Talk:Resurrection of Jesus

On the content disputed by
I have recently been adding content based on the works of Christian apologists and atheist scholars responding to them to this page because I thought this page was lacking in clear rebuttals to apologetic arguments. Instead of rebutting the arguments posed by apologists—which has been done quite successfully IMO by scholars and commentators like Carrier, Ehrman, and Lowder—the page before my content additions acted as though said arguments did not exist at all.

CircularReasoning reverted my sourced edits, claiming that I was trying to "prove" something using argument by assertion, which is absurd since I'm not trying "prove" anything, nor were there any assertions made. The only unsourced statement (that Christian scholars and apologists have made arguments for the historicity of the resurrection on the basis of biblical and extrabiblical evidence) that I made is common knowledge among atheists who respond to Christian arguments. Jancarcu (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I reverted User:CircularReasoning only once (the other reverts were self-reverts) and took it to the talk page as soon as he actually provided a rationale for his revert, so his heavy-handed locking of the page is unjustified. --Jancarcu (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are so many problems with this line of argumentation. Firstly, it's a bit self defeating to use the Bible as a primary source to try to prove the content of the Bible. Secondly, apologists (of all stripes, not just religion) are not engaging in good faith, but instead seeking to reinforce existing worldviews rather than seek truth. Thirdly, this entire line of reasoning is self defeating, since any deity capable of resurrecting the dead would just do so if the stakes were really that high (Heaven/Hell) and they were actually real. 23:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean by "this line of argumentation". I'm not trying to use the Bible as proof of anything. I'm simply trying to state the views of apologists and then the rebuttals provided by atheists like Carrier so that this article's coverage can become more comprehensive. I think you've confused trying to provide better coverage of apologetics and the flaws thereof—which falls inside Mission—with trying to engage in apologetics, which I'm not trying to do.--Jancarcu (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Apologies. In that case I'd like to get to weigh in so we can sort this matter out, as it may be a simple misunderstanding.  23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted them because they didn't appear constructive. And methinks what really drove me to try and revert 's was how they seemed to see assertions and circular reasoning as evidence- which is giving apologetics way more credit than they deserve. However, I can tell from here that Jancarcu doesn't seem to be the type of person who would unironically promote religious apologetics, so I'll just assume good faith on this one. I only protected it because the two of us constantly reverting each other's edits solves nothing. -- Goatspeed. 23:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the concerns about giving apologetics too much credit, I'm putting out a new version of my edits that tries to tone that down. Please tell me if you like it :) --Jancarcu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * K. -- Goatspeed. 01:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Richard Carrier a scholar and historian?
If you were at a party, would you introduce Richard Carrier to a friend as a scholar and historian?

Last time I heard, he was living off of Patreon contributions and was a iterant atheist speaker/blogger who coach surfed. That's typically not what scholars/academics/historians do. I don't think he has landed an academic post since graduating either.

Wikipedia does not describe Richard Carrier as a scholar/historian. It describes him as an author and activist.DunnM (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the description of Carrier as a historian.DunnM (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does this article even cite Richard Carrier? RationalWiki strongly implies he is dishonest. RationalWiki's Richard Carrier article: "This all occurred while Carrier himself was married, thus he was cheating on his wife in addition (honest person right?)."DunnM (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I cite him not because I think he's the best source but because his website is the most easily accessible, and he dishes out decent content whenever he's not engaging in Jesus mythicist crankery. I'm trying to broaden the base of scholars being cited by using infidels.org and vridar. This was a necessary step because this article was quite barren and did not include rebuttals to any of the main arguments for the resurrection prior to my changes.Jancarcu (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Carrier can be called a legit historian because he does have an ancient history PhD and has published peer reviewed works, even if he no longer does active teaching. I agree that he is problematic on a personal level (sexual harassment allegations and adultery), but the basic arguments used by critics of the resurrection don't differ much (e.g. Komarnitsky is in accord with Carrier on many points) and he's the most accessible source on the internet. We wouldn't usually question the honesty of an elementary algebra book, for instance, even if its author was literally Adolf Hitler, since the basic facts in every field and every contention are generally agreed upon; to do otherwise would be a bit ad hominemy. Jancarcu (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

“I’m finished.”
Didn’t Jesus say this before he got resurrected? If so, I think for the sake of symmetry (if nothing else), someone ought to splice this clip into the article:  Leucippus Salva veritate 22:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)