yeah they only made it to three in the canonical literature because the holy ghost can only inspire up to threeYou get seven heavens in the pseudonymous and apocryphal stuff but not in the canonical literature.
-
In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 813 on Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:52 pm
Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Fundies are opposed to evidence on principle. Carrier in OHJ provides a clear and simple analysis of a fundy claim that there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great. The claim about Alexander, like this Napoleon one, is false by many orders of magnitude. If you can hold such fundy nonsense after reading Carrier's analysis then you are just a moron and beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. There is no evidence for Jesus except hearsay.youkrst wrote:yeah but Bonaparte wasn't a dying rising god-manFlann wrote:a presentation of the clear mythical and solar character of this supposed historical person,Napoleon Bonaparte.
he didn't raise the dead and walk on water did he?
if i found a book that said he did would you believe it Flann?
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
dont flatter yourself FlannFlann wrote:I'm on the final resort of satire on this whole business. That just annoys them though!
you hold an irrational position that mythology is history.
and your satire is an epic fail.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
rubbish! many of us were believers for yearsFlann wrote:It's a Quixotic venture to attempt change the minds of mythicists or believers.
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
I like to do things on an epic scale but rarely succeed,so thanks.youkrst wrote:and your satire is an epic fail.
I can't say I'm impressed with the world renowned one's thesis and I've given many reasons for this.Robert Tulip wrote:Fundies are opposed to evidence on principle. Carrier in OHJ provides a clear and simple analysis of a fundy claim that there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great. The claim about Alexander, like this Napoleon one, is false by many orders of magnitude. If you can hold such fundy nonsense after reading Carrier's analysis then you are just a moron and beyond the pale of reasoned discourse.
Come on Robert,you can't really accept all that nonsense about the early Christians believing in the preservation of David's seed in a sub-lunar sperm bank.
As for the historical evidence, Carrier mangles Josephus on James the brother of Jesus who is called messiah, with his biased and unscholarly attempt to make it Jesus the son of Damneus.
If you twist the historical evidence to fit your pet theory you can make 'history' dance to your tune. Also known as self deception.
He's all wrong on Joshua in Zechariah. He's not a sub-lunar high priest. Just read it. He's the regular high priest in Jerusalem after the captivity. And he's not the promised coming ruler who is the Branch. Poor exegesis as usual by Carrier.
To his credit he does recognize O.T. messianic prophecy but he's too fixated on finding his sub-lunar Jesus in Joshua in Zechariah and the O.T. generally.
I could go on about other problems, but I've already addressed most of them in previous posts.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
DWill, you are engaged in a systematic effort in this thread to justify and redefine Christian apologetics. So when you play fast and loose with definitions by implying people can both hold beliefs and not hold them, contrary to logic, then the way you are using this convenient word to hold is worth some examination.DWill wrote:Jeesh, what a stickler.
No, ‘inclining’ is not ‘holding’. That is like saying a hunch is knowledge. If I am “inclined to believe” that King David probably existed (ie if I have some uncertainty) then I cannot be said to hold that it is true. But we are not talking about beliefs held on evidentiary grounds when it comes to faith in Jesus; fervency and fantasy tend to be the rule among those who actively defend the HJ hypothesis. A useful rule of thumb here might be to ask if you would be perjuring yourself if a judge asked you if you hold something to be true and you said yes. Or do you feel unsure if you have a right to pursue happiness?DWill wrote: How about the evidence in toto inclining one to believe that Christ grew out of a man Jesus? Is that 'holding'?
By the definition at https://bible.org/seriespage/2-what-apologetics Ehrman is an apologist, in that he is defending Christian belief against criticism. The fact he does not go the whole inerrant hog does not make his intent any less apologetic.DWill wrote:Ask a recognized Christian apologist if Bart Ehrman is also one and you'll get laughter. That's the best way I know of to settle the matter of who's an apologist.
But I grant your point, which I take to mean that culturally apologetics has taken a more sinister and irrational turn. Apologists routinely resort to such argument from incredulity and mockery since facts don't support their opinions.
We are talking here about whether belief that Jesus existed involves apologetics. Someone with skin in the game should not be given sole power to define the rules, since they have a conflict of interest. Disinterested scholars should define apologetics, not Christian believers.
Carrier says the burden of proof is on those who think the evidence for Jesus is so obvious. When scholars look into pulpit claims they evaporate like mirages. Obviously mad fundies who believe in miracles will be critical of Ehrman, since he has at least some modicum of interest in scientific method.
You are now implying that Jesus must have existed because apologists would laugh at the suggestion he did not. Argument from laughter of those in positions of power is entirely fallacious. Logical argument engages with content.
Did you even read my quote from the Baptist Pastor celebrating Bart’s return to the fold? Apparently not. For Ehrman to call Jesus Christ “the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built” is Christian apologetics.
I was talking about her earlier books, The Gnostic Paul, The Gnostic Gospels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent. The absence of HJ from her first works is striking. In The Gnostic Gospels (1979) she says the Gospel claims about the historical Jesus rely on Old Testament prophecy as proof, a statement that is not strictly compatible with apologetics, given the absence of any supporting comment on transmission from Jesus, required for historicism. But then, in exploring how Gnostics read this material, she notes that the Gospel of Philip criticizes the idea that Christ is external to themselves, believing instead in a doctrine of internal transformation “you saw Christ, you became Christ.” If she has reverted to apologetics in her recent work that is disappointing.DWill wrote: So it's robustness that makes the difference. That explains your reluctance to label Elaine Pagels an apologist, since she has not directly addressed the point (though she does believe Jesus was historical--see below). That is at least somewhat clarifying for me.
What do you mean here? Which apologist dispute? The entire argument of Carrier’s whole book rests on the observation that believers in the HJ rely on apologetics not evidence. So the whole point of this thread is debating the apologist dispute. It is the apologists who say it is not debatable, as in your comment about laughing at critical ideas.DWill wrote: You've effectively placed the apologist dispute in the 'not-debatable' category, so it seems the topic's time has surely passed.
Okay I was talking about her early books where such apologetic language does not appear.DWill wrote: she would not be writing what she is without the history as her background. But you can also find explicit statements that show her acceptance of the skeletal history of the Biblical Jesus. Have a look at the introduction to her book on Revelation.
You have some gall DWill, wandering into a discussion about a book that seeks to prove that holding Jesus as historical involves apologetics, and making the false accusation that my agreement with that is blind, while for your part you refuse to even read the literature that refutes your emotional prejudice.DWill wrote: Some blindness on your part here, I'm afraid, Robert, regarding the relevance of the charge.
Wow, what a surprise, Ehrman and Pagels are both inconsistent in their apologetics. That is normal. I am inconsistent too to some extent, since I use apologetic language in church, while considering that its meaning is allegorical. It seems obvious to me that Ehrman praises Jesus because his witchhunt book failed in its effort to disprove mythicism so he resorts to dogmatic abuse.DWill wrote: Ehrman calling Jesus "the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization" is inconsistent with his stance that Jesus was famous because posthumously he became so. I don't know why he said this, as it doesn't even correspond to the matter of his new book, in which he explains that it was not the historical Jesus who became famous, but the remembered Jesus.
Atheism is the religion of modern science, and is logical and correct in its positive claims. Ehrman’s atavistic Baptist Faith in “the greatest man who ever lived” is a primitive emotional throwback. I support atheism, while arguing that atheism needs respectful dialogue with theology from a non-compromising stance regarding evidence and logic, which should be our highest values. That does not mean respect for apologetics that accept the Bible as Gospel Truth. It is fine to talk with Pagels and Crossan and read Tillich and Barth, but fundy tub-thumpers are beyond the pale.DWill wrote: You say you take Carrier to task for his atheist influence, but regarding the main matter, you don't consider it an undue influence on his thinking. But Ehrman's sympathies are for you proof that his brain has been hijacked by faith.
I was talking about the quote just here where the Baptist Pastor approves Ehrman’s statement that “In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?” That is comparing mythicists to Nazis and is a disgraceful censorious debating tactic.DWill wrote: I do not recall the passage you mention, where he compares mythicism to Nazism. I should look at it. Has he been guilty of some immoderate language? The topic does seem to excite passions to that extent on both sides. I question whether such language amounts to censorship.
DWill wrote:Now you are engaged in the empty politics you criticized. The suppression of heresy by Christendom and the early church is abundantly documented, and easily refutes your assertion.Robert Tulip wrote: This is especially true if the mythicism promoted includes claims of conspiracy or undocumented subversion by the Catholic Church. Those are non-starters in terms of the study of history. So the standards of historiography would need to change in order for such 'evidence' to be accepted, and that would be a very bad thing.
You have accidentally garbled and swapped our comments here. Your innocuous term “opposition” is a highly apologetic code for “Search and Destroy”. I have several times referenced the Edicts of Theodosius. See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/theodosius.html for information on how the alliance of state and altar conspired to eliminate all trace of perceived heresy. I did not mention conspiracy because you are just using it as an attack word aimed at guilt by association.You didn't mention conspiracy, which is not the same as the Church's opposition.
If you bothered to read Carrier, you would note his extraordinary observation that we have basically no Christian literature except the Gospels for the half century or so after Paul, which is readily explained by the abundantly documented mass destruction of heretical literature on pain of death. That is a conspiracy.
There is a good new article on conspiracy theory which explains why the moon hoax, vaccine, climate and cancer cure conspiracies are implausible. See http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/7129400 When similar analysis is applied to actual mythicist claims about Christian origins, rather than the vacuous smears by apologists, your rhetoric about conspiracy theory will be shown to be empty of content. As I noted in my review of Ehrman, his critique of The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S, whom he describes in terms worthy of a hysterical fatwa, is entirely empty of content except for a small date mistake.
We are talking specifically in this thread about views that Jesus Christ did not exist. The Bible explicitly makes such views anathema. Shunning of mythicism became the orthodox position early in the second century as churches found the traction available in the claim that their imagined Christ was actually a real person living a century ago, and the political advantage of excluding all who questioned this dogma.DWill wrote: The point to be made here is that, yes, the Church, when it had really become the Church and had the power to do so, did suppress heresy. But this power wasn't won until the late fourth century.
The suppression of Gnosticism by Orthodoxy long predates Nicaea and Constantine, for example with the Valentinian controversy of the second century, documented from the victor side by Irenaeus in 180 AD. This thread is not about questions like the Arian heresy, on the arcane metaphysical point of whether the holy spirit proceeded from the Son, which was entirely a debate within the historicist camp, and in any case was largely code for political debates.DWill wrote: Before that, there was a great deal of jockeying for position regarding the true faith, with charges of heretical beliefs flung about, but power to suppress anything still rested with Rome.
The state power given to the church by Constantine to establish Christendom in 325 AD was the culmination of a long process in which the church honed its methods of shunning and excluding all so-called “Anti-Christ” ideas. To say that process of exclusion and forced conformity within Christianity was not suppression would involve an unwarranted confidence on your part.DWill wrote: So I question your assertion about the early Church, before 325.
Okay, lets settle for 90% of the time with a bit of slack where magistrates were not fanatical. The result is that almost all heretical literature was suppressed and lost from Christendom except for extracts quoted by its enemies and one bunch of jars carefully hidden in the desert sands of southern Egypt. There is also the fascinating extensive use of zodiac symbolism in numerous churches, apparently allowed within orthodoxy despite the fatwas against witches. What is your point?DWill wrote:In any case, even with the later church, it would not be acceptable to simply assume active suppression was underway at all times, in any situation, so that one could invoke it at any time in all-purpose fashion.
Does that means you are not sure if New York is west of Virginia or if night follows day? Or are you sure but not certain? Pure simple fact is the main area of certainty.DWill wrote: Certainty is probably most felt in matters not involving pure fact.
Sorry but that makes no sense. We are certain about basic facts of life. Certainty is about knowledge, not feelings. To say that emotional sentiments can be classed as certain is an abuse of language and epistemology, albeit one much perpetrated by apologists who are certain in their hearts that Jesus existed.DWill wrote: We only need to generate feelings of certainty towards those propositions that we can have opinions about.
Absolutely true. But, OHJ is not about “feelings of certainty”. It is about statistical analysis of evidence. Your personal “feelings of certainty” regarding the HJ are irrelevant in a historical debate, since if your feeling was justified you could back it up with facts. The problem here is that apologists impudently use the Pope’s stratagem against Galileo of refusing to look at evidence.DWill wrote:We do well to recognize that the feelings of certainty aren't the same as validation of the truth.
You might like to also read a detailed systematic analysis of the actual language Paul used about Jesus. It is called On the Historicity of Jesus, and is written by Richard Carrier. I have just read it and highly recommend it as an excellent informed analysis of current scholarship on this topic. There is a whole thread here ready and waiting for discussion of that chapter on Paul.DWill wrote: I'm going to save Paul's writings for another time, perhaps. I assume that you have read them through recently enough to have them fairly fresh in mind. There is a lot of quote-mining that goes on in an attempt to selectively reduce the meaning of those letters, so that the purpose and concerns most prominent in them are obscured.
Well yes, when you are defending piety and faith by claiming there is historical evidence for Jesus Christ when in fact there is not, it is unsurprising that you would shy away from such observations. I have nothing against piety and faith in principle, except when people use them in a deceptive way to assert that claims based on faith must be true when modern standards of evidence and reason indicate they are false.DWill wrote: These charges of piety and faith do become rather grating, I must say.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Hi Robert, I suppose I'm outside the pale of reasoned discourse, but I'll make some points anyway. Labeling anyone who disagrees with mythicism on the historical Jesus an apologist, is not reasoned debate.Robert Tulip wrote:DWill wrote:
Ask a recognized Christian apologist if Bart Ehrman is also one and you'll get laughter. That's the best way I know of to settle the matter of who's an apologist.
Apologists routinely resort to such argument from incredulity and mockery. We are talking about whether belief that Jesus existed involves apologetics. Someone with skin in the game should not be given sole power to define the rules, since they have a conflict of interest. Disinterested scholars should define apologetics, not Christian believers.
The idea that Ehrman is a Christian apologist is hilarious on his body of published work which shows he is anything but an apologist for fundamentalist belief.
That's why it's funny and it's that fact that is the point,which is why it elicits laughter.
I've seen Tim O' Neill labeled a closet Christian pretending to be an atheist because he argues for the historicity of Jesus.
From what I've read by O' Neill he is no fundamentalist Christian.
This kind of labeling as apologist of anyone who argues on the basis of the evidence for an historical Jesus is deciding the outcome of the debate in advance and refusing to deal with the arguments themselves.
O' Neill is critical of Carrier on his handling of Josephus on James the brother of Jesus called messiah.
Carrier makes the tired mythicist claim of an interpolation here and then tries to make the brother of James to be Jesus the son of Damneus.
The interpolations refrain is like crying wolf all the time when the evidence is against you. There are clear psychological implausibilities about Jesus the son of Damneus being the brother of James in the passage besides the grammatical construction of the passage.
O' Neill is debating the issues here and is either right or wrong. Even if he was a Christian apologist which he is not anymore than Ehrman is,the question is whether Carrier or O' Neill have the most compelling arguments on the subject.
Here's O' Neill's critique of Carrier's article on Josephus.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-cri ... n-Josephus
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Flann, just let me focus on this point. The entire argument of OHJ is that claims that there was an historical Jesus do not argue on the basis of evidence but instead systematically ignore evidence. I find Carrier's arguments on this point to be measured, reasonable and compelling, marshalling a large array of facts in support, and carefully addressing reasoned criticisms. He makes the simple and polite request that those who disagree should engage on content. That is something you do not do.Flann 5 wrote:labeling as apologist of anyone who argues on the basis of the evidence for an historical Jesus is deciding the outcome of the debate in advance and refusing to deal with the arguments themselves.
Your comment illustrates why apologetics has such a bad reputation, since you are blithely ignoring the central point at issue, the role of evidence, and blithely claiming that apologists argue on the basis of evidence when they manifestly do not.
Fundamentalists are welcome to chuckle and I couldn't care less. Apologetics is about defending a proposition from criticism. Ehrman defends the proposition that Jesus existed so his work is apologetic by definition. Belief that Jesus existed is at the foundation of conventional Christian literalism. Even if Ehrman does not expand upon his HJ apologetics to glory in being washed in the blood of the lamb, his argument is an apologetic for a core Christian claim, which Carrier proves is false.
I am not arguing against apologetics as such, since I support theology that focuses on the spiritual Christ without making baseless historical claims. It is entirely possible and necessary to reform Christianity to make it compatible with evidence, but that requires addressing the stumbling block of false literal belief, and exploring the psychological and political drivers which gave literalism such tenacity.
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
But my point is that Carrier is removing unpalatable evidence from Josephus with his alleged interpolation and implausible reconstruction of Jesus the son of Damneus being the brother of James.Robert Tulip wrote:Flann, just let me focus on this point. The entire argument of OHJ is that claims that there was an historical Jesus do not argue on the basis of evidence but instead systematically ignore evidence.
Are there any early manuscripts of Josephus which do not have this supposed interpolation? This passage alone is fatal to the mythicist view.
It's no good crying conspiracy to explain away the virtually unanimous recognition by scholars who include atheists,agnostics and theists who recognize the authenticity of this passage as it appears in the text of Josephus.
Carrier is making an unsubstantiated claim of an interpolation and psychologically it's an absurd reconstruction to make it Jesus the son of Damneus rather than Jesus who was called messiah. We have Paul's reference in Galatians also to James the brother of the Lord, and in the gospels to his having a brother called James.
Carrier is wrong here.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
look at what you did here Flann!
and then you slide in pretending the canonical doesn't have pseudonymous material in it
apparently faith in Jesus means never having to see a point let alone understand it or respond to it.
Flann wrote:Why accept the authorship of secular works less well attested than biblical ones and much later but reject the N.T. ones?
then you respond with thisyoukrst wrote:because the secular ones don't generally have stuff like this in them
Quote:
I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known -- such an one being caught away unto the third heaven;
how many heavens are there Flann?
completely missing that the three heavens in the canonical i quoted are quite enough to make the point.Flann wrote:You get seven heavens in the pseudonymous and apocryphal stuff but not in the canonical literature.
and then you slide in pretending the canonical doesn't have pseudonymous material in it
apparently faith in Jesus means never having to see a point let alone understand it or respond to it.