Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 12:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 09:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

A false "story". Try harder.
From : http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...hs#anchor2
In the First Century.
From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers. Josephus speaks of them thus: "Another body of wicked men also sprung up, cleaner in their hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyedthe peace of the city no less than did these murderers [the Sicarii]. For they were deceivers and deluders of the people, and, under pretense of divine illumination, were for innovations and changes, and prevailed on the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them in the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them signs of liberty" (Josephus, "B. J." ii. 13, §; 4; idem, "Ant." xx. 8, §; 6). Matt. xxiv. 24, warning against "false Christs and false prophets," gives testimony to the same effect. Thus about 44, Josephus reports, a certain impostor, Theudas, who claimed to be a prophet, appeared and urged the people to follow him with their belongings to the Jordan, which he would divide for them. According to Acts v. 36 (which seems to refer to a different date), he secured about 400 followers. Cuspius Fadus sent a troop of horsemen after him and his band, slew many of them, and took captive others, together with their leader, beheading the latter ("Ant." xx. 5, § 1).

Another, an Egyptian, is said to have gathered together 30,000 adherents, whom he summoned to the Mount of Olives, opposite Jerusalem, promising that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down, and that he and his followers would enter and possess themselves of the city. But Felix, the procurator (c. 55-60), met the throng with his soldiery. The prophet escaped, but those with him were killed or taken, and the multitude dispersed (ib. xx. 8, § 6; "B. J." ii. 13, § 5; see also Acts xxi. 38). Another, whom Josephus styles an impostor, promised the people "deliverance and freedom from their miseries" if they would follow him to the wilderness. Both leader and followers were killed by the troops of Festus, the procurator (60-62; "Ant." xx. 8, § 10). Even when Jerusalem was already in process of destruction by the Romans, a prophet, according to Josephus suborned by the defenders to keep the people from deserting announced that God commanded them to come to the Temple, there to receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Those who came met death in the flames ("B. J." vi. 5, § 3).
Menahem ben Judah.

Unlike these Messiahs, who expected their people's deliverance to be achieved through divine intervention, Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean and grandson of Hezekiah, the leader of the Zealots, who had troubled Herod, was a warrior. When the war broke out he attacked Masada with his band, armed his followers with the weapons stored there, and proceeded to Jerusalem, where he captured the fortress Antonia, overpowering the troops of Agrippa II. Emboldened by his success, he behaved as a king, and claimed the leadership of all the troops. Thereby he aroused the enmity of Eleazar, another Zealot leader, and met death as a result of a conspiracy against him (ib. ii. 17, § 9). He is probably identical with the Menahem b. Hezekiah mentioned in Sanh. 98b, and called, with reference to Lam. i. 17, "the comforter ["menaḥem"] that should relieve" (comp. Hamburger, "R. B. T." Supplement, iii. 80).

With the destruction of the Temple the appearance of Messiahs ceased for a time. Sixty years later a politico-Messianic movement of large proportions took place with Bar Kokba at its head. This leader of the revolt against Rome was hailed as Messiah-king by Akiba, who referred to him, Num. xxiv. 17: "There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite through the corners of Moab," etc. (Yer. Ta'an. iv. 7; Lam. R. to Lam. ii. 2), and Hag. ii. 21, 22; "I will shake the heavens and the earth and I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms. . . ." (Sanh. 97b). Although some, as Johanan b. Torta (Lam. R. to Lam. ii. 2), doubted his Messiahship, he seems to have carried the nation with him for his undertaking. After stirring up a war (133-135) that taxed the power of Rome, he at last met his death on the walls of Bethar. His Messianic movement ended in defeat and misery for the survivors (see Bar Kokba and Bar Kokba War).
Moses of Crete.

The unsuccessful issue of the Bar Kokba war put an end for centuries to Messianic movements; but Messianic hopes were none the less cherished. In accordance with a computation found in the Talmud the Messiah was expected in 440 (Sanh. 97b) or 471 ('Ab. Zarah 9b). This expectation in connection with the disturbances in the Roman empire attendant upon invasions, may have raised up the Messiah who appeared about this time in Crete, and who won over the Jewish population to his movement. He called himself Moses, and promised to lead the people, like the ancient Moses, dryshod through the sea back to Palestine. His followers, convinced by him, left their possessions and waited for the promised day, when at his command many cast themselves into the sea, some finding death, others being rescued. The pseudo-Messiah himself disappeared (Socrates, "Historia Ecclesiastica," vii. 38; Grätz, "Gesch." 3d ed., iv. 354-355).

The pseudo-Messiahs that followed played their rôles in the Orient, and were at the same time religious reformers whose work influenced Karaism. At the end of the seventh century appeared in Persia Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan (for other forms of his name and for his sect see "J. Q. R." xvi. 768, 770, 771; Grätz, l.c. v., notes 15 and 17). He lived in the reign of the Ommiad calif 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (684-705). He claimed to be the last of the five forerunners of the Messiah and to have been appointed by God to free Israel. According to some he was himself the Messiah. Having gathered together a large number of followers, he rebelled against the calif, but was defeated and slain at Rai. His followers claimed that he was inspired and urged as proof the fact that he wrote books, although he was ignorant of reading and writing. He founded the first sect that arose in Judaism after the destruction of the Temple (see Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani).

Isḥaḳ's disciple Yudghan, called "Al-Ra'i" (= "the shepherd of the flock of his people"), who lived in the first half of the eighth century, declared himself to be a prophet, and was by his disciples regarded as a Messiah. He came from Hamadan, and taught doctrines which he claimed to have received through prophecy. According to Shahristani, he opposed the belief in anthropomorphism,taught the doctrine of free will, and held that the Torah had an allegorical meaning in addition to its literal one. He was thus, according to Grätz (l.c. v. 467), a Jewish Motazilite. He admonished his followers to lead an ascetic life, to abstain from meat and wine, and to pray and fast often, following in this his master Abu 'Isa. He held that the observance of the Sabbath and festivals was merely a matter of memorial. After his death his followers formed a sect, the Yudghanites, who believed that their Messiah had not died, but would return (comp. Grätz, l.c. note 17, § 4, 18, § 1; Hebr. ed., iii. 503, 511).

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, 03:59 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:The Jesus Mythicism position has absolutely no solid evidence to support itself. None.


You keep telling yourself that, shithead. Meanwhile, your fables have nothing to support them but the writings of believers which....when it comes to muslims and mormons, and JWs and fuckall else and their writings, I am certain you have no trouble dismissing.

You see...that is how easy it is to dismiss your happy horseshit. I'm afraid you will simply have to learn to deal with it.


Jesus is an invention. Like allah. Like Zeus.

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
03-07-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:The Jesus Mythicism position has absolutely no solid evidence to support itself. None.

Well, inasmuch as some scholars, with FAR more training and expertise than Free, seem to think otherwise, the claim that there is "none" leads one to think Free is just incapable of understanding it and the nuances of the evidence there is.

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
03-07-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 04:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:The Jesus Mythicism position has absolutely no solid evidence to support itself. None.

Well, inasmuch as some scholars, with FAR more training and expertise than Free, seem to think otherwise, the claim that there is "none" leads one to think Free is just incapable of understanding it and the nuances of the evidence there is.

From this layman's perspective, it looks more like the people that accept historicity do so by interpreting all of the claims with the assumption that historicity is true or because they've just always assumed that and never really considered the idea from the other side.

It will be interesting to see whether the scholars refute Carrier's arguments or the consensus starts to swing to his position.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus

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
03-07-2015, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2015 05:58 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 05:23 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It will be interesting to see whether the scholars refute Carrier's arguments or the consensus starts to swing to his position.

To tell you the truth, the scholars- such as Bart Eahrman- will not speak publicly about what they really think about Richard Carrier. But I will tell you want I know from actually speaking with two scholars who echoed the opinions of other scholars.

They view Carrier as being a self important narcissist who, although accredited, views the historicity of Jesus with extreme bias. He uses his credentials to garner an internet following of mainly atheists who, like Carrier, have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Carrier does not employ constructive reasoning in his evaluation of history. Like many atheist, everything is black and white to him. For example, if you can't conclusively prove that Jesus existed, then he didn't exist. He ignores obvious probability and injects doubt where no doubt is warranted.

For example, he says that the entry in Tacitus is probably a forgery, yet provides no good argument, and no evidence to support forgery. He points to the changed "e" in Chistians to Chrestians as his only evidence, yet intentionally misdirects his reader by conveniently not mentioning that the Christians were indeed also called Chrestians by the Greco-Romans of the 1st and 2nd century, and plenty of evidence to prove that fact.

So instead of correctly stating that the changed "e" was the result of an 11th century monk correcting the spelling into what was then considered to be the proper spelling, he intentionally ignores that greater possibility to maintain his forgery position.

Why? Because his followers expect him to, and if he wants those followers to continue buying his books, he had better tow the line.

Personally, I see the man as an accredited scam artist with a long list of suckers in tow.

The consensus will never swing his way. They see right through him. They are far more intelligent then he will ever be.

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
03-07-2015, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2015 07:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:  To tell you the truth, the scholars- such as Bart Eahrman- will not speak publicly about what they really think about Richard Carrier. But I will tell you want I know from actually speaking with two scholars who echoed the opinions of other scholars.

They view Carrier as being a self important narcissist who, although accredited, views the historicity of Jesus with extreme bias. He uses his credentials to garner an internet following of mainly atheists who, like Carrier, have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Carrier does not employ constructive reasoning in his evaluation of history. Like many atheist, everything is black and white to him. For example, if you can't conclusively prove that Jesus existed, then he didn't exist. He ignores obvious probability and injects doubt where no doubt is warranted.
......
Personally, I see the man as an accredited scam artist with a long list of suckers in tow.

You are clearly VERY VERY VERY jealous of him. He has FAR more than "an internet following", and you know it. All this has NOTHING to do with the issues of the arguments. He has many nuanced literary and historical arguments which you have never once even tried to begin to address or even begin to refute.

Why should we care about your pathetic game of old matron telephone: "Well I heard from ... bla bla bla" ? Sure you did. You can't even spell Ehrman's name correctly, not do you appear to know that the plural of "atheist", is "atheists".

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, 07:27 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 07:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are clearly VERY VERY VERY jealous of him. He has FAR more than "an internet following", and you know it. All this has NOTHING to do with the issues of the arguments. He has many nuanced literary and historical arguments which you have never once even tried to begin to address or even begin to refute.

Why should we care about your pathetic game of old matron telephone: "Well I heard from ... bla bla bla" ? Sure you did. You can't even spell Ehrman's name correctly, not do you appear to know that the plural of "atheist", is "atheists".
I find it funny that the people who criticize Carrier, Ehrman, etc. always paint this image of it being ridiculous that since we can't conclusively prove the existence of Jesus we should assume he did exist. Yet, when we can't conclusively prove Odin, Marduk, Zeus, Brahma, etc. we should just toss them aside.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 05:23 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It will be interesting to see whether the scholars refute Carrier's arguments or the consensus starts to swing to his position.

To tell you the truth, the scholars- such as Bart Eahrman- will not speak publicly about what they really think about Richard Carrier. But I will tell you want I know from actually speaking with two scholars who echoed the opinions of other scholars.

That is known as hearsay evidence. Inadmissible.

Quote:They view Carrier as being a self important narcissist who, although accredited, views the historicity of Jesus with extreme bias. He uses his credentials to garner an internet following of mainly atheists who, like Carrier, have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Hearsay and ad hominem.

Quote:Why? Because his followers expect him to, and if he wants those followers to continue buying his books, he had better tow the line.

*toe the line

Quote:Personally, I see the man as an accredited scam artist with a long list of suckers in tow.

The consensus will never swing his way. They see right through him. They are far more intelligent then he will ever be.

Your bias is apparent.

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, 07:42 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 07:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:  To tell you the truth, the scholars- such as Bart Eahrman- will not speak publicly about what they really think about Richard Carrier. But I will tell you want I know from actually speaking with two scholars who echoed the opinions of other scholars.

They view Carrier as being a self important narcissist who, although accredited, views the historicity of Jesus with extreme bias. He uses his credentials to garner an internet following of mainly atheists who, like Carrier, have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Carrier does not employ constructive reasoning in his evaluation of history. Like many atheist, everything is black and white to him. For example, if you can't conclusively prove that Jesus existed, then he didn't exist. He ignores obvious probability and injects doubt where no doubt is warranted.
......
Personally, I see the man as an accredited scam artist with a long list of suckers in tow.

You are clearly VERY VERY VERY jealous of him. He has FAR more than "an internet following", and you know it. All this has NOTHING to do with the issues of the arguments. He has many nuanced literary and historical arguments which you have never once even tried to begin to address or even begin to refute.

Why should we care about your pathetic game of old matron telephone: "Well I heard from ... bla bla bla" ? Sure you did. You can't even spell Ehrman's name correctly, not do you appear to know that the plural of "atheist", is "atheists".

Spelling errors and typos are the best you can muster?

Seriously?

Make yourself feel better. Go buy another of his books.

Smartass

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: