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 15 of 22
 [ 431 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

The gospels are full of embarrassing details, that no one would "invent", if Jesus is just a mythical person, if the authors of the gospels intended to create a mythical person, just for fun and without even intending to fool everybody that Jesús is a historical person (as Bart E claims) they would have not invented all this embarrassing details.


for example
Mythical Heroes tend to destroy their enemies and if they happen to die, they do so in an honorable way, not by crucifixion which is the most humiliating way to die. Nobody would have invented the story of a hero who died in the cross executed by his own enemies and without even harming his enemy (in this case the roman empire) the gospels are not the kind of story that someone would invent, specially if the author was not even trying to fool their readers ..............supposedly (according to Bart) the first Christians new that Jesus was mythical, and that the gospels (or the oral traditions) where not intended to be historical events.


there are dozens of similar examples, where the author of the gospels reposts events that no one would have invented.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:21 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3317Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

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

leroy wrote:... supposedly (according to Bart) the first Christians new that Jesus was mythical, and that the gospels (or the oral traditions) where not intended to be historical events.


:lol:

Once again, dandan/leroy responds to something without knowing the basics. If only you took a minute to watch the debate or read this thread, you would have seen that Bart Ehrman is on the historical side. He debated Robert Price, who took the mythological side.

:lol:
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:08 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

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

Carrier tends to cite sources which do not say what he says they say. The most obvious instances of this concerns Philo.

He also seems to at times basically plagiarize the Jehova's Witnesses (of all people) in the idea that Jesus was angel. An early source for this idea does not exist. He claims the ancient hebrews wrote about "Jesus the Angel", but they did not. That doesn't matter to Richard Carrier though, because according to him Jesus was also a hallucination and he was also just a Jewish form of other common pagan mystic heroes. Jesus was also just a story made up in as part of a mass consipracy to take away power the pharisees, in the probably the most impractical manner one can think of.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:44 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:... supposedly (according to Bart) the first Christians new that Jesus was mythical, and that the gospels (or the oral traditions) where not intended to be historical events.


:lol:

Once again, dandan/leroy responds to something without knowing the basics. If only you took a minute to watch the debate or read this thread, you would have seen that Bart Ehrman is on the historical side. He debated Robert Price, who took the mythological side.

:lol:



ok granted, that was my mistake


however the point is that the gospels are unlikely to be myths (intended to be mythical by the authors) because they are full of details that no author would invent. .....
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:26 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:however the point is that the gospels are unlikely to be myths (intended to be mythical by the authors) because they are full of details that no author would invent. .....

It is a complete bullshit point. Just because there details you do not feel an author would invent certainly does not make it true. How does what you think limit what an author would invent? It doesn't.
"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
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:29 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:however the point is that the gospels are unlikely to be myths (intended to be mythical by the authors) because they are full of details that no author would invent. .....

It is a complete bullshit point. Just because there details you do not feel an author would invent certainly does not make it true. How does what you think limit what an author would invent? It doesn't.



we have samples of ancient myths, and ancient, historians know how ancient myths look like, the gospels don't have any sign of being the story of a mythical hero.


historians usually "know" how to identify ancient, myths, poetry, narratives, bibliographies, and other types of literature


we know that mythical heroes usually don't fail in eliminating his enemies and die in humiliating ways ...........so why making an arbitrary exception with Jesus ?


under this basis alone the idea that Jesus was a mythical hero (intended to be mythical by the author) is an extraordinary claim, in the absence for evidence for such claim, it is reasonable no to accept that idea.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:19 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:we have samples of ancient myths, and ancient, historians know how ancient myths look like, the gospels don't have any sign of being the story of a mythical hero.

historians usually "know" how to identify ancient, myths, poetry, narratives, bibliographies, and other types of literature

we know that mythical heroes usually don't fail in eliminating his enemies and die in humiliating ways ...........so why making an arbitrary exception with Jesus ?

under this basis alone the idea that Jesus was a mythical hero (intended to be mythical by the author) is an extraordinary claim, in the absence for evidence for such claim, it is reasonable no to accept that idea.

Yet I'm sure you will not see that as backpedaling.
"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
Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:20 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:

ok granted, that was my mistake


however the point is that the gospels are unlikely to be myths (intended to be mythical by the authors) because they are full of details that no author would invent. .....


Ever read the the Harry Potter series?
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:43 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Grumpy Santa wrote:
leroy wrote:

ok granted, that was my mistake


however the point is that the gospels are unlikely to be myths (intended to be mythical by the authors) because they are full of details that no author would invent. .....


Ever read the the Harry Potter series?


No, but if I where to bet, I would say that Harry Potter did not die in a humiliating and dishonorable way.



and given that you mentioned harry potter. do you think is probable that in 2,000 years people (including scholars) would believe that harry potter was a historical person who actually lived ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:59 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:No, but if I where to bet, I would say that Harry Potter did not die in a humiliating and dishonorable way.

I should really keep a list of words that Leroy uses with completely different meanings.

Because I think that most christians would Jesus enduring pain and sacrificing his life so that he could redeem and save mankind as the most honorable death, not as dishonorable.

No author would invent a hero who sacrifices himself to save mankind...
"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
Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:54 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:No, but if I where to bet, I would say that Harry Potter did not die in a humiliating and dishonorable way.

I should really keep a list of words that Leroy uses with completely different meanings.

Because I think that most christians would Jesus enduring pain and sacrificing his life so that he could redeem and save mankind as the most honorable death, not as dishonorable.

No author would invent a hero who sacrifices himself to save mankind...



that was a later interpretation that only makes sense if you look at the wide picture.

in the context of a Jew that lived 2000 years ago, crucifixion was a dishonorable way of dying.........an early jew would have been unlikely to invent that his hero died in such a way


but let me guess............you personally don't deny the historicity of Jesus, you are just trolling for the sake of trolling
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:22 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:that was a later interpretation that only makes sense if you look at the wide picture.

in the context of a Jew that lived 2000 years ago, crucifixion was a dishonorable way of dying.........an early jew would have been unlikely to invent that his hero died in such a way

but let me guess............you personally don't deny the historicity of Jesus, you are just trolling for the sake of trolling

When did "Jesus is the messiah, savior of mankind" come in as a later interpretation?

And you're backpedaling again: "It is unlikely an early jew would invent" and "no jew would invent" are two different things or do those have the same meanings in Leroyspeak?

And you didn't say how you calculated your odds but please Leroy, since you're able to read minds through time as to assert no jew would have written this story, please do come up with the story of "how Jesus would have died if I was an early jew". Keep in mind that in this story Jesus needs to suffer and his death needs to be a sacrifice. Can you come with a better christian story?
"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
Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:32 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:that was a later interpretation that only makes sense if you look at the wide picture.

in the context of a Jew that lived 2000 years ago, crucifixion was a dishonorable way of dying.........an early jew would have been unlikely to invent that his hero died in such a way

but let me guess............you personally don't deny the historicity of Jesus, you are just trolling for the sake of trolling

When did "Jesus is the messiah, savior of mankind" come in as a later interpretation?

And you're backpedaling again: "It is unlikely an early jew would invent" and "no jew would invent" are two different things or do those have the same meanings in Leroyspeak?

And you didn't say how you calculated your odds but please Leroy, since you're able to read minds through time as to assert no jew would have written this story, please do come up with the story of "how Jesus would have died if I was an early jew". Keep in mind that in this story Jesus needs to suffer and his death needs to be a sacrifice. Can you come with a better christian story?



:lol: :lol:

Australopithecus should ether ban people like you or change the name of the forum for the league of trolling


you are not interesting in learning, you don't care about any answers, all you what to do is troll.


A messiah who dies in a cross is not the kind of messia that early Jews where expecting, they where expecting someone who safe them from his enemies (Rome)..Any mythical invention would have been a messiah who destroys his enemies, safe his people and die in a honorable way .....This is not my opinion, this is something that scholars say.

It is unlikely an early jew would invent


yes it is unlikely, no one claims to be 100% certain, nothing in ancient history is 100% certain, the thing is that you do not claim otherwise, you don't believe that Jesus never existed, and you don't believe that the authors of the gospels are likely to invent a myth about a messiah who died in the cross. ...you are just trolling.

you Detener la corrección de "dont" disagree with any of these 2 statements

1 crucifixion was a deshonorable way of dying

2 mythical heroes usually don't die in deshonorable ways

you agree with each of those 2 points, but you pretend not to, because you are just a troll.



nd you didn't say how you calculated your odds but please Leroy, since you're able to read minds


I am not reading any minds, I am simply repeating what scholars say.

no one can exact probabilities of a historical event, what historians can do is identify patterns, they can look at ancient myths, poems, novels, biographies, etc. determine the literally properties of each kind of text and determine what kind of text are the gospels likely to be.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:27 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:Australopithecus should ether ban people like you or change the name of the forum for the league of trolling

you are not interesting in learning, you don't care about any answers, all you what to do is troll.

Did calling someone a troll ever convince that person that the completely wrong point you were making was right?

And weren't you warned to stop pretending to know what moderators should do? We know that doesn't stop you from doing it about regular users but since it does not work with them, why would you think it would work with moderators, especially since when Leroy's definition of "trolling" appears to be a synonym for "called me out on my complete bullshit point".

At least, you didn't try the "you're an atheist in an atheist forum" excuse this time.

leroy wrote:A messiah who dies in a cross is not the kind of messia that early Jews where expecting, they where expecting someone who safe them from his enemies (Rome)..Any mythical invention would have been a messiah who destroys his enemies, safe his people and die in a honorable way .....This is not my opinion, this is something that scholars say.

It isn't anything scholars say because any-self respecting scholars don't count their opinion as facts, something you should learn (but we both know who between us is the only one not interested in learning).

Your point remains complete bullshit: just because you think no early jew would write this doesn't mean none would. It is something you obviously cannot back up.

There have been numerous stories through time of heroes who sacrificed themselves for mankind and you have not provided anything that would prevent anyone, such as an "early jew", from writing such a story.

leroy wrote:yes it is unlikely, no one claims to be 100% certain, nothing in ancient history is 100% certain, the thing is that you do not claim otherwise, you don't believe that Jesus never existed, and you don't believe that the authors of the gospels are likely to invent a myth about a messiah who died in the cross. ...you are just trolling.

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?

And that obviously I consider many elements of the gospels to be fictitious or exaggerated?
So I do actually believe that some of the elements of the gospels were completely invented.
And I do actually believe that to make the claim that "no author would invent" these elements, even such an element as being martyred on a cross, to be still complete bullshit.

leroy wrote:you Detener la corrección de "dont" disagree with any of these 2 statements

1 crucifixion was a deshonorable way of dying

2 mythical heroes usually don't die in deshonorable ways

you agree with each of those 2 points, but you pretend not to, because you are just a troll.

Leroy "I am not a mind reader" but who pretends to know what I agree or do not agree with.
1. I don't think cruxificion, when it means being "redeeming and saving mankind" as dishonorable way of dying (didn't google translate write that correctly for you?)
2. I agree with "usually don't" but what you don't get is that a) "usually don't" is not equal to "never" and b) see 1.

It is rather simple Leroy, when you make an absolute statement such as "this would never happen" of something as trivial and mundane as inventing, embellishing or exaggerating a story, don't expect to someone to simply buy into your bull. You're dealing with skeptics here, not with Leroy-minded people.
"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 13, 2017 2:49 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

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

leroy wrote:

:lol: :lol:

Australopithecus should ether ban people like you or change the name of the forum for the league of trolling


you are not interesting in learning, you don't care about any answers, all you what to do is troll.


In all fairness to MarsCydonia and to theleagueofreason, this a somewhat decent web forum where people sometimes debate things and test their ideas. People don't come here to "learn stuff from Leroy."

Actually I think MarsCydonia has made some very good points in his last post, even though I disagree with his line of thought.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:18 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:

Ever read the the Harry Potter series?


No, but if I where to bet, I would say that Harry Potter did not die in a humiliating and dishonorable way.



and given that you mentioned harry potter. do you think is probable that in 2,000 years people (including scholars) would believe that harry potter was a historical person who actually lived ?


If the Harry Potter books came out 2000 years ago there would be people that believe he really lived.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:43 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Grumpy Santa wrote:No, but if I where to bet, I would say that Harry Potter did not die in a humiliating and dishonorable way.



and given that you mentioned harry potter. do you think is probable that in 2,000 years people (including scholars) would believe that harry potter was a historical person who actually lived ?


If the Harry Potter books came out 2000 years ago there would be people that believe he really lived.[/quote]


yes "people" but not the mayority of scholars
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:15 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:[1. I don't think cruxificion, when it means being "redeeming and saving mankind" as dishonorable way of dying (didn't google translate write .


thanks for sharing you opinion, but your comment is irrelevant.

do you grant that crucifixion was considered a deshonorable and shameful way of dying 2,000 years ago? do you grant that this is what the historical evidence tells us?

This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment



It is rather simple Leroy, when you make an absolute statement such as "this would never happen" of something as trivial and mundane as inventing, embellishing or exaggerating a story, don't expect to someone to simply buy into your bull. You're dealing with skeptics here, not with Leroy-minded people


it was not meant to be an absolute claim, nothing in the context of ancient history is meant to be an absolute claim, all I am saying is that if someone is "inventing" a testimony, one is unlikely to invent something that would go against your motives.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:52 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:thanks for sharing you opinion, but your comment is irrelevant.

I think you'e confusing my comment with your opinion.

leroy wrote:do you grant that crucifixion was considered a deshonorable and shameful way of dying 2,000 years ago? do you grant that this is what the historical evidence tells us?

You're confusing dishonorable (note the spelling) and shameful with humiliating which it was considered but do you realize that this does not have the impact you think it has?

Wikipedia's article on Crucifixion wrote:Crucifixion was often performed in order to terrorize and dissuade its witnesses from perpetrating particularly heinous crimes. Victims were left on display after death as warnings to others who might attempt dissent. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally "out of crucifying"), gruesome, humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period.

Notice dishonorable is absent there?

leroy wrote:it was not meant to be an absolute claim, nothing in the context of ancient history is meant to be an absolute claim,

Then you shouldn't have worded it as an absolute claim Leroy.
Then when it was pointed out to you that making a point about something "unlikely but sill possible" that an author would do, you spent all this time defending that bullshit point althought you're repeatedly admitting that it isn't something "an author would never invent".

leroy wrote:all I am saying is that if someone is "inventing" a testimony, one is unlikely to invent something that would go against your motives.

And your opinion on what the motives would be is completely irrelevant.

If an author that would want his "hero" to atone for all the sins of mankind, to redeem it and save it, that hero needs to suffer as mankind as suffered because of its "sinful" nature, wouldn't that author choose the most painful and humiliating way of dying so that the hero's sacrifice be the most nobler and redeeming of mankind?
So to accomplish the above, what would an author pick as a way of dying, if he lived 2,000 years ago?

Your opinion that "an author would never" pick crucifixion is still bullshit.
"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
Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:57 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia it is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the mayority of scholars.


Wikipedia's article on Crucifixion wrote:
Crucifixion was often performed in order to terrorize and dissuade its witnesses from perpetrating particularly heinous crimes. Victims were left on display after death as warnings to others who might attempt dissent. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally "out of crucifying"), gruesome, humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period.

Notice dishonorable is absent there



so more semantics games? are you ever going to present a real argument ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:51 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 22
 [ 431 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest