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.
User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

the web of Jesus' historicity

Post by Metacrock » 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 ... icity.html
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Post by The Pixie » 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

JBSptfn
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Post by JBSptfn » 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.

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Post by The Pixie » 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.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Post by Metacrock » 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

Post Reply