Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2014, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 06:31 AM by anonymous66.)
Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
I've been talking about how I came across the fact that there is a consensus. A majority of experts in the field of ancient history accept that Jesus did exist. That he was indeed a historical figure.. Now, the only things they agree on are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was executed under Pontius Pilate.

Here are the references...
Quote:Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus,[3][4][5] based on critical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.[3][4][6] These reconstructions accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14]




Historical elements
Existence

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[35]




7.In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
9.Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
10.Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
11.Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
12.Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
13.Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
14."Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth
30.Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
31.James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
32.The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".




So, the question is, why do you believe your expert, Richard Carrier, when he disagrees with a consensus of experts in the field?

In your opinion, what is his strongest argument?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:32 AM
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
No such thing as "MY" expert. My expert if it was such a thing, would be someone is an expert in the field of knowledge about me... so in that regard, only I am qualified to be my expert.(Not saying someone can't be an expert in someone else, but I don't think any person knows me in a way that can be an expert in me)

I don't really care about him... but seeing that link you have and looking at the "evidence" section. The argument of Embarrassment is really weak and childish to me. It ignores the concept of the potential for other justifications based on a single emotional idea. Just on a base argument point, if Jesus was fake and they were trying to make him a MARTYR intentionally, the embarrassment argument makes no sense. They want him to be a victim and weak in the end, that's what you do when creating a martyr.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:36 AM
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No such thing as "MY" expert. My expert if it was such a thing, would be someone is an expert in the field of knowledge about me... so in that regard, only I am qualified to be my expert.(Not saying someone can't be an expert in someone else, but I don't think any person knows me in a way that can be an expert in me)

I don't really care about him... but seeing that link you have and looking at the "evidence" section. The argument of Embarrassment is really weak and childish to me. It ignores the concept of the potential for other justifications based on a single emotional idea. Just on a base argument point, if Jesus was fake and they were trying to make him a MARTYR intentionally, the embarrassment argument makes no sense. They want him to be a victim and weak in the end, that's what you do when creating a martyr.
here's the link you were talking about... http://www.ahistoricaljesus.com it's just a hobby of mine.. research. I'll continue to add to the website... don't judge it too harshly, it's still very basic.

I don't know what to tell you. The criterion from embarrassment is part of how history is done... You'll notice that it is rarely used by itself.

Quote:The criterion of embarrassment is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about himself. Some Biblical scholars have used this criterion in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.[1]

Quote:The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:38 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 06:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
Same (debunked) list of biased so-called "experts" re-posted.
You have not posted any proof of your claim. You have produced no poll of unbiased historians or classicists.
All you have done is post the claims of mostly believers.
So you are as dishonest as they accused you of.
If religious people claim that there is a religious consensus, it's meaningless.
WTF did you EXPECT them to say ?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...th?page=21

I don't need an "expert", nor do most people here.
Unlike you, we think and study for ourselves.

YOU have addressed NOT ONE of the actual points Dr. Carrier makes, or that are made against some of his arguments.
(There are some weak ones, and some very good ones). You have demonstrated you are incompetent to even begin to discuss the CONTENT of any specific claim.

Did you forget something ? You forgot to link to your pathetic web site.

Link to a thread where some members of TTA actually discuss some of the issues.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint-Paul

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:46 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 06:55 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't believe that there is a consensus.
^fixed that for you.
Sorry to hear that. Apparently, we have nothing to talk about..

I challenged you to contact the ancient history (or classics) departments of secular colleges or universities that you trust.. that way you can check it out for yourself.

Ask them whether or not they agree that Jesus existed... ask them about some of Carrier's claims. Stop babbling about what you KNOW is true, and take the time to actually check.

have you done that? report back here when have.

I'm actually surprised you are arguing this point with me Bucky. You seem like an intelligent guy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:51 AM
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:36 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(09-10-2014 06:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No such thing as "MY" expert. My expert if it was such a thing, would be someone is an expert in the field of knowledge about me... so in that regard, only I am qualified to be my expert.(Not saying someone can't be an expert in someone else, but I don't think any person knows me in a way that can be an expert in me)

I don't really care about him... but seeing that link you have and looking at the "evidence" section. The argument of Embarrassment is really weak and childish to me. It ignores the concept of the potential for other justifications based on a single emotional idea. Just on a base argument point, if Jesus was fake and they were trying to make him a MARTYR intentionally, the embarrassment argument makes no sense. They want him to be a victim and weak in the end, that's what you do when creating a martyr.
here's the link you were talking about... http://www.ahistoricaljesus.com it's just a hobby of mine.. research. I'll continue to add to the website... don't judge it too harshly, it's still very basic.

I don't know what to tell you. The criterion from embarrassment is part of how history is done... You'll notice that it is rarely used by itself.

Quote:The criterion of embarrassment is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about himself. Some Biblical scholars have used this criterion in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.[1]

Quote:The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria.

It's not something I disregard in all study of history... but it says in the definition, "...because the author would have no reason to invent..."

That's far from the case with a martyr person that Jesus is. It by definition doesn't fit the criteria so to use it is not fully justified. It's also just as valid the case against it because there was instances of failed messiah martyr's of the recent time having a similar rise and failure such as Simon of Peraea.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
09-10-2014, 06:51 AM
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU have addressed NOT ONE of the actual points Dr. Carrier makes, or that are made against some of his arguments.

Why don't you tell me in your own words what his strongest argument is... and if you think for yourself... why do you need Carrier at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:51 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-10-2014 06:36 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  here's the link you were talking about... http://www.ahistoricaljesus.com it's just a hobby of mine.. research. I'll continue to add to the website... don't judge it too harshly, it's still very basic.

I don't know what to tell you. The criterion from embarrassment is part of how history is done... You'll notice that it is rarely used by itself.

It's not something I disregard in all study of history... but it says in the definition, "...because the author would have no reason to invent..."

That's far from the case with a martyr person that Jesus is. It by definition doesn't fit the criteria so to use it is not fully justified. It's also just as valid the case against it because there was instances of failed messiah martyr's of the recent time having a similar rise and failure such as Simon of Peraea.

I agree that it is a judgment call. It's not like we can actually do a scientific test.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:59 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 07:09 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:51 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(09-10-2014 06:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU have addressed NOT ONE of the actual points Dr. Carrier makes, or that are made against some of his arguments.

Why don't you tell me in your own words what his strongest argument is... and if you think for yourself... why do you need Carrier at all?

Wrong.
More intellectual dishonesty.
No one said they "need" Carrier.
All I asked is for YOU to discuss ONE of his points.
You can't. You know NOTHING of the actually issues.
All you can do is make your ad populum and argument from authority.
Obviously you don't even KNOW what he even discusses.
Now I think you never even really listened to one of his lectures.

But what you have done by demonstrating you are unable to discuss the issues at hand, is that YOU NEED your pathetic list of (mostly) religious "experts".

BTW, I ran your web-site list through the plagiarism software I have access to in my department out East.
This is where you got it, and you never once gave credit to the Wiki author of this bibliography. Here is where you copy/pasted it from, as though it were your own work :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

"Robert M. Price (a former fundamentalist apologist turned atheist who says the existence of Jesus cannot be ruled out, but is less probable than non-existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1–6
Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved Jan 8, 2011. "... The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice ..."
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 p. 16, Referring to G.A. Wells: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted"
The Cambridge companion to Jesus by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-521-79678-1 pages 123–124. Page 124 state that the "farfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."
Powell, Mark Allan (1998). Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-664-25703-3.
Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 1 by James Leslie Houlden 2003 ISBN 1-57607-856-6-page 660
Van Voorst (2000) p. 14
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historicity
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...istoricity
Wandersee, J. H. (1992), The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29: 423–434. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290409
Harre, R., & Moghaddam, F.M. (2006). Historicity, social psychology, and change. In Rockmore, T. & Margolis, J. (Eds.), History, historicity, and science (pp. 94–120). London: Ashgate Publishing Limited., [1]
William J. Hamblin, professor of history at Brigham Young University. Two part arti " ... etc

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Is Richard Carrier Your Expert? Can You Explain?
(09-10-2014 06:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  i'm afraid to call a college or university..I'm afraid you might be right.

^fixed that for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: