Is Mormonism so bad?

[Morley]

Just as an aside, if any folks here like to read historical fiction and would be interested in a story that goes down the same path as the discussion at this point, here’s a fun read:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Pilate-Pa ... NrPXRydWU=

I’ve quite enjoyed it so far. Sort of along the same line as Da Vinci Code.

Regards,
MG

Hey, Jimmy! What a coincidence! I was just talking about you!

.

[honorentheos]

When someone points them out, like Kishkumen does above, with his mention of Pontius Pilate, I admit, I can't see why there is something amounting to strong evidence there. And since the story of Jesus, not whether he lived or not, is almost certainly made up, I don't see why there being an actual Jesus crucified under Pilate's watch would matter anyway, in terms of proving historicity. What are we proving? That someone lived during that proposed era? Taught some form of Judaism?

The idea it's about "proving" gets to Kish's, and now Morley's, excellent comments. The idea that something here needs proven is an outgrowth of the religious argument. Carrier is engaging history as if it were only about belief. He is engaging a historical question and what is needed here isn't proof but understanding. The historical Jesus is helpful in understanding this period and place in world history. It happens to be an important one for Western civilization, too. What the records regarding Jesus do is help shed light on figures and peoples in Roman occupied Palestine. And that has value.

So if one stops being concerned with how religious claims about Jesus deified apply to modern people, let go of that rope instead of being dragged by it, and take measure of the situation, what's left are a lot of interesting questions about how the world we live in came to be. And the historical Jesus has something to say about that worth understanding.

The historic Jesus does connect to a reality - the reality of what became Europe and the Americas is descended from Rome. The world you live in is one informed by a historical context. Religious types want to make the relevance a question of Jesus' divinity but that's a hijacking reality for a particular theological belief system. And when you reduce its relevance to the belief system only, and not th very real historic background and influence, you're buying in to a false narrative just like MG or anyone else who demands we accept the world is governed by a Mormon god. Or Judeo-Christianity. Or whatever other flavor of belief-based thinking one chooses.

[Moksha]

It is hard to inform your adult children of your funeral wishes because they do not want to contemplate your death unless you are leaving a sizable inheritance.

[Kishkumen]

This looks very interesting:

https://www.livescience.com/pontius-pil ... found.html

Archaeologists have identified a grand street in Jerusalem that was built by Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea who is famous for overseeing the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

The nearly 2,000-foot-long (600 meters) street would have connected the Siloam Pool — a place where pilgrims could stop to bathe and get fresh water — to the Temple Mount, the most holy place in Judaism. The street was likely used by ancient pilgrims on their way to worship at the Mount, the researchers said.

Archaeological evidence for Pontius Pilate is limited and the discovery sheds a bit of light on what the prefect was like, researchers wrote in a paper recently published in the journal "Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University." The fact that Pilate built a street that would have helped people reach the Temple Mount suggests that he may not have been as self-serving and religiously insensitive as ancient writers claim, the researchers said.

What I would like to do now is see how this road project may relate to Jesus' alleged attitudes and actions in regard to the Temple. After all, this road connected the Temple Mount to the Siloam Pool. These are the kinds of questions that routinely come up as we discover new evidence, and we are discovering new evidence all the time. A little here. A little there. And yes, it does make a difference.

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilæans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilæans were sinners above all the Galilæans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

[Physics Guy]

And since the story of Jesus, not whether he lived or not, is almost certainly made up, I don't see why there being an actual Jesus crucified under Pilate's watch would matter anyway, in terms of proving historicity. What are we proving? That someone lived during that proposed era? Taught some form of Judaism? Fine...anyone can agree with that. If the story of his life is so made up that it doesn't appear to connect to any reality, then what are we saying when we say he really did live? Some random person lived and years after he lived a bunch of stories were made up about him? What would even be the nature of the disagreement at that point?

As Morley said, that is one of the big reasons why what Carrier is claiming is weird. The existence of Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. It doesn't need any extraordinary evidence to make it credible. It's Carrier's alternative to that—that some nameless conspirators made up Jesus completely as a pure fiction, deliberately tacking on a lot of realistic details and generally going to a lot of trouble out of theological zeal on behalf of a deity whom they themselves had just made up—that is an extraordinary claim.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, you're right about this point. The existence of Jesus isn't the issue. So why should Carrier even make the claim, especially when there are proofs to the contrary?

For the sake of history. Its his discipline and he seems intent on letting the evidence take him where it leads. I realize people disagree, but I think in time people will start to recognize all the evidence amassed, and certainly as much as this thread turned into discussion about Carrier, there are plenty of others who will help turn the tide. As I see it the most significant points he raises are not whether Jesus really lived, or whatever, but is to show that there is so much evidence to show that the stories were largely cribbed from many sources, were repeated myths of jewish and other antiquity.

Jimmy claims to have a ray gun that once made someone invisible. I say loudly to everyone who will listen that this is rubbish, that the gun doesn't even exist. Then Jimmy produces the gun from his pocket. Whether or not the gun has made someone invisible has been forgotten. The issue has become the existence of the gun.

Carrier's doing the same thing with Jesus as I did with Jimmy's gun.

.

I don't think he sees it as a game, as it's getting painted here. I think he sees it as history. And, of course he could be wrong in his conclusions. He could be stretching the message of the sources. But so could everyone else to some extent or another. Not to demean the discipline but that seems to be a bit of the practice. Something has to mean something else or lead to something else for the story of history to be told.

[Kishkumen]

No, Richard Carrier has found a shtick that can feed his ego. The guy wanted to be a Skeptics Movement rockstar, pick up chicks, have everyone think he was some kind of genius, and make bank. Have you read his cv, where he mentions his rank in Boy Scouts and other important crap? Or read about how he is polyamorous and just wants the ladies to understand how he needs to spread his love around? Or how he was banned from certain Skeptics events for unwanted advances toward various women?

Yeah, he is all about the history.

[Philo Sofee]

No, Richard Carrier has found a shtick that can feed his ego. The guy wanted to be a Skeptics Movement rockstar, pick up chicks, have everyone think he was some kind of genius, and make bank. Have you read his cv, where he mentions his rank in Boy Scouts and other important Crap? Or read about how he is polyamorous and just wants the ladies to understand how he needs to spread his love around? Or how he was banned from certain Skeptics events for unwanted advances toward various women?

Yeah, he is all about the history.

Ayiyi, what a doofus...... just because yer a skeptic doesn't mean you get a free hand at going against socieitie's decencies and rules of behavior... I haven't look in on what he has been up to for several years now, too busy gettin my own knowledge these days... apparently there isn't a lot new here going on.

[dastardly stem]

I don't know that the decisions in his personal life say anything about his scholarship. He could be seeking fame and adoration, and such could suggest he's lying or fooling people. Or it could mean he's let things go to his head even if he's offered some good work to consider. I haven't decided.

[Kishkumen]

I don't know that the decisions in his personal life say anything about his scholarship. He could be seeking fame and adoration, and such could suggest he's lying or fooling people. Or it could mean he's let things go to his head even if he's offered some good work to consider. I haven't decided.

I would say he is a smart guy, a fathead, and kind of a wing nut. I would not say he is a great historian or primarily motivated by good history. Sometimes I think he nails things, like when he is assessing the work of others and not riding on his Bayesian hobby horse.