Enzo the Baker wrote:This is the best, informative, scholarly, work on the question of whether Jesus was a real historical person or not...spoiler alert: not bloody likely.
Fence Sitter wrote:So how does arguing that there was a historical figure named Jesus, who didn't satisfy any of the requirements of being the Messiah, help the cause of those that believe he was?
huckelberry wrote:I am not sure it does, so why do you think a bunch of followers ended up believing he was? Talked into it by Pilot? an accident?
.
Probably for the same reasons many think Joseph Smith or Muhammad are prophets.
huckelberry wrote:It would seem unlikely that any argument made now would effect the belief of the first thousand years of the church.
I am not sure I follow you here. I made my comment regarding how the argument in question did seem to support those that today believe in the divinity of Christ. What does this have to do with his followers in the first thousand years?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Enzo the Baker wrote:This is the best, informative, scholarly, work on the question of whether Jesus was a real historical person or not...spoiler alert: not bloody likely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Mr. Carrier stated to the effect that his 'Christ-Myth theory' ought to undergo a peer review?
It sounds like he's inviting the academic community, whoever it would be, to give his theory a go and attempt to disprove. I can't say this isn't an attempt at self-promotion, but it is intriguing nevertheless.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Fence Sitter wrote: Probably for the same reasons many think Joseph Smith or Muhammad are prophets.
huckelberry wrote:It would seem unlikely that any argument made now would effect the belief of the first thousand years of the church.
I am not sure I follow you here. I made my comment regarding how the argument in question did seem to support those that today believe in the divinity of Christ. What does this have to do with his followers in the first thousand years?
Hi Fence Sitter, I was asking the same question over again in various ways. I think it is straightforward to say a major reason anybody thinks of Jesus as messiah now is because the early church was filled with people who did.
Your answer, same as with Joseph Smith or Muhammad may point to something, or may not. Muhammad was a big military success and people think his words lovely poetry. Joseph Smith presents a reform movement in the popular Christian religion. It takes a stab at resolving problems people have been troubled by in the then current forms of Christianity.
Enzo the Baker wrote:This is the best, informative, scholarly, work on the question of whether Jesus was a real historical person or not...spoiler alert: not bloody likely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Mr. Carrier stated to the effect that his 'Christ-Myth theory' ought to undergo a peer review?
It sounds like he's inviting the academic community, whoever it would be, to give his theory a go and attempt to disprove. I can't say this isn't an attempt at self-promotion, but it is intriguing nevertheless.
- Doc
This work underwent a rigorous peer review prior to its publication. However, Carrier still welcomes any review/critique of his work. Here's what I consider to be a very good, albeit somewhat lengthy, review of the book.
Enzo the Baker wrote:This is the best, informative, scholarly, work on the question of whether Jesus was a real historical person or not...spoiler alert: not bloody likely.
Thanks CC for the recommendation on the book you suggested which I have not read yet but will do so and see how it compares with "imbecile" Carrier's treatise. Just curious, what did you find laughable about it? Please be specific, as obviously you've read it.
Enzo the Baker wrote:This is the best, informative, scholarly, work on the question of whether Jesus was a real historical person or not...spoiler alert: not bloody likely.
I don't want to express a judgement about either of those books. But I wonder whether we shall ever see an example of Calculus Crusader referring to someone he disagrees with, without labeling that person as in some way mentally defective? It is a strange mental tic, and one what makes me glad I am only interacting with him in cyberspace.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
huckelberry wrote: Hi Fence Sitter, I was asking the same question over again in various ways. I think it is straightforward to say a major reason anybody thinks of Jesus as messiah now is because the early church was filled with people who did.
I am sure there are many other factors for belief , however the OP at hand seems to raise more challenges to belief than it answers. If one is to accept his argument as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus than one must also accept the same evidences that point to him not being the expected Messiah, but rather a figure that was forced into that role by future redactors, one of many who could have been used.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
huckelberry wrote: Hi Fence Sitter, I was asking the same question over again in various ways. I think it is straightforward to say a major reason anybody thinks of Jesus as messiah now is because the early church was filled with people who did.
I am sure there are many other factors for belief , however the OP at hand seems to raise more challenges to belief than it answers. If one is to accept his argument as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus than one must also accept the same evidences that point to him not being the expected Messiah, but rather a figure that was forced into that role by future redactors, one of many who could have been used.
Hi Fence Sitter,
Looking back on my Mormon upbringing I'm not sure that it follows from the OP that Jesus-as-Messiah necessarily requires a forcing of his life into the mythology by redactors. I think the faithful view is that the Jewish nation misunderstood that the purpose of the Messiah was not to save Israel from a geopolitical enemy but instead to save Israel and mankind from sin and death. While there are plenty of historical arguments to be made on those points, I don't think the believer must reevaluate their view based on the argument of the OP alone.
My 2¢.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa