the web of Jesus' historicity

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.

the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:57 am

this is an argument to counter Jesus' myther idea

on CADRE blog please comment there and discuss here

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-web-of-jesus-historicity.html
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9857
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:50 am

The only way the Christ-Myth notion could work is if it were a hoax. So Peter and 11 friends fabricate this account and start telling it to everyone around them.

That is just plain wrong. An alternative explanation is readily available on Wiki on this topic, and it is surprising your research failed to find it, especially given your background in history. Perhaps you are unaware of Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier?

"That is, that Paul and other writers of the earliest existing proto-Christian documents did not believe in Jesus as a person who was incarnated on Earth in an historical setting, rather, they believed in Jesus as a heavenly being who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven, where he was crucified by demons and then was subsequently resurrected by God. This mythological Jesus was not based on a historical Jesus, but rather on an exegesis of the Old Testament in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism, and what the early authors believed to be mystical visions of a risen Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_my ... rd_Carrier
The Pixie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby JBSptfn on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:37 am

The Pixie wrote:
The only way the Christ-Myth notion could work is if it were a hoax. So Peter and 11 friends fabricate this account and start telling it to everyone around them.

That is just plain wrong. An alternative explanation is readily available on Wiki on this topic, and it is surprising your research failed to find it, especially given your background in history. Perhaps you are unaware of Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier?

"That is, that Paul and other writers of the earliest existing proto-Christian documents did not believe in Jesus as a person who was incarnated on Earth in an historical setting, rather, they believed in Jesus as a heavenly being who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven, where he was crucified by demons and then was subsequently resurrected by God. This mythological Jesus was not based on a historical Jesus, but rather on an exegesis of the Old Testament in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism, and what the early authors believed to be mystical visions of a risen Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_my ... rd_Carrier


That is the guy that uses Bayes's theory to argue against the resurrection. Joe did some entries against that. Also, at the end of the Carrier section, there is this:

His (Carrier's) methodology was reviewed by Aviezer Tucker, a prior advocate of using Bayesian techniques in history. Tucker expressed some sympathy for Carrier's view of the Gospels, stating: "The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere." However, Tucker argued that historians have been able to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to identify reliable parts of the Gospels. He said that "Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence.
JBSptfn
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:52 am

I am not saying Doherty and Carrier are right, I am saying that Metacrock is ignoring a significant Jesus myth hypothesis; one that would seem to be more likely than the one-big-hoax hypothesis.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:53 am

The Pixie wrote:I am not saying Doherty and Carrier are right, I am saying that Metacrock is ignoring a significant Jesus myth hypothesis; one that would seem to be more likely than the one-big-hoax hypothesis.


no I;', not, i debated Carrier on sec web. I've studied Daugherty I dont' he's worth messing with,for that matter i debated Doherty once and was kicked off when the people running he board kicked me off because they didn;'t want Doherty to be shown up,


that was on a board put up by the publisher of a myther book by two guys called Frick and Ghandi who had a success for a bit in the publication of their book,long tie ago, maybe 2000 or 2001,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9857
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:53 am

The Pixie wrote:I am not saying Doherty and Carrier are right, I am saying that Metacrock is ignoring a significant Jesus myth hypothesis; one that would seem to be more likely than the one-big-hoax hypothesis.


no I;', not, i debated Carrier on sec web. I've studied Daugherty I dont' he's worth messing with,for that matter i debated Doherty once and was kicked off when the people running he board kicked me off because they didn;'t want Doherty to be shown up,


that was on a board put up by the publisher of a myther book by two guys called Frick and Ghandi who had a success for a bit in the publication of their book,long tie ago, maybe 2000 or 2001,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9857
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:00 am

Yes, you clearly are. You stated:

The only way the Christ-Myth notion could work is if it were a hoax.

You have dismissed Doherty and Carrier's suggestion without a word to acknowledge it even exists.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:40 am

The Pixie wrote:Yes, you clearly are. You stated:

The only way the Christ-Myth notion could work is if it were a hoax.

You have dismissed Doherty and Carrier's suggestion without a word to acknowledge it even exists.


I've already answered them in the past,I have written about 12 paces on Carrier including his mythyer stuff, I have several pages om Doherty on y old website Doxa.

first 3 links here are Doherty:

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Mythological_Jesus.html
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9857
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:27 am

Whether you have addressed it in the past only tells us if this was a mistake or a lie.

You stated there was only one alternative - a hoax - and you know perfectly that that is not true.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:54 am

The Pixie wrote:Whether you have addressed it in the past only tells us if this was a mistake or a lie.

You stated there was only one alternative - a hoax - and you know perfectly that that is not true.


I did not say that was the only alternative but I was covering that base by arguing against it. That doesn't mean the other alternatives are reasonable either. Jesus existed, gt over it, The evidence is overwhelming, just get over it, That doesn't prove he was the son of God all that is still something you have decide about.

The thing is this argument is a positive argument for Jesus; existence, it doesn't have to take into account their arguments, they have no arguments that are positive, g they are all variations on argumnet from silence. This is not is not about what's wrong with myther arguments it's about what's right with Jesus' historicity,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9857
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Next

Return to Theology/Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron