I am a new member. I am an atheist, a Jesus mythicist, and much more.
I like to debate issues (am a member of a debate site).
I also am starting a YouTube channel.
I am an aspiring historian that wishes to study the origin and rise of Christianity, as well as the impacts Christianity had on the Roman Empire.
Welcome, SNP!
I hope you will enjoy some of the discussions on our forum!
Welcome to the forum!
Welcome aboard SNP1! Solitary
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 30, 2014, 11:42:16 AM
Welcome, SNP!
I hope you will enjoy some of the discussions on our forum!
Thank you. I am pretty sure that I will have fun here.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on December 30, 2014, 11:46:12 AM
Welcome to the forum!
Thank you
Quote from: Solitary on December 30, 2014, 12:11:10 PM
Welcome aboard SNP1! Solitary
Thank you
Welcome, snip--dig into the 'Christianity' section of the forum. And basically read everything Richard Carrier has written.
Welcome aboard me heartie!
ARRRRG!
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 02:10:16 PM
Welcome, snip--dig into the 'Christianity' section of the forum. And basically read everything Richard Carrier has written.
I have read a lot of Carrier's stuff, discussed some of it with him in person (I was at a convention where he was a speaker at). Some of his arguments could use some improvement, but he also has a lot of great points.
RUN!
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 05:58:56 PM
I have read a lot of Carrier's stuff, discussed some of it with him in person (I was at a convention where he was a speaker at). Some of his arguments could use some improvement, but he also has a lot of great points.
I am a jealous green! Have you read his latest? On the Historicity of Jesus is a great! book. I have not read On Proving History, but I will soon. Have you read either? I also like Robert M. Price, Dougherty and Wells.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 07:42:35 PM
I am a jealous green! Have you read his latest? On the Historicity of Jesus is a great! book.
I have an autographed copy
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 07:42:35 PM
I have not read On Proving History, but I will soon. Have you read either? I also like Robert M. Price, Dougherty and Wells.
I am starting to read other people's works as well. I actually am working on studying it myself (looking at the documents from the time and drawing conclusions).
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 07:53:16 PM
I have an autographed copy
Now I'm two shades of green! I have not read any reviews of his latest book on Jesus. Soon I will begin looking for negative reviews to see what his weak points may be. What do you think are his main failings or weak points in the book?
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 30, 2014, 10:16:44 PM
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 07:53:16 PM
I have an autographed copy
Now I'm two shades of green! I have not read any reviews of his latest book on Jesus. Soon I will begin looking for negative reviews to see what his weak points may be. What do you think are his main failings or weak points in the book?
I think that his strong points were refuting any evidence that is used for a historical Jesus (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) and showing a belief in a celestial Jesus (loved the part about the Ascension of Isiah).
The weakest point I think he has is showing a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus. He uses only one source (the Philo of Alexandria) and vague references to other figures (like Romulus).
I think that he could have used the Talmud to help with his argument that there was a pre-Christian belief in Jesus (if he could word it correctly).
I think that this debate of mine shows how the Talmud could be used to help support it (though I am not the best at articulating my points yet):
http://www.debate.org/debates/There-was-a-pre-Christian-belief-in-a-Jesus/1/
It would also help if he went further into how figures paralleled each other, as well as how the other beliefs could influence the development of the story of Jesus.
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 10:54:29 PM
I think that his strong points were refuting any evidence that is used for a historical Jesus (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) and showing a belief in a celestial Jesus (loved the part about the Ascension of Isiah).
The weakest point I think he has is showing a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus. He uses only one source (the Philo of Alexandria) and vague references to other figures (like Romulus).
I think that he could have used the Talmud to help with his argument that there was a pre-Christian belief in Jesus (if he could word it correctly).
I think that this debate of mine shows how the Talmud could be used to help support it (though I am not the best at articulating my points yet):
http://www.debate.org/debates/There-was-a-pre-Christian-belief-in-a-Jesus/1/
It would also help if he went further into how figures paralleled each other, as well as how the other beliefs could influence the development of the story of Jesus.
Thank you for the link you provided. I will be reading in detail soon. One of the strongest points he made for me was his evidence that there was a Jesus-cult (or easily could have been) prior to formal Christianity. I have always thought that that would be the case, but since I am simply an interested lay person in this area, I have to rely on guesses and hunches. I like that he uses probabilities in the study of history. I especially liked his reference to material like Jesus Rising and the fact that almost all (if not all) historical material for Christ could come from the Jewish OT. I also liked him pointing out that much of Jesus' story could come from Romulus and Socrates and Homer.
Understand I am totally amateur in this area and I am beginning to understand that you are on the opposite end of that spectrum--you seem very much like an actual Bible scholar. And I appreciate that and love to pick the brains of people like you. I only know enough to be dangerous. :) I have a hard time picking out the flaws (or figuring out if they even exist) in Carrier's arguments, and need help in that area. That's why I will get around to reading those who do find flaws and they studying what they say to try to figure out exactly what those flaws are or if they are wrong. In any case, I see this book as a huge leap forward in the study of early Christianity and the historical existence of Jesus. Carrier himself invites discussion about any of his 48 elements that lay the ground work for any real study of the subject. Once again, thanks for you input, and I look forward to your contributions in this area.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 31, 2014, 08:33:42 AM
Understand I am totally amateur in this area and I am beginning to understand that you are on the opposite end of that spectrum--you seem very much like an actual Bible scholar.
Thank you! I have been studying this topic for a few years now, and it fascinates me. I do hope that we can discuss certain points about this topic in the future.
Greetings. One thing I'll say SNP1 is don't sweat it, speaking as someone whos been around here since may 2014, I've learned what a laid back community is here, and as someone who likes to discuss things and start topics, its a good place for it.
Quote from: Munch on January 01, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
Greetings. One thing I'll say SNP1 is don't sweat it, speaking as someone whos been around here since may 2014, I've learned what a laid back community is here, and as someone who likes to discuss things and start topics, its a good place for it.
Don't speak too quickly, we still have to sacrifice you to Green Jesus
Welcome to our little band of heathens!
Can i ask you what a debate site entails? I thought that was wat forums like these were for and now i am intrigued :)
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on January 01, 2015, 08:39:28 PM
Don't speak too quickly, we still have to sacrifice you to Green Jesus
I am the great Oro'muncho, the orc monk and part time genie.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 02, 2015, 03:43:45 AM
Welcome to our little band of heathens!
Can i ask you what a debate site entails? I thought that was wat forums like these were for and now i am intrigued :)
It has a section where you can make polls, a section that is a forum, a section where you can ask yes/no opinions, and a section where you can set up debates.
For the debate, it is one on one. The instigator sets the rules up in the first round. You can set the debate to be between 1-5 rounds. You make a debate topic, then you need to debate it (using decent sources, good arguments, etc.) against one other opponent. The instigator can also, to an extent, decide on how voting on the debate happens and how long people have to vote on the debate.
When choosing who can vote on the debate, be careful. My site has a point system called ELO that increases when winning debates. The lower the ELO, the more potential for crap voting (since you can set it so they have to give a reason for their vote). I have just learned that even if your ELO is over 2000 that you can still give crap votes.