First, some bio background on this terra ferma-grounded Richard Carrier who quite handily manages to sink the non-water-walking Jesus:

“Richard Carrier is . . , is a professional historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement[who] has appeared across the U.S., Canada and the U.K., and on American television and London radio, defending sound historical methods and the ethical worldview of secular naturalism.

“His books and articles have received international attention. With a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire. He is also a published expert in the modern philosophy of naturalism as a worldview.

“He is the author of:

"‘On the Historicity of Jesus.’

"‘Proving History, Sense and Goodness without God’,

"‘Science Education in the Early Roman Empire’,

"‘Not the Impossible Faith,

"'Why I Am Not a Christian’, and

"‘Hitler Homer Bible Christ,' and [is] a contributor to

"‘The Empty Tomb, The Christian Delusion’,

"‘The End of Christianity, and

‘Christianity Is Not Great’, as well as [having done] copious work in history and philosophy, online and in print.”

(“About Dr. Carrier,” http://www.richardcarrier.info/about)


In Carrier's article, "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?," he equates the supposed historicity of the Bible-blessed Jesus to Joseph Smith's fairy-tale Angel Moroni, whom Smith solemnly testified proved the supposed historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Uh-huh.

Carrier writes:

“Christianity . . . began the same way Islam and MORMONISM did: by their principal apostles (Mohammed and JOSEPH SMITH) claiming to have received visions from their religion’s 'actual' teacher and founder, in each case an ANGEL (Gabriel the Koran. MORONI PROVIDED THE BOOK OF MORMON.” [emphasis added]
_____


Below is Carrier’s case against the faux historical Jesus:

"A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase 'the overwhelming consensus says . . . ' Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth . . .

"Last year I had an erudite and friendly debate on London radio with an excellent and well-respected professor of New Testament studies, in which he claimed that in 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul wrote that he received the gospel he summarizes there 'from those who were in Christ before him.' Indeed, this professor insisted that 'from those who were in Christ before him' was in the text. This was perplexing, because I knew that wasn’t the case. In fact, quite the opposite. Paul rather conspicuously never says this in any of his letters. He even explicitly denies it in one (Galatians 1). My opponent was a bit non-plussed when we looked at the text, and to his astonishment, the phrase he was sure was there, was not.

"This is not an isolated story. This has happened to me countless times. . .. It’s time to rethink our assumptions, and look at the evidence anew.

"There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with PhDs in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them. And I have recently published the first-ever peer-reviewed academic study making the case for this conclusion. ('On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt' was published this year by the University of Sheffield (Sheffield-Phoenix, 2014). It continues the case I began in a prior peer-reviewed book, 'Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus' (Prometheus Books, 2012), on why the methods employed in Jesus studies today are not logically valid, and what must replace them.

". . . I . . . here summarize the reasons for suspecting we’ve been wrong all along about how the Christian religion began. . .. [A]s Philip Davies recently said, 'a recognition that [Jesus’s] existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.'

"I think it is more likely that Jesus began in the Christian mind as a celestial being (like an archangel), believed or claimed to be revealing divine truths through revelations (and, by bending the ear of prophets in previous eras, through hidden messages planted in scripture)., Christianity thus began the same way Islam and MORMONISM did: by their principal apostles (Mohammed and JOSEPH SMITH) claiming to have received visions from their religion’s 'actual' teacher and founder, in each case an ANGEL (Gabriel dictated the Koran; MORONI PROVIDED THE BOOK OF MORMON). [emphasis added]

"On this model, Christianity, as a Jewish sect, began when someone (most likely Cephas, perhaps backed by his closest devotees) claimed this 'Jesus' had at last revealed that he had tricked the Devil by becoming incarnate and being crucified by the Devil (in the region of the heavens ruled by Devil), thereby atoning for all of Israel’s sins so the Jerusalem temple cult no longer mattered, the sins of Israel could no longer hold back God’s promise and the end of the world could soon begin. On this theory, Christians did not go looking for proof-texts after their charismatic leader died, but actually conjured this angelic being’s salvific story from a pesher-like reading of scripture . . ..

"It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this [Christian] cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being by placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.

"The same had already been done to other celestial gods and heroes, who were being transported into earth history all over the Greco-Roman world, a process now called 'Euhemerization,' after the author Euhemerus, who began the trend in the 4th century B.C. by converting the celestial Zeus and Uranus into ordinary human kings and placing them in past earth history, claiming they were 'later' deified (in a book ironically titled 'Sacred Scripture'). Other gods then underwent the same transformation, from Romulus (originally the celestial deity Quirinus) to Osiris (originally the heavenly lord whom pharaohs claimed to resemble, he was eventually transformed into a historical pharaoh himself).

"Contrary to an oft-repeated myth in contemporary scholarship, before Christianity began both Romulus and Osiris were believed by their devotees to be slain deities subsequently resurrected to heavenly glory (as were many others of the type, from Zalmoxis to Dionysus to Adonis to Inanna), who now could bring glory or salvation to their followers. . .. [For example], each year Osiris descends and becomes incarnate and is slain not on earth, but in the lower heavens, and then rises from the dead and re-ascends to power in the upper heavens, having gained power over death by this cosmic ritual, which he then shares with his earthly devotees. In the earliest redaction we can reconstruct of the Ascension of Isaiah, this appears to be exactly what was imagined to happen for Jesus, only once for all, not yearly.

"On this theory, when Paul says 'the scriptures' tell us that Jesus 'died' and 'was buried' and only then was he ever 'seen' by Cephas and the apostles (1 Cor. 15:3-5), he means exactly what he says. Just as in this and all other summaries of the gospel Paul provides, . . . there is no mention of a ministry, or of Jesus being seen by anyone (much less anyone taught and hand-picked by him in life), because these things did not yet exist in Christian conception. They would be allegorical fictions contrived later by the authors of the Gospels. . .. Paul wrote [that] the death and burial of Jesus were known only from hidden messages in scripture, just as Romans 16:25-26 says. . .. [T]his knowledge was facilitated by this Jesus then at last appearing to the apostles to inform them of all this, and what it meant. In fact, being thus visited by the celestial Christ is what secured one’s status as an apostle. . ..

"Just as Satan was declared the Archon 'of the powers of the air (Eph. 2:2) and the God “of this Age” (2 Cor. 4:4), so when Jesus is said to have been crucified by the 'Archons of this Age' (1 Cor. 2:8), we might be seeing what would later be described in the earliest redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah: a reference to Satan and his demons crucifying Jesus, not the Jews and Romans. And just as Adam was in some accounts buried in the heavens (as in chapter 40 of the Greek text of the 'Life of Adam and Eve'), so possibly was Jesus imagined to have been. The Incarnation, in a body of Davidic flesh, [and] still would have been imagined as necessary to fulfill scripture. But, as depicted in the Ascension of Isaiah, this would have happened in 'the sky.'

"This 'Jesus' would most likely have been the same archangel identified by Philo of Alexandria as already extant in Jewish theology. Philo knew this figure by all of the attributes Paul already knew Jesus by: the firstborn son of God, the celestial 'image of God,' and God’s agent of creation. He was also God’s celestial high priest and God’s 'Logos.' And Philo says this being was identified as the figure named 'Jesus' in Zechariah 6.

"So, it would appear that already before Christianity there were Jews aware of a celestial being named 'Jesus' who had all of the attributes the earliest Christians were associating with their celestial being named Jesus. They, therefore, had no need of a historical man named 'Jesus.' All they needed was to imagine this celestial Jesus undergoing a heavenly incarnation and atoning death, in order to accomplish soteriologically what they needed, in order to no longer rely upon the Jewish temple authorities for their salvation.

"Such is the theory. Why might we conclude it’s the more likely explanation? Because the sequence of evidence aligns with it. As Bart Ehrman himself has recently confessed, the earliest documentation we have shows Christians regarded Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial angelic being.] Though Ehrman struggles to try and insist this is not how the cult began, it is hard to see the evidence any other way, once we abandon Christian faith assumptions about how to read the texts. The earliest Epistles only ever refer to Jesus as a celestial being revealing truths through visions and messages in scripture. There are no references in them to Jesus preaching (other than from heaven), or being a preacher, having a ministry, performing miracles, or choosing or having disciples, or communicating by any means other than revelation and scripture, or ever even being on earth. This is completely reversed in the Gospels. [These] were written decades later and are manifestly fictional. Yet, all subsequent historicity claims, in all subsequent texts, are based on those Gospels.

"We also have to remember that all other evidence from the first 80 years of Christianity's development was conveniently not preserved (not even in quotation or refutation) . . .. [A] great deal more evidence was forged in its place (we know of over 40 Gospels, half a dozen Acts, scores of fake Epistles, wild legends and doctored passages). Thus, the evidence has passed through a very pervasive and destructive filter favoring the views of the later Church, in which it was vitally necessary to salvation to insist that Jesus was a historical man who really was crucified by Pontius Pilate (as we find obsessively insisted upon in the letters of Ignatius). Thus, to uncover the truth of how the [Christian] cult began, we have to look for clues, and not just gullibly trust the literary productions of the 2nd century.

"Jesus belongs to a fraternity of worshipped demi-gods peculiar to the Greco-Roman era and region. All were 'savior gods' (literally so called). They were all the 'son' of God (occasionally his 'daughter'). They all undergo a 'passion' (literally the same word in the Greek, 'patheôn'), which was some suffering or struggle (sometimes even resulting in death), through which they all obtain victory over death, which they share in some fashion with their followers. They all had stories about them set in human history on earth. Yet, none of them ever actually existed. Jesus can be shown to belong to several other typically mythical classes of person as well, unlike almost every other figure of antiquity (even the greatest of emperors and kings). These people were, more often than not, not historical. Yet, all were depicted as such in stories written by their believers. We cannot therefore simply declare Jesus the unusual exception. We need a reason. We need evidence. And when we look for it, it dissolves.

"No evidence outside the Bible can be shown to be based on anything but the Gospels or Christian testimony derived from the Gospels. And inside the Bible we have:

"(1) forgeries (which, being fake, cannot count as evidence);

"(2) the earliest Epistles that seem strangely silent or ambiguous as to the earthly existence of Jesus; and

"(3) the most suspiciously mythical Gospels. Not exactly good evidence to go by.

"Of course, there is much to debate. When Paul twice refers to 'Brothers of the Lord,' does he mean biological kin, or baptized Christians (who were all Brothers of the Lord: Rom. 8:15-29)?

"When Paul says Jesus 'came to be' (genomenos) from the 'sperm of David, ' does he mean descended from David, or manufactured by God, literally from the sperm of David?

"When Paul says Jesus 'came to be' ('genomenos') 'from a woman,' does he mean literally, or allegorically (as in Gal. 4:24)?

"When Paul says Jesus was 'tempted in every way,' does he mean as an ordinary man, or merely resisting the temptation to seize absolute divine power (as in Phil. 2:5-9)?

"When Paul says Jesus was 'declared' the 'Son of God in power' from his resurrection, is he referring to a post-hoc rationalization of a cult leader’s death, or to God’s heavenly re-bestowment of a humbled archangel’s prior status?

"We need to ask these questions because the old way of looking at the evidence does not fit so well as has been thought. And even among secular scholars, this has, until now, been driven by Christian faith assumptions, rather than [by] a new and genuinely objective look at what the evidence tells us.

"When we look, instead, without those assumptions [and, instead, at the possibility] that Christianity may have been started by a revealed Jesus rather than a historical Jesus, [we see that this] is corroborated by at least three things:

"[T]he sequence of evidence shows precisely that development from celestial revealed Jesus in the Epistles, to a historical ministry in the Gospels decades later),

"[A]ll similar savior cults from the period have the same backstory (a cosmic savior, later historicized); and

"[T]he original Christian Jesus (in the Epistles of Paul) sounds exactly like the Jewish archangel Jesus, who certainly did not exist.

"So. when it comes to a historical Jesus, maybe we no longer need that hypothesis."

("Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?" by Richard Carrier, 29 August 2014, emphasis added, at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5730)


This research by Carrier has now been published under the title, "On the Historicity of Jesus," having been subjected to peer review, as he explains:

"My new book, 'On the Historicity of Jesus,' has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (United Kingdom).

"I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well. . ..

" . . . I believe this will be the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review. That lends considerable weight to the work and will gain it significant academic attention in the field. Indeed, apart from Brodie’s brief confessional treatise supportive of myth (but not comprehensively arguing for it), . . . I think this will be the first pro-'Jesus myth' book of any kind published by a university press in the last 50 years."

"To date, the best case presented for this hypothesis is by amateur historian and classics graduate Earl Doherty (in his two books, 'The Jesus Puzzle' and 'Jesus: Neither God Nor Man'). My own . . . book, . . .inspired by [Doherty's] work, [is] the first making the case for this hypothesis to pass academic peer review."

("Update on 'Historicity of Jesus.'" by Richard Carrier, 17 July 2013, at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090; and "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus," by Richard Carrier, at: http://www.strangenotions.com/questioning-the-historicity-of-jesus/)


Sheffield-Phoenix announced its June 2014 publication of " Carrier's book with the following announcement:

"The assumption that Jesus existed as a historical person has occasionally been questioned in the course of the last hundred years or so, but any doubts that have been raised have usually been put to rest in favor of imagining a blend of the historical, the mythical and the theological in the surviving records of Jesus.

"Carrier re-examines the whole question and finds compelling reasons to suspect the more daring assumption is correct. He lays out extensive research on the evidence for Jesus and the origins of Christianity and poses the key questions that must now be answered if the historicity of Jesus is to survive as a dominant paradigm.

"Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically; such stories eventually came to be believed or promoted in the struggle for control of the Christian churches that survived the tribulations of the first century.

"Carrier finds the latter theory more credible than has been previously imagined. He explains why it offers a better explanation for all the disparate evidence surviving from the first two centuries of the Christian era. He argues that we need a more careful and robust theory of cultural syncretism between Jewish theology and politics of the second-temple period and the most popular features of pagan religion and philosophy of the time.

"For anyone intent on defending a historical Jesus, this is the book to challenge. . ..

"Richard Carrier (PhD Columbia in ancient history) lives in the San Francisco area. His previous book is 'Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus' (2012)."

("On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt," by Richard Carrier, under "Sheffield Press: Scholarly Publications in Biblical Studies," at: http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=264)


Carrier’s "Jesus myth" findings are further summarized as follows

""Jesus myth theory'--variously called 'Christ myth theory' and the 'non-existence hypothesis,' among other names-- is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them.

"However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book, 'Jesus: Myth or History,' at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned, the 'myth theory' was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account, but rather: 'What the "myth theory" denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." . . .

"The theory, in its broadest definition, can be traced as far back as the concept of Docetism and Celsus (around 180 CE) and there is a possible hint of it in Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho,' though its modern revival goes back only to the 1790's with the ideas of Constantin-François Volney' and Charles François Dupuis. The theory has been supported by a number of influential thinkers . . .. Bertrand Russell expressed some doubt about the existence of Jesus, though he did not fully embrace the 'myth theory.' The idea seems to have gained a considerable amount of popularity among the secular community in recent years.

"In June 2014, Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt' [Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 1-909697-49-2] became 'the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review'"

(Jesus Myth Theory," at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory)


P.S.: On hearing the bad news that Carrier's research on the palpable lack of "historicity" for "Jesus" has, indeed, been peer-reviewed, Christians have been fit to be tied (f not crucified). As one asks anxiously:

"Dr. James F. McGrath, a New Testament Professor at Butler University mentioned that Dr. Richard Carrier, an ancient historian and also the new breed of 'Jesus Mythicism,' is getting a book published that has passed peer-review called 'On the Historical Jesus.'

*Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html

"I'm a little bit worried because:

"1) How on earth could his book pass peer-review? I mean the 'Jesus mythicism' movement is virtually disproven. It would be like arguing that the earth is 6000 years old. There's just so much evidence against the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was based on myth and legend.

"2) I thought that if something is 'peer-reviewed' that it was considered factual? How are we supposed to know what is factual and not factual, even if it passes 'peer-review'?"

"3) Should we be worried? Or is this just another book? Am I misreading the article wrong?

"Please answer, I'm very upset and discouraged because I think Richard Carrier is very wrong and pushing an agenda to the internet atheists."

("To my Christian Brothers and Sisters: Richard Carrier's Peer-Reviewed Book: On the Historical Jesus?." at: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrSbDqZ4pRU.EUAjIBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbG0yMWo2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRTYxMl8x?qid=20140212104306AAzmHgX)


Calm down, ye hysterical historical Xtians (although that may be an understandably hard thing to do, given that your "historical Savior" is now being seriously historically savaged).

McGrath (himself a critic of some of Carrier's conclusions, while a supporter pf others) takes a steadier view:

"I’ve long described Richard Carrier as the last, best hope for [Jesus] mythicism. While other mythicists have been content to self-publish shoddy pseudo-scholarship online or elsewhere, Carrier has been a voice of sanity, recognizing that a scholarly consensus is not something to be treated lightly, and that, if there is to be a serious case for mythicism, it needs to be made by trained scholars approaching the matter in the appropriate scholarly manner.

"His book, . . . titled, 'On the Historicity of Jesus,' has passed peer review and so can be expected in print within the next half-and-a-year or so."

(James McGrath, "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 18 July 2013, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html


For concerned Xtians who don't know what "peer review" means, McGrath goes on to define what the term:

"'Peer review' assesses whether work is undertaken using appropriate scholarly methods of analysis and argumentation. Even then it isn't foolproof by any means. But it isn't an assessment of whether the argument is correct, only whether it is scholarship. Every PhD is an attempt to find something new to say about a topic. Most of them turn out to be wrong. But if we couldn't even get them published and read by other scholars, then the few ideas that will in fact pan out under closer scrutiny would be lost, too. I think that many people outside of academia really don't understand how this system works, and how impressively well it works for all its flaws and shortcomings."

(James McGrath, posted in commentary section under "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 10 months ago, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html; for McGrath's mixed assessment of Carrier's book, "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus [2012" Prometheus Books], see; McGrath,, "Review of Richard C. Carrier, Proving History," 7 August 2012, at: w.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/08/review-of-richard-c-carrier-proving-history.html)

*****


Lordy! Where’s Jesus when you need him?

Carrier has the answer:

Nowhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2017 05:38PM by steve benson.

I think it's time for OP to reread the sticky stuff.

"Please - no preaching!! This is not a forum to convert others to another faith. The focus here is on recovery."

Our man here apparently taps away on his cut-paste keys around the clock in a manic attempt to beat the drum for his chosen irreligion of "mythisism."

More sticky:

"6. If you have strong feelings about something, don't preach. Your best bet is to share personal experiences."

(And all the crap about peer review... in this case, it's a well-known scam conducted by a mutual admiration society of militant infidels.)

. . . that has regularly been addressed and debated here, with Admin's permission.

This thread, in fact, is simply an extension of a debate that has recently been going on in this forum. So, speaking of "sticky," I think you ought to pull your head out of the sand in which it seems to be stuck, and more closely follow the moderator-sanctioned discussion of this topic, which has often been heated, repeated and prolonged (Proof of that is demonstrated by your own post. Just look at you: You come here screaming--all over a non-existent Jesus).
_____


More fundamentally, I also suspect you're complaining because you don't agree with Carrier's conclusions. I also suspect you don't know much about Carrier:

Richard Carrier on Naturalism:

--"On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview "(2010)

Carrier's formal definition of the natural-supernatural distinction in Free Inquiry magazine.

--"Why I Am Not a Christian" (2006)

Discusses evidence that naturalism makes more sense of than Christianity.

--"On the Deceptions of David Wood" (2005)

Answers David Wood's polemical and dishonest critique of Sense and Goodness without God.

--"The Commitments of Naturalism" (2005)

David Macarthur and Richard Carrier (and others) discuss what naturalism entails.

--"The Big Debate" (2004)

Responds to some attempts to criticize Carrier's defense of Naturalism in a Michigan debate.

--"Reppert's Argument from Reason" (2004)

Comprehensive discussion of [Carrier's] naturalist theory of mind vs. the criticisms of Victor Reppert.

--"Defending Naturalism as a Worldview" (2003)

Refutes Michael Rea's arguments against recommending belief in naturalism.


--"Steiner's Challenge to Naturalism" (2003)

Refutes claim that naturalism cannot explain the success of mathematics in physics.

--"Hannam on the Fine Tuning Argument" (2001)

Explains why the Fine Tuning argument for intelligent design of the cosmos does not succeed.

-"Odds Against the Origin of Life?" (2000)

Refutes claims that natural biogenesis is too improbable to have happened.

--"The Problem with Miracles" (1999)

On why we lack sufficient evidence to believe there are
miracles even if they exist.

--"What's with the Cover?"

On why that weird painting was chosen for the cover of "Sense and Goodness without God."

("Naturalism as a Worldview," under "Articles Defending Naturalism," Richard Carrier's official website, includes his recommended reading list of other authors on related subjects, at: http://www.richardcarrier.info/naturalism.html
_____


Ricchard Carrier on Atheism:

--"The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven" (2002)

A rebuttal to any form of Pascal's Wager, a rebuttal which requires theists to abandon several of their cherished beliefs about god and/or heaven if they are to escape its logic, demonstrating in the process that unbelief may be the safest bet after all.


--"The End of Pascal's Wager?" (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

In her critique of Richard Carrier's 'The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven,' Amy Sayers offers several objections to Carrier's conclusion that belief in God is not the best bet on any form of Pascal's wager. However, as Richard Carrier proceeds to show in this rebuttal, Sayers only demonstrates that she does not understand either the logic of Pascal's Wager or Carrier's actual argument.


--"From Taoist to Infidel" (2001)

Richard Carrier describes his own spiritual journey, how he came from a background as a Taoist in a Christian country to become a fighter for secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism.


"Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate" (2006)

In this online debate between Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick, Carrier opens with a discussion of method followed by 5 arguments for naturalism and 2 arguments against theism, while Wanchick opens with 9 arguments for theism. In the first rebuttals, each debater criticizes the arguments offered by the other in the opening statements. In the second rebuttals, each debater defends their opening arguments against the criticisms of the other in the first rebuttals. Both closing statements focus on the purported deficiencies of the other debater's overall case.


--"Our Meaning in Life" (2001)

Isn't life pointless? Why should the atheist bother? It's all just going to end anyway, right? How does the atheist's life have meaning? My answers lie here.


--"Tai Solarin: His Life, Ideas, and Accomplishments" (1995)

The most famous and controversial atheist and secular humanist in African history (if not the only one of any real renown) was the Nigerian nationalist Tai Solarin, who sadly passed away at the age of 72 in 1994. This is a story of his life, ideas, and accomplishments, which are a lesson to us all.


--"What is Atheism Really All About? (1996)

Quick and simple answers to common questions about atheism.
_____


Richard Carrier on Ancient History

--"Comprehensive Bibliography on Skeptical Thought in the Ancient World" (1998) [ Index ]

A huge bibliography of material pertaining to skeptical thought in the ancient Greek and Roman world. Also included are sections on modern scientific studies of belief and doubt, as well as some medieval and renaissance references, but the bulk of material relates to the ancient period.


--"The Date of the Nativity in Luke, 6th edition (2011)

It is indisputable that Luke dates "the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is also indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus before 4 B.C., perhaps around 6 B.C. This is an irreconcilable contradiction, thoroughly demonstrated here."


--"Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002)

This is a critical review of 'The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?--Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus,' by Earl Doherty. (Canadian Humanist Publications: Ottawa, Canada; revised edition, 2000).
A Comment on Richard Carrier's "Review of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ?" by Earl Doherty (Off Site)


--"The Formation of the New Testament Canon" (2000)

Surveys the history of the formation of the New Testament canon, summarizing the work of Bruce Metzger.


--"History of Ancient Epistemology" (2000) [Index]

An ongoing project, of which only the first installment is now available, completing a summary of the rise and development of philosophy, and in particular epistemology (the theory of knowledge, the groundwork for a scientific method) from its beginnings to the end of the 4th century C.E.


--"Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus and the Third Day (2002)

Demonstrates from sources that in the time of Jesus the Jews had the full practice of their own laws, and that these laws required that Jesus be taken down Friday, that he be placed in a temporary tomb for the Sabbath, and that he be buried Saturday night in a special graveyard reserved for criminals. Therefore, Jesus could not have been in the tomb of Joseph Sunday morning. Also, a "third day" motif in Jewish law and exegesis is examined that may relate to early Christian resurrection belief.


--"Was the Burial of Jesus a Temporary One, Because of time Constraints?" (October 3, 2002) by Glenn Miller (Off SiTe)

Miller rebuts the hypothesis that Jesus' body was only temporarily stored in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. [Note: Carrier's 2001 essay was updated in May 2002 to address Miller's significant points.] Reply to Glenn Miller on the 'Burial of Jesus' (2002)


--"Kersey Graves and 'The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors'" (2003)

Carrier explains some of the essential reasons to distrust the information in The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves.


--"Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels" (1997)

Carrier argues that when we examine the background of the time and place in which the gospels were written, we discover that "these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them."


--"Luke and Josephus" (2000)

Summarizes Steve Mason's argument that Luke drew material from the works of Josephus.


"On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay" (1999)

Musonius Rufus was a 1st century Stoic philosopher, greatly admired by the pagan Romans and Greeks as one of the two best men in history (the other being Socrates). His story and philosophy do not get much attention because so little has survived of his teachings, and this essay attempts to correct that balance by giving him the notice he is due. I have often remarked how this man's wisdom and values were more humane and progressive than those put into the mouth of Jesus, and though he is not without flaw, he is a better man, and this should cause us to question how Jesus can be at all divine, if this mere mortal was his better.


--"Was Musonius Better than Jesus?" (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

In her critique of Richard Carrier's 'On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay,' Amy Sayers' misunderstands several of Carrier's actual points, such as those concerning the ambiguity of passages attributed to Jesus or the brutish nature of his parables. In this rebuttal, Richard Carrier clarifies his earlier comments, explaining various instances where Sayers misses the point of his original arguments that Musonius Rufus was a better person than the biblical Jesus.


--"The Nazareth Inscription (2000)

'Several authors have advanced a particular inscription as early evidence of the empty tomb story in the Gospels. Upon close examination, however, it provides no evidence for Christianity or its claim of an empty tomb: it contains no new or unusual laws regarding grave robbing, the decree itself is not unique, it has no references or direct links to Christianity of any kind, it's date is most likely pre-Christian, its origin is not likely to be Nazareth, and its contents are not explainable even as a muddled imperial reaction to the theft of Jesus' body.'


--"Osiris and Pagan Resurrection Myths: Assessing the Till-McFall Exchange" (2002) (Off Site)

As a degreed expert on ancient history, Carrier assesses the ongoing debate between Mark McFall and Farrell Till regarding the influence of the pagan resurrection myths on Christianity and finds that both are right--and wrong.


--"On Paul's Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O'Connell Debate" (2008)

Richard Carrier opens this debate by defending the proposition that the Apostle Paul, our earliest source for original Christian beliefs, believed that God supplied Jesus (as he will supply us) with a new body at his resurrection, rather than raising up the body that was buried (contrary to the evolved versions of Christianity we find today). To the contrary, Jake O'Connell argues that first-century Jewish sources always use the term "resurrection" to denote a "one-body" view of resurrection, and thus Paul is likely using it to mean the same. In the end, O'Connell concludes that there are a few instances in which Paul unambiguously affirms a one-body theory, while there are none in which he clearly affirms a two-body view. By contrast, Carrier ultimately concludes that much of scholarship, as well as Paul's own words (explicitly and implicitly), supports the notion that Paul held a two-body view of resurrection.


--"The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy" (2003)

Carrier summarizes the debate over whether Isaiah in 7:14 meant 'virgin' in what is taken by Christians to be a prophecy of the messiah's birth. He concludes that whatever the case Isaiah probably did not mean a virgin would conceive in any supernatural sense.


--"Review of 'In Defense of Miracles' (1999, 2005) [Index]

Review of the latest grand opus of contemporary apologists: a comprehensive case for Christian miracles with contributions from fourteen Christians and two skeptics. Well-composed, with material that all critics should read, but it suffers from major faults, especially that ubiquitous fault of almost all apologists: historical incompetence. Carrier critiques almost every chapter in detail, but also provides both short and long summary reviews of the entire book.


--"Review of 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' (2000)

This is an incredible book that must be read by everyone with an interest in Christianity. Dennis MacDonald's shocking thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is a deliberate and conscious anti-epic, an inversion of the Greek "Bible" of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which in a sense "updates" and Judaizes the outdated heroic values presented by Homer, in the figure of a new hero, Jesus (whose name, of course, means 'Savior'). His evidence is surprisingly solid and pervasive, and the implications for the historicity of Christ are profound.


--"Severus Is Not Quoting Tacitus: A Rebuttal to Eric Laupot" (2006)

In "'Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans," Eric Laupot argues that a passage in Sulpicius Severus actually comes from the lost section of the Histories by Tacitus, and is therefore a very early testimony that the original "Christians" represented a major Jewish rebel movement that participated in the War of 66-70 A.D. and used the Temple as its base of operations. Carrier points out several flaws in Laupot's argument, noting that alternative explanations of the facts are far more probable than Laupot's account given current historical knowledge.


--"Response to Richard Carrier's Alleged Rebuttal" (2012)

According to Eric Laupot, Richard Carrier's alleged "rebuttal" to his first Vigiliae Christianae article published in 2000 is extremely muddled, as Laupot never referred to the Christiani as Christians or implied that they were Christians. Instead, Laupot has always maintained that the Christiani were Jewish Zealots or anti-Roman guerrillas (as opposed to pacifistic Christians)—an opinion ironically shared by Carrier himself! Carrier and Laupot therefore arrive at similar conclusions by different routes, a circumstance of which Carrier appears to be entirely oblivious. Carrier thus does not appear to understand Laupot's work. Moreover, top Latinists since 1866 have agreed that, contra Carrier, Fragment 2 belongs to Tacitus.


--"Some Godless Comments on McFall's Review of On Jesus" (2003) (Off Site)

Carrier remarks on five conceptual and historical issues raised by Mark McFall in his review of On Jesus by Douglas Groothuis. Claims discussed are: that Jesus should be reckoned a philosopher; that "Socrates and Jesus are on equal ground" in regards source reliability; that Jesus had "a strong concern for logic and argument"; that "at that time, only a handful of philosophers...stood on the threshold of reforming patriarchal society" in respect to women; and that "ultimately skeptical rejection of Jesus' resurrection hinges more on one's personal philosophical outlook than it does on evidential arguments of historical significance."


--"A Look at Carrier's Godless Comments in Review by Mark McFall" (Off Site)

This is a rebuttal to Carrier's review of On Jesus. McFall argues that Jesus qualifies as a bona fide philosopher.
Reply to 'McFall on Jesus as a Philosopher' (2004) by Richard C. Carrier (Off Site)

McFall's rebuttal seems to have largely misunderstood much of what I said, and relies on several fallacies or errors of fact. This essay responds in detail. "Thallus: An Analysis" (1999)


--"A Preliminary Essay Outlining Important Facts about Thallus (or Thallos), a Pagan Chronologer of Unknown Date"

. . . who is occasionally mentioned in the works of Christian apologists, modern and ancient, as a 1st century pagan witness to the gospel tradition of a "darkness" at the death of Christ. Concludes that he either is not such a witness, or else wrote in the 2nd century.


--"Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship" (1999)

"In response to remarks by Douglas Wilson in a debate with Ted Drange, I have composed two examples of how some Christians don't understand the importance of scholarship in truly understanding the New Testament, centering around 1 Timothy. The first concerns the abuse of ancient Greek. The second concerns ignorance of the usefulness of textual criticism."


--"Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False?" (2006) [ Index ]

Was the success of Christianity too improbable for Christianity to have been false? According to James Holding's 'Impossible Faith,' no one would have accepted early Christianity if it were not true. In particular, he offers seventeen hostile conditions, plus an additional critical assumption about the role of luck, that he claims would have made it impossible for Christianity to succeed--unless it was true. In this remarkably extensive chapter-by-chapter critique, Richard Carrier evaluates Holding's arguments in light of historical scholarship and identifies several troubling fallacies in Holding's reasoning.


--"Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story." 6th ed. (2006) [ Index]

There are many reasons that I am not a Christian. I am an atheist for reasons more fundamental than anything to do with particular religions, but the arguments in favor of the Christian creed as opposed to any other are ubiquitous and always center around the historical claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. As an historian with a good knowledge of Greek, I am now very qualified to make a professional judgement in the matter. This essay explains why I find the Resurrection to be an unconvincing argument for becoming Christian.


--"Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection," (2005) by Robert Turkel (Off Site)

Turkel discusses an analogy used by some apologists to compare the resurrection of Jesus to the crossing of the Rubicon by Caesar as well as skeptical critiques of that analogy, including Carrier's critique. Turkel contends that "the evidence for the Resurrection is as good as, or better than, that for Caesar crossing the Rubicon."


--"The Rubicon Analogy" (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

Against Carrier's argument in the "Main Argument" of "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story," James Holding claims (in "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection") that we have as much evidence that Jesus rose from his grave as we have that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. There are numerous errors in Holding's argument. Carrier's rebuttal responds briefly to the most important issues. In the end, Carrier's claim remains unchallenged: we have more evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon than we have that Jesus rose from the grave. Therefore, the claim that this resurrection is "as well attested" as the Rubicon crossing is still false.


--"What Can We Infer from the Present about the Past? (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

In "No Miracles Today Implies None Then," a section of the "General Case for Insufficiency" of "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story," Richard Carrier develops an argument against the reliability of historical account of miracles. In response, Amy Sayers argues that negative analogies from the present to the past are logically invalid. But, as Carrier shows in this rebuttal, Sayers herself commits the fallacy of false generalization in arguing against negative analogies. Moreover, she incorrectly formulates Carrier's argument that the current absence of miracles implies none in the past--an argument which is deductively valid when formulated correctly.
_____


Reviews of Richard Carrier's Debates

--"The Big Debate: Comments on the Barker-Carrier vs. Corey-Rajabali Team Debatez" (2004)

Carrier offers his impressions of the Barker-Carrier vs. Corey-Rajabali team debate on the existence of God, assesses the technical merit of the debate, and sets the record straight with regard to some of the relevant facts.


--"The Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Closing Remarks from the Debate Moderator" (2003)

Carrier registers his disappointment with both sides, concluding that nothing new or useful came out of this debate on the existence of God.


--"Lawyer vs. Theologian: The Tabash-Craig Debate" (2001)

Carrier reviews the VHS tape of the debate between famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig and noted atheist activist Eddie Tabash. The subject was sweeping: Secular Humanism or Christianity - which is true? The conclusion was far from decisive. Lessons are to be learned from the mistakes made by both sides.


--"Review of the Barker-Rajabali Debate" (2003)

Carrier reviews a rare, formal, public debate involving a Muslim, molecular biologist Brother Hassanain Rajabali, a teacher at the Tawheed Institute, a Mulsim high school in Queens, New York, and his debate opponent, Dan Barker, a former evangelist, now Public Relations Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Subject of the debate: Does God Not Exist?"
_____


Richard Carroer on Ethics and Values

--"Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?" (1998)

Carrier refutes Moreland's claim that theism offers more and better reasons to live a moral life than atheism or secular humanism.


--"Is There A Secular Case Against Abortion? The Carrier-Roth Debate" (2000) [Index]

Most arguments against abortion are based on religious belief. It is often assumed that pro-life advocates consider it immoral and campaign for its prohibition by law because of their commitment to religious doctrine. But is there a secular justification for the pro-life stance? Jennifer Roth argues yes. Richard Carrier argues no.


--"What Do We Do When Some Theist We Don't Know Sends Us E-mail?" (1997)

Also includes advice on how to treat theists in public online debate forums, added in 1999.


--"What an Atheist Ought to Stand For" (1999, revised 2004)

"I enumerate the values that should be held by all atheists. If you want to know what my value system is based on, and what sort of moral standard I hold my life to, you should read this essay."
_____


Richard Carrier on Faith and Reason

--"A Fish Did Not Write This Essay" (1995)

Award-winning essay examining the difference between faith in god and 'faith' in reason.


--"Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason" (2004)

"In C. S. Lewis's 'Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason' (InterVarsity: 2003), Victor Reppert has contributed what is surely the most extensive defense of the so-called 'Argument from Reason' yet to appear in print. In this critique, I will point out what I believe are the most important conceptual flaws in his arguments, and explain in detail how his arguments are ineffective against my own personal worldview."


--"Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other? (1996)

Text of a paper published in the Fall (1996) issue of "Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines." Actually a reply to another author from a previous issue, this paper does explain many of Richard's views on spiritualism and the relationship of religion to reason.


--"Proving a Negative" (1999)

The myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the non-theist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. The real issue is the problem of induction, which is faced by both positive and negative claims. But there can still be a reasonable belief or unbelief even in what we can never know for certain.
_____


Richard Carrier on Science and Creationism

--"Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (2000)

All too frequently we hear statistics being offered to "prove" that the odds against the origin of life are so great that we must posit a Creator to explain the event. This is a summary analysis of all known examples. Carrier writes, "Although I cover a wide range of sources, I am certain that I have not found all of them. If you ever encounter a statistic being cited from a source which is not discussed here, please let me know and I will investigate and expand this essay accordingly."


--"Bad Science, Worse Philosophy: The Quackery and Logic-Chopping of David Foster's 'The Philosophical Scientists' (2000) [Index]

Lengthy critique of David Foster's creationist book The Philosophical Scientists. Many different sciences are discussed, especially physics, thermodynamics, biology, and evolution by natural selection. Slightly improved from 1998 edition of this same review.

--"Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists" (2001)

Muslim Fundamentalists are fond of claiming that the Koran miraculously predicted the findings of modern science, and that all of its factual scientific claims are flawless. There are two important objections to this claim that I will make, one pointing to a general problem, the other a specific example of the failure of the claim.


--"Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: A Rebuttal to Michael Rea's 'World Without Design'" (2003)

This is a rebuttal of Rea's claim that naturalism "is without rational foundation." This essay shows that adopting the "research program" of basic empiricism is universally appealing, and since naturalism as a "worldview" follows from adopting basic empiricism and applying it to the facts of the world, naturalism has a rational foundation. Rea's conclusion that naturalism must abandon materialism and realism about material objects and other minds because naturalism cannot "discover" intrinsic modal properties is also disproved.


--"Entropy Explained" (2003)

A survey of what entropy really is, and how it is often misunderstood or misused in theist literature.


--"Fundamental Flaws in Mark Steiner's 'Challenge to Naturalism' in 'The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem'" (2003)

This is a critical rebuttal to Mark Steiner's book, "The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem" (1998). Steiner argues that naturalism appears to be false because nature is fundamentally mathematical. Carrier argues otherwise.


--"I Was a Big Bang Skeptic" (2002)

Carrier explains his change of mind from doubting the Big Bang theory to believing that it is well supported and probably true. This has replaced his previous essay which was skeptical of Big Bang theory, "Was There a Big Bang? I Honestly Don't Know."


--"The Koran Predicted the Speed of Light? Not Really" (2002)

Yet another bogus claim about the Koran (this time, it predicted the speed of light!). The claim is analyzed and debunked.


--"Response to James Hannam's 'In Defense of the Fine Tuning Design Argument'" (2001)

Response to James Hannam's defense of the Fine Tuning Argument for a Creator. Lists and discusses several sweeping problems with even carefully-stated versions of the argument like Hannam's.


--"Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism" (2000)

Response to a short series of exchanges on cosmological creationism which explains many of my views on the subject and exhibits what I see are paradigm examples of what is wrong with the thinking and methods of creationists. This essay is aimed at those creationists who are not beyond all reason, but who admit they may be wrong, and thus may yet notice their mistakes and learn from them, and who at any rate are genuinely open to honest debate.


--"Contra Carrier: Why Theism is Needed to Make Sense of Everything" (2006) by Paul Herrick

In "Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism," Richard Carrier argues that if we try to explain the existence of the universe by positing God, we still leave the existence of God itself unexplained--invoking an additional, unnecessary entity without any explanatory benefit. But Paul Herrick resists this conclusion, arguing that theists have a reasonable reply to Carrier's argument. Moreover, this reply requires the existence of God, as it cannot be applied to any material object or collection of material objects. This, in turn, demonstrates that theism offers an explanatory advantage over scientific naturalism, collapsing a crucial premise of Carrier's argument.


--"Test Your Scientific Literacy!" (2001)

This essay dispels many myths about the scientific mind, detailing what scientific methods really are, and how science really gets done, based on a scientific study revealing troubling levels of scientific illiteracy among college students and high school science teachers.
_____


Richard Carrier's Featured Editorials

--"Antony Flew Considers God . . . Sort Of" (2004)

Antony Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century. He is now considering the possibility that there might be a God--sort of. What's going on? Carrier has had direct contact with Flew and tells us what's going on; it's certainly not, at least not yet, what some theists would like to think.


--"Belief, Truth, and the Columbine Tragedy" (1999)

Exploration of the "myth" of the Columbine Martyr, along with apology


--"The Bonebox of James: Is It Physical Evidence of the Historicity of Jesus?" (2002)

A recent find, an ossuary (or bonebox) may well be evidence that Jesus existed. Carrier compares the facts and arguments, pro and con, and offers his expert opinion.


--"Defining Our Mission" (2002)

After handing the reigns to Don Morgan, editor emeritus Richard Carrier composes a brief essay explaining the mission of the Internet Infidels, especially our focus on Metaphysical Naturalism.


--"Doctors Pronounce Jesus Dead!" (2001)

I look at a prime example of the 'genre' of medical literature that declares Jesus died, and find it hopelessly wanting, especially for their incompetent use of historical method.


--"Of Love, Brunettes, and Biology" (2000)

"When Cupid's arrow strikes, is it mere molecules in motion or have we finally found our soul mate? Carrier explores nature's greatest mystery--amore!--as well as the notion of physical beauty, impulse, biology, and Hollywood's obsession with sex."
[RealAudio, "Our Philosophy: Infidel Interview with Richard Carrier" [Download RealAudio Player]

"The Secular Web is the definitive resource for online atheists, humanists, agnostics and freethinkers. We've grown tremendously over the last five years as more and more people have come to see that metaphysical naturalism is a worldview that makes sense. In this interview, then Editor-in-chief Richard Carrier describes in plain language what metaphysical naturalism is, our general philosophy, as well as our goals and vision for the nonbelieving community in the 21st century!"


--"Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed" (2004)

Michael Corey claimed in a recent debate that the Koran predicted the expanding universe. But did it? Only if you employ a liberal reading of the original text. Carrier uses the same interpretive methods on the poetry of Lucretius to show that Epicurus was a far more amazing prophet of modern science than Mohammed. Yet if Mohammed really had a pipeline to God, surely he would have done better than a mere mortal who used nothing more than human reason and observation.


--"The Real Ten Commandments" (2000)

'What ever happened to Solon? An Ancient Greek that founded democracy and the concept of equality, Solon's work is the true inspiration behind America. His moral code far outshines Moses' Ten Commandments and would be a much more appropriate document to place within our public schools. It is time that the long forgotten Athenian be resurrected.'


--"True Bible Found--"Holy Sh**!" Says Pope" (2002)

History was made recently when a group of archaeologists working in a dig at Mabell, Israel stumbled across an ancient stash of wooden tablets. Numbering over three hundred in all, the tablets are made of gopher wood onto which Hebrew characters were inscribed in ink. They appear to contain the personal diary of Moses.

("Official Website of Richard Carrier," at; http://www.richardcarrier.info; and "Richard Carrier," at: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/)
____


Richard Carrier Biographies

"Homepage: www.richardcarrier.info

"Birth Date (YYYY.MM.DD): 1969.12.01

"Occupation: Author

"Degrees:

"B.A. History (minor in Classical Civilization), UC Berkeley (1997)

"M.A. Ancient History, Columbia University (1998)
M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University (2000)

"Ph.D. Ancient History, Columbia University (2008)

"Affiliations:

"Member of the American Philological Association

"Member of the Association of Ancient Historians

"Member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation

"Member of the History of Science Society

"Member of the Historical Society

"Member of the Society of Biblical Literature

"Publications:

"Richard Carrier is the author and contributor to several books.
See Richard Carrier's personal Writings Catalogue for the various indexes and lists of his writings online and in print, including a PDF list of his academic print publications.

"Military Service:

"United States Coast Guard: 2 years (1990-1992). Achieved the rank of Petty Officer Third Class (E-4), qualified marksman, flight-deck firefighter, damage control petty officer, duty gunner's mate, and sonar technician (electronics, anti-submarine warfare). Served aboard the USCGC Sherman (Alameda), patrolled Alaskan, arctic, and international waters. National Service Medal. Navy Letter of Commendation. Honorable discharge at the convenience of the government.

"Religious Background:

"Parents were freethinking Methodists (mother was church secretary)

"Went to Sunday School, and to church on holy days
Philosophical Taoist at the age of 15

"Atheist (Secular Humanist) at the age of 21

"Extensive study of philosophy and world religions, formal and informal

"Languages:

"English

"German

"French

"Latin

"Greek (Ancient)

"Marital Status:

"Married to Jennifer Robin Paynter (now Carrier) since 1995"

("Brief Biography of Richard Carrier," at: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bio.html)


"Richard Carrier

"Born: December 1, 1969 (age 45)
Nationality American

"Education: BA (History), MA (Ancient history), MPhil (Ancient history), PhD (Ancient history)[1]
Alma mater University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University[1]

"Religion: None

"Website http://www.richardcarrier.info/


"Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an atheist activist, author, frequent public speaker, and blogger. He is a trained historian and one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory.

"He is the author of the books 'Proving History' and 'On the Historicity of Jesus.' These books explain and utilize a historical methodology that employs 'Bayes's Theorem for the purpose of historical inquiry'; specifically within the context of Jesus studies. He is also an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, which he has defended in his book Sense and Goodness Without God.

"Carrier was featured in the documentary film 'The God Who Wasn't There,' where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus. He also appears in the documentary, 'The Nature of Existence,' in which film-maker Roger Nygard interviews people of many different religious and secular philosophies about the meaning of life.

"Carrier received a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008: his thesis was entitled 'Attitudes Towards the Natural Philosopher in the Early Roman Empire.' He has published several articles and chapters in books on the subject of history and philosophy. He was formerly the editor of and a substantial contributor to the 'Secular Web.' He has engaged in several formal debates, both online and in public, on a range of subjects including naturalism, natural explanations of early Christian resurrection accounts, and the morality of abortion. In public he debated Mike Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus (at UCLA); online he debated atheist Jennifer Roth on the morality of abortion. He has defended naturalism in formal debates with Tom Wanchick and Hassanain Rajabali.

"[Carrier] [o]n the origins of Christianity

"He is a supporter of the Christ myth theory. In his contribution to 'The Empty Tomb,' Carrier argues that the earliest Christians probably believed Jesus had received a new spiritual body in the resurrection, and that stories of his old body disappearing from its tomb were developed later. He also argues it is less likely, but also possible, that the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen. This work was criticized by philosophy professor Stephen T. Davis in 'Philosophia Christi' and Christian apologist Norman Geisler. Carrier's first major book was published in 2012 by Prometheus Books, describing the application of Bayes Theorem to historical enquiry (specifically the historicity or otherwise of Jesus of Nazareth).

"Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it 'very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person,' yet he also said 'though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]... that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review.' In June 2014 Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,' was published by Sheffield Phoenix Press. Carrier has claimed that it is "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review."

"When reports spread of Antony Flew's rejection of atheism in 2004, Carrier engaged in correspondence with Flew to find out what happened and published an extensive analysis of the situation on the 'Secular Web,' finding among other things that Flew changed his belief into there being some sort of 'minimal God' (as in Deism). Carrier also came away with the opinion that Flew's changed ideas were not accurately represented in the book Flew co-authored, 'There is a God.' It is, however, worth noting that Flew himself insisted 'the idea that somebody manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. This is my book and it represents my thinking.'

"Carrier appeared on national television in 2004, debating William Lane Craig on Lee Strobel's talk show, 'Faith Under Fire,' on the PAX network (now ION Television), in a segment on the resurrection of Jesus. Also in 2006, 'The Columbus Dispatch' reported that Richard Carrier had been selected as the keynote speaker for the Humanist Community of Central Ohio's annual Winter Solstice Banquet in Columbus, Ohio in December of that year, where he spoke on defending naturalism as a philosophy. Carrier is also listed in' Who's Who in Hell.'

"Publications:

Selected articles

"Flash! Fox News Reports that Aliens May Have Built the Pyramids of Egypt!," in "Skeptical Inquirer" 23.5 (September–October 1999).

"The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion's Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft," on "Journal of Higher Criticism" 8.2 (Fall 2001).

"Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," in Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 (March–April 2002) and 26.4 (July–August 2002).

"The Function of the Historian in Society," in "The History Teacher" 35.4 (August 2002).

"Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds," in "German Studies Review" 26.3 (October 2003).

"The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life," in " Biology & Philosophy" 19.5 (November 2004).

"Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity." in "Journal of Higher Criticism" 11.1 (Spring 2005).

"Fatal Flaws in Michael Almeida's Alleged 'Defeat' of Rowe's New Evidential Argument from Evil," in "Philo" 10.1 (Spring-Summer 2007).

"On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview," in "Free Inquiry" 30.3 (April/May 2010).

"Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death," in "Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism" 8 (2011-2012).

"Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus," in "Jewish Antiquities" 20.200"; "Journal of Early Christian Studies" 20.4 (Winter 2012)

"666 (6 Atheists 6 Christians 6 Topics)," Dangerous Little Books 2015

"On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5

"Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013" (Richmond, CA: Philosophy Press, 2014) ISBN 978-1-49356-712-6

"Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012) ISBN 978-1-61614-559-0

"Chapter: 'How Not to Defend Historicity,' in "Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth" (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press 2013) ISBN 978-1578840199

"Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith" (Philosophy Press, 2011) ISBN 978-1-45658-885-4

"Chapters: 'Christianity's Success Was Not Incredible,' 'Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed,' 'Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them),' in "The End of Christianity," edited by John W. Loftus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2011) ISBN 978-1-61614-413-5.

--"Chapters: 'Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable,' 'Christianity Was Not Responsible for Mo,dern Science,' in The "Christian Delusion," edited by John W. Loftus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2010) ISBN 978-1-61614-168-4.

--"Chapters: 'Bayes's Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method,' in "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth," ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2010).

--"Not the Impossible Faith, Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed," Lulu.com (2009) ISBN 978-0-557-04464-1

--"Abortion Cannot be Regarded as Immoral," in "The Abortion Controversy" (edited by Lucinda Almond) Greenhaven Press (2007) ISBN 0-7377-3274-1.

--"Chapters: 'The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb' 'The Plausibility of Theft,' 'The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,' in "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave" (edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder) Prometheus Books (2005) ISBN 1-59102-286-X

--"Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism," AuthorHouse (2005) ISBN 1-4208-0293-3.

--"Entries on 'Epicurus,' 'Lucretius,' 'Philodemus,' 'Second Sophistic,' 'Soranus of Ephesus,' in "Encyclopedia of the Ancient World" (edited by Thomas J. Sienkewicz). Salem Press (2002). ISBN 0-89356-038-3

("Richard Carrier," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2017 01:16AM by steve benson.

Silly toons.

From your hero Carrier:

"Indeed, apart from Brodie’s brief confessional treatise supportive of myth (but not comprehensively arguing for it), . . . I think this will be the first pro-'Jesus myth' book of any kind published by a university press in the last 50 years."

Man! Do a simple search of books devoted to debunking the true story of Christ and it will crash your bloody machine.

Your mentor lies.

(emphasis added)

Please note that Carrier's comment was a conditional statement, not an absolute, all-encompassing declarative.

Moreover, you deceptively condensed Carrier's quote,as follows:

"Indeed, apart from Brodie’s brief confessional treatise supportive of myth (but not comprehensively arguing for it), . . . I think this will be the first pro-'Jesus myth' book of any kind published by a university press in the last 50 years."

GONG!

This is Carrier's fuller quote, as I provided it in the OP:

". . . I believe this will be the first COMPREHENSIVE [emphasis again added] pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review. That lends considerable weight to the work and will gain it significant academic attention in the field. Indeed, apart from Brodie’s brief confessional treatise supportive of myth (but not comprehensively arguing for it) . . . . I think this will be the first pro-Jesus myth book 50 years."

Isn't it interesting how you slyly and selectively quote Carrier, leaving out of his paragraph the following parts:

1) the word "comprehensive"; and

2) and the phrase "ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review that lends considerable weight to the work and will gain it significant academic attention in the field"

Cutting out those pertinent parts skews the larger context of Carrier's quote.
_____


I think you're lying about Carrier lying.

Your hero: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ3lxzuI_sc

If you're going to lie, try not to be so obvious

You get an F, "e."



Edited 19 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2017 02:32AM by steve benson.

The argument against biblical Jesus is fairly straight forward. Superpowers are hard to come by. A real dude christiany is based from seems possible. Through history humans tend to make their hero's godlike or more than they were in person. The building of the personality cult from a real person in today's age is extremely common. Arguably, in the distant past even more so.

...citing the creation of a pseudo real individual from a myth.

That's what's common.


Kathleen

if you do your own research.

You will find the identical biblical story of the apostle Peter being released from jail by his chains falling off his hands, the doors to his cell opening and a miracle caused the guards to fall asleep and Peter just walked out.

In the Mahabharata, the sacred Hindu history, the exact same story is found only the identical miracle is performed to benefit Krishna's parents.

Also, I could share my story of excitement when I researched and found that the apostle Paul knew nothing of any Virgin birth, or any of the back story/ministry/miracles BECAUSE THEY HADN"T BEEN CREATED YET. You can check this out yourself with your bedside bible.

Borrowing authority by claiming angelic visitation or vision is the most common method of establishing a prophet/religion because the whole point is to insert someone between the worshipper and God - someone who has something more to offer you beside the still small voice that you also have.


Kathleen

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, I could share my story of excitement when I
> researched and found that the apostle Paul knew
> nothing of any Virgin birth, or any of the back
> story/ministry/miracles BECAUSE THEY HADN"T BEEN
> CREATED YET. You can check this out yourself with
> your bedside bible.

This would be so much more obvious if the NT books were arranged in chronological order of being written (as much as is possible, since we have only wide ranges of timeframes for many of them).

When that's done, you find the earliest "Pauline" epistles first, with nothing at all in them about any earthly Jesus. Then comes the "simplest" gospel, Mark -- with no virgin birth story, etc. Then the other gospels, with their added-on details and stories, including virgin birth.

Read that way, it's clear how the story developed and was embellished over time. Really, REALLY clear. :)

What I would find funny is if was a real dude who was spreading stoic philosophy among the Jews making people think for themselves. As a result pissing off authority got him killed. It would be ironic if what he taught got so twisted by stupid humans.

I'm of a mind to agree with those that say Jesus is a fabrication. Not to say that some dude named Jesus didn't live because how am I to know that given the lack of evidence. What I mean is that given humanity's penchant for both appropriation and a desire to control the masses it seems likely that Jesus is a natural outgrowth of political and philosophical changes of the times. There is ample evidence to suggest that politics played a roll, and there is even more evidence of appropriation.

One thing is for sure in my mind. Every single story that is told about Jesus that gives him god like powers or attributes is false.

I long ago concluded that Jesus of Nazareth, if there was such a real person, did not have magical powers. I am familiar with Carrier's argument from viewing several youtube presentations and IMHO, he makes a very good argument that the Jesus of Nazareth never really existed as a person but was created as a myth. I am convinced.

Funny thing is, our myths are "real" in the sense of the Hero of a Thousand Faces story being compelling enough to use as a template for modern epochs like Star Wars.

What I remember the most is the visceral reaction I experienced when I first watched that Mahabharata TV series and saw Krishna being born of a virgin as the son of god, and then came the very same Bible stories I thought were unique to Christianity.

I felt duped. Nauseated and felt like a fool. Over time I have come to appreciate that religion has kept these myths alive and that has value. It doesn't, to me, compensate for the harm that religion has done and is doing in the world.

One thing for sure--nobody cares if someone who can live in your heart and be your truest friend ever really lived as a human at all. We all yearn to be deeply loved and understood. Which is the first clue that the whole Christ-personal-relationship idea is just the monetization of human longing.



Kathleen

Krishna was Devaki's 8th child.

Thanks for the informative post, Steve.

Haven't been around for a while. It was nice to come back to find this gem!

Not only is the evidence strong that there is no actual historical Jesus, there are good arguments that there is also no actual historical Moses and no actual historical Muhammad.

Before the enlightenment and the printing press, historical facts didn't actually matter. Nobody could fact-check stories, for one thing, and world philosophy evolved out of myth-making cultures. Today, almost nobody believes that Zeus and Apollo live on Mount Olympus. God myths come and go, but somehow the fashionable one is correct.

The problem in all this is that playing make-believe in the real world has much farther reaching effects than it used to. "God" can order the POTUS to invade Iraq, for example. And, an overly devoted follower of Muhammad can drive a truck into a crowd of "infidels". The decline of religion, I think, is nothing to worry about. Moreover, if there is a higher dimension driving consciousness, things will arise to replace classical religions. The Marvel and Star Wars universes have functioned very well to re-tell the morality stories and hero myths of religion, for example.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not only is the evidence strong that there is no
> actual historical Jesus, there are good arguments
> that there is also no actual historical Moses and
> no actual historical Muhammad.

Before I looked into it, I assumed (always a bad idea, shame on me!) that Muhammad was well attested as an historic figure.
Turns out that isn't the case at all.

Here's a good take on what can and can't be said about the guy:
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8574

Oh, and one of my favorite Carrier quotes is on that page:
"Islam is in many ways just the first Mormonism."
I'm not making any claims about the quote's accuracy -- it's just amusing!

:)

Our OP is always amusing, but doesn't seem to understand he continually presents himself as the incarnation of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Literally. Too much. I doubt I'm the first to suspect he's somewhat terrified there may actually be a Jesus.

This issue on this forum has become "Mormonism for Ex Mormons." If you don't start with the conviction that it's true, you'll never get there.

For all of his credentials, anyone ever wonder why Richard Carrier has never once held a post at any institution of higher learning? If you want to go head to head with dueling scholars, there are far more with better credentials who endorse Mormonism than the Jesus Myth theory. http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Those of you who embrace this theory, please help me out by answering the following questions:

1. Can anyone point to an antiquities, classics or ancient history department at any major university anywhere in the world that endorses this position, teaches it as reliable history, or otherwise validates it over the consensus position the Jesus was an actual historical figure?

2. Can anyone explain why it took over 17 centuries for the first suggestion to appear that Jesus was not an actual person? Have you any idea why enemies who actually witnessed the rise of the faith didn't think of this?

3. Can anyone present cogent evidence for any explanation about the origin of the Jesus story other than his actual existence? Evidence, not theory, please. (Occam's razor meet tin foil hat)

4. In a couple of sentences explain your theory how the Christian faith began and how this conspiracy has been kept hidden all these centuries. Please provide supporting documents and evidence for your theory.


Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary: “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary: “Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.”

NT Wright, formerly of Oxford University: “The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did”

in a water-walking magical messiah who can save his followers from themselves. (The moral of the fable?: When all else fails, invent a redeemer).

Conjuring up the "historical Jesus" who can do such supernatural stuff would be a Tall Order and a Short Snort, were it not for the wonder of woo-woo. Then, of course, anything is possible. :)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2017 07:23AM by steve benson.

Steve,

Will you please clarify where you stand?

1. Jesus existed, but he was just a guy who had a bunch of mythology added to his story over the years.
2. There was no Jesus. The whole thing is made up.

I certainly don't stand with your magic carpet-riding, walking-on-water woo-woo-wonder-working messiah--the evidence for whom is persuasively non-existent. Just as with Mormonism's fairytale Angel Moroni, who (Earth to Tall Tale Man) didn't exist, either.

As an openly-confessed believer, you've simply substituted one psychologically addictive god myth with another. Whatever floats your fantasy. Jesus is Santa for "grown-ups."



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2017 09:36AM by steve benson.

Steve, you're my go-to guy when it comes to learning about woo woo. The last time I encountered intellectual prowess equal to yours was on the playground during recess from Mrs. Sher's 5th grade class. Tommy Dixon would be able to equal your skill for name calling and clever insults, but sadly, he grew up and lost those skills. You never fail to demonstrate that when it comes to honest scholarship and intellectual inquiry, you're perfectly qualified to be a political cartoonist.

As I note above, you've just moved on to "Mormonism for Ex Mormons." After about 250 years on the scene the "Christ Myth" theory has garnered less support among academics and the public at large than even Mormonism. It's a lonely outpost for ideologues and remains a laughable prospect. You can find literally dozens of well-respected academics who embrace Mormonism, but there are just a handful who are willing to openly embrace the fable of the "Christ Myth." Like Mormonism, the vast majority of academia views the Christ Myth as a product of ideologues, not honest historians. And like many Mormons, you've joined the saddest group of ideologues: Those who have mistaken their wishful agenda for reality.

Going forward, it will be helpful to us if you'll preface your claims with "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt," and close them with "I say these things in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, amen." Lacking that, please visit your local middle school to refresh your repertoire of clever retorts and rhyming put-downs. We're all counting on you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2017 02:51PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Indeed, you are a tub-thumper in this believer band of brotherhood when it comes to so-called "quantum-physics creationism": a heap of holy hooey out the woo-woo wazooey that you have peddled as worthy of serious consideration on this board in the past.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that your favorite Oscar-deserving flick of all time is "Undead Man Walking: The Case for the Historically Never-Dead Jesus." (I hear it's a favorite at Halloween time).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2017 10:39PM by steve benson.

Here, "Tall Man Short Hair," in the debate over the alleged historicity of Jesus, you admit to being a Christian believer with a personal inclination on your part to attribute miracles to Jesus.

To RfM poster "ificouldhietokolob," you sdmitted:

"If you agree that there likely was some person who served as the palette from which the colors of the Christian faith were painted, then we're likely in the same camp. As a believer, I will necessarily attribute more miraculous renderings than you, but we can likely agree there was no grand, completely unsupported, conspiracy at the start of it."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1731521,1918119#msg-1918119


Busted!

In your projection-driven mockings of me as some kind of Mormon-believer type, you have opened yourself up--(through your previous and open confession of being a Christian believer with personally biased skin in the game)--to being identified as a believer who is willing to attribute magical miracles to your messiah in whom you believe in the first place.

In other words, your reactions here are all about you (which you, nonetheless, attempt to describe as representing the collective "us," "our" and "we"). Too bad that it takes an apostate atheist like me to point out to a boilerplate believer like you what you have admitted to others–-but what you have not admitted to me. Your pride preceeded your tall man fall.

Well, now your admission is out--again. It certainly helps explain where your personal projections are coming from in all of this. Thanks for your unwitting assistance. :-)



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2017 10:26AM by steve benson.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Literally. Too much. I doubt I'm the first to
> suspect he's somewhat terrified there may actually
> be a Jesus.

Actually, you probably are.

> For all of his credentials, anyone ever wonder why
> Richard Carrier has never once held a post at any
> institution of higher learning?

No. See, the quality of one's scholarship is determined by the facts and evidence presented for it, and the methods used. Not by whether or not one holds a post at any institution of higher learning. Nice try at an appeal to authority, but still a fallacy.

> If you want to go
> head to head with dueling scholars, there are far
> more with better credentials who endorse Mormonism
> than the Jesus Myth theory.
> http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Why would anyone want to go "head to head with dueling scholars?"
Why not just evaluate the evidence presented?

> 1. Can anyone point to an antiquities, classics or
> ancient history department at any major university
> anywhere in the world that endorses this position,
> teaches it as reliable history, or otherwise
> validates it over the consensus position the Jesus
> was an actual historical figure?

If I can, does that make it "true?" Nope.
If I can't, does that make it "false?" Nope.
So why bother?

> 2. Can anyone explain why it took over 17
> centuries for the first suggestion to appear that
> Jesus was not an actual person?

You keep repeating that same mistaken claim, and it's a fallacy anyway (if it did take that long, that doesn't mean "jesus was real"). I've pointed out to you dozens of times why it's a false claim. Oh, well.

> 3. Can anyone present cogent evidence for any
> explanation about the origin of the Jesus story
> other than his actual existence? Evidence, not
> theory, please. (Occam's razor meet tin foil hat)

The "origin of the Jesus story" isn't "historical" unless someone can prove it isn't. Far more religious figures have been clearly made up than have actually existed, so the odds already lean heavily in the "made up" direction. At any rate, Carrier (and even Ehrman, and dozens of others) have presented lots of evidence for the Jesus stories being made up. Perhaps you should read them before making a specious claim like above...?

> 4. In a couple of sentences explain your theory
> how the Christian faith began and how this
> conspiracy has been kept hidden all these
> centuries. Please provide supporting documents and
> evidence for your theory.

Interesting that you demand anyone who doubts the Jesus story provide evidence, yet you take the Jesus story as "historical" when there's no evidence that it is. Nice double standard.

> Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological
> Seminary: “Jesus did exist; and we know more
> about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew
> before 70 C.E.”

Statements are not evidence. And his statement is false anyway (we don't KNOW anything about "Jesus," and we know far more about other "Palestianian Jews," though cherry-picking "Palestinian Jews" is rather silly to begin with.

> Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary:
> “Biblical scholars and classical historians now
> regard it as effectively refuted.”

Good for them. What evidence do they present? Oh, right -- none. And his statement isn't even true anyway.

> NT Wright, formerly of Oxford University: “The
> historical evidence for Jesus himself is
> extraordinarily good. …. From time to time
> people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never
> existed, but virtually all historians of whatever
> background now agree that he did”

Another false statement (that "virtually all historians of whatever background agree that he did" -- where's the accredited survey of "virtually all historians?" It doesn't exist). And, once again, no evidence presented, just claims that it's there. When it isn't.


So, nice job of trying to use appeal to authority fallacies, ad-hominem fallacies, cherry-picking the "authorities" you want to quote, making false statements, and ignoring any contrary evidence. Now, what was that you were saying about protesting too much??

I'm going to add something about the "virtually all historians of whatever background agree that he did" exist claim often posted here (and elsewhere...)

Virtually all scientists agree that evolution is real.
Is that a good reason to accept that evolution is real?

No, actually, it isn't. It's a lousy reason. In fact, it's a flat-out fallacy, so it's not "reason" at all.

First, scientists who study physics, or cosmology, or fluid dynamics, or thousands of other things, very likely have no more expertise than you or I regarding evolution. So "virtually all scientists" have nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence for or against evolution. Their reasons for accepting it are likely rational, but they may not be -- they might just "believe" it without ever having investigated it. So their opinions, while fine for themselves, shouldn't persuade anyone else.

Second, things aren't "true" or "correct" or "real" just because a bunch of people say they are (or aren't). Those decisions can only be made by evaluation of evidence for/against a claim -- not by whether a lot of people (or a few) "believe" the claim, or even accept it rationally. To determine if evolution is real, an individual needs to examine the evidence for/against it, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence. To decide any other way is fallacy, and of no more worth than deciding to "believe" in mormonism because your parents and all your friends believe in it.

So in the same way, "virtually all historians" have nothing whatsoever to say about whether "Jesus" was historical or not. They don't work in that small niche of history, and how they've decided (or not) could be rational, it could be ignorant, it could be "belief," it could be anything. They have no more of value to say on the topic than you or I do.

Not to mention that, as I pointed out above, nobody has ever produced any evidence that "virtually all historians" DO actually accept an historical Jesus anyway...

The question must be decided on the evidence. Not by how many people believe he existed (whether they're "historians" or not). Not by the personalities of the people who write papers or books on the evidence. Just on the evidence itself.

In my opinion, having examined a great deal of the evidence presented, the case for "Jesus was historical" is less than weak, it's non-existent. Most of what's claimed to be evidence for that position is supposition, conclusions lacking foundation, and arguments from incredulity (as TMSH used above -- how could it possibly have started if there wasn't a Jesus to start it?).

I also don't think the "It was all a myth" argument has been conclusively "proven," either. Good arguments have been made for it, so have some lousy arguments. None are conclusive.

So, from the evidence, I can only conclude that we don't know if there was an actual, historical "Jesus." Clearly much of what's told as "Jesus stories" in the gospels are made up. Is all of it made up without any historical figure behind it? I don't know. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to know with any certainty.

You may arrive at different conclusions. That's fine. But to have any validity, your conclusions need to come from the evidence (or lack thereof) -- not from arguments from incredulity, appeals to authority, specious claims of "consensus," etc.

... regardless of how logical, factual and articulate your case is. I admire your tenacity, patience, and perseverance with him. Someday, when his Jesus doesn't show up, he may wonder why he didn't get it earlier.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2017 12:14PM by steve benson.

When are you going to get a blog Steve? All your posts need archiving. You always say you're too busy but then write long posts or copy and paste large sections of other people's work here on RfM, seemingly picking subjects on a whim or just topping your own old entries. Surely your time's better spent creating your own site and just posting links on this forum?

In response to additional comments you made:

1. Some of my entries are topped as the still-open threads that they are.

2. Others are reposted (reposting is allowed, per forum policy), because they relate to topics currently being discussed.

3 Others are topped because the head mod of this forum has expressed to me an interest in archiving them.

4. At least I meticulously cite from and link to my sources, as well as quote them for your reference, should you get into the habit of focused reading. I often quote large segments of text (with credit) instead of simply linking because quoting the text within the thread allows readers to remain in the thread without having to jump out in real-time discussion to go to another site.

5. If you are interested in checking out a post of mine of some length dealing with my personal experiences in Modumb that I have just put up, you can go to it here: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1924293

6. Finally, now that I think about it, why create a blog when you come here late at night to check out my postings anyway?



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2017 08:27AM by steve benson.

If Jesus didn't exist, who made all that wine, why did all those dead Jewish saints climb out of their graves and wander around Jerusalem to be seen by many and how do millions of Christians talk with Jesus every day without even touching their cell phones?

I'm not arguing for the existence of Jesus, historical or mythological. That said, if you want to build an argument that Jesus never existed as a living individual, there are much better arguments available, and it's always good to consider ongoing research and dialogue on the topic from a variety of sources rather than just one individual.

Carrier is not only *not* a respected scholarly expert on the topic, his use of Bayes' Theorem (and resultant calculations) to support his conclusions is problematic, as other scholars have noted. His conclusion that Jesus must be fictional because he meets the criteria for a Rank-Raglan hero-type has problems as well, discussed at length here: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-jesus-rank-raglan-myth-hero-or-is.html


More academically-robust sources that represent the consensus of scholarly research on the subject:

Chilton, Bruce. *Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship.* Ed. Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner. Fortress Press, 2012.

Grant, Michael. *Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels.*

Levine, Amy-Jill. *The Historical Jesus in Context.* Ed. Amy-Jill Levine, et al. Princeton University Press, 2004.

Price, Robert M. *The Historical Jesus: Five Views* Ed James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy. Intervarsity, 2009.
(Price is an atheist who argues against the existence of a historical Jesus)

... the point-by-point array of arguments (and he has many) that he makes against an allegedly historical Jesus. I am speaking particularly of how, at the end of your post, you list the names of individuals whom you claim advance a better argument against the physical existence of Jesus than Carrier does: yet, you don't articulate or specify exactly how they do so in any meaningful way. Demonstrate, in the text of your own post, how exactly they accomplish that feat. Lay out your case in this regard directly and substantively, against Carrier's stated positions in your post itself, instead of just dismissing him out of hand by listing names without making targeted arguments against his case rooted in the arguments of the individuals you list.

In other words, flesh it out in your post itself, instead of conducting a mere fly-by.

(In the meantime, there is always good evidence for the non-historical Jesus. It comes in the form of there being no credible evidence for an alleged historical Jesus, no matter what the non-historical Angel Moron says).



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2017 02:55PM by steve benson.

Thank you for this very interesting post, Steve.

Guys, I really appreciate that this is a very important issue for you. But you really don't seem to realize this position is considered by most academics as on a par with Mormonism. It's a fad that comes and goes, It's labeled as "idiocy" and "fringe." It's been around in one form or another for only 250 years, and has never been accepted as mainstream by any major college or university. It's a fringe position and for good reason. It requires you to believe in some grand conspiracy for which there is no evidence whatsoever. None, Not a shred, not a hint, just a wishful theory.

There's no smoking gun, no just-uncovered memo showing the Romans invented it. Nada. Just thousands of documents in and out of the faith that refer to Jesus as an actual real person. There are NO documents anywhere that claim otherwise. Please report to the nurse. Occam's razor has you bleeding profusely.

This posiion is exclusively promoted among those who start from the position that it's true, and attempt to twist and mold the data to fit their foregone conclusion. There are more colleges teaching courses on finding Sasquatch than there are who embrace this theory.

Carrier's attempt to legitimize his work by claiming "peer review" is misleading at best, and absolutely dishonest at worst. He has never been affiliated with any college or university, so who are his peers? He chose his own peer reviewers, refuses to disclose their identity, and even his publisher admits that peer review in the humanities does not validate the content, but merely determines if it should be published or not. As one critic noted, this is not peer review, it's pal review. It's smoke and mirrors intended to give the impression of gravitas to the uninformed and like-minded ideologues. You guys drank the Kool-Aid, and you're believing something that gets less respect among academics than even Mormonism. Consider that for a moment.

I'd encourage you to revisit my 4 questions above which with all your blustering and protestations, you have failed to address. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1923001,1924263#msg-1924263

But honestly, there's no real reason for you to waste time with me. Why not wade into this topic with some actual (and mostly non-Christian) academics? Isn't their opinion a bit more weighty than mine?

Carrier's work is "idiocy" says R. Joseph Hoffmann

Hoffmann is a humanist who holds graduate degrees in theology from Harvard Divinity School and a PhD in Christian Origins from the University of Oxford. He began his teaching career at the University of Michigan as assistant professor of Near Eastern Studies, where he developed the undergraduate and graduate program in Christian origins. From 1991 to 1999, he was senior lecturer in New Testament and Church History at Westminster College, Oxford.

As a fellow at the Center for Inquiry, he was Chair of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion from 2003 to 2009, and a founding faculty member (1986) of the Humanist Institute.[5][6] He is at present Professor of Liberal Arts at the American University of Central Asia

"Carrier is committed to making up methods as he goes along and pretending that he has found an evidence-based way of approaching the biblical books. He is about to re-publish (he had vanity published it already) his “research” on this subject with Prometheus Books, and scores wait with bated breath for his results, though from what I have seen of it so far, he could have saved us all the trouble by simply telling us what we already knew: that the Buddha, Jesus Christ, and King Arthur are all figments of the teenage imagination and never really existed. If they had, presumably, they would have studied grasshoppers."

https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/

Bart Ehrman

“There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.

And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html


Michael Grant – A Classicist, 3 history degrees, former vice-chancellor at Queen’s University of Belfast and former president of the University of Kartoum:

“In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” in Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 page 200.


Geza Vermes – Ph.D. in theology. Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan. Former professor of Jewish studies at the University of Oxford:

“Who was Jesus? Did he exist? Was he God? Is he still relevant? To start with, the existence of Jesus is no longer debatable. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea between AD26 and 36, and was most probably born shortly before the death of Herod the Great in 4BC. Quasi-certainty stops here.” Article by Geza Vermes

So guys, climb down off your unicorns and recognize that your embrace of The New Mormonism is even sillier and has even less supporting evidence than your embrace of the old Mormonism. At least have a bit of self respect, and perhaps consider joining the Flat Earth Society as a useful alternative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 03:55AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

came down the birth canal of his virgin mother who magically produced him without having sexual intercourse.

That's not historical; it's hysterical.

And then, if that's not hysterically amazing enough, his corpse historically came back to life after rotting for three days.

"But seriously, folks, I'll be here all week. No, actuslly, much longer than that – – forever!"



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 07:02AM by steve benson.

Is that Carrier doesn't demand 10% of your income, and you never need to leave your home to embrace something that the rest of world recognizes as "idiocy," "fringe," and as academically sound as "six-day creationism."

I very happy for your Steve. We do still encourage you to bear your testimony whenever you feel so moved. We all love to read your rants and eagerly await your next steaming pile of woo woo!

. . . when all else fails, play your ace:

https://youtu.be/aOl4oeHZnBk

"In their own areas, it would be as though the supporters of flat earth theory and spontaneous generation were given equal time at the podium and a spotlight to scoff at astronomy and biology, but—the impoverished reasoning seems to run—this is Biblical studies—how serious do you have to be? “Atheist biblical studies” as it is represented by Carrier and company is nothing more than a conspiracy theory in search of respectability. Since that isn’t forthcoming through the normal channels of recognition—scholarship I mean—it has to rely on trivializing the settled or nearly-settled conclusions of modern scholarship itself, and if that doesn’t work, bashing the scholars."

https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/

"Flat earth theory"
"Impoverished reasoning"
"A conspiracy theory in search of respectability"

Steve will you do us a favor and continue your conversation directly with R. Joseph Hoffman, this Harvard and Oxford educated academic, and let us know how that turns out? Maybe you can win him over with a couple of YouTube videos and by throwing a clever insult or two at him. He publishes his email right on his website: joseph.hoffmann AT keble.oxon.org

Maybe do that thing where you rhyme his name with some insult or put down? I know that one never fails to wow the intellectual crowd here on the ExMo board!

TMSH:
I honestly don't understand what you're arguing. Steve Benson's arguing that Jesus was a mythical figure necessary, to at least some Jews of the time, to free them from the control of the Jerusalem temple authorities. And archangels--even a Jesus one--was a concept already within the Jewish religion of the time. Paul, the earliest writer, seemed to have that conception of a purely supernatural Jesus. This isn't an insult to Paul, this would be consistent with Paul's conception of an accurate and correct religion--a revealed one.

Benson's argument continues that, consistent with other deities of the Greco-Roman era, the demi-god's believers eventually generate a backstory that puts him on the earth as a real person during a previous time--80 or more years in the past, when anyone who might actually have met him would be gone. Again, this isn't unprecedented for the time, so it's not outside the realm of possibility for Jesus.

Yet, you argue against it, calling it "fringe" and even synonymous with a belief in unicorns. Really? Why? What do you believe about Jesus? It seems the most you could go with, without straying into unicorn territory, is that Jesus was a preacher who was crucified. And really, so what? That doesn't explain how Christianity became a popular religious cult outside of the Judaism that spawned it.

You can't be arguing for the historicity of a real, living, demi-god, are you? Like, Jesus really lived and really was born of a virgin; attracted the attention of wise men because of supernatural signs, who brought him fabulous riches as gifts-which somehow disappeared when Jesus and Mary went on the lam as refugees; magically appears again as a young man changing water into wine, feeding multitudes without attracting the attention of the authorities who could really use bread-and-circus style miracles; awakened the dead, healed the sick, etc. These things are confirmed by historians? Theologians, maybe.

I just don't understand what you're trying to say--or even why it matters. Even if Jesus was a living person, he couldn't have been miraculous anyway.

Remember?

This is how you previously bore your witness to Hie on this very board:

"As a [Jesus] believer, I will necessarily attribute more miraculous renderings than you . . . ."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1731521,1918119#msg-1918119


Hie 5, he's alive!

(Now, to use your words, "will you do us a favor" by not doing it again? It didn't work the first time).



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 05:07AM by steve benson.

Would you care to take a few moments and compare historical documents?

Let's take all the documents that reference Jesus as an actual person (including those that claim he rose from the dead).

And you present all the documents and historical records you can find that claim Jesus never existed or was some cleverly concocted conspiracy by evil-doers in the first century.

I'll let you go first.

I'll go make a sandwich while I wait.

... you did not, as a loyal follower of Jesus should do, "turn the other cheek." Bad boy. Go thy way and sin some more.

All I had to do was turn your own words against you and--miracle of miracles!--now you're suddenly calling for a truce.

Figures.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 05:16AM by steve benson.

I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out the fact that you've embraced something sillier than Mormonism or tracking Sasquatch.

Can you give me an estimate on how much more time you need to come up with the historical documents that claim Jesus never existed or that expose the great conspiracy at the root of the Christian faith? I've got a frozen pizza in the oven, and don't want to miss your reply.

... magical "spirit of Christ."

Speaking of its absence, look how, as an atheist, I was able to turn you so quickly to the Dark Side. Now is the great day of my power.

Why don't you try more of that "mote/beam" stuff, instead of being the hypocrite whom your Jesus so vehemently denounced?

"Jesus who?" you ask? Yeah, that guy. How soon you forget.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 07:04AM by steve benson.

1. Are you taking any medications?
2. Am I correct that you have yet to locate a single historical document that claims Jesus never existed or was fabricated by some shadowy first century cabal?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 05:33AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Oh, that's right. He's non-historical, so won't be showing up. Maybe the real God around here--Admin--will make an appearance instead and wield some actual power.

in the meantime, that just leaves you and me--as it's always been.

So, you pray for me--and I'll think for the both of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 05:43AM by steve benson.

Are you really saying you cannot produce a single historical resource that claims Jesus didn't exist or reveals the conspiracy that started the Christian faith? Shouldn't that be something of a starting point for insisting these things are true?

I know your answer:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pwNKyTktDIE#



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 06:18AM by steve benson.

You're saying you've embraced something that is dismissed by virtually all academics in the field and is supported by nothing more than a clever theory. You have no evidence whatsoever.

The New Mormonism.

BTW, I do embrace turning the other cheek, but when you promote a discredited anti-intellectual farce to support your atheist ideology, you're more in the "brood of vipers" camp. Jesus had no patience or mercy for that crowd. Jesus always stands ready with a welcome embrace, but you won't see it or benefit from it until you turn in his direction.

https://youtu.be/bfLITTq1rj0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 06:16AM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 06:40AM by steve benson.

https://youtu.be/oF3e-Z8LEaU



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 06:16AM by steve benson.

Do I really need to point out to TMSH that all of the "historical documents" he esteems so highly that mention "Jesus" as a real person were written by anonymous people who never saw or met any real-person "Jesus?" That they're self-contradictory, contain dozens of demonstrably fabricated fictional tales about the supposed real-person "Jesus," are of unknown origin, and are of completely unknown provenance?

I guess I do.

On the other hand...

Tacitus, 115/166 CE: never mentions "Jesus," calls what Christians believe about "Christus" a "pernicious myth"

Suetonius, around 122CE: never mentions "Jesus", mentions Nero's punishment of Christians around 64 CE (which he didn't witness), but calls those Christians, "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Pliny the Younger, c.111CE: never mentions "Jesus," asks Trajan for guidance on punishing the Christian miscreants, and tells Trajan he thinks it's possible to check the Christian "superstition."

All three never mention any "Jesus," and consider what Christians of their time believed to be "superstition."

You know he'd just counter that with "See, you don't have any historical documents that say he doesn't exist!"

He's trying to shift the burden of proof with his, "Would you care to take a few moments and compare historical documents?" Since he can't prove Christ existed, he say our arguments are invalid since we can't prove he didn't exist (even though there is no more to suggest that he did exist than what the LDS church has to prove the "truth" of the Book of Mormon). He's the one making the claims, he's the one who has to prove it. He can't and he knows it.

My favorite part is his insistence that not believing in something that has zero evidence for it's existence is just like a belief in Mormonism, even comparing it with major conspiracy theories, while believing in that thing is the the way to go. That seems a bit flipped around if you ask me.

"Jesus stands ready with a welcome embrace, but you won't see it or benefit from it until you turn in his direction."

In other words, he just stood up in his own Mormon fast and testimony meeting, right here on RfM and threw a Hail Mary pass.

In the name of Jesus Christ, wherever he is. Amen



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 12:52PM by steve benson.

I might turn in his direction, but since nobody can see him to figure out what direction is, I'm at a loss as to where to point.
Maybe towards Mecca??