John YOU have the presumption of antisupernaturalism. Peopl come back from the dead through efforts of the medical profession John. So to die and to come back to life IS NOT beyond even a naturalistic world view. Your problem is that these events took place without aid of science, and over a 3 day period of time. That's what we'd expect dealing with a God who claims to have power over life and death. <BR/><BR/>So, your blindness to the reality of an open continuum is really amazing.<BR/><BR/>You also said, <I>"There can be no historical confirmation of such an event that would ever persuade an intellectually honest person"</I><BR/><BR/>There can be no historical confirmation of many things that happened TODAY. That doesn not mean they did not occur. Your application of historical methodology is biased toward your worldview. Under normal circumstances, your criteria for evidence only rests upon the types of evidences needed to satisfy the case. You want evidence BEYOND all reasonable doubt, but YOU KNOW that there is NO evidence for ANY history that has that. All history is based on certitude which you gladly accept for non-supernatural events, but for you supernatural events rise to a special level and answeres no matter what they may be in history, are never satisfactory for you. <BR/><BR/>Dave Huntsman,<BR/><BR/>You use Crossan as a source. Crossan also said that "Dog's ate the body of Jesus" Now, I hate to steal your thunder but that idiot is an idiot all on his own and NO scholar of any repute would agree with his assessments in any form. That's simply NOT how it was done historically. Besides he embellishes and overstates his case and that's no secret.<BR/><BR/>and Steven Carr you're still yet full of garbage and misinformation as I see that some things truly NEVER change.<BR/><BR/>Later.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.com