Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 06:59 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 07:07 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 11:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

No, your prejudice is that somehow you think by appealing to my religious beliefs (which you likely know almost next to nothing about, particularly in regards to what those beliefs are dependent on, HINT: it's not dependent on Jesus being a historical person, or being magical, or even an actual resurrection), makes me unable to gauge what the more reasonable conclusions are based on methodological naturalism.

Think of it this way, inferences and reasonable conclusions are drawn by some set of rules, we can understand those rules and what particular conclusions can be drawn from them, sort of the way we can understand the rules of chess to acknowledge what possible moves are based on these rules. You basic appeal to my Christian beliefs, is sort of claiming that I can’t understand chess, or the rules in place for when it’s played. Of course this particular judgement on my thought process doesn’t actually follow, even if I had my own set of house rules that I incorporate in my own personal game of chess, that doesn’t mean I can’t understand it when played without these house rules, or according to the house rules of Stevil.

Perhaps your appealing to my religious belief to claim some sort of cognitive dissonance, perhaps you’re trying to suggest that you’ve made a more reasonable inference in regards to historicity, and the reason I can’t acknowledge how sound it is, because of some dissonance created by some subset of religious beliefs you’re not entirely familiar with. But you haven’t particularly claimed this though.

Instead you made some blanket statement about me identifying as a Christian, and said nothing about your previously drawn conclusions, or the criticism regarding them. This is what i refer to as your unsubstantiated prejudice. You shifted away from the basic contentions of our previous exchanges, into a discussion about my supposed religious belief, that you likely know very little about.

It's not about you caring whether or not I am Christian, it's your beliefs in regards to what that means to me, and what limits you believe it imposes on my ability to draw inferences, and reasonable conclusions.

If you believe they do impose limits, than you should be appealing to the actual inferences and conclusions being presented here, as support, not on your unsubstantiated prejudices.

"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
26-10-2015, 07:05 AM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Avoidance for the win!!!!

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
26-10-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(25-10-2015 05:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-10-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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..


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


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.


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?


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.

Quote:The fact that no comment is made about a Rabbi at this time not being married, is very very odd.

Not really,

You’re primary appealing to teachings and stresses of Rabbinic literature after 70 C.E to the early second century. Those explicit stresses on the religious obligation to marry are absent in pre-70 c.e literature.

There were perhaps 150 Tannaitic rabbis, and may have been over a 1,000 Amoriatic ones. And in only a few cases do we even have a minimal biography from the available data. While you might like to claim the Ben Azzai, the celibate rabbi was recorded because of his celibacy, this doesn’t seem to be the case at all it. But rather he’s mentioned because Ben Azzai placed himself in the paradoxical position of condemning celibacy while remaining unmarried himself. Had he chose to not say anything, it’s likely we would have never heard of him at all.

We already know that some branches of Essenes subscribed to celibacy, the NT writings paint John the Baptist and Jesus as both celibate, Paul also preferred celibacy, and there seems to have been no particular fuss or contentions raised by this. Even in your quote from the latter traditions in rabbinic literature, permits celibacy when cleaving to the Torah. And it appears you’re reading back into that period stresses that appeared more prominently latter in the history of Judaism.

http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardi...7-2-02.pdf

Quote: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.

Except of course the body and the blood, as well bread and wine, are important concepts in the Hebrew Bible. The human body expressing a divine reality: ““From my flesh, I will perceive God.” (Job 19):” etc… While the Christian incorporations of these various metaphors, and concepts in regards to the death to their messiah, understood in the imagery as a paschal lamb, and communion, would likely have been offensive to most Jews, but then again most Jews weren’t a part of this sectarian group, that developed it’s own particular sets of ritual and traditions, in lieu of their dead messiah.

Sort of like how followers of Sabbathi Zevi, had to incorporate his conversion to Islam into their messianic expectations, something that would been entirely offensive to predominant Jewish sensibilities of the time. Pointing out that it would have been entirely offensive to predominant Jewish sensibilities, does particularly set a limits of Zevi’s followers reimagining of messianic expectations in lieu or some unfortunate and unexpected set backs.

"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
26-10-2015, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 09:51 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not really,

You’re primary appealing to teachings and stresses of Rabbinic literature after 70 C.E to the early second century. Those explicit stresses on the religious obligation to marry are absent in pre-70 c.e literature.

Wrong. First of all the gospels were WRITTEN after 70 CE, so it's RIGHT IN the period you claim, (with no references I notice, so it's not really believeable) ... nothing about that CHANGED, and you cannot prove it did. I'm not "appealing to rabbinic literature". I'm stating cultural HISTORY, which you know nothing about. (And it's *primarily* not *primary*)....so I say prove it. (and you can't).
The "biographies available" are irrelevant. There was ONLY ONE who was not married, and they talked about it.

(26-10-2015 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  We already know that some branches of Essenes subscribed to celibacy, the NT writings paint John the Baptist and Jesus as both celibate

SOME of the gospels did. Not all. They made it up later, and forgot about the problem.

(26-10-2015 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Except of course the body and the blood, as well bread and wine, are important concepts in the Hebrew Bible. The human body expressing a divine reality: ““From my flesh, I will perceive God.” (Job 19):” etc… While the Christian incorporations of these various metaphors, and concepts in regards to the death to their messiah, understood in the imagery as a paschal lamb, and communion, would likely have been offensive to most Jews, but then again most Jews weren’t a part of this sectarian group, that developed it’s own particular sets of ritual and traditions, in lieu of their dead messiah.

Obcviously you know NOTHING about early Christianity. They were Jews. At the end of the 1st Century, the Expulsion Curses were required by the High Priest, because the JEWS who where members of the Way sub-sect (ie Christians) were causing trouble. As late as 400 CE St. John Chrysostom in his Christmas sermon told HIS congregation to stop going to the synagogues. Your lame excuse for this is pathetic. They WERE ALMOST ALL JEWS. ANd at the Last Supper, Jesus (supposedly) was TALKING TO JEWS. Either they made it up, or they didn't. Thelling Jews to drink blood, (which is what happens in 3 gospels) is not even remotely possible. What you're saying is that the gospels are not true. (!)

You REALLY need to learn some real history.

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
26-10-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 09:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. First of all the gospels were WRITTEN after 70 CE, so it's RIGHT IN the period you claim, (with no references I notice, so it's not really believeable) ... nothing about that CHANGED, and you cannot prove it did. I'm not "appealing to rabbinic literature". I'm stating cultural HISTORY, which you know nothing about. (And it's *primarily* not *primary*)....so I say prove it. (and you can't).

No, you're inferring this about the cultural history of Judaism at the time of Jesus, in the early first century, from sources and stresses present in Jewish literature after 70ce, to the mid second century.

If you want to claim that your drawing conclusions from sources prior to 70c.e, I'd like to know what sources you're using, to paint a picture of 1st century Judaism during the time of Jesus.

Quote:The "biographies available" are irrelevant. There was ONLY ONE who was not married, and they talked about it.

No, there's only one who was mentioned as being not married. And he wan't mentioned because he was not married, but because he was paradoxical position of opposing celibacy while favor celibacy himself. If he didn't hold such a position, there's good chance we would have never of heard of him at all, just like all the other unmentioned rabbi's, celibate or not. You extrapolated a great deal from this single inference, such as he was the only celibate Rabbi of the 1500 or so, and that he was only mentioned because he was celibate, which is not actually true, he was mentioned because of his paradoxical position he found himself in. In fact the basic stresses on marriage found in latter jewish literature, is absent in the early literature present at the time of Jesus.


(26-10-2015 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Obcviously you know NOTHING about early Christianity. They were Jews. At the end of the 1st Century, the Expulsion Curses were required by the High Priest, because the JEWS who where members of the Way sub-sect (ie Christians) were causing trouble. As late as 400 CE St. John Chrysostom in his Christmas sermon told HIS congregation to stop going to the synagogues. Your lame excuse for this is pathetic. They WERE ALMOST ALL JEWS.

And what do you think that means? You seem to present this pictures of first century Judaism, as if it were one thing. Many jews would have been offended by the messiah being crucified, let alone the Eucharist. So I'm not too sure what your appeal to "offensiveness" amounts to.

"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
26-10-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, your prejudice is that somehow you think by appealing to my religious beliefs (which you likely know almost next to nothing about, particularly in regards to what those beliefs are dependent on, HINT: it's not dependent on Jesus being a historical person, or being magical, or even an actual resurrection),
Then you are not a Christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You basic appeal to my Christian beliefs, is sort of claiming that I can’t understand chess, or the rules in place for when it’s played.
You really think this.

Your belief in the divinity of Jesus has nothing to do with your understanding of Chess.

However your belief in the divinity of Jesus has everything to do with your inference about everything related to Yeshua. Especially since you believe they are the same person.

You know doubt believe that those that believe in Jesus go to heaven and that there are negative consequences for not believing. You are coerced into your current belief position and you look at the historical Yeshua from a tainted perspective. You are unable to assess that he didn't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 12:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You really think this.

Your belief in the divinity of Jesus has nothing to do with your understanding of Chess.

However your belief in the divinity of Jesus has everything to do with your inference about everything related to Yeshua. Especially since you believe they are the same person.

You know doubt believe that those that believe in Jesus go to heaven and that there are negative consequences for not believing. You are coerced into your current belief position and you look at the historical Yeshua from a tainted perspective. You are unable to assess that he didn't exist.

Again this is your prejudice speaking. You inferred that I cannot gauge whether or not Jesus existed, not on the particular strength or weakness of any argument that I made, but on your prejudicial views of believers. Notice for the last 2-3 posts of yours, you ignored the criticisms of your conclusions, and now are resorting to letting your biases speak on your behalf.

And judging by the fact that I've been a arguing an exclusively secular historical perspective, i.e Ehrman's, your accusations of whatever limitations you imagine my religious beliefs impose, are just ones drawn by your own prejudices.

"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
26-10-2015, 12:53 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 12:58 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 12:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then you are not a Christian.

Yes, because Stevil's classifications of what classifies as a Christian or not a Christian, matter's to me.

"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
26-10-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(26-10-2015 10:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you're inferring this about the cultural history of Judaism at the time of Jesus, in the early first century, from sources and stresses present in Jewish literature after 70ce, to the mid second century. If you want to claim that your drawing conclusions from sources prior to 70c.e, I'd like to know what sources you're using, to paint a picture of 1st century Judaism during the time of Jesus.

I am not. Right after you give me YOUR sources and explain what changed, when, and why it did.

(26-10-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No, there's only one who was mentioned as being not married. And he wan't mentioned because he was not married, but because he was paradoxical position of opposing celibacy while favor celibacy himself.

Bullshit. It was mentioned because he was not married, and he was expected to, as proven in the link I originally provided.

(26-10-2015 10:25 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And what do you think that means? You seem to present this pictures of first century Judaism, as if it were one thing. Many jews would have been offended by the messiah being crucified, let alone the Eucharist. So I'm not too sure what your appeal to "offensiveness" amounts to.

It amouts to proof that they made it up. ALL Jews maintained the abominations (pork and blood .... the abomination of desolation etc etc) and YOU have no evidence for anything else.

You are just babbling to hear yourself talk. As usual, you have nothing.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: