The Gospel According to Carrier Part II
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 дек 2017
- Dr. Carrier's complete unedited interview at • The Gospel According t...
Why are mainstream biblical scholars so resistant to the idea that Jesus didn't exist? Why do they continue to believe in an original, undiscovered, hypothetical source document for the Gospels? Historian, author and scholar, Dr. Richard Carrier, addresses these questions as well as the evolution of the Gospels in Part II.
Richard Carrier is a philosopher, historian, and author specializing in the contemporary philosophy of naturalism and secular humanism, Greco-Roman philosophy, science, religion and particularly the origins of Christianity. He blogs and lectures worldwide, teaches courses online at Partners for Secular Activism. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history and is a Fellow at the Westar Institute (Jesus Seminar). See qualifications: www.westarinstitute.org/membe...
Books:
Science Education in the Early Roman Empire (Oct 2017)
On the Historicity of Jesus (2014)
Hitler Homer Bible Christ (2014)
Proving History (2012)
Filmed and Edited by 11th Story
Music by Rob McWilliam
© 2017 11th Story LLC
I really enjoy listening to someone that speaks honesty and is open to change if there is real evidence and has done extensive research that gives sound explanations, not willing to accept unchanging BS to collaborate their story to the weak minded, thank you Richard for all of your hard work, and i hope to have the pleasure of going to one of your seminars or debates
14:30 I had a history professor who had a Phd from the Vatican (also a Phd in history from UCLA), he left the church because of this. Great guy, wonderful teacher.
Question: how can you have a Phd from the Vatican? Is the Vatican considered and institution of higher learning?
@@danawinsor1380 Its a government.
A lot of information packed into 30 minutes, straightforward, logical exposition, and mostly free of academic jargon
-Knock knock; Who's there?
-Jesus
-What do you want?
-Open the door!
-Why?
-I want to save you!
-Save me from what?!
-From what my dad'll do to you if don't open this door!!
Yes and he sacrificed his son, who is him, to take away all of my sins. Makes perfect sense.
Also, since he and his Dad are the same being, then it's really "What I'll do to you if you don't open this door!"
christianity is a lot like a "speak easy", you have to get past the guy at the door to get in..... LMAO......
@@jabom99 Not perfect but enough, if considered for what it meant to be. There's no need to be more assertive than the wording of others.... In my opinion of course
@@stoyanfurdzhev original conception probably had them as 2 separate beings, father and son, or god and archangel (whichever). Either way, someone’s getting murdered as blood sacrifice to appease the god. Perfectly sensible to an ancient mind. Batshit crazy to a modern one. We are more ethical than they were. Ergo the story is bullshit = end of story.
Wonderful insight, thank you Dr. Carrier!
Carrier is a serious scholar who is not in the "Jesus Business." He has no axe to grind, which is why I find purchase in his narrative.
RATIONALGUY HAHAHAHAHA CARRIER IS IN THE NON JESUS BUSINESS. HE MAKES A LIVING PRODUCING DOUBTS . NOT FACTS. HIS WHOLE THEORY IS A AN AXE TO GRIND OR HE IS OUT OF BUSINESS. REAL SCHOLARS CALL HIM A JOKE. NON BELIEVERS ATHEISTS AND SUPPORTERS SAY JESUS WAS A REAL PERSON. 99.9% OF THE WORLDS SCHOLARS REFUTE CARRIER.
At least he doesn't tell fanatics to *murder children and infants* "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3)
DEE BUNKER SO JESUS SAID TO MURDER MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN? WHICH GOSPEL IS THAT IN? BEST STOP LYING.
Jesus is God, right? And God told people to *murder men and women, children and infants* , right? "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). You're the liar. Or is Jesus not really God? Jesus also tricked his followers into killing themselves: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). Gullible Christians have died following this: "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service"
www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
Your fake holy book is not only provably false--it's dangerous and evil.
Hencho, You criticize Dr. Carrier, but at least he doesn't tell fanatics to *MURDER BABIES* like your fake holy book does: "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). You support the murder of children and infants, based on lies in your book of Bronze Age fairy tales.
Thank you Richard Carrier. Happy holidays.
Great talk!
Ya know, I'm still waiting for a scholarly refutation of Carrier's work and/or a peer-reviewed defense of historicity. Haven't seen it yet.
One would think that defenders of historicity in academia would race to publish such, presenting their arguments in a clear and concise manner so that they could put to rest this mythesist hypothesis which they so strongly dislike. But they don't. Which I find strange. Because it would be in their best interest, and profitable too!
Don't they realize that their silence on the matter could be construed as consent?
I am willing to spend good money on buying such a book. If you know of it, please reply with title and author name. Thanks!
Carrier's the best! Smart as a whip and extremely knowledgeable about his topics. He's like the exact opposite of doltish Christian apologists and the "Jebus really did exist even though there's virtually zero evidence he did" crowd.
Tejas Green I also use the term “Jebus.” It’s hi-larious!
Daniel Eyre He’s not reading one of his books. He is giving a talk. There is a difference.
Ehrman is a money-grubbing sell-out.
I told him Judas- NOT JESUS- is the sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas, but his fealty to the religious nutcases stopped him from an epiphany. His income depends on selling books to Christians, even if he himself doesn't believe.
Christians who believe in a historical Jesus love to cite Mr Ehrman, and then point out how he "isn't even a Christan"
he's one of the best
Dr Carrier is brilliant and so very knowledgeable and I will never get tired of learning from him. Now I have
to put my two cents in.
You know I love history and how mankind evolved from religion to agriculture to domestication of animals
and of course how society came about. It is our history and therefore important.
"BUT";
Sigh, you know all this nit picking on who, why and what is pretty pointless. We live in the 21st century and don't
need ancient beliefs on how the world goes around. We have "SCIENCE" to explain much of it, and more
will come in time. So wake up and get with the program! You people that go along with what religions and their
so called leaders tell you really have to stop living in "Fantasy Land"
You need to look at it as it really is and always was. Just a big fat money making business that promises you
eternal happiness, morals etc. etc. but has nothing to back up these so called promises. You believers need to stop
these childish beliefs and grow up. Put a stop to these very profitable businesses known as religion. Wake up and put your energy and resources into something more worthwhile...like education and the betterment of the human race. Oh and
stop fighting amongst each other over who has the better god....it reminds me of sports.
Could you please list the atheist organizations from which Carrier has been banned?
maybe you need to study the facts instead of listening to Carrier who has ZERO facts. What a joke Carrier is.
@Daniel Eyre thanks for the link.
From the article it sounds like Carrier propositioned a college student at an event and was rebuked. I don't condone any sexually aggressive behavior and I hope he has made amends for any wrongdoing on his part. It's an especially egregious violation of trust when an authority figure or guest VIP takes advantage of his position.
That issue certainly taints his character, but it is wholly separate from the logic of his work.
As to your claims, which elements of his work are inaccurate? I've read his book Historicity, and found that all of his claims were not his own invention, but were rather the culmination of what others had already published in the literature beforehand, which he properly cited. So he's not coming up with anything new, other than his application of Bayesian mathematics to historical probability.
His work was peer reviewed prior to publication. As a published scientist myself, I appreciate the challenges involved in trying to pass peer review. I've had more manuscripts fail than succeed.
I am genuinely trying to find a legitimate scholarly work that refutes Carrier's work. Ehrman's book is widely disparaged for factual errors, misleading prose, poor citations, and other errors that scholars should not make. And he didn't seek peer review.
So I welcome a source that can give me credible, properly cited, unbiased facts against the mythecist argument, or even just in support of the minimal historicity argument. And I welcome works that come without the emotion, vitriol, and ad hominem attacks that do nothing to bring us closer to truth.
I welcome titles, author names, and DOI numbers. Thanks.
@@sandypidgeon4343 @Sandy Pidgeon as I mentioned in the comment above to the other fellow, I welcome those facts and would love to read them. I'm on my own personal quest to better understand what happened way back then.
I am trying to find legitimate scholarly sources which defend the historicity position, and can show precisely which elements of Carrier's work are inaccurate. I welcome a reading list. Thanks.
Carrier is a fraud. It is as simple as that. He gets pasted in every debate. BTW, science supports the Bible and not Carrier. GOD Bless
brilliant mind
Love these new video shorts, please keep them going …
As long as they don't get debriefed.
The acolytes of Jesus have taught me that Jesus deserves to be crucified wherever you unfind him. I officially convert to worshipping TFSM.
Ramen brother
Thanks for both videos, made it easier to consume.
Glad it helped!
It's interesting to observe how connected to various opinions of the past some commenter's are.
When I was a fundamental bible believer ... I couldn't look back with an open mind towards Jesus supposed history.
My mental belief shaped what I would see and closed my mind to trying to receive whatever the objective view was.
There is no one so blind as those who already see and believe in an idea.
I know this from experience and going through the process of removing the logs from my mental view was long and difficult.
When the light that is in you is darkness, the darkness can be very great.
_It comes down to how can we know something is true._
What is the source of truth?
Interestingly, the answer for me came through praying, 'I don't know you LORD'
An 'answer' came straight away, in my mind came the thought, 'I am Yahweh'
So I looked up the meaning of Yahweh in Strongs, Dictionary - concordance.
Yahweh = "the self existent or eternal' is the initial base literal definition.
Yep, yahweh the LORD in its essence means reality i.e. 'that which is'.
Reality speaks for itself (and it never shuts up) it is the symbolic burning bush of nature.
We don't name or define it.
We listen by using our senses.
And there you have it, the secret knowledge of Yahweh, the self existent is waiting to be listened to, looked into by anyone and everyone using our physical senses.
The spiritual GOD is just physical reality.
Nature and its ways display in reality the singular wholeness, faithfulness, immutability and ongoing ('eternal') nature of the Imaginary personalised Idea of God. Once you observe and know a truth of nature it, never changes, is completely faithful and can be trusted in as the solid foundational rock it is.
_The source of truth is sensible reality, there is no consciousness without it._
There isn't even one conscious thought without prior sense experience.
Even our inner conscious self is in its essence, sense of reality remembered and active in us.
So many out of touch with reality and its truth.
Those caught in old religious disconnects from sensible reason ...
and those caught in the current Ideological and conditioned disconnects, which are just more refined and powerful applications of older religious controls. People believe it is good and right to live a life of service to an employer/society and if they do, and pay their taxes and retirement funds, they can retire to eternal life when they retire. It just rebadged religion, dressed up in new ways and taught as truth based, but it's not.
The 'burning bush' is a specific reference to what Eastern mystics call "Jyoti" or inner light, if you are a hippie. www.rssb.org Re WORD, That is the Apophasis Logos, or Unstruck Melody, the "NAME" of the Lord, or Nam in Sikhism.
www.amazon.com/Bible-says-Saviors-Obadiah-Testament/dp/1441545689/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1530590100&sr=8-7&keywords=robert+wahler
Good God! What a honest assessment!
Why are there so many people that want to rescue me, no matter how ignored I could be.
These are good, great actually, keep it up Richard … ned
The Jesus Seminar's explanation of the Jesus birth narrative correlates with some of Carrier's points. www.westarinstitute.org/blog/christmas-stories-gospel-luke/
I love this
Many thanks for this. Having completed a doctoral program in religious studies relatively recently, I can't help but weigh in. In my experience, the dogmatic insistence on a historical Jesus--despite the fact that such a figure cannot be accessed through the gospels--is largely asserted as a safeguard against Carrier's really inflammatory claim: the gospels are parabolic writings. I found that attempts to interpret gospel episodes allegorically (or comparatively such as using Homeric paradigms) falls out of the scope of historical-critical methodology, which has defined the approach for decades and which insists on students constantly engaging in rehash, albeit on increasingly narrower topics. One is immediately met with hissy fit charges of "committing jungianism," or using phenomenology to explain faces in the clouds, or "eisegesis" and the like if one attempts to engage with source material using literary, structural-aesthetic criteria. If what Carrier says is true about Jesus' resonance to a contemporary readership (which I don't agree with), this is all the more so with the academic study of the origins of Christianity (and religiosity in the ancient Mediterranean in general). Thats my rant!... again my thanks.
Wow, a shiny new Ph. D defending "structural-aesthetic criteria" in defiance of bad old academic hissy-fitting! And you thought it would never happen.
So, did you learn anything?
@Daniel Eyre But you're here.
@Daniel Eyre What's your BullShit? How about you tell us what you got?
thanks for upload
What's with the duplication of the last few minutes, between the first video and this one?
There is a few places of overlap with extended explanation and emphasis. We appreciate that you were listening closely!
@@11thstory lol thought I was having deja-vu
I wish Carrier would respond to Lee Strobel or Josh McDowells writings. That would be interesting.
+Football guy 1000 "I wish Carrier would respond to Lee Strobel or Josh McDowells writings. That would be interesting."
He has talked about them, but not extensively, IIRC. Strobel and McDowell are not publishing peer-reviewed academic literature, and both have been responded to by many atheists.
Also, to Carrier (and I agree), the entire topic of the historicity of Jesus is really a conversation for atheists. The minimally historic Jesus (some random apocalyptic prophet) is not who the Christians worship.
A mythical Jesus also doesn't mean Christianity isn't true, either. If Jesus was a celestial being who Paul correctly saw through visions, then Paul's archaic form of Christianity would be true, and modern Christianity would be a perversion of it.
Have you read Strobel? He insults the intelligence so hard, you can't get through a chapter.
He doesn't have too someone has already done that...see The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Dr Robert M. Price and CArrier has challenged McDowell quite often on his blog
Great video. Why not say "edit" or "change" rather than "redact"?
I think it has a specific definition. This is the wikipedia definition "Redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly to make a single document. Often this is a method of collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive and coherent work."
'Redact' sounds like a word chosen so that other people won't understand it. These clips are aimed at an audience of non-specialists and non-academics. 'Change' conveys adequately what 'redact' is intended to say.
He used the correct word to describe what was done. Don't say amputate a leg, just say change a leg so we all know what you mean........
He used the word used by scholars... it makes perfect sense.
Redact is used in common parlance, though usually as a synonym to censorship though the obfuscation of information. For example, "The Nixon Papers were full of redacted paragraphs." Which is the definition I believe Carrier was actually working with.
Why don't Bible scholars use Occam's razor more often?
They do. It is part of the toolset of historical analysis. It's just that they actually know how to apply it, not like Carrier who picks and chooses his sources based on what conclusion he wants to reach.
I guess I am confused, what historian would reference a book as a source, as the Christian do that is known to be redacted ?
Any book written in the past is a source. You think historians don't have tools with which to differentiate between fact and fiction? Why would you think that? It's just stupid.
I hope Jay Smith is listening to you.
if you ever come to Cambridge platelet me know.
Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal
Cambridge
Yeah, I'm not fully convinced by the mythicist position yet, but it seems to get dismissed too readily.
Maybe you should look into the reasons why. Or do you also contemplate why creationists are not taken seriously? There are plenty of creationists out there with PhDs in biology. The fact that atheists swarm around some guy who only has a PhD in ancient history with no academic career, who only presents his stuff in front of atheist groups and not historical scholars is only proof that atheists are not really skeptical. They like their confirmation bias quite a lot.
@@Alnivol666 whats your beef against Carrier, he has offered his pretty well reasoned thoughts on why he doesn't think there was a historic Jesus, what scholarly version of a historic Jesus do you think the most likely?
@@JrrrNikolaus "he has offered his pretty well reasoned thoughts on why he doesn't think there was a historic Jesus" - and most of them are biased misrepresentations of the sources plus plenty of assumptions pulled out of thin air.
The scholarly version I think most likely is that which historians agree over. There is a reason why basically nobody in the academic field bothers with Carrier...he is simply a bad historian who is first and foremost an anti-theist activist and after that a historian. That is why his ideas are biased from the get go.
@@Alnivol666 He does offer a good counterpoint to that in the fact most theological scholars have been christian, or funded by religious institutions and a naturally biased towards the opposite of his view.
@@JrrrNikolaus That is a bad point to make. It is like saying that atheists who are involved in evolutionary biology are biased to be against theists. It makes no sense. Academics are first and foremost professionals regardless of their personal beliefs. You are denying them their right to be considered professionals because you dislike religion.
Funny that you don't seem to apply the same logic to Carrier who makes his living by being an anti-theist activist who only presents his stuff to atheist conventions. That is perfectly a-ok to you. No bias there.
Carrier opposes the 'Q' hypothesis and claims that Luke is based on Matthew rather than they both being based on a lost source.
What bothers me about his claim is that the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke are incompatible with each other.
The only things they agreed are that Jesus was born in Beth Lehem to the virgin Mary who was married to Joseph and that they ended off in Nazereth. In all other respects they differ.
According to Matthew they started off on Beth Lehem, they fled to Egypt because they were threatened by Herod the Great and eventually settled in Nazereth.
According to Luke they started off in Nazereth, were forced to go to Beth Lehem because of a census which occurred after the death of Herod the Grest and after the birth they went to Temple to offer the sacrifices for women giving birth and finally returned to Nazereth.
The genealogies are also completely different.
If Matthew and Luke shared a common source such a disparity is quite feasible, but if the author of was aware the contents of the Gospel according to Matthew, how is it possible for them to come up with such incompatible narratives?
Perhaps some of the differences are attributed to the writers audience. Matthews genealogy traced back to it's Jewish origin (Abraham) and Luke's to its Gentile beginnings (Adam). The writers certainly granted themselves great liberty in interpreting the Old Testament scripture in accordance with their story. Matthew's audience has a strong anti-Herod bias casting him as a Pharaoh like villain, but it was created to support a Old Testament prophecy "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
11thstory. According to both Matthew and Luke, Joseph is descended from Abraham and David. However whereas Matthew traces his descent through King Solomon, Luke traces his descent through Solomon's half brother Nathan.
I cannot understand how it is possible for the author Luke to be aware of the Gospel according to Matthew, yet come up with an incompatible infancy narrative. The 'Q' hypothesis makes much more sense.
Incidently, according to Luke, Mary complies with Jewish law for woman giving birth, in that she presented him in the Temple and offered two birds as sacrifice. There is no mention of this compliance in Matthew. Instead, they apparently flee to Egypt, and them finally settle in Nazereth.
I think one could allow the writers to engage in original creative political and theological adaptations to the story just like the writers of the OT. You noticed the differences based on a particular reading and reference of OT scripture and I am sure that the lineage would not have been overlooked by the writer. Perhaps the writer of Luke wanted to emphasize what was already stated in Matthew, that Jesus was greater than Solomon and omit the name from the lineage. Nathan was the first child of Bathsheba that she was given the right to name and Mary receives the first visitation of the angel on the birth of Jesus. Nathan was also the prophet at that time. I believe Solomon and Nathan were both brothers born of Bathsheba and David.
11thstory. My point remains, why would Luke give an incompatible account if he knew what was in the other account. Also the accounts differed in other respects.
11thstory. It appears that you might be correct in your assertion that Nathan was the full brother of King Solomon rather than being a half brother, never the less, I don't see that alters my point. Also, although I think it extremely unlikely that the author of Luke had access to the text of Matthew as it stands at present, I quite willing to accept he had an earlier version of Matthew, but one without the current infancy narrative.
I am not a believer of any kind, but I suppose there must have been a charismatic faith healer who traveled around, with a bunch of followers. That is probably the core. All the stories about walking on water, raising people from the dead, being the son of god and the resurrection were borrowed from other cults. Paul was the marketeer, who transformed the cult around a jewish faith healer into a religion for the gentiles. From then on people began to embellish the story. He was the messiah and all that jazz and that is only one step away from the son of god.
Daniel Eyre when you say Pauline you mean Paul??Funny.
peter it MUST have been a king called Arthur, too, by the same logic...and a Robin Hood.
Nope. They weren't.
There were many traditions and mythical figures to embellish upon. I don't think there need have been a real person. No one looks for an historical Hercules.
@Daniel Eyre There are claims right now that King Arthur and Robin Hood were real people.
You say consensus proves there's evidence? There's no evidence. There just isn't. You can spew insults but that's not evidence either.
It's just convention. 200 years ago the consensus was that He walked on water.
The stuff that gets claimed as evidence simply isn't evidence. I've had this convo 1100 times, I think I've probably heard it all.
There's no evidence it's all myth, either. But it looks like a duck.
@Daniel Eyre You're really an idiot. I know you don't know it - they never do. Rude AF too. Thanks for your time and the misplaced insults.
I like so much of Richard's factual observations, but I will maintain that the parables do ring truest in either Spiritual if not actual Gnostic correspondences. Another thing few see is Gematria {not gap theory} could actually validate NT authorship comparisons. Also, consider that the verbatim and copycat witnessing was designed to fail--- obvious fallaciousness!
I am glad there are no blasphemy laws in the USA.
PROF.DR.NASIR
CAMBRIDGE
In the USA blasphemy laws ARE blasphemy !
How in the world did I Google "Anirban Bandyopadhyay" and end up with this in the search?
LOL. That's because we interviewed him for our series on consciousness. A short MindByte ruclips.net/video/Sa6QKa0chGc/видео.html
Ahh... Anirban Bandyopadhyay does fantastic work. I study FIT/GML. It's brilliant.
i've got one of those fishy Christian signs on my car bumper.........it say's FISH AND CHIPS
It's better than "mythicist on board" ain't it?
I had a Darwin-fish on my car for a while, until it got vandalized. Now my wife doesn't let me replace it.
Ha. My wife tells me not to piss off Christians. Guess she's right.
First minutes he talks about the lives of whom?The Greek Aesop?
Yes, I couldn't make it out either.
That music in the background is a bit of a pain. It distracts.
Richard if you're anywhere out there stopping by once in awhile to read the comments, can you please explain why would Mark, since he's the first gospel writer, why would he spend so much time and energy writing a fable? Writing a farce about an invisible Man called Jesus? Is he a story book author? Someone must have financed him somewhere somehow. Mark didn't just get up and for the sake of writing begin to make up stories and publish it as a gospel, or whatever it was to begin with. So if you are out there reading these comments can you please explain why he would go through so much trouble to fabricate a myth involving this guy called Jesus? Thank you very much!
Thank you. It's a good question. My understanding of Carrier's position is that Mark is writing a narrative that has purpose, meaning and teaching. It is written in Greek, like Homer, which was an extremely popular story. The anonymous author uses parables for the reader, confronts the hierarchical religious system/ideas and predicts the fall of the temple, a major cataclysmic event that predated the writing of the gospels during the 100 year Jewish Roman War. There were a number of rebel Messiahs that fought unsuccessfully against the Romans. The Roman's brutally suppressed, not just the rebellion, but also Jewish practices during that time. Genocidal purging.
Carrier comments that those who survived had to pick up the pieces to start something new. I think Mark's gospel would have been extremely powerful. I have a slightly different take on the motivation, but agree that the ingredients were in place. I think over time the emphasis was placed on the character that superseded the teaching and definitely removed it out of its historical context.
@@11thstory I lost you on this,"I think over time the emphasis was placed on the character that superseded the teaching, and definitely removed it out of it's historical context." A brief explanation if you can. Thanks.
Mark's writing can be explained away by various methods, etc... It still doesn't address who he really must of been besides some writer as Homer. He had to have an end game all along and he wasn't a one man show. He was supported by someone, and since the next 3 gospels were redacted, there's no way this all happened by circumstance. Start a new cult for what? There was enough cults around already, and if this was a replacement for the fallen temple etc...,then why did Judaism persist? The new cult was supposed to get rid of the old practices. Someone needed Christianity and Jesus to supply something that the previous religious system wouldn't or couldn't hand over. Forget about the literary talent displayed in the gospels. It's secondary as to why it was used and for what real life purpose and gain. Whoever thought this whole endeavor out was nothing short of a genius! Also, you can't take something out of it's historical context if it didn't exist anyway. Carrier's whole point is on the historicity of Jesus. I'm a victim of this scam since childhood. If it was a different character other than Jesus, all these investigations into his existence never would have reached into today. It would have been squashed back in 60 AD more or less.
@@noloc4246 The historical context of the writer, not the character, is happening in the midst of the Jewish War.
To all christians out there. ( I know hard it might be) JUST for these two video's...pretend you didn't grow up and were told what to think, or found god in jail or wherever eles, or you have a differant faith. You will see what a big mess the Bible really is and just how irrational and or fictitious it really is.
Clay, The Christian brain is surrounded by a skull that is about three feet thick, a know a few. Even when shown the evidence, they still can't catch on. Much the same as 2+2 some people just can't catch on. Seth Andrews parents are exactly like Christians I know. Even when I rub their noses in "god is a murderer, and killed children and infants" still don't understand, I get the look, "deer in the headlights"
Richard Dawkins said the same thing....when ever someone brings up Jesus, he simply says "if you'd been born in Pakistan you'd be talking about Muhammed, if you'd been born in India youd be talking about Lord Shiva, if youd been born in ancient Scandinavia you'd be talking about Thor and Odin.... "
Never ever take biblical analysis from Carrier in good faith. He is a fraud. And you don't need Carrier to make Christians realize God isn't real and that Jesus was not God. Anybody who believes they need Carrier's lies for that is a moron.
@@Erborne1979 Another fool
@@Alnivol666 Hello. Keep on like this. I really enjoyed it.
Can’t wait for his series on debunking islam
WHo else but Richard Carrier can say of Jesus, "He's kind of a dick" and not even mean any harm by it - just stating it as it is without malice. 19:36
Q can be a document on Neroes live not Jesuas fictional life , basically;
Jesua Neroe both were saviors
Symeon Iskariot Lucius the Carver both burst open
Judas Seneca both betrayed their master
Magdalena (Pompous ,Elevated) Pompeia Paulina both were saved
Martha (aramaic babyname) Poppea (neres second wife) both were punished
Lazarus Brittanicus both died a tragic death
Maria Maiden Agrippina Minor both insisted on sons ministry
Josef (steph father) Claudius (adopt father) both were unwillingly
Simon Petrus (Petra) Simon Magus (Magnus) both insisted on self-salvation
There is simply to much simularity to ignore. Neros was the real person Both held close relations
to harlots and tax-collectors. Which are just descriptions of Neroes escapades. Nero diied at age 30
Jesus began his ministry at age 30. and so on and on.
So much info so little time.
Carrier certainly has a talent for weaving a story out of nothing. He gets by with it by sound so confident. Who dares gainsay him?
Q? How about an orally transmitted "gospel" or collected saying of Jesus passed around by the Apostles for the forty or so before the several Apostles or their disciples determined that the gospel would get lost or muddled after the death of the Apostles and wrote down what they had been saying for those forty plus years? That explanation has the disadvantage of being basically what the book of Acts says and is thus rejected by Carrier. But it is not only endorsed by the writer of Acts - wh0o happens also to be the writer of Luke - and makes perfect sense. But that is too simple for a scholar.
The Gospels according to John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4.
To all you people bitching about Dr. Carrier:
Where is your doctorate and peer reviwed books? Learn something about the man first, get all your credentials and then TRY and talk shit. Who are you to say anything is my point.
Richard Cevantis Carrier is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger. Carrier has a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University where his thesis was on the history of science in antiquity. What do you have, other then hate?
Very plausible.
Paul did say that he met Jesus' brother James (Galatians 1:19).
Carrier has actually addresses this. The term 'brother' was used as a collective greeting for people of the faith, as in a fellow 'brother of Christ', something we obviously still see practiced today. Carrier asserts that there is nothing in the writings to assume anything but this and that Paul only met a follower of the sect named James (not Jesus' actual blood brother)
Also which Jesus's brother ? I'm not being argumentative, but there were ALOT of people called Jesus. It's something that can't really be answered.
Daniel Eyre Er..not really, have you listened to what Carrier actually says about this? Yes, Paul mentions Christians as well as 'brother', one is formal, the other less so - I don't see the issue?
Daniel Eyre
Interesting, I had a notification of another reply and yet nothing here on the thread, I guess you deleted it. However, I got the gist of it, perhaps you can tell me where you got your PhD in history? I assume you have one or some advanced qualification in the specific area? Or are you perhaps, yet another theist who simply doesn't like the critique and thinks he knows better?
Daniel Eyre
*No I’m not a theist and no I did not delete any replies*
So where has the remark beginning "Yes of course I have seen Carrier's refutation of Paul referring to James as the brother of Jesus. Like the rest of his wank, it's ad hoc" gone exactly? (posted a day ago)
*Oh Carrier has a PhD? Sorry but that alone doesn’t cut it*
I'm afraid it does, a PhD necessarily means you have a high level of expertise in the specified subject matter.
*The actual scholarship who hold the consensus of historicity have PhD’s, many in history and (unlike Carrier) had thesis’ actually relevant to the topic*
Carrier's work is peer reviewed, so is 'actual scholarship', it seems to me your only angle is to engage in ad hominem fallacies in an attempt to undermine Carrier, it may work on others, but not anyone with a brain. The consensus is based on previously accepted perceptions which have remained unchallenged and taken as read for many years, that's the whole point. Consensus can be incorrect you know!
*Unlike Carrier they also managed to do something with their PhD in securing a position at an institution where they do research, lecture undergraduates, supervise postgraduates, get their articles peer reviewed before publishing, get their work cited and build up an H-index*
The more I read, the more evident it becomes you know next to nothing about Carrier, his work has been peer reviewed and has most definitely been cited, you haven't checked any H-Index have you! Moreover, although vocational institutional work is done by many PhD's, it's not a requirement.
*No I don’t have a PhD in history. I merely have a bachelors in Physics*
Congratulations on your BSc in physics, I hold a Master degree in history, a BA in Geography and a BSc in meteorology, I've not mentioned this as 'one-upmanship', but merely to illustrate I have advanced qualifications in history, which is also Carrier's area. This means I understand historical methodologies, textual analysis, comparative evidence and other analytics. If I considered Carrier was some charlatan, I would criticize honestly as such, but this is not the case with his work. This is not to say I don't disagree with certain elements of his work, I think using Bayesian probability in historical appraisal has its flaws, it's too 'clinical'.
*Your hero Carrier has laughably attempted to dabble in physics before (and made a fool of himself) so are you going to be consistent if you disregard me?*
Firstly, Carrier is not my 'hero' and you obviously have some agenda you're not disclosing by the tenor of your comments. I'm not really bothered about the specifics, however, one does not appeal to emotion when being academically rigorous. I have no interest in his interest in physics as it's irrelevant to the topic.
*The fact is that due to having researched the works of the actual scholarship before looking at mythicism; I can without any PhD shoot down Carrier’s drivel anyway.
And that underlines just what a crap pseudo scholar he really is and why he couldn’t do anything with the PhD he earned*
Have you any idea how arrogant you sound? Perhaps some humility might serve you better! I am sure you have your point of view and arguments, I've yet to see a single one, instead, it's one long list of insults directed to Carrier. With all due respect, any idiot can do that.
*Now would you like me to rip his pseudo history apart?*
Why would I? You're not a historian, I wouldn't presume to criticize your knowledge of physics, I am not qualified in the area. I stick to what I know and what I have academic expertise in, I suggest you do the same.
A major reason I don't attain attain a church or are part of a church is because of the existence or non-existence of a historical psyical Human Jesus. Many Churches hold the doctrine that he was real 2000 years ago. Many Chirstians believe he was a live, preaching person who was "Son" 2000 years ago. And I was raised to believe Jesus did not exist. Towards the Gospels and Bible to a millennial audience, it is a very valled and reasonal text to read. But I also believe the Bible can be harmful as well as beneficial.
Jesus is my friend. Jesus Rodriguez.
I know Jesus too. He works at 7-11. His nametag says so.
How can this man dissect the Gospels? What is he looking for? Did he not find truth?
Did you?
Yes! I found love and death.
@@dontalkt2meboutheros No ill intentions. I agree with you.
IPhone is the new jesus.
6:18 - wait, what, the first canon was assembled by Martians?! Is this the panspermia thing I heard about?
Not Martians, Marcion - google him!
I'm not gonna google a martian mate they get pissed.
@@lettersquash Really? All the martians I know are perfectly charming.
You have taken one Carrier interview and edited it into how many videos? Ridiculous....
Thank you. Three to be exact. After breaking up the initial interview into two at Dr. Carrier's suggestion we decided to show the whole interview without music and catalog the questions per the responses from viewers.
@@11thstory “At Dr Carrier’s suggestion”? You spoke with the author? Interesting...
@@dguy7436 Yes, we interviewed him. He thought the video could be broken up into two parts, which we did. Then a number of people contacted us about the whole vid without background sound and we complied.
@@11thstory Good work! Carrier is excellent and thanks for including the entire video...his work is very important but unfortunately many religionists will dismiss it out of hand since it doesn’t follow their party line...
Doctor Carrier walks on water--probably.
He actually prefers to walk on bourbon.
Carrier has as much invested in no Jesus and Christians do in a Jesus. That's not to say that his slant isn't worthy of contemplation because it's obvious there's a depth of knowledge
True. It's also true that secular historians and scholars have invested heavily in the historical Jesus. Dr. Bart Ehrman is prolific writer and big time publisher of historical Jesus books, has appeared on multiple television shows about the historical Jesus and has a very good academic position at UNC. Even though Ehrman has dissatisfied Evangelical Christians he has a good following among liberal Christians and secular enthusiasts. As for Carrier, there's very little return on his investment.
*_The Burden of proof_** ;*
I don't believe it's possible to know _with any degree of certainty_ weather or not the _"Jesus story"_ was based on a real person or not.
A mythicicst making a positive claim that _Jesus never existed & his life story is mythology,_ is adopting a "burden of proof" that I don't believe can be met.
You can argue either position, but I see no way to _conclusively confirm his existence either way,_
If Jesus did exist, then Christians should be able to command things to happen to Richard Carrier and other fools! 😛
@Daniel Eyre A good possibility.. As is mythicism. We don't have proof either way. And in the end, it's moot. Christianity is a story.
John Doe 1, Mark, Gospel was plagiarized by the other John Does.
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His time and even said if one is to take up a religion it's to heed the orphan and widow affliction also keep unstained from the world so how does this work in your paradigm Dr...
He addressed this in the first video. What does this have to do with a paradigm?
Dr. Carrier mentions that the main thrust of the Christian message idea was the last shall be first. In this case, the anonymous gospel writer created the literary character to make that statement.
addressed what exactly...
what you talkin' 'bout willis...
Can you point me to text that supports this claim?
Judas's body fell and burst open after hanging. Your body doesn't just burst open when you fall walking. It does when you've been hanging and had bacteria eating your flesh.... Not a contradiction.
No, no, no. This is pinched from Pseudoclementine Recognitions 1.70 Google it ... no here: www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.lxx.html
15:03 - Carrier asks, "where's your grant money coming from"? Anyone who knows the background to Carrier's story should ask him the same thing. This objection can easily be turned around against him.
He isn't a sitting member of an established university department. He's an independent scholar who relies on individual patronage for funding. You can get a better of idea of how he is funded on his website, richardcarrier.info. OHJ was a 6 year research project essentially crowd sourced by his patrons.
Joe Blow exactly. To research what question?
To research the evidence that exists supporting (or refuting) the existence of a historical Jesus figure. As it turns out, there isn't really any good evidence, and he definitely went into the project thinking he would find something supporting a historical figure, so his conclusions are based on evidence and against his own bias going into the project.
Curtis Towle That’s what scientists and researchers do. They remain open to possibilities until the evidence points to one particular outcome. It’s a bit different from faith which is based upon believing what you are told to believe, typically at an age when you accept the truth of elders without question.
Paul Walker - "...typically at an age when you accept the truth of elders without question."
You know, the older I get, the more disturbing the world's religions are to me, but I think it's the above mentioned aspect, that makes religions and their dogma, a truly _insidious_ evil. In fact, if you look up the word "insidious", it's almost the _literal description_ of "religion";
*Insidious;* _adjective_
*1.* Intended to entrap or beguile:
_an insidious plan._
*2.* Stealthily treacherous or deceitful:
_an insidious enemy._
*3.* Operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect:
_an insidious disease._
Too much maybes, u should do more research.
Doctor Carrier is in danger of becoming a new deity for the atheists.
I highly doubt it and I know lots of atheists.
Why are you promoting the Ken Ham of atheism?
The White Injun what makes him the Ken ham of atheism?
His tender beliefs were harmed by Richard. That's what makes him ken ham. lol
He hardly grows a beard ...
Does Ken Ham engage with the scholarship to the extent that Carrier does, and publish peer reviewed work?
Carrier engages with the scholarship? Where? Also...peer review? Oh....you mean the only book that got this label that was checked by Carrier's friends? That peer-review? 2 historians that he knew and they knew him that he sent the manuscript to, plus the publishing house's own reviewers? You know that usually peer-review is anonymous for good reason. Not that it matters because in the end an argument can stand on its own, peer-reviewed or not. The fact that so many people are taking their history lessons from Carrier is a sad state of affairs for sure. Hopefully, in the next decades these groups will feel ashamed for having embraced what is basically the Ken Ham of history. Or if you don't like Ken Ham let us call him the A. E. Wilder-Smith of history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith
Beware the demons tongue, curly locks and clouded vison.
This guy has very good imaginative power and can combine lots of speculations together to make a believeable and convincing story.
It is hard to disprove or even prove the existence of a God, Jesus Christ's messages when understood is pretty hard to reject. Just create a fog that maybe Jesus Christ did not exist and all is done. Nice tricks.
Jesus leaves you messages?
Just by text. "....you up?"
I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either but that doesn't mean he hops around the world.
Its very easy to prove that men created lots of gods....... Dr. Carrier is objective and brilliant
Zakariya Razi, You said, "Jesus Christ's messages when understood is pretty hard to reject." Really? "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). You reject this as a lie, correct? Otherwise, go ahead and demonstrate your magic poison resistance. I wouldn't recommend it: "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service"
www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
I guess they should've rejected Jesus' messages!
the man does not know what he is saying or what he is doing to him
Carrier is wrong. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Jesus Christ, the light of the world, stands ready to receive any and all who call upon him for salvation.
Carrier - why do you get your tail waxed in every debate? You have ZERO facts....all the historical facts are there.... "it's all fiction"?....LOL...that's why you have to say "yada, yada", "probably", "maybe", instead of facts. Why does Roman history talk about Christ, Christians, and the Christian movement?
The first Romans to mention Christianity were about 100 years later, and they are only relating what the Christian claims are. There are zero contemporary Roman references to Jesus or Christianity.
Carrier debunks claims about Roman Historians nicely. You should check out what Richard Carrier has to say about them !
Carrier= "I think...."might"...."could"..."may"...."it's possible".....are not the words of a serious academic....ZERO EVIDENCE
You're right, there is zero evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Obviously you have never been to a scientific conference. Absolute certainty is rare. The accepted consensus is held high but you gotta have a lot to change it.
Unfounded certainty comes often and and frequently from the pulpits.