(October 3, 2016 at 11:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You could try reading the book but then...you might scare yourself.

Oh no.... I might be scared..... Appeal to emotion noted, but you would do better giving reasons.

(October 3, 2016 at 11:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 3, 2016 at 11:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -or anything else.  Jesus is a man with no face, and a man with no mannerisms.

And we have how many pages of "discussion" now, and I don't even know the color of the dust jacket on Carrier' supposed book, nor a description of Carrier; they must not exist must not exist!

There are a number of things wrong with this reasoning.... we can discuss them, but I would think there would be better arguments to focus on.

I see no reason to move past this.  The narrative in question, which is -about- jesus, is a narrative about a man with no face, and no mannerisms.  It's actually quite an anomaly. You know why mythicists think this is, but why do you think this is?

(October 4, 2016 at 12:11 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 3, 2016 at 11:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And we have how many pages of "discussion" now, and I don't even know the color of the dust jacket on Carrier' supposed book, nor a description of Carrier; they must not exist must not exist!

There are a number of things wrong with this reasoning.... we can discuss them, but I would think there would be better arguments to focus on.

I see no reason to move past this.  The narrative in question, which is -about- jesus, is a narrative about a man with no face, and no mannerisms.  It's actually quite an anomaly. You know why mythicists think this is, but why do you think this is?

How does what he looked like fit into the intentions of the writing (I'm assuming that this is speaking of Paul's letters to the Romans). Should I assume that if a writing about someone does not mention what their face looked like, that they did not have a face? That does not follow, and is ridiculous. Where else do you employ this principle?

(October 4, 2016 at 12:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 4, 2016 at 12:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: I see no reason to move past this.  The narrative in question, which is -about- jesus, is a narrative about a man with no face, and no mannerisms.  It's actually quite an anomaly.   You know why mythicists think this is, but why do you think this is?

How does what he looked like fit into the intentions of the writing (I'm assuming that this is speaking of Paul's letters to the Romans).

What were the intentions of the writing?

Quote:Should I assume that if a writing about someone does not mention what their face looked like, that they did not have a face?   That does not follow, and is ridiculous.  Where else do you employ this principle?

I'm not asking you to assume any such thing, no one is.   I'm asking why, you think, that much would be written about a man but not even -accidentally- or unconsciously include a single descriptive trait or defining mannerism?  What sort of man does or is such a man, how does it fit, either in the case of the proposed author or of the proposed historical subject? If the narrative doesn't include the details -of a man-..then is it even about a man? In what sense? Since it doesn\'t include those details..of what value is it to anyone searching for a historical jesus? What, in the narrative in question, do you take to be historical rather than legendary or mythical?

(October 4, 2016 at 12:29 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 4, 2016 at 12:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How does what he looked like fit into the intentions of the writing (I'm assuming that this is speaking of Paul's letters to the Romans).

What were the intentions of the writing?

Quote:Should I assume that if a writing about someone does not mention what their face looked like, that they did not have a face?   That does not follow, and is ridiculous.  Where else do you employ this principle?

I'm not asking you to assume any such thing, no one is.   I'm asking why, you think, that much would be written about a man but not even -accidentally- or unconsciously include a single descriptive trait or defining mannerism?  What sort of man does or is such a man, how does it fit, either in the case of the proposed author or of the proposed historical subject? If the narrative doesn't include the details -of a man-..then is it even about a man? In what sense? Since it doesn\'t include those details..of what value is it to anyone searching for a historical jesus? What, in the narrative in question, do you take to be historical rather than legendary or mythical?

While I can't speak for certain about Paul's intentions (and Carrier is guessing to Paul's motives as well); having read the letter to the Romans, Paul's focus appears to be to tell them about the Gospel, to show that He does teach the same thing they have been taught, and to show them that he has something to offer them in this manner. Now the Gospel certainly does involve Jesus, as can be seen, in Paul's writings. However, the intention does not appear to be to write to them all about this new teacher. Now Carrier seems to make the mistake that the order that the new Testament was written, is the same order in which these accounts where told. However, many of these Churches where already established, at the time the epistles was written. They had already heard the Gospel, so the motivations about the letter, was not to tell them all about some new teacher.

You ask; what I take to be historical, rather than legendary or mythic. From the above, I would say that none of these applies. Paul's intention appears to be to introduce himself, and to give instruction here. It is corroborating evidence, that the Gospel and what it entailed was taught at this time, but not historical in nature.

So no value to a historical jesus, then?  You're being flippant, btw, with your own scriptures, lol.  Introduce himself and and give instruction eh.....................? 

Some people look to this narrative as christianity in a single book, and there is no jesus-the-man present.  If this is corroborating evidence that the gospel, whatever it then was, was told at the time, the only thing it -doesn't- corroborate is the very subject of our discussion.  Which is itself strange, since there are plenty of known and suspected interpolations.  No one thought it necessarry to write jesus the man into this one. It appears that he doesn't need to be one for paul's schtick to play.

Your thoughts?