Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2015, 05:52 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 05:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, either that body of evidence is more supportive of explanations like the early followers invented the crucifixion, or they're not.

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.

So it's more likely that Jesus died some other way other than crucifixion, rather than interpreting that particular death in light of messianic prophecies, they invited an entirely different death, crucifixion by the hands of the Romans?

"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, 05:56 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:51 PM)Stevil 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.
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.

Either those shared beliefs are better explained by certain historical events and persons or they are not.

Either they are evidence of historical occurrences, historical persons, or their evidence better supportive of fictional 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, 05:58 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 05:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

So it's more likely that Jesus died some other way other than crucifixion, rather than interpreting that particular death in light of messianic prophecies, they invited an entirely different death, crucifixion by the hands of the Romans?

No. There was no Jesus. What is more likely is that he was entirely mythical. Nice try.

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, 05:59 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 07:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 05:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Pretty much what Bucky said.


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.

Either those shared beliefs are better explained by certain historical events and persons or they are not.

Either they are evidence of historical occurrences, historical persons, or their evidence better supportive of fictional ones.

They are not. "Shared beliefs" are evidence of nothing. If you say that and accept that, all cults have "shared beliefs". Are you saying that ALL religions' "shared beliefs" are evidence they are ALL true ?

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, 06:09 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. There was no Jesus. What is more likely is that he was entirely mythical. Nice try.

So there was some early Jewish cult that expected a entirely mythical messiah? Where there are variety of these cults or just one? Do we have any documents or sources that suggest the existence of such Jewish cults?

And then some later group very early on, attempted to sell the mythical messiah as a historical, perhaps by getting Paul on board, hence why Paul wrote of meeting his brother, and perhaps even getting some guy named James to pretend as if he's his brother?

"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, 06:18 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Either those shared beliefs are better explained by certain historical events and persons or they are not.

Either they are evidence of historical occurrences, historical persons, or their evidence better supportive of fictional ones.
Preachers go around preaching certain stories, they influence each other, they copy each other.
There is no reason to think the basis for the stories is real.

There are many reasons to think the stories are imaginary:
Virgin birth miracle
Water to wine miracle
Curing epilepsy miracle
Walking on water miracle
Rising from the dead miracle

Quite frankly, all these believed tales puts the whole story into question.

All these people believe Jesus (Yeshua) was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead.
The most likely explanation is that the story is made up and was preached or forced on people.

The less likely explanation is that a miracle god/man half breed performed magic and did things that defy natural explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 07:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 06:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 05:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. There was no Jesus. What is more likely is that he was entirely mythical. Nice try.

So there was some early Jewish cult that expected a entirely mythical messiah? Where there are variety of these cults or just one? Do we have any documents or sources that suggest the existence of such Jewish cults?

And then some later group very early on, attempted to sell the mythical messiah as a historical, perhaps by getting Paul on board, hence why Paul wrote of meeting his brother, and perhaps even getting some guy named James to pretend as if he's his brother?

Nice try. No. It is entirely possible that based on a NUMBER of earlier figures, LATER people invented an amalgamation of them all. Yes there is proof of some of them. More than there actually is for your Jesus. You actually think 500 zombies invaded Jerusalem ? The parables and preaching content of the gospels reflect the concerns of Rabbinic Judaism from later in the 1st Century. It could be (seeing that the literary structure of the gospels is MYTH as Carrier points out ... we are discussing Carrier here, right), that later in the 1st Century, a group combined the circulating myths with messiah expectations, (there were in general, no "records" available to most to "check" anything at that point ... thus could have invented anything, and certainly a dying Jesus in no way met the expectations without "mythic addition", and redefinitions) and thus was born "The Way" subsect of Judaism, which eventually turned into and separated out as Christianity. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...n-display/

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, 07:46 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 06:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 06:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So there was some early Jewish cult that expected a entirely mythical messiah? Where there are variety of these cults or just one? Do we have any documents or sources that suggest the existence of such Jewish cults?

And then some later group very early on, attempted to sell the mythical messiah as a historical, perhaps by getting Paul on board, hence why Paul wrote of meeting his brother, and perhaps even getting some guy named James to pretend as if he's his brother?

Nice try. No. It is entirely possible that based on a NUMBER of earlier figures, LATER people invented an amalgamation of them all. Yes there is proof of some of them. More than there actually is for your Jesus. You actually think 500 zombies invaded Jerusalem ? The parables and preaching content of the gospels reflect the concerns of Rabbinic Judaism from later in the 1st Century. It could be (seeing that the literary structure of the gospels is MYTH as Carrier points out ... we are discussing Carrier here, right), that later in the 1st Century, a group combined the circulating myths with messiah expectations, (there were in general, no "records" available to most to "check" anything at that point ... thus could have invented anything, and certainly a dying Jesus in no way met the expectations without "mythic addition", and redefinitions) and thus was born "The Way" subsect of Judaism, which eventually turned into and separated out as Christianity. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...n-display/

So there were a variety of early messiah claimants and historical figures who later people invented an amalgamation of, that combined these stories together to correspond to one person?

So these later inventors where following around a variety of different cult religious cults, gathering together their teachings, and beliefs, and the drawing a single uniform one their own?

This later group of inventors were another messianic cult themselves who believed the messiah would be an amalgamation of a variety of other historical figures and messiah claimants?

And If we take an account like Mark's gospel, how many of these supposed figures did Mark use to compose his gospel, do we have evidence of?

"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, 08:08 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 06:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The parables and preaching content of the gospels reflect the concerns of Rabbinic Judaism from later in the 1st Century.

If all your saying here is that Jesus teachings and parables are aligned with certain strains of thoughts of Judaism, nothing particularly outside the parameters here, well that'd be sort of a no duh. Now if your saying the writers of the Gospels attributed to Jesus a variety of parables that belonged to other Jewish rabbis that might be interesting. But I don't think you're arguing that though

"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, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 08:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 06:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nice try. No. It is entirely possible that based on a NUMBER of earlier figures, LATER people invented an amalgamation of them all. Yes there is proof of some of them. More than there actually is for your Jesus. You actually think 500 zombies invaded Jerusalem ? The parables and preaching content of the gospels reflect the concerns of Rabbinic Judaism from later in the 1st Century. It could be (seeing that the literary structure of the gospels is MYTH as Carrier points out ... we are discussing Carrier here, right), that later in the 1st Century, a group combined the circulating myths with messiah expectations, (there were in general, no "records" available to most to "check" anything at that point ... thus could have invented anything, and certainly a dying Jesus in no way met the expectations without "mythic addition", and redefinitions) and thus was born "The Way" subsect of Judaism, which eventually turned into and separated out as Christianity. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...n-display/

So there were a variety of early messiah claimants and historical figures who later people invented an amalgamation of, that combined these stories together to correspond to one person?

So these later inventors where following around a variety of different cult religious cults, gathering together their teachings, and beliefs, and the drawing a single uniform one their own?

This later group of inventors were another messianic cult themselves who believed the messiah would be an amalgamation of a variety of other historical figures and messiah claimants?

And If we take an account like Mark's gospel, how many of these supposed figures did Mark use to compose his gospel, do we have evidence of?

Mark didn't "compose" the gospel later known as "Mark".
The answer is "Who knows and who cares" ?
The author of Mark was intent on transmitting the belief in the ''messianic secret". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret
The gospels are not biography, anyway.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
Why would it matter if the author(s) of Mark are stating their beliefs, and not "biography" or "history".

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: