For the past year plus, I've been on this journey of exploring Christianity (as an ex-militant atheist) and I've come across so many religious people - such as the two gentlemen in this video - who are so incredibly humble in their manners, their ways, their speech, their approach to challenging issues and ideas. It's really been wonderful. Thank you.
@Dennis Bakker I come from a similar background and came to the realization (frankly, against my personal preference at the time) that Jesus Christ is Lord. I always claimed to be seeking the truth and I couldn’t continue being anti-Christian if it was true. As you’ve explored, have you found Christianity to be true? If so, have you repented and believed? Wishing you all the best.
@@justinbrown8036 I'm not sure yet, but I'm definitely leaning in that direction. I do pray - not regularly - and have asked for forgiveness for my past sins and since then a huge weight has lifted off my shoulders
Couple things I’ve picked up on all of these atheist “ experts” is their level of pride when speaking in debates or rebuttals , mostly on Christianity which then leads me to believe they have a general bias towards Christianity, not just religion itself 🤔 Their biased disdain really gets my spidey senses tingling 🤷🏻♂️
Dick Carrier is a piece of work and I have lost any respect for him. He’s dangerous because he is leading people astray and the second you get people to doubt….
Have you actually watched these debates? There is plenty of Christian pride and arrogance on display. What I think is far more likely is you are probably biased towards the side you agree with. Thus you view the other side as being more hostile.
Ever consider it's actually bias against events that in order to be, the universal laws of reality must be suspended? There are no magicians, only illusionists
@@elguapochango isn't this a statement about Brierly and Wright. There is no "opponent" in this discussion except by reference and it is not derogatory in any way.
@@iain5615 it’s been awhile but I think my comment wasn’t limited to just the context of this video, as I don’t believe the comment I was replying to was either.
@@georgemoncayo8313 I don't have time to respond to everything you said - so I'll keep it brief: First of all, you seem to think that all atheists think the universe came from nothing. That is not true of me - something always had to exist, but that doesn't mean it's a god - and even if it was, how do you know it's the biblical god? If god can always exist, then the same could apply to physical particles. The bible has never been proven, and has shown just as much evidence against it as there is for it. That's a problem, don't you think? For one- we KNOW for a fact, that Genesis took most of it's influence from early Sumerian writings - no real scholar will dispute that. From there onward, it just gets tricky. Sure there are thousands of artifacts that backup the culture in the time the bible was written. So what? Does that prove the supernatural stuff? Does that prove that there was an Adam and Eve or a worldwide flood? No - it does not. Just because there might have been a Jesus, doesn't mean there was a resurrection. New York City exists. Does that mean Spiderman exists? Archaeologists agree that the Trojan War occurred and that the city of Troy was found. Does that mean the Odyssey is a fact? London exists. Does that mean Sherlock Holmes exists? Johhny Appleseed was based on a real person. Does that mean the stories are all true? The bible has some historical things in it, but most of the stories and events it describes - cannot be corroborated. There might have been a King David, but there is no historical evidence that he ever fought Goliath, or anything else for that matter. No prophet in the old testament has been shown to having existed. I almost fell over laughing when you mentioned Georgia Purdom and Bodie Hodge - these two especially are a joke. It doesn't matter if they have phd's. So what? Do you honestly think everyone with a phd is interested in facts? They have been refuted by real scientists all over the world. 98% of scientists accept an old universe. The creationist movement is on it's last dying stretch, and they are making any last-ditch effort to brainwash the youth. That's why the ilk of the creation museum like Georgia Purdom and Ken Ham push their hateful bigoted swill on homosexuals and atheists. They are a hate group, first and foremost. They nothing better to do with their time. Creationism cannot be peer reviewed because there is no evidence for it. It takes no religious faith to be an atheist. I do have a certain kind of faith - faith in humans, faith in myself, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. But there is no atheist bible to put my faith in.......sorry to disappoint. I grew up in the church, so I've heard all of your arguments in spades, and then some. Do yourself a favor - don't waste you energy. You'll be better off preaching on the street. Good day.
@@georgemoncayo8313 Don't reply to me anymore. You're flinging so much horseshit in my face, it's suffocating. I would be willing to have a discussion with anyone who shows a little humility and respect - but you have none. Making false assumptions about what I actually believe, and acting like you can read my mind, and assume I haven't read or studied any of the things you have. Such foolish arrogance. Again, this is the last time I speak to you. I won't reply to another comment if you make it. I warned you not to waste your time. Take your bullshit pack of cards, and go play them elsewhere. Take care. Big kiss.
@@pwoods100 Good evening. >>>If god can always exist, then the same could apply to physical particles. " Then how would they come to life without an intelligent agent? Please explain how the universe was fine-tuned? >>>> The bible has never been proven, and has shown just as much evidence against it as there is for it." Name some. Almost all the Biblical stories are backed by archaeological evidence. Please provide scholarly evidence. Carrier isn't scholarly - he has an agenda - his polyamorous lifestyle - his words. >>>>98% of scientists accept an old universe. The creationist movement is on it's last dying stretch, and they are making any last-ditch effort to brainwash the youth. " Your science is almost 100 years old. The Big Bang is the accepted science. Literally NO Scientist holds to an old un-created universe. Whether it is old or young is still a matter of the quantum realm. >>>They are a hate group, first and foremost." You mean like Dawkins at the 2012 "Rally for Reason" in DC calling for "mocking Christians in public" or PZ Meyers calling for violence against Christians? He says that evolutionists should “screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s about time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots." You mean like that? >>> Creationism cannot be peer reviewed because there is no evidence for it." Where would you like to begin? >>>I grew up in the church." So what? You provide zero evidence for your claims - how can you live without evidence, or, are you a slave to populist notions? GOD Bless
Carrier will respond because he has no real job. No one with a tenured position at a university with degrees in the classics or ancient texts buys the crazy view that Jesus didn’t exist. The opinion is overwhelming that Jesus did exist. Even Dawkins concedes Jesus existed. These mythicists are a goofy disgruntled collection of oddballs even in the atheist community.
I’ve read that he gets no respect from the academic community. No peer reviewed papers being published. He went on this crusade after Dr. William Lane Craig kick his butt in a debate
@Jim Where. You said { The opinion is overwhelming that Jesus did exist. Even Dawkins concedes Jesus existed. } Who is the Dawkins that you are talking about ? Is it Richard Dawkins? Richard Dawkins and many people can have opinion about anything, but that doesn't mean their opinion is true or false. If you are talking about Richard Dawkins, I don't think he did any major work in history. I have never come across him claiming he can read / write or understand the ancient languages of Middle-East like Akkadian, Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Greek* etc. I also never heard him saying he lived in the middle east region for years doing research. There are many people in the west with opinions about Africa that is not accurate. Some of them hold advanced degrees. And there are children or young boys in Africa that have opinions about Africa that is accurate. Therefore, I don't think opinion is a good way to conclude the accuracy of something historical. I think evidence is much better than opinion.
@@michaelbrickley2443 Where is the debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Richard ? You said { I’ve read that he gets no respect from the academic community. No peer reviewed papers being published. He went on this crusade after Dr. William Lane Craig kick his butt in a debate }. I thought you have to be part or accepted by the powerful group in order to get respect or accepted. Like the way it is done in politics. Usually you don't get appointed to big political offices just because you are a good person. You get there by being part of a group that approved you first, then get to the office. In a similar way if an employed professor in United States writes a history about Islam that annoyed the powers that be, he will lose respect and his job also even if the history is true. I just don't get it. It looks like your statement is equating "respect from the academic community" or "peer reviewed papers" to the truth. Meaning if they approve something, then it is true and if they don't then it is not true. I can understand this in the context of donations, but not in the context of truth. I remember a long time ago. There is this organization that is considered the best of the best in the world that told us that "Saddam Hussein" has weapons of mass destruction deceiving billions of people around the world.
@@michaelbrickley2443 I thought it is on UA-cam also but I am not sure because I haven't seen it before. I don't know the exact debate you are talking about. That is why I am asking since you already mentioned it. You did not post a link to the debate or something like the title, the date, the location etc. So I am not sure if I will get the debate you are talking about or end up with something different.
@ That's all assertion, opinion and emotional outburst in lieu of an argument. I find that many skeptics do that. Instead of refuting the historian merely assert, emote and opine.
...Boy-oh-boy--that's what really matters, uh? Here, I'd been thinking that it's the way a scholar binks their eyed that really matters. But, you hit the nail on head, buddy.
@@jursamaj, I don't think so. Nevertheless, it does speak to a kind of frustration that Wright and other historians experience reading Carrier. There are good reasons for that, ranging from Carrier's tone (typical rudeness of an almost adolescent variety) to his insistence upon kicking against the goads of well-established historical consensus in a variety of respects. He is to the historian what the intelligent design theorist is to the evolutionary biologist: a maverick who doesn't seem to entirely understand what his more qualified peers are on about.
@@tylerjourneaux4352 That "well-established consensus" is established entirely by believers in the religion, many of whom have to give statements of faith to their employers just to get & keep their jobs. This rather colors what they are allowed to say. Not that long ago, you would have gotten the same scoffing that Carrier gets if you had suggested that the Exodus didn't happen. It is now mainline archeological position that Exodus didn't happen at all. No significant number of Jews enslaved in Egypt, no 40 years wandering, no genocide in Canaan under Joshua. This has all been known for decades now, altho much of the public doesn't know it. Indeed, all the stories of the patriarchs are myths. Moses likely didn't exist, not in any way that would be recognizable from the stories. All this goes against the "well-established consensus" that was handed down to us, but it's what the evidence shows. Carrier rightly shows that the historical criteria which Christian biblical scholars have applied to the bible are largely invalid, and mostly invented for and only used on the bible itself. This is a problem for the "consensus".
Ecclesiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." Solomon is dramatically describing life here on earth, and the folly of that existence when God is left out. No matter how exciting life may seem to be “under the sun,” ultimately, it has no value without God. we exist for a very short period of time but the earth remains forever in contrast to our short life spans. Nothing ever changes. So, any search for real meaning and lasting profit cannot come from under the sun. We will die and eventually stand before God and be judged. Those who have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and have given Him their lives will spend eternity with God. Those who have not done so will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Let us place our faith in God alone so that we would be strong in the Lord and ready to battle against the doubts planted by the enemy. Lord, increase our Faith! John 10:10 I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
I find it humorous how he tells the story about talking to his wife in which he subtly proves the point the ancient authors were making. Perhaps it was subconscious
Justin and Tom what a great session, it was uplifting. Event in contemporary life unfortunately in some regions of Middle East and SW Asia, the same views are being observed about woman at times! A word of caution, you would not have similar discussions with your wife prior to preparing your meals! You may end up with irreversible damages speaking of consequences! Unless you would know how to cook for yourself that's a safe measure!
Same. Though that's not the only argument but rather the superficial one. In fact most only use it as a starting point. Personally I am agnostic but I am man enough to admit that Richard Carrier usually makes up things as he goes so im skeptic of the skeptic. So while I disagree in some conclusions I can admit that. Though that's just me.
@@TheWorldTeacher I was raised Agnostic so that is a question I always ask one way or another. But yes. Your assertion is true. That IS the biggest question.
Maximus Atlas And HERE is the answer: 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity. The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete realization and understanding. There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God: 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher/ultimate power in existence (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or world teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) , German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.
I know. Carrier has some gall to (insultingly and rudely) attack Wright and his credentials, when Carrier has never held a university chair and is considered a fringe scholar by most academics in the field. Whether one likes Wright or not, The Resurrections of the Son of God is respected in the field for its thorough and creative presentation, even if not everybody agrees with it. The Journal of the Study for the Historical Jesus had multiple articles about the book when it was first published in the early 2000s.
Yes, but not with overly positive reviews. Most agree that the level and length of research is impressive, and it is the most thorough work on Jesus Mythicism, but also agree that his methodology is unconvincing and unpersuasive. " [Carrier's work is] rigorous and thorough academic treatise that will no doubt be held up as the standard by which the Jesus Myth theory can be measured... [but the arguments are ] problematic and unpersuasive...[his use of Bayesian probabilities] unnecessarily complicated and uninviting.. with a lack of evidence, strained readings and troublesome assumptions...most contemporary scholarship has been critical of Carrier's methodology and conclusions. " -Gullotta, Daniel N. (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2-3): 310-346
I love NT Wright. The critical question not discussed, however, is are there sources that confirm that women could be trusted in law courts and other public hearings?
Mark 10:11-12. Women could initiate divorce proceedings (but Jesus discourages it for other reasons). Why would women be allowed to initiate divorce proceedings if they were not trusted in law courts? Wright is still correct to say the testimony of women would be embarrassing, but not for the reason he cites (perceived women's untrustworthiness or unreliable). There might be other reasons which are more plausible; e.g. lack of education for women, etc.
Jewish law Said that a female corpse had to be prepared by women, But a male corpse could be done by either a man or a woman. Mark says that it was Joseph who took care of the body, And then we don't even seem to help other than watch. So technically the body would be Joseph's responsibility.
Women at the tomb was customary for preparing a body before burial. From a cultural and historical standpoint it wouldn’t make sense to have it any other way. If they were going to claim Christ rose from the dead then someone would’ve asked about the women going to the tomb. We are t talking about a testimony in court. Something far beyond that is going on.
Richard carrier also said that God doesn't exist bc if he did then carrier would be able to talk to him and God would talk back.... So ya, there's that
@@bpansky _have any of you read the parts of the bible where god speaks to people?_ 'Any of you'? How many people are you talking to? You probably know the answer to that question. Why would you ask it?
At 2:36 Wright claims that in 1st Corinthians 15 there is a list of all men who saw Jesus after his resurrection. The only names given are Peter and James. A list of two men. It does talk of the Twelve, the apostles and 500 of his followers. But it says nothing about who these followers were, what the followers saw, and it says nothing about whether they were men or women. So where is this list of men that Wright talks about?
@@johnbarr7421 I’m confused. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume out of 500 people appeared to, some are women? I understand that’s an inference, but it seems reasonable given how Paul openly praises specific women in other letters, so not prejudiced against them as believers. :)
@@YesuaCuckBaby "Can you name these 500 and provide any correlation of their existence with secular accounts?" No, since such historical data is unreasonable to expect from how little survives. :( However, Paul is generally accepted as being earnest and honest in his letters. So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to take his word for it. :) EX: If my wife came home and said she saw an arm grow back from prayer and then retold me the account, I would likely prima facie believe her due to said trust and a lack of a naturalist worldview. We can chat naturalism if that is more your problem with the 500 seeing a 'supernatural' event. :)
Apostle Paul in the epistle to Galatian clearly separates Jewish tradition from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think it is fitting in that epistle he writes this. Galatians 3:27-29 KJVS For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. I think it is extremely dangerous that modern Christianity is starting to blend the opinions of rabbis into various discourses concerning Christianity.
Many atheists object to Christianity saying that Christianity is an infantile wish fulfilment. Their argument goes like this, Christian believe their religion to be true, because they want it to be true. They believe in God because it gives them a sense of security and comfort. But this is a biased idea of Christian faith. My Christian response to this would be: Is God what you want to be true? Are you sure? When God called Abraham, did Abraham 'want' to leave the security of his homeland and go to a new place of which he knew nothing? Did Moses want to leave the comfort of being the Prince of Egypt to be called by God to lead a slave nation to freedom? Did Jesus want to be crucified for God's Kingdom of justice and love, that he proclaimed in words and deeds. And I can go on like this, with every person whom God called and sent in the Bible. God is not what we want or what we like. Unless a person is willing to embark on a journey of faith, of a real dying to self, and living to righteousness, he has not really accepted Jesus as His Lord. "For those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Gal 5:24) That is the reason why the Prophet Jeremiah exclaims, "Your word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, And I could not."(Jer 20:9). And in a different sense, the Bible warns those who deliberately spurn God's Mercies, "it is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the living God". (Heb 10: 31). Yes there is the promise of Peace but not without going through fire, the promise of Resurrection but not without taking up the cross, the promise of Eternal Life but not without going through the Narrow Door. And I'm also willing to concede, there are people who seek to be infants in their faith, who refuse to grow up, who like to see God as their 'Santa'; these are called from a Christian position, as 'practical atheists', because they will believe as long as everything goes well with them, and as long as everything goes bad with their enemies. And so to conclude, the true and living God is the 'breaker of idols', and some of them, paradoxically built by atheists themselves. Here, I'm talking about the idol of an 'all powerful rationality', that seeks evidence from God for his existence. It dares reduce God to a thing. "Can he who fashioned the ear not hear? Can he who formed the eye not see?" (Ps 94:9) And again, "For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?" (1 Cor 2: 16)
The Biblical faith is a faith in the God of history. You have to read the Bible to see constant references to historical events. It does use mythical language however when it has to communicate transcendent truths that go beyond mere facts. But there is a vast difference between mythologies and using mythical language.
@@melroycorrea7720 Pretty much *all* fiction refers to historical events, so that's no surprise. Look at all the stories that are entirely fictional, but set in the American West or WWII or medieval Europe. That just gives a common reference point to start from. Stories that have no connection at all to things people already know tend not to sell well. I notice you completely ignored the important point: can you give any reason to believe the story?
Good interview of NT Wright. He was quite articulate & scholarly concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Richard Carrier is extremely biased against Jesus Christ & seriously misrepresents many references deliberately. In Matthew 5:19B Jesus said whoever does my commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. If a skeptic once belonged to Jesus and subsequently became apostate, Jesus said in Matthew 5:19 that you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. You will be a low life. If a skeptic never belonged to Jesus, in Matthew 11:20-24, it will be more bearable for Sodom than for you. Turn away from your sins & receive Jesus Christ into your life (Luke 24:44-48). ✝📖🎓⚔🙏
Im surprised people actually use links by Carrier in 2020. Wasn't he like the laughing stock of the community that even other atheist ban from talks to prevent ratings from dropping?. Im not even a theist and I find him rather dull.
AnarchoRepublican 😂When you put it that way I sorta of agree. The things he writes are just so messed up. I remember when he actually made a page to a "Cosmic sperm bank". I was like....Dude wtf 😂
Maximus Atlas I regret to inform you, Slave, that your response is INCORRECT. 👎 The CORRECT answer is “Yes, Master”. ✅ Bless You Always, TYPICAL Arrogant Westerner!
@@TheWorldTeacher "When men have egos larger than Elephant they become like weasels pretending to be kings" - Rashid - Hope you learn to be a better person as you grow old.
Richard Carrier.. The guy says Jesus Christ never existed... Dawkin repeated him. Then got laughed off the stage by his, Atheist Peers for it. Why Dawkin never repeated it. Not even atheist are that ignorant...
Carrier is a peer reviewed author with a doctorate. Wright is a gullible old fool who debates Carrier when he is not there to defend himself. That is the truth of the matter.
@@movieklump What part you not get? As you make one more appeal to Authority. I will laugh in your face so hard. As having a PhD means shit If you are ignorant. Carrier claims Jesus Christ never existed. He got scoffed at by his Atheist peers for it. And for good reason. They are not ignorant.. As Gary Habermas has a PhD as well. he stomped on Richard Carrier assertions. As he Carrier deserved it.
@@movieklump Have you read this? Daniel N. Gullotta, “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2017): 310-46.
It's not possible to prove a fictional character or a fictional story in the first place!! Its time to put up your invisible religious toys you have played with them too long!
@AnarchoRepublican your halarious! Your insults are childish and show you dont know how to logically or rationally think! Your dogma blinds you! I'm not sure why you feel attacked when it's just a fictional story!
@AnarchoRepublican I dont find any of it offensive but extremely funny because I somehow hurt your feelings and I know that's why your being evil towards me about your pretending! I see it's making you mad and I only want a discussion but your too butt hurt to talk to so good luck with your head in your fiction book and imaginary friend! And your also proving religion breeds hate over a fictional story!
It is clear to me at this point that the fact that in the gospels women are the first witnesses is precisely to make room for scepticism as to the veracity of the resurrection story. Paul is making a different point. His Jesus is Divine and thus more Spiritual than Physical and so he employs male witnesses in his narrative to reinforce the veracity of what he is trying to say. Physical resurrection of bodies is a trap for Idolaters to fall into.
Is there a link to what R. Carrier wrote? Where could I find it? I would like to go through it myself (only this particular part NT Wright is responding to). Thank you.
You can search for Carrier’s debates on UA-cam. Also David Wood wrote a response to one of Carrier’s books, then Carrier wrote a rebuttal. It is interesting. Just search for David Wood and Richard Carrier.
The problem with Carrier is that he uses obscure sources and takes the sources out of context. I think he uses red herrings and misreads them. If you were to take apart his thought process you come to a twisted view of both his process and his conclusions. It’s like throwing spaghetti at a wall.
@@MadameRobinson there is a great response from Cross Examined. He refuses to acknowledge the historicity of much of Paul. If you’re interested I’ll check my bookmarks. Just his very air of superiority attacking scholars like Craig Evans makes me sick. He debated William Lane Craig and got his butt kicked. After that, he developed a style and goes after the traditions and says we have no “proof.” Once you’re planting the seeds of doubt in the skeptics minds they take root because they don’t want a god. Hitch lost to David Berlinski but his “fans” saw it differently. Berlinski is a scholar and Hitch is a man who learned, early on, how to use his charm and his style to look good. He debated his brother after his brother came back to faith.
Basically your argument is as follows: "We know the story of Goldilocks is true, because she had as witnesses the Three Bears. The Bears' status as witnesses would have been questioned by the public and generally wouldn't have been taken seriously, so by the criteria of embarrassment we know the story must be true. If the story were an invention, the storytellers would have invented witnesses of higher status to lend credence to their story. But they didn't. They reported the story as it came from the Bears themselves. They verified that she entered their house, they attested to the fact that she ate their porridge and slept in their beds. The story wasn't written down until several decades later, but it has the flavor of the early versions of the oral tale, so we know it must be true."
Are you arguing the Gospel writers intended to author children’s fantasies? I’m curious at how you know the intent of the author, so specifics would be awesome! :)
@@ericpierce3660 " Umm...I guess you completely misunderstood my comment." Hence why I asked a clarifying question. :) Your analogy was to analogize a fantasy story intended as fantasy to the Gospels, that was quite clear. What is unclear is if you believe the intent of the children's story is the same as the Gospel writers, hence my question. :)
@@FuddlyDud I mean, of course they didn't intend to write a children's story, that's obvious, isn't it? But the point is, the gospel stories are just as fantastical, and the evidence we have for their writers' veracity is the same, that is, exactly zero.
@@ericpierce3660 Id agree the intent difference is obvious, although many skeptics I chat with would not admit that nor engage on it. *smiley face* NOTE = I forgot my keyboard, so my responses will be weird until I am back home. On the problem of the story being fantastical, could you articulate why said story poses a problem. *question mark* I want to understand your position more deeply before I offer my thoughts. *smiley face* Also, I dont think we have the same veracity for this fairy tale and the Gospels. As you earlier referred to the intent of the authors being obvious, isnt it also obvious that evidence for Christianity has been more substantial than that of said childrens story. *question mark* *smiley face* I ask since I dont really want to just quote a bunch of sources you likely already know at you. If we can find common ground, then I bet I can learn a lot about your position. *smiley face*
Jesus didn’t even come to the gentiles but the lost sheep of Israel, he told his disciples not to go to the Gentiles. Even Yahweh didn’t have nothing for the Gentiles.
I think when a religious cult is making a claim about a miracle (let alone multiple miracles).......written or spoken....you should require an incredible amount of evidence.....
@@mundusa of course! Good science if can be repeated in India, china,Peru, Alaska is good science, but history you can't!!! But knowing Jesus by reading the Gospel and repenting of your sins will have the same results ,in China, peru, india ,Alaska. Why ? Because we are all sinners and there's only one God can fix it ...jesus !
@@kronos01ful that was a bunch of gibberish. The bible claims a specific man existed. We can use history, archaeology, logic etc to test that claim. Jesus has not met his burden of proof in the same way all other sons and daughters of Gods through history haven't.
@@mundusa that is false!!!!! History, archeology and personal relationship has proven and proven and proven that jesus claim is reliable!!!! . You have millions of testimonials that jesus is real ,millions! If that is not enough, you and all like you are egocentric, pridefull, hypocrites, dishonest people. There's thousands of scientists that have come to christ because of evidence and personal experience. This is a problem of the heart a love for sin and a denial of your own will to acknowledge reality . You are a sinner, you hate sin but you are not willing to admit that you are a sinner. So every excuse is given, but very few are humble to face their sin. Jesus die for our sin that is a historical fact . Another historical fact is that you are a sinner and you need to read the Gospels, learn about Jesus life and apply hes lifestyle in your life ,repent and see the porpoise of God in your life. Can that be possible? Why not?
He knew there were people who said they knew people who knew people who knew people who believed a Jesus character had supposedly existed and supposedly had performed miracles many decades earlier and was supposedly crucified and had supposedly miraculously rose from the fucking dead and most ALL of the people of the time thought he was a fraud. So yeah actually he didn't KNOW jack shit.
@@spaceghost8995 Before you make your stupidity public like this you should maybe educate yourself. That Jesus is a real historical person is affirmed not only by Josephus but also by the babylonian talmud, Pliny the younger, Mara Bar-Serapion, Tacitus and others. They even acknowledge that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. And even though these are the enemies of Jesus they admitted that Jesus worked miracles (althought they said its origin was evil). Not only that. These non-christians even state that the disciples claimed shortly after Jesus' death that he rose from the dead.
@@friedrichrubinstein These are just bullshit STORIES. Using YOUR LOGIC, all religions must be true. After all, people have written stories about seeing shit right? Millions today believe Joseph Smith was a holy prophet.
isn't the passage about jesus overwhelmingly agreed upon by everyone whosstudie it to be a forgerie? Like, it doesn't fit any of his writing before and after the passge and is writtin in a form that neither makech his own nor the rest of the writings. I haven't heard anyone outside of christians actually take josephus seriously when it comes to jesus. pluss all his information comes from the gospel, so there's nothing really there to discuss.
I know that my great grandfather's great grandfather existed because of birth records, called my '' family tree ''. You are incredibly stupid, no wonder you're a true believer !
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 KJVS [22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; [24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. It would appear to me the above scriptures make apologetics a exercise in futility.
1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, This is where the term apologetics comes from. This is why we do it. Also we are just planting the seed. God causes the growth.
3:55 Celsus was just relaying what the gospel said! Mk. 16:8 _"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."_ You can't use Celsus as evidence against the testimony of women when he's literally just describing what the story says!
@AnarchoRepublican Wright was using Celsus' quote as proof that Celsus himself thought the women were hysterical and therefore untrustworthy. While this may be the case, Celsus is just describing the behavior of the women as told in the gospel story. So Wright can't use this as evidence Celsus thought this about women in general.
@@resurrectionnerd _While this may be the case, Celsus is just describing the behavior of the women_ No, Wright is using Celsus as an example, and it's a good one. According to Origen ( see Henry Chadwick, _Origen : Contra Celsum,_ (Cambridge : Cambridge University, 1953), Celsus had much more to say than just describing the women at the tomb. I suggest that you read Origen.
@@craigsmith1443 He might but the example of Celsus talking about the women running away from the tomb won't work. He's literally retelling what the story says.
@@resurrectionnerd _He might but the example of Celsus talking about the women running away from the tomb won't work. He's literally retelling what the story says_ Celsus says more than that. That's the point. It 'won't work' not because he's 'retelling the story' but because he's wrong. Read Origen.
@@craigsmith1443 Wright did not quote Celsus "saying more than that." The example he gives just has Celsus quoting the gospel story! Against Celsus is a long document. Maybe you can cite the evidence? But again, it's totally irrelevant because the example is just Celsus quoting the depiction of the women from the gospel.
NT Wright needs to talk to Tovi Singer about the resurrection.on a side note;1 -why woul'd you go to a tomb to embalm a corps after two days,2-how convenient for the woman that the stone/rock was rolled back.The whole thing doesn't make any sense.[my opinion only]
@@craigsmith1443 You got it correct. Pray for the blind. The RESURRECTION is the most *documented* event of that time period and is spoken about in numerous historical records outside of the Bible. This information -- easily accessible for all in the digital age -- can be searched for and discovered fairly quickly. But forget that and how about this: only ONE apostle was not martyred, John. The rest? Well, the rest *willingly* and *lovingly* gave up their lives because they KNEW the truth. They stared down death and received it without blinking an eye. The only reason they kept themselves alive was because it was their inherent responsibility to spread the Gospel. But when the time came, they had zero trouble meeting their end because they knew what awaited them. Peter chose to be crucified upside down because he did not feel worthy to be crucified in the same manner as Christ. So, to recap: Jesus rises from the dead, is seen by about a thousand people, many of whom spoke of it and wrote it down despite having no relationship with Him, and then nearly all of the original apostles eventually gave up their lives without any fear in or whatsoever. As if they did so based on conjecture. Also, there is a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" that approaches all of this sans emotion or deep apologetics, and instead examines the resurrection in objective fashion. Of course, you can't get nonbelievers to read it because they're afraid it will sway them, and thus, further compromise their broken identities. Look -- I get it. People don't want to believe. Some, because of various fears or cultural upbringings. Others, because they simply cannot get over the fact that something occurred long, long ago that they cannot corroborate with their own eyes. Whatever the case may be, there is *much, much more evidence* that the living Savior rose from the grave than there is most of the subject matter taught in high school ancient history courses occurred. *Step 1:* Open your minds, and then your hearts. *Step 2:* Read the material (the Bible). *Step 3:* Compare with actual (non-apocryphal) historical accounts. *Step 4:* say a prayer and ask Christ to be your Savior (which will make Him smile). *Step 5:* live the rest of your life with the joy and confidence that only comes from the peace He provides.
The whole story doesn't add up. Why go back anyway? The body had already been wrapped. Plus wouldn't they need someone to help with the stone? Why go alone then?
@AnarchoRepublican Have you seen "Jason and the Argonauts" ? Skeletons rise up out of the ground and come alive ! It's a common theme in ancient fiction.
@@arkanzaki Goodbye Arkman, This yarn in Matthew will take some very careful "interpretation". Even literalists will struggle because they know it didnt really happen. But they want the other stuff to be true ! So they can't ignore it.
it's also just a bit curious that 10 of the original apostles are not credited with writing any gospels (conservatives deny apostolic authorship of any gospel outside the canonical 4), and most Christian scholars admit the case for apostolic authorship of Matthew and John is weak. Sort of makes you wonder whether the original apostolic belief was that Jesus was going to physically return within their own lifetimes. Preterists try to circumnavigate around that with their "spiritual second coming" crap, but they run smack into a brick wall: Acts 1:11.
You should invite Carrier to debate, otherwise, you are allowing christian apologetics to defend myths and fairy tales as truths which is far from an honest discussion.
The motivation for going to the tomb contradicts Jewish tradition. The story doesn't make sense because there was no need to anoint a body after it was buried. The point of anointing was to do it before burial so it wouldn't smell. The reason given in the earliest account (Mark) is to anoint the body with spices. Matthew leaves this part out (because it's nonsense) and replaces it with a different reason - to look at the tomb. Luke retains the original Markan reason but says the spices were prepared before the Sabbath - Lk. 23:56. This contradicts Mark's depiction which says they acquired the spices after the Sabbath - Mk. 16:1. John says the body was anointed before by a character (Nicodemus) who is not even mentioned in the synoptics. John's depiction explicitly contradicts Luke's narrative where he says the women followed Joseph then went and prepared spices - Lk. 23:55-56. He also conveniently omits the part that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb precisely for anointing the body as in Mark. There's also another sign of fiction. After the women were already on their way, Mark says the women "wondered who would roll away the stone?" How silly of them to head to the tomb without thinking of that in the first place! All signs point to fiction. Mark was creating narrative tension which is then relieved when they reach the tomb and the stone has already been rolled away.
@@danielgould5530 wow! here is a woman's perspective. We frequently do things that do not make sense to men, but that is what keeps this old world spinning. I often do things later in the game; today we call it OCD, as in something that has to be done, even if it is too late (you might have to be OCD to get this, and I am not talking about incapacitating mental illness here). And think in advance about rolling the stone away? no wonder God had women do it, men would have talked themselves out of going to the tomb, and so there would have been no one to report the whole amazing, world changing, history changing moment. And, when one goes through a such a shocking event, remembering the details in perfect harmony can be very challenging, which would explain the variances in the tellings.
Good point about the late anointing. However since he was buried late in the day on Friday before Passover they would've rushed to settle him before nightfall, per the law. Therefore they went out to annoint him early on the first permissable day. Sunrise on Sunday.
@@resurrectionnerd The writers would be perplexed at people like us focusing on what to them would have been the least interesting part of the story. But I would not think preservation or smell was (or is) a Jewish concern either way since quick simple burials were desirable, and they would've anticipated removing the bones in a year. So the real question is why annoint him at all, late or not? I suspect some Second Temple era motivation for this has simply (understandably) been lost. John and Matthew don't mention spices or anointing in the context of their visit anyway.
Does the weight of carriers debunk of the resurrection completely hinge on whether women were credible in court or not at the time that they are not exactly sure of ? The points that persuaded me the most when I think of Richard Carriers debates with apologists are the precedence of other similar and popular savior mythologies that were floating around christians may have borrowed from (Romulus, Osirus, Innana, Adonis, Zalmoxis). Another point being a well known personality disorder from Schizotypal's who hallucinate regularly and are attracted to cults as a natural explanation for visions vs the extraordinary supernatural claims from fanatic followers of an appearance of the supposed risen jesus also Paul's conversion to christianity and motive for helping christians could have been a way to escape the strict criteria he believed was too hard for him to meet in judaism him being changed by the cognitive dissonance from guilt he felt for persecuting a rather loving a nice culture that he would rather get with and make a fortune from. The women being witnesses to the resurrection follow a common literary theme in the bibles narrative that the least shall be made first so it doesn't surprise me that the bible would be so bold as to put its weight on their testimony. I really fail to see the force behind this criticism of carrier who's main theme of logic that continues to persuade me is that there are more logical natural explanations that have a more probable chance of happening vs super natural explanations and as someone who sees faith as gullibility natural explanations will always appeal more to me.
So, you believe that other mythologies of savior gods influenced these common men in Judea? My response is that you say “floating around Christians” but they weren’t Christians then. They were Jews who were almost unanimously Unitarian Monotheists. That is why Jesus was killed. The Jews wanted him dead because he equated himself with God. Next point is that these mythological gods only bore superficial resemblance to Jesus but there were drastic differences. Now note a quote from Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God Did any worshipper in these cults, from Egypt to Norway, at any time in antiquity, think that actual human beings, having died, actually came back to life? Of course not. These multifarious and sophisticated cults enacted the god’s death and resurrection as a metaphor, whose concrete referent was the cycle of seed-time and harvest, of human reproduction and fertility., p. 80 Schizotypal? Well known? Maybe on atheist sites trying to debunk Christianity but not in the rest of the world. So, I looked it up on the Mayo site, here is a description: People with schizotypal personality disorder are often described as odd or eccentric and usually have few, if any, close relationships. They generally don't understand how relationships form or the impact of their behavior on others. They may also misinterpret others' motivations and behaviors and develop significant distrust of others. And. Schizotypal personality disorder can easily be confused with schizophrenia, a severe mental illness in which people lose contact with reality (psychosis). While people with schizotypal personality disorder may experience brief psychotic episodes with delusions or hallucinations, the episodes are not as frequent, prolonged or intense as in schizophrenia. That doesn’t sound at all like the disciples. They were constantly around other people and socialized well with the community. How else would you explain the rise of the church? Also, note that there were 11 disciples and 4 women. How likely were they to suffer the same malady? With a prevalence of around 4% in the population today (and no description then of such a malady) I say the chances they all suffered from it is about 0%. About Paul Paul had no reason to convert or invent any myth. He was rising in the ranks of Judaism. Galatians 1:13-14 ESV For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. (14) And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. And how did he benefit from Christianity? 2 Corinthians 11:24-27 ESV Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. (25) Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; (26) on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; (27) in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. What about the women? The point is that they were attempting to reach the culture around them with the Gospel. Why would they trot out the women’s testimony? The main reason is they wanted to present the truth. The word truth is mentioned 97 times in the NT. Along with love, grace and forgiveness this is one of the main virtues of Christianity. This was a 10 minute video with Wright. Maybe you should read the 740 page book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by Wright and maybe then you will see the force of the argument against Carrier.
@Jesse Oliver so these gods are not exactly like Jesus? Or are you saying they are nothing like jesus? There's a difference. More to Carrier's point, does his argument rest on these gods being exactly like Jesus or just matching categories? Because, in order to debunk Carrier he'd have to say they are exactly alike, and he has never said that. Also, id like to ask, are these pagan gods mirror images of each other? If not, why would you expect anyone with half a brain to argue they're mirror images of Jesus?
@Jesse Oliver oh, I assure you "similar" and "the same" are not equivalents and their use doesn't amount to a game of semantics. Would you be happy if you asked me to change a bill into coinage, and I gave you a similar but lesser amount? Or would you expect monetary equivilancy? Does it matter? Would you be happy, if after you complained, I told you not to play a semantics game?
@Jesse Oliver stop evading the questions. I asked you many questions. Answer them rather than changing the subject and accusing me of playing coy. All talk and no substance. By the way, anytime you want change, I'm your guy. I'm sure I could make a bundle off of you.
The believers Faith rest totally on the Word of God. In the Lord Jesus. In the Holy Spirit. Jesus alone is the Faithful and True Witness. As Paul said not that your faith should rest in man’s wisdom but in the Power of God. Despite what anyone says we stand with God alone. King David said I shall not be moved. He trusted God alone with a slingshot and defeated the giant. So it shall be.
The argument that women's testimony counted for nothing and this fact supports the literal truth of the Gospel is so overdone as to become plain silly. Really, it is unimportant, because the women presented no testimony in a court of law or to any official or legal/priestly person. They only communicated it to the apostles (although in Mark 16:8 they told nobody - presumably nobody official, because in the other Gospel accounts, they tell the apostles). The apostles corroborate it, and that's the important part.The important testimony of the resurrection rests with the apostles, and not with the women.The apostles preach it to the Jews. We don''t find the women doing that to anyone. Moreover, having women discover the risen Jesus first supports a major theme running through the synoptics: "the last shall be first and the first last" (Matt. 20:16). So there is no "embarrassment" to the Gospel writers, for it merely enhances the Gospel theme; the last in status (women) become the first to see it. But the men remained in charge of preaching the resurrection and, most importantly, of the theology.
As has been pointed out, women would be *expected* to be the ones to go anoint a corpse. Had the story had men going to do that, *that* would have made the story less believable. Personally, I think that "they told nobody" should be read literally, showing that it's just a fiction, not a historical report. Many elements of the bible show this effect, like Moses' death. Moses goes up the mountain, dies, God buries him, then the Israelites in the valley mourn him. But why? From their perspective, he just went up the mountain. They don't know he died. His body or grave aren't found. He could have just kept going across the mountain. But the *story* needs it, so that's what they wrote. This is how fiction works: it assumes the *audience* can know things that none of the *characters* do.
@@jursamaj , NO, WOMEN WOULDN'T! The account of the women anointing the corpse is a fiction. Neither men nor women anoint a buried corpse - that's just preposterous! Corpses are anointed while on display with herbs and fragrant oil to disguise the smell it soon emanates (after about 12 hours in that climate). But NOBODY ANOINTS A CORPSE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN BURIED OR SEALED IN A TOMB! NOBODY DOES. AND THERE IS NO HISTORICAL RECORD OF SUCH A THING EVEN BEING DONE. A buried corpse is no longer available for people to pay their respects to. The time for that is before it is buried. Jesus' tomb, we are told, was sealed with a stone. People don't remove the seal to anoint a corpse - the occasion for that has passed. It's a silly Gospel fiction.
@@psandbergnz Yes, it's fiction. And the story has people going to anoint the corpse. Given that, those people needed to be women. That's the thing about fiction: it can contain *some* falsehoods, but to stay plausible, it needs some truth as well.
Richard Carrier gets invited all the time. He never accepts..Hell he refused to debate even Gary Habermas. Whom wrote his PhD on the subject. Fact is, Richard Carrier makes up more shit. That even atheist scholars scoff at.. By the way. I''m not religious. But you claim Jesus Christ never existed. I will laugh in your face so hard..
The power in Mr. Carrier's positions is not in any assertion that he has the truth. The power is that he and others propose valid explanations of historical writings. Without empirical evidence, which explanation one sees as correct is essentially subjective. So while exchanges between Mr. Carrier and Mr. Wright are interesting, at the end of the day what one believes is more a matter of preference and cognitive bias.
@AnarchoRepublican Thanks for providing such a clear and concise example of the primacy of preference and cognitive bias that govern these conversations.
@StAnthony Hurray!! Thank you!! For once a correct use of the informal "begs the question" fallacy! The problem is I haven't made any assumptions. I am simply pointing out that there are various hypotheses to the truth none of which are supported by empirical evidence. To clarify that I will amend my last sentence: "... at the end of the day what one believes can be seen as at most being a matter of preference and/or cognitive bias."
@StAnthony OK. Change "valid" to "equally valid". My argument does not rest on an assumption that any particular explanation being valid only that there are many equally valid explanations. Your assertion that Carrier is a marginal figure is an ad hominem attack. You're assuming that a flake can never propose a valid explanation -- a poor assumption. I'm disappointed. I would have expected someone who actually knows what "begs the question" means to not make these sort of bad arguments.
@StAnthony Seen without preference or cognitive bias, that there are a number of UA-cam videos with various explanations, each with it's proponents, is evidence that there are multiple explanations of more or less equal validity. You may choose not to take this as evidence, which is your right given your preferences and biases. I maintain that you are assuming Carrier couldn't possibly have a valid explanation simply because there are those who disagree with him.
@StAnthony One person's obfuscation is another's clarification. We shall have to agree to disagree. Other than an ad hominem attack and an assertion of a nonexistent assumption on my part you've done nothing to convince me that choosing to believe Dr Wright is anything other than preference. Have a nice life!
@Sticky Steve l don't recall Disney ever trying Jesus. DreamWorks did with Moses though. I give back what l get. Cognitive Dissonance (tm)! Lol Says the generic village-Atheist going through his angry teenage apostate phase
@Sticky Steve Where's your evidence? Where did Jesus do any of that? And if you're exploiting dead babies for rhetorical purposes, that says more about you than it does him
It was politically incorrect at the time to use or trust a woman's testimony, the fact that there were women at the tomb who factored into the equation is evidence that the resurrection stories were not concerned about politics, but were giving a living account of a very controversial and pivotal point in the gospels. Jesus made a habit of breaking through cultural barriers to accentuate the truth - man-made barriers were meant to be broken by truth. However, Wright does a good job of defending why women were airbrushed out of the accounts.
Gary Trimble, you say it was politically incorrect at the time to use or trust a woman's testimony. That is a totally irrelevant as well as asinine comment. Even if it is granted to you that your statement is correct, the only "testimony" that the women gave in the Gospels was to the apostles, who then corroborated it. The Gospels don't have the women evangelising the resurrection (or the Gospel) to anyone, so how is their testimony even important? The Gospel stories only have the apostles as testifying to the resurrection. How is the women's testimony important? You say: "Jesus made a habit of breaking through cultural barriers to accentuate the truth - man-made barriers were meant to be broken by truth." No, Jesus did not alter, or try to alter, the status of women. And the sexist barriers of the time are entrenched by the Bible itself. For example, if a woman gives birth to a daughter, she is ritually unclean for twice as long (two weeks) compared to her giving birth to a son (one week). If a man rapes an unmarried girl, then she must marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28). The rapist gives her father 50 shekels of silver to compensate HIM. Or take women's inheritance in the Bible: Numbers 27:8 - she gets NO INHERITANCE if the she has brothers. If she has brothers, then all the inheritance goes to her brothers. Only if there are no sons will the daughter get any inheritance. In this way, the independence of women is deliberately abased. She becomes the property of her husband. Rape of a married woman is a crime against her husband (who owns her), not against her as an individual.
@@psandbergnz I don't understand what part of my comment you are saying is asinine. A woman's testimony would not normally hold up in court. Of course there is the theory dating from the Enlightenment (The Three Impostors) that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were political cover ups, if you are in agreement with that theory. All four of the gospels mention the resurrection - it must have been important for some odd reason. All four place women at the tomb - it must have been important for some odd reason - the gospels were written during a time in history when women were second class citizens, in a manner of speaking. Women did play a major role in the gospels - not so much in the great commission. However, what about the Mary's, Lois, Eunice, Phoebe and Lydia, Priscilla, etc.? Priscilla and Aquila went with Paul, he left them at Ephesus - I guess they just went along for the ride, or did they help set up a ministry there? Acts 2:17-18 Peter quotes OT Joel about sons/daughters prophesying, the spirit will be poured out on servants, both men and women, etc. Each of these and many other scriptures involving women or husbands/wives being addressed and working together, the list goes on, involves women in some form of ministry. Galatians 3:28 Paul states that in the gospel, male/female are one in Christ. Of course all of these have to be fleshed out in light of the cultural mores of the day and the differences between men/women and their importance. From a skeptical/atheistic point of view, the big picture is that everything evolved naturally, even society and cultural conventions are socially contrived. Women play a very important part in Christian ministries and the church down through history. A testimony can be in words or deeds or both. What is consistent is that both men and women play a role in the OT and the NT from the beginning and throughout history, which has to be interpreted from a cultural and theological point of view.
@@get9320 , by "asinine", I was referring to your comment that "it was politically incorrect at the time to use or trust a woman's testimony". It's asinine because the women presented no "testimony" of the resurrection, so your statement is irrelevant. All they did was report the occurrence they witnessed to the apostles, and no one else. How is that "politically incorrect"? Their witness is not important except in conveying it to the apostles, because it is the apostles who verify it, and it is the apostles who evangelise it. The women's witness is eclipsed by the apostles. If the women were the ones to proclaim it to the public including the priests, then that MIGHT BE politically incorrect, true! HOW IS THE WOMEN'S TESTIMONY IMPORTANT? The fact that the women allegedly see the risen Jesus first presents no male embarrassment, because it supports the Gospel teaching: "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last." So people with lower status (here the women) will be first. But there is no change or equality of gender roles implied, because the Gospels nowhere try to change that. Note also in Acts 1:21, when Judas is to be replaced. Peter says: "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us..." [to replace Judas]. A deixsion uis made between two men: Joseph and Matthias. But note that women are excluded from the pick. Again, no attempt to change societal mores restricting women, many of which are entrenched on account of the Hebrew Bible. So, it is ironic that you should claim that Jesus or the NT tried to bring equality to women, when in fact their _inequality_ is upheld by the Bible itself. As for women playing a major part in the Gospel, you ask (referring to the women you name): "I guess they just went along for the ride, or did they help set up a ministry there? Acts 2:17-18". The very fact that we don't know their role, so you have to pose that question, defeats your own argument. Perhaps they made the tea and sandwiches as wives or daughters and ministered to the other women (which is probably the case). They probably did not evangelise to men at all, in contrast to the modern day setup of equality of roles, which comes to us gradually after the Enlightenment, and is now accepted in most churches. Gender roles are equal in churches due to political pressure from the outside, to which they (and you) have succumbed. You rightly say that in Galatians 3:28 Paul states that there is neither male nor female - all are one in Christ. But do you think that Paul is trying to equalise male and female roles in society or in the Church? No! He is saying that in God's eyes there is no difference _in value_ between the genders. However, the epistles are clear that leadership is male: "The husband is the head of the wife" (Eph.5:23), and wives submit to your husbands. If women do prophesy in the church, they must do so with a head covering, "for the sake of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:10), i.e. it is based on a _theological_ argument, NOT a cultural one. There is no attempt in the Greek New Testament to alter mores. On the contrary, Paul admonishes slaves to obey their masters with "fear and trembling" (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22)). The NT makes no attempt to abolish slavery. Slavery can be upheld on the Bible itself! The Old Testament approves and endorses slavery on behalf of the Jews, e.g. "You may buy and sell male and female slaves from the nations around you" (Lev. 25.). These foreign slaves and their children can be bequeathed to their Jewish owners' children, so it can persist in the Jewish family.The Jews must not enslave their fellow-Jew, that's all. Slavery of fellow-Jews is limited in time, and only acceptable to cover a financial debt. But there are no restrictions for owning slaves who are mere Gentiles. They are the owners' "property". The NT does not attempt to end or restrict this biblical law.
@@psandbergnz You are right, the women were eclipsed by men in the gospels and for the most part in the OT. Interpretation based on perspective coupled with the reality of the situation is all important. In the OT, there were ceremonial, ethical, and social laws that cannot be taken literally in today's society. It is very important not to extrapolate our Post-Enlightenment sentiments back thousands of years and expect the results to please us today. We have to ask, what were the theological, cultural, and political contexts in which the OT and the NT narratives unfold? It is also important to look at the Judaeo-Christian worldview, and fit the narrative into the worldview, or interpret the narrative according to a particular worldview, which does not fit into the post-Enlightenment society. Based on Judaeo-Christian worldview, relationships are implied in Genesis 1, which are primarily spiritual but have implications for society: sociological, psychological, environmental, etc. They were harmonious until corruption entered in Genesis 3. After Gen. 3, all relationships and the world became strained. We often hear that life in unfair, at least after Genesis 3. Men/women were meant to be coequal, but different in the role they played sociologically. It is interesting that in Gen. 2:24, that it is not good that a man is alone with no partner and that men are to leave their parents and bond with their wife. In Genesis 3, after corruption entered, this gender/partner relationship is strained, and that women will desire their husband who will rule over them. These changes were the unfortunate result of a choice to be autonomous, mentioned in Gen. 2. Since everything was interrelated sociologically, psychologically, ecologically, etc., all relationships were broken resulting in the new norm in the world, abnormal in respect to the way it was originally intended. We live in a paradoxically normal/abnormal world or abnormally/normal world. Everything appears to us to be normal, we are fit to live in a world where everything appears normal, but is abnormal in relation to the original plan presented in Genesis 1-2. We are told that death is normal, to accept it, but is it? It is in a normal/abnormal world. The key is laid out in Gen. 2, their choice to either rely on provisions that were already there and to trust, or to take from an epistemological source that would open their eyes to the paradoxical opposites of good/evil and make them autonomous and theoretically equal with God. But, the price is heavy - death and disharmony will result. History bears witness to this on all levels of existence. it is no surprise that most cultures throughout history were patriarchal and yet there is harmony/conflict between genders. The redemption in Judaeo-Christian history is meant to be unfolding over time and within the cultural context of the world. God, in the JC worldview, came into the world, not to abolish institutional corruption, but to work through it in history to bring about redemption into the world. Neither the OT nor the NT hides the imperfection of people or institutions. The Hebrews were no different than others in a sense, they wanted other women and kings, but they had laws that were meant to separate them from other peoples. As far as slavery, elsewhere we read that the Hebrews were commanded not to oppress aliens/foreigners (Ex. 23:9), and in Leviticus 19: 33-34, aliens are to be treated equally, as citizens, and to love them as yourself... In this light, the regulation of slavery should be seen as a paradox and a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. Slavery and gender conflicts are/were aberrations and not the norm. This goes for the NT as well, Jesus did not intend to end institutional corruption but to bring the kingdom into the world (Mt 3:2).. initiating reform/renewal from within. Redemption/renewal is a future reality to be worked out on a daily basis throughout history in real human communities/societies, the Hebrews knew this (Isaiah 11:6 which alludes to the Messiah ( Is. 9:6), and is a reversal of what occurred in the Garden), and Paul alluded to it as well, Romans 8:22. Jesus did not knock the gender situation, or other social corruptions, this was not his intent. He did attract women and treated them with respect, as well as break entrenched cultural values, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, John 4.
Assuming that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel and ended in 16:8, it doesn't confirms the historicity since it did not describe the womem who did not have the position of an effective witness at the time as a witness of the resurrection. Rather, it could be said that it showed a so-called misogyny attitude toward women. Because the short conclusion of the Gospel of Mark is that the women were scared and ends without saying anything and not telling anyone. In the New Testament canons, the Gospels were written later than Paul's epistles, and the earliest Christian resurrection faith in Paul's epistles is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, in addition to a list of resurrection manifestation experiences. But nowhere women! In fact, the stories of the empty tomb continues to develop again and again in canonical books. We know, at least women were not present in the earliest report(Mark and Paul), or rather deprecated. If so, why was the position of women added in the later Gospels? I have a good hypothesis with two steps, not like Wright. First step, the early Christians (including the apostles) disrespectfully treated with women. Second step, the position of women in the Christian community later rose. But it doesn't mean that the later added reports of women has historical value.
that makes sense. I never get this argument. when we don't have them in our earliest sources of Paul. I would be curious to know if there is any other Greco roman documents with women in them as a fatal part of a story. would we be inclined to say it must have been historical cause no one would invent women in the story
The problem is that 1 Corinthians also doesn't mention the angels that were at the tomb... What do you make of that? Did Paul have issues with angels based on his not mentioning them?
@@cystictostrong1215 He actually does in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.... Verse four indicates a resurrected Christ.... Resurrected Christ = Empty Tomb. I Corinthians 15 is an overview of the resurrection. A summary if you will. The purpose of which is explaining to the church at Corinth what is THE gospel.
@@ohiostate4515 there are many ways to get buried. it does not pre suppose an empty tomb. nor does it recall anyone knowing where it is either. appeared to 500 at the same time, don't see that story in any of the gospels. The gospel is not referring to the actual books in the NT we now refer to as the gospels.
Empty tombs and "missing body" stories were an established literary theme in antiquity. It was a marker used to convey apotheosis/translation of a hero or important person. Since there is no actual independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from Mark), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its own historicity. An extremely interesting example is the Greek novel Callirhoe by Chariton which may date to before 62 CE (before Mark's gospel) due to a possible mention by Persius _"To them I recommend the morning's play-bill and after lunch Callirhoe"_ - (1,134). Just as in the gospels, in Chariton's story, there is the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave.
@AnarchoRepublican _"The theme of empty tombs was a familiar one in the ancient world. Aristeas disappeared from his temporary place of entombment (the fuller's shop) and later appeared as a raven and as a phantom in Herodotus's version. He received the honor due the gods and sacrifices in other accounts. Cleomedes, presumably still alive, disappeared from the chest he had hidden in and was honored as a hero with sacrifices. Many years after his death, Numa's body had disappeared, although there is no evidence he underwent an apotheosis. Alcmene's body disappeared from her bier. Zalmoxis, by the artifice of living underground, appeared three years after people thought he had died. He promised his followers some kind of immortal life resembling either resurrection or metemsomatosis.....Although Romulus was not buried (in most traditions) his body disappeared, and he was honored as the god Quirinus after appearing to Julius Proculus. Callirhoe apparently died and her lover Chaereas discovered her empty tomb with the stones moved away from the entrance. Inside he found no corpse. He assumed she had been translated to the gods.....Philinnion disappeared from her tomb, walked the earth as a revenant, and her corpse was later found in her lover's bedroom. Lucian's Antigonus (in his Lover of Lies) asserts: 'For I know someone who rose twenty days after he was buried.' Proclus included three stories of Naumachius of Epirus who described three individuals that returned to life after various periods in their tombs (none months, fifteen days, and three days). They appeared either lying on their tombs or standing up. Polyidus raised Minos's son Glaucus from the dead after being placed in the son's tomb. The Ptolemaic-Roman temple in Dendera vividly depicts the bodily resurrection of Osiris in his tomb. There are numerous translation accounts of heroes in which their bodies disappear when they were either alive or dead, including: Achilles (in the Aethiopis), Aeneas, Amphiaraus (under the earth), Apollonius of Tyana, Basileia, Belus, Branchus, Bormus, Ganymede, Hamilcar, and Semiramus."_ - John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis p. 598-599. After describing the disappearance of Romulus, Plutarch comments that it was common for these types of "fables" to be applied to other heroes and deified figures. _"Now this is like the fables which the Greeks tell about Aristeas of Proconnesus and Cleomedes of Astypaleia. For they say that Aristeas died in a fuller's shop, and that when his friends came to fetch away his body, it had vanished out of sight; and presently certain travellers returning from abroad said they had met Aristeas journeying towards Croton. Cleomedes also, who was of gigantic strength and stature, of uncontrolled temper, and like a mad man, is said to have done many deeds of violence, and finally, in a school for boys, he smote with his fist the pillar which supported the roof, broke it in two, and brought down the house. The boys were killed, and Cleomedes, being pursued, took refuge in a great chest, closed the lid down, and held it so fast that many men with their united strength could not pull it up; but when they broke the chest to pieces, the man was not to be found, alive or dead. In their dismay, then, they sent messengers to consult the oracle at Delphi, and the Pythian priestess gave them this answer:-_ _"Last of the heroes he, Cleomedes, Astypalaean."_ _It is said also that the body of Alcmene disappeared, as they were carrying her forth for burial, and a stone was seen lying on the bier instead. In short, many such fables are told by writers who improbably ascribe divinity to the mortal features in human nature, as well as to the divine."_ - Parallel Lives, Life of Romulus 28:4-6
@AnarchoRepublican From Wikipedia - _"A 2020 study of the marble's isotopes showed that the tablet came from a quarry in the Greek island of Kos, meaning that it is highly unlikely that it has any relationship to Jesus, and it may instead have been inscribed as a reaction to the desecration of the grave of the Kos tyrant Nikias circa 20 BCE."_
@AnarchoRepublican In the article from ScienceMag of Feb. 2020 this year it states that the inscription does not come from Nazareth and that: _"why was it made? Based on the style of the inscription and the age of the quarry, Harper and colleagues propose the object was carved in the first century B.C.E. for a ruler on Kos known as Nikias the Tyrant. Sometime after his death in about 20 B.C.E., angry citizens of Kos pried open his tomb and dragged out his corpse, according to an ancient Greek poem."_ So it seems, given the evidence, it is more probable that the inscription was referring to the raiding of Nikias' tomb rather than Jesus'. Thus, you're just left holding an empty sack I'm afraid.
The argument that they wouldn't have women discover the body so it must be true is moronic. This is a book written by men who clearly focus on literary tools and writing methods rather than on the content making any sense whatsoever. Which is more likely...Jesus was crucified and resurrected or Mark just didn't think it through properly and used women because they tended to be the ones to prepare the bodies? Seeing as we know Mark was not the greatest writer and that people much better educated write plot holes all the time, while we have no examples of anyone ever resurrecting, it is clear that the criterion of embarrassment argument is useless at best. It also completely ignores the fact that in the original ending of Mark the women flee, telling no-one. If they don't tell anyone why would it matter how reliable they are? It doesn't. The later gospel writers could have changed it to men seeing as they obviously had no hesitation in changing the details whenever they wanted but if that's an argument then you're relying on the fact that the later gospel writers were straight up lying and that's really not a route apologists are likely to want to take.
When Jesus was told that Lazarus died, he wept, then raised him from the dead. Why did he interfere with a perfectly natural evil if Lazarus was happy in Heaven ? Imagine Lazarus being in Heaven and an angel says, "Sorry mate, you have to go back !" "Just my luck. I will have to go through the pain of death a second time ! " says Lazarus.
When jesus wept it was him just showing how much he loved Lazarus. And he died because a disease and if was in heaven for short while they told him he had to go for a bit it wouldn't matter because he would still be walking with the lord and that just gives him comfort next time because he knows where he is going when he dies.
@@alo1528 We don't know why Jesus wept. The book doesn't tell us. It seems a little odd that the creator of the world wept. He obviously knew that Lazarus was ill from a disease he created. He could easily have prevented the illness and then he wouldn't need to weep.
@@alo1528 Why did Jesus die ? Well somebody had to pay the price. The wages of sin is death ! But why didn't the actual god choose Barabbas, who was actually guilty ? Well he didn't. So there must be a good reason, if only we could think of one. I know, the perfect sacrifice must be of a lamb without blemish ! Yes ! That's it !
@@alo1528 Now if only we can search the scriptures for "lamb without blemish", then we've closed the loop. I've found it ! It's in Leviticus 23:12 "Ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord". There is that small problem about it being a "burnt offering", but I am prepared to ignore that bit.
@@alo1528 (and First Peter 1:19) "With the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH and without spot" See how easy it is to apply some logic to an otherwise mad concept. Oh yes, with guidance from the Holy Spirit we can fight off the evil works of Satan and his demons.
@When Belief Dies If God exists, then he couldn't lie. A genuine miracle is an act that can only be performed God. God cannot confirm error because he can't lie. So why would God allow Jesus to perform miracles in conjunction with false claims? I'm not arguing that God exists or that those miracles happened, but if God does exist and if those miracles happened, you cannot consistently deny the truth claims verified by those miracles, namely, Christ's deity.
You are correct sir. The Church has never argued that Jesus was God because he did miracles; all the Apostles did them too. They got the idea from his ministry as a prophet which is the same reason he was rejected by most Jews. Basically, there were prophecies pointing to a Messiah (not God) and other prophecies pointing to the return of God to the temple (as it had been before the exile). He went around enacting fulfillments from both sets.
The criterion of embarrassment doesn't really work if this is indeed a myth. You get weird results. Try yourself on any of your faviourite stories. So you can't tell one way or the other in this particular case, I think. On the other hand, as Robert Price and others have pointed out, the care for corpses and mourning for the dead were often the work of women in antiquity, and they had respect on that matter. To me it looks like this detail of the story is not very useful to promote any of the views.
You missed the point. It was not a criterion of embarrassment but rather highlighting that because the testimony of women was not acceptable at the time, if they would were making it up, they would have declined mentioning those who society would have already not believed and only highlight men. Since they were writing IN THAT TIME to people IN THAT TIME it would better serve their interests to never mention women as witnesses at all yet we see women at the fore. That’s the point.
Women's testimony is not said to be the source for the empty tomb story in Mark. In fact, it is explicit that they were not. And it is widely agreed that Mark is prior to Matthew and Luke. It is also widely agreed that Mark is the literary basis for them. The sources of the changes to Mark (in the other gospels), in which the women are said to spread the news of the empty tomb, is not known. The extrapolated sources of M and L may not have been actual sources. They may just be the creative embellishments of the authors of Matthew and Luke. So the original story has no women testimony and we have no way of knowing if the later stories of women testimony come from other sources that are reporting historical events.
Most critical scholars also do not think Paul wrote the pastoral letters, among other things. If we are delegitimizing some of the gospels, might as well throw out half of the letters attributed to Paul while we're at it. That should resolve the issue of women in ministry.
The curiosity is in where is the tangible proof in Christianities "Jesus" yeshua other than the books of the new testament we need more physical tangible proof cause all the witness in the writing never see the physical Jesus all of them witnessed him after the resurrection none before and all these writings came after the resurrection so what's really going on here 🤔
I am not sure I agree with Mr. Wright, yet I am no mythicist. I do think they both miss the point. I use gospel of Mark for this analysis, as imo the rest of synoptics are just embellishments of it (more or less), and John is too late. Women at the tomb are irrelevant for both cases. It was women's job to prepare the dead (men could do it only for man, women for woman and sometimes for man). As male disciples had fled, and there had been sabbath in between, nobody could not do it (tend to the body) earlier, so the only person/s who could do the job was women (who stayed). That is why women were not brushed out. Because it was not needed - it does not matter if it was fact or fiction it works both ways. So it is of no use to determine historical fact. It could be used as a part of a story or a fact, it would not prove or contradict anything. About Paul. Yes, he cites a very early creed, that mentions only men. But it is because Jesus appeared only to men (according to Mark and also Luke) or predominantly to men (who knows who were among the 500). He did not appear to women at first - women just discovered empty tomb (without Jesus in it) and because of that Paul does not mention women as a witnesses to resurrection. So it is irrelevant for both sides of the argument. Women at the empty tomb in the gospels, and creed / Paul not mentioning women as witnesses to resurrection, does not prove or disprove resurrection.
Who is this Carrier-bloke? Never heard of him. Tom Wright may want to find better things to do than trying defend or disapprove some fly-by-night expert.
2000 years ago Almighyy God, via the accurate teaching of His Son, Yeshua/Jesus Christ, wanted to introduce us to the power of His electromagnetic universe. Miracles were just one aspect of this and resurrection and rebirth another. For us, the greatest fruits of this science is a wonderful repair programme from the very level and degree our sins have taken us...even from sins carried by our genetics before we were born. Righteousness then, as lived by our Saviour, Yeshua, is a scientific code which excites special electromagnetic laws which, if left to their own devices, cripples us and runs wild, and gives us mass oppression which Satan is so good at, but Wormwood will sort him out along with all those who don't repent and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of the One, True, God.
Nobody in scholarship has taken Carrier seriously for years. I remember him getting all sulky and throwing a temper tantrum over Ehrman accidentally saying he was a classicist because it hurt his rep as having a relevant PhD in the Biblical era, when it is in fact history of science, in a different part of the word and a different century. He then proceeded to be shredded by Ehrman after this along with a bunch of insulted Classicists who did not appreciate being called "mere" and having their field sneered at by a hack. As far as I remember off the top of my head, Carrier has picked up the work of Bauer, who admitted he made up the whole argument to piss off 2 priests he was in an argument with. This was over 200 years ago. He appears to have no new data. Why does anyone listen to this guy?
@Nigel Butt and many people have shown many reasons to trust what is written in the text, even if you choose to go only as far as benefit of the doubt, a thing I am guessing you don't even grant. However, none of this actually addresses what I said initially. I said Carroll was a hack, who misrepresented his own credentials, is rejected by all scholarship, and who is just rehashing arguments by a man who literally admitted to making them up 200 years ago. Your response was, in essence, well how can we trust what they wrote. My response was, people reject the holocaust on the exact same point. Your response was to then go, well look at all the evidence. The deniers deny all that evidence because they don't want to see it. The fact that you missed my metaphoric "so what" to your initial argument doesn't deal with the fact that no scholar takes anything Carroll says in any way seriously. Why would that change here?
In Matthew an angel came down and rolled back the stone in Luke the stone was already rolled away this is what happens when two people make up a story the facts don't fit Theists will say stories often differ and yes this happens but who on earth would omit the fact that an angel came down and rolled away the stone probably the one and only time they saw an angel so not something you would forget or leave out. Maybe in Matthew they added the angel in to make is sound so much better in that case how many of the stories have been embellished to make them sound better like walking on water turning water into wine etc etc etc. This happens so often in the bible it's ludicrous to accept it as a legitimate source of information. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These gospels are accredited to but were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John again this was made up so they lied but we are supposed to accept that everything else is true. If so I have loads of cool stuff I would like to sell you 😁
Its interesting that lots of different people saw Jesus before he was crucified, but after the supposed resurrection, only his followers saw him walking about. The Romans executed Jesus,, but didn't notice the empty tomb. They even set a guard to make sure nobody pinched the body !
First off it says he was seen by 500 people after his resurrection. And number two the guards didnt see him walk out because it never said he moved the stone from the entrance of the tomb to leave, it just says he arose
Elvis wasn't crucified and Elvis didnt die for three days then rise up on the third day and appear to many for 40 days and at the end of those 40 days Elvis did not ascend into heaven and seen by many.
@@alo1528 If someone told me that Elvis Presley was "taken up" and was last seen disappearing into a cloud, I would want a few more details. How was he "taken up" ? Was it in a helicopter ? Who was the pilot and can we get him on camera explaining how he got the job ? Where did he take him and why haven't we seen Elvis since he went on this trip ?
Carrier is pretty much considered a lunatic. That's why he never progressed in his academic career beyond a librarians assistant and instead peddles his books.
Richard Carrier - anything that might give credence to the gospel narritive must be wrong, because it would be illogical to believe anything that might give credence to such a belief ... then consider the evidence once this ground rule has been set, and observed.
“what’s he on about this time?”. dear lord we aren’t highly prejudiced at all are we? I will take Carrier’s close examinations and documentations over these prejudiced fools.
Aw yes N.T. Wright is so rude and condescending compared to Richard Carrier. It isn't like Carrier has blog posts titled "the gullibility of Bart Ehrman" or "more ass crankery from Tim O'Neil"
carrier pats himself on the back in every single sentence he speaks or writes.... the sad thing is he could have some good points but its nearly impossible to read him because he is so fond of himself you are forced to hear his life story instead of the historical claims
Jesus cast out demons and turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead. Whats the big deal about a resurrection? There are many good stories in the Bible. The resurrection is just one of them.......
Jews at the time were not expecting that the messiah would be the first fruits of the resurrection. Some believed in the resurrection at the end of time but not in a messiah's resurrection.
Carrier has already discussed this. The front in center women are the meek taking over the world. Pure symbolism. The greatest Story ever told. They are to be taken as a whole.
I don't know if it is lack of evidence or what but isn't there anyone out there that can successfully out debate Carrier? I think the best one I have seen is the one between him and William Craig but even at that it wasn't no slam dunk. I think that to often with the debates, many people are left not knowing what to believe. Unfortunately we have lost John Lennox.
@@monkkeygawd carrier is considered a nut case amongst 99% of historians for his insane Jesus mythicism , which is based on nothing but conspiracy and denial of Real History . Willam lane Craig crushed carrier like a bug .
@@Mayan_88694 not hardly, my friend. Have you actually read any of Carrier's books? His big Jesus Myth book was peer reviewed and INSANELY well researched. On the other hand, Craig is a KNOWN liar and bender of truths. I can show u examples of him being deceitful. Carrier flat out admits what he can and cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless, Christianity is a fantasy, same as the other Abrahamic religions. Dualism (Christianity, for example) is dead in the water. Nondualism is where reality/spirituality makes rational sense. Read or listen to Bernardo Kastrup for a modern take on Idealism, which is based upon a nondualist perspective. However, if Christianity comforts you and makes you a more loving, caring person, then forget all I said and enjoy. Best of luck!
@@monkkeygawd I’m agnostic , but what makes carrier a nutcase is his Jesus mythicism , Not a single serious historian denies the existence and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth Bart ehrman who has become one of my favorite scholars Laughs at Carrier. The evidence for the existence and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is incredibly overwhelming .I may be agnostic but I’m not gonna deny the Historicity of Jesus . Because he existed
@@tookie36 Carrier does lectures, interviews, and he has an incredible amount of facts. An his facts have to do with the Gospels being a a "constructed" myth that developed over time. And the idea that monolithically women had no power or influence in the ancient world is blatant nonsense. This would have been especially true throughout the Mediterranean basin. Reality cannot be made to bend to fit the mythical Gospel narrative. The resurrection narratives don't even agree, and can't be made to agree. NT Wright does nothing more than to use the bible to prove the bible. It is circular reasoning at its worst.
For the past year plus, I've been on this journey of exploring Christianity (as an ex-militant atheist) and I've come across so many religious people - such as the two gentlemen in this video - who are so incredibly humble in their manners, their ways, their speech, their approach to challenging issues and ideas. It's really been wonderful. Thank you.
I pray you find your way home. Peace.
/ex-militant atheist1 now Catholic since December 2019 after two years of going to Holy Mass and praying
@Dennis Bakker I come from a similar background and came to the realization (frankly, against my personal preference at the time) that Jesus Christ is Lord. I always claimed to be seeking the truth and I couldn’t continue being anti-Christian if it was true. As you’ve explored, have you found Christianity to be true? If so, have you repented and believed?
Wishing you all the best.
I love to hear that your on, what it sounds like to be, a honest, humble journey. I'm most confident you'll find Christ
@@justinbrown8036 I'm not sure yet, but I'm definitely leaning in that direction. I do pray - not regularly - and have asked for forgiveness for my past sins and since then a huge weight has lifted off my shoulders
@@dennisb1698 your story is of a quiet, deep joy. Thank you for sharing it, and may you continue in the way of love and peace.
Couple things I’ve picked up on all of these atheist “ experts” is their level of pride when speaking in debates or rebuttals , mostly on Christianity which then leads me to believe they have a general bias towards Christianity, not just religion itself 🤔
Their biased disdain really gets my spidey senses tingling 🤷🏻♂️
Dick Carrier is a piece of work and I have lost any respect for him. He’s dangerous because he is leading people astray and the second you get people to doubt….
Have you actually watched these debates? There is plenty of Christian pride and arrogance on display. What I think is far more likely is you are probably biased towards the side you agree with. Thus you view the other side as being more hostile.
Ever consider it's actually bias against events that in order to be, the universal laws of reality must be suspended? There are no magicians, only illusionists
@@elguapochango isn't this a statement about Brierly and Wright. There is no "opponent" in this discussion except by reference and it is not derogatory in any way.
@@iain5615 it’s been awhile but I think my comment wasn’t limited to just the context of this video, as I don’t believe the comment I was replying to was either.
Love when atheists tell Christians that an argument has been "thoroughly debunked" because they read something from someone once
The argument hasn't been debunked, but far from proven.
@@georgemoncayo8313 I don't have time to respond to everything you said - so I'll keep it brief:
First of all, you seem to think that all atheists think the universe came from nothing. That is not true of me - something always had to exist, but that doesn't mean it's a god - and even if it was, how do you know it's the biblical god? If god can always exist, then the same could apply to physical particles.
The bible has never been proven, and has shown just as much evidence against it as there is for it. That's a problem, don't you think? For one- we KNOW for a fact, that Genesis took most of it's influence from early Sumerian writings - no real scholar will dispute that. From there onward, it just gets tricky.
Sure there are thousands of artifacts that backup the culture in the time the bible was written. So what? Does that prove the supernatural stuff? Does that prove that there was an Adam and Eve or a worldwide flood? No - it does not. Just because there might have been a Jesus, doesn't mean there was a resurrection.
New York City exists. Does that mean Spiderman exists? Archaeologists agree that the Trojan War occurred and that the city of Troy was found. Does that mean the Odyssey is a fact?
London exists. Does that mean Sherlock Holmes exists? Johhny Appleseed was based on a real person. Does that mean the stories are all true?
The bible has some historical things in it, but most of the stories and events it describes - cannot be corroborated. There might have been a King David, but there is no historical evidence that he ever fought Goliath, or anything else for that matter. No prophet in the old testament has been shown to having existed.
I almost fell over laughing when you mentioned Georgia Purdom and Bodie Hodge - these two especially are a joke. It doesn't matter if they have phd's. So what? Do you honestly think everyone with a phd is interested in facts? They have been refuted by real scientists all over the world. 98% of scientists accept an old universe. The creationist movement is on it's last dying stretch, and they are making any last-ditch effort to brainwash the youth. That's why the ilk of the creation museum like Georgia Purdom
and Ken Ham push their hateful bigoted swill on homosexuals and atheists. They are a hate group, first and foremost. They nothing better to do with their time. Creationism cannot be peer reviewed because there is no evidence for it.
It takes no religious faith to be an atheist. I do have a certain kind of faith - faith in humans, faith in myself, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. But there is no atheist bible to put my faith in.......sorry to disappoint.
I grew up in the church, so I've heard all of your arguments in spades, and then some. Do yourself a favor - don't waste you energy. You'll be better off preaching on the street.
Good day.
@@georgemoncayo8313 Don't reply to me anymore. You're flinging so much horseshit in my face, it's suffocating. I would be willing to have a discussion with anyone who shows a little humility and respect - but you have none. Making false assumptions about what I actually believe, and acting like you can read my mind, and assume I haven't read or studied any of the things you have. Such foolish arrogance.
Again, this is the last time I speak to you. I won't reply to another comment if you make it. I warned you not to waste your time. Take your bullshit pack of cards, and go play them elsewhere.
Take care. Big kiss.
@@pwoods100 the Resurrection story is proven.
@@pwoods100 Good evening. >>>If god can always exist, then the same could apply to physical particles.
" Then how would they come to life without an intelligent agent? Please explain how the universe was fine-tuned?
>>>> The bible has never been proven, and has shown just as much evidence against it as there is for it." Name some. Almost all the Biblical stories are backed by archaeological evidence. Please provide scholarly evidence. Carrier isn't scholarly - he has an agenda - his polyamorous lifestyle - his words.
>>>>98% of scientists accept an old universe. The creationist movement is on it's last dying stretch, and they are making any last-ditch effort to brainwash the youth. " Your science is almost 100 years old. The Big Bang is the accepted science. Literally NO Scientist holds to an old un-created universe. Whether it is old or young is still a matter of the quantum realm.
>>>They are a hate group, first and foremost." You mean like Dawkins at the 2012 "Rally for Reason" in DC calling for "mocking Christians in public" or PZ Meyers calling for violence against Christians? He says that evolutionists should “screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s about time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots." You mean like that?
>>> Creationism cannot be peer reviewed because there is no evidence for it." Where would you like to begin?
>>>I grew up in the church." So what? You provide zero evidence for your claims - how can you live without evidence, or, are you a slave to populist notions? GOD Bless
Carrier will respond because he has no real job. No one with a tenured position at a university with degrees in the classics or ancient texts buys the crazy view that Jesus didn’t exist. The opinion is overwhelming that Jesus did exist. Even Dawkins concedes Jesus existed. These mythicists are a goofy disgruntled collection of oddballs even in the atheist community.
I’ve read that he gets no respect from the academic community. No peer reviewed papers being published. He went on this crusade after Dr. William Lane Craig kick his butt in a debate
@Jim Where. You said { The opinion is overwhelming that Jesus did exist. Even Dawkins concedes Jesus existed. } Who is the Dawkins that you are talking about ? Is it Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins and many people can have opinion about anything, but that doesn't mean their opinion is true or false. If you are talking about Richard Dawkins, I don't think he did any major work in history. I have never come across him claiming he can read / write or understand the ancient languages of Middle-East like Akkadian, Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Greek* etc. I also never heard him saying he lived in the middle east region for years doing research.
There are many people in the west with opinions about Africa that is not accurate. Some of them hold advanced degrees. And there are children or young boys in Africa that have opinions about Africa that is accurate. Therefore, I don't think opinion is a good way to conclude the accuracy of something historical. I think evidence is much better than opinion.
@@michaelbrickley2443 Where is the debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Richard ?
You said { I’ve read that he gets no respect from the academic community. No peer reviewed papers being published. He went on this crusade after Dr. William Lane Craig kick his butt in a debate }.
I thought you have to be part or accepted by the powerful group in order to get respect or accepted. Like the way it is done in politics. Usually you don't get appointed to big political offices just because you are a good person. You get there by being part of a group that approved you first, then get to the office.
In a similar way if an employed professor in United States writes a history about Islam that annoyed the powers that be, he will lose respect and his job also even if the history is true.
I just don't get it. It looks like your statement is equating "respect from the academic community" or "peer reviewed papers" to the truth. Meaning if they approve something, then it is true and if they don't then it is not true.
I can understand this in the context of donations, but not in the context of truth.
I remember a long time ago. There is this organization that is considered the best of the best in the world that told us that "Saddam Hussein" has weapons of mass destruction deceiving billions of people around the world.
@@IshaqIbrahim3, the debate should still be up on UA-cam.
@@michaelbrickley2443 I thought it is on UA-cam also but I am not sure because I haven't seen it before. I don't know the exact debate you are talking about. That is why I am asking since you already mentioned it. You did not post a link to the debate or something like the title, the date, the location etc. So I am not sure if I will get the debate you are talking about or end up with something different.
Watch out for the angry blog post
"mYtHiCIsM wiLL be MAiNstrEAm iN 5 yEaRs"
Great to meet NT Wright. Great show!
How did you meet NT Wright?
excellent response!
@ That's all assertion, opinion and emotional outburst in lieu of an argument. I find that many skeptics do that. Instead of refuting the historian merely assert, emote and opine.
such a beautiful voice has NT Wright! Woow!
...Boy-oh-boy--that's what really matters, uh? Here, I'd been thinking that it's the way a scholar binks their eyed that really matters. But, you hit the nail on head, buddy.
Joesephis didn't have any option other than women to record his event. Unlike the disciples who had options to exclude the women.
Listening to Tom Wright is always delightful. He can surely make a strong argument without bashing his opponent. Love it.
"What's he on about now" isn't bashing?
@@jursamaj, I don't think so. Nevertheless, it does speak to a kind of frustration that Wright and other historians experience reading Carrier. There are good reasons for that, ranging from Carrier's tone (typical rudeness of an almost adolescent variety) to his insistence upon kicking against the goads of well-established historical consensus in a variety of respects. He is to the historian what the intelligent design theorist is to the evolutionary biologist: a maverick who doesn't seem to entirely understand what his more qualified peers are on about.
@@tylerjourneaux4352 That "well-established consensus" is established entirely by believers in the religion, many of whom have to give statements of faith to their employers just to get & keep their jobs. This rather colors what they are allowed to say.
Not that long ago, you would have gotten the same scoffing that Carrier gets if you had suggested that the Exodus didn't happen. It is now mainline archeological position that Exodus didn't happen at all. No significant number of Jews enslaved in Egypt, no 40 years wandering, no genocide in Canaan under Joshua. This has all been known for decades now, altho much of the public doesn't know it. Indeed, all the stories of the patriarchs are myths. Moses likely didn't exist, not in any way that would be recognizable from the stories. All this goes against the "well-established consensus" that was handed down to us, but it's what the evidence shows.
Carrier rightly shows that the historical criteria which Christian biblical scholars have applied to the bible are largely invalid, and mostly invented for and only used on the bible itself. This is a problem for the "consensus".
Ecclesiastes 1:4
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."
Solomon is dramatically describing life here on earth, and the folly of that existence when God is left out. No matter how exciting life may seem to be “under the sun,” ultimately, it has no value without God. we exist for a very short period of time but the earth remains forever in contrast to our short life spans.
Nothing ever changes. So, any search for real meaning and lasting profit cannot come from under the sun. We will die and eventually stand before God and be judged. Those who have trusted Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and have given Him their lives will spend eternity with God. Those who have not done so will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Let us place our faith in God alone so that we would be strong in the Lord and ready to battle against the doubts planted by the enemy. Lord, increase our Faith!
John 10:10
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
Brilliant, pray for me. God bless.
I find it humorous how he tells the story about talking to his wife in which he subtly proves the point the ancient authors were making. Perhaps it was subconscious
He makes some really good points I never thought of.. very clever
Brilliant answer as expected from NT Wright! Coudos!
@Dave The Brahman Not sure what it means!?
Justin and Tom what a great session, it was uplifting. Event in contemporary life unfortunately in some regions of Middle East and SW Asia, the same views are being observed about woman at times!
A word of caution, you would not have similar discussions with your wife prior to preparing your meals! You may end up with irreversible damages speaking of consequences! Unless you would know how to cook for yourself that's a safe measure!
I've gone back and forth over the "women at the tomb" argument. Some days I find it persuasive, and some days I don't.
Same. Though that's not the only argument but rather the superficial one. In fact most only use it as a starting point. Personally I am agnostic but I am man enough to admit that Richard Carrier usually makes up things as he goes so im skeptic of the skeptic. So while I disagree in some conclusions I can admit that. Though that's just me.
Maximus Atlas
Why not first begin with the BIGGEST question? Does God exist?
@@TheWorldTeacher I was raised Agnostic so that is a question I always ask one way or another. But yes. Your assertion is true. That IS the biggest question.
Maximus Atlas
And HERE is the answer:
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity. The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete realization and understanding.
There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God:
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher/ultimate power in existence (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self.
3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism.
4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life.
Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed.
As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or world teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit).
“God is greater than God.”
*************
“Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.”
*************
“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.”
*************
“There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.”
*************
“The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.”
*************
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) ,
German Roman Catholic Priest.
“God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself.
The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.”
*************
“Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
@@TheWorldTeacher red herring?
The existence of God is proven by the resurrection of Jesus.
Also thanks to Unbelievable - a great show!
A world-class bonafide scholar responds to a failed academic
I know. Carrier has some gall to (insultingly and rudely) attack Wright and his credentials, when Carrier has never held a university chair and is considered a fringe scholar by most academics in the field. Whether one likes Wright or not, The Resurrections of the Son of God is respected in the field for its thorough and creative presentation, even if not everybody agrees with it. The Journal of the Study for the Historical Jesus had multiple articles about the book when it was first published in the early 2000s.
Carrier's book passed peer review.
@@formerfundienowfree4235 yes, by his peers with the same biases...
Yes, but not with overly positive reviews. Most agree that the level and length of research is impressive, and it is the most thorough work on Jesus Mythicism, but also agree that his methodology is unconvincing and unpersuasive.
" [Carrier's work is] rigorous and thorough academic treatise that will no doubt be held up as the standard by which the Jesus Myth theory can be measured... [but the arguments are ] problematic and unpersuasive...[his use of Bayesian probabilities] unnecessarily complicated and uninviting.. with a lack of evidence, strained readings and troublesome assumptions...most contemporary scholarship has been critical of Carrier's methodology and conclusions. "
-Gullotta, Daniel N. (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2-3): 310-346
Disgaree with Carrier all you want. I often do. However how exactly is Wright more qualified to write and speak on the topic than Carrier?
I love NT Wright. The critical question not discussed, however, is are there sources that confirm that women could be trusted in law courts and other public hearings?
Mark 10:11-12. Women could initiate divorce proceedings (but Jesus discourages it for other reasons). Why would women be allowed to initiate divorce proceedings if they were not trusted in law courts? Wright is still correct to say the testimony of women would be embarrassing, but not for the reason he cites (perceived women's untrustworthiness or unreliable). There might be other reasons which are more plausible; e.g. lack of education for women, etc.
I think it was the job of women to prepare the body after death.. therefore that is why the women went to tomb and not any men.
Jewish law Said that a female corpse had to be prepared by women, But a male corpse could be done by either a man or a woman. Mark says that it was Joseph who took care of the body, And then we don't even seem to help other than watch. So technically the body would be Joseph's responsibility.
Women at the tomb was customary for preparing a body before burial. From a cultural and historical standpoint it wouldn’t make sense to have it any other way. If they were going to claim Christ rose from the dead then someone would’ve asked about the women going to the tomb. We are t talking about a testimony in court. Something far beyond that is going on.
Why would there be separation between treatment of women’s testimony outside of Court?
Richard carrier also said that God doesn't exist bc if he did then carrier would be able to talk to him and God would talk back.... So ya, there's that
Carrier has not studied the issue of God's nature nearly enough, it would seem. That point was cleared up by Aquinas 800 years ago.
@@craigsmith1443 carrier hasn't studied basic logic either. The points he tries to make are beyond horrible
@@craigsmith1443 have any of you read the parts of the bible where god speaks to people?
@@bpansky _have any of you read the parts of the bible where god speaks to people?_
'Any of you'? How many people are you talking to?
You probably know the answer to that question. Why would you ask it?
At 2:36 Wright claims that in 1st Corinthians 15 there is a list of all men who saw Jesus after his resurrection. The only names given are Peter and James. A list of two men. It does talk of the Twelve, the apostles and 500 of his followers. But it says nothing about who these followers were, what the followers saw, and it says nothing about whether they were men or women. So where is this list of men that Wright talks about?
@@Philip__325 thanks, but that’s 12, not the 500 claimed in Corinthians.
@@johnbarr7421
I’m confused. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume out of 500 people appeared to, some are women?
I understand that’s an inference, but it seems reasonable given how Paul openly praises specific women in other letters, so not prejudiced against them as believers. :)
Yes all followers who clearly had no bias in presenting a narrative
Can you name these 500 and provide any correlation of their existence with secular accounts?
@@YesuaCuckBaby
"Can you name these 500 and provide any correlation of their existence with secular accounts?"
No, since such historical data is unreasonable to expect from how little survives. :(
However, Paul is generally accepted as being earnest and honest in his letters. So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to take his word for it. :)
EX: If my wife came home and said she saw an arm grow back from prayer and then retold me the account, I would likely prima facie believe her due to said trust and a lack of a naturalist worldview.
We can chat naturalism if that is more your problem with the 500 seeing a 'supernatural' event. :)
We should all feel very badly about having interrupted Justin and Tom's breakfast.
Apostle Paul in the epistle to Galatian clearly separates Jewish tradition from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think it is fitting in that epistle he writes this.
Galatians 3:27-29 KJVS
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I think it is extremely dangerous that modern Christianity is starting to blend the opinions of rabbis into various discourses concerning Christianity.
Debate Carrier?
Wright's an old soul, he doesn't need the stress of putting up with such a stubborn personality 😂
Carrier would rip his arguments into tiny shreds. It would be an absolute massacre.
No one takes carrier seriously
No one SERIOUS takes Carrier seriously.
Many atheists object to Christianity saying that Christianity is an infantile wish fulfilment. Their argument goes like this, Christian believe their religion to be true, because they want it to be true. They believe in God because it gives them a sense of security and comfort. But this is a biased idea of Christian faith. My Christian response to this would be:
Is God what you want to be true? Are you sure?
When God called Abraham, did Abraham 'want' to leave the security of his homeland and go to a new place of which he knew nothing? Did Moses want to leave the comfort of being the Prince of Egypt to be called by God to lead a slave nation to freedom? Did Jesus want to be crucified for God's Kingdom of justice and love, that he proclaimed in words and deeds. And I can go on like this, with every person whom God called and sent in the Bible.
God is not what we want or what we like. Unless a person is willing to embark on a journey of faith, of a real dying to self, and living to righteousness, he has not really accepted Jesus as His Lord. "For those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Gal 5:24) That is the reason why the Prophet Jeremiah exclaims, "Your word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, And I could not."(Jer 20:9). And in a different sense, the Bible warns those who deliberately spurn God's Mercies, "it is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the living God". (Heb 10: 31).
Yes there is the promise of Peace but not without going through fire, the promise of Resurrection but not without taking up the cross, the promise of Eternal Life but not without going through the Narrow Door.
And I'm also willing to concede, there are people who seek to be infants in their faith, who refuse to grow up, who like to see God as their 'Santa'; these are called from a Christian position, as 'practical atheists', because they will believe as long as everything goes well with them, and as long as everything goes bad with their enemies.
And so to conclude, the true and living God is the 'breaker of idols', and some of them, paradoxically built by atheists themselves. Here, I'm talking about the idol of an 'all powerful rationality', that seeks evidence from God for his existence. It dares reduce God to a thing. "Can he who fashioned the ear not hear? Can he who formed the eye not see?" (Ps 94:9) And again, "For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?" (1 Cor 2: 16)
Yeah, that stuff is all written in your mythology. But can you give any reason to believe your mythology?
The Biblical faith is a faith in the God of history. You have to read the Bible to see constant references to historical events. It does use mythical language however when it has to communicate transcendent truths that go beyond mere facts. But there is a vast difference between mythologies and using mythical language.
@@melroycorrea7720 Pretty much *all* fiction refers to historical events, so that's no surprise. Look at all the stories that are entirely fictional, but set in the American West or WWII or medieval Europe. That just gives a common reference point to start from. Stories that have no connection at all to things people already know tend not to sell well.
I notice you completely ignored the important point: can you give any reason to believe the story?
@Dominus Illuminatio Mea On the contrary. I've done a lot of research, and can find no reason to believe it is anything more than mythology.
@Dominus Illuminatio Mea "Convincing" is binary. Either it is or it isn't. No argument has been.
Good interview of NT Wright. He was quite articulate & scholarly concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Richard Carrier is extremely biased against Jesus Christ & seriously misrepresents many references deliberately.
In Matthew 5:19B Jesus said whoever does my commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
If a skeptic once belonged to Jesus and subsequently became apostate, Jesus said in Matthew 5:19 that you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. You will be a low life. If a skeptic never belonged to Jesus, in Matthew 11:20-24, it will be more bearable for Sodom than for you.
Turn away from your sins & receive Jesus Christ into your life (Luke 24:44-48).
✝📖🎓⚔🙏
Im surprised people actually use links by Carrier in 2020. Wasn't he like the laughing stock of the community that even other atheist ban from talks to prevent ratings from dropping?. Im not even a theist and I find him rather dull.
It’s called “Spell-Check”.
Look into it, SILLY Sinful Slave.
@@TheWorldTeacher "When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser" - Socrates -
AnarchoRepublican 😂When you put it that way I sorta of agree. The things he writes are just so messed up. I remember when he actually made a page to a "Cosmic sperm bank". I was like....Dude wtf 😂
Maximus Atlas
I regret to inform you, Slave, that your response is INCORRECT. 👎
The CORRECT answer is “Yes, Master”. ✅
Bless You Always, TYPICAL Arrogant Westerner!
@@TheWorldTeacher "When men have egos larger than Elephant they become like weasels pretending to be kings" - Rashid - Hope you learn to be a better person as you grow old.
To be fair, Richard carrier isn’t a respected scholar- at all
Richard Carrier.. The guy says Jesus Christ never existed... Dawkin repeated him. Then got laughed off the stage by his, Atheist Peers for it. Why Dawkin never repeated it. Not even atheist are that ignorant...
Carrier is a peer reviewed author with a doctorate. Wright is a gullible old fool who debates Carrier when he is not there to defend himself. That is the truth of the matter.
Movie, er, Wright is also a peer reviewed academic with a doctorate... what is wrong with you?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Name his peer reviewed books.
@@movieklump What part you not get? As you make one more appeal to Authority. I will laugh in your face so hard.
As having a PhD means shit If you are ignorant.
Carrier claims Jesus Christ never existed. He got scoffed at by his Atheist peers for it. And for good reason. They are not ignorant..
As Gary Habermas has a PhD as well. he stomped on Richard Carrier assertions. As he Carrier deserved it.
@@movieklump Have you read this?
Daniel N. Gullotta, “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2017): 310-46.
Short answer : No. If he did then he will be the hero of atheism.
Longer answer: no need to debunk resurrection. It hasn't been proven.
@@piage84 short answer: it is written in history as a fact.
It's not possible to prove a fictional character or a fictional story in the first place!! Its time to put up your invisible religious toys you have played with them too long!
@AnarchoRepublican your halarious! Your insults are childish and show you dont know how to logically or rationally think! Your dogma blinds you! I'm not sure why you feel attacked when it's just a fictional story!
@AnarchoRepublican I dont find any of it offensive but extremely funny because I somehow hurt your feelings and I know that's why your being evil towards me about your pretending! I see it's making you mad and I only want a discussion but your too butt hurt to talk to so good luck with your head in your fiction book and imaginary friend! And your also proving religion breeds hate over a fictional story!
It is clear to me at this point that the fact that in the gospels women are the first witnesses is precisely to make room for scepticism as to the veracity of the resurrection story.
Paul is making a different point. His Jesus is Divine and thus more Spiritual than Physical and so he employs male witnesses in his narrative to reinforce the veracity of what he is trying to say. Physical resurrection of bodies is a trap for Idolaters to fall into.
Is there a link to what R. Carrier wrote? Where could I find it? I would like to go through it myself (only this particular part NT Wright is responding to). Thank you.
You can search for Carrier’s debates on UA-cam. Also David Wood wrote a response to one of Carrier’s books, then Carrier wrote a rebuttal. It is interesting. Just search for David Wood and Richard Carrier.
@@MadameRobinson do a search for criticism of Richard Carrier
The problem with Carrier is that he uses obscure sources and takes the sources out of context. I think he uses red herrings and misreads them. If you were to take apart his thought process you come to a twisted view of both his process and his conclusions. It’s like throwing spaghetti at a wall.
@@MadameRobinson there is a great response from Cross Examined. He refuses to acknowledge the historicity of much of Paul. If you’re interested I’ll check my bookmarks. Just his very air of superiority attacking scholars like Craig Evans makes me sick. He debated William Lane Craig and got his butt kicked. After that, he developed a style and goes after the traditions and says we have no “proof.” Once you’re planting the seeds of doubt in the skeptics minds they take root because they don’t want a god. Hitch lost to David Berlinski but his “fans” saw it differently. Berlinski is a scholar and Hitch is a man who learned, early on, how to use his charm and his style to look good. He debated his brother after his brother came back to faith.
Basically your argument is as follows: "We know the story of Goldilocks is true, because she had as witnesses the Three Bears. The Bears' status as witnesses would have been questioned by the public and generally wouldn't have been taken seriously, so by the criteria of embarrassment we know the story must be true. If the story were an invention, the storytellers would have invented witnesses of higher status to lend credence to their story. But they didn't. They reported the story as it came from the Bears themselves. They verified that she entered their house, they attested to the fact that she ate their porridge and slept in their beds. The story wasn't written down until several decades later, but it has the flavor of the early versions of the oral tale, so we know it must be true."
Are you arguing the Gospel writers intended to author children’s fantasies?
I’m curious at how you know the intent of the author, so specifics would be awesome! :)
@@FuddlyDud Umm...I guess you completely misunderstood my comment.
@@ericpierce3660
" Umm...I guess you completely misunderstood my comment."
Hence why I asked a clarifying question. :)
Your analogy was to analogize a fantasy story intended as fantasy to the Gospels, that was quite clear.
What is unclear is if you believe the intent of the children's story is the same as the Gospel writers, hence my question. :)
@@FuddlyDud I mean, of course they didn't intend to write a children's story, that's obvious, isn't it?
But the point is, the gospel stories are just as fantastical, and the evidence we have for their writers' veracity is the same, that is, exactly zero.
@@ericpierce3660
Id agree the intent difference is obvious, although many skeptics I chat with would not admit that nor engage on it. *smiley face*
NOTE = I forgot my keyboard, so my responses will be weird until I am back home.
On the problem of the story being fantastical, could you articulate why said story poses a problem. *question mark* I want to understand your position more deeply before I offer my thoughts. *smiley face*
Also, I dont think we have the same veracity for this fairy tale and the Gospels. As you earlier referred to the intent of the authors being obvious, isnt it also obvious that evidence for Christianity has been more substantial than that of said childrens story. *question mark* *smiley face*
I ask since I dont really want to just quote a bunch of sources you likely already know at you. If we can find common ground, then I bet I can learn a lot about your position. *smiley face*
I hope N.T. can handle a blog post because trust me it’s coming.
Trust me he can.
Oh no! A blog!!!
Yeah and it’s gonna include the word liar at least 10 times, also includes something about him being stupid, and a bigot.
A rather arrogant boast. How did it go?
Jesus didn’t even come to the gentiles but the lost sheep of Israel, he told his disciples not to go to the Gentiles. Even Yahweh didn’t have nothing for the Gentiles.
I think when a religious cult is making a claim about a miracle (let alone multiple miracles).......written or spoken....you should require an incredible amount of evidence.....
Science has done that for years, the big bag for example
@@kronos01ful the difference is that when science makes a claim, it is only once they have evidence for it. Big bang included.
@@mundusa of course! Good science if can be repeated in India, china,Peru, Alaska is good science, but history you can't!!! But knowing Jesus by reading the Gospel and repenting of your sins will have the same results ,in China, peru, india ,Alaska.
Why ? Because we are all sinners and there's only one God can fix it ...jesus !
@@kronos01ful that was a bunch of gibberish.
The bible claims a specific man existed. We can use history, archaeology, logic etc to test that claim. Jesus has not met his burden of proof in the same way all other sons and daughters of Gods through history haven't.
@@mundusa that is false!!!!! History, archeology and personal relationship has proven and proven and proven that jesus claim is reliable!!!! . You have millions of testimonials that jesus is real ,millions! If that is not enough, you and all like you are egocentric, pridefull, hypocrites, dishonest people.
There's thousands of scientists that have come to christ because of evidence and personal experience.
This is a problem of the heart a love for sin and a denial of your own will to acknowledge reality . You are a sinner, you hate sin but you are not willing to admit that you are a sinner.
So every excuse is given, but very few are humble to face their sin.
Jesus die for our sin that is a historical fact . Another historical fact is that you are a sinner and you need to read the Gospels, learn about Jesus life and apply hes lifestyle in your life ,repent and see the porpoise of God in your life.
Can that be possible? Why not?
How about have NT Wright debate Dr. Richard Carrier?
That would be like Richard Dawkins debating Ken Ham.
Josephus was a valuable historian he knew alot. he knew alot
Ok, Trump lol
He knew there were people who said they knew people who knew people who knew people who believed a Jesus character had supposedly existed and supposedly had performed miracles many decades earlier and was supposedly crucified and had supposedly miraculously rose from the fucking dead and most ALL of the people of the time thought he was a fraud. So yeah actually he didn't KNOW jack shit.
@@spaceghost8995 Before you make your stupidity public like this you should maybe educate yourself. That Jesus is a real historical person is affirmed not only by Josephus but also by the babylonian talmud, Pliny the younger, Mara Bar-Serapion, Tacitus and others. They even acknowledge that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. And even though these are the enemies of Jesus they admitted that Jesus worked miracles (althought they said its origin was evil). Not only that. These non-christians even state that the disciples claimed shortly after Jesus' death that he rose from the dead.
@@friedrichrubinstein These are just bullshit STORIES. Using YOUR LOGIC, all religions must be true. After all, people have written stories about seeing shit right? Millions today believe Joseph Smith was a holy prophet.
isn't the passage about jesus overwhelmingly agreed upon by everyone whosstudie it to be a forgerie? Like, it doesn't fit any of his writing before and after the passge and is writtin in a form that neither makech his own nor the rest of the writings.
I haven't heard anyone outside of christians actually take josephus seriously when it comes to jesus. pluss all his information comes from the gospel, so there's nothing really there to discuss.
I don't need carrier to debunk the resurrection, I can do that myself : Where is the evidence ?
😄 where is the evidence that your grandgrandgrandgrandfather existed? You don't know him, so he didn't existed, that's what you say 😁
I know that my great grandfather's great grandfather existed because of birth records, called my '' family tree ''. You are incredibly stupid, no wonder you're a true believer !
Apologists, I always get cross-eyed watching them twist themselves into pretzels.
I know. Atheist apologists are absolutely cringe
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 KJVS
[22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; [24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
It would appear to me the above scriptures make apologetics a exercise in futility.
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
This is where the term apologetics comes from. This is why we do it.
Also we are just planting the seed. God causes the growth.
3:55 Celsus was just relaying what the gospel said!
Mk. 16:8
_"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."_
You can't use Celsus as evidence against the testimony of women when he's literally just describing what the story says!
@AnarchoRepublican Wright was using Celsus' quote as proof that Celsus himself thought the women were hysterical and therefore untrustworthy. While this may be the case, Celsus is just describing the behavior of the women as told in the gospel story. So Wright can't use this as evidence Celsus thought this about women in general.
@@resurrectionnerd _While this may be the case, Celsus is just describing the behavior of the women_
No, Wright is using Celsus as an example, and it's a good one. According to Origen ( see Henry Chadwick, _Origen : Contra Celsum,_ (Cambridge : Cambridge University, 1953), Celsus had much more to say than just describing the women at the tomb. I suggest that you read Origen.
@@craigsmith1443 He might but the example of Celsus talking about the women running away from the tomb won't work. He's literally retelling what the story says.
@@resurrectionnerd _He might but the example of Celsus talking about the women running away from the tomb won't work. He's literally retelling what the story says_
Celsus says more than that. That's the point. It 'won't work' not because he's 'retelling the story' but because he's wrong. Read Origen.
@@craigsmith1443 Wright did not quote Celsus "saying more than that." The example he gives just has Celsus quoting the gospel story! Against Celsus is a long document. Maybe you can cite the evidence? But again, it's totally irrelevant because the example is just Celsus quoting the depiction of the women from the gospel.
Maggie is a woman after mine own heart!!
NT Wright needs to talk to Tovi Singer about the resurrection.on a side note;1 -why woul'd you go to a tomb to embalm a corps after two days,2-how convenient for the woman that the stone/rock was rolled back.The whole thing doesn't make any sense.[my opinion only]
Fiction doesn't *have* to make sense.
Come, it was Passover and the Sabbath. At first, it didn't make sense to them, either. they had to be convinced. They were.
Fables don't have to make sense. They just have to be entertaining.
@@flipwright1138 The disciples didn't think it was a fable. He looked pretty real to them.
@@craigsmith1443 You got it correct. Pray for the blind. The RESURRECTION is the most *documented* event of that time period and is spoken about in numerous historical records outside of the Bible. This information -- easily accessible for all in the digital age -- can be searched for and discovered fairly quickly.
But forget that and how about this: only ONE apostle was not martyred, John. The rest? Well, the rest *willingly* and *lovingly* gave up their lives because they KNEW the truth. They stared down death and received it without blinking an eye. The only reason they kept themselves alive was because it was their inherent responsibility to spread the Gospel. But when the time came, they had zero trouble meeting their end because they knew what awaited them. Peter chose to be crucified upside down because he did not feel worthy to be crucified in the same manner as Christ.
So, to recap: Jesus rises from the dead, is seen by about a thousand people, many of whom spoke of it and wrote it down despite having no relationship with Him, and then nearly all of the original apostles eventually gave up their lives without any fear in or whatsoever. As if they did so based on conjecture.
Also, there is a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" that approaches all of this sans emotion or deep apologetics, and instead examines the resurrection in objective fashion. Of course, you can't get nonbelievers to read it because they're afraid it will sway them, and thus, further compromise their broken identities.
Look -- I get it. People don't want to believe. Some, because of various fears or cultural upbringings. Others, because they simply cannot get over the fact that something occurred long, long ago that they cannot corroborate with their own eyes. Whatever the case may be, there is *much, much more evidence* that the living Savior rose from the grave than there is most of the subject matter taught in high school ancient history courses occurred.
*Step 1:* Open your minds, and then your hearts. *Step 2:* Read the material (the Bible). *Step 3:* Compare with actual (non-apocryphal) historical accounts. *Step 4:* say a prayer and ask Christ to be your Savior (which will make Him smile). *Step 5:* live the rest of your life with the joy and confidence that only comes from the peace He provides.
The whole story doesn't add up.
Why go back anyway? The body had already been wrapped.
Plus wouldn't they need someone to help with the stone? Why go alone then?
If you think Matthew is hysterically accurate, read chapter 27 verses 51 to 53.
Zombies seen by many !
If you don't understand apocalyptic language, don't make assumptions.
Intelligence has left the conversation, so I must follow too. Goodbye
@AnarchoRepublican
Have you seen "Jason and the Argonauts" ?
Skeletons rise up out of the ground and come alive !
It's a common theme in ancient fiction.
@@arkanzaki
Goodbye Arkman,
This yarn in Matthew will take some very careful "interpretation".
Even literalists will struggle because they know it didnt really happen.
But they want the other stuff to be true ! So they can't ignore it.
@AnarchoRepublican
Fossils of dinosaurs are hard evidence.
The reason why women are mentioned at the tomb is to demonstrate that all the male companions of Jesus had fled
it's also just a bit curious that 10 of the original apostles are not credited with writing any gospels (conservatives deny apostolic authorship of any gospel outside the canonical 4), and most Christian scholars admit the case for apostolic authorship of Matthew and John is weak. Sort of makes you wonder whether the original apostolic belief was that Jesus was going to physically return within their own lifetimes. Preterists try to circumnavigate around that with their "spiritual second coming" crap, but they run smack into a brick wall: Acts 1:11.
You should invite Carrier to debate, otherwise, you are allowing christian apologetics to defend myths and fairy tales as truths which is far from an honest discussion.
The motivation for going to the tomb contradicts Jewish tradition. The story doesn't make sense because there was no need to anoint a body after it was buried. The point of anointing was to do it before burial so it wouldn't smell. The reason given in the earliest account (Mark) is to anoint the body with spices. Matthew leaves this part out (because it's nonsense) and replaces it with a different reason - to look at the tomb. Luke retains the original Markan reason but says the spices were prepared before the Sabbath - Lk. 23:56. This contradicts Mark's depiction which says they acquired the spices after the Sabbath - Mk. 16:1. John says the body was anointed before by a character (Nicodemus) who is not even mentioned in the synoptics. John's depiction explicitly contradicts Luke's narrative where he says the women followed Joseph then went and prepared spices - Lk. 23:55-56. He also conveniently omits the part that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb precisely for anointing the body as in Mark.
There's also another sign of fiction. After the women were already on their way, Mark says the women "wondered who would roll away the stone?" How silly of them to head to the tomb without thinking of that in the first place!
All signs point to fiction. Mark was creating narrative tension which is then relieved when they reach the tomb and the stone has already been rolled away.
@@danielgould5530 It would have been since anointing bodies was performed by women.
@@danielgould5530 wow! here is a woman's perspective. We frequently do things that do not make sense to men, but that is what keeps this old world spinning. I often do things later in the game; today we call it OCD, as in something that has to be done, even if it is too late (you might have to be OCD to get this, and I am not talking about incapacitating mental illness here). And think in advance about rolling the stone away? no wonder God had women do it, men would have talked themselves out of going to the tomb, and so there would have been no one to report the whole amazing, world changing, history changing moment. And, when one goes through a such a shocking event, remembering the details in perfect harmony can be very challenging, which would explain the variances in the tellings.
Good point about the late anointing. However since he was buried late in the day on Friday before Passover they would've rushed to settle him before nightfall, per the law. Therefore they went out to annoint him early on the first permissable day. Sunrise on Sunday.
@@Jim-Mc But there was no need to "anoint" an already buried and rotting corpse. That's why the story doesn't make sense.
@@resurrectionnerd The writers would be perplexed at people like us focusing on what to them would have been the least interesting part of the story. But I would not think preservation or smell was (or is) a Jewish concern either way since quick simple burials were desirable, and they would've anticipated removing the bones in a year. So the real question is why annoint him at all, late or not? I suspect some Second Temple era motivation for this has simply (understandably) been lost. John and Matthew don't mention spices or anointing in the context of their visit anyway.
...Actually HAThEist archon "little" Richard Carrier is not considered authority enough to "debunk" anything....by anyone who matters...
Does the weight of carriers debunk of the resurrection completely hinge on whether women were credible in court or not at the time that they are not exactly sure of ?
The points that persuaded me the most when I think of Richard Carriers debates with apologists are the precedence of other similar and popular savior mythologies that were floating around christians may have borrowed from (Romulus, Osirus, Innana, Adonis, Zalmoxis). Another point being a well known personality disorder from Schizotypal's who hallucinate regularly and are attracted to cults as a natural explanation for visions vs the extraordinary supernatural claims from fanatic followers of an appearance of the supposed risen jesus also Paul's conversion to christianity and motive for helping christians could have been a way to escape the strict criteria he believed was too hard for him to meet in judaism him being changed by the cognitive dissonance from guilt he felt for persecuting a rather loving a nice culture that he would rather get with and make a fortune from.
The women being witnesses to the resurrection follow a common literary theme in the bibles narrative that the least shall be made first so it doesn't surprise me that the bible would be so bold as to put its weight on their testimony. I really fail to see the force behind this criticism of carrier who's main theme of logic that continues to persuade me is that there are more logical natural explanations that have a more probable chance of happening vs super natural explanations and as someone who sees faith as gullibility natural explanations will always appeal more to me.
So, you believe that other mythologies of savior gods influenced these common men in Judea?
My response is that you say “floating around Christians” but they weren’t Christians then. They were Jews who were almost unanimously Unitarian Monotheists. That is why Jesus was killed. The Jews wanted him dead because he equated himself with God. Next point is that these mythological gods only bore superficial resemblance to Jesus but there were drastic differences.
Now note a quote from Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God
Did any worshipper in these cults, from Egypt to Norway, at any time in antiquity, think that actual human beings, having died, actually came back to life? Of course not. These multifarious and sophisticated cults enacted the god’s death and resurrection as a metaphor, whose concrete referent was the cycle of seed-time and harvest, of human reproduction and fertility., p. 80
Schizotypal? Well known? Maybe on atheist sites trying to debunk Christianity but not in the rest of the world. So, I looked it up on the Mayo site, here is a description:
People with schizotypal personality disorder are often described as odd or eccentric and usually have few, if any, close relationships. They generally don't understand how relationships form or the impact of their behavior on others. They may also misinterpret others' motivations and behaviors and develop significant distrust of others. And.
Schizotypal personality disorder can easily be confused with schizophrenia, a severe mental illness in which people lose contact with reality (psychosis). While people with schizotypal personality disorder may experience brief psychotic episodes with delusions or hallucinations, the episodes are not as frequent, prolonged or intense as in schizophrenia.
That doesn’t sound at all like the disciples. They were constantly around other people and socialized well with the community. How else would you explain the rise of the church?
Also, note that there were 11 disciples and 4 women. How likely were they to suffer the same malady? With a prevalence of around 4% in the population today (and no description then of such a malady) I say the chances they all suffered from it is about 0%.
About Paul
Paul had no reason to convert or invent any myth. He was rising in the ranks of Judaism.
Galatians 1:13-14 ESV For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. (14) And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.
And how did he benefit from Christianity?
2 Corinthians 11:24-27 ESV Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. (25) Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; (26) on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; (27) in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
What about the women?
The point is that they were attempting to reach the culture around them with the Gospel. Why would they trot out the women’s testimony? The main reason is they wanted to present the truth. The word truth is mentioned 97 times in the NT. Along with love, grace and forgiveness this is one of the main virtues of Christianity.
This was a 10 minute video with Wright. Maybe you should read the 740 page book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by Wright and maybe then you will see the force of the argument against Carrier.
@Jesse Oliver so these gods are not exactly like Jesus? Or are you saying they are nothing like jesus? There's a difference.
More to Carrier's point, does his argument rest on these gods being exactly like Jesus or just matching categories? Because, in order to debunk Carrier he'd have to say they are exactly alike, and he has never said that.
Also, id like to ask, are these pagan gods mirror images of each other? If not, why would you expect anyone with half a brain to argue they're mirror images of Jesus?
@Jesse Oliver what motifs?
@Jesse Oliver oh, I assure you "similar" and "the same" are not equivalents and their use doesn't amount to a game of semantics.
Would you be happy if you asked me to change a bill into coinage, and I gave you a similar but lesser amount? Or would you expect monetary equivilancy? Does it matter? Would you be happy, if after you complained, I told you not to play a semantics game?
@Jesse Oliver stop evading the questions. I asked you many questions. Answer them rather than changing the subject and accusing me of playing coy. All talk and no substance.
By the way, anytime you want change, I'm your guy. I'm sure I could make a bundle off of you.
Why does it even matter? According to the gospels he appeared to the disciple and 500 regular folk as well.
Jesus rose from the dead for the Bible tells me so! There!
😀
Josephus wrote Antiquities at the same time as Paul was writing...... really was Paul around in the mid nineties then?
No, no he hasn't lol
what?
@@wesleygordon1645 Carrier hasn't refuted anything.
@@markschmitz5038 That's your opinion not a fact.
The believers Faith rest totally on the Word of God. In the Lord Jesus. In the Holy Spirit. Jesus alone is the Faithful and True Witness. As Paul said not that your faith should rest in man’s wisdom but in the Power of God. Despite what anyone says we stand with God alone. King David said I shall not be moved. He trusted God alone with a slingshot and defeated the giant. So it shall be.
The argument that women's testimony counted for nothing and this fact supports the literal truth of the Gospel is so overdone as to become plain silly. Really, it is unimportant, because the women presented no testimony in a court of law or to any official or legal/priestly person. They only communicated it to the apostles (although in Mark 16:8 they told nobody - presumably nobody official, because in the other Gospel accounts, they tell the apostles). The apostles corroborate it, and that's the important part.The important testimony of the resurrection rests with the apostles, and not with the women.The apostles preach it to the Jews. We don''t find the women doing that to anyone.
Moreover, having women discover the risen Jesus first supports a major theme running through the synoptics: "the last shall be first and the first last" (Matt. 20:16). So there is no "embarrassment" to the Gospel writers, for it merely enhances the Gospel theme; the last in status (women) become the first to see it. But the men remained in charge of preaching the resurrection and, most importantly, of the theology.
As has been pointed out, women would be *expected* to be the ones to go anoint a corpse. Had the story had men going to do that, *that* would have made the story less believable.
Personally, I think that "they told nobody" should be read literally, showing that it's just a fiction, not a historical report. Many elements of the bible show this effect, like Moses' death. Moses goes up the mountain, dies, God buries him, then the Israelites in the valley mourn him. But why? From their perspective, he just went up the mountain. They don't know he died. His body or grave aren't found. He could have just kept going across the mountain. But the *story* needs it, so that's what they wrote. This is how fiction works: it assumes the *audience* can know things that none of the *characters* do.
@@jursamaj , NO, WOMEN WOULDN'T! The account of the women anointing the corpse is a fiction. Neither men nor women anoint a buried corpse - that's just preposterous! Corpses are anointed while on display with herbs and fragrant oil to disguise the smell it soon emanates (after about 12 hours in that climate). But NOBODY ANOINTS A CORPSE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN BURIED OR SEALED IN A TOMB! NOBODY DOES. AND THERE IS NO HISTORICAL RECORD OF SUCH A THING EVEN BEING DONE.
A buried corpse is no longer available for people to pay their respects to. The time for that is before it is buried. Jesus' tomb, we are told, was sealed with a stone. People don't remove the seal to anoint a corpse - the occasion for that has passed. It's a silly Gospel fiction.
@@psandbergnz Yes, it's fiction. And the story has people going to anoint the corpse. Given that, those people needed to be women. That's the thing about fiction: it can contain *some* falsehoods, but to stay plausible, it needs some truth as well.
Where were the Hobbits in this Book?
@@flipwright1138 , perhaps the apostles?
Carrier?..., Nobody takes him seriously.
Except recovering fundagelicals going through their angry teenage apostate phase
This comes off as a debate where only one side got invited.
It's a rebuttal
@@paradisecityX0 I understand that. I was pointing out how it comes off.
@When Belief Dies There's plenty of academic material on the topic. But would you at least agree that Mythicism is tantamount to YEC?
Richard Carrier gets invited all the time. He never accepts..Hell he refused to debate even Gary Habermas. Whom wrote his PhD on the subject. Fact is, Richard Carrier makes up more shit. That even atheist scholars scoff at..
By the way. I''m not religious. But you claim Jesus Christ never existed. I will laugh in your face so hard..
@@MasterChief-sl9ro Tim O'Neill has a lot of sweet dirt on that meme
The power in Mr. Carrier's positions is not in any assertion that he has the truth. The power is that he and others propose valid explanations of historical writings. Without empirical evidence, which explanation one sees as correct is essentially subjective. So while exchanges between Mr. Carrier and Mr. Wright are interesting, at the end of the day what one believes is more a matter of preference and cognitive bias.
@AnarchoRepublican Thanks for providing such a clear and concise example of the primacy of preference and cognitive bias that govern these conversations.
@StAnthony Hurray!! Thank you!! For once a correct use of the informal "begs the question" fallacy! The problem is I haven't made any assumptions. I am simply pointing out that there are various hypotheses to the truth none of which are supported by empirical evidence. To clarify that I will amend my last sentence: "... at the end of the day what one believes can be seen as at most being a matter of preference and/or cognitive bias."
@StAnthony OK. Change "valid" to "equally valid". My argument does not rest on an assumption that any particular explanation being valid only that there are many equally valid explanations.
Your assertion that Carrier is a marginal figure is an ad hominem attack. You're assuming that a flake can never propose a valid explanation -- a poor assumption. I'm disappointed. I would have expected someone who actually knows what "begs the question" means to not make these sort of bad arguments.
@StAnthony Seen without preference or cognitive bias, that there are a number of UA-cam videos with various explanations, each with it's proponents, is evidence that there are multiple explanations of more or less equal validity. You may choose not to take this as evidence, which is your right given your preferences and biases. I maintain that you are assuming Carrier couldn't possibly have a valid explanation simply because there are those who disagree with him.
@StAnthony One person's obfuscation is another's clarification. We shall have to agree to disagree. Other than an ad hominem attack and an assertion of a nonexistent assumption on my part you've done nothing to convince me that choosing to believe Dr Wright is anything other than preference. Have a nice life!
This might have been worth the time if you had, I don't know, both guys there.
Because the crackpot insulted first. Only fair to have a rebuttal. But then again, why have said crackpot on and dignify his contrarian position?
@@paradisecityX0 You responded to me as if I asked a question. I didn't.
@Sticky Steve Just Carrier, my anti Semitic little friend
@Sticky Steve l don't recall Disney ever trying Jesus. DreamWorks did with Moses though.
I give back what l get.
Cognitive Dissonance (tm)!
Lol Says the generic village-Atheist going through his angry teenage apostate phase
@Sticky Steve Where's your evidence?
Where did Jesus do any of that?
And if you're exploiting dead babies for rhetorical purposes, that says more about you than it does him
It was politically incorrect at the time to use or trust a woman's testimony, the fact that there were women at the tomb who factored into the equation is evidence that the resurrection stories were not concerned about politics, but were giving a living account of a very controversial and pivotal point in the gospels. Jesus made a habit of breaking through cultural barriers to accentuate the truth - man-made barriers were meant to be broken by truth. However, Wright does a good job of defending why women were airbrushed out of the accounts.
Gary Trimble, you say it was politically incorrect at the time to use or trust a woman's testimony.
That is a totally irrelevant as well as asinine comment. Even if it is granted to you that your statement is correct, the only "testimony" that the women gave in the Gospels was to the apostles, who then corroborated it. The Gospels don't have the women evangelising the resurrection (or the Gospel) to anyone, so how is their testimony even important? The Gospel stories only have the apostles as testifying to the resurrection. How is the women's testimony important?
You say: "Jesus made a habit of breaking through cultural barriers to accentuate the truth - man-made barriers were meant to be broken by truth."
No, Jesus did not alter, or try to alter, the status of women. And the sexist barriers of the time are entrenched by the Bible itself. For example, if a woman gives birth to a daughter, she is ritually unclean for twice as long (two weeks) compared to her giving birth to a son (one week). If a man rapes an unmarried girl, then she must marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28). The rapist gives her father 50 shekels of silver to compensate HIM.
Or take women's inheritance in the Bible: Numbers 27:8 - she gets NO INHERITANCE if the she has brothers. If she has brothers, then all the inheritance goes to her brothers. Only if there are no sons will the daughter get any inheritance. In this way, the independence of women is deliberately abased. She becomes the property of her husband. Rape of a married woman is a crime against her husband (who owns her), not against her as an individual.
@@psandbergnz I don't understand what part of my comment you are saying is asinine. A woman's testimony would not normally hold up in court. Of course there is the theory dating from the Enlightenment (The Three Impostors) that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were political cover ups, if you are in agreement with that theory. All four of the gospels mention the resurrection - it must have been important for some odd reason. All four place women at the tomb - it must have been important for some odd reason - the gospels were written during a time in history when women were second class citizens, in a manner of speaking. Women did play a major role in the gospels - not so much in the great commission. However, what about the Mary's, Lois, Eunice, Phoebe and Lydia, Priscilla, etc.? Priscilla and Aquila went with Paul, he left them at Ephesus - I guess they just went along for the ride, or did they help set up a ministry there? Acts 2:17-18 Peter quotes OT Joel about sons/daughters prophesying, the spirit will be poured out on servants, both men and women, etc. Each of these and many other scriptures involving women or husbands/wives being addressed and working together, the list goes on, involves women in some form of ministry. Galatians 3:28 Paul states that in the gospel, male/female are one in Christ. Of course all of these have to be fleshed out in light of the cultural mores of the day and the differences between men/women and their importance. From a skeptical/atheistic point of view, the big picture is that everything evolved naturally, even society and cultural conventions are socially contrived. Women play a very important part in Christian ministries and the church down through history. A testimony can be in words or deeds or both. What is consistent is that both men and women play a role in the OT and the NT from the beginning and throughout history, which has to be interpreted from a cultural and theological point of view.
@@get9320 , by "asinine", I was referring to your comment that "it was politically incorrect at the time to use or trust a woman's testimony".
It's asinine because the women presented no "testimony" of the resurrection, so your statement is irrelevant. All they did was report the occurrence they witnessed to the apostles, and no one else. How is that "politically incorrect"? Their witness is not important except in conveying it to the apostles, because it is the apostles who verify it, and it is the apostles who evangelise it. The women's witness is eclipsed by the apostles. If the women were the ones to proclaim it to the public including the priests, then that MIGHT BE politically incorrect, true! HOW IS THE WOMEN'S TESTIMONY IMPORTANT? The fact that the women allegedly see the risen Jesus first presents no male embarrassment, because it supports the Gospel teaching: "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last." So people with lower status (here the women) will be first. But there is no change or equality of gender roles implied, because the Gospels nowhere try to change that. Note also in Acts 1:21, when Judas is to be replaced. Peter says: "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us..." [to replace Judas]. A deixsion uis made between two men: Joseph and Matthias. But note that women are excluded from the pick. Again, no attempt to change societal mores restricting women, many of which are entrenched on account of the Hebrew Bible. So, it is ironic that you should claim that Jesus or the NT tried to bring equality to women, when in fact their _inequality_ is upheld by the Bible itself.
As for women playing a major part in the Gospel, you ask (referring to the women you name): "I guess they just went along for the ride, or did they help set up a ministry there? Acts 2:17-18".
The very fact that we don't know their role, so you have to pose that question, defeats your own argument. Perhaps they made the tea and sandwiches as wives or daughters and ministered to the other women (which is probably the case). They probably did not evangelise to men at all, in contrast to the modern day setup of equality of roles, which comes to us gradually after the Enlightenment, and is now accepted in most churches. Gender roles are equal in churches due to political pressure from the outside, to which they (and you) have succumbed.
You rightly say that in Galatians 3:28 Paul states that there is neither male nor female - all are one in Christ. But do you think that Paul is trying to equalise male and female roles in society or in the Church? No! He is saying that in God's eyes there is no difference _in value_ between the genders. However, the epistles are clear that leadership is male: "The husband is the head of the wife" (Eph.5:23), and wives submit to your husbands. If women do prophesy in the church, they must do so with a head covering, "for the sake of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:10), i.e. it is based on a _theological_ argument, NOT a cultural one. There is no attempt in the Greek New Testament to alter mores. On the contrary, Paul admonishes slaves to obey their masters with "fear and trembling" (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22)). The NT makes no attempt to abolish slavery. Slavery can be upheld on the Bible itself! The Old Testament approves and endorses slavery on behalf of the Jews, e.g. "You may buy and sell male and female slaves from the nations around you" (Lev. 25.). These foreign slaves and their children can be bequeathed to their Jewish owners' children, so it can persist in the Jewish family.The Jews must not enslave their fellow-Jew, that's all. Slavery of fellow-Jews is limited in time, and only acceptable to cover a financial debt. But there are no restrictions for owning slaves who are mere Gentiles. They are the owners' "property".
The NT does not attempt to end or restrict this biblical law.
@@psandbergnz You are right, the women were eclipsed by men in the gospels and for the most part in the OT. Interpretation based on perspective coupled with the reality of the situation is all important. In the OT, there were ceremonial, ethical, and social laws that cannot be taken literally in today's society. It is very important not to extrapolate our Post-Enlightenment sentiments back thousands of years and expect the results to please us today. We have to ask, what were the theological, cultural, and political contexts in which the OT and the NT narratives unfold? It is also important to look at the Judaeo-Christian worldview, and fit the narrative into the worldview, or interpret the narrative according to a particular worldview, which does not fit into the post-Enlightenment society. Based on Judaeo-Christian worldview, relationships are implied in Genesis 1, which are primarily spiritual but have implications for society: sociological, psychological, environmental, etc. They were harmonious until corruption entered in Genesis 3. After Gen. 3, all relationships and the world became strained. We often hear that life in unfair, at least after Genesis 3. Men/women were meant to be coequal, but different in the role they played sociologically. It is interesting that in Gen. 2:24, that it is not good that a man is alone with no partner and that men are to leave their parents and bond with their wife. In Genesis 3, after corruption entered, this gender/partner relationship is strained, and that women will desire their husband who will rule over them. These changes were the unfortunate result of a choice to be autonomous, mentioned in Gen. 2. Since everything was interrelated sociologically, psychologically, ecologically, etc., all relationships were broken resulting in the new norm in the world, abnormal in respect to the way it was originally intended. We live in a paradoxically normal/abnormal world or abnormally/normal world. Everything appears to us to be normal, we are fit to live in a world where everything appears normal, but is abnormal in relation to the original plan presented in Genesis 1-2. We are told that death is normal, to accept it, but is it? It is in a normal/abnormal world. The key is laid out in Gen. 2, their choice to either rely on provisions that were already there and to trust, or to take from an epistemological source that would open their eyes to the paradoxical opposites of good/evil and make them autonomous and theoretically equal with God. But, the price is heavy - death and disharmony will result. History bears witness to this on all levels of existence. it is no surprise that most cultures throughout history were patriarchal and yet there is harmony/conflict between genders. The redemption in Judaeo-Christian history is meant to be unfolding over time and within the cultural context of the world. God, in the JC worldview, came into the world, not to abolish institutional corruption, but to work through it in history to bring about redemption into the world. Neither the OT nor the NT hides the imperfection of people or institutions. The Hebrews were no different than others in a sense, they wanted other women and kings, but they had laws that were meant to separate them from other peoples. As far as slavery, elsewhere we read that the Hebrews were commanded not to oppress aliens/foreigners (Ex. 23:9), and in Leviticus 19: 33-34, aliens are to be treated equally, as citizens, and to love them as yourself... In this light, the regulation of slavery should be seen as a paradox and a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. Slavery and gender conflicts are/were aberrations and not the norm. This goes for the NT as well, Jesus did not intend to end institutional corruption but to bring the kingdom into the world (Mt 3:2).. initiating reform/renewal from within. Redemption/renewal is a future reality to be worked out on a daily basis throughout history in real human communities/societies, the Hebrews knew this (Isaiah 11:6 which alludes to the Messiah ( Is. 9:6), and is a reversal of what occurred in the Garden), and Paul alluded to it as well, Romans 8:22. Jesus did not knock the gender situation, or other social corruptions, this was not his intent. He did attract women and treated them with respect, as well as break entrenched cultural values, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, John 4.
more like Nitwit Wrong. anyone who thinks some dead guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago is a complete dupe.
Why resort to insults? :/
Assuming that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel and ended in 16:8, it doesn't confirms the historicity since it did not describe the womem who did not have the position of an effective witness at the time as a witness of the resurrection. Rather, it could be said that it showed a so-called misogyny attitude toward women. Because the short conclusion of the Gospel of Mark is that the women were scared and ends without saying anything and not telling anyone.
In the New Testament canons, the Gospels were written later than Paul's epistles, and the earliest Christian resurrection faith in Paul's epistles is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, in addition to a list of resurrection manifestation experiences. But nowhere women!
In fact, the stories of the empty tomb continues to develop again and again in canonical books. We know, at least women were not present in the earliest report(Mark and Paul), or rather deprecated. If so, why was the position of women added in the later Gospels? I have a good hypothesis with two steps, not like Wright. First step, the early Christians (including the apostles) disrespectfully treated with women. Second step, the position of women in the Christian community later rose. But it doesn't mean that the later added reports of women has historical value.
that makes sense. I never get this argument. when we don't have them in our earliest sources of Paul. I would be curious to know if there is any other Greco roman documents with women in them as a fatal part of a story. would we be inclined to say it must have been historical cause no one would invent women in the story
The problem is that 1 Corinthians also doesn't mention the angels that were at the tomb...
What do you make of that? Did Paul have issues with angels based on his not mentioning them?
@@ohiostate4515 the point is that there stories aren't the same. paul never mentions the empty tomb at or anything in the gospels for that matter.
@@cystictostrong1215
He actually does in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4....
Verse four indicates a resurrected Christ....
Resurrected Christ = Empty Tomb.
I Corinthians 15 is an overview of the resurrection. A summary if you will.
The purpose of which is explaining to the church at Corinth what is THE gospel.
@@ohiostate4515 there are many ways to get buried. it does not pre suppose an empty tomb. nor does it recall anyone knowing where it is either. appeared to 500 at the same time, don't see that story in any of the gospels. The gospel is not referring to the actual books in the NT we now refer to as the gospels.
Nobody’s touching the food, that’s unbelievable.
🤣😂🤣
Empty tombs and "missing body" stories were an established literary theme in antiquity. It was a marker used to convey apotheosis/translation of a hero or important person. Since there is no actual independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from Mark), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its own historicity.
An extremely interesting example is the Greek novel Callirhoe by Chariton which may date to before 62 CE (before Mark's gospel) due to a possible mention by Persius _"To them I recommend the morning's play-bill and after lunch Callirhoe"_ - (1,134). Just as in the gospels, in Chariton's story, there is the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave.
@AnarchoRepublican
_"The theme of empty tombs was a familiar one in the ancient world. Aristeas disappeared from his temporary place of entombment (the fuller's shop) and later appeared as a raven and as a phantom in Herodotus's version. He received the honor due the gods and sacrifices in other accounts. Cleomedes, presumably still alive, disappeared from the chest he had hidden in and was honored as a hero with sacrifices. Many years after his death, Numa's body had disappeared, although there is no evidence he underwent an apotheosis. Alcmene's body disappeared from her bier. Zalmoxis, by the artifice of living underground, appeared three years after people thought he had died. He promised his followers some kind of immortal life resembling either resurrection or metemsomatosis.....Although Romulus was not buried (in most traditions) his body disappeared, and he was honored as the god Quirinus after appearing to Julius Proculus. Callirhoe apparently died and her lover Chaereas discovered her empty tomb with the stones moved away from the entrance. Inside he found no corpse. He assumed she had been translated to the gods.....Philinnion disappeared from her tomb, walked the earth as a revenant, and her corpse was later found in her lover's bedroom. Lucian's Antigonus (in his Lover of Lies) asserts: 'For I know someone who rose twenty days after he was buried.' Proclus included three stories of Naumachius of Epirus who described three individuals that returned to life after various periods in their tombs (none months, fifteen days, and three days). They appeared either lying on their tombs or standing up. Polyidus raised Minos's son Glaucus from the dead after being placed in the son's tomb. The Ptolemaic-Roman temple in Dendera vividly depicts the bodily resurrection of Osiris in his tomb. There are numerous translation accounts of heroes in which their bodies disappear when they were either alive or dead, including: Achilles (in the Aethiopis), Aeneas, Amphiaraus (under the earth), Apollonius of Tyana, Basileia, Belus, Branchus, Bormus, Ganymede, Hamilcar, and Semiramus."_ - John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis p. 598-599.
After describing the disappearance of Romulus, Plutarch comments that it was common for these types of "fables" to be applied to other heroes and deified figures.
_"Now this is like the fables which the Greeks tell about Aristeas of Proconnesus and Cleomedes of Astypaleia. For they say that Aristeas died in a fuller's shop, and that when his friends came to fetch away his body, it had vanished out of sight; and presently certain travellers returning from abroad said they had met Aristeas journeying towards Croton. Cleomedes also, who was of gigantic strength and stature, of uncontrolled temper, and like a mad man, is said to have done many deeds of violence, and finally, in a school for boys, he smote with his fist the pillar which supported the roof, broke it in two, and brought down the house. The boys were killed, and Cleomedes, being pursued, took refuge in a great chest, closed the lid down, and held it so fast that many men with their united strength could not pull it up; but when they broke the chest to pieces, the man was not to be found, alive or dead. In their dismay, then, they sent messengers to consult the oracle at Delphi, and the Pythian priestess gave them this answer:-_
_"Last of the heroes he, Cleomedes, Astypalaean."_
_It is said also that the body of Alcmene disappeared, as they were carrying her forth for burial, and a stone was seen lying on the bier instead. In short, many such fables are told by writers who improbably ascribe divinity to the mortal features in human nature, as well as to the divine."_ - Parallel Lives, Life of Romulus 28:4-6
@AnarchoRepublican From Wikipedia -
_"A 2020 study of the marble's isotopes showed that the tablet came from a quarry in the Greek island of Kos, meaning that it is highly unlikely that it has any relationship to Jesus, and it may instead have been inscribed as a reaction to the desecration of the grave of the Kos tyrant Nikias circa 20 BCE."_
@AnarchoRepublican There is no evidence the Nazareth inscription had anything to do with Jesus.
@AnarchoRepublican Does the inscription mention Jesus?
@AnarchoRepublican In the article from ScienceMag of Feb. 2020 this year it states that the inscription does not come from Nazareth and that:
_"why was it made? Based on the style of the inscription and the age of the quarry, Harper and colleagues propose the object was carved in the first century B.C.E. for a ruler on Kos known as Nikias the Tyrant. Sometime after his death in about 20 B.C.E., angry citizens of Kos pried open his tomb and dragged out his corpse, according to an ancient Greek poem."_
So it seems, given the evidence, it is more probable that the inscription was referring to the raiding of Nikias' tomb rather than Jesus'. Thus, you're just left holding an empty sack I'm afraid.
The argument that they wouldn't have women discover the body so it must be true is moronic. This is a book written by men who clearly focus on literary tools and writing methods rather than on the content making any sense whatsoever. Which is more likely...Jesus was crucified and resurrected or Mark just didn't think it through properly and used women because they tended to be the ones to prepare the bodies? Seeing as we know Mark was not the greatest writer and that people much better educated write plot holes all the time, while we have no examples of anyone ever resurrecting, it is clear that the criterion of embarrassment argument is useless at best.
It also completely ignores the fact that in the original ending of Mark the women flee, telling no-one. If they don't tell anyone why would it matter how reliable they are? It doesn't. The later gospel writers could have changed it to men seeing as they obviously had no hesitation in changing the details whenever they wanted but if that's an argument then you're relying on the fact that the later gospel writers were straight up lying and that's really not a route apologists are likely to want to take.
7:30-8:00 I love how his wife's supposed reaction affirms the very claim she is appalled by😂...
Haha! Too true!
wom·an n.
pl. wom·en
She who gives “woe” to “man” - therefore “wo(e)man”... 😫
Have you written any literature?
When Jesus was told that Lazarus died, he wept, then raised him from the dead.
Why did he interfere with a perfectly natural evil if Lazarus was happy in Heaven ?
Imagine Lazarus being in Heaven and an angel says, "Sorry mate, you have to go back !"
"Just my luck. I will have to go through the pain of death a second time ! " says Lazarus.
When jesus wept it was him just showing how much he loved Lazarus. And he died because a disease and if was in heaven for short while they told him he had to go for a bit it wouldn't matter because he would still be walking with the lord and that just gives him comfort next time because he knows where he is going when he dies.
@@alo1528
We don't know why Jesus wept. The book doesn't tell us.
It seems a little odd that the creator of the world wept.
He obviously knew that Lazarus was ill from a disease he created.
He could easily have prevented the illness and then he wouldn't need to weep.
@@alo1528
Why did Jesus die ? Well somebody had to pay the price. The wages of sin is death !
But why didn't the actual god choose Barabbas, who was actually guilty ?
Well he didn't. So there must be a good reason, if only we could think of one.
I know, the perfect sacrifice must be of a lamb without blemish ! Yes ! That's it !
@@alo1528
Now if only we can search the scriptures for "lamb without blemish", then we've closed the loop.
I've found it ! It's in Leviticus 23:12 "Ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord".
There is that small problem about it being a "burnt offering", but I am prepared to ignore that bit.
@@alo1528
(and First Peter 1:19)
"With the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH and without spot"
See how easy it is to apply some logic to an otherwise mad concept.
Oh yes, with guidance from the Holy Spirit we can fight off the evil works of Satan and his demons.
I can give the resurrection and all the other miracles, it still won't make Jesus 'God'
Why? Wouldn't miracles verify his claim to be God?
@@christianfurnari7052 No. It wouldn't.
@When Belief Dies If God exists, then he couldn't lie. A genuine miracle is an act that can only be performed God. God cannot confirm error because he can't lie. So why would God allow Jesus to perform miracles in conjunction with false claims? I'm not arguing that God exists or that those miracles happened, but if God does exist and if those miracles happened, you cannot consistently deny the truth claims verified by those miracles, namely, Christ's deity.
@@christianfurnari7052 You know how many miracle claims in religions there are? Does that make those people God as well?
You are correct sir. The Church has never argued that Jesus was God because he did miracles; all the Apostles did them too. They got the idea from his ministry as a prophet which is the same reason he was rejected by most Jews. Basically, there were prophecies pointing to a Messiah (not God) and other prophecies pointing to the return of God to the temple (as it had been before the exile). He went around enacting fulfillments from both sets.
The criterion of embarrassment doesn't really work if this is indeed a myth. You get weird results. Try yourself on any of your faviourite stories. So you can't tell one way or the other in this particular case, I think. On the other hand, as Robert Price and others have pointed out, the care for corpses and mourning for the dead were often the work of women in antiquity, and they had respect on that matter. To me it looks like this detail of the story is not very useful to promote any of the views.
You missed the point. It was not a criterion of embarrassment but rather highlighting that because the testimony of women was not acceptable at the time, if they would were making it up, they would have declined mentioning those who society would have already not believed and only highlight men. Since they were writing IN THAT TIME to people IN THAT TIME it would better serve their interests to never mention women as witnesses at all yet we see women at the fore. That’s the point.
The woman’s argument is just one, but there are tons of other evidence that disprove the historical jesus
What are they?
Women's testimony is not said to be the source for the empty tomb story in Mark. In fact, it is explicit that they were not. And it is widely agreed that Mark is prior to Matthew and Luke. It is also widely agreed that Mark is the literary basis for them. The sources of the changes to Mark (in the other gospels), in which the women are said to spread the news of the empty tomb, is not known. The extrapolated sources of M and L may not have been actual sources. They may just be the creative embellishments of the authors of Matthew and Luke. So the original story has no women testimony and we have no way of knowing if the later stories of women testimony come from other sources that are reporting historical events.
Most critical scholars also do not think Paul wrote the pastoral letters, among other things. If we are delegitimizing some of the gospels, might as well throw out half of the letters attributed to Paul while we're at it. That should resolve the issue of women in ministry.
Saying Mark doesn’t tell of the women’s testimony is like saying he doesn’t write of the Messianic motif; he explicitly does just that.
The curiosity is in where is the tangible proof in Christianities "Jesus" yeshua other than the books of the new testament we need more physical tangible proof cause all the witness in the writing never see the physical Jesus all of them witnessed him after the resurrection none before and all these writings came after the resurrection so what's really going on here 🤔
Wish I knew which books were on the table.
dont waste your time with carrier, he is a massive joke
@@gnevescoelho i won’t argue with you on that but i think he meant which books by NT Wright were on the table lol
One is "Paul - A Biography"
I am not sure I agree with Mr. Wright, yet I am no mythicist. I do think they both miss the point. I use gospel of Mark for this analysis, as imo the rest of synoptics are just embellishments of it (more or less), and John is too late.
Women at the tomb are irrelevant for both cases. It was women's job to prepare the dead (men could do it only for man, women for woman and sometimes for man). As male disciples had fled, and there had been sabbath in between, nobody could not do it (tend to the body) earlier, so the only person/s who could do the job was women (who stayed). That is why women were not brushed out. Because it was not needed - it does not matter if it was fact or fiction it works both ways. So it is of no use to determine historical fact. It could be used as a part of a story or a fact, it would not prove or contradict anything.
About Paul. Yes, he cites a very early creed, that mentions only men. But it is because Jesus appeared only to men (according to Mark and also Luke) or predominantly to men (who knows who were among the 500). He did not appear to women at first - women just discovered empty tomb (without Jesus in it) and because of that Paul does not mention women as a witnesses to resurrection. So it is irrelevant for both sides of the argument. Women at the empty tomb in the gospels, and creed / Paul not mentioning women as witnesses to resurrection, does not prove or disprove resurrection.
The historicity of the resurrection is predicated on the principle of embarrassment? Yikes
One line of evidence, obviously. AFAIK, it is fairly new, so I'd say it is not just me that had done fairly well without it, for MILLENIA. Obtuse.
@@davidhawley1132 what else do we have?
Justin Thillens A mountain of books has been written on the subject, and a few by NT Wright.
@@davidhawley1132 probably, however I see that there are only a few small points of contention for atheists. I'll have to do some reading into it
Who is this Carrier-bloke? Never heard of him. Tom Wright may want to find better things to do than trying defend or disapprove some fly-by-night expert.
2000 years ago Almighyy God, via the accurate teaching of His Son, Yeshua/Jesus Christ, wanted to introduce us to the power of His electromagnetic universe. Miracles were just one aspect of this and resurrection and rebirth another. For us, the greatest fruits of this science is a wonderful repair programme from the very level and degree our sins have taken us...even from sins carried by our genetics before we were born. Righteousness then, as lived by our Saviour, Yeshua, is a scientific code which excites special electromagnetic laws which, if left to their own devices, cripples us and runs wild, and gives us mass oppression which Satan is so good at, but Wormwood will sort him out along with all those who don't repent and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of the One, True, God.
Nobody in scholarship has taken Carrier seriously for years. I remember him getting all sulky and throwing a temper tantrum over Ehrman accidentally saying he was a classicist because it hurt his rep as having a relevant PhD in the Biblical era, when it is in fact history of science, in a different part of the word and a different century. He then proceeded to be shredded by Ehrman after this along with a bunch of insulted Classicists who did not appreciate being called "mere" and having their field sneered at by a hack.
As far as I remember off the top of my head, Carrier has picked up the work of Bauer, who admitted he made up the whole argument to piss off 2 priests he was in an argument with. This was over 200 years ago. He appears to have no new data.
Why does anyone listen to this guy?
@Nigel Butt are you aware people use that argument to deny the Holocaust?
@Nigel Butt and many people have shown many reasons to trust what is written in the text, even if you choose to go only as far as benefit of the doubt, a thing I am guessing you don't even grant.
However, none of this actually addresses what I said initially.
I said Carroll was a hack, who misrepresented his own credentials, is rejected by all scholarship, and who is just rehashing arguments by a man who literally admitted to making them up 200 years ago.
Your response was, in essence, well how can we trust what they wrote.
My response was, people reject the holocaust on the exact same point.
Your response was to then go, well look at all the evidence.
The deniers deny all that evidence because they don't want to see it. The fact that you missed my metaphoric "so what" to your initial argument doesn't deal with the fact that no scholar takes anything Carroll says in any way seriously. Why would that change here?
Those defending the bible have the false premise that it’s an accurate text.
Read Carrier's arguments. He doesn't even seem to understand Osiris was not resurrected. Osiris remained in Hades.
In Matthew an angel came down and rolled back the stone in Luke the stone was already rolled away this is what happens when two people make up a story the facts don't fit Theists will say stories often differ and yes this happens but who on earth would omit the fact that an angel came down and rolled away the stone probably the one and only time they saw an angel so not something you would forget or leave out. Maybe in Matthew they added the angel in to make is sound so much better in that case how many of the stories have been embellished to make them sound better like walking on water turning water into wine etc etc etc. This happens so often in the bible it's ludicrous to accept it as a legitimate source of information. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These gospels are accredited to but were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John again this was made up so they lied but we are supposed to accept that everything else is true. If so I have loads of cool stuff I would like to sell you 😁
Brilliant
Its interesting that lots of different people saw Jesus before he was crucified,
but after the supposed resurrection, only his followers saw him walking about.
The Romans executed Jesus,, but didn't notice the empty tomb.
They even set a guard to make sure nobody pinched the body !
First off it says he was seen by 500 people after his resurrection. And number two the guards didnt see him walk out because it never said he moved the stone from the entrance of the tomb to leave, it just says he arose
@@alo1528
Thousands of people have seen Elvis Presley walking about in Last Vegas.
@@tedgrant2 and???
Elvis wasn't crucified and Elvis didnt die for three days then rise up on the third day and appear to many for 40 days and at the end of those 40 days Elvis did not ascend into heaven and seen by many.
@@alo1528
If someone told me that Elvis Presley was "taken up" and was last seen disappearing into a cloud,
I would want a few more details. How was he "taken up" ? Was it in a helicopter ?
Who was the pilot and can we get him on camera explaining how he got the job ?
Where did he take him and why haven't we seen Elvis since he went on this trip ?
With paper-thin arguments like this I can see why they avoid debating Carrier. 🙃
Carrier is pretty much considered a lunatic. That's why he never progressed in his academic career beyond a librarians assistant and instead peddles his books.
Richard Carrier - anything that might give credence to the gospel narritive must be wrong, because it would be illogical to believe anything that might give credence to such a belief ... then consider the evidence once this ground rule has been set, and observed.
“what’s he on about this time?”. dear lord we aren’t highly prejudiced at all are we? I will take Carrier’s close examinations and documentations over these prejudiced fools.
Aw yes N.T. Wright is so rude and condescending compared to Richard Carrier. It isn't like Carrier has blog posts titled "the gullibility of Bart Ehrman" or "more ass crankery from Tim O'Neil"
carrier pats himself on the back in every single sentence he speaks or writes.... the sad thing is he could have some good points but its nearly impossible to read him because he is so fond of himself you are forced to hear his life story instead of the historical claims
please wich is the article in discussion?
It's Chapter 11 of "Not the Impossible Faith".
Are these actually 2 grown men sitting around and talking about if some guy rose from the dead or not?
Jesus cast out demons and turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead. Whats the big deal about a resurrection? There are many good stories in the Bible. The resurrection is just one of them.......
Jews at the time were not expecting that the messiah would be the first fruits of the resurrection. Some believed in the resurrection at the end of time but not in a messiah's resurrection.
_Whats the big deal about a resurrection?_
That's the reason it was called, 'Good News.'
Carrier has already discussed this. The front in center women are the meek taking over the world. Pure symbolism. The greatest Story ever told. They are to be taken as a whole.
I don't know if it is lack of evidence or what but isn't there anyone out there that can successfully out debate Carrier? I think the best one I have seen is the one between him and William Craig but even at that it wasn't no slam dunk. I think that to often with the debates, many people are left not knowing what to believe. Unfortunately we have lost John Lennox.
No one. Becuz, he's insanely honest, intelligent on the subject and RIGHT.
@@monkkeygawd carrier is considered a nut case amongst 99% of historians for his insane Jesus mythicism , which is based on nothing but conspiracy and denial of Real History . Willam lane Craig crushed carrier like a bug .
@@Mayan_88694 not hardly, my friend. Have you actually read any of Carrier's books? His big Jesus Myth book was peer reviewed and INSANELY well researched. On the other hand, Craig is a KNOWN liar and bender of truths. I can show u examples of him being deceitful. Carrier flat out admits what he can and cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Regardless, Christianity is a fantasy, same as the other Abrahamic religions. Dualism (Christianity, for example) is dead in the water. Nondualism is where reality/spirituality makes rational sense. Read or listen to Bernardo Kastrup for a modern take on Idealism, which is based upon a nondualist perspective.
However, if Christianity comforts you and makes you a more loving, caring person, then forget all I said and enjoy.
Best of luck!
@@monkkeygawd I’m agnostic , but what makes carrier a nutcase is his Jesus mythicism , Not a single serious historian denies the existence and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth Bart ehrman who has become one of my favorite scholars Laughs at Carrier. The evidence for the existence and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is incredibly overwhelming .I may be agnostic but I’m not gonna deny the Historicity of Jesus . Because he existed
@@monkkeygawd and please show
Me times bill Craig is being deceitful , I’m genuinely curious
Seems odd to speck of Moses, knowing he's not an historical figure.
Dave Judd, ok....you say so
Unconvincing argument
The resurrection is not history. It is myth. Period. And this guys arguments don't hold a candle to Richard Carrier.
If Carrier spent half the time on facts and data than he does on name calling he could have written 100 books by now
@@tookie36 Carrier does lectures, interviews, and he has an incredible amount of facts. An his facts have to do with the Gospels being a a "constructed" myth that developed over time. And the idea that monolithically women had no power or influence in the ancient world is blatant nonsense. This would have been especially true throughout the Mediterranean basin. Reality cannot be made to bend to fit the mythical Gospel narrative. The resurrection narratives don't even agree, and can't be made to agree. NT Wright does nothing more than to use the bible to prove the bible. It is circular reasoning at its worst.
@@tookie36 I think you're OVERWHELMINGLY mistaken there. Carrier is a facts fountain. Sharp, sharp mind when it comes to the NT.