Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 08:39 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 08:43 AM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 03:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 09:21 PM)Free Wrote:  And this assertion is supported with what evidence?

Hmmm?

You are asserting without evidence; assuming without support.

You know better, Chas.

Oh, bullshit. "Christ" is a label, not a name.
You claim he thought that that label referred to a particular person of that name. If he did, he was mistaken.

If he wasn't mistaken, your argument falls apart.

Mistaken according to whom? Certainly not mistaken according to the Romans.

With the study of Roman history comes a keen insight into the mindset of ancient Greco-Roman culture. In their view- which was indisputable during their time- Christ was a person who was executed by Pontius Pilate.

It doesn't matter in the slightest that today we may view the word "Christ" as a title of Jewish origin, for we cannot use the presentism fallacy, or the historians fallacy to inject modern knowledge and understanding into an ancient past and then claim that they were wrong at the time. As far as they were concerned, they were correct, and anybody else was wrong.

Therefore, circa AD 1st/2nd century, as far as the Greco-Romans were concerned, Christ was a person who was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias, and it was from this executed person where the Chrestians got their name from.

And that is ancient history according to Tacitus. That's how it all went down back in the day, and that is exactly how it should be viewed.

We are reading ROMAN history here, so you know ... when in Rome ...

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 08:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 03:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, bullshit. "Christ" is a label, not a name.
You claim he thought that that label referred to a particular person of that name. If he did, he was mistaken.

If he wasn't mistaken, your argument falls apart.

Mistaken according to whom? Certainly not mistaken according to the Romans.

Oh, for fuck sake. It is the Romans who are mistaken that it is the name of a particular person. It is not.

Quote:With the study of Roman history comes a keen insight into the mindset of ancient Greco-Roman culture. In their view- which was indisputable during their time- Christ was a person who was executed by Pontius Pilate.

You're not demonstrating a keen insight there.

Quote:It doesn't matter in the slightest that today we may view the word "Christ" as a title of Jewish origin, for we cannot use the presentism fallacy, or the historians fallacy to inject modern knowledge and understanding into an ancient past and then claim that they were wrong at the time. As far as they were concerned, they were correct, and anybody else was wrong.

This is absolutely not presentism. 'Christ' was never a name; the Romans thinking it was is a mistake on their part.

Quote:Therefore, circa AD 1st/2nd century, as far as the Greco-Romans were concerned, Christ was a person who was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias, and it was from this executed person where the Chrestians got their name from.

But that does not identify which of the several Christs it was.

Quote:And that is ancient history according to Tacitus. That's how it all went down back in the day, and that is exactly how it should be viewed.

We are reading ROMAN history here, so you know ... when in Rome ...

And the alleged events occurred long ago and far away from Rome.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 08:57 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 08:39 AM)Free Wrote:  With the study of Roman history comes a keen insight into the mindset of ancient Greco-Roman culture. In their view- which was indisputable during their time- Christ was a person who was executed by Pontius Pilate.

It doesn't matter in the slightest that today we may view the word "Christ" as a title of Jewish origin, for we cannot use the presentism fallacy, or the historians fallacy to inject modern knowledge and understanding into an ancient past and then claim that they were wrong at the time. As far as they were concerned, they were correct, and anybody else was wrong.

Therefore, circa AD 1st/2nd century, as far as the Greco-Romans were concerned, Christ was a person who was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias, and it was from this executed person where the Chrestians got their name from.

And that is ancient history according to Tacitus. That's how it all went down back in the day, and that is exactly how it should be viewed.

We are reading ROMAN history here, so you know ... when in Rome ...

I do not dispute your knowledge of the Greco-Romans.

What I dispute is this:

Tacitus wrote his reference to jesus in 116 AD. That's 83 years after the supposed jesus was supposedly crucified.

Tacitus then, was, at best, a tertiary source. Tacitus does not explicitly state his source(s). We therefore do not know whether his source is singular or multiple, consistent or inconsistent, written or verbal, from a biased christian source or from an independent, unbiased source.

Given that his sources are secondary, at best, we have no idea where their information came from either.

I can see no reason why we should dispute that Tacitus believed what he wrote. The issue is, was what he believed the truth?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like god has no twitter account's post
01-07-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 08:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:39 AM)Free Wrote:  Mistaken according to whom? Certainly not mistaken according to the Romans.

Oh, for fuck sake. It is the Romans who are mistaken that it is the name of a particular person. It is not.

Have you considered the possibility that it is YOU who are mistaken?

Whenever the word "Christ" has been mentioned throughout history, the personage of Jesus always comes to mind. This is as true in the ancient past as it is in modern times.

My point is quite simple; outside of Jewish culture- which includes the ancient Romans- Christ is the name of a person.

It doesn't fucking matter in the slightest that you insist it can only mean a title, like who the fuck are you? The reality is that it also became known as the name of a person to the Greco-Romans, and to other cultures throughout history.

Now can you please stop ignoring this massive elephant in the room just so you mislead the readers of this thread with your fucking inane bullshit?

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Whenever the word "Christ" has been mentioned throughout history, the personage of Jesus always comes to mind. This is as true in the ancient past as it is in modern times.

Assertion with no evidence. In fact the Jewish apocalyptic "annointed one" was MOSTLY spoken in ancient times either with no personal reference OR referring to someone else. You're making assertions with no evidence because you want and need them to be true.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  My point is quite simple; outside of Jewish culture- which includes the ancient Romans- Christ is the name of a person.

You claim that. You offer nothing to support your opinion.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  It doesn't fucking matter in the slightest that you insist it can only mean a title, like who the fuck are you? The reality is that it also became known as the name of a person to the Greco-Romans, and to other cultures throughout history.

Yes and no. If he existed he could not have even remotely resembled what his later followers claimed about him. But it does matter to those who are interested in discussing the subject, and it is not a settled matter, (except for you, it certainly is). The question remains for many : "Were the REASONS ancient people started to conflate the title with the one person whose historicity IS not a settled matter 'legitimate reasons', and reasons that can be relied upon ?" It seems they can't be for some people.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
When I've seen the written of Tacitus all that comes close to being strong evidence for is that there was Christian people at the time who believed in this Christos and the tale of him.

It's all apart of what is hard to boil down. This statement of his though doesn't boil down to much more than that, it isn't a strong piece of evidence or case that their belief and worship of Christ is based on this being the real situation.

"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
01-07-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Whenever the word "Christ" has been mentioned throughout history, the personage of Jesus always comes to mind. This is as true in the ancient past as it is in modern times.

BUT, what matters is, is jesus real or was he an existing deity that was given an earthly existence?

This is in-line with what was happening at the time where new religions were being created from existing ones and the deities from them being given Earthly existences.

Basically, were the people that we refer to as early christians worshipping a new deity that once had an Earthly existence or an old deity that never had an Earthly existence but was assigned one by those who created the new religion: christianity?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:Tacitus wrote his reference to jesus in 116 AD. That's 83 years after the supposed jesus was supposedly crucified.



Or did he?


Quote:They key line here is 'Christ, the author of this name, was executed by
the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius'. This is the first-ever
reference to a historical Jesus outside the NT, dating to around 116 CE (very
near our cut-off date for usable evidence).

If the passage is authentic. I elsewhere demonstrate (following the arguments
of scholars before me who have argued the same) that this line is
probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described
not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, but followers of the Jew- ·
ish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius (as reported by
Suetonius: see §1 1). The line about Christ being executed by Pilate was
added sometime after the mid-fourth century. Before then, no one, Christian
or non-Christian, ever heard of this persecution event under Nero,
or of any reference to Christians in Tacitus; this event is not mentioned
even when second-century Christians told stories of Nero persecuting
Christians!


Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pg. 344

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
01-07-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 09:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  Whenever the word "Christ" has been mentioned throughout history, the personage of Jesus always comes to mind. This is as true in the ancient past as it is in modern times.

Assertion with no evidence. In fact the Jewish apocalyptic "annointed one" was MOSTLY spoken in ancient times either with no personal reference OR referring to someone else. You're making assertions with no evidence because you want and need them to be true.

lol

And you are full of shit and you know it.

Here ya go again, ignoring the elephant in the room by wrongfully asserting that only the Jews had cornered the market on the meaning of Christ.

"Christ (/kraɪst/; Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed") is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriac ܡܫܝܚܐ (M'shiha), the Messiah, and is used as a title for Jesus in the New Testament.

In common usage, "Christ" is generally treated as synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth.

The followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the Messiah (Christós) prophesied in the Hebrew Bible,for example in the Confession of Peter.

Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christós" (i.e. Jesus, the anointed; or "Jesus, the Messiah" by his followers) after his death and believed resurrection. Before, Jesus was usually referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus son of Joseph". In the epistles of Paul the Apostle, the earliest texts of the New Testament, Paul most often referred to Jesus as "Christ Jesus", or "Christ". Christ was originally a title, yet later became part of the name "Jesus Christ", though it is still also used as a title, in the reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus".

Jesus was not, and is not, accepted by most Jews as the Messiah. Religious Jewish people still await the Messiah's first coming, while Christians await the Second Coming of Christ, when they believe he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy. Muslims accept Jesus as the Messiah (known as Isa al-Masih) but not as the Son of God, but still do believe he will come again as Christians believe.

The area of Christian theology called Christology is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

Quote:
(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  My point is quite simple; outside of Jewish culture- which includes the ancient Romans- Christ is the name of a person.

You claim that. You offer nothing to support your opinion.

I shouldn't need to do that, since it is common knowledge. See above.

Quote:
(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  It doesn't fucking matter in the slightest that you insist it can only mean a title, like who the fuck are you? The reality is that it also became known as the name of a person to the Greco-Romans, and to other cultures throughout history.

Yes and no. If he existed he could not have even remotely resembled what his later followers claimed about him. But it does matter to those who are interested in discussing the subject, and it is not a settled matter, (except for you, it certainly is). The question remains for many : "Were the REASONS ancient people started to conflate the title with the one person whose historicity IS not a settled matter 'legitimate reasons', and reasons that can be relied upon ?" It seems they can't be for some people.

It's not "yes or no," but an obvious confirmed "yes" according to the historical evidence which includes Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Clement, and scores of other ancient documents and persons attesting to the fact.

How anyone can dispute this fact is suspect, and reeks of desperation and denialism.

History isn't going away just because you don't like it.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 10:51 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Tacitus wrote his reference to jesus in 116 AD. That's 83 years after the supposed jesus was supposedly crucified.



Or did he?


Quote:They key line here is 'Christ, the author of this name, was executed by
the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius'. This is the first-ever
reference to a historical Jesus outside the NT, dating to around 116 CE (very
near our cut-off date for usable evidence).

If the passage is authentic. I elsewhere demonstrate (following the arguments
of scholars before me who have argued the same) that this line is
probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described
not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, but followers of the Jew- ·
ish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius (as reported by
Suetonius: see §1 1). The line about Christ being executed by Pilate was
added sometime after the mid-fourth century. Before then, no one, Christian
or non-Christian, ever heard of this persecution event under Nero,
or of any reference to Christians in Tacitus; this event is not mentioned
even when second-century Christians told stories of Nero persecuting
Christians!


Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pg. 344

Yet again Carriers assertions of interpolation are without a shred of evidence for support. Just another Jesus Mythicist using denialism.

He also ignores the fact that Josephus wrote before Tacitus. So did Clement.

Go buy more of his books. He needs the money.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: