Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  The 2nd mention of Jesus by Josephus is without credible dispute also.

This is untrue. It is disputed, but only by a small number of scholars.

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, 12:48 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 11:07 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  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.

Bullshit.
1. Was the mention in Ch 18. Complete forgery. There IS no dispute about that
2. Chapter 20. Debateable.
Free, you clearly have not REALLY examined the evidence in what 50 years ?

And BTW, what was all that CRAP about where Carrier lives and why he does what he does. It's all totally irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is evidence. You have none. Having none for your position, you are not exactly in a position to criticise anyone.

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, 12:50 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 12:10 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 11:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

No. The author of Acts, (who cannot be trusted IN ANY WAY) by the time Acts was written was talking about the very same Christians you were claiming they were named a few posts back. You failed to name the "other sources". You REALLY think you're gonna get away with this crap ?

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, 12:53 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 12:46 PM)Free Wrote:  
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

And every one refers to the "risen" Christ. Not one does he ever refer to the man Jesus. Just Jesus. NOT Jesus the Christ. Get it ? Just Jesus the man. You really don't get this do you ?

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, 01:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 01:16 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 12:48 PM)Bucky Ball 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.

Bullshit.
1. Was the mention in Ch 18. Complete forgery. There IS no dispute about that
2. Chapter 20. Debateable.
Free, you clearly have not REALLY examined the evidence in what 50 years ?

Anything is debatable. What it all comes down to, however, is the value of what you believe is debatable.

The consensus on Chapter 18 is not that of complete forgery. It favors partial interpolation.

But guess what? No one has ever proven forgery or partial interpolation regardless of what you or the consensus says. What you have in Ch 18 is all you get. You do not get to claim forgery when you have no evidence to support it. The consensus cannot even verify partial interpolation because they also have no evidence to support that position either.

At the end of the fucking day, Bucky, what ya got is what ya got, and that is what ya work with. With no evidence to support forgery, and no evidence to support partial interpolation, all you have left in Ch 18 is a 1st century text that attests to the existence of Jesus who called Christ.

What i am saying here is that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having complete knowledge on this issue. You have an opinion, and so does the consensus. But neither you nor the consensus can prove one iota of your claims.

But the reality is that all the opinions in the world will not change the fact that what we have extant in Ch 18 attests to the existence of Jesus who was called Christ.

And I say this dispute agreeing with the consensus on partial interpolation, because it's the fucking hard-core truth of the matter.

Ch 20 has never produced a credible debate. Not once.


Quote:And BTW, what was all that CRAP about where Carrier lives and why he does what he does. It's all totally irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is evidence. You have none. Having none for your position, you are not exactly in a position to criticise anyone.

I have provided evidence. Plenty of evidence. It's not my problem that you ignore it 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, 01:14 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 12:46 PM)Free Wrote:  
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

Paul wrote 14 Epistles - except he didn't. All but 7 have been found to be christian forgeries. Now where have we heard that before?

If this jesus really existed, why did the early christians feel the need to forge references to jesus?

If jesus really existed, how come there was no contemporary accounts of him? Don't you think this odd when he was wandering around Galilee performing miracle after miracle and preaching to crowds of 5,000?

Oh, using the bible to support the historicity of jesus. Circular argument?

Let's face it, you are holding fresh air.

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, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 01:37 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 01:14 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 12:46 PM)Free Wrote:  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

Paul wrote 14 Epistles - except he didn't. All but 7 have been found to be christian forgeries. Now where have we heard that before?

If this jesus really existed, why did the early christians feel the need to forge references to jesus?

Put your mind back into the 1st century, a time where gods of all kinds were as real to those ancient peoples as your own mother and father are to you today.

There was no skepticism in the minds of those ancient believers. The lives of mere men were embellished with folk tales to garner amazement from the gullible. Even 600 years later, Muhammad supposedly split the moon in two, rode to heaven on a horse, and supposedly performed numerous miracles, yet we see his grave site, and records of his physical existence.

And now we have close to 2 billion Islamic believers who believe every thing written about Muhammad, and nobody can adequately contest his existence.

That's why they forged the life of Jesus. They embellished it to make the religion more attractive to the Greeks, who believed in numerous gods.

Quote:If jesus really existed, how come there was no contemporary accounts of him? Don't you think this odd when he was wandering around Galilee performing miracle after miracle and preaching to crowds of 5,000?

You need to distinguish between a mere man and the Christian superman who had his life embellished.

As far as contemporaries are concerned, Paul was a contemporary. But guess what? Paul does not mention any miracles performed by Jesus. He talks about a man who was crucified, and tells us that he knew nothing else:

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Quote:Oh, using the bible to support the historicity of jesus. Circular argument?

Let's face it, you are holding fresh air.


You do of course understand that the "bible" is a compilation of numerous books that were all independent of each other before they were compiled into the bible, right?

The letters of Paul do not confirm the embellishments of the life of Jesus as written in the Gospels. All they do is confirm that he was a man who was crucified, and also shed light on Paul's beliefs that Jesus was raised from the dead.

That's it.

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, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 03:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  But guess what? No one has ever proven forgery or partial interpolation regardless of what you or the consensus says. What you have in Ch 18 is all you get. You do not get to claim forgery when you have no evidence to support it. The consensus cannot even verify partial interpolation because they also have no evidence to support that position either.

To quote someone (umm would that be YOU ??) "You're full of shit and you know it" Big Grin

The earliest extant copy is in the Museo Ambrosiano in Milan. It's from AFTER the 16th Century. The early Christian writers never mention it. It does not flow with the text above or below it. It's in different handwriting and different ink. (Yes I have seen it). No matter what you claim about "no evidence" there is all kinds of evidence right there. You just won't accept it. Or, as it's beginning to look, you just don't KNOW about it ???? So now, concensus with Tacitus must be accepted, but concensus with respect to Josephus is not. You are hysterical. There is literary AND physical evidence for interpolation. The text of the suspected text IN NO WAY fits with the rest of the chapter, OR ANYTHING else he is saying. YOU are in denial. It's a Christian lie. In a book that was written for the purpose this was, the idea he would be so stupid to put that paragraph in, is preposterous.

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  I am saying here is that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having complete knowledge on this issue. You have an opinion, and so does the consensus. But neither you nor the consensus can prove one iota of your claims.

YOU are the one who is unable to provide any evidence for the claims you make here.

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Ch 18 attests to the existence of Jesus who was called Christ.

There you are gullible, and actually know nothing about josephus and his writings. It's not a "chapter". It's an *out of context* paragraph that breaks the flow of the text. The ONLY way ANYONE would even think about your nonsense if if you could explain how it FLOWS from the chapter in general, and from the text above and into the text below. You can't. And you know it.

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Ch 20 has never produced a credible debate. Not once.

Of course not to you. Your mind has NEVER been open to the possibility of a non-historical Jesus. You make assertions. You provide nothing to back them up.

Quote:I have provided evidence. Plenty of evidence. It's not my problem that you ignore it just because you don't like it.

You have not. You parrot the usual OLD clap-trap on the subject and don't even really know the historical context of the ancient Near East.

The Testimonium Flavinium : (From Chapter 18)
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

THAT folks, is a testimony of FAITH by a Christian believer. Josephus was NOT a Christian. Anyone who thinks a non-Christian would write THAT, whose intent was to show that Vespasian was the messiah, has his head SO far up his ass, he's not even capable of a rational discussion.

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, 03:21 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 01:28 PM)Free Wrote:  The letters of Paul do not confirm the embellishments of the life of Jesus as written in the Gospels. All they do is confirm that he was a man who was crucified, and also shed light on Paul's beliefs that Jesus was raised from the dead.

That's it.

You wish. That's not "it". If, as Dr. BB Scott has clearly demonstrated, Paul thought that Jesus was an apocalyptic hero, in the Jewish hero tradition, then, (as Ehrman has clearly demonstrated, "exaltation" is NOT "risen from the dead", in our way of thinking. All you know Free, is a VERY limited Fundie version of Chriatianity, (for some strange reason). Paul never met, not talked about Jesus the man. Only the "risen Christ" (which should be translated the "exalted" Christ).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

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, 03:47 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 03:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 01:28 PM)Free Wrote:  The letters of Paul do not confirm the embellishments of the life of Jesus as written in the Gospels. All they do is confirm that he was a man who was crucified, and also shed light on Paul's beliefs that Jesus was raised from the dead.

That's it.

You wish. That's not "it". If, as Dr. BB Scott has clearly demonstrated, Paul thought that Jesus was an apocalyptic hero, in the Jewish hero tradition, then, (as Ehrman has clearly demonstrated, "exaltation" is NOT "risen from the dead", in our way of thinking. All you know Free, is a VERY limited Fundie version of Chriatianity, (for some strange reason). Paul never met, not talked about Jesus the man. Only the "risen Christ" (which should be translated the "exalted" Christ).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

More utter bullshit.

Romans:

4:24 alla kai di hmaV oiV mellei logizesqai toiV pisteuousin epi ton egeiranta ihsoun ton kurion hmwn ek nekrwn

4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-)rise (again, up), stand, take up.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebible...45C004.htm

Try harder.

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: