Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[bhsmte]

"
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.....

I said; I acquired new knowledge in regards to the gospels, that caused me to reevaluate my position.

How hard is it to accept, a person can learn something about a topic, they did not know before? If someone learns something they didn't know before, this knowledge, is new to them.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I said; I acquired new knowledge in regards to the gospels, that caused me to reevaluate my position.

How hard is it to accept, a person can learn something about a topic, they did not know before? If someone learns something they didn't know before, this knowledge, is new to them.

Then let me rephrase....what new evidence/knowledge caused you to reevaluate your position? You can tell us that, right?

 

[bhsmte]

Then let me rephrase....what new evidence/knowledge caused you to reevaluate your position? You can tell us that, right?

Asked and answered.

 

[Lulav]

Come on guys!

Let's get back on track. And please don't try to coerce a person into responding.
This is a discussion, not an inquisition, this is not a court room thus interrogation
is not acceptable.

This is the topic at hand:
Richard Carrier's book :On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

Here's the book on Amazon you can have a peek inside if you aren't familiar with it.

So if you will, please stay on the topic of what it presented
in this book.

Thank You!

​

 

[civilwarbuff]

OK, properly chastised....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I value truth.

I'm sorry Jeremy, but I don't believe that you do. Your faith is too strong for that, as seen here:

My worldview was turned upside down when God caused me to born again from above. In light of this, my worldview is the one true worldview and therefore there is nothing that could show it to be false.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Apologists seem to have a talent for excuses when their apologetics fail.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

See my previous question regarding the Book of Mormon.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Why is the moderator allowing this preaching to go on?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

If you never address the real reasons why people don't believe, then you are not likely to dispel their skepticism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But God lays no obligation on any of His children to play word games or go back and forth with people that are insincere and disingenuous. Christ spent no time whatsoever begging people to follow Him. He is not one who stands wringing His hands with a pitiful look on His face, hoping some will feel sorry for Him and "accept" Him into their life.

This is blatantly hypocritical of you Jeremy.

Let none here feel obligated to those who choose to blaspheme the Holy Spirit of God, but submit yourselves to God and be filled with the Holy Spirit so that our speech may always be seasoned with salt and so that we may know how to answer them and be ready to answer them who ask us for the reason for the hope we have with meekness and humility.

But you are not "ready," as evidenced by your persistent evasiveness:

I'm not answering any of your questions. Your time and mine is too valuable for me to waste on doing so.

Yes sir I am. Always ready.

...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.....

Never be apologetic for following Christ or for standing with Him. Meekness is not weakness nor is it synonymous with inferiority. Our sufficiency comes from Christ my brothers and sisters.

How you could confuse conceit for meekness is beyond my understanding.

 

[bhsmte]

If you never address the real reasons why people don't believe, then you are not likely to dispel their skepticism.

It is clearly, too much of a threat to address the real reasons people say as to why they don't believe. Much safer, to toss aside what they actually say and manufacture your own reasons.

 

[redleghunter]

I thought everyone was warned to stop the personal inquistions on this thread and get back to the OP?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I thought everyone was warned to stop the personal inquistions on this thread and get back to the OP?

The thread has long since deviated from the OP and appears to be focused now on whether bhsmte was ever a Christian. You can thank the apologists for that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

I'm not sure what choice Richard Carrier really has as an historian.

He explains his stance on this issue in detail in this video. He talks about his views on historical method, especially with respect to the issue of claims of miracles and how to approach them as an historian.

He discusses important questions any historian should ask of an historical source, stages of analysis, and how to make judgments of likelihood for certain conclusions. He also talks briefly about Bayes' theorem and how it applies, at least implicitly, to historical method. It's worth watching.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fact is that Carrier is claiming Jesus did not in fact exist.

Source?

He is saying that the evidence supports a mythical Jesus with greater likelihood. He's big on Bayes' Theorem and is making a probabilistic argument, as any historian must, at least implicitly. Watch the video I posted just above.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Source?

He is saying that the evidence supports a mythical Jesus with greater likelihood. He's big on Bayes' Theorem and is making a probabilistic argument, as any historian must, at least implicitly. Watch the video I posted just above.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But the fact is that he is wrong. On probalistic grounds, Jesus being a historical figure is far more probable.
He cherry picks evidence for his argument and misrepresents a lot of it and brings unrelated ideas together to support it, as I have shown. He is not using Bayes' theorem, he is abusing it to convince people unfamiliar with the sources he references.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But the fact is that he is wrong. On probalistic grounds, Jesus being a historical figure is far more probable.

That is not a fact, and he of course makes a case for the opposite position.

He cherry picks evidence for his argument and misrepresents a lot of it and brings unrelated ideas together to support it, as I have shown.

Not convincingly to my mind.

He is not using Bayes' theorem, he is abusing it to convince people unfamiliar with the sources he references.

That is quite a claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That is not a fact, and he of course makes a case for the opposite position.



Not convincingly to my mind.



That is quite a claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I have supported my claim in multiple posts, but have never seen anyone make a counter argument.

The majority of historians hold Jesus to have existed based on probalistic grounds. That is why the Christ myth theory is a very minority position as the OP agreed as well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have supported my claim in multiple posts, but have never seen anyone make a counter argument.

That doesn't make what you say a fact. I accept that you have an argument. It may even be a strong one, but I just don't find it convincing.

I also accept that Jesus mythicism is a small minority position. No one has any illusions about this.

At the moment, I'm just looking for defenders of an historical Jesus to make claims or arguments that I can check up on should I decide to wade through Carrier's book. For instance, the claim that Zalmoxis is not a savior deity is something I can follow up on by investigating Carrier's footnotes.

The majority of historians hold Jesus to have existed based on probalistic grounds.

Carrier would agree.

That is why the Christ myth theory is a very minority position as the OP agreed as well.

No, it's not why. The reasons have to do with the sort of evidence and arguments that have been presented over the years. Any judgments about probability are based on those. This is something that can change over time.


eudaimonia,

Mark