Carrier vs. Rent-an-Apologist on Historicity of Jesus

[toejam]

I guess if you've read On the Historicity and the standard rebuttals against it you won't find too much new, but worth seeing it played out in debate format.

This was my youtube comment which I'll simply copy and paste:

Fantastic debate. Horn definitely exposed some of the weak points in Carrier's argument. Was good to see Horn go straight for the jugular attacking Carrier's views head on in his opening. I was expecting a lot less from the rent-an-apologist. Carrier's rebuttals were fantastically detailed and showed that he is not some quack conspiracist (which many mythicists fall into). The line "possible but not probable" was thrown around a lot in this discussion by both, and I mostly felt that it was Carrier's views that were falling into that category. Carrier makes the best "possible" case for mythicism, but even as an atheist I have to concede that the more straight-forward and thus likely reading of Paul is that he believed Jesus had been here on Earth (even if he also believed him to be some incarnated angel or what-have-you). Carrier has stated that he wants to debate Mark Goodacre in a proper formatted debate like this (forget their brief radio interview a few years ago). Goodacre is one of the top scholars in the world, no rent-an-apologist, and after seeing Horn's not-disastrous performance here, I fear that someone like Goodacre might be too much to handle. I would love to see that debate happen. To bad Ehrman has stated that he wants nothing to do with Carrier!

[cienfuegos]

I guess if you've read On the Historicity and the standard rebuttals against it you won't find too much new, but worth seeing it played out in debate format.

This was my youtube comment which I'll simply copy and paste:

Fantastic debate. Horn definitely exposed some of the weak points in Carrier's argument. Was good to see Horn go straight for the jugular attacking Carrier's views head on in his opening. I was expecting a lot less from the rent-an-apologist. Carrier's rebuttals were fantastically detailed and showed that he is not some quack conspiracist (which many mythicists fall into). The line "possible but not probable" was thrown around a lot in this discussion by both, and I mostly felt that it was Carrier's views that were falling into that category. Carrier makes the best "possible" case for mythicism, but even as an atheist I have to concede that the more straight-forward and thus likely reading of Paul is that he believed Jesus had been here on Earth (even if he also believed him to be some incarnated angel or what-have-you). Carrier has stated that he wants to debate Mark Goodacre in a proper formatted debate like this (forget their brief radio interview a few years ago). Goodacre is one of the top scholars in the world, no rent-an-apologist, and after seeing Horn's not-disastrous performance here, I fear that someone like Goodacre might be too much to handle. I would love to see that debate happen. To bad Ehrman has stated that he wants nothing to do with Carrier!

I think debates only serve to confirm already held biases. I watched this debate, too. They both make good points, but arguments relating to the historicity of Jesus are too detailed to address in a debate format.

One of Carrier's points that I think confuses some people is what he is saying about AoI. Right around the 1 hour mark. Carrier's argument there is that 9 predicts the descent of Jesus,but 11 does not follow the prediction. Carrier's argument is that this has been altered to conform more to orthodox Christianity and that the descent in 11 should follow the prediction in 9. Critics say, well 11 doesn't say Jesus is killed in the heavens, Carriers point is that 9 does.

[outhouse]

Carrier's rebuttals were fantastically detailed and showed that he is not some quack conspiracist (which many mythicists fall into).



Carrier is a genius, but having a high intellect and broad knowledge base does not indicate his arrow is pointed in the right direction.

I used to love hearing his debates, and watched everyone I could find, that was the old Carrier.

Modern Carrier is so convoluted, I cant listen to 2 minutes of him anymore.

[outhouse]

Horn has pegged carrier as a liar right from the beginning. [using sources dated later then the origins of the movement]

If this is true, then Carrier has no credibility what so ever.

edit

Carrier tries to dig himself out of the dishonesty hole he dug, but im not convinced by his explanation of Ascension of Isaiah, nor Philo

[GakuseiDon]

One of Carrier's points that I think confuses some people is what he is saying about AoI. Right around the 1 hour mark. Carrier's argument there is that 9 predicts the descent of Jesus,but 11 does not follow the prediction. Carrier's argument is that this has been altered to conform more to orthodox Christianity and that the descent in 11 should follow the prediction in 9. Critics say, well 11 doesn't say Jesus is killed in the heavens, Carriers point is that 9 does.

Horn's point is that 9 does not (59 min 40 secs). And he is right.

[toejam]

I think debates only serve to confirm already held biases. I watched this debate, too. They both make good points, but arguments relating to the historicity of Jesus are too detailed to address in a debate format.

Yeah, for the average punter it would definitely be confusing. I feel that way when I watch debates between physicists over competing String Theories etc. When they went off on long tangents about Philo, the Assension of Isaiah etc. the Life of Adam & Eve, there was no way anyone in the audience could be expected to have any valid opinion unless they'd read those texts themselves prior. So at that point it becomes a show - who can look like they've done the most research. One of the questioners asked "how come we aren't talking more about the gospels?" I got the impression many there were expecting a debate on Supernatural Jesus vs. Historical Jesus, not a debate on whether or not there was a guy at all.

[Sheshbazzar]

even as an atheist I have to concede that the more straight-forward and thus likely reading of Paul is that he believed Jesus had been here on Earth

You do realize I hope, that 'Paul' believing a Jesu god once lived on earth, is of no evidence that any such person or god ever DID live on earth.

'Paul' by his own admissions never in his life met, nor laid eyes on a living flesh and blood human Jesus of Nazareth.
Mythical Bible Jesus was dead and buried long before 'Paul' ever came on the scene.

'Paul's' only experience with his Jesu god, was his claimed spiritual encounters with a zombie christus spiritual being communing with him in his ecstatic religious 'visions'.
'Paul's' writings, whether or not he believed his personal Jesu god once wandered the countryside in the flesh, are no evidence that any such person or god ever did so.
'Paul' is a believer in a christus Iasous (messiah Joshua), not a person that ever actually was a firsthand eyewitness to the bodily existence any living walking on earth 'Jesus of Nazareth'.

Although Paul is an impressive church theologian (and by internal evidence, quite the liar) he is no more of an eyewitness to the existence of a human preacher called 'Jesus of Nazareth' than Oral Roberts, Charley Manson, or Benny Hinn.

Sheshbazzar

[toejam]

even as an atheist I have to concede that the more straight-forward and thus likely reading of Paul is that he believed Jesus had been here on Earth

You do realize I hope, that 'Paul' believing a Jesu god once lived on earth, is of no evidence that any such person or god ever DID live on earth.

Even Richard Carrier doesn't go to this level of extreme evidence denial. Carrier said when answering the audience question 'What would change your mind?' that if there was a clear reference in Paul to Jesus being Earthly, e.g. if Paul had said "the Romans crucified Jesus" (instead of "rulers of this age" etc.), he would consider that evidence enough to see the Historical Jesus hypothesis as being the more credible. You need to be careful not to confuse the terms "evidence" with "proof". I agree that even if Paul referenced more details of the Earthly life of Jesus that many mythicists insist he should have, that would still not be "proof". But it would certainly be "evidence".

[outhouse]

But it would certainly be "evidence".

Your on to something.


I will go on the offensive being I rarely do.


The largest error of the mythicist is that they are not looking at evidence to recreate history. They are only attempting to deconstruct evidence to destroy history. Then they cherry pick the hell out of the evidence and find the vast minority of scholar/s that support the view to deconstruct what is currently known.

With methodology as such, less or little can be learned about this early movement.

Deconstructing evidence and history is not scholarly work, and its why they take all the deserved heat they do. Its why Carrier's work has become laughable. His reconstruction of history is very very minimal and vague at best, and the fault lies in his pretend claimed semi agnostic stance on the subject.


He cannot take a stand with no leg to stand on. He is now an easy target for those with half an education.

[Sheshbazzar]

even as an atheist I have to concede that the more straight-forward and thus likely reading of Paul is that he believed Jesus had been here on Earth

You do realize I hope, that 'Paul' believing a Jesu god once lived on earth, is of no evidence that any such person or god ever DID live on earth.

Even Richard Carrier doesn't go to this level of extreme evidence denial. Carrier said when answering the audience question 'What would change your mind?' that if there was a clear reference in Paul to Jesus being Earthly, e.g. if Paul had said "the Romans crucified Jesus" (instead of "rulers of this age" etc.), he would consider that evidence enough to see the Historical Jesus hypothesis as being the more credible. You need to be careful not to confuse the terms "evidence" with "proof". I agree that even if Paul referenced more details of the Earthly life of Jesus that many mythicists insist he should have, that would still not be "proof". But it would certainly be "evidence".

It would have exactly the same level of evidential value and credibility as his famous claims to have communicated with, and been instructed in detail by the spirit of a resurrected living dead son of an invisable deity.
One source whose claims impeach his entire credibility. There is not one verse in 'Paul's' writings that can be trusted, either to be authentic or to be accurate.
Even if 'Paul' claimed he had sat down and ate fish with christus Iesous it would be no evidence that any such thing had ever taken place, and no reason to accept the claim.
You cannot divorce one of 'Paul's' claims from any other, in regards to their trustworthiness, they all stand or fall together.

Sheshbazzar