Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:  They view Carrier as being a self important narcissist who, although accredited, views the historicity of Jesus with extreme bias.

I've been to several presentations given by Carrier and listened to him speak, including informal sessions before and after the talk. I've watched his videos and read his blog posts. I also think he's a self-important narcissist and don't care very much for him on a personal level.

That has nothing to do with how I view his arguments. Some I find more compelling than others but do think he has very strongly demonstrated that the historicist position is based largely on tradition and a single, previously unchallenged interpretation of the evidence. As far as I can tell he's made a very strong case for mythicism; certainly one worth serious consideration.

I'm not a scholar though, just a layman with an interest in the question. I'm reserving an opinion until the actual scholars respond to Carrier's work and they have a chance to review and debate the points.

Have you read Proving History and On The History of Jesus?

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
04-07-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(03-07-2015 08:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 07:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's not up to you. We dismiss it.

Then I disregard the "we" objection, and admit it anyways.

You see, I can do that!

Quote:No, really, it isn't.

If that was true, then how can I do it both ways?

Tongue

Apparently by not caring much for being correct.

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
04-07-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 08:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Then I disregard the "we" objection, and admit it anyways.

You see, I can do that!


If that was true, then how can I do it both ways?

Tongue

Apparently by not caring much for being correct.

Or by not caring much for semantics and/or nit picking to obfuscate present points.

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
04-07-2015, 12:04 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 10:33 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  Apparently by not caring much for being correct.

Or by not caring much for semantics and/or nit picking to obfuscate present points.

Thumbsup

Indeed. Such as trying the make a difference between messiahs and "christs". Big Grin

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
04-07-2015, 01:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2015 02:35 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 12:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 10:33 AM)Free Wrote:  Or by not caring much for semantics and/or nit picking to obfuscate present points.

Thumbsup

Indeed. Such as trying the make a difference between messiahs and "christs". Big Grin

No, that never happened.

My point was that you will not find evidence of anyone in the 1st century ever being entitled as being Christ or Messiah, except for Jesus.

Here, in this century, we have the luxury of reviewing the past and stating that this person, or that person, had met the conditions that we believe would qualify them as being a Messiah or Christ.

But when we do that, we are also obligated to find some kind of evidence from the period in question in which anyone from that period had noted historically that the proposed Messiah/Christ had ever actually been entitled as such.

When we look at Jewish history, we can see how many of the ancient Jews would use their so-called "prophesies" to proclaim the coming of someone great. But not all those who seemed to meet the qualifications of the prophesy were intended to be regarded as being a messiah. Most were regarded as merely being some kind of a prophet, or other.

In short, not all prophesies about the coming of some great one were in regards to the coming of a messiah, and that is why, in my opinion, we cannot find an actual historical referrence to anyone else other than Jesus ever being entitled as a Messiah/Christ in the 1st century.

This is exactly why I reject the claims made on the internet about certain people of antiquity being Messianic Claimants. I have no problem with accepting another Messianic Claimant from the 1st century, because it really doesn't makde a shred of difference to me.

But it comes down to the hard evidence, and there simply isn't any hard evidence where anyone else was ever entitled as being a Christ/Messiah in the 1st century.

And that is the reality, and also the intellectually honest position to hold. I find it dishonest to apply presentism and/or the historian's fallacy anachronistically into the past with such reckless abandon.

If you want good history, then do the good work to get it.

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
04-07-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 01:21 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 12:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Indeed. Such as trying the make a difference between messiahs and "christs". Big Grin

No, that never happened.

My point was that you will not find evidence of anyone in the 1st century ever being entitled as being Christ or Messiah, except for Jesus.

Here, in this century, we have the luxury of reviewing the past and stating that this person, or that person, had met the conditions that we believe would qualify them as being a Messiah or Christ.

But when we do that, we are also obligated to find some kind of evidence from the period in question in which anyone from that period had noted historically that the proposed Messiah/Christ had ever actually been entitled as such.

When we look at Jewish history, we can see how many of the ancient Jews would use their so-called "prophesies" to proclaim the coming of someone great. But not all those who seemed to meet the qualifications of the prophesy were intended to be regarded as being a messiah. Most were regarded as merely being some kind of a prophet, or other.

In short, not all prophesies about the coming of some great one were in regards to the coming of a messiah, and that is why, in my opinion, we cannot find an actual historical referrence to anyone else other than Jesus ever being entitled as a Messiah/Christ in the 1st century.

This is exactly why I reject the claims made on the internet about certain people of antiquity being Messianic Claimants. I have no problem with accepting another Messianic Claimant from the 1st century, because it really doesn't makde a shred of difference to me.

But it comes down to the hard evidence, and there simply isn't any hard evidence where anyone else was ever entitled as being a Christ/Messiah.

And that is the reality, and also the intellectually honest position to hold. I find it dishonest to apply presentism and/or the historian's fallacy anachronistically into the past with such reckless abandon.

If you want good history, then do the good work to get it.

You're just making that shit up. It has already been shown to you that you are 100% wrong about no other messiahs in the First Century.
Obviously you have so much invested in your little story you tell yourself, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Meh. Whatever floats your boat.

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
04-07-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 02:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 01:21 PM)Free Wrote:  No, that never happened.

My point was that you will not find evidence of anyone in the 1st century ever being entitled as being Christ or Messiah, except for Jesus.

Here, in this century, we have the luxury of reviewing the past and stating that this person, or that person, had met the conditions that we believe would qualify them as being a Messiah or Christ.

But when we do that, we are also obligated to find some kind of evidence from the period in question in which anyone from that period had noted historically that the proposed Messiah/Christ had ever actually been entitled as such.

When we look at Jewish history, we can see how many of the ancient Jews would use their so-called "prophesies" to proclaim the coming of someone great. But not all those who seemed to meet the qualifications of the prophesy were intended to be regarded as being a messiah. Most were regarded as merely being some kind of a prophet, or other.

In short, not all prophesies about the coming of some great one were in regards to the coming of a messiah, and that is why, in my opinion, we cannot find an actual historical referrence to anyone else other than Jesus ever being entitled as a Messiah/Christ in the 1st century.

This is exactly why I reject the claims made on the internet about certain people of antiquity being Messianic Claimants. I have no problem with accepting another Messianic Claimant from the 1st century, because it really doesn't makde a shred of difference to me.

But it comes down to the hard evidence, and there simply isn't any hard evidence where anyone else was ever entitled as being a Christ/Messiah.

And that is the reality, and also the intellectually honest position to hold. I find it dishonest to apply presentism and/or the historian's fallacy anachronistically into the past with such reckless abandon.

If you want good history, then do the good work to get it.

You're just making that shit up. It has already been shown to you that you are 100% wrong about no other messiahs in the First Century.
Obviously you have so much invested in your little story you tell yourself, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Meh. Whatever floats your boat.

How can asking for solid evidence to prove something ever be considered as "making shit up?"

Dude, if you believe everything you read on the internet then it is no great fucking mystery why you are a Jesus Mythicist and also why you will never EVER be anything other than an amateur historian either online or in real life. Period.

If you want historical facts, then go dig them up. If you want to believe the hype, then swallow it hook, line, and sinker and remain completely incompetent and so obviously ill educated.

You can study history until it comes out your fucking ears, but until you learn how to properly evaluate history with no bias involved, then all you'll ever be is a fucking nobody in the field.

Get that through your fucking head before you waste your life on the bullshit you think matters. It DOESN'T matter, and never will.

You have the potential to be somebody great in this field, but you will never find the field while walking lost in the forest people like Carrier create for you. You will never be great as a follower, especially following that fucked up narcissistic idiot.

10 years from now when you have matured, when you look back, you will wish you had listened.

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
04-07-2015, 03:50 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 10:33 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  Apparently by not caring much for being correct.

Or by not caring much for semantics and/or nit picking to obfuscate present points.

Thumbsup

Obfuscate what? I was clarifying your incorrect language.

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
04-07-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 03:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 02:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're just making that shit up. It has already been shown to you that you are 100% wrong about no other messiahs in the First Century.
Obviously you have so much invested in your little story you tell yourself, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Meh. Whatever floats your boat.

How can asking for solid evidence to prove something ever be considered as "making shit up?"

Dude, if you believe everything you read on the internet then it is no great fucking mystery why you are a Jesus Mythicist and also why you will never EVER be anything other than an amateur historian either online or in real life. Period.

If you want historical facts, then go dig them up. If you want to believe the hype, then swallow it hook, line, and sinker and remain completely incompetent and so obviously ill educated.

You can study history until it comes out your fucking ears, but until you learn how to properly evaluate history with no bias involved, then all you'll ever be is a fucking nobody in the field.

Get that through your fucking head before you waste your life on the bullshit you think matters. It DOESN'T matter, and never will.

You have the potential to be somebody great in this field, but you will never find the field while walking lost in the forest people like Carrier create for you. You will never be great as a follower, especially following that fucked up narcissistic idiot.

10 years from now when you have matured, when you look back, you will wish you had listened.

I already provided you with direct quotes from Josephus on the matter, which seem to be good enough for you, even when it's fake interpolated stuff.

You didn't "ask" for anything. You stated (what you incorrectly think is) a fact, as I read it.

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
04-07-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 07:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 05:55 PM)Free Wrote:  They view Carrier as being a self important narcissist who, although accredited, views the historicity of Jesus with extreme bias.

I've been to several presentations given by Carrier and listened to him speak, including informal sessions before and after the talk. I've watched his videos and read his blog posts. I also think he's a self-important narcissist and don't care very much for him on a personal level.

That has nothing to do with how I view his arguments. Some I find more compelling than others but do think he has very strongly demonstrated that the historicist position is based largely on tradition and a single, previously unchallenged interpretation of the evidence. As far as I can tell he's made a very strong case for mythicism; certainly one worth serious consideration.

I'm not a scholar though, just a layman with an interest in the question. I'm reserving an opinion until the actual scholars respond to Carrier's work and they have a chance to review and debate the points.

Have you read Proving History and On The History of Jesus?

I have reviewed two of his works, including those.

The math he uses in Bayes's Theorem is faulty. Let me explain.

He intrdoced Bayes's theorem in chapter 3 as this:

[Image: codecogseqn1.gif]

Which I believe was his intent to "speak above" his reader's ability to fully understand, since it should have been introduced properly as this:

[Image: codecogseqn2.gif]

1st Problem: Carrier never actually describes what his Bayes's Theorem is actually doing. He never explains why he is dividing probabilities, or what his denominator represents.

2nd Problem: Although Carrier correctly states that it is permissable to divide content between evidence and background knowledge in any way he may choose- provided he is consistent- he then fails to do so throughout the book. An example of this is on Page 51 an explanation of a ‘prior’ probability which explicitly includes the evidence in the prior, and therefore presumably in the background knowledge:

Carrier Wrote:“The measure of how ‘typical’ our proposed explanations is a measure of how often that kind of evidence has that kind of explanation. Formally this is called the prior”

For example, if someone claims they were struck by lightening five times … the prior probabilty they are telling the truth is not the probability of being struck by lightening five times, but the probability that someone in general who claims such a thing would be telling the truth.

Although this is not explicitly wrong, it is very strange. You can certainly tie the claim and the event together like that, but as soon as you do Bayes’s Theorem cannot be used to calculate the probability that the claim is true based on that evidence.

Although he quote itself is valid, it is extremely misleading in a book which is seeking to examine the historicity of documentary claims.

3rd Problem: In Chapter 3 Carrier claims that the Bayes's Theorem has special status. He absolutely insists that it is both necessary and sufficient for any probabilistic reasoning about evidence.

This is indicative of a confusion of nomenclature that permeates the book, at times he uses Bayes’s Theorem to mean probabilistic reasoning generally, then switches to using his idiosyncratic equation form (as if his claims about the former, therefore lead one to the latter necessarily), and at other times uses it as a stand in for Bayesian reasoning (to which I’ll return below). If he had started from the definition of conditional probability:

[Image: codecogseqn3.gif]

he might have noticed that Bayes Theorem is merely an application of basic high-school algebra to the definition, and there are many other such applications which would not give BT, but would be equally valid. Thus statements such as ...

Carrier Wrote:any historical reasoning that cannot be validly described by Bayes’s Theorem is itself invalid”

... are hilarious if understood to mean:

[Image: codecogseqn2.gif]

The book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers.

The origin of this info on Carrier's faulty math is from here, and comes down to us from an actual scientist with a Phd in mathematics, who is also an atheist.

It gets pretty bad when well educated atheists can see straight through Richard Carrier, and turn against him. But that is what is actually happening all over the web.

He's a fraud. Yes, he is well educated, and some of his work is indeed scholarly, but what is evident about Carrier is that he will stop at nothing to satiate his gluttony for self importance.

He can fool some of the people, and he can even fool most of the people, but he cannot fool ALL the people.

I, and many others, have not been fooled.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: