Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Continuing to assert your opinion as correct while providing no vidence 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

Passive Aggressive Negative conclusion from affirmative premises 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
19-10-2015, 02:18 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 01:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Continuing to assert your opinion as correct while providing no vidence 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

Passive Aggressive Negative conclusion from affirmative premises fallacy

Now you're responses are just flat-out incoherent jumbles of words

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
19-10-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is there an abundance, and compelling evidence that he did not live? That he's an entirely fictional character?
Oh yes, I have the official certificate of non existance dated back 2,000 years and issued by the Roman government. They created one for all non existing people.
In support of that I have drawings from that period and place and Yeshua appears in none of the drawings. Also in support we have many eye witness accounts written from people that lived at that place and time, all of whom attested to never having seen or met Yeshua (the non existant person). It's pretty compelling evidence.
Quite frankly Tomasia, the burdon of proof is on the existance of Yeshua, not the non existence. For obvious reasons.
(19-10-2015 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's no reasons to assume the parables we have are distorted versions of the originals.
The reason to assume the parables would be distored are very compelling.
They were not written down by any eye witnesses, they were not written down within a decade of supposedly being spoken. They documented accounts were not verified by the source or any eye witnesses.
(19-10-2015 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's pretty hard to distort them even in repeated translations, distortion would likely render them unintelligible.
When people re-tell stories, they tell it in their own words as people's memories aren't good enough to retell stories word for word. People also change stories (perhaps unintentionally) as their own words may have slightly different meanings or perhaps they haven't fully understood the story they heard and changed it in a way that makes sense for them (i..e corrected the story). Most of the stories in the bible are non sensical.
You think they make sense because you interprete them in a way that makes sense for you.

(19-10-2015 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.
In that there has never been a recorded and scientifically verified miracle.
People cannot walk on water, they cannot turn water to wine, they cannot rise from the dead, they cannot cure epilepsy by casting out demons.
There have never been any instances of this occurring and yet YOU believe Jesus did it because YOU choose faith and belief rather than evidence. And your faith and belief is in Jesus rather than other mythical entities that are purported to do magical things, which you choose to disbelieve.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
19-10-2015, 03:09 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 03:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 07:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I have given a number of reasons why one might question the existence of Jesus, which you have not even bothered to address. All you can do is "get a spine", and "mythicists are not a real academic group", (with no references). You still can't. You think your bullshit should be accepted as the view that needs arguing against. There is no evidence that a Jesus existed, and you have none. The gospels are evidence of nothing. How many times do you need to be told that ? This thread is discussing Carrier's views on the historicity of Jesus. You have yet to make one coherent reasonable comment on any of his views. I don't have to offer anything. There is no secular evidence that a Jesus existed, and Carrier presents a number of reasons why his existence might be questioned. You are totally unfamiliar with any views of ANY of those scholars who question his existence. You clearly are in this WAY over your head, and don't even know what thread you're in. You are clearly desperate to allow yourself think that the bullshit of Christianity is a reasonable position.

In short : you have nothing but the gospels. The gospels are statments of faith from non-eyewitnesses, written many many years later, and conflict in many important ways, and have the literary format of myth. They are not reliable history. Jesus may have existed. There really is no way to know at this point. There are many good reasons to doubt he ever did exist.

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, 03:13 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's pretty compelling evidence.
Quite frankly Tomasia, the burdon of proof is on the existance of Yeshua, not the non existence. For obvious reasons.

Except of course non-existence here, would mean an entirely fictional character. There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one.

You want to have it both ways right? Unlike Harry Potter, you wanna suggest that the evidence is neither compelling, or strong enough to conclude one way or the other? Therefore we should be agnostic about historicity vs mythicist arguments, unlike Harry Potter, in which most of us will likely agree is a purely fictional character?

Quote:Oh yes, I have the official certificate of non existance dated back 2,000 years and issued by the Roman government. They created one for all non existing people.
In support of that I have drawings from that period and place and Yeshua appears in none of the drawings.

Yes, because we require official certificate to discern that certain characters are entirely fictional? To conclude that a character was purely invented by the imagination of the writers?

Quote:The reason to assume the parables would be distored are very compelling.
They were not written down by any eye witnesses, they were not written down within a decade of supposedly being spoken. They documented accounts were not verified by the source or any eye witnesses.

No, while its quite difficult to remember all that you’ve said in yours post, or in an employee handbook, it's not that hard to remember the pithy parables and sayings of the Gospel. I can recite for you much of those saying verbatim, because I heard them so often. In fact if someone distorted one of them, it would be like my wife recognizing my butchered lyrics of a song she likes. Now, the Gospels weren’t penned purely from memory either, but complied by a variety of written sources that proceeded them, like Q, L, M, sayings sources, etc…. Theses sources were written down by hand, not by printing press. So when Matthew, uses a source common with Mark it’s quite unlikely to be the same exact copy Mark used, yet they show a uniformity, a consistency. There’s no distortion evident in the parables or sayings that find themselves multiply attested to by the Gospel writers here, who belonged to their own respective and distinct communities.

If they were distorted to such an extent, we’d expect at least some of those sources used to have distorted rendition of the same parable or saying. Some parables and sayings are used a bit differently by some authors than the other, like the talent parable in Luke and Matthew, but both use the same parable to emphasize different points. If there were variety of distorted reading, we’d expect to find distorted renditions of these parables and sayings but we don’t, instead what we see is great deal of uniformity between them.

Quote:When people re-tell stories, they tell it in their own words as people's memories aren't good enough to retell stories word for word

The structure of the parables, and sayings make them quite easy to remember word for word, they're composed and structured in a way to be readily memorable. If we take a variety of believers, and have them state verses they remembered by heart, you likely would find very little deviation or different renditions of the same verse. Think of how easily we remember our favorite quotes, or song lyrics.

We're talking of a civilizations that primarily relied on the oral tradition, so teachings, parables, stories, sayings are composed in such a way, for the sake of this means of communication, to be easy to remember, to repeat, and communicate, hence the reasons it's rather easy to remember bible verses verbatim, but not that easy to remember anything Hume said verbatim.

"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, 03:17 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's pretty compelling evidence.
Quite frankly Tomasia, the burdon of proof is on the existance of Yeshua, not the non existence. For obvious reasons.

Except of course non-existence here, would mean an entirely fictional character. There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one.

You want to have it both ways right? Unlike Harry Potter, you wanna suggest that the evidence is neither compelling, or strong enough to conclude one way or the other? Therefore we should be agnostic about historicity vs mythicist arguments, unlike Harry Potter, in which most of us will likely agree is a purely fictional character?

Quote:Oh yes, I have the official certificate of non existance dated back 2,000 years and issued by the Roman government. They created one for all non existing people.
In support of that I have drawings from that period and place and Yeshua appears in none of the drawings.

Yes, because we require official certificate to discern that certain characters are entirely fictional? To conclude that a character was purely invented by the imagination of the writers?

Quote:The reason to assume the parables would be distored are very compelling.
They were not written down by any eye witnesses, they were not written down within a decade of supposedly being spoken. They documented accounts were not verified by the source or any eye witnesses.

No, while its quite difficult to remember all that you’ve said in yours post, it's not that hard to remember the pithy parables and sayings of the Gospel. I can recited for you much of those saying verbatim, because I heard them so often. In fact if someone distorted one them, it would be like my wife recognizing my butchered lyrics of a song she likes. Now, the Gospels weren’t penned from purely memory, but complied by a variety of written sources that proceeded them, like Q, L, M, sayings sources, etc…. Theses saying were written down by hand, not by printing press. So when Matthew, uses a source common with Mark it’s quite unlikely to be the same exact copy Mark used, yet they show a uniformity, a consistency. There’s no distortion evident in the parables or sayings that find themselves multiply attested to by the Gospel writers here, who belonged to their own respective and distinct communities.

If they were distorted to such an extent, we’d expect at least some of those sources used to have distorted rendition of the same parable or saying. But yes, some parables and sayings are used a bit differently by some authors than the other, like the talent parable in Luke and Matthew, but both use the same parable to emphasize different points. If there were variety of distorted reading, we’d expect to find distorted rendition of these parables and sayings but we don’t, instead what we see is great deal of uniformity between them.

Quote:When people re-tell stories, they tell it in their own words as people's memories aren't good enough to retell stories word for word

The structure of the parables, and sayings make them quite easy to remember word for word, they're composed and structured in a way to be readily memorable. If we take a variety of believers, and have them state verses they remember by heart, you likely would find very little deviation or different rendition of the same verse. Think of how easily we remember our favorite quotes, or song lyrics.

We're talking of a civilizations that primarily relied on the oral tradition, so teachings, parables, stories, sayings are composed in such a way, for the sake of this means of communication, to be easy to remember, to repeat, and communicate, hence the reasons it's rather easy to remember bible verses verbatim, but not that easy to remember anything Hume said verbatim.

Give me one piece of positive evidence that demonstrates proof positive that Harry Potter or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or fairies, etc, are fictional.

We'll wait while you find evidence that demonstrates proof positive of nonexistence. 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, 03:22 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This thread is discussing Carrier's views on the historicity of Jesus. You have yet to make one coherent reasonable comment on any of his views. I don't have to offer anything. There is no secular evidence that a Jesus existed, and Carrier presents a number of reasons why his existence might be questioned. You are totally unfamiliar with any views of ANY of those scholars who question his existence. You clearly are in this WAY over your head, and don't even know what thread you're in. You are clearly desperate to allow yourself think that the bullshit of Christianity is a reasonable position.

Who here support's Carrier mythicist position? You? Is it just you? The individuals I've been arguing with seem inclined to avoid supporting Carrier's view, they seem bent on arguing that we should draw no conclusions whatsoever, rather than support one particular conclusion like Carrier's over Historicity.

There's seem to be no apologist for Carrier for me to be arguing with, but just a bunch of fence sitters.

"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, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 03:32 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Give me one piece of positive evidence that demonstrates proof positive that Harry Potter or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or fairies, etc, are fictional.

We'll wait while you find evidence that demonstrates proof positive of nonexistence. Drinking Beverage

Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character created by the author of his books, JK Rowling's imagination.

Is that too hard of a pill for you to swallow? Is this conclusion more likely to be the case, then Harry Potter was based on the life and message of a historical child named Harry Potter, who thought he was a wizard?

Or are we to conclude that only do you have a hard time accepting a historical Jesus, but also an entirely fictional Harry Potter?

"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, 03:30 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 03:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Give me one piece of positive evidence that demonstrates proof positive that Harry Potter or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or fairies, etc, are fictional.

We'll wait while you find evidence that demonstrates proof positive of nonexistence. Drinking Beverage

Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character created by the author of his books, JK Rowling's imagination.

Is that too hard of a pill for you to swallow?

Still waiting on that evidence that demonstrates proof positive of nonexistence/fictionality. Drinking Beverage


Hint: you're so fucking in over your head with this, you don't realize you're wearing cement shoes.

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, 03:41 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 03:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character created by the author of his books, JK Rowling's imagination.

Is that too hard of a pill for you to swallow?

Still waiting on that evidence that demonstrates proof positive of nonexistence/fictionality. Drinking Beverage


Hint: you're so fucking in over your head with this, you don't realize you're wearing cement shoes.

Says the guy unable to believe that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character. Apparently you're agnostic on that question too.

"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: