Richard Carrier Part 1

Filmed and edited by Rob Lehr

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Skepticon
• two
• richard
• carrier

[OJB42]

I've often thought that the evidence for Jesus is fairly uninspiring. If that was all we had to prove anyone else existed we would be unlikely to take the idea seriously. The Christians who claim the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming are just living in a fantasy world. Of course that's what we should expect for Christians!

[OJB42]

@outbackjack1974 It's not a matter of what helps or what would be nice to believe, it's about what is true. I can't believe in an obvious myth no matter how nice it would be if it was true. Evolution is a theory and a fact. Theories are based on facts. There is so much evidence supporting evolution that no reasonable person would deny its truth. It's all a matter of how much you value the truth, I guess.

[OJB42]

@grig035 I've Googled the central message and got ideas as diverse as "belief in Jesus is necessary to be saved" (from what?) to "give the church money" to "God is love" to the traditional "do unto others...". So who knows what that message actually is? I've never heard anyone quote the other two you mentioned. Personally I find the philosophy of others far more inspirational, for example Epicurus, but I guess I'm in the minority!

[grig035]

@OJB42 For sheer appearance frequency in the originals, "There are last which shall be first" & "Lose your life to others to save it" are the most cited. So maybe Jesus stressed those most. Clearly, the golden rule became the most important in later generations. The research I've done definitely confirms "Love your enemies" as unique to Jesus. The first two appear unique so far, but I've not been as exhaustive with those and am still looking up a few leads, so take that with a grain of salt.

[OJB42]

@grig035 Hmmm... clearly a matter of opinion. I think the golden rule is most commonly accepted as the most important message. I'm not sure if the others are unique - I doubt it, but I would need to research it to be sure. Saying those messages would have spread like wildfire is no more supported by evidence than my contention that it would have disappeared - but at least I admitted I had no proof!

[grig035]

@OJB42 Going by how many sources repeat them, the central message is not the golden rule but either "There are last which shall be first" or "Lose your life to others to save it". Those two are huge, as is "Love your enemies" -- unique. It's of the profoundest philosophical and historic importance, and its rapidest success was among the slaves -- hardly a coincidence. It would have spread like wildfire anyway. If anything, the noxious mumbo-jumbo the church adds on actually muffles it.

[OJB42]

@grig035 The crucifixion could be true but many people were crucified. So what? Very little of the important philosophy is original, especially the "central message", the golden rule. I think that if the bureaucracy of the church hadn't pushed these messages and the story of Jesus over the centuries for their own purposes he would have been lost in obscurity. Of course I can't prove that but it seems to make sense.

[grig035]

@OJB42 Its story is true for the multiply attested crucifixion. The philosophy is both true & original if we stick to the most multiply attested "planks": "There are last which shall be first", "Love your enemies", & "Lose your life to others to save it", etc. The "Do unto others as you would be done by" is less original, first appearing in Confucius as "Don't do unto others as you would not be done to". The first three are core principles, entirely Jesus's own, & his justified claim to fame.

[OJB42]

@grig035 So I think we agree on the *degree* of historicity in the Jesus story (or maybe I take it a bit less seriously than you). The next question is: what value does Christianity have if its central story is untrue and its philosophy is unoriginal? Why follow a religion when all its positive attributes are available without the attached superstition?

[grig035]

@OJB42 "a real person but was then exaggerated" -- agreed. One reason I agree is the uniformly mundane rather than sensational portrait in the non-scripturals. "The question becomes should people follow a religion based on a story about a quite ordinary man" -- forced to choose, I'd prefer to adopt a moral creed with a god who inspires our hearts to an empathy for the vulnerable, which Jesus did teach. Modern evolution (I do accept evol.) now says the most durable species is the most empathic.

[grig035]

@philosophy7575 I don't reject Antiqs. 18 as a whole. But tampering is fairly evident. That's why I trust Antiqs. 20 more. Not every extant version of Ant. 18 is the same. An early citation omits the un-Josephan "He was the Messiah": Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan quotes simply, "his conduct was good", "Pilate condemned him to be crucified", & disciples only said "he had appeared after his crucifixion" and "was perhaps the Messiah". No personal avowal, then. That sounds authentic.

[philosophy7575]

@OJB42

Sorry, I think I meant one or more of my comments towards someone else so if it seemed irrelevant with respect to your position, I apologize. Someone else on here is a die-hard Christ-myther and I think I just clicked on the wrong comment. Yes, I recognize that you are open to some sort of historical Jesus yet think the stories are warped. If you ever have time for a conservative book on the topic Boyd and Eddy's "The Jesus Legend" and Blomberg's works are good.

Peace-