Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[bhsmte]

One who has been brought low in the presence of God's Holiness and majesty needs no clever arguments or empirical evidence to be able to claim God exists. They know He exists in a fundamental, unmistskable, properly basic way.

When did I agree with this?

 

[anonymous person]

When did I agree with this?

I said you would agree with it. I did not say that you have agreed with it.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've removed about 2 pages of posts and could go on to remove many more pages of Off Topic (OT) posts. However, I'm going to stop at this point and post this Mod Hat directing you all to please STAY ON TOPIC! If you aren't sure what that is then please go back to the OP of the thread and re read what they posted.

If you wish to discuss something else then please start your own thread so that you do not derail this one like you did before. If you continue to post Off Topic (OT) posts in this thread, the thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[doubtingmerle]

The gospels are reliable as they are three independant accounts at least of one event.

If they are three independent accounts, why do the later gospels copy the first one, often verbatim? Why does Matthew just so happen to add the same parenthetical explanation into Jesus's speech as Mark does at the same place? Matthew and Luke look more like copies with revisions, as opposed to independent accounts.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If they are three independent accounts, why do the later gospels copy the first one, often verbatim? Why does Matthew just so happen to add the same parenthetical explanation into Jesus's speech as Mark does at the same place? Matthew and Luke look more like copies with revisions, as opposed to independent accounts.

Please read my posts. The three independant accounts are Mark, John and the Hypothetical Q gospel from which much of Matthew and Luke's material is derived.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Also, the Gospel of Luke claims to have talked to eyewitnesses etc. so that at least fits your self-created criteria for first century texts (Better than any accepted historian of the epoch anyway).

Really? Where does Luke say that?

What Luke says is:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [Luke 1:1-3]
​

Luke merely states that "he had perfect understanding of all things". He does not tell us how he got that understanding. He does not say he interviewed eyewitnesses. He does not say which documents he used. He gives no sources.

But it appears that his sources included Mark and Matthew--or a Q source of Matthew--and that he freely changed his sources as needed to suit his purposes, so that hardly makes him a reliable witness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Please read my posts. The three independant accounts are Mark, John and the Hypothetical Q gospel from which much of Matthew and Luke's material is derived.

My mistake. I did read your post as I scanned through this long thread before jumping in, but didn't tie you in to the person who made the comment at Mark, John, and Q. My mistake.

Personally I don't see Q as another source. It is hypothetical, proposed as a solution to the fact that Matthew and Luke have many of the same sayings of Jesus, but place them in different contexts. It is thought that both Matthew and Luke used Q, and merged it with Mark where they thought fit. The alternate explanation is that Matthew originated the Q content (or was the only one that copied the Q content directly). Luke came later, and using Matthew and Mark as a source, created his own gospel. This is often rejected, because if Luke knew about Matthew, why are there so many conflicts between these two books? A credible explanation is that Luke knew about Matthew, didn't consider Matthew credible, and rewrote it the way he wanted it. If that is true, it casts doubt on what both Matthew and Luke wrote.

John clearly has some content from the other gospels. His appearance of the resurrected Jesus, for instance, has obvious ties to Luke. But other portions of John are so far removed form the writings of the synoptics, it is hard to say they both document the same person. Rather, it seems to me, John had one or more of the synoptics, did not like that version, and completely rewrote the story the way he wanted it. Again, that hardly verifies that any of them were saying the truth.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Really? Where does Luke say that?

What Luke says is:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [Luke 1:1-3]
​

Luke merely states that "he had perfect understanding of all things". He does not tell us how he got that understanding. He does not say he interviewed eyewitnesses. He does not say which documents he used. He gives no sources.

But it appears that his sources included Mark and Matthew--or a Q source of Matthew--and that he freely changed his sources as needed to suit his purposes, so that hardly makes him a reliable witness.

Again, please read my posts. I have explained repeatedly that you cannot judge first century texts by these standards or we would have to reject ALL sources for the period. No writer named his sources etc. in this period. Is Caesar supposed to name an quote the captives he interrogated? Must Tacitus present all the Annals word for word? I have no problem arguing with you if you bring something to the argument, but to reargue points that have already been discussed is tedious.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

My mistake. I did read your post as I scanned through this long thread before jumping in, but didn't tie you in to the person who made the comment at Mark, John, and Q. My mistake.

Personally I don't see Q as another source. It is hypothetical, proposed as a solution to the fact that Matthew and Luke have many of the same sayings of Jesus, but place them in different contexts. It is thought that both Matthew and Luke used Q, and merged it with Mark where they thought fit. The alternate explanation is that Matthew originated the Q content (or was the only one that copied the Q content directly). Luke came later, and using Matthew and Mark as a source, created his own gospel. This is often rejected, because if Luke knew about Matthew, why are there so many conflicts between these two books? A credible explanation is that Luke knew about Matthew, didn't consider Matthew credible, and rewrote it the way he wanted it. If that is true, it casts doubt on what both Matthew and Luke wrote.

John clearly has some content from the other gospels. His appearance of the resurrected Jesus, for instance, has obvious ties to Luke. But other portions of John are so far removed form the writings of the synoptics, it is hard to say they both document the same person. Rather, it seems to me, John had one or more of the synoptics, did not like that version, and completely rewrote the story the way he wanted it. Again, that hardly verifies that any of them were saying the truth.

The fact of the matter is that there are three sets of original material. How inter-related they are, is not the point. All three sets date from at least 70-110 AD which in the period in question, is quite recent for sources for one event. If there were no miracles therein, no historian would have doubted them as sources.

 

[bhsmte]

You're telling me that the knowledge that your current worldview would be destroyed if the gospels were true plays no part in you rejecting the accounts of Jesus and Him being raised from the dead?

That the fact that your worldview would be completely turned upside down and shown to be false has nothing at all to do with you rejecting the gospels?

Is that what you want me to believe?

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?

 

[anonymous person]

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?

I value truth. 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.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

 

[anonymous person]

So the real discussion does not need to revolve around the texts themselves, but rather, whether or not Carrier's presuppositions for a naturalistic worldview are justifiable.

 

[anonymous person]

As has been stated numerous times, if these texts in question contained no accounts of the miraculous, or accounts of moral obligations to whom all are accountable, of sin, of judgment, of righteousness and lawlessness, the issue of their reliability would not be a matter of contention.

 

[bhsmte]

I value truth. 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.

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.

 

[anonymous person]

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

 

[bhsmte]

So the real discussion does not need to revolve around the texts themselves, but rather, whether or not Carrier's presuppositions for a naturalistic worldview are justifiable.

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?

 

[bhsmte]

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

If you want to know if other people feel this way, why don't you simply ask them?

 

[anonymous person]

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[anonymous person]

If you want to know if other people feel this way, why don't you simply ask them?

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