Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by ghost » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:19 am

Stephan Huller wrote:
Stephan Huller wrote:
I can't even imagine what "faith in fiction" would look like. Can you?
A short glimpse at Mormonism or Wicca might alleviate that lack of imagination.
No by 'faith in fiction' I am referencing the implication of the faith of so many at the forum that the gospels were written as self-acknowledged fiction. For instance with Carotta's nonsense, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the author wanted people to believe Jesus actually existed. The story of the gospel is a kind of 'trap door' or false front for some other 'truth.' The suggestion seems to be that Christians never actually believed in the story of a person named Jesus. But then, what do theories like this do with the concept of 'faith'? They must argue then that they had 'faith in self-acknowledged fiction' i.e. that the authors weren't trying to 'pull the wool' over the eyes of the believers as in Pete's system. Instead they wanted them to believe in some other 'truth' by means of a 'self-acknowledged fiction' which I think is just stupid.
It's not that Christians didn't believe in Jesus, but that they believed in Julius before that and that Julius was gradually converted into Jesus. To Carotta fides means confidence or trust or faithfulness, not blind faith or religious faith. The idea doesn't claim that it's a self-acknowledged fiction. People knew Julius existed, even if they later knew him only as Jesus instead of Julius.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1545
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:38 am

ghost wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
The Hasmonean elements came via Josephus. What you see by the time of the Flavians is already a composite character, but it doesn't mean he was always a composite.
This is not true. The Hasmoneans existed, seen today by way of coins, other records in other cultures, etc. "Existence" is not a predicate but I believe that the word may be used correctly in regards to the Hasmoneans, the Temple Priesthood as enumerated in 1 Chronicles 24 and with other data. It is interesting that the settlement "Jabnit", populated by members of the Mishmarot Group "Immer" believed that the Hasmoneans came from them. Josephus didn't compose piyyutim about the Hasmoneans in Jabnit as far as I know.
I shold have been more explicit. What I meant is not that the Hasmoneans didn't exist, but that the Hasmonean stories flowed into Christianity via Josephus.
OK, fine. We may be arguing past each other. BTW, look at Michael Weitzman's work on a posited settlement of Aramaic Scribes northeast of Upper Galilee. 'N yes, Josephus may have referenced some group like this with his story of Izates. The Hasmonean Stories were actually suppressed a bit by Josephus - witness his curious inability to tell us who performs sacrifices in the Temple. The fact that the last speech of Herod is about what Herod did that the Hasmoneans couldn't in 125 years tells us something. I believe that the Hasmoneans are in the NT but rewritten as "Jesus Stories".
ghost wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
AS for "Jesus" existing as you imply, I cannot go even to the phrase you use,"...by the time of the Flavians..." There was no "He", composite or otherwise. That's what I try to get across over and over concerning "Transvaluation".
I don't think we can deny Julius Caesar's existence, and that that there was a cult around him. I say "by the time of the Flavians" because this cult existed before the Flavians. The Flavians did not invent the cult; they just changed it.
Ghost! I'm not denying the existence of Julius Caesar! I'm denying the Utility of the Cult of Julius Caesar providing an Understanding of Christianity. The Cult of JC cannot explain the Origins of Christianity. Period! Exclamation mark.

Stephan: Let's assume I ditch the Atwill Stuff. Nobody likes him anyway. That thing he does with his hands and his face and eyelids - Icky! 'N the way he tries to buy off his teachers pretending he likes them - YUCK! I mean, there's today's news, there's yesterday's news and then there's Joe Atwill, ya'know?

So: Atwill's gone. NOW will you look at the Mishmarot material and TRY TO VERIFY THAT IT'S THERE OR NOT???

CW

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller » Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:19 am

I think we should all admit (not that it will ever happen) that the basis to developing a viable hypothesis is establishing something that can be proved or at least demonstrated independently of the presuppositions we hold dear. In other words, we shouldn't need to believe in something in order to confirm its existence.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1545
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:39 am

Stephan Huller wrote:I think we should all admit (not that it will ever happen) that the basis to developing a viable hypothesis is establishing something that can be proved or at least demonstrated independently of the presuppositions we hold dear. In other words, we shouldn't need to believe in something in order to confirm its existence.
You are hopeless. Without hope. Irredeemable. Intersection of you and Hope = Null Set.
'N so on...

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Peter Kirby » Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:36 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Stephan Huller wrote:I think we should all admit (not that it will ever happen) that the basis to developing a viable hypothesis is establishing something that can be proved or at least demonstrated independently of the presuppositions we hold dear. In other words, we shouldn't need to believe in something in order to confirm its existence.
You are hopeless. Without hope. Irredeemable. Intersection of you and Hope = Null Set.
'N so on...
I actually thought Stephan had a fair point there ...
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller » Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:42 pm

I know, I thought it was rather succinct even elegant. But of course I am biased.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6219
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:34 pm

Stephan Huller wrote:I think we should all admit ... that the basis to developing a viable hypothesis is establishing something that can be proved or at least demonstrated independently of the presuppositions we hold dear.
I'd say that's near impossible - presuppositions influence what hypotheses people develop; how they formulated hypotheses.


Likewise, I don't see how one would want to, or would be able to, confirm something if one doesn't "believe in it"
Stephan Huller wrote:In other words, we shouldn't need to believe in something in order to confirm its existence.

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller » Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:49 pm

At least you're honest.

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller » Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:50 pm

At least you're honest I guess. The fact that theologians do it doesn't justify doing it in reverse.

steve43
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by steve43 » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:13 pm

kdminhquan wrote:Josephus believed that God actually LIVED- existed might be a better word- in the inner sanctuary temple. All Jews did.
God bless you, son. There is actually someone else on this board who reads Josephus.

Post Reply