Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 03:49 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 03:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

Still waiting

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, 03:51 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 03:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

Come on, grow a pair and deliver the evidence of nonexistence/fictionality you claim exists.

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, 04:15 PM
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.

Or they're more or less equally doubtful.

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

No. This is where you get into deep doo-doo: they are not evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 08:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Someone sure seems to be projecting Drinking Beverage

If some creationist came in here. Claiming to lack a belief in evolution. Declaring that every person in here has the burden of proof to convince him that it's true. His dishonesty would be readily apparent to everyone here.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In that scenario, those claiming evolution to be true have the burden of proof.

You really don't understand how this works. Facepalm

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character
No there is not. Perhaps the books or movies included a disclaimer "The events and characters within the following movie are entirely fictional" IDK.
You could ask J. K. Rowling while she is alive whether she made up her stories or whether they were based on real people.
Perhaps she knows of a little boy with glasses that was forced to live under the stairwell? Perhaps he had a scar or birthmark that looked like a lightening bolt?
Who knows.

Regarding Vampires, isn't it uncanny that the vast majority of writers talk about them being creatures of the night, allergic to sunlight, eternal creatures that drink human blood.
Must be some truth in that, right? surely they can't all be wrong. How come they are all so aligned?
Do we have evidence to prove that vampires don't exist? We don't! They must exist then. The stories must be real. Make sure you buy some garlic.
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?
Because Harry Potter travels to a supernatural realm and is a wizard that casts magic spells we ought to consider him fictional.
Because vampires are magical creatures with supernatural strength and ability to fly (without wings or machines), because they are supernaturally eternal we should consider them fictional.
Because Yeshua is deemed half human half supernatural creature with magic abilities, such as walking on water and being supernaturally eternal we should consider him fictional.
Unless of course, some compelling evidence is provided. Faith and belief is not enough, it is moronic to think that faith and belief are required.
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?
What positive evidence can we find? Where are we to look? Assuming the author is long since past and did not disclose the sources of their information.
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  it's not that hard to remember the pithy parables and sayings of the Gospel.
I certainly find the written word easier to remember than the spoken word. But still, 10 years or more of Chinese whispers.
If I had listened to Yeshua do the sermon on the mount and then after just 10 minutes of talking to other people, i was asked to write down what I had heard of the sermon. I'm sure I wouldn't even get 2% correct.
Perhaps next time you are in church you could record the session. Wait just a week (much shorter than 10 years) then take it upon yourself to write down what you remember spoken from the church service. Then play back the recording while reading your written words. See how many words you got wrong.
Next read out your own written words (uncorrected) to someone else.
Don't let the record it, don't let them write it down.
Go back to them a week later, get them to write it down (attempting word for word) see how accurate they are. Get them to read their writing to someone else, a week later get them to write it down. See how close this resembles the recording from the church service.
Do this for 10 years and see how close the last rendition represents the original recording.
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I can recite for you much of those saying verbatim, because I heard them so often.
How many times did the "witnesses" of the sermon on the mount get to hear it? Just once?
(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact if someone distorted one of them, it would be like my wife recognizing my butchered lyrics of a song she likes.
If a witness gave a distorted rendition to a non witness of the sermon, would the non witness recognise that the story was distorted? If they then went home and repeated it to their wife, would their wife recognise that it was distorted? (Remember this non witness and his wife, they weren't at the sermon, they have never heard it before)

(19-10-2015 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Who transcribed the sermon on the mount at the time it was being spoken?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
19-10-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.

"The Jews" didn't. A very few Jews believed in that messiah and it spread to gentiles.

Quote:
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.

It doesn't matter whether or not there was a basis. The Jesus described in the Bible did not exist.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2015, 04:33 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's seem to be no apologist for Carrier for me to be arguing with, but just a bunch of fence sitters.

Why do you have such a problem with people who are agnostic about something? Consider

Many here don't think that either side has a convincing argument; the only honest position is 'I don't know'.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2015, 06:34 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 04:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No there is not. Perhaps the books or movies included a disclaimer "The events and characters within the following movie are entirely fictional" IDK.

Or in other words, without some explicit disclaimer by the writer, you’re not able to infer whether a characters in a story is entirely fictional, created solely by the writers imagination, or based on the life and history of an actual historical person?

Quote:Because Harry Potter travels to a supernatural realm and is a wizard that casts magic spells we ought to consider him fictional.
Because vampires are magical creatures with supernatural strength and ability to fly (without wings or machines), because they are supernaturally eternal we should consider them fictional.
Because Yeshua is deemed half human half supernatural creature with magic abilities, such as walking on water and being supernaturally eternal we should consider him fictional.
Unless of course, some compelling evidence is provided. Faith and belief is not enough, it is moronic to think that faith and belief are required.

So according to this entirely contradictory thought process illustrated above, we can infer whether or not a character is fictional by the supernatural attributes assigned to him. Since we know that supernatural stuff is impossible, this would suggest that when something supernatural happens in a Harry Potter book, or in the accounts of Jesus, we can rule these aspects as created by the imaginations of their authors, as opposed to being based on historical persons or actual events.

But when it comes to non-supernatural attributes, entirely naturalistic events, such as the crucifixion, we can’t infer one way or the other? While supernatural scenarios allows us to infer fictional elements of a story, natural scenarios don’t allow us to infer historical elements.

It appears that even if the accounts avoid assigning any supernatural attributes to Jesus, you wouldn’t be inclined to infer that they were based on an actual historical events or person. While supernatural attributes allow you to infer those aspects are fictional, we can’t infer from natural attributes and events that those aspects are historical?

Quote:I certainly find the written word easier to remember than the spoken word. But still, 10 years or more of Chinese whispers.
If I had listened to Yeshua do the sermon on the mount and then after just 10 minutes of talking to other people, i was asked to write down what I had heard of the sermon. I'm sure I wouldn't even get 2% correct.
Perhaps next time you are in church you could record the session. Wait just a week (much shorter than 10 years) then take it upon yourself to write down what you remember spoken from the church service. Then play back the recording while reading your written words. See how many words you got wrong.
Next read out your own written words (uncorrected) to someone else.

Well, first of all we don’t live in a period reliant on the oral tradition, or dependent on rote memorization, to pass along religious teaching, saying, parables, and stories. I can just pull out my iPhone for a verse.

And secondly, the difference between the oral tradition and Chinese whispering, is that there’s no whispering. But imagine for a minute a 10 year game of Chinese whisper. If after ten years, the participants of the game had to write down what was whispered to them, what we would expect to find? We’d find all sorts of competing versions of what was communicated, you’d likely end up writing something drastically different than what I write.

If the scenario where played without whispering, rote memorizations, etc.. and we played it for 10 years, then when it came time to pen these sayings and parables down, we find a great deal of homogeny between what’s written among these independent participants. It’s the homogeny that allows us to acknowledge that they have quite faithfully preserved those sayings. It’s a lack of homogeny among participants in a game of Chinese whispering that would be deemed as an unreliable means of preserving information communicated verbally And it’s the great degree of homogeny among these writings, belonging to a variety of different Christian communities, that’s a testament to the reliability of the oral tradition though.

If we lived in a society that was entirely dependent on oral communication, were writing was infeasible, and we had hundred of years together as a community to fine tune this system, we’d likely be able to do so quite well. Uniformity would be attestant to the reliability of our system. We have children who are able to memorize the entire Qur’an, through a concentrated effort to do so, so it shouldn’t be surprising that communities entirely dependent on oral forms of communications have been able to preserve a great deal through rote memorization.

Quote:If a witness gave a distorted rendition to a non witness of the sermon, would the non witness recognise that the story was distorted? If they then went home and repeated it to their wife, would their wife recognise that it was distorted? (Remember this non witness and his wife, they weren't at the sermon, they have never heard it before)

Imagine a man has a variety of followers, committed to memorizing his parables and sayings through reputation, and rote memorization. When the man passed away these communities, expanded into a variety of independent communities under his followers, who acquired other individuals committed to memorizing the parables and sayings through reputation and rote memorization. A man arrives on the scene to gauge the fidelity of this method, so he has these extended individuals, twice removed from the original person, 20 years later put in writing those things they preserved by rote memorization. Would we except in this scenario to find a great deal of divergence between them, as we might in a game of Chinese whisper’s? Perhaps you predict there would be. But when they write what they memorized down, and these written versions don’t show a great deal of divergence, but homogeny, than you’re conclusion would be false.

"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, 06:39 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 03:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's seem to be no apologist for Carrier for me to be arguing with, but just a bunch of fence sitters.

Oh please. Facepalm
All you have to do is take any one of his points and tell us why they are wrong.
Facepalm
Facepalm
Facepalm

Weeping

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, 06:50 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Imagine a man has a variety of followers, committed to memorizing his parables and sayings through reputation, and rote memorization. When the man passed away these communities, expanded into a variety of independent communities under his followers, who acquired other individuals committed to memorizing the parables and sayings through reputation and rote memorization. A man arrives on the scene to gauge the fidelity of this method, so he has these extended individuals, twice removed from the original person, 20 years later put in writing those things they preserved by rote memorization. Would we except in this scenario to find a great deal of divergence between them, as we might in a game of Chinese whisper’s? Perhaps you predict there would be. But when they write what they memorized down, and these written versions don’t show a great deal of divergence, but homogeny, than you’re conclusion would be false.

That is not necessarily the only reason it would happen. If, for instance, they were trying to manufacture a basic storyline for a Messianic insight figure, they could come up with something pretty coherent to put down, over the course of the next few years... even Joseph Smith got several versions that varied but were similar in primary details, when he created the Book of Mormon and related scriptures. It's a trait we see in manufactured scriptures of that sort.

The other reason it would not be the case that the stories varied little, but need not be the same as What Actually Happened™, is if they spent 10 years or more retelling the same basic details containing a kernel of truth... say, the Sermon on the Mount, but kept adding elements among themselves so the story grew collectively and was dutifully remembered by followers who soaked it up, and written down by those followers in pretty much the format it was being given by the group of Disciples collectively. Like with your song lyrics, people who have a reason to remember things can do so more-accurately than random information, such as we see in Chinese Whispers games.

The "they mostly agree" argument is not proof of anything other than that the people who penned these stories had a collective mythology among the group which had cohered into a fairly solid composite by the time the writing began.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: