Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Are you seriously asking if there are non-Christians who believe that Christianity is true? I have to say, I wasn't aware that there existed people who are this monumentally and superlatively stupid. Next you'll be asking for theists who believe that there is no God.


I bet the answer is zero too. I am not aware of a single person who accepts the truth of Christianity whilst simultaneously not being a Christian. It's simply basic logic. The two things stand in an identity relation with one another.

Exactly! This is what I have been saying all along. The supernatural claims of Christianity must be believed by faith, not by evidence, because the "evidence" for these claims is extremely weak to non-existent.

[Gary]

I'm not a bit surprised he quoted Hallquist. I'm in fact surprised he hadn't quoted someone like him so far.

Oh. We never got definitions of "good", "just", "merciful", and "perfect" did we?

Much of the excerpt contained statements by Berlinerblau. None of you have countered his claims that non-believers make up a very small percentage of NT scholars.

Nor did you address this statement: "One huge difference between Biblical scholarship and most of academia. The difference is that Biblical scholarship is largely a religious endeavor." You can tout Biblical scholarship all you want but bottom line: Biblical scholarship is the pursuit of evidence to confirm Christians' preconceived conclusions regarding the truth, unlike most areas of academia in which scholars examine evidence and then form conclusions to explain the truth.

As for the definitions of the words above: Buy a dictionary. They are all there.

[Adrift]

I'm not a bit surprised he quoted Hallquist. I'm in fact surprised he hadn't quoted someone like him so far.

Oh. We never got definitions of "good", "just", "merciful", and "perfect" did we?

I'm certain all he's doing is random googling. As far as I can tell he hasn't provided any original arguments or demonstrated any sort of serious research. He just lazily googles for an objection, picks one of the top links that comes up, and then copy/pastes it to the forum and his blog. For someone so clearly psychologically invested in this subject, demonstrating time and again his outrage over a god he doesn't believe in, and a worldview he finds so repugnant he feels driven to evangelize against, one would think he'd desire to spend some time seriously investigating its historical claims and familiarize himself with those reputable NT scholars (Christian and non-Christian) who are experts in the subject. If this demonstrated inability to engage with the subject on a serious level is any indication of his previous fling with Christianity, his apostasy comes at absolutely no surprise at all. I find it bewildering why anyone would waste any time ranting and raving against a subject they show so little familiarity with, but there are a lot of strange people out there.

[Gary]

Richard Carrier has a PhD in the history of Roman Science, and he's most definitely a hack.


Most PhDs require Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, and French as a base/bare minimum, with the remaining languages being optional, usually Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, Italian, Spanish, and/or Arabic. For instance, this is the PhD I want to do:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/rs/gradua...iterranean.php

Please define "hack".

[Gary]

I'm certain all he's doing is random googling. As far as I can tell he hasn't provided any original arguments or demonstrated any sort of serious research. He just lazily googles for an objection, picks one of the top links that comes up, and then copy/pastes it to the forum and his blog. For someone so clearly psychologically invested in this subject, demonstrating time and again his outrage over a god he doesn't believe in, and a worldview he finds so repugnant he feels driven to evangelize against, one would think he'd desire to spend some time seriously investigating its historical claims and familiarize himself with those reputable NT scholars (Christian and non-Christian) who are experts in the subject. If this demonstrated inability to engage with the subject on a serious level is any indication of his previous fling with Christianity, his apostasy comes at absolutely no surprise at all. I find it bewildering why anyone would waste any time ranting and raving against a subject they show so little familiarity with, but there are a lot of strange people out there.

There is no evidence for the Resurrection. None. That is the whole point. You can parade all your evidence for an empty tomb, post-death appearances, and "Honor-Shame" societies but these have multiple alternative, much more probable naturalistic explanations. When it comes to the event in question itself, you have zero witnesses, zero physical evidence, you have nothing. Absolutely nothing. You don't need to be a graduate from Liberty University or Dallas Theological Seminary to know that no evidence is no evidence.

[tabibito]

Guessing that Gary wouldn't be able to recognise a diamond in the rough if he fell over it, but he'd be claiming that there was no evidence of diamonds in the Kimberly mines nonetheless.

[Apologiaphoenix]

As for the definitions of the words above: Buy a dictionary. They are all there.

I do have a dictionary and I don't use a dictionary for academic discussions on the nature of philosophical term. I thought you knew the meaning of these words. How about in your own words tell me what they are?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Exactly! This is what I have been saying all along. The supernatural claims of Christianity must be believed by faith, not by evidence, because the "evidence" for these claims is extremely weak to non-existent.

We have a new Olympic contender here because it looks like Gary just made a rather long jump right here.

[tabibito]

Much of the excerpt contained statements by Berlinerblau. None of you have countered his claims that non-believers make up a very small percentage of NT scholars.

Nor did you address this statement: "One huge difference between Biblical scholarship and most of academia. The difference is that Biblical scholarship is largely a religious endeavor."

The difference between astronomical scholarship and most of academia is that astronomical scholarship is largely an astronomical endeavour.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm sure the Jesus Seminar would be surprised to hear they consisted largely of evangelical Christians.

[Rational Gaze]

Exactly! This is what I have been saying all along. The supernatural claims of Christianity must be believed by faith, not by evidence, because the "evidence" for these claims is extremely weak to non-existent.

Well, this is a complete non-sequitur. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of expecting non-Christians to profess key articles of Christian belief whilst simultaneously remaining non-Christian. Someone who has reached the conclusion that Christianity can no longer be considered an unbeliever. You are essentially asking: 'What percentage of people who do not believe X believe X?'

[Apologiaphoenix]

Well, this is a complete non-sequitur. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of expecting non-Christians to profess key articles of Christian belief whilst simultaneously remaining non-Christian. Someone who has reached the conclusion that Christianity can no longer be considered an unbeliever. You are essentially asking: 'What percentage of people who do not believe X believe X?'

I bet you can't find a single heliocentrist who thinks the sun goes around the Earth. That means heliocentrism is taken on faith and not evidence!

[Rational Gaze]

Please define "hack".

An untalented writer. One who produces poor quality, mediocre work. Someone who is paid to produce low-quality, rushed articles 'to order' (typically by a set deadline.) A writer paid to churn out sensational, low quality "pulp" fiction. Writer's paid to express specific views, typically by word count, and thus who have a reputation for quantity over quality.

[psstein]

I'm sure the Jesus Seminar would be surprised to hear they consisted largely of evangelical Christians.

Robert Funk was at one point an evangelical, so clearly the Jesus Seminar was largely comprised of evangelicals. Ignore people like Crossan and Borg; they don't fit the narrative. The guy who teaches NT at my institution is a fairly liberal Catholic (he thinks the gospels could be later than most scholars think). If people think Biblical study is an apologetic enterprise, they're badly mistaken. A fair amount of NT and OT scholarship is more than willing to challenge traditional Christian beliefs. It's a fairly mainstream position that the infancy narratives are not reliable. It's even a more mainstream position that Jesus was an eschatological prophet.

The fact Gary keeps claiming all NT scholarship is evangelical is nonsensical. Even worse are his attempts to explain away the data and act as though it's a better hypothesis. The theft of the body requires an actual reason.

And to whomever said Carrier is a hack, I largely agree. He's an atheist apologist, not an objective scholar.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I actually think Richard Carrier is a great gift of God to the church.