Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2015, 08:27 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 08:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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".

You're suggesting an alternative non-historical explanations, as more likely than historical one, that this offers greater explanatory capacity than a secular historical account. You made a variety of wild unsupported claims, then when questions a bit further, you avoid taking any ownership of this suggested alternative, that stretches credulity.
much it would stretch credulity. Yet you wanna sell that explanation, while ignoring the variety of preposterous assumptions that we'd have to believe to make it. It would require a belief in the mother of all conspiracy theories to just make it somewhat workable.

"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, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 08:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 08:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 08:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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".

You're suggesting an alternative non-historical explanations, as more likely than historical one, that this offers greater explanatory capacity than a secular historical account. You made a variety of wild unsupported claims, then when questions a bit further, you avoid taking any ownership of this suggested alternative, that stretches credulity.
much it would stretch credulity. Yet you wanna sell that explanation, while ignoring the variety of preposterous assumptions that we'd have to believe to make it. It would require a belief in the mother of all conspiracy theories to just make it somewhat workable.

You have no (secular) "historical explanation". There is no such thing. All you have are beliefs of believers. Your explanations in the context of all the other bullshit claims that come with it are no better. The only reason you say they're "wild unsupported claims" is because you are totally unfamiliar with real scholarship. You are the one with the preposterous bullshit assumptions. I repeat. You actually think 500 zombies invaded Jerusalem, yet ask me about "wild conspiracy theories" ? You said shared beliefs are evidence. If that is true, YOU must accept all shared belief systems. Nice try. I don't think you even watched the Carrier video. You know nothing about the period in question. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblia...zar_16.htm
Using religion to control people is not a "wild idea". The Persians/Jews did it upon the return from the Exile, Islam was invented and used to control the Arabs, and there is no reason Christianity could not have been invented to manipulate the Jews by the Romans. It's a pattern in human 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
18-10-2015, 08:55 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have no (secular) "historical explanation". There is no such thing.

Except of course any historical explanations that doesn't require a belief in God or the supernatural, like the ones described by Ehrman, or the ones presented in any secular university.

Quote:The only reason you say they're "wild unsupported claims" is because you are totally unfamiliar with real scholarship.

Real scholarship doesn't support the mythicist position, if you think otherwise than its you whose unfamiliar with it.

Quote:I repeat. You actually think 500 zombies invaded Jerusalem, yet ask me about "wild conspiracy theories" ?

I think that? That would come as a surprise to me.

Quote:You said shared beliefs are evidence. If that is true, YOU must accept all shared belief systems.

No I claimed that either some set of shared beliefs are accounted for better by historical events, and persons, or they're not. Either it's evidence supportive of one conclusion, or another.

"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
19-10-2015, 04:51 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 05:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 08:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Except of course any historical explanations that doesn't require a belief in God or the supernatural, like the ones described by Ehrman, or the ones presented in any secular university.

Which you utterly fail to reference.
Carrier is a FAR more "real" scholar then you will ever be, as are increasingly, others. All you can do is generally demean the "mythicist" position as you are not even conversant with the REAL arguments, Mr. "Shared Beliefs" , (who hasn't answered the 2 direct questions in a failed attempt to deflect attention from that fact.)

1. Do you believe 500 zombies also rose with Jesus and invaded Jerusalem, yes or no ? It's in the gospel. If not, why not, and what is the difference between that claim and the claim of crucifixion, and how do you tell the difference.

2. You said shared beliefs were "evidence" of historicity. What other belief systems is this evidence of or a "better explanation" for ?

(18-10-2015 08:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No I claimed that either some set of shared beliefs are accounted for better by historical events, and persons, or they're not. Either it's evidence supportive of one conclusion, or another.

That's what that means. A simple list of other shared beliefs or other instances where shared beliefs works as evidence is true will suffice.

You didn't watch the Carrier video did you ? Let's see your poll of SECULARLY employed scholars who have weighed in on this question, or tell us exactly how it is you make the claim and how you know what you assert about the mythicist position, (and while you're at it, what your credentials are to discuss the topic at all ) ?

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
19-10-2015, 06:09 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 06:14 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-10-2015 05:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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 they're evidence supportive of the conclusion that they are based on a non-historical Jesus, or they are historical ones.

You can say whatever you want about the evidence, the sufficiency and reliability of it, that its not eye witness or contemporary accounts, the real gauge of it, is the inability to offer a competing non-historical conclusion that doesn't stretch credulity.

If the evidence truly insufficient as you believe it is, than you should be able to offer a competing non-historical explanation with remotely the same explanatory capacity as historical ones. But you can't. So what the say about your accusations of "no evidence"?

"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
19-10-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 05:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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 they're evidence supportive of the conclusion that they are based on a non-historical Jesus, or they are historical ones.

You can say whatever you want about the evidence, the sufficiency and reliability of it, that its not eye witness or contemporary accounts, the real gauge of it, is the inability to offer a competing non-historical conclusion that doesn't stretch credulity.

If the evidence truly insufficient as you believe it is, than you should be able to offer a competing non-historical explanation with remotely the same explanatory capacity as historical ones. But you can't. So what the say about your accusations of "no evidence"?

Still peddling your religion with logical fallacies?

"Either they're evidence supportive of the conclusion that they are based on a non-historical Jesus, or they are historical ones. "

False Dichotomy Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
19-10-2015, 06:25 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can say whatever you want about the evidence, the sufficiency and reliability of it, that its not eye witness or contemporary accounts, the real gauge of it, is the inability to offer a competing non-historical conclusion that doesn't stretch credulity.

Complete bullshit. One does not have to offer anything in the face of mythical crap. You continue to dance around the fact that you are supporting, by this line of preposterous nonsense, ALL bullshit claims of ALL bullshit claimants. No one has to present alternative competing explanations for bigfoot or unicorns.

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
19-10-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 04:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. Do you believe 500 zombies also rose with Jesus and invaded Jerusalem, yes or no ? It's in the gospel. If not, why not, and what is the difference between that claim and the claim of crucifixion, and how do you tell the difference.

Well for one, you seem to have conflated two separate passages, the one in Matthew where the tombs opened and the saints who were sleeping awoke, and appeared among many, and Paul writing of 500 witnesses of a resurrected Jesus.

But in regards to the Matthew passage, it’s not multiply attested, none of the other Gospels writers mention it, it doesn’t appear in Mark, or Luke, or even John, though we would expect it to if it did occur, or if it was a commonly held belief. Secondly it’s a supernatural event. Though supernatural attributes get attributed to revered historical figures quite frequently, like Caesar’s divine birth, or Alexander’s virgin birth, supernatural claims can never rise to historical facts. We’re just looking for the best natural explanations here, explanations derived by methodological naturalism.

When it comes to Matthew, that most likely explanation of that passage is the the writer invented that, to bolster and reemphasize Christ’s own resurrection. The fact that Matthew is the only writer that mentions this little nugget, is supportive that it was his own invention.

The crucifixion on the other hand is multiply attested to. If we’re to imagine that it was purely invented belief, we’d have to presuppose a variety of other things, such as what would be a plausible motivation for inventing it? We’d have to presuppose that a crucified a messiah was already a part of Jewish messianic expectation, as opposed to the followers of Jesus having to confront unexpected historical demise for their leader, and having to resort to some inventive interpretations to make a part of those prophecies. And variety of others thing as well.

If as you suggested Jesus didn’t exist at all, let alone die, and that his character and death are fictional. Then we’d have to presuppose that such expectations were a part of messianic expectations at the time. In fact a common criticism leveled at Christians who declare that Jesus was the messiah prophesied about it, that this was just a desperate and haphazard attempt by his followers to read Jesus back into OT prophecies, would no longer be valid in lieu of a non-historical Jesus. Because a non-historical, purely fictional/mythical Jesus, would be one created by the prophesies, created by prophetic expectations of the time, etc… Jesus would no longer be a failed messiah claimant, but an invented model, an ideal of what a messiah should be. You can’t have it both ways.

We should be able to find traces of the existence of such Jewish cults at the time if they existed, who were expecting some sort of spiritual messiah, that had no historical presence, but some sort of spiritual form.

You’d have also provide a plausible explanations for Paul’s encounter with his brothers and disciples, Josephus writing of James’ death.

And not just that, this non-historical explanation would have to be more convincing, offer greater explanatory scope, than a historical explanation. If it’s stretches credulity like creationist explanations, then that’s a problem. If you can’t form one, that’s a problem. If all you can do is reference someone who offers such an explanation, but can’t actually offer or defend that explanation yourself, that’s a problem too.

If you have such an explanations I want to hear, if your propose a reasonable alternative, I’m all ears. I would enjoy nothing more, then to hear you offer it. But the reality here, is you’re most likely empty handed, and prefer not to embarrass yourself by arguing a mythicist position. While you salivate over Carrier credentials, like creationist salivate over the credentials of Hugh Ross, you’re not particularly inclined to defend his arguments here now are you? I wonder why that is?

"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
19-10-2015, 07:54 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Complete bullshit. One does not have to offer anything in the face of mythical crap. You continue to dance around the fact that you are supporting, by this line of preposterous nonsense, ALL bullshit claims of ALL bullshit claimants. No one has to present alternative competing explanations for bigfoot or unicorns.

If you want to argue a mythicist/ahistorical position then yes you have to offer something. If you want to argue that a position that Jesus was a historical person, is not a valid one, then yes you'd have to develop a spine and arguing why it isn't.

If you think that no reasonable person should conclude that there was a historical Jesus, the sort that folks like Ehrman conclude existed, then you have to offer something to validate that claim.

"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
19-10-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Either they're evidence supportive of the conclusion that they are based on a non-historical Jesus, or they are historical ones.

You can say whatever you want about the evidence, the sufficiency and reliability of it, that its not eye witness or contemporary accounts, the real gauge of it, is the inability to offer a competing non-historical conclusion that doesn't stretch credulity.

If the evidence truly insufficient as you believe it is, than you should be able to offer a competing non-historical explanation with remotely the same explanatory capacity as historical ones. But you can't. So what the say about your accusations of "no evidence"?

Still peddling your religion with logical fallacies?

"Either they're evidence supportive of the conclusion that they are based on a non-historical Jesus, or they are historical ones. "

False Dichotomy Drinking Beverage

Equivocation Fallacy

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: