Toto

I have not listened to this yet - it's 35 minutes:

http://freethoughtfestival.org/audio...Carrier-ed.mp3

gurugeorge

It's an outline of his mythicist theory:-

There are 3 possible options, the traditional story, the historical jesus theory and the mythicist theory, of which there is only one that makes sense given the data - and that is, that "Jesus" was at first believed to be a celestial being (i.e. a being that literally lived in outer space) who communed by revelatory hallucinatory communications with his followers; and that later the myth got "euhemerized". IOW, the myth was originally the Jewish version of the syncretistic, monotheising trend of Hellenism to combine with other regional religions, involving a deity who wins victory over death and shares that boon with his or her followers (again, a trend in Hellenistic religion at that time - individualism in religion). Something very close to this entity is outlined also by Philo.

And it goes on ... great stuff. Cuts across a lot of the things we discuss here, but in his own uniquely spare and penetrating fashion.

And it is of course gratifying to see that he agrees with me on most major points

Atheos

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed listening to it.

aa5874

Again, we see a so-called Expert commit the unpardonable "sin" of introducing the Pauline writings as the earliest source in the Canon WITHOUT a shred of corroboration from antiquity.

Carrier MUST know that in order for him to use the Pauline writings as a credible source of antiquity that he MUST, MUST, MUST first establish the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline letters.

It is unforgivable for a so-called Expert to base his Myth theory on Presumptions about the Pauline letters.

Not one author of the Canon corroborates a Pauline letter. None-Zero-Nil.

AdamWho

Not being an expert myself on these matters. Have you ever considered that if all the experts seem to get it wrong according to you, it just might not be them who is wrong? Just asking the question.

aa5874

Well, you have a problem if you can't tell when experts are wrong.

Even ordinary people do that every day throughout the world. Ordinary people know when Experts are wrong.

It is so basic.

Just go to the nearest court . You can almost guarantee that there are going to be EXPERTS that are going to be wrong--either the defense or the prosecution--and it will be ORDINARY people who will decide which Experts are wrong.

It is so basic.

Ordinary people KNOW Experts are WRONG when they don't have any credible evidence to support their argument whether in or out of the courtroom.

Ask any Expert for credible evidence to support an early Paul and they will tell you they have NONE-ZERO-NIL.

Experts Must know that they are wrong to continue to argue for an early Paul when they have NO credible evidence.

Solo

I was not impressed with Carrier's presentation. My prediction is that his (actually the original Doherty's) idea of celestial Jesus euhemerized, will be shot to pieces. Paul created the Christ typology (as we know it), and Mark connected it to the figure of the Nazarenes which it should be crystal clear had independent existence (real or mythological) which preceded Paul. There are two strains of the Christian lore, not one.

Carrier's conviction that Muhammad and Joseph Smith faked "hallucinations" shows he is pathetically uninformed of the mental health and cognitive issues that present themselves in mystical transports and religious revelations. He comes across as naive and hopelessly arrogant.

Best,
Jiri

Huon

My opinion is that the leader of the jewish group of believers in Yeshua could have had a vision, and that the material existence of Yeshua was no more necessary than the material existence of the Holy Virgin at Lourdes or Fatima.

When Paul hijacked the character of Yeshua and transformed it into a Savior, well, he could have had a vision, or a good idea...

Atheos

Ironic. I felt like Carrier made an excellent case for the euhemerization theory while apologizing that it hadn't been properly vetted. I must confess to an ignorance of Philo's celestial Jesus mentioned as the prime archangel. Does anyone have a handy-dandy link to such a document where I can read what Philo wrote regarding this (translated, of course)?

If there is compelling historical evidence of a pre-christian myth of a celestial Jesus who resembles the one in Paul's epistles it's not that big of a step to move to an euhemerized Jesus over the next few decades that appears in the gospel narratives.

I did feel a bit uncomfortable with Carrier's characterization of Smith and Muhammad. He also seemed overly fond of putting hallucinations into the mind of Paul.

Meatros

I have no clue where it would be located, but here is a source for Philo's writings.