tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post609488452532712965..comments2023-06-01T14:08:49.977+00:00Comments on Confessions of a Doubting Thomas: The Resurrection and the 'Minimal Facts' approach.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-67851052305867430982018-05-03T16:39:51.072+00:002018-05-03T16:39:51.072+00:00Jacob, with apologies for the very delayed publish...Jacob, with apologies for the very delayed publishing and commenting on your comment...<br /><br />I stand by my earlier statement. Tacitus says <i>"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"</i>. This tells us nothing about the death of Jesus which is independent of the stories told by Christians. There is no <i>story</i> of Jesus here, other than that he started a group who went on to be a hated minority.<br /><br />Unlike Carrier (not a saint), I see no reason to suspect that this is an interpolation. This is a garbled version of the story that would be told by Christians themselves, a generation or two after the alleged time of Jesus, and also half a world away, geographically.<br />Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-60364719501346425122018-04-15T12:19:23.133+00:002018-04-15T12:19:23.133+00:00On the subject of questionable facts, you state, &...On the subject of questionable facts, you state, "there are no stories of the death of Jesus that don't go on to involve the resurrection." I don't believe this to be true. There are a number of references in the first two centuries to Jesus's crucifixion, most notably Tacitus. I accept the possibility, indeed very strong probability, that some of these documents were subject to later Christian interpolation, but others have strong consensus from scholars as to their integrity. Of course, your Saint Richard (Carrier) places himself outside this consensus, but that doesn't make your 'fact' more than an assertion. And that strikes me as a bit ironic in the context.Jacob Yulenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-4013514449004947022018-02-07T09:22:08.219+00:002018-02-07T09:22:08.219+00:00The writings of Paul are another source in which t...The writings of Paul are another source in which the crucifixion of Jesus is really only discussed as part of the preamble to the resurrection. Had Paul not believed in the resurrection, he would never have written about the crucifixion.<br /><br />I can't accept any methodology that takes an ancient writing and says events A, B and C in here are historically plausible, so unless further information presents itself we will assume that these events happened, whilst at the same time looking at events D, E and F, and saying these are historically implausible, so unless further evidence presents itself, we will assume these events probably didn't happen. Especially when the plausible events A, B and C are then used as 'evidence' to demonstrate the plausibility of D, E and F. Why not use the obvious unreality of D, E and F to 'prove' the <i>unreliability</i> of A, B and C?<br /><br />Having read Richard Carrier's magnum opus on this, I am convinced that it is at least <i>plausible</i> that Paul only wrote and preached about a heavenly crucifixion of Christ, and a heavenly resurrection. We don't have any information about what Paul and Peter talked about during that meeting in Jerusalem, but if both believed only in a heavenly Christ, then that probably was what they discussed, you cant infer what Paul 'found out' from Peter on the basis of the information we have.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-60761997495904939882018-02-07T09:06:47.660+00:002018-02-07T09:06:47.660+00:00From a historian's point of view the claim tha...From a historian's point of view the claim that Jesus was crucified is quite different from the claim that he rose from the dead. The former is entirely plausible. The latter, taken literally, is utterly implausible.<br /><br />The crucifixion of Jesus, first attested in 1 Corinthians, is one of those entirely plausible events. Paul appreciated that it was a hindrance to his preaching (1 Cor 1:23). No one who wanted to be at peace with the Roman authorities (c.f. Rom 13:1-7) would invent a hero who suffered martyrdom at the hands of those authorities. Paul had stayed for a couple of weeks with Peter (Gal 1:18), who was one of the original followers of Jesus. Therefore Paul would have found out the truth about the crucifixion.<br /><br />Ron Pricehttp://www.behindthepagesofthenewtestament.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-3617719810708268072018-02-04T05:22:44.394+00:002018-02-04T05:22:44.394+00:00We ask many of the same questions https://edward-t...We ask many of the same questions https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/06/christianity-raises-as-many.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com