Dramacow Richard Carrier - Polyamorous Essjay Dubya Cuck, Autism Plus Sperg, Ebegger formerly of Free Thought Blogs

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
3dH6myG.gif
 
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: A Useless Fish, drain, StanCommodore and 5 others
Street View said:
He hates Thunderfoot. Jenny hates thunderfoot. Could Jenny's Carbon Fiber Dick Video have been scripted by Dick Carrier? Aren't they both in Southern California?
Click to expand...
And have Richard Carrier miss out on the accolades from demolishing another opponent of an opponent with another intellectual tour de force? Not in the life time of this man's ego. You have yet to fully understand Richard Carrier, Super Genius.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Feline Darkmage and chimpburgers
Plok said:
He's also one of the more significant Christ myth "theorists," who I'd consider borderline lolcows by academic standards (same general category as Von Mises chucklefucks, Shakespeare authorship deniers, etc). Basically they're so triggered by the idea that Jesus might have actually been a historical figure that they pretend it's a serious subject of academic debate (obviously the historicity of different stories from the Bible is a separate, and legitimate, issue). According to the prominent agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who's written plenty that's rustled Christian jimmies,
Click to expand...

Isn't it an accepted historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real guy and it's his divinity that's disputed?
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: ExceptionallyExceptional, Sailor Haumea, Feline Darkmage and 11 others
Ruin said:
Isn't it an accepted historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real guy and it's his divinity that's disputed?
Click to expand...
There is some dispute as to the gospels potentially exaggerating the amount of followers that he had but just statistically the romans almost certainly crucified someone named Jesus and it doesn't matter anyways
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: ExceptionallyExceptional, Sailor Haumea, queserasera and 6 others
Carrier and other Christ myth theorists don't claim that Jesus never existed; they point out that there is zero contemporary evidence that he did.

If we accept that Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, Noah, et al are myths -- not to mention every pagan god and demigod mankind ever dreamed up -- it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that Jesus is a myth too.

Of course, it would only take one good bit of evidence to prove that Jesus really did exist. Perhaps someone will find some one day.
 
  • Disagree
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Tecumseh, ExceptionallyExceptional, Sailor Haumea and 8 others
Mahimahi said:
Carrier and other Christ myth theorists don't claim that Jesus never existed; they point out that there is zero contemporary evidence that he did.

If we accept that Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, Noah, et al are myths -- not to mention every pagan god and demigod mankind ever dreamed up -- it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that Jesus is a myth too.

Of course, it would only take one good bit of evidence to prove that Jesus really did exist. Perhaps someone will find some one day.
Click to expand...

First known written references to Jesus are like 50s AD. Noah et al are first referenced hundreds to thousands of years after they're supposed to have lived. It's not really in the same category.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: ExceptionallyExceptional, Sailor Haumea, Splendid and 6 others
Mahimahi said:
Do go on...
Click to expand...

Epistle to the Romans is dated to the mid to late 50's. Mark is late 60's. These are pretty accepted dates. To go into this sort of thing too far would take us pretty far off topic though. The original point was that Carrier makes an argument that just about no one in academia really takes seriously. His argument isn't just "No contemporary evidence" because everyone agrees on that. What's up for debate is any conclusions he draws from it.
 
  • Autistic
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: *Asterisk*, AN/ALR56 and autisticdragonkin
Religious scripture is religious scripture, not historical evidence. Otherwise we would have to accept Hindu scripture as evidence that the Hindu gods exist.

Also, the unpopularity of any given hypothesis has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
 
  • Autistic
  • TMI
Reactions: Tecumseh, Pencilvester, *Asterisk* and 2 others
Plok said:
Epistle to the Romans is dated to the mid to late 50's. Mark is late 60's. These are pretty accepted dates. To go into this sort of thing too far would take us pretty far off topic though. The original point was that Carrier makes an argument that just about no one in academia really takes seriously. His argument isn't just "No contemporary evidence" because everyone agrees on that. What's up for debate is any conclusions he draws from it.
Click to expand...

Love a good "did jesus suck dicks and how" debate, but this ain't the place to sperg about it.
 
  • Agree
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Tecumseh, ExceptionallyExceptional, Elwood P. Dowd and 5 others
dollarhuviya said:
So this was the guy doing all those screencaps trying to debunk Carrier and his comments:
Click to expand...


Its a bit of an eye opener , I've got both of Carriers books on the historical Jesus, and he has intimated that both were published after peer review by the Sheffield university press which has a good reputation in the field...

...actually, scrub that. After a bit more research it appears that Sheffield Uni which has a good reputation in biblical studies also has a loosely affiliated press that publishes biblical history works. They distribute in north america through the society for biblical literature which (aside from the fact the whole field is full of cranks) isn't a cranky organisation.

Carrier should have been a bit more careful in how he presented the publishing process, but I don't think there is anything to be ashamed of in his publishers.

Not wanting to get into the argument of whether an historical Jesus existed, but just to comment on Carrier. I have followed this argument for around 10 years and I am convinced by most of the arguments he makes. However, there are one or two (maybe three) sticking points, that in order to follow his and his detractors argument would mean learning ancient Greek, as the arguments turn on the exact meaning of a Greek word in the epistles. So as I aint going to be learning Greek anytime soon, I have to accept the word of one side of the argument and Carrier has at times shown himself to not be entirely trustworthy. Having said that, some of his detractors have been caught out telling whoppers to. As a academic discipline Historical Jesus Studies isn't populated by the most rigorous scholars.

I recommend Hector Avalos "the end of biblical studies" as a good summary of the problems the field has in basic scholarship.
 
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: Tecumseh, twattycake, AnOminous and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back