Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- For more information, visit: freethoughtfest...
AHA @ UW - Madison: wiscatheists.bl...
Madison Area Coalition of Reason: unitedcor.org/mad/
Richard Carrier is the renowned author of Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, as well as numerous articles online and in print. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he now specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome. For more about his work, visit richardcarrier.info.
THIS GUY IS PURE GOLD! Just went to his website and bought the main book!
The volume needs enhancement .
Well all of you who think Richard Carrier is some kind of inept scholar... you do realise that his book on this subject has passed peer-review? The first mythicist book ever to do so, in fact. When Carrier says other mythicist proponents are not to be trusted it is because they are factually wrong or fallacious. He is not being egotistical, he is simply stating a fact.
LOL only peer review can possibly be fact
The Bible has been "peer-reviewed", i.e. EVERY SINGLE WORD has been scrutinized for 2500 years by believers (those who have read it and found it to be true to reality) and well informed detractors. No book has been has undergone the level of criticism it has (no other could) and yet it stands as the number one best seller of all time. It is the best seller every year without exception. And yes, its popularity is significant. Carrier's "peer-reviewed" book is already forgotten.
@@carld2796 lol based
@@carld2796 The Bible has been scrutinized mostly by biased Christians for centuries, and secular scholars who are under the thumb of Christian institutions. Carrier exposes their fallacious methods. The Bible is myth.
@@mrovin11 The bias straw man ploy works both ways. It was clearly evident from Carrier's first words in the video. Mock the other side, get a laugh, win the uninformed. Debate 101. The myth claim has been around since the first century. At that time it was the Gnostics who espoused it. It's resurrected every now and again. Gets a lot less convincing as the years pass by. If you want a present day agnostic/atheist scholar with the opposing view, check out Bart Ehrman.
And there is lots of evidence for the gospels recording AD 60s events. Like:
Jesus mentioning the siege of Jerusalem.
Jesus became high priest in Hebrews 7, same as Jesus of Gamala in AD 63.
Josephus crucifixion account in AD 70 same as gospel version.
Zacharias of Barachias and Zacharias of Baruch the same (i.e.: AD 60s).
Doctrine of Addai gives a governor in the AD 50s, when Jesus alive.
Toledoth Yeshu says Jesus trial in AD 50s.
etc: etc:
But Richard Carrier knows none of this !!
Fascinating! I love how dr. Carrier is so scrupulous about his historical analysis. Applying the academic rigor.
The Bible says if you seek Gods face with all your heart you will find Him. You also need to repent of the things that you know doesn't please God because He is holy and come to Jesus with a humble heart.
God revealed Himself to me and I am not special but I really sought His face.
When you critics have researched and read as much as Carrier, I might read past the first lines of your comments.
AnarchoRepublican Lol! Still good, though. What's an anarcho-republican? Never heard the term before.
William Lane Craig has but I'm guessing you don't really care what he has to say since it doesn't mesh well with your worldview, yes?
+mark belmares William Lane Craig is a walking fallacy factory. All you have done is proved that you REALLY do not understand the most fundamental structure of logic.
+mark belmares
William Lane Craig is what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like. ;)
Rami Gilneas
We had to learn the fallacies according to their logical 'proof' form in my logic class. It was quite tedious to learn all those, but time well spent. I was lucky to have learned it when I was in my early 20s, as my PRECEPTS were still forming. Sadly, people like mark belmares don't know a concept from a precept -- and they're entirely beholden to fallacy.
We learned fallacies in philosophy in order to avoid logical error. I am CONVINCED that William Lane Craig learned them entirely to deceive.
not exactly. Its been long a common misconception in public that the Jesus of the bible was just a "guru" of inner discovery, selfrealisation and such... but that is an entirely different Jesus.. thats the "new-age jesus" the vague spiritualists want to follow.. not the one whom is equal to God, and that came thru prophecy to restore our hope and chance at eternal life from our own death in sins.
If Jesus never existed, how come I'm a Christian? BOOM! Checkmate atheists.
Pierre M
Believe it or not I wasn't being sincere; but no shit the "how come I'm a Christian?" argument is one I've seen several times.
Then why do you have a profile picture of Brett Keane?
+The Gooch indivijul situwation
How do you explain Jedi Knights in Australia ?
Please don't be so ignorant to think that your cult comes from Jesus. Give thanks to confused and ambitious Paul.
If Christianity is a cult, then i'm not only proud to be part of it, but happy & contented that one must strive to do less sin, treat their fellow human with kindness, forgive thine enemy, treat your parents with respect, be kindly to the stranger, don't judge a person by their appearance or belongings b/c their value is based on their values and not how much value they own, be part of a group that realizes we need to do better, tell others we have a loving & forgiving father, Jesus is the truth
This guy is a joke. He might have a Ph.D in some ancient history, but he is obviously no expert in new testament history. He starts off as an arrogant and dismissive pundit making statements to a crowd who are already eagerly waiting for him to rip apart the notion that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Does this sound like a real scholarly start? He himself cannot construct a real history of the myth itself. It is all on speculation. Tell me Sir Richard how it was that Christianity spread to all four corners of the Roman world as well at India within 20 years of Jesus' purported death? Christianity was not fashionable in the least, but it did satisfy the deepest yearnings for love, egalitarianism, support and spirituality for hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands of people, And at the same time the state was depriving them of human rights, persecuting them beyond belief, and offering them up for public spectacle in the arenas. This is historical.
It is obvious that you have done little contemplation of how this so called myth conspiracy actually began and who it served in the first century. The second century is full of testimonies to the cruelties suffered by this group and yet you cannot give any historical evidence as to the origins of the myth. Please give a credible alternative. I mean scholarly.
Jesus himself did not endorse the old Judaic belief in an angry God. He pointed out that God does not judge anyone...nor would he. It is unfortunate in a way that early Christianity didn't redact the O.T. in accordance with the new teachings. And unfortunately most Christians do not realize to this day that the new testament clearly states that God judges no one. On top of that current knowledge of near death experience corabarates that when we die we will judge ourselves with God's help. The existence of life or conciousness after death is just short of being a scientifically accepted fact.
I haven't even read past your first argument. Let me tell you that in reality the gospels were written CENTURIES after 30 ad. So Christianity had not spread at all, let alone to the quote on quote four corners of the earth
_"Tell me Sir Richard how it was that Christianity spread to all four corners of the Roman world as well at India within 20 years of Jesus' purported death?"_
Obviously it wasn't. In fact, one of the sparse sources that document that Christians existed is a letter from Pliny the younger asking emperor Trajan what on earth he was going to do with these strange new cultists. That was in 112AD.
_"Christianity was not fashionable in the least,"_
Sure it was. It adopted many of the concepts of the popular religions of the day.
_"but it did satisfy the deepest yearnings for love, egalitarianism, support and spirituality for hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands of people,"_
I suppose I should ask you how this would not equate to being fashionable...
_"And at the same time the state was depriving them of human rights, persecuting them beyond belief, and offering them up for public spectacle in the arenas. This is historical."_
No, not really. Certainly not the bit about throwing them into arenas. While there certainly are many instances of Christians being killed, realize that the most impressive of those, such as the mass executions after the Christians torched Rome, had nothing to do with the content of the religion. They were being executed for crimes against humanity.
_"It is obvious that you have done little contemplation of how this so called myth conspiracy actually began and who it served in the first century."_
At least he's not operating with your blatantly false impression. The truth is that Christianity grew about as fast as Mormonism did, which is impressive, but not so fast as to require special considerations.
_"The second century is full of testimonies to the cruelties suffered by this group and yet you cannot give any historical evidence as to the origins of the myth. Please give a credible alternative. I mean scholarly."_
Well, you could read Carrier's recent book on the subject. Earl Doherty's works are also pretty good as it focuses more on how the thought patterns of the ancient world differ from those we have today - in ways that would easily allow for a gradual transition from a pure celestial myth to the gospels, to finally having a fanatical sect of believers who believed that Jesus actually existed. This may sound bizarre to you, but it actually happened with other gods that nobody believe ever walked the earth in any form. Another argument for this is that once you get rid of your false ideas of how fast Christianity spread you'll realize that the early preachers, such as Paul, appear to write about a Jesus which he knows only from personal revelation and from interpreting scripture(OT). It's well within the realm of possibility that he was simply making shit up as many other cult preachers at the same time did, then decades later the gospel writers come along and flesh his story out with a drama on earth.
_"Jesus himself did not endorse the old Judaic belief in an angry God."_
The gospels say differently. According to them, Jesus claimed that the OT would apply until Judgment day. For example in Matthew 5:18-19. You can find many similar statements.
_"He pointed out that God does not judge anyone...nor would he."_
No, he did not. What a strange claim. If that was true, there's no role for Jesus the Savior at all.
_"It is unfortunate in a way that early Christianity didn't redact the O.T. in accordance with the new teachings."_
It may be unfortunate, but according to the gospels, Jesus did not even believe the stuff you are claiming here, so I see no reason why they would.
_"And unfortunately most Christians do not realize to this day that the new testament clearly states that God judges no one."_
No, it does not. In fact, it repeatedly states that the old testament laws are still in force. I have no idea where you think you are getting your information from, but I can assure you that your interpretation is nonsense.
_"On top of that current knowledge of near death experience corabarates that when we die we will judge ourselves with God's help."_
So basically, you think that people who didn't die have something to tell you about Christianity's afterlife myth? In any case, the entire body of knowledge generated by neuroscience utterly excludes the concept of a soul, so I have no hesitation with regards to simply declaring Christianity to be false on that basis alone.
_"The existence of life or conciousness after death is just short of being a scientifically accepted fact."_
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous drivel. You are not informed about this area in the slightest. We don't have the first clue how such a mechanism could even work and most near death experience phenomena have known explanations within neuroscience, such as the tunnel of light being caused by blood loss to the retina and can be replicated in centrifuges for fighter pilots etc. At the same time, we know how humans who get minor brain damage can lose selective parts of their functioning, such as speech or motor function. More damage means they lose more functions, but you claim that if you lose all of it(brain death), then suddenly you'll sprint to live with all your abilities intact as a disembodied super-consciousness? It's ridiculous. A much better explanation for near death experiences is a combination of real neurological effects, such as the blood loss thing and many others, combined with people having weird fantasies and thoughts when they think they're going to die and add fraud to that and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for it all.
In any case, people from non-Christian traditions have NDEs as well, and they sure as hell don't claim to have met the Christian god, so I have no idea why you think you can conclude that there's evidence of people judging themselves with the help of your god.
Porcum Means Pig "reality the gospels were written CENTURIES after 30 ad" The book (The Gospel of Mark) was probably written c.AD 66-70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution. Let's see...Jesus resurrected...let's say in 33 AD and the Gospel of Mark was written in 66-70....so that puts it about 33 years after the resurrection of Jesus. Yep that is CENTURIES to a brain dead moron.
AnarchoRepublican another "intelligent" response from a "brilliant" atheist. These atheist are such fools.
Gnomefro Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny mentions Christians by name. Tacitus was asking advice as to how to handle these people. During the fist and second and third centuries Christianity was considered atheistic since it had no belief in the Greco-Roman gods. No, Christianity was not fashionable and kept much of their worship secret. Remember that the Jews were the ones who were persecuting them during the 1st century--in fact the most outstanding Christian was Paul who admittedly participated in the killing of Christians. The Christians set up the first hospices to tend the needy and sick. The fall of paganism was due not to Christians burning their books, but because the populous over time preferred the Christian way as it was practiced back then; which has little resemblance to the way it is practiced today. What we have today is by and large a sham.
And yes, Jesus said that he did not come to judge the world, and he said that the Father does not judge us. Read it thoroughly. The concept of a blood sacrifice to appease a wrathful "just" god was also challenged by Jesus. What do you think he meant by saying "God is not interested in sacrifice, but mercy?"
If you want to learn something new I would suggest you read the scholar David Bentley Hart's book entitled "The Atheist Delusion." You will have a much more scholarly understanding of the Christianity you hate and misunderstand.
I know that you believe in at least one miracle--truly a most amazing and unbelievable one. You believe it because it is part of scientism's dogma. I suspect you might define a miracle as something that manifests itself in reality through supernatural means. Maybe you have a different way of defining miracle. Think about the BIG BANG. It was an event that no known laws can explain and during the first moments of it, the laws of its expansion and makeup actually changed. There were no cosmological constants. Something huge out of nothing. Sounds pretty miraculous to me don't you reckon? If you can swallow that malarky then why get so upset when people think that it was God? Apparently something existed before there was time, space and matter. Whatever that is, it is truly unknowable and thus demands an honest reckoning with one's own scrunched up beliefs. If you apply Aristotelian logic to your BIG BANG and are honest you will come to a dead end.
Near death experience is something I know a lot about. I produced a documentary on it that was well received. I have interviewed over 100 people personally and have read the accounts of a thousand more. You hard core science "aficionados" will eventually have to come to grips with the implications. Sorry, there has been no argument put forward that can explain it. Drugs, hypoxia, hallucinations do not explain the many documented cases of the accuracy of the outside events which are described in detail by the "deceased" who were out cold or were shrouded by surgical drapes. Chances are that you will have someone in your network of friends and family that will have such an experience. Google the International Association for Near Death Studies and read thousands of accounts and also peer reviewed articles about the nde. Fascinating to say the least. And you are right nde research shows that there are all kinds of different narratives experienced--not all Christian by a long shot. What it is saying and what Jesus was saying is that we have good news (consciousness continues after death) and that we do not need to fear death.
And, yes Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus' death at 33 A.C.E. And yes, Judas Ditimus Thomas traveled to India some 20 years after the crucifiction and founded the Martoma Church in South India where it is still thriving. In fact he went to an existing Jewish colony there and that is where he began. Look it up.
I delight in the fact that we find ourselves in a knowable physical universe that obey the rules of the game. It is impervious to delusional minds and will not render a fool as an exception. I know it is difficult for you as a staunch reductionistic materialist to be able to imagine truth outside of your existing paradigm but you might challenge yourself and take a look around.
Sure Jesus has all the answers.
You should call on Him in repentance and maybe you'll experience His love and grace. He can take your bitterness away and change your hardened heart and pull you out of darkness.
Jesus is awesome.
Christianity dosent come from jesus it comes from this guy Paul in the bible who came along 4 yr after jesus died..same story as josuf smith. Its in the book of acts...
My thoughts exactly.
Jesus was a sage, not a savior. Look within. That which is outside of you is an illusion.
Paul was confused, homophobic, sexist, dogmatic. He pushed a theology of sacrifice.
"I desire compassion, not sacrifice."
Jesus
@@mikeq5807 LLLOL as if any of that refutes that “Paul was sexist!” Who cares
@@Bankable2790 Paul's sexism is obvious, unless you choose to be blind.
Requiring a submissive attitude from wives toward their husbands is the most popular example.
A non-sexist attitude is to treat people the same, regardless of sex.
People are essentially spiritual beings, not bodies.
Joe, You don't need to prove to me that you have great faith but your mistake is that you see faith as a positive force when in fact faith is simply the abandoning of reason.In this regard, I understand you are a person of strong faith. God is something that you have chosen to believe in and faith is the word you use to convince yourself it's ok to believe it.
So Carrier's thesis is basically that a group of Jewish sectarians created a story for a new religion and "sold it as truth" because it was socially and politically advantageous. Let's not kid ourselves. Christianity was not at all socially and politically advantageous, especially starting out. If Carrier's thesis is true, why didn't we see Roman and Jewish persecution of the early Christians as attacks against the story "sold as truth"? If I were a critic and knew somebody was lying, it would be far more easier to discredit that person with the real truth. What a theory must do is adequately explain a broad set of phenomena, observation, and experience for it to be credible. Dr. Carrier's "the disciples sold it as truth" theory seems credible because it attacks how Christianity may have originated in a syncretic religious context, but it completely lacks explanatory power in regards to its earliest development, proliferation despite hostile persecution and criticism, and coherence with historical and social context.
_"Christianity was not at all socially and politically advantageous, especially starting out."_
Actually it was. Early Christianity presented a sort of altruistic, socialist, community model that many people find attractive. Moreover, in the beginning there was not much in the way of persecution either.
_"If Carrier's thesis is true, why didn't we see Roman and Jewish persecution of the early Christians as attacks against the story "sold as truth"? If I were a critic and knew somebody was lying, it would be far more easier to discredit that person with the real truth."_
How? Carrier's thesis would involve that the euhemerization of Jesus would not be complete until many decades after the point in history where they later claimed Jesus got crucified. Carrier holds that Paul only talked about a celestial Jesus, so it's not until the gospels that you'd get a story tied very closely to the Romans and Jews of 4 decades earlier, most of whom would be long dead.
_"What a theory must do is adequately explain a broad set of phenomena, observation, and experience for it to be credible. Dr. Carrier's "the disciples sold it as truth" theory seems credible because it attacks how Christianity may have originated in a syncretic religious context, but it completely lacks explanatory power in regards to its earliest development, proliferation despite hostile persecution and criticism, and coherence with historical and social context."_
Not really. This hostile persecution of yours mostly manifests in areas like Nero's reaction after the Christians torched Rome. Other examples, such as Pliny's letter to Trajan about how to react to Christians who refused to submit to the Roman gods, mostly demonstrate that there was a conflict, but not that there was rampant persecution. Clearly, Pliny saw no reason to bother them, which is why he wrote his letter. In any case, Christians view persecution as a kind of social pornography. It's very unlikely that the average Christian had many issues with persecution during that period. If they really were being hunted down and killed systematically because of their beliefs(As opposed to - for crimes against humanity as during the fire of Rome), then you are right - Christians would have been exterminated in a decade - but this simply didn't happen, because the persecution was fairly low-key.
In any case, you should keep in mind that Christianity grew by spreading hearsay - not because people in Rome, Alexandria etc had any way of establishing whether Jesus in fact was executed or rose from the dead. So there's nothing less plausible about such gullible people believing a fabrication than that gullible people believe absurd stories about magic that they objectively had no rational reason to believe.
It's certainly possible to object to Carrier's theory, but I think you have chosen a very poor angle of attack, given how gullible the early Christians had to have been in the first place. It seems to me your arguments would also work on Mormonism as well, as the early Mormons were certainly persecuted - to the point where open war was looming. I'd rather drive in the wedge with Carrier's claims about the pre-existing celestial Jesus. Although he has some support for it, it's pretty weak at the moment.
I think at this point if the argument and counterargument were to continue, then we need to clearly establish the range and extent of persecution. If you allow the Biblical account of Early Christianity, then the Book of Acts paints a very clear picture that persecution began very early on as Christianity initially clashed with Judaism.
I will concede that Christianity was perhaps socially desirable from an egalitarian perspective, but "advantageous" could be a debatable term if for some Christians this meant they were at risk of martyrdom. Politically, it wasn't really advantageous until the 3rd century. Determining the strength of Christianity as a political movement in the 1st and 2nd centuries would be a difficult task, since the early church regarded themselves as apolitical if not anti-political.
This is the type of context I was referring to that Dr. Carrier sidestepped. Speaking against it requires immense speculation. For instance, if Jesus died and did not resurrect, how would this have changed the Christian narrative? Would the Christian movement have imploded on itself? Would the disciples have decided (as Carrier suggests) to invent a story? There's really no way to determine any of those claims, yet Dr. Carrier seems perfectly content with speaking to Christianity's formative years from a speculative platform without addressing alternative points of view.
For instance, if Jesus died and did resurrect, wouldn't this explain the dramatic rise of Christianity and its expansive evangelism as the historical context seems to suggest? The claim "Jesus is risen" is extraordinary, and would have required extraordinary evidence in order to be believed. We can only speculate as to what this evidence was. Certainly some critics would like to think that "Jesus is risen" spoke to a kind of "spiritual resurrection within yourself". If so, why didn't the disciples simply re-brand Christianity as such? Why say "Jesus is risen" as a factual statement when it could've been far easier to sell it as a figurative one? Dr. Carrier tends to think that this is precisely what the disciples did, but justifies his thesis by basically saying that other religions were doing it (that is: making figurative metaphysical statements), and Christianity is guilty by association, so you don't need to believe a lick of the New Testament because it was in all likelihood just made up.
That line of reasoning just doesn't have me convinced.
A country based on christian values is different thing from a country run by active believing scripture observant christians. The problem with statechurches and much of the body of believers is that they use the christian faith only as a religious identity. they only do it when they feel like it.. God doesn't want that either.. Jesus dispises the lukewarm church. He wants passionate and compassionate followers.
Suggesting an entire nation would be 100% living God's will would be far to generous.
It seems likely that Jesus existed. I know Dr. Carrier here thinks it's likely Jesus did not exist but as Carrier has told me more than once, he can't be sure. Tacitus, Josephus, Polycarp, Paul (who claims he met Jesus' disciple Peter and Jesus' actual brother James) & other ancient writings seem to make it most likely that Jesus did exist. But the problem is: neither side of the "did Jesus exist" debate has NO knockout punch. But clearly to me, the view he did exist is by far the most likely.
The sound on this video is poor - headphones make a BIG difference!
That is not a standard for historians, though. As Ehrman himself points out, the "no contemporary evidence" argument applies to several other accepted people & events of history. Jesus' ministry was only 3 years, in Judaea (not exactly Los Angeles in population). Along with 1 Corinthians 15 pre-Pauline creed (dated < 5 years after Jesus' death), modern scholarship views "Antiquites" passage on "James the Just, brother of Jesus" as authentic & rejected it being the result of later interpolation.
Times have changed.
People used to get killed for not believing right.
Nowadays you can believe Jesus was a space cow and still be considered a true believer.
"no one .. ever once made the accusation that Jesus in fact never lived" Are you sure about that? Looks to me like 2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh" might be evidence that very early on there were people saying Jesus never lived on earth (in the flesh), and the author of 2 John felt the need to contradict those people.
You do realise that just because someone ironically named the Higgs boson the god particle doesn't mean it's actually anything to do with god, right?
I understand that but my point is if one of his understandings is off by a small interpretation and then he builds on that down the line the accuracy of the story is long lost.Some points have to be constants to reference without doubt the other speculations in order for them to be accurate.Meanings of old written words and stories can vary greatly from time to time and area to area,the thread of the story must be followed in its own path, and even outside influences are added they are separate
"I'm agnostic myself" meant nothing if not to say that you were trying to take a middle position. EVERYONE is agnostic in reality, because no one knows. So saying that you are agnostic couldn't have meant anything but to say that you effectively don't believe strongly either way. But that isn't gnostic. Being an agnostic means you don't know. Being an atheist means you don't believe. You are now trying to save face by pretending you meant something you clearly didn't.
You know what I mean. A government ruled by god vs. a government that demands to be treated like god.
In short, there ARE NO experts I know who reject a historical Jesus outright. Just a tiny minority such as Dr. Carrier here or Robert Price, PhD who hold DOUBT that Jesus existed. I've emailed them. Price has serious doubts Jesus existed but admits that Jesus could have & we can't know with certainty. Carrier gives Jesus a 2 out of 5 change of actually existing. There are a few who also say we can't know with certainty but they are almost sure he did. Most skeptical experts are certain he lived.
Where in anything that I cited amounts ot me stating that agnostic is a "middle ground"? I'm well aware that 'agnostic' and 'atheist' aren't mutually exclusive.
Also 500 years ago Martin Luther reject Paul as the author of Hebrews due to his study of the letter in Greek. He suggested Apollos was the author but in fact nobody knows who wrote Hebrews.
CONT... I am also agnostic, and I am very much atheist. Agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief, specifically the lack of belief. I don't claim to know that any god did or didn't exist, which makes me agnostic. I lack the belief that any god has ever existed, which makes me an atheist. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, as you have insinuated it is.
I lean toward the likelihood that JC was an amalgam of several peripatetic preachers of that time, in the same way that Robin Hood, King Arthur, and many others probably originated.
Cool, the early "Van Halen" audio mix - signal all to the right, reverb all left.
Carrier thoroughly criticized Ehrman's book on his blog, and a bit of a debate ensued. It is all accessible via a Google search.
JESUS is ENGLISH for the LATIN JESU which comes from the Greek word IESOUS, the shorthand of the HEBREW word YESHUA (meaning "He Will Safe") YESHUA itself is the HEBREW short word of YEHOSHUA (meaning"The Lord Saves")..NOW wait for it, YEHOSHUA translated into ENGLISH means JOSHUA which means either 1.An Israelite leader who succeeded Moses, or 2.The sixth book of the Bible. JESUS does not mean "Yahweh Saves" or "The Lord Saves" or even "He Saves". For there's NO English meaning to JESUS AT ALL.
Saying you are agnostic has no distinction. That is the point. You think it does, but it doesn't. You just don't get it. You are using the term to indicate that you don't feel strongly about god's existence either way. That is about belief, not knowledge. Again, everyone is actually agnostic.
I never read that Philo used the word "Jesus". I want to know where he does according to Carrier. I think Carrier is loosely interpreting texts. That is always the danger when you argue from comparison in religions. But the point is whether Jesus was historical or not. You can't prove the contrary by saying some people believed some attributes and then those attributes were later attributed to him. People believed in non violence before Luther King, it does not mean he is not historical.
one thing...bad sound. a "shotgun mic" or get closer to the speaker or, if you can..get a lapel mic just for recording and sync it in post.
I'm wondering how Celsus confirmed Jesus was born out of wedlock and his actual father was a Roman soldier 150 years AFTER the fact. But modern New Testament scholar James Tabor, PhD holds EXACTLY the same view. Tabor has even found the grave of Jesus' father..or so he thinks. Gary Goldberg, PhD holds that Josephus used a source document for the TF that was also used by the writer of Luke but the TF was altered before the oldest surviving copy was made in the 10th century.
Christ's resurrection is the most logical inference for what occurred. It has the historical evidence on it side. You desire a different story. While something else is theoretically possible it does not have any good evidence and it's based upon an anti supernatural bias.
Einstein was a deist (look it up). He was not referring to any personal go and he most certainly was not referring to the christian god. He was basically equating god with the nature of the universe.
17:00 is patently false. Philo never said the logos was named "Jesus" or had any human name.
The Apostle Paul clearly believed (or taught) Jesus rose from the dead and died for our sins so that through faith in Christ we have eternal spiritual life. But he never mentions the "virgin birth" in any of his letters. But he does mention he met Peter who was Jesus closest disciple & he met Jesus brother James. Did these men not mention such a fantastic birth to Paul or did Paul not think it worth mentioning? Odd isn't it. VB doctrine developed AFTER Paul's life time? Hmmmm.
The Jesus of Mormons does not conform to the Jesus of the Bible. Mormonism is supposed to replace Christianity as the one true religion.
But then, there are 41,000 Christian denominations, each making the claim to be the one true religion.
I long for the day when every single adult on this planet has the critical thinking skills of Richard Carrier. Somehow I suspect that will not happen anytime soon. Alas!
One thing I have learned is that there are people who seem to live in a world of supernatural beings and supernatural events, and there are people who have seen no evidence for the supernatural. Do you have anything to bring to the table other than fables from thousands of years ago, because I have read lots of books with lots of supernatural creatures in them. All of them are much better written and make much more sense than the stories in the Bible. Why should I believe yours is true?
You are here discussing the famous "TF" passage. That passage is part of Josephus' wider discussion about Pontius Pilate. Every Christina during Origen's time already knew Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate and that Christians exist. There is NOTHING in this passage that would add to Origen's argument and it's possible Origen didn't have the passage if he was quoting passages from another work ON Josephus by a different author as Dr. Whealey suspects.
I think either Ehrman or Carrier could be right about the historicity of Jesus. Both have interesting points to make about the subject in my opinion and at this point I see no reason to strongly believe one over the other. Both hypothesis seem plausible.
I'm appealing to the experts in their respective fields, not to the mere opinion of the general populace, and there's a huge difference.
Incorrect. To quote Stephen J. Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."
Tacitus is another story. I doubt Tacitus would have used some kind of hearsay that he got from a Christian in person on in writing. I think it is very likely that Tacitus had some kind of Roman source, which he often did on his various subjects, that outlined that Chrestus was the origin of the Christian religion and that this man was executed by Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Tacitus also wrote the religion was "an evil superstition" checked for a time but broke out again & spread to Rome.
He is stating the bible correlates with what happened in the past known events, and when he is referring to science he isn't talking about miracles(miracle that a universe created itself). Bible articulates many know facts about our universe: first and second law of thermodynamics, an expanding universe, and that it is finite. Everything is a miracle or everything has a basis to it, it's logical to believe in either one.
My talk today is more or less the same talk I gave yesterday.
The only difference, really, is that my bank balance is bigger.
True. Yet it holds up just as well today as it did years ago.
So Christianity is a combination of Judaism and Greek philosophy. And then the gospel is simply that combo.
Why did the Waldenses, paulicans, anabaptists, and Lollards exist?
Why was there a conflict costing millions of lives to purify Christianity of Greek philosophical concepts if it was that way in the gospels anyhow? Wouldn't those who take the bible literally simply fall in line with the system?
"But clearly to me, the view he did exist is by far the most likely."
Ultimately, it boils down to what you mean by "Jesus". If one is talking about the Magic Jesus of the bible, you can get an upper limit on the probability of him existing by taking the probability of all the violations of natural law involving Jesus in NT, multiply them with each other, and subsequently stare in wonder at all the zeroes you get in the resulting estimate. It really is irrelevant what people wrote about it.
Thank you for that info, I will not use that quote again.And I will look it up to see what he said,I do however stand by the other statements theory is constantly changing and old ways are hard to give up.New ideas are challenging everything but faith it is something that you have or not.Our knowledge if you can call it that is always uncertain in the face of new discoveries.
I am 100% objective. The "belief system" you named and wish to label me with is in no way biased. You aren't making sense.
Also, one other thing if you think you know ,and everyone else is wrong you may be right, but that is vanity, and even Einstein has had his ideas shaken recently by new theories ,what was once thought to be known is now not.
And by saying it doesn't require much evidence is saying that wether or not the words attributed to either are from the actual person or just made up along the way by others the historical impact has reached us. A character of Jesus' claimed status would in most cases have a much wider range of reports and earlier. He may very well have existed but the evidence for it is below par for what we would expect of even a non-magical Jesus who sort of follows the storyline.
"I've not said a single thing about his work on self esteem, as I'm unfamiliar with most of it. I'm saying this on the basis of the work with which I am familiar..."
Yeah you clearly haven't learned anything about self-esteem since you aren't even of aware of your low self-esteem that causes you to have to feel superior to others- like this: "and it saddens me deeply that I have to even explain that."
Wow you are so smart and aware of so much more than me!!!
You are fucking amazing!
Have you READ one of his books about self-esteem or are you just saying stuff you've heard.
What cult was he in? He does mention a failed relationship with Ayn Rand in his book- is that it?
too quiet. couldnt hear
This is such a brilliant video! I could listen to Mr. Carrier all day. I'm someone who mistakingly thought Mithras was a dying & rising god. (Thanks to Zeitgiest) Good to know the facts here, and what really makes Mithraism similar to Christianity is the fact Mithras undergoes a passion of his own and gains victory over death.
They hunted and crucified him for no reason? It is hard to understand something that hasn't happened for thousands of years but Jesus suffered the Christ. Moses suffered the Christ as well. As did others in the bible but Jesus took it from evil to good and the word spread large and far. What your looking for is what exactly is the Christ and that is the mystery. Jesus never got to finish his work because he was murdered. Since then they produce the crucifix in there win not his honor.
Why not contact the physics department of a local university? A phenomenon that contravened established physical laws would be the most cataclysmic story in science. Based on 300 years of enlightenment thinking I'd bet your object does not contravene known science. Self reported curative effects don't cut it. Neither does anything that fits the placebo affect.
PS, nobody noticed any Christians until 300 years after the myth of Jesus as well….
whoever was the operator of the camera ..... keep the thing on the board ffs u are missing slides -_-
If that's how you look at the world and history then the history of the world and everything in it becomes indiscernible. This is one of the problems with atheism: something happened to create the worldwide religion of Christianity. The Christian church and and its ripple effect have flooded every part of the world. To say that Christ never existed is like saying the stone that caused the splash and ripples that disrupted the surface of a pond never existed.
That is the better question? You've never studied the New Testament have you! When Paul wrote Galatians about 50 CE, the Jesus preached by Paul in his letters had already been executed by Pilate about 25 to 30 years earlier & according to Paul, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. So clearly one couldn't go to Jesus' house or to a gathering & see him. Jesus had DIED two to three decades earlier & Paul was certain Jesus rose from the dead for one's salvation from sin.
Thompson does not argue against the fact that Jesus was a real historical person. Wells did at one time, but has changed his view. Ellegard is not a historian. His degree is in English literature. What I am saying is true. No credentialed historian (besides Carrier) believes in the Jesus as Myth hypothesis. Now YOU go away. :-)
Lucian of somosata actually critisises the Christians for their believes, but nonetheless confirms what Tacitus says and the common knowledge that everybody knew back then. So case and point? There are non Christian HISTORIANS WHO confirm that Jesus was real and did get killed just like the gospels assert.
Dude you guys are crazy the only reason you guys have credibility becuase its 2012 years so it seems so far away, but here is my point, not only does Tacitus confirm that he was the founder of Christianity he was put to death by Pontius Pilate what's we have Lucian of Somerset who confirms the same thing
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.
so yea im on a moble device and my typing gets muddled im not about to take the time and check my grammer for you as a fool who thinks your wise, i admit i dont know everything and am willing to change if im proven wrong, im humble not highminded and able to be corrected and tought, keep thinking you know everything and you become a fool
Jesus was in fact a real human being that walked this earth in non-Christian Roman historian name Tacitus verified the account in the Gospels that Jesus was persecuted by the Jews crucified by punches pilot those were facts know the doubt comes in to determine if Jesus performs miracles
Where is your long list of "credentialed historians"? (That is, Homo sapiens with PhDs in history that are qualified to teach at the university level.) Where are the historians that hold to the Jesus Myth hypothesis? No where, that's where.
gentelmen i am sorry to dissapoint the speaker and you folks as well.... Jesus was a historical figure and I am not going to lie I found this video offensive, what this video is doing is casting doubt on the historical figure of Jesus
There is no Historicity of Jesus having ever lived. There are no claims of firsthand accounts. There are only claim there were claims of firsthand accounts, and these accounts supposedly came in the form of writing from those that claimed to be illiterate. So where does this leave us, it leaves us with only the ignorant claiming otherwise…..
Thompson does not argue against the fact that Jesus was a real historical person. Wells did at one time, but has changed his view. Ellegad is not a historian. His degree is in English literature.
@terroil dude you clearly showed your lack of info on this matter, he was a non CHRISTIAN ROMAN HISTORIAN.HISTORY ! and not that long after his death .. less then one generation
it is true that Paul probably confused some angelic being he was channeling with Jesus. See Segal's work on this.
But how would Paul have got the idea of Jesus if he didn't exist? Who was Paul prosecuting in court for blasphemy if he was the first Christian? If Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination, how explain Peter & James, and the decidedly non-Pauline Gospel tradition? it's nonsense.
Revelation 3:10 (KJV) - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
CONT...
Historians find facts. They don't have a monopoly on analyzing them and critiquing the logic used to assess veracity.
You should read Stephen Law's essay on this.
LOL. Like I said, you don't know what "cherry pick" means.
Jesus being a myth is the opposite of what you wish to compare it to. Creationism is a myth because facts prove it false. Believing jesus is a myth is not based on faith. It is based on logic. Keep in mind, I have never in my life said jesus didn't exist.
Why so angry? Do you often go around blaming others? You are being told what is correct behavior and not, much like any being can be told who is lost.
"if a chose to obey I must do terrible things to other people because god said so"
What terrible thing have you been requested to do by God?
Origen (born about 184AD-died about 254 CE) was a prolific Christian writer. His father was a Christian & educated Origen in Christian theology. But by the 4th century the Catholic Church found some of his theology "heretical". i. e. Jesus is subordinate to God the Father. According to Eusebius, Origen castrated himself about 203 CE using Matthew 19:12 as the reason. So Origen must have been a religious zealot! According to Alice Whealey, PhD, it is doubtful Origen actually owned....
dude guys go on wikipedia , its right there at the begining A large majority of modern day historians agree Jesus existed.
I think you're missing an important point: a frequent argument used by Christians is to say that the story of Jesus and the message of the gospels is so different, so unusual, so radical that it *must be true* because it *couldn't possibly* have originated in some other way. Carrier is providing evidence that there is, in fact, a plausable alternate explanation for the development of the NT and Christianity than Jesus actually having existed as a real person.
Jesus 6 BCE-33 CE ? (We have writings from the turn of the common era by people that kept track of the cults,miracle workers etc,but no mention of Jesus)
Epistles 51-58 CE (Paul's letters from his revelation of the resurrected Jesus from a
vision,which made him blind for 3 days)
(Romans Sack Judea 70 CE)
Mark 65-70 CE (all 4 Gospels are from unknown Greek educated writers like Roman priests)
Matthew 75-80 CE
Luke 75-90 CE
John 85-100 CE (Bart Ehrman watch?v=zCZVlrI3dQw)
He was not a first hand witness anyway. But he is considered a decent historian, so it would probably be considered enough if it panned out to be true. Biblical sources are not first hand either.
This is why most historians keep the middle ground. There is no evidence for it, but there is no evidence against it. Both of those theories have a burden of proof that is simply not there. A case can be made, but it is unlikely to be conclusive.
I can see only two ways you could prove credibly that he did not exist.
One, that there was a religion before his supposed appearance that had almost all the characteristics, but no historical Jesus, and that those same people are the ones that became Christians, or even better, were Christians.
The other would be to demonstrate that the Gospels are not reliable biographies.
The Pauline problem and Philo similarities have been known for a long time, and they are not really conclusive.
It is strange that one argument in the past for the same thesis was that Philo never talked about Jesus, and Carrier claims the contrary, and the only quote he gives is his own book. I don't buy it.
Also, the argument that some people that never existed with some superpowers means everybody that are said to have had superpowers never existed is really weak and a sophistry. There is plenty of known historical figures who were thought to have made miracles.
Well my friend, I can accept your point, but only to a certain degree. You see, m a historian, so I understand source critiscism and the methodoly of the field. This is not like Physics, where we change ideas on a very fundamental level. Rather, it is like an ever developing critiscism that reveals certain "archetypical" patterns. Historians are getting a good grip on Judaism, Christianity and Islam these days, and Richard is just saying "if it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck.."
yes absolutely, but note, that if it's a kind of manipulation of gravitational force there's no portable apparatus that can detect it, and no Nobel prize can be won since these require mathematical proof, the phenomenon however is so jaw dropping and open to scrutiny that could (if accepted by the JREF) win the $1mil challenge. or just pass their preliminary test, which will involve investigation by both conjurers and physicists
since they have the power to stop sailing ships, and 2 engine aircraft, which the germans confirmed after 3 days of playing around and finally brought it back, if we arrange to get you to see the attraction force on a subject, by the other relic, you will be convinced that these forces are real. By the way, the said monk has told me that god doesn't always protect monks, in fact in some incidents god himself sent pirates over to slaughter the monks, because of their hypocrisy and bad life
how will physics explain a golden artifact that turns 'magnetic' on demand, and detects problems on human body, when it cannot even explain ordinary magnet to iron magnetism, it's been described, measured, but the underlying cause is still unknown and was more recently attributed to some extremely tiny particles, that may be impossible to ever verify. And especially the fact that the item is activated by prayer, and it becomes intelligent on its own, this is impossible to fake by trick
300 years of physics, physics works great most of the time, however you have to realize that in the universe, there are many events that contradict physics, the same physics that explains so much, fails catastrophically to explain black holes, it suggest that matter moved faster than light speed during the big bang and more crazy things, oh and it has still NOT explained in detail, and in full, ordinary forces, such as magnetism or gravity, it'd be interesting to have them see the case
I can video it next time, video is not conclusive proof, but if an authority such as James Randi, or a serious Physicist such as Michio Kaku, Ed Witten, study the phenomenon with their hands, we can have a conclusive opinion. I understand your skeptical thinking, but this is nothing to do with 'crying icons, saint marry showing up on the window, or Hindu elephant gods that 'drink' milk, or anything ridiculous, it really does defy scientific intuition
we were 5 people, we tested the object on us, without the monk near it, it detected a person's migraines, and stack on his forehead, another person's vein disorder on his leg, the attraction force counters any force you apply with your hands in the first 30 secs, even a 30kg pulling force , no healing occurred to us! The artifact just produces this and knows and indicates where the problem is, I'm sorry but this defies physics as much as walking on the waves
there's nothing wrong with difference of opinion, it is what makes the horse races, the said phenomenon can be reproduced , if both the monk, and skeptics from the JREF agree, now why is the object intelligent? it seems like an ordinary piece of gold, but after the monk reads his stuff, about 1h later, the object becomes 'magnetic' on demand, and sticks to spots where suffering / pain occurs, while ignores healthy spots, I pulled against this attraction force with my hands!
Almost forgot! No one knows who "any" bible book author was...none, zero! There are only copies of copies, and thousands of errors and variants. And there's no way to validate such texts! Not with the available evidence. Even if they had signed them, it still couldn't be established that the signature belonged to who it claimed to be. Some texts have multiple authors, yet they don't know who they were either.
It's well known that Revelation was not the same author as that of John.
You're in no position to make any such claims about what JC's existence. The only thing you have (same with the scholars) is bible texts. If you can't know who actually wrote them, you can't make any claims about what they say, or claim. That's the whole point.
Tell me, do you know anything about the origin and history of the Judeo-Christian Religion? Do you know how and why the bible came to be?
Are you aware that the OT is fraudulent in that the authors lied about their original polytheism??
And what do they base their on? There are no original bible texts, only copies of copies, including mistranslations & errors. And if that weren't bad enough, we don't know who the bible authors were, not one!
I've only listed a couple of the problems with making such biblical claims. What do you think they base their statements on when they talk about the historicity of JC? How do scholars go about validating claims in 2 to 3K yrs old texts??
To date, no one has given me an reasonable answer.