Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 11:25 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 11:17 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 10:36 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The Creationist would be correct.

Now there's a sentence you don't see very often, especially when it is actually true.

The important part is to note that coupled to the rare sentence is a not so rare sentence.

The creationist is correct, for once. Tomasia is wrong, again.

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
19-10-2015, 12:01 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 11:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The important part is to note that coupled to the rare sentence is a not so rare sentence.

The creationist is correct, for once. Tomasia is wrong, again.

I took that as axiomatic.
Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
19-10-2015, 12:03 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 12:10 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Did you read my last post?
(18-10-2015 06:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
Holding onto a position of magic and supernatural entities stretches credulity so far that you look like a crazy person or a very young imaginative child.

An adult reading Harry Potter concludes that the story is made up because it includes magic, a child might think that magic is possible and hence might think HP is possible.
You have made the claim that people's shared beliefs are evidence that what they say is true. Well, since their shared beliefs include magic, that is strong evidence that what they believe is not true. In terms of a court witness it puts the witness themselves into disrepute, nothing they say can be held as reliable. The "witness" can step down, you've said enough.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-10-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 12:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 11:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The important part is to note that coupled to the rare sentence is a not so rare sentence.

The creationist is correct, for once. Tomasia is wrong, again.

I took that as axiomatic.
Drinking Beverage

Fair enough

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
19-10-2015, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 12:59 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 12:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

You means the parables and sayings attributed to Jesus? All parables and stories have sources and authors. There's a body of saying and parables in Gospels, that are attributed to Yeshua. If there other preachers, and jewish teachers whom they belong to, then we'd expect evidence in support of that conclusion, perhaps by finding parables and saying attributed to others, and making a case that the Gospel writers plagiarized them.

Quote: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.

Miracles are commonly attributed to revered ancient historical figures. Caesar and Alexander were born of virgins, and products of divine birth. And variety of fantastical claims are associated with them, religious figures even more so, miracles, virgin birth, even walking on water is attributed to folks like the Buddha, even Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard have a great deal of miraculous attributes associated with them.

And no these factors don't put the whole story into question, they just put those particular parts into question. Since the stories contain a variety of pieces and claims, that can be dissected and reasonably argued one way or the other. Either you can argue the crucifixion was made up, or that it was a historical event, and one of these conclusions is far more likely than the other.

Quote:The most likely explanation is that the story is made up and was preached or forced on people.

You mean parts of the story. It's very unlikely that the jews would have made up a fictional messiah, let alone imagined that he was going to be crucified. It would require grounding this fictional messiah into messianic expectations.

Quote:The less likely explanation is that a miracle god/man half breed performed magic and did things that defy natural explanation.

The more likely explanation is a historical Yeshua, who his followers attached divinity and magic too. That the account the material we have, are all what we would expect to find in the period for a historical person, believe by his followers to be the messiah.

"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, 12:57 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The more likely explanation is a historical Yeshua, who his followers attached divinity and magic too. That the account the material we have, are all what we would expect to find in the period for a historical person, believe by his followers to be the messiah.
There is very little evidence (none compelling) that an actual Yeshua lived.

There is even less expectation that parables came from Yeshua and are documented in an accurate fashion.

There is strong evidence that Yeshua was not a god, was not magical, and was not born of a virgin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-10-2015, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 01:32 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 12:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There is very little evidence (none compelling) that an actual Yeshua lived.

And that would be false.

Is there an abundance, and compelling evidence that he did not live? That he's an entirely fictional character?

Or is there little evidence (none compelling) that he's an entirely fictional character either?

Quote:There is even less expectation that parables came from Yeshua and are documented in an accurate fashion.

There's no reasons to assume the parables we have are distorted versions of the originals. It's pretty hard to distort them even in repeated translations, distortion would likely render them unintelligible. How many variety of ways can you present the prodigal son story, beyond a faithful telling of the original. When you have a variety or parables and saying, the follow the same themes, meanings, styles, in conjunction with each other, without showing any abrupt style or thematic changes, the fidelity to the original becomes even more evident.

Quote:There is strong evidence that Yeshua was not a god, was not magical, and was not born of a virgin.

And that strong evidence is that we live in entirely naturalistic and godless universe , in which magic and supernatural births are impossibilities. Therefore there can be no God, or miraculous powers.

"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, 01:26 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Blink

Shocking

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
19-10-2015, 01:43 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 12:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There is very little evidence (none compelling) that an actual Yeshua lived.

And that would be false.

Is there an abundance, and compelling evidence that he did not live? That he's an entirely fictional character?

Or is there little evidence (none compelling) that he's an entirely fictional character either?

Quote:There is even less expectation that parables came from Yeshua and are documented in an accurate fashion.

There's no reasons to assume the parables we have are distorted versions of the originals. It's pretty hard to distort them even in repeated translations, distortion would likely render them unintelligible. How many variety of ways can you present the prodigal son story, beyond a faithful telling of the original. When you have a variety or parables and saying, the follow the same themes, meanings, styles, in conjunction with each other, without showing any abrupt style or thematic changes, the fidelity to the original becomes even more evident.

Quote:There is strong evidence that Yeshua was not a god, was not magical, and was not born of a virgin.

And that strong evidence is that we live in entirely naturalistic and godless universe , in which magic and supernatural births are impossibilities. Therefore there can be no God, or miraculous powers.

Continuing to assert your opinion as correct while providing no evidence as such and a plethora of logical fallacies, does not make for a convincing argument that you've met your burden of proof.

Also, asserting that which stands in stark contrast to reality, makes you willfully ignorant 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
19-10-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The more likely explanation is a historical Yeshua, who his followers attached divinity and magic to. That the account the material we have, are all what we would expect to find in the period for a historical person, believe by his followers to be the messiah.

I actually agree with this. I don't think Carrier's case for total-mythicism is necessary, nor especially well-founded. The fact that there was an early group of Messianic cultists teaching that there was a man named Jesus who died and rose again to return as the savior of the Believing Jews (and later, the Gentiles/world) is pretty well-established.

It strikes me as likely that there was a real "Davidic Messiah" apocalyptic rabbi whom they followed and later embellished with the death-and-return story and eventually with miracles, rather than an invented total-creation-ex-nihilo, but it's not out of the question for them to have done the latter. It's just that mythicism is a more-extraordinary claim given the things we do know about the early cult's teachings, 20+ years after the story they're claiming occurred, and I don't think the mythicists have met the degree of proof for me to accept that version. An historical rabbi whose legend got massively inflated following his death (including inflated to a Trial by Pilate) by their hope that their leader would return from the dead seems much more likely to me.

"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: