Flann wrote:But this genre is entirely fictional whereas Acts has Paul a real person traveling to and founding real churches.
Nothing at all real happens in a fictional novel.It can not be the same genre

Fictional novels can and do talk about real places as well as real people. That they are fictional means that portions of the story are fabricated, not necessarily every single part.

Flann wrote:The hallucinations thesis is very hard to sustain based on what can be known medically.If Jesus didn't actually exist and was not crucified under Pilate why would anyone hallucinate a resurrection of someone who neither existed was crucified died or was buried? Why would so many diverse people at different places and times hallucinate such a thing?

That's not hard at all to sustain. You don't need "many" people having the hallucination. All you need is a single David Koresh, and everyone else will claim they saw the same thing. This is not a stretch. It is how things happen in real life. It is an acceptable, plausible scenario that has real instances as examples.

As far as hallucinations are concerned, how do you explain the five hundred foot talking carrot that some people hallucinate? Are you saying their hallucinations are "hard to sustain medically" because no instance of a five hundred foot tall talking carrot is known? Of course not. People can and do hallucinate fictional entities of all shapes and sizes, in all venues, with all sorts of variations. This meshes with modern medical understanding.

As a disclaimer, I'm not agreeing with Carrier here. I don't know if he's right or not. What I'm saying is that you haven't shown his ideas to be wrong. They could be wrong, but you haven't shown that. You're appealing to the wrong things, and forming non-sequiturs.

Flann wrote:Besides, for all his touted academic ability he is forced to explain away Tacitus and others, and concoct an implausible explanation of Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus as being not a physical but spiritual brother.

Are you saying that because Josephus and Tacitus mentioned James and Jesus, that they were therefore referring to real people? If you simply accept this as the case, referring to this or that as support, you're ignoring the vast number of incidents where noteworthy scholars refer to false things, and quite often. Carrier's position is not at all implausible, but is accepted by many scholars.

As far as Josephus is concerned, I thought his works had been transcribed? If the oldest document we have isn't the true original manuscript, from his hand, then you cannot trust it. There is no way around this point, it is set in concrete. You cannot triangulate to any point of greater truth unless you have the original. The words of Josephus will always and forever be suspect because of this, and it has nothing to do with the motive of anti-theist anti-jesus scholarship.

Even then, more doubt is cast on Josephus' writings when you consider that he could be merely repeating what he'd heard through the grapevine, and the grapevine would be ringing with news of Jesus from the Koreshian followers who claim to have seen him, but really didn't.

This isn't preposterous stuff Flann. This is how people behave; they fabricate stuff, they hallucinate, they write down word of mouth as if it's factual, they follow delusional visionaries. These things are not only real, they are an inseparable part of humanity. We do these things, have done them all across history, and will continue to do them. Of course there were people having visions in that time. Of course there were people following delusional visionaries. Of course there were people having hallucinations. These things are commonplace, and to say they didn't happen is the preposterous stance.

ant wrote:We are emotionally committed to our worldviews

Not all hope is lost! I've been emotionally committed to many things in the past, and have been brutally torn away from them. The cure is proper method. When you use proper method, the wheat is separated from the chaff in spite of what you desire to be true. You both should try it. It's depressing and frustrating, but reliable.

ant wrote: We are emotionally committed to our worldviews

That's a good point ant.
And yet one is undoubtedly true and the other false.
There you see! Interbane has come back with his 500 foot talking carrot analogy!Did somebody measure it?
O.k then. I think I've made my case on this and you disagree.So I'll leave it at that. It might have been a real, advanced alien species of carrot visiting us earthlings though!

I think I've made my case on this and you disagree.

Sure Flann.

The cure is proper method. When you use proper method, the wheat is separated from the chaff in spite of what you desire to be true.

Theory laddenness

You both should try it

I think your inductive reasoning is just that - inductive.

I think your checks and balances for your inferences are based on induction as well.

I think your justification is based on circular reasoning, induction justifying induction.


I think your still a mess but just don't realize it.

Hi Interbane,
I feel I'm having to repeat myself a lot and it just gets a bit wearying. As an historian Carrier accepts Josephus on James. I'm just taking Carrier on his own premises. He also acknowledges that these novels are entirely fictional.
I don't mean to be disrespectful and appreciate your taking the trouble to respond. It is never ending it seems, so I have to end somewhere.

Flann 5 wrote:Hi Interbane,
I feel I'm having to repeat myself a lot and it just gets a bit wearying. As an historian Carrier accepts Josephus on James. I'm just taking Carrier on his own premises. He also acknowledges that these novels are entirely fictional.
I don't mean to be disrespectful and appreciate your taking the trouble to respond. It is never ending it seems, so I have to end somewhere.

I've noticed that the commonality between atheists like Interbane and Tulip is that they seem to be on an imaginary crusade.

Tulip, in his Da Vinci thread, stated the following (emphasis mine)

Christians tend towards bigotry, and I am working to overthrow their whole supernatural paradigm for understanding reality by revealing the hidden purpose of their myths. By and large I find that Christians are too emotional about these topics to enable a sensible conversation.

And It's well established that Interbane's "vested interest in the future" (he knows what I'm talking about here) motivates him to correct theism's delusional worldview (he has explicitly stated here on booktalk that I am delusional) every chance he gets.


If religion is nothing more than an evolutionary meme, there is no questioning its importance to the survival of the species.
Oh sure, it has lots of faults that are tied directly to politics and power, but history tell us it has been more valuable to our survival than "rational godlessness"
To think that religion can be stamped out by declaring some sort of generalized pseudo intellectual war on theism is to suffer from delusions of grandeur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in comparison to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD

Oddly, there is a religious theme to this psychosis, despite the host claiming not to have any religious delusions to speak of.

I think your inductive reasoning is just that - inductive.

I think your checks and balances for your inferences are based on induction as well.

I think your justification is based on circular reasoning, induction justifying induction.


I think your still a mess but just don't realize it.

Yes, pretty much all reasoning has induction as a foundation, and inductive reasoning cannot justify itself. This is not my problem alone, but a problem for everyone. Which means we must accept inductive reasoning as axiomatic, at the same time we give a nod towards the provisional nature of it's conclusions.

Building on that foundation, the only way to move forward is using proper method, to minimize the influence of our emotions and biases.

And It's well established that Interbane's "vested interest in the future" (he knows what I'm talking about here) motivates him to correct theism's delusional worldview (he has explicitly stated here on booktalk that I am delusional) every chance he gets.

We all have our delusions.

My interest in the future is likely the same as yours. I want a world that my children can live in, in peace. I have lived a comfortable life relative to my ancestors, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Many of the issues I've had are traced to religion. I don't expect you to believe me, and I don't care.

To think that religion can be stamped out by declaring some sort of generalized pseudo intellectual war on theism is to suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Is that so? The four horsemen have had no impact? If I've changed any minds, it's been to polarize them against me. People don't change their minds. But those who cross these forums and are straddling the fence can be persuaded. I have a pragmatic understanding of my influence.

He also acknowledges that these novels are entirely fictional.

Hagiographies are not entirely fictional, and he admits that many things written in the gospels are real and true.

As an historian Carrier accepts Josephus on James.

Yes, James as the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

You're simply missing my points Flann, and declaring yourself correct. You really haven't shown Carrier to be wrong, even if he might be.

You are right Interbane, Carrier says it was a James the brother of the high priest so I mistakenly misrepresented his position there. I owe him an apology for that and should have checked more carefully. Other historians disagree with him on this but Carrier's view is as you say on this point.
I don't think this makes his thesis tenable and I've pretty much said what I have to say on that.

http://www.scienceandotherdrugs.wordpre ... re-review/

It was actually in Carrier's take on Paul's writings about James and Jesus that he gets this wrong. See the linked review of Carrier's
Why Jesus never existed, talk. This is to clarify this issue.

It was actually in Carrier's take on Paul's writings about James and Jesus that he gets this wrong. See the linked review of Carrier's

I know I'm being a pain in the butt, and I'm sorry. But my experience has been that both sides only dig deep enough to satisfy their convictions, then go no further. You've scoured the internet for people who debate against Carrier, then called it a day. Did you also read Carrier's reply to them? Many of their failed arguments rest on the points that I also missed, until I read Carrier's reply.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4573

Interbane wrote:Hagiographies are not entirely fictional, and he admits that many things written in the gospels are real and true.

Carrier says that Acts is of the genre of historical religious fiction novels of the time. You can't use the gospels and Acts as your examples. Carrier is saying these are like other fictional religious novels of the time. Name one such fictional novel from that time where the hero is a real person. You can't. Even Carrier says they were entirely fictional.
Carrier doesn't answer the criticisms of the science and drugs blogger. His translating and interpreting of new testament greek is poor as Dan Wallace who teaches new testament greek pointed out.
William Lane Craig exposed his poor understanding and interpretation of the language in his debate with him on the key point of "changed" or "exchanged" in a crucial passage on the resurrection.Indeed at times it's farcical.
Much in his responses in his blog hinge on translation of greek words which also must be taken in context.This is not his forte.
Carrier who borrows heavily from Earl Doherty, attempts to argue that Christ was not a human being born on earth but an hallucinated being who Paul believed was "manufactured" with some kind of quasi human body. It is important for him then to try show that when Paul says Christ was "of the seed of David according to the flesh" this does not mean what it would ordinarily be taken to mean.
When Paul says Christ was" born of a woman" he tries to argue this is allegorical language.
Paul says of his countrymen "who are Israelites.......... of whom are the fathers and from whom.Christ according to the flesh came," Romans 9;5 So Christ is a Jew physically descended just like his countrymen.
And in Hebrews "For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah,of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood" Hebrews 7;14. So Christ is a descendant of Judah.
Furthermore Paul uses the same language of himself as when speaking of Christ as of the seed of David. "For I also am an Israelite,of the seed of Abraham,of the tribe of Benjamin" Romans 11;1.
I'm just addressing one specific point here, Christ being of the seed of David meaning biological descent. but his allegorical interpretation of "born of a woman" is equally poor.

Only someone with an agenda could misinterpret the new testament as badly as he does. It is clear to all but the blind that Paul and Hebrews teach that Christ was a real human being and not a manufactured being roaming around in some "sub lunar" region of space.