Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[tuxbox]

C'mon, Gospels are included on that list.

What is your point? The Gospels are still historical documents that speak of real events. Just because the authors of those books embellished the accounts of Jesus, does not mean the man did not exists.

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

non-Christian accounts. However, I am sure you discount those as well.

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?

The Romans would have known the historicity of Jesus, because they knew their own history, just as we know our history that took place three centuries ago. Point being, they would have had evidence that we do not have. Their history was current, where we are left in the dark, due to the passing of time.

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

Touché! That said, scholars are quite certain that they are a myth. Just as most scholars agree that the historical Jesus existed.

 

[tuxbox]

There was near consensus on the historicity of Moses and over a relatively short period that completely reversed.

At one point scholars believed that the city of Troy was a myth, and that was completely reversed as well.

 

[Dustnite]

Tux,

This quote, "There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically" looks like you grabbed it directly off Wikipedia and going through the edits on that phrase there's seems to be a concerted effort to get that on the wiki page. With that said, I don't think it's possible to verify such a thing considering out of the non christian sources none were temporary and there could be arguments made both ways.

I remain unsure of the historocity of Jesus, yet I'm very certain that the divnity of Jesus, the Resurrection, etc. are false much in the same way that even though we know that Troy actually existed, I'm fairly certain that Achilles wasn't dipped into the river Styx by his heel as a baby by Athena to make it immortal.

Does anyone actually get into arguments with theists that hinge directly on the historicity of Jesus?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

There was near consensus on the historicity of Moses and over a relatively short period that completely reversed.

At one point scholars believed that the city of Troy was a myth, and that was completely reversed as well.

I just want to point out that it was believed to be mythical until real evidence (the actual city) was found. Plus, what they actually found was very different from the city described by Homer. Essentially, if there were a Jesus, what we know of him from the bible is probably so different from the actual Yeshua that one would not be able to tell him apart from the other "street preachers" wondering around at the same time. Honestly, take away the superpowers Jesus has in the gospels and the later additional stories added in to make him look more wise, and what do you have left but a wondering mad man that did not do anything special and should not leave any record behind. I honestly do not know what is worse for Christians, a real Jesus that did not do anything special or a completely fictional Jesus. Neither one of those options helps out the case for Christianity.

Oh, and people are questioning Muhammad's existence. Carrier recently wrote a blog about that.

 

[tuxbox]

Tux,

This quote, "There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically" looks like you grabbed it directly off Wikipedia and going through the edits on that phrase there's seems to be a concerted effort to get that on the wiki page. With that said, I don't think it's possible to verify such a thing considering out of the non christian sources none were temporary and there could be arguments made both ways.

I remain unsure of the historocity of Jesus, yet I'm very certain that the divnity of Jesus, the Resurrection, etc. are false much in the same way that even though we know that Troy actually existed, I'm fairly certain that Achilles wasn't dipped into the river Styx by his heel as a baby by Athena to make it immortal.

Does anyone actually get into arguments with theists that hinge directly on the historicity of Jesus?

I also, am not 100 percent certain of the historicity of Jesus. However, I find it very likely that there was a rabbi by the name of Yeshua, which the Gospels are loosely based on. Obviously his magic crap is made up.

I have not read this entire thread, so I cannot be sure if some of our Theist members have jumped into this argument. I do not see why we would not have that argument though. If the historicity of Jesus was proven to be a myth, then all of Christianity would fall apart. Carrier's assumptions are based on pure conjecture, which is why I do not believe he has made a good case.

 

[tuxbox]

I just want to point out that it was believed to be mythical until real evidence (the actual city) was found. Plus, what they actually found was very different from the city described by Homer. Essentially, if there were a Jesus, what we know of him from the bible is probably so different from the actual Yeshua that one would not be able to tell him apart from the other "street preachers" wondering around at the same time. Honestly, take away the superpowers Jesus has in the gospels and the later additional stories added in to make him look more wise, and what do you have left but a wondering mad man that did not do anything special and should not leave any record behind. I honestly do not know what is worse for Christians, a real Jesus that did not do anything special or a completely fictional Jesus. Neither one of those options helps out the case for Christianity.

Oh, and people are questioning Muhammad's existence. Carrier recently wrote a blog about that.

I never said that the historicity of Jesus helps Christianity. That is not why I am making the argument for the existence of Yeshua. That said, you have zero evidence that there were a bunch of "street preachers" by the name of Yeshua. That is pure speculation. Also, why would he be a made man? If there is any truth (not the magic parts) to the stories in the Bible about his teachings, then he was far from being "mad".

Muhammad's existence:

Again, this is just another one of Carrier's hit pieces based on speculation. Bottom line, I think Carrier is full of shit on just about everything he writes or speaks about when it comes to the existence of Yeshua and Muhammad. He hates religion and want to destroy it by making conjectures and speculations on the existence of the key figures in Christianity and Islam, thinking that will somehow convince people that billions of people are following the teachings of myths.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I never said that the historicity of Jesus helps Christianity. That is not why I am making the argument for the existence of Yeshua. That said, you have zero evidence that there were a bunch of "street preachers" by the name of Yeshua. That is pure speculation. Also, why would he be a made man? If there is any truth (not the magic parts) to the stories in the Bible about his teachings, then he was far from being "mad".

Well, main stream scholarship has shown that both the "Sermon on the Mount" and the "he who is without sin" stories are later additions to the gospels (Ehrman points this out in a few of his lectures, I can track them down of you like). Take away both of those stories and your left with someone the did not say anything new or revolutionary. If anything, his ideas were quite regressive in that he said things like people do not have to wash their hands, negating one of the few useful rules in the Torah, and he was here to set families against each other.

In addition, much like today with Joshua, Yeshua seems to have been a very popular name in the Jewish community two thousand years ago. Furthermore, "street preaching" (for lack of a better term) was extremely common in Roman occupied Israel, Josephus writes about this in the Antiquities of the Jews. It frankly would not surprise me to find out that Jesus was based on several "street preachers" from around that time, and a handful of them were actually named Yeshua.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Well, main stream scholarship has shown that both the "Sermon on the Mount" and the "he who is without sin" stories are later additions to the gospels (Ehrman points this out in a few of his lectures, I can track them down of you like).

I'd be intrested in seeing those

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, main stream scholarship has shown that both the "Sermon on the Mount" and the "he who is without sin" stories are later additions to the gospels (Ehrman points this out in a few of his lectures, I can track them down of you like).

I'd be intrested in seeing those

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Thank you!

 

[WarK]

That was a good watch, thanx he_who_is_nobody.

I'd like to watch him debate Richard Carrier or Robert Price

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That was a good watch, thanx he_who_is_nobody.

I'd like to watch him debate Richard Carrier or Robert Price

 

[SpecialFrog]

tuxbox, I couldn't reply for a couple of days but I'll try and avoid things others have said.

First of all, as the Wikipedia article notes, the consensus that exists only agrees on three facts: 1) Jesus existed, 2) Jesus was baptized by John (for whom better evidence exists) and 3) Jesus was crucified. The corollary of this is that there is no consensus for literally everything else Jesus is meant to have said or done.

This of course means that there is no consensus on 98% of what the Gospels say. Which makes sense given that the Gospels are most likely literary works along the lines of midrash. Virtually every passage in the Gospels is a reference to something in Hebrew scripture. It also makes sense given that the Gospels get more detailed as they get farther removed from when Jesus allegedly lived despite later Gospels all being at least largely based on earlier Gospels.

And of course the earliest Christian source is Paul, who -- by his own statements -- never met a historical Jesus. In fact Paul only says a couple of things that might suggest he wasn't talking solely to a celestial being (like Mohammad talking to the archangel Gabriel), and even those are up for debate.

So even those who agree Jesus was historical don't agree that the Christian sources tell us anything.

As for the other sources like Josephus and Tacitus, mostly they tell us that Christians existed. And even if all of their claimed references to Jesus (some of which have been addressed earlier in this thread) are authentic and indeed are talking about Jesus, they are far too late to really be considered independent. They could very easily just be reporting what Christians have said based on the Gospels (some of which would have been in circulation at this stage).

And really, I don't see why the Roman empire buying into it is compelling, They bought into the Greek pantheon heavily before that.

 

[WarK]

That was a good watch, thanx he_who_is_nobody.

I'd like to watch him debate Richard Carrier or Robert Price

Awesome!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Apparently Carrier is giving a talk in the unspecified city in which I live this week. I think I will go.

 

[Mugnuts]

I have not read this entire thread, so I cannot be sure if some of our Theist members have jumped into this argument. I do not see why we would not have that argument though. If the historicity of Jesus was proven to be a myth, then all of Christianity would fall apart. Carrier's assumptions are based on pure conjecture, which is why I do not believe he has made a good case</U><U>.

Three books written by Carrier about his Jesus Study.
Three books all with sources and citations after years of research.
The position that Carrier holds is not just his own so how you can state that underlined portion doesn't fly.

Have you had the chance to read any of the books? I presume obviously not or you wouldn't have said the above.

FYI, watching a few Carrier videos will not detail his case, hence reading them might give you more of an informed opinion.

 

[Visaki]

I'd like to point out that Carrier doesn't claim to have proven that Jesus was a myth, just that he thinks it's more probable that Jesus was a myth than not. He is quite clear that we don't have enough evidence to be certain about it one way or another.

Personally, after reading one is books and listening to a few of his speeches and interviews about the matter I do think Carrier has a case. Not so good of a case that I'd be a mythisist, but a real case nonetheless.

Has anyone heard his short interview with Seth Andrews that he did a short time ago? I'm just asking because I'm wondering if I was the only one that was surpised how much like Ben Stein (of the "intelligence not allowed" infamy) he sounds when he talks about how the mythisists are almost discriminated against in the community of history researchers.

 

[WarK]

Has anyone heard his short interview with Seth Andrews that he did a short time ago? I'm just asking because I'm wondering if I was the only one that was surpised how much like Ben Stein (of the "intelligence not allowed" infamy) he sounds when he talks about how the mythisists are almost discriminated against in the community of history researchers.

I have. To me it sounded like it could be true. A lot of the bible scholars are Christians and aren't allowed to consider such things.

I think it'll be really interesting to watch the debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price. They both are respected bible scholars and both aren't Christians. It may be that after that more bible scholars will take a harder look at all the evidence or lack thereof.

 

[Visaki]

I have. To me it sounded like it could be true. A lot of the bible scholars are Christians and aren't allowed to consider such things.

My impression of it might have been effected by the fact that I watched a Ben Stein "No intelligence allowed" debunking video the previous day. I was just surprised how much Carrien and Stein sounded alike when they talk about how the established community shuns ID proponents/mythisists. Carrier might have a point for all I know, but they both

I think it'll be really interesting to watch the debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price. They both are respected bible scholars and both aren't Christians. It may be that after that more bible scholars will take a harder look at all the evidence or lack thereof.

I'm going to watch that when it hits youtube, as I'm sure it'll be enlightening. Although he certainly knows his stuff Carriers appearences have, for some reason, always grated me a bit.

 

[Bango Skank]

I'm going to watch that when it hits youtube, as I'm sure it'll be enlightening. Although he certainly knows his stuff Carriers appearences have, for some reason, always grated me a bit.

Kickstarter funding has failed, so it might be a long wait if it happens at all.