Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

ABuddhist wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:30 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 8:48 pm While I don't agree with Carrier on Paul and a few other things, his theories are not gibberish nor are they "delusions."
Do you still assert that it is impossible to talk about dying-and-rising gods - that is, gods who are killed, descend to the underworld, and are restored to life?
I don't think it is meaningful to talk of any specific category of "dying and rising gods", but that is not the same as me thinking there are no gods who died and returned (I could list a few myself, though my clearest examples would be, certain versions of, Dionysus and Inanna). I actually recently had a good conversation with Derreck Bennett on this. I just don't think the category of dying and rising gods is actually that useful, and if anything, I think it ends up being somewhat misleading and is rooted in Christian centralization tendencies (Timothy Larsen, The Slain God [Oxford UP, 2014] is an excellent volume on the origins of the category, and I would contend it is still used in a very similar fashion that centers Christianized language and terminology and leads to reductive analyses).

I *do* think that making comparisons between Jesus and other deities is good and useful. I personally think that the Gospel of Mark models Jesus' resurrection based on Greco-Roman models of apotheosis and translation events (and I think that Romulus is probably a good comparative figure to use actually). I just don't think the category is useful. I just don't think the category is useful. I tend to agree with Frankfurter's review of Mettinger's book (https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002.09.07/)
By the end of the monograph, the category emerges as a rather simplistic generalization for a very wide array of gods and a very murky range of rituals. What does it mean, for example, for these gods to “die”? They might descend for a time to the underworld, disappear from agricultural or seasonal experience, or frame ritual traditions of mourning — in no case identical to “death” as experienced on a regular human (or even royal) scale. Likewise, a god’s “resurrection” means vegetative, agricultural, or seasonal emergence, a divine image’s “appearance” by procession at a particular temple, or the frame for ritual traditions of celebration — not the kind of revivification imagined in the biblical tradition (e.g., Ezekiel 37, Daniel 12, 2 Baruch 50-51). J. Z. Smith once recommended that the comparison of religions involves ultimately the “rectification” of the categories by which one compares phenomena — those essential lenses or contexts into which we experimentally set our data. In this case, Mettinger’s methodological precision and attention to textual detail reveal the “dying/rising god” classification to be, in fact, a non-classification — a Christian theological holdover, like “sacrament” or “faith,” from a time when all comparison was meant to legitimize or delegitimize dogma.
Again, making the comparisons is not a problem for me. I just think that the "dying and rising god" category/ideal type is just not useful. I don't think it is meaningful to generally of "dying and rising gods", but to speak a broader range of categories of apotheosis, resurrection, translation, bilocation, etc. (all of which can still be compared and used).
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 8:48 pm
karavan wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 6:13 pm
LOL I wouldn't call you a Carrier supporter, I've seen you decimating his gibberish theories in your papers on his Romans 1:3 delusions and that Zalmoxis thing.
While I don't agree with Carrier on Paul and a few other things, his theories are not gibberish nor are they "delusions." The polemics and insults aren't gonna help anything (I know from experience...) and I'm not to interesting in entering a rhetorical battle with you. As I've said elsewhere, I agree with mythicists on the majority of everything except: their interpretation of Paul and the historicity of a minimalistic Jesus. I think the Gospels are fictions and cannot be used critically to reconstruct his life, I don't think the alleged extrabiblical evidence is useful, I think Jesus' resurrection in the Gospels was very likely modeled using Greco-Roman models (probably Romulus, imo), and I would even contend that virtually every single supposed "fact" that E. P. Sanders and others have labeled "almost indisputable" are probably just myths (even the baptism and that he came from Nazareth; not to be confused with me thinking Nazareth is a myth, I just don't think Jesus came from there).
Anyways, if you're going to drop by and comment on the early dating of the AoI per Norelli, then can you also comment on what you think about the AoI in relation to the mythicist use of it? Are mythicists right to propagate it as a space Jesus? Or what?
I don't think the mythicist interpretation is correct, and I think Neil agrees on this as well (hope Neil will correct me if I'm wrong). That being said, even with the presence of the "pocket gospel" (which I think is authentic), I think it is still consistent with some mythicists theories, like those of Jean Magne and Thomas L. Brodie, so it ultimately doesn't really matter to me that much.
Imagine thinking that everyone who considers you dumb is Tim O'Neill ROFL.
Not hard when you act identically to Tim O'Neill in just about every conceivable way.
That's great that you agree with mythicists about a lot of weird stuff, but Carrier is absolutely a hardcore delusional clown and he totally depends on his gullible mythicist audience for almost all the money he makes (see his Patreon numbers - the guy makes a lot of money off mythicism), so it's not actually clear he believes the gibberish he's spewing at this point.

"I don't think the mythicist interpretation is correct" - that's what I thought, but can you be more specific? Do you disagree with Carrier's argument about AoI and, if not, where does he go wrong? Why isn't AoI Jesus a space Jesus?

Sorry Chris, but that last sentence is a damn bad look on you. No need to fuel Godfrey's Timophobia, his irrational fear that Tim is somewhere, some whence, out to get him via anonymous and secret accounts LOL. Also you now have the wonderful opportunity of explaining how the way I act is similar to Tim's LOL. I am also ROFLing damn hard that you say I magically can't handle the work of ... Brodie? ROFL. Your weird narcissism that only you can somehow understand these comparatively average authors is something you shouldn't throw out into the open. BTW, why did you say you don't want to get into a rhetorical battle with me and then, immediately, just two posts later on the same thread, go out of your way to say that I can't handle people like freaking Brodie?

Also Neil, LOL, when did I say Norelli represents "the opinion of the entire field"? After hopping off this thread for a few months, I didn't come back just to see imaginary quotes shoveled into my mouth.

EDIT: By the way Chris, on page 25 of the thread, you massively watered down your earlier statements about things that mythicists have personally done to you to harm you, which I cited earlier. In fact, you wrote;

"I am on record saying some people, who happened to be mythicists, were really terrible to me. I can also say that just about everything said mythicists did to me, historicists have as well. It is not a problem of mythicism v. historicism but of far bigger sociological issues. Me being harassed for being a transwoman (she/her or they/them), for instance, happened everywhere. In fact, I got far more harassment on those aspects from historicists I've been around."

So it's "not a problem" of mythicism but a "far bigger sociological issue", pretty much entirely contradicting what you said before:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8048&p=124040&hilit ... wn#p124040

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7048&hilit=Thank+you&start=70

For example, from the first link:

"Between threats on my livelihood, and more for my part in cataloguing and publishing against mythicism, I have essentially decided that I will never enter the field of NT"

And from the second:

"(A) Because mythicists have actively attempted hurting my personal life by doxing me and attempting to disrupt my education.
(B) Because my local atheist community actually removed my membership because I was not a mythicist (and I know of others who have had this don against them as well).
(C) Because any time I make a negative comment calling someone out, I get lambasted half across the internet and then have to explain to various people reading this material what was going on.
(D) Because my work gets misconstrued for usage/rebuttal by apologists and mythicists/agnostics alike.
(E) Because I had to file a police report because a mythicist threatened to track me down and attack me for banning them from a FaceBook group."

Wow, this REALLY has nothing to do with mythicism and historicists have done WORSE? What a turn-around, especially given that I've never seen you make any hints of this "historicist" (questionable term entirely) affecting of your personal life and, all of a sudden, it makes an appearance now that you're trying to defend these mythicists or something. I also note that on the second linked thread above Godfrey called you "Two-faced", which really raises a question: are you REALLY going to backtrack on the horrific harms mythicists have done to you personally?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

I wondered whether karavan would be politer in addressing Chris Hansen, who, like a dragon's daughter, has reformed her ways so that she presents interesting refutations to mythicism and mainstream biblical scholarship in a way that is pleasant and informative. Wherefore, I readed karavan's latest post.

I was, alas, disappointed. karavan instead, unable to find Ms. Hansen supporting eir claims, resorted to two types of implicit insults against Ms. Hansen.

1. In saying (with extreme vehemence!) that Dr. Carrier, contra Ms. Hansen, is presenting theories that are gibberish and "delusions", karavan implies that Ms. Hansen is defective in her ability to distinguish plausible theories from implausible.

2. In strongly implying that e does not believe Ms. Hansen's claims about how mythicists and historicists have both condemned her, karavan implies that Ms. Hansen is either insane or lying - or so I interpret the words.

So, whom should I believe between two opponents to Dr. Carrier: the pseudonymous karavan, whom this thread has revealed to be constantly incapable of researching the issues about which e pontificates sufficiently and who resorts to insults and accusations (implied or otherwise) that eir opponents are lying or delusional; or the named chris hansen, politely addressing issues, citing relevant scholarship appropriately, and acknowledging where her opponents, even when wrong, are worthy of respect.

I favour Ms. Hansen! Does anyone disagree here?
Last edited by ABuddhist on Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:07 am
EDIT: By the way Chris, on page 25 of the thread, you massively watered down your earlier statements about things that mythicists have personally done to you to harm you, which I cited earlier. In fact, you wrote;

"I am on record saying some people, who happened to be mythicists, were really terrible to me. I can also say that just about everything said mythicists did to me, historicists have as well. It is not a problem of mythicism v. historicism but of far bigger sociological issues. Me being harassed for being a transwoman (she/her or they/them), for instance, happened everywhere. In fact, I got far more harassment on those aspects from historicists I've been around."

So it's "not a problem" of mythicism but a "far bigger sociological issue", pretty much entirely contradicting what you said before:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8048&p=124040&hilit ... wn#p124040

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7048&hilit=Thank+you&start=70

For example, from the first link:

"Between threats on my livelihood, and more for my part in cataloguing and publishing against mythicism, I have essentially decided that I will never enter the field of NT"

And from the second:

"(A) Because mythicists have actively attempted hurting my personal life by doxing me and attempting to disrupt my education.
(B) Because my local atheist community actually removed my membership because I was not a mythicist (and I know of others who have had this don against them as well).
(C) Because any time I make a negative comment calling someone out, I get lambasted half across the internet and then have to explain to various people reading this material what was going on.
(D) Because my work gets misconstrued for usage/rebuttal by apologists and mythicists/agnostics alike.
(E) Because I had to file a police report because a mythicist threatened to track me down and attack me for banning them from a FaceBook group."

Wow, this REALLY has nothing to do with mythicism and historicists have done WORSE? What a turn-around, especially given that I've never seen you make any hints of this "historicist" (questionable term entirely) affecting of your personal life and, all of a sudden, it makes an appearance now that you're trying to defend these mythicists or something. I also note that on the second linked thread above Godfrey called you "Two-faced", which really raises a question: are you REALLY going to backtrack on the horrific harms mythicists have done to you personally?
I have not backtracked the specific harms that were done to me (I literally reiterated them in that comment). I took a break from the internet, did some introspection, and looking at my part in this whole situation and further took Neil's comments seriously. But congrats on finding comments from me that are almost a year old or more, while I was still angry, lashing out, and working through this stuff (and while I was being a jerk defending Tim O'Neill through really jerkish means, and treating Neil horribly). I was wronged. I was also in the wrong when I mistreated people by lashing out at them and projecting my hurts on people who didn't wrong me. And I sincerely apologize to this entire community that I did so, and especially to Neil who got a full brunt of this.

These specific instances are not representative of a general whole, and my statements saying that were wrong and misguided.

Also, you misrepresented me (big surprise). I said my harassment for being a transwoman was worse among historicists (along with related issues; like my sexuality). And it was, far worse. Conservative Christian apologists don't make for great friends for trans people. It is literally in the quote you made.

And Neil's "two-faced" comment was because I was a jerk going under a different name on Vridar and throwing crap at him and my wild inconsistencies and flopping on stuff. And yeah. I definitely deserved that.

In my original comment to you, I noted how half my problems with mythicists stemmed from my own belligerence. Congrats on finding past comments from me that demonstrate the case. Me being harassed and stuff, is not an outcome of mythicism, but of the kind of toxic communities that feed on conflict. For instance, me being threatened and filing a police report, the threats levied at me pretty clearly stemmed out of misogyny and transphobia. My problems with Bob Price stemmed from, again, misogyny and transphobia. I, however, lashed out and had a knee jerk reaction where I made the abuse and mythicism linked, as though inseparable or that mythicism necessitated abuse. It was shortsighted and wrong. And it would be just as wrong for me to say that the constant harassment for being trans, the refusal of many historicist friends of mine to use my pronouns, and worse was because they were historicists. These issues go beyond this debate.

I am not going to bother responding to you in the future. I consider Neil great and I deeply respect him, and I thank him sincerely for his comments that seriously have helped me rethink and introspect on my time, participation, and activity in this community. You can keep rehashing old comments of me lashing out and acting immature about my situations if you want, but it isn't going to make you or my intensely angry and belligerent past self right.
Last edited by Chrissy Hansen on Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:48 am I have not backtracked the specific harms that were done to me (I literally reiterated them in that comment). I took a break from the internet, did some introspection, and looking at my part in this whole situation and further took Neil's comments seriously. But congrats on finding comments from me that are almost a year old or more, while I was still angry, lashing out, and working through this stuff (and while I was being a jerk defending Tim O'Neill through really jerkish means, and treating Neil horribly). I was wronged. I was also in the wrong when I mistreated people by lashing out at them and projecting my hurts on people who didn't wrong me. And I sincerely apologize to this entire community that I did so, and especially to Neil who got a full brunt of this.

These specific instances are not representative of a general whole, and my statements saying that were wrong and misguided.

Also, you misrepresented me (big surprise). I said my harassment for being a transwoman was worse among historicists (along with related issues; like my sexuality). And it was, far worse. Conservative Christian apologists don't make for great friends for trans people. It is literally in the quote you made.

And Neil's "two-faced" comment was because I was a jerk going under a different name on Vridar and throwing crap at him. And yeah. I definitely deserved that.

In my original comment to you, I noted how half my problems with mythicists stemmed from my own belligerence. Congrats on finding past comments from me that demonstrate the case. Me being harassed and stuff, is not an outcome of mythicism, but of the kind of toxic communities that feed on conflict. For instance, me being threatened and filing a police report, the threats levied at me pretty clearly stemmed out of misogyny and transphobia. My problems with Bob Price stemmed from, again, misogyny and transphobia. I, however, lashed out and had a knee jerk reaction where I made the abuse and mythicism linked, as though inseparable or that mythicism necessitated abuse. It was shortsighted and wrong. And it would be just as wrong for me to say that the constant harassment for being trans, the refusal of many historicist friends of mine to use my pronouns, and worse was because they were historicists. These issues go beyond this debate.

I am not going to bother responding to you in the future. I consider Neil great and I deeply respect him, and I thank him sincerely for his comments that seriously have helped me rethink and introspect on my time, participation, and activity in this community. You can keep rehashing old comments of me lashing out and acting immature about my situations if you want, but it isn't going to make you or my intensely angry and belligerent past self right.
Bravo for the excellent response which will, I hope, refute the calumnies of others against you.

In order to avoid contributing in any way to your sufferings, may I ask whether I should have used the title Ms. in reference to you? Would you prefer Mx. or Mr. instead?
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

ABuddhist wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:59 am Bravo for the excellent response which will, I hope, refute the calumnies of others against you.

In order to avoid contributing in any way to your sufferings, may I ask whether I should have used the title Ms. in reference to you? Would you prefer Mx. or Mr. instead?
Thank you, <3 and thanks for asking. Ms is perfect :)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by neilgodfrey »

karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:07 am Also Neil, LOL, when did I say Norelli represents "the opinion of the entire field"? After hopping off this thread for a few months, I didn't come back just to see imaginary quotes shoveled into my mouth.
Your memory is short. I was not thinking of your Norelli reference as representing the entire field and that last post of mine was addressing your insinuation that it is "per Norelli" -- that is, per one scholar as if you had never heard the notion in mainstream scholarship of a first century provenance before -- that we have an early date for the Asc Isa.

If you ask politely I might bother to make the effort to direct your attention what you did present as representing the mainstream of the field. ;)
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:48 am
In my original comment to you, I noted how half my problems with mythicists stemmed from my own belligerence. Congrats on finding past comments from me that demonstrate the case. Me being harassed and stuff, is not an outcome of mythicism, but of the kind of toxic communities that feed on conflict. For instance, me being threatened and filing a police report, the threats levied at me pretty clearly stemmed out of misogyny and transphobia. My problems with Bob Price stemmed from, again, misogyny and transphobia. I, however, lashed out and had a knee jerk reaction where I made the abuse and mythicism linked, as though inseparable or that mythicism necessitated abuse. It was shortsighted and wrong. And it would be just as wrong for me to say that the constant harassment for being trans, the refusal of many historicist friends of mine to use my pronouns, and worse was because they were historicists. These issues go beyond this debate.
That's probably some context you should considering adding to your past comments I linked to, as on the face of it that's a rather big change in perspective you've had.
Also, you misrepresented me (big surprise). I said my harassment for being a transwoman was worse among historicists
Nah that's exactly what I was referring to, no "misrepresentation". And what do you mean "big surprise" LOL? Have I misrepresented you before? Nope. Anyways I'm going to lay off you now, hope it gets better dude.



ABuddhist, weren't you supposed to be pretending you're ignoring me? ROFL. I also don't understand you calling me "pseudonymous" when I don't exactly see your name either LOL? Also:

"I wondered whether karavan would be politer in addressing Chris Hansen"

I wonder if you're also gonna wonder who took the first shot LOL.

"has revealed to be constantly incapable of researching the issues"

You're really writing this after I eviscerated you a few months ago? LOL. You can either provide an example for the above or, when you realize you have none, pretend to ignore me again ROFL.


Neil, who has decided he is Herculé Poirot and is now on the mission of BUSTING ME as Tim O'Neill (who definitely is stalking Neil through anonymous accounts because why not right?), says:

"Your memory is short."

GOSH, got me baby!

" I was not thinking of your Norelli reference as representing the entire field"

Uhhh WHAT? You wrote this earlier dude, damn, talk about short term memory:

"If you are going to talk about the Asc of Isa it would be more productive if you actually did some homework instead of prooftexting from the first text you assume represents the opinion of the entire field."

So, if it wasn't Norelli you're referring to here regarding my comment and AoI, then WHO do you claim I am assuming just represents the whole field? Well:

"If you ask politely I might bother to make the effort to direct your attention what you did present as representing the mainstream of the field. ;)"

Oh come on dude there's no way you think I care enough about that to beg you to know what it is you're referring to. You might also want to consider a bit of self-reflection: does it REALLY make sense to claim someone else has short term memory (because they forgot about something that happened ... err ... months ago on some random forum) and then ask them to be polite to you? LOL


Anyways, what's the outcome of the whole AoI thing? Apparently we were discussing AoI. ABuddhist probably autobelieves in Carrier's AoI theory (because of course right), Neil has probably written 13 blog posts defending Carrier's AoI theory but will also likely say that he doesn't "officially" know if he supports the theory or not, and then Chris thinks it's wrong.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:07 am Also you now have the wonderful opportunity of explaining how the way I act is similar to Tim's LOL
That sentence should probably end, "the way I act is similar to the way Tim acts" or, at least, "the way I act is similar to Tim"
  • ( grammar-wise, at least )
How about
karavan wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:07 am Carrier is absolutely a hardcore delusional clown
karavan wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 6:13 pm his gibberish theories
karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:27 pm ... Tim O'Neill completely annihilated Carrier's entire career and every single one of his articles about that kook is 100% facts ...
This from the same post is classic Tim-ism
karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:27 pm ... all the early evidence puts Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet ... Paul has Jesus on Earth, getting crucified, buried, twelve disciples, descendant of David, with a brother, and on and on. The way to get rid of these passages is either through insane mental gymnastics (space sperm theory) or pure wishful thinking (ALL interpolations!).

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:54 pm When it comes to Carrier, everyone ABSOLUTELY has to definitely address him, despite the fact that he's a thousand times more insulting than I am
  • ^ that reflects both the sort of butt-hurt O'Neill exhibits from having been called out by Carrier and the sense that O'Neill uses Carrier's outbursts to justify his own outbursts

Your series of posts on one day, 25 Nov, 2021, showing an obsession with Carrier -
  1. viewtopic.php?p=129250#p129250
    ( where you also use Tim-isms to describe Earl Doherty ie. "zero credentials and is a complete amateur" )
  2. viewtopic.php?p=129253#p129253
  3. viewtopic.php?p=129258#p129258
  4. viewtopic.php?p=129266#p129266
  5. viewtopic.php?p=129269#p129269
  6. viewtopic.php?p=129271#p129271
  7. viewtopic.php?p=129275#p129275

karavan wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:47 pm Carrier's views about Jesus being a historicized celestial angel is totally ridiculous ...

This is good too, for it's obliquity, at least -
karavan wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 6:13 pm Imagine thinking that everyone who considers you dumb is Tim O'Neill ROFL.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

It's been a while since you embarrassed yourself here MrMacSon LOL. The sheer desperation is hilarious: a "Tim-ism" is 1) calling Carrier delusion 2) his theories gibberish 3) saying Tim annihilated Carrier. ROFL. You might want to crawl out of your cave some time soon, quadrillions of people say that. Also, can you actually show me TIM THE GUY YOU'RE CLAIMING THIS IS BASED ON saying that? And ah yes, me saying Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet is a "Tim-ism" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Just admit it dude, you shot yourself in the foot when you actually used the phrase "Tim-ism".

"butt-hurt O'Neill"

Oh the irony

"obliquity"

You even know what that means? ROFL. Anyways, thanks for re-quoting that last one, it makes me laugh in my seat every time I see it
Post Reply