On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by iskander »

corollary
nietzsche bge.PNG
nietzsche bge.PNG (73.02 KiB) Viewed 4760 times
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by perseusomega9 »

reading through the comments, Hurtado is quite the condescending prick.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all :)

Such a humble and self-effacing gentleman our Dr Carrier, so smooth and kind and forgiving. Although he can let loose with a thermo-nuclear attack on opponents when so moved - you know, when he's not busy partying and orgying with girlfriends, or honing up his gambling skills. ;)

But his latest argument is giving me Euhemerism aneuyrisms again -
Dr Carrier wrote:He (Hurtado) further exhibits his confusion and ignorance when in a note he says “Carrier seems to misconstrue the classic Euhemerist theory, which postulated that the various gods derive from ancient human heroes who across time developed into gods, not the opposite,” as if that’s not exactly what we are talking about: postulating that a god derived from a past human deified (but who in fact did not, i.e. they never were a historical person, but came to be believed to be).
(From his Bizarre Fugue post)
Hmmm...
Euhemerus said, effectively :
  • there really is no god Osiris,
  • but there was an ancient King Osiris he was based on
So, Euhemerisation is to : reduce a god back down to an earlier historical person. Fair ?

But surely for that to work, Euhemerus presumed a real historical basis - a real historical King Osiris. He was not arguing that Osiris never existed as either god or man.

I don't think what Dr Carrier is describing is Euhemerism at all - because it is not a later God being reduced back to a historical person (the underlined showing his 'but' revealing that weakness.)

It's just historicising a god into a non-historical person, not quite the same thing. Reifying ? Historicisation ? Historicisationifying ? How about historifying ?

Kapyong
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by MrMacSon »

Kapyong wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:23 pm
edited: Euhemerisation is to : 'reduce' a god back down to an supposedly earlier historical person. Fair ?

It's just historicising a god into a non-historical person, not quite the same thing. Reifying ? Historicisation ? Historicisationifying ? How about historifying ?

Carrier uses it to mean 'to reify'; = to 'personify'; = to 'anthropomorphise', = 'humanise'; = 'hypostatise'.

Which is essentially what Euhemerus is said to have done to some gods (eg. Zeus, and Uranus, I think)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by MrMacSon »

Kapyong wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:23 pm Gday all :)

Such a humble and self-effacing gentleman our Dr Carrier, so smooth and kind and forgiving. Although he can let loose with a thermo-nuclear attack on opponents when so moved ...

He seems to attack as many as possible with each individual argument. And he constantly writes long posts appealing to his book or to people to read his book, to the point of not properly addressing or obscuring the argument he's supposed to be having.
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by Kapyong »

Gday MrMacSon :)
Kapyong wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:23 pm
edited: Euhemerisation is to : 'reduce' a god back down to an supposedly earlier historical person. Fair ?

It's just historicising a god into a non-historical person, not quite the same thing. Reifying ? Historicisation ? Historicisationifying ? How about historifying ?
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:32 pm Carrier uses it to mean 'to reify'; = to 'personify'; = to 'anthropomorphise', = 'humanise'; = 'hypostatise'.

Which is essentially what Euhemerus is said to have done to some gods (eg. Zeus, and Uranus, I think)
I see, thanks.

Euhemerus could still bring Zeus down to earth, with out there necessarily being a real prior King Zeus as he presumed.

Kapyong
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the Hurtado's answer to my question

Post by MrMacSon »

Gday Kapyong,
Kapyong wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:41 am
Euhemerus could still bring Zeus down to earth, without there necessarily being a real prior King Zeus as he presumed.
.
Yep, I'm pretty sure that's was he proposed.

So, as well as 'humanising' a god, such as Zeus, he would have created a past-human, or a sense of one, at least.
Post Reply