Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:16 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 10:15 AM)Free Wrote:  Carrier has no fucking hope. He's an internet junkie looking for some kind of notoriety with his mythicism bullshit, which has already been effectively refuted numerous times by the vast majority of world scholars.

Sources?

Click the link and investigate, because it has links on that webpage that take you to where you can find the consensus.

Quote:Proponents of the Christ myth theory constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.[6][7] According to American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" now agrees that Jesus existed.[8] A strong consensus thus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory,[9][10][11][12][13] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. 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.[14][15][16][17]

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

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
22-01-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: Jesus myth
I plan on listening to these 2 videos today....

The Case Against Bart Ehrman's Historical Jesus: Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio
The Christ-Myth Theory (and its problems): Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(19-01-2014 07:21 PM)Free Wrote:  
(19-01-2014 06:31 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Sorry. You don't get to define "reasonable." Pliny collected stories from all over the Roman Empire for his Naturalis Historia but nothing about a dead criminal coming back to life after having been executed by a Roman magistrate. This would have been big news.

Seriously, but are you that fucking uneducated as to think that a Roman dignitary would believe such tall tales about some Jew coming back to life, and then write about it in a book that only details natural history? Do you even understand what Natural History is?

Not only that, do you even understand that Naturalis Historia is a fucking encyclopedia that details "Natural History" and NOT the history of the Roman Empire? What the fuck does an encyclopedia about the history of nature have in common with Jesus Fucking Christ?

That's like writing a book that is supposed to be about dogs, and then suddenly somewhere in the middle for 1 single page we start reading something about quantum physics, and then it goes back to talking about dogs again.

Does that really make any fucking sense to you? Really?

Go back to school, for fuck sakes. Einstein



Okay, asshole. I'm done being polite with you since you have decided to go this route.

Here's an example of Pliny's work:

Quote:A great prodigy of the earth, which never happened more than once, I have found mentioned in the books of the Etruscan ceremonies, as having taken place in the district of Mutina, during the consulship of Lucius Martius and Sextus Julius1. Two mountains rushed together, falling upon each other with a very loud crash, and then receding; while in the daytime flame and smoke issued from them; a great crowd of Roman knights, and families of people, and travellers on the Æmilian way, being spectators of it. All the farm-houses were thrown down by the shock, and a great number of animals that were in them were killed; it was in the year before the Social war; and I am in doubt whether this event or the civil commotions were more fatal to the territory of Italy. The prodigy which happened in our own age was no less wonderful; in the last year of the emperor Nero2, as I have related in my history of his times3, when certain fields and olive grounds in the district of Marrucinum, belonging to Vectius Marcellus, a Roman knight, the steward of Nero, changed places with each other4, although the public highway was interposed.

Yes, mountains rushing together and fields changing places...and reporting that it happened in his own time. Try reading Livy and note the absurd "prodigies" recorded by that sophisticated Roman writer. It doesn't matter if he believed them or not. Try to get that through your thick fucking head! These were the kinds of things that they recorded.

You can sit there and pontificate about what it takes to convince you and I repeat that I don't give a flying fuck what you think. No one died and made you the king of reason. When jesus freaks insist that their boy was real they follow the traditional circle and end up with "the bible says."

Well....fuck the bible. And fuck you.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 10:16 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Sources?

Click the link and investigate, because it has links on that webpage that take you to where you can find the consensus.

Quote:Proponents of the Christ myth theory constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.[6][7] According to American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" now agrees that Jesus existed.[8] A strong consensus thus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory,[9][10][11][12][13] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. 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.[14][15][16][17]

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


Free, you're smart enough to know that consensus does not determine truth. You have to give Carrier credit in that he admits that you should concede to the expert consensus unless you have a good reason to doubt the consensus. He put forth that very case, attacking the fundamentally flawed underpinnings and foundation that the historical Jesus consensus is built upon. He investigated the methods used by historians and discovered that the consensus among those who critiqued historian's techniques, was that they were flawed or applied fallaciously. Thus there is a good reason to doubt the consensus. But that wasn't enough and so he worked on and put forwards a method of applying Bayesian analysis to the historical methods as a more sound method of evaluating evidence; spelled out in his 'Proving History'. I have yet to read Carrier's work on the historicity of Jesus because it hasn't been published yet, because he's jumping through all of the academic and peer review hoops and getting published through legitimate academic channels (Sheffield-Phoenix, University of Sheffield, UK). I have however read 'Proving History' and found it interesting and informative, if a bit dry. Have you read 'Proving History'? Or are you going to critique work that hasn't been published yet?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-01-2014, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 12:48 PM by anonymous66.)
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 10:16 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Sources?

Click the link and investigate, because it has links on that webpage that take you to where you can find the consensus.

Quote:Proponents of the Christ myth theory constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.[6][7] According to American New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" now agrees that Jesus existed.[8] A strong consensus thus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory,[9][10][11][12][13] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. 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.[14][15][16][17]

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

I'm very familiar with the wikipedia page, having read it through and quoted it several times.

here's what I said on another website...
Just because the Jesus myth theory hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed journal (as far as I know) doesn't mean that Price and Carrier are anything but professional in all their writing, academic or otherwise.

But, Carrier himself even says...
From wiki



Quote:Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person",[14] yet he also said "though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]... that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review".[15]


Quote: 14 Carrier, Richard. "Spiritual Body FAQ". Retrieved 2009-04-25.
15 Carrier, Richard (2009). "Comments at Richard Carrier Blogs". Retrieved 2009-04-25.

And Price says...



Quote:Price points out "(w)hat one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels—exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time."[106]Later on Price states "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean."[107]

Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority.[108]



Quote:106 Price, Robert M. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15–16.
107 Price, Robert M. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus, p. 86.
108 Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 61ff.

We can only speculate as to the reasons that the Christ Myth hasn't been published in peer reviewed journals. However, there is nothing to suggest that Price and Carrier have been unprofessional in any of their writings, academic or otherwise.

Here is one of Carrier's journal articles that does support the Christ Myth theory. Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012): 489-514

@Free
You suggested that what Carrier promotes as reasons to accept the Christ myth theory has been refuted before... Do you have specific references? What specifically did Carrier say, and where was it refuted?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes anonymous66's post
22-01-2014, 12:40 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Frustration and name-calling aside, am I the only one who notices that when you put the Christ-myth argument next to the Historical Christ argument, the Christ-myth argument makes more sense? It makes fewer uncorroborated assumptions. It relies less on the fallacy of appealing to the majority. It examines the historical record more closely and more critically?

I think the thing that prevents me from taking the final leap to adopting the Christ-myth theory is that the assumptions it DOES make seem, I don't know, big.

I'm going to take another look at The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems. Maybe a second reading will persuade me where my first reading did not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
22-01-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 08:02 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.

On the contrary, Bart is doing is defense fantastically. Earl Doherty is a total fucking idiot. I faced him down myself at http://www.infidels.org a few years ago in a debate and it got so bad for him that the moderators banned me despite me not breaking any rules, nor was I not courteous. It was obvious they felt so sorry for him all because he was a "published writer" of The Jesus Puzzle, a fucking joke in the scholarship world.

I am an atheist, and it's not so much as defending the historicity of Jesus that motivates me, but instead it's all about approximating the truth using all available evidence, proper reasoning and logical processes.

Seriously, the fucking arguments some of you people make to dispute historicity are infantile at best, illogical, unreasonable, unsupported, and easily qualify as nothing more than the musings of the intellectually deprived.

A total fucking insult to practical reasoning, and like Chippy said, you need to be exposed for it and harshly.

While I agree that not all arguments for the Christ myth theory are equal (Atwill is a hack, as far as I'm concerned), Carrier and Price make some compelling arguments, and I have yet to hear any convincing counter-arguments to their work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 09:39 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 11:00 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Okay, asshole. I'm done being polite with you since you have decided to go this route.

Done being polite? When you refuse to employ practical reasoning in a discussion and instead make a very transparent attempt at utter bullshit, do you really think you are being polite?

Seriously?

Quote:Here's an example of Pliny's work:

Quote:A great prodigy of the earth, which never happened more than once, I have found mentioned in the books of the Etruscan ceremonies, as having taken place in the district of Mutina, during the consulship of Lucius Martius and Sextus Julius1. Two mountains rushed together, falling upon each other with a very loud crash, and then receding; while in the daytime flame and smoke issued from them; a great crowd of Roman knights, and families of people, and travellers on the Æmilian way, being spectators of it. All the farm-houses were thrown down by the shock, and a great number of animals that were in them were killed; it was in the year before the Social war; and I am in doubt whether this event or the civil commotions were more fatal to the territory of Italy. The prodigy which happened in our own age was no less wonderful; in the last year of the emperor Nero2, as I have related in my history of his times3, when certain fields and olive grounds in the district of Marrucinum, belonging to Vectius Marcellus, a Roman knight, the steward of Nero, changed places with each other4, although the public highway was interposed.

Yes, mountains rushing together and fields changing places...and reporting that it happened in his own time. Try reading Livy and note the absurd "prodigies" recorded by that sophisticated Roman writer. It doesn't matter if he believed them or not. Try to get that through your thick fucking head! These were the kinds of things that they recorded.

And still you completely fail to understand that he's ONLY speaking about natural history.

And still you completely fail to understand that when he talks about "mountains rushing together" that he's describing the natural phenomenon known as ... wait for it ... an earthquake! He's describing an ancient earthquake that occurred in Italy sometime in the 1st century BC.

Now how fucking difficult was that to understand? How difficult is it for you to employ reason to understand that when he uses the word "prodigy" that the context demonstrates its meaning to be "a wonder," which is evidenced by his statement of "no less wonderful."

Quote:Well....fuck the bible ... and fuck you.

If you are going to fuck the bible before you fuck me please get a fucking condom so you do not transfer Exodus in through the out door. No

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
22-01-2014, 09:37 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 09:40 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
(22-01-2014 10:02 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 08:02 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Richard, Earl, R. Price and the other authors really take Bart Ehrman to task. It's odd, because even though Ehrman is an atheist, he is defending a historical (albeit, human) Jesus, and doing it poorly.

On the contrary, Bart is doing is defense fantastically. Earl Doherty is a total fucking idiot. I faced him down myself at http://www.infidels.org a few years ago in a debate and it got so bad for him that the moderators banned me despite me not breaking any rules, nor was I not courteous. It was obvious they felt so sorry for him all because he was a "published writer" of The Jesus Puzzle, a fucking joke in the scholarship world.

I am an atheist, and it's not so much as defending the historicity of Jesus that motivates me, but instead it's all about approximating the truth using all available evidence, proper reasoning and logical processes.

Seriously, the fucking arguments some of you people make to dispute historicity are infantile at best, illogical, unreasonable, unsupported, and easily qualify as nothing more than the musings of the intellectually deprived.

A total fucking insult to practical reasoning, and like Chippy said, you need to be exposed for it and harshly.

I don't understand why you're so hot headed about it. Nearly everyone here has done a whole lot of research, and we all have different opinions. I like to tell people about my conclusions, but I'm not going to abuse others for not agreeing with me. What are we talking about anyway? (he asks rhetorically). A cartoon character. That cartoon character may or may not be based on somebody who once existed, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter because we all know (well, nearly all) the cartoon character is fake.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
22-01-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Does that negate the possibility that there was some guy that actually existed that served as the basis for a few of the threads that were woven together to form the portrait of Jesus that we now have? No.

Nor do I think it negates the possibility of it. That's certainly not my argument. My argument is merely, that I find Jesus' appearance in parables to be unusual. I'm just not aware of this being done with other people known to be historical. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and if someone knows of it, I'd love to hear it.

...but, if I'm right that this is unusual or possibly even unique...then why am I wrong to think of it as significant evidence that Jesus started out as a character in parables?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: