Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[99percentatheism]

alwayson

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html

Thank you for this website. I needed a good laugh.

No different than a 4-year old giggling at a Tom and Jerry cartoon I'm sure. And just as academic a premise as well.

It will probably alarm you that they have been teaching Jesus / Savior parallels in college way before Freke and Gandy, whom I agree are bullshit mythicists.

You definately don't know me. I'm well aware of the Zero-Jesus Lemmings.

So don't get me in hysterics pal. My nose runs when I'm rolling on the floor cuzza funnies. The Jesus-Mythers are as laughabe as Obama's Birthers.

Mariln Manson gets more respect from me than the Zero-Jesus dudes do.

The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who deny Jesus' existence 'Jesus Mythologists'.

A huge amount has been written on the web and elsewhere which you can find in the further reading section below. Not all Jesus Mythologists are lunatics and one at least, Earl Doherty, is extremely erudite and worth reading. Nevertheless, he is still wrong and, as I have seen myself, he reacts badly to those who demonstrate it. It is not my intention to study the minutiae of the argument but instead focus on three central points which are often brought up on discussion boards. These are the lack of secular references, the alleged similarities to paganism and the silence of Paul. Finally I want to bring all these together to show how ideas similar to those that deny Jesus' existence can be used on practically any ancient historical figure. With this in mind I set out to prove that Hannibal never existed.

- http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

[alwayson]

The Jesus-Mythers are as laughabe as Obama's Birthers.

I agree that most mythers are laughable. Its a shame.

Richard Carrier himself destroys Zeitgeist and Religulous:

[Mithrae]

It is also obvious that the diverse and all but completely unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians remain completely unconvinced by the Jesus Myth arguments. .

yes but as Carrier points out, there are two types of mythicists. There is the bullshit kind. And then there is his kind, which are based on sound academic arguments going back centuries.

I'm not sure you understand his position correctly. In the video I linked to, Carrier explicitly says (2:30) of the views he's presenting that:
"...this is accurately described as a fringe position. I always say that it's just a hypothesis that hasn't had a proper review yet, so I advocate to people don't go running around hitting people over the head saying 'No definitely Jesus didn't exist.' This really hasn't been properly vetted yet."

Carrier says (around 22 minutes) that a huge part of discussion around Jesus hinges on Paul's letters and what he actually taught and believed. But as I've pointed out, his treatment of Paul is little more than quote-mining a few verses in which Paul downplays human authority in favour of revelation. He quotes from Galatians without noticing or mentioning the very clear reason why Paul does this - some degree of tension with those who were apostles before he was, and with James the brother of Jesus. In fact Paul's entire argument in Galatians (ch 3/4) is that Christ redeemed those under the law of Moses by being born under the law of Moses, born of a woman. It simply doesn't work unless Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh and blood human.

If you can show me where Carrier treats Paul seriously I'll read with interest, but without that as a bare minimum all his other arguments are building on quicksand.

[Nickman]

BOOKMARKING THIS THREAD

[alwayson]

In fact Paul's entire argument in Galatians (ch 3/4) is that Christ redeemed those under the law of Moses by being born under the law of Moses, born of a woman. It simply doesn't work unless Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh and blood human.

If you can show me where Carrier treats Paul seriously I'll read with interest, but without that as a bare minimum all his other arguments are building on quicksand.

Carrier is quite accessible. You should ask him this on his blog.

[The Tongue]

[alwayson wrote]..........How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

Well then, speaking for myself as a believer, (Who reject and ignore the views of the majority of atheists and some of the more ratbag professed christians, who deserve to be ignored) I respond to Richard Carrier in the same way that I respond to all the other priests of the godless religion of Atheism, and their poor deceived disciples, "With Abject Pity." The Poor Little Devils.

[TheTruth101]

Sure Jesus existed. He said in his parable of the heavens. It goes in logic as to what I've been saying.

Refer to "Dreams and God" thread under C&A.

The skeptists didn't add in the factor of what I've been saying under science logic simply because the members of this forum are the only ones to know. I came up with it while under debate on this forum.

If he knew of what members on this forum would have read, he would think twice of what he said.

[Mithrae]

In fact Paul's entire argument in Galatians (ch 3/4) is that Christ redeemed those under the law of Moses by being born under the law of Moses, born of a woman. It simply doesn't work unless Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh and blood human.

If you can show me where Carrier treats Paul seriously I'll read with interest, but without that as a bare minimum all his other arguments are building on quicksand.

Carrier is quite accessible. You should ask him this on his blog.

You said in post 6 that
"Carrier makes a pretty convincing case though.
At this point I'm convinced the gospels are 100% fiction."

But from your lack of response it could be inferred that you don't actually know where or how Carrier addresses Paul's claims that Jesus:
- was a Jew
- was descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1:1-3)
- had brothers
- was crucified (the common Roman method of execution)

If so, what 'convincing case' of Carrier's are you talking about? He himself says that Paul is crucial to our views about Jesus. I've read and debated about Paul a few times and I can probably guess what Carrier might say about some of those issues. What I'm interested in is why you are so thoroughly convinced, when it seems you don't actually know Carrier's views.

[TheTruth101]

[alwayson wrote]..........How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

Well then, speaking for myself as a believer, (Who reject and ignore the views of the majority of atheists and some of the more ratbag professed christians, who deserve to be ignored) I respond to Richard Carrier in the same way that I respond to all the other priests of the godless religion of Atheism, and their poor deceived disciples, "With Abject Pity." The Poor Little Devils.

Coming from the word of "professed" Christian himself, I agree with him as to Atheists being simple minded people.

[TheTruth101]

In fact Paul's entire argument in Galatians (ch 3/4) is that Christ redeemed those under the law of Moses by being born under the law of Moses, born of a woman. It simply doesn't work unless Paul believed that Jesus was a flesh and blood human.

If you can show me where Carrier treats Paul seriously I'll read with interest, but without that as a bare minimum all his other arguments are building on quicksand.

Carrier is quite accessible. You should ask him this on his blog.

You said in post 6 that
"Carrier makes a pretty convincing case though.
At this point I'm convinced the gospels are 100% fiction."

But from your lack of response it could be inferred that you don't actually know where or how Carrier addresses Paul's claims that Jesus:
- was a Jew
- was descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1:1-3)
- had brothers
- was crucified (the common Roman method of execution)

If so, what 'convincing case' of Carrier's are you talking about? He himself says that Paul is crucial to our views about Jesus. I've read and debated about Paul a few times and I can probably guess what Carrier might say about some of those issues. What I'm interested in is why you are so thoroughly convinced, when it seems you don't actually know Carrier's views.

Simple, he's a Buddhist. He's just going against Christianity in general. That's all.