The Gospels are FICTION!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @aronra
Use the link below to sign up for Prof. Dennis MacDonald's course, "Synopses of Epic Tragedy of the Gospels"
sales.mvp-cour...
If you like what I do, please consider supporting my efforts.
PATREON► / aronra
PAYPAL► www.paypal.me/...
Sign up for the course, "Synopses of Epic Tragedy of the Gospels" with the link below.
sales.mvp-courses.com/homeric-mimesis/?affiliate=aronra
Is this a MOOC?
Jesus corporation similar Mohammed corporation and yehwa corporation lol just fooling followers lifetime businesses 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Did he say what you do is cute? Around 7: 40 mark is where the guest snaps. Very entertaining. As if he has never heard an intelligent opinion thats fact based. Saluto Aron!
😂Warning if u read negative energy will creep out yr feet. Tell it's time for Jesus energy wash. 😮.
@@raya.p.l5919
Strong stuff smoking, you are!
Baker street in London is historically real. Watson and Sherlock are not.
How da ya know, were ya thar?
I thought you meant the amazing Gerry Raffery song at first
Harry Potter/London
@@chrissober24 Spiderman, New York! There are others, too. 😂🥰✌
@@chrissober24 thats my favourite one...
All the other historic characters referenced here, made huge marks on history while they were alive. The character of Jesus made no impact on history until long after his alleged lifetime.
That was my reaction. We believe Alexander the Great was a historic figure because, well, someone clearly created that massive empire and I never heard of any other candidate, so however warped his picture is in all those stories, there's clearly a historical kernel here. But Jesus? We know the legends about him had massive effects, But I know of no *personal* effect on history that you can actually verify. *Something* caused those legends, but it might as well have been a brilliant storyteller. I mean, the idea of a historical Jesus isn't completely implausible, but I know of nothing that would disprove the idea of that storyteller.
@@KaiHenningsen Well it would be possible that "alexander" (meaning "Ruler of men") was a name put over a historical figure, whose real name was forgotten, maybe even deliberately erased, as some aspects of his later life and death deal with disagreements about how much the greek ruling class in the new empire should adopt to medo-persian customs... a damnatio memoriae of the real name, while the deeds could never be forgotten as they influenced centuries of history through the warladen story of the Diadochi... but yes, 22 cities popping up in a short time, three/four diadochi empires rising out of the ashes of the mighty persian realm? Egypt clearly being hellenized... that is not a coincidental development, there must have been a catalyst for this. And i think that both sides reflected his importance even centuries later when the Persian empires returned and fought against the Romans for another 6-800 years...
the only real parallel to that in christian background is that the meshiach was expected and the veritable flood if citations to presumed "prophetic" pieces of the OT sprinkeld all throughout the NT story makes it abundantly clear, that whoever wreote that wanted to make it irrefutably clear that they thought the predictions of the old prophets had come true. (which is ... debatable, the Jesus Story manages to mess up as many "prophecies" of the 1st Century BCE messianic cults as they "fulfil", so ... yeah no, not a clear picture at all, especially when some details would be easy to correct like calling the bloody guy IMMANUEL like the one clear verse about the messiah saif he would be called...)
Did a real guy exist and we just do not know anything about him, as his biography was heavily edited before being laid down for print? Did nobody exist and the panicking jews invented the story after the temple was vaporized, writing a full story to declare no more sacrifices would be necessary as god sent already the perfect one, resolving all guilt problems for all times... there are several possibilities, including wild mixtures of the two ideas.
The idea they had to reuse a complete new foreign myth though to write this up is on a level with "no, people 3000 years ago cannot possibly have had the time and manpower to put one rock over another" style conspiracies of the Ancient Alien/Atlantis myth crowd. Very disrespectful and lazy, especially as it has bee done so many times with Horus, Dionysus and whatever other ancient god they could think of that had something like a death and resurrection event in their mythology... None of those could ever be confirmed.
That's not true.
As far as I'm aware, Joseph of Arimathea *also* made absolutely no mark on history either, outside of his witch cameo in the gospels, despite allegedly being one of the primary leaders of Judea's Sanhedrin (and Jesus' secret disciple who was one of the people that unanimously sentenced him to death), almost as if he was made up wholecloth to explain why Jesus would have a tomb to be doing empty rather than being tossed in a mass grave like 99+% of all other crucifixion victims.
@lnsflare1 I'm not sure the point you're making. I agree, as far as I know, Joseph of Arimathea appears nowhere else but the gospels. He could easily be an invented fictional character.
@@djfrank68 That's my point. According to the gospels he's a historical character and major political figure of the region, but there is no record of him outside of him volunteering to put the guy he just voted to have executed into his own tomb, which makes no sense except for the fact that the narrative of a resurrecting Jesus would need to have a tomb for him to not be in and no one but a major political figure could even possibly get a tomb for someone who was crucified.
"Hello puppies and kittens" That light-hearted intro just made me feel so much better and light.
Your weakness sickens us.
Coming from anyone else that greeting would feel patronizing. Coming from Aron, it feels like a warm hug.
I love that Dennis McDonald can disagree strongly with a position and still chill on a porch in the evening and do a interview together with a major proponent of that view. Takedowns and hit pieces are far too common among YTubers.
Imagine if they found the 'Q' document... and it proclaimed that the universe was sneezed into existence by the Great God Arkleseizure and we are all awaiting the arrival of the Great Handkerchief.
Or that it was written by someone from the Q Continuum.
@Conon the Binarian You'll need a grandfather clock, a bottle of champagne, and three dimes... FORWARD, INTO THE PAST!
The Q Continuum are only going to write about the most important (to them) man that ever lived: Jean-Luc Picard.
You should deffo write some parodoy crossover fan fic!
That whole vile book is fiction!
And the invisible wizard of the book they presuppe is the most evil character in all of fiction.
Lmao @ 6:28. Crazy to flat out say someone has no integrity because you refuse to engage with their works.
Yeah, that ... demonstrates a lack of integrity, I'd say.
Yup. I see your point there. My view, is that say they found the grave of Alexander the Great, or Robin hood, or found definitively that neither existed, it makes no difference. Jesus tho.. well lawmakers today are trying to make laws based on what they think he said.
Aron, I just have to say thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos over and over and over again, it means a lot as a large part of my deconstruction is due to watching you, your debates and learning as I go along.
Thank you for everything you do will continue to do.
Skip him and go to Watts.
I have debated him and won.
He is just another grifting atheist. He has no need to expand his mind, like Sam. They are already considered Gods and sources for Atheists, despite missing so many key points in philosophy.
As mentioned, the best thing to do would be to listen to some Alan Watts. Skip this man, he needs Watts himself.
We could write today that Michael Jackson perfected the moonwalk; future generations could interpret that he indeed walked on the moon, backwards! 😆
Funny how they completely omit the Fact that the Greeks learned literacy, mythology, science, arts and abstract thought from the ancient Egyptians and so did Rome. He says all this garbage with a straight face. It’s remarkable. He just discredited himself.
But in what way did Jesus exist? If he was just a guy called Jeshua who was born, gained less followers than Logan Paul then died, how is this ACTUALLY the Jesus of the Bible? Doesn’t Christ’s historical existence have to include some of the detail to be this character in reality? Him saying mythicism is “intellectually bankrupt” then basically saying even Jesus wouldn’t recognise himself as being the protagonist in the gospels is some polemical hair splitting of the highest order.
I agree. If Jesus existed, it would be the Jesus of the Bible (since that is what Christians are talking about). If the Jesus of the Bible existed, then the supernatural factually exists. Since the supernatural does not factually exist, then Jesus does not exist. Professor MacDonald is apparently unable to perform simple logical deductions.
Hear me out on this for a second: It's basically like the old meme of Chuck Norris jokes. Chuck Norris is a real person, a real actor, and a real martial artist. But none of the absurdities proposed by Chuck Norris jokes are real. If we were to collectively forget, as a society, every single accurate historical detail of Norris's life (which, sadly, means losing every copy of Way of the Dragon), and had only the jokes, would we really still have any knowledge of "Chuck Norris?" The mere fact that the joke subject shares his name would do little to actually provide us with any meaningful information about whether there was a historical man by that name, and what would be left of him if we stripped away all the memes.
@@Uryvichk I think we’re on the same page. Cards on the table I don’t know, or care, if Jesus was a “real” person who got blown way out of proportion by a later mythos. I object to that fella calling mythicism “intellectually bankrupt”. I’ve read Carrier, Price & other books that don’t rule out a real character on which the stories are based. They just make good arguments regarding the notorious amount of similar myths in the Greco/Roman/Egyptian world & highlight the total lack of consistency in the Bible & the absence of other corroborating evidence, even polemics, which would normally follow. This is at least worth debating & it’s only 1500 yrs or so of special pleading, fear of the church & cultural assimilation that has allowed this debate to become unpalatable for many including this guy apparently. As religion loses its grip on society, it’s power to injure, torture or bully people into silence greatly reduced by enlightened thinking, it’s gonna have to address these debates with the kind of open mind it constantly requests from those it wishes to proselytise.
I've always liked the "Jesii" theory: One Jesus was a learned Rabbi, another was an above average healer, and at least one other was a revolutionary leader. But in an age without anything like a "media" with modern standards of journalistic vetting, all the oral lines of local news "telephoned" in a tangle of misidentification: "Did you hear what Jesus just did?" "Healed those guys?" "No, he outwitted the pharisees!" "I thought he was talking about how he came not to bring peace, but swords?" Without true "last names", it all just got mixed up by gossip turning into local legend...
None of those would have been called Jesus/Joshua. That makes much more sense when it was forced onto the story to mark the "savior figure" (the literal meaning of Joshua/Jesus)
@@Ugly_German_Truths But Jesus *was* a common name back then. Or rather, Yeshua. Source: BIble Reasons. Which is why he was called Jesus of Nazareth.
@@arthapeterson5239 yeah but it also means "savior" which is a helluva coincidence. It's quite possible that the name "jesus" was added to one or more stories about other people, which is the kind of things ancient jews did all the time.
Above average healer 😂😂😂
@@scambammer6102 No. Wrong. It means "God is salvation." That does not mean "I am the savior" or "this is the savior". It is similiar to naming your child Sophia, or Holy Wisdom.
I'm wondering what evidence that Jesus was in some way a historical person that he says is overwhelming actually is...
So overwhelming that the early Church fathers had to resort to widespread interpolation and outright inventions.
dr McD throwing shade at Dr Carrier.
unfortunately, he hasn’t published anything remotely close to disputing Dr Carrier’s arguments.
He made tons of logical fallacies and in the apologetics world, those count as demonstrable facts, don't you know?
I’m a little concerned with how professor Macdonald continues talking about the Q document and what IT SAYS. The reason that is debated is cause we don’t have a Q document to read. He’s speaking about it as if this is just something we can grab and study..
What is the Q document? "The Q source is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings. Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions."
I thought the book of Mormon was fan fiction.
It is.
@@tjarkschweizer 50 shades is fan-fiction of Twilight which is fan-fiction of My Chemical Romance ... turtles all the way down!
@@KaiHenningsen Indeed. Isn't it great.
Yes, and the Gospels are also fan fiction as almost all of the elements of the Jesus story are just lifted from the OT stories.
@@oscargordon I am afraid it is a little more complicated than that.
I actually wanted to hear about the Q document. My understanding is that it hasn't been discovered, so how do we know it ever existed?
Yeah that's a pretty ridiculous thing to base historicity on. We haven't found the damn thing!
People want there to be many different people writing about Jesus. When you look at all of the stuff that is common between Matthew and Luke, they want to pretend that both M and L had copies of some lost document rather than Matthew copied from Mark and added his embellishments. Luke had a copy of Matthew and didn't like some of his embellishments so he modified them to his own liking. The proposed Q document is nothing more than the stuff in Matthew that Luke didn't reject.
We don’t know, it’s only a hypothesis and if Dr Macdonald didn’t present it that way he should have, even though it’s safe to say he’s very sure of its existence. It’s not anything ridiculous by itself although I think it’s fair to say Dennis puts a lot more emphasis on it and has a lot more confidence in his reconstruction of it than is typical. But as far as I know he’s a good scholar, let’s just say he is not afraid to challenge the norms and voice unique opinions on things.
@@Jd-808 I'm not saying that the "double tradition" material DIDN'T come from the a lost document and the author of Luke definitely DID copy from Matthew. It is simply that Occam's razor says we can shave off Q because it isn't necessary to explain parts common to Matt and Luke.
I should note that there are some scholars who propose that Matt copied from Luke, but of those that reject the Q hypothesis, it is far more likely they support the idea that Luke copied from Matt.
@@oscargordon I mean that’s technically true but it’s not really that easy. Just because a simple explanation is theoretically possible doesn’t mean it’s the best explanation, or that it remains so simple when elaborated upon. Close examination of Luke as it relates to Matthew and Mark requires jumping through a lot of hoops to explain what’s going on between Luke and Matthew. Q itself is a simple solution to that problem.
How i would love to have him along side of us in the BB... although I can tell this man likely is quite busy and would not have the spare time to dedicate it with us. This was great Aron.
Every time a biblical scholar belittles the idea that Jesus could be pure myth, I expect strong evidence to follow, but I am always underwhelmed. Consensus from a field of scholarship that originates via centuries of status quo, via faithful believers does not matter much to me. Analogies to other similar figures can work for either argument. A few mentions by ancient historians is weak as well. I don't know if I there is strong evidence either way but I am certain that anybody that tells his friends don't wash your hands before eating or advises you to abandon your family to worship the supernatural, simply doesn't know very much at all. Everything that is told could have easily been written by men. I know the story is nonsense because of all the things that could have been communicated and were not.
Dr Richard Carrier makes a very strong case for Jesus never actually existing.
no he doesn't. he makes a strong case that we don't know if jesus existed.
Abraham Lincoln definitely existed. He _probably_ didn’t hunt vampires.
WW2 was a real event . Is Captain America real also ?
Religion is no solution for the requirements of humanity in the 21st century, god is created by human in the image of knuckle-dragging human. Aron Ra is a hero for humanity for presenting this extremely valuable information to the world.
I'm not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm looking for some education. The gentleman mentioned the Q documents many times but unless I'm mistaken we have no Q documents and never have. How can we be certain the Q source is a real thing?
Maybe they can update it and include Live From Golgotha as the final book.
Without the church destroying any other belief and making church attendance compulsory it would never have been believed, but hell and a nasty death for none believers made it what we see today
What happened to your live stream with Amanuel?
We're living in times of earthquakes, and wars and rumors of wars!!! 😱
THE TEMPEST - Lili
It gives you comfort just to think that God is by your side
To help you with your petty wants, you only have to pray
Everything given or denied, it’s part of his great plan
But what of when your world falls down, loss of home and pride
Nature is a cruel beast, she arrives to ruin and flay
She doesn’t care, she doesn’t think, of Gods, of love or man. -
The cruel sea, the skies and wind all dark with careless hate
Your home picked up and flung aside, the air fulfilled with death
Is this the plan he had for you? You still think he is great
Perhaps you think that he is kind for sparing most his flock
A score of reasons to excuse, indifference, sin or fate
It’s still the same, your world is gone, your hopes and prayers a mock. -
And as you stare into the sky and bend your knees in thanks
Your neighbor’s dead, your town a wreck, what thanks is due to him?
Who’s made your life a misery, no future left for you
You’re leaving now, your fate unknown a victim of his whim
You’ll join the mass of those he’s scorned, the lost the faithful too
Perhaps this trial will make you think, this God cannot be true. -
If he is love then what’s this hate, inflicted on mankind
It’s not just here, it’s everywhere, Infidel and faithful alike
He doesn’t care, he strikes us all, and we’re supposed to find
The meaning of the tragedy, the reason of the plan
Be grateful for the mercy, mercy no one sees, mercy undefined
The game he’s played with human pawns, the game he’s played with man. -
The great Khayyam wrote of the game, a checkerboard of lies
He knows the fate of everyone and watches from above
And you may lift your hands to him, expectant of his love
He only cares about the game, the players live or die
And if you die that is the cost of being in the game
A player faithful might be spared, the wanting to the flames.
I still don't get how some of these PhDs say Jesus was historical, that is really just a complete assumption. I also think that if there were one man, he is so far removed from the Jesus story we know it wouldn't even matter.
What happened to “here’s the thing?”
When Roman soldiers put people on the cross ,you know that they don't come down when they die ,they are left up on the cross until bits and pieces of them fall to the ground so this Jesus did not come down to be buried in a tomb he would be left on the cross for months until there was a skeleton left as nd that would show other people what is going to happen to you if you don't toe the line in Rome so it is all made up about this Jesus guy,there never was a person like that on earth.
I find it kind of funny when people talk about the Q source and what it says as if it isn't 100% hypothetical and actually exists in a meaningful way.
Right!?
He makes it sound like he's
got direct access to it.
A degree in fairytales from a accredited university, waste of education
All the characters are historical? What a clown. He has 0 evidence.
I like that academic theologians and atheists agree that we should promote Biblical literacy rather than shut off debate by quoting only authoritarian narratives about the books.
We can only fight ignorance by having people read and think about what they are debating.
the bibble is a collection of materials for brand support for the new religion, complete with a magic mascot and a mind blowing finale. there is so much in the christian religion that is cherry picked and packed into form from various other belief systems, it's as if Marvel Comics came up with a World Savior everybody's best buddy.
Hi Aronra. I've enjoyed your channel for a long time and your points of view and your theories. I don't think there was a need for you to tip toe around this Dennis Mc Donald guy. He does podcasts with Derek on Mythvision every other five minutes.. Derek loves him. Dennis is a goon and I don't think he was respecting your level here. It would have been nice to see you flatten him out.
I do not believe that Jesus is historical. The proof just does not exist. This guy is full of it.
But did you consider this random pile of unrelated word salad with zero substantiating evidence?
Checkmate, Mythicists.
One thing I like to remind people of is "Most Bible Scholars agree Jesus Existed" is the direct equivalent of "Most Rowling Scholars agree Harry Potter Existed".
Neither are actually making the case of the character being real if you press the first ones hard enough on it. They're experts on the story. In the story, he existed. Somehow the third most powerful being to ever walk the earth didn't leave behind so much as a parking ticket though. (The other two are Yahweh and Satan, in ascending order as Satan is more powerful in the story)
I agree, 'I am right you are wrong' about sums up this arrogant dying old expert.
Jesus was a very common name at the time when the empire that controlled the region was pretty permissive of other ppls relegions ....i would argue that its less likely that a relegios hack named jeebus didnt exist in those days...its not a problem afterwards to create a mystical figure loosely based on him ....just like dracula ....
@@danielshultz8008 I mean, it's easier to make up a guy with magical powers and claim that he told everyone to follow you before he died hundreds of miles away in a world several millennia before the existence of cars and phones then it would be to actually follow around some random schmuck with mutually exclusive stories about his birth, ministry, and death but with no contemporaneous records of his life or execution from the people who allegedly arrested or executed him, even amount the people who were keeping records of exactly the kind of apocalypse preacher that he was supposed to be.
Claiming that the apostles and Jesus were historical figures, even though they only exist in the New Testament, is a bit simplistic, isn’t it? Especially for a historian. Claiming that Jesus probably existed because Alexander the Great existed doesn’t hold water, because coins depicting Alexander were made at the time he lived, whereas there is NO physical evidence for Jesus from the time he is supposed to have lived. Besides, if he DID exist he wasn’t the magical miracle man of the fairytales, so his existence is wholly irrelevant.
And I thought the existence of the so-called Q-document was most likely a myth.
"The Gospels are FICTION" - Obviously.
thanks for a great vid!!! learned heaps!!!
Reading the gospels is like reading a bunch of Chuck Norris “facts” arranged from least ridiculous to Ludacris “Chuck Norris is so strong…” jokes. You know most, if not all, is made up BS, but some of it is harder to believe than others. But, to all of us non-fans, who cares about any of it.
Professor of religion LOL
Sorry a learned man scares you and your peculiar beliefs
@@canbest7668 maybe the remark was made to show disbelief that one can become a professor of fantasy.
@@kellydalstok8900 One could argue _all_ professors of religion are just that. Still, given how fundamental religion is to so many people, it is a legitimate field of study
There is room for respectable holding of such a position or degree.
Not as "Doctor of TRUTH!", but rather as an expert in the field of "This is what other people have believed over the years and how it differs by location and time". If on the other hand, you're an apologist then it's entirely useless. It only holds value on an academic level. eg, there was a viral clip a few year s ago of a Fox News [sic] host baffled by the idea that a Muslim was talking to her about Jesus. Being a religious extremist, she was entirely perplexed that a man who believed Jesus existed and was a prophet, could talk about Christianity. It turned out both people were garbage, but he did have academic standing to talk.
Or, the Study of Nothing as I prefer to call it.
I read Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark a number of years ago, and was quite impressed with the parallels to Homer's works. Some items were very clear while others were a bit more difficult to see. My uneducated opinion of Jesus is that the man may have existed but we know virtually nothing about him because there are only fictionalized versions of his story and those who wrote those accounts mostly knew nothing about Jesus except what they'd heard. Obviously, Mark was creating a narrative that had no basis in fact, but may have contained a few facts which are impossible to glean from the surrounding myths.
Yeah, the story of a possible real person was totally hidden when they put the whole "prophecy" stuff around it to get that messianic train rolling. It's likely no action, word or description of a flesh and blood prototype has survived the process of inflating the story into the salvation myth that was turbocharged by the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
Likewise that artificiality of the "official" accounts makes it impossible to exclude the figure having been made up wholecloth. Or even a combination, a totally unrelated life story of a not connected preacher was hijacked to give the claims even more pretense of authenticity. Sure ther ewas a Jesus, people still talked about him. But only the Paulites and Peterites remembered how he did ... "gospel story X", so you need to join our movement to get the full truth for a convenient price of lifelong installments of 10% of what you earn.
I know that I leave alot of corky, goofy, somewhat amusing comments sometimes, really making fun of creationists, and all theist in general. I do it to amuse myself really, due to the fact that I take my feelings about how people take these beliefs and use them for political gain, financial gain, and don't care what they do to the lives of these families that deeply hold these beliefs and teach their children that this is reality and if they deny this reality, they will face unimaginable torture and torment that their bodies will feel over and over, again and again. You will beg for water, you'll beg for it to end, and you will be ignored by God! This was what I was told as a child. Everytime I was upset because I wasn't allowed to do this or that. I would ask why? And would get the same answer- "Because I said so!" And I hated that so much because it wasn't an answer, there wasn't any explanation. Only my parents being lazy imo. So I felt I had a right to be upset. Of course the "Honor thy mother and father" commandment always popped up as something that was supposed to scare me or make me shut up. And if I kept on, then I was possessed by the devil. It would make me extremely angry to have them tell me that I was possessed by a demon! And my dad would literally try and beat it out of me. And I wasn't going to allow my dad to do that! And at 10 years old, I fought back. People acted like I was a problem child. But as I got older, I didn't care what they thought. But I still respected my parents, and tried to do what I wa supposed to do. But now that I'm 44 years old, my mom is 72, my dad has been dead since 2009, and I'm the only person on my family that hasn't allowed the indoctrination to take hold. So now I speak my mind on what I think about chritianity, what I think about religion, and what I think it's doing to this country and the people who call it home. So if I make a comment that pisses another atheist off or may be something they don't agree with? I'm not doing that on purpose. Because I want to be corrected if there is a correction due. I want to understand why I'm wrong and what to do to make sure I don't make the same mistake. But I'm still going to be goofy, and attempt to be funny lol. Love all of Aron Ra's work and videos.
//it first appears as narrative in the Q document //
You mean a document we don't have, have never had and is never mentioned in any other ancient text. A document which is being used to explain how a story has been written. Does this mean we must have a document for all other writings ever based on what happened as no one can ever just make stuff up.
Fundamentalism:
What you get when you fill your head so full of religion that you empty your mind of everything else to make room for it all.
I just returned from a visit to Israel, and visited many places that Jesus was said to have been. This includes the shores of the Sea of Galilee, where he converted fishermen and gave the Sermon on the Mount. Also visited Jerusalem, including the room where the Last Supper supposedly happened, and of course the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, said to be the site of the crucifixion. However, we have almost no historical evidence that these events took place at these locations. It's all based upon local lore and legend.
The Bible is basically just a Story Book and should be treated as such
It always seems strange to me that Christian scholars, who often take the "historical" Jesus stance, have a tendency to sound like the apologists from the fundamental camp of Jesus followers. Why are they so defensive about a man who they don't necessarily believe was divine? Bart Ehrman is the same way. He has no problem pointing out forgeries in the Christian canon, but gets quite upset whenever anyone suggests that perhaps Jesus was merely a fictive character like most other ancient demigod and savior figures that preceded him.
Bingo!! They DO get defensive, don't they? McDonald. Ehrman. Yeah, it really is strange. Why would Ehrman, for example, ultimately CARE if Jesus were real or not? Yet there he is, recently calling Carrier a "crackpot" and liking him to a QAnon conspiracy theorist for his position. That was out of line. I still like Ehrman, and will always read his stuff, but c'mon man. WTF?
And, in Carrier's defense, he just brushed the remark aside and said that he would continue to read and recommend Ehrman's works for their really good scholarship. That showed some class.
Look at how their bread gets buttered. That's why.
Everything about all modern religion is in fact mythology!
Is it just my personal impression that the atmosphere was somewhat tense in this conversation? Or is it just because English is not my mothertounge?
I think you're right, I felt I noticed a similar atmosphere, and I've seen Dr. Macdonald behave in a similarly passive aggressive fashion in other videos, particularly when he talks about mythicism vs. historicism.
Anyone who has walked across a frozen pond has 'walked on water'. But that simple fact of water freezing wouldn't necessarily be something commonly understood to people in that particular region and time of the planet.
Jesus is not a historical figure. Jesus is just as much historical as King Arthur is.
However, it is important to note that the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are considered the primary source documents of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in Christianity.
While there are differing opinions on the accuracy and historicity of the Gospels, they are generally regarded as historical and theological documents, written by different authors in different contexts. Many scholars believe that the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts and other sources, and they provide valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christianity.
Ultimately, whether or not the Gospels are "fictitious" is a matter of personal interpretation and belief. However, it is important to approach such discussions with an open mind, a respect for differing perspectives, and a commitment to seeking truth and understanding.
We have a two thousand year old story of a Jewish miracle working godman who came to save mankind but he never wrote anything, and soon disappeared into the sky leaving behind a world not saved and full of suffering and ignorance.
This is the very definition of a mythical character based on a real person who vanished, leaving behind his followers to share stories and keep hope alive.
John is a theologian, and evangelist believer and defender of Bible stories by treating them as Homeric poetry. Really?
Just give Josephus credit for his fiction, and Constantine for his publishing of it.
Is Dr. McDonald getting a haircut ?💈
But remove the mythologies of each of those leaving only the secular confirmations and the extreme difference is Jesus has nothing left!
This interview seems like a flop. Clearly these two men are on different paths
The reason god was invented was out of fear of death and the lack of fear from those who would do harm to people with no retribution in an after life. Imagine if you would if every person on the planet thought that no matter how bad they were it didn’t truly matter.
I totally agree with AronRa. We don't know who this Jesus dude was. With Alexander the Great we have coins we have texts from different independent sources. Nothing from Jesus. There could be a guy like called Jesus, in fact, Yeshua was a common name. All we have is really Paul and nobody knows what Paul invented (other than to make it accessible to the Gentiles) into this Jesus character. I can't believe that so many great scholars accept Jesus as a historical person.
I get that Aron is skeptical of faith healers...I can only remember one instance of talk of money in the gospels, when some woman is annointing Jesus with a really expensive oil, and Judas (who is said to be the treasurer of the Apostles) complains that they could have sold the oil for a large sum that could have been given to the poor; Jesus rebukes him and seems to just enjoy the treatment, which some think is partially what leads Judas to betray him, perhaps he thinks Jesus is losing his way...Anyway, here we have a mention of money from the source texts, but they're not taking donations, they are selling their own items. Then again, these are propagandistic works meant to make the subjects look (mostly) good, so maybe they aren't talking about all that went on...There's also the probability that at least some of the Apostles were enriching themselves when Jesus wasn't looking, assuming he wasn't as well. So, the texts don't support Jesus being a "faith healer", but if you don't put much stock in them anyway, you can believe whatever you want of the figures within...
He translated "A Bible"...old and new? Various collections of documents related to Judaism and the New Testament have been monkeyed with for thousands of years, and each iteration would be slightly different based on many factors. When would there have been "The Bible?" It would be interesting to know what documents he's focused on. I need to look at some of his books.
I am an agnostic that used to be Christian. A big argument used in favor of Jesus is that the apostles were willing to die and be locked up in prison for him. That they truly believed they saw him again after he rose. What are your thoughts on their argument?
Joseph Smith's followers affirmed he did and said miraculous things and many of them died for him. He himself died with a gun in his hands and never retracted a single word of his claims.
Can't fictional characters be written to have the same devotion to their fictional messianic demigod? Were ancient peoples not allowed to create and write fictional characters unless they were based on a real historical person? I think not.
People die for lies and propaganda all the time. Its that simple.
What do you think suicide bombers are dying for , the truth ?
it's a ridiculous argument. people die for stupid stuff all the time.
@@scambammer6102 agreed but they knew Jesus and all claimed to have seen him. They believed in him and died for him. They must have seen Jesus do incredible things. I don't know.
I think saying that Jesus "existed" because there could be a guy or a bunch of guys who inspired him is at best delusional.
The point is that if he doesn't exist like described, he didn't exist.
I don't think it's honest to claim otherwise.
Our best hint is a letter of a Roman Governor talking about someone reporting about group of people claiming to follow him, decades after his supposed death.
The religion version of "I know a guy who knows a guy..."
The relig
Jesus is not a historic figure, he is more like Paul Bunyan.
Because there were people who just had a glutton for punishment and looked for life threatening situations to engage in....you know! Shits and giggles, kind of like modern day jackass
Dennis McDonald is always interesting. It has, however, always been quite strange that he's so resistant to mythicist views, given that his own work can be marshaled so strongly in support of them. The NT texts clearly pull from ancient pagan sources--MacDonald makes a very compelling case for this. They draw much more extensively from the Hebrew Bible. What reason is there to assume there's any real person at the center of all of this? There are no good ones.
This guy keeps asserting the existence of, and subsequently relying upon that assertion as fact, the Q source document, even though we have no such document. It's hypothesized to exist, and this guy is telling us it's characteristics, like it wasn't exaggerated, or was early, etc.
I never liked the stories exist therefore jebus exists stance, by that logic hercules and bob the builder exist too... and the goddess I made up exists cause I wrote about her, all hail AtheisMeow may her paws strike true and knock the flat earthers off the pizza earth and onto our dough ball earth just to confuse them.
Anyone who doesn't believe in mythologizing people should look at Chuck Norris facts, and assume those were dug up 2000 years from now. 🤣
How can any sane person argue that the biblical Jesus was a real historical figure? A deity in human form performing miracles and galthering a huge following around him before being crucified and resurrected? Yeah, that's historical fact.
On the one hand, McDonald is saying "all these stories in the Gospels are myths cribbed from Homer!!!"... yet, at the same time, he arrogantly dismisses anyone who suggests that Jesus IS just a mythical character as total morons.
"Mysticism is intellectually bancrupt" in spite of the fact that there is not a single historian's writing to mention Jesus although the events were so spectacular - unless you discard every claims of connection to reality for the life of Jesus and historic events and claim that he was a guy so unworthy of mentioning that the wanna-be messiahs we know of were more spectacular..
Why did emperor Theodosius have all Jesus-myth literature burned including the people who were found in possession of such? Jesus myth cults must have been strong and after the conquests of Islam the strongholds of these were erased (Arianism in Egypt) after the cult was declared heresy and - Christians as the state religion not only persecuted other Christ cults worshiping different Christ figures but also burned libraries and documents wherever they found them to obstruct the remaining knowledge and even pope Leo called Jesus an invention.
I grant that both biblical accounts trying to fix a year to the birth of Jesus are correct: It happened two years before tha "Slaughter of the Innocents" and it happened in the year of the great imperial census when every citizen was ordered to visit the place where his ancestor of pure male bloodline had lived 1000 years before the census - 250 years before even Rome was founded.
Both events did not happen like the virgin birth did not happen - they were made up to integrate previous Christ cults into the new Christ figure who was so very easy to mold since the character himself was as real as Harry Potter and Sauron.
This is an extremely funny comedy video!! It's actually expected to be taken seriously.
Wow, I didn't realize the matter was settled as far as the historicity of Jesus' existence. All of that evidence...then they resort to personal attacks. They treat mythicists like flat earthers
Right? Meanwhile they talk like apologists.
I admire i admire Prof. McDonald's passion for his work. But I didnt hear any actual evidence to show Jesus was a real individual. Refering to a hypothetical document doesn't cut it for me unless I misunderstood his discussion.
Josiphus was in the service of the Flavian emperors??? Right?
Overwhelming evidence for Jesus? I would like to ask Dennis two questions.
Hagiography is very common. Idealization of historical, religious, inspirational figures.
When you age ,the facts of the past are proven or not proven, but still carry a question mark if you didn,t come across the proof. l ignored many a wise word and still suffer from my dismissal of good advice. I wish Robin Hood was real, sadly not, but Sherwood Forest is there.
Great talk guys.
AronRa, a superb video, and conversation. I'm betting this guy doesn't fall under the 'christian' label! Neither you or Matt Dilahunty will suffer fools and seem to be even, not always but at times, less tolerant than before. I understand, but you are both too great, your hard earned knowledge, you especially, too needed, to risk a stroke, lol. This was better. Your last one, oy veh! LOL. You are so loved and admired, take care. Please. I've got , hopefully, one month left of recovery from the fraud, to become a member again!! I've still got one guitar, 2 amps, a cool 'trike' and a nice set of beautiful brown suede, (worn once!) leathers to sell, (thought I'd pose my sister, provocatively in them, all these were hers, lol) and that might do it. That would be quickest. Oh, and we discovered a bunch of good 'show' posters of hers and various other musicians, many signed! Grateful Dead and others more 'rock' or 'blues', though no metal, sorry. 👍💖💙🥰✌
Hello AronRa.
Well I in religion class the teacher said that the revelations is just some metaphor of the persecution of the christians. What do you(Aron) or other say?
Wot type of england is this writtin?
@@imwelshjesus well I think with alot of german I think.
It's a thinly veiled attack on Nero.
@@BaronVonQuiply huh?
@@simonw.1223 The book is about Nero Caesar. The OG Number of the beast is 616. N.E.R.O. adds up to 616. In Greek it's spelled N.E.R.O.N. which adds to 666. It's a thinly veiled writing on first century CE under Nero with lots of hyperbole thrown in and almost certainly some hallucinogenic mushrooms, which grow on Patmos.
The book was written by John of Patmos.
This is old news to me.
Have any scientific scholars maintained that the NT christ stories are NOT fictional? If so, which ones?
Hasn't the real question been which parts of the stories were based on real events?
Who was the real historical person that was attached to the NT christ character?
It seems as if the guest's translation of the bible required a poetic style of language. I don't consider poetry to be consistent with reality. I would not want a poet to represent my case to a judge as opposed to an attorney for instance.
I don't quite understand the rationale for why scholars consider Jesus to be real. Multiple sources could mention Jesus, but I consider this alone would be insufficient. I think that these sources could be collectively writing "fan fiction" as propaganda. I don't know what information is persuasive to support credibility of Jesus Christ's existence.
In conclusion is a lucrative tail
I still think that monty python's portrayal of 1st century Palestinian preachers is spot on. One more preacher amongst many.
@Michael Grant ...of life.
I always think of Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard, making up whole mythologies without any living prototypes they built them around. The only reason that people do not want to accept that for a scratch built 1st century religion is the age and how many peoplke would have fallen for another scam like LSD or CoS...
I can see the parallels to the many preachers telling tall stories to outrecruit each other though. Basically any form of christianity, one with a flesh and blood Jesus as well as one that invented a person to declare its founder, would have stood in a similar competition with the surviing jewish sects and especially messianic cults that would imply such prophetic figures coming to bring liberty to occupied judea.
"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
@@tjarkschweizer... and death.
"And in that time, there will be rumors of things going astray" My favorite, and in my opinion, wisest preacher.
Imagine being a random Middle Eastern preacher amongst many other preachers, then hundreds of years after you're death, practically the whole western world believes that you're the son of god!
All because one Roman Emperor made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
I'm hoping someone does that for me.
I know the odds are pretty low, but we do know I exist and I figure that gives me an edge over all the other gods.
Well, when you put it that way
You can also blame Paul.
The was the one who made Jesus bigger than he was.
Constantine did more for Christianity than any prophet or priest ever could. Who would have thought that all a religion needed to overstay its welcome was just a little bit of political endorsement. From an emperor no less.
@Conon the Binarian exactly
Dennis, where is this "Q" document? What is its provenance? Who wrote it? When was it written? Where was it written? Is it just a Myth?
This document is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting for this Jesus character.
Was Hercules a real person? Probably?
Q is a mere theory and nobody has ever seen even citations from it in tertiary sources. It's basically the sources theory for the Canonical gospels, insisting they must have had several external documents to trade down the real sayings and stories of this Jesus guy until the not eyewitness gospel authors could write their reports.
A theory that isn't really necessary as the sayings are mostly just quotes from old testament books that at the time were deemed to be prophetic... you do not need a collection of citations from a real guy to write such a thing down.
Between him treating the Q document as confirmed reality, the weird fringe theory about the Odyssey (matching other charlatans "proving" Jesus is a rewrite of the Horus Myth or Dionysus or Mithras or "enter vaguely known god X here", all of which were laughed out of the room) and his claim of the convincing strength of supposedly historical evidence, which in reality has consistently been defanged and exposed as weak sauce whenever actual sources were cited, i get the impression the guy might be a nice but very fraudulent senior trying to monetize his pet fanfiction online.
Honestly, even if the Q document did exist, it would already certainly only show that there was one more layer of plagiarism, not that there was a real Jesus.
I think "On The Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier makes an excellent case for Jesus being entirely mythical.
I've gotta get that
@@thedragonofechigo7878 it is a very good very detailed book and explains many reasons while it cant be proven indefinitely he didn't exist Jesus was probably almost definitely a myth.
So is the author/researcher Acharya S (Dorothy Milne Murdock) book "Christ Conspiracy"
True, and Carrier is saying to there could be a Jesus dude but not this historical Jesus and the evidence is weak. He is right.
@@MrOliver1444
Carrier is a full mythisist. His position is that jesus was thought of as a divine being first and then made into a historical person
Carrier has always taken the position that he thinks the possibility of a historical jesus is 1 in 3, which aren't bad odds, but regardless if he existed or not most of the stuff attached to him is fiction. I do think the strongest evidence for jesus is that Paul talks about meeting James the brother of jesus, josheus talks about the death of James the brother of jesus, Mark says one of Jesus's brothers is called james, and even when the church held the perpetual virginity of Mary, they held that James was his step brother or adopted brother.
Carrier argues that James' title "brother" could be an honorific that was turned into a sibling relationship.
I think it's more likely that Jesus was a real man who was killed and his brother and a few friends started a religion around him in Jerusalem.😅
My favourite thing about this interview is that it occasionally didn't go the way AronRa expected and instead of getting upset he smiled and asked for more. That's the attitude I prefer to see in debates and discussions, rather than trying to "win" or "destroy" or "own" the other person.
I couldn't disagree more. Aron is a weak debater and is kind of childish.
I am a philosopher and expert on mysticism. Meaning. I've studied and understood the greats for years, which was essentially me unlearning.. Same thing everyone must do.
If you want to actually learn the nature of the universe.. Then you should study Carl Jung, Alan Watts, and Jiddu KRishnamurti.
Alan Watts it he go to, because he explains all of it and does it in an entertaining and easy way to understand.
@@mikeydoes where are your debates and credibility? Expert on mysticism 😂 ok Gandolf.
@@CultofPersonality334 I've been on every philosophical forum and discussed will gladly discuss this with anyone.
I'm familiar with Eastern philosophy, and most western minds as well. I studied many, so I have an idea what any person is coming up with, and where they get lost, in regards to understanding that we know we know nothing.
Why are you upset that I know that I know nothing. It's nothing that special, in fact it is worse.. Since you know everyone is lost, but no one listens and just calls you names.
Much easier to just be lost in samsara than to understand it, when no one else does.
@@mikeydoes Alan Watts is indeed great and he was never as judgemental as some who listened or read him.
@@CultofPersonality334 ask your dear leader why he insulted me, blocked me, and didn't listen to anything I said.
I went into the talk being respectful and enjoying both him and Jesse Lee Peterson, while not agreeing with either.
Peterson and I both love all 3 of us even when we don't agree. Aron was not only disrespectful but he doesn't love us and might not love himself.
2000yrs from now after a post apocalyptic collapse of society - "there once was a man called Makjal Jatsen who walked on the moon and could simultaneously walk forward and backwards at the same time and transform his appearance at will"
Don't think they'll classify his skull as homo sapien
Don’t forget that he wore a crown made of fire and could change colour at will!
@@tamaratiny definitely a homo though
@@lidbass historical documents prove he was a shapeshifter that could take on any face, age, gender or race he wanted, at will and in incredibly short amounts of time.
Must have been very useful during the first Zombieapocalypse when he fought the undead...
He possessed majik penny loafers and a diamond encrusted glove. Peace be upon him.
"We have similar stories of Alexander the great." Yes but we also have evidence from various different sources with different bias (followers, enemies, rivals, etc) that show that he did actually exist, along with physical evidence, such as coins and his conquests.
Where as with jesus there's nothing, not a single thing from the time he existed. The guy supposedly annoyed and angered the Jewish priest so much that they had him killed but not one of those priests wrote a letter or document saying anything about this heretic, who claims to be the son of god and the messiah, and his teachings? Not a single one of them? The closed thing we have is Paul (who didn't write about a physical jesus) and later Mark (which the other gospels are based off of and that build on it), both decades later and by unknown authors (most of Paul's writings were by the same person, who historians and scholars call Paul but the rest we have no idea who wrote them).
Comparing jesus to Alexander the great is like comparing King Arthur, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes or Spiderman to Alexander the great. It's a ridiculous comparison.
@Conon the Binarian it's why I fall more into the mythacist (probably just spelt that wrong), I'm agnostic on it though and don't really think it matters whether there was a historical jesus, it just annoys me that scholars give jesus special treatment and say that there's evidence bit whenever I've looked or asked no good evidence has ever been shown, yet academics dismiss the idea for no reason, yet will happily view similar characters from the same time period as mythological.
Yes I agree. For me the equation is simple: there are 3 big source for Jesus, the NT, Tacitus and Josephus. The first is describing and arguing for a supernatural being, a demigod. Demigods almost certainly don't exist, therefore it's claims of Jesus' existence can be dismissed in the absence of extraordinary evidence. And the last two have a huge problem of interpolation when it comes to Jesus. And the parts that aren't interpolated mention a vague, generic Jesus - is it THE Jesus or A Jesus? Yeshua was a common name back then. That leaves you really, having to rely on the NT - but how do you justify a historical Jesus off of a clearly fictional character without additional evidence? The Historists are letting the inertia of previous generations taking Jesus' historicity as a given, do the heavy lifting.
Hey Aron! I remember i used to watch your videos back in 2008 and you were a big reason i let go of religion and havent looked back since from way back when i was just turning 18 and growing up in an insanely religious family.
Years later i moved to to edinburgh scotland, and i think one time when you were visiting i actually saw you walking around edinburgh at the time when i was out on my lunch break. i didnt say anything cuz i didnt want to bother you but i remember checking your youtube and you mentioned you were in scotland at the time.
talk about a coincidence!
good to see you still so active on youtube, ive been out of the youtube space for quite awhile.
cool discussion, my family all still literally think teh bible is historically accurate.
As a writer of fiction, the good professor is wrong in that a historical individual is needed for fan-fictions to be written. For example, Star Wars has a HUGE fan-fic base, yet it is all based on fictional characters. Also, the Jesus of the bible is a wholly constructed hero character that includes traits and themes found in prior characters, like Joshua, Moses, David, and others. This is a common writing style and character development. Lastly, all of the gospels are written in the third person POV, as if you are watching a play on stage and writing what you see and hear. This is supported by the fact that in none of the gospels is there, "and then I SAW JESUS DO BLAH BLAH BLAH." The lack of a first-person narrative points to someone writing fiction, not fact.
There is no empirical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels was a living character. Could Jesus have been created from other Jesus's running around Judea between 100 BCE and 100 CE? Sure. But not the superhero described in the gospels.
Linguists and historians have not stopped fighting for centuries about the existence of a real Robin Hood, King Arthur or Merlin.
Occasionally they even doubt Charlemagne actually was real... or several of the Aethel-- kings of the pre Norman time. We see doubts about the number and sequence of Emperors of Rome or China, of Pharaos and of Popes...
Johnny Appleseed allegedly was a real person, but the myth was blown out of any proportion. Was Paul Bunyan ever a normal lumberjack though?
Thats not what he was saying when he made that comparison.
He was likening the way that writers added embellishment and hyperbole to the adventures of a person who really existed, to the way in which modern fan fiction writers do the same thing for characters which may not be historically real, but exist already in other media.
So for example Homer Simpson and Frasier Crane both have their established traits, memories, life events and so on. Fan fic writers then take those characters they like and add on to or extend the capabilities or accomplishments of that character. So the historicity of the character isnt what he was comparing, but the way in which fan fic writers take the established reality of a character and modify/manipulate/expand on it.
"Lastly, all of the gospels are written in the third person POV, as if you are watching a play on stage and writing what you see and hear." I rarely see this point made but I think it is one of the most important points when assessing the credibility of the Gospels. The Gospels are written in the style of historical fiction. Without external evidence it is impossible to discern fact from fiction in a historical novel. The professor grossly exaggerated the strength of external evidence for the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.
Percival Lowell stared at Mars for years and discovered a vast network of canals. This guy has stared at New Testament minutia for years and has discovered evidence that doesn't exist.
@@davefoc that's why i am a mythicist, because of scholars who think that is more likely that some present day readers of Josephus are smoking weed than the Josephus himself being drunk when he wrote his testimony or the guys who translated him being intoxicated with other substances, as if drugs, alcohol or hallucinogenic mushrooms didn't exist in antiquity. It would have been much better if authors of gospels had been inspired by Socrates or Aristotle (or Ovidius, the author of delightful erotic poems), and not by Homer or Virgil. It would have been nice to have had a religion born or inspired from Shakespeare's writings, and Macbeth would have been the new messiah.
@@danieljohnston2379 In other words, the fact that jesus myths exist is not evidence for or against a historical jesus, and is certainly no basis to conclude he existed.