I find having the maps, and the main points of the narrative on the screen as you give your lecture a really useful format. Thankyou for your informative and clear teaching
@@SecondTake123 auto caption is great when it works correctly...but I've seen it put curse words in the mouths innocent children. :) It's a grea suggestion! But I feel the church should have a policy, going forward, of adding official captions at time of upload.
Hi, I really like the calm way you offer your cours, also I appreciate a lot the huge amount of informations you school us. As a Québécois "French Canadian speaker" ... I have a little demand that I have to let you know ... Can you please actvate the subtitle/translation button ... It would be really useful, also more effective to me, to memorize what you teach.
Thanks for the excellent lecture! It's important to note there were other messiahs from Galilee, like John of gush halav, mentioned by Josephus. It means there was some spiritual activity in the area that encouraged such leaders. I think that the people of Galilee were less of an intellectual type and more magical practical type than the people of Jerusalem. It has always been like that, already in the time of Elijah.
Very, very good lecture. I’ve been to a lot of the places you describe and your fascinating lecture brings those places alive again and sets them in the historical context. Thank you so much.
The story of the baptism of Jesus from the perspective of John the Baptist’s followers can be found in the Mandaean book of John. James McGrath and Charles Haberl have made a translation of this book freely available as a pdf online.
Great discussion after 20:00 on Judah vs Israel. While the ones coming out of Babylon boasted of their ritual purity, there was another side to that discussion. So, for example, al Masudi would report: "The Samaritans believe that the Pentateuch which was recovered (by Zorobabel) from the well (where it had been tossed by Nebuchadnezzar), was not the same which Moses had given to them, but that it is full of fictions, changes and alterations. The author of the new Pentateuch which the Jews have is Zorobabel, who collected it from the accounts of those who knew it by heart, whilst the genuine Pentateuch is in the hands of the Samaritans." Similarly, there were two Bethlehems ...
haven’t checked you out for awhile john. brilliant presentations lately. the cartoons were on the money. you may have a future in standup. you have evolved nicely. always proud and confident to source you.
Jesus was from Galilee because it was one of the poorest places. Historians always mention the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes - but they rarely mention the poor. Jesus' genius was in recognising that the poor were a community that outnumbered all those more well-connected people. He stood for them.
@@mariussielcken Essenes weren't rich like the Sadducees, but they weren't literally "the poor." They had enough money to live completely by themselves in the middle of the desert, having their food and other needs brought in and not working the typical day jobs of the time. Most of the common working folk were far far poorer than the Essenes. And especially in Galilee, which was far away from the Dead Sea and a whole other economic zone.
If there were plenty of Greek speakers in Galilee and the temple rabbis hated the Septuagint and Jesus, and the New Testament has always been in Greek, why does everyone force the conclusion that Jesus could not speak or write Greek?
The people in the north also argue that it was the Jews who separated from Israel, not them. Those descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh opposede the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by these tribes of Judah which returned after their exile with the Babylonians. I suspect that the book of Enoch [1 Enoch] was composed by Ezra / Esdras because Islam call Enoch Idris. Also 'Hanok' means 'Initiate' so I think that the character called Enoch was Hermes Trismegistus because of his journeys to the different realms called 'heavens' and ascension as well as his communication with the archangels. Hermes had telepathic discussions with his higher Mind called 'Nous' and addressed it as 'Father' and in turn his source called him 'son'. This is the same terminology used by Christ. Hermes' tea chings were kept at Alexandria where the Septuaging was translated c.250 BC. Julius Caesar destroyed its library about 200 years later.
Another great lecture! However, if one discards the Q hypothesis (see Mark Goodacre) and embraces the hypothesis of many scholars that Mark is heavily influenced by Paul (see Steve Mason), most of the multiple attestations evaporate. The narrative myth then developes from Paul to Mark to Matthew to Luke to John, each one expanding and redacting the story in a manner much like John’s cartoon version here.
Thanks again for all you effort to bring light to how events developed. Can you look into the possibility of Jesus being decedent from the lIne of Efrain since israel pass the blessing to the younger son of joseph. Nazareth seems to be located within the area of josephs sons (aka samaria).
Woodsmith? No. My understanding from the smart people (including your pal Crossan) is that the word translated 'carpenter' more accurately would be 'builder,' possibly in stone, since he uses those metaphors.
@49:30 It seems peculiar to call Tacitus' description an attestation as he was, it seems, reporting what he learned of Christians for a Roman audience whose emperor was blaming Christians for burning Rome, i.e. Christians hate Rome by their very nature. Josephus too is writing in Rome for a Roman audience looking for scapegoats for the Roman fire. He repeats the Christian story of Mark/Matthew but gives it a Roman spin. Instead of Herod being the unwilling executor of John because his wife disliked John's condemnation of the marriage, by Josephus' telling Herod himself condemns John in order to suppress potential revolt, i.e. the Jewish Roman historian reporting after the Jewish revolt says that the Jewish Roman procurator has only the best interest of Rome in mind. To put it bluntly, Jews have a long history of suppressing anti-Roman trouble makers so don't look to them for your persecutions is the view taken by Josephus.
To the question about the census: Diocletian's idea of shuffling people around was of course later. But it shows, that it wouldn't have looked sooo outlandish as the argument with taxation makes it look.
Jesus could have been nearly dead, aka, in shock. If you dont know how to treat shock, you are dead at that point. Now we give a saline IV, but you can give a drink of salt water also. I found this out accidently when I was very ill and thought I was low on salt. Turned out I was going into shock from a problem with my pituitary and thyroid hormone levels. I brought myself "back from the dead" four times before I read about the symptome and realized I had been going into shock! I went to the doctor the next day the next time it happened. They found the thyroid levels were the cause then traced it to the pituitary. I did the research then to find out what happened and why the salt drink worked on me. The salt is very slowly absorbed in this way but it is absorbed. I used sea salt also, not iodized salt. The funny part of the story is that Jesus is a distant cousin - very distant!- through the Brittish Royal Family marrying into the Houses of Castille and Seville. Those royal families are all descended from the Prophet Muhammad. I had to wonder if I inherited this issue! If so, it may have been known in families affected by it. When you go into shock, your temperature drops and you will be cold. You can quickly become comatose. The first time I was out for almost 24 hours before waking up. I waited too late due to not knowing. After that, I drank the salt water as soon as I was getting cold and came out more quickly. After finding out I what was happening I couldnt believe I survived! It really was a miricle that I found out! It was due to watching a show on PBS where a doctor said symptoms of low salt. I had been working in the hot sun before I became very ill so thought maybe that was it. I somehow made it out to the kitchen to get the drink of salt water made and drank it then passed back out. Woke up the next night!
It appears you said there was a flowering of literature in Judah after the conquest of Israel in 722? I'm under the impression that it was all oral tradition until the 6th Century at the earliest, after the return from exile.
The fact that folks haven't figured out Isaiah 40:3 in Hebrew contradicts their understanding of the Jesus story is mind boggling. You'd think after 1900 years someone would have noticed it.
@@RoseSharon7777 it is written "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." ...but He did it through Moses as the people saw and everybody knows the story. God instructed Moses to raise his staff and He will divide the sea. And it is then written Moses raised his staff and MOSES divided the sea.
Most people are unaware of a Bethlehem of Galilee, situated in the area allotted to the Tribe of Zebulon, Joshua 19:10-16, being the birth town of King David. It was not until the reign of Jeroboam, Solomons Son, that Bethlehem of Judah was built as a fortified town, 2 Chronicles 11:5-6. You can find Bethlehem of Galilee on Google Maps. Hope you find this interesting, though controversial.
There's a reason Jesus never called scholars into his movement - given Faith being principal and not personal bias nor conclusions. Five hundred witnessed the crucifixion.
What street did he live on? That’s the kind of proof the doubters are fervently awaiting. Surely the people living in the Iron Age had to have had address or how would the precursors of the postal services know where to deliver the parcels to? “Excuse me, I’m looking for an address that doesn’t seem to be listed on this Roman map that the people at head office drew on a piece of vellum for me? I’ve got this parcel to deliver and I’ve been up and down this dirt track for the past six hours and my donkey is absolutely exhausted.” “Who is it for?” “Hold on… Joseph… Joseph of… The writing is a bit indistinguishable… Nazareth… Yep, I think it’s… can you make it out?” “I’ll have a look. Let me see… Yes, it’s very hard to make out but there’s no one here that I know by that name and I’ve been living hear for years.” “Is there a post office near here?” “What’s a ‘post office’?” “It’s something from the future. Don’t you have anything from the future in Galilee?” “We’ve got some stuff from the future; bananas, skinny jeans, telescopes and Donald Trump but nothing like post offices, sorry.” “Alright, thanks for your help I’ll just leave the package over by that palm tree over there on that small hill over there and get this donkey back to Jerusalem before it drops dead on me. If you see anybody that looks like they are expecting a parcel just point them to that tree, over there on the hill, and tell them you saw me and the donkey and that we did our best but all things considered we had to get back to the depot.” “I can’t promise anything but if I do then I will.” “Thanks mate.” “No problem. I’m sorry I couldn’t help.”
The word "nashārā" is taken from the name of the village where Jesus was born, namely Nāṣraṯ (Hebrew: נָצְרַת) or Al-Nāshirah (Arabic: الناصرة), which by the Roman-Latin tongue was transliterated as Nāṣəraṯ and by Roman-Greek tongue as Nazareth (Να ζαρέτ). So its not a coincidence that the early followers of Yesua was called Nashārā or Nazarēnes (Ναζωραῖοι). The term Christianismós (Χριστιανισμός) was born about 100 years later after this religion spreads among Gentiles (non-Jews).
The areas 'of' the tribes may be aspirational, as well, but considering the known connections with the tribes and migrations of the Kymru/Welsh before and after BC/AD, and the similarity in descriptions, they are highly likely also to be 'inaccurate', not in the sense of 'incorrect', but the proper sense of 'less specific'. They were after all a nomadic, wandering peoples, so may have been in one area for a season, and then moved 10 or 35 miles for the next season. They also could have been occupying only a small part of the land at any one time, and/or mixing in with other residents. For example in the map at about 11:25, Ephraim being between Dan and Gad, doe not necessarily mean they had total and permanent residence in the whole of that area, but some map-drawer has conjectured much of the boundaries. There was probably significant overlap. Compare to Wales, where the descriptors such as 'south wales' were relative, rather than fixed. From the Rheged, 'south wales' includes Bangor, Caernarvon, Wrexham; from Bangor it includes Brycheiniog and Pembroke; from Pembroke it includes only Glamorgan and Gwent, but from Glamorgan it could include or exclude Cornwall, whilst including Brest, Rennes and Nantes (now in France). I am always in the middle, wheerre ever I am , and so was the ancient British Court. Meanwhile, they were never encircled completely by Mercians at any one time, although those pesky Mercians went around them to all possible directions, before eventually deciding to go live in Mercia (some of them). They were probably Africans, from Turkey.
There never was multiple Gospels by multiple authors. The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
The Romans did hold authority over executions, and really all punishment of "crimes." They allowed the Jews to enforce and punish under their religious beliefs that were not subsequently violations of Roman laws or against Roman citizens. Firstly, Herod antipas was a Roman citizen. Secondly, whether or not John had hurt his feelings. His beheading was because of allegations he was planning an uprising (whether or not the allegations were true is unimportant. Simply, it appears herod wanted Him gone, and he had the power to do so when a legal justification presented itself. Stonings occurred quite often. Across the region. The Romans looked the other way as these were for violations against Jewish religious laws and not Roman law and because they were mob enflicted. That being said, paul was not in jureslum at the time of Stephen's death. The events written would have occurred a little over a decade before he arrived, so the accuracy of details is not certain, but within reasonable possibilities. The reason for the Sanhedrine requesting pilot to execute Jesus was he was very popular and had a large number of followers. If the Romans executed him for inciting a rebellion then they could say it was out of thier hands. Nazerrith apparently didn't exist at the time gospels were written. The Nazzeren, as in the Baptist refers to his religious beliefs. Nazzeren is a transliteration of a transliteration of the Hebrew word for "Vow". As with most classical Hebrew, words have multiple meanings and uses, but "Vow" is the preferred interpretation by scholars.
Is it possible that the Christian authors investigated Yeshua's past and genealogy from his mother, Mary, and his family in Nazareth opposed to contriving the entire record as you're proposing?
No, because they would have stated that if it was the case. Plus, it’s highly likely that those people were dead by the time the gospels were being written so only stories were floating around that had passed from ear to ear and mouth to mouth changing along the way.
Galilee has to be the focal point of his ministry. Galilee is where the breech took place with the northern kingdom called the house of Israel. Galilee is where the Assyrian invasion took place and totally dismantled the ten tribes of the northern kingdom aka the house of Israel. The southern kingdom was called the house of Judah. Jesus came to set in motion the fulfillment of the Ezekiel 37th chapter prophecy of joining the two sticks together again. This is why he specifically tell us in Matthew 15:24 that he is only sent to the LOST sheep of the house of Israel. Once again the house of Israel is the northern kingdom also know as Ephriam in the Old Testament. Northern kingdom was written a bill of divorce and we read about that in the book of Jeremiah. In order to return back and enter into covenant and be rejoined with Judah the husband who had given the bill of divorce has to die in order to free the woman from the law of the husband. We read about this in Romans chapter 7. The two sticks will be rejoined together and will become one again. Remnants of northern kingdom house of Israel still remained in and around the Galilee coast.
The scholar James Tabor thinks Jesus was the son of Judas the Gallilean, so came from a family of Zealots. Later the stories of Jesus were reinterpreted and written to appease the Romans. Robert Eisenman has similar theories.
Dumb question right at the start: What did Moses write about Jesus in the Torah, or an any messianic figure for that matter? What was the writer of John referencing in particular? The prophets I get, but Moses was a surprise.
It almost sounds as if Jesus was said to be of Galilee because it was of the nations, and Jesus the character took shape from later gentile Christians. Galilee may have been a literary choice directly to contrast with the Samaritans, who were still jewish.
Maybe the critique wasn't aimed specifically at Dr Richard Carrier, but if so, implying a 6 year study by a PhD in greco-roman history, resulting in two peer reviewed books (including one on improved methodology), is "outside of scholarship", that's just preposterous. Especially in a field so widely criticised for it's flawed methodology. That being said, this presentation is a mile above the likes of Ehrman in regard to a plausible historical Jesus. It presents clear and concise explanations for the possible transition between an actual person, the revelatory Jesus and the mythical Jesus of the gospels. The issue of methodology remains, though. The gospels are written outside Judea, in Greek, decades after Jesus proposed death. Literary analysis show that Mark is clearly a literary construct, heavily relying on Paul. Matthew and Luke is clearly based on Mark and Luke is plausibly based on Mark and Matthew, and shown to use Josephus for detail. And John is very likely to be written as a direct response to Luke. And we do not know for certain which, if any, other sources was used, oral tradition, Q, etc, or what they might have contained... Add to that how the criteria for discerning what historical facts can be derived from the gospels are wildly disputed. But again, great presentation and best case for historicity I've heard so far.
“Heavily relying on Paul” That just isn’t true. That’s widely disputed. He is probably Pauline but whether or not he uses Paul’s letters at all is debatable. It’s a mythicist fantasy that the entire gospel was just constructed out of thin air out of a few sentences in Paul’s letters. That isn’t how information spread back then. You don’t get people worshipping some abstract deity about whom nothing is known whatsoever (except, somehow, that he was crucified, taught, and was resurrected [in heaven, of course] - but nothing ELSE, right??) I mean I’d love someone to answer this, how do you think Paul, much less all of the other apostles we know (and don’t know; we just happen to be aware of the existence of a guy like Apollos by pure chance) were going around spreading the story of Christ, preached to unbelievers?? “God crucified a dude, about whom I know nothing, and this dude rose again. People say so!!!”Then one day Mark thinks, gosh, it’s so inconvenient we have NO STOREIS WHATSOEVER about our demigod when everyone else has so many. I better fix that and pretend he was some human from some town I’ll choose via dartboard. It’s just nonsense.
@@Jd-808 The foundational stuff is likely from some pesher that became popular. It might be the closest thing to Q there ever was, was a pesher. I mean Matthew explicitly says Jesus being from Nazareth comes from scripture... And beyond that, there's a ton of textual criticism and mimesis research done on the gospels showing them clearly constructed from old testament stories and Greek texts like the Homeran epics... Carrier proposes 1/3 characters like Jesus are fully mythical. The evidence for historicity weighed against a fully mythologized Jesus equals out, thus we land at 1/3 probability of historicity. I don't find that unreasonable and I haven't heard a single good argument to make a historical Jesus more likely than being just another made up saviour deity from this period in history...
@@Farmfield The gospels aren’t “constructed from Old Testament texts and Greek myths”. They interact with other texts. That says absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus existed. Good grief, why do mythicists always pull that card? I just argued with a guy yesterday who said the same thing word for word. You guys are like robots. It makes no sense that “1 in 3 characters like Jesus are historical so there is a 1 in 3 chance Jesus is historical”. That’s the laziest, most reductive analysis I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t heard a “single good argument” for why Jesus is historical, you simply don’t want to hear it, and are lost in wishful thinking. You aren’t smarter or more knowledgeable than 99.99% percent of scholars engaged in the subject. You aren’t considering something they haven’t. You just got hurt by Christianity and this is your way of coping. That’s ever the story.
@@Farmfield I notice you didn’t answer my question either, or only in the vaguest possible sense. “Likely some pesher that became popular”. What??? You’re not a serious person.
@@Jd-808 I answered your question. We don't know what the gospel authors had as sources, I for one believe peshers are more likely sources than Q or alike proto gospel. The gospels being literary constructs is also undeniable. The connection to the old testament and Greek literature is simply factual. And the 99% of secular scholars who believe Jesus existed also agree at least 95% of it is 100% made up, so historicity is just the question if the last 5% is also made up... 😂 As for you getting all stressed, talking about "you mythicists" and me not being a serious person. Lol, gimme a break. I'm Swedish. We're wildly secular here. Even our priests don't believe in a personal God, it's usually shit like "god is love" and alike. And the historicity of Jesus has been questioned here all my life, and I'm fukn 50+ years old. It's not a new idea, Carrier just popularized it in the US.
I understand that zero was not understood, and so their estimate of A.D. began with the year 1. Michael Lawrence's "70" makes the case that the second destruction of the temple was related to a "prophecy" by Daniel. Lawrence says that a monk, by order of a Pope in the eigth century( since Rome's creation ) designed a calendar that put Jesus on earth 70 years before the temple destruction. 70 was a special religious number in the scheme.
Like Moses was a Gift Child by the Hebrew Women , to the Daughter of Pharaoh, and so Moses was able to ascend to be the next Pharaoh, except the Jews rejected Moses, and Moses fled Egypt. Now, Jesus is in the same boat. A Gift Child divinely given by HEAVEN, to the Gentiles of Galilee, who proceed by the Grace of God to call Jesus of Nazareth "EL GIBBOR" "MIGHTY GOD". Now Mark Twain said "History does not repeat itself, but it Rhymes'. The Gift Child is GOD, and it is not Idolatry to obey Moses, or Jesus. In Exodus 7:1 God said to Moses "See now Moses, I have made you to be YAHWEH GOD to Pharaoh , and Aaron is your Prophet". So God can put HIS BREATH into a man's nostrils and so while in the SPIRIT, He is God. God is not the name of any god, God is the TITLE given to any Child of God who FULFILLS THE LAW. So if the Wind and the Waves obey the Messiah, then this one is God.
There are two Books of Joshua one from Tribe of Ephraim and one from Tribe of Judah. Joshua Son of Nun was from Tribe of Ephraim. Born in Egypt. Everyone agrees the Tribe of Judah's Book of Joshua is not Jesus the Christ. Anyone read the Tribe of Ephraim's Book of Joshua? It's called the Samaritan Chronicle. Extra: did you know Joshua Son of Nun was originally named Hoshea Son of Nun? Moses changed his name with the implied meaning "May God save you from the conspiracy of the scouts".
The Argument against Sumeria was that they were too local and not Babylonian. Lol. Iudaism is extremely Babylon, Which is Neobabylon and then Persia Farsi. They are Farsis erroneously spelled Pharisees in the KJV
After reading everything i could find about Vespasian, ( my interest began after i found a silver denari from Vespasian reign with my metal detector) He was a great man, a realist, loyal, proud, respected. A mans man, like his son Titus. Josephus was everything Vespasian & Titus hated in a man, a traitor, a coward, untrustworthy, disloyal, no self respect. Why would a man like Vespasian or Titus have anything to do with a spineless coward let alone adopt him. Josephus ,,, was a worm
Josephus was a useful tool for them. He was a Jewish general, so he could write history for the Victors (Rome) from a Jewish perspective. Writing to both Romans, and Jews living around the Roman Empire, not just those found in Jerusalem. He was a tool to sway minds and write history the way the Emperor wanted it written (as propaganda)
@@masstv9052 your right about propaganda, it was everything in those times, especially in troublesome provinces, Judea was always troublesome, messianic uprisings, quarrels, wars among themselves, a weak puppet king, protests against Rome a corrupt priesthood, etc it had been and would be one of the most unstable parts of the empire. With such a large empire, the emperor had to be smart in focusing the right propaganda when and where it was needed . During Vespasian, Titus era the western empire was behaving itself, the northern ( Germanic) tribes, always had moments of misbehaving but didn't really cause problems until early 3rd . century The east were another large region capable of anything at any time. But after 70 ad , the sacking of the city and destruction of major Jewish temples, made them behave themselves ( whatever they thought they kept it to themselves) and were no problem for the next half a century or so . The siege and destruction of the outer walls and finally the last Was probably all the propaganda needed. That's why I don't believe Josephus role especially after 70 ad was like historians claim, he wasn't needed, there was no reason for Titus to give honours or titles, the images on the arch shows the destruction and the treasure, especially the most prestigious goods ,that meant the most to people, and their religion but most of all the meaning, they were under the boot of Rome. So imo from what I've read ,inc sources for and against Josephus, by those from the time and closest to the time, works considered trustworthy and others not , but they all come from people who have their own reasons, agenda, especially works written centuries after, by those who consider Josephus important re christianity, who dismiss earlier works that are considered contradictory. I find people who disagree with others because of religious reasons and not factual, very unreliable, especially when the work they disagree with is written by those without any bias or personal reasons, who gain nothing by falsifying facts , who write for historical reasons, the unbiased are more believable. ..I can't find anything, any reason why Titus would care whst happened to Josephus after the conquest, there was nothing to be gained or lost by having Josephus around, let alone allow him to be considered as part of the Flavian family, why bestow such a great honour to a person who has as much use as a house fly. The Christian writers are the only ones who consider him important, but to anyone from 70 onwards if they even knew his name it was only the disloyalty, the cowardice, to his so called friends, and a grovelling snake who cared more about his life than his honour, as I've said everything that's opposite to to house the name of Flavian . Vespasian was one of the few men of real honour, as was Titus , proud of their achievements and family name. Josephus has none of the qualities that befits the Flavians and everything they look down at , sneer at, avoid associating with. Yes they would take information regarding the enemy , who wouldn't, but it doesn't mean they would adorn him with titles honours or adopt someone as low without honour as Josephus. Nothing archaeological supports that story, they used coins to send messages of importance because they reached all corners of the empire. I have several silver coins from Vespasian , Titus and Domitian, they honour everything from different God's, family, but nothing about Josephus, The reverse side of Roman coins depict gods titles, victories, family and anything of importance, there are 100s of different types , if you look at them ( the latin inscriptions are translated) the images explained, so it's easy for people like us to understand the messages on each one . :) ...sorry about the long reply, I get carried away especially when its about a family I've been interested in for years and read everything I could find,, from 1995 onwards, since I found my first Vespasian coin ..
The Romans followed the same pattern anywhere they went. Trade relations, dissagreement, treaty for a better cut, disagreement, military involvement, better cut, disagreement, war, treaty with now client king, disagreement, depose ckient king and put up their chosen as king, war, depose the native king, annex the territory and set a Roman governor and tax collector. They did the slow game and once in, didnt leave. They instigated trouble or blew things up into major issues for their ultimate purpose -which was annexation. Whatever tools or puppets they needed along the way were used.
A great example. We are called to consider and reconsider these details for the unfolding of spiritual wisdom that happens within through earnest contemplation. Many among us cannot comprehend that their thinking is an intrinsic part of the process of the unfolding of spiritual wisdom and morality. Our God will hold up under scrutiny, we shouldn't be afraid to give it some thought.
Because the family of BARNABAS/ ARISTOBOL; SADDUCEER, were driven by the PHARISEER from Jerusalem to Cyprus and later moved to NAZARETH at the border with JUDEA, forming the religious movement of the NAZAREANS (their sons, Peter, Maria Magdalena and later Paul). As baptism was essential to early Christians, they initially took JOHN THE BAPTIST as their MESSIAH. Yet, later they changed to the younger and more inspiring JESUS..... Few Jews did know the Nazareans, but some understood that Jesus was their leader. It is said that Peter founded the Christian community in Jerusalem, but after BARNABAS had incited the uprising within ALEXANDRIA, the PHARISEER started in the year 42 to prohibit Christian preaching at Jerusalem. The preaching of BARNABAS and PAUL in Asia Minor was highly dangerous, as they were known to be ANTI-ROMAN. In the year 60, BARNABAS had been murdered, and the Jews understood that the CHRISTIAN PACIFIST WITH THEIR ESCHATOLOGICAL FAITH, formed a threat to JEWISH-ROMAN order. So, they planned the killing of the CHRISTIAN LEADERS James, Peter, Paul and exiled the rest. Peter and Paul escaped, the Jews were punished by the Roman rulers, and great new unrest emerged among radical Jews, leading up to rebellions and the Judean war.
Only this story explains the fact that Christianity became so popular in short time (it was already there) and how the carpenter and uneducated teacherJesus Christ became a risen God.(he is the product of imagination by the Nazareans Peter and Paul)
@@jamesbowman7963 Seems unlikely. As I recall, that story is in one of the gospels. The premise is that Rome required everyone to return with their families, to their place of birth, for a census. That doesn't make sense. Why would they do that? Especially as they were at war with the Parthian Empire. The Romans may have been a lot of things, but they weren't idiots. Jamming up the road pointlessly with civilians during a war, doesn't seem reasonable.
@@the_Kurgan No offence I will take the word of Luke who wrote the Gospel of his name, as well as Josephus and others that attest to other censuses around that time. Rome was requiring census and generally allowed locals to observe their own customs as much as possible. In the case of the Jews they allowed them to observe the Sabbath, keep the temple and other customs. The critics and scholars have so often been completely wrong about many other events in the Bible I don't put much stock in the conjecture. Sir William Ramsay after traveling to Asia minor to disprove Luke in favor of the higher critics, after living there for over a decade and retracing Paul's journey as outlined in the book of Acts, also written by Luke found him to be perhaps the greatest historian ever. He also regarded the higher critics as untrustworthy who never once traveled the lands they wrote of and instead pontificated from dusty German libraries. You find this goes on today. I will trust those that lived near there at that time and I trust Luke. So when he says Jesus was born in Bethlehem not Galilee I believe it to be factually correct.
@@PhilthCollinz I'm certain there where. I believe that the only similarity between the bible, and quran version is the name. But then take any historical figure, there will probably be contradictory stories about them.
Thank you for sharing the intimate biases of your preferred worldview. Hearing such makes me thankful that you were not the person who packed my parachutes in days gone by. .
calling it a Jewish sect is erroneous considering the fact that what we today called Judaism is the Exile after Christianity already exists Rabbinic Judaism has gotten extremely backdated because of the ignorance of the enlightenment era Protestant reformers. They were completely ignorant to the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls would be the oldest remaining script, and those are basically contemporary with the time that a historical Jesus would have existed The people who argue in favor of a historical Jesus based on consensus, of which John Hamer is one, don't open them self up to the consideration that since there's no actual evidence of Jesus's existence besides hearsay accounts, Christianity having any presense in the areas it did would have had a much larger window of time to have occurred. We all know that the person who made the Gregorian calendar is the person that put Jesus having been born in year 1 and the destruction of the temple in the year 70, in Jesus's death in AD-33 All symbolic numerological references, this guy had absolutely no idea, truly less so than we even do now, of when the life and death of Jesus would have actually occurred If it's related to Judaism at all originally it has to be dated to 100+ BCE So I always say that because the Dead Sea Scrolls range in dates between 300 years 200BC to 100AD. The life and death of Jesus is almost certainly at some point during that Roman occupation But things like the name of Pontius Pilate and all that stuff could easily have just been Associated via Josephus histories The authors of the talmud certainly thought that Jesus possibly lived 100 to 200 years before the temple destruction. Christianity being a slave religion however, it's far more likely that the religion was ultimately adopted as a sort of Plantation mandate religion for the plebeians; and a way to keep the peasants in some sense working toward their ultimate goal which would come after theyre dead . when the last will be first and the first will be last. Judaism puts everything into the here-and-now, and gaining wealth and power in this life here and now, whereas Christianity puts everything after you're dead, and makes it a sin to be rich
i will not speak as to the time line, since the when, what and who really does not matter! i will stand on the last paragraph as being completely on point about religion and its purpose.
@@yiannimil1I just appreciate you reading to the last paragraph. The timeline is unknown. I devils advocate the other possibilities primarily to push back against the idea that "Modern scholars" are infallible themselves.
The Savior did not wear long hair. He didn't take a Nazarite vow and He kept His Father's Way and law perfectly. I Corinthians 11: 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? v 15, But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her..
❤ all this discussion means nothing if you are not a Believer!! It takes Faith to believe ...it is the Substance of Things Hoped for, the Evidence of Things Not Seen🙏💕😊
What I don't understand is how we have stories about the birth, last couple of years and execution of Christ on the cross. There is very little about what he did when he was growing up or is teenage years. He must have been quite a handful, probably a little terror kid! I have heard from other sources that there is evidence emerging that he may have travelled further than we think, and I don't see why not. They have been trading all through the Med and up as far as Britain for 1000s of years and the Eastern route would have been open as well. Perhaps he went in search of his forefathers kidnapped and taken to Babylon? Who knows what knowledge he would have acquired on such journeys and brought back to his homeland? I can't believe he was fossicking around the Sea of Galilee all his life. He would also have been to Egypt, maybe even followed the footsteps of Alexander the Great? We just don't know. And why were the Three Wise Men/Magi or whatever they were, Persian? I know Cyrus the Great supported the Jews and I believe helped fund the temple in Jerusalem. Was there some sort of trading relationship between Persia and the Levant? Persia and Rome were of course enemies and I think Persia and the Phoenicians had food trading relations. Where does Christ's life fit into this vibrant economic life throughout the whole Mediterranean and Middle East?
probably grew up with traders in Alexandria, the NY of its time. was influenced by egyptian theology as well as hellenistic philosophy... as it is evident the area around nazaret was multinational and multi lingual. and joseph took miriam under his protection ...highly unlikely this was going to be an accepted jewish mesiah.
As far as I know, there isn't any credible evidence that Jesus traveled widely like that. From what I know, the idea that he may have traveled to India is speculation that originated in the modern period based on his missing middle years and a perceived similarity between his teachings and 'eastern thought'. It's not impossible, but I think the prevalence of that idea is due to the "it would be cool if it was true" factor more than anything else. Also, small note, but what I understood from John's lecture is that the birth story is most likely a complete fabrication, so it's not that there's a missing gap between his birth and final years, it's more like we have no information about his life whatsoever until his ministry.
@@maaruz1979 and he probably did…. Alexandria was at the center of it all, then. Knowledge came there, Yeshua did not have go traveling far to find knowledge or ideas. He propably went to the Temple in his youth as a practicing Jew and returned when the family came back to Palestine.
@@yiannimil1 Do you know anything about why the Magi are the involved with his birth story? Is it to do with Persia and the Jews aligning against the Romans?
He had to come from Galilee because that is where the youngest daughter of the Archangel Raphael incarnated as Mary in order to become the human mother of Jesus. Simple really!
30:47 It would be fair to tell the viewers that there are three academic peer-reviewed books (apart from articles) arguing for minimal mythicism: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reasons for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix 2014) and Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Prometheus 2012) by Dr Richard Carrier, and Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019) by Dr Raphael Lataster. There are not such peer-reviewed works on historicism. Assuming Jesus was a real person is not proving he was. There are quite a few scholars, as fas as I know, who consider the non existence of Jesus probable or, al least, possible. This is not a fringe theory anymore, it deserves a serious debate. Among these scholars we have: Thomas Brodie, Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Robert M. Price, Thomas Thomson, Philip Davies, Hector Avalos, Arthur Droge, Carl Ruck, David Madison, J. Harold Ellens, Nicholas Peter Allen, Rodney Blackhirst, Derek Murphy, Marian Hilar, Christophe Batsch, Steve Mason, Richad C. Miller, Fernando Bermejo Rubio, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, ... Considering how biased NT studies are because of religious belief, consensus should not be blindly trusted. And, beware, if we follow consensus in the field, Jesus' resurrection is a fact!
Most secular critical scholars do not agree, those are minority positions for a reason, they are people who willfully or otherwise misunderstand the evidence. God damn I am so fucking sick of mythicists you’re like evangelicals for atheism. It’s dumb, it makes irreligious people look stupid
There ARE such peer reviewed works on historicism. I mean, name one person actually working in the field who is accredited at a university who actually believes it? A significant portion of new and Old Testament scholars are atheist, I am not Christian, you people are deluding yourself.
@@PasteurizedLettuce👍 Mythicists are deluding themselves. I like Richard Miller but he is wrong about mythicism. Even Carrier is good when he isn’t talking about mythicism. As far as saying it is “possible”, what does that even mean. I think it’s possible but it’s not worth scholarly consideration.
Carrier is very literalistic in some ways. He says the fact that Paul in his letters writes about the Temple as though it still stands proves Paul was writing before 70 AD. Yet the Mishnah (completed 200 AD) writes as if the Temple still stands with great detail about the priests, the sacrifices, the festivals etc. Carrier is a scholar of the Greek world but appears to know nothing about Judaism.
@@dianastevenson131 Paul writing before 70 CE is agreed on by most scholars, Christians alike. It's not Carrier's "opinion". The Mishnah is concerned with laws, customs and rituals, not with history, so it just says whatever suits the purpose of the writers. I can't see why it's relevant to your argument. I won't comment on your last sentence as it's obvious you don't know much about his work.
Fantastic lectures sir!!
Glad you like them!
I find having the maps, and the main points of the narrative on the screen as you give your lecture a really useful format. Thankyou for your informative and clear teaching
can u enable closed captioning? im deaf thank u
You can turn on Auto-generated captions at the top right of the video 😊
@@SecondTake123 thanks
Commenting to help make this comment noticable to the chanel
Im surprised there isnt an app that automatically performs speech to text for other apps. Something that hovers or a widget.
@@SecondTake123 auto caption is great when it works correctly...but I've seen it put curse words in the mouths innocent children. :) It's a grea suggestion! But I feel the church should have a policy, going forward, of adding official captions at time of upload.
I just learned a lot from your lecture. My brain thanks for providing this.
Hi, I really like the calm way you offer your cours, also I appreciate a lot the huge amount of informations you school us.
As a Québécois "French Canadian speaker" ... I have a little demand that I have to let you know ... Can you please actvate the subtitle/translation button ... It would be really useful, also more effective to me, to memorize what you teach.
Thanks for the excellent lecture!
It's important to note there were other messiahs from Galilee, like John of gush halav, mentioned by Josephus. It means there was some spiritual activity in the area that encouraged such leaders. I think that the people of Galilee were less of an intellectual type and more magical practical type than the people of Jerusalem. It has always been like that, already in the time of Elijah.
Isnt that John the Baptist.who is mentioned in the bible. Jesus was his followers and started his ministry after getting baptized by John
Thanks for this tremendous series of lectures!
This is such a great program!!!
Thank you
Your videos are wonderful, I love the topics, and i can listen without feeling like I am being preached to.
Very, very good lecture. I’ve been to a lot of the places you describe and your fascinating lecture brings those places alive again and sets them in the historical context. Thank you so much.
The story of the baptism of Jesus from the perspective of John the Baptist’s followers can be found in the Mandaean book of John. James McGrath and Charles Haberl have made a translation of this book freely available as a pdf online.
Great discussion after 20:00 on Judah vs Israel. While the ones coming out of Babylon boasted of their ritual purity, there was another side to that discussion. So, for example, al Masudi would report: "The Samaritans believe that the Pentateuch which was recovered (by Zorobabel) from the well (where it had been tossed by Nebuchadnezzar), was not the same which Moses had given to them, but that it is full of fictions, changes and alterations. The author of the new Pentateuch which the Jews have is Zorobabel, who collected it from the accounts of those who knew it by heart, whilst the genuine Pentateuch is in the hands of the Samaritans." Similarly, there were two Bethlehems ...
haven’t checked you out for awhile john. brilliant presentations lately. the cartoons were on the money. you may have a future in standup. you have evolved nicely. always proud and confident to source you.
Jesus was from Galilee because it was one of the poorest places. Historians always mention the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes - but they rarely mention the poor. Jesus' genius was in recognising that the poor were a community that outnumbered all those more well-connected people. He stood for them.
The Essenes were the poor. That's why the Pharisees looked down upon them.
@@mariussielcken Essenes weren't rich like the Sadducees, but they weren't literally "the poor." They had enough money to live completely by themselves in the middle of the desert, having their food and other needs brought in and not working the typical day jobs of the time. Most of the common working folk were far far poorer than the Essenes. And especially in Galilee, which was far away from the Dead Sea and a whole other economic zone.
If there were plenty of Greek speakers in Galilee and the temple rabbis hated the Septuagint and Jesus, and the New Testament has always been in Greek, why does everyone force the conclusion that Jesus could not speak or write Greek?
Really love and appreciate your very helpful and informative lectures. Thank you so much. You're excellent.
The people in the north also argue that it was the Jews who separated from Israel, not them. Those descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh opposede the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by these tribes of Judah which returned after their exile with the Babylonians. I suspect that the book of Enoch [1 Enoch] was composed by Ezra / Esdras because Islam call Enoch Idris. Also 'Hanok' means 'Initiate' so I think that the character called Enoch was Hermes Trismegistus because of his journeys to the different realms called 'heavens' and ascension as well as his communication with the archangels. Hermes had telepathic discussions with his higher Mind called 'Nous' and addressed it as 'Father' and in turn his source called him 'son'. This is the same terminology used by Christ. Hermes' tea chings were kept at Alexandria where the Septuaging was translated c.250 BC. Julius Caesar destroyed its library about 200 years later.
I L🤍VE & respect your content! Thank you for sharing all your knowledge, wisdom and thoughts!
Another great lecture!
However, if one discards the Q hypothesis (see Mark Goodacre) and embraces the hypothesis of many scholars that Mark is heavily influenced by Paul (see Steve Mason), most of the multiple attestations evaporate. The narrative myth then developes from Paul to Mark to Matthew to Luke to John, each one expanding and redacting the story in a manner much like John’s cartoon version here.
First rate presentation in content and delivery
Thanks again for all you effort to bring light to how events developed. Can you look into the possibility of Jesus being decedent from the lIne of Efrain since israel pass the blessing to the younger son of joseph. Nazareth seems to be located within the area of josephs sons (aka samaria).
Excellent presentation. Congratulation.
Because he was born and raised there.
That's why the gospels of Matthew and Luke try so hard (and fail) to make him be born in Bethlehem.
Interesting. I'm still amazed that faith in Jesus Christ is powerful in my being. PTL!
✝️
Woodsmith? No. My understanding from the smart people (including your pal Crossan) is that the word translated 'carpenter' more accurately would be 'builder,' possibly in stone, since he uses those metaphors.
@49:30 It seems peculiar to call Tacitus' description an attestation as he was, it seems, reporting what he learned of Christians for a Roman audience whose emperor was blaming Christians for burning Rome, i.e. Christians hate Rome by their very nature.
Josephus too is writing in Rome for a Roman audience looking for scapegoats for the Roman fire. He repeats the Christian story of Mark/Matthew but gives it a Roman spin. Instead of Herod being the unwilling executor of John because his wife disliked John's condemnation of the marriage, by Josephus' telling Herod himself condemns John in order to suppress potential revolt, i.e. the Jewish Roman historian reporting after the Jewish revolt says that the Jewish Roman procurator has only the best interest of Rome in mind. To put it bluntly, Jews have a long history of suppressing anti-Roman trouble makers so don't look to them for your persecutions is the view taken by Josephus.
Another very well done video
Thank you for supporting the channel!
To the question about the census: Diocletian's idea of shuffling people around was of course later. But it shows, that it wouldn't have looked sooo outlandish as the argument with taxation makes it look.
Something in the Bible says that Jesus doesn't like black magic sorcery but isn't it sorcery that brought him back from the dead?
No
Jesus could have been nearly dead, aka, in shock. If you dont know how to treat shock, you are dead at that point. Now we give a saline IV, but you can give a drink of salt water also.
I found this out accidently when I was very ill and thought I was low on salt. Turned out I was going into shock from a problem with my pituitary and thyroid hormone levels. I brought myself "back from the dead" four times before I read about the symptome and realized I had been going into shock! I went to the doctor the next day the next time it happened. They found the thyroid levels were the cause then traced it to the pituitary. I did the research then to find out what happened and why the salt drink worked on me. The salt is very slowly absorbed in this way but it is absorbed. I used sea salt also, not iodized salt.
The funny part of the story is that Jesus is a distant cousin - very distant!- through the Brittish Royal Family marrying into the Houses of Castille and Seville. Those royal families are all descended from the Prophet Muhammad.
I had to wonder if I inherited this issue!
If so, it may have been known in families affected by it. When you go into shock, your temperature drops and you will be cold. You can quickly become comatose. The first time I was out for almost 24 hours before waking up. I waited too late due to not knowing. After that, I drank the salt water as soon as I was getting cold and came out more quickly.
After finding out I what was happening I couldnt believe I survived! It really was a miricle that I found out! It was due to watching a show on PBS where a doctor said symptoms of low salt. I had been working in the hot sun before I became very ill so thought maybe that was it. I somehow made it out to the kitchen to get the drink of salt water made and drank it then passed back out. Woke up the next night!
It appears you said there was a flowering of literature in Judah after the conquest of Israel in 722?
I'm under the impression that it was all oral tradition until the 6th Century at the earliest, after the return from exile.
Since scripture warns against soothsayers/ing, what is the difference between prophecy and soothsaying?
One way religious brainwashing works is by cognitive dissonance?
The fact that folks haven't figured out Isaiah 40:3 in Hebrew contradicts their understanding of the Jesus story is mind boggling. You'd think after 1900 years someone would have noticed it.
Explain... a voice cries in the wilderness...
@@termination9353 Who was the voice preparing the way for?
@@RoseSharon7777 prepare the way for the LORD
@@termination9353 The LORD in hebrew is YHWH the Father. No one else.
@@RoseSharon7777 it is written "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." ...but He did it through Moses as the people saw and everybody knows the story. God instructed Moses to raise his staff and He will divide the sea. And it is then written Moses raised his staff and MOSES divided the sea.
Most people are unaware of a Bethlehem of Galilee, situated in the area allotted to the Tribe of Zebulon, Joshua 19:10-16, being the birth town of King David. It was not until the reign of Jeroboam, Solomons Son, that Bethlehem of Judah was built as a fortified town, 2 Chronicles 11:5-6. You can find Bethlehem of Galilee on Google Maps. Hope you find this interesting, though controversial.
Jesus was from Galilee because the real estate was cheaper than in other places.
There's a reason Jesus never called scholars into his movement - given Faith being principal and not personal bias nor conclusions. Five hundred witnessed the crucifixion.
What street did he live on? That’s the kind of proof the doubters are fervently awaiting. Surely the people living in the Iron Age had to have had address or how would the precursors of the postal services know where to deliver the parcels to?
“Excuse me, I’m looking for an address that doesn’t seem to be listed on this Roman map that the people at head office drew on a piece of vellum for me? I’ve got this parcel to deliver and I’ve been up and down this dirt track for the past six hours and my donkey is absolutely exhausted.”
“Who is it for?”
“Hold on… Joseph… Joseph of… The writing is a bit indistinguishable… Nazareth… Yep, I think it’s… can you make it out?”
“I’ll have a look. Let me see… Yes, it’s very hard to make out but there’s no one here that I know by that name and I’ve been living hear for years.”
“Is there a post office near here?”
“What’s a ‘post office’?”
“It’s something from the future. Don’t you have anything from the future in Galilee?”
“We’ve got some stuff from the future; bananas, skinny jeans, telescopes and Donald Trump but nothing like post offices, sorry.”
“Alright, thanks for your help I’ll just leave the package over by that palm tree over there on that small hill over there and get this donkey back to Jerusalem before it drops dead on me. If you see anybody that looks like they are expecting a parcel just point them to that tree, over there on the hill, and tell them you saw me and the donkey and that we did our best but all things considered we had to get back to the depot.”
“I can’t promise anything but if I do then I will.”
“Thanks mate.”
“No problem. I’m sorry I couldn’t help.”
The word "nashārā" is taken from the name of the village where Jesus was born, namely Nāṣraṯ (Hebrew: נָצְרַת) or Al-Nāshirah (Arabic: الناصرة), which by the Roman-Latin tongue was transliterated as Nāṣəraṯ and by Roman-Greek tongue as Nazareth (Να ζαρέτ). So its not a coincidence that the early followers of Yesua was called Nashārā or Nazarēnes (Ναζωραῖοι).
The term Christianismós (Χριστιανισμός) was born about 100 years later after this religion spreads among Gentiles (non-Jews).
The areas 'of' the tribes may be aspirational, as well, but considering the known connections with the tribes and migrations of the Kymru/Welsh before and after BC/AD, and the similarity in descriptions, they are highly likely also to be 'inaccurate', not in the sense of 'incorrect', but the proper sense of 'less specific'. They were after all a nomadic, wandering peoples, so may have been in one area for a season, and then moved 10 or 35 miles for the next season. They also could have been occupying only a small part of the land at any one time, and/or mixing in with other residents. For example in the map at about 11:25, Ephraim being between Dan and Gad, doe not necessarily mean they had total and permanent residence in the whole of that area, but some map-drawer has conjectured much of the boundaries. There was probably significant overlap. Compare to Wales, where the descriptors such as 'south wales' were relative, rather than fixed. From the Rheged, 'south wales' includes Bangor, Caernarvon, Wrexham; from Bangor it includes Brycheiniog and Pembroke; from Pembroke it includes only Glamorgan and Gwent, but from Glamorgan it could include or exclude Cornwall, whilst including Brest, Rennes and Nantes (now in France). I am always in the middle, wheerre ever I am , and so was the ancient British Court. Meanwhile, they were never encircled completely by Mercians at any one time, although those pesky Mercians went around them to all possible directions, before eventually deciding to go live in Mercia (some of them). They were probably Africans, from Turkey.
🤔Why was Jesus from Galilee? ☝️ Got 2 hours?
Jesus was from Galilee because Mar-a-Lago was not built yet when he was born.
Jesus does have a lot of namesakes since "Yeshua or "Jesús" in Spanish-speaking countries is a common given name.
Joseph was probably dead by the Wedding at Cana.
Yes he was.
Mulțumim!
There never was multiple Gospels by multiple authors. The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Jesus was in Galalee to bring Everlasting Life to the World. This is the Good News We Preach.
The shroud holds the evidence I have always been a sceptic now I'm convinced he existed.
The Romans did hold authority over executions, and really all punishment of "crimes." They allowed the Jews to enforce and punish under their religious beliefs that were not subsequently violations of Roman laws or against Roman citizens.
Firstly, Herod antipas was a Roman citizen. Secondly, whether or not John had hurt his feelings. His beheading was because of allegations he was planning an uprising (whether or not the allegations were true is unimportant. Simply, it appears herod wanted Him gone, and he had the power to do so when a legal justification presented itself.
Stonings occurred quite often. Across the region. The Romans looked the other way as these were for violations against Jewish religious laws and not Roman law and because they were mob enflicted. That being said, paul was not in jureslum at the time of Stephen's death. The events written would have occurred a little over a decade before he arrived, so the accuracy of details is not certain, but within reasonable possibilities.
The reason for the Sanhedrine requesting pilot to execute Jesus was he was very popular and had a large number of followers. If the Romans executed him for inciting a rebellion then they could say it was out of thier hands.
Nazerrith apparently didn't exist at the time gospels were written. The Nazzeren, as in the Baptist refers to his religious beliefs. Nazzeren is a transliteration of a transliteration of the Hebrew word for "Vow". As with most classical Hebrew, words have multiple meanings and uses, but "Vow" is the preferred interpretation by scholars.
Is it possible that the Christian authors investigated Yeshua's past and genealogy from his mother, Mary, and his family in Nazareth opposed to contriving the entire record as you're proposing?
No, because they would have stated that if it was the case. Plus, it’s highly likely that those people were dead by the time the gospels were being written so only stories were floating around that had passed from ear to ear and mouth to mouth changing along the way.
Galilee has to be the focal point of his ministry. Galilee is where the breech took place with the northern kingdom called the house of Israel. Galilee is where the Assyrian invasion took place and totally dismantled the ten tribes of the northern kingdom aka the house of Israel. The southern kingdom was called the house of Judah. Jesus came to set in motion the fulfillment of the Ezekiel 37th chapter prophecy of joining the two sticks together again. This is why he specifically tell us in Matthew 15:24 that he is only sent to the LOST sheep of the house of Israel. Once again the house of Israel is the northern kingdom also know as Ephriam in the Old Testament. Northern kingdom was written a bill of divorce and we read about that in the book of Jeremiah. In order to return back and enter into covenant and be rejoined with Judah the husband who had given the bill of divorce has to die in order to free the woman from the law of the husband. We read about this in Romans chapter 7. The two sticks will be rejoined together and will become one again. Remnants of northern kingdom house of Israel still remained in and around the Galilee coast.
The scholar James Tabor thinks Jesus was the son of Judas the Gallilean, so came from a family of Zealots. Later the stories of Jesus were reinterpreted and written to appease the Romans. Robert Eisenman has similar theories.
Dumb question right at the start: What did Moses write about Jesus in the Torah, or an any messianic figure for that matter? What was the writer of John referencing in particular? The prophets I get, but Moses was a surprise.
Did Israelite society ever evolve into a kingdom?
If so, when did they do that?
How Islam and Mohammed are related to religious concepts in the dirt 500 years
Because his disciples had to be fishers of Men and Galilee was a fisherman Outpost and some of his disciples were fisherman
It almost sounds as if Jesus was said to be of Galilee because it was of the nations, and Jesus the character took shape from later gentile Christians. Galilee may have been a literary choice directly to contrast with the Samaritans, who were still jewish.
Maybe the critique wasn't aimed specifically at Dr Richard Carrier, but if so, implying a 6 year study by a PhD in greco-roman history, resulting in two peer reviewed books (including one on improved methodology), is "outside of scholarship", that's just preposterous. Especially in a field so widely criticised for it's flawed methodology.
That being said, this presentation is a mile above the likes of Ehrman in regard to a plausible historical Jesus. It presents clear and concise explanations for the possible transition between an actual person, the revelatory Jesus and the mythical Jesus of the gospels.
The issue of methodology remains, though. The gospels are written outside Judea, in Greek, decades after Jesus proposed death. Literary analysis show that Mark is clearly a literary construct, heavily relying on Paul. Matthew and Luke is clearly based on Mark and Luke is plausibly based on Mark and Matthew, and shown to use Josephus for detail. And John is very likely to be written as a direct response to Luke.
And we do not know for certain which, if any, other sources was used, oral tradition, Q, etc, or what they might have contained...
Add to that how the criteria for discerning what historical facts can be derived from the gospels are wildly disputed.
But again, great presentation and best case for historicity I've heard so far.
“Heavily relying on Paul”
That just isn’t true. That’s widely disputed. He is probably Pauline but whether or not he uses Paul’s letters at all is debatable. It’s a mythicist fantasy that the entire gospel was just constructed out of thin air out of a few sentences in Paul’s letters. That isn’t how information spread back then. You don’t get people worshipping some abstract deity about whom nothing is known whatsoever (except, somehow, that he was crucified, taught, and was resurrected [in heaven, of course] - but nothing ELSE, right??)
I mean I’d love someone to answer this, how do you think Paul, much less all of the other apostles we know (and don’t know; we just happen to be aware of the existence of a guy like Apollos by pure chance) were going around spreading the story of Christ, preached to unbelievers?? “God crucified a dude, about whom I know nothing, and this dude rose again. People say so!!!”Then one day Mark thinks, gosh, it’s so inconvenient we have NO STOREIS WHATSOEVER about our demigod when everyone else has so many. I better fix that and pretend he was some human from some town I’ll choose via dartboard. It’s just nonsense.
@@Jd-808 The foundational stuff is likely from some pesher that became popular. It might be the closest thing to Q there ever was, was a pesher. I mean Matthew explicitly says Jesus being from Nazareth comes from scripture...
And beyond that, there's a ton of textual criticism and mimesis research done on the gospels showing them clearly constructed from old testament stories and Greek texts like the Homeran epics...
Carrier proposes 1/3 characters like Jesus are fully mythical. The evidence for historicity weighed against a fully mythologized Jesus equals out, thus we land at 1/3 probability of historicity.
I don't find that unreasonable and I haven't heard a single good argument to make a historical Jesus more likely than being just another made up saviour deity from this period in history...
@@Farmfield The gospels aren’t “constructed from Old Testament texts and Greek myths”. They interact with other texts. That says absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus existed.
Good grief, why do mythicists always pull that card? I just argued with a guy yesterday who said the same thing word for word. You guys are like robots.
It makes no sense that “1 in 3 characters like Jesus are historical so there is a 1 in 3 chance Jesus is historical”. That’s the laziest, most reductive analysis I’ve ever seen.
If you haven’t heard a “single good argument” for why Jesus is historical, you simply don’t want to hear it, and are lost in wishful thinking. You aren’t smarter or more knowledgeable than 99.99% percent of scholars engaged in the subject. You aren’t considering something they haven’t. You just got hurt by Christianity and this is your way of coping. That’s ever the story.
@@Farmfield I notice you didn’t answer my question either, or only in the vaguest possible sense. “Likely some pesher that became popular”. What??? You’re not a serious person.
@@Jd-808 I answered your question. We don't know what the gospel authors had as sources, I for one believe peshers are more likely sources than Q or alike proto gospel.
The gospels being literary constructs is also undeniable. The connection to the old testament and Greek literature is simply factual.
And the 99% of secular scholars who believe Jesus existed also agree at least 95% of it is 100% made up, so historicity is just the question if the last 5% is also made up... 😂
As for you getting all stressed, talking about "you mythicists" and me not being a serious person. Lol, gimme a break. I'm Swedish. We're wildly secular here. Even our priests don't believe in a personal God, it's usually shit like "god is love" and alike. And the historicity of Jesus has been questioned here all my life, and I'm fukn 50+ years old. It's not a new idea, Carrier just popularized it in the US.
Easy, the Greek writers of the gospels wrote that Jesus was from Galilee to match an OT prophecy. As was the entire set of gospels.
What’s Jesus a translation of?
it could be from Geia Sous, meaning his name was "The Greeter"
Why was Jesus born in the year 0? (Approx) Was this because of the war in 70?
I understand that zero was not understood, and so their estimate of A.D. began with the year 1. Michael Lawrence's "70" makes the case that the second destruction of the temple was related to a "prophecy" by Daniel. Lawrence says that a monk, by order of a Pope in the eigth century( since Rome's creation ) designed a calendar that put Jesus on earth 70 years before the temple destruction. 70 was a special religious number in the scheme.
Parents had a condo there!
The area was Sumer, not Sumeria. Sumerian was the language and the Sumerians were the people.
{:o:O:}
Enjoyed it thoroughly... However... Luke wrote Luke...there is no debate.
Thanks Again for Another Excellent Presentation. I've already listened 3 times. So much Excellent Information to Absorb ...
Blessings 🙏
Like Moses was a Gift Child by the Hebrew Women , to the Daughter of Pharaoh, and so Moses was able to ascend to be the next Pharaoh, except the Jews rejected Moses, and Moses fled Egypt. Now, Jesus is in the same boat. A Gift Child divinely given by HEAVEN, to the Gentiles of Galilee, who proceed by the Grace of God to call Jesus of Nazareth "EL GIBBOR" "MIGHTY GOD". Now Mark Twain said "History does not repeat itself, but it Rhymes'. The Gift Child is GOD, and it is not Idolatry to obey Moses, or Jesus. In Exodus 7:1 God said to Moses "See now Moses, I have made you to be YAHWEH GOD to Pharaoh , and Aaron is your Prophet". So God can put HIS BREATH into a man's nostrils and so while in the SPIRIT, He is God. God is not the name of any god, God is the TITLE given to any Child of God who FULFILLS THE LAW. So if the Wind and the Waves obey the Messiah, then this one is God.
Story of Jesus parallels the Flavian invasion.
Henrews 5:7, psalm 18, 41,91 refutes the crucifixion and the whole point of Passover.
At 27:36 we start getting into his own personal beliefs and not historical facts
Because he was from Galilee
I recently read about, google, explains the 6 conditions to be Messiah, Jesus did not fulfilled
There are two Books of Joshua one from Tribe of Ephraim and one from Tribe of Judah.
Joshua Son of Nun was from Tribe of Ephraim. Born in Egypt.
Everyone agrees the Tribe of Judah's Book of Joshua is not Jesus the Christ.
Anyone read the Tribe of Ephraim's Book of Joshua? It's called the Samaritan Chronicle.
Extra: did you know Joshua Son of Nun was originally named Hoshea Son of Nun? Moses changed his name with the implied meaning "May God save you from the conspiracy of the scouts".
Jesus was from Galilee because his mother went into labor there,
Why was Spiderman from New York?
Because that’s where Marvel Comics was based and you needed tall buildings to swing from
The Argument against Sumeria was that they were too local and not Babylonian.
Lol. Iudaism is extremely Babylon, Which is Neobabylon and then Persia Farsi.
They are Farsis erroneously spelled Pharisees in the KJV
He was from Oslo
After reading everything i could find about Vespasian,
( my interest began after i found a silver denari from Vespasian reign with my metal detector)
He was a great man, a realist, loyal, proud, respected.
A mans man, like his son Titus.
Josephus was everything Vespasian & Titus hated in a man, a traitor, a coward, untrustworthy, disloyal, no self respect.
Why would a man like Vespasian or Titus have anything to do with a spineless coward let alone adopt him.
Josephus ,,, was a worm
Josephus was a useful tool for them. He was a Jewish general, so he could write history for the Victors (Rome) from a Jewish perspective. Writing to both Romans, and Jews living around the Roman Empire, not just those found in Jerusalem.
He was a tool to sway minds and write history the way the Emperor wanted it written (as propaganda)
@@masstv9052 your right about propaganda, it was everything in those times, especially in troublesome provinces,
Judea was always troublesome, messianic uprisings, quarrels, wars among themselves, a weak puppet king, protests against Rome a corrupt priesthood, etc it had been and would be one of the most unstable parts of the empire.
With such a large empire, the emperor had to be smart in focusing the right propaganda when and where it was needed .
During Vespasian, Titus era the western empire was behaving itself, the northern ( Germanic) tribes, always had moments of misbehaving but didn't really cause problems until early 3rd .
century
The east were another large region capable of anything at any time.
But after 70 ad , the sacking of the city and destruction of major Jewish temples, made them behave themselves ( whatever they thought they kept it to themselves) and were no problem for the next half a century or so .
The siege and destruction of the outer walls and finally the last
Was probably all the propaganda needed.
That's why I don't believe Josephus role especially after 70 ad was like historians claim, he wasn't needed, there was no reason for Titus to give honours or titles, the images on the arch shows the destruction and the treasure, especially the most prestigious goods ,that meant the most to people, and their religion but most of all the meaning, they were under the boot of Rome.
So imo from what I've read ,inc sources for and against Josephus, by those from the time and closest to the time, works considered trustworthy and others not , but they all come from people who have their own reasons, agenda, especially works written centuries after, by those who consider Josephus important re christianity, who dismiss earlier works that are considered contradictory.
I find people who disagree with others because of religious reasons and not factual, very unreliable, especially when the work they disagree with is written by those without any bias or personal reasons, who gain nothing by falsifying facts , who write for historical reasons, the unbiased are more believable.
..I can't find anything, any reason why Titus would care whst happened to Josephus after the conquest, there was nothing to be gained or lost by having Josephus around, let alone allow him to be considered as part of the Flavian family, why bestow such a great honour to a person who has as much use as a house fly.
The Christian writers are the only ones who consider him important, but to anyone from 70 onwards if they even knew his name it was only the disloyalty, the cowardice, to his so called friends, and a grovelling snake who cared more about his life than his honour, as I've said everything that's opposite to to house the name of Flavian .
Vespasian was one of the few men of real honour, as was Titus , proud of their achievements and family name.
Josephus has none of the qualities that befits the Flavians and everything they look down at , sneer at, avoid associating with.
Yes they would take information regarding the enemy , who wouldn't, but it doesn't mean they would adorn him with titles honours or adopt someone as low without honour as Josephus.
Nothing archaeological supports that story, they used coins to send messages of importance because they reached all corners of the empire.
I have several silver coins from Vespasian , Titus and Domitian, they honour everything from different God's, family, but nothing about Josephus,
The reverse side of Roman coins depict gods titles, victories, family and anything of importance, there are 100s of different types , if you look at them ( the latin inscriptions are translated) the images explained, so it's easy for people like us to understand the messages on each one . :)
...sorry about the long reply, I get carried away especially when its about a family I've been interested in for years and read everything I could find,, from 1995 onwards, since I found my first Vespasian coin ..
The Romans followed the same pattern anywhere they went. Trade relations, dissagreement, treaty for a better cut, disagreement, military involvement, better cut, disagreement, war, treaty with now client king, disagreement, depose ckient king and put up their chosen as king, war, depose the native king, annex the territory and set a Roman governor and tax collector. They did the slow game and once in, didnt leave. They instigated trouble or blew things up into major issues for their ultimate purpose -which was annexation. Whatever tools or puppets they needed along the way were used.
King David never had a son named Solomon?
King David probably never even had himself
Nah. He was from Gallowgate.
The Crucifixion. Billy Connolly.
The real Juses or the one that Paul made up!!!'
An example of a purely metal exercise to understand the gospel.
A great example. We are called to consider and reconsider these details for the unfolding of spiritual wisdom that happens within through earnest contemplation. Many among us cannot comprehend that their thinking is an intrinsic part of the process of the unfolding of spiritual wisdom and morality. Our God will hold up under scrutiny, we shouldn't be afraid to give it some thought.
Why was Heracles from Thebes?
Because the family of BARNABAS/ ARISTOBOL; SADDUCEER, were driven by the PHARISEER from Jerusalem to Cyprus and later moved to NAZARETH at the border with JUDEA, forming the religious movement of the NAZAREANS (their sons, Peter, Maria Magdalena and later Paul). As baptism was essential to early Christians, they initially took JOHN THE BAPTIST as their MESSIAH. Yet, later they changed to the younger and more inspiring JESUS..... Few Jews did know the Nazareans, but some understood that Jesus was their leader. It is said that Peter founded the Christian community in Jerusalem, but after BARNABAS had incited the uprising within ALEXANDRIA, the PHARISEER started in the year 42 to prohibit Christian preaching at Jerusalem. The preaching of BARNABAS and PAUL in Asia Minor was highly dangerous, as they were known to be ANTI-ROMAN. In the year 60, BARNABAS had been murdered, and the Jews understood that the CHRISTIAN PACIFIST WITH THEIR ESCHATOLOGICAL FAITH, formed a threat to JEWISH-ROMAN order. So, they planned the killing of the CHRISTIAN LEADERS James, Peter, Paul and exiled the rest. Peter and Paul escaped, the Jews were punished by the Roman rulers, and great new unrest emerged among radical Jews, leading up to rebellions and the Judean war.
Only this story explains the fact that Christianity became so popular in short time (it was already there) and how the carpenter and uneducated teacherJesus Christ became a risen God.(he is the product of imagination by the Nazareans Peter and Paul)
Although as a believer I have to disagree and take exception to your critical skepticism.
Why was Jesus from Galilee? Oh oh I know this one. He was born there.
Actually he was born in Bethlehem...
@@jamesbowman7963 Seems unlikely. As I recall, that story is in one of the gospels. The premise is that Rome required everyone to return with their families, to their place of birth, for a census. That doesn't make sense. Why would they do that? Especially as they were at war with the Parthian Empire. The Romans may have been a lot of things, but they weren't idiots. Jamming up the road pointlessly with civilians during a war, doesn't seem reasonable.
@@the_Kurgan No offence I will take the word of Luke who wrote the Gospel of his name, as well as Josephus and others that attest to other censuses around that time. Rome was requiring census and generally allowed locals to observe their own customs as much as possible. In the case of the Jews they allowed them to observe the Sabbath, keep the temple and other customs. The critics and scholars have so often been completely wrong about many other events in the Bible I don't put much stock in the conjecture. Sir William Ramsay after traveling to Asia minor to disprove Luke in favor of the higher critics, after living there for over a decade and retracing Paul's journey as outlined in the book of Acts, also written by Luke found him to be perhaps the greatest historian ever. He also regarded the higher critics as untrustworthy who never once traveled the lands they wrote of and instead pontificated from dusty German libraries. You find this goes on today. I will trust those that lived near there at that time and I trust Luke. So when he says Jesus was born in Bethlehem not Galilee I believe it to be factually correct.
There was more than one jesus
@@PhilthCollinz I'm certain there where. I believe that the only similarity between the bible, and quran version is the name. But then take any historical figure, there will probably be contradictory stories about them.
12:12 oh, for chrissake, Israelites were worshiping a Canaanite god : El
Jesus. Who. ????
And another He was also Call Emmanuel
Was Jesus his the oldest of his brothers?
Thank you for sharing the intimate biases of your preferred worldview. Hearing such makes me thankful that you were not the person who packed my parachutes in days gone by.
.
Joseph was Pkoenician
I thought he was from Nazareth?!
which is in.......
Cuzz he was here there everywhere
At once
🤺💐
Solomon "not a historical person?" And you're a Pastor? Beware! Acts 20:28-31.
calling it a Jewish sect is erroneous considering the fact that what we today called Judaism is the Exile after Christianity already exists
Rabbinic Judaism has gotten extremely backdated because of the ignorance of the enlightenment era Protestant reformers. They were completely ignorant to the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls would be the oldest remaining script, and those are basically contemporary with the time that a historical Jesus would have existed
The people who argue in favor of a historical Jesus based on consensus, of which John Hamer is one, don't open them self up to the consideration that since there's no actual evidence of Jesus's existence besides hearsay accounts, Christianity having any presense in the areas it did would have had a much larger window of time to have occurred.
We all know that the person who made the Gregorian calendar is the person that put Jesus having been born in year 1 and the destruction of the temple in the year 70, in Jesus's death in AD-33
All symbolic numerological references, this guy had absolutely no idea, truly less so than we even do now, of when the life and death of Jesus would have actually occurred
If it's related to Judaism at all originally it has to be dated to 100+ BCE
So I always say that because the Dead Sea Scrolls range in dates between 300 years 200BC to 100AD. The life and death of Jesus is almost certainly at some point during that Roman occupation
But things like the name of Pontius Pilate and all that stuff could easily have just been Associated via Josephus histories
The authors of the talmud certainly thought that Jesus possibly lived 100 to 200 years before the temple destruction.
Christianity being a slave religion however, it's far more likely that the religion was ultimately adopted as a sort of Plantation mandate religion for the plebeians; and a way to keep the peasants in some sense working toward their ultimate goal which would come after theyre dead . when the last will be first and the first will be last.
Judaism puts everything into the here-and-now, and gaining wealth and power in this life here and now, whereas Christianity puts everything after you're dead, and makes it a sin to be rich
i will not speak as to the time line, since the when, what and who really does not matter!
i will stand on the last paragraph as being completely on point about religion and its purpose.
@@yiannimil1I just appreciate you reading to the last paragraph.
The timeline is unknown.
I devils advocate the other possibilities primarily to push back against the idea that "Modern scholars" are infallible themselves.
I mispelled Fionnecian.
The Savior did not wear long hair. He didn't take a Nazarite vow and He kept His Father's Way and law perfectly.
I Corinthians 11: 14.
Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?
v 15, But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her..
He wasn’t from there …
❤ all this discussion means nothing if you are not a Believer!! It takes Faith to believe ...it is the Substance of Things Hoped for, the Evidence of Things Not Seen🙏💕😊
What I don't understand is how we have stories about the birth, last couple of years and execution of Christ on the cross. There is very little about what he did when he was growing up or is teenage years. He must have been quite a handful, probably a little terror kid!
I have heard from other sources that there is evidence emerging that he may have travelled further than we think, and I don't see why not. They have been trading all through the Med and up as far as Britain for 1000s of years and the Eastern route would have been open as well. Perhaps he went in search of his forefathers kidnapped and taken to Babylon? Who knows what knowledge he would have acquired on such journeys and brought back to his homeland? I can't believe he was fossicking around the Sea of Galilee all his life. He would also have been to Egypt, maybe even followed the footsteps of Alexander the Great? We just don't know. And why were the Three Wise Men/Magi or whatever they were, Persian? I know Cyrus the Great supported the Jews and I believe helped fund the temple in Jerusalem. Was there some sort of trading relationship between Persia and the Levant? Persia and Rome were of course enemies and I think Persia and the Phoenicians had food trading relations. Where does Christ's life fit into this vibrant economic life throughout the whole Mediterranean and Middle East?
probably grew up with traders in Alexandria, the NY of its time. was influenced by egyptian theology as well as hellenistic philosophy...
as it is evident the area around nazaret was multinational and multi lingual.
and joseph took miriam under his protection ...highly unlikely this was going to be an accepted jewish mesiah.
As far as I know, there isn't any credible evidence that Jesus traveled widely like that. From what I know, the idea that he may have traveled to India is speculation that originated in the modern period based on his missing middle years and a perceived similarity between his teachings and 'eastern thought'. It's not impossible, but I think the prevalence of that idea is due to the "it would be cool if it was true" factor more than anything else.
Also, small note, but what I understood from John's lecture is that the birth story is most likely a complete fabrication, so it's not that there's a missing gap between his birth and final years, it's more like we have no information about his life whatsoever until his ministry.
The Bible said he went to Egypt as a boy
@@maaruz1979 and he probably did…. Alexandria was at the center of it all, then.
Knowledge came there, Yeshua did not have go traveling far to find knowledge or ideas.
He propably went to the Temple in his youth as a practicing Jew and returned when the family came back to Palestine.
@@yiannimil1 Do you know anything about why the Magi are the involved with his birth story? Is it to do with Persia and the Jews aligning against the Romans?
He had to come from Galilee because that is where the youngest daughter of the Archangel Raphael incarnated as Mary in order to become the human mother of Jesus. Simple really!
30:47 It would be fair to tell the viewers that there are three academic peer-reviewed books (apart from articles) arguing for minimal mythicism: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reasons for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix 2014) and Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Prometheus 2012) by Dr Richard Carrier, and Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019) by Dr Raphael Lataster. There are not such peer-reviewed works on historicism. Assuming Jesus was a real person is not proving he was.
There are quite a few scholars, as fas as I know, who consider the non existence of Jesus probable or, al least, possible. This is not a fringe theory anymore, it deserves a serious debate. Among these scholars we have: Thomas Brodie, Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Robert M. Price, Thomas Thomson, Philip Davies, Hector Avalos, Arthur Droge, Carl Ruck, David Madison, J. Harold Ellens, Nicholas Peter Allen, Rodney Blackhirst, Derek Murphy, Marian Hilar, Christophe Batsch, Steve Mason, Richad C. Miller, Fernando Bermejo Rubio, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, ...
Considering how biased NT studies are because of religious belief, consensus should not be blindly trusted. And, beware, if we follow consensus in the field, Jesus' resurrection is a fact!
Most secular critical scholars do not agree, those are minority positions for a reason, they are people who willfully or otherwise misunderstand the evidence. God damn I am so fucking sick of mythicists you’re like evangelicals for atheism. It’s dumb, it makes irreligious people look stupid
There ARE such peer reviewed works on historicism. I mean, name one person actually working in the field who is accredited at a university who actually believes it? A significant portion of new and Old Testament scholars are atheist, I am not Christian, you people are deluding yourself.
@@PasteurizedLettuce👍 Mythicists are deluding themselves. I like Richard Miller but he is wrong about mythicism. Even Carrier is good when he isn’t talking about mythicism. As far as saying it is “possible”, what does that even mean. I think it’s possible but it’s not worth scholarly consideration.
Carrier is very literalistic in some ways. He says the fact that Paul in his letters writes about the Temple as though it still stands proves Paul was writing before 70 AD. Yet the Mishnah (completed 200 AD) writes as if the Temple still stands with great detail about the priests, the sacrifices, the festivals etc. Carrier is a scholar of the Greek world but appears to know nothing about Judaism.
@@dianastevenson131 Paul writing before 70 CE is agreed on by most scholars, Christians alike. It's not Carrier's "opinion".
The Mishnah is concerned with laws, customs and rituals, not with history, so it just says whatever suits the purpose of the writers. I can't see why it's relevant to your argument.
I won't comment on your last sentence as it's obvious you don't know much about his work.