As the interview pointed out, the worst thing about historicist critics is when they refuse to familiarize themselves with the actual claims of mythicist authors - even to the fanatical extent of not bothering to read or understand mythicist books, papers, articles and media presentations. Fear is their motivator.
Paradigm shifts in consensus often happen by the older generation dying, rather than convincing them to change their minds. I have a feeling this will be one of those topics where we just have to wait. The historicists have their heels so dug in, and they can't be objective about this topic for various reasons. But in a few decades as more and more of the older professors and authors retire and pass away, then you'll see the shift happen with little fanfare. And by then no one will even think much of it. He will be looked at like Moses or Abraham.
Yes, many Jesus historicists work at religious institutions that require a statement of faith or a creedal commitment as a condition of employment. Imagine a physics department doing that--outrageous bias!.
The idea that jesus was a real person is ENTIRELY based on apologetic momentum and everyone taking their word for what the sources say. Anyone who bothers to actual look sees that the commonly trouted out sources are all terrible, forgeries, and hearsay.
@@tomasrocha6139 These tired bart erhman claims have debunked repeatedly. the only brothers paul knows are "brothers of the lord" which refers to all christians. the josephus passage is a scribal error, and about someone else.
"hyperskepticism" is an apologetic weasel word. It begs the question. Honest people don't assume something "must be true" before they even begin looking. Carrier's 1 in 3 is not even realistic or fair, and he says he gives historicity a bunch of evidence they don't merit. He is being OVERLY generous when he shouldn't be.
As the interview pointed out, the worst thing about historicist critics is when they refuse to familiarize themselves with the actual claims of mythicist authors - even to the fanatical extent of not bothering to read or understand mythicist books, papers, articles and media presentations. Fear is their motivator.
Christians are nothing if not dishonest.
Quite sad to hear of Hector Avalos' passing. He was great. Didn't think he would be dead for a long time.
Got the book on an interlibrary loan. It is a great book, and the historical methods are impeccable. Well done, Raphael.
Paradigm shifts in consensus often happen by the older generation dying, rather than convincing them to change their minds. I have a feeling this will be one of those topics where we just have to wait. The historicists have their heels so dug in, and they can't be objective about this topic for various reasons.
But in a few decades as more and more of the older professors and authors retire and pass away, then you'll see the shift happen with little fanfare. And by then no one will even think much of it. He will be looked at like Moses or Abraham.
Yes, many Jesus historicists work at religious institutions that require a statement of faith or a creedal commitment as a condition of employment. Imagine a physics department doing that--outrageous bias!.
The idea that jesus was a real person is ENTIRELY based on apologetic momentum and everyone taking their word for what the sources say. Anyone who bothers to actual look sees that the commonly trouted out sources are all terrible, forgeries, and hearsay.
@@spiritsplice Nope, Paul knew Jesus' brother James whom Josephus also mentions.
@@tomasrocha6139 These tired bart erhman claims have debunked repeatedly. the only brothers paul knows are "brothers of the lord" which refers to all christians. the josephus passage is a scribal error, and about someone else.
@@spiritsplice Nope, Paul never uses "the brother of the lord" to mean someone is a Christian and no evidence for that either.
at 13:07 "let"s get started"
The link didn’t work does anyone know where I can find the full presentation?
Interesting.
I read your book! So I guess I'm No. 6.
The bible is a proven fairytale.
First half of this video is useless blather. It gets going around 17 minutes in.
"hyperskepticism" is an apologetic weasel word. It begs the question. Honest people don't assume something "must be true" before they even begin looking.
Carrier's 1 in 3 is not even realistic or fair, and he says he gives historicity a bunch of evidence they don't merit. He is being OVERLY generous when he shouldn't be.
Too much intro talk before talking abut his responses! Latester is a boring speaker!
I have to disagree here, a slow start yes, but than it rocks. First time seeing this guy. Now I need his book from somewhere
Richard carrier is certainly easier to listen to.