ACSJ: Dr. Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Even Exist? A Historian Questions the Evidence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 апр 2014
- Please support our Patreon project to receive exclusive content and interviews not available on RUclips! www.patreon.com/acsj
If you wish to skip ahead to Dr. Carrier's presentation, go to the 24 minute mark.
The Atheist Community of San Jose was proud to welcome Dr. Carrier on April 2, 2014. This was the 1-year anniversary event of our founding, so we included the entire meeting on this video, complete with introductions from ACSJ President Brian Broome and our "In the News" segment with ACSJ Vice President Scot Haire.
Dr. Carrier gave a lecture on elements of his upcoming new book "On the Historicity of Jesus Christ". For more information on Dr. Carrier and his books, please visit www.richardcarrier.info/
If you would like to give a presentation for the Atheist Community of San Jose, please visit www.sanjoseatheists.org
Get to know us:
Website: sanjoseatheists.org/
Join us:
Meetup: www.meetup.com/Atheist-Communi...
Follow us:
Facebook: / atheistcommunityofsanjose
Twitter: / sanjoseatheists
Donate:
Website: www.sanjoseatheists.org/donate/
Patreon: www.patreon.com/acsj?ty=h
Carrier starts at 24:50
Mattias Sollerman bump this comment
Bless You for that!!
You good sir are a Saint among Saints. Bless you my Brother.
MVP
doing gods work
Why didn't Jesus write down his story? Seems like a simple matter for someone with his powers. oh, right, logic. Or one of the many historians that lived at that time? Why did only people write about him decades after he died?
Carrier really fits everything together, illustrating how religion and mythology are really identical. I always strongly suspected this was so.
rationalguy Too bad he is a shit historian. Nobody in the field seems to care what this guy has to say. He is what a creationist would be to the field of evolutionary biology.
@@Alnivol666 He doesn't appear to be a shit historian. Could it be that he is simply ignored by his peers because he is, (to them at least), too far out in left field? The number of historians who are now coming to accept the lack of evidence for an historical Jebus is growing and it is thanks to the likes of Dr. Carrier and Dr. Price that such a trend exists at all.
@@allingtonmarakan1436 No, no it's not . There is no lack of evidence. You really have no idea what you are talking about. There is no trend in historians accepting "lack of evidence". You are talking out of your butt. The only thing that would change the current consensus is if more evidence to the contrary was found. You simply do not understand the consensus to talk stupid stuff like that.
Carrier is an activist first and a historian second. His scholarship is tainted by his biases. He is not objective at all. He already has his conclusion and has to get there by misinterpreting the evidence.
@@Alnivol666 Is that your actual photo as your avatar? I think it might be if the moronic drivel you keep spouting is anything to go by. Anyone can state that there is lots of evidence for something but, unless you actually PROVIDE that evidence, YOU are the one who is talking out of their butt. If there is SO MUCH evidence, why don't you provide any? Where are the links and citations to all that evidence, eh?
Actually, I think the kitten looks far too intelligent to be you.
Mythology is what we call religions that nobody believes in any more.
"The enthusiasm and passion you bring to your videos are contagious. It's clear that you genuinely love what you do, and it resonates with your audience."
Not a single witness outside the bible ever bothered to write about Jesus who could have met him. None. Zilch. Zero. Plenty of people long AFTER Jesus died claimed he was real. And none of those thousands upon thousands of people that heard him speak ever bothered to write about it. Outside the bible. Sorry, its a tall tale, and we all know it.
+David s The problem is not that no one outside the bible wrote about Jesus. The problem is the contradiction between what is claimed in the NT and the complete lack of non biblical writings when he lived, and the large number of non believers writing about him after he died. For some magical reason, more and more people wrote about Jesus AFTER he died, and the number seems to increase in almost direct proportion to the elapsed time.
So for example we have Josephus and Paul, and lets throw in the disciples. But why were they writing decades or centuries after he died, when apparently scores or people were being resurrected when he lived, or being healed, or thousands and thousands when he spoke, on and on.
There were historians before, during, and after Jesus life. Why so silent when he was alive? Remember, too, the population was much smaller then. 100,000 then would be akin to millions now.
The answer is clear, he was a legend. Like Paul Bunyun.
+Machiavellian Science : Romans stole their gods from the greeks, and the Christians from the Greeks and Jewish influences. There is a REASON Jesus had wine powers, and raised his mother into Heaven, and was the son of a god and a mortal woman, had long hair and acted in a very non heroic fashion. Dionysus.
To be fair, they were all illiterate.
@@nosuchthing8 we now know the josephus stuff was made up.. it was forged by christians.. they constantly lied and changed records
@@nosuchthing8 and the Greeks took there religion from Egypt or Kemet Pythagoras Plato Socrates Abraham Moses all studied in Egypt (Kemet) osiris hathor set aten etc.
Dr. Richard Carrier begins at 24:52
I can't get my Mum to see that being overweight is the main reason for her various ailments and general bad health. She's obsessed with food: what I'm eating, what the cat's eating, etc, etc. This comes from her youth: a time when some people really didn't have enough to eat. I have no hope for her because this attitude (eat, eat, eat and keep eating, all food is good and the more the better) is so deeply ingrained in her that she will never believe that it's wrong and seriously damaging to health.
Religious people are the same: there's no point in arguing with them because they won't, or probably, JUST CAN'T see beyond what they've been indoctrinated with.
I was a hardcore fundamentalist pentecostal for the first 30 years of my life. The final straw that deconverted me was a 10min RUclips video. As long are atheists don't act like dicks when talking to believers, you never know what seeds you may plant.
I think, that you are wrong there, you are right, that the one, you are arguing with, will be so deep entrenched into his/her defence mode, that it will be most impossible to let him/her see. However, the bystanders are a very different issue, they do not feel the denial and defence, like the one you actually are trying to convince, they will be open to what you say, so, keep arguing, if it isn't just for the fun, than do it for the bystanders.
There are different ways to argue, and there is not one 'good way', we do not possess the magic of unindoctrination, but the only way, for people to start questioning their believes, is to repeatedly confront them with reality. It is less about how 'good' you are arguing, it is about how often, that is why Christianity went unopposed for more than a millennium, opposition was simply burned. Good luck anyways.
RzzRBladez Thanks. I see what you mean. I'll take your advice - but perhaps not on RUclips!
RzzRBladez Yes, that is true. Most of the time you can't convince the one you're arguing with, because they are invested in winning that argument. But bystanders may be open if your answers are somewhat respectful. "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Prov 15:1). Can't say I always follow that advice, but I try haha
Discern4
I sometimes try to 1Peter 3:15 them into answering me, but as soon as one party starts slinging the Pooh, sometimes the fun really starts. However, in an argument, the love must come from both sides, since either side can make that mistake. On the other hand, I rather have those Christians that baffle you, with the shear amount of their knowledge and their intelligence, those that make you wonder: "How the hell did you become a YEC?" Even when losing the argument, you win experience, and often a whole lot of information, and perspectives.
Hi courageous atheists of south USA. It's Warming to see you get together as we know it is difficult to be an atheist in your country. Respect!
Excellent, and especially the Q&A about the forged/interpolated Tacitus passage.
It's not healthy for the Human race as a whole when people are self deluding themselves in the nonreality of a fairy tale as if it were true.
Actually his argument regarding the Annals is poorly argued. Plus his explanation of how he came to agree with Rouget (sp?) is reminiscent of the historians' methodology he criticized at the top. ("When I read him I realized he had to be right" etc.) At the time of the mss copying the use of "e" or "i" were interchangeable for that script. And even if not, it doesn't answer the question of how the entire passage is an interpolation. The unanimity of scholarship on the genuineness of the passage is nearly absolute, and they have nothing to do with subliminal favoritism on behalf of Christian apologetics.
The best way to argue to passage a forgery has nothing to do with this line of thought.
Adults aren't supposed to need imaginary friends!?
When has it ever been other,its a deluded Race.
@@jamesbarlow7238 Please logically answer two simple multiple choice questions:
1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a physical man as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? In other words who would find it a crime just for looking like, and believed to be a solid person that's punishable by death? Keep in mind these verses are about Jesus emptying his spiritual powers, taking on earthly flesh, and being found in this state.
Philippians 2:7-8
(NRSV) "but emptied himself, taking 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."
(YLT) "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,"
A) Romans B) Jews C) Romans & Jews D) Satan (appendix below)
2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if was made known to them (without a doubt) that killing Jesus would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? In other words who would be against eternal life for humans in that they would not follow through in killing Jesus because it would give said humans a chance at immortality?
Note: "rulers of this age" (Principalities) is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm, and, or the realm of flesh to the ancient reader.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8
(NRSV) "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
(YLT) "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;"
A) Romans B) Jews C) Romans & Jews D) Satan & *Destroying Angels (*as per Psalm 78:49 "He let loose on them his fierce anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels.")
Appendix:
A Savior is tested & exalted by God: Zec. 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua/Jesus (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by.
6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day."
Zec. 6:11-13 "11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them."
Also keep in mind:
Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9).
Paul sees OT scripture as allegories (Gal. 4:24) in that it contains hidden spiritual meanings. Mark 4:33 hints that the entire Gospel is a parable, and close study of it shows that it's most likely. For example; In Mark 2:3-5, :11 faith is rewarded while in 2 Kings 1:2-4 unfaithfulness is punished. One is lowered gets healed while the other falls then dies for seeking healing from other Gods. (web search: "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash by Robert M Price" for more examples).
This secret hidden code in OT scripture seen by early Christians can be interpreted that the Five Kings in Joshua that were crucified can represent flesh (five senses that leads to sin).
Jos. 10:24-27 "24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua/Jesus, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/1 Cor. 15:24-28, Rom. 16:20, Heb. 1:13, 2:5-9, 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)"
To Paul (1 Cor. 15:49-53) a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom. The original ending in Mark has no physical resurrection appearance, but ends with the women running away afraid not telling anyone (Gen. 18:14-15) which reverses Mark 1:1-3 proclamation of the Good News (Isa 40:1-5, 52:7-8, 61:1-2) a Markan literary sandwich.
Dirty/impoverished clothing (Mark 14:51-52/Zec. 3:3), and clean/gleaming clothing (Mark16:5/Zec. 3:5) were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world (symbolically parallels Mark 14:51-52 with Gen. 3:7, 39:12).
Also keep in mind that these verses in Philippians, and 1 Corinthians may have been left from deletion because of the anti-Jewish, and, or anti-Roman sentiments it may have provoked seen through the later Gospel lenses (keep in mind nonpseudographical Paul does not reflect these "anti" thoughts).
My guess is most dislikes of this video are due to the 25 min of administration talking before Carrier is allowed to speak. Carrier's talk is worth it, but skip 25 min if you're not interested in local minutiae.
Richard Carrier starts talking at 24:50
Thanks. Those losers were annoying as shit
Across Europe those following a religion are thankfully becoming more of a minority by the day.
I weep for the US though, being held back severely a bunch of extreme Christian crackpots, as witnessed on AtheistExperience videos. Have to admit though, some of the callers provided great entertainment value
Thank you for sharing this and best wishes for your next year.
When I was in college, I missed my first Mythology class because I was sick. Before the second class, I got a syllabus from the teacher. I quickly read it and asked her, "When are we going to discuss the Bible?!?" She laughed uncomfortably, thought for a few seconds, and told me we were only going to discuss the Greek and Roman gods. I wish I knew back then that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, cause I might have pressed her more about her answer.
How come not 1 historian wrote a book on this so called miracle worker
arnie kurtz Why would a Roman historian write a book about some Jew?
You do not know for a fact a book about this Jew was not written about in a book then lost.
Rome has a very rich history, which was explored by many authors, both ancient and modern. The first history works were written after the First Punic War. Many of these works were made for propaganda of the Roman culture and customs, and also as moral essays. Although *the diversity of works, many of them are lost* and due to this, there are large gaps in Roman history, which are filled by unreliable works, as the Historia Augusta and books from obscure authors. However, there remain a number of accounts of Roman History
There were many non romans and they did not write a word about jesus. How Come
arnie kurtz your answer is in my comments.
Idiot atheist where in your comment? Come on man I'm just an. Idiot atheist, I need you to spell it out for me. Or can't you?
***** just read my first comment in this thread.
There's no dirt in my conception of heaven, apart from the mud wrestling.
The 4 accepted gospels are filled with contradictions and nonsense. The story of Jesus could have been written by the Grimm Bros
The NT also doesn't match up with the OT. In the OT, when you die, you are in sheol.
Sheol is a state of real death like an atheist like myself believes. Then at some point the jewish is suppose to save you.
The NT story is conflicting. Read the part about lazarus and the rich man.
Now that is an insult to the Grimm bros!
the same people that argued the WMD in Iraq must exist because no one could prove their nonexistence now run around doing the same with Jesus. Its not that hard people, burden of proof.
Yes, I was infuriated with Bush's lies. How many lives decimated because of his inflated little man ego.
It's really amazing more people haven't noticed this before. It's all right there in the text.
Where do you go for this kitten skeet shooting that Dr. Carrier mentions?
I like the point he makes about Mohammad probably not actually being illiterate.
I like how God, so desiring of a relationship with all of us, has his flock trudging around as a bunch of humorless gimps throwing around scanty evidence when all He'd have to do is show up, toss some thunderbolts around, and erase any doubt. Is he really too preoccupied at the moment? But rather, He'd send people to hell for using His greatest gift, our intellect, to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that He doesn't exist, or for simply having never heard of Him in the first place.
Kyle Kersey " scanty evidence" there are 10 ancient writers who wrote about Jesus. Between 33 AD and 313 AD 1,000's of ancient writer and historians lived. Many of these people mocked Christians and Jesus. One of these writers wrote that some Jews said Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pantera. Rome persecuted Christians. Yet not a single person ever wrote that Jesus never existed or was a myth. Fact: 10 ancient writers wrote about Jesus, 0 (zero) writers wrote Jesus was a myth or didn't exist. Common sense and logic says Jesus existed.
You prove that atheism is useless, worthless and nonsense.
+david s No. The Bible clearly states in an unambiguous way that just something as petty as talking crap about the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. And I'd certainly qualify "talking" (supposedly wrong) as an "intellectual mistake" Or maybe is a cardiac one?
I can barely make out what you are saying - this needs to be rerecorded
"I can barely make out what you are saying".
Thing is Linda, the speaker here isn't also the person who has put this video online. He didn't record it himself, nor did he organise the event he spoke at, nor did he book the sound engineer there. He attended as a speaker. So your comment isn't going to reach Richard Carrier, he isn't going to read it, and he isn't going to say, ok, I'll re-record it for you. How would that work? He sets up a whole new event, repeats this presentation exactly, including the question/answer session, having booked better sound engineers/recording equipment, and then posts the new video online for you.
Many thanks, someone did the work to undermine their own position. If tens of thousands of people in Jerusalem saw Jesus, then around 10% of the people should have seen him. Extrapolated from the smaller population to the current larger population of the world, that would be like 30 million people in America seeing a giant concert, yet not a single new report, or newspaper report, or journal entry about the event. Truly amazing claim.
@John Smith Oh, we shouldn't expect any such records about various itinerant preachers bumming around the place. However, one of those guys supposedly walked on water, raised the dead, turned water into wine, started a riot in the temple precincts and was executed but rose from the dead. Not your average preacher dude. Not a single peep about such an amazing person. Josephus wrote about tedious, dull, boring people at some length, that happened, why did no one write about such a thrilling magician and demi-god?
You can skip the first 25 minutes.
Sean Johnson you can and SHOULD skip the first 25 minutes. Waste of time, no information presented, just the event organizer patting himself on the back.
Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier By Bart Erhman
Richard Carrier is one of the new breed of mythicists. He is trained in ancient history and classics, with a PhD from Columbia University - an impressive credential. In my book Did Jesus Exist I speak of him as a smart scholar with bona fide credentials. I do, of course, heartily disagree with him on issues relating to the historical Jesus, but I have tried to take his views seriously and to give him the respect he deserves.
Carrier, as many of you know, has written a scathing review of Did Jesus Exist on his Freethought Blog. He indicates that my book is “full of errors,” that it “misinforms more than it informs” that it provides “false information” that it is “worse than bad” and that “it officially sucks.” The attacks are sustained throughout his lengthy post, and they often become personal. He indicates that “Ehrman doesn’t actually know what he is talking about,” he claims that I speak with “absurd” hyperbole, that my argument “makes [me] look irresponsible,” that I am guilty of “sloppy work,” that I “misrepresent” my opponents and “misinform the public,” that what I write is “crap,” that I am guilty of “arrogantly dogmatic and irresponsible thinking,” that I am “incompetent,” make “hack” mistakes, and do not “act like a real scholar.”
Most of his review represents an attempt to substantiate these claims. Some readers may find the overblown rhetoric offensive, but I have no interest in engaging in a battle of wits and rhetorical flourishes. I would simply like to see if the charges of my incompetence can be sustained.
Let me say at the outset that I am not perfect, that as a full-blooded human being, I do make mistakes, and that nothing I say is an inerrant revelation from above. I sometimes try to convince my wife otherwise, but, frankly, I’ve made very little headway there. When I do make mistakes, I am not afraid to admit it. I don’t *like* admitting it, but my interest really is in discussing what we can know about history, not in proving that I’m always in the right.
One of the mistakes I make in the book I should state up front, because Carrier found it particularly offensive. I indicated in the book that Carrier’s degree was in Classics. I was wrong about that. His PhD is in Ancient History. I am not sure where I got the wrong impression he was a classicist; I think when I first heard of him I was told that he worked in ancient history and classics, and the “classics” part just stuck with me, possibly because I have always revered the field. In any event, I apologize for the mistake. His degree is in Ancient History, although he is trained as well in classics.
Contrary to what Carrier suggests, this mistake was not some kind of plot on my part, in his words: “a deliberate attempt to diminish my qualifications by misrepresentation.” I frankly don’t know why a classicist is less competent to talk about the ancient world of Rome than an ancient historian is, since most Romanists I know are in fact Classicists; and it seems odd that Carrier wants to insist that he is not “just a classicist.” My classicist friends would probably not appreciate knowing that they were “just” that. But in any event, it was an honest to goodness mistake, for which I apologize.
The bulk of Carrier’s harsh critique involves a set of “Errors of Fact” - including one that I have already dealt with in an earlier post, whether a bronze Priapus that is allegedly in the Vatican (but not actually, as one of the posts on this blog shows) was of Peter. I stated it was not, and Carrier agrees. He mistakenly thought I was arguing that no such statue existed, but that was not my intention or concern. I can see how my wording could be (mis)read that way, however. The other charges against me and my book are more damning - or at least they certainly seem to be on the surface.
I will not answer each and every single point Carrier raises (on this, see my closing comments), but will deal with the most serious ones in which he charges me with scholarly incompetence. I am always happy to answer questions about any of the others, should I be asked.
The Pilate Error
In my book I take the Roman historian Tacitus to task for claiming that Pontius Pilate was a procurator rather than a prefect. The question has little to do with my overall point - that Tacitus is one of the first Roman authors to refer to Jesus - but Carrier takes great offense at my assertion and indicates that it shows that I do not know what I’m talking about. According to Carrier, provincial prefects were often also imperial procurators. He indicates that “recent literature on the subject confirms this, as would any consultation with an expert in Tacitus or Roman imperial administration.”
I have to admit that I was surprised to see this objection - as I had never heard of this before, that procurators could be prefects. I am certainly not an expert on Roman imperial magistrates. But I do try to get my facts straight and work hard to make sure I do not get things like this wrong. But it was news to me. So I decided to look into it. I have acquaintances and colleagues who are among the world’s leading authorities on Roman history. I emailed one of them the following:
My question: The New Testament indicates that Pontius Pilate was a procurator; the inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima indicate that he was a prefect. Is it possible that he could have been both things at once?
His answer was quick and to the point. I quote: ‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job. The initial growth of equestrian posts in the emperor’s service was a gradual, haphazard process, and there was little concern to fix titles for them [see, e.g., Talbert's chap. 9 in CAH ed. 2 vol. X]. PP could just as well have had the title procurator, but evidently he didn’t … PIR (ed. 2, 1998) P 815 sums it up neatly: “praeses Iudaeae ordinis equestris usque ad Claudii tempora non procurator, sed praefectus fuit….” [This comes from the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (i.e., The Prosopography of the Roman Empire); I translate the Latin as follows: “Up until the time of Claudius [i.e., 41-54 CE], the provincial governor of Judea, a man of the equestrian order, was not a procurator but a prefect.”].
That would seem to settle it. This email acquaintance of mine is an internationally recognized scholar in the field of Roman history, so I trust his judgment. He asked not to be identified by name, I think because he too does not want to be subject to the kinds of attacks one faces on the Internet no matter what one says and on what grounds or authority. In any event, I think the quotation from PIR sums it up.
The Tacitus Question
While I’m on the Tacitus reference. At one point in my book I indicate that “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55). Carrier says this is “crap,” “sloppy work,” and “irresponsible,” and indicates that if I had simply checked into the matter, I would see that I’m completely wrong. As evidence he cites Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964-68) The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970) pp. 253-66, where several scholars allegedly indicate that the passage is forged.
In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation. What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t. I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago, and so far as I know, they have no followers among trained experts today. In that connection it is surprising that Carrier does not mention Benario’s more recent discussions, published as “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1969-1973,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1974-1983,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1984-1993,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1994-2003.” Or rather it is not surprising, since the issue appears to have died on the vine (one exception: a brief article in 1974 by L. Rougé). I might also mention that there is indeed a history of the question that goes before the mid-20th century. I first became aware of it from one of the early mythicists, Arthur Drews, whose work, The Christ Myth (1909) raises the possibility. But Drews did not invent the idea; it goes back at least to the end of the 19th century in the work of P. Hochard in 1890, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite. I’m not sure if Carrier is familiar with this scholarship or not. But my point is that I was not trying to make a statement about the history of Tacitus scholarship; I was stating what scholars today think.
But Carrier’s objection to my view did take me a bit off guard and make me wonder whether I was missing something, whether there were in fact scholars of Tacitus who continue to think the reference to Jesus was an interpolation in his writings. I am a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, not of Tacitus! And so I asked one of the prominent scholars of the Roman world, James Rives, who happens now to teach at UNC. Anyone who wonders about his credentials can look them up on the web; he’s one of the best known experts on Roman religion (and other things Roman) internationally. He has given me permission to cite him by name, as he is willing to stand by what he says.
My initial email question to him was this:
I’m wondering if there is any dispute, today, over the passage in Annals 15 where he mentions Jesus (whether there is any dispute over its authenticity).
His initial reply was this:
I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it. There are some minor textual issues (the spelling ‘Chrestianos’ vs. ‘Christianos’, e.g.), but there’s not much to be done with them since we here, as everywhere in Tacitus’ major works, effectively depend on a single manuscript.
I then asked him about the article Carrier mentioned with respect to Benario, and this was his reply:
Benario’s article cited below is one of a series he did over a period of decades, in which he summarizes other people’s work on Tacitus; they’re an extremely useful bibliographical resource (although there’s no reason that a non-specialist would be aware of them!). I’ve just checked this particular article, and can only assume that the particular work to which your adversary makes reference is mentioned on p. 264: Charles Saumagne, ‘Tacite et saint Paul’, Revue Historique 232 (1964) 67-110, who according to Benario ‘claims that the Christians are not mentioned in 15.44, that there is an ancient interpolation, taken from book 6 of the Histories, which were written after the Annals, and that Sulpicius Severus was responsible for the transposition’. So I’m wrong that no classicist has argued that the passage is not authentic. Saumagne may not be alone: Benario cites another article on the same page whose author ‘recalls that Christians are not linked with the fire before the time of Sulpicius Severus’. Nevertheless, I would still point out that 1) Saumagne does argue that this is an interpolation, but only from another of Tacitus’ works; 2) the whole thing sounds like a house of cards to me, since Histories Book 6 doesn’t exist and so can’t provide a firm foundation for an argument; 3) this is clearly a minority opinion, since I’ve never encountered it before.
He then pursued the matter further (he’s a *great* colleague!), and wrote me this:
I’ve had a quick look at the two articles in question. Saumagne does think that the text has been interpolated, but also that the reference to Christ being killed under Pontius Pilate comes from a lost portion of Tacitus’ Histories. His argument seems very shaky to me, but in either case it doesn’t affect your own, since Saumagne thinks that Tacitus knew about and referred to Jesus, which is the main thing for you. The other article, by Koestermann (an editor of Tacitus), argues that Tacitus made a mistake in associating the Chrestiani with Christ, but doesn’t say anything about the reference to Christ not having been written by Tacitus himself. There may be scholars who’ve argued that the reference to Christ is a later interpolation into the text, but neither of these two did, and I certainly don’t know of any others.
I think that’s enough to settle it. I really don’t think what I said was “irresponsible,” “sloppy,” or “crap.”
The Dying and Rising God:
In my book I argue that there is very thin evidence indeed for anything like a widespread pagan belief in a dying-rising god, on which Jesus was modeled. In the context of showing the shortcomings of Freke and Gandy’s book The Jesus Mysteries, I make a passing comment on the Egyptian god Osiris, first by asking a series of questions: “What, for example, is the proof that Osiris was born on December 25 before three shepherds? Or that he was crucified? And that his death brought atonement for sin? Or that he returned to life on earth by being raised from the dead? In fact no ancient source says any such thing about Osiris”
Carrier does not seem to disagree with most of this statement, but he takes very serious issue indeed with the claim that Osiris was not raised from the dead to return to life on earth. He indicates that I received this information entirely from an article by Jonathan Z. Smith, and that if I had been “real scholar” I would have looked up the ancient sources themselves. As it is I made a “hack mistake” showing that I was “incompetent.” His counter claim is that “Plutarch attests that Osiris was believed to have died and been returned to earth… and that the did indeed return to earth in his resurrected body.” He gives as his reference Plutarch “On Isis and Osiris,” 19.358b.
Carrier is wrong on all points. I did not get this information just from J. Z. Smith (who, by the way, is one of the most eminent and distinguished historians of religion walking the face of the planet, and certainly no hack) and his charge that I have not behaved as a “real scholar” is completely unfounded. I have read Plutarch’s account of Osiris many times. For years I used this text in the graduate seminars I taught on Graeco-Roman religion. In my reading of the myth of Osiris, he does not rise from the dead back to life here on earth.
One of our principal sources of knowledge of the myth of the gods Isis and Osiris, brother and sister but lovers, is the famous second century pagan philosopher and priest Plutarch. The myth as Plutarch recounts it is not long; most of his treatise De Iside et Osiride consists of a range of ways people had interpreted the myth, in particularly the various allegorical interpretations. A convenient translation of the treatise can be found here: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/
I do not need to relate all the details of the myth in this context. Suffice it to say that Osiris is killed by an enemy and hidden away in a chest/coffin that was lost. Isis finally finds it and mourns the loss of her dead lover. But (another) enemy finds the body and does something unspeakable. Here is the passage from Plutarch, in the Babbitt translation of the Loeb Classical Library:
18 As they relate, Isis proceeded to her son Horus, who was being reared in Buto, and bestowed the chest in a place well out of the way; but Typhon, who was hunting by night in the light of the moon, happened upon it. Recognizing the body [of Osiris] he divided it into fourteen parts and scattered them, each in a different place. Isis learned of this and sought for them again, sailing through the swamps in a boat of papyrus. This is the reason why people sailing in such boats are not harmed by the crocodiles, since these creatures in their own way show either their fear or their reverence for the goddess. The traditional result of Osiris’s dismemberment is that there are many so called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it. Others deny this and assert that she caused effigies of him to be made and these she distributed among the several cities, pretending that she was giving them his body, in order that he might receive divine honours in a greater number of cities, and also that, if Typhon should succeed in overpowering Horus, he might despair of ever finding the true tomb when so many were pointed out to him, all of them called the tomb of Osiris. Of the parts of Osiris’s body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival. 19 Later, as they relate, Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle.
In this telling of the myth - the one the Carrier refers to - Osiris’s body does not come back to life. Quite the contrary, it remains a corpse. There are debates, in fact, over where it is buried, and different locales want to claim the honor of housing it. It is true that Osiris “comes back” to earth to work with his son Horus: ἔπειτα τῷ Ὥρῳ τὸν Ὄσιριν ἐξ Ἅιδου παραγενόμενον. Literally, he came “from Hades.” But this is not a resurrection of his body. His body is still dead. He himself is down in Hades, and can come back up to make an appearance on earth on occasion. This is not like Jesus coming back from the dead, in his body; it is like Samuel in the story of the Witch of Endor, where King Saul brings his shade back to the world of the living temporarily (1 Samuel 28). How do we know Osiris is not raised physically? His body is still a corpse, in a tomb.
Evidence to that comes from various places in the treatise. For example, section 20, 359 E
not the least important suggestion is the opinion held regarding the shrines of Osiris, whose body is said to have been laid in many different places. For they say that Diochites is the name given to a small town, on the ground that it alone contains the true tomb; and that the prosperous and influential men among the Egyptians are mostly buried in Abydos, since it is the object of their ambition to be buried in the same ground with the body of Osiris. In Memphis, however, they say, the Apis is kept, being the image of the soul of Osiris, whose body also lies there. The name of this city some interpret as “the haven of the good” and others as meaning properly the “tomb of Osiris.”
It is his soul that lives on, in the underworld. Not his body in this world. Carrier wants to argue that the body comes back to life, and points to a passage that speaks of its “revivification and regenesis.” But that is taking the Plutarch’s words out of context. Here is the relevant passage:
35 364F-365A Furthermore, the tales regarding the Titans and the rites celebrated by night agree with the accounts of the dismemberment of Osiris and his revivification and regenesis ὁμολογεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ Τιτανικὰ καὶ Νυκτέλια 5 τοῖς λεγομένοις Ὀσίριδος διασπασμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀναβιώσεσι καὶ παλιγγενεσίαις. Similar agreement is found too in the tales about their sepulchres. The Egyptians, as has already been stated, point out tombs of Osiris in many places, and the people of Delphi believe that the remains of Dionysus rest with them close beside the oracle;
Note: whatever his revivification involves, it is not a return to his physical body, which remains in a tomb someplace. It is his soul that lives on, as seen, finally in a key passage later:
54 373A It is not, therefore, out of keeping that they have a legend that the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but that his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again; for that which really is and is perceptible and good is superior to destruction and change.
Carrier and I could no doubt argue day and night about how to interpret Plutarch. But my views do not rest on having read a single article by Jonathan Z. Smith and a refusal to read the primary sources. As I read them, there is no resurrection of the body of Osiris. And that is the standard view among experts in the field.
The Other Jesus Conundrum
In my discussion of G.A. Wells’s work I have occasion to consider his claim that Paul did not think Jesus was a person who lived just a few years before his conversion, but 150 year or so earlier. In that context I indicate that Paul thought that “the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were recent events.” I go on to “stress that this is the view of all of our sources that deal with the matter at all” (p. 251).
Carrier jumps on this last statement, stating that it “is false” and that by making it I “arrogantly and ignorantly” mislead my readers. As evidence he points out that in the writings of Epiphanius there is reference to a group of Christians who held that Jesus lived in the days of the Jewish king Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), and that this was the view as well in the Jewish writings of the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu.
In this case Carrier has attacked one of my statements by taking it completely out of its context - as would be clear had he simply quoted my next sentence. After speaking of Paul and the other sources, I say “it is hard to believe that Paul would have such a radically different view from every other Christian of his day, as Wells suggests. That Jesus lived recently is affirmed not only in all four of our canonical Gospels…. It is also the view of all of the Gospel Sources - Q…M, L - and of the non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus.”
When I refer to “all of our other sources” in the sentence that Carrier attacks, I was referring to the sources I then enumerate, those of “every other Christian of [Paul’s] day.” Iin other words, As a careful reading of this entire section of my book makes crystal clear, in this context I am talking about our earliest sources of information about Jesus: Paul, Q, the Synoptics and their sources, and the non-Christian sources. I am not referring to every source that ever existed at any time whatsoever. Epiphanius, whom Carrier cites as an alternative source, was writing at the end of the fourth Christian century; the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu were later than that.
Maybe I could have made this a bit more clear by saying that the view I was referring to could be found in “all our sources from Paul’s time and in the decades that followed, not sources written 300 years later that have no bearing on Paul’s thinking.” But frankly, I didn’t think it was necessary since I went on to enumerate the sources that I was referring to. What I meant, of course, was that all of the relevant sources have this view.
“No Roman Records”
In the course of my discussion of Freke and Gandy’s The Jesus Mysteries, I fault them for thinking that since the Romans kept such detailed records of everything (“birth notices, trial records, death certificates”), it is odd indeed that we have no such records from Roman hands about Jesus. My response is that it is a complete myth (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything. Carrier vehemently objects that this is altogether false, indicating that in fact we have thousands of such records, and that he has “literally held some for these documents in my very hands.” And he points out that some of them are quoted and cited in ancient books, as when Suetonius refers to the birth records for Caligula.
What Carrier is referring to is principally the documentary papyri discovered in Egypt, which I am in fact very familiar with and some of which I too have held in my hands. Over the years I have frequently referred my PhD students to these important records, and have often perused accounts of them, such as the many volumes of the Oxyrynchus Papyri, in the course of my research. We do indeed have many thousands of such documents - wills, land deeds, birth records, divorce certificates, and on and on - from Egypt.
Several points need to be made about these documentary papyri. First, they are, in fact, largely from Egypt - in no small measure because climactic conditions allow for their preservation there. Second, most of these are not in fact records of Roman officials, but made by indigenous Egyptian writers / scribes. And third, this is not what I was talking about.
In this case the misunderstanding is understandable, but easily explained, and shown by considering my comments in their larger context. My book is about Jesus, a Palestinian Jew of the first century. Throughout this entire book, I was thinking about Jesus, in everything I said. And his environment and context. That is why, as I pointed out in an earlier post, when I was disputing that an bronze ithyphallic rooster represented the disciple Peter, I could say “There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican.” I wasn’t even thinking about whether there was a penis-nosed statue in the museum; I was thinking about whether it had anything to do with Peter. No, it doesn’t. (And it turns out, it is evidently not even in the museum; but I have no first-hand knowledge of that one way or the other.)
When I denied that we had Roman records of much of anything, or any indication that there ever were Roman records of anything, I was thinking of Palestine. That becomes clear in my other later reference to the matter where I explain in detail what I was thinking, and that Carrier, understandably, chose not to quote in full: “I should reiterate that it is a complete “myth” (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything and that as a result we are inordinately well informed about the world of Roman Palestine [Note: I’m talking about Palestine] and should expect then to hear about Jesus if he really lived. If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don’t have any. Think of everything we do not know about the reign of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea…” (p. 44)
I go on to detail what we have no record of about Pilate from Roman records: “his major accomplishments, his daily itinerary, the decrees he passed, the laws he issued, the prisoners he put on trial, the death warrants he signed, his scandals, his interview, his judicial proceedings.” In talking about Roman records, I am talking about the Roman records we are interested in: the ones related to the time and place where Jesus lived, first-century Palestine. It’s a myth that we have or that we could expect to have detailed records from Roman officials about everything that was happening there, so that if Jesus really lived, we would have some indication of it. Quite the contrary, we precisely don’t have Roman records - of much of anything - from there.
We do indeed have lots of records from someplace else that doesn’t matter for the question I’m interested in (Egypt; even though even there most of the records are not Roman or from Roman officials). I can see how my first statement on the matter could be construed (without my fuller explanation of what I meant some pages later) and how it could be read as flat-out error. But yes, I do indeed know about our documentary papyri. A better way for me to have said it is that we do have records for other places - at least Egypt - but it’s a complete myth that we have them, or should expect to have them, for the time and place Jesus lived.
The Doherty “Slander”
Carrier finds fault with my claim, about Earl Doherty, that he “quotes professional scholars at length when their view prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” (p. 252). He points out that Doherty does in fact indicate, in various places throughout his book, that the argument he is advancing at that point is not accepted by other scholars. As a result, Carrier states, my claim is nothing but “falsified propaganda.”
I am afraid that in this case Carrier misses my point. It is true that Doherty acknowledges that scholars disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. But the way he builds his arguments typically makes it appear that he is writing as a scholar among scholars, and that all of these scholars (with him in the mix) have disagreements on various issues (disagreements with him, with one another). One is left with the impression that like these other scholars, Doherty is building a tenable case that some points of which would be granted by some scholars but not others, and that the entire overall thesis, therefore, would also be acceptable to at least some of the scholars he engages with.
The reality, however, is that every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist). This is completely unlike other works of true scholarship, where scholars are cited as having disagreements on various points - but not, universally, as an entire body, on the entire premise and virtually all the claims (foundation and superstructure). I was urging that Doherty should come clean and inform his readers in clear terms that even though he quotes scholars on one issue or another, not a single one of these scholars (or indeed, any recognized scholar in the field of scholarship that he is addressing) agrees with the radical thesis of his book.
This criticism of Doherty applies not just to his overall argument but to his argument in the details, at the micro level. The way Doherty uses scholars is just not scholarly, since he often gives the impression that the scholars he quotes agree with him on a point when they expressly do not. Just to give a typical example: at one place in my book I discuss Doherty’s claim that Jesus was not crucified here on earth by Romans, but in the spiritual realm by demonic powers (p. 252). In his book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man Doherty quotes New Testament scholar Morna Hooker in support of his view. In the sentence before he introduces her, he says: “this self-sacrificing divinity (who operates in the celestial spheres, not on earth) is a paradigm for believers on earth” (p. 104). In other words, Christ was sacrificed in heaven, not on earth. Then he quotes Hooker: “Christ becomes what we are (likeness of human flesh, suffering and death), so enabling us to become what he is (exalted to the heights).” Here he cites Hooker to support his claim that Christ was paradigmatic for his followers (a fairly uncontroversial claim), but he does not acknowledge that when she says Christ became “what we are (likeness of human flesh)” she is referring to Christ becoming a human being in flesh on earth - precisely the view he rejects. Hooker’s argument, then, which he quotes in favor of his view, flat-out contradicts his view.
In short, I am not denying that Doherty sometimes acknowledges that scholars disagree with him; I am saying that he quotes them as though they support his views without acknowledging that in fact they do not.
The Pliny Confusion
Carrier indicates that he almost fell out of his chair when he read my discussion of the letters of Pliny. Sorry about that! He points out that when I talk about letter 10, I really meant Book 10; and when I summarize the letter involving Christians, I provide information that is not found in the letter but is assumed by scholars to apply to the letter based on another letter in Book 10.
To the first charge I plead guilty. Yes, when I said letter 10 I meant a letter in book 10. This is what you might call a real howler, a cock-up (not in the Peter sense). I meant Book 10. This is the kind of mistake I’m prone to make (I’ve made it before and will probably make it again), that I should have caught. A more generous reader would have simply said “Ehrman, you say letter 10 but you mean a letter in book 10,” and left it at that. Carrier takes it to mean that I’m an idiot and that I’ve never read the letters of Pliny.
I may have moments of idiocy, but I have indeed read the letters of Pliny, especially those of Book 10. I’ve taught them for years. When he accuses me of not knowing the difference between a fact and a hypothetical reconstruction, though, he is going too far. I do indeed know that the context scholars have reconstructed for the “Christian problem” is the broader problem outlined elsewhere in Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan. The problem here is simply that I was trying to summarize briefly a complicated account in simple terms for readers who frankly, in my opinion (right or wrong) are not interested in the details about Pliny, Trajan, provincial disorder, and fire brigaids when the question is whether Pliny knows about Jesus or not.
This relates to a bigger problem. Carrier seems to expect Did Jesus Exist to be a work of scholarship written for scholars in the academy and with extensive engagement with scholarship, rather than what it is, a popular book written for a broad audience. There is a big difference. I write both kinds of books. My scholarly books would never be mistaken for books that would be read by a wide, general public. But Carrier indicates that the inadequacy of Did Jesus Exist can be seen by comparing it to two of his own recent books, which, he tells us, pay more attention to detail, embrace a more diverse range of scholarship, and have many more footnotes.
I did not write this book for scholars. I wrote if for lay people who are interested in a broad, interesting, and very important question. Did Jesus really exist? I was not arguing the case for scholars, because scholars already know the answer to that question. I was explaining to the non-scholar why scholars think what they do. A non-scholarly book tries to explain things in simple terms, and to do so without the clutter of detail that you would find in a work of scholarship. The book should not be faulted for that. If I had wanted to convince scholars (I’m not sure whom I would then be writing for, in that case) I would have written a different kind of book
Conclusion
I have not dealt with all the myriad of things that Carrier has to say - most of them unpleasant - about my book. But I have tried to say enough, at least, to counter his charges that I am an incompetent pseudo-scholar. I try to approach my work with honesty and scholarly integrity, and would like to be accorded treatment earned by someone who has devoted his entire life to advancing scholarship and to making scholarship more widely available to the reading public.
I am absolutely positive that Carrier and his supporters will write response after response to my comments here, digging deeper and deeper to show that I am incompetent. They will expect replies, so that then they can write yet more comments, to which they will expect more replies, so that they can write more comments. I am finding, now that I am becoming active on the Internet, that engaging in discussion here can mean entering into a black hole: there is no way out once you hit the event horizon. Many critics of my work have boundless energy and, seemingly, endless time. I myself have lots of energy, but not lots of time. I have had my say now, in an attempt to show my scholarly competence. I do not plan on pursuing the matter time and time again in this medium. My main energies - and my limited time - need to be devoted to the two ultimate goals of my career: to advance scholarship among scholars and to explain scholarship to popular audiences. That requires me to write books, and that takes massive amounts of time. That is where I will be putting the bulk of my energies, not to writing lengthy responses defending myself against unfounded charges of incompetence.
I close by quoting a passage that Carrier himself wrote in one of his earlier books, as provided to me by a sympathetic reader. In the Introduction of his book Sense and Goodness Without God (pp. 5-6), Carrier makes the following plea:
“For all readers, I ask that my work be approached with the same intellectual charity you would expect from anyone else…. [O]rdinary language is necessarily ambiguous and open to many different interpretations. If what I say anywhere in this book appears to contradict, directly or indirectly, something else I say here, the principle of interpretive charity should be applied: assume you are misreading the meaning of what I said in each or either case. Whatever interpretation would eliminate the contradiction and produce agreement is probably correct. So you are encouraged in every problem that may trouble you to find that interpretation. If all attempts at this fail, and you cannot but see a contradiction remaining, you should write to me about this at once, for the manner of my expression may need expansion or correction in a future edition to remove the difficulty, or I might really have goofed up and need to correct a mistake.”
I like very much the idea of “intellectual charity,” and I think that it is a good idea to contact an author about problems that might be detected in her or his writing. I wish Carrier had followed his own advice and contacted me, in fact, rather than publish such a negative and uncharitable review. But I do hope, at least, that fair minded readers will see be open to the arguments that I make and the evidence that I adduce in Did Jesus Exist, and realize that they are the views, in popular form, of serious scholarship. They are not only serious scholarly views, they are the views held by virtually every serious scholar in the field of early Christian studies.
_The reality, however, is that every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist_ ).
This is the most unappealing argument imaginable; transplant the same idea backwards in time 150 years (which only takes us to the middle of the 19th century - well after the Enlightenment), and you could say *exactly* the same thing about the then-prevailing view among 'scholars' about their position on Moses, Captivity in Egypt, the Exodus, Joshua, David, Saul, Solomon, the Virgin Birth, etc etc... the 'consensus' among scholars was that *none of it was myth; all of it was true* ; we are now absolutely certain that it was pretty much all hogwash. (Hint: most 'scholars' were also *believers* and approached their task accordingly)
Go back another 100 years from that, and you're still (roughly) working during the Enlightenment... and the consensus view of "scholars" would have sworn on their lives that the Bible was true from soup to nuts (i.e., from Genesis to Revelation).
And a hundred years before *that* any claim that any of it was false (or forged, or mis-translated) would get you killed outright.
Ehrman seems to operate from the presumption that the work of the 'profession' is not overwhelmingly the product of apologists - working with source material that was almost completely controlled by ideologues for fifteen centuries.
As I say to all non-mythicists: get back to us in another 30 years. After all, the mythic nature of Moses *became accepted by 'scholars' during my adult life* (i.e., after the 1970s): I would date it to about the mid-1990s, in fact.
I am unable to understand Dr R Carrier a word of his lecture.
Time to change the batteries in your hearing aids.
Is English your second language?
"The fact is that the early opponents of the christian faith ( primarily the Jews ) never challenged the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This is a huge point that is overlooked most of the time. If Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist the early opponents would have raised this issue. It is absent from them."
History is written by the victors! ;)
If Mohammed didnt fly to heaven on a winged unicorn... some people would have challenged this claim. ;)
Very nice point that If Mohammed did not fly on a winged horse then these claims would have been challenged. As well as if Mr Smith, the founder of the Mormons, would not have really had an angel and golden plates then people would stop beliefing in him. This is an endless story of people who belief and do not care for the evidence.
The fact is, no one gave a shit. Christians were a tiny sect of no great importance until the Romans latched onto it for political reasons.
Peter Krueger you do realize that for more than one thousand years christians enjoyed the supreme power & authority to completely destroy any evidence they wanted.
1. Jews today object to H(his) existence/divinity. When did that start?
2. How can you possibly know early Jews never challenged Jesus? What if more documents are discovered? What if the early Church destroyed all the recorWhat if the evidence is lying in a museum and just hasn't been translated? Etc Etc
Jeff Clemens according to the g Mark high ranking Jews (pharisees) popped out of cornfields to confront Jesus. They were Temple based in Jerusalem and had no presence in Galilee in the 30's, it's an anachronistic fiction on Mark's part because by 75 when he was writing they were on Galilee. How early was it realistically possible for a literate Jew to challenge Jesus's existence and leave evidence of that belief?
did alexander the great exist?
Funny that other people wrote about him at the time
+nosuchthing8 funny you would say that, because what we know about him was written by plutarch and arrian who lived 400 years after him. i wouldn't exactly call that 'at that time'.
+rocco flavioni Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman
Probably, but who cares? Nobody tells children that they have to believe that Alexander the Great died for their sins and unless they obey the precepts of a religion, they will be in infinite agony for an infinite amount of time.
Also, myths surrounding Alexander the Great don't result in men wearing black dresses and *raping children* as an institutionally-protected practice.
Just sayin'.
Using the historic method the probability is high that he existed.
Brilliant!
24:52 Richard starts here.
24: it's not a namesake blog it's an eponymous blog.
Alternative group name suggestion: San Josathests. Could that work?
San Josatheists is brilliant!
Private stories?
I am not convinced you can dismiss Tacitus so lightly - but I'm ok with allowing the scholarly process to take its course and hammer it out over the years to come. That is, if it recieves the attention Carrier is anticipating - I'm not convinced on that either
“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:”-Colossians 3:3. I find it hard to believe that the mystery of Christ during the 50s became known as fact after the 70s, when Jesus Christ was supposed to have taught, and been crucified during the 30s.
Now I want some cake...do we find out what kind it is?
Hi I'm Adam John from Tanzania. I would like to open a center for the atheists cause I belong to so would you support me with building a center for I will provide a land
Carriers' Roswell analogy isn't a good analogy. Because the official news report of the Roswell crash WAS that a flying saucer crashed in the desert. The news story was subsequently changed to that of a weather balloon or whatever it was. I have no idea what happened at Roswell, I'm just stating that it's a bad analogy in this case.
cyber6sapien Not really. There was nothing about the "official news report", by which I take it you mean the army's press release, that suggested it was a flying saucer in any sense that might imply aliens or a manned space craft. The expression used was "flying disc". It's true that it was determined to be part of a weather balloon(And possibly having military sensors in it as well) later, but that's hardly changing the story as the original story was about the object being taken for further analysis.
So the analogy is pretty good. The story blew up for absolutely no reason by crazy people making shit up.
At the very end, he shows two or more slides giving the reasons historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus believe as they do, but the good people of the San Jose Atheist Confab will not present these in this video. Que va?
He showed those slides earlier in the talk.
I'm still confused. From my understanding there was a rather powerful movement of some kind before Nero that had congregations from Judea to Rome. There is also a Jewish tradition that claims that someone like Jesus existed around 100 B.C. Murdock shows evidence that connects General Titus with the Jesus story. This could have been added later. My biggest problem with all of this is who was Paul and what were these early congregations believing before Nero. Why was Paul so concerned with changing their belief system if he was changing it at all? Were these congregations believing in a Greco-Egyptian fertility religion that was given a monotheistic tone as it went through the wash in monotheistic Israel? I am wondering if Paul and Josephus are in a way the same person.
***** And I just entered the building.
***** Jesus and Elvis were kings of nothing. The kings of rock and roll were black dudes in the 50's that got no credit.
***** Oh ya! Some brits like Queen had unique sounds. But the black dudes like T Bone and Muddy Waters were the fathers of rythym and blues
Murdock is your first mistake.
@@atheistclown398 didn’t Elvis himself say that he isn’t greatest but some black blind musician (can’t remember his name) and only his looks were reason for him being more popular one?
"DAMN HIM", lyrics by Caiaphas the High Priest, and sung by a small band of Levites before Pontius Pilate.
Adapted as the theme song to the Decker Hot Dogs t.v. commercial 1960's or 1970's era, sung by Roger Miller, lyrics
adaption by Johnny Rivers.
Damn Him. Damn Him. [Dang me. Dang me.]
You oughta take a cross and hang Him. [They oughta take a rope and hang me.]
Hang Him from the highest treeee!! [Hang me from the highest treeee!]
Ben-Deker ain't Messiah to me. [Decker is the DOG for me.]
Do do do do do - de do de - doe doe doe.
[One more time!]
Do do do do do - de do de - doe doe doe.
Maybe it is just a small semantic difference to say the gospels are total fiction or are fictions based on a historical person. Even today, novel writers do often base their fictional characters on a real person or combinations of real persons. Religions are also founded by a real person or can have multiple founders/origins over time as the religion evolves. A modern example is the Bahai faith which has multiple founders as it evolved and even has a founder similar to John the Baptist. Christianity seems to have multiple founders/origins and it can be hard to arrange the multiple founders/origins in the right order since most of the evidence has been destroyed by the winning christian sect. The ideas of savior son of gods and jew messiahs obviously predate the christian founders.
Good points! We see most often that people get mystified and one sees it in the progress of the stories that they get more and more fantastic. Stories who are left out of the new testament speak of a cross which walks out of the grave with Jesus and even speaks.
I think the character of Jesus in g.Mark is partly based on Paul with Odysseus in the mix and a little bit of Jesus ben Annaias from Jsephus.
Well... Humans have evolved to be smarter,- yet it's hard to tell for sure.
104:50
It seems to me that Carrier is absolutely ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the Roswell incident and the Ufology subject as a whole. I'd love to see Carrier and Stanton T. Friedman debate it out on this subject...
I think he's pretty accurate about Roswell according to available data.
Franky Jones
lol
***** It was not a facist, it was the illuminati Alien Lizardmen...
+Linux4UnMe Nice, That sums it up perfectly.
What is on his shirt?
A microphone.
It seems to me entirely likely, because of the prevalence of supernatural resurrection saviour gods, that all that supernatural stuff surrounding Jesus is part of a myth, and this point of view seems largely supported by the writings of Paul etc, at least it looks that way to me. However, from the later attempts to attribute all that supernatural stuff to an *actual* living being, it might seem reasonably plausible that this was to somehow differentiate between all the other gods, romulus, osiris etc, and so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there was actually a real preacher around at the time, and that he has been co-opted by the early christian church and bestowed with all the supernatural features.
This would not be unlike what has happened since, regarding co-opting of religious festivals etc. If there had been someone around who was teaching some stuff, and had a reasonable following, and I guess it is safe to assume th there were many such persons, perhaps after Paul, what little remained of the oral tradition around them might well have got mixed up with the supernatural stuff, and subsume it into the supernatural doctrine, which seems plausible if the early christians wanted to say "look ours is the one true faith, because our saviour actually existed, *and* he died and was resurrected etc" and since people were so credulous in those days, it became accepted. Of course, the fact that people still swallow this stuff even today, shows that this is actually not in any way an unlikely occurence.
So there *might* have been a real "Jesus", but he wasn't supernatural like the "original" mythic Jesus, but then they got mixed up, and people forgot about the "normal guy Jesus".
In fact in many ways, not unlike Santa Claus - There was a real St Nicholas, but now much of the details around him have been forgotten and are unknown to most people, and somehow there has emerged some new, mythical guy from the St Nicholas legend, who goes round leaving gifts for children. Although of course no one *really* believes in Santa Claus.
Monsieur carrier, vous devriez donner une conférence à la communauté humaniste du Québec. Avec un nom comme le vôtre, vous ne me ferrez pas croire que vous ne parlez pas français. Ça manque de rigueur scientifique et surtout de jeunes dans cet établissement. Vous y feriez beaucoup de bien!
I wonder if the old man with the white beard keeps going back for cake 🍰?
Isn't he incorrectly using the Euhemerist idea. Euhemerism says mortals become mythologized Not the other way around as presented by Carrier. I have never heard it used in the way Carrier used it.
interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary backs Dr Carrier.
Skeet shooting kittens ? sounds like the name of an 80's punk band ! pull
But what if he actually existed? Not as a demi god of course, but as a human who tried and failed. I don't believe in gods or demons but, the existence of Jesus wouldn't actually affect the perception of reality. Much like the existence of Gilgamesh as a sumerian king or Hercules as a greek hero.
Hitchens rocks, but he made a flaw in one of his videos. He made the case that when women were supposed to have seen Jesus resurrect, that had to be based on something real because the society did not trust women.The mistake is that he completely ignored the existing culture. There WERE women that claimed to be around when ANOTHER deity was being resurrected - Dionysus, the wine god. He was mainly the god of women anyway.So the point is that whoever concocted the tale of Jesus did so to recycle what people already expected, women seeing deities come back from the dead. Throwing that in made it easier for the people of the day to believe.
so his comments about space crucifixion from philo etc were bizarre...and i checked the sources and i don't see anything like what he says is there. Thats very confusing. Overall there were good points...but it bothers me that his sources dont seem to check out.
@Stacy Caruso 'cite'. 'Cite' his sources. And he does. How typical...a lying christian.
Coast Guard veteran. Thank you for your serviice Dickhesd.
The strongest argument for the historicity of Jesus is that two of the gospels are independent sources, and this guy wants me to buy his book to see the refutation. I understand that he has to make a living, but it is still disappointing (especially since it would be difficult to buy this book in my country). Does anyone have a link to the papers, where he makes the original arguments? Thanks!
It is certainly not a strong argument: (from Wikipedia) The teachings of Jesus in John are distinct from those found in the synoptic gospels. Thus, since the 19th century many Jesus scholars have argued that only one of the two traditions could be authentic. J. D. G. Dunn comments on historical Jesus scholarship, "Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus' life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics." E. P. Sanders concludes that the Gospel of John contains an "advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them." Sanders points out that the author would regard the gospel as theologically true as revealed spiritually even if its content is not historically accurate and argues that even historically plausible elements in John can hardly be taken as historical evidence, as they may well represent the author's intuition rather than historical recollection. The scholars of the Jesus Seminar identify the historical inferiority of John as foundational to their work. Geza Vermes discounts all the teaching in John when reconstructing his view of "the authentic gospel of Jesus."
When two people write a story about alien landings this proofs that it really happened? When two people write about Elvis being alive after his death then this is true?
We have unnamed stories of which we do not know when they were written nor on what bases. When dead people are walking through the streets of Jerusalem and nobody notices then this casts doubt on a story.
+TorianTammas By his criteria, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are more real than the Jesus character.
If two people from the same city/region of the world write the same story and that makes it "strong proof" then the fact that dozens of individuals in dozens of different cultures all around the world have all written about Santa/Saint Nick and a magic rabbit, surely that must be even stronger proof.
ExperienceCounts2 I agree Santa, the Easter Bunny and even the living Elvis are more plausible and real when you have first hand accounts of people which are quite similiar. If one assumes something like this could be evidence as some people do with worse stories in the NT
TorianTammas Actually both the Easter Bunny and Santa are more likely even if there were only a single story about them.
We've all seen fat men, we know they exist (looking in mirror) We've all seen rabbits. We've all seen nicely wrapped gifts and brightly colored eggs.
The only thing extraordinary about the Easter Bunny and Santa are their abilities and lifespans.
Claims about gods though, they're completely, absolutely unprecedented. No one has ever seen a god. No one has ever presented testable evidence that the supernatural world is real. No one has ever even explained how to differentiate between any two supernatural creatures.
Are unicorns taller than gods? Do elves weigh more than gods? Are the gods more powerful than a dragon? Was it the god of Abraham that unleashed that lighting bolt, or was it Thor?
We have no real world precedent for any aspect of the supernatural world or the creatures that supposedly populate it.
ace
Fifty years ago I found myself in a crowd of thousands of people. We gathered to watch a powerful necromancer sorcerer raise a dead person back to life, and walk on water! And now that it's been fifty years, we are finally allowed to write about it!
At around 30:40 Carrier says there are three horses in the race: christian historicity; secular historicity; and secular non-historicity. What about fantasy a la Harry Potter (which is excluded from all 3 definitions)? Human habitually create and are notoriously susceptible to fantasies. And there are innumerable reasons for creating fictions like these.
Possible. But no evidence for pure fantasy. To show this you'd have to show that Paul (or whoever) was actually likelt to have been making it up -- like in writer's room notes or something. But that evidence doesn't exist _in this case_ . We can't read their minds.
But secular non-historicity has way more evidence that exists in the background of the time _and_ the actual letters of Paul. So it's a better argument, because we can connect the dots on _actual_ historical evidence.
@@schen7913 You are living in a fantasy world if you think your unspecified "evidence" in the background can lead to firm foundations for drawing conclusions. None of your unspecified 'evidence' or theories can be reliably tested. We cannot even cross examine Paul or any of the anonymous authors of anything you are calling evidence. You are left with mere hearsay from which scholars are divining theories which are no more than speculation. They earn incomes from this wild overreaching stated as if fact, so good luck to them I guess.
i read the daniel 9 and discovered that it makes reference of an anointed one coming from outside of judaism, now when it is talking about darius the mede being the ruler of the 7 7, the strange thing is in aramaic , darius the mede is translated to dryhwš - if you look at the last for letters you get yhwš - another name for jesus.
Have your business meeting on Ehrmans nite, the dik.
Carrier is actually making a negligible mistake in regards to Cosmopolitanism.
Individualism is about choice. Here we see the piety, the humility, faith, faith healing, and specifically the choice to join and to be inducted into the religion (Pakkanen pp. 112-121).
I have to make the following observation about Dr. Carrier: For someone who has a history of attacking other scholars' work as being sloppy or shoddy, he shouldn't be making errors like this in regards to the way he interprets a simple english monograph.
yes ! Jesus existed. I do t care what this guy says ..read the Gospel and let the word speak to you. he is real !
Great idea! Ask the Holy Ghost to come into your life. Then wait and see what happens. If the HG appears, you will know it. It is God, himself. You won't have to ask your pastor about it, you WILL KNOW. It will be like lightning entering your body. You will be a changed person. To assume you would have to ask an authority if the HG was in you is blasphemy. The HG is powerful; you will know when it arrives.
If it doesn't arrive, then it doesn't. No need to lie to yourself. Be honest. If it's there, it's there. If it's not, it's not.
Great historical point, and I know Muslims will dismiss this, as it diminishes the structure of their foundational claims.
Because you have an Arab sounding name, you know what Muslims will or won't do? Grow up already.
if the gospel is not true why did they not 'clean' up obvious contradictions in the Gospel when they had a chance to do so? After all the Gospels were written [or codified] in the 5 th or 6 th century when the Church was all powerful. Powerful enough to choose any gospel it wanted????
This is a field day for all kids whose homework is eaten by a dog. So bad liars makes a story plausible? By the way which of the versions is the proper version? Not to mention that we do not even have the claim that Jesus ordered the stories to be written or collected or anything. This is unauthorized fan fiction without any authority whatsoever.
+robkim55 : Are you joking? It's so implausible it must be true?
In regards to Dr. Richard Carrier's thesis, as I understand it, that Jesus didn't exist as a human man could he explain this Roman source? The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. It is located in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the following link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
Here's a further reference by a Roman source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians
Shiva!
The Talmud Jesus of 175 BC is the main plausible Teacher, whose Gnostic tenets employed Iconography in mystery, to separate material treasures from Spiritual. "Where He dwells" has been the 2000 yr old question, The old teacher died, but his "spiritual body', now the only memento of one who went to the Spirit world, is Talking From HEAVEN! But Still With us unto the end of the age! Through Paul's insistence of "him crucified", and all being dead in Christ, the necessity for Gabriel's immediate address to Mary, {Fear not} , because it was a crucifix, and a sacrilege from its inception. Children do not even question its infamy any more, which shows the god of this world's spell of deep sleep.
I am a life-long non-believer of fairy tales but that will not persuade me to part with money to hear testimonials.
I might as well send a check some mega church.
Don't children who are abused tend towards having an imaginary friend? Just saying.
don't all children have imaginary friends???
James Gratton Actually no. More than half of all children seem to, but you can basically have a child of any background or set of traits that hasn't had one.
***** I think you may be proving Ross's point.
Matthew 18:1-4
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
In my experience, many so-called Christians accepted the religion during a low point in their lives, and used it like a crutch to help them get beyond it. Unfortunately, for these people, the mere thought that Jesus might just be mythology -- priestcraft -- gives them angst. They immediately remember the low point they were in prior to the religion, and are afraid they will return to that state if they change anything about their crutch.
What about Muhammad writing about meeting Jesus?
Fiction.
david vitrogen
So Quran is based on Bible? I also later realised that Quran was written around 600:)
+lonapolonapolo A quick check on Wikipedia shows that Muhammad was born around 500 years after Jesus died. Never met him. If I was the only source on Christopher Columbus, how convinced would you be?
nosuchthing8
Yes after familiarizing myself a bit more with mythicist theories, it's a lot clearer to me what counts as a reliable source in these affairs. It's amazing how self evident the existence of Jesus is to most of people, even atheists.
Actually, the Catholics stole the winter solstice from the Druids and the harvest festival from the Norse people. Just saying.
Norse came years later, more like protogermanic. Hail Wodanaz lol
God Bless you , atheists of San Jose.
Ameen.
For metaphysical reasons, Jesus furthered the Adam of ground=curse to its end, "Fruit of the ground" so, Yes, Jesus existed in wood---- many crucifixes have come, saying I am He, yet His visitation is disrespected. Paul's "doing what he hates" was to allow idolatry its way, as involved in the duty to save life. The example of pulling out a sheep from a pit overrides the letter of the Torah Law. Paul formerly attacked idolaters and Anthropomorphic Deification, but saw how prolific Paganism was, but knew Gnosis could be the bit to steer the Theistic Beast of Christianity. When you listen to the Gnostic books, you increasingly hear how Paul's words are Gnostic objectives rendered into theological pablum for Christian infants. Now that human intellect is throwing out the absurd, the whole system is closer to a state of transforming redemption. Christianity has stood for 2000 years as a Quandary between a Spiritual Docetism or a historical, miraculous human. Ultimately, offenses had to come--- and this is the Father's Business, to transform, in last minute Eschatology, Vanity unto Profit.---- from false beliefs unto experiential Gnosis. The whole Bible is Gnostic--- consider the Proverbs---- Solomon doesn't have to call her Sophia-- wisdom is WISDOM!
Wasn't the Greek word for wisdom sophia?
Carrier is wrong about the Adam being buried in paradise, because he has misread the text (See Johnson). He also fails to see the words in the redacted Asc. Is. he mentions "And the Son of Man dwelled among men and they did not recognize him." (L2).
Richard Dawkins does not believe in magic Jesus. Christopher Hitchens conceded their may have been a present day type Jesus preacher back then.
+frank featherstone Is there is difference? If there was an ancient strongman in Greece, or some dude cultivated wine, does that mean Hercules and Dionysus were real along with the rest of the Greek mythology?
nosuchthing8 Of course not. There is a difference between a magic supernatural Jesus and a present day Billy Graham type Jesus preacher neither of which I believe existed.
Daniel was a forgery!!!???
so, if i understand correctly one of his points is because christianity verbatim copied or included aspects of earlier religions and the story of their saviors', who were fictitious characters, thus jesus is a fictitious character?
It is "one" of his points he uses to promote that it is "likely" that the biblical Jesus is a fictitious character, I don't think however he makes any assertions of absolute certainty. The similarities however to the Jesus story by other myths that predate the bible does add another layer of reason to be skeptical, granted it does not prove or confirm anything.
rocco flavioni It's one of his points but not his only one. Even if it were, the fact that writers of the bible had to borrow from other sources should be a huge red flag that it's all made up.... why would you borrow from other sources if you already have the truth?
That’s a very poorly constructed strawman of his position but you’re kind of close to getting it
Jesus is translated from the Greek Iosus and would have been Yehoshua/Yeshua in Hebrew. These are the names for old testament hero Joshua. Any chance the pre christian Jesus cult RC refers to would have been some kind of Joshua worship?
You are the closet I have heard to getting to the truth of all of this. If you go further with that and understand how Moses was created from the life annals of Akhenaton and the relationship of Joshua to Moses like that of Akhenaton to Tutankhamen then all of this takes on a more concrete and deeper meaning. tinyurl.com/Book1Initiation goes even further with this information!
bob lackey I agree with you regarding Paul and James. This is, for me, the strongest evidence for Jesus's existence. At the same time I am not sure that there are not two different traditions here. From the little that I know, I can't see any way that christians can claim any textual reliability considering all the changes that we _do_ know about. We see today how mormons and scientologists lie and cover things up. It sure seems like the first few centuries of christianity are the same.
bob lackey
the brother comment has been brought up frequently as a rebuttal. the brother is not a material brother, but in name only. as in the first apocalypse of james where the jesus character states, "for not without reason have i called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially."
bob lackey good point... although considering the sheer volume of fiction in the new testament, and considering the long time after the death of the supposed character, and that the main origin of paul's only supposed contact is a alien abduction-like hallucination in galatians 1:11-12, i would doubt their ability to tell an accurate truth
bob lackey I knew that the catholics did not consider James a full biological brother, but I had never thought about it in relation to what Dr. Carrier is arguing. It actually gives it a little more credence.
We don't need to imagine Peter and James having visions though. My understanding of the theory is that Jesus was a celestial deity. We would not have to imagine followers of Zeus actually having visions of him. Plenty of people worship Jesus today and make no claims of _seeing_ or _hearing_ him.
So Jesus began as a pagan God huh
Some of these debates and lectures are interesting and the realists by no means win the day (because faith needs no proof of origin, like many things in life like artistic inspiration for example), but most are simply part of yet another cottage industry, the New Atheist publishing and lecturing circuit. Though many would call that a chapel rather than cottage industry. New Atheism proceeds from/with the same untolerant religious fervor as faith credos, wishing to destroy with sarcasm and mockery at worse (it was worse under Stalin and Mao), and plain dismissal at best.
Faith needs no proof indeed. That is a flaw, not a feature.
Faith stands alone, you can take it or leave it, it is not flawed, it is not a feature. It is a belief in a theory that will be made evident. You can choose it now or it will bring you to your knees, it's your choice. I don't stand on a soap box and I don't preach, but I will not stand idly by while utter ignorance is flapping out of the minds of exceptional people. You people have so much to offer, but you let your pride and complacency in speculative ideas overtake the better part of your reasoning. Give in or it will break you, I know, because I've been broken as have many others. Love seeks you, open your heart to It, It wants to turn you into a real man, not some purposeless or senseless worm inching it's way for another piece of dirt. Reply if you will, but I will not see it, nor will it matter to me if you aren't looking for something more from your life than attempt to prove that faith is nothing more than a definition in ANY book. Your reply to the Creator WILL be required on why you let the talents you were born with go to waste. I say no more and my thoughts are of you and for you. Peace!
swayursoul
Utter rot. Believing in BS is far from a virtue.
microwaveparty Incorrect. First, what is faith? Second, if faith is something that God gives to a person (not all) as the NT teaches, then it is a feature.
Dion Sanchez And what about the OT, you must have missed that part in the lecture above.
100k yrs from now and long after humans are gone, aliens will come to earth and find 1 comic book of bat man and superman, they mite think that they were our god.
I love it how Carrier just continually dismisses any and all theories but his just because he believe some are conspiracy theories. Like the idea that the attribute's of Jesus come from mythological deities such as Horus and Mithra... not only that I find that when he responds to other mythicists like Murdock one time only, he translated the wrong page and when Murdock decided to point this out, do we get any kind of response to him? No, nothing. He doesn't even have the balls to debate that one point or even answer the question of whether or not he did translate the wrong page? If Murdock is lying or making things like he always claims, why don't you show it in that one instance instead of making verbose claims? I like Richard Carrier a lot, he does some serious scholarship in the field even though I disagree and do believe Jesus is an historical character, but his dismissal of others and his pretentious claim that all other mythicists that disagree are wrong... is surely a problem that convince anyone when he won't say why.
DM Murdock sucks Donkey ****.
rob whee Huh? Where exactly did that come from?
Why do they have to wear those stupid hats indoors?
Will I go to hell for watching this video ?
No.
God bless you
Jesus of Nazareth is the branch called Paganism--- a very fruitful bough.
If Jesus did not exist why is this happening? Revelation 15:1.I saw in heaven another sign, great and wonderful, seven angels with seven plagues. These are the last ones, because by means of them the anger of God is brought to a finish.Revelation 16:8, 9The fourth one poured out his bowl on the sun, and to the sun it was granted to scorch the people with fire. 9 And the people were scorched by the great heat, but they blasphemed the name of God, who has the authority over these plagues, and they did not repent and give glory to him.
seek medical help
all flat earthers do not support these ball earthers
Jesus exists, He is the beginning of the end. So the end of days (The Last Days) started when Christ became flesh.
Please promise to read all.
Jesus is our Living Passover, so let us thank Him for His sacrifice.
Yeshua Ha Massiach
Acts Chapter 4 verse 12: " There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."
Who is Christ? Who is Jesus?
Born of a virgin, Mary.
Mathew Chapter 1 verse 20: " behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him (Joseph), in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that (Christ)which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus, the Christ, is God's word made flesh. Jesus is Jehovah God's (The Creator's) Word made into flesh.
1 John chapter 5 verse 7: " For there are three that bear a record in heaven, The Father, The Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one."
John chapter 1 verse 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John chapter 1 verse 14: " And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
John chapter 1 verse 10: " He was in the world, and the world knew Him not."
Hebrews chapter 4 verse 12: " For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
How beautiful and awesome is God's Word, who is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, magnificent in all His glory, is He.Amen!
John's Vision Of Christ Seated On His Throne In Heaven:
Revelation chapter 4 verse 2 to 3: " Immediately, I (John), was in the Spirit, and behold a throne sat in Heaven, and One sat on the throne. And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance, and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald."
Why did Christ Jesus came and sacrificed His precious life for sinners like us?
Christ (God's Word made into flesh), came because through flesh (Adam's flesh) sin entered the world, and then because of sin death entered the whole earth. Through flesh(Jesus Christ's flesh), the earth will be saved, sin is destroyed, and the curse of death shall be broken, death and the grave shall be cast into hell.
Christ, who is God's Word made into flesh, sacrificed His life for us. He was crucified for our sins and transgressions.
Christ died, and on the third day He resurrected in the flesh, conquering death and the grave. Now, Christ is seated in Heaven, at the right hand of Power(God). Through Christ's sacrifice we gain Salvation through God's abundant mercy and grace. We are reconciled and recompensed back to God, through the shed blood of His beloved Son Christ Jesus.
John chapter 3 verse 16: " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
Romans chapter 5 verse 8: " But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Christ came to undo the sin and eternal death brought upon the world through the sin of Adam.
Death in Adam, Life In Christ:
Romans chapter 5 verse 19: " For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous."
Romans chapter 5 verse 18: " Therefore, as through one man's (Adam's) offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even through one Man's (Christ's) righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in the justification of life."
Romans chapter 5 verse 17: " For if by the one man's offense(Adam's offense), death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in the life through the One(Jesus Christ).
Romans chapter 5 verse 12: " Therefore, just as through one man (Adam)sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."
Romans chapter 5 verse 21: " "So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Do you now see that through Adam, sin and death entered the world, so that is why Christ Jesus came to give life, and give it abundantly? Yes Christ came to give eternal life through Salvation.
Adam's flesh brought sin, death, destruction, and condemnation.
Christ's sacrifice, the crucifixtion of His flesh, brings reconciliation of sins, life, resurrection, eternal life, salvation
Christ is coming back again, not as a sacrificial lamb. He is coming back as a roaring, waring lion, to destroy sin, death, and the grave once and for all. Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Hallelujah!
Revelation chapter 22 verse 12 to 13: " And behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. "
Now do you see friends, Why Christ Jesus is so so Important for our Salvation? Yes.
Now, do you understand why there is only one way to God, and that is only through Christ Jesus,only? Yes.
Christ is Salvation. Christ is our Lord and Saviour. Christ is the only way to God. Christ is the only Mediator between God and men(us humans).
God loves us so much, He does not want anyone to perish in hell. God wants all sinners to be saved. That is why He sent His Word to save the world. God's Word became flesh, and dwelt among us to save us.
Will you accept Christ and be saved?
Romans chapter 6 verse 23: " For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
John Chapter 3 verse 16: " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
Salvation is free!
Salvation is free!
Christ already paid the price, all you have to do is recieve salvation through acceptance of Jesus Christ, Yeshua Ha Massiach.
So who is Christ?
He is The Word Of God. He is the Son of God. He is God. He is the image of the unseen God. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the beginning and the end. He is the Great I Am. He is Emmanuel. He is The Christ. He is The Messiah. He is The Creator. He is our Lord and Saviour. He is our Mediator. He is the Lion and the Lamb. He is Salvation. He is the way, the truth, and life.
Amen!
I love you Lord!
John chapter 14 verse 6: " Jesus said to him," I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Colassians chapter 1 verse 15 to 16:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
John chapter 1 verse 1 to 4:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."
I hope that you know Christ, and understand Christ better now,to the glory of God.
Amen!
Christ is for all who will receive Him.
Please pray this prayer with me. ***Lord Jesus, please come in to my heart. I accept You as my Lord and Savior, You are the Son Of God, You are the Word Of God, You are God. You are the Great I Am, the One Who Was, Who Is and Who Is To Come. I believe that You sacrificed your life for me and died, and on the third day You awoke and raised up your body in the flesh. I believe You are coming back again in the flesh (In your resurrected body). I believe Salvation is only through You. No one comes to God (Jehovah) The Father, but through You. Forgive me Lord of my sins. I renounce all of my sins past and present this day. I will sin no more with your help dear Lord. I want to be close to you Lord, now and forevermore. Keep me in Your bosom. Heal me oh Lord, and please help me, be near me and never let me go. Write my name in Your Book of Life. Please prepare a place for me, in Your Father's House. Hear my prayer dear Lord. In Jesus mighty name, I pray. Amen ****
May the Lord continue to be with you and strengthen you through any difficult journeys ahead.
This is how our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said we should pray.Matthew chapter 6 verse 9 to 13:
"Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."
Now that you understand who Christ is, share Christ with others.
Amen!
"God's kingdom will come on earth, as it is in heaven," but after the coming antichrist's kingdom. Christ is the end of the antichrist/antichrist's kingdom.
1 Corinthians 15: 51, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed."
The longer the sales pitch, the worse the product.
Load of shits!
Hary potter is the real saviour which we have much more evidences of his existence than jesus.but dumb people will chose a fiction invented jesus!
"Thou shalt worship the Lord Thy God and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt 4:10)
Fuck you, Jesus! LOL!
How accurate is a quote from a man who alleged died fifty or sixty years before anyone decided to write it down?
behold, we found a historian with a time machine
Behold we have a Christ psychotic.
Let's think critically and go with the odds. Best I understand the process, there's about 19 steps, in order, to change Lanosterol to cholesterol. Cholesterol, of course, is used all over the body. That comes out to 121 645 100 408 832 000 or so. 121 and a wad of zeros after it. There's that many ways this could go wrong and be out of order. Factorializing 19. It struck me one day that that number to 1 could be, yes, perhaps in some ways, the odds that there must be God. Sounds a bit humorous, but it does give someone reason to stop. At least if you don't believe by faith alone. Not to mention that process has to be encoded in your DNA to even make it happen at all. Let's pretend that's a proof of God. Now. What were you saying?
Let's think critically and go with the odds. We know that liars exist and are common. But we have ZERO evidence for a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies. Therefore, the most likely explanation for such stories is that liars wrote lies. We also have no evidence for disembodied spirits, gods, or supernatural entities. Therefore, the most likely explanation for stories of such entities is that liars told lies. If you have evidence for the magic man in the sky, feel free to present it. Otherwise, your ignorance does not equal 'god'.
The best you understand it is not very good
You can believe in god and intelligent design, and still accept the fact Jeebus was completely fictional.
Get on with the talk and stop wasting time ffs!!!
If you came here for the title, fast-forward to the minute 25. Before that is a liberal anger toward Christians. It makes me wary of Dr. Richard Carrier. See if there is a lib bias in his research.
Jesus mysticism and flat Earth theories are on the same level, even though the latter one sounds more plausible.
sez the idiot
To a believer in God it's truly amazing how incoherent atheist truly are when elaborating on what they think they know.
HAHAHAHAHA NOW THAT I HAVE SHOWN THAT CARRIER'S THESIS HAS HUGE HOLES IN IT , HIS SUPPORTERS ARE HIDING AND ASKING NO ONE ENGAGES WITH ME! THIS IS HOW THEY HIDE FROM REALITY AND JUST MAKE THE SAME KIND OF SILLY CLAIMS CARRIER DOES.
Turn off. Your fucking. Caps lock. I have seen you on several atheist and Jesus myth videos spamming stupid ass shit in the style and language of a 12-year-old in all caps. If you conveyed your ideas in a more eloquent way, instead of in the textual equivalent of an insane, screaming street preacher, other people would be more likely to take you seriously and have an actual discussion with you.
Mel Fix
I AM GOING BLIND. EVEN WHEN I WASN'T AND WAS A TEACHER I ALWAYS WROTE IN CAPS.
SORRY TO HAVE OFFENDED YOU.
Mel Fix
TURN OFF YOUR ABUSE
Mel Fix He got a promotion?
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! insane ramblings of a brainwashed sheep
Thinking About Eternal Possibility even about GOD the CREATOR WHO can Give Eternal Life is Far Better than Thinking that Death is the End of Life and then None Existence.for There is Nothing Wrong to Hope About Eternal LIFE than to Believe about none Existence in Times of Death.
By this you know the Spirit of God;every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God;and this is the spirit of antichrist of which you have heard is coming into the world and now it is already in the world.
What a convenient cop out, people spend years doing solid research and backing it up with scholastic evidence, only to have your kind call them the anti-Christ lmao. We know more about and have done more research into your religion and holy texts. Non biased scholars have proven time and time again that your religion is a farce, why bother trying to argue if you can't even make a valid refutation?
elsargente More than that, Carrier's work with Bayes' Theorem even demonstrates how *biased* scholars can quantify/summarize their assumptions and determine whether their conclusions are likely to be true.
It's not just that unbiased people are adding to our body of knowledge, it's making _every_ contribution valuable, even the biased. Even the claims or interpretations that are likely to be false can serve as examples of where/when/why the logic went wrong.
It's like the difference between going from room to room in a building using a flashlight and not knowing for sure if the thing you're looking for is not there or if you just haven't explored that corner thoroughly enough vs going through the building and turning on the lights in the room one at a time.
If you can see/quantify/track how much of the total area has been explored, then you can know what possibilities remain.
Religious people should embrace Carrier's techniques because in spite of the best efforts of the best and brightest Christian minds, no one has ever been able to provide slam-dunk evidence to support the gods or the existence of the Jesus character.
So either the best and brightest of Christian minds have been on the wrong path for 2,000 years, or else they have to admit there is no such thing as gods and the Jesus character is just legend.
Bayes' theorem can tell them which lines of thought the best and brightest of Christianity have missed these last 2,000 years. It illuminates the weaknesses and failures of the various arguments.
If Christians truly believe their gods and the Jesus character are real then they should be celebrating Carrier's work as a gift from the gods that will help them *finally* establish that the gods and his prophets and bastard child are real.
Dr. Carrier is a gift form the gods to the Christians, Muslims, and the Jews. They should be trying to saint or anoint him, not deny and deride him!