Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 06:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Judging that the writers have Jesus saying these things in two different setting, and times. And the sayings sources, referred to as Q, didn't actually contain settings and times at what point they were said. It's safe to say the setting were constructed by the writers themselves, the order of the verses and passages as well, to paint a setting to include them.
They also used the mythical figure of Yeshua to pin their stories to. To give it a profound importance.

Just like many other mythical characters who have stories pinned to them. No different.

There is no evidence supporting a Yeshua account or that the illiterate Yeshua came up with these proverbs.

It's just pure speculation. I say Yeshua may not have existed, may not be the person referred to in Tacitus' side note, didn't do anything magical, wasn't a god but instead an illiterate Jewish human (if he existed) otherwise just a fictional character.

You say he was real and magical and came back from the dead and his sayings were accurately written down decades after his death by people who never knew him, never heard him.


I wonder whose account is more credible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
25-10-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 01:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just like many other mythical characters who have stories pinned to them. No different.

You mean, just like historical characters that have mythical elements added to accounts of them, such as Caesar and Alexander, being of a divine lineage, and born of virgins etc..

Quote:There is no evidence supporting a Yeshua account or that the illiterate Yeshua came up with these proverbs.

Why would Yeshua, a Jewish teacher, be illiterate? Where do infer that from?

Quote:I say Yeshua may not have existed, may not be the person referred to in Tacitus' side note

And that's like saying Pilate may not have existed, may not have done any of the things attributed to him by Philo, and Josephus. Or the things associated with Ceaser and Alexander may not have been things they did. Maybe they were amalgamations of a variety of different leaders at the time. Maybe their mythical spiritual leaders. You can throw around whatever wild possibilities you like, but unless you can paint them as more likely than a secular historical account, they don't matter.

Quote:You say he was real and magical and came back from the dead and his sayings were accurately written down decades after his death by people who never knew him, never heard him.

I didn't say anything here about him being magical, in fact it's only a non-magical form of him being argued. You're the one that thinks the particular body of sayings and parables belonged to someone other than the person being cited as the source of them. Though it's not particularly clear on what basis anyone would infer that?

Quote:I wonder whose account is more credible?

Between your baseless conclusions, supported by not a single source, or reference, or the one's offered by Ehrman. Ehrman's, without a doubt.

"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
25-10-2015, 02:08 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
So, you don't believe Jesus was resurrected or performed miracles or was god's son?

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
25-10-2015, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2015 03:53 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You say he was real and magical and came back from the dead and his sayings were accurately written down decades after his death by people who never knew him, never heard him.

I didn't say anything here about him being magical, in fact it's only a non-magical form of him being argued.
Sure, but my statement was with regards to your beliefs rather than the argument you have put forth in this thread.

You believe "Jesus" a.k.a. Yeshua to be magical and godly.

'Nuff said about your own predisposition and your ability to infer a credible conclusion towards anything about Yeshua.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2015, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2015 04:35 PM by Tomasia.)
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 03:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  'Nuff said about your own predisposition and your ability to infer a credible conclusion towards anything about Yeshua.

That's nice, but that's just your prejudice speaking.

You drew a series of earlier conclusions against a secular historical explanations of a historical Yeshua, offered by folks like Ehrman, but if you chose to now drop them, and no longer care to raise them any further that's fine.

"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
25-10-2015, 05:23 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
You didn't actually say you don't believe in a magical Jesus.

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
25-10-2015, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2015 06:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-10-2015 01:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just like many other mythical characters who have stories pinned to them. No different.

You mean, just like historical characters that have mythical elements added to accounts of them, such as Caesar and Alexander, being of a divine lineage, and born of virgins etc..

Quote:There is no evidence supporting a Yeshua account or that the illiterate Yeshua came up with these proverbs.

Why would Yeshua, a Jewish teacher, be illiterate? Where do infer that from?

Quote:I say Yeshua may not have existed, may not be the person referred to in Tacitus' side note

And that's like saying Pilate may not have existed, may not have done any of the things attributed to him by Philo, and Josephus. Or the things associated with Ceaser and Alexander may not have been things they did. Maybe they were amalgamations of a variety of different leaders at the time. Maybe their mythical spiritual leaders. You can throw around whatever wild possibilities you like, but unless you can paint them as more likely than a secular historical account, they don't matter.

Quote:You say he was real and magical and came back from the dead and his sayings were accurately written down decades after his death by people who never knew him, never heard him.

I didn't say anything here about him being magical, in fact it's only a non-magical form of him being argued. You're the one that thinks the particular body of sayings and parables belonged to someone other than the person being cited as the source of them. Though it's not particularly clear on what basis anyone would infer that?

Quote:I wonder whose account is more credible?

Between your baseless conclusions, supported by not a single source, or reference, or the one's offered by Ehrman. Ehrman's, without a doubt.

Is it presumptuous to assume that a Jewish male, raised to be a Rabbi was illiterate. But the fact that he was not married, which was HIGHLY unusual, is in fact SO unusual, that the only other one known to have not been married, was commented on. The status of an unmarried Jewish male was far less than a married one. It was not an option.

"Celibacy is obviously not an ideal means for Jews to live their lives. Essenes and other such sectarian groups obviously practiced this, to their demise. Yevamot 63b records the solitary example of Ben Azzai, ho explained his celibacy with the words: "My soul is fond of the Torah; the world will be perpetuated by others."

The first codified din in Even haEzer is that a man is chayav to marry and procreate, and his not doing so "is as if he shed blood, diminishing the Divine image and causing His Presence to depart from Israel." It says that bet din can compel a man to marry if he's still a bachelor after 20, and only if a person "cleaves to the study of the Torah like Ben Azzai" can his refusal to marry be condoned, provided he can control his sexual lust.

One limitation placed on the unmarried man in the Rema is that he cannot serve as shaliach tzibbur, and the Gemara bars an unmarried man from sitting as dayanim in dinei nefashot."

The fact that no comment is made about a Rabbi at this time not being married, is very very odd. Yet another reason to wonder if later Christians with no real knowledge of the culture in which Jesus supposedly lived, invented the whole thing. The fact that he tells his disciples at the Last Supper to eat his flesh and drink blood, is simply impossible for a Jew. It was an abomination to even touch blood.

It's all crap. They made it all up.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-10-2015, 06:32 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Why do theists come to an atheist forum and expect atheists to agree with their bullshit? Consider

And then why lie about their intentions?

That brainwashing has cleansed all rationality from their brains.

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
25-10-2015, 11:33 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 05:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You didn't actually say you don't believe in a magical Jesus.
Tomasia is a Christian. He believes that Jesus is a god, he believes that Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross and rose from the dead in the flesh.

(25-10-2015 04:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's nice, but that's just your prejudice speaking.

Tomasia wants me to be a prejudiced atheist. He wants to think my discredit of his ability to make assessment of Yeshua to be merely based on a prejudice against Christians.

Quite frankly I don't care whether Tomasia is a Christian. If he believes in magic and believes a special person can rise from the dead then this disqualifies him as being capable of assessing if something is credible or not. I don't care what god he believes in, that is somewhat irrelevant.

However in saying that, Tomasia's whole world view is based on the divinity and the humanity of Yeshua. Tomasia cannot determine that Yeshua did not exist. If Tomasia held onto this position then Tomasia would believe that his eternal place in heaven would be lost. Tomasia would never risk this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
26-10-2015, 05:24 AM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 11:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-10-2015 05:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You didn't actually say you don't believe in a magical Jesus.
Tomasia is a Christian. He believes that Jesus is a god, he believes that Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross and rose from the dead in the flesh.

(25-10-2015 04:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's nice, but that's just your prejudice speaking.

Tomasia wants me to be a prejudiced atheist. He wants to think my discredit of his ability to make assessment of Yeshua to be merely based on a prejudice against Christians.

Quite frankly I don't care whether Tomasia is a Christian. If he believes in magic and believes a special person can rise from the dead then this disqualifies him as being capable of assessing if something is credible or not. I don't care what god he believes in, that is somewhat irrelevant.

However in saying that, Tomasia's whole world view is based on the divinity and the humanity of Yeshua. Tomasia cannot determine that Yeshua did not exist. If Tomasia held onto this position then Tomasia would believe that his eternal place in heaven would be lost. Tomasia would never risk this.

Indeed, but Ol' tommyboy keeps avoiding that issue claiming that he's not arguing for magic, only history. But (as is obvious by now) he doesn't have anything to back that assertion up either besides "there are historians who believe, so you're going against them?" I just want to keep ol' tommyboy honest. So, will he actually admit to believing in magic? Or lie through his teeth about it? Or avoid the issue altogether?

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: