Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[tuxbox]

 

[SpecialFrog]

The Egyptians knew that Osiris rose from the dead and yet know one considers him historical.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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?

You've run into the same sort of thing that I ran into, Collecemail: thenexttodie pretending that he knows/understands more about the bible than others - including biblical scholars.

I can also concur with you that Carrier doesn't use those arguments either.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[red]

Personally, without reading Carriers book, I think there was some real teacher behind the Biblical Jesus character. I admit that there is very little real evidence for him, even less about his real teachings, but I find it unlikely that he was made wholecloth out of thin air.

Joseph Smith was pretty creative, and with precedent to rely on it would not be hard to amalgamate "good" teachings and accord them a hero. Much of the Bible is obviously borrowed so attributions to Jesus can be readily seen as made out of whole cloth.

 

[tuxbox]

Personally, without reading Carriers book, I think there was some real teacher behind the Biblical Jesus character. I admit that there is very little real evidence for him, even less about his real teachings, but I find it unlikely that he was made wholecloth out of thin air.

Joseph Smith was pretty creative, and with precedent to rely on it would not be hard to amalgamate "good" teachings and accord them a hero. Much of the Bible is obviously borrowed so attributions to Jesus can be readily seen as made out of whole cloth.

I agree with Visaki. There was probably a rabbi Yeshua that the Biblical narratives were based.

 

[WarK]

Personally, without reading Carriers book, I think there was some real teacher behind the Biblical Jesus character. I admit that there is very little real evidence for him, even less about his real teachings, but I find it unlikely that he was made wholecloth out of thin air.

I agree with Visaki. There was probably a rabbi Yeshua that the Biblical narratives were based.

Wasn't Carrier's (and Price) point that Jesus character was based on an earlier mythological character?

 

[tuxbox]

Wasn't Carrier's (and Price) point that Jesus character was based on an earlier mythological character?

I believe so, but he was not very convincing. I think he is reaching for straws. Plus, he did not have enough evidence in my opinion to prove his case.

 

[WarK]

Wasn't Carrier's (and Price) point that Jesus character was based on an earlier mythological character?

I believe so, but he was not very convincing. I think he is reaching for straws. Plus, he did not have enough evidence in my opinion to prove his case.

Paul writes about his hallucinations.

Mark writes fiction. Others built on it.

Is there any evidence for the preacher character? Other than there were preachers because it seems like there were journalists would be equally as good argument for Superman.

 

[tuxbox]

Paul writes about his hallucinations.

Paul was d-bag, but there were too many first century Jews and Gentiles following the teachings of Christ, probably through oral traditions and not due to the writings of Paul.

Mark writes fiction. Others built on it.

Most of the Bible is fiction, that does not mean that there are not true historical figures and events within it.

Is there any evidence for the preacher character? Other than there were preachers because it seems like there were journalists would be equally as good argument for Superman.

There are historical texts that could be used as evidence, which I have already mentioned in other posts,, but most of the skeptics discount them for some reason or another. They also discount all of Christ's followers. As far as superman is concerned, well we all know that he does not exist because he was invented in our lifetime.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Are you really old enough for superman to have been invented in your lifetime?

Also, there are very few Old Testament figures who are likely to be historical either.

 

[tuxbox]

Are you really old enough for superman to have been invented in your lifetime?

lmao, Very good point. No I'm not old enough. I should have worded that differently.

Also, there are very few Old Testament figures who are likely to be historical either.

This is true, but my point still stands. There is some truth in the historical events of the Bible. Also, the Jews and Romans are not the only ones who wrote of a rabbi by the name of Yeshua (aka Jesus). The Conical Gospels are not the only sources for this figure.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Also, there are very few Old Testament figures who are likely to be historical either.

This is true, but my point still stands. There is some truth in the historical events of the Bible. Also, the Jews and Romans are not the only ones who wrote of a rabbi by the name of Yeshua (aka Jesus). The Conical Gospels are not the only sources for this figure.[/quote]
I talked a little about this in my reply to thenexttodie. On mobile so will try to link later.

All the other sources are at best too late to be independent of the gospels and at worst forged.

 

[Deleted member 619]

here is some truth in the historical events of the Bible.

I'll leave the hilarious 'conical gospels' (Euclid would have a fit), and point out that, although platform 9¾ at King's Cross station doesn't exist, platforms 9 and 10 definitely do (I've travelled to and from both on many occasions). That lends no weight to Harry Potter.

Similarly, that firebrands name Yeshua were extremely common in occupied Palestine lends exactly no weight to the historicity of Jesus.

My personal view is that somebody with that name definitely did exist, though the stories in the hokey blurble are clearly bollocks. The fact that there is any evidence at all is sufficient to make it likely that the ludicrous stories were attached to an extant individual, in much the same way that the guff about the holy grail was attached to a real person, but the stories bear no other resemblance to reality.

Carrier is, in my opinion, chasing his tail, and an entirely irrelevant argument. It doesn't matter even a little bit if any of those stories make contact with a real person, and in fact I think Carrier is a bit of a knob for even bothering. The story itself is demonstrably bollocks, whether it was attributed to a real person or not.

Frankly, there's no discussion more dull or indeed asinine as whether or not Jesus existed. The simple fact is that the events of the New Testament are arse-water. Whether somebody had a particular name or lived/went to a particular place is nothing more than flim-flam. Carrier is distracting us from the real argument; Is this actually a good idea. The historicity of a common upstart with an even more common name is about as interesting as a Kent Hovind seminar.

In short, who the fuck cares? The wholly babble is bollocks. What more needs to be said?

 

[Collecemall]

here is some truth in the historical events of the Bible.

I'll leave the hilarious 'conical gospels' (Euclid would have a fit), and point out that, although platform 9¾ at King's Cross station doesn't exist, platforms 9 and 10 definitely do (I've travelled to and from both on many occasions). That lends no weight to Harry Potter.

Similarly, that firebrands name Yeshua were extremely common in occupied Palestine lends exactly no weight to the historicity of Jesus.

My personal view is that somebody with that name definitely did exist, though the stories in the hokey blurble are clearly bollocks. The fact that there is any evidence at all is sufficient to make it likely that the ludicrous stories were attached to an extant individual, in much the same way that the guff about the holy grail was attached to a real person, but the stories bear no other resemblance to reality.

Carrier is, in my opinion, chasing his tail, and an entirely irrelevant argument. It doesn't matter even a little bit if any of those stories make contact with a real person, and in fact I think Carrier is a bit of a knob for even bothering. The story itself is demonstrably bollocks, whether it was attributed to a real person or not.

Frankly, there's no discussion more dull or indeed asinine as whether or not Jesus existed. The simple fact is that the events of the New Testament are arse-water. Whether somebody had a particular name or lived/went to a particular place is nothing more than flim-flam. Carrier is distracting us from the real argument; Is this actually a good idea. The historicity of a common upstart with an even more common name is about as interesting as a Kent Hovind seminar.

In short, who the fuck cares? The wholly babble is bollocks. What more needs to be said?

Carrier himself says this argument is one that is irrelevant to atheism or proving Christianity false. He says that he would avoid using it as any kind of evidence in a discussion of that sort. He was however given money to investigate the theory and write the books on it's validity and it's brought him a good bit of attention as a result. So I understand why he continues on with it. It keeps him employed and somewhat relevant.

While we know the stories are "arse-water™" there are a billion people walking around who still believe the stuff. Anyone who takes time fighting against that ignorance is using their time in a worth while way IMO. By drawing attention to these issues he also gets to set people straight on what the truth is regarding a great number of things in the Bible and it's history. People who have been sheltered from these facts by their churches (or their own imposed ignorance) are confronted with what should be discomforting information. Even if the exact question at hand is irrelevant the rest of the facts and points in the discussion might open some eyes to the absurdity of all of it. I'm OK with it being "click-bait". Perhaps if you don't have to deal with these fanatics all day every day it's not as important to you. That's understandable. But areas here in the states (almost everywhere) are filled with people who want to force this shit on us. If he brings these people face to face with reality by addressing what is a silly question I'm still all for it. If you think he's chasing his tail I suggest you take a gander at the next GOP debate on Fox. This is big business here in the US.

After having read a handful of these books I agree it is absurd that it's an "argument". Were we talking about someone who was maybe a minor king in the far east with no direct imprint and we had the same kind of evidence everyone would go "Yawn, there's nothing convincing here. Can we move along now?". Instead it's Jesus and it's untouchable because so many people hold it to be sacrosanct. I don't know if the theory Carrier puts forth is correct or not. I think it at least plausible. To be fair he just shows it's probable given what we know. No matter if the question is hugely relevant or not it is still interesting to investigate to me. It is a subject that has convinced hundreds of millions of people to believe through the years. So the who, what, when, why, and where of how it started has some value regardless of it's relation to reality.

 

[thenexttodie]

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.

Listen dude, If the Bible is just a compilation of made up stories, many of which make the Jews look pretty bad, then what other purpose would there be for making up these stories other than just making the Jews look bad?

Certainly Richard Carries does not believe there were there other ancient "Jew condemning myths" which might have inspired these authors?

Does he?

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.

Paul emphasized the fact that he had only briefly met any of the 12 apostles. To say that EVERYTHING he knew about Jesus was through revelation is a bit philosophical.

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?

You are getting a little bit off. Had Paul not been persecuting Christians, how would he have identfied with a statement like "I am the Lord, the one you have been persecuting"? Paul would have had to know enough about Christ and Christians, in order to identify and persecute them.

 

[Collecemall]

I'm not going to reply to anymore nonsense. Either quote where Carrier makes the arguments you said OR DROP IT. Heaven forbid you admit you were wrong.

As to Paul you might want to go read again. I'm not off. Out of Paul's own words he says the following which says he didn't meet ANY of the apostles or learn anything from man:

Galatians 1:11

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I DID NOT RECEIVE IT FROM ANY MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT; RATHER I RECEIVED IT BY REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST.

Galatians 1: 15-17 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I DID NOT CONSULT ANY MAN, NOR DID I GO TO JERUSALEM TO SEE THOSE WHO WERE APOSTLES BEFORE I WAS,....



Paul NEVER says anything about there being a living Jesus. Even the crucifixtion and burial he got from SCRIPTURE as he says in 1 Corintians 15: 3-4. Paul is oblivious to anything Jesus ever said or did. That is a fact that just plain does not sit well with any theory that includes historicity. Rather than saying "Joe, Bob, and Leroy were all there and SAW it! Why would you doubt?" He instead says in Galatians 3:1 "Oh you foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was foretold as crucified?" He is referring to SCRIPTURE again and that they had seen the relevant passages with their own eyes. This is just plain bizarre if there were in fact a man who was crucified and these people were there and knew about it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Thenexttodie, I replied to your post in some detail here.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Thenexttodie, I replied to your post in some detail here.

Thenexttodie also created this thread and has since abandoned it. Only his made up god knows if he will reply to you or return to the abandoned thread.

 

[thenexttodie]

Thenexttodie, I replied to your post in some detail here.

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?

I would agree that when people are hallucinating, that they are not communinating with God.

If so, do you agree that in fact most people who experience this are not talking to a god?

I would say that all people who are hallucinating, are not talking to God. I am sure there are people out there who would disagree with me. I also know there are some who believe that trees are gods. Maybe that's what you mean by "a god". You can certainly hallucinate and go talk to a tree.

But in order to keep things rational we must assume you are refering to the Christian God, the God of Abraham, don't we?

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.

That's not quite how the Bible explains it but for now it's close enough.

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?

Ok.

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.

Ok.

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.

I think the main reason why you and many others find Carrier's "work" to be so compelling is that you fail to realize that ALL historians would agree we have far less than 1% of the literary work from that time period. We don't even have first hand acounts of the existence of certain Roman Emporers who ruled after Christ. How many primary sources do we have for Alexander the Great? Yet you think it's noteable that we don't have any outside primary Christian sources who specifically refer to what Josephus' wrote about Christ?

It's a trick, SpecialFrog. Any 8th grade history teacher could have wrote the same book with the money you idiots donated to Richard Carrier. To extrapolate theories based on the lack of surviving literary works of the classical era is retarded.

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

He doesn't say either.

Actually I think he says this in this video of one of his presentations that was posted in this very thread.

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.

Of course not! Why would he?

[Richard Carrier] notes that [stories of dying and rising gods] are common enough in mythology to make Jesus not particularly unique in this regard.

I used to not even question claims like this because there is no reason to attribute them as being evidences for your side. Nonetheless, each and everytime I have investigated these claims, they have turned out to be bogus. And I think even Carrier would agree that, at least, most of them are.

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?

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

Odin, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Ganesha, Mithras, Tammuz, Jesus Christ, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, etc.