The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ

[DWill]

No probs DWill

I've got a lot to learn so maybe as time goes by I'll be a better listener.

You've been a peacemaker sort here all the while (as well as a master quote man), so you're fine. For me, passions have their downside, but I spose we're better off with than without.

[Flann 5]

Thank you for the evaluation of the article, thorough and knowledgeable as we've come to expect. There's some kind of comfort in wrapping a thing up in a bow, but how often can it be done? I'm talking about efforts such as Wilson's, which tries to cut through the clutter and come to a definite conclusion. It sounded reasonable to me, but I'm impatient to find "the answer." The clutter is what you can't get rid of, perhaps, without loss of the true sense of what history is: more faceted, nuanced, and paradoxical than we can easily take in. I like Reinhold Niebuhr on the subject: "Modern man lacks the humility to accept the fact that the whole drama of history is enacted in a frame too large for human comprehension or management."

Hi Dwill. In considering Barrie Wilson's approach to Paul,the penny finally dropped with me of the fatal foundational error in Carrier's entire thesis.
As is often the case it's obvious, but can be missed if Carrier's other assumptions/conclusions pass without scrutiny.

He is supremely confident that the gospels and Acts can be easily dismissed as being "historical fiction" and "myths." He has a couple of online talks where he explains his reasons for thinking this,one is on the gospels and the other on Acts.

I have yet to find specific responses to these talks from Christians,though in watching them I could see many errors in his arguments and understanding of these books,even with my layman's knowledge of these things.

Having then in his view, comprehensively dismissed the gospels as myth and fiction,they then take on the role of the later "euhemerisations" of the "hallucinated celestial being" in his scheme.

There are serious errors in Carrier's thesis. For him every "appearance" of Jesus is hallucinated by Paul,Peter,James,the crowd of over 500,and in fact every "appearance" by Jesus is hallucinated.

But here's the problem,the N.T.descriptions even excluding the gospels, of Jesus' "appearances" don't fit Carrier's paradigm but rather the one that is found in the gospels and Acts.

In the gospels Jesus' first "appearance" is being born on earth,where he dies,rises bodily and then appears to various witnesses of his resurrection,over 40 days.

He then ascends to the heaven but his teaching includes a promised return or second "appearance" if you like.

So in Hebrew's 9:28 " he will appear a second time.." And Peter writes to the Christians in 1 Peter:1-8; "Though you have not seen him,you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him ...."

http://www.biblehub.com/1_peter/1-8.htm

Here are examples of this description throughout the N.T. including by Paul, Peter,James and John.
http://www.jesusiscoming.com/scripture.htm

I'm afraid Carrier is blinded by his own preconceptions, and sloppy and careless with the scriptures.

On his thesis Jesus is appearing continually to various people including Paul. Carrier misinterprets the N.T. on the subject of what revelation is.

He pictures it as Shaker's type manifestations which in his view would be lots of visions and hallucinations.

It's more complex though. Jesus did indeed appear to Paul on the Damascus road,and Peter had a vision of the sheet and animals in Acts.

But Paul's encounter is unusual and while being a post death appearance is not the same exactly as that to the other apostles, as he says of his being like one born out of due season ,in the very same passage in 1 Corinthians 15.

In other words, they saw him while he was still on earth,after his resurrection,but Paul saw him after he had departed earth and ascended.

The spiritual gifts and manifestations in I Corinthians 12 are not apparitions of Jesus but manifestations by the Spirit of God in the believers, of such as words of knowledge,wisdom and tongues and their interpretations.

Try to imagine Jesus "appearing" in order to produce an unknown language in someone. How does that work? And the Spirit of God is in fact invisible.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul's whole argument is on the resurrection of Jesus and therefore ultimately of the believers. He therefore cites various post death, resurrection appearances by Jesus to various people.

Now if in fact Jesus was constantly "appearing" to the Corinthians in their meetings,this would be a ridiculous and superfluous argument.

It only makes sense in line with the gospel narratives,and I would say the early oral traditions which are found written in the gospels later.

Of course the obviously miraculous accounts in the gospels and Acts make Carrier's thesis seductive to those who hold to naturalism,which is probably why his thesis is not more rigorously examined by the mythicists who support him.

As far as historicity goes, Carrier is making a category error of genres for the gospels and Acts.

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... ricity.htm

So while I get your wanting to cut through clutter Dwill, what Carrier and Wilson do actually obscures the fact of the necessary relationship with history,whether in early oral accounts or the later gospels and Acts.

They are only fully intelligible on that basis, I would say.

http://www.reknew.org/2007/12/is-the-bo ... -reliable/

[youkrst]

gospels and Acts can be easily dismissed as being "historical fiction"

indeed they can.

"euhemerisations"

we better clear this up at least.

The philosophy attributed to and named for Euhemerus, euhemerism, holds that many mythological tales can be attributed to historical persons and events, the accounts of which have become altered and exaggerated over time.

so we see that euhemerism is when you say there was a guy called Jesus that over time was buried in layer after layer of myth until the original "historical Jesus" became the Christ of faith.

mythicists are saying the opposite.

there was a mythological Jesus that was historicised.

[youkrst]

There are serious errors in Carrier's thesis. For him every "appearance" of Jesus is hallucinated by Paul,Peter,James,the crowd of over 500,and in fact every "appearance" by Jesus is hallucinated.

wrong

it's a story in a book Flann.

we don't say James Bond hallucinated Moneypenny, that would be silly.

[youkrst]

In the gospels Jesus' first "appearance" is being born on earth,where he dies,rises bodily and then appears to various witnesses of his resurrection,over 40 days.

then explain why in Hebrews which is likely very early there is no mention whatsoever of the "gospel Jesus"

you are accepting the bible at face value, not wise.

[youkrst]

He then ascends to the heaven but his teaching includes a promised return or second "appearance" if you like.

is He out of the galaxy yet Flann?

you are reading a metaphor literally and it is making a fool of you.

the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

[youkrst]

I'm afraid Carrier is blinded by his own preconceptions, and sloppy and careless with the scriptures.

no Flann it is YOU who are "blinded by his own preconceptions, and sloppy and careless with the scriptures."

[youkrst]

Jesus did indeed appear to Paul on the Damascus road,and Peter had a vision of the sheet and animals in Acts.

that is a statement of faith, not fact.

it is an assertion without evidence.

you are quoting a story from a book as if it were verified fact, mad.

[youkrst]

And the Spirit of God is in fact invisible.

“I see nobody on the road,” said Alice.
“I only wish I had such eyes,” the King remarked in
a fretful tone.
“To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too!

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I'm glad He takes my sins away!

see this invisible spirit?

no!

oh yeah that's right, it's invisible!

you can't prove it so just admit it's a position of faith with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

i'll make an assertion without proof of my own.

i had a vision of the Holy Spirit giving Jesus yo-yo lessons

but i do not have the gall to expect you to believe it as it is an assertion without evidence.

look here Flann

Dhritarashtra said: O Sanjaya, after my sons and the sons of Pandu assembled in the place of pilgrimage at Kurukshetra, desiring to fight, what did they do?

that proves it!

Dhritarashtra said it!

the sons of Pandu were desiring to fight!

i have proved it..... NOT!

[youkrst]

Of course the obviously miraculous accounts in the gospels and Acts make Carrier's thesis seductive to those who hold to naturalism,which is probably why his thesis is not more rigorously examined by the mythicists who support him.

Then Bhīṣma, the great valiant grandsire of the Kuru dynasty, the grandfather of the fighters, blew his conchshell very loudly like the sound of a lion, giving Duryodhana joy.

of course the obviously historical accounts in the Bhagavad Gita make Flann's thesis seductive to those who hold to supernaturalism, which is probably why his thesis is not more rigorously examined by the religionists who support him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RApvaQ0uGTw



Are you receiving me?
You are deceiving me I know, see, I know

When we're out walking
Your mouth ain't where it's supposed to do the talking
When we're in kissing
Your lips are missing, are they out on loan to someone else?
Are you listening?

I put it in a letter, what could be better?
I put it in a note, one night, I wrote
I put it in a telegram, just like the son of Sam
Babe, there's something missing
Your TV's just hissing