Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[bhsmte]

Carrier approaches the New Testament with the assumption that the miraculous events recorded in it could not have happened and so he interprets the material in such a way as to reconcile it to his anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions.

Many approach the texts this way. Their worldview informs the text instead of them allowing the text to inform their worldview. The bias is evident. Athee admitted to having this bias.

Clearly, you don't understand the historical method and how historians apply the same.

Miracles by definition, are the least likely explanation for any event in the past and therefore, any historian doing real historical work, will not state, claimed miracles in ancient writings, are historically reliable. Even conservative Christian scholars and historians, will admit miracles can not be verified as likely true with the historical method.

 

[bhsmte]

It is Jesus and the cross that offends people. It is Jesus and the cross that people reject ultimately.

Sounds like a presupposition.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't have to ask them. I know this.

How do you come to know this about anyone who disagrees with you, without hearing it directly from them?

 

[anonymous person]

The OP topic, are about Carriers position on the historicity of Jesus and have zero to do with anyone's world view, beyond the single topic on the historicity of Jesus.

And, what presuppositions, are you referring to?

Why in one breath do you speak about the issue of presuppositions being off topic, and then in the next, ask me a question about presuppositions?

 

[anonymous person]

How do you come to know this about anyone who disagrees with you, without hearing it directly from them?

Because God has testified as to why men reject the light that has come into the world.

 

[anonymous person]

Clearly, you don't understand the historical method and how historians apply the same.

Sure I do. I also understand historians are human beings who have biases. Carrier has a bias which colors his work so much so that it places him squarely out in left field virtually all by himself when it comes to the historicity of Jesus.

Miracles by definition, are the least likely explanation for any event in the past

That is not a definition. That is a philosophical assumption about miracles.

and therefore, any historian doing real historical work, will not state, claimed miracles in ancient writings, are historically reliable. Even conservative Christian scholars and historians, will admit miracles can not be verified as likely true with the historical method.

Your therefore is based on a strawman.

Not only that, but nobody here is trying to argue that historians can prove miracles happened via historiography. Once again, attacking strawmen gets you no where.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Clearly, you don't understand the historical method and how historians apply the same.

Miracles by definition, are the least likely explanation for any event in the past and therefore, any historian doing real historical work, will not state, claimed miracles in ancient writings, are historically reliable. Even conservative Christian scholars and historians, will admit miracles can not be verified as likely true with the historical method.

The fact is that Carrier is claiming Jesus did not in fact exist. This is not tenable by the historical critical method at all. For historians don't accept miracles, but they don't reject a source outright just because it mentions them. For then there would have been almost no sources whatsoever for almost 4000 years of human existence.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure I could learn a lot of things that would cause me to question my position. That is why the Holy Spirit cautions us to be careful as to what we allow into our hearts and minds. People can be led astray by false teachings.



If that is the case, then anyone who takes a stand for what they believe, including you, is simply doing so as a result of defense mechanisms and to protect their current position.

Personally, I take no issue with you saying what you do. I am right and so I am going to stand on what I know to be true.



You speak as though you are not guilty of doing the very thing you impugn me for doing. You impugn me for taking a stand and speaking boldly about what I hold to be true as if you don't do the same.

The holy spirit then, is actually part of the defense mechanism, warning you of any teachings, which may bring question into your current position.

As I have stated many times on this thread, I could care less what people believe or don't believe, what i engage others in, is when they attempt to justify what they believe in and claim other people are lost, or wrong for not believing as they believe and make assumptions and claims about the person that disagrees with them.

When that happens, I will challenge what puts the other person in the position to make such claims and how they support their claims and it tends to get quite interesting from that point. If someone of faith, simply says I believe what I do on faith alone and respects the fact that others may disagree with them and have valid reasons to do so, no challenges will then take place, from me.

 

[anonymous person]

The holy spirit then, is actually part of the defense mechanism, warning you of any teachings, which may bring question into your current position.

As I have stated many times on this thread, I could care less what people believe or don't believe, what i engage others in, is when they attempt to justify what they believe in and claim other people are lost, or wrong for not believing as they believe and make assumptions and claims about the person that disagrees with them.

You have the right and freedom to do so. I welcome questions and challenges to my beliefs. I always come away from such instances encouraged as I hope the one challenging does too.

When that happens, I will challenge what puts the other person in the position to make such claims and how they support their claims and it tends to get quite interesting from that point. If someone of faith, simply says I believe what I do on faith alone and respects the fact that others may disagree with them and have valid reasons to do so, no challenges will then take place, from me.

Good.

I am not such a person that claims I just believe what I do for no reason whatsoever.

My beliefs are rooted and grounded in Jesus of Nazareth a person who lived, died, and rose bodily from the grave on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion, whose resurrection was a public vindication of His radical claims to divinity.

You are wrong about Jesus, and unless you repent and are born again, you will be lost.

This is a fact, and of course I expect you to take exception to that.

But be honest about why you do. All of us here know very well that the issue is Jesus and what He stands for and what the cross stands for, not all of this superfluous nonsense that people put up as reasons why they don't believe.

 

[bhsmte]

You have the right and freedom to do so. I welcome questions and challenges to my beliefs. I always come away from such instances encouraged as I hope the one challenging does too.



Good.

I am not such a person that claims I just believe what I do for no reason whatsoever.

My beliefs are rooted and grounded in Jesus of Nazareth a person who lived, died, and rose bodily from the grave on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion, whose resurrection was a public vindication of His radical claims to divinity.

You are wrong about Jesus, and unless you repent and are born again, you will be lost.

This is a fact, and of course I expect you to take exception to that.

But be honest about why you do. All of us here know very well that the issue is Jesus and what He stands for and what the cross stands for, not all of this superfluous nonsense that people put up as reasons why they don't believe.

You just can't help yourself, you have to convince yourself you know how other people think and you have to define how people who disagree with you think, because it may make you more comfortable with your own faith.

Out of sheer respect in any human discourse, I find it is helpful for intellectually honest discussion, to not assume the position of another person and or the reasons they hold the position they do. Therefore, I will ask the other person, their position on a particular issue and not manufacture my own reasons for their position. If the reasons they give contradict previous statements they have made, I will point that out and ask for clarification.

I have made myself very clear on my positions and reasons why I am no longer a Christian. At times, it appears you need to ignore what I have stated and make your own assumptions. I believe I have a good handle on why you need to follow this pattern, but it makes any type of intellectually honest discussion near impossible.

We keep getting to the same place, which is you making a call on how others who disagree with you really feel and not listening to them. It has gotten old and I will not engage in it any longer.

 

[anonymous person]

Men like Carrier are the subject of the apostle's admonitions to followers of Christ. They admonished men to continue in sound doctrine and to not be swept away into vain discussions about trifles. They warned of men that would have itching ears, who would gather together for themselves teachers that would say the things they wanted to hear.

The pre-Pauline creed dates back to mere years from the events it speaks on:

Paul states:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received:

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

That Christ died
That He was buried
That He was raised
That He appeared to Cephas
That He appeared to the twelve
That He appeared to more than five hundred most of whom were still alive at the time Paul wrote this
That He appeared to James
That He appeared to the apostles

Gerald O’Collins, a resurrection expert, states that he knows no scholar who dates the creed after the mid 40’s. Wilckens states concerning the creed, “the material collected here indubitably goes back to the oldest phrase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” Some scholars even give exact dates for the creed. Dodd states that the conversion of Paul occurred approximately in A.D. 33-34 and his visit to Jerusalem was three years after that. Thus, assuming the crucifixion of Christ occurred around A.D. 30, that would date the creed to “at the utmost, therefore, not more than seven years after the Crucifixion.” Likewise, Tom Wright argues that the creed is “. . . stemming from a primitive tradition of the mid-thirties . . . .” So it is at least reasonable to conclude that the material in the creed predates Paul. www.carm.org


Now someone like Carrier or yourself would look at all of this and just explain it away. The continual shifting of goalposts on the part of the hardnosed skeptic is simply a sign that he is not going to believe. It is not a matter of evidence or lack thereof. It is a matter of will you surrender your life to Christ.

Period.

 

[anonymous person]

You just can't help yourself, you have to convince yourself you know how other people think and you have to define how people who disagree with you think, because it may make you more comfortable with your own faith.

Jesus is my source of comfort and consolation, nothing else.

Out of sheer respect in any human discourse, I find it is helpful for intellectually honest discussion, to not assume the position of another person and or the reasons they hold the position they do.

Good, and in general I agree. But after a while we need to call a spade a spade and stop the silly word games and stop talking about how much we value honesty, and BE honest.

Therefore, I will ask the other person, their position on a particular issue and not manufacture my own reasons for their position. If the reasons they give contradict previous statements they have made, I will point that out and ask for clarification.

Good.

I have made myself very clear on my positions and reasons why I am no longer a Christian. At times, it appears you need to ignore what I have stated and make your own assumptions. I believe I have a good handle on why you need to follow this pattern, but it makes any type of intellectually honest discussion near impossible.

Then stop talking.

We keep getting to the same place, which is you making a call on how others who disagree with you really feel and not listening to them. It has gotten old and I will not engage in it any longer.

Good. We will still be here though answering questions, making points, and sharpening one another as iron sharpens iron. When you are ready to be honest with yourself and us, we will be right here waiting for you.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I answered your question, but you did not answer mine.

Would you accept new evidence that Jesus was not God, or possibly someone like Carrier's arguments had merit, if it was going to turn your worldview upside down, or would you simply deny it?

But you never answered my question from #200. So, once again what is this new evidence/knowledge you have from texts that have been known for over 1600 years? Don't accuse people of not answering your questions when you utterly fail to answer the questions of others....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Once you have one worldview changing event then, that means you could never be wrong and there is nothing for you to learn, that may bring question into your position?

Sounds like, good old fashion psychological defense mechanisms in play, to protect your current position.

Not unusual for some and very interesting to watch the behaviors that come from this type of personal position.

This is the 3rd time I have asked about new evidence/knowledge.....do you have it or not?

 

[bhsmte]

But you never answered my question from #200. So, once again what is this new evidence/knowledge you have from texts that have been known for over 1600 years? Don't accuse people of not answering your questions when you utterly fail to answer the questions of others....

I answered your question and I have made myself crystal clear. It appears my answer was deleted by the mods.

How long something has been around, does not mean people can not acquire new personal knowledge by studying the topic. I acquired new knowledge by thoroughly studying the NT and acquired knowledge I did not posses before, because I had not studied it thoroughly.

Have you never acquired new knowledge on a subject, which has been around for a long time, by deciding to investigate and study the topic?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I answered your question and I have made myself crystal clear. It appears my answer was deleted by the mods.

They must have thought it was an inapproprieate response...

How long something has been around, does not mean people can not acquire new personal knowledge by studying the topic. I acquired new knowledge by thoroughly studying the NT and acquired knowledge I did not posses before, because I had not studied it thoroughly.

Have you never acquired new knowledge on a subject, which has been around for a long time, by deciding to investigate and study the topic?

One more time: What is this new knowledge/evidence you keep speaking of? It is not difficult question....can you not answer it?

 

[bhsmte]

They must have thought it was an inapproprieate response...

One more time: What is this new knowledge/evidence you keep speaking of? It is not difficult question....can you not answer it?

Not inappropriate, but off topic for the op. I will PM you my response, because it is off topic for this op.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not inappropriate, but off topic for the op. I will PM you my response, because it is off topic for this op.

NP, I will just copy/paste it to here and I will bear the brunt of the mods wrath if such happens....
Personally, I consider your response will be entirely appropriate since you have referenced your "new evidence/knowledge" several times and it has not been deleted the the mods....I think it is safe to say it is in line with the OP.

 

[bhsmte]

NP, I will just copy/paste it to here and I will bear the brunt of the mods wrath if such happens....
Personally, I consider your response will be entirely appropriate since you have referenced your "new evidence/knowledge" several times and it has not been deleted the the mods....I think it is safe to say it is in line with the OP.

Your call.

 

[civilwarbuff]

NP, I will just copy/paste it to here and I will bear the brunt of the mods wrath if such happens....
Personally, I consider your response will be entirely appropriate since you have referenced your "new evidence/knowledge" several times and it has not been deleted the the mods....I think it is safe to say it is in line with the OP.

"
This is a duplicate response, of what I have stated many times on this site.

The new knowledge I acquired, after deciding several years ago, to investigate the gospels and the NT for clarification and guidance was this:

Although I knew the basic story and claims of the gospels during my many years as a Christian, I didn't know anything in regards to the historicity behind the words and just assumed the claims to be true and credible.

Upon investigating the work of many different scholars and historians (most of them Christians and well credentialed), I learned the historicity behind the words, was on thin ice. All authors of the gospels are anonymous, the gospels were penned decades after Jesus died, verses were added to the gospels, centuries later and were no where to be found in the oldest copies. Contradictions occur in the gospels and also the opposite, the appearance of almost copying word for word, of other gospels. No originals exist of these gospels and only copies beginning 200 years after jesus died. The earliest copies.

The above is not the sole reason I left Christianity, but it caused me to hit the pause button and reevaluate basic Christian theology in general and ask myself, does any of this make sense, is any of this credible and does it appear to that of a loving God who cares about all his creation.

So, my investigation of the gospels was not the only reason I left Christianity, but it triggered myself being honest with myself and asking whether the theology, could be reconciled with well evidenced reality and I could no longer do so.

How I didn't see before, that any theology that allows people who lived horrible lives, to repent and find Jesus and be saved, while a person who happens to be born in a different region of the world and following a different religion, but lives a life of helping others in need are doomed, because they are not Christian, reeks of a theology, ..............."

I deleted the last phrase.....

The fact is you are not telling us anything that is new....Nor would I be telling you anything new to say that many historical figures have less evidence/credence than found in the NT and yet are accepted by historians almost without question....many have been discussed in above theads.....so you got to do better than this as "new evidence/knowledge"....just because you did not know it does not mean it is new.....