Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 01:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In my response to this point of yours I pointed out that the kids have the written word of the Quran to learn from and they have years to study and re-read it, where as if Yeshua did speak a sermon on the mount, he spoke it once. Are people expected to memorise it from one listening?

What do you think think the disciple of Jesus are doing? Their entire purpose is to preserve and spread the teachings and message of their teacher. And you forget that we’re dealing with society in which orality is primary not secondary like our own.. You think this system is unreliable, because you see it as analogous to a Chinese game of whispers. Failing to acknowledge that results are far from the expected results of Chinese game of whispers. If it was unreliable as you thought, that these Gospels composed by a variety of different communities should show distorted rendition of similar parables and saying, not near verbatim translations.

You believe the end result would be unreliable, but it's evident in the degree of homogeny that it was quite reliable.

Quote:I claimed it is reasonable to exclude a magical Jesus. I even stated that Jesus defining characteristics are his godly magical abilities. Take away the rising from the dead, the virgin birth, the miracles and take away the parable and stories and you don't have a "Jesus".

Except of course you do have a Jesus. The virgin birth only appears in two Gospels. In fact the other two don’t say anything about his birth at all. The earliest Gospel Mark’s, lacks the divination of Jesus of the later writing of John, even the miracles are often downplayed in Mark. The writer even has the resurrection occurs entirely off screen. Jesus defining characteristic is not his miracles, in fact the writers of the Gospel have a very low opinion of belief based on signs and wonders. The defining characters of any teacher, or rabbi, is his message.

"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
21-10-2015, 02:45 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
If you can't prove Harry Potter is fictional with the "abundant and compelling evidence" you claim exists, then why pretend that you'd accept any argument against your Jesus? Even your claim of a historical Jesus is not falsifiable, and your dishonesty that you'd accept arguments against his supposed existence is deplorable.

You prove Harry Potter is a fiction with the "abundant and compelling evidence" you've claimed exists, and then we'll disprove your Jesus as real.

Until then, your red herrings are nothing more than you trying to parade your faith-based opinion around and preach it to people who clearly don't care.

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
21-10-2015, 06:39 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 02:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What do you think think the disciple of Jesus are doing? Their entire purpose is to preserve and spread the teachings and message of their teacher.
His disciples didn't document his teachings.
Who knows where the accounts come from. They likely didn't come from the events cited i.e. Sermon on the mount as it was a once off, oral. Unless Yeshua's disciples had perfect recall. But there is no evidence to support such an unlikely and remarkable thing.
(21-10-2015 02:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You believe the end result would be unreliable, but it's evident in the degree of homogeny that it was quite reliable.
If the end result is evident as being consistent then these "disparate groups" had a common source. That common source can't have been Yeshua (as I have shown) so it must have been something else. Perhaps an influential preacher (with his own message and agenda) such as Saul, perhaps parables taken from other religions, or other authors. This would seem a much more reasonable conclusion.
(21-10-2015 02:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Except of course you do have a Jesus.
Ancient texts refer to a Yeshua.
(21-10-2015 02:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The defining characters of any teacher, or rabbi, is his message.
Without the parables which have come from Yeshua, without a magical Yeshua, there is no significance to an actual Yeshua. He is irrelevant.
It is the teachings of Saul that have persisted. Yeshua is merely a name that items have been pinned to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2015, 04:57 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  His disciples didn't document his teachings.
Who knows where the accounts come from. They likely didn't come from the events cited i.e. Sermon on the mount as it was a once off, oral. Unless Yeshua's disciples had perfect recall. But there is no evidence to support such an unlikely and remarkable thing.

You’re talking about a rabbinic teacher and his disciples. The relationship between the two is primarily to preserve and spread the teachings of their instructor, in ancient culture, that’s primarily orally. It’s not a relationship where they hear him speak in public once, and than try to memorize it. But a relationship that involves continual reinforcing, as would any relationship between the disciples and their Jewish instructor. Their sole job is preserve and spread the teachings of their instructor, in an oral culture.

Quote:If the end result is evident as being consistent then these "disparate groups" had a common source. That common source can't have been Yeshua (as I have shown) so it must have been something else.

Okay, so we have a body of parables and sayings, with a common source. The Gospels cite that common source as Yeshua. We don’t find these parables and sayings in writing from other sects, in the jewish literature, to attribute them to anyone else. So on what basis would anyone infer that it more likely belonged to some other person other than the one cited, Yeshua? The parables and sayings have a source, so who do you think it more likely belonged to than Yeshua?

Quote:Ancient texts refer to a Yeshua.

Commonly translated to Jesus in English. My my indian ethnic tongue, it’s Yeshua, in my ethnic tongue, Peter is Pathrose, Paul is Pauvolose, etc…

"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
22-10-2015, 05:54 AM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(22-10-2015 04:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  His disciples didn't document his teachings.
Who knows where the accounts come from. They likely didn't come from the events cited i.e. Sermon on the mount as it was a once off, oral. Unless Yeshua's disciples had perfect recall. But there is no evidence to support such an unlikely and remarkable thing.

You’re talking about a rabbinic teacher and his disciples. The relationship between the two is primarily to preserve and spread the teachings of their instructor, in ancient culture, that’s primarily orally. It’s not a relationship where they hear him speak in public once, and than try to memorize it. But a relationship that involves continual reinforcing, as would any relationship between the disciples and their Jewish instructor. Their sole job is preserve and spread the teachings of their instructor, in an oral culture.

Quote:If the end result is evident as being consistent then these "disparate groups" had a common source. That common source can't have been Yeshua (as I have shown) so it must have been something else.

Okay, so we have a body of parables and sayings, with a common source. The Gospels cite that common source as Yeshua. We don’t find these parables and sayings in writing from other sects, in the jewish literature, to attribute them to anyone else. So on what basis would anyone infer that it more likely belonged to some other person other than the one cited, Yeshua? The parables and sayings have a source, so who do you think it more likely belonged to than Yeshua?

Quote:Ancient texts refer to a Yeshua.

Commonly translated to Jesus in English. My my indian ethnic tongue, it’s Yeshua, in my ethnic tongue, Peter is Pathrose, Paul is Pauvolose, etc…

A lot of stories of myth were spread orally (even memorized more or less verbatim)

You have a body of stories with a common source, like say...many of the Greek myths...

Commonly translated to Joshua in English but not for the one specific character.

As I brought up in my last post (as well as in an entire thread you abandoned without making any salient points), your Yeshua myth (historical basis for NT Jesus) is unfalsifiable because there is nothing you'd accept as a demonstration of its nonexistence. (As evidenced by the fact that you believe in it based on a paucity of evidence, circumstantial evidence, and special pleading).

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
22-10-2015, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2015 06:37 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(22-10-2015 05:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As I brought up in my last post (as well as in an entire thread you abandoned without making any salient points), your Yeshua myth (historical basis for NT Jesus) is unfalsifiable because there is nothing you'd accept as a demonstration of its nonexistence. (As evidenced by the fact that you believe in it based on a paucity of evidence, circumstantial evidence, and special pleading).

Bunny fossils in the precambrian.

If we found writings from other sects, supportive of the writers of the gospels plagiarizing the sayings of some other sects leader, in support of the amalgamation hypothesis, that would be supportive of that conclusion. If we found early jewish cults whose writing indicated expectations of non-historical messiah, perhaps a mythicist, purely spiritual one, the one's often suggested by mythicist arguing some form neoplatonic sect, that would help to assist in falsify a historicist conclusion.

If we uncovered writings, or sources suggestive of a plot by early Christians to construct a historical messiah whole cloth, that would be strongly supportive of a non-historicist position, and help to falsify the historicist conclusion.

Etc...

There's a variety of different forms of evidence that if existed, would help the mythicist case, and take away from the historicist case. But we haven't found those rabbit fossils yet.

"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
22-10-2015, 06:53 AM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(22-10-2015 06:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 05:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As I brought up in my last post (as well as in an entire thread you abandoned without making any salient points), your Yeshua myth (historical basis for NT Jesus) is unfalsifiable because there is nothing you'd accept as a demonstration of its nonexistence. (As evidenced by the fact that you believe in it based on a paucity of evidence, circumstantial evidence, and special pleading).

Bunny fossils in the precambrian.

If we found writings from other sects, supportive of the writers of the gospels plagiarizing the sayings of some other sects leader, in support of the amalgamation hypothesis, that would be supportive of that conclusion. If we found early jewish cults whose writing indicated expectations of non-historical messiah, perhaps a mythicist, purely spiritual one, the one's often suggested by mythicist arguing some form neoplatonic sect, that would help to assist in falsify a historicist conclusion.

If we uncovered writings, or sources suggestive of a plot by early Christians to construct a historical messiah whole cloth, that would be strongly supportive of a non-historicist position, and help to falsify the historicist conclusion.

Etc...

There's a variety of different forms of evidence that if existed, would help the mythicist case, and take away from the historicist case. But we haven't found those rabbit fossils yet.

You don't even seem to think of the idiocy of your proposed "evidence" you'd accept to demonstrate your Yeshua wasn't real or the basis for the mythological Jesus.

You quite literally want written admissions from people that it's all an intentional fable, from people who clearly believed it was real. Facepalm

Your desired "evidence" isn't the equivalent of a Precambrian bunny, it would be the equivalent of asking for god's handwriting in Hadean rocks laying out the reasoning for making life look like it evolved but was really created by him.

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
22-10-2015, 06:57 AM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Do you need these sorts of evidence about Joseph Smith to dismiss Mormonism? Or about Mohammed to dismiss Islam? Or about Confucius? Or Buddha? Or Shiva? Or Odin? Etc

If you do require it, then you're in a bit of a pickle for why you don't believe in them. And if you don't require it, then you're in a bit of a pickle for why you do believe in your Jesus. 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
22-10-2015, 07:16 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(22-10-2015 06:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You quite literally want written admissions from people that it's all an intentional fable, from people who clearly believed it was real. :face palm:

I said a variety of forms of evidence, like writings from other sects they suppose Christian plagiarized their parables and sayings from. Writings perhaps from critics of Christianity, suggesting that the christians made their story up, like the sort that accusing Mary of being raped by a Roman soldier, anything we could draw inferences supportive of mythicist conclusions, amalgamation conclusions. Non-christian Jewish writing with messianic expectations that would allow for a non-historical messiah, etc... There's a variety of different things that if we had some trace, suggest, or sources of, would be supportive of the mythicist conclusion.

Quote:Your desired "evidence" isn't the equivalent of a Precambrian bunny, it would be the equivalent of asking for god's handwriting in Hadean rocks laying out the reasoning for making life look like it evolved but was really created by him.

Except of course it's human writing, writing from critics, competing sects, jews, etc... that would be supportive of a mythicist hypothesis.

"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
22-10-2015, 07:21 AM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(22-10-2015 07:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 06:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You quite literally want written admissions from people that it's all an intentional fable, from people who clearly believed it was real. :face palm:

I said a variety of forms of evidence, like writings from other sects they suppose Christian plagiarized their parables and sayings from. Writings perhaps from critics of Christianity, suggesting that the christians made their story up, like the sort that accusing Mary of being raped by a Roman soldier, anything we could draw inferences supportive of mythicist conclusions, amalgamation conclusions. Non-christian Jewish writing with messianic expectations that would allow for a non-historical messiah, etc... There's a variety of different things that if we had some trace, suggest, or sources of, would be supportive of the mythicist conclusion.

Quote:Your desired "evidence" isn't the equivalent of a Precambrian bunny, it would be the equivalent of asking for god's handwriting in Hadean rocks laying out the reasoning for making life look like it evolved but was really created by him.

Except of course it's human writing, writing from critics, competing sects, jews, etc... that would be supportive of a mythicist hypothesis.

Do you require such evidence to deny other religions and their messiahs and prophets and gods and deities?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: