Anybody on lit read this? Is it actually legit or just fedora cringe?

you just cannot stop yourself when fedora hits too hard, pls understand

Carrier isn't a serious academic. He couldn't get a real job and tried to ride the atheist convention scene. He was literally ebegging for money and places to stay. Then he got involved in some sex pest drama where he made a blog post about how much he liked cum. Typical kook left shit in 2022 but novel back then. Burned his bridges. I have no clue what he's been doing the last decade.

Anyway there are Jesus as myth scholars that have some worthwhile things to say. Carrier is not one. He uses tortured bayesian analysis and reddit smugness to imagine he made a point. He didn't. Avoid at all costs.

Let me spare you the read:
There is no account of Jesus in the 1st century. All fragments of the New Testament ever found are not confirmed to be older than the 2nd century.
>rejected by the majority of even the secular scholars of antiquity.
No it is not, "scholars of the bible" are not scholars but christcuck niggers ruining academics
Your pedophile religion is dying, kike

Who are some of these scholars with valuable insight?

I doubt "Jesus never existed" opinion could ever be valuable desu. It's utterly retarded and you have to be fedora driven dumbass to spit out something like that.

I think it's stupid as well but I'd like to see if anybody actually could put forth a well reasoned argument.

Checking blessed quints.

Carrier is renowned for being such a faggot even other fedora tippers can't stand him.

These quints prove Jesus is real beyond doubt

Attached: aaf.png (771x804, 183.38K)

>No it is not, "scholars of the bible" are not scholars but christcuck niggers ruining academics
The majority of them are not Christian, and it is a secular field no matter what any one singular scholar has for a religion.

Attached: 1571852424114s.jpg (125x125, 1.83K)

Blessed Quints. Glory to our Lord and Savior.

>Why We Might
Beta and a clear indicator of slimy intent.

I don't think Christians care if Jesus exists. It misses the point of Christianity, which is not "social control," but a way for people to sort out their sins and repent for them. A way to rejuvenate the spirit and bring light to the lives of everyone. A way for people who don't have anyone to feel the love of God.

Attached: 890769B0-ECE7-43DC-8F13-9F9D629D714F.jpg (800x500, 287.23K)

>It misses the point of Christianity, which is not "social control," but a way for people to sort out their sins and repent for them
The vast majority of Christians on here and in real life would absolutely disagree with you, and as the vast majority of Christians will attest "repenting sins" is the last thing on the minds of basically all Christians.

whether jesus was real is irrelevant so long as he’s real in our hearts namaste

Haven't read it, but stumbled upon this talk he gave the other night and it alone was good enough that I'm now seriously considering it. He makes a fairly strong case for there being a possibility that "Jesus" was originally just mystical appearances/revelations experienced by early Christians, that was backtracked by the dominant sects of early Christians, mythologizing him as an actual person for the purpose of delivering new parables. Here's the link: youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

this dude wants jesus not to be real so that he could cheat on his wife

Prove it

Utterly untrue, the majority of them are Christian and/or make a living based on Christian institutions.

>what is confession
>what is heaven vs hell
>what is the rosary

Holy BASED

The majority of serious scholars of antiquity would've been ostracized at best if not killed outright for floating the idea.

He's autistically arguing with every single comment on his blog posts and hand waving away anyone who manages to contradict him through the goalposts he moves around.

>5 sets of 5
>m.youtube.com/watch?v=J57cRKP2okY

>some sex pest drama
I was worried it was something horrible but it looks like it was mild allegations that he denies anyway. Since a lot of atheists are leftist idiots I wouldn't be surprised if it was something totally blown out of proportion, but who knows.

>he made a blog post about how much he liked cum
What's this? I can't find anything about it.

Oh man, I think I remember watching one of his videos back in 2013 as an underage Yea Forumstard in an athiest thread. Is this the guy who believes that the historicity of Jesus remains unquestioned even by secular academics because of a long-running conspiracy by the church?

>Is this the guy who believes that the historicity of Jesus remains unquestioned even by secular academics because of a long-running conspiracy by the church?
No

> can't find anything
It's my recollection of drama that happened on Pharyngula and other atheist blogs from what 10 years ago now? I can't give you a proper reference and I doubt it's worth investigating. Suffice to say the moron had no filter about the stupid shit he'd proudly say to the point his defenders were embarrassed. Could be he deleted it also.
> worried it was something horrible
Tbh I can't remember the details here either, and it was in a wave of sex pest accusations including elevatorgate (which was bs to be clear) and the whole atheist schism. Either he was some couch surfing 'poly' with his dick in as many women he could a couple of which were upset, or he was just a lunatic with no boundaries who sexually assaulted people. He's not convicted so we'll never know.
>Who are some of these scholars with valuable insight?
I should modify this statement slightly to say there are scholars who make proper attempts to defend the mythical Jesus perspective unlike Carrier's halfwitted and halfassed Bayesian analysis. Try this debate for a sense of the argument (Robert Price is the mythological Jesus proponent and starts his introduction about 35 minutes in).
youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA

>I can't give you a proper reference and I doubt it's worth investigating.
Well, you brought it up (but, to be fair, it does sound like it wasn't worth remembering)

>with his dick in as many women he could a couple of which were upset,
It sounds like he just made "advances", and since he just denied it and nothing else happened (and nobody has tried bringing it up again) I'm guessing it was bs. Plus, like you said:
>t was in a wave of sex pest accusations including elevatorgate (which was bs to be clear) and the whole atheist schism

I think Carrier's Bayesian thing is pretty dumb (I think he just wants to seem professional/thorough in some way), but that Ehrman-Price debate isn't he best because Price just did a horrible job as a debater. He's great at sharing information, but he's not good at all defending his points.

Incidentally, there's a great video of Carrier responding to all of Ehrman's points from that debate. I think it's actually a great intro to the whole mythicist view (no Bayesian shit):
youtube.com/watch?v=_kOu2s31xt4

This is also a great rundown (Fitzgerald isn't much of a scholar but he has done a great job condensing all the mythicist points/research):
youtube.com/watch?v=LPZ39rqaIZ0

This is a very peripheral guy with a shoddy academic background. I'm just not invested enough to source my claims out of more than memory because he's not worth it so trust an user who was in the trenches or don't that's up to you. I bring up the drama just to illustrate that the most waves he ever made was making an ass of himself in the only circle that cared about his existence, and the teat of atheist conventions he tried to suckle from as an 'itinerant academic' (AKA I suck and can't get a job so I'm now a "rogue scholar" please buy my book and donate to my blog).
Is that you Dickie? lol

I already said that I get why it probably wasn't worth remembering.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

youtu.be/LTllC7TbM8M

youtu.be/WUYRoYl7i6U

After studying Richard Carrier, I think people are retarded to ever have believed in a historical Jesus in the first place. It's so fucking obvious, lol. There is just a lack of evidence.
The early epistles and Paul treat him as a celestial being that people know through divine revelation, and the Gospels were altered a lot in the beginning by early Christian rival sects to give the impression of Jesus being a historical figure (ie "Euhemerism").
Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus are not reliable evidence too for obvious reasons.
Also, there are way too many parallels to the death and resurrection savior gods to take the Jesus myth seriously.
Muhammad didn't exist either, and I've studied that too. It was just a botched and quick translation job from Aramaic into Arabic. "Virgins in heaven" translates into "grapes on a vine" in Aramaic. There's a book published with a pseudonym going into all of this.

>There's a book published with a pseudonym going into all of this.
Luxemburg or whatever his name is?

(((Carrier)))

People repeat the same threads here and repeat the same stupid arguments over and over again

This entire board is a repetition of a repetition

Attached: 5106 - d4954f1b23076ace6dc9a573cf77f2a3.jpg (948x1121, 118.29K)

>I wouldn't be surprised if it was something totally blown out of proportion
It's the typical harvest of male feminists. Goes to atheism cons thinking he's a rock star and gets forward with women who trigger the safe space alarm.

He's Jewish

It's midwit bait. It only sounds credible if you have no other knowledge of religious history.

Carrier stopped being relevant in the atheist scene when he got destroyed by Tim O'Neill

historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/

>Richard Carrier is a New Atheist blogger who has a post-graduate degree in history from Columbia and who, once upon a time, had a decent chance at an academic career. Unfortunately he blew it by wasting his time being a dilettante who self-published New Atheist anti-Christian polemic and dabbled in fields well outside his own; which meant he never built up the kind of publishing record essential for securing a recent doctorate graduate a university job. Now that even he recognises that his academic career crashed and burned before it got off the ground, he styles himself as an “independent scholar”, probably because that sounds a lot better than “perpetually unemployed blogger”.

i kneel

> It misses the point of Christianity, which is not "social control," but a way for people to sort out their sins and repent for them.

My friend, that literally is social control. 'Sin' is basically just a placeholder of whatever the groupthink deems bad.

begome

>Richard Carrier
Wikipedia:
>Carrier revealed that he is polyamorous, and that after informing his wife of his extramarital affairs, the last two years of their marriage had been an open relationship.
>In recent years, Carrier has been accused of engaging in unwanted sexual advances at skeptic and atheist conventions

He's a loser. EMJ, is right about degenerates becoming athiests to soothe their guilt.

Based.
Christ is real.

Attached: 168237016674.jpg (1080x1225, 899K)

Based. Checked. Viva Christo Rey! Glory to Christ the Savior.

i want that as a tee shirt

This paper is gold: kupdf.net/download/richard-carrier-39-s-quot-on-the-historicity-of-jesus-quot_58fcbfabdc0d60f127959ee4_pdf

>Dr. Carrier has in the past made a number of remarkable claims. For instance around 2001 he believed the evidence for the big bang was inconclusive and described himself as a “Big-Bang sceptic”. In 2011 he claimed to have solved one of the greatest problems in contemporary physics by discovering a theory which explaining how quantum phenomena can be explained by general relativity alone: it is theoretically possible to deductively predict all entanglement phenomena including the results of every EPR experiment, without recourse to any special theory of quantum mechanics. (from Calling All Physicists)

>With the publication of Proving History, Dr. Carrier claims to have unified a Bayesian and frequentistic view of probabilities and all historical epistemology should be done using Bayes’ theorem. With On the Historicity of Jesus the existence of Jesus is computed to have a probability of 6.75%

Attached: 1634974602744.jpg (330x479, 51.08K)