Wow, cool

I hope to have his baby one day.

Wishful: The problem with religious claims is that they are usually carefully designed so that they can't be proved false. This does not however in any way indicate that they are true. This strategy is called the argument from ignorance fallacy, which is about the most popular misuse of logic we hear about. More on my website here.

(A polite request to anyone who wants to wail on Carrier/mythicists to do so in another thread so as to not distract from helping the OP by making yet another Jesus brawl.)

(September 23, 2015 at 12:10 am)WishfulThinking Wrote: It never really occurred to me that there could be a hell without a religion. I'm apologize if I'm being obtuse, but how do you investigate it without the two tying together? It seems that the last question could have an entirely different answer depending on whether or not hell and a religion were intertwined. Forgive me for not understanding, but what do you mean by morality being properly basic?

For example showing compassion (in general) is good, is properly basic fact of morality. You cannot prove it to be a feature, you simply have to accept it through vision or faith. Goodness in itself, that is being good to be good, itself, is a properly basic belief/faith/sight, it's not something that people believe due it be proven from outside itself.

(September 23, 2015 at 6:37 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 23, 2015 at 12:10 am)WishfulThinking Wrote: It never really occurred to me that there could be a hell without a religion. I'm apologize if I'm being obtuse, but how do you investigate it without the two tying together? It seems that the last question could have an entirely different answer depending on whether or not hell and a religion were intertwined. Forgive me for not understanding, but what do you mean by morality being properly basic?

For example showing compassion (in general) is good, is properly basic fact of morality. You cannot prove it to be a feature, you simply have to accept it through vision or faith. Goodness in itself, that is being good to be good, itself, is a properly basic belief/faith/sight, it's not something that people believe due it be proven from outside itself.

I strongly doubt that paragraph has helped to clear anything up.

(September 23, 2015 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Oh yeah, I forgot! The bible is a load of nonsense. It's filled with stories that demonstrably did not happen, and it is exactly what you'd expect from primitive people trying to explain the world around them while ripping off other mythologies.

This is my favourite video to show people. If you have the time, this bible expert explains why he thinks the Jesus story is just the latest in a long line of similar myths.

http://youtu.be/79Lmmy2jfeo

Richard Carrier is not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. He is just as biased by his beliefs as YEC theologians are by theirs. He isn't respected among his own peers, and just watching the first two minutes of that Youtube video before he even begins he tells people his case (that Jesus didn't exist) is rock-solid, which it isn't.

"Rich, I’ve engaged your repeatedly stated views before. No one. No one in scholarly circles dealing with ancient Judaism and early Christianity, of any religious or non-religious persuasion holds the view that Jesus never existed. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own truth. Let’s move on." Larry Hurtado (a scholar who specialises in the origins of the New Testament and Christianity).

I have not read his book, but if you are interested in the origins of Christianity and how the Christian beliefs and doctrines formed then his book "One God One Lord" comes highly recommended from other scholars. The first edition was published in 1988. It caused quite a bit of discussion among Christian scholars since he shows, among other things, that the earliest Christians had no concept of a Trinity. The book is used by Bible Colleges as a textbook. The 3rd Edition is released this year. so if you want to inform yourself of early Christianity instead of listening to the ramblings of a non-respected scholar with fringe views then pick up his book and read it.

http://youtu.be/pLeXpSCLrD8

Prove your religion has any footing in reality and I might.

Hey, WT. Welcome aboard!

At its base, you do not disprove christianity. You merely watch as the faithful fail time and time again to prove it.

Belief in a tale is no proof of the truthfulness of such tale.
All books in the bible are written by believers... believers in the accounts of others, at best... believers in the made up accounts of themselves, at worst... none were written by actual witnesses of the events... even if some do claim to be.

(September 23, 2015 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Oh yeah, I forgot! The bible is a load of nonsense. It's filled with stories that demonstrably did not happen, and it is exactly what you'd expect from primitive people trying to explain the world around them while ripping off other mythologies.

This is my favourite video to show people. If you have the time, this bible expert explains why he thinks the Jesus story is just the latest in a long line of similar myths.

http://youtu.be/79Lmmy2jfeo

I can give you a whole list of facts he gets wrong in that video. Just from watching it - I don't need to seek any further information. He claims that Joshua son of Jehozadak is a "celestial being" because some other person he's citing said so. Rubbish. Then he claims that Paul cites Jesus as a "celestial High Priest" from Hebrews - which isn't even written by Paul. And look at the passage he cites from Hebrews:

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

That author certainly sees Jesus as a MAN not a "celestial being", as does Paul:

Romans 5:15-17: But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.


Adam is never seen as a "celestial being" - he's a man, and Judaism saw him and Eve as the first two created people. Paul cannot be equating Jesus to Adam and calling them each "one man" if he doesn't see them both as historical people rather than "celestial beings".

Carrier is incredibly misinformed and deliberately skewing the evidence to support his hypothesis.

He claims the so-called Gnostic texts out number the Canonical texts and therefore can tell us more about Christianity - and then doesn't bother to use them to support his argument anyway. Actually they can't - the earliest writings we have are the undisputed Epistles of Paul, the Epistle of James, the four Gospels, and Acts. All of those are written in the first century. There are arguments about when - but they're all first century, the Gospel of John included. The Deutero-Pauline Epistles, the book of Revelation, and 1-2 Peter are written later - some of them perhaps as early as late first century. Gnostic texts are useful of course, but we have no way of establishing that any of them (with some exception) are written in the first century. His clear lack of knowledge about the date of the texts is quite concerning from someone purporting to be a scholar. He claims the date of the "Ascension of Isaiah" is late 1st to early second century - it doesn't. It's dated anywhere from the late first to early third century. The claim that it was written "around the same time as the other gospels" is fantasy - or at best conjecture.

There are "no quotations" from Jesus in Paul's epistles because he never met Jesus - he was converted when he received a revelation about Jesus on the Road to Damascus (Gal 1-2) which contradicts the non eye-witness account of Acts 9 by the way. It is what makes Paul so interesting. If Jesus was a celestial being whispering into Paul's ear he would start saying "Jesus said this" and "Jesus said that". But with that said he does quote Jesus when he write about the Last Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-26: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Paul and the disciples are mentioned many times from Acts 13 to the end, and that part of Acts is contemporary and written by an eye-witness. Therefore we have an author who was either Luke or a close associate of Luke who knew the disciples and the family of Jesus. Paul also know the family of Jesus because he mentions them by name. In Galatians 1:19 he mentions "James the Lord's brother". In Galatians 2 he gives his account of the events of Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council in 50AD) by saying "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. ... And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do."

Broadly speaking it agrees with Acts 15. Both Acts and Galatians say that Paul and Barnabas travelled from Syria to Jerusalem to attend the council, that there was indeed an argument about circumcision for the gentiles, and that James, John, and Peter among others were there, and that James agreed that Paul and Barnabas could continue converting believers without telling them to be circumcised. John and Peter are two of the most important disciples of Jesus - and both authors know them, and know each other, and know James and likely the rest of the family of Jesus (Judas, Mary, Joseph, etc).

So for him to claim that Paul doesn't know about the disciples is wrong. Paul knows these men differently - he didn't know them at the time they were disciples. He met Peter and John and whatever other disciples he knew after Jesus had died - so he didn't know them as close followers of Jesus, he simply knew them as early leaders of the Church. Paul's earliest writing is Galatians and it dates to within a few years of Acts 15/Gal 1 - so early 50's AD. That's roughly 20 years after Jesus has died - you wouldn't expect him to refer to these men as Jesus's close disciples. If he did then it would indicate that he didn't know them.

Paul doesn't speak to Jesus and he never claims that he does. Carrier completely misrepresents his Epistles through his own uninformed ignorance on the subject.

Here is another example of his misleading quoting: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children." (Gal 4:4-5) How can he be born under the Law of Moses if he's celestial? Carrier conveniently ignores this part. Angles are not subject to the Law of Moses. Changing one word meaning "born" to another is typical scribal error and is not evidence of "doctoring" as he claims. He ignores the fact that even Josephus mentions Jesus in Ant 20.9.1 to establish which James he is talking about.

All in all he makes very bad arguments, none of it backed up with any peer-review literature, and most of it based on his biased interpretations of a few words that Paul (and whoever wrote Hebrews) uses. That's conjecture - you can't presume to know what Paul thinks, you can only know what Paul writes.

(September 23, 2015 at 6:46 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: I strongly doubt that paragraph has helped to clear anything up.

He asked how morality is properly basic or relies on properly basic belief.

(September 22, 2015 at 8:00 pm)WishfulThinking Wrote: I don't think I can find it within me to leave my religion behind without proof that it's false, even if I can't back my faith up.

This is all you needed to post. Looks like you're stuck with your religion.

There can be no argument in favor of non-belief except in so far as what is claimed contradicts what is known. Since god claims are classified as supernatural, contradiction with the natural world is no longer relevant .. assuming you accept that the set of supernatural things is empty as I do. However, even there I have to admit my belief regarding the emptiness of the set of supernatural things is my own bias.

For most of us, non-belief is the default response to baseless claims, especially when the claims are extraordinary verging on absurd regarding entities which are poorly defined. I can't help you shed your onerous beliefs so long as your own bias is to imagine the set of supernatural things to be teeming with entities. Maybe 'god' will help you. I can't.

Good analysis, Aractus. I don't doubt that Paul knew the disciples (indeed, it's my hunch that he was not converted "on the road to Damascus" by a vision, but was converted during the process of Christian-hunting on behalf of the Romans, and ran in his own direction--influenced by his Pharisee background--with the information he had, one of the reasons Paul seems so different in tone from Jesus, and why I like to joke that modern Christians are actually "Paulians"), but it's clear from his own writings that they considered him a fanboy and questionable in his theological approach. Nevertheless, I don't think one should throw the baby out with the bathwater, with regard to Carrier. His questionable results should be criticized, most heavily of all by us, but his speculations may produce fruit when turned over by other scholars, and at the very least I find his speculations about the relatedness of Hebrew theology to the theological inputs of now-extinct religions to be useful in forming a picture of the ancient mindset.

As a side note: There's a song by the band Toad the Wet Sprocket, called "Fly From Heaven", which speaks on the subject of Paul's embellishments to the story of Jesus, which I've always loved. It's sung from the perspective of James, though it never mentions James, just hints that it was James when the singer complains "Change him into my brother, change the things that he said. Says that he speaks to him, but he never ever knew the man. But I'd've given my life for him."

Edited to add the video: