Having listened to the Carrier-Craig debate on "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" I'm still thinking of how ill-equipped Carrier was for this.
I'm also wondering about something, and offer Carrier a suggestion. He says he doesn't believe Jesus ever existed. It comes to me that if this were established then the issue of Jesus rising from the dead would be a moot point. Thus all the dialogue surrounding this including a lot of the stuff Carrier was bringing in that didn't help his cause would now be unnecessary.
The simple argument:
1. Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
2. In order to die one must exist.
3. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth never rose from the dead (For the same reason that Frodo never destroyed the ring.)
If P1 is established the debate is over.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I'd never read anything by Carrier before this debate. I went to his website. On Sunday, March 8, he lectured in Ventura, California, on the topic "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist?" That was just ten days prior to the debate with Craig. Surely Carrier had not forgotten that he believed Jesus didn't exist. Why not use that as P1 in the argument above, instead of going on and on like he did in his attempt to show "Barabbas" never really existed? (As if establishing the non-existence of Barabbas would function as a premise leading to the conclusion that Jesus never rose from the dead?)
