Derek Lambert Interview - Jesus Mythicism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- My guest today is Derek Lambert, the presenter of the excellent Mythvision video channel. Derek has been kind enough to have me on his channel several times over the last two years to discuss atheist bad history in general and Jesus Mythicism in particular.
But today we are going to hear from Derek about his very interesting personal journey regarding his thoughts and conclusions about the historical Jesus. As he’ll detail for us, Derek began as a fundamentalist Christian, lost his belief, became an atheist and also became a Jesus Mythicist, coming to believe that there was no historical Jesus at all. But Derek displays an interesting combination of rigorous examination of the evidence, intellectual honesty and a remarkable open-mindedness. So he is always open to other people’s views, generous in consideration of alternatives and unstinting in following where the evidence seems to lead.
As a result of listening to and engaging with a wide range of scholars, Derek has come to reject Mythicism and now concludes that a historical Jesus most likely existed. And I was surprised and rather flattered to discover during our conversation that my articles on History for Atheists had something to do with this transition. We also discuss why he found Mythicism appealing and why he feels this fringe idea has a hold on many atheists despite being rejected by almost all scholars.
So please enjoy my fascinating conversation with the always enthusiastic, upbeat and very interesting Derek Lambert.
mythvisionpodc...
historyforathe...
Thank you so much for such an amazing interview. I hope my story will encourage more people to keep learning and question everything including our own skepticism because the answer may be right under our own noses 👃.
No problem. It was a really interesting conversation.
You are a great man Derek. You follow the evidence where it leads, like a true scholar! Your story is a similar to mine (except that I wasn't raised a fundamentalist) but I did once consider Christmythicism a good explanation of the facts. But thanks to the work of Tim O'Neill, I came to the same conclusion as you. Keep up the good work!!
I really like the interview. My story is somewhat like yours . Maybe that's why I intuitively liked your channel.
Thanks guys for this wonderful interview.
regardless of the details for and against mythicism, do we actually have anything that historian can consider to be substantial regarding the existence of jesus outside from the gospels (which obviously not historical accounts)? no? then you can't substantiate historicism either, historicism only assumed to be true because of millennia long traditions.
the jesus... I suspect, was at best a syncretism of various apocalyptic jew cult leaders around that time... with actual different theological sect ideas mixed together into what eventually became christianity.
This was by far one of my favorite interviews. I'm a huge fan of Derek and his channel. I'm not a mythicist and have never found it convincing in large part thanks to Tim O'Neill. Derek connecting his religious patterns to his addiction patterns was something I've never considered and was deeply moved and impressed by. Thank you for having him on!
I'm the product of a RC father and a Calvinist (Dutch Reformed) mother-- Quite a diversity! I am still a Christian, but dont subscribe to RC rituals, but follow the teachings of earlier RC scholars like St. Thomas Aquainis and now, Bishop Barronas well as 'heretics' like Bishop Arius. While my conclusions do not always agree with you two, I learn from folks like you as I am forced to ask questions of my beliefs ( and seek answers, of course). Thanks for sharing...
Wow a modern day Arian. Love it
I have always had a problem with the 12-step idea that you necessarily need a “higher power” to save you. If it works for someone, that’s great. From my perspective, the strength must come from within.
Amazing interview nice to see the central points of mythicists challenged throughout. We are all mythvision!
I’ve just found your channel courtesy of History Valley today. (Or as I like to call the host, the Nicholas Cage of 1st century Palestine Podcasts). It’s nice to see atheists challenge the mythicist theory. I was shocked to see it gain so much momentum a few years back. Nearly everyone I knew that was also atheist signed up and never looked back. And even though the theory now lays in tatters, it’s ironic to see so many still subscribing to it. It’s become a bit of a testament of faith rather than applying a careful eye to scholarship and challenging solid theories. So we are at a strange time in this sector where both of those sides - the ones with the Jesus faith and the ones with the mythicist faith - both need to tell their audiences “well, if you can imagine anything fantastical, then that’s the truth”. And even though it’s been years, I’m still amazed at folks like Carrier sticking to their guns. I’ve only just recently checked back in on him. When I left him last he was raising money to pursue studies in this field. And I remember thinking “this is good, the old chap is going to be able to question his own ideas.” But a rather odd thing took place. He didn’t. Lol. But I do like Derek (since this comment is under his video). He seems genuinely curious and invested in understanding. And I think hearing his background here further cemented that. Thanks
Glad you like the channel Douglas and that you appreciated my appearance on History Valley. Judging from the comments there, some people *didn't* like what I said. Though they are struggling to make a coherent case as to why. 😉
Such a great conservation. Thank you Tim and Derek for doing this. Your passion for ancient studies excites my own.
Fantastic interview, love stuff like this. Keep up the great work!
Just going through these videos now. This was about as cool a taped conversation I have seen about a UA-cam personality whom I have watched before traveling toward truth and attempting to be as disinterested as possible along the way and go where the evidence suggests. Lesson learned. Be open enough to see where the trail leads even if not where you wanted it to go.
Wonderful talk Derek's journey parallels my own in some many ways I was also an ardent mythcist at one point, not any more thanks guys for the honest scholarship.
"The dead sea scrolls married Philo's thinking" = Paul
👍👍👍
Tim and Derek, this is a very enlightening broadcast. and I VERY much appreciate Derek's humility in giving his personal testimony. I like the trajectory on which you, Tim, have launched him. BRAVO
Towards the end, you both hit upon a 'mythicist-defeater' argument that I had not understood before.....
-Mythicist: Paul made up the whole Christ thing out of his own hallucinations!
-You and Derek: but what about the Christians Paul persecuted? where did they get THEIR Christ?
-Mythicist: from Paul's hallucinations. Of course. Paul started Christianity! Didn't you know that?
-You and Derek: so did Paul persecute the Christians before or after his hallucinations?
-Mythicist: yes
(!!!!!) (??????)
hmmmm
I also think it is a point worth pondering that both you and Derek initially lost your faith (and were set upon the skeptical path) by being convinced by specious, "village atheist" arguments.
You, in the high school cafeteria, and Derek, by the Zeitgeist film.
I'm afraid that....
1) the preceding example, along with
2) your valiant contesting with atheists who obviously are not motivated by good arguments
....irrefutably demonstrate that the recent atheist 'fad' does NOT represent a triumph-of-logic. It has to be driven by something else ...like maybe hyper-christian-fundamentalism? over-zealous-anticatholicism?....wanking?
Just about the only mythicist-leaning guy that l can stand has been brought to reason. Congrats
As for Tim's statement that Price comes across as a nicer human being, just proves how many of us can be deceived by front and persona , Derek in particular who considered the man a friend.
I enjoyed the conversation guys.
Tim, I'm an agnostic on if Jesus was a historical figure or not. I'm stuck in between both arguments. To me, it seems Paul is arguing that Jesus was a pre existing being. If that's the case, I don't see how he could have an actual human brother in that case. Unless Paul thought of Jesus like a Hercules type character who had a human brother. I just can't wrap my mind around how a fully divine figure as Paul describes could have a human brother.
It does make me sense that Jesus existed as a historical person and legends formed around him, but I'm open to other ideas as well. Understanding what the authors like Paul meant is what I'm seeking.
What are your thoughts on this Tim?
"To me, it seems Paul is arguing that Jesus was a pre existing being. "
He clearly was. Which is hardly surprising, given this was a common Jewish idea about the Messiah. In this period Judaism had been heavily influenced by Platonic thought and so the idea arose that several things central to Jewish belief - the Temple, the Torah and, yes, the Messiah - had had an ideal heavenly pre-existence before they appeared on earth. Note that last bit - before they *appeared on earth*.
"I don't see how he could have an actual human brother in that case. "
See above. In Phil 2:5-11 Paul details how Jesus had a celestial pre-existence but then took on "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death even death on a cross." So he clearly considered Jesus a celestial being who took on human form by being born as a human. This is why he often uses the phrase "according to the flesh" to refer to some human aspect of Jesus (like his supposed descent from King David, which Paul refers to in Rom 1:3). So there's no contradiction between Paul considering Jesus to have been pre-existent and Paul knowing Jesus had a brother (and a mother).
" I just can't wrap my mind around how a fully divine figure as Paul describes could have a human brother. "
See above. And Paul didn't consider Jesus to have been "fully divine". A celestial/angelic being before he was born as a human, and the exalted Messiah, second only to God after being raised from the dead. But not divine. That idea evolved much later.
@@historyforatheists9363 thanks for the response Tim. I have another question for you if that's ok.
Do you think that Samson was a historical person that was embellished like Jesus?
@@dustinellerbe4125 No idea. I haven't studied OT stuff much except where it is relevant to the NT, so I haven't examined that issue at all.
@@historyforatheists9363 I understand. Just thought I'd ask. Let's just say he wasn't a historical figure, yet he had a family in the context of the story, does that not mirror the Jesus stories as well? It seems they would be on equal footing in that case. One more thing about Paul's ideologies on Jesus, if Jesus was pre existing, somehow transfigured, then was restored by God, I would count that as a mythology. In your view, which is what I would hold if Jesus is historical, is that this was later applied to him by Paul and others.
@@dustinellerbe4125 "Let's just say he wasn't a historical figure, yet he had a family in the context of the story, does that not mirror the Jesus stories as well? It seems they would be on equal footing in that case."
If we had someone mentioning meeting Samson's brother just a few decades before and we also had an independent historian noting the death of the same brother in the historian's home town when the historian was 25 then it would be on equal footing with what we have for Jesus. But we don't have anything remotely like that for Samson.
" if Jesus was pre existing, somehow transfigured, then was restored by God, I would count that as a mythology."
That's an incorrect use of the word "mythology". What we are seeing there is theology - Paul is applying ideas he has about his religion (Judaism) to what he knows about Jesus.
".In your view, which is what I would hold if Jesus is historical, is that this was later applied to him by Paul and others."
Sorry, I don't think I understand that sentence.
I dislike the part of the discussion that ridicules the suggestion that Derek wasn't a "real Christian", because by tacitly equating "real" with "sincere", it fails to engage with the question of what someone inside the faith means by that. Usually it's an insinuation that someone doesn't have a "real" spiritual connection to the living Christ, which is a distinction without a difference to those of us who don't believe there _is_ a living Christ, but it's important to acknowledge that to someone inside the faith it's a spiritual/metaphysical claim and not an evaluation of sincerity.
I genuinely don't understand what this comment means. I'm pretty sure Derek is clear on what being a real Christian means and knows he was one.
@@historyforatheists9363In the scheme of things it doesn't matter much but the crux is that I found that part of the discussion to be unnecessarily scornful and simplistic.
Like a lot of people, I tend to visit your blog only when I want to look something up to refute a specific claim someone has made - most recently (to no-one's surprise) about the supposed pagan elements of Easter. Unfortunately that particular interchange added poorly, with the other person shutting down the conversation amidst a flurry of non-sequiturs, including a strongly worded condemnation of your most recent post (about the Inquisition). Anyway, now I'm just going down the rabbit hole.
Heya Derek, I can't find your email anywhere. When is Dr. Francesca gonna be on? I don't wanna miss that one because I have a great superchat question for her. Cheers
A Course in Miracles says "The concept of “speaking in many tongues” was originally an injunction to communicate to everyone in his own language, or his own level. It hardly meant to speak in a way that nobody can understand." Check: "SPEAKING IN TONGUES: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
by Robert Perry at Circle of Atonement
Life of Brian was banned for 30 years in Glasgow Scotland, guess the type of Brianphopes who had this movie banned.
A Pentecostal marrying a Catholic isn't particularly odd if the latter is one of those "Charismatic Catholics". Charismatic Catholicism is essentially Pentecostalism.
what do you all believe about the Ron Wyatt story? The man who found the ark of the covenant with Christ's blood on the mercy seat? btw I have just discovered your channel Tim, as well as Derek. I am currently growing in my knowledge of the preterism theory and the kingdom of Tartaria, the mud flood.
You’d have to be a moron to believe that crap from Wyatt.
These mythicists cling to this belief like a dogma, and tend to get nasty when you challenge them. And the arguments they use are predictable as they seem to recycle the same ones over and over. The last mythicist I "debated" (if you can call it that) on UA-cam had the username "Myth Buster", and his grasp of ancient history was as poor as his sense of irony. He merely parroted Carrier's arguments and claimed that if there are supernatural elements in a text then the whole text is unreliable (which not even Carrier believes).
Most people who have interacted with mythicists are probably aware that many of these guys came from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds that take a literalist approach to the Bible (it's either all real as written, or all false) and apply this same binary thinking as atheists. You're essentially dealing with people who think that Jesus = Zeus and that anyone who believes in a historical Jesus must also believe in a tooth fairy. Some otherwise intelligent people, who have backgrounds in physics and biology, have also fallen for this trap.
Edit: I wrote this before I listened to Lambert explain how he used to compare Jesus to Hercules.
Second edit: now he's talking about his history of postmillennialism and biblical literalism.
Richard Carrier and Brainless Engineer could learn a thing or two from you guys 👍
Especially manners.
Could you that carry a guy commented on you could you address this Even if O’Neil was correct in identifying the correct Ananus, his argument seems to be extraordinarily weak.
O’Neil suggests that it is unlikely that Ananus (the Younger) would subsequently curry favor with Jesus ben Damneus, the brother of someone he had executed.
Or, to rephrase, that the disgraced Ananus (the Younger) would curry favor with the newly elevated High Priest Jesus ben Damneus. In an environment where men in power can have other people executed.
It seems silly to even type that.
And even if O’Neil had identified Ananus correctly AND we somehow agreed that Ananus’s subsequent behavior toward High Priest Jesus ben Damneus was unlikely, we’d still need to compare this to the unlikelihood of the alternate hypothesis: that Josephus was an uncharacteristically incompetent storyteller in this section of JA.
If the brother of the executed James was not Jesus ben Damneus and indeed Jesus “the Christ”, we would have to believe that Josephus has an otherwise unknown character appear in the narrative with no introduction or context other than a reference to his brother, a similarly unknown and contextless character who immediately also vanishes from the narrative without further trace.
Tommy Wiseau would be proud.
Then, on this hypothesis, the murder of this virtually anonymous James prompts a rather extreme reaction from the Jewish elite, the Roman governor AND the king, for entirely unexplained reasons. The reader is left baffled and in the dark as to anyone’s motivations; it’s a drive-by plot point.
So, how likely or unlikely is it that Josephus becomes a relatively incompetent storyteller at precisely the place where he references Jesus Christ? [One can make the same observation regarding the TF in its surrounding material]. Less likely than Ananus (the Younger) [again, assuming O’Neil’s (incorrect) identification] giving gifts to the high priest whose brother he had killed?
So, by my count, O’Neil’s “Gotcha” moment fails in 3 ways:
1. Wrong Ananus
2. Ananus’s behavior toward Jesus ben Damneus not particularly unlikely
3. Ananus’s unlikely behavior less unlikely than Josephus’s uncharacteristic incompetence in a highly coincidental location.
I realize I’m repackaging a lot of what you’ve already stated. I’m really just looking for a “Terrific comment
Why doesn't Jesus just come back now and end once and for all his very existence?????
you mean our existence why would you ask a atheist channel this?
There are too many nukes now and modern armaments!!! Crosses are also everywhere to remind him of the torture!!😁😁🤣🤣
Don't tempt God, it is better for you that he doesn't show up
1:30:31 But you're missing that in 1 Cor. 15, Paul explicitly says that "the gospel I preached" (15:1) that "I received" (15:3) is "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, etc." (15:3-8). The gospel he preached includes those things. In Gal. 1, he uses the exact same vocabulary and phrasing to say regarding "the gospel I preached" (1:11) that "I neither received it from any man, nor was I taught it" (1:12). The obvious conclusion is that the Paul means he received by revelation the same gospel recited in 1 Cor. 15, since he says there's only one gospel.
1:43:09 You say that the use of "apo" (from) shows Paul means an indirect source. But this is false. Paul and other Pauline authors sometimes uses "apo" to refer to receiving directly (see 2 Cor. 3:18, Col. 1:7, 3:24). Do you have any example where an author says "I received _apo_ x" where they mean they didn't receive it directly from x?
"But you're missing that in 1 Cor. 15, Paul explicitly says"
I'm not "missing" anything. In both cases he's referring to preaching "good news". In Gal 1-2 it's specifically his "good news to the uncircumcised" - which he goes out of his way to stress he got by direct revelation - that Jesus' death and resurrection redeems them as much as any Jew. In 1Cor 15 he's talking about the "good news" that Jesus died and rose. And there he doesn't say anything about receiving this via direct revelation only to him, but instead goes out of his way to list all the people who had this revealed to them via visions before him. Either way, he is not claiming anywhere that he got his information about Jesus only by direct revelation.
"Paul and other Pauline authors sometimes uses "apo" to refer to receiving directl"
Yes, sometimes. I should have said it *usually* means via an indirect source.
@@historyforatheists9363
Tim, I have examined every use of "apo" in the NT, and I cannot find a single example where it is used to refer to receiving something from someone indirectly. Paul said earlier in the very same letter (6.19) that the Corinthians received the holy spirit "apo" God, which is clearly direct. Likewise, the authors of 1 John claim to have heard the message they proclaim "apo" Jesus (1 John 1:5), which is clearly meant in a direct sense (cf. 1 John 1:1). The same is obviously true regarding Mark 15:45 and Acts 9:13 (and Gal. 1:3, etc.).
So, why do you think apo *"usually* means via an indirect source"? Moreover, if that's what Paul meant, why did he say that _"I_ received from the Lord" (and not _"we_ received from the Lord")?
@@legron121 Go study some basic Greek grammar. The construction almost always refers to indirect transmission.
@@historyforatheists9363
I just gave you a number of examples to show that's not the case (at least 5, in addition to the 3 examples in the original comment; and there are many more than that). Can you give me _one_ example from the NT where "apo" (in the kind of construction used in 1 Cor. 11:23) is used to refer to indirect transmission?
@@legron121 www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D43
Around 59:30, when Derek is talking about how far-fetched some things Price said were, I find myself reflecting:
This is a heuristic argument, not a logical argument like a syllogism. But: if all the strongest, all the best-known voices in favour of some position, all make terrible arguments and/or sound outright bonkers…then that is a heuristic reason to think that it is a poor position, because if there were good arguments in its favour, I would normally expect those to be better known.
And this heuristic cuts against both Christian apologists and Jesus mythicists.
What?
@@historyforatheists9363 Loosely:
If there were really good arguments for Christianity being true, people like William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort wouldn’t get airtime.
If there were really good arguments for mythicism, the most famous proponents wouldn’t be people like Carrier and Price.
Just as we DON’T have Giardano Bruno’s heliocentric model, because there are much better arguments (and names) to attach.
@ There is no binary choice between WLC’s Christianity and Mythicism. Both are most likely wrong. And Bruno didn’t HAVE a heliocentric model of his own. He just tacked his mostly bungled conception of the Copernicus model onto his mystical cosmology, because he didn’t actually understand science at all.
@@historyforatheists9363 I don't see how their comment implies a binary choice between Christianity and mythicism. They're merely claiming that both groups' popular apologists are evidence that neither group has good arguments.
I wonder if Carrier will be watching this ?
Yeah he probably the first one too put a dislike on this video.
@@invasiveinqustiorahahahhah548 He’ll probably write an article entitled "Alright guys that does it, Lambert and O’Neill are confirmed closeted Christians!!!" (+a bunch of insults and misrepresentations as per usual)
I don’t know. Even if Jesus WAS an historical person, everything written about him is pure myth
“Everything”? How have you determined this? He wasn’t crucified? That’s attested by at least one and possibly two non-Christian historians. He didn’t have a brother called James? Paul met James and James is also attested by a non-Christian historian. Then there’s the idea he was from Nazareth or was baptised by John, which are both in the narratives despite the problems they cause the gospel writers. So, “everything”? Are you sure? If so, HOW are you sure?
@@Sextus666 “everything” was an overstatement.
I’ll correct it
“Almost everything”-miracles are obvious bullshit,and many of his sayings seem to be related to Greek philosophy. I’m definitely not interested in arguing with you,you have much more knowledge in the field.
I’m commenting as a hobbyist,of course
@@dougthompson9596 "Overstatement" tends not to be very useful when discussing history. Best to avoid it.
@@historyforatheists9363 that’s why I’m here. Trying to learn
Hi Tim,
Godless Engineer made a reply to a video by another UA-camr about the Historical Jesus. I saw it and frankly was not impressed, but when he covers the part about Josephus he essentially dismisses the consensus that Josephus mentioned Jesus to be that of only "Christian Scholars", and then namedrops a bunch of people who dispute the consensus and what not without going into who they are, their expertise, etc and I was wondering if you knew who these people were and could essentially dissect what why he's wrong.
This is a link to the video: ua-cam.com/video/WIUvBJESY8M/v-deo.html
You don't need to watch the whole thing (unless if you want to 😁) just the part about Josephus.
As usual, the Godless Yokel is just parroting Mythicist talking points and is getting things substantially wrong. The consensus on the TF is held by both a majority of Christian scholars *and* a majority of NON-Christian scholars. He also doesn't seem aware of the fact that most scholars of both stripes held the TF was a wholesale interpolation until about 70 years ago and this consensus has changed (again, among scholars of both kinds) since. So no, it's not just "speculation" that there is an authentic core - that consensus is based on reasoned argument. He tries to invoke Whealey to say that there is "no evidence" for an earlier interpolated form, but ignores (or isn't aware) that she holds that the TF is only partially interpolated and actually argues for some evidence she feels indicates that. I suspect this goofball has never actually read Whealey - he seems to just read Richard Carrier's book and blogs. I go over the various lines of argument on the TF in detail here: historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
And all this ignores the OTHER reference to Jesus in Josephus: the second, briefer one in *AJ* XX.200. I happen to think the TF is partially authentic, but acknowledge a solid case can be made that it isn't and it's actually a wholesale forgery. I think that question is moot. But the Jesus-James reference in XX.200 is pretty clear and is accepted by almost all scholars. But people like the Godless Goofball usually just skip around it. There Josephus mentions the execution of James and identifies him by reference to his brother Jesus. Given this James was an older contemporary of Josephus and his execution happened in Josephus' city in political circumstances closely connected to Josephus himself, this reference can't be dismissed at all easily, Godless Yokel's master, Richard Carrier, tries to do so but fails badly - see here for details (the second half is on Josephus on Jesus and James) : historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for your response. I found him mentioning Alice Whealey confusing too, as my understanding was as you said she accepted a partial interpolation. I suspected as much he was just repeating Mythicist talking points, without knowing what they actually mean. Well that just speaks to how misinformed and gullible his audience is as they ate that shit up like it was four star cuisine.
I'll check out your links tomorrow, have a good one, and thanks again.
@@historyforatheists9363 I've read the pages you linked you, and would like to thank you for the extensive work you have put in. I can say I better understand the material better and was able to actually follow what GE said much better and have myself a good laugh.
I re-watched Godless Engineer's take on Tacitus and laughed when he cherry-picked a passage from the book of Robert E. Van Voorst to try and assert that he doesn't find the Tacitus reference convincing. What cracked me up is that Robert E. Van Voorst thinks Jesus Mythicism is wrong and spends a great deal of time in his book debunking it. I was able to ascertain this from a simple google search. What an idiot.
I re-watched the part about Josephus and again found myself amused by his attempts to basically deceive people. As you pointed out Alice Whealey supports a partial interpolation of TV, but he uses her work to suggest a complete interpolation and then quotes probably the only 3 scholars who support a complete interpolation as well and falsely asserts that they have "decisively proven this to be the case" when a simple google search shows that their work while very well respected and well-done is in the minority opinion of scholars. He then makes a laughable claim about how Metatron isn't considering "modern information", which to me is his covert way of suggesting Metatron failed to consider arguments and facts from the Mythicist crowd.
I also noticed he criticized Metatron of asserting incorrectly that "experts agree" without naming who they are, and yet he in turn does the same thing repeatedly in his video.
How anyone can take an oaf like him serious is beyond me.
@@MadVatnik Good analysis. GE is both slippery and dumb. Always a bad combination.
To get me to believe Jesus was historical, you would have to prove to me what year Jesus was born. The Bible claims that Jesus was born before King Herod died (in -4 BC) and the Bible also says Jesus was born when Quirinius became Governor of Syria and performed his first census (in +6 AD). It is impossible for both to be true at the same time. So, I don't get why anyone would think Jesus existed?!? He couldn't have been born in the manner claimed in the Bible, so all other claims about him are moot.
Do you reject the historicity of other figures for whom we do not know their birth year?
@@benroberts2222 Probably not. If mythers didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have standards at all
So if one thing isn't true, the whole source isn't true.
This is a common mythicist fallacy and one of the more unpersuasive arguments they make. It's also an impossible standard for doing ancient history. In fact, there are modern historical figures for which we don't have a reliable date of birth.
@@themaskedman221 Young Earth Creationism suffers from the same problems regarding a particular thing in evolution not being true, used to dismiss it all
@@paradisecityX0 Yes, and when you mention this to Christ Myth Theorists they accuse you of falsely equating ancient history with biological science. It's true that ancient history and biology are two vastly different subjects, but the ways in which these forms of denialism play out take on a nearly identical pattern:
i. A group of fringe experts and amateur hobbyists promote a fringe theory that's generally laughed at.
ii. The fringe experts and their amateur groupies have the same ideological bias (in the case of creationism that bias is biblical literalism; for mythicists it's debunking Christianity)
iii. Fringe experts and their peanut gallery accuse professionals of being driven by ideology and not a search for "Truth".
What's annoying about mythicists is that they're more interested in beating a Christian over the head with a history textbook rather than opening it up and fully comprehending it. And that generally makes the rest of us non-believers look bad.
It's also a losing strategy that's probably responsible for more Christian conversions rather than helping people leave Christianity. It really isn't the sort of hill that a New Atheist or anti-theist would want to die on.
All this existence or none. If an all knowing and powerful leader of thousands of denominations that think the others are wrong is real, then he’s an incompetent, sadistic, and/or dead beat being.
what are you even on about
@@joshridinger3407 good question. Was likely tapped in half sleeping state. ;) although I think there’s nominal legit thought that’s expressed.
Ko
👏🙂
What’s with the Carrier bashing?
I love Carrier even though I disagree on Mythicism. I believe Tim and him have a past.
@@MythVisionPodcast it would appear so. I got that you appreciate Richard. The way fellas like Tim and Bart laugh at Carrier's 66% mythical position just seems odd to me. They rarely even address specific details.
@@zach2980 I wouldn't say that Tim doesn't response. I think Ehrman creates strawman arguments which makes Mythicist even more justified in their thinking. Tim actually takes his time to respond in his blog. He really spells out his responses.
The more I have listened to scholarship, the more historicism made the most sense in comparison to Mythicism.
@@zach2980 I "rarely even address specific details"? There's barely an article in my series on Mythicism (historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/) that DOESN'T tackle arguments made by Carrier and critique them in *great* detail. So what are you talking about? Go and read those articles and then come back and try to tell us I don't "address specific details". And Carrier has tried to counter my critiques and has failed. So I don't just "laugh" at Carrier's arguments. I show, in great detail, why they are laughable.
As for "Carrier bashing", I rarely bother to "bash" him. I just criticise his arguments and make it clear that I think they're contrived, tendentious, unconvincing and, in a couple of cases, rather ridiculous (his "Cosmic Sperm Bank" claims about Rom 1:3 for example). I certainly don't engage in the kind of petty abuse of him that Carrier engages in with me. In just one article (one where he tried and failed to counter some of my criticisms) he called me “[an] amateur rage blogger …. an asscrank, a total tinfoil hatter, filled with slanderous rage and void of any competence and honesty …. delusionally insane …. not an honest man …. incompetent …. a completely unreliable person …. fantastically ignorant …. thoroughly dishonest …. [and] a hack and a liar" as well as claiming I “lied” 14 times and calling me a “liar” no less than 7 times more. Elsewhere he said "I swear [O’Neill is] a crypto-Christian … that he’s actually posing as an atheist". Given that and other ongoing personal attacks, it's very restrained of me to simply say I don't think much of the guy and then concentrate on his bad arguments.
After all, if I wanted to get personal regarding Carrier, he serves up plenty of material. This is a guy who cheated on his wife while she was supporting him financially during his doctorate and then, when he got caught and she divorced him, dressed it up as him bravely "coming out as polyamorous". Then he was accused of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour with younger women at atheist events, which happened after he had been loudly proclaiming himself a feminist ally, accusing another prominent atheist of similar harassment and urging others to "believe women when they accuse men of these things". When he was accused, of course, he said the women in question had mental health issues and should not be believed. Then he SUED *THEM* for over $2 million and pursued this punitive lawsuit for two years, forcing them to rack up tens of thousands in legal fees for the crime of daring to accuse him. In the process he released documents which he seemed to think exonerated him but which actually made him clearly look like a creep who didn't respect women's boundaries ( see here for full hilarious details: skepchick.org/2019/05/prominent-atheist-sues-everyone-shares-intimate-details-of-sex-life-with-court-of-law/ ). Thankfully his suit was thrown out of court, but only after he had caused vast distress and extensive financial hardship to a number of completely innocent people. All in the name of his massive ego.
So perhaps a better question would be "why does Tim O'Neill focus purely on detailed critiques of Carrier's arguments and doesn't bash Carrier the way Carrier bashes him?" That would be more accurate. Clear enough for you?
@@historyforatheists9363 Hey Tim, this might sound kind of asking too much but, I met this person online who says that even Ehrman "admits that Christ-mythicism is a plausible explanation even though he disagrees with it." Is that really the case? Which quotes or articles from his blog do you think I should respond with?