The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ

[youkrst]

Man I need sleep

And less immersion in the minds of people that have found an ancient text they don't even understand and yet want to tell me what it means

It's dumbing me down

[youkrst]

aaah let me turn for wisdom to that most Leonine of the "Brothers Gibb"

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin',
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.

but He could be just messin' with us

[DB Roy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJmRdE3WBgE

[Flann 5]

Why the childishness D.B.? The fact is Carrier is not displaying any indication of approaching the subject in an unbiased way but is infatuated with his absurd thesis.

I've provided plenty of reasons,arguments and evidence against this on this thread. The Carrier cheerleaders will just trot out their conspiracy theories for why the overwhelming majority of qualified ancient historians and scholars disagree with Carrier, on Josephus or Tacitus, and all the other arguments for historicity.

Carrier is incompetent in his flagrant misuse of the biblical texts and runs them through the meat grinder of his thesis to 'fit' said thesis.
That's just the way things are,and it's too bad for Carrier's thesis.
You may not want to engage with the actual arguments for why Carrier is not credible in his misuse of biblical texts but that's no surprise either.
Childish games are no substitute for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAq_XCP750U

See what I mean? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-O3kYrDPbI

[DB Roy]

Flann, you don't seem to recognize the difference between Carrier being incompetent and you simply saying Carrier is incompetent. You are notorious for saying that kind of crap and not following it up with anything to prove your case other than the occasional link where we are expected to hunt up the relevant response you apparently intended (I don't bother, in case you've ever wondered). There isn't anybody here who would decline to debate you if you could ever be bothered to actually get specific in your criticisms but after 500 posts of the same "he's wrong" "he's incompetent" "he's grasping" without a single example for us to know what the hell you are talking about, don't complain when nobody bothers to respond.

[Flann 5]

Flann, you don't seem to recognize the difference between Carrier being incompetent and you simply saying Carrier is incompetent. You are notorious for saying that kind of crap and not following it up with anything to prove your case other than the occasional link where we are expected to hunt up the relevant response you apparently intended (I don't bother, in case you've ever wondered).

No D.B. I've actually demonstrated the way he misuses and doesn't even understand what he's reading a lot of the time.
It's on this thread.
It may be arduous for you to click on the links with your finger. All that shows is that you couldn't be bothered to hear the arguments addressed specifically and in detail against Carrier's arguments.

So you can just allege that what I'm saying is crap while conveniently avoiding the precise arguments presented.

So while you throw out a condescending pat on the head, for my supposed but understandable layman's lack of expertise, you think that Carrier and you are right contra specialists in so many fields who think Carrier is just wrong.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you find Carrier and his book impressive. That's just what I would expect.

[DB Roy]

You STILL haven't done it. You keep saying it but you don't back it up. Give me something concrete, something specific, that you are talking about. I can't and won't address a blanket statement. Pick something specific--quote it--and then tell me what is incorrect in it. I am going to assume you have read Carrier's book otherwise you have no business responding to it.

[Flann 5]

You STILL haven't done it. You keep saying it but you don't back it up. Give me something concrete, something specific, that you are talking about. I can't and won't address a blanket statement. Pick something specific--quote it--and then tell me what is incorrect in it. I am going to assume you have read Carrier's book otherwise you have no business responding to it.

Are you serious here D.B.?

This is actually a thread you started but you state blankly that you couldn't be bothered to read the articles I've linked, and the specific arguments in them. So if you can bring yourself to read and engage with any of these articles and critiques that would be a start.

They're all linked on my posts here.

As far as reading his book is concerned,no I haven't read it, but I've watched hours of his talks, on Acts as historical 'fiction',Why the gospels are 'myths',his debates and I've even provided links myself to two other of his talks including
his most recent on this book.

I think I'm sufficiently informed on his ideas to be able to respond to them and that's what I've done. You want something specific there's plenty right here on this thread.

Here's a critique of his use of the Rank-Raglan hero scale. It's dubious as a valid measure for starters, but Carrier doesn't even use this in an unbiased way.

http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

And his use of Zalmoxis as a dying and rising god copy is baloney, based on the primary source which he as an historian should have consulted and read correctly.

http://www.mircea.eliade.com/from-primi ... n/036.html

His thesis has more holes in it than a teabag, and like I said I've provided plenty of evidence for that on this thread.

[DB Roy]

Are you serious here D.B.?

This is actually a thread you started but you state blankly that you couldn't be bothered to read the articles I've linked, and the specific arguments in them. So if you can bring yourself to read and engage with any of these articles and critiques that would be a start.

As far as reading his book is concerned,no I haven't read it,

And what if I told you I never bothered to actually read the bible? What would be the first thing you'd respond with?

but I've watched hours of his talks, on Acts as historical 'fiction',Why the gospels are 'myths',his debates and I've even provided links myself to two other of his talks including
his most recent on this book.

I think I'm sufficiently informed on his ideas to be able to respond to them and that's what I've done. You want something specific there's plenty right here on this thread.

But it's problematic that you cannot seem to understand what's wrong in Acts. Three different accounts of Paul's conversion and when I say different, I mean DIFFERENT. In one of the versions, the Light introduces itself to Paul as "Jesus of Nazareth" which was an appellation that Paul NEVER uses in ANY of his epistles to the point that it is clear he had no familiarity with it. An account of Judas dying AFTER Jesus by having his bowels gush out of his body when the gospel story says he hung himself BEFORE the death of Jesus. Then there is the statement about the Jews in Damascus wanting to kill Paul so his helpers lower from a window in a basket but Paul himself in his epistles explicitly states the people he was fleeing from was a garrison of men under the command of King Aretas and not Jews. After Paul's conversion, there is no more talk about Christians being persecuted. Was Paul a one-man anti-Christian army and acting under whose authority? He chases the Jews to Damascus armed with letters from the high priest yet Paul is a Pharisee (by his admission) and the high priest was a Sadducee and the letters would have meant nothing to any official in Damascus--none of whom were Jews of any type.

Acts stated that when Paul got into Damascus, he was still blind. But in Galatians, he stated that before he went to north to Damascus, he journeyed south to Arabia to attend to some business. Was he blind the whole time he was in Arabia tending to business? When Paul is blinded on the road to Damascus, Jesus tells him to go into the city and he would be told what to do next. By whom?? Not by Jesus because Paul would have mentioned that and Acts certainly should have mentioned that. Apparently, by someone already there. YET, in Galatians Paul makes clear he didn't learn anything about the gospel of Jesus Christ from any man but by revelation of Christ only. So what instruction did Paul receive in Damascus and who relayed to him?

But, see, Flann, none of this is going to register with you. You'll read about these discrepancies and they will go in one ear and out the other and you'll go right on believing the same old bullshit you've always believed. You're not capable of processing anything new. You've long ago trained yourself to ignore evidence. You can just put it out of your mind without a second thought. The reason skeptics don't buy what's in Acts is because we are at least intellectually honest enough that we can't do that. You don't really want answers but we do.

Here's a critique of his use of the Rank-Raglan hero scale. It's dubious as a valid measure for starters, but Carrier doesn't even use this in an unbiased way.

http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

And his use of Zalmoxis as a dying and rising god copy is baloney, based on the primary source which he as an historian should have consulted and read correctly.

http://www.mircea.eliade.com/from-primi ... n/036.html

His thesis has more holes in it than a teabag, and like I said I've provided plenty of evidence for that on this thread.

[/quote]

Scholars have several different theories about this account by Herodotus the disappearance and return of Zalmoxis.

-Herodotus is mocking the barbarian beliefs of the Getae.
-Zalmoxis created a ritual of passage. This theory is mainly supported by Mircea Eliade, who wrote the first coherent interpretation of the Zalmoxis myth.
-Zalmoxis is related to Pythagoras, stating that he founded a mystical cult;. This theory may be found in Eliade's work.
-Zalmoxis is a Christ figure who dies and is resurrected. This position was defended by Jean (Ioan) Coman, a professor of patristics and Orthodox priest, who was a friend of Mircea Eliade and published in Eliade's journal Zalmoxis, which appeared in the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmoxis

[Flann 5]

But it's problematic that you cannot seem to understand what's wrong in Acts. Three different accounts of Paul's conversion and when I say different, I mean DIFFERENT. In one of the versions, the Light introduces itself to Paul as "Jesus of Nazareth" which was an appellation that Paul NEVER uses in ANY of his epistles to the point that it is clear he had no familiarity with it.

There are slight differences in the accounts but Luke wasn't copying and pasting. Some claim a contradiction here,but it's in no way irreconcilable from what I've see from various scholars interpretations.

Well, Jesus was a common name so it's no surprise that Jesus identifies himself as Jesus of Nazareth to Paul. I don't see why Paul or the other apostles should use this term in speaking to Christian churches as Nazareth wasn't his name.

So you don't find Peter or John saying Nazareth in their letters either. In Acts it's occasionally used in preaching to identify him in that way to crowds of Jews, but that's a standard Jewish way of distinguishing Jesus from others of the same name.

An account of Judas dying AFTER Jesus by having his bowels gush out of his body when the gospel story says he hung himself BEFORE the death of Jesus.

I don't see where you get Judas dying after Jesus from, D.B. Matthew says that when he saw that Jesus was condemned he went out and hanged himself.

The hanged versus bowels gushed out is a standard of 'infidels' supposed contradiction. He hanged himself and the branch may have broken and there you get his falling headlong and his bowels gushing out.

I haven't checked if the Greek word means bowels in the sense that we understand it but I don't see a necessary contradiction in any case.

Then there is the statement about the Jews in Damascus wanting to kill Paul so his helpers lower from a window in a basket but Paul himself in his epistles explicitly states the people he was fleeing from was a garrison of men under the command of King Aretas and not Jews.

You never seem to consult any commentators on these things who have studied the political and historical background to these events.
There is no contradiction here. http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/2_ ... /11-32.htm

He chases the Jews to Damascus armed with letters from the high priest yet Paul is a Pharisee (by his admission) and the high priest was a Sadducee and the letters would have meant nothing to any official in Damascus--none of whom were Jews of any type.

Same thing. The high priests were Sadducees who also condemned Jesus,and they had the authority throughout Judea to do this and give Paul this authority to arrest them. They had the same attitude as Paul at that time towards Christianity. In fact in Acts it also says the letters were from the chief priests, which suggests it wasn't just decided by the high priest alone.

http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/9-2.htm

Paul was the main persecuter and zealot so when he stopped of course it died down, but Acts is speaking relatively. There are examples of lesser waves of persecution and Paul's own hounding out of Damascus is an example of this.

cts stated that when Paul got into Damascus, he was still blind. But in Galatians, he stated that before he went to north to Damascus, he journeyed south to Arabia to attend to some business. Was he blind the whole time he was in Arabia tending to business? When Paul is blinded on the road to Damascus, Jesus tells him to go into the city and he would be told what to do next. By whom??

You just don't read Galatians right. Paul says there that he did not go to Jerusalem from Arabia but returned to Damascus.
http://www.biblehub.com/galatians/1-17.htm

You seem to think that conservative Christian scholars are complete idiots but you just don't bother to see how they study these things,including the relevant history and social, political and religious customs of the time.

Scholars have several different theories about this account by Herodotus the disappearance and return of Zalmoxis.

-Herodotus is mocking the barbarian beliefs of the Getae.
-Zalmoxis created a ritual of passage. This theory is mainly supported by Mircea Eliade, who wrote the first coherent interpretation of the Zalmoxis myth.
-Zalmoxis is related to Pythagoras, stating that he founded a mystical cult;. This theory may be found in Eliade's work.
-Zalmoxis is a Christ figure who dies and is resurrected. This position was defended by Jean (Ioan) Coman, a professor of patristics and Orthodox priest, who was a friend of Mircea Eliade and published in Eliade's journal Zalmoxis, which appeared in the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmoxis[/quote]


The thing is though that the primary source here is Herodotus and he does not say Zalmoxis died at all. Now if you want to claim that it was believed that he did die and rise again you have to provide a primary source showing this, and one that predates Christianity.

You won't do that though because there is none,and you and Carrier are stuck with Herodotus. If you can produce this primary source then do it. Herodotus reads as it does,and it doesn't read death and resurrection to anyone looking at it objectively.

I gave just two examples here of Carrier's poor methods and scholarship,one for which the link failed, but you knew what was in Herodotus anyway. Like I said there are loads of problems with Carrier's work and thesis,and I've addressed many of them in my posts on this thread.