8 unique features separating Jesus from other philosophies

[DogmaHunter]

Look again.

Why?
Did the bible change since I last read it?

 

[Nithavela]

Why?
Did the bible change since I last read it?

No, but when you're reading the bible, you can't contradict people on the internet.

 

[Uber Genius]

Well, I can't tell you of an example of something like that happening, because I don't think it's possible.

But the myths predate christianity. Examples would be several greek gods like Hephaestus, Krishna, Horus, Marjatta, the list goes on.

Really, if one wanted to make a mythical figure special, strange circumstances around the birth and pregnancy were very common.

Please site something other than the movie Zeightgeist as a source. A movie just slightly less accurate than "Ancient Aliens," on the History Channel.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Please site something other than the movie Zeightgeist as a source. A movie just slightly less accurate than "Ancient Aliens," on the History Channel.

Richard Carrier

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Richard Carrier

Oh, a discredited academic adhering to a lunatic fringe, that is widely discredited in the field? Who is no longer affiliated to any university? Who largely lives based on his notoriety? Who is routinely castigated by peer review for misrepresenting sources and frankly ignoring inconvenient evidence?

Not much better than an Ancient Alien documentary on History Channel, no.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, a discredited academic adhering to a lunatic fringe, that is widely discredited in the field? Who is no longer affiliated to any university? Who largely lives based on his notoriety? Who is routinely castigated by peer review for misrepresenting sources and frankly ignoring inconvenient evidence?

Not much better than an Ancient Alien documentary on History Channel, no.

There is a thing called working in the field. You don't have to become a professor to make use of your PhD. My brother has a PhD in physics and he hasn't set foot in a university since receiving it. Carrier is making money doing work directly related to his PhD.

In fact, if Carrier could not make money blogging and writing books and making appearances and debating, and instead had to work as a professor, you'd trumpet that as the proof of the failure of his idea.

In a nutshell, your comment is fundamentally dishonest and does not address his position.

Now if you have something aside from ad hominem attacks... oh who am I kidding, no you don't. Lol.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is a thing called working in the field. You don't have to become a professor to make use of your PhD. My brother has a PhD in physics and he hasn't set foot in a university since receiving it. Carrier is making money doing work directly related to his PhD.

In fact, if Carrier could not make money blogging and writing books and making appearances and debating, and instead had to work as a professor, you'd trumpet that as the proof of the failure of his idea.

In a nutshell, your comment is fundamentally dishonest and does not address his position.

Now if you have something aside from ad hominem attacks... oh who am I kidding, no you don't. Lol.

My friend, he fails peer review. Would you trust a physicist that fails peer review? There are literally articles written on how specious and ludicrous his reasoning is, from other historians. Look up Daniel Gullotta article 'On Richard Carrier's Doubts' from Stanford University press - you'll find it damning in the extreme.

Carrier is the Flat Earther of Historians. Historians are Associates or Readers or Guest Lecturers of Universities usually, when in good standing. Even other controversial figures like David Rohl are still associated with some body of Historians or university. That literally no one wants to be associated with Carrier is telling.

But by all means, if you want to side with a complete crackpot, who am I to stop you. I have addressed his position on multiple threads here, and simply following up his sources are usually enough to discredit him. Pick one of his controversial themes and I am happy to blow him out of the water, if you'd like. It is really not very hard to do.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My friend, he fails peer review. Would you trust a physicist that fails peer review? There are literally articles written on how specious and ludicrous his reasoning is, from other historians. Look up Daniel Gullotta article 'On Richard Carrier's Doubts' from Stanford University press - you'll find it damning in the extreme.

Carrier is the Flat Earther of Historians. Historians are Associates or Readers or Guest Lecturers of Universities usually, when in good standing. Even other controversial figures like David Rohl are still associated with some body of Historians or university. That literally no one wants to be associated with Carrier is telling.

But by all means, if you want to side with a complete crackpot, who am I to stop you. I have addressed his position on multiple threads here, and simply following up his sources are usually enough to discredit him. Pick one of his controversial themes and I am happy to blow him out of the water, if you'd like. It is really not very hard to do.

Daniel N. Gullotta is a historian of religion, particularly interested in the history of North American Christianity and Biblical interpretation. He is currently a Doctor of Philosophy student in Religious Studies at Stanford University, specializing in Early Modern North American Christianity.

His scholarship, for the most part, is focused on 18th and 19th century American Christianity. Some of his interests include Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, American witchcraft and occult traditions, Jonathan Edwards and the First Great Awakening, and the reception of the Bible within North American scholarship and popular culture. He has also done extensive research in the field of Christian origins.

He is a graduate of Yale University’s Divinity School, in the Master of Arts in Religion program, with a concentration in the History of Christianity. He also holds a Master of Theological Studies (specializing in Biblical Studies) from the Australian Catholic University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology with Honors from the University of Newcastle. He received his undergraduate education and Bachelor’s Degree in Theology (majoring in Biblical Studies) through Charles Sturt University.


From his website.



So Carrier is 100% fringe, yet you have to cite a biased (Christian) source whose PhD is not in ancient history, or even history at all, but rather in religion. With other degrees related specifically to Christianity. Even if you threw me a "but he's actually an atheist" curveball, he's still biased because his degree would be devalued if Jesus was not a real person from history.

So yeah, well done.

 

[Tom 1]

Daniel N. Gullotta is a historian of religion, particularly interested in the history of North American Christianity and Biblical interpretation. He is currently a Doctor of Philosophy student in Religious Studies at Stanford University, specializing in Early Modern North American Christianity.

His scholarship, for the most part, is focused on 18th and 19th century American Christianity. Some of his interests include Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, American witchcraft and occult traditions, Jonathan Edwards and the First Great Awakening, and the reception of the Bible within North American scholarship and popular culture. He has also done extensive research in the field of Christian origins.

He is a graduate of Yale University’s Divinity School, in the Master of Arts in Religion program, with a concentration in the History of Christianity. He also holds a Master of Theological Studies (specializing in Biblical Studies) from the Australian Catholic University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology with Honors from the University of Newcastle. He received his undergraduate education and Bachelor’s Degree in Theology (majoring in Biblical Studies) through Charles Sturt University.


From his website.



So Carrier is 100% fringe, yet you have to cite a biased (Christian) source whose PhD is not in ancient history, or even history at all, but rather in religion. With other degrees related specifically to Christianity. Even if you threw me a "but he's actually an atheist" curveball, he's still biased because his degree would be devalued if Jesus was not a real person from history.

So yeah, well done.

I wouldn’t base any argument on Carrier. He blatantly dismisses or ignores anything that doesn’t fit with whatever he wants to say, not just details but the weight of cultures and influences relevant to the subjects he deals with. His conclusions are pointless, they have no context apart from the few details he selects to make an argument.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Daniel N. Gullotta is a historian of religion, particularly interested in the history of North American Christianity and Biblical interpretation. He is currently a Doctor of Philosophy student in Religious Studies at Stanford University, specializing in Early Modern North American Christianity.

His scholarship, for the most part, is focused on 18th and 19th century American Christianity. Some of his interests include Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, American witchcraft and occult traditions, Jonathan Edwards and the First Great Awakening, and the reception of the Bible within North American scholarship and popular culture. He has also done extensive research in the field of Christian origins.

He is a graduate of Yale University’s Divinity School, in the Master of Arts in Religion program, with a concentration in the History of Christianity. He also holds a Master of Theological Studies (specializing in Biblical Studies) from the Australian Catholic University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology with Honors from the University of Newcastle. He received his undergraduate education and Bachelor’s Degree in Theology (majoring in Biblical Studies) through Charles Sturt University.


From his website.



So Carrier is 100% fringe, yet you have to cite a biased (Christian) source whose PhD is not in ancient history, or even history at all, but rather in religion. With other degrees related specifically to Christianity. Even if you threw me a "but he's actually an atheist" curveball, he's still biased because his degree would be devalued if Jesus was not a real person from history.

So yeah, well done.

If you want to commit the logical fallacy of Bulverism, go ahead. It is not helping your case. Here is a suitable Atheist on him then:

Richard Carrier and Josephus

You are dealing with a man thoroughly outside the evidentiary field, who can't get a job, and hence terms himself an "Independant Scholar". I really don't understand why people refer to Carrier, he literally has no standing amongst historians. But enough, feel free to continue ignoring evidence and scholarship and wallow in confirmation bias. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you cite him.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you want to commit the logical fallacy of Bulverism, go ahead.

Lol, astonishing that a Christian would cite that fallacy. This site, and all others like it, has a statement of faith which is an assertion that will never be modified regardless of new evidence. Apologists start with the assumption that the Bible is true, and then attempt to justify it.

It is not helping your case.

I never even stated - at least, not here - my case. Someone wanted a source more credible than a fatally flawed documentary, and I provided one. You're jumping to conclusions.

Although, yes, I am a mysticist.

Here is a suitable Atheist on him then:

Richard Carrier and Josephus

You are dealing with a man thoroughly outside the evidentiary field, who can't get a job, and hence terms himself an "Independant Scholar". I really don't understand why people refer to Carrier, he literally has no standing amongst historians. But enough, feel free to continue ignoring evidence and scholarship and wallow in confirmation bias. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you cite him.

Tim O’Neill – Blog Author

I am an atheist, sceptic and rationalist who is a subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of the Australian Skeptics. I have contributed to many atheism and scepticism fora over the years and have a posting record as a rationalist that goes back to at least 1992. I have a Bachelors Degree with Honours in English and History and a research Masters Degree from the University of Tasmania, with a specialisation in historicist analysis of medieval literature.

Ctrl+f search for "phd" found one match: "Tim O’Neill, a known liar” – Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, unemployed blogger

You have given me an atheist with no PhD, and someone who is presumably a Christian, with theological degrees and a PhD that is not in history. Why you aren't going straight to Bart Ehrman is a mystery to me... although I don't know, off the top of my head, what his PhD is in.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I wouldn’t base any argument on Carrier. He blatantly dismisses or ignores anything that doesn’t fit with whatever he wants to say, not just details but the weight of cultures and influences relevant to the subjects he deals with. His conclusions are pointless, they have no context apart from the few details he selects to make an argument.

From what I've seen he directly addresses all criticisms. Do you have any examples?

 

[Tom 1]

From what I've seen he directly addresses all criticisms. Do you have any examples?

Check out some of the other threads, there’s one you commented on with a video of Carrier presenting one of his ‘new’ ideas, I’m not going to type it all out again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Check out some of the other threads, there’s one you commented on with a video of Carrier presenting one of his ‘new’ ideas, I’m not going to type it all out again.

I'm willing to read, not hunt.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm willing to read, not hunt.

Ok

 

[HitchSlap]

You are dealing with a man thoroughly outside the evidentiary field, who can't get a job, and hence terms himself an "Independant Scholar". I really don't understand why people refer to Carrier, he literally has no standing amongst historians. .

Lol.

Carrier literally has a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University.

Sheeesh... you guys are funny.

 

[Tom 1]

Lol.

Carrier literally has a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University.

Sheeesh... you guys are funny.

And your point is?

 

[HitchSlap]

And your point is?

That is the poi...

 

[Tom 1]

That is the poi...

So do you agree with Carrier that Jesus is a mythical character, or Allegro that Jesus did exist but was a mushroom god, or all of the many conflicting notions held by people with related PHDs at the same time?

 

[HitchSlap]

So do you agree with Carrier that Jesus is a mythical character, or Allegro that Jesus did exist but was a mushroom god, or all of the many conflicting notions held by people with related PHDs at the same time?

Well, that's the point... there's no way to know for sure.