Carrier-Licona Debate at UCLA April 19

[Richard Carrier]

Historian of antiquity Richard Carrier will debate Christian apologist Michael Licona (of www.risenjesus.com) on whether Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. The UCLA Veritas Forum (in Los Angeles, California) is sponsoring this event Monday evening, April 19. Details should be announced soon at www.laveritas.com/

[Toto]

Richard - do you have an organization supporting you? I saw a veritas debate involving Robert Price, and the Center for Inquiry had a literature table there that I though was useful.

[Layman]

Hey, why don't we get a group together to go? We could go see The Passion of the Christ afterwards!

[Vinnie]

I'll be right next to Sanfrancisco for a week in June (23-30). If anything is happening in Kali then, let me know! :)

For the historian, this diversity adds to their credibility, since it indicates that the event is being attested by more than one source.

Not in the case of Mt, Mk and Luke ;)

His treatment of the empty tomb was mostly empty. Though in fairness his responses look purposefully short given the format.

How do the skeptics respond to the woman at the tomb scenario? If creative why woman?

Personally, I could find clear literary purpose for the creation of this. Mark spends his whole Gospel thrashing the apostles and he clearly portrays the women negatively as well at the end.

The woman mistakenly go to annoint Jesus. Notice that they go too late. Given Jesus' constant predictions in Mrk of his Rez. Like the male disciples, they should have known better as well. They should have known Jesus would be risen when they go to annoint him.

Mark portrays them negatively, and the disciples exceptionally negatively. This portrait is extremely implausible as history unless Jesus followers all had IQs of four. Plus Mt and Lk tone it down.

Obviously the treatment of the disciples and woman must be related somehow or stem from the same motivation. This motivation cannot be history remembered as its very implausible.

Plus we know women were prominent in the early Church.

That would be my response (even if incomplete) on the women in Mark.

Even if John is indepdnent of Mark, given the popularity of the passion, resurrection appearances and the existence of a passion narrative, John can hardly be said to "independently document woman at the cross and tomb. There is a general story here that was well known. Some form of indirect dependence would probably be needed. Though if Mark created the Joseph story John must be dependent upon this.

I think the most reasonable position is that there was no tomb (a common grave prohably), Jesus' death came by surpise (the followers fled), Christians didn't know where the body was (maybe it was eaten by dogs ala Crossan ?)and some of them had visions and became convinced he rose. I think the visions are a MUST. Paul had one too.

Other than that scenario there are some issues that deserve serious consideration (e.g. why not produce the body?). Deliberate lie is of course ruled out.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

ince Jesus was publicly executed then buried in Jerusalem, it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground there had the body still been in the tomb. His enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have had to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax to have been shattered.

How would one identify, say a year old corpse, even if it were presented? I mean, wouldn't it be too badly deteriorated to be recognized and DNA evidence wasn't around yet ;)

Vinnie

[Vorkosigan]

I think the most reasonable position is that there was no tomb (a common grave prohably), Jesus' death came by surpise (the followers fled), Christians didn't know where the body was (maybe it was eaten by dogs ala Crossan ?)and some of them had visions and became convinced he rose. I think the visions are a MUST. Paul had one too.

Shit, Vinnie, we don't have anything to argue about.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

His enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have had to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax to have been shattered.

LOL. Yes, like the way that modern higher criticism has been so successful in shattering the faith of fundies.....and the Jewish faith was so completely shattered by the loss of their Temple, and the followers of Sabbatai Zevi were shattered by the conversion of their Jewish messiah to Islam, and the way Lubavitchers gave up their messianic beliefs about Rebbe Schneerson after he had a stroke, and later died, and still hasn't come back.....

...really, some people need an education in the way human nature really works.

Vorkosigan

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Shit, Vinnie, we don't have anything to argue about.

Vorkosigan

There is always tomorrow :) :D

...really, some people need an education in the way human nature really works.

His uncritical dismissal of visions made me think the same thing. People report seeing all sorts of things and religious experiences are very common and can be explainable without resorting to supernatural claims.

One guy on rapture ready was saying Jesus spoke to him through a cloud or somethng. I can't remember the specifics. I just remember it being funny!

Wll I decided to dig it upo:

I had earlier posted a thread about a dream I had had about Jesus marching towards me in a cloud. I was on the ground and there was fog all around me and all I saw was Jesus in a white robe marching towards me. Well at my mom's church yesterday her pastor said he had a message from the Lord reguarding same sex marriages and all that is going on in the world today. He said that he was told that Jesus is on a march coming to judge the inhabitants of the earth now and that we need to bring an end to all of the sinful nature that is going on. I just found it very interesting that he used the words that Jesus is marching just as I had dreamt. Has anyone else experienced this or spoke to anyone that has? Just very curious. He's coming!

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[WinAce]

Personally, if I was Pilate and learned of some nutjobs running around saying the guy I just had crucified came back from the dead, the *last* thing I'd be concerned with is debunking that nonsense. I'd probably just order them to be hunted down and made an example of, too.

Failing that, I might realize who I'd killed and convert, like in that 3rd century and up Christian literature :)

Which makes me curious--how do apologists explain the fact that Pilate (not to mention the Sanhedrin) continued to be an ass for years afterwards till his atrocities finally caught up with him? You'd think all those earthquakes and all hell breaking loose would have an impact on his behavior.

[Toto]

Are the last five posts on the right thread??

[Vinnie]

We are discussing Licona's site (linked in the OP) and giving Carrier's thread some traffic :D

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by WinAce
Personally, if I was Pilate and learned of some nutjobs running around saying the guy I just had crucified came back from the dead, the *last* thing I'd be concerned with is debunking that nonsense. I'd probably just order them to be hunted down and made an example of, too.

Failing that, I might realize who I'd killed and convert, like in that 3rd century and up Christian literature :)

Which makes me curious--how do apologists explain the fact that Pilate (not to mention the Sanhedrin) continued to be an ass for years afterwards till his atrocities finally caught up with him? You'd think all those earthquakes and all hell breaking loose would have an impact on his behavior.

But...but...but we have Thallus! ;)

[Vinnie]

Licona's section on bias is straight caricature:

3. If we reject the content of a book because the author has biases, then we would have to reject most of what we know of the past, since the author is writing on a subject precisely because he/she has interest in it.

This has no respect for "genre" and the "laurels of an author". Everyone has bias by default but not all biased works are of the same caliber. Plus we have with the grain // against the grain criteria for a reason.

2. Even some skeptics testified that Jesus had risen and had appeared to them.

Not sure how this helps.

Paul was an unbiased witness. In fact, his bias had been against Christianity; so much so that he was persecuting believers. But he converted because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him. James, too, was an unbeliever, who became a Christian because he believed Jesus rose and appeared to him.

Unfortunately Paul having a vision explains the "primary autobiographical" testimony and the confirming picture in acts just as well. An actual resurrected Jesus need not be behind this.

Of course, Licona naturally couples this with the empty tomb.

1. Recognizing a bias or agenda on the part of an author does not automatically merit the conclusion that he has distorted the facts.

True but showing where the evangelists repeatedly did this does.

This debate (slaughter?) should be a no contest if this is the extent of Licona's argumentation.

Vinnie

[Toto]

It's a PowerPoint presentation.

What skeptic saw the risen Jesus?

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Toto
What skeptic saw the risen Jesus?

Me! And if you just abandon all that materialist nonsense and have a bit of faith, you will too! Behold...

http://mind-site.com/jc/acts.jpg
The Risen Lord Jesus Christ miraculously appearing on a bandage (http://mind-site.com/jc/b2.html)... or a mere blood stain? You decide!

[Vorkosigan]

That is NOT Jesus, that is Sai Baba! A pox on thee, heretic!

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by WinAce
Me! And if you just abandon all that materialist nonsense and have a bit of faith, you will too! Behold...

http://mind-site.com/jc/acts.jpg
The Risen Lord Jesus Christ miraculously appearing on a bandage (http://mind-site.com/jc/b2.html)... or a mere blood stain? You decide!

OMG!!!! ITWS ELVIS! I LOVE YOU, KING!!!!!

ELVIS!!! ELIVIS!!! ELVIS!!!

SING FOR ME!!!!



Toto, he says Paul was a skeptic which is hysterical in one sense and accurate in another.

The reasoning is as follows: Paul = hostile witness cause he persecuted church. Even F.F. Bruce used this (NT Docs). The evidence to convince a critic and persecutor must have been especially strong it is argued.

There isn't much fuzy about this but vision (subjective as opposed to objective to use Licona's terms) explains this just as well. Paul had a "religious experience". Next.

Also James (J's bro) is said to be a skeptic. This is presumably from GJohn which says Jesus' brothers did not believe in him and from GMark where Jesus' family thought he was nuts and tried to grab him.

Unfortunately, we have no writings from James. We have a Rez experience posited by Paul and GosHebrews (circa 80ish???). He must be merging these with Mark and John or probably just merging Paul with Mark and John as GHebrews aint in da canon so it MUST be extremely later and uber-dependent on the canonicals like Thomas :rolleyes:

Vinnie

[Toto]

Another Liar for Christ "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which He appeared to them as the risen Christ." -Atheist New Testament Scholar Gerd Lüdemann, 1995

Ludeman does not describe himself as an atheist, and he thinks that the disciples' experiences were a mass hallucination.

"The credibility of the apostle Paul's testimony that he also had an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus is recognized by virtually all scholars.

Wait a minute. Is he claiming that Paul's experience was anything other than a vision? How can he claim Paul as proof of the resurrection? But he does - he claims Paul among the people who saw Jesus alive after his tomb was found empty.

Likewise well recognized is that James, the brother of Jesus, was an unbeliever before he thought that he, too, met the risen Jesus. Seldom are any of these occurrences challenged by respected critical scholars, no matter how skeptical."

And our evidence for this is . . . the gospels!

"All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history."-William Wand, Oxford University, 1972) (% of scholars from 1975-Present who agree: ~75%)

The only evidence for the empty tomb is . . again, the gospels. And where did he get that statistics? I am unable to find a mention of a church historial William Wand on the internet, although there are several Bishops of that name.

Well, I don't see much of a debate here, but Veritas will fill up Ackerman Union Ballroom at UCLA, and some of those lost undergraduates will sign up with the CCC.

[Richard Carrier]

Originally posted by Toto
Richard - do you have an organization supporting you? I saw a veritas debate involving Robert Price, and the Center for Inquiry had a literature table there that I though was useful.

CFI-West is the group who tapped me for the debate. I suppose they might do something along those lines, but I'm not involved in that end of things. There are other debates on subsequent days (ID, etc.), so I'm sure CFI is relatively involved.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by Richard Carrier
There are other debates on subsequent days (ID, etc.), so I'm sure CFI is relatively involved. *sigh* There has to be a better use for the Ackerman ballroom than an ID debate. Ah well.

I'll be at your debate, in any case. :)

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by Toto
Well, I don't see much of a debate here, but Veritas will fill up Ackerman Union Ballroom at UCLA, and some of those lost undergraduates will sign up with the CCC. I'll poke around and see if the Association for Secular Students is planning to attend.

[Layman]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
I'll poke around and see if the Association for Secular Students is planning to attend.

Gotta love all those ASS members. :)

[Vinnie]

Another Liar for Christ

That has not been demonstrated.

I wouldn't have said anything if you said "ignorant apologist doing psuedo-history" :) but Licona probably believes what he argues to be true on that site as do most conservative Jesus defenders IMO.

Vinnie

[Toto]

Vinnie - Mr. Licona is being sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ. Their Veritas Forum is an attempt to demonstrate to the campus community that Christians can hold their own in intellectual debates, that even if you don't agree with them, their arguments are at least intellectually respectable. (Creationists would love to get this position in the scientific community instead of being dismissed as pseudoscientific frauds.)

How can such a person make such basic errors as citing Lüdemann for the proposition that the disciples had physical experience of the risen Christ, the opposite of Lüdemann's thesis? If he's not a liar for Christ, is he willfully ignorant for Christ? Has he never heard of William Lane Craig's debate with Lüdemann on the empty tomb, a closely related issue?

Licona can believe whatever he wants, but isn't it dishonest to misrepresent what others think, as if there were some sort of consensus on a historical fact that even atheists agree on?

[MiddleMan]

Originally posted by WinAce
Me! And if you just abandon all that materialist nonsense and have a bit of faith, you will too! Behold...

http://mind-site.com/jc/acts.jpg
The Risen Lord Jesus Christ miraculously appearing on a bandage (http://mind-site.com/jc/b2.html)... or a mere blood stain? You decide!

Barry Gibb? Is that YOU?

[Toto]

Check out the debates on the following Wednesday:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80075

[Toto]

I just noticed this on Licona:

Mike Licona is a New Testament historian. He has a Master of Arts Degree in Religious Studies from Liberty University and is a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament Studies at the University of Pretoria . He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Mike is the author of three books, the most recent being "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus." Professor Gary Habermas remarks, "In my opinion, Mike's knowledge of the case for Jesus' resurrection places him among an elite number of evangelicals who are writing on the subject today.

Mike has dared to challenge Acharya S here (http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/index.asp?pagea=acharya-s), and she eviscerates him here (http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm) (for entertainment value only.)

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
How can such a person make such basic errors as citing Lüdemann for the proposition that the disciples had physical experience of the risen Christ, the opposite of Lüdemann's thesis? If he's not a liar for Christ, is he willfully ignorant for Christ? Has he never heard of William Lane Craig's debate with Lüdemann on the empty tomb, a closely related issue?


I do not see him claiming that Ludemann affirms the physical resurrection of Christ. He uses Ludeman to affirm the fact of the resurrection experiences, and then proceeds to rebut alterantive explanations, such as the mass hallucination theory. Obviously, the apologist knows that the resurrection experiences standing alone are insufficient to prove physical resurrection. That is why he goes through various explanations, such as the mass halucination explanation and the visions theories.

Using a scholar to support a point in dispute does not mean you accept every else that the scholar affirms. That the disciples experienced resurrection appearances is one point. The explanation for those experiences is another one. Ludeman agrees with him on the first point and disagrees with him on the explanation.

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
I just noticed this on Licona:



Mike has dared to challenge Acharya S here (http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/index.asp?pagea=acharya-s), and she eviscerates him here (http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm) (for entertainment value only.)

After wading through Acharya S' discussions about aliens and murderous hamburgers, the AIDS conspiracy, and "Sex to Superconsciousness," I no longer frequent her website. But I thought it only fair to to mention that Mike did respond to Ach Ach's "evisceration."

http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/index.asp?pagea=rebuttal

[Toto]

Originally posted by Layman
I do not see him claiming that Ludemann affirms the physical resurrection of Christ. He uses Ludeman to affirm the fact of the resurrection experiences, and then proceeds to rebut alterantive explanations, such as the mass hallucination theory. . . . .

It is hard to follow his argument since you have to keep clicking on buttons and watching the words wash across the screen. I guess there is a chance that his oral presentation will be more coherent.

But his "rebuttal" is so lacking. He finds an argument for every point, even though they are not very good. It's hard to believe that anyone really thinks that this anything but self delusion. Whatever it is, it is not history.

After all, what is more likely - that someone violated the laws of physics and rose from the dead, or that someone else made up a story about someone rising from the dead and appearing to a bunch of his friends?

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
It is hard to follow his argument since you have to keep clicking on buttons and watching the words wash across the screen. I guess there is a chance that his oral presentation will be more coherent.

But his "rebuttal" is so lacking. He finds an argument for every point, even though they are not very good. It's hard to believe that anyone really thinks that this anything but self delusion. Whatever it is, it is not history.

After all, what is more likely - that someone violated the laws of physics and rose from the dead, or that someone else made up a story about someone rising from the dead and appearing to a bunch of his friends?

It continues to amuse me to see skeptics so defensive about Acharya S. Perhaps you got a lot out of her "Sex to Superconsciousness" article.

In any event, I'm not a fan of the slide show format either. But the point is that your attack on him as a liar or willfully blind is erroneous. He uses Ludeman for no more than Ludeman concedes--the disciples experienced resurrection appearances.

[Vinnie]

Perhaps you got a lot out of her "Sex to Superconsciousness" article.

Oh la la. My goddess Acharya!!! I your humble servant am not worthy! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Wait, whats that article about? http://www.after-hourz.net/forum/html/emoticons/stinkeye.gif

But yeah. "Liar" not the best term to use.

Example 1: Justin: I didn;t mean to do that to Janet. it was an accident.

Example 2: I believe the complete silence of HJ details in over 40 documents from the first century is persuasive evidence against the historicity of Jesus.

One is a lie and one isn't.

Vinnie

[Toto]

Originally posted by Layman
. . . . He uses Ludeman for no more than Ludeman concedes--the disciples experienced resurrection appearances.

He misidentifies Lüdemann as an atheist. Lüdemann considered himself a Christian for most of his career teaching theology, and stopped using that label only after he decided that the resurrection did not occur - but does not use the label of atheist. He does not "concede" the resurrection experiences - he accepts a historical content for most of the New Testament, which is fairly natural given his background.

If Licoma listed the evidence in favor of the appearances, it would appear very flimsy. He disguises this by saying that even an atheist expert accepts the appearances, without delving into the background. This is not honest scholarship.

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
He misidentifies Lüdemann as an atheist. Lüdemann considered himself a Christian for most of his career teaching theology, and stopped using that label only after he decided that the resurrection did not occur - but does not use the label of atheist. He does not "concede" the resurrection experiences - he accepts a historical content for most of the New Testament, which is fairly natural given his background.

If Licoma listed the evidence in favor of the appearances, it would appear very flimsy. He disguises this by saying that even an atheist expert accepts the appearances, without delving into the background. This is not honest scholarship.

I do not know Ludeman well enough to know whether he would take offense at the term or not. Nor do I know Licoma well enough to know what his basis is for making the assertion.

If I thought the slide show was all the argument Licoma had I might agree with you. But such an assumption is unwarranted. You are obviously well-poisoning. And poorly at that. You've had to back off your first, obviously flawed attack, and now are nitpicking about whether Ludeman is an atheist and complaining that an apologist would dare cite a hostile authority.

In short, there has been nothing honest about your "scholarship" in this thread. So you are hardly one to complain.

[Layman]

Amazon.com also thinks Ludeman is an atheist:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830815694/InternetInfidels

Book Description
Was the resurrection of Jesus a fact of history or a figment of hallucination? Was it an event that entailed a raised and transformed body and an empty tomb? Or was it a subjective, visionary experience-a collective delusion? In the view of many, the truth of Christianity hangs on the answer to this question.

Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? is a lively and provocative debate between Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig and New Testament scholar and atheistGerd Lüdemann.


Edited the link to make it IIDB friendly.

[Toto]

I attended a Veritas Forum debate between Craig and Lüdemann (note spelling: two n's). It was later than the one that book is based on. I think that at the time of the debate that is the subject of the book, Lüdemann was still describing himself as a Christian.

The Campus Crusade for Christ moderator introduced Lüdemann as an atheist and Lüdemann said that he was not an atheist, that he still believed in some sort of divine aspect to life. I think he may have used the term post-Christian.

Here's the old thread on that debate: The Craig – Luedemann Debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33566)

Luedemann started by addressing the word “atheism�. There are different types of atheists. There are those who think that all religious belief is delusion, that the universe is all that there is and that reason is the best tool for dealing with it, and he does not count himself among them. . . .

I have not backed off from claiming that Licona takes a dishonest approach. But I thought the same thing abour Craig. It's not that he is daring to quote a hostile authority, it is that he is misusing authority.

I mean, if you want an atheist historian, try Frank Zindler, who thinks that Jesus and Peter were both myths. Try Robert Price who thinks that the passage in 1 Corinthians used to support the "appearances" is an interpolation. The only conclusion you can reach is that there is no real consensus among all historians about "appearances."

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
I attended a Veritas Forum debate between Craig and Lüdemann (note spelling: two n's). It was later than the one that book is based on. I think that at the time of the debate that is the subject of the book, Lüdemann was still describing himself as a Christian.

The Campus Crusade for Christ moderator introduced Lüdemann as an atheist and Lüdemann said that he was not an atheist, that he still believed in some sort of divine aspect to life. I think he may have used the term post-Christian.

Here's the old thread on that debate: The Craig – Luedemann Debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33566)

Well, if Ludemann now feel frees to publicize his books by describing himself as an atheist, I daresay it is unfair to criticize an apologist for sharing that opinion.

I have not backed off from claiming that Licona takes a dishonest approach. But I thought the same thing abour Craig. It's not that he is daring to quote a hostile authority, it is that he is misusing authority.

But I have shown that it is you who were misleading others in how Licona uses Ludemann. He qutoes him for the correct proposition. Nothing more.

I mean, if you want an atheist historian, try Frank Zindler, who thinks that Jesus and Peter were both myths. Try Robert Price who thinks that the passage in 1 Corinthians used to support the "appearances" is an interpolation. The only conclusion you can reach is that there is no real consensus among all historians about "appearances."

Now I think that if Licona used Zindler and Price to argue that the disciples experienced resurrection appearances you would be correct in calling him a liar since they do no such thing. Quite a Catch 22. He can only use hostile authority if it completelydisagrees with every proposition? In which case he would be a liar.

Your entire line of attack has fallen in shambles, Toto. Now you are grasping at other straws.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Layman
Well, if Ludemann now feel frees to publicize his books by describing himself as an atheist, I daresay it is unfair to criticize an apologist for sharing that opinion.

I'm willing to bet that Lüdemann did not write that blurb, and it was the product of one of the Christian editors. I heard him say that he did not describe himself as an atheist, after the book had been published. His Christian opponents wanted to describe him as an atheist for their own purposes.

But I have shown that it is you who were misleading others in how Licona uses Ludemann. He qutoes him for the correct proposition. Nothing more.

He incorrectly describes Lüdemann as an atheist, and misleadingly implies that even a typical atheist historian thinks that the disciples saw the resurrected Christ.

Now I think that if Licona used Zindler and Price to argue that the disciples experienced resurrection appearances you would be correct in calling him a liar since they do no such thing.

That's my point. There are historians who do not agree that the disciples experienced resurrection appearances.

Quite a Catch 22. He can only use hostile authority if it completely disagrees with every proposition? In which case he would be a liar.

Your entire line of attack has fallen in shambles, Toto. Now you are grasping at other straws.

He can only use hostile authority if it is in fact hostile.

I am not grasping at straws. I have the same criticism of Licona as I do of Craig. They both invoke pseudohistory the way creationists do pseudoscience. They misrepresent the quality of their evidence by hiding behind an alleged scholarly consensus that falls to pieces when examined.

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
I'm willing to bet that Lüdemann did not write that blurb, and it was the product of one of the Christian editors. I heard him say that he did not describe himself as an atheist, after the book had been published. His Christian opponents wanted to describe him as an atheist for their own purposes.

Unless you can testify that Licona was there for that debate and heard the same comment, he can hardly be called a liar for relying on a description of Ludemann that's on a book authored by Ludemann.


He incorrectly describes Lüdemann as an atheist, and misleadingly implies that even a typical atheist historian thinks that the disciples saw the resurrected Christ.

I'm still not sure he was incorrect, however Ludemann may quibble with the term. In any event, there is no blame on Liconna for using the term. Nor does he imply anything other than what Ludemann himself admits.


That's my point. There are historians who do not agree that the disciples experienced resurrection appearances.

Unless you can point me to a statement by Licona that all historians agree that the disciples experienced ressurection appearances, then it is you who are misrepresenting his system.

He can only use hostile authority if it is in fact hostile.

Since Ludemann denies the resurrection and is not a Christian, he's pretty hostile.

I am not grasping at straws. I have the same criticism of Licona as I do of Craig. They both invoke pseudohistory the way creationists do pseudoscience. They misrepresent the quality of their evidence by hiding behind an alleged scholarly consensus that falls to pieces when examined.

These are general characterizations that require little effort to spew. You started by claiming that Licona lied about Ludemann. That charge has been disproven and you have backflipped into these vague characterizations. It is you who have misrepresented Licona, not Licona who has misrepresented Ludemann.

[Toto]

This is being dragged out too long, and we are just repeating arguments. Licona is supposed to be a PhD candidate. He has an obligation to know more about a prominent scholar than what is contained in a casual blurb on Amazon. If he is an honest scholar, he has an obligation not to misrepresent the state of the scholarship. I will concede that he may be incompetant rather than outrightly dishonest, and you could probably get him acquitted on a charge of perjury with the right jury. That's all I will say on this. Readers may make their own decisions.

Lüdemann's homepage (http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/)

Wash Post article on his beliefs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4366-2002Apr5&notFound=true)

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
This is being dragged out too long, and we are just repeating arguments. Licona is supposed to be a PhD candidate. He has an obligation to know more about a prominent scholar than what is contained in a casual blurb on Amazon. If he is an honest scholar, he has an obligation not to misrepresent the state of the scholarship. I will concede that he may be incompetant rather than outrightly dishonest, and you could probably get him acquitted on a charge of perjury with the right jury. That's all I will say on this. Readers may make their own decisions.

Lüdemann's homepage (http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/)

Wash Post article on his beliefs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4366-2002Apr5&notFound=true)

The problem Toto, is that you have failed to prove that Licona misrepresented the state of the scholarship.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Layman
It continues to amuse me to see skeptics so defensive about Acharya S. Perhaps you got a lot out of her "Sex to Superconsciousness" article. I didn't catch the defensiveness about Acharya S. Would you mind quoting it?

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Layman
I do not see him claiming that Ludemann affirms the physical resurrection of Christ. He uses Ludeman to affirm the fact of the resurrection experiences, and then proceeds to rebut alterantive explanations, such as the mass hallucination theory. ...

Using a scholar to support a point in dispute does not mean you accept every else that the scholar affirms. That the disciples experienced resurrection appearances is one point. The explanation for those experiences is another one. Ludeman agrees with him on the first point and disagrees with him on the explanation. Sometimes this approach is fine. But it can be highly unprincipled, in ways that primary argumentation is not. Why? Because the probability that a writer assigns to some claim is inevitably conditioned by the probability s/he assigns to other claims. When you mix and match claims from different experts, you can easily misrepresent the evidentiary situation.

That is, choosing some specific claim C1 from authority A, and thereby presenting it as warranted, obliges you not to also choose some claim C2 from authority B, if the rejection of C2 was a key element of A's reasoning in asserting C1. You might yourself assert both C1 and C2, but it would be misrepresentative to pretend that the warrant that A ascribed to C1 survives the acceptance of C2.

I don't say that Licona's done this in this case; only that it is a special concern in any case of assembling a case by collecting single claims from a range of specialists who disagree amongst themselves. What would those in the know say about the relation between Ludemann's confidence in the reality of the resurrection experiences, and his confidence in the prospect of a hallucinatory explanation?

[Layman]

"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which He appeared to them as the risen Christ."

Gerd Lüdemann

[Toto]

The source of that mined quote (which is also quoted on Craig's site)

Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0664256473/internetinfidels), trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

I would like to know the context.

[Layman]

Originally posted by Toto
The source of that mined quote (which is also quoted on Craig's site)

Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0664256473/internetinfidels), trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

I would like to know the context.

You mean like, "unless I'm quoted by an apologist, in which case it's historically unlikely"?

:)

But yes, context is always nice.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Layman
"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which He appeared to them as the risen Christ."

Gerd Lüdemann I'm not sure I understand the point of this. Are you suggesting that GL means by "historically certain" something other than a high degree of probability? That he means some sort of indefeasible necessity independent of any reasons he may have given for it?

That would of course be a most uncharitable interpretation of Lüdemann; we should attribute such a bizarre view only on the basis of overwhelming evidence.context is always nice.Indeed. Otherwise, the sort of misrepresentation I explained can be overlooked.

[Layman]

Originally posted by Clutch
I'm not sure I understand the point of this. Are you suggesting that GL means by "historically certain" something other than a high degree of probability? That he means some sort of indefeasible necessity independent of any reasons he may have given for it?

That would of course be a most uncharitable interpretation of Lüdemann; we should attribute such a bizarre view only on the basis of overwhelming evidence.Indeed. Otherwise, the sort of misrepresentation I explained can be overlooked. [/B]

I think that "certain" is a very strong word.

And I think you are pissing in the wind unless you have a case to make about Licona being a liar. The problem with some skeptics is that -- despite whining about logic, rational inquiry, Occam's Razor, and unbiased exploration of ideas -- they are not content to let the debate go ahead and evaluate it, you have to get busy inventing negative character traits for the opposition. The opposition just can't be wrong, they must also be damned liars.

It's childish and tiresome and Toto's attacks were utterly baseless and themselves misleading.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Layman
I think that "certain" is a very strong word. Again, I don't see how this addresses my observations. Very strong conclusions are typically based on premises. Some other claim, itself based on the negation of one of those premises, cannot be conjoined with the very strong conclusion without misrepresenting the original author's confidence and evidence.
And I think you are pissing in the wind unless you have a case to make about Licona being a liar.Well, it's a fine thing that you are free to think anything that strikes you as worth thinking. Meanwhile, I've carefully and politely pointed out an inherent danger of assembling a case in the way you describe Licona's, and I've solicited the input of anyone who knows whether Ludemann's case would make this worry a live one for the case of Licona.

If you do know this, it would be a contribution for you to share it. If you don't, though, then you might reconsider who's pissing in the wind. The problem with some skeptics is that -- despite whining about logic, rational inquiry, Occam's Razor, and unbiased exploration of ideas -- they are not content to let the debate go ahead and evaluate it, you have to get busy inventing negative character traits for the opposition.I too find this frustrating -- as much from you, right here, as from atheist critics.The opposition just can't be wrong, they must also be damned liars. Or whiners and ill-motivated hypocrites?
It's childish and tiresome and Toto's attacks were utterly baseless and themselves misleading. Why you should need to address this to me is baffling. Not only have I done nothing of the sort on this thread, but I have consistently argued against diagnosing even the most obvious howlers as lies in a variety of threads. It just doesn't fit with human psychology. "Motivated inference" is very common; outright lying relatively rare.

Quite apart from the point about assembling a case from distinct authorities, I've (politely) asked you what defensiveness about Acharya S. was amusing you on this thread, simply because I couldn't see what you were talking about. A simple citation or retraction or qualification will suffice; I don't need any more data points on the "Who's capable of being a serious jerk?" question; let's just assume it's everyone, and get on with trying to make worthwhile points with a modicum of courtesy. Deal?

[Toto]

I would be happy to let the debate go ahead and evaluate it, but I have seen similar debates, and I know that they have very little to do with a rational evaluation of the evidence and everything to do with performance and sound bites and emotional appeals. The debate format does not allow enough time to evaluate evidence, and places a priority on style and delivery.

I also know that Christians use these debates for recruitment. They don't need to prevail on the arguments. They only need to present enough of a show to convince their followers that they are intellectually respectable. There are enough Christians who want to think that Christianity is an acceptable choice, so they can go ahead and accept it based on their emotions. A good debate performance like William Lane Craig's allows them to feel secure in their choices and avoid thinking about them. He's obviously smart and he says he's a Christian. It must be okay!

Creationists would love to be able to get away with this, if they could just get scientists to take them seriously enough to bother debating.

But I'm sorry to have set Layman off. Please be nice to Clutch, Layman. We're not the same person.

[Peter Kirby]

What Really Happened to Jesus pp. 78-80

Results of the analysis of the accounts of Easter

1. All four Gospels of the New Testament report in extended descriptions a visit of women followers...

1. The narratives of the visits to the tomb have been formed around Mary...

2. The date of the resurrection 'on the third day' cannot be substantiated historically. The point in time was conjectured because it fulfilled an Old Testament prophect (Hos. 6.2, see above 49f.).

3. The investigation of the burial of Jesus already suggested that his followers did not even know where their leader had been buried...

4. The actual event of the resurrection of Jesus is not described...

5. Soon after his crucifixion Jesus appeared to some persons. But the earliest appearance did not take place at the tomb, since the tradition of the tomb and the tradition of Jesus' appearance did not originally belong together. Only in the subsequent period were they brought increasingly together, so that the manner of the original appearance became almost unrecognizable.

Here in general we are to assign a relatively late date of origin to those reports which emphasize the corporeality of the risen Christ, although elements in them could be much later. For the emphasis on a reality of the risen Jesus which could be perceived with the senses developed only later, in order to make it possible to maintain the reality of the resurrection over against other assertions that Jesus was not raised at all, but was only a spirit or a phantom.

6. It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.

7. Both Jerusalem (and its environs) and Galilee are mentioned as scenes of these events. However, had the first appearances taken place in Jerusalem, it would be impossible to explain those in Galilee. For why should the disciples have gone back to Galilee after their resurrection appearance? After all, the earliest community came into being in Jerusalem, the centre of Jewish faith.

For the same reason it is also difficult to imagine who anyone could have invented Galilee as the place in which Jesus appeared. That leaves only the conclusion that the first appearance in fact took place in Galilee and subsequent ones in Jerusalem, but only at a later date. This conjecture is supported by the fact that the appearance in John 21 takes place by Lake Tiberias (i.e. in Galilee), and the mention of this place comes from an early tradition (see above, 71 ff. and especially below, 84ff.).

8. But that makes it impossible for these appearances already to have happened on the third day...

9. The Gospels mention a first appearance to Mary Magdalene...

best,
Peter Kirby

[Clutch]

Thanks, Peter. Do you know how GL intends the conjunction "Peter and the disciples" to interact with "experienced"? That is, is he this confident that the experiences were group experiences, or just that Peter and the disciples all had such experiences?

Strangely, moreover, this passage does not present any obvious reasoning for (6); it's just asserted. Maybe Ludemann gives the argument elsewhere in the book.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Clutch
Thanks, Peter. Do you know how GL intends the conjunction "Peter and the disciples" to interact with "experienced"? That is, is he this confident that the experiences were group experiences, or just that Peter and the disciples all had such experiences?

Luedemann writes: "The assumption that the appearance to Peter was an individual appearance (i.e. without the twelve) is supported by the wording of 1 Cor. 15.5 and the suppression of the tradition of the first appearance to Peter mentioned above. Accordingly it is quite certain that the appearance to the twelve is not identical with that to Peter." (p. 95)

Strangely, moreover, this passage does not present any obvious reasoning for (6); it's just asserted. Maybe Ludemann gives the argument elsewhere in the book. I don't know; I haven't read the whole book.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Clutch]

Thanks again, Peter. Your supererogation much appreciated.

[Richard Carrier]

More info on the debate time, location, etc. at:

http://www.veritas.org/UCLA/

You can also see other debates on subsequent days.

[Toto]

*bump*

It's now a week away.

[Toto]

Well, I went, and it was interesting. Unfortunately, the people running the event turned the lights down for the audience, so it was impossible to take notes. (!) This is just some of what I remember, while it is fresh in my mind.

Carrier showed himself to be extremely knowledgable and quick as a debater, but not agressive or overly showy. His presentation was thoughtful and well put together, and he had a quick answer to all questions, often with a power point slide. Licona substituted fluency for actual content. There were a few points that were not resolved, including the proper translation of one Greek word. This debate would have been more informative if it were an online, written debate, but Licona would have not have survived.

Licona followed the typical apologetic argument that Craig uses: Jesus was crucified, the tomb was empty, and his followers thought they saw the risen Jesus. The best explanation, the only explanation, for this is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Carrier took a novel approach, probably a very good one for that audience. He said that Jesus was probably crucified (although in other contexts he has described himself as agnostic on Jesus' existence) and Jesus' followers had visions of him after his death, which they interpreted as his reappearance. But there was no empty tomb - Mark created the empty tomb as a literary device. Carrier had some very good arguments on this.

Then Carrier argued affirmatively that the early Christian movement started as a social movement in reaction to an oppressive social structure, that Jesus' followers had visions of him which led them to create the new movement. But the earliest Christians, such as Paul, only believed in a spiritual Jesus, and believed that the "resurrection" was the substitution of a new body made of a new ethereal substance for the old corrupt earthly body. (There was some discussion and disagreement as to the difference between a "transformed" body and the new replacement body.) But then the church split into gnostics and "Sarcisists" and the Sarcisists eventually won out and wrote the gospel passages that made a point of Jesus' bodily functions, his eating fish and showing his wounds to his followers after his resurrection, all totally inconsistent with a new spiritual perfected body that would not have wounds or need to eat.

This theory will be detailed in the upcoming [i]Jesus is Dead, to be published sometime soon.

Licona claimed that he had majored in New Testament Greek, and then went through a period of searching, in which he wondered if he had any rational basis for his faith, although he knew that Jesus was real for him. He claimed to have found the answers. However, in response to Carrier's conclusions on the mythic nature of the empty tomb, he kept repeating that 75% of all scholars agree that there was an empty tomb. (It was never clear where this figure came from, or, since it apparently included Christians who dominate the field, why it would be significant.) His major sources seemed to be CS Lewis and NT Wright. (Carrier quoted a point from Wright, and he disputed it - this was never cleared up.) Licona has just written a book with Habermas as a co-author.

The format of the debate was: each debater gave an opening statement of 20 minutes, followed by a 10 minute rebuttal from each, followed by another round. Carrier and Licona had exchanged their opening statements, so their first rebuttals were prepared ahead of time. Licona really fell apart on his second rebuttal, where he could not prepare, and started getting incoherent; Carrier continued to speak fluently. Licona also tried to bring up Dennis MacDonald's work on the Homeric Epics, although Carrier did not refer to MacDonald or base his arguments on MacDonald. Licona also seemed to taunt Carrier on occasion, claiming that he had "no evidence" for things such as the assertion that Matthew made up the story of the guards at the tomb. But there were too many issues to deal with all of them.

The only thing that left me wondering was that Carrier's presentation would really fit well in a liberal post-modern Christian church. His Jesus is the humanist Jesus that a lot of liberal Christians (such at the moderator, Professor S. Scott Bartchy (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/bartchy/), believe in, and would probably work well with Elaine Pagels.

[Richard Carrier]

(There was some discussion and disagreement as to the difference between a "transformed" body and the new replacement body.)

Yes, one of my self-criticisms is that I didn't resolve that particular dispute as completely as I would have liked. I did assail him with several verses in my last rebuttal that he never rebutted in turn, which established that Paul imagined the body of flesh as being destroyed, and I also showed that both Paul and Mark imagined us getting entirely new bodies, and the body-swap theory was a live option among Jews of the day, etc.

Of course, transformation still would not explain why Luke & John have a Jesus still of flesh. It was only intended to "entail" an empty tomb, which is why Mike had to go there.



But then the church split into gnostics and "Sarcisists" [I don't know if he invented that word]

Sarcicism, not Sarcisism. As far as I know, the word is my invention, though only to fix a name to a concept already found advocated by several scholars today. The word takes a natural etymology from sarx, sarcis (flesh) via the known Greek adjective sarcicus to produce sarcicism, sarcicist.



he kept repeating that 75% of all scholars agree that there was an empty tomb. (It was never clear where this figure came from, or, since it apparently included Christians who dominate the field, why it would be significant.)

I did have a slide prepared to challenge him on this claim in various ways, but the opportunity never arose. The only rebuttal I was able to get out was that 75% agreement isn't enough to establish a historical fact. But I could have said a lot more. His source is a rather famous article by Habermas, who surveyed some thousand or so articles written in the past thirty or twenty years or something. Your concerns are correct, and one could add many more: it was not a poll of scholars, but a survey only of statements on the record--hence all bona fide scholars who never had occasion to mention their doubts about the empty tomb in the surveyed period were not counted, and for all we know they could number in the thousands.

It is also a rather moot point since the only statistic relevant to the debate would have been: how many say there definitely was an empty tomb after seeing all the relevant evidence (that, for example, I presented only a small fraction of) and after they honestly set aside their own theological need for an empty tomb? But most of those surveyed almost certainly have not seen, much less carefully considered, all that evidence, much less been asked what they would think if they didn't have to believe anything, and even less having answered that question honestly and truly. And so on.

But even beyond this issue, there were a lot of things I felt I should have gotten out but didn't find time or opportunity for. Oh well. Live and learn. Likewise, I think my clarity and articulation could have been better. There were points where I tripped over my own tongue, or couldn't grab the right word at the right time. I'll be working on improving that in future debates.



NT Wright. (Carrier quoted a point from Wright, and he disputed it - this was never cleared up.)

He didn't exactly dispute the quote (that was genuine, and pretty damning to Licona's case, considering that, as you point out, he was leaning on Wright for his own case). His objection was more muddled and wasn't clear to me. I'll have to review the tape when I get it. It seemed like he was trying to say that Wright was referring to some other scholar, though that wasn't quite right--Wright's quote is direct and point blank, and he himself proposes on a later page that our new bodies might already be waiting for us in heaven, like some freakish android farm. To be fair, Wright's own book is a bit confused (it does not really present a completely coherent argument), and, as my quote indicated, Wright did not commit to either belief, but he clearly acknowledged mine as equally credible. But since Mike's objection didn't make much sense to me, and I think we got distracted with some other question, I never got around to clarifying the issue. Another ball dropped. But I guess I couldn't carry them all.



Licona also seemed to taunt Carrier on occasion, claiming that he had "no evidence" for things such as the assertion that Matthew made up the story of the guards at the tomb. But there were too many issues to deal with all of them.

Indeed! Though in fact I did mention some of the evidence for this particular assertion (four whole facts, actually), so he was basically not telling the truth. But he made some strange verbal mistakes (like for an entire series of sentences talking about me claiming Paul didn't believe in resurrection, when it was surely obvious to everyone that I, and he, meant the empty tomb, not resurrection--a strange gaffe, especially to repeat it several times in a row), so I can only suppose he didn't notice my list of reasons for believing the guards story a fiction. Perhaps he got distracted scribbling down notes when I cruised over them. There were other questionable things (like a rather sad ad hominem that involved quoting an unrelated essay of mine terribly out of context) that I didn't find time to respond to.



The only thing that left me wondering was that Carrier's presentation would really fit well in a liberal post-modern Christian church. His Jesus is the humanist Jesus that a lot of liberal Christians (such at the moderator, Professor S. Scott Bartchy (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/bartchy/), believe in, and would probably work well with Elaine Pagels.

Bartchy clearly enjoyed my position. He said to me afterward that he had never been to so interesting a debate that was conducted at such a high intellectual level. I can't say whether or how much he agreed with my position, but he clearly was in a much better position to appreciate my arguments than Licona. Bartchy has published heavily on the topic of the Corinthian letters, for example, both of which figured heavily in my argument. He also asked some really good questions of both of us (many of the questions were his own), revealing that he really understood the important issues. It was the best Q & A I'd ever seen after a debate (and I've seen many). Every single question was good.

[Toto]

. . .
I did have a slide prepared to challenge him on this claim in various ways, but the opportunity never arose. The only rebuttal I was able to get out was that 75% agreement isn't enough to establish a historical fact. But I could have said a lot more. His source is a rather famous article by Habermas, who surveyed some thousand or so articles written in the past thirty or twenty years or something. Your concerns are correct, and one could add many more: it was not a poll of scholars, but a survey only of statements on the record--hence all bona fide scholars who never had occasion to mention their doubts about the empty tomb in the surveyed period were not counted, and for all we know they could number in the thousands.

What is the article? I think you should have used that slide in your first rebuttal. It got a little tiresome listening to Licona harp on those 75% of scholars.

. . .
But even beyond this issue, there were a lot of things I felt I should have gotten out but didn't find time or opportunity for. Oh well. Live and learn. Likewise, I think my clarity and articulation could have been better. There were points where I tripped over my own tongue, or couldn't grab the right word at the right time. I'll be working on improving that in future debates.

I thought that your articulation and clarity were good, although I think it was a mistake to introduce a new word that you had invented in an oral debate before an audience of mixed levels. I could guess that it related to sarx, but I think a lot of the hearers would have just been confused and lost.

I think that if anything, you came across as maybe too academic, (although that is what you are) and could have showed a little more emotion. But perhaps if you felt more confident in your clarity and articulation, you could relax a little.

He didn't exactly dispute the quote (that was genuine, and pretty damning to Licona's case, considering that, as you point out, he was leaning on Wright for his own case). His objection was more muddled and wasn't clear to me. I'll have to review the tape when I get it. It seemed like he was trying to say that Wright was referring to some other scholar, though that wasn't quite right--Wright's quote is direct and point blank, and he himself proposes on a later page that our new bodies might already be waiting for us in heaven, like some freakish android farm. To be fair, Wright's own book is a bit confused (it does not really present a completely coherent argument), and, as my quote indicated, Wright did not commit to either belief, but he clearly acknowledged mine as equally credible. But since Mike's objection didn't make much sense to me, and I think we got distracted with some other question, I never got around to clarifying the issue. Another ball dropped. But I guess I couldn't carry them all.

It seems to be the opinion of this forum that NT Wright is a bit confused.

Will this tape be available?

. . . Bartchy clearly enjoyed my position. He said to me afterward that he had never been to so interesting a debate that was conducted at such a high intellectual level. I can't say whether or how much he agreed with my position, but he clearly was in a much better position to appreciate my arguments than Licona. Bartchy has published heavily on the topic of the Corinthian letters, for example, both of which figured heavily in my argument. He also asked some really good questions of both of us (many of the questions were his own), revealing that he really understood the important issues. It was the best Q & A I'd ever seen after a debate (and I've seen many). Every single question was good.

I recently heard Bartchy on another panel of scholars. I think he might be agnostic as to the existence of a deity, but he believes in Jesus and the humanistic message that he thinks is in the gospel. He likes the early Christians and thinks that Christianity went wrong when it became the state sponsored religion of the Roman Empire, and has never gotten back on track. (He is also a strong environmentalist and has remarked on the paradox of Christians driving big SUVs to church on Sunday.) He seems to get upset at the very idea that people challenge the existence of Jesus, because he doesn't understand their motivation.