Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 18 of 22
 [ 436 posts ] 
Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:
So I'll repeat myself: No.


just for my information.I am aware of the fact that Atheist don't have to present any evidence, I simply what to know if this rule also applies in this conversation.



MarsCydonia wrote:You do realize that myths are not all completely fictional? That some myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events?


But it would not be irrelevant to your point that "no author would invent the crucifixion" which my intent was to answer this point as being false


ok so my answer would be Yes, I do realize that myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events

leroy wrote:
the thing is that we know from historical (primary) sources that the crucifixion of Jesus was an inconvenient detail and made preaching the gospel harder


MarsCydonia wrote:You're confusing "harder" with "hard". According to Leroy-logic, what would make it easier? Actually, I think we have a good exemple of something that would have made it harder coming up...


ok, but what about the fact WE KNOW that the Crucifixion made it harder for Christians to promote their faith, and convince others?........If one is inventing a story why not simply inventing something that would make your goals more easily achievable, ?

MarsCydonia wrote:Now that would have made it harder... How would Jesus vainquishing the roman empire and not even die make it better story if the idea is to preach the gospel that Jesus died for our sins?


well in that case you would have to prove that Jews who lived 2,000y ago where expecting a messiah who died for our sins. ..........we know that Jews where expecting someone like Moses or someone like David........someone that would safe them from their enemies


but even of you provide such evidence you could still die for sins and still have a honorable death.


Can we imagine the preachers? "Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and sin entered the world. To redeem and save us from our sinful nature God sent his only son to slaugther the romans and die in his sleep..."

I asked for better and you gave much much worse


well I am assuming that you have historical evidence to support that claim
.

MarsCydonia wrote:Do you understand that perhaps the death by crucifixion for Jesus may not go against the gospel author's objective but is in fact compatible with the message of christianity?


yes perhaps, but there is no evidence for it..............and there is evidence for the opposite.



Christian doctrine holds that divine Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion at Calvary as a sign of his full obedience to the will of his divine Father, as an "agent and servant of God".*,** In Christian theology the Lamb of God is viewed as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity.***


yes, that is a Christian doctrine, this is what modern Christians believe, what you have to do is prove that 2,000 Jews where expecting a Lamb of God as a Messiah.........all the available information that we have tells us that the crucifixion was an obstacle for preachers. and this obstacle was evident long before the gospels where written, so any author could have removed that inconvenient detail from the gospel.


besides one can have a honorable death and be a Lamb of God at the same time. for example a Lamb of God could have saved his people from his enemies and then sacrifice himself to save them form their sins.



I mean, the majority of christians understand the idea of redemption achieved through Jesus' sacrfice. If you want to argue so far out of the integral and foundational message of christianity that's on you Leroy but that is something not only scholars but christians in general would disagree with.


what the majority of Christians believe is irrelevant, the only relevant majority would be the majority of Jews that where waiting for his messiah 2000y ago.....

That is because something that is viewed as integral and foundational to the message cannot be reasonably argued to be against the message. There are things integral to christianiy and Jesus slaugthering romans is not it.
[/quote]

what you have to do is prove that Jews from 2000y ago where also expecting that message. besides you can still provide that message and die in a honorable way not naked in a cross.





so in summery you have to prove
1 that early Jews where expecting a Messiah who pay for our sins, rather that a Messiah that save his people from his enemies (like Mosses or David)

2 that it would have been convenient to die in cross in order to pay for such sins.




this has nothing to do with the criteria of embarrassment, so feel free to ignore it. but

why would the author invent a public death? it would have been very easy to expose the myth, everybody would have known that no supposed messiah was crucified
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:12 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

:facepalm:
leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:So I'll repeat myself: No.

just for my information.I am aware of the fact that Atheist don't have to present any evidence, I simply what to know if this rule also applies in this conversation.

What evidence more do you need that I don't believe something than me telling you that I don't believe something? Should I get a notary and make a formal statement?

Really Leroy, that was _____ even for you.

leroy wrote:ok, but what about the fact WE KNOW that the Crucifixion made it harder for Christians to promote their faith, and convince others?........If one is inventing a story why not simply inventing something that would make your goals more easily achievable, ?

Which would be? The only thing you have come up with "a Jesus that would have slaughtered romans and not died" but how would that make a story more easily achievable?

The crucifixion was and still is a foundational and integral part of the faith yet you think removing this part would make it more easy...

Really Leroy, that is _____ even for you.
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:well in that case you would have to prove that Jews who lived 2,000y ago where expecting a messiah who died for our sins. ..........we know that Jews where expecting someone like Moses or someone like David........someone that would safe them from their enemies

but even of you provide such evidence you could still die for sins and still have a Leroy's definition of "honorable" death.

Why wouldn't it be on you to prove that "NO AUTHOR WOULD" would invent this story?
You never back that up. All you did say was "In my opinion, it's unlikely"
Well, it's possible an author would. That's the only thing that's needed here.

And I asked you Leroy, if you're going to change the meaning of words, you should highlight them. You know that dishonorable and humiliating have different definition for everybody except Leroy-minded people.

And what is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:well I am assuming that you have historical evidence to support that claim

Sure, as soon as you provide your evidence that your story, without this foundational and integral part of the christian faith would make it better to spread the christian faith.
:facepalm:
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:yes perhaps, but there is no evidence for it..............and there is evidence for the opposite.

:lol:
I just presented 3 book from 3 authors and you presented...? Nothing?

Comon Leroy, you can't possibly be that ____

What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:yes, that is a Christian doctrine, this is what modern Christians believe, what you have to do is prove that 2,000 Jews where expecting a Lamb of God as a Messiah.........all the available information that we have tells us that the crucifixion was an obstacle for preachers. and this obstacle was evident long before the gospels where written, so any author could have removed that inconvenient detail from the gospel.

What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:besides one can have a Leroy's definition of "honorable" death and be a Lamb of God at the same time. for example a Lamb of God could have saved his people from his enemies and then sacrifice himself to save them form their sins.

I'm sure you have evidence for that. :lol:
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?


leroy wrote:Iwhat the majority of Christians believe is irrelevant, the only relevant majority would be the majority of Jews that where waiting for his messiah 2000y ago.....

What the majority of Christians believe about Christianity is irrelevant? :facepalm:
Do you understand how relevance works?
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:Iwhat you have to do is prove that Jews from 2000y ago where also expecting that message. besides you can still provide that message and die in a honorable way not naked in a cross.

I'm sure you have evidence for that. :lol:
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:so in summery you have to prove
1 that early Jews where expecting a Messiah who pay for our sins, rather that a Messiah that save his people from his enemies (like Mosses or David)

2 that it would have been convenient to die in cross in order to pay for such sins.

1. Is completely irrelevant (but I get that you don't know how relevance works). What is needed is 1 single jew could have wrriten a story where the crucifixion is part of the message. You said "no author would" then changed it to "it is unlikely an author would" so you admit it is possible. Unless you want to prove "no author would"?
2. The crucifixion is an integral and foundational part of the christian faith.
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?

leroy wrote:this has nothing to do with the criteria of embarrassment, so feel free to ignore it. but

why would the author invent a public death? it would have been very easy to expose the myth, everybody would have known that no supposed messiah was crucified

1. Have you missed Grumpy Santa's comment?
2. The crucifixion is an integral and foundational part of the christian faith.
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?


So that is pretty much it Leroy, no matter the depths of _____ and _____ you're willing to sink to, the inescapable fact is:
- The crucifixion could have been invented.

Nothing you say changes that.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:05 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote::
What evidence more do you need that I don't believe something than me telling you that I don't believe something? Should I get a notary and make a formal statement?


:facepalm: :facepalm:

I meant, I this conversation, are you going to provide evidence for your radical clam........that the crucifixion of Jesus could not be granted as a historical fact?


- The crucifixion could have been invented.


granted it could have been invented, everything in history could have been invented.

but there are many good reasons to assume that it was not invented (being embarrassment one of these reasons) and there are no good reasons to assume that it was invented.


sure at any point you can prove me wrong, all you have to do is provide good reasons (evidence) that the story was invented.




Which would be? The only thing you have come up with "a Jesus that would have slaughtered romans and not died" but how would that make a story more easily achievable?


I already provided my source, you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

Paul writes in Corinthians 1
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles


this small sentence tells you what Jews and gentiles where expecting in a Messiah and it confirms that death by crucifixion was inconvenient by preachers.

If the story would have been invented, the authors of the myth would have created a Messiah that fulfilled the signs that Jews where looking for (which would have been a hero like David or Moses)


Really Leroy, that is _____ even for you.
What is it about integral and foundational that you do not get? Do you realize that if you take this part out, it changes the message?



I already answered to that, what is the point of repeating the question? the ]integral and foundational stuff is meaningful for modern Christians, but jews who lived 2000y ago where not expecting this kind of doctrine. but feel free to provide your sources that suggest otherwise.

in other words, provide evidence from primary sources that suggest that death by crucifixion was not en embarrassing detail, from he point of view of a Jew (or maybe we should call them early Christians) who lived 2000 years ago. .............if you don't provide the evidence please do not even bother answering.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:45 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I meant, I this conversation, are you going to provide evidence for your radical clam........that the crucifixion of Jesus could not be granted as a historical fact?

Oh Leroy... Your Leroy-mindedness is really a huge issue that you should try to resolve.
1. I never made such a claim
2. I never even wrote that I do not grant the crucifixion as a historial fact. Or did you forget a distinction was made?

Go back and read the comments Leroy and deal with was written rather than what you imagine what was written.

leroy wrote:granted it could have been invented, everything in history could have been invented.

but there are many good reasons to assume that it was not invented (being embarrassment one of these reasons) and there are no good reasons to assume that it was invented.

Except... I do not see "being embarassement" as a good reason to think it was not invented for reasons repeatedly explained.
It's ok Leroy if reject these reasons (though you have "no good reason to").

So, as far as we are presently concerned, you have not made this case:
- Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with the concept the of "Lamb of God", an integral and foundational part of the christian message.
"Christian doctrine holds that divine Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion at Calvary as a sign of his full obedience to the will of his divine Father, as an "agent and servant of God". In Christian theology the Lamb of God is viewed as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity"

Also, didn't I give you a link to an auto-corrector? Please Leroy, take some time to use it before you write your comments.

leroy wrote:I already provided my source, you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

I already provided my source, you are the one that needs to provide evidence:
- Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with the concept of the "Lamb of God", an integral and foundational part of the christian message.

leroy wrote:this small sentence tells you what Jews and gentiles where expecting in a Messiah and it confirms that death by crucifixion was inconvenient by preachers.

It may have been inconvenient to preachers but the question is, was it an integral and foundational part of the christian message or wasn't it?
- Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with the concept of the "Lamb of God", an integral and foundational part of the christian message.

leroy wrote:If the story would have been invented, the authors of the myth would have created a Messiah that fulfilled the signs that Jews where looking for (which would have been a hero like David or Moses)

Unless the idea behind the story was the concept was that "divine Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion at Calvary as a sign of his full obedience to the will of his divine Father, as an "agent and servant of God" because in christian theology, the "Lamb of God" is viewed as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity.
- Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with the concept of the "Lamb of God", an integral and foundational part of the christian message.

leroy wrote:I already answered to that, what is the point of repeating the question? the ]integral and foundational stuff is meaningful for modern Christians, but jews who lived 2000y ago where not expecting this kind of doctrine. but feel free to provide your sources that suggest otherwise.

What is the point of repeating what Jews expected? Can you providence that the gospel authors would have written ONLY what was generally expected and not something else?

That was your original point, wasn't Leroy? That "NO AUTHOR WOULD INVENT" something like the crucifixion. You already granted that your point was complete bullshit.

So we're in agreement, an author could have invented something like the crucifixion. So if it could have been invented...
We're done here.

But you'll find something to add because you're you.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:09 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Grumpy Santa wrote:
Well, a couple reasons. It's probably (at the time) one of the most severe punishments of the time, befitting of a mythological martyr. If they, for example, simply had him beheaded there's be precious chapters of drama completely cut out. Suddenly the whole "suffering for our sins" thing is effectively gone. Plus, keep in mind in those days news travelled by word of mouth at a walking pace. Someone goes to a town miles away, tells of their martyr suffering heinously yada yada and there's no way to fact-check it. Some people will believe it and spread the tale, probably with embellishments. Eventually a modified version gets written down, there's no way to tell what the original story was (or even if there was one) and a religion is born.


Early Christianity flourished in Jerusalem, and nearby lands, any myth about a crucifixion would have been exposed immediately,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:19 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:[1. I never made such a claim
2. I never even wrote that I do not grant the crucifixion as a historial fact. Or did you forget a distinction was made?



yes you did,




So, as far as we are presently concerned, you have not made this case:
- Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with the concept the of "Lamb of God", an integral and foundational part of the christian message.
"Christian doctrine holds that divine Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion at Calvary as a sign of his full obedience to the will of his divine Father, as an "agent and servant of God". In Christian theology the Lamb of God is viewed as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity"



Nope, Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with messianic expectations 2000 years ago, I already provided the evidence for that..


So we're in agreement, an author could have invented something like the crucifixion. So if it could have been invented...
We're done here.

But you'll find something to add because you're you.


sure we are done,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:28 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:Early Christianity flourished in Jerusalem, and nearby lands, any myth about a crucifixion would have been exposed immediately,

No it wouldn't.

leroy wrote:yes you did,

No I didn't. You asserting it once may have been a mistake but asserting it again after being corrected turns it into blatant lying Leroy.

Learn to read and stop lying.

leroy wrote:Nope, Crucifixion needs to be shown to be incompatible with messianic expectations 2000 years ago, I already provided the evidence for that.

:facepalm:
What the jewish expectations were does not limit what an author could or could not have done. We've been over this before.
So Leroy, you would need to show that no author would invent something like the crucifixion.
You already admitted that you can't and that it could be possible.

leroy wrote:sure we are done,

Finally we're in agreement.

And I predicted you would add something. My talent in predicting your bullshit is undeniable ;)
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:41 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:Learn to read and stop lying.



we went over this before, given that you don't believe in human choice, you can not call me a liar, to lie implies that I had the option to be honest but decided to be dishonest :D
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:56 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:we went over this before, given that you don't believe in human choice, you can not call me a liar, to lie implies that I had the option to be honest but decided to be dishonest :D

You're right, we went over this before. You never did bother to read what I wrote about human choice.

So you're defending your lie with another lie. You're really doing an amazing job on the blunder that theists do all the time.

Congratulations.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Last edited by MarsCydonia on Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:00 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:we went over this before, given that you don't believe in human choice, you can not call me a liar, to lie implies that I had the option to be honest but decided to be dishonest :D

You're right, we went over this before. You never did bother to read what I wrote about human choice.

So you're defending your lie with another lie. You're really doing an amazing job the blunder that theists do all the time.

Congratulations.



sure you clearly an unambiguously said that you don't grant human choice. ...........but you can always correct me and affirm that you grant human choice
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:04 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:sure you clearly an unambiguously said that you don't grant human choice. ...........but you can always correct me and affirm that you grant human choice

Actually Leroy, if you could stop lying in every comment:
I clearly and unambiguously said that I grant human choices.
I also clearly and unambiguously said that I do not grant anything about human choices and I explained that I do not make any assertions about the mechanism for it.

That part about mechanism is important, because under "Leroy's definition of will/freedom", calling you dishonest would be a blunder.

Should I get the quote for you? Since you're incapable of the brain function that allows for reading comprehension?

You just can't help making that blunder, can't you.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:08 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

ok so you grant human choices I apologize for misrepresenting your view
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:35 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:
Well, a couple reasons. It's probably (at the time) one of the most severe punishments of the time, befitting of a mythological martyr. If they, for example, simply had him beheaded there's be precious chapters of drama completely cut out. Suddenly the whole "suffering for our sins" thing is effectively gone. Plus, keep in mind in those days news travelled by word of mouth at a walking pace. Someone goes to a town miles away, tells of their martyr suffering heinously yada yada and there's no way to fact-check it. Some people will believe it and spread the tale, probably with embellishments. Eventually a modified version gets written down, there's no way to tell what the original story was (or even if there was one) and a religion is born.


Early Christianity flourished in Jerusalem, and nearby lands, any myth about a crucifixion would have been exposed immediately,


Remember there was no internet then. News travelled slowly, but bullshit always travels faster than the truth.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:02 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Grumpy Santa wrote:
Remember there was no internet then. News travelled slowly, but bullshit always travels faster than the truth.



it is a matter of probabilities.

1) a lie that involves a many witnesses is more likely to be exposed than a lie that is not expected to have witnesses.


2) one is less likely to invent a lie that is easily exposed than a lie that is hard to expose, specially if your intent is to convince others that your lie is true



the fact that Jesus was said to be executed publicly makes the authors less likely to have lied,







I will ask you the same yes or no question.....do you believe in the crucifixion of Christ ? yes or no
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:02 am
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:
Remember there was no internet then. News travelled slowly, but bullshit always travels faster than the truth.



it is a matter of probabilities.

1) a lie that involves a many witnesses is more likely to be exposed than a lie that is not expected to have witnesses.


2) one is less likely to invent a lie that is easily exposed than a lie that is hard to expose, specially if your intent is to convince others that your lie is true



the fact that Jesus was said to be executed publicly makes the authors less likely to have lied,


Yet the fabrication of the whole "rising from the dead" thing, on the other hand, was very not public and a lie that could easily have been spread by only a handful of followers. People will believe stupid shit, and over time will convince themselves they witnessed the stupid shit even though it never happened.

I will ask you the same yes or no question.....do you believe in the crucifixion of Christ ? yes or no

[/quote]

Short answer: Nope.
Long answer: With a caveat, there may have been someone that became identified with the Christ myth who was crucified, but there's no evidence of a "son of a god" that performed actual miracles, came back from death and hung out for a few days, yada ever happening.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:59 am
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Leroy you keep saying there was no precedent for believing that the Messiah would die. This is not true.

Read Isaiah 53 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53) and tell me that this could not be construed as a messianic prophecy foretelling a suffering messiah.

What about Daniel 9 that explicitly says the messiah would be put to death?
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:21 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Apologies for the formatting of my previous post. I was using my phone. Let my expand upon my point with the actual passages in question:

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

- Isaiah 53

The Seventy “Sevens”
20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision:

24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

- Daniel 9

What evidence do you have that the Jewish people had absolutely no precedent for believing in a suffering and dying messiah when I have provided two examples that contradict this?
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:06 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Laurens wrote:Apologies for the formatting of my previous post. I was using my phone. Let my expand upon my point with the actual passages in question:

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

- Isaiah 53

The Seventy “Sevens”
20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision:

24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

- Daniel 9

What evidence do you have that the Jewish people had absolutely no precedent for believing in a suffering and dying messiah when I have provided two examples that contradict this?





hopefully I am wrong, but I don't think anyone would ever imagine a crucified messiah after reading those lines. But even more important, you have to provide evidence that Jews from 2,000 years ago where expecting a crucified messiah and that they understood those texts in the same way you are.





but I would rather to be wrong on that point, if you prove that the crucifixion of Jesus was prophesied with thousands of years in advance that would absolutely prove that the bible is the word of God.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:29 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:hopefully I am wrong, but I don't think anyone would ever imagine a crucified messiah after reading those lines. But even more important, you have to provide evidence that Jews from 2,000 years ago where expecting a crucified messiah and that they understood those texts in the same way you are.

but I would rather to be wrong on that point, if you prove that the crucifixion of Jesus was prophesied with thousands of years in advance that would absolutely prove that the bible is the word of God.

Not only both these "points" are completely wrong but they are also hilariously idiotic :lol:
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:34 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

leroy wrote:hopefully I am wrong, but I don't think anyone would ever imagine a crucified messiah after reading those lines.


Maybe not a crucified messiah from those specific lines, but it certainly makes for something that can be interpreted as a suffering and dying messiah, its not that much of a stretch from there to a crucified messiah. Especially adding in other verses might lead to ideas about crucifixion:

Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet
.

- Psalm 22:16


And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

- Zechariah 12:10


It's not that much of a stretch in my view, to see that a Messianic sect (of which there were many) came to believe in a messiah that would be crucified.


But even more important, you have to provide evidence that Jews from 2,000 years ago where expecting a crucified messiah and that they understood those texts in the same way you are.


The evidence is there in the scripture. For further reading see this article. The evidence is abundant, it is just ignored by people like Bart Ehrman, who insist without evidence that a dying messiah was anathema to the Jews.


but I would rather to be wrong on that point, if you prove that the crucifixion of Jesus was prophesied with thousands of years in advance that would absolutely prove that the bible is the word of God.


The point is that Jesus was never crucified, there is no prophecy with regard to actual history, the idea of a crucified messiah was extrapolated from the OT prophecy, and then euhemerized in the gospels to appear as though it were historical fact.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:33 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 18 of 22
 [ 436 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests