Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 02:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Agreed. But there is evidence that Christians have altered many ancient texts.

Unless there's evidence that they've altered Tacitus it doesn't really matter.

Quote:There is no evidence of Jesus death or life either.
Actually what people call Jesus, was actually Yeshua instead.
And even then Yeshua might not have existed.

No, there's an abundance of evidence, a variety of sources, material, etc.. that makes some conclusions far more likely than others, that allows some explanations to have greater explanatory capacity than others do. And in this case that direction they all point to is a historical Jesus, that was crucified by the Romans. Any explanation you can offer in which this is not the case, is quite unlikely.

Quote:Certainly there was no half man/half god entity. Certainly no person capable of performing miracle magic acts and no person capable of being dead for three days and then coming back to life and then magically disappearing again.

You can strip all that off, and you'd still have the evidence pointing to a historical messiah claimant, and jewish rabbi, that spoke a variety of parables, and stories, and was eventually crucified by the Romans.

Quote:Was there a man, who was the leader of a Jewish apocalyptic cult, who was put to death under Pilot?

Yes.

Quote:The answer to that narrow question is that there is very little evidence in support of it. No official records, no eye witness accounts.

No, there's an abundance of evidence in support of. If it were the case that there was little evidence, than we could form a variety of different explanations with equal explanatory capacity. But we can't. Hence why mythicist hypothesis are rarely ever used even here.

Quote:Tacitus' account is a historian's account of a fire and the Christus mention was in passing, just an embellishment.

There's no evidence to support it being an embellishment.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:There is no evidence of Jesus death or life either.
Actually what people call Jesus, was actually Yeshua instead.
And even then Yeshua might not have existed.

No, there's an abundance of evidence, a variety of sources, material, etc.. that makes some conclusions far more likely than others
Are there official documents i.e. birth certificates, death certificates, tax number, social security number?

Are there eye witness accounts i.e. writings from his mother, father, siblings, writings from any of his disciples?
Saul wrote a lot about his Christ but never met Yeshua. So who was it that Saul wrote about?

(18-10-2015 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can strip all that off, and you'd still have the evidence pointing to a historical messiah claimant, and jewish rabbi, that spoke a variety of parables, and stories, and was eventually crucified by the Romans.
The mention by Tacitus was that a Jewis cult leader was given ultimate punishment under Pilot. No mention of any parables or stories.

Were there any eye witness accounts of these parables and stories? When were they written down? 20-100 years later?

Are we sure they are Yeshua's stories. Did he invent them or did he recount stories he had heard, or are these stories made up by people decades later?

If I told you verbally a story today and asked you 20 years later to write it down. I wonder how accurate you'd be? Now your advantage is that you'd be an eye witness. But if you recounted my story to someone and then they recounted to someone else and then 20 years later we find a literate person who has somehow heard of the stories and we get them to write them down, I wonder how much they would reflect the original story that I told.

(18-10-2015 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Was there a man, who was the leader of a Jewish apocalyptic cult, who was put to death under Pilot?

Yes.
We don't know. There was no record of the event made at the time.
We just have a small mention by a historian that was talking about a fire. This little tid bit was neither here nor there. We have no idea of the source for this information and hence no idea of its validity.


(18-10-2015 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The answer to that narrow question is that there is very little evidence in support of it. No official records, no eye witness accounts.

No, there's an abundance of evidence in support of.
Really, you call Tacitus statement an abundance of evidence?
There is much more evidence for an alien crash as Roswell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 03:40 PM by Tomasia.)
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 02:54 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are there official documents i.e. birth certificates, death certificates, tax number, social security number?

Is that what we expect to find for individuals living in the 1st Century? If Jesus was a historical person, are the sources, the references and material we have align with our expectations for that period?

(18-10-2015 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can strip all that off, and you'd still have the evidence pointing to a historical messiah claimant, and jewish rabbi, that spoke a variety of parables, and stories, and was eventually crucified by the Romans.

No, those parables saying and teachings are compiled in the Gospel accounts, using a variety of even earlier sources.

Quote:If I told you verbally a story today and asked you 20 years later to write it down. I wonder how accurate you'd be?

If you told me a story, with memorable structure and form that I went around preaching for 20 years, it would likely be pretty accurate. If there's a variety of other communities doing the same. And our stories appear very similar, it would just a fidelity to the original. In fact it's difficult to conceive the body of saying and parables being warped versions of some unknown original.

Quote:Now your advantage is that you'd be an eye witness. But if you recounted my story to someone and then they recounted to someone else and then 20 years later we find a literate person who has somehow heard of the stories and we get them to write them down, I wonder how much they would reflect the original story that I told.

If these stories are communal, and are central to a variety of separate communities, who repeat and tell them among themselves, and they eventually get written down, and they match what other communities also have, the accuracy to their original source can be gauged.

Quote:Really, you call Tacitus statement an abundance of evidence?

No it's just one piece of a larger puzzle.


Quote:There is much more evidence for an alien crash as Roswell.

No there much more evidence in support of their being no alien crash in Roswell.

Is their much more evidence in support of Jesus not being a historical person? Do explanations that incorporate a non-historical Jesus, provide the same explanatory capacity as explanations that do?

The testament to the abundance of evidence here is the inability to form viable alternative explanations to historicity, that don't stretch credulity. In fact you inability to form or offer one, is a testament to the abundance of evidence. If the evidence we insufficient as your claim it is, then we should be able to offer viable non-historical Jesus explanations, which have an equivalent degree of explanatory scope.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 03:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The testament to the abundance of evidence here is the inability to form viable alternative explanations to historicity, that don't stretch credulity. In fact you inability to form or offer one, is a testament to the abundance of evidence. If the evidence we insufficient as your claim it is, then we should be able to offer viable non-historical Jesus explanations, which have an equivalent degree of explanatory scope.
Explanation for what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 03:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can strip all that off, and you'd still have the evidence pointing to a historical messiah claimant, and jewish rabbi, that spoke a variety of parables, and stories, and was eventually crucified by the Romans.

What exactly are those "variety of earlier sources" ?
In fact there are none, and you know it.
All there are is testimony from believers. There are no independent and no variety of anything.

(18-10-2015 03:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If there's a variety of other communities doing the same. And our stories appear very similar, it would just a fidelity to the original. In fact it's difficult to conceive the body of saying and parables being warped versions of some unknown original.

All that proves is they shared an original myth. The gospels are NOT biographies. They are proclamations of belief.

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
18-10-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 04:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 03:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The testament to the abundance of evidence here is the inability to form viable alternative explanations to historicity, that don't stretch credulity. In fact you inability to form or offer one, is a testament to the abundance of evidence. If the evidence we insufficient as your claim it is, then we should be able to offer viable non-historical Jesus explanations, which have an equivalent degree of explanatory scope.
Explanation for what?

Either all the sources, references, beliefs, encounter with the disciples, the founding of Christian movement, etc.... are better explained by a historical Jesus, or they are not.
Either this material is more supportive of a historical Jesus, or they are not. Either they add to the viability of one explanation or the other better, or they don't. Either we could read these references better in lieu of a non-historical person, or we can't.

If this material is better accounted for by a historical person, and you can't conceive or offer a alternative explanation that presupposes a non-historical Jesus, you accusations of a lack of evidence are entirely meaningless. Evidence is the basis for why one explanations is more reasonable than other one, and why one explanations offer a better account of the material than the other ones.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 05:09 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 04:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Either all the sources, references, beliefs, encounter with the disciples, the founding of Christian movement, etc.... are better explained by a historical Jesus, or they are not.
Either this material is more supportive of a historical Jesus, or they are not. Either they add to the viability of one explanation or the other better, or they don't. Either we could read these references better in lieu of a non-historical person, or we can't.

They are not, and you can't. When examined carefully, your "body of evidence" is nothing but bullshit that falls apart upon inspection.

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
18-10-2015, 05:22 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 04:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Either all the sources, references, beliefs, encounter with the disciples, the founding of Christian movement, etc.... are better explained by a historical Jesus, or they are not.
Either this material is more supportive of a historical Jesus, or they are not. Either they add to the viability of one explanation or the other better, or they don't. Either we could read these references better in lieu of a non-historical person, or we can't.

They are not, and you can't. When examined carefully, your "body of evidence" is nothing but bullshit that falls apart upon inspection.

Uhm, either that body of evidence is more supportive of explanations like the early followers invented the crucifixion, or they're not.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 05:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 05:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are not, and you can't. When examined carefully, your "body of evidence" is nothing but bullshit that falls apart upon inspection.

Uhm, either that body of evidence is more supportive of explanations like the early followers invented the crucifixion, or they're not.

It's more likely they invented it. Well we know for a fact they invented the trial. The Sanhedrin has never once in all of history been called into session on Passover weekend. We know for a fact that John changes the day of death to fit his "paschal lamb" theory. Some gospels say he was silent at trial, one has him giving a long speech. Galilean peasants were never brought into the presence of Roman aristocrats. There was no need. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana for summary executions of trouble-makers. Why specifically would this one be an exception to the rule ? Because they were inventing a cult based on myth ? We know for a fact the temple curtain was never torn, or Jews would have commented on it. We know for a fact the claimed earthquakes never happened, as there were naturalists who commented on and recorded each one, and not these. We know for a fact that 500 zombies never invaded Jerusalem and also rose with him. We know for a fact that other messiah claimants were said to have died and risen on the third day. In light of all the lies and made up BS, which is more likely ... that they made the crucifixion up also, or that there just happens to be one fact in the plethora of myths that follow mythical literary forms (as Carrier explains) ? Guess what ?

It's ALL bullshit.

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
18-10-2015, 05:51 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 04:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 04:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Explanation for what?

Either all the sources, references, beliefs, encounter with the disciples, the founding of Christian movement, etc.... are better explained by a historical Jesus, or they are not.
Pretty much what Bucky said.
(18-10-2015 04:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All that proves is they shared an original myth. The gospels are NOT biographies. They are proclamations of belief.

(18-10-2015 04:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All there are is testimony from believers. There are no independent and no variety of anything.

The "testimony" from the believers is not about events that were witnessed, but about events or stories that they believe. Their shared beliefs are not evidence that their beliefs are based on any truth.

Anyways, if you are keen to get into a more depth discussion on this then take it up with Bucky or Mark Fulton.
I can only tell you what my current position on it is. My position is based on what I've heard rather than extensive research into the matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: