tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post7589683940107320737..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Craig Debate WrapRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-73728370378699290012011-05-01T01:07:03.934-07:002011-05-01T01:07:03.934-07:00I definitely think Craig gets by alot on time cons...I definitely think Craig gets by alot on time constraints of oral debates.. he has built a powerful set of skills that often give him the appearance of being right because he has so much facility within the confines of formal oral debating. I agree that a written debate would be much more revealing of he weaknesses of his positions. The serious debates that are about getting more to the truth Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-8640801663107054422010-07-28T17:02:20.148-07:002010-07-28T17:02:20.148-07:00Must be a debate you dreamed about. Because that&#...Must be a debate you dreamed about. Because that's not what I saw. It looked a lot more like two hours of boring talking past each other as he ignored half of what I argued, spent most of his time rebutting what I never presented there, followed by me trying to race against the clock to answer all the misleading claims he bombarded the audience with faster than they could even follow or Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-21694480171715137302010-04-01T12:06:47.916-07:002010-04-01T12:06:47.916-07:00This debate was as if Craig chained Carrier to a t...This debate was as if Craig chained Carrier to a tree and punched him in the stomach for 3 hours.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04310840749933857048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-50645462965855888102009-12-08T09:13:53.945-08:002009-12-08T09:13:53.945-08:00Oral debate is a game. There is no connection betw...Oral debate is a game. There is no connection between winning and being right. As I've said many times, if the clock didn't stop, I would have rebutted every argument he made. So in effect, he was hiding behind the rules and just talking faster than me. That's why a written debate would not turn out so well for him, and I'd love to engage one with him if anyone can arrange it.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-11091087454377696762009-11-06T13:04:19.979-08:002009-11-06T13:04:19.979-08:00wait, you lost to craig!?
i mean, craig's pre...wait, you lost to craig!?<br /><br />i mean, craig's pretty smart but taking the apologetic side, there's really no way to win.<br /><br />guess i should go watch the debate online.chasing the front crowdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05772209310050451794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-27320810259455901332009-08-26T10:49:28.484-07:002009-08-26T10:49:28.484-07:00Bernard, nothing in your latest vast array of word...<b>Bernard</b>, nothing in your latest vast array of words above adds anything to this discussion. You simply are ignoring what I've said, making excuses, and issuing vain declarations of incredulity. You're just wasting my time. We're done here.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-23426806608768621652009-08-04T13:56:24.345-07:002009-08-04T13:56:24.345-07:00RC quoting me: As far as Price is concerned, I was...<i>RC quoting me: As far as Price is concerned, I was not impressed by his case against 1Co15:3-11 being authentic.<br><br /><br />RC: My point exactly.<br><br />His argument is more factually accurate and less fallacious than yours and more grounded and cautious regarding its generalizations, yet it's still fallacious enough to be inconclusive, for when the fallacies are removed, the Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-63561011203003681502009-08-04T13:55:01.492-07:002009-08-04T13:55:01.492-07:00RC: ... They are not rush jobs.
BM: By rush job, f...<i>RC: ... They are not rush jobs.</i><br><br />BM: By rush job, for gMark writing, I was allowing days, maybe a few weeks.<br><br><br /><i>RC: Nor would that even be plausible. It would take days to write such a book, plus weeks to make enough copies to disseminate it, ...</i><br><br />BM: How do you know there was a plan to multiply and disseminate the “gospel”? According to what went into theBernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-40237840204094944522009-08-04T13:52:33.896-07:002009-08-04T13:52:33.896-07:00RC quoting me: Also in Mk1:32, ‘even’ starts at su...<i>RC quoting me: Also in Mk1:32, ‘even’ starts at sunset: YLT “And evening having come, when the sun did set, they brought unto him ...”.<br><br /><br />RC: Notice how this invalidates your argument. Mark knew he had to give a specific marker, and here he does: sunset; so in 15:42, he gives a marker again: not yet sunset. He thus is being very clear. You need to listen to what Mark is saying andBernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-83281226674090398222009-08-04T13:51:22.407-07:002009-08-04T13:51:22.407-07:00RC quoting me: Bernard said... ...you reasoned tha...<i> RC quoting me: Bernard said... ...you reasoned that because only the burial is mentioned (and not the empty tomb), that had to be written before the gospels (consequently by Paul).<br><br /><br />RC: I don't recall specifically arguing that. ...</i><br><br /><br />BM: I was referring to the last point of your message to me at May 13, 2009 10:39 AM<br><br><br /><br /><i> RC quoting me: ButBernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-29581042922197609062009-08-04T13:49:53.855-07:002009-08-04T13:49:53.855-07:00RC: I don't know what you mean by "degree...<i>RC: I don't know what you mean by "degrees" of physicality. Matter is matter, physical is physical.</i><br><br /><br />BM: Exactly: physical is physical and spiritual is not physical, but spiritual, as are the heavenly Jesus and to-be-resurrected Christians in 1Cor15:45-49.<br><br><br /><br /><i>RC: Anyway, there is ample evidence many others, before and after him, inside and Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-89053180597047712652009-08-04T13:48:52.706-07:002009-08-04T13:48:52.706-07:00RC quoting me: ... Because, most likely, the two r...<i>RC quoting me: ... Because, most likely, the two resurrection stories were written later by two different interpolators: discontinuities again, etc. ... [and all your other radical speculations]<br><br /><br />RC: If you wish to maintain that this is the case, you are going against all established consensus. Therefore, you are obligated to publish your theory in a peer reviewed journal in a Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-53322560439051197722009-08-04T13:46:07.522-07:002009-08-04T13:46:07.522-07:00RC: Actually, I do provide such quotes, plus other...<i>RC: Actually, I do provide such quotes, plus other evidence, in Empty Tomb. Apparently you haven't read it. I also have collected abundant external evidence of this behavior as a general practice in religious cults in antiquity, which I will survey in my upcoming book.</i><br><br /><br />BM: I know enough about gMark and its empty tomb passage to ascertain there is no direct evidence &Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-19973377295678041592009-08-04T13:44:43.829-07:002009-08-04T13:44:43.829-07:00RC: Actually, I do provide such quotes, plus othe...<i>RC: Actually, I do provide such quotes, plus other evidence, in Empty Tomb. Apparently you haven't read it. I also have collected abundant external evidence of this behavior as a general practice in religious cults in antiquity, which I will survey in my upcoming book.</i><br><br /><br />BM: The Empty Tomb again. It seems that all your understanding and study about the gospels are based Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-58928952338768975912009-08-04T13:43:41.612-07:002009-08-04T13:43:41.612-07:00RC: I'll reiterate for the last time: I am not...<i>RC: I'll reiterate for the last time: I am not arguing the need to look for symbolism, I can already prove the symbolism is there, in numerous fundamental passages,</i><br><br /><br />BM: Symbolic meaning of any part of a text can be easily imagined. Philo of Alexandria was a master at it regarding the Pentateuch. Many Neo/Middle Platonic (from pagan legends), Gnostics and Church Fathers (Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-59803170721802513942009-08-04T13:42:28.319-07:002009-08-04T13:42:28.319-07:00RC quoting me: Bernard said... I have no clue abou...<i>RC quoting me: Bernard said... I have no clue about what you mean about Mark.<br><br /><br />RC: I am telling you that if Mark had written exactly what Josephus did, you'd be right, but Mark didn't, therefore you're wrong.</i><br><br /><br />BM: That’s a very opaque statement. According to you, Mark would think that Sunday morning (about 40 hours after Jesus’ death) was after threeBernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-1651496051877024972009-07-24T18:28:14.573-07:002009-07-24T18:28:14.573-07:00Bernard said... The appraisal of my arguments was ...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>The appraisal of my arguments was expected, as coming from you. Anyway, you implied some of my arguments may be sound. That would be encouraging! And I wonder how you determine soundness.</i><br /><br />Why don't you find out? Write up your argument formally and present it to a peer reviewed journal. See what the experts say. Then you'll know, and you won't Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-50549939572954387422009-07-24T18:26:23.303-07:002009-07-24T18:26:23.303-07:00Bernard said... But I am glad you agree [the resur...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>But I am glad you agree [the resurrection body] was thought to be invisible and its physicality (if ever) very little.</i><br /><br />I don't know what you mean by "degrees" of physicality. Matter is matter, physical is physical. And I have not said it was necessarily invisible. It may have been (Origen says it was, except to the eyes of faith, which can Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-2481811190519110522009-07-24T18:24:15.360-07:002009-07-24T18:24:15.360-07:00Bernard said... I certainly do not agree with you ...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>I certainly do not agree with you on Mark. He made mistakes...[etc.]</i><br /><br />None of that has anything to do with my point. Mark was certainly very well educated. That's it. Many a superbly educated writer made mistakes, etc. And contrary to your claim, Helms and others have amply demonstrated Mark's stories are <i>superbly</i> crafted. They are not rush Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-49000121663636291372009-07-24T18:21:31.170-07:002009-07-24T18:21:31.170-07:00Bernard said... RC: Joseph is done with everything...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>RC: Joseph is done with everything before sunset (Mark is explicit that this all occurs on the Preparation Day before the Sabbath--hence he only says it was getting late, not that sunset had occurred). So there is no shopping here on the Sabbath. BM: Not according to Mk15:42 YLT “And now evening having come, ...” Maybe at that time, the author thought it was still Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-34181895525728426992009-07-24T18:18:27.572-07:002009-07-24T18:18:27.572-07:00Bernard said... ...you reasoned that because only ...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>...you reasoned that because only the burial is mentioned (and not the empty tomb), that had to be written before the gospels (consequently by Paul).</i><br /><br />I don't recall specifically arguing that. I have argued the Gospels post-date the Epistles as a whole because neither they nor their distinctive content ever appears there. And I have argued that the 1 Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-85269034383317941822009-07-24T18:17:05.154-07:002009-07-24T18:17:05.154-07:00Bernard said... In my view, the Empty Tomb was add...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>In my view, the Empty Tomb was added (and maybe not by “Mark”) to provide some pseudo evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.</i><br /><br />Per Origen, it could even have been added for both reasons, serving the ends of the principle of double-truth, one for "children" (who need convincing of literal facts in order to be controlled) and another for "adults"Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-13397264413948825352009-07-24T18:15:40.873-07:002009-07-24T18:15:40.873-07:00Bernard said... Can you prove that every bits in i...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>Can you prove that every bits in it are myth and no parts of it can relate to a real earthy Jesus?</i><br /><br />That's not how we define myth. You are confusing the modern colloquialism of myth as an antonym of "historically true," with the ancient concept of myth as a story constructed to symbolically convey a deeper abstract message <i>regardless</i> ofRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-87726183399967632872009-07-24T18:12:38.126-07:002009-07-24T18:12:38.126-07:00Bernard said... No need to look for symbolism...
...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>No need to look for symbolism...</i><br /><br />I'll reiterate for the last time: I am not arguing the <i>need</i> to look for symbolism, I can already <i>prove</i> the symbolism is there, in numerous fundamental passages, thus the prior probability that other peculiar passages are similarly symbolic is <i>high</i>, whereas the prior probability that real history Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-75721338214902165242009-07-24T18:09:43.155-07:002009-07-24T18:09:43.155-07:00Bernard said... I have no clue about what you mean...<b>Bernard said...</b> <i>I have no clue about what you mean about Mark.</i><br /><br />I am telling you that if Mark had written exactly what Josephus did, you'd be right, but Mark didn't, therefore you're wrong. Because they are both using exactly the same numbering conventions. I won't repeat the matter, since my original post is clear as to my point, so you need to <a href="Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.com