Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(02-07-2015 10:08 AM)Free Wrote:  And you don't seem to understand that I, nor any of the scholars I listed, ever state that Jesus' existence is a fact.

What we say is quite simply that the argument for historicity is far greater and far superior than the argument for Jesus Mythicism.

Now, boy, do you see?

Nah, that's grossly overstating it. Neither side is terribly convincing - certainly neither side has any proof.

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
02-07-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(01-07-2015 07:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Except for the fact that the context explicitly says "raised from the dead."

Just thought I'd toss in that marvellous little gem.

Carry on.

Well, since you italicized and underlined it, I guess you showed me!


Heh, "gem."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(02-07-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-07-2015 10:08 AM)Free Wrote:  And you don't seem to understand that I, nor any of the scholars I listed, ever state that Jesus' existence is a fact.

What we say is quite simply that the argument for historicity is far greater and far superior than the argument for Jesus Mythicism.

Now, boy, do you see?

Nah, that's grossly overstating it. Neither side is terribly convincing - certainly neither side has any proof.

Your dismissal of evidence only means you don't like it. It by no means indicates that the evidence doesn't exist.

Just thought I would make that distinction.

Thumbsup

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
02-07-2015, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2015 07:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(02-07-2015 02:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
(02-07-2015 02:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Josephus thought, or was paid to say Vespasian fulfilled the role of the messiah, (a "christ") in Greek. Spin it anyway you want Free. The fact is you're full of shit. Big Grin

I am spinning nothing.

The fact remains that of all those who have been proclaimed on internet websites as being "Messianic Claimants," not one of them, including Vespasian, has any evidence whatsoever of ever actually being entitled as a Christ or a Messiah. Not one.

Except Jesus, who was called Christ.

And THAT is how history works. It's not Wikipedia dude.

Big Grin

Wrong again. Anyone who was called a "messiah" or thought to fulfill that role (and there were many) was a "christ". Your point is totally irrelevant. Whether the Greek word happened to have been used is utterly irrelevant. The POINT is (and YOU know it to be a fact) that there were many men who were thought to have, at one time or another, filled, or potentially filled the role of a messiah. Nice try. More attempted deflection from the master deflector.

See this (below) ? Read it and weep, Free. Big Grin
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...difference

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
03-07-2015, 07:15 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(02-07-2015 05:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-07-2015 02:36 PM)Free Wrote:  I am spinning nothing.

The fact remains that of all those who have been proclaimed on internet websites as being "Messianic Claimants," not one of them, including Vespasian, has any evidence whatsoever of ever actually being entitled as a Christ or a Messiah. Not one.

Except Jesus, who was called Christ.

And THAT is how history works. It's not Wikipedia dude.

Big Grin

Wrong again. Anyone who was called a "messiah" or thought to fulfill that role (and there were many) was a "christ". Your point is totally irrelevant. Whether the Greek word happened to have been used is utterly irrelevant. The POINT is (and YOU know it to be a fact) that there were many men who were thought to have, at one time or another, filled, or potentially filled the role of a messiah. Nice try. More attempted deflection from the master deflector.

See this (below) ? Read it and weep, Free. Big Grin
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...difference

How can I be wrong when it's correct? Unless you can provide some ancient text that demonstrates anyone else other than Jesus being called Christ or Messiah, then you cannot say I am wrong.

Hint: Not all prophecies regarding the coming of someone great indicated that the great one who was supposedly coming was to be regarded as a Messiah, nor were they originally interpreted that way. And that is why you do not see them entitled as Christ or Messiah.

True story.

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
03-07-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(02-07-2015 05:10 PM)Free Wrote:  
(02-07-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nah, that's grossly overstating it. Neither side is terribly convincing - certainly neither side has any proof.

Your dismissal of evidence only means you don't like it. It by no means indicates that the evidence doesn't exist.

Just thought I would make that distinction.

Thumbsup

Where did I dismiss evidence?

You need to stop attributing to people things that weren't said.

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
03-07-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 07:15 AM)Free Wrote:  
(02-07-2015 05:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong again. Anyone who was called a "messiah" or thought to fulfill that role (and there were many) was a "christ". Your point is totally irrelevant. Whether the Greek word happened to have been used is utterly irrelevant. The POINT is (and YOU know it to be a fact) that there were many men who were thought to have, at one time or another, filled, or potentially filled the role of a messiah. Nice try. More attempted deflection from the master deflector.

See this (below) ? Read it and weep, Free. Big Grin
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...difference

How can I be wrong when it's correct? Unless you can provide some ancient text that demonstrates anyone else other than Jesus being called Christ or Messiah, then you cannot say I am wrong.

Hint: Not all prophecies regarding the coming of someone great indicated that the great one who was supposedly coming was to be regarded as a Messiah, nor were they originally interpreted that way. And that is why you do not see them entitled as Christ or Messiah.

True story.

Yeah. And it's even MORE true when you write "true story" ... the mark of a VERY insecure person. Facepalm

Unfortunately for, yet again, you are wrong, and demonstrate you ignorance of the ancient Near east, and not only are there others, but at least one of them is in the Bible.

“to his messiah, to Cyrus, whom I Yahweh took by his right hand to subdue nations before him” (Isaiah 45:1)

True story.
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
03-07-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 09:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 07:15 AM)Free Wrote:  How can I be wrong when it's correct? Unless you can provide some ancient text that demonstrates anyone else other than Jesus being called Christ or Messiah, then you cannot say I am wrong.

Hint: Not all prophecies regarding the coming of someone great indicated that the great one who was supposedly coming was to be regarded as a Messiah, nor were they originally interpreted that way. And that is why you do not see them entitled as Christ or Messiah.

True story.

Yeah. And it's even MORE true when you write "true story" ... the mark of a VERY insecure person. Facepalm

Unfortunately for, yet again, you are wrong, and demonstrate you ignorance of the ancient Near east, and not only are there others, but at least one of them is in the Bible.

“to his messiah, to Cyrus, whom I Yahweh took by his right hand to subdue nations before him” (Isaiah 45:1)

True story.
Rolleyes

Dude, we have been talking about Messiah claimants of the 1st century, with you insisting the Roman emperor was entitled a Messiah, which he was not.

Sure, we can count numerous claimants before and after the 1st century, with literally 2 dozen named after the 1st century, but you will not find anyone from the 1st century who was ever entitled Christ or Messiah, other than Jesus of Nazareth.

True story.

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
03-07-2015, 12:33 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2015 12:45 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 08:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-07-2015 05:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Your dismissal of evidence only means you don't like it. It by no means indicates that the evidence doesn't exist.

Just thought I would make that distinction.

Thumbsup

Where did I dismiss evidence?

You need to stop attributing to people things that weren't said.

And by "proof" you didn't mean 'evidence?"

Chas Wrote:Nah, that's grossly overstating it. Neither side is terribly convincing - certainly neither side has any proof.

Proof:

noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

or

2. anything serving as such evidence:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t

Perhaps you should have said, "Neither side has proven anything conclusively," which would be true. But my position is not to conclusively prove Jesus existed, but rather to demonstrate that the evidence indicates that the argument for historicity is far greater than the argument for Jesus Mythicism.

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
03-07-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 12:33 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 08:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  Where did I dismiss evidence?

You need to stop attributing to people things that weren't said.

And by "proof" you didn't mean 'evidence?"

Chas Wrote:Nah, that's grossly overstating it. Neither side is terribly convincing - certainly neither side has any proof.

Proof:

noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

or

2. anything serving as such evidence:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t

Perhaps you should have said, "Neither side has proven anything conclusively," which would be true. But my position is not to conclusively prove Jesus existed, but rather to demonstrate that the evidence indicates that the argument for historicity is far greater than the argument for Jesus Mythicism.

Neither side has sufficient evidence, therefore neither side has proof.

I said precisely what I intended to say.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: