Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(12-06-2015 09:30 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  There IS a Jesus of Myth. That is not even in question.

That's where I stand in the whole thing. There is a huge myth surrounding him and his actual existence. He could have existed and had his story thrown together with many other similar stories. The bible in general is written in such a way that if you question anything, instantly your wrong to do that. Any story that says it's wrong to question the veracity of it, should instantly be questioned. But 2000 years ago, people didn't have the means to question and could be killed for suggesting it.

He might not have actually existed, it could be simply an account of a few "messiahs" (what we might call today a doomsday cult) that were around at the time. They've always been around and are still around today. But completely made up because it's impossible to prove one way or another and honestly it's easier to make up a person and convince others, than to take a person who actually existed and insert them into a story and hope no one who knew them shows up to shit on things.

I'll forever maintain that first "church" believers weren't believers at all -- And it's important to recognize the first were the Catholics and all the other protestant shit sprang from them.

They got to keep their feasts and holidays -- which are important to the "regular people" but saw the temples changed from Jupiter to something else. Seriously, incredibly important ...

But they since they got to keep the stuff that was important to them...they didn't care much -- temples were appropriated and altered, holidays were given different names. With each passing generation since the indoctrination took a firmer grip on the populace -- then you start seeing the believers™ coming out of the woodwork.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-06-2015, 01:00 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2015 01:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(12-06-2015 11:11 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I read the Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems. I may look at the other book.

One place where I think the mythicist argument falls apart, irretrievably, is Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord." To use Carrier's terminology, I think that reference is 100 percent probable on minimal historicity and 0 percent probable on minimal mythicism. That alone should settle the issue. I just don't see any way around it.

But again, me = layman. Not qualified to argue either way.

Thank you all for the reasonable estimate of when we'll see expert rebuttals.

Yabut all Christians were called "brother" ... so there's no way to know how that was intended. It could just have meant that James was a Christian, (and "brother" member of the Way sect).

Bottom line we'll never really know, (I lean to he's a total made up fraud) ... but real or not, there are mountains of reasons to doubt all the invented nonsense later associated with a "perhaps" (one of many) wandering preachers. They allude briefly in the Price video the problems with the trial. There has NEVER ONCE in all of Jewish history been a convening of the Sanhedrin, or a trial on Passover weekend. That never happened.

The things that "do" it for me are :

1. The content of the preaching is more in line with the "goings on" in Judaism 50 years later, (after temple was destroyed).
2. Everything in Acts could not have been the theological content as early as it's set. It all reflects decades of theological development.

... but ... we know the Jews were pissed as hell about the sub-sect in Judaism (the "Way" people) who were the group that turned into "Christians" by the end of the First Century, because we know for sure there were Expulsion Curses required to be read in the synagogues by (the Gamaliel III, the grandson of Gamaliel the Great, who was a High Priest) then ... so whatever happened, was well underway by then.

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
12-06-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
The fictive kinship answer just struck me as too convenient by half.

But again, I do not feel qualified to support Carrier or to rebut him. That's why I'm interested in scholarly responses (and I'm satisfied with the answer that I'd better be patient waiting for one).

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
12-06-2015, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2015 05:45 PM by Chas.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(12-06-2015 09:30 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Thank you all for remaining within the spirit of the question. I was terrified to even post this thread because of the rabid reaction of certain people (elsewhere) to the mythicist "debate." I have been compared to a 9/11 Truther and a Holocaust Denier for merely finding the subject interesting and keeping an open mind about it.

Mythicism jerked me out of theism, so I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for it. But that doesn't make it true or accurate. I am not a mythicist in the sense of being sure Jesus never existed at all. But I do believe the historicists doth protest too much regarding the quality of their evidence. The problem is, the historicists have the experts on their side. The overwhelming majority of experts. The suffocating majority of experts. And they are, without a doubt, MUCH better qualified to evaluate the evidence than I am. So I have to confess that my belief regarding the quality of their evidence is at best ill-informed.

I'm seeking to improve my knowledge of the evidence. I read Carrier's book because the subject and the argument entertains me. Do I think he succeeded in making an ironclad case for mythicism? No. Do I think his case is as strong as he concludes in his book? Again, no. Am I qualified to dispute him? No. BUT, the experts who ARE qualified to rebut his argument, I trust, will do so.

I don't know if my ambivalence is coming through. What I am tired of is the quick descent into personal insult leveled at me just for being ambivalent.

For now I trust the overwhelming consensus of the experts. Whether I am right or wrong to do so is inconsequential: There IS a Jesus of Myth. That is not even in question. The only question is whether there was a Jesus of history. On that, I guess you could call me an agnostic historicist. I believe there was. But I don't claim to know it. Certainly not with the confidence of Bart Ehrman, whose book on the subject struck me as amateurish. It's something I could have thrown together (and if it's something I could have thrown together, then it's not good enough).

My opinion.

There seem to me to be good arguments on both sides of the question.

There are also bad arguments on both sides of the question.

Neither side is terribly convincing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2015, 06:35 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(12-06-2015 09:30 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Thank you all for remaining within the spirit of the question. I was terrified to even post this thread because of the rabid reaction of certain people (elsewhere) to the mythicist "debate." I have been compared to a 9/11 Truther and a Holocaust Denier for merely finding the subject interesting and keeping an open mind about it.
...
I don't know if my ambivalence is coming through. What I am tired of is the quick descent into personal insult leveled at me just for being ambivalent.
...

Weirdo!

Your kind make me sick! You come over here with your fanatical, dogmatic ambivalence...

Huh

Is that the kinda thing you were expecting? Big Grin

We (culturally) tend to reserve that reaction for people who insist on telling us what we believe... never for anyone simply asking questions.



(12-06-2015 12:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  ...
The bible in general is written in such a way that if you question anything, instantly your wrong to do that. Any story that says it's wrong to question the veracity of it, should instantly be questioned.
...

I think I picked up on that at Sunday School (so many years ago) and again I thank my critical-thinking mother and my downright cynical father for my inherited/genetic scepticism.

Imagine going into a bookshop and picking up a dusty tome which states in its intro...
Quote:Penned by unknown authors, based on a solid foundation of generations of verbal tradition, these words of wisdom date back many centuries and are true ... all of it ... every word. And if you don't believe it, you are a fool in your heart, you're just dumb ... and what's more you are damned! So stick that up your arse!

Now imagine yourself putting it back on the shelf, unread, in between My Story: The Autobiography of King Arthur and In Their Own Words: The Factual Accounts Of Robin Hood's Lovers

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
12-06-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:One place where I think the mythicist argument falls apart, irretrievably, is Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord."


You are assuming that the "paul" part of the story is any more real than the rest of the bullshit. Dubious.[/quote]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
12-06-2015, 09:06 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(12-06-2015 01:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yabut all Christians were called "brother" ... so there's no way to know how that was intended. It could just have meant that James was a Christian, (and "brother" member of the Way sect).

You would know better than me, Buck, but I've never bought into this. While it's true Jesus referred to his followers generically as brothers, how many times in the bible are people specifically referred to by name AND as a brother of Jesus? Whenever James is referred to, it's almost always as his brother, and it's almost always in conjunction with "his mother Mary." The two are almost always linked, and it seems clear he is Jesus' half-bro. Why refer to just him as the brother of Jesus? Are others referred in this specific manner?

I really would like a solid answer on this because, as a former Roman Catholic, it's one of the the things that I debated with my SIL about, how Mary's perpetual virginity is so important to the Catholics yet it's easily debunked. Joseph didn't have six kids before he married Mary and Jesus is referred to in many spots as having specific brothers via Mary and Joe.

You said there's no way to know, but is that true?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(12-06-2015 06:35 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-06-2015 09:30 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Thank you all for remaining within the spirit of the question. I was terrified to even post this thread because of the rabid reaction of certain people (elsewhere) to the mythicist "debate." I have been compared to a 9/11 Truther and a Holocaust Denier for merely finding the subject interesting and keeping an open mind about it.
...
I don't know if my ambivalence is coming through. What I am tired of is the quick descent into personal insult leveled at me just for being ambivalent.
...

Weirdo!

Your kind make me sick! You come over here with your fanatical, dogmatic ambivalence...

Huh

Is that the kinda thing you were expecting? Big Grin

We (culturally) tend to reserve that reaction for people who insist on telling us what we believe... never for anyone simply asking questions.



(12-06-2015 12:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  ...
The bible in general is written in such a way that if you question anything, instantly your wrong to do that. Any story that says it's wrong to question the veracity of it, should instantly be questioned.
...

I think I picked up on that at Sunday School (so many years ago) and again I thank my critical-thinking mother and my downright cynical father for my inherited/genetic scepticism.

Imagine going into a bookshop and picking up a dusty tome which states in its intro...
Quote:Penned by unknown authors, based on a solid foundation of generations of verbal tradition, these words of wisdom date back many centuries and are true ... all of it ... every word. And if you don't believe it, you are a fool in your heart, you're just dumb ... and what's more you are damned! So stick that up your arse!

Now imagine yourself putting it back on the shelf, unread, in between My Story: The Autobiography of King Arthur and In Their Own Words: The Factual Accounts Of Robin Hood's Lovers

Wink


The reaction I received elsehwere was along the lines of "Jesus mythicists are on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers." You know, the kind of comment that inspires free exploration of ideas and unabashed discussion of issues.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
15-06-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
"My God exists more than your God!"
Paul Cusick.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
15-06-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(15-06-2015 09:42 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  The reaction I received elsehwere was along the lines of "Jesus mythicists are on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers." You know, the kind of comment that inspires free exploration of ideas and unabashed discussion of issues.


Usually they start out claiming that "all historians agree on an HJ." And then, when you point out Carrier and Price they start with the "all real historians agree." A modified No True Scotsman argument by which they try to define themselves as the only qualified commentators. Religious asswipes are famous for that kind of bullshit.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: