Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[Deleted member 619]

Oh, and here's me debunking a video, partially by debunking the Kalam Fallacy (note: this is a few years old, and my arguments have massively evolved since then).

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

abelcainsbrother, as I've said elsewhere, it was your belief that saved you - not Jesus.

People believe in all sorts of things - and that it's the objects of their belief that cause things to happen or go their way.

That doesn't mean it's true.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Collecemall]

I never can view any of the video's acb posts from youtube. Is he too stupid to post them or am I doing something wrong?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I never can view any of the video's acb posts from youtube. Is he too stupid to post them or am I doing something wrong?

It's a combination of him posting shitty links (mobile versions that only appear to play in locations where the populace are fuckwits, maybe) and incompetence at formatting for the forum.

Here's the last one, which you will wish you hadn't bothered with:

You should bookmark my post, because all his video links are this sort of shit, which means that one is much like the next in terms of information content. The only content contained therein is that the poster is a fuckwit.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You are assuming much without considering Almighty God who is eternal and outside space and time.

No. I have consider it, and those are the consequences. All you are doing is just to claim that they do not apply without reason or addressing the objections. I'm sorry, this is not how this game works.

You are comparing Almighty God to a created god.

I did not compare him to any other notion of God.

So your whole premise is flawed from the get-go.

Why?

You are ignoring the science behind the big bang still.

Can you point exactly which of my arguments "ignores the science behind the big bang" and how does it do so?

Why would you somehow believe that Almighty God that created the universe and all of the laws that govern his universe effect him somehow? You are not even thinking logical,no offense but when comparing various view points you must consider each on its own merits to have a genuine answer.

It is irrelevant either or not if there is or there isn't any particular laws of physics to which God is immune to. You made a claim, that claim has consequences. Are you going to claim that God is immune to logic as well? In that case there is a word for that. Illogical.

Why would you think that God could not step into his creation if he wanted to?

You just claimed that he is outside time and space. If he were to step into his creation, that would put him inside time and space wouldn't it?

If you designed a virtual world,you could design the laws that make it up and could intervene if you so chose to do.

True. But I would need time to do that, wouldn't I?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Back on the actual topic of this thread, Richard Carrier wrote a recent blog entry on some other scholars concluding that the "Testimonium Flanianum" is a fabrication.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7437

 

[Mugnuts]

ugh, got through Proving History, then Historicity of Jesus, now almost through Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ...and that's just Carriers books. So many other books, and sources to look up after this. Who would have thought it would take time to actually research this stuff, rather than just post opinions

 

[Collecemall]

I eventually made it through all of them as well. In addition to Ehrman's book. I'm no expert but I seriously thought Carrier made the better case. As he says himself though there's no reason to pursue that line of defending atheism but it is interesting to think about. I especially found interesting some of his discussions of his I've seen about the dating of the gospels and how unsettled those really are. I wish I could find the interviews where he discusses it but suffice it to say he basically says it's impossible to date them accurately and that the dates generally given as "consensus" are not a broad enough range. I plan to go back through it a second time to follow up on some of the citations (which are endless) but in the meantime I prefer to read a few other books I have from John W Loftus. Carrier is a contributor in those as well but they are wider reaching on a variety of subjects. I've not finished the first of the three books but they are fairly well done as well.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[prycejosh]

I was curious if anyone here had read this? I couldn't find anyone discussing it other than in passing when I used the search function. He's going to be speaking close by in a few weeks and I was considering going. If the book is worthwhile I'd like to read it between now and then. While I don't base my beliefs on if there was or was not a man named Jesus the topic interests me. I'm just not sure at 700 pages it's worth the effort.

well there are books at are noted to have jesus in them. most historians will confirm there was a man named jesus that was crucified. his tomb is still there and all the sites of the old testament stand as they do in the bible. not a thing as changed by most jews are muslim now. and dont think christ himself came already its funny because there land says different.

 

[Mugnuts]

well there are books at are noted to have jesus in them. most historians will confirm there was a man named jesus that was crucified. his tomb is still there and all the sites of the old testament stand as they do in the bible. not a thing as changed by most jews are muslim now. and dont think christ himself came already its funny because there land says different.

You do realize this is a thread about someone who spent 6 years researching, wrote 3 and a quarter books entailing the evidence for and against a Mythisist/Historical case regarding Jesus and Christanity, don't you? Read those books and then reevaluate your post.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

well there are books at are noted to have jesus in them.

The bible doesn't count.

most historians will confirm there was a man named jesus

You don't need to be an historian to do that.

that was crucified.

The question is. Specifically what guy named Jesus that was crucified you are talking about. If you claiming the one portrayed in the bible... then no.

his tomb is still there

Nope.

and all the sites of the old testament stand as they do in the bible.

Also no.

Christians just assume that this is true for some reason. However it is not.

 

[thenexttodie]

Well I think it was SpecialFrog who invited me to this discussion and told me that this thread explains some bullshit like, why he believes either God doesn't exist or Jesus never existed or that a guy named Jesus existed but it was a different Jesus or whatever.

I have never heard of Richard Carrier before, so a took about 3 hours or so, familiarizing myself with what he has to say. Seems to be nothing new. He just summarizes what one must believe in order to be an atheist. Not so hard to do.

The Jews were hallucinating. The Christians were hallucinating.

And most if not all of the books of Bible were written to either:

A Make the Jews look bad.

B Combat feminism.

C Passify an unrulely population.

And all references of Jesus found to be made by ancient historians are forgeries.


So, SpecialFrog, Do any of these sound familiar? They are pretty common are the not?

I think the most interesting (but unoriginal) he arguments that Richard Carrier copies is that

1 The Gospels were extrapolated from the information contained in the Epistles. (or is it visa versa?)

2 The idea of a dying and rising gods in mythology inspired ,to some degree, the fake story of Jesus rising from the dead.


Is there something you want to talk about? Anyone else?

 

[Collecemall]

A Make the Jews look bad.

B Combat feminism.

C Passify an unrulely population.

And all references of Jesus found to be made by ancient historians are forgeries.



Is there something you want to talk about? Anyone else?

Can you source this? I didn't find ANY of this in Carrier's book. Maybe I missed a chapter. The closest thing you come to is his analysis of Josephus which is about the only one that matters outside of the NT. The rest are irrelevant as evidence. While you might disagree with him I think he's pretty thorough. Here's some info not in his book but relevant none the less. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7437

1 The Gospels were extrapolated from the information contained in the Epistles. (or is it visa versa?)

He actually remarks on how remarkable it is that NOTHING from the gospels is mentioned by Paul. He seems to be oblivious to anything Jesus ever did. Even when it would be a slam dunk, ah ha, gotcha! time to use it he for some reason doesn't bring out what Jesus said or did.

Are you sure you're familiar with Carrier? It sounds more like you spent 3 mins instead of 3 hrs.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Since thenexttodie spent a whole three hours familiarizing himself with Dr. Carrier, he will have no trouble telling is what the above is and how Carrier uses it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well I think it was SpecialFrog who invited me to this discussion and told me that this thread explains some bullshit like, why he believes either God doesn't exist or Jesus never existed or that a guy named Jesus existed but it was a different Jesus or whatever.

I have never heard of Richard Carrier before, so a took about 3 hours or so, familiarizing myself with what he has to say. Seems to be nothing new. He just summarizes what one must believe in order to be an atheist. Not so hard to do.

The question of whether or not a historical Jesus existed has nothing to do with Atheism.

Anyway, some of your statements bear a vague resemblance to things Carrier said.

The Jews were hallucinating. The Christians were hallucinating.

Do you agree that some people who hear voices or see visions are experiencing some form of hallucination and not actually communicating with a god? If so, do you agree that in fact most people who experience this are not talking to a god? If so, you must agree that the default position when evaluating a claim of divine communication is that it is not true and that evidence otherwise is needed in order to shift from that position.

And all references of Jesus found to be made by ancient historians are forgeries.

I believe all relevant scholars agree that the "testimonium flavianum" is at least partially forged, though there are disagreements as to whether or not there is a kernel of original text in there. Do you agree with that?

Carrier argues for complete forgery (and in this he is not alone). What he says sounds plausible to me but I don't have the expertise to properly evaluate the claim. He does cite other early Christians who were familiar with Josephus but appear not to know that Josephus mentioned Jesus at all, which is notable.

Either way, the date of "Antiquities of the Jews" is such that any information on Jesus is not first hand and likely came from Christian sources such as the Gospels (at least some of which existed at this point), meaning it is not an independent source either way.

Similarly, Tacitus -- even if he is talking about the same Jesus (which is the same name as Joshua and not an uncommon Jewish name at all) -- is far too late to be said to be an independent source.

The Gospels were extrapolated from the information contained in the Epistles. (or is it visa versa?)

He doesn't say either. He says the writings of Paul pre-date the Gospels (a claim for which there is near universal agreement). As I am sure you will agree, Paul makes no claims to have met a living, human Jesus and provides virtually none of the biographical information found in the Gospels.

The idea of a dying and rising gods in mythology inspired ,to some degree, the fake story of Jesus rising from the dead.

Not entirely accurate. He notes that such stories are common enough in mythology to make Jesus not particularly unique in this regard.

I assume you agree that at least some claims of a divine being dying and rising from the dead are mythological rather than historical? In fact, I suspect you would agree that almost all are mythological, meaning that again, with no other evidence we should assume that such a claim is likely mythological. Correct?

Is there something you want to talk about?

I've ignored the statements that I don't think relate to anything Carrier says. If I am wrong about any of them feel free to cite where he makes those statements.

But I'll happily talk about any of the above.

 

[thenexttodie]

Can you source this? I didn't find ANY of this in Carrier's book. Maybe I missed a chapter. The closest thing you come to is his analysis of Josephus which is about the only one that matters outside of the NT. The rest are irrelevant as evidence. While you might disagree with him I think he's pretty thorough. Here's some info not in his book but relevant none the less. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7437

Are you sure you're familiar with Carrier? It sounds more like you spent 3 mins instead of 3 hrs.

Ok, then you tell me please sir, why does Richard Carrier think the Bible was written?

I of course, did not go out and spent $30 on his book about Jesus. I only viewed 1 or 2 of his presentations, listened to a radio interview he gave and watched him get slaughtered in a debate on Youtube.

1 The Gospels were extrapolated from the information contained in the Epistles. (or is it visa versa?)

He actually remarks on how remarkable it is that NOTHING from the gospels is mentioned by Paul.... Even when it would be a slam dunk, ah ha, gotcha! time to use it he for some reason doesn't bring out what Jesus said or did.

Yes, that is remarkable. I quote the Gospels in almost every post I have made on this forum! There is not much evidence to show either way whether the gospels were available to him or whether or not he used them when preaching to the nations. We know he did use the Old Testament. And he did know of Christ's resurrection.

 

[Collecemall]

So you're now saying he didn't use any of these arguments you presented? I didn't say he had anything to say about why the Bible was written. That was your yarn to spin. At least you realize that it would indeed be remarkable for there to be a man named Jesus and Paul not know anything about the man or his life.

 

[thenexttodie]

So you're now saying he didn't use any of these arguments you presented?

WTF! Are you 12?

I didn't say he had anything to say about why the Bible was written. That was your yarn to spin.

Wait a minute! What kind of bullshit is this? You thought I was wrong but now you don't know. You have his book don't you?

At least you realize that it would indeed be remarkable for there to be a man named Jesus and Paul not know anything about the man or his life.

Well Paul knew that Jesus rose from the dead, didn't he? That certainly isnt nothing.

 

[Collecemall]

WTF! Are you 12?

Wait a minute! What kind of bullshit is this? You thought I was wrong but now you don't know. You have his book don't you?

No, I know you're wrong. That's the beauty of having actually read and watched. I don't pretend to have done it like you did. He does not in fact use those arguments. In fact he rails against those because they are such bullshit. You made a claim that he did. I asked you to cite it. If that is being 12 then by all means I'm 12. I can dumb it down so you can understand it since 12 is obviously far over your level of comprehension. You're the mickey mouse cunt monkey making claims. Either cite them , STFU about it, or retract it. Quit trying to push it off on me because you can't handle saying "I fucked up". Yes I have his book and he didn't use those arguments. Which is why I find it astounding that you want to claim he said that and then won't cite it. Why would I transcribe his book for you? Your laziness isn't my problem to deal with. There's nothing here for me to defend. That's your to use hacks vocabulary "arsewater" that you thought was relevant. If you aren't wrong then CITE IT.

At least you realize that it would indeed be remarkable for there to be a man named Jesus and Paul not know anything about the man or his life.

Well Paul knew that Jesus rose from the dead, didn't he? That certainly isnt nothing.

That seems to be the ONLY thing he knows of Jesus and It also doesn't do anything to negate Carrier's position. Paul also makes it plain that everything he knows about Jesus is through REVELATION. Not because he knows it happened. Which is like saying I had a dream about Superman so I know something about this real live dude. He's totes mcgoats real! But you know that already after your "extensive familiarization" of his work. Right?