Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 10:51 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  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).

The first mention of jesus is actually by Josephus in 93/94 AD. He mentions jesus twice. One of the passages is accepted as being an early christian insert and so can be discounted. The other may/may not be an early chistian insert since there is no evidence either way. We therefore have to accept this as the first mention of jesus until it can be proved otherwise.

I think Carrier refers to Tacitus because he is not disputed.

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
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
01-07-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:07 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 10:51 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  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).

The first mention of jesus is actually by Josephus in 93/94 AD. He mentions jesus twice. One of the passages is accepted as being an early christian insert and so can be discounted. The other may/may not be an early chistian insert since there is no evidence either way. We therefore have to accept this as the first mention of jesus until it can be proved otherwise.

I think Carrier refers to Tacitus because he is not disputed.

Love the intellectual honesty.

The 2nd mention of Jesus by Josephus is without credible dispute also.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 11:48 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:00 AM)Free Wrote:  And you are full of shit and you know it.

Now now dear. Calm down. In your dreams. Tongue

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

Yet you seem to be unable to tell us who ELSE used the term. Another implied assertion with no evidence.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  nt 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.

Where ? Another fail. You also failed to point out when and where it started to be used, and what the evidence for that is. The NT was written many many decades later. The fact they may have used it is NOT evidence that it is the one Tacitus may have been speaking about.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  In common usage, "Christ" is generally treated as synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth.

Indeed. TODAY it is. It was not so then. But thanks for finally giving us a REAL example of "presentism". Big Grin

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  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. bla bla bla ...
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".

Yes dear. Thanks for the Sunday school lesson. All irrelevant it proves nothing. There were many others also called the "messiah" IF as late as 135 CE Simon bar Kochba could be seen as one, your premise that only Yeshua bar Josef was seen as THE messiah is blow out of the water.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  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.


No they don't . Only messianic Jews wait for that, and messianic Jews were and are always a minority in Judaism.

Quote: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."

Irrelevant. I'm not a two-year old. I know more about religion than you do.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  I shouldn't need to do that, since it is common knowledge. See above.

So you got nothing. It is not or people would not still be arguing about it, would they ?

Quote: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.

That's what I thought. Nothing. Paul never says anything about a person named "Jesus". Josephus has been debunked a thousand times. As for the rest, repeating crap over and over, does not make crap true.

(01-07-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  History isn't going away just because you don't like it.

I get that's your opinion. One which you do a very poor job supporting. History is not what it is because you want and wish it to be something.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  Love the intellectual honesty.

The 2nd mention of Jesus by Josephus is without credible dispute also.

jesus was without credible dispute, once upon a time.

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, 11:24 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 08:57 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(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?

As mentioned earlier, Tacitus explicitly states twice within the context of his story regarding the Great Fires of Rome- which includes the text regarding the Chrestians and Christ- that he was using the consensus of previous Roman historians.

He does not give a citation for each and every line of text he wrote, which would be both ridiculous and an unreasonable expectation from any historian. The fact is, he constantly states his sources numerously throughout his Annals, and those sources include the Roman Registries, the Roman Senate Records, previous historians, and information he gathered from living persons such as Pliny the Younger.

The Jesus Mythicists constantly point to the one line of text regarding Christ and claim Tacitus doesn't state his sources for that one line of text, as if it was the most important line of text Tacitus wrote.

The truth is, with Tacitus being a Roman, the part about Christ is ROMAN history, not the history of any other culture. Since Tacitus does not use citations for information on most of the other parts of Roman history that he wrote, why then do we accept those historical records without batting an eyelash?

We accept it because it is Roman history according to Tacitus. Therefore, we have no good reason to reject or hold suspect the part regarding Christ any more than we have no good reason to reject or hold suspect anything else he wrote.

Those who reject the part of Christ in Tacitus are using bias just because it mentions Christ, and are guilty of nit-picking a single piece of historical text just because it mentions the Christian version of Superman.

Ridiculously dishonest.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's what I thought. Nothing. Paul never says anything about a person named "Jesus". Josephus has been debunked a thousand times.

Bucky

I'm not having a pop but I'm aware that one of Josephus' texts relating to jesus has been found to be an early christian insert and this is accepted by most historians. But, I'm not aware that the second has been proven to be.

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, 11:30 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:18 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  Love the intellectual honesty.

The 2nd mention of Jesus by Josephus is without credible dispute also.

jesus was without credible dispute, once upon a time.

Well the "superman" in the Gospel is certainly disputed. My view is that Jesus in the gospels is merely an embellishment of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

There was nobody walking on the water, raising the dead, or flying up into heaven.

There was simply a man who had a popular religious philosophy. The end result was that the Romans strung him up on a couple of sticks like a side of beef and basically told him to go fuck himself.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:26 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 11:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's what I thought. Nothing. Paul never says anything about a person named "Jesus". Josephus has been debunked a thousand times.

Bucky

I'm not having a pop but I'm aware that one of Josephus' texts relating to jesus has been found to be an early christian insert and this is accepted by most historians. But, I'm not aware that the second has been proven to be.

The second one refers to a "brother James" (I think it's Chapter 20). All Christians were addressed as "brother" so it *could* mean actual kinship bond, or not. Josephus was not soome "disinterested" honest onlooker. He was employed by the Emperor, and his book was an attempt to show the Emperor (Vespasian) was the messiah. That's supposed to be useful as *evidence* for something ? Facepalm
Rolleyes

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
01-07-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 11:26 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Bucky

I'm not having a pop but I'm aware that one of Josephus' texts relating to jesus has been found to be an early christian insert and this is accepted by most historians. But, I'm not aware that the second has been proven to be.

The second one refers to a "brother James" (I think it's Chapter 20). All Christians were addressed as "brother" so it *could* mean actual kinship bond, or not. Josephus was not soome "disinterested" honest onlooker. He was employed by the Emperor, and his book was an attempt to show the Emperor (Vespasian) was the messiah. That's supposed to be useful as *evidence* for something ? Facepalm
Rolleyes

This is really reaching, Bucky.

James was not a Christian. He was a Jew.

He was "James, brother of Jesus who was called Christ."

This is consistent with what we find in other sources.

And regardless if he was actually a natural brother or not, it does absolutely nothing to dispute the fact that Josephus does indeed mention Jesus, who was called Christ.

And this is also consistent with what we see in other sources.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:That's what I thought. Nothing. Paul never says anything about a person named "Jesus".

Yes, you just keep telling yourself that.

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Rom_5:15 but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

1Th_2:14 -15 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also have suffered these things by your own countrymen, even as they also by the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, also driving us out and they do not please God and being contrary to all men,

Rom_15:20 Yea, so I have been eager to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation;

2Co_11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy. For I have espoused you to one Man to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

And you know ... heaps and heaps more.

Your argument isn't even serious.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: