Did Richard Carrier or Jeffery J. Lowder interview Lee Strobel? :dubious:
Infidels is not even close to an unbiased or fair review source. However, I wouldn’t call Strobel unbiased, either.
Realistically we don’t know what if Jesus really existed or what were the specific details of what he taught and what may have been added and embellished by others. Rather than ruin anything, it frees us to read the NT and find whatever meaning that resonates with us as individuals and leave the rest. The same with the others. I’ve read part of the Book of Mormon and found sections to be pretty interesting. I’m curious about where it actually came from. I don’t have to believe JS was a Prophet to get something out of the book. I can believe he was a charlatan and still get something out of the book.
That’s true but I also see another side. If a certain message moved me and was meaningful and I later find find out the messenger was a nut or a fake, I don’t have to throw out all the message. I can ask myself. “Why was that meaningful to me?” and use it. A teacher can be a good teacher but not a person you’d hang out with as buddies. I think the fact that people look so much at the structure and the leaders is detrimental to personal growth. If I go to a certain church because I like the atmosphere and the social work they do I don’t need to ditch everything when the pastor gets caught with a hooker.
I don’t agree Jesus taught money was evil but that’s a hijack I’m not interested in. The no God higher thing is part of a larger lesson about our connection as human beings IMO but that’s probably another thread as well.
Okay, as best I can tell, and correct me if I’m wrong, but your logic is:
We know that Christianity started out as a cult because all religions start out as cults.
We can “easily assume” that Mark was the leader, or a leader, of this cult.
This casts doubt on Mark’s reliability.
I don’t buy it. There’s no evidence that early Christians had a cult mentality. There’s no evidence that Mark was a leader of any sort. Further, following such arbitrary logic you would have automatic reason to doubt any text written by anybody about any religion in the ancient world.
Let me reiterate my position. We do not have rock-solid evidence that the Gospel authors were who they say they were. What we do have is:
-
A time frame that makes it possible.
-
a complete absence of doubt regarding their authenticity, by anyone in the early church, starting in the second century.
-
Evidence from archaeology that confirms many parts.
That, like I said, is nothing that would stand up in court, but it’s something that stands up much better than much history of the ancient world. So a reasonable viewpoint is to lean towards authenticity.
I’ll say it and keep saying it. IMHO the real message and the relevant part of what Jesus taught is not the least bit affected by whether he literally rose from the dead.
I’m speaking of empty tomb , body raised from the dead, not a spiritual afterlife.
Cite.
Everything I’ve read has said that the this is not the way the census was conducted in ancient Rome.
Also, when did the census occur? The gospels of Mark and Matthew disagree on this, by 10 years if I remember correctly.
Your post seems t be ignoring a lot of facts. Although I believe Joseph Smith was a phony there’s no denying that the religion he started has millions of members. The same is true for many other religions. Christianity has no more credibility than other religions simply because lots of people believe it and some of them are highly educated and very smart.
I haven’t read a Christian scholar yet that doesn’t demonstrate his or her bias in his writings. I don’t say that to dismiss them, but to recognize scholars are humans with preferences and bias.That would include atheist scholars. Someone being a scholar makes their opinion a more educated one, not infallible. When scholars disagree the obvious conclusion seems to be, “we just don’t know. There are several theories but we actually don’t know with certainty.” IMHO acknowledging that not knowing is important when we are seeking the truth. It requires us to hold our theories or beliefs provisionally while we await further evidence.
Cite?
I’ll save you the trouble since I doubt you have any idea what you’re trying to cite. There is an Egyptian census that required migrant workers to return to their homes. It did not require them to return to their ancestral homes (which, of course, would be asinine), or to return their birthplaces, but to the places they actually LIVED, when they weren’t out working.
Really? Name them.
Cite?
You need to start ponying up actual evdience instead of just citing apologists.
Why would he have to? What information would he gain by interviewing him that would change any of the factual evidence?
Cite?
The Census of Quirinius would have been, as mentioned, around 6 A.D., a reasonable gesture for a new provincial governor but also as mentioned after the death of Herod the Great (who again, isn’t mentioned in Luke, but is in Matthew) and in fact only took power because of the banishment of one of the three sons Herod left parts of his kingdom to. However, Luke specifically says:
So Luke’s specific- while Quirinius is mentioned, it’s clearly one of the Augustan censuses. There were three known censuses ordered by Augustus:
ca, 28 BCE (when he’d first consolidated his power)- this one is unlikely for several reasons. Among others is the age of Salome. Herod Antipas, one of the three sons who Herod the Great split his kingdom among, is consistently the king who orders the death of John the Baptist and specifically he does so to please his stepdaughter (who was also his half-niece and his half-grandniece) over John’s slights to her mother Herodias (Herod’s wife, nice, and former sister-in-law). Salome would have been born at the very earliest around 13 A.D. and that she married her uncle (who was also her great-uncle and her great-great uncle) around 30 A.D., these facts known through the detailed genealogies Josephus left us and the historical touchstones he associates with them. So assuming she was in her teens the birthday party where she asked for the head of the Baptist would have been no earlier than around 26 A.D., by which time both Jesus and John would have been in their 50s, which is not believed to have been the case, so this one is out.
8 BCE- If Joseph was counted in a census when Mary was pregnant this is almost certainly the one. Herod the Great was still alive [which if Matthew is to be believed he was] and this would make Jesus and John in their 30s under at the time of Antipas’s birthday party (ca. 25-30).
14 A.D.- In addition to being 18 years after Herod the Great’s death, this would have made Jesus and John at most teenagers at the time of John’s death, so…
In 8 B.C.E. Quirinius was not governor of Syria. In 8BCE Syria was governed by Varus (a man whose life is well documented because of his disaster with the Germans years later)- not up for debate.
So, Luke is wrong.
As for Augustus’s census, could you please provide a cite that the forms say what you claim they do? Caesar’s reason for the census was taxation and also to gauge military strength, and neither of these would seem aided by requiring entire families including pregnant wives to journey to an ancestral home.
Why would I resent Strobel’s book sales? I don’t care. I congratulate him on being able to separate suckers from their money. I was just correcting your own claim that Strobel engages in “scholarship.” He does not.
You ought to love me, then.
The translation for this is that you can’t refute them on the facts, so you’ll pretend to be indignant about their tones (and Carrier is not that bad), pick up youir skirts and flounce away. Even if you’re opponent is rude, that doesn’t give you an excuse not to have to defend your own claims.
You seem to have a completely back-assward idea of who has the burden to prove anything. Your idiot apologist, McRay based his claim on a claim by ANOTHER guy that he had found microscopic writing on a coin with Quirinius’ name on it. This coin turned out not to exist. There is no such coin. There is nothing to refute. Are you really this uneducated about how these things work that you think any mere CLAIM should be assumed true unless proven by evidence?
I have a 1st Century scroll written by Jesus himself in which he admits to loving cock. What is your evidence to refute my assertion?
So, how does this square with your belief that the Bible predicted 9/11?
OK, so imagine that you’re a world-class intellect (just play along with me for a minute, all right?) and you bring out a whole passel of intellectual arguments, to which your opponents make up shit, refer to claims as evidence, cherrypick texts to supply things that to an idiot might look like support and generally behave terribly-- and after being confronted as to the weakness of this method, continue to engage in the very acts you’ve pointed out as weak and unpersuasive. Two questions:
-
for how long do you persist in engaging with this person before pointing out that he is being disingenuous and evasive? IOW, do you just engage this person indefinitely, or at some point do you point out the weaknesses of his character as well as his argument? AND
-
after that point has been reached, does this person say “Oh, gosh, I’ve irritated you–please let me amend my infuriating ways” or does he say “Oh, well, if you’re going to call me, or my sources, NAMES, I’m not going to argue any further”?
The most remarkable thing about your list is not what it contains but rather what it lacks: namely, Palestine. The Jews in Palestine would have been in the best position to judge the accuracy of the Christians’ claims, and they rejected them. If the bible is true, those people should have been the first to sign on to Christianity, because they would have seen Jesus’s works for themselves, or know someone who had. The fact that the religion was a non-starter with those in the best position to judge says far more about it than does your list of people far removed in time and place from the supposed events.
So your question should not be “Why did Christianity do so well among people who had no way to verify its claims?”, your question should be "Why did Christianity fail in the exact place it should have been expected to thrive, if true?
This is really a very poor debate strategy, as you’re effectively conceding control of the argument to your opponent. Remember, in a debate, you’re not trying to convince your opponent of the correctness of your position, you’re trying to convince people watching the debate of the correctness of your position. Diogenes has put forward some interesting arguments in favor of Biblical error. By refusing to engage those arguments because of the tone in which they were couched, you’re leaving them unchallenged and unrebuted. In a forum that is sympathetic to your views, this might work for you, but we both know that, on the SDMB, you’re arguing a minority view point. Posters here are likely to already be sympathetic to Diogenes’ arguments, and are going to need powerful counter-arguments to be persuaded that he’s incorrect. “I’m not going to respond to that because it’s mean,” is, in this context, simply going to enforce the perceived correctness of his position by the majority of onlookers to this thread.
Well slap my ass and call me Sally. Those billion Hindus on the planet will be surprised to hear that.
People are taught by their parents to believe in a deity or lack thereof. Here’s a review of a few different studies.
Only 1% of children will join an entirely different religion from their parents. Denomination hopping ranges between 10-40%. This holds for atheists. If you are raised by atheists, there’s a 99% chance that you will also be an atheist.
Fine then let’s deal with only religion. I think that you would need to explain why the popularity of a religion and the popularity of anything else shouldn’t be linked, but if you think the popularity of a religion and the popularity of other things can’t hold any parallel–that it just can’t be done–I’m fine to toss it. Let’s only discuss the popularity of Christianity as a religion.
So, yes, sure at the moment Christianity appears to have the largest global following. But it still doesn’t hold the majority, Buddhism and Hinduism are doing quite well (Buddhism appears like it should be counted higher), and if you want to go for lasting power, both Buddhism and Hinduism are both older than Christianity. But surprise, it’s the religions that were popular in the areas that most practiced conquest in the last few centuries that are the most popularly held.
God blessed both Christianity and Islam’s swords when they conquered South America (Christianity), North America (C), Southern Africa (C), Northern Africa (I), the middle East (I), and Australia (C)? You honestly think that God’s way to spread his religion was to give the white man the gun and ships in the 15th Century and say, “Go for it my sons, because it’s allllll yours cackle”? Why did he bless Islam in this fashion as well? Explain to me that map of the spread of religions in a way that doesn’t follow conquest, otherwise.
Were your parents Christian? I’d give you 99:1 odds that they were.
Just for the record, Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world.
The point is getting at the facts concerning the topic. Can you seriously criticize my source when first offering Strobel’s compilation of Christian apologetics’s? I didn’t present this as an unbiased source but a biased source is capable of making a legitimate point, wouldn’t you agree? If not please don’t use that book as a reference again.
As you mention in post #79 I also try to take in a variety of opinions and be educated by different authors and consider opposing povs.I examine the chain of logic and reasoning in anything I’m studying. I’ve mentioned before that advanced degrees don’t make a person immune from bias and flawed logic when it comes to subjects they have a heavy emotional investment in. If the logic is consistently flawed I tend to dismiss the author.
Like you, I also consider the *overall *tone of the work in deciding to what degree the author is concerned about presenting the facts rather the attacking opposing views. However, IMHO you are taking it a bit far. Being technically polite is no measure of credibility or lack of bias in and of itself. I have to ask, Do you actually read the articles for valid points of contention or do you simply look for keywords that give you reason to dismiss the argument without actually addressing it?
Both links contain a lot of relevant details compared to any amount of objectionable language. I re read my link for objectionable language and find very little. If you’re really willing to dismiss them both without addressing the points I’d say that says something about your willingness to truly look at the facts. I’ve read and listened to Sam Harris and don’t find his manner rude or insulting.
I have no problem with Strobel making a good living selling books to Christians. My concern is what I mentioned above and which Lowder mentioned at the end of his article.
Strobel doesn’t present the book as a work of Christian apologetics but as research done by an investigative reporter. His method makes that representation a false one. IMHO.
The credentials of Strobel’s sources do not give extra credence to their opinions in light of dissension by scholars of equal magnitude. If a layman like myself can see gaping holes in their logic I have a hard time giving their credentials serious weight.
well ya but it’s the one the crowed three times, or once, depending on which gospel you read. 
In case you haven’t read the Gospel of Judas there is a section commenting on the Lord’s preference for poultry. Some say instead of wine at the Last Supper what JC actually claimed was his blood was BBQ sauce. 
Yeah, we need to start dumping money into Mexico to up the baby output so Christianity can keep up. (Darn turban headed sex-fiends!)