David Fitzgerald Skepticon 3 "Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Filmed and edited by Rob Lehr of Hambone Productions
Re-uploading any portion of this video is not allowed unless consent is given by Hambone Productions. If you would like to use some of my footage, please send me a PM and we can most likely work something out
Please visit Skepticon.org Purchasing calenders and making donations enable us to keep Skepticon 3 free to the public. If you liked the videos and/or the event, please consider donating or purchasing merchandise.
Good info David. You nailed it! Really wish christians would someday understand we are not demons attacking them. That they have been misled and we are just trying to save them from mythology gone wrong.
r wood Please delete the word saved ” from your vocabulary. Thank you.
JK 😂 you clown
"Nailed it."
Tres amusing. ;)
Fitzgerald - Carrier - Price - Humphreys are the Mount Rushmore of the field
Price is also a right wing conspiracy lover full of right wing hate and paranoia
Acharya s
Bart Aron Tabor Eileen, special mention for Hitchens
The expression 'this is the gospel truth' definitely needs to be updated
Just wish David could have visited our local churches during my early and formative years. I dare say at least I would have had a chance before my brain got washed by fundamentalists. Good lecture David.
While his style is more comedic to suite this venue he seems to really get the theist riled up in the comments. So I have to ask them, where are the contemporary accounts of Jebus? Shouldn't the most famous man ever have left some historical fingerprint?
But we have SOOO MUCH evidence! 2 historians had small blurbs about him. And we have a handful of letters and 4 gospels. Cmon man. Surely that proves a god walked the earth.
Kiosu Nightstep
Well not exactly.
The accounts in Roman historians aren’t contemporary, so it’s likely they just got their information from Christians at the time (90s AD), and they got it from the Gospels.
There is only one independent Gospel account: Mark.
Matthew and Luke used Mark, and John used Luke and possibly Matthew.
Paul never clearly mentions a historical Jesus either.
Where’s your evidence?
Your last sentence makes no sense. At the time, even with the Gospels as source, there is no reason to believe he was known outside of the region during his lifetime. So the problem isn't as great as you suggest. Rather you should have said "why shouldn't someone who should have been famous regionally [Jewish provinces of Rome] have any contemporary accounts?". Which is addressed in the video at the beginning and towards the end.
@@Dadecorban Assuming you're correct, which you're not, why would God send his son and only make him known in one small part of the world? That's so silly, he should have lived and ministered for a long life, all around the world. Also, Paul barely mentions Jesus as an earthly man, and that's a fact. I've read the (authentic) Pauline Epistles closely and there's no info on a historical Jesus.
@@kiosunightstep6640 gospels were written after Jesus, John around a hundred years after, written by an educated Greek, not an illiterate fisherman from Judea. Nothing in the gospels is reliable, it requires belief and trust. I see the NT as heavily reliant on Greek/Roman mythology-Hebrews had no concept of hell, until the Greeks brought their Hades, gods having Demi-god sons etc..now saying that the Gospels prove God walked the earth? When it can't even prove a man called Jesus did? Bible events and stories need to be corroborated, New Testament alone can't be used as evidence to prove itself. No contemporary historians like Pliny, Josephus? No word of Jesus's miracles made the news? Anywhere?. I believe some Jewish guy went against the grain and was a radical by the Jewish Rabbi's and Pontius Pilate alike. Can I prove it? . No, I just believe it. If I can't prove a standard human lived, how can l believe a supernatural one did?.
This really is a superb talk. Thank you David and Hambone productions. Such good content from you guys.
How can any of the gospels have been written by eye witnesses when none of them could possibly have been alive at the time?
Fitzgerald is addressing the NT. But the Old Testament has been shown by Israeli archaeology to be a mythical creation story. There is no evidence of Moses, Abraham, the Exodus, the wandering, Joshua's conquests etc. If the OT is a myth, then there's no Fall, and no need for redemption. And for those who say there's no way the writers of the NT just made it up. Well writers made up the OT, so.....
There are zero hieroglyphs in Egypt that have any reference to Hebrews. The books you cite have been debunked years ago.
Plus it's pretty obvious that large chunks of Genesis were copied from Babylonian creation myths and stories and that the Jews were polytheistic with Yahweh being part of a pantheon, and he wasn't even the highest God in the pantheon!
The NT plagiarises the ot, it's called midrash
@@stephaniewilson3955 I think that's what he said, yes.
No evidence? None?
Julius Caesar was a Christos(title).Gave his life's blood,was seen as a God/son of a God. The Comet of 44 BCE was seen as his soul.His wax effigy was nailed to a cross,was seen as a savior,craftsmen (military strategy),and related to the Dove symbol(Goddess Venus). Followers rubbed his pyre ash on their foreheads.Forgiver of sins.Betrayed by Brutus,
stabbed by Longinus on 3/15.Deified,and his worship was made official by decree by his heir Augustus (virgin birth thru the God Apollo).
Ethelbert Stauffer was a professor of New Testament Studies,and director of Ancient History Studies at the University of Bonn Germany.In the 1950's he undertook much research into the relationship between the Roman sources,and early Christianity.He showed that the Easter liturgy does not follow the Gospel,but the funerary ritual of Julius Caesar,and that the Clementia Caesaris was the pre-Christian forerunner of Christ's forgiveness.Christus und die Caesaren,Hamburg 1952
Biggest Red Flag on Jesus, is the fact that the only record of his existence comes from ONE SOLITARY SOURCE. There is no outside contemporary historical records confirming anything from that source. The source material cannot even agree on many of the basic facts.
We have more ancient copies of the Four Gospels of The New Testament than we do of any other ancient writing of that time that we hold as completely factual historical evidence.
How much do you need before you are convinced?
Bs💩💩
@@shrivak it doesn't matter if you have 100 copies of a Spiderman comic... Looks like you don't understand the meaning of multiple sources
@@shrivak oh boy ur ignorance is very funny haha
@@shrivak There is in fact only one gospel that being Mark. Luke and Mathew are clearly copied from Mark and then John which is considered the latest of the 4 is just a rewrite of the same story.
Jesus, not his real name, was born to Mary, not her real name, on December 25th, not the real date.
But apart from these minor discrepancies, we can be sure it happened.
Born in Bethlehem - not the real place of birth?
@@anonanon9213
That is a hysterical question.
@@anonanon9213
Or perhaps I should say it's a mirthological question.
Either way I don't know.
Very slowly.. if you have another name from the gospels, spit it out... Other wise it works out as the NT seems.. an entirely hellenistic story written by hellenists
@@henkvandergaast3948
Peter, not his real name, walked on the water to go to Jesus, not his real name, which is impossible,
but apart from these minor discrepancies, we can be pretty sure something happened.
How do we watch part 2 of this? Can it be put into the Description area? Loved this video. Helps me confirm me quitting faith.
And the truth will set us free ! Thank you
Great video and a very compelling proposition. I highly recommend the book "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald. The idea that Jesus is a whole cloth construct is one that I think will become increasingly difficult for apologists to argue with.
I just recently purchased Nailed by Fitzgerald and loved every minute of it. I had no idea something with that much detail/facts existed speaking of on this Jesus figure. He breaks it all down with 1st/2nd century evidence and all. From writers of that time, scholars etc.
It always amazed me to see the lack of evidence of the Resurrection Jesus. How can that be when they say he was real? History has evidence of many Egyptian rulers, Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Socrates, etc they are all mentioned by scholars/historians.
But Jesus, very few mention/evidence at all but 8billion people claim the Bible is true. Why is there so little evidence then? Makes zero sense.
It really doesn't matter which book said this or that. The start of the Abrahamic tales is a fictional character, Yahweh didn't get to the Fertile Crescent until about 3,850 years ago, The biblical Adam & Eve didn't exist either, A book of myths that is demonstrably wrong and can't be taken as fact.
Y Chromosome Adam & Mitochondrial Eve's estimated LifeTimes / Epochs are comparable
(--Rev./ Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Proprietor @ ``Reasons To Believe, which see @ facebook.com/RTBOfficial/?fref=ts ).
_ _ Maybe JŌB preceded Moses. Job 38:9 is Dr. Ross's favorite, putative old-Earth Creationism Proof Text, "... thick darkness & Clouds over the Sea,"in the context of Creation in a prior Verse.
timothy mostad totally agree the religious texts were not to be taken as literal history but stories for the Jewish people. The bible has no relevance for us today.
Excellent talk. Thanks.
"All this they take WITHOUT EVIDENCE" Lucian writes which I thought was interesting.
"God laughs at the superstitious beliefs of the pagans"
That is the funniest thing I have ever read.
Hilariously ironic 😂😂😂
The hypocrisy of Christianity lol
"There you can also find that early church fathers do reference the passage"
The first one being Eusebius... in the 4th century.
Jesus is Santa Clause for adults. He would bring the gift of salvation to credulous people if they behaved.
Yea but you gotta DIE to get his gifts 😂😂😂😂
Absolutely.
Most mainstream scholars worth their salt accept the historicity of Jesus.
To all mythicists who have sufficient grey matter to actually understand the methods historians use, please read:
www.bethinking.org/jesus/did-jesus-exist
www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/recent-perspectives-on-the-reliability-of-the-gospels
David is a fringe, conspiracy theorist and is neither a scholar, nor a historian.
@@danderran Acceptance. Children accept that Santa Claus is real.
curiosity 2019
Wow, how original! You astound me with your meticulously researched scholarship in such matters. Did you actually read the articles I suggested?
Most mainstream scholars worth their salt accept the historicity of Jesus.
To all mythicists who have sufficient grey matter to actually understand the methods historians use, please read:
www.bethinking.org/jesus/did-jesus-exist
www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/recent-perspectives-on-the-reliability-of-the-gospels
Now, go and do some homework.
I agree. It's entirely credible that the historical Jesus did make some kind of prediction of the destruction of the temple, and that this in part may have been one of the reasons for his arrest and crucifixion - and also why his 'gospel' took off after 70AD, as people came to think he legitimately prophecised it. But I suspect he wasn't the only one. When tensions between nations rise, it's not uncommon for someone to make an educated guess about such things and then claim them as "prophecy".
It is astonishing what we don't know about Jesus including what he looked like!
You don't know what Alexander the Great looked like.
You don't know what King Argon the Great looked like.
What did Pontius Pilate look like?
How would you know what Jesus looked like since we has not a Roman Emperor or famous senator.
How many images do we have for the millions of people we know existed in the 1st century? Next to none.
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi in Palestine. He looked like every other Jew in the region.
Its astonishing you even asked that question.
Surfxeo There are descriptions of Alexander but that's not the issue surely the number one question people would have asked is what the son of God looked like!
It's not astonishing at all. He was a backwoods preacher who pissed of the Religious hiearcy in some perephail provence of the Empire.
Mark Stuber Yes I just mean that in all the thousands of hours of religious sermons I've listened to no one ever said 'hey apart from an incident in a temple when he was twelve which is only in one gospel we don't anything that Jesus did before he was 30' .
zzapper zzapper We can make an educated guess., Since the Gosples desribed him as being in construction*, we can conclude that he grew up learning a trade from his dad, which was typical of the time, and then built things until starting his ministry. That's speculation of course, but it is the simplist conclusion. I'm applying Occam's razor here.
*The English translations say "carpentor" but scholars say that's too specific of a whterm. I forget what the actual Coine Greek word is but it means "one who works with his hands." People guess that since stone was the staple construction material in the Levant, that Jesus was probablyh a stone mason.
it's like if in 1000 years there's a religion that worships Frodo Skywalker, an orphan wizard that went to Hogwarts and used the one true magic ring to defeat Darth Voldemort.
Great video, I'm buying his book, this is so informative
the strange thing is a minor court event regarding paul is mentioned in contemporary history and yet all these much greater jesus events are not noticed or written by contemporary writings, this is just not possible unless the whole story was fabricated years later.
Pantheist Alexander What contemporary history? Please cite your source.
Positivist Nullifidian from the top of my head something in pliny's writings.
Pliny the Younger wrote Emperor Trajan while serving as the governor of Bathynia in 112 AD, asking how Christians should be dealt with. Written nearly 80 years since the death of Christ (according to Biblical legend), this would appear to be the first known surviving Roman document mentioning Christians. I know of no contemporary secular sources that confirm the existence of Paul, or Jesus.
Positivist Nullifidian you could be right, I had heard that the trial of paul was written in some record, I know no contemporary evidence for a flesh and blood jesus exist, the paul documents may be in relation to apollos not paul, would be nice if you know this source if it exists or not.
+Universal Veritatem I don't agree. Many Jews didn't understand nor believe in Jesus. It was a very small movement at first. Paul himself was trying to eradicate this pesky little "heretical" movement. Many of the Apostles were brutally killed rather than deny Christ. The early Christian church was constantly being persecuted and this is written about around 120 AD, as reported by Pliny the Younger, when the movement had obviously grown and the reports of those he persecuted claiming to be Christians, go back to 80 AD.
all this guy s doing is looking for ways to disprove Christ without looking at all the data. Men who have, convert.
there are many historical accounts of Jesus: youtube: Is Jesus Real? - Non-biblical Evidence of His Existence.
YT: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived:
"Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. The mind of man has never conceived the idea of such a character, even for his gods; nor has history or poetry shadowed it forth. The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation. They are strikingly adapted to the capacity of mankind, and yet are delivered with a simplicity and majesty wholly divine. He spake as never man spake. He spake with authority; yet addressed himself to the reason and the understanding of men; and he spake with wisdom, which men could neither gainsay nor resist. In his private life, he exhibits a character not merely of strict justice, but of flowing benignity. He is temperate, without austerity; his meekness and humility are signal; his patience is invincible; truth and sincerity illustrate his whole conduct; every one of his virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the wonder and admiration of his enemies. He is represented in every variety of situation in life, from the height of worldly grandeur, amid the acclamations of an admiring multitude, to the deepest abyss of human degradation and woe, apparently deserted of God and man. Yet everywhere he is the same; displaying a character of unearthly perfection, symmetrical in all its proportions, and encircled with splendor more than human. Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard."
Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection - Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: "it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
Best factual presentation I've heard on this crazy subject to date!
Why does no one mention Nazareth wasn't a city in Jesus' time. It was a huge city of the dead. A cemetery.
Yes it was.
Love the mocking tone of this lecture.Just as it befits this cult called Christianity
Yeah yeah yeah, we all know the gospels are a mishmash of disparate mythologies and they're rife with contradictions. I'm not interested in hearing an analysis of the gospels to disprove the historicity of Jesus any more than to prove it. What I want to know is does history have any evidence of a man named Yeshua ben Yosef who was a rabbi with a ministry in 1st century Palestine?
Question:
If there was a Yeshua ben Yosef who was a Rabbi in the first century, but his life and times had nothing to do with the Jesus narrative, would that count?
Depending on how the jewish temple destruction was mentioned, particularly in the earliest versions of the texts, it may well be obvious. Depending on the context it may well be the absolutely most probable.
This was just one example though. Fitzgerald doesn't hang his entire argument upon that specific thing. (even though I don't mean that as an excuse, -it should still be thoroughly examined) Too bad we didn't get his entire presentation due to time constraints.
I wish he could have kept going. :(
I'm an ex-Christian Pagan, but I enjoyed Fitzgerald's presentation. I'd like to see him debate Bart Ehrman on the existence of Jesus.
It makes no difference who said what. Please provide the evidence and standards they used to claim that JC existed.
You said Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion. Please provide the source (evidence).
We don't have to refute "claims" about who wrote the gospels, only "evidence" of who wrote them.
As long evidence is credible, I have no reason to refute it.
I have 1 question, why was there no tomb veneration for 300 yrs after the resurrection, which is when the church claimed it found his tomb?
Yes Tacitus did write about Hercules. But If you notice in Tacitus writings, he always gave disclaimers if something was just rumor or here say. He would make statements like "So they say" or "It has been told" "or they say" before he went on with the report. He did this over 70 times in his writings. When he talked about Hercules he used the disclaimer of "They say". He said "They say Hercules visited them" implying it was rumor. He did not give any disclaimer when he talked about Christus.
I saw how real the work of fiction was 2 decades ago when I was ten years old.
I don't rate it very high on quality.
This is one of the greatest, all-time most awesome videos ever. Wake up, Christians.
You basically said what i said but in a different way. When I said "through martyrdom" I was necessarily implying that "Jesus" went willingly to his death, but through legend people perceived him to go willingly. Whether that accurate or not is a different debate. So I do agree with your statement.
Very Interesting and informative.
"If you bothered to read the Bible"
I did. Hence my atheism.
You are 100% correct. Honestly, some ppl will say anything to be right, but your point is solid!
Star of Bethlehem=Caesar's comet.Comet is the etymology of Greek "kometes",or star with
long hairs.This is why medieval depictions of Jesus have long hair unlike an actual
Judean.(wiki/Comet etymology)There was no need to travel to Bethlehem for tax/census
takers come to the household.No historian records Herod slaying newborns even though
there were historians that would have loved to."Cast the 1st stone",and "Handle
snakes/drink poison" only appear after 10th century.
superb. intelligent and accessible.
B
As an agnostic, I appreciate an unbiased view. Considering his vehement hatred of Christianity, and the constant giggles of the crowd it's difficult for me to put much weight to his opinion.
+Nigel Collins if so, look at BOTH sides of this equation, because this guy is a fool. No serious historian denies the existence of Christ. most atheists don't either.
YT: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived:
"Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. The mind of man has never conceived the idea of such a character, even for his gods; nor has history or poetry shadowed it forth. The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation. They are strikingly adapted to the capacity of mankind, and yet are delivered with a simplicity and majesty wholly divine. He spake as never man spake. He spake with authority; yet addressed himself to the reason and the understanding of men; and he spake with wisdom, which men could neither gainsay nor resist. In his private life, he exhibits a character not merely of strict justice, but of flowing benignity. He is temperate, without austerity; his meekness and humility are signal; his patience is invincible; truth and sincerity illustrate his whole conduct; every one of his virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the wonder and admiration of his enemies. He is represented in every variety of situation in life, from the height of worldly grandeur, amid the acclamations of an admiring multitude, to the deepest abyss of human degradation and woe, apparently deserted of God and man. Yet everywhere he is the same; displaying a character of unearthly perfection, symmetrical in all its proportions, and encircled with splendor more than human. Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard."
Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection - Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: "it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
Many Jews didn't understand nor believe in Jesus. It was a very small movement at first. Paul himself was trying to eradicate this pesky little "heretical" movement. Many of the Apostles were brutally killed rather than deny Christ. The early Christian church was constantly being persecuted and this is written about around 120 AD, as reported by Pliny the Younger, when the movement had obviously grown and the reports of those he persecuted claiming to be Christians, go back to 80 AD.
all this guy s doing is looking for ways to disprove Christ without looking at all the data. Men who have, convert.
there are many historical accounts of Jesus: youtube: Is Jesus Real? - Non-biblical Evidence of His Existence.
+Nigel Collins he is preaching to the choir here (Skepticon) - that is why the giggles. Please address the issues, not the setting. When the material is quite nebulous and suspect, there can be derision, but the material could be supported, which it is by many biblical scholars.
Tyndale Israel According to the Bible story Jesus killed 2000 pigs that belonged to farmers to please Demons .
That alone nullifies your argument and the rest of what he supposedly taught is far from perfect.
Indoctrination is a special phenomenon and you are a fine victim of it to study.
This is not hatred of Christianity. Simply stating that a man did not historically exist is not hatred, it is very calm and reasonable. The crowd giggles because he uses humor to demonstrate his points. Almost everyone does that if they have the sense of humor.
Actually, attempting to argue that something or someone does not exist, attempts to wipe a person from history, is one of the deepest forms of contempt known and it has been attempted repeatedly out of pure spite. Of course we only know of the unsuccessful attempts, but there were attempts to wipe out the history of at least one Pharaoh of Egypt (Akhenaten) and it seems to have been a standard practice in China that when there was a Dynastic turnover that attempts were made to both wipe out the entire family through a sort of genocide and to destroy all the records of the previous dynasty.
Even today, you see Trump changing some policies for no other reason than to undo the legacy of Obama. So, although I am not saying that this is the motivation David Fitzgerald here, I do think it is perfectly understandable for a Christian to openly wonder if hatred of their religion is the motivation for those who seek to establish that there was no historical Jesus at all.
In my opinion, it is probably more reasonable to state that there probably was some Jesus that thought he was the Messiah. From what I have read there were no shortages of either men named Jesus nor Jewish men claiming to be the Messiah in that time frame. But that theoretical historical Jesus would simply be the core of the snowball of what has become the mythical Jesus, picking up snow in the form of bits of Ra, Horus, Apollo, Mithras, etc. and who know who else on the way down the hill of history. The tales always grow taller with the telling. Prior polytheistic religions could simply merge pantheons or add a few gods here an there to ease assimilation within their empires, but in monotheism, you have to merge things e pluribus unum style.
I haven't searched to see if Fitzgerald repeated this talk without the rushed ending to see where he goes with the whole accretion process; however, from what I saw of it, it really does not disprove a historical Jesus so much as it states the obvious, which is that the mythical Jesus as followed by modern Christians really is a FrankenJesus and what ever historical Jesus there was probably would be stunned at what his legend grew into.
Richard Carrier breaks down this mythological lit. This is one of the best documented times in history... who wrote it? Rome... Who are these texts referring to; many speculate that Titus was the mythical texts prove was the messiah!!! This is why sources are not referenced. They do not follow any type of historical format of the time. Jesus was not real as far as the evidence points out. Some don't like J. Atwell, Richard Carrier, but he has a very interesting take that has some truth to it. Peer reviews i have noticed are attempts to claim that "I am the authority on these matters, so piss on you." I wish they would work more together for more accurate history and occurrences... I am religious as a vehical to enhance my humanity and "Sprirituality" and not for dogmantic reasons, but this info needs to become main streem.
Nehesu Nag-Negus El i think its about cleopatra, julius caesar, and caesarion
Nehesu Nag-Negus El
You don't understand. Carrier says Atwell is a nutjob, and there is NO evidence for his bullshit.
Oh my! There's not a single misogynistic comment on the entire 1st page! I am really proud of the skeptiboys. A new day arriveth.
Historical Jesus or not, this guy can fence, and that's awesome!
The invisible Hebrew god Yahweh has a son (himself) who comes into form to teach his creations the right way to live.
This is necessary because the unknowable Yahweh is unable to communicate telepathically inside the brains of his own creations.
Two thousand years later the most important event in human history, recorded in an ancient book, leads to fighting among his followers while claiming that "god is not the author of confusion".
😂😂😂 what's a church? I'm dead...never thought of that😂😂😂😂😂
everywhere were 2 or more people pray or worship. No building needed. :)
Is there a follow up to this?
That was really good.
This guy always wins debate with truth and evidence
16:38: apologist = liar
its a synonym, people!
beeto45 has
Corrections:1.we know the authors of the gospels form other sources,and yes they knew Jesus.2.you don't know when the gospels were written but know that it was really early on since the spread of Christianity began really early(and other reasons).3.Scholars agree it's an excellent source for Jesus historicly(don't give me Ehrman's arguments,they disprove nothing).4.Acts was written really early on (a few years after Jesus).5.Josephus,Pliny,Tacitus,Suetonius(earliest) and other+Christian writers
You didn't correct anything. Bart Erman's work is the best information we have.
I think in the state of reality we are given and when a person is fed a story without question as far back as they can remember. When they look around for meaning in their lives and money doesn't seem to make that difference. They may not choose a faith so much as they have a presumption from their training. Nothing else can explain its predominance even after being proven, if not completely false, at least questionable.
You should explain what he said that you think is not true and give proof, and why you do not think his sources are credible. Everything he said you can look up. He is either telling the truth or not. Your questioning his sources or credentials is childish and useless.
you've been duped dear Dorothy, as have I
Dorothyellen
Everything you look up is most forged by christians.
18:32 But Origenes wrote in "Contra Celsum" about the passages of Josephus about John the Baptist, Jakobus and Jesus...
So even in the 3rd century they knew about the passage of Josephus about Jesus.
Also there are some old transcrips in arabic and syrian of the original passage of Jesus in Testimonium Flavium.
Why Mr. Fitzgerald didnt mantion this?
10:12 By the way: There is nothin receive of ANY of his writings. So we dont know about what he wrote.
Firstly the dates of the writing of any gospel is a matter of contention, second Luke mentions many other accounts at the beginning of his gospel, and third and I said there are arguments against the close dates for Mat and Luke, it cannot be taken for granted. Fourthly we know of many alternative oral traditions and gospels, dating for them is also a matter of debate. My point is that there is more than enough ambiguity here for the lecture's points to be valid.
My point is the arguements that Fitzgerald puts forth don't debunk a historical Jesus, but the mytological one that Christians believe in. Saying that there wasn't a real Jesus that the later movement used to build off of is not supported by modern historians, including Bart Ehrman, who calls himself an agnostic. Having a real life Jesus does not mean that all the supernatural claims are true by default. Proving the supernatural claims false, does not mean there was not a real Jesus by default.
At minute 9:48 the line of logic being used would make one think that Paul didn't exist or didn't matter either, at least to historians.
And again - the guy in the video says that there were only a few christians but thousands of people were affected by the life of Jesus during His 3 year ministry. So it was not just a small group of people but enough people to populate small village shortly after the death of Jesus. In fact , the entire Roman empire had so many converts to christianity that it eventually ceased to exist as a brutal military empire.
Look how the sentence was phrased, "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators". He is referring to a specific Messiah or "Christ". One whos name was the origin of the movement and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. This debate over Jesus's existence is a new one. There are no ancient records denying Jesus's existence. Even the critics of Christianity back then acknowledged he was a real man
Paul met with some people who didn't know Jesus as the light in the sky/revolution Jesus he preached, but apparently taught something different. In several places they have theological debates of gentile acceptance and who should be preached to. Though, the Jerusalem disciples never once pulled out a "we knew Jesus" as a trump card. It apparently doesn't occur to them. -- Paul refers to one of them, James as brother of the Lord. But, he used that honorific title for other Christians in general.
Caesar's wax effigy was placed on a Tropaion just like the three Tropaions from the coin of Caesar's in my profile pic.Caesar's body was on the the Rostra,and the Effigy was held high so the people in the forum Romanum below can see the wax body cast of Caesar showing his wounds.Golgatha is "The Place of Skull" according to the NT.The Rostra in Rome was used at times to show decapitated heads of political enemies.Mark Anthony had Cicero's hands join his head on the Rostra.watch?v=3I8IZ2JMG7s
No, they're not! Tacitus was born about 26 yrs after LC's death. Tacitus doc. supposedly was written around 117 CE. Neither he, nor the others, lived during JC's lifetime. Since this is the case, anything they write about is hearsay, if they were credible, and we're discovering they weren't.
Btw, Christos was a common name then. But it makes no diff, b/c we've found the original word was Chestians, and they were a diff. group!
Still, no tomb identity, location, or veneration for 300 yrs...why??
Ok, you're right and I phrased my statement wrong off some basic assumptions. What I'm simply saying is, if people are left to their own devices they do not simply revert to an indifferent, amoral survival mode which is what was implied about people having no purpose without religion. But thanks for reading insensitivity into my comment to make yourself feel morally superior. I'm fully aware of the problems that plague my brothers and sisters.
Josephus fought in the Rebellion of the Jews in 70 AD, he was brought as a captive slave to Rome. This is only 35 years after the death of Jesus.
Jesus was actually a Jewish Biblical version of the DC Comics Crisis on Infinite Earths. A Character created to bring changes and fixes to their convoluted continuity. Jesus died to save his God from irrelevancy not to save our sins.
6. So little of what Thallus wrote survives that it's hard to determine what he actually wrote. It's worth noting that our source for this account of darkness is a 9th century writer quoting a 3rd century historian's account of an unknown text.
7. Suetonius's quote is quote mined. Like many others, he refers to Christian beliefs, not a historical person.
I'm sure I read something about Philo of Alexandria writing about a simple man who thought he was a King, and the Romans mocked him by putting a crown of thistles on his head. Clearly he wasn't writing about Jesus, yet somehow this story appears to have been adapted to fit within the crucifixion story.
The thing I think is absolutely ludicrous is the thought that we even need saving at all. Christianity is the belief that a single human sacrifice somehow repairs the inequity that your existence and subsequent behavior creates within the universe. It's an insane set of irrational nonsense
how on earth is that insane. its the view that no bad can ever be properly fixed by any amount of good you can do. this is a mind blowing belief. if christianity was made up by people, its a complete miracle that they came to these stories and a complete miracle that its lasted so long
It seems astonishing that all the people Jesus was supposed to have healed by miracle did not have strong living family histories passed down for generations.
His wealthy supporters also would have written immediate accounts of his life, some of which would have survived.
By any standard. The Hellenized world was very literate. It was a period of scientific understanding, a lot of writing, and a lot of understanding until the dark ages, which then needed a "rebirth" (Renascence) into an age of understanding again. There were a lot of texts around and a lot of the early Christians were well read. Even in the lost books that didn't make it through the dark ages, there may not have been any Jesus references as they clearly would have saved those.
And your right. I did make the mistake and use the term historian generically. Tacitus would be the only literal historian. I meant to say all secular accounts of Jesus all viewed him as a man. And in all of the secular accounts there is nothing supernatural about Jesus at all. The closes thing to him doing magic is when Celsus claimed he did cheap palor tricks he learned in Egypt.
"1.The earliest gnostic texts appeared a few hundred years after the first canonical gospels"
The Gospel of Thomas was written at about the same time as the others.
"2. Gnosticism is directly against Christian teachings... since it's against basic Judaism"
Orthodox Christianity is equally as contrary to Judaism as Gnostic Christianity. Heaven, Hell, the Trinity, none of these exist in Judaism.
"3.It's not even written by Thomas"
Just like the other Gospels.
And I know people always like to pull the "Which Christ was Tacitus talking about" card. But he actually explains which christ hes talking about. The one that founded the christian faith and was crucified by pontius pilate. And its the same Christ all the ancient historians talk about when it comes to the founder Christianity. Sure there were many messiahs, but there is only one who the ancient historians labeled the founder of Christianity.
Wow! I didn't know there was soo much overwhelming evidence that proves Jesus lack of existence.
And somehow they didn't exist for Matthew? He was writing at the same time. They either existed or not. Do you suppose the speaker meant something like "apparently Matthew didn't have access to them". That's not what he said. And I've never heard that discussed elsewhere in the literature. Thanks.
Pope Clement I (Papacy 92-99 CE) Few details are known about Clement's life,and what we do know is from Tertullian (160-225? CE).
Ignatius of Antioch (35-50? CE-98-117? CE) One of five Early Christian authors who lived, and wrote in the second half of the 1st century,and the first half of the 2nd century.It is said that he was a student of the John the Apostle That wrote the Gospel of John,but scholars doubt he is the author of it.
Church fathers believed the NT.
There is a Yale lecture here on youtube (type "Historical Jesus") addressing the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure. A few books are referenced there as well, if you are willing to go that deep. According to the lecturer, there is a consenss that a guy named Jesus did exist. It's really cool that the professor discusses the methodology used for reaching this conclusion.
What religious people need to remember, is that 2,000 years ago, there was no radio, no tv, no computers or phones, and the only entertainment was story-telling. So people got very good at it, and many more people were doing it. Add to that the fact that everything we know today about science and astronomy was a mystery back then, and it's not surprising that people were making up stories about religion and gods at an amazing rate. Even today, movies about super-heroes make the most money. It's a day dream fantasy that people love to hear. The gods and saints and angels were just the super-heroes of their time.
Tacitus mentions Jesus. Pliny and Lucian mention that his followers worship the man as God. I don't get this spin.
Under the Pax Romana (wiki/Pax_Romana)the cult of Caesar flourished thru the vast Roman
empire,and fractured into different sects.The Christos worship,and other Pagan beliefs
were consolidated under the Nicean Creed.The earliest Christogram "Chi Rho" is actually
the "Julian Star" (Caesar's comet)that Constantine used in guise of Greek letters X/P.
This ended persecution of differing sects.Fictional Jesus written to match,but fails
messianic prophecy.
The Tropaion is a sacred trophy for victory.The cross like symbol was a stick
or tree with armor/weaponry placed on it mimicking an upright person.This was
reserved for the spirits of there Gods.Prisoners would allways be bound at the
base,and would be sacrilegious to put anything not of divinity on it.The Civic
Laural Crown was a symbol of high honor reserved for honorable,or holy citizens.
RUclips search "wax imago" "caesar's comet" "gospel of caesar" wiki/Alulim
Origen quoted Josephus frequently, but never quoted that passage. In fact, he had this to say of Josephus "he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ." Which is entirely contrary to that passage. You'd think that such a shining testimony would be a gold mine for Origen especially considering he mentioned Josephus three times in Against Celsus.
The same goes for Justin (I assume you mean Justin Martyr).
The Tropaion is a sacred trophy for victory.The cross like symbol was a stick
or tree with armor/weaponry placed on it mimicking an upright person.This was
reserved for the spirits of there Gods.Prisoners would always be bound at the
base,and would be sacrilegious to put anything not of divinity on it.The Civic
Laurel Crown was a symbol of high honor reserved for honorable,or holy citizens.
Creation,Adam&Eve,the Flood etc are rewrites of Sumerian mythos. wiki/Alulim
Great talk David but please slow down a little.
I watched and enjoyed both. They are hardly redundant. There's also like two talks on Bayes Theorem in Skepticon 4. Different perspectives of the same point are perfectly fine. Stop whining. Don't watch both if you don't want to, but they largely cover different areas.
King Arthur's story does reference historical figures. More so the later the story is. So while Mark was slim on the history. Later gospels added historical details. We see this same thing with Arthur's story. Sometimes we see works of fiction turn out to be false but heavy on the historical details like Sawney Beane. Or Robin Hood referencing actual events and apparently actual people and actual events for a background.
until mythicists pass peer review, their self published books, count for nothing.
I've seen this before but the ending struck me more this time. Christianity an example of human social evolutionary processes. Excellent consideration.
The premise was that these are persons sourced by Christians and atheists as eyewitnesses to Jesus of Nazareth[See 5:20]. Again this is wrong. Ask Christians, ask atheists, and more importantly consult scholars and I guarantee you that virtually none of them would reference these people as eyewitnesses to Jesus. Fitzgerald is merely trying to sow doubt that isn`t there.
Great talk. Mr. Fitzgerald is a funny guy :)
"enter into Jerusalem on a donkey"
There's a fun quirk with the way this prophecy is fulfilled in Matthew. Zechariah 9:9 says that the "king" will come "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Matthew 21:1-11 says he came riding on both a donkey and a colt which suggests that the author of Matthew didn't quite grasp the prophecy when he wrote his gospel.
"Jesus rose from the dead and completed the prophecy"
That's funny, the only people who seem to remember that were the authors of the Gospels. Not the Jews in Jerusalem. Not the Roman soldiers stationed there. No, only three guys who can't even agree on what day this occurred.
The "Night of the living dead" incidence alone wrecks and proves false this religion called Christianity. One would think, right? Wrong! And this, more than any other scripture just blows me away that there are not droves of people departing this madness. Wierd thing is, most "Christians" dont read the bible and therefore are unaware of this scripture, but when enlightened, here comes a million reasons and excuses to continue living this lie, all out of fear of the invisible. Its really amazing.
yes,and to an person who doesn't see a prophetic background to it it is JUST that.Now to a person who is reading it like a Holy Book(and a historic one) it also gives clues to who the Messiah will be.You have in Genesis the line where the ''seed of the woman'' will crush the head of the snake,you have bits here and bits there (and the major prophesies are in Daniel and Isaiah),so we can use them to know how the Messiah will do.You do't see it?Of course,since you are an atheist,your problem...
John Remsburg,in his 1909 book 'The Christ',stated:"To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just,the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin."
Josephus - "Testimonium Flavianum" (Thanks Eusebius). watch?v=QUKJ59FaZgU
8. Mara bar Separion's letter could just as easily be an attestation to Zedekiah which would make more sense than an attestation to Jesus as the sacking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is chronologically closer to Socrates and Pythagoras.
Actually there's a lot of evidence that may suggest, and scholars who think, his teaching wasn't all that unique. The evidence he actually existed isn't as strong as we all take for granted, and serious, responsible scholars have really looked deeply into this issue and the research and theories are fascinating. I'm kind of on the fence, but I always keep an open mind and allow my conclusions to follow the evidence. Check out Dr. Robert M. Price, he does very intriguing work.
Good point, thanks for bringing it up.
Prophets have been saying the same old shit for 5,000 years now.
Any day now.
Any day now.
Any day now.