So are there any actually good arguments against his thesis? The only debates I've seen where he doesn't completely obliterate his opponent are on topics irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus (such as Hitler's religion), wheter it's against lukewarm secular scholars or apologists.Even when academics respond to him they seem to mostly either missunderstand or missrepresent his arguments, and the few valid criticisms I have seen are largely peripheral and only SLIGHTLY damage his case overall.
>>18003441his whole approach is to just assert that evidence previously considered valid is not validit’s just as much a dogmatic view as mormonism and can be ignored as such
>>18003444I can't tell if this post is ironic or you're retarded.
>>18003453i’m sorry he has trips, his post is true
>>18003444He usually cites previous scholarship (by historicists) arguing for why certian pieces of evidence are forgeries or for other reasons invalid.Of course you can disagree with said criticisms and explain why, say, the Testimonium Flavianum is valid evidence, but you'll have to provide your reasoning for it.
>>18003460Trips aren't powerfull enough, quads maybe.
>>18003441Yes. There are multiple historical texts mentioning Jesus: the New Testament, the Talmud, and various Greco-Roman sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. Moreover, Christianity would not exist without Jesus in the first place, nor without him teaching his disciples and his disciples preaching his teaching to others. Even if you wrote a story about a fictional character, that character would remain fictional, and no movement or cult would form around him. You cannot simply write into existence disciples willing to risk their wealth and lives to spread his teachings.
>>18003521You haven't read his work have you?>the New TestamentPaul and the pre-war Epistle writers show no definite knowledge of an earthly Jesus, yet alone anything he did or that happened to him, save for the Crucifixion. The gospels are to late to give us definite info, it's clear that they were composed at the earlies after Paul's death since he shows no awareness of them.>1 Thess 2:13-17Carrier isn't the only scholar that has argued this to be an interpolation refering to the destruction of the temple by the Romans, hence not written by Paul.>the TalmudWe don't know were they got their info from.>JosephusThe TF is either a forgery or has been so tampered with that it can't be used as evidence either way. The James passage also has various problems and makes no sense without more context since Josephus doesn't even explain what a Christ is to his (gentile) audience.>TacitusWrote 80 years after Jesus supposedly died, plus his sources aren't clear, he might have gotten his info about the Christians from Pliny the younger (who was a friend of his), but we simply don't know.
>>18003548You haven't read his post have you?
>>18003559Uhh yeah I did.>Even if you wrote a story about a fictional character, that character would remain fictional, and no movement or cult would form around him.The argument Carrier makes is that the first Christians didn't consider Jesus to be an earthly human, but rather an angelic being, and that the gospels are later fiction, you can disagree, but all the points brought up are adressed in his book.
>>18003563There's no evidence for that. At the very minimum you're talking about combining divine aspects of god with a real person that did exist because prophet flash mobs were common at the time.
>>18003464I would say even if the Testimonium Flavianum and other mentions were proven interpolations, and lets be clear, most historians at least consider the mention of James legitimate, Jesus being a real person would still be the more likely scenario simply because it explains the existence of Christianity better than a visionary tradition that just kind of popped up. Granted the case would be much less sure than it currently is.
>>18003521>>18003548Josephus was the great-nephew of Vespasianus and his real name was Arrius Callurniud PisoTacitus' real name was Neratius Priscus and he was an ally of Vespasianus
>>18003548>>18003521*Suetonius was a heteronym (character-author) of Emperor Titus Antoninus Pius, adopted (or real?) son of Claudia Pompeia Plotina Phoebe, who appears in Romans 16:1-2 as Sister Phoebe (Phoebe) being praised by Paul.*Tacitus was a heteronym of Lucius Neratius Priscus, elected consul in 97 after the assassination of Domitian in 96 by the creators of Jesus.*Paul of Tarsus was created by Pliny the Younger.Although Paul was created by Pliny the Younger, his Roman Herodian-Maccabean friends helped him write the adventures and letters of this character.*Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, Plutarch, and others were hereronyms (author-characters) of the same Man, Arrius Calpurnius Piso.*Saint Augustine was a heteronym of Flavius Honorius, emperor son of Emperor Flavius Theodosius.*Eusebius of Caesarea was a heteronym of Flavius Julius Constantius, brother of Emperor Flavius Constantinus.*Father Clement of Rome was a heteronym of Julius Calpurnius Piso.*Tertullian was a heteronym of Emperor Septimus Severus, a descendant of Flavius Titus and ancestor of Flavius Constantinus.
>>18003858>Flavius JosephusHe was a Jewish priest and fought against the Romans by his own admission.>Augustine Augustine was Carthaginian nationalist, who often got in conflicts with Romans attacking his race such as Julian of Eclanum. >TertullianHe was another Carthaginian nationalist who wrote an entire treaty (On the Pallium) encouraging Carthaginians to dress like their ancestors and to stop wearing the Roman toga.Can't confirm the rest, but it's likely non-sense as well.
>>18003548Paul's concept of Christ's death required him to be a physical being, because it was based on the concept of a Temple Sacrifice, with Christ acting as the lamb that would have otherwise been killed by the Priests for the sins of the people. You'd have a better time arguing that Paul didn't think that Jesus was God, than Paul not believing Jesus was a man.
>>18004020His thesis is essentially that Jesus did become a being of flesh and bone, but that the crucifixion happened in outer space by Satan and his demons. A bit wacky? Maybe, but he makes a stronger case for it than you'd think at first.
>>18004178>that Jesus did become a being of flesh and boneThat the first christians and Paul THOUGHT this is what happened, of course.
>>18004183How does he explain Paul meeting Jesus' brother?
Me? I'm a Peter mythicist
>>18004231Same way Catholics have always explained it, that the word in context doesn't mean literal brother
Jesus? don’t you know he was made up by Rome in the 4th century?Augustine? prove itJosephus? never met himPaul? can’t recallTertullian? gesundheitTacitus? like the mobile game?Suetonius? no proofAlexander? I barely know herCaesar? I prefer ranch
>>18004240NIV Gal 1:18-19: Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.Obviously "brother" here means actual brother, since Peter was a "brother" of the lord.Do catholics actually buy that shit? I know they don't read the bible, but still...
The few valid critiques tend to be methodological nuances, like interpretive choices. These rarely obliterate the thesis, but they do require careful qualification, and prove that he is an incompetent historian and cannot be trusted.
>>18004267The idea is that James is being distinguished as specifically not an apostle (like say James the apostle) but an ordinary Christian, someone who is *only* a brother of the Lord. And the case is a bit strengthened by the fact that most of the time when Paul talks about brothers, he does definitely mean fellow Christians rather than biological brothers, and at least one time when he doesn't mean that, he feels the need to clarify it by specifying brothers "according to the flesh" in Romans 9:3. So if Paul wanted it to be very clear that he meant James was a biological brother of Jesus, he could have said "James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh." but he didn't.
>>18004334Jesus has a brother named James, named in Mark (and copied by Matthew). He's also refered to as "the brother of the Lord" by Josephus and Hegesippus.The easier explanation surely is just that Paul didn't feel the need to clarify, because the context makes it clear that Peter isn't a brother in the same sense as James.
>>18003441If you believe this loser instead of the Bible, you deserve to burn in hell. Tick tock.
>>18003441No.
I always thought James brother of Jesus was kinda funny. It's also specifically stated that this James only became a believer until after Jesus' deathWhich I find incredibly strange if you grew up with a brother that could turn water to wine and heal the blind, surely James must have noticed those things - but just was like "meh"
>>18004490He couldn't do those things until he got zaptized
>>18004408>JosephusInterpolation.>HegesippusToo late to be a reliable source for anything.
>>18003441Idk who this is or what his opinions are but his physiognomy screams either Jew or Puritan heritage and a desperate need to criticize all the most sacred values (that allows his gay little career making irrefutable theses to exist) and to be correct about everything while having no real beliefs because then he might risk being incorrect.
>>18004452I thought everyone deserves to go to hell according to your religion?
>>18005337>Interpolation.What's the evidence that "brother of the lord" is an interpolation?
>>18004294Mind bringing up the criticisms in question?
>>18004490Do you think James was jealous that he didn't get 3 wise guys and a star when he was born? Must be heard, growing up in the shadow of the Messiah
>>18005670Look up what Bart Ehrman has to say about him on his blog.
>>18006402Carrier got really angry over this, I think his general tendency to assume bad faith on the part of his interlocutors is the main reasons so many scholars avoid him.
