Why Does Richard Carrier think that Jesus never existed?

[alwayson]

Why does Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, think that Jesus never existed?

[neverknewyou]

Why does Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, think that Jesus never existed?

Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle, challenged Carrier's view of Jesus' historicity.

Personally I seeked out the historical Jesus only to be dissapointed, the historical record is lacking and untrustworthy at best.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to acehighinfinity]

Would you discount anything written about mental disease unless the author was schizophrenic?

People who "encounter God" generally encounter the God of their pre-conceived notions. Hindus meet Krishna, Muslims meet the angel Gabriel, Christians meet Jesus, et cetera. You can create a divine encounter with drugs, or with direct stimulation of certain areas of the brain. It happens a lot in mental disease.

Carrier has studied the subject and written books about it. If you want to know why he thinks what he thinks you might consider a trip to a library or bookstore.

[The Nice Centurion]

Why does Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, think that Jesus never existed?

Because he, as a "New Atheist," has a strong ideological bias to do so. The same confirmation bias that motivates Christian fundamentalists to believe Jesus did miracles leads Dr. Carrier to believe Jesus never existed.

While I will admit that the evidence surrounding Jesus' supposed life is scant -- to the extent that a rational person would be justified in expressing agnosticism in regards to his existence -- making the positive claim that Jesus was entirely mythical is totally unjustified by the evidence at hand. We simply don't know if there was a Jesus; any other position goes beyond what the data give us.

Evidence, what evidence?
Bible? Josephus? Thallus? Tacitus? Bar Serapion?

Been there! Done that! Worhless!

But present one witness for the actual resurrection . . .

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't know about Carrier or anyone else (I think they are cautious). But I know that there are arguments for and against.

Against. No worthwhile or useful extra - Biblical account. Josephus is known to be partly fraud, Tacitus is surely reporting what Christians claimed, rather than what he knew. Philo's silence on Jesus is deafening.

For. If Jesus was made up by Christians, he would have been a Judean, not a Galilean and he would have been condemned by the Sanhedrin and stoned, not crucified by the Romans. They look like unwelcome facts the Christian writers were stuck with.

Also I believe that Paul was a real person and therefore the disciples were real, and I con't believe disciples of a person who didn't exist. So I'm nor sure myself, and I can't imagine that Dr. carrier is, either.

[neverknewyou]

Religious texts based on magic, superstition, not much to go on. One might think that having doubts would come with the territory, but then again there is no shortage of believers.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

Paul never mentioned anything about disciples., nor Galilee. The word 'disciple' is not found in any of the epistles. Most of the epistles predate the gospels and all gospels are reliant on gMark.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to alwayson in post #1]

It can be demonstrated that William Tell and Luke Skywalker are not historical figures, and the same goes for Jesus. The only difference in Jesus's case is believers.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

Paul never mentioned anything about disciples., nor Galilee. The word 'disciple' is not found in any of the epistles. Most of the epistles predate the gospels and all gospels are reliant on gMark.

A valid point. Using a venom -style 'You can't prove it isn't possible' approach, suppose that these apostles (Peter and James) were not actually followers of Jesus. I think that Paul's reference to James (clearly the authority within the Nazorenes) as Jesus' brother is specific. Thus he is related to someone who lived. Though as Paul makes clear, Jesus isn't around now and Crucifixion killed him.

Paul doesn't mention Galilee and there is no reason why he should He simply has no interest in Jesus, the man. But that means the fact of Galilee is independent of Paul. I see a few other things as not dependent on Paul, and also an embarrassment to the writers, as they try to disguise and cover these things up. Specifically, the anointing at Bethany and the Temple upset. Also the lack of anything much done in Nazareth, but a lot done in Bethsaida, of all places. Not to mention the embarrassments of not having a Bethlehem birth, when Scripture requires that they should, and not having appearances of the risen Jesus, both of which shortcomings were corrected, individually, and (resultantly) discrepantly.

Lastly and by the way, the original synoptic gospel was not Mark. Mark added to the original just as Luke and Matthew did.

[Difflugia]

Lastly and by the way, the original synoptic gospel was not Mark. Mark added to the original just as Luke and Matthew did.

I think you've mentioned, but I don't remember. Do you think that Luke and Matthew had gMark as well as a Q document?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #28]
Early Christians worshipped a heavenly Christ that hadn't come to earth yet. This early Christ was sacrificed in a heavenly realm and had risen. Paul promised his followers that Christ would come down to earth in their lifetime on a cloud of glory.