Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with Santa very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

You can replace the noun in that statement with any mythical creature and it would make the same amount of sense.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with Santa very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

You can replace the noun in that statement with any mythical creature and it would make the same amount of sense.

But you can write to Santa! He even has a Canadian postal code (H0H 0H0).

 

[Visaki]

But you can write to Santa! He even has a Canadian postal code (H0H 0H0).

Sending a letter to the address

Santa Claus
99999 Korvatunturi
Finland

or

Santa Claus
Santa Claus Main Post Office
96930 Arctic Circle
Finland

will actually get your letter to Santa Claus. He gets over 500 000 letters each year.

And no, I'm nor kidding.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Sending a letter to the address

Santa Claus
99999 Korvatunturi
Finland

or

Santa Claus
Santa Claus Main Post Office
96930 Arctic Circle
Finland

will actually get your letter to Santa Claus. He gets over 500 000 letters each year.

And no, I'm nor kidding.

In Canada it is:
SANTA CLAUS
NORTH POLE H0H 0H0
CANADA

ou en Francais:
PÈRE NOËL
PÔLE NORD H0H 0H0
CANADA

 

[Visaki]

In Canada it is:
SANTA CLAUS
NORTH POLE H0H 0H0
CANADA

ou en Francais:
PÈRE NOËL
PÔLE NORD H0H 0H0
CANADA

So they redirect Santas post to Finland from that address I take it? Because otherwise he won't get all those letters since it is an undisputable fact that Santa Claus lives in Korvatunturi in the Finnish Lapland.

Anyways, claiming that Santa Claus lives in Canada, or the North pole, is heresy. After all we all know that the North Pole is not in Canada!

Or maybe, just maybe, Krampus put that address there to make confuse believes in Canada to sending their letters to a bogus address, and therefore missing in all the presents Santa delivers?

 

[SpecialFrog]

So they redirect Santas post to Finland from that address I take it? Because otherwise he won't get all those letters since it is an undisputable fact that Santa Claus lives in Korvatunturi in the Finnish Lapland.

Anyways, claiming that Santa Claus lives in Canada, or the North pole, is heresy. After all we all know that the North Pole is not in Canada!

Or maybe, just maybe, Krampus put that address there to make confuse believes in Canada to sending their letters to a bogus address, and therefore missing in all the presents Santa delivers?

Well, Canada is one of several countries that has made claims on the North Pole.

Really, the actual Nikolaos of Myra lived in what is now Turkey, so they have the best claim to being Santa's residence.

 

[thenexttodie]

Put me in touch with God or provide me with some evidence of His existence.

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with God very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

In other words, no you don't have any evidence of God's existence. Also, since you say above that God hasn't talked to anyone since Biblical times (was John the Divine the last?) he clearly hasn't talked to you. Your uncle analogy is worthless

Did you try it or not?

 

[SpecialFrog]

So thenexttodie, are you done trying to defend the historicity of Jesus?

If so just say so and we can start a new thread to discuss whether or not this is a viable method for finding evidence for God, though I have addressed some of the issues with this approach in my response to Visaki.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Put me in touch with God or provide me with some evidence of His existence.

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with God very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

In other words, no you don't have any evidence of God's existence. Also, since you say above that God hasn't talked to anyone since Biblical times (was John the Divine the last?) he clearly hasn't talked to you. Your uncle analogy is worthless

Did you try it or not?

I wrote a letter to Santa, since everyone was posting his address. Does that count?

 

[thenexttodie]

So thenexttodie, are you done trying to defend the historicity of Jesus?

Not necessarily, but sometimes it seems to me more logical to address things in an order somewhat relative of their magnitude. You asked me to put you in touch with God and my answer to you was the best way I could think of for you to do this. All I am asking you is whether you tried it or not? Yes or no?

 

[SpecialFrog]

You asked me to put you in touch with God and my answer to you was the best way I could think of for you to do this. All I am asking you is whether you tried it or not? Yes or no?

So are you in touch with God? What does that mean, exactly, since you have previously implied that God hasn't spoken to anyone since the Bible was completed (though you have not answered what that means, specifically)?

And no, I have not done so. There is no reason to think anyone has gotten in touch with any kind of God by this method any time in the history of the world.

And while I acknowledge I don't know for certain, I don't know for certain that I won't fly if I jump out this window. Though even nine floors up I would rate my odds of surviving as significantly higher than they are getting in touch with God by your method or any other.

But this is all a tangent. Do you think the historicity of Jesus can only be established by proving we can get in touch with God?

If you want to keep talking about this digression, make a new thread.

 

[tuxbox]

I'm not sure why this thread is still kicking, and what getting in touch with God has to do with the historicity of Jesus? That said, There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically. Richard Carrier did not make a very good case for the non-existence of the historical Jesus.

 

[thenexttodie]

You asked me to put you in touch with God and my answer to you was the best way I could think of for you to do this. All I am asking you is whether you tried it or not? Yes or no?

no

I see...

 

[WarK]

I'm not sure why this thread is still kicking, and what getting in touch with God has to do with the historicity of Jesus? That said, There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically. Richard Carrier did not make a very good case for the non-existence of the historical Jesus.

I don't think there was a good case for existence of Jesus. I saw a vid of Bart Ehrman trying to refute Carrier's argument but even he didn't have anything reasonable to say about it.

 

[Collecemall]

Tuxbox would you mind sharing the evidence you find compelling for Jesus existence?

 

[tuxbox]

I don't think there was a good case for existence of Jesus. I saw a vid of Bart Ehrman trying to refute Carrier's argument but even he didn't have anything reasonable to say about it.

I do believe that Ehrman makes a very good case of the existence of Jesus.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[tuxbox]

Tuxbox would you mind sharing the evidence you find compelling for Jesus existence?

Watch the video I posted in response to WarK.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I'm not sure why this thread is still kicking, and what getting in touch with God has to do with the historicity of Jesus? That said, There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically. Richard Carrier did not make a very good case for the non-existence of the historical Jesus.

There was near consensus on the historicity of Moses and over a relatively short period that completely reversed. Carrier has shown that the current consensus on Jesus is based on a lot of bad evidence.

There is also the appearance of bias in that a large percentage of the scholarship has been done by people for whom mythicism is doctrinally unacceptable.

Also, as Wark mentioned, the criticism of Carrier's claims has thus far been extremely poor.

However, I accept that my ability to assess the evidence directly is limited and therefore feel that I can justify a position of skepticism on historicity but not a mythicist position until the consensus shifts a certain amount.

Edited to add: but I agree it has nothing to do with getting in touch with God.

 

[tuxbox]

Here are the sources that a historical Jesus existed.

Also, here is a Law School that list famous trials and Jesus is included on this list.

It is very likely that a historical Jesus existed based on other scholars researching the matter and coming to that conclusion. Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire is also compelling evidence that Jesus existed. The existence of Muhammad could also be questioned based on the skepticism that some scholars have of the existence of Jesus. Islam spreed throughout the Middle East and parts of Africa, just as Christianity did five centuries before the birth of Muhammad. Yet I never see anyone questioning his existence.

 

[WarK]

Here are the sources that a historical Jesus existed.

C'mon, Gospels are included on that list.

Also, here is a Law School that list famous trials and Jesus is included on this list.

And they know this how? Do they cite their sources?

Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire is also compelling evidence that Jesus existed.

How is this evidence for Jesus existence? What did the Romans know that we don't know? You trust that they knew something we don't. Why?

By comparison, do you accept that Romulus and Remus were real persons?