Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2015, 09:04 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(16-06-2015 08:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know the insanity of religious boards and administrators. And the question of "historicity" is not whether he was "just a man". It's whether there was even a "man" at all.

I know that the question is about whether there was even a man at all. I just don't get why you believe the boards and administrators, who pretty much allow everything under the sun to be said about Jesus, including views opposed to the orthodox picture, and even Christian beliefs, would draw the line at claiming that he didn't exist at all?

I don't see how claiming Jesus didn't exist is anymore offensive to the sensibilities of christians than claiming that there was no resurrection, or that Jesus was just a man, so why would this jeopardize one's career anymore so than these other views?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 09:13 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(16-06-2015 09:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know the insanity of religious boards and administrators. And the question of "historicity" is not whether he was "just a man". It's whether there was even a "man" at all.

I know that the question is about whether there was even a man at all. I just don't get why you believe the boards and administrators, who pretty much allow everything under the sun to be said about Jesus, including views opposed to the orthodox picture, and even Christian beliefs, would draw the line at claiming that he didn't exist at all?

I don't see how claiming Jesus didn't exist is anymore offensive to the sensibilities of christians than claiming that there was no resurrection, or that Jesus was just a man, so why would this jeopardize one's career anymore so than these other views?

As I said, you don't know how nuts these people are. And you're making non-existent distinctions. Most religious scholars buy the whole ball of nonsense. They don't cherry pick.

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
16-06-2015, 11:12 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(16-06-2015 08:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Scholars don't care about or talk about the subject AT ALL, in general. The only ones who talk about Jebus are faculty of religiously funded institutions (in general). And of course they would lose their jobs if they were to suggest he was a fake. There are a few others who discuss the subject at all. It's just not interesting to historians.

There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that they would lose their jobs if they suggested he was a fake. Many of the more prominent ones never really risked their position by suggesting he wasn't God, that his body was eaten by wild dogs. So I doubt there's any closeted Ahistoricist out there.

It doesn't even take that much. There is no group more sensitive to their own bullshit than xtians. You should learn about the real world.

http://www.gwhatchet.com/2014/02/17/top-...ons-major/

Quote:Classics scholar, fired from last college for criticizing Bible, will help plan new major at GW


Rollston is one of, if not the, foremost expert on Semitic languages. But.... that isn't good enough for jesus-freak bullshitters.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
17-06-2015, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2015 07:24 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(16-06-2015 11:12 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  It doesn't even take that much. There is no group more sensitive to their own bullshit than xtians. You should learn about the real world.

http://www.gwhatchet.com/2014/02/17/top-...ons-major/

Quote:Classics scholar, fired from last college for criticizing Bible, will help plan new major at GW

Well, I think this is very true in regards to certain conservative, evangelical leaning Christian schools, that they don't take kindly to those who skirt the lines of tradition.
But not so in regards to more liberal leanings one, and in fact perhaps the more prestigious ones, like Harvard, Duke or Yale Divinity School, Princeton Seminary, Union Theological Seminary, etc.. The sort of schools that churn out folks like Marcus Borg.

It's hard to imagine that any professor or new testament scholar, from any of these universities or similar ones, would fear aligning with the Ahistoricist position if they actually believed it was a valid one. You also have to remember that a lot of the ahistoricist/mythicists positions are pure tripe, folks like Richard Carrier, and Robert Price are the exceptions not the norm, when in fact the views is often littered with kooks, like Arachara X, and folks who peddle videos of 9/11 being an inside job, and global banking conspiracy. It's share the same fringes as conspiracy theory nuts. The gut reaction is to reject them all as one and the same. It's forever trapped in that stench.

If you're being honest here. Scholars don't ignore the ahistoricist views because of fear, anymore so than scientist ignore the creationist views out of fear, they ignore it because they see it as a joke. You could pick up a book like Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" to see why scholars such as himself don't take these views all the seriously, and see it all as a bit bizarre. To say this is all out of fear, requires a borrowing a tactic straight out of the creationist playbook.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
17-06-2015, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2015 12:39 PM by TwoCultSurvivor.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Yes, but if I wanted to find scientific rebuttals to creationism, I would find no shortage of articles explaining why Genesis 1 could not have happened as presented AND oodles upon oodles of documented research explaining what happened when on planet Earth. I could google "evolution of" ANY animal and find articles explaining it, in detail. They don't have to rebut creationism because they are busy presenting and expanding on the evidence for evolution. This is not the case with Jesus historicists. They dismiss mythicists as a whole (drawing no distinction between Richard Carrier/Robert Price and the unqualified conspiracy theorist-types that litter the Internet), but when you ask them for their proof, they quickly appeal to authority and popularity ("all the qualified experts agree!" Ok... but WHY? What's their proof?) or they give you Josephan interpolations and Tacitus, which doesn't prove anything. Or they give you the gospels to prove themselves as history (when the gospels as history are the very things being questioned). That's question begging.

Bart Ehrman's book is a poor example of a scholarly critique of mythicism (largely because it was not intended to be such. It's a popular book for a popular audience, so while it succeeds at "here's what we think about the historical Jesus," it falls short at "here's why we think it." Not that there's no such information. It's just not presented in a systematic, scholarly way (nor does it claim to be. I note that you appear to agree with me regarding his presentation).

I've read some pretty good historicist stuff on Quora, not by experts but by people who seem to have done their homework. In a few internet pages, they did a much better job of rebutting mythicism than Ehrman's book did, in my humble opinion. Ehrman's book left me unconvinced of historicity. Carrier's book, which is presented as scholarship, is not something I'm qualified to rebut. But I believe it can be rebutted, and as such, I have confidence it will be rebutted.

But for now, I think I need to refer to myself as an agnostic historicist.

Did I use that line already? I'm trademarking it!

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:You could pick up a book like Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" to see why scholars such as himself don't take these views all the seriously,

And yet, Ehrman has spent a career trashing the very sources he uses to support his claim. He has nothing new to add. It all boils down to him thinking he can see his vision of a "jesus" in the gospel "record" and record is in quotes for a reason. Ehrman himself has detailed in earlier works how seriously that crap has been edited.

In Lost Christianities Ehrman writes:

Quote:For now it
is enough to note that if we want to know what Gnostics really believed, it is
difficult to trust the claims of their sworn enemies. It is true that these protoorthodox authors sometimes used actual Gnostic documents and appear, on
occasion, to have summarized them more or less accurately. When they do so,
all to the good. But it is not always easy to know when we have reliable reportage
and when we have scurrilous slander, or a clever mixture of the two.

pg. 121

So here we have Ehrman suggesting that the early church propagandists were misrepresenting the gnostics but now he expects us to take at face value what they say about themselves? Bullshit, Bart. Doesn't work that way.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(17-06-2015 12:19 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Yes, but if I wanted to find scientific rebuttals to creationism, I would find no shortage of articles explaining why Genesis 1 could not have happened as presented AND oodles upon oodles of documented research explaining what happened when on planet Earth.

There's a variety of reasons for this of course. The sheer size of creationism makes it no contest vs mythicism. Creationism is a mainstream belief. The Ahistorical, the Mythicist while it may be popular among atheists, they still make up a minuscule part of the overall population. Creationism is well funded, has a strong political and social presence. Biology, and science courses in general are also required course at every level of education, and a great deal of professional choices require a strong understanding of it. History, particularly ancient history, will at best be offered as an elective.

Biology teachers and professors everywhere, have to deal with students that subscribe to creationism, a continuous thorn in their side. And though creationism may be a bad argument, it's still an argument, and a fairly consistent one, continually repeating the same bad accusations over and over again.

While the Ahistoricist/Mythicist positions is all over the place, and some so stupendously bad that even other mythicist recognize it, that if you were to argue against it you wouldn't even know where to start, which one to address. Carrier/Price are now pretty much the only two names that get thrown around, and I don't even think most folks sympathetic to them even understand their arguments.

From my own experience what we typically encounter mainly are unbelievers sympathetic to mythicism the ahistorical position, but don't particularly see themselves as ones. They tend to lack an actual argument, and see themselves as a sort of half-hearted agnostic, folks just "lacking a belief". They don't have an actual argument, or a better explanation of the facts, all they have is a series of doubts, a contrived from of skepticism. Creationists at least have an argument, a position they hold contrary to the scientific establishment, while those sympathetic to Ahistoricist position don't. They're not as interesting, lack the sort of backbone of creationist, and barely even a microcosm of the size.

We'd have to wait on a day, some very vocal and political form of mythicism comes along, with an argument, while not necessarily strong, catches on, but until then it just continues to live in the small corners of the internet, among those few souls who like to argue about religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Quote:Creationism is a mainstream belief.


You find comfort in being part of the flock, don't you?


[Image: sheep_2724972b.jpg]

I regard that as your problem. Believing something does not make it real.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(18-06-2015 12:35 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Creationism is a mainstream belief.


You find comfort in being part of the flock, don't you?


[Image: sheep_2724972b.jpg]

I regard that as your problem. Believing something does not make it real.

I'm not a creationist, so I guess I can't say I'm a part of the flock.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Thanks for the dialogue, Tomasia.

I wonder if Carrier's argument is going to gain traction or be dismissed like all the rest (which is largely dismissed with good reason).

We'll see.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: