Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus"

[Bernard Muller]

Carrier claims 1 Corinthians is a stitching together of more than 1 letter.

Great! That what I have been thinking (& documented & justified) for many years.

Cordially, Bernard

[beowulf]

In the words A Kempis Thomas, I submit the following on this thread:
If thou knewest the whole Bible, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what should all this profit thee without the love and grace of God? Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, save to love God, and Him only to serve. That is the highest wisdom, to cast the world behind us, and to reach forward to the heavenly kingdom.

I prefer the sufficiency of a good conscience with its ability to guide men and women.

Thomas à Kempis. (b. 1379 or 1380, d. 1471). The Imitation of Christ.
Book II: Admonitions Concerning the Inner Life VI. Of the Joy of a Good Conscience
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.


De lætitia bonæ conscientiæ
1. Gloria boni hominis: testimonium bonæ conscientiæ. Habe bonam conscientiam: et habebis semper lætitiam. Bona conscientia valde multa potest portare: et valde læta est inter adversa. Mala conscientia, semper timida est et inquieta. Suaviter requiesces: si cor tuum te non reprehenderit. Noli lætari: nisi cum bene feceris.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis.html


THE TESTIMONY of a good conscience is the glory of a good man. Have a good conscience and thou shalt ever have joy. A good conscience is able to bear exceeding much, and is exceeding joyful in the midst of adversities; an evil conscience is ever fearful and unquiet. Thou shalt rest sweetly if thy heart condemn thee not. Never rejoice unless when thou hast done well.
http://www.bartleby.com/7/2/206.html

[Eric]

In the words A Kempis Thomas, I submit the following on this thread:
If thou knewest the whole Bible, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what should all this profit thee without the love and grace of God? Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, save to love God, and Him only to serve. That is the highest wisdom, to cast the world behind us, and to reach forward to the heavenly kingdom.

I prefer the sufficiency of a good conscience with its ability to guide men and women.

Thomas à Kempis. (b. 1379 or 1380, d. 1471). The Imitation of Christ.
Book II: Admonitions Concerning the Inner Life VI. Of the Joy of a Good Conscience
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.


De lætitia bonæ conscientiæ
1. Gloria boni hominis: testimonium bonæ conscientiæ. Habe bonam conscientiam: et habebis semper lætitiam. Bona conscientia valde multa potest portare: et valde læta est inter adversa. Mala conscientia, semper timida est et inquieta. Suaviter requiesces: si cor tuum te non reprehenderit. Noli lætari: nisi cum bene feceris.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/kempis.html


THE TESTIMONY of a good conscience is the glory of a good man. Have a good conscience and thou shalt ever have joy. A good conscience is able to bear exceeding much, and is exceeding joyful in the midst of adversities; an evil conscience is ever fearful and unquiet. Thou shalt rest sweetly if thy heart condemn thee not. Never rejoice unless when thou hast done well.
http://www.bartleby.com/7/2/206.html

I like it.

[TedM]

I watched this the other night from Carrier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

I was impressed. May be the turning point for me, as he addressed a number of things that I have wondered about. In particular, I thought his comments regarding the extent that a belief in a resurrected divine being pre-existed Christianity were persuasive. His comment about Philo naming this being Jesus was a homerun--if that is in fact true (I know it has been debated...actually what is the debate here? Do we not know what Philo really named this being?), and his points regarding the interpolated additions in the Ascension of Isaiah came across as strong.

I also watched a debate claiming that William Lane Craig destroyed Carrier re the resurrection. Craig was a more forceful speaker, but I thought Carrier made very good points. The main point Craig made that stuck with me though was that there are sources behind the sources (M and L) that he says Carrier gives no credit to..seems to know nothing about..Even if true it seems a stretch to say, as Craig does, that there are multiple 'independent' witnesses. How can anyone really know in such a case how independent the 'witnesses' are? Seems to me we don't have enough data to measure the quality of their 'independence'.

If Carrier can persuade me, then he may persuade millions.

[stevencarrwork]

Philo never named this being.

One assume that people were aware of a thing called 'Scripture' and could easily look up the name of the being that Philo referenced.

[TedM]

Philo never named this being.

One assume that people were aware of a thing called 'Scripture' and could easily look up the name of the being that Philo referenced.

That's not how it came across in minutes 23-34:

"Philo...tells us that there was already a pre-Christian being who was actually names 'Jesus' who was called the firstborn son of God, who was the celestial image of God, who was God's agent of Creation and God's celestial high priest".

That's a homerun if true. If the name Jesus was NOT in Philo, Carrier really was misleading. If he was misleading here, what else did he exaggerate? How pre-existent was the death and resurrection Savior Gods, really? hmm..

[stephan happy huller]

If Carrier can persuade me, then he may persuade millions.

Still wouldn't mean he was correct. Steven Carr is right. Philo doesn't identify the name of the divine being as 'Jesus.' That's sloppiness on Carrier's part and the fact that you go along with it only shows the kind of people who are attracted to this stuff. There is no way that a Jew could believe that the name of the divine being was Jesus. Period.

[TedM]

If Carrier can persuade me, then he may persuade millions.

Still wouldn't mean he was correct. Steven Carr is right. Philo doesn't identify the name of the divine being as 'Jesus.' That's sloppiness on Carrier's part and the fact that you go along with it only shows the kind of people who are attracted to this stuff. There is no way that a Jew could believe that the name of the divine being was Jesus. Period.

Well, he said it. It wasn't sloppiness IMO. Says more about Carrier than me IMO... I knew there was controversy about the name and what was really written or meant, whether it was Jacob or Jesus, or whatever. I qualified my statement about the homerun, or did you overlook that?

Here's what I wrote Steven:

His comment about Philo naming this being Jesus was a homerun--if that is in fact true (I know it has been debated...actually what is the debate here? Do we not know what Philo really named this being?)

We have a lot more in common than you think Stephan. We both just want the truth. I just don't have the time you do to put into it...

[MrMacSon]

my understanding is there were lots of messiah-preacherss, AND lots of people named Jesus or similar (Joshua, Jacob, etc), in those times.

[stephan happy huller]

Show me where Philo says 'the name of the Logos is Jesus.' Not there. When Jacob becomes an angel what happens? Why? Come on. This is so fucking obvious.