Originally posted by sonship
Not really. I am pointing out the evidence is that early arguments seemed to have been whether or not Jesus too good to be material. Its significant if not 100% Proof of the historicity of Jesus.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'early'. What time period are you referring to? I certainly don't think it is in any way significant the the question of the historicity of Jesus unless you are talking about the time of Paul and no later.

What you are perhaps looking for is an ancient Atheist who writes about a Jesus and all the things He is said to have done.
No. I am not looking for anything. What Richard Carrier is doing is looking at the available evidence, whatever that might be, and then making a judgement about the historicity of Jesus based on the evidence.
Nobody is saying 'in order for Jesus to be real, we demand the following list of documents!'.

And I think Carrier and you want to discount those writers in favor of writers who would NOT be interested in writing about Jesus - the more skeptical the better.
As usual, you are spending far to much time attempting to mind read - and failing miserably as usual - and not enough time looking at what is actually being said.

Well, some non-Christian references to Jesus of course do exist.
Yes, you just referenced him in your post just now. There are however exactly zero non-Christian references that are relevant to the question of whether or not Jesus existed.

Saying "We don't want to count those as reliable because they had a vested interest" only goes so far.
Again, nobody is saying that. Watch the video and address his actual points.

It would be implausible to suggest this "Gospel of Christ" Paul speaks of is something other than the message which includes the life, death, and resurrection of a historical Jesus.
Why would it be implausible?

2.) He writes of some perverting the gospel. There had to be a strong tradition about facts to teach about Jesus for there to be "perversion" of those concepts. A strong controversy doesn't arise out of thin air over nothing.
There were clearly differing views and differing schools of thought at the time. But none of this suggests that the 'facts' Paul had in mind are the ones you have in mind, or include a historical Jesus.

So how can we so easily say the Jesus didn't exist to have taught something hot contentions were being held over?
Paul clearly got all his facts directly via revelation and from scripture - and not from Jesus' supposed teachings during his life time.

Apparently they did know about this. Someone named Jesus came up being so intensely a perceived danger to these "traditions" that it cause a scholar to be a cult fighter of some kind. The "deprogrammers" and cult fighters of the 80s in the US argues that there was something to "rescue" adherents from.
I am not sure I follow that sentence. Can you make it clearer?

And this evidence is that someone had taught things SO challenging to traditional Judaism at that time to give rise to fanatical opposition. I think it argues for the historicity of a Jesus all things considered.
It argues for the existence of Christians prior to Paul. Interestingly those Christians had rather different beliefs from Paul and were often in conflict with him theologically. There is however no indication at this point that Jesus was thought to be a historical figure by any of them.

The audience of his letter, ( multiple churches in the whole area of Asia Minor ) must know what he is talking about. That is evidence for Peter (Cephas), John, and James which he mentions by name in Jerusalem (v.17).
Yes, it appears Paul was not a lone Christian.

He also means "James, the brother of the Lord" (v.19) . It is strange that he would mention the brother of a completely fictitious person. I think it is strange that he would mention the relative of a totally "celestial" person.
Richard Carrier addresses that point.

Historically, the indication seems that the matters were in dispute as to whether Paul was really qualified to be an apostle so traveling around founding and teaching Christian congregations. He has to say "I am not lying" most likely because rumors were circulating that he was not "the real deal" like the afore mentioned apostles from Jerusalem.
Yes, Richard Carrier suggests that Paul and Peter had different theologies and were to some degree in conflict.

Add it all up and the historicity of Jesus is more likely than not.
I don't see how that follows from anything you have said.

So I think Richard Carrier, though well more educated in the field of history than I, will lead you down a skeptic's rabbit hole attempting to persuade you that Jesus of the New Testament never lived.
I don't think you have watched the full video. When you have, maybe you could have another go.
So far you have mostly made points that:
a) Richard Carrier has already addressed.
or
b) Richard Carrier does not dispute and have no real bearing on the issue.
or
c) Have no real bearing on the issue ie they do not point towards a historical Jesus. You just make the conclusion after every few sentences without ever giving an actual justification for the conclusion.

Certainly, I don't think you have pointed to any actual errors in Richard Carriers claims.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'early'. What time period are you referring to? I certainly don't think it is in any way significant the the question of the historicity of Jesus unless you are talking about the time of Paul and no later.

Time period - Approximately A.D. 90-95. First Epistle of John, Gospel of John.

No. I am not looking for anything.

Oh.

What Richard Carrier is doing is looking at the available evidence, whatever that might be, and then making a judgement about the historicity of Jesus based on the evidence.

And Dr. Carrier, 2,000 years from the events, is in the minority to come up with a thesis that possibly Jesus never existed. And contrary to what you said about, aren't you looking for such a thesis?

It has been only in the last 200 - 300 some years the existence of Jesus has been seriously challenged. I think it is similar to Holocaust Deniers. Only long after witnesses to the events have died and much time has elapsed for myth making and legend constructing would someone deny that there was a Holocaust of the Jews in Germany during WWII

I think Paul's letter of Galatians is far too close to the referenced events for myths to have been created to a terribly large degree.

John indicates that as the apostles were living, quite meticulous care was given to the sayings of Jesus NOT being miscontrued. Evidence is that there was vigilance as to not allow mythic material to pollute the message:

IE.

" Jesus said to him [post resurrection according to John] If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.

This word therefore went out among the brothers, that that disciples would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? " (John 21:22,23)

You see? The writer is correcting a misunderstanding about something Jesus said. This demonstrates that they were being careful NOT to let legendary material corrupt the history.

Mythers arguing that legendary things were soon concocted creating a mythic Jesus ignore how close the earliest writings are to the discussed events. Usually it takes much more time to elapse before fictional fabrications arise to portray a person OTHER than the one who actually lived.

For length I stop here.

I did not see the whole video.
I told you that I would watch until I gathered about three things I might object to. That's what I said.

But know I have heard plenty of discussions from Richard Carrier.

Originally posted by sonship
Time period - Approximately A.D. 90-95. First Epistle of John, Gospel of John.

OK, then your comments make a bit more sense. However, I dispute your claim. My understanding is that some groups (Gnostics perhaps?) at this point did not believe in a historical Jesus and the very argument you claim was not being had was being had.

And contrary to what you said about, aren't you looking for such a thesis?
That's the best you could think of? Dishonest wordplay? And no, since you asked, I am not looking for such a thesis.

I think it is similar to Holocaust Deniers. Only long after witnesses to the events have died and much time has elapsed for myth making and legend constructing would someone deny that there was a Holocaust of the Jews in Germany during WWII
Huh? What are you talking about? Holocaust denial has existed from the time it was still in progress, and has continued to this day.

I think Paul's letter of Galatians is far too close to the referenced events for myths to have been created to a terribly large degree.
What were the referenced events?
And you are outright wrong about the myth time period. Carrier cites a number of other instances of myths being created in a similar or shorter period of time proving you wrong. I am not sure if he cites them in that particular talk or another one I watched, but I am sure that if you know of similar examples from the present day the prove you wrong. ie you didn't think it through.

John indicates that as the apostles were living, quite meticulous care was given to the sayings of Jesus NOT being miscontrued.
Yet we know for a fact that the sayings were misconstrued and that John was almost certainly arguing against other writings of the time that had other versions.

Evidence is that there was vigilance as to not allow mythic material to pollute the message:
Then provide that evidence. Johns claims don't count.

You see? The writer is correcting a misunderstanding about something Jesus said. This demonstrates that they were being careful NOT to let legendary material corrupt the history.
Assuming the so called history actually existed in the first place.

Mythers arguing that legendary things were soon concocted creating a mythic Jesus ignore how close the earliest writings are to the discussed events.
Once again, please stop trying to mind read and address arguments not being made by people not present. Neither I nor Richard Carrier have ignored the dates.

Usually it takes much more time to elapse before fictional fabrications arise to portray a person OTHER than the one who actually lived.
As noted above, that is provably untrue.

I did not see the whole video.
Well I recommend you do. But its up to you. But it gets tiresome typing out what he said because you were too lazy to watch the whole thing.

I told you that I would watch until I gathered about three things I might object to.
Well so far you have mostly address things you have imagined and not things from the actual video.

If anything, the only thing you seem to object to is the conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, then your comments make a bit more sense. However, I dispute your claim. My understanding is that some groups (Gnostics perhaps?) at this point did not believe in a historical Jesus and the very argument you claim was not being had was being had.

[b]And contrary to what you said about, aren't you looking for such a thesis?
That's the best you ...[text shortened]... s from the actual video.

If anything, the only thing you seem to object to is the conclusion.[/b]

The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind; and we would still be lost in our sins.

There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later. Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention. It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted.

https://carm.org/gnosticism