Micheal Nugent V WC

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Explain and show how Oldrnwisrs points don't stand up to scrutiny.

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

Yes Jc I read posts unlike you.
However you again miss the point. Oldrnwisr has made dozens of points. Do all of these not stand up to scrutiny?

And again, you're missing the post I made a few back. Any particular reason you're not replying to it? I thought you gave full detailed answers to all points?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Yes Jc I read posts unlike you.
However you again miss the point. Oldrnwisr has made dozens of points. Do all of these not stand up to scrutiny?

And again, you're missing the post I made a few back. Any particular reason you're not replying to it? I thought you gave full detailed answers to all points?

The first of Oldrnwisr's points, that I examined in detail (the one about the 'generation' Jesus was talking about in Mt 24), collapsed under scrutiny ... not a good start for him.

I try to answer as time permits me ... answering posts on the A & A isn't some kind of full-time occupation for me ... and there is only one of me and many of you.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

The first of Oldrnwisr's points, that I examined in detail (the one about the 'generation' Jesus was talking about in Mt 24), collapsed under scrutiny ... not a good start for him.

I try to answer as time permits me ... answering posts on the A & A isn't some kind of full-time occupation for me ... and there is only one of me and many of you.

Which of his points did you examine. You have addressed none of them, nevermind in detail and nevermind showing them to not stand up.

And I simply don't believe that you have any intention of returning to my point as you have a habit of ignoring points and pretending they don't exist.

So either you address it now, or its you admitting you can't and that you concede the points.

looksee

J C wrote: »

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

Mod This is your belief JC, unfortunately you cannot force everyone else to accept your belief, just because you believe it. A&A arguments are going to be based on logic and research, blind belief does not come near to being a basis for accepting anything.

It appears we do not have a basis for discussion in the circumstances, you are not going to accept anything that may demonstrate creative writing in the NT and we are not going to accept anything that relies solely on personal belief.

I am very reluctant to kill a discussion, especially since there have been some posts of real interest to A&As, but unless you can come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it', or some more academically minded Christians pop in to offer solid argument, then I am afraid this thread will have to be declared defunct.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Lets look where this post fits on the pyramid of debating levels ...
... lets see where saying your opponent's post should be made in the "Delusional and Idiotic Posts" forum ... ah yes ... its somewhere below calling your opponent an ass hat !!

I'm not debating you, simply making an observation. You frequently complain that you have too many people to respond to, and you obviously have your work cut out for you, as you obviously can't even understand oldrnwisr's, let alone respond in anything resembling a meaningful way to it.

And I didn't call you an asshat, for three reasons. 1) I didn't actually call you an anything, 2) calling someone an asshat would be against the charter and 3) calling you an asshat would be an insult to asshats everywhere.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

Ah, the Trump/Spicer method of evidence... "well the president believes <insert some ridiculous thing stated as a fact by Trump without any evidence> is the case, so there." I know you are a big Trump fan, so I guess it is hardly surprising. Awesome.

MrP

J C

looksee wrote: »

Mod This is your belief JC, unfortunately you cannot force everyone else to accept your belief, just because you believe it. A&A arguments are going to be based on logic and research, blind belief does not come near to being a basis for accepting anything.

It appears we do not have a basis for discussion in the circumstances, you are not going to accept anything that may demonstrate creative writing in the NT and we are not going to accept anything that relies solely on personal belief.

I am very reluctant to kill a discussion, especially since there have been some posts of real interest to A&As, but unless you can come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it', or some more academically minded Christians pop in to offer solid argument, then I am afraid this thread will have to be declared defunct.

I would define the problem with this thread somewhat narrower (and more balanced) than you have.
Yes, I have Faith ... but it isn't a blind faith i.e. Christianity is based upon the historical validity of Jesus Christ, His actions and His words. Equally, I'm not about to be impressed to the point of ceasing to believe in Jesus Christ by the walls of text that Oldrnwisr, in particular, posts, which amount to an attempt to drown me under an avalanche of claims by trowing so much argumentation at me that I cannot posssibly respond to it all ... and responding to some of it exposes me to charges of selectivity.
Equally, the continuous badgering of me by various posters to answer various posts (that they often don't even specify) amounts to the same thing ... an attempt to drown me out with the sheer volume of their postings in comparison to anything I could possibly hope to post.
To put this into the context of the OP i.e. the upcoming Nugent-Craig debate ... what you are doing to me is the equivalent of five people along with Dr Craig filibustering when they get the floor and expecting Michael Nugent to deal with every point they make ... along with continuous interjections from the audience, as he attempts to respond in the debate and warnings and interjections from the debate moderator criticising the quality of Michael's contributions and analysing his motives for saying particular things - instead of leaving it to the audience to be the judge of that.

No debate could be conducted in such a one-sided and chaotic manner.

If you guys are serious about having a reasoned discussion on this thread, you need to start posting short reasoned points that you wish to make and have addressed by me.
I will deal with each point in turn ... but I'm not prepared to badgered and personally criticised while I attempt to answer questions posed to me ... nor am I prepared to be deluged with avalanches of material and postings that drown me out and would drown out any other Human Being, if this was being done to them.
If you have a hundred points to make, please choose your best one and lets debate it ... and we can then move onto the next one. Throwing a hundred points at me and then badgering me to answer number 35, when we haven't got past number 3 is no way to run any debate ... where the objective is to hear both sides of the argument.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

Mod This is your belief JC, unfortunately you cannot force everyone else to accept your belief, just because you believe it. A&A arguments are going to be based on logic and research, blind belief does not come near to being a basis for accepting anything.

It appears we do not have a basis for discussion in the circumstances, you are not going to accept anything that may demonstrate creative writing in the NT and we are not going to accept anything that relies solely on personal belief.

I am very reluctant to kill a discussion, especially since there have been some posts of real interest to A&As, but unless you can come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it', or some more academically minded Christians pop in to offer solid argument, then I am afraid this thread will have to be declared defunct.

Why should the forum suffer because of JC's incompetence? Surely the more equitable remedy to this "issue", unless JC does something he has never done before and actually properly addresses a point, is to ban him from the thread, and allow the thread to continue for those that are actually interested in the discussion...?

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... but I'm not prepared to badgered and personally criticised while I attempt to answer questions posed to me ... nor am I prepared to be deluged with avalanches of material and postings that drown me out and would drown out any other Human Being, if this was being done to them.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I'm not debating you, simply making an observation. You frequently complain that you have too many people to respond to, and you obviously have your work cut out for you, as you obviously can't even understand oldrnwisr's, let alone respond in anything resembling a meaningful way to it.

And I didn't call you an asshat, for three reasons. 1) I didn't actually call you an anything, 2) calling someone an asshat would be against the charter and 3) calling you an asshat would be an insult to asshats everywhere.

MrP

You have just described me as worse than an ass hat ... and you previously described my posts ... and by direct extension myself, as "Delusional and Idiotic" ... which is significantly more serious than merely calling me an ass hat.
It would be very interesting what would happen at the Nugent-Craig debate, if a member of the audience were to interject in the debate with the observation that either protagonist was 'Delusional and Idiotic' ... I would hope that the debate would be stopped until the interjector was asked to withdraw such an unfounded ad hominem ... and was then promptly asked to leave.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Why should the forum suffer because of JC's incompetence? Surely the more equitable remedy to this "issue", unless JC does something he has never done before and actually properly addresses a point, is to ban him from the thread, and allow the thread to continue for those that are actually interested in the discussion...?

MrP

Sounds like you are only interested in a one-sided 'discussion' ... that would amount to little more than a 'mutual admiration society' ... for Atheists and their viewpoint.

Could I gently point out that this thread is discussing an upcoming debate on the existence of God ... and the debate is between an eminent Christian and an eminent Atheist ... it isn't going to be a 'discussion' betweeen two Atheists (or indeed two Christians) ... and if it was, I'd venture to suggest that very few people would be interested in attending it ... because it would be little more than an exercise in mutual admiration ... instead of a debate presenting both sides of the argument ... and letting the audience decide on which arguments are the strongest!!!

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

You have just described me as worse than an ass hat ... and you previously described my posts ... and by direct extension myself, as "Delusional and Idiotic" ... which is significantly more serious than merely calling me an ass hat.
It would be very intersting what would happen at the Nugent-Craig debate, if a member of the audience were to interject in the debate with the observation that either protagonist was 'Delusional and Idiotic' ... I would hope that the debate would be stopped until the interjector was asked to withdraw such an unfounded ad hominem ... and was then promptly asked to leave.

google wrote:

delusional

dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective
adjective: delusional

characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"

I have highlighted the particularly important part, as I know you have difficulty reading large texts less than 2000 years old. Seems pretty accurate to me.

If your beliefs were about anything other than religion, then you would be deemed to be mentally ill. And just to be clear, I am not saying you are mentally ill, because holding a religious belief, even when that belief perfectly satisfies the definition of delusional, for some reason gets special treatment and isn't considered to be a mental illness. So crack on JC you not mentally ill person.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Sounds like you are only interested in a one-sided 'discussion' ... that would amount to little more than a 'mutual admiration society' ... for Atheists and their viewpoint.

Could I gently point out that this thread is discussing an upcoming debate on the existence of God ... and the debate is between an eminent Christian and an eminent Atheist ... it isn't going to be a 'discussion' betweeen two Atheists (or indeed two Christians) ... and if it was, I'd venture to suggest that very few people would be interested in attending it ... because it would be little more than an exercise in mutual admiration ... instead of a debate presenting both sides of the argument!!!

No I am actually interested in discussion where people are capable of discussion. You aren't.

MrP

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

It is quite legitimate for Oldrnwisr to write as he does and its equally valid for me to call the result anti-Christian ... as it strikes at the very heart of the Christian Faith ... the veracity of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ and His Apostles as recorded in the Bible.
I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.

King Mob wrote: »

Then demonstrate this.

J C wrote: »

How can I demonstrate something I am not aware of ... and which I believe doesn't even exist?

Well, firstly you stated that you were aware of attacks by numerous scholars but that you didn't think any of them stood up to close scrutiny. So therefore you must be aware of the existence of these attacks, contrary to what you said. Therefore, it should be easy for you to demonstrate why these attacks don't stand up to scrutiny. There have been plenty of them posted in this thread so far.

Alternatively, if you want you can show how any or all of these New Testament academics are wrong:

Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind who Changed the Bible and Why

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament


Denis MacDonald, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont School of Theology

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark


Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion, Princeton University

The Origin of Satan


John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus, DePaul University

The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus became Fiction about Jesus

J C wrote: »

The first of Oldrnwisr's points, that I examined in detail (the one about the 'generation' Jesus was talking about in Mt 24), collapsed under scrutiny ... not a good start for him.

I try to answer as time permits me ... answering posts on the A & A isn't some kind of full-time occupation for me ... and there is only one of me and many of you.

You really shouldn't lie JC, Jesus doesn't approve of liars.

The post about Jesus' failed prophecy in Matthew 24 wasn't my first point or close to it. My first point in post 45 was the refutation of your opening comment about 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being evidence for the resurrection. You didn't engage with any of the points made in that post and instead dumped two links which claimed that the apostles were reliable. I then responded in post 50 by showing that we know very little about the lives of any of the apostles and the accounts we do have about them are unreliable. The failure of Jesus' prophecy was first introduced by you as a question in post 61 to which I pointed out the failure of the prophecy in Matthew 24 in post 73. So, even before we get to the topic of Jesus' failed prophecy there was a complete failure by you to engage with the points which had already been made.
Secondly, my point about Jesus' failed prophecy has not collapsed under scrutiny or at all despite your feeble rationalisations. You haven't engaged with any of the points made at all and simply respond each time by stating your belief and requoting the bible passage but without making any valid counterargument.

I understand why you choose to lie about this JC. If Jesus' prophecy really did fail then it not only impacts the claims about the divinity of Jesus but also has internal biblical ramifications given God's denouncement of false prophets in Deuteronomy 18. However, such open dishonesty isn't going to get you very far on this forum.

J C wrote: »

Equally, I'm not about to be impressed to the point of ceasing to believe in Jesus Christ by the walls of text that Oldrnwisr, in particular, posts, which amount to an attempt to drown me under an avalanche of claims by trowing so much argumentation at me that I cannot posssibly respond to it all ... and responding to some of it exposes me to charges of selectivity.

No, JC. Just no. You have been the architect of your own demise on this thread. There needn't have been as many points made if you had argued honestly. For example, when you introduced the point about 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, I responded by showing why this passage doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You could have offered counterarguments against any or all of the points that I made and debated that topic until it was exhausted. Instead you chose to rush headlong into a different topic by dumping two links to an apologetics website which claimed that the apostles were reliable. So, instead of dealing with one topic we now had two. When I responded to that point, you moved on again and again. Eventually, you settled down on the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 which you have pretended to defend for the remainder of this thread. The amount of material that has been posted so far demonstrates two things: a) the amount of evidence that is allied against your viewpoint and b) your total unwillingness to engage with any of the points made, preferring instead to skip from apologetic argument to apologetic argument in the vain hope that one of them will stick.

J C wrote: »

If you have a hundred points to make, please choose your best one and lets debate it ... and we can then move onto the next one. Throwing a hundred points at me and then badgering me to answer number 35, when we haven't got past number 3 is no way to run any debate ... where the objective is to hear both sides of the argument.

OK, if you want to narrow it down fine. Let's return to the original point. You said that you only believe in things which are evidentially true and that the resurrection is one of these. There are five sources which purport to provide evidence for the resurrection (the gospels + 1 Corinthians). Please demonstrate why these accounts are historically reliable.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

No I am actually interested in discussion where people are capable of discussion. You aren't.

MrP

Thousands of my posts on the Boards prove you wrong.

Perhaps it's you who are afraid of discussions ... where Atheism is questioned.:)

... and that's why you want me banned.

looksee

Mod: Ok JC, we have reached the end of the road with this. You know well you are not to argue a mod action on thread, we have given you a great deal of leeway with this. The last few pages have just been a to and fro suggesting to you to up your standard of argument and you are not responding.

Please do not post in this thread again, and if you choose to post in other threads on the forum you will be required to come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it is true'.

recedite

Well, everybody is happy now. JC has gone out as a martyr, defending his beliefs to the end, against the onslaught of rationality and reason.

The Cork debate will probably end with a similar "stalemate".

robindch

As per previous warnings, JC is welcome to join Absolam in the specious nonsense thread where the usual rules of engagement in A+A are loosened as little - for the sole reason that some posters enjoy interacting in this environment and others enjoy reading it. Anybody who prefers the usual and higher standard of debate can simply avoid that thread.

The specious nonsense thread is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056883606

Thanking youze

pauldla

So, any news on the debate?

silverharp

the before photo




one of the shots during the debate, mick delivers a knockout punch

robindch

^^^ Didn't know that Barack Obama was at the fight.

Michael OBrien

It was an enjoyable debate. I was in the main room and it was a text book WLC debate style (almost verbatim). the video should be up shortly. The AI crew had a little get together in The Rock pub afterwards. Michael did excellently.

recedite

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Michael did excellently.

Very good. His opponent seems to have become bedazzled and confused by the deployment of the bright red shirt, which works especially well in Cork

recedite wrote: »

All 250 tickets at the main event sold out on the first day? That's a surprisingly brisk take up.
What you going to wear? May I suggest a red polo shirt.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nugent just posted on face book that they intend to have the video up in the next couple of days. I will post here when that happens too.

equivariant

Fair play to MN for taking this challenge on. Craig is a very tough debate opponent, regardless of the fact that his arguments are all nonsense. The problem is that he is a trained philosopher and so it is very tough for someone without that background to win a debate against him.

One example I think that illustrates this point is Craig's misuse of mathematics in his defense of the Kalam argument. He appeals to things like Hilbert's hotel as arguments against the existence of "actual infinities" but he is mathematically naive here and I am amazed that this argument is taken seriously by anyone. The problem is that most people
are not really comfortable with the mathematics of infinity and he exploits this discomfort
without ever giving any semblance of a rigourous argument.

I think it would be analagous to a non specialist trying to debate quantum theory with a trained theoretical physicist (indeed Craig himself has tried to do this with Sean Carroll). No matter who is defending the correct position, the physicist can easily present arguments that require a specialist knowledge to counter, its not a fair debate. I think that Craig often finds himself with this unfair advantage e.g. debating Hitchens on the existence of God. Hitchens was a great speaker but he was just out of his depth philosophically I think in that debate.

The debate between Kagan and Craig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo) is a good example where Craig is fighting on a level playing field and I think he loses badly in this case. Kagan (a professional philosopher) is well able to calmly and efficiently destroy Craig's central arguments and doesn't get sidetracked by rhetoric.

equivariant

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nugent just posted on face book that they intend to have the video up in the next couple of days. I will post here when that happens too.

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

Michael OBrien

equivariant wrote: »

Fair play to MN for taking this challenge on. Craig is a very tough debate opponent, regardless of the fact that his arguments are all nonsense. The problem is that he is a trained philosopher and so it is very tough for someone without that background to win a debate against him.

One example I think that illustrates this point is Craig's misuse of mathematics in his defense of the Kalam argument. He appeals to things like Hilbert's hotel as arguments against the existence of "actual infinities" but he is mathematically naive here and I am amazed that this argument is taken seriously by anyone. The problem is that most people
are not really comfortable with the mathematics of infinity and he exploits this discomfort
without ever giving any semblance of a rigourous argument.

I think it would be analagous to a non specialist trying to debate quantum theory with a trained theoretical physicist (indeed Craig himself has tried to do this with Sean Carroll). No matter who is defending the correct position, the physicist can easily present arguments that require a specialist knowledge to counter, its not a fair debate. I think that Craig often finds himself with this unfair advantage e.g. debating Hitchens on the existence of God. Hitchens was a great speaker but he was just out of his depth philosophically I think in that debate.

The debate between Kagan and Craig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo) is a good example where Craig is fighting on a level playing field and I think he loses badly in this case. Kagan (a professional philosopher) is well able to calmly and efficiently destroy Craig's central arguments and doesn't get sidetracked by rhetoric.

As you will see, Michael did use Carrol and Kagan in his arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo

equivariant wrote: »

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

Ah thanks for that. They are posting it also on the AI You Tube channel but I think they are doing it in sections. So far only Nugents opening speech was uploaded there

Michael OBrien

equivariant wrote: »

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

You may notice that the microphone seems to be VERY low for Michael and then set high for William. Odd that. It happens every time they switch. Every time.

nozzferrahhtoo

Maybe Nugent might comment on that as there is often a good explanation for it. I can not remember it now, but I remember there was a rational technical explanation for why Dinesh DSouza appeared to be screaming like a mad lunatic in his debate with Daniel Dennett. It is so long since I heard the explanation now that I forget what it was (think the debate was 9 years ago now? Long before Dsouza became a convicted criminal) But I remember at the time thinking "ah yes, that makes sense, I will give DSouza the benefit of the doubt on this one".

Michael OBrien

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe Nugent might comment on that as there is often a good explanation for it. I can not remember it now, but I remember there was a rational technical explanation for why Dinesh DSouza appeared to be screaming like a mad lunatic in his debate with Daniel Dennett. It is so long since I heard the explanation now that I forget what it was (think the debate was 9 years ago now? Long before Dsouza became a convicted criminal) But I remember at the time thinking "ah yes, that makes sense, I will give DSouza the benefit of the doubt on this one".

From the reasonable debate site they said they had audio issues, technical ones.

nozzferrahhtoo

equivariant wrote: »

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

Forgive me if I am wrong but I THINK the link above does not include the Q+A? Not sure. But it appears AI have uploaded the entire debate here which does include it.

The facebook link has 20 minutes of white noise at the start before the debate starts and is just under 2 hours. The You Tube link is 2 hours 10 minutes without the 20 minute white noise. So my guess is I am right but I haven't checked

Michael Nugent

Here's the full debate from our camera.

Their recording team had technical problems, I'm not sure what they were.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlcmVye4hM

Michael OBrien

I asked the question at this time in the Q&A. I also did further research that showed that Bart Ehrman has some interest in the idea of Jesus not being buried due to Roman shaming of crucifixion.
I only had about a minute to compose the question unfortunately but my reasoning for doing so was to offer a challenge to Craigs argument that the best explanation for the empty tomb is a supernatural intervention. My view was that Jesus might not have been buried in that fashion at all, because while he WAS a jew and there WERE examples of bodies being allowed buriel, it was not common and not reserved for peacetime as standard. Also since Jesus was allegedly hated by the Jewish authorities they would not have been greatly concerned about giving him burial rites and might have actually found it useful to shame a heretic by denying him those rites.
The goal along this reasoning is not to prove that jesus was not buried, but to show a more likely scenario often overlooked in such debates by Craig, that is plausible and more likely than a human being raised from the dead.
What do other people think?

Later his followers may have claimed a buriel, but with no body, then it would have been by default an empty tomb.

Peregrinus

I see where you're coming from. But I think you have the problem that, if burial of execution victims was not normal (and I believe it wasn't), then anybody shown an empty tomb would not regard it as evidence that Jesus had risen (or, for that matter, that his corpse had been stolen). They'd first look for some reason to accept that he had ever been buried there in the first place, since no burial would have been expected. The usual fate for crucifixion victims was to be left hanging and, if Jesus had been left hanging, there'd be plenty of witnesses to the fact, since it was a public place.

Which means, I think, that if you're trying to cast about for evidence in support of a claim that Jesus is risen, you're unlikely to point to an empty tomb, since it's not evidence that would be expected, or that would seem particularly compelling, and any claim that he had been buried in the tomb (a) would require an explanation as to how and why he had been buried in the first place, and (b) if false, would be fairly easily refuted.

To my mind, the most plausible explanation for the "empty tomb" detail in the resurrection stories is that Jesus had actually been buried there, unusual as that might have been. If he hadn't been, any story that he had been would have been unlikely to pass muster. That doesn't mean that he rose from the dead, obviously - he could have been buried there and his body later removed. But, as an explanation for the empty tomb "he was never in the tomb in the first place!" seems to me to have its own problems.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

I see where you're coming from. But I think you have the problem that, if burial of execution victims was not normal (and I believe it wasn't), then anybody shown an empty tomb would not regard it as evidence that Jesus had risen (or, for that matter, that his corpse had been stolen). They'd first look for some reason to accept that he had ever been buried there in the first place, since no burial would have been expected. The usual fate for crucifixion victims was to be left hanging and, if Jesus had been left hanging, there'd be plenty of witnesses to the fact, since it was a public place.

Which means, I think, that if you're trying to cast about for evidence in support of a claim that Jesus is risen, you're unlikely to point to an empty tomb, since it's not evidence that would be expected, or that would seem particularly compelling, and any claim that he had been buried in the tomb (a) would require an explanation as to how and why he had been buried in the first place, and (b) if false, would be fairly easily refuted.

To my mind, the most plausible explanation for the "empty tomb" detail in the resurrection stories is that Jesus had actually been buried there, unusual as that might have been. If he hadn't been, any story that he had been would have been unlikely to pass muster. That doesn't mean that he rose from the dead, obviously - he could have been buried there and his body later removed. But, as an explanation for the empty tomb "he was never in the tomb in the first place!" seems to me to have its own problems.

You presume that anything we know about Jesus is based on eye-witness reports. You are also arguing that 'it must be true, because nobody said otherwise', which is also an incredibly weak argument (if the accounts were written decades later, who could there be to refute it?). Other details in the Passion story are highly questionable (the trial, the Barabbas incident, the character of Pilate, etc), so the most plausible explanation must be 'the story was put together many years after the purported events'.

Peregrinus

We know the story - as we have it - was put together many years after the events it purports to describe, Paul. That's not in any doubt. And I'm not arguing that "it must be so, because nobody said otherwise"; I'm only pointing out that, just as we can subject all the elements in the canonical story to critical analysis, so the elements of alternative hypotheses (such as "Jesus was never in the tomb") can be subject to a similar critical analysis.

"Jesus was never in the tomb" has one thing going for it - executed criminals were not normally laid in tombs, so why was Jesus? - and one thing going against it - if executed criminals were not normally entombed, and Jesus in particular was not entombed, how did the idea that he was entombed ever acquire any currency? If we're going to consider the first objection we must also, to be consistent, consider the second.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

We know the story - as we have it - was put together many years after the events it purports to describe, Paul. That's not in any doubt. And I'm not arguing that "it must be so, because nobody said otherwise"; I'm only pointing out that, just as we can subject all the elements in the canonical story to critical analysis, so the elements of alternative hypotheses (such as "Jesus was never in the tomb") can be subject to a similar critical analysis.

You and I know that, P, but many others still cling to the belief that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts etc. It's worth pointing out is mistaken, lest it cramps any further development of the conversation.

"Jesus was never in the tomb" has one thing going for it - executed criminals were not normally laid in tombs, so why was Jesus? - and one thing going against it - if executed criminals were not normally entombed, and Jesus in particular was not entombed, how did the idea that he was entombed ever acquire any currency? If we're going to consider the first objection we must also, to be consistent, consider the second.

Indeed, as far as I know the remains of only one victim of Roman crucifixion have been recovered from a tomb. 'Jesus was never in the tomb" can be explained as the normal practice of Roman crucifixion, or it can be explained in an even simpler way (will I say it? ). As for how the idea of a tomb could gain currency, the simplest answer is that the narrative demanded it: one cannot rise from the tomb if there is no tomb to rise from. It should be no surprise that such details could be added to the narrative after a long period of time; as another example, when did the Assumption become doctrine?

Peregrinus

I remind myself, Paul, that we said we wouldn't do this.

I don't think the historicity of Jesus was really the focus of Michael's address, and there may be other aspects of the evening that people want to discuss, including people who were present on the occasion, which neither of us were. Much as we might enjoy it, I don't think this thread will be improved for others if you and I have the same conversation here that we have previously had elsewhere.

So, I propose a truce; we drop the subject here. If either of us wants to continue the discussion about historicity, we should open a new thread (or revive an old one). To be honest, I'm not minded to do that at the moment (though I dare say if you are I will rise to the bait).

Akrasia

Historicity argument aside, Craig's scientific understanding of the origins of the Universe are misleading and in my view dishonest (because he has been informed of the science many many times but still continues to use the same incorrect premises to his cosmological argument.)

The singularity that created space and time k the big bang) was the beginning of our region of spacetime. No credible scientist would ever conclude that he knows for certain what caused the big bang or that it caused itself.

There are many hypothesis for what may have created the conditions for the inflation event, and most of those posit either an eternal cycle of one universe inflating and recycling, or many universes spawning from some other kind of dimensions of space time that we have not got observational access to.

The Craig conclusion that God did it simply does not follow. What is so much more plausible, is that a set of physical conditions exist somewhere, following simple rules that give rise to the illusion of complexity and the inevitable spawning of at least one universe given the infinity of "time" that makes probable events inevitable

oldrnwisr

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I asked the question at this time in the Q&A. I also did further research that showed that Bart Ehrman has some interest in the idea of Jesus not being buried due to Roman shaming of crucifixion.
I only had about a minute to compose the question unfortunately but my reasoning for doing so was to offer a challenge to Craigs argument that the best explanation for the empty tomb is a supernatural intervention. My view was that Jesus might not have been buried in that fashion at all, because while he WAS a jew and there WERE examples of bodies being allowed buriel, it was not common and not reserved for peacetime as standard. Also since Jesus was allegedly hated by the Jewish authorities they would not have been greatly concerned about giving him burial rites and might have actually found it useful to shame a heretic by denying him those rites.
The goal along this reasoning is not to prove that jesus was not buried, but to show a more likely scenario often overlooked in such debates by Craig, that is plausible and more likely than a human being raised from the dead.
What do other people think?

Later his followers may have claimed a buriel, but with no body, then it would have been by default an empty tomb.

Well, here's the thing.

As far as crucifixion goes, the Roman crucifixion method was adopted from a Greek execution method begun in Athens known as apotympanismos which was reserved for a particular class of criminal known as kakourgoi which included thieves, pickpockets, traitors and kidnappers. The condemned would be fixed to a cross using iron shackles around the wrists, neck and ankles. Since they weren't nailed to the cross, death usually came about from thirst and exhaustion. This was, it seems, the primary intent of the execution method, a long drawn out death for, at that time, socially reprehensible crimes. So, although the Romans modified the method slightly the basic intent of a public drawn out death remained. Thus there was very little regard for the condemned either during or after the execution. Usually the bodies were dumped in mass graves.

However, if we have any reason to believe the gospel accounts at all (and I'm not sure we do)*, then there are some persuasive reasons to believe that at the very least Jesus was buried.
Firstly, the narrative is more coherent with at least some form of proper burial. It was the Jews who sought Jesus' execution and their theological basis for doing so as outlined in Mark 14:53-65 was that Jesus was guilty of at least blasphemy and prophesying falsely as condemned by Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 13 respectively, both capital offenses under Jewish law. However, rather than denying Jesus burial rites as per your theory, the burial of Jesus is best explained by the Old Testament. You see, the Pharisees are depicted as a group obstinately dedicated to observing the letter rather than the spirit of the law. So when Joseph of Arimathea goes to ask for Jesus' body, it is not born out of any sympathy for Jesus (since he voted to have Jesus put to death in the first place) but rather fulfilling his obligation to the law:

"If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is hung on a tree, you must not leave the body hanging on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse."
Deuteronomy 21:22-23


Secondly, it's important to remember Mark's overall objective in creating the passion narrative. (I say Mark because all the other gospels use a modified version of Mark's narrative). Mark's gospel comes 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus and 20 years after Paul's earliest writings. In it's original form it ends on a cliffhanger and doesn't actually feature a resurrection. Also, as previously discussed on this thread the idea of a dying and rising Messiah runs counter to the concept of a Messiah that Jewish people of the 1st century would have understood. Mark's narrative being so far removed from the events is best seen as an attempt to keep faith in Jesus alive in light of his death. The resurrection is a way of keeping the Jesus as Messiah story alive by having the potential for him to come back and fulfill the actual Messianic prophecies remain open. So Mark opens up the potential for this possibility by getting the ball (or the stone) rolling by having the tomb observed to be empty. Mark's intention is to leave the possibility of a resurrected Jesus as an exercise for the reader or to paraphrase Mickey O'Neill from Snatch, to say something without talking.

*As I mention above, all of this is based on the extent to which we can believe that the gospels are in any way reliable. With specific regard to the passion, I'm not sure that's at all true. Like I said above also, Mark's gospel is the basis for all of the other passion accounts. We have good reason to believe that Mark has no clue about the actual customs, traditions and laws of the time and place he refers to in his gospel.
Firstly, we are told in Mark 16:4 that:

"But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away."

This illustrates the loss of perspective that occurs sometimes in pseudohistorical fiction. At the time when Mark's gospel was written it was becoming relatively common for spherical or at least spheroidal boulders to be used to close the entrances to tombs. However, at the time when the gospel is set, this wasn't the case. Archaeological evidence shows that the stones used to seal tomb entrances early in the 1st century were cube shaped and that round stones were only used by the mega rich and powerful (e.g. Herod).
Secondly, Mark makes a number of mistakes surrounding the trial and burial of Jesus which shows his ignorance of Jewish laws and customs:

• The trial would never have been held at night as it would have been contrary to Jewish law.
• The trial would only have taken place in the Hall of Hewn Stones in the temple and not in the home of a council member.
• The trial and execution would never have been conducted during Passover
• Sentences in such trials were not pronounced for 24 hours and not immediately in the case of Jesus.
• Mark has Jesus buried in a single piece of cloth rather than the traditional individual wrappings (as mentioned by John)

Finally, as outlined in detail previously on this thread Mark makes other factual mistakes and borrows from Greek mythology, literature and the Old Testament which reveals his gospel as a fictional novel (like Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon) rather than a historical account.


In short, the best explanation for the empty tomb when the gospels are taken at face value is that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus out of consideration for his obligation to the law but simply had Jesus body dumped somewhere else once those obligations were fulfilled. However, the idea that we should at all take the gospels at face value is unsupportable by what we know about them.

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Jesus was never in the tomb" has one thing going for it - executed criminals were not normally laid in tombs, so why was Jesus? - and one thing going against it - if executed criminals were not normally entombed, and Jesus in particular was not entombed, how did the idea that he was entombed ever acquire any currency? If we're going to consider the first objection we must also, to be consistent, consider the second.

Just to expand on this point very briefly.

"if executed criminals were not normally entombed, and Jesus in particular was not entombed, how did the idea that he was entombed ever acquire any currency?"

Well, FWIW here's what I think. Let's for a moment take the pre-trial story of Jesus at face value. There is a distinct sentiment in the gospels as Jesus acquiring followers not only for his miracles and speeches but also under the auspices that he was the Messiah, as in the actual concept of a Jewish Messiah, a religious and political leader who would rebuild the temple, unify the Jewish people, create a single world government and a single religion. The idea of Jesus dying or even having to die doesn't fit within this whole narrative. So, to at least some of those around at the time there must have a certain sense of confusion about how Jesus' death fit into the idea of a Messiah. As explained by Lorne Dawson in the linked paper earlier and by Penn and Teller using the example of Elvis, there were almost certainly (if Jesus really existed and was really crucified) people who needed some way of denying the death of Jesus. Over the decades this morphed into the idea of the resurrection.
However, as has been pointed out, crucified criminals were rarely buried in tombs if at all so why have Jesus depicted as being buried. Well, firstly, it fits the story that Mark has already built up in the rest of the gospel. But also it makes the denouement of the Jesus story that bit neater. If Jesus was dumped in a mass grave whose location was unknown we could still have a risen Jesus. He could simply have just magically reappeared right in front of the disciples in a locked room. But given the trademark of Mark's gospel that is the employment of sophisticated dramatic techniques (e.g. dramatic irony), it's unlikely. It's much neater and more impactful to have a cliffhanger ending where the possibility of a resurrected Jesus is implied but not explicitly stated. It whets the appetite of the reader and draws people to your religion to find out more about Jesus.
The empty tomb argument is a microcosm of the overall mythicist vs. historicist argument. Neither argument completely explains all the evidence without leaving questions or problems and the truth is something which is probably a) unknowable and b) lies somewhere bang in the middle of the two explanations.

oldrnwisr

Akrasia wrote: »

Historicity argument aside, Craig's scientific understanding of the origins of the Universe are misleading and in my view dishonest (because he has been informed of the science many many times but still continues to use the same incorrect premises to his cosmological argument.)

Well, for the record, he does exactly the same thing with the Jesus argument. He continues to use the same factually incorrect statements about the New Testament that he has been corrected on by numerous New Testament Scholars including Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Gerd Ludemann, John Shelby Spong, James Crossley etc. Craig seems to be pretty impervious to facts in general and seems to regard his debates as a method of preaching his view of the world (similar to Galileo's Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo).
It's just that for the most part even less people seem to be interested in the nuances and depths of the Jesus argument than the cosmological argument. Also, given the perils of debating Craig outlined by Nozz in the OP, most liberal NT scholars are unwilling to give Craig the oxygen of publicity.

recedite

Did anybody notice Craigs slightly disengenous methods of giving crediblity to his own suppositions? He starts off by saying "according to....." and then goes on to elaborate. Which puts him in the position of someone commenting on an allegation, as opposed to being the alligator himself. Its a ploy commonly used by newspapers when they want to report some contoversial or possibly false story, while remaning immune to libel proceedings themselves.

So in this debate, Craig announces the historicity of Jesus as being factual "according to Jacob Kremer" who we would assume to be a historian, given the context.
But after a little fact checking, Kremer turns out to be an obscure (though well respected) Austrian theologian priest, whose words are open to interpretation, and his opinion cannot be clarified because he is now dead.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Its a ploy commonly used by newspapers when they want to report some contoversial or possibly false story, while remaning immune to libel proceedings themselves.

Also used by the donald and Spicer.

MrP

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Its a ploy commonly used by newspapers when they want to report some contoversial or possibly false story, while remaning immune to libel proceedings themselves.

For the record, it's not effective to keep you immune from libel proceedings. If you publish a defamatory statement you're on the hook, and it's no defence to say that, when publishing it, you attributed it to someone else. It's more used for plausible political deniability than to reduce legal risk.

But, yes, as Mr P points out, it's a favourite Trumpism. In fact Trump regularly doubles down on the technique, attributing the view he is promoting not merely to someone else, but to an imaginary friend he has invented for the purpose called Many-People-Are-Saying.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

For the record, it's not effective to keep you immune from libel proceedings. If you publish a defamatory statement you're on the hook...

Its a bit of a minefield, but the reporting of any statement made within the confines of Dail/Parliament is protected by absolute "privilege", and allegations made anywhere outside can be reported if the reporter either is unaware of the defamation, or is aware but is reporting "in the public interest", as inadvertently proved by Albert Reynolds.

But yes, its most often used for "plausible deniability" or simply as a mechanism to shrug off any necessity on behalf of the "reporter" to personally prove the original statement or allegation, as per the habit of DJ Trump, and our friend here, Mr Craig.

equivariant

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, for the record, he does exactly the same thing with the Jesus argument...

I propose "the Craig Fallacy". Some key properties of the Craig Fallacy
1. Advance a superficially logical argument based on a misuse of a technical premise/deduction that is typically misunderstood by non specialists.
2. Claim that the premise/deduction is widely accepted and utterly uncontroversial when it is not.
3. Continue to defend the argument when the a premise/deduction has been shown to be suspect. Most importantly, continue to defend the argument without any significant change to your defence despite the fact that it has been shown to be faulty.
4. Construct a defence of a certain position based on multiple instances of this type argumentation and then claim that this multitude further strengthens your position.

recedite

Don't forget..
5. Find somebody who shares your opinion, then when giving your opinion say "according to..." thereby backing yourself up with an authoritative source (apparently) and also eliminating the usual requirement to defend your own opinion.