Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 04:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 03:14 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

What you believe to be direct evidence from Josephus is not the evidence I expect. It's not good enough. Josephus does not explicitly say that the emperor was the prophesied "Messiah."

He does not use that title at all. He may or may not have intended for the readers to interpret his statements as such, but he certainly falls short of actually entitling the emperor as a Messiah/Christ.

That is a fact that cannot be denied.

What you need to learn here is whether or not the Jews of the 1st century were all in agreement in regards to whether or not Balaam's prophecy explicitly referred to a future Messiah.

It's easy to use our present 20/20 hindsight and apply that prophesy to a Messiah, but you need to investigate what kind of a Jew Josephus was to determine whether or not he personally was speaking of a Messiah, or .... perhaps something else?

So ... tell me what you know about Flavius Josephus.

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, 06:43 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 06:22 PM)Free Wrote:  What you need to learn here is whether or not the Jews of the 1st century were all in agreement in regards to whether or not Balaam's prophecy explicitly referred to a future Messiah.

So nuts. Nope. Not all Jews were expecting a Messiah. Some thought one leader was a messiah, some another. There never was ONE that all believed in. Even your Jebus didn't convince everyone, or even more than a small number. So your own criteria for your OWN "christ" is not met. Thanks for doing in your own arguments. I think you're pulling nonsense out of your ass to cover for the fact that you don't know much about the Hebrews.

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, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2015 07:04 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 06:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 06:22 PM)Free Wrote:  What you need to learn here is whether or not the Jews of the 1st century were all in agreement in regards to whether or not Balaam's prophecy explicitly referred to a future Messiah.

So nuts. Nope. Not all Jews were expecting a Messiah. Some thought one leader was a messiah, some another. There never was ONE that all believed in. Even your Jebus didn't convince everyone, or even more than a small number. So your own criteria for your OWN "christ" is not met. Thanks for doing in your own arguments. I think you're pulling nonsense out of your ass to cover for the fact that you don't know much about the Hebrews.

Bear with me just a little longer.

Josephus was a Pharisee. After the exile from the 2nd Temple, the Pharisee began their transformation into what was known as Rabbinic Judaism. This all was happening during, and immediately after, Josephus' lifetime. The beliefs of the Rabbinic Jews were virtually identical to the Pharisees, since they really were Pharisee.

Now here's what you need to know about Josephus and the Rabbinic Jews. The Rabbis were not especially concerned with the messiah or claims about the messiah or ranking the laws in importance. And neither were they when they were call Pharisee.

Josephus was a Pharisee. He was not concerned about Messianic claims, and not interested in a messiah. He had not received the education regarding a messiah because the Pharisee had no regard for it.

Go here and learn more:

The Pharisee

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, 08:16 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 06:56 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 06:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So nuts. Nope. Not all Jews were expecting a Messiah. Some thought one leader was a messiah, some another. There never was ONE that all believed in. Even your Jebus didn't convince everyone, or even more than a small number. So your own criteria for your OWN "christ" is not met. Thanks for doing in your own arguments. I think you're pulling nonsense out of your ass to cover for the fact that you don't know much about the Hebrews.

Bear with me just a little longer.

Josephus was a Pharisee. After the exile from the 2nd Temple, the Pharisee began their transformation into what was known as Rabbinic Judaism. This all was happening during, and immediately after, Josephus' lifetime. The beliefs of the Rabbinic Jews were virtually identical to the Pharisees, since they really were Pharisee.

Now here's what you need to know about Josephus and the Rabbinic Jews. The Rabbis were not especially concerned with the messiah or claims about the messiah or ranking the laws in importance. And neither were they when they were call Pharisee.

Josephus was a Pharisee. He was not concerned about Messianic claims, and not interested in a messiah. He had not received the education regarding a messiah because the Pharisee had no regard for it.

Go here and learn more:

The Pharisee

All irrelevant. He FLED to Rome, and sold himself to the emperor. He was no "faithful" Jew. He WROTE his opinions about messianism, and whether HE himself bought into it, he WROTE about how the idea was used.

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, 09:26 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2015 12:34 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(04-07-2015 08:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 06:56 PM)Free Wrote:  Bear with me just a little longer.

Josephus was a Pharisee. After the exile from the 2nd Temple, the Pharisee began their transformation into what was known as Rabbinic Judaism. This all was happening during, and immediately after, Josephus' lifetime. The beliefs of the Rabbinic Jews were virtually identical to the Pharisees, since they really were Pharisee.

Now here's what you need to know about Josephus and the Rabbinic Jews. The Rabbis were not especially concerned with the messiah or claims about the messiah or ranking the laws in importance. And neither were they when they were call Pharisee.

Josephus was a Pharisee. He was not concerned about Messianic claims, and not interested in a messiah. He had not received the education regarding a messiah because the Pharisee had no regard for it.

Go here and learn more:

The Pharisee

All irrelevant.

No.

Quote:He FLED to Rome, and sold himself to the emperor. He was no "faithful" Jew.

True.

Quote:He WROTE his opinions about messianism, and whether HE himself bought into it, he WROTE about how the idea was used.

Have you ever actually searched the texts to see if Josephus ever mentioned the word "Messiah?"

Go ahead. I can wait.

Thumbsup

Note: My point here rests in the religious belief system of the Pharisee sect, which during Josephus' lifetime transformed into Rabbinic Judaism. Unlike the Essene and the Sadducee, the Pharisee/Rabbinic sect were very reserved in using the title of Messiah to apply to anyone. They took this title very seriously, and would not assign it to anyone unless they were absolutely certain.

Josephus was writing in hindsight. Any and all messianic claimants he may or may not have mentioned would not have been entitled as a messiah for the simple reason that any and all claimants were proven to be false. When it comes to Vespasian, he again carefully avoids explicitly using the title of Messiah for a number of good reasons, some of which we have already discussed.

But the number one reason that he did not assign the title of Messiah to Vespasian was for the simple fact that Vespasian did not come from the House of David, which is precisely what all Jews in the time period expected. Doing so would have made Josephus more of a liar than he already was in the eyes of the Jews, because making such a ridiculous statement about Vespasian would not only insult the Jews, but also Vespasian himself, since Vespasian was a proud Roman and certainly was not one of the hated Jews from the House of David, and by no means would want to be regarded as such.

For Josephus to proclaim Vespasian as being a Messiah would carry the obvious connotation that Vespasian, the Roman Emperor, was a Jew!

Is that not obvious?

The same is true for all proposed non Jewish Messianic claimants. If they are not explicitly named as "Messiah" by the ancient Jews, then any proposed intention to regard them as a Messiah is unfounded, according to ACTUAL history!


Josephus was "walking between the rain drops, trying not to get hit" in regards to Vespasian. He was trying to exalt Vespasian to save his own ass, while at the same time trying not to insult his fellow Jews, and Vespasian himself.

It worked.

So again, Josephus was not proclaiming Vespasian to be a Messiah, or he would have explicitly said so. No, he was merely pointing at the prophecy he believed Vespasian fulfilled, but never once alluded to that prophesy as being messianic in nature in relation to Vespasian, or anyone else.

So now you know why Josephus, not once, ever mentions the word Messiah in ANY of his works. In regards to Christ, in the 20th chapter of Antiquities, this Jesus was widely known as one who was called Christ by many of the Jews and early Christians, and Josephus is merely echoing the sentiments of the population in an effort to identify who "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," actually was. Even here, Josephus never makes a positive statement in regards to this Christ/Messiah.

So Bucky do not use presentism or the historian's fallacy, or the exceptionally weak scholarship of amateurs on the internet to reach conclusions. You need to take your mind back in time and immerse yourself into the Jewish and Roman cultures to understand their mindset, because you can never understand it from a 21st century perspective. History is more than just the study of ancient texts. Much more.

It's an experience.

If you want real history, you will dig it up yourself. Do not take the scholarship of others as if it is some kind of gospel. It isn't. Not Carrier, Ehrman, Mason, nor even myself can ever educate you better than you can do it yourself, as long as you walk into it with absolutely no bias.

So go to Rome, and when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

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
08-07-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
"There IS a Jesus of Myth. That is not even in question. The only question is whether there was a Jesus of history."

I can't remember which podcast it was, or who the interviewee was, but in one of Seth's episodes (I think it was Seth) he has a guy who basically gave evidence that the Jesus myth was built upon a compilation of several actual historical people, some of whom were actually names Jesus/Joshua/yeshua. Take those stories, mix in various myths about several pagan gods, put em in a bag and SHAKE vigorously, et viola! *Jesus!*Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes woody2016's post
08-07-2015, 12:04 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(08-07-2015 11:30 AM)woody2016 Wrote:  ...
I can't remember which podcast it was, or who the interviewee was,
...

Sounds like Price.

Priceless!

Welcome to TTA.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2015 05:02 PM by Free.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(08-07-2015 11:30 AM)woody2016 Wrote:  "There IS a Jesus of Myth. That is not even in question. The only question is whether there was a Jesus of history."

I can't remember which podcast it was, or who the interviewee was, but in one of Seth's episodes (I think it was Seth) he has a guy who basically gave evidence that the Jesus myth was built upon a compilation of several actual historical people, some of whom were actually names Jesus/Joshua/yeshua. Take those stories, mix in various myths about several pagan gods, put em in a bag and SHAKE vigorously, et viola! *Jesus!*Bowing

The Jesus of the Gospels, for the most part, is comprised- not so much of other people- but of mythology itself.

The position of historicity is to attempt to extract from the gospel records what is probable in regards to the existence of this Jesus as an ordinary human being.

After many years researching this subject I have concluded that it is more probable that an actual person named Jesus did exist, and from that person comes a consistency that is found not only in the gospels, but also in the letters of Paul, and other non biblical historical sources. That consistency is this:

Jesus, who was called Christ, was crucified by the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, circa AD 33.

That's it.

Consider

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
15-10-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:[b]Jesus, who was called Christ, was crucified by the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, circa AD 33.

So what? Maybe he didn't die, fled, changed his name and was only crucified 40 years later.

Proving the historicity of Jesus, or the likability of it, is as relevant as proving the truth that the cartoon figure Mickey Mouse (Jesus)and all his adventures can be traced back to a real life pet mouse Walt Disney (or Paul) owned when he was a kid. Even if you had passages in a few non cartoonists letters written decades after the creation of Mickey Mouse (Jesus'birth) in which the name of this mouse was also mentioned as Mickey, that this real mouse was very popular among the kids in the neighborhood and that it died during the Presidency of Rooseveld, what will that inform you about anything in the cartoons(=miracles, sayings, teachings, events, other characters in the gospels) .

Why would anybody who was watching the cartoons care about the proven existence of this real mouse ? It never was capable of doing anything the cartoon figure could, except if you want to believe that.

If 4 neo nazi's publish today each a biography about Hitler that only contain facts from(by themselves) so called first time witnesses that until know nobody has ever mentioned, why would anybody take any saying or action by this "Hitler" as happened for real? These works would be disregarded completely as being historical except by other neo nazi's. The overwhelming historicity of Hitler doesn't change anything about that.

The only thing this can lead to is the simplistic " Jesus was historical so the gospels are also".

As it was said in the audio, if it wasn't about the Jesus stories nobody would waist any time with this. You could as well start to examine all films and cartoons about Micky Mouse to find information about the real life mouse.

At best you will find confirmation about a few very banal facts concerning preachers in Galilea 2000 years ago.

Scrolls written by non christians that relate in detail to the events in the gospels, that's what's needed. Forging them might be a bit difficult nowadays.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillemRM's post
16-10-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
I have also come to the conclusion that there probably was an historical Jesus, a Galilean rabbi who had a Messianic following, and that he might have been actually crucified as a threat to Roman hegemony.

But that latter part is a loose conjecture, since most of it is based on the writings of James and Paul and "Mark", and the explanation that they were just a cult who made up some fantastic claims for their cult-leader and spent 20 years "refining" those claims before writing anything down, seems more plausible to me than the claim that "we may use the New Testament writings as an historical information-source".

The only extra-Biblical claims we have of this come 60-80 years later, in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, and neither of those provide actual information on the subject, both appearing to simply reference the claims of the early Christians about the basis of their cult. Despite the claims of the Historicists, regarding the "accuracy" of the work of Tacitus as an historian, Tacitus makes no claim that he is reporting actual historical information when he mentions the crucifixion; rather, it appears from a reading of the passage that he is making reference to the claims of the Christians on trial for their lives, about their basis for belief, while Tacitus explains the fact of their executions. We must infer from the belief-claim of those soon-to-die early Believers that their beliefs are rooted in an actual event, rather than acceptance of the magical claims of whoever sold them into the religion.

It'd be a bit like claiming that Joseph Smith was executed in 1844 by the US Government, despite total absence of US Gov't records saying that he was, simply because we have the writings of someone interviewing Mormons converted in Utah in 1904 before they were executed by the US Government. Those persons would have every reason to claim to be following in the footsteps of their cult leader unto death.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: