The Case for Jesus Mythicism (feat. Godless Engineer)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- While scholarly consensus (and my starting position) affirms a historical figure upon which the legends of Christianity are based, is that really the most likely explanation? Godless Engineer joins me to present the Minimal Facts Case for the Mythicism of Jesus.
Godless Engineer
/ godlessengineer
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
The irony of Paul and John testifying against the testimony of Paul and John from the bible.
Next up, George and Ringo!
In the Bible, Paul is the mythicist, John is the historicist
Superb comment! Up you go!!!
😂🤣😂 best comment
@@gerdjakobovitsch4784 it is a good writing style to switch places when you tell a story :-)
I'm less interested in the "Jesus is a myth" hypothesis than I am in the "Paul was a con artist" hypothesis
It was kinda obvious to me early on that Paul had such influence because of the underlying threat of going back to his old job.
I thought Paul was the first charlatan televangelist before TV. ( my apologies, charlatan and televangelist are synonymous.)
i myself accept Dr. Carrier’s hypothesis that jesus never existed. probably more so than Carrier himself.
but i think Paul really did believe he was having a revelation, ie delusions.
so no, i don’t think he was a charlatan like your typical televangelist.
I'm interested in both TBH.
yes. the only thing that we know about Paul comes from Paul himself. he says he was a pharisee taught by Gamaliel, but he doesn't understand the pharisaic teachings. for all we know, he might've just been a liar and could've lied about being a pharisee, about persecuting christians and about his visions and revelations.
i mean, people do that all the time: "i was an inner circle atheist, but i had an experience". if we're doubtful of them, why not of Paul as well?
If he did exist he was nothing more than a first-century Galilean cult leader. No superpowers and no rising from the dead Train to Busan Style.
@@AGirlyReader because what they say he said has all the hallmarks of a cult leader. And cult leaders throughout history has also spread teachings.
@@AGirlyReader Aye, maybe not from Nazareth or Galilee, not called Jesus or Yeshua or born from a Mary or a Joseph, all of those still fit "a first century galilee cult leader", because he only had to gain a cult in galilee, not be born there.
So he didn't exist.
Jesus is the most influential person in history. No one has influenced history and civilizations than Christ.
@@AGirlyReader That is irrelevant. There is a claim that there is evidence.
Evidence of WHAT? Not said. A claim that hasn't been defined is often left undefined to avoid being disproved. See God. Any God.
WHAT evidence? Not evidence of "a Real Jesus in the bible". Trees definitely 100% exist. Doesn't prove I am God, though. Even though I can prove 100% that trees exist, even if you demand otherwise. Evidence has to support the claim and leap over a hurdle of defence.
Thanks for making this one! Coming from a Christian background myself, I find the historicity to be questionable at best and I'm glad that you've taken the time to show this alternative to this. There's plenty of references to Heracles and the things that he did all across the ancient world, but there are really no scholars who actually believe that he was a real person who did these tasks/miracles. The bias in modern scholarship should be pointed out wherever possible.
If you find Jesus "historicity to be questionable" your turned from a Cristian creationist into an Atheist creationist that is sort of a horizontal move then.
Who are you trying to call a creationist? Me? What about anything I said makes you think I'm a creationist?
@@christophercorrell4525 Myth dum dums are the creationists of atheisam. Pushing things debunked 200 years ago to fool their audience into giving them money.
@@FilipCordas Ah, you're just lashing out and don't know anything about my actual position. Got it.
@@FilipCordas I agree.
Jesus mythicism follows the same sort of shoehorning, disregard of academic consensus and delusions as creationism. And it’s no surprise that it attracts former creationists, they may have figured out that gold is a fabrication but they still have that mentality.
That was an excellent summary of mythicism by John, thanks! I would like to add that we don't have the letters by Paul; what we have is the writings that have survived the censorship by historicism (plus a few interpolations).
I think, in a field like this, the default position on Jesus' historicity should be agnosticism, due to the complete lack of evidence. If there was good evidence, the Church wouldn't have "manufactured" so much fake evidence (interpolations, Testimonium, books, apocrypha, so many Gospels, etc...). About the Gospels: we shouldn't ignore non-canonical gospels to understand the origin of Christianity. Mentioning only the 4 canonical gospels is falling into the Church trap.
Yes the early christians were a bunch of liars, all of them.
Antiquities of the Jews's mentions are a huge can of worms too.
While Testimony of Flavianus is still hotly debated through lack of other manuscripts/clear references and interpretation of the text vs what style and lexicon Josephus should, could, would use - or not - the reference to James as "brother of Jesus" is "almost universally accepted" as true in its entirety since that passage is far removed from the Christian interpolation debate of the other chapter.
Ultimate problem is that it's practically impossible to disprove "Pauline conspiracy" theory because of how circular it is. If every rumor and event relating to Christians is an early Christian forgery or propaganda then there's nothing substantial you could ever say about them. Personally I find the framework of mystery cults compelling for the reason of why Jesus wasn't documented or mentioned for as long as he was.
Interesting point. Saying a text is canonical continues to attribute legitimacy. Fundamentalist place the “authority” of god’s word in the hands of ancient (often anonymous) authors writing books in a very different context then our culture. The books selected as legitimate were selected by and for ancient authorities with their own biases and agendas. To say that constitutes god’s will suggests that god original chose Hebrew, shifted briefly to Aramaic then landed on Ancient Greek to share his true word then left us faded fragments as evidence. Seems dodgy. One would expect this of cultural evolution but not eternal, divine inspiration.
And why would Paul’s epistles be censored?
@James Henry Smith Go home James, you're drunk.
Nice! I never thought this day would come. 😉 Keep up the great work Paul and John (GE).
Dogs and cats living together.
@@Paulogia Mass Hysteria!
Long time follower of Both P and GE....
Still not convinced of the Mythasist position.... However GE distils it down VERY WELL....
@@fred_derf ya think?
@@BelRigh *mythicist?
Always great to see Paulogia and GE together, I just wish there could have been a longer discussion. But this vid serves as a great intro to anyone interested in Minimal Mythicism.
A sort of "minimal facts" mythicism, as it were.
@@danieldelanoche2015 Yeah, that too 😉👍
@James Henry Smith Honestly, if the antichrist tried to offer me magic powers, I would just think he was full of shit and possible a junkie trying to mug me. Nothing says "I didn't listen in class" like thinking atheists would believe some guy was handing out magic beans.
@James Henry Smith That's not really a rule.
Also do you mean Jean Piaget the behavioural psychologist?
I can't find that on his wikipedia page.
Are you making shit up?
@James Henry Smith I don't think "rule" is the right word for that.
Also, by that logic, no-one has ever died because they were here once so they must be here still.
Also, those miracles you mentioned above... A lot of those turn out to be scams, probably all of them. They're just a way for conmen to make money off of people who are desperately sick.
If I were a believin' man, I'd call those bastards false prophets and leave it at that.
I've been thinking about this for a while now, but this video makes the case for me:
Apologists are fond of arguing that "everyone knows the glory of God," and people only *choose* to reject God. However, Mark's account about outsiders being told stories while "true believers" are given the meaning of the messages is a clear contradiction.
Cool point.
Yahweh is known his love of the double bind. 🤷♂️
Yep, Mark is writing parable, not history. The exoteric stories are for the uninitiated - those who cannot turn to be saved because they do not understand the esoteric (true) meaning. Looking at you, christians. You are lost according to your own holey book.
Dr. Richard Carrier's latest take on the history of the Jesus death cult is that the gospels were actually the writings used by a Greco/Judaic mystery school. Only initiates would understand the true meaning of the parables while those on the outside would see them only as rather nice little morality tales.
@Benji
Christianity borrowed alot from multiple sources. It's entirely dripping with sun worship, astrology etc..
But let's keep your ball rolling abit with another clear example of their borrowing. Afterall the tribes that eventually wrote up the story had plenty of interaction with Indo-Iranian travelers, sharing stories etc.
The story of Adam and Eve is common to the Abrahamic religions, and like alot of others has "much earlier origins".
The *Tree of Jiva and Atman* appears in the Vedic scriptures, predating current Hinduism, as a metaphysical metaphor concerning the soul.
The Rig Veda samhita 1.164.20-22, Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.1-2, and Svetasvatara Upanisad 4.6-7, speak of two birds, one perched on the branch of the tree, which signifies the body, and eating its fruit, the other merely watching.
Rig Veda samhita says:
1.164.20 Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on.
1.164.21 Where the smooth-gliding rays, cognizant, distil the perpetual portion of water; there has the Lord and steadfast protector all beings accepted me, though immature in wisdom.
1.164.22 In the tree into which the smooth-gliding rays feeders on the sweet, enters, and again bring forth light over all, they have called the fruit sweet, but he partakes not of it who knows not the protector of the universe.
The first bird represents a Jiva, or individual self, or soul. She has a female nature, being a shakti, an energy of God. When the jiva becomes distracted by the fruits (signifying sensual pleasure), she momentarily forgets her lord and lover and tries to enjoy the fruit independently of him. This separating forgetfulness is maha-maya, or enthrallment, spiritual death, and constitutes the fall of the jiva into the world of material birth, death,disease andold age.
The second bird is the Paramatman, an aspect of God who accompanies every living being in the heart while she remains in the material world. He is the support of all beings and is beyond sensual pleasure.
*It can be stated that this concept of Atman and Jiva have been personified and taken into the Bible as Adam and Eve and the fall of man.*
It has been opined by a highly revered Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Mutt, India, His Holiness Chandrashekharendra Saraswati, that the term "Atman" also known commonly as "Atma" could have become "Adam" and "Jeeva", "Eve". Conversely it can also be stated that this abstraction of Jiva and Atman is immutable essence related to the events surrounding the fall of man.
*Tree of jiva and Atman*
This metaphor might have spread from India to West and thereafter got a new shape and finally appeared as Adam and Eve story.
----------------
Hence, Jiva (individual soul) became Eve in Biblical story. There is no sex for soul aka JIVA.
As long as the individual soul does not want to get out of desires, eating fruits in the metaphor, the soul can not get liberated and merged into Atma - God.
It's disappointing that this episode is basically an uncritical and unchallenged regurgitation of an extremely fringe position based almost entirely on a single individual's work (Carrier).
If we want to be skeptics we must be skeptical of ALL claims, not just the ones we don't like. If anyone found this compelling, I empathize with you. I thought Carrier was compelling too. So I asked myself "Why is no other historian convinced?" Then I went and found out. I read Ehrman, Borg, Allison, Crossan, and others, good scholars not bound by any statements of faith. It turns out Carrier's work, while compelling to a layman, does not hold up to scrutiny.
This is what skepticism looks like. Ignoring a field of scholarly research because you don't like their conclusions is what YECs and flat earthers do. Don't be like them. Be skeptical.
And yet he literally cites other scholars…
but it's not based solely on Carrier's work. I mentioned Lataster as well and then there are the extensive citations from biblical scholarship that they cite. Claiming this is just Carrier is misrepresenting things.
All those scholars are still beholden to the majority of Christian scholarship though. Their reasons are based on the work of scholars that are bound by statements of faith and theological adherence.
I don't ignore any of the counter evidence.
@@godlessengineer No critical scholar, not bound by statements of faith, is capable of questioning the work of those that are? Each and every one uncritically accepts this (evidently poor quality) work?
Is that *really* plausible?
@@ReasontoDoubt Considering that those scholes rely on the rest of biblical scholarship to have a profession, yes.
@@godlessengineer Good scholars question the assumptions of their field all the time. They don't just blindly accept everything they're told. It's *possible* that every scholar in the field has failed to do this I suppose and that's why they can't see the obvious problems with their work in history...but that's wandering into conspiracy theory land. I'd need some compelling evidence to believe a claim that large.
Many people understand that "Christ" simply means anointed. While "Jesus" (or the variations on his name such as Yeshua or Joshua) was a proper name, and extremely common, it also was a description, "to deliver, rescue." Hence any reference to this name in existing writings at the time could just be a generic title, not meant as a proper name.
Your reasoning is flawed. If a name is common, it is more likely to be mistaken for a common name than a title, and hence is less useful as a title. That Yehoshua (and its variants) was the sixth most common male name in Roman Palestine, and that around 4% of males in Roman Palestine had that name (see figure 3 in Feuerverger) makes it unlikely that the name was used as a title.
arxiv.org/pdf/0804.0079.pdf
The reference from Zechariah 6:11, referenced by Philo, is presented as a proper name: "Joshua son of Jozadak". (Jesus is just the English spelling of the Greek form of the name Joshua.)
Actually jesus is the English way of spelling Jesus 😆 and Joshua in English is spelled Joshua 🤣
@@incredulouspasta3304 Yeah, but Yeshua was a duper common name. And Mashiach was a common title, not specific to one person, and it had nothing to do with forgiving sins.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 I agree. My point was that the specific pre-Christian reference to "Jesus" in this video wasn't just a title. It was a proper name.
Can't understand why this theory is so hard for people, given as how almost all other European, middle Eastern and Indian god's were claimed to be historicised mythical figures.... It would be COMPLETELY normal to claim your miracleman to be really really real, trust me bruh, everyone else was doing it.
"Because reasons", obviously.
Childhood indoctrination, pet theories, self-aggrandizement on the scale where idiots just automatically assume they're right because if smart people are so smart why do they have to stay in school for so long... all leading to "because reasons" and "I can't be wrong, because then I wouldn't be right, and I am right, so there"
The only reason people don't understand it is because they don't want to think.
It wasn't just completely normal, it was the best way to make esoteric religious ideas relatable to the common people. If you see Christianity as beginning as some form of mystery cult expression of Judaism probably in the context of its interactions with Hellenism and Platonism during the late BCE and early CE era, then it makes sense that someone like, say, Paul, who was charismatic and came into the cult late, would usurp the cult and then want to broaden its appeal. This would be a direct route to more status in his position as leader.
Its basically what Coca Cola tried to do with "New Coke" in the 80s: Change the formula slightly to broaden the mass market appeal. Now it didn't work for Coca Cola, but the historical record seems to show it worked pretty well for Paul. Gentiles signed up in larger and larger amounts, the cult became a full blown political class and movement, eventually being given the status of central cult of the Roman state thanks to Constantine and the rest is history.
Seems almost....rational to historicize a fictional character meant to express a metaphorical or spiritual or philosophical concept as a means to bring the message to more people and thus sell the product to more people.
tl;dr Yeshua ben Yosef, Jesus of Nazareth, is the New Coke version of the Christos basically.
@@michaeldeaton At the very least what is evidenced has to be defined, and what is contrary evidence. E.g. if they weren't born of Joseph, THAT person cannot be a real jesus.
And then evidence FOR THAT needs to be shown. And defended. Not with "but the claim is sooooooo mundane! Just accept that it almost definitely did happen!", the claim isn't "it happened" the claim is "there is evidence". Show that evidence.
After all, the trees definitely exist. Does that mean I am the REAL God?
This theory isn't hard for people. It comes down (IMO) to what you want to accomplish. I engage christians to help them think or see the flaws/contradictions with jesus' divinity. HOWEVER, starting the conversation with:
_Yeah, that jesus guy wasn't real and what's more, he was actually a myth_
That's it....the conversation is over before it started. Again, it really comes down to what you want to accomplish...IMO.
@@thedude0000 IMO you have a point here . Funny thing happened to me years ago when I run into a fierce mythicism proponent, what was funny was that I was proposing to use the Jesus figure to argue (for debate's sake) that individuals weren't that significant in the overall historical process and that their significance was generally fabricated post hoc and so passionate was this person mythicism position she didn't realize that arguing Jesus had never existed made my point even stronger .
I know the claim of someone existing is mundane and so has a minimal burden of proof, but saying that the gospels and epistles are evidence for Jesus existence is akin to saying Superman comics were evidence for a real Clark Kent.
Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
@@twitherspoon8954 but but.. mah bable!!
@@Julian0101
There is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed.
None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, witnessed the Bible figure known as Jesus.
All four Gospels were written anonymously and all were written after 70 AD.
In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record.
Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later.
Over three-quarters of Mark's content is found in both Matthew and Luke, and 97% of Mark is found in at least one of the other two synoptic gospels. Matthew incorporates about 600 of Mark’s 649 verses into his Gospel, and Luke retains about 360 verses of Markan material. Additionally, Matthew (44%) and Luke (58%) have material in common that is not found in Mark.
Matthew and Luke plagiarized about 97% of Mark, often word-for-word. Matthew incorporates about 600 of Mark’s 649 verses into the Gospel, and Luke retains about 360 verses of Markan material. All told, 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke.
Matthew and Luke then embellished the Gospel of Mark by asserting a prophesy that the Temple would be destroyed, decades after it actually occurred.
Mark:
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous. Most scholars date Mark to in or about 70 AD, after the failure of the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the hands of the Romans. They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.
Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. Although Mark was written much earlier than Luke, the ‘Long Ending’ (Mark 16:9-20) is substantially based on the ending of Luke’s Gospel, but not in exactly the same words.
Luke:
The Gospel of Luke, written in Greek, does not name its author.
The Gospel was not, nor does it claim to be, written by direct witnesses to the reported events.
Most modern scholars agree that the main sources used for Luke were (a) the Gospel of Mark, (b) a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source, and (c) material found in no other gospels, often referred to as the L (for Luke) source. The author is anonymous. The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80-110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.
The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Luke is dated dated circa 200 AD.
John:
John reached its final form around AD 90-110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous.
The Gospel of John was only attributed to John later in the second century when the Church Fathers were attempting to define who, in their opinions, wrote each of the gospels. There is no evidence that John even existed.
John 21:24-25 is written in the third-person, referring six times to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
Matthew:
Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.
The Gospel of Matthew occasionally lets it slip that it was written long afterwards, such as the description of the Jewish authorities’ cover-up of the resurrection (“this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Matthew 28:15) and the story of the field of blood (“Wherefore that field was called the field of blood, unto this day," Matt. 27:8).
@@twitherspoon8954 I agree, it was sarcasm.
@@Julian0101
_"...it was sarcasm."_
Yes, I recognized it as such.
The only Bible author who claimed to have seen Jesus is Paul who asserted he met him in a vision and described him as being a bright light.
The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah failed to fulfill on time, so he made one up decades after the date for the prophesied fulfillment but he set the story decades in the past to make the prophesy seem true.
The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 538 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. "Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven years, so 7 times 69 equals 483 total years beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458 BC.
Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity.
Paul's goal was to garner support for the war against the Romans.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah (literal son of God).
He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' war against the Romans.
Instead, he created one of the world's most popular religions that is based on the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism.
The Gospel authors copied, and embellished, Paul's fiction.
None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, were witnesses to the Bible figure known as Jesus.
Did a guy named Jesus exist? Maybe. Does the Jesus as depicted in the Bible exist? Absolutely not.
My thoughts
What facts do you have that shows the Jesus depicted in the Bible did not exist?
exactly. Never understood why Mythicist want to die on this hill.
@@Justas399
_"What facts do you have that shows the Jesus depicted in the Bible did not exist?_
Requiring proof of a negative is a fundamental fallacy of logic.
Nonetheless, the evidence that Jesus never existed is that there is no evidence that he existed.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
According to the Bible, a star appeared in the sky leading to the birthplace of the prophesied messiah;
Jesus was recognized at birth as the prophesied messiah;
A "multitude" of angels came down from heaven and told "everyone" that god was born and "everyone heard it";
Distinguished foreigners (maji) traveled to bear the infant god gifts, guided by a star;
King Herod killed all the male infants in the region in order to eliminate the baby god;
Jesus traveled the region for thirty years; his fame “went throughout all Syria” and he and his entourage were followed by “great multitudes”;
Jesus performed 36 miracles, including calming a storm, walking on water and through walls, and raising three people from the dead;
Whichever city Jesus went to, everyone who touched his clothes were healed, including the blind and the paralyzed;
He was tried by the Sanhedrin High Court, the High Priest, Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and King Herod Antipas;
Jesus had a very public execution from which he later became undead and his corpse disappeared from a secured tomb;
After Jesus became undead, he made 12 appearances to more than 500 persons;
After his resurrection, all of the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and walked into town and "appeared to many".
Yet, there was no contemporaneous memorialization and/or corroboration of any of that, in any way.
In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record.
Paul is the only Bible author who claimed to have met Jesus and described him only as a bright light who appeared to him in a vision. None of the Gospel writers were witnesses to Jesus. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
Wouldn't you think if a baby was recognized as God at birth, and met dignitaries, and this God was walking around town for thirty years, performing 36 miracles and raising the dead, and was publicly executed and then his body disappeared from a secure tomb, and then the graves opened and the corpses rose out and walked into town, and the sun went dark for three hours, that someone at the time would have noticed and memorialized it in some way?
@@Justas399
Provide evidence that Jesus existed.
I gotta say, GE, as much as I love your usual off-the-cuff approach in your videos, I really enjoyed this scripted take, too. Fascinating video, guys, thank you both! Looking forward to seeing another collaboration!
@James Henry Smith my dude, look at what you just typed out. Read it over real careful, and then ask yourself: how does any single word of any of that *not* sound like someone ate the brown acid? "People will float up to the sky to the pinkish orange cloud of Heaven"? Citation fucking needed, and, hate to break it to ya, it's gonna have to come from something other than the Buy-bull, because we don't do circular argument here.
@James Henry Smith and? Where's the proof? Besides the Bible?
@James Henry Smith okay, where's your evidence? Show me the evidence of these "healings". Has an amputee had their missing limb regrown? A cancer ward where every patient walked out cancer-free? What "miracles"? Prove. Your. Claims. Show your evidence. Back up your assertion. Give me documented and verified proof.
@James Henry Smith oh, right, right, the Quran, right. Another holy book. You're right, I should have been more specific. Back up your claims without resorting to holy books, period.
Although, for the record, the Quran doesn't support the claim that Jesus is anything more than a prophet, so you might want to pay a little more attention to make sure your sources actually, y'know, line up and agree with each other.
@James Henry Smith right, right.
You got nothing. Just stop embarrassing yourself
I'm entirely undecided (and mostly uninterested) about the idea of a historical Jesus. The difference between Christianity starting around a made up person vs an ancient Joseph Smith doesn't actually matter in relation to my core reasons for disbelief.
I agree. The question is more of an interesting academic issue for me than actually being theologically important. Christianity is unbelievable either way.
I agree. It doesn’t matter for the question of belief/ disbelief because historian’s can’t verify the supernatural. Just like science can’t either. Although, if there was no Jesus in the first place, that would be a reason not to believe
@@coltoncatalli8148 The first christians didn't think so...!
@@lil-al If Jesus existed one generation before I was born, I would probably focus more on it too as a basis for belief. Like if my Mom knew Jesus and she was 100% about Him and His miracles, then I'd just be convinced, and I'd convince my children. But eventually someone would take my position and want more tangible evidence before believing.
@James Henry Smith Nope
Wow GE, you really toned down your usual energetic presentation style and matching vocabulary (for which we know and love you) for this colab. 😁
@James Henry Smith | Uhm, yeah … preaching utter BS never really worked on me before.
@James Henry Smith If faith healing works so well … why aren’t they employed in hospitals? Or is there also some conspiritorial insane story behind that?
No, I’ll tell you why: Because it doesn’t work!
There are two kinds of people in the faith healing business:
- The ones that are fooled by it
- The ones preying on the fooled and fleecing them for as much money as possible
Which of the two are you? If you say you’re not fooled and you’re not in it for the money … well … there’s only two categories, so I’ll have your answer.
@James Henry Smith | Genuine request: Could you please make a doctors appointment to adress your delusions? I don’t know if they are halucinatory, but if they are this could be further indication of a brain tumor.
@James Henry Smith You wrote: _”People insult and defame the Christians and Muslims so the Christians and Muslims are obviously right!”_
Those two don’t connect … AT ALL!
It’s like saying: _”People insult and defame a certain German political party during WW2 so that political party is obviously right!”_
Doesn’t make sense, right? Yeah, neither does your statement.
@James Henry Smith Question: do you post your replies, only to delete them shortly afterwards?
Perhaps you realised how silly they sounded. It almost makes me feel bad to tear down the arguments you make in them. … almost.
Finally, GE content where he actually breathes between sentences!
He had to be animated to be able to breath?
The spirit (pneuma) works in mythsterious ways.
@James Henry Smith
That is true. I had a friend who said, "Jesus Fucking Christ, I am sick of this cold", and sure enough, three weeks later, he was fine.
Another friend offered a profoundly spiritual prayer, and the next day, his shipment of exotic vodka, gin, rum and whisky spirits arrived, so we drank to the health of the DHL drivers who move in mysterious ways.
@James Henry Smith Various people insult other people so the recipients of the invectives are obviously right.
If christianity is correct, we'd need saving from the murderous douche bag that they call Yahweh.
I have to say that as a "customer" of the catholic institution for decades I am more inclined to the myth hypothesis.
I lean toward mythicism, although I admit to agnostic mythicism. I don't claim to know, I just posit that I do not find the arguments for Jesus being a real boy aren't terribly convincing.
The numerous contradictions in the new testament surrounding the narrative of Jesus's birth, some of his actions and the events surrounding his death render it unbelievable to me. Trying to reconcile the accounts lead to a series of gymnastics that just show that this is the embellished tale of a charismatic, Jewish revolutionary who lived in 2nd century Palestine.
You don’t find the arguments not convincing? So you find them somewhat convincing?
@@coltoncatalli8148 I think they didn't read through the sentence before posting. I don't think they meant to put a double negative.
@@lil-al I agree, that does seem most likely, just like Jesus.
He certainly may have existed. Doesn't really matter... His story has been so distorted and fabricated (to fit a narrative) over the hundreds of years since his existence that his actual life is non representative of his legend.
So the answer is: it doesn't matter if he actually existed or not.
For an example of where we know the original existed: compare Santa Clause and Saint Nicholas of Myra. You can trace how the one is derived from the other but is that "a historical Santa Claus"?
I see the problem is of historians taking an unsupported position because of Christian privilege. "Might have existed, but not established by evidence" isn't good enough for them, even the liberal ones.
It matters to historians
@@KaiHenningsen For an example we know the original didn't exist: Finding Nemo. Or Spider-Man. BOTH legends are known to be based on completely made up characters.
@@markhackett2302 Of course. My point was, even *if* there is an actual original person, if the story gets twisted enough, it gets to the point where the question if this is "the historical X" becomes pretty much meaningless. The story has, how do we call it, "taken on a life of their own" or something like that?
It is cases like these which make me wish we had time machines by now to see what actually happened back then.
Don't you know the Vatican has a Chronovisor?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronovisor
@James Henry Smith - can't argue with that.
🙄
I need to rethink the opinions of a few local talk show hosts who I agree with politically, but ,to me, just flushed their credibility down the toilet when they admitted that they took the word of a fictitious character, who claimed that another fictitious character, exists. People want to correct me by saying "you need to read the book, The Case For Christ"... and they get mad when I say "I DID!" I say, "It's like taking the word of Santa Clause that Christmas Elves are 'really' at the North Pole." ('cause Santa would never lie!)
@12:23 "It's fair to be skeptical of the concensus when the field lacks academic freedom and punishes those who don't strictly adhere to faith based doctrines." I'm not a mythicist yet, but it's hard to disagree with that.
It would be a great point, but the problem with this argument is that even when you narrow your focus just to non-Christian scholars of the New Testament, the consensus that there was a historical Jesus remains, and for good reasons that GE did not bring up here.
@@timothyhicks3643 "there was a historical Jesus remains, and for good reasons that GE did not bring up here"
Neither did you. Lack of evidence. Which is the mythicist claim: there is no evidence that there was a real jesus. And you provided no evidence.
@@markhackett2302 I didn’t enumerate the evidence here because I wanted to keep my reply focused on responding to what was said. If you are interested to read it, I also wrote a longer standalone comment listing what I consider to be some of the most important and most glaring evidence that GE failed to address.
@@timothyhicks3643 There is nothing that would be considered hard irrefutable evidence. A few words here and there about a person named Jesus from some Romans and Jews are not that convincing. Every Christian writing was at least decades after his supposed life. The best an objective person could say is "maybe, but not likely".
@@jimralston4789 Paul clashed with his brother James at Antioch. What more evidence could there be for a crucified criminal?
Great stuff per usual, guys. I went down the Carrier/Price mythicism rabbit hole a few years ago and I’m still quite fascinated by the notion of a mythical Jesus. I think they make a lot of good points and present a plausible reconstruction of the origins of Christianity sans a historical Jesus.
Of course, even they will tell you that just because they lean mythicist doesn’t mean that they view historicist reconstructions as implausible. I think the big takeaway ought to be that the historical data we have available is problematic, ambiguous, and ultimately insufficient to render a confident verdict either way. Thus, in my non-expert opinion, historicity agnosticism is the most rational position to take until new data is brought to light (I won’t hold my breath).
Carrier is a complete crackpot. A lot of his claims just aren't true or are presented in misleading ways.
I'm just asking for sufficient evidence to warrant the claim. The evidence we do have to me, warrants agnosticism if not outright mythicism.
I agree. We simply don't know if Jesus existed. I suspect the mythology is likely based on a real person, but I freely admit that might not be the case.
@@dharmadefender3932 Mythicism isn't a null hypothesis. It involves a bunch of claims & needs to explain how both Christians & their critics came to believe Jesus existed & why the idea he didn't was never clearly recorded if early believers still held this when Christianity had spread to Rome & Asia minor.
@@AceOfSevens We already have that explanation, and it doesn't require being a mythicist.
Thank you for covering the subject of mythicism. (Thank Lil' Al, for the correction.)
Mythicism.
@James Henry Smith by your logic (or the lack thereof), people still use Astrology does that mean it "oBviOuSlY wOrkS" or do people often make fallacious appeals to tradition? Jesus is special buddy. Belief in Jesus is indistinguishable from belief in Sasquatch. It's all matter of make-believe.
@James Henry Smith "People still do healings and other miracles in the name of Jesus Christ, so Jesus Christ is obviously still there." I really REALLY hope you don't think this is a sensible argument.
@James Henry Smith No dear, not at all.
Even if I don't think mythicism is completely true, I still think it deserves a seat at the table of possibilities. The blithe dismissal of mythicism annoys me. It's an understandable attitude coming from Christians, but when _certain_ secular scholars do the same, it's a bit jarring.
@Logical Musicman mysticism and mythicism are not the same thing.
It is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed.
If Jesus didn't exist, it's important not to concede the opposite when talking to believers. To them is their foot in the door to convince those who remain open to the possibility. They reason that if he existed, was what he taught good or bad? Was he crazy or divine? and so on, until they make their point. Instead they should be busy providing proof of their extraordinary claim.
@@DoctorZisIN I disagree. I usually concede that Jesus probably historically existed when talking to believers. It's such a mundane, trivial claim that I don't think it's worth arguing about when _they_ are trying to argue that he not only existed, but also that he rose from the dead. There's plenty of good and bad ethics teachers that didn't rise from the dead. Trying to argue for mythicism tends to distract from the absurdity of the Christian claim.
@@twitherspoon8954 _"It is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed."_
True as far as I know, but contemporaneous evidence tends to be hard to come by for most people this far back in history. It's not surprising, even if he was historical.
I don't particularly care if there was 1 or more people that the Jesus character is _"based on,"_ what I care about is whether the Jesus _FROM THE BIBLE_ actually existed. In order for that to be true, _that_ Jesus would have had to have _ACTUALLY_ case out demons, cursed a tree species, turned wine into water, and raised from the dead. If none of that can be shown, then _THE JESUS FROM THE BIBLE_ didn't really exist.
I've come to conclude, for most people, as sad as I am to admit it, perception is literal reality.
@James Henry Smith prove it
@James Henry Smith We have no evidence of faith healing working.
@James Henry Smith 😆Not true. I will prove it... Give us one example.
@James Henry Smith Muslims say the same about moo-hummmm-ed (PABBUHLOL). So would you believe Islam based on their claims? Doubt it. Why would someone believe you based on the same? Making an untestable claim is not good enough bro. Benny Hinn healed lots of people in jeebus' name. Guess what? Nope, he didn't actually. Peter Popoff healed lots of people in jeebus' name. Guess what? No he didn't though. You got LOTS of liars in your group think collective my dude. You will have to prove it harder to convince anyone.
@James Henry Smith no. Nope. The Islamic view is not at all consistent with Christians. Jesus was a messenger like moo-hummmm-ed. He was not divine or part of a trinity. Besides, many Muslims think Jesus didn't really die. Regardless of all this, your claim jebus is totally in heaven cause some people claim he did miracles now days is clearly BS. Care to share evidence for your magical claims?
"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away...(Quran 5:73-75)"
The Apostle Paul never met or talked to Jesus when he was alive. Yet most Christain doctrine is based on Paul's claims that he saw Jesus in a vision and talked to him in heaven. When you think about it, anyone could make these extraordinary claims. Yet billions rely on every word written in Paul's 7 short letters in the New Testament about how Jesus told that he was the creator of the universe, lives in heaven next to God, and that someday he will come back and resurrect the dead.
Today we would consider someone mentally ill if they went around talking to an imaginary man that died 30 years ago. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But we only have the writings of one man who may or may not be mentally stable. Now that is incredible.
I'm a history major studying for my master's and I wrote a short paper on this. I actually believe it's a mix of both. A mythical tradition that became the basis for numerous historical figures named or took on the name of Jesus (Joshua) in order to bring about the prophetic end of days. Later the individual stories became compiled and redacted to read as just one single caricature of all of them that we now know as Jesus of Nazareth.
@James Henry Smith the internet has broken me. I can't tell if you're serious or satirical. 🤣
@James Henry Smith people do healing miracles and cast out demons on the name of every god.
Now that's an interesting theory.
It's something we see numerous times in history already.
I'm surprised I've never heard anyone else bring it up.
@@Lobsterwithinternet yeah it seems so simple. Maybe that means I'm good at this or really bad. Also lobsters rule. Praise be the Lorb 🦞
The fact that only 1 qualified historian has ever done a professional analysis of the historicity of Jesus says a lot about the lack of professionalism in Jesus studies. All the apologists / theologians just assume historicity. Actual historians looking at Jesus are a rarity.
How many actual Myther historians?
So Christians can't be historians? That's certainly not a professional attitude!
@@jamiehudson3661 one that I know of who's published on historicity. If you find any more, let me know.
@@gregb6469 who said Christians can't be historians?
@@unicyclist97 Answer - not many at all.
Before the pandemic I would be more into being a historicitist, the experiance of the last 2 years shows me that mysticism is 100% possible... :-)
mythicism.
Same here.
@James Henry Smith Jesus Christ is a figment.
Well, the Jesus story that we have today is bullshit either way, whether there was a dude called Jesus or not. Either we have a bunch of fictional fantastical stories veeeeery loosely based on a couple of biographical points of a totally normal person, or we have a bunch of fictional fantastical stories about a totally fictional character. Either way we have a bunch of fictional stories. It doesn’t really make much difference.
I have to admit that I was a historicitist until learning about how the earliest actually dated writing was Paul- and according to Wikipedia even 1 Corinthians is debated about being written by Paul. I like Paulogia Paul's view of it being based on Peter, but GE has definitely given me more to think about!
Wikipedia states that 1 Corinthians is debated about being written by Paul?
"There is a consensus among historians and theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53-54)."
The only thing debated about 1 Corinthians is one interpolation that suggest women are to remain silent in the church which conflicts with women having spiritual gifts that may be practiced in the church.
I thought 1 Corinthians was written by Paulogia.
Mythicism is ridiculous it's close to flat earth in how many times it was debunked. Anyone that promotes it hasn't read anything other then that guys books that lives in the woods and invites under age girls to join him there over the internet.
@@FilipCordas Ad Hominim?
@@AarmOZ84 I was reading the 1 Corinthians page where it says "However, the epistle does contain a passage that is widely believed to have been interpolated into the text by a later scribe:" - while that does not explicitly invalidate the authorship of the whole document, it does support GE's hypothesis that vague or ambiguous language could have been ' interpreted' by later scribes. At the very least, the existence of differing versions of the documents that became the Bible call into question any claim of inerrancy, even in the Pauline letters that are accepted to be authored by Paul/Saul.
Firstly, I didn't realize GEs name was John. That was trippy.
Second, EXCELLENT video. This was, in my opinion, a very in-depth but easy to understand video on mythicism.
Lastly, I'm working my way through On the Historicity of Jesus because of GE and, gotta say, Dr Carrier is mighty convincing.
I think Jesus wasn't real.
Carrier is super convincing...until you read the works of historians in the field. I too started by reading Carrier, but went on to read Borg, Ehrman, Allison, and others. Carrier's work ignores a LOT of data and is tenuous at best.
@@NotCapitalist
What data do you think he ignored?
@@NotCapitalist You mean "until you read the works of bible scholars".
@Adam Cosper And so therefore bible historians are sexual predadors? Or are they all women?
@Adam Cosper
If true, what does that have to do with his book and his arguments?
Depends on which "jesus" you're talking about:
The jesus exactly as believed by christians, the son of god with superpowers and all : definitey fictional
The ordinary 1st century middle eastern small-time cult leader who got executed by the romans : plausible enough to could have been existed
What if there was a story made up by a not preacher not born of a Mary in Nazareth would THEY be "the real jesus"? Nazareth exists. Therefore people HAD to be born there. So does that make the not-preacher born in a village/town that people were born in evidenced? No.
@@markhackett2302 ofc, there's always a possibility that the whole thing is entirely made up and not based on anything, obviously
@@manusiabumi7673 Aye, and if "there could have been a real jesus" is fine, but Bart Ehrman doesn't leave it there, he claims that there is EVIDENCE for "a real jesus".
Trees really exist. They therefore prove I am a God? So that evidence has to be stated and defended against "there is no real person behind it" as a default. That isn't a claim that there wasn't a real person, it is a claim there is no evidence for a real person.
Paulogia gets away with it when he says "for sake of argument", and I can get behind that. Doesn't show mythicism is wrong, doesn't show what IS considered "a real jesus". If Ehrman wants to claim there was, what evidence does he HAVE? "Look at the trees" isn't it. Does that evidence stand up? Well it depends on what Ehrman claims "a real jesus" can be, but that not only has to be pre-stated, but also the evidence for that has to be able to withstand critique that it supports THAT claim. Ehrman fails on both counts.
There might be a real Jesus, but there isn't any evidence for it, at least beyond a "look at the trees!" argument.
@@markhackett2302 except i'm not defending bart here (or godless, or anyone else on that matter), i'm just stating my opinion about the whole "is jesus real?" thing
@@manusiabumi7673 Except I am attacking Ehrman. You not doing that is 100% irrelevant to whether I did it. So do you want to make a point, or leave it and run away?
Atheist: I'm not convinced Jesus even existed. Christian: How can you be sure anyone from history existed in that case. Atheist: Face palm and sigh.
tHerE's MorE eVidEnCe fOr jESuS thAn CaeSaR
@@rainbowkrampus lol
@James Henry Smith 😄
Wow, you two really know how to pack a plethora of information, as rebuttal to Christian apologetics, into an entertaining, aesthetically pleasing presentation. Thank you both for educating and reeducating us. When encountering the delusion of historicism spewed forth, in the future, I will knowingly smile.
@James Henry Smith Stop projecting your personal perversion. ruclips.net/video/2tp0UNcjzl8/видео.html
@James Henry Smith Religious people still rape children. Stop trolling, pervert.
@James Henry Smith Jesus Christ doesn't exist.
@James Henry Smith By your logic, child molesters are right, because they're defamed.
@James Henry Smith Are you hiding those demons up you butt?
WOW!! I feel like I studied this topic a LOT. I'm probably 1 of the few who've read through Richard Carrier's book, On the historicity of Jesus, In it's entirety multiple times.
I learned a lot from this! Godless engineer, you knocked this out of the park!
OTHOJ is a huge book, I listened to audio book, 28+ hours, I should probably get a physical copy as well, very interesting book, I tend to lean towards jesus was a myth
I wonder why historians working in other, completely unrelated areas don’t use Bayesian analysis? It can’t be because they _all_ can’t do first year math surely?
Why doesn’t Carrier apply his method to other, less controversial areas of ancient history and see if he can generate results and build a consensus?
If my tone is a tad mocking (sorry), it’s for good reason. Bayesian analysis of ancient history has massive margins of error and is horribly susceptible to input bias. The fact that Christian apologists (Dr Timothy and Dr Lydia Mcgrew) use it to ‘prove’ the resurrection is telling.
@@mil401 Well if he prior is 0% then the result will be 0%.
I wonder if that is why Bayes' theorems aren't used here....
@@mil401 John didn’t mention Bayesian analysis a single time and usually doesn’t mention it. The key to all of this is the evidence. Maybe try addressing that. I think that’s a more useful discussion than whether or not you agree with how much of a chance he gives Jesus of existing.
@@KaitlynChloe That’s fair, my bad. Misuse of Bayesian analysis by some apologetics and counter-apologists grinds my gears but I’m glad that isn’t relevant here. NT studies isn’t my academic background though so I’m very reticent to have an opinion beyond what consensus scholarship says.
When I was a Christian, I hated Paul for hijacking my historical hippie Jesus. But, as an atheist, I agree with Paul--Jesus is spirit or nothing.
Paul only refers to Jesus as a mortal human and never as any supernatural thing.
@@danieleyre8913 It was a vision of the risen Christ that converted Paul. He never mentions Jesus as a mortal.
@@GrammieK12o6 Yes Paul claimed a vision but that’s not the same thing as saying Jesus is a spirit. And you frankly are talking twaddle with this claim that Paul never mentions Jesus as a mortal. Right there in the epistles he only refers to Jesus in a mortal sense.
@@danieleyre8913 Yes, Paul never once said there was a real mortal Jesus.
@@markhackett2302 Absolute laughable rubbish. Let’s see:
Galatians 4:4 _”But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law”_
1 Corinthians 2:8 _”None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”_
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 _”For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone”_
And there’s plenty more.
Hmm looks like Paul was talking about Jesus in a real mortal sense to me. Can you point to where he ever talks about him in a sense other than real mortal?
I’m often wary of mythicism, but GE did a nice job on the presentation. Even handed and well explained. Very interesting to consider!
I'm of the opinion that the character of Jesus as described in the Bible is an amalgam of several first century cult leaders
@James Henry Smith umm.. what?
@James Henry Smith when I ask for clarification for incomprehensible gibberish the correct response is not "yes"
@James Henry Smith did you reread it before you hit submit?
Why don't you go ahead and give that a look.
@James Henry Smith "then they meet.... a there country... where the real deal stuff happens"
Have you had a stroke? What the fuck are you talking about
GE's avatar looks like he is about to pull a gun on a dude for stepping over the line while bowling.
😂
This isn’t Nam. This is (a)paulogetics. There are rules.
Great "speedrun" summary of the evidence for mythicism by Godless Engineer! A few more things:
*Nazareth:* How would anyone know which teeny Galilean village a wandering peasant preacher was born in? If Jesus and/or his followers wanted to say he was born in Bethlehem, they could have just said he was born in Bethlehem, and nobody would have been able to prove otherwise. Unless there was a Star of Nazareth, Three Wise Men and choirs of angels, the birth of a carpenter's son in a tiny village would not have been some well-known, inescapable fact the Gospel writers would have had to concoct stories to explain away. To the contrary, the only reason we have to think Jesus was born in Nazareth is that the Gospel writers repeatedly refer to him as "Jesus of Nazareth." Whatever reasons they might have had for trumpeting the notion, it's not an embarrassing truth they had to work around.
Then we can look at the preposterous stories they supposedly used to "cover it up" and place his birth in Bethlehem: the story of Herod's "massacre of the innocents," and the even more grandiose and absurd notion that Augustus instituted a census that required _everyone in the Empire_ to register wherever their distant ancestors lived a thousand years ago. If the Gospel writers were worried about the "fact" that Jesus was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, offering "explanations" that anyone in the region ("massacre of the innocents") or even the whole Roman Empire ("census") could easily debunk would hardly be a good way to deal with the remote possibility that maybe Jesus' wetnurse might turn up at their church meeting in Antioch and expose The Truth.
*Brother of the Lord:* If James was Jesus' biological brother, that would not merely make him the Brother of God, it would also, according to the rules of dynastic succession, give him a legitimate claim to be Jesus' _heir and successor_ as leader of the movement. Paul trash-talks James and Cephas quite a bit, and spends a lot of ink defending the legitimacy of his Apostleship in contrast to theirs. Yet never does he feel a need to defend against the charge that his visions could not compare to living and walking with Jesus as his personal followers on Earth, much less growing up with him and being his biological brother and heir apparent.
The mythicist model interprets "brother of the Lord" as fictive kinship. Paul claims that Christians are destined to be adopted as "sons of God," so that Jesus will be "the firstborn of many brethren." Thus, "Brother of the Lord" could be a reference to a Christian who has completed the initiatory process, which could explain why Cephas is not also referred to as a "Brother of the Lord," if he had not yet achieved that rank. Paul _does_ argue against the idea that he should have risen through the movement in the usual way by claiming that he did not receive his initiation into Christ from men, but from Christ himself.
If "Nazareth" and "Brother of the Lord" are the knock-down, drag out proofs of historicism that make scholars like Bart Ehrman as certain of the existence of a historical Jesus as they are of things like the Holocaust, the Earth being round, or the Moon being made of rock rather than green cheese, it seems to me that their epistemology is broken.
You can put an alternative spin on any and every piece of evidence if you are motivated enough. But that doesn't make the alternative scenario the likelier or more compelling hypothesis. The reliable historical data is quite flimsy and sparce for Jesus, but for scholars not suffering from motivated reasoning, it suffices since the existence of a man that left behind a movement is prima facie plausible. The bar is quite low to clear. It doesnt have to be absolutely undeniable, just more likely than its negation. If historical jesus hypothesis is feeble, jesus mythicism is even more since it relies on contorted less natural interpretations of the few generally accepted data points we do have.
@@a.jperez202 Are you saying that mythicists claim the non-existence of Jesus? In my observation only the pseudoscientific fringe is doing that. The main mythicist position is merely that the positive evidence for him is inadequate. Even Carrier gives a human Jesus a one in three chance. Plausibility is not in question here.
I can’t agree with you on the Nazareth thing. A person growing up in Nazareth would likely have a distinct accent/dialect and couldn’t passed for having grown up in Bethlehem. The Bible says Peter was accused of being with Jesus because of Peter’s dialect. Which isn’t necessarily good evidence that Peter existed. But is pretty good evidence the dialect did.
Yes. But the Nazareth thing in particular has already been overturned. Only thing they have is the brother passage. The original Gospel called Jesus the Nazorean or Revelator. Nazareth was a thing made up later by Matthew.
The heir to Jesus? No, that would have been the child explained in Dan Brown's book...
A made up story as an add-on to a made up story.
Thanks for this, Paul. I'm always frustrated any time Bart Ehrman has a discussion on this because he seems so adamant to refuse to admit that this is a viable hypothesis.
Bart really nobbled his own standing in that talk to Seth where he locked in on something minor to the discussion.
Bart still wants coitus with his christian wife. Therefore, Jesus was real.
I saw one interview where he described thinking Jesus was a myth as equivalent to holocaust denialism. I've been to the Holocaust museum and have seen the films and photographs and the documentation the Nazis themselves kept. I have learned a lot in the past from Ehrman, but because of this one giant blindspot of his, I hold him in almost equal contempt as William Lane Craig.
@@oscargordon I would rather replace Craig with Sir Richard Owen.
Both Ehrman and Owen were at the top of their fields, one in textual criticism and the other in anatomy and paleontology. Both made blatantly untrue statements that they plastered over using their clout. Both used said clout to discredit their opposition.
@James Henry Smith Did your church youth group assign you the task of spamming random RUclips videos? Do you have anything pertinent to say about the content of this video? Did you even watch the video? Who is Piaget and why should I care about his rules? If Jesus pre-existed in Heaven, then came to Earth as a human, spent several uncomfortable hours on the cross, then was up walking around just fine a day and a half later, and is now back in Heaven, that wasn’t much of a sacrifice was it?
Leaving all other issues aside, there is an Occam's razor issue here for me.
We have many examples of mundane people who did, frankly very mundane things, but who nevertheless ended up starting or happening to be the progenitors of many different religions, cults, movements, etc.
The idea that there was a guy names Jesus who lived, taught things, said the wrong things to the wrong people and was killed, and whose followers developed his life and teachings into a religion, is one that I have absolutely no trouble with.
I don't feel the need to strain some alternative interpretation of scriptures and ancient writings in order to unearth some forgotten "real" history of how the faith came into being. The explanation that a guy named Jesus lived, was killed, and his followers developed a religion based on him is sufficient.
Also, the part about "historians in this subject are all Christian so they all say Jesus was real" frankly sounds like conspiracy theory to me.
That’s precisely my thoughts on this as well.
A minimalist historic approach - the idea that “there was a charismatic man whose followers were distressed to discover he wasn’t what they expected a messiah to be and then attempted to resolve their cognitive dissonance by re-interpreting the OT” appears to predict the textual data more closely than the “Jesus was a mythical character invented by one or more people” hypothesis does.
What if no such jesus existed? THAT TOO is a mundane claim. Lots of stories come out of fiction and tall tales.
That was an excellent case for mythicism. I’m still inclined to side with Ehrman but there are some things to think about here. G.E. makes a great point about the lack of scholarly freedom that many scholars like Mike Licona have to deal with and the way it probably slants the scholarly consensus away from what it might otherwise be.
I agree in principle but I doubt Mike Licona would change his mind if he had more scholarly freedom. He is into his position 100%.
While I get into forum battles over my criticisms of mythicism, I'm not quite an historicist, either. I find the human being Jesus ben Josephus having existed to be plausible, not conclusive. I'm loathe to use any terminology that states or implies any level of probability to this claim such as "more likely," because I find probability on historical events to simply be a measure of what we don't know about them. The actual probability is either 0 or 1.
But I do find that Ehrman appears to have overstated his case on numerous occasions. I would like to see him head-to-head with Dr. Carrier at some point, who has also overstated his case in numerous occasions, as each is the best person to keep the other in check. Ehrman's debate with Price was definitely one-sided in Ehrman's favor, but I don't want to fault all of mythicism because of Price's performance. And an open conversation would be much more useful than a head-to-head debate.
The scholarly freedom problem is less of an obstacle than you'd think. It comes into play in two cases: where a scholar might not even consider a position that conflicts with their statement of faith, and when a scholar would change their mind if it weren't a career-ending decision. At the beginning of their careers, they would presumably seek employment at institutions where the statement of faith is one to which they agree at the time. Few would be in a position to change their minds even if "allowed" to do so, and the statement of faith is often used to discredit work not linked to that statement.
On the resurrection, you’re definitely right. Mike is all in. Apparently, he lost a job once for expressing doubt about the post crucifixion zombie hoard story in Matthew.
I would like to see Ehrman address the mythicist position with more effort than the contemptuous dismissal that he usually gives it. He may have contempt for that point of view and his contempt may even be justified, but mythicism doesn’t seem to be going away. At least on the internet, it’s gaining momentum. I’d like to see him take it seriously at least long enough to deal it the death blow that he seems to think he can. The debate with Carrier is a great suggestion!
I want to know the evidence. No historicists has ever given sufficient evidence to warrant the certainty, which is their position, of a historical Jesus.
Getting your history from New Testament Scholars is like getting your evolutionary information from Ken Ham.
And getting your physics from Kent Hovind.
Getting your history from Jesus-deniers is like getting your science from flat-earthers.
@@gregb6469 Oooo, you reversed what I said...
@@gregb6469 actually no... since JHC deniers actually do need to look up history to be able to begin denying the story
@@gregb6469 There is no such thing as Jesus deniers if Jesus never existed. So prove Jesus existed.
GE & Paulogia...what a lovely morning!
After reading the works of Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald, I think that the likelihood of Jesus being a real person is extremely low, practically impossible. Why is this idea so hard for people to explore? An atheist doesn’t accept the assertion that a god exists due to a lack of credible evidence. Jesus’ earthly existence doesn’t have legitimate evidence either much like the idea of a god’s existence. Great video guys!
Can't force everyone to use good epistemology.
It is hard for christian people to explore because they think that without an earthly Jesus, they cannot get to heaven. But that isn't what the first christians thought. They need to return to their roots.
Have you read Ehrman's arguments? Bart Ehrman is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable NT scholars and he is most emphatic on this subject, this isn't something that can be dismissed lightly. Unfortunately, you almost need to be a professional to be able to judge who is right. It's been 10 years [FFS, can't believe that, I'm too old] since the Carrier and Ehrman "debate" so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I thought Carrier got way too caustic at times even though I often leaned to his position to some degree. Trying to find info to try to decide for myself and find stuff like this "in which the word ἐγένετο (the aorist indicative form of γίνομαι) appears, describing the man as becoming a living creature. However, the word that is used here to describe the moment of divine manufacture is not ἐγένετο, but rather ἔπλασεν (the third person aorist indicative of the verb πλάσσω). The word ἐγένετο, rather, is used in this context to describe the change of state from non-living to living." It's all Greek to me ha ha. It ain't something I feel comfortable coming to a decision on and don't really feel all that much of a need to since the very foundation of the religion is utter nonsense--the trinity and the idea of atoning for our sins is all seriously incoherent BS, as is the doctrine of transubstantiation for the catholics. Try reading any of the explanations/justifications for these and it's nothing but word salad.
@@mechtheist I have heard his arguments and I feel he is grasping for straws. In my opinion, Carrier’s are more logical and better researched but even if there was an apocalyptic speaker named Yeshua bin Yosef, the Bible itself disproves the existence of the Christian god.
@@mechtheist I own nearly all of his books, so yes. His argumentation is fallacious.
Calm, soft spoken GE is such whiplash from his regular content. 🤣
Finally some pushback against the RUclips tour Bart Ehrman took through my subscriptions.
The (scholastic) problem with Ehrman is that he is not a historian, he's a scholar of the Bible.
@@DynaCatlovesme
I have read on Ehrman's blog that he is indeed a historian and a scholar of the bible.
@@mogts Well, he is a scholar of the Bible.
@@mogts Better be careful M O S .....The Dr. Carrier fanboys will descend upon you.
@@DynaCatlovesme
and a historian.
Thanks to GE for not yelling here, though he was still too close to the mic.
And thanks for a good perspective. I also tend to lean more toward the myth side, though I am willing to grant that it was based on a person or people for the sake of argument, though most of that evidence seems to have been forged.
@James Henry Smith HAhahahhahahaha... Prove it.
We have BEEN 'above the sky', there are no gods there either.
@James Henry Smith Magic isn't real, no matter who says they can do it, and your stories about Jesus said he would come back in his disciples' lifetimes, so yeah, about 2000 years too late.
@James Henry Smith No, they use actors and the placebo effect to pretend. No one has EVER been actually healed by a faith healer, this has been proven over and over again. Those people are fakers, scammers, and liars.
@James Henry Smith Your god is imaginary, and none of that ever happened. None of those things can be shown to exist. Try again.
@James Henry Smith Prove it. You have yet to show that any of that is real. It is just stories told to scare children, and people who were brainwashed as children.
Jesus aside, I'm less than a minute in and I'm already wondering how Paulogia can find all these clips saying, "He doesn't exist". How do people find media clips containing a desired phrase?
"Allow me to introduce you to today's sponsor, Story Blocks."
Probably. IDK. I wasn't there.
That the alleged missing person may not have existed would explain it. Compared to the Where's Wally drawings, JC never shows up.
It doesn’t matter to me whether or not Clark Kent exists or existed.
It only matters whether he really could fly or was bullet proof.
I can see that lol
@@godlessengineer
Of course, that would also serve as evidence for life and civilizations on other planets. Which would be pretty cool.
Godless, you just packed in a lot of info into 20 minutes. Hopefully most listeners are somewhat broken into the issue. I feel a bit of passion on this too. Can't believe the dismissals that continue in the scholarly field, particularly since they don't point to anything substantial as a response.
@James Henry Smith Nope, they don't. Doctors do "miracles" in the name of repeatable observable science, however.
@James Henry Smith NOPE... I will prove it... Give ONE EXAMPLE... if you can't, it is just an assertion with NO EVIDENCE
The "he doesn't exist" intro clip montage is hillarious. It gets funnier as it just keeps going.
GE is extremely intelligent- his character GE on his website is just for fun and humor- I love hearing his occasional serious takes in between lots of laughs- thank you both! Excellent video!
You should see his debate on the historicity of Jesus with Michael Jones. GE gets creamed
I forget where I heard this but in one interview, Dr Carrier stated he thinks this is an interesting question for atheists but didn't think it would deconvert anyone. I generally agree. Once I was pretty sure I was an atheist, peer reviewed mythicism gave me a bulwark against backsliding.
I'm not sure any one thing deconverts anybody.
It's always a sort of cascade of knowledge and experience that eventually drives out erroneous beliefs.
One more "Huh, I'd never considered it" is never a bad thing.
I'd agree with Dr. Carrier on that one. The case for mythicism is not as strong as a number of more classic problems with Christianity.
And for believers, they have usually granted the truth of things for far shakier reasons, than the evidence for Jesus historicity.
@@stevewebber707 Agreed. Also, if mythicism is true, then it is also _the original form of Christianity._ The Jesus that Christians believe in isn't "the historical Jesus" anyway, but the celestial divine Jesus of Paul, who lives in their hearts. So arguments for mythicism wouldn't really dent Christian faith, IMO. I lean toward mythicism, but it would be no skin off my nose if Bart Ehrman's failed apocalyptic prophet turned out to be the historical Jesus after all.
Going forward is the goal, and not fearing the previous misunderstanding is terrible.
Saying "I might be wrong" is something I never hear from apologists.
Why? Because that level of thinking requires honesty.
@@VaughanMcCue Their ideology is rooted in infallibility by proxy. For them, the Bible is "God's inerrant Word," and there wouldn't be any point in that if it's subject to human subjective interpretation (i.e. there is no One, True, Orthodox Interpretation that makes all others Vile Heresy).
Thus, it follows (for them) that _their_ interpretation is the One, True, Orthodox Interpretation. If they could be _wrong_ about that, then again: what's the point of having an infallible Bible in the first place? Thus, their One, True, Orthodox Interpretation confers upon them omniscient Divine infallibility. Which is also really helpful if you want to be a dominant primate and scoop up as much money and power as your followers can provide.
I think by any practical measure, Jesus didn’t exist.
However I would have loved a little more discussion here instead of just giving an abridged version if a Carrier class.
The Jesus of the bible certainly didn’t exist, and an actual person without the miracles might for all intents and purposes not have existed. His wisdoms, if he actually said those things, are not nearly as profound as christians like to believe.
I don’t know if the sayings of that other JC, namely Johan Cruyff, have been translated into English, but they are on par with Jesus’s.
@@kellydalstok8900
_"His wisdoms, if he actually said those things, are not nearly as profound as christians like to believe."_
Jesus will only grant everlasting life if you hate your mother, abandon your family, and give up all of your possessions-
Luke 14:26-27
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple."
Matthew 10:34-37
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."
Matthew 19:29
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Jesus also says disobedient children must be killed as required by Old Testament law:
Mark 7:9-10
"And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’, and ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’"
(See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21)
Luke 14:33
“…therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."
Matthew 5:40
Do not defend yourself in court-
"And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."
Cannibalism is an integral part of Christianity.
John 6:53
"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a difficult and harsh and offensive statement. Who can accept it?" From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
Jesus approves of slavery too-
Matthew 8:5
"When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed."
Jesus' parables approving of slavery and beating slaves.
Luke 12:46-47
"The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."
Luke 17:7-9
"But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not."
Should we expect God to know what the Ten Commandments are?
What was Jesus's sixth commandment?
(Notice that Jesus lists only the secular commandments that make no mention of God):
1. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19)
2. Honor thy father and mother:
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19)
3. There was no sixth. Jesus listed only five commandments
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother. (Luke 18:20)
@James Henry Smith lol, so... Gandalf is also extant, because people cosplay in his name?
@James Henry Smith just because people utter the name Jesus while cosplaying “casting out demons” or pretend to “do a healing”, doesn’t make Jesus to exist any more than the cosplayers make Gandalf exist.
@James Henry Smith
_"Jesus exists!"_
So, provide evidence that Jesus existed.
There are questions where there isn’t enough information left in the world to get a conclusive answer.
GE's animation/avatar could have done with more neck bearing and less head hair, but my gosh, you got the voice characterisation spot on. 😂
For today, I think I'm something in-between.
Great show, as per usual! 👍
He half-existed? :)
@@billcook4768 Exactly!
I think the "celestial only" seems too complicated.
Who were the jesus-followers Paul percecuted?
I'm often in camp "embellished conglomerate of multiple people and stories".
@@billcook4768 Schrodinger's Jesus
@@command.cyborg I think celestial only jesus is really simple. Ignore the gospels - late mythological nonsense. Paul's writing on Jesus is simply bizarre on historicity - and perfectly expected on mythicism. Paul (perhaps) persecuted the first members of the mystery religion which christianity began as.
Historical Jesus has not one scrap of evidence.
@James Henry Smith What are Piaget's rules? I only find stuff about cognitive development.
I am more inclined to mythicism, cause there isn't really a good case for Jesus' historicity. What we have isn't even reports, but written down hearsay. The Nazareth/Bethlehem issue is just a blue ox - there were simply two origin stories that needed to be harmonised.
Ehrman makes a fair amount of decent points, but they all fly in the face of Lord Xenu. People make up fictional characters to base their entire religion around _all the goddamn time._ Jesus doesn't need to have ever existed to be the central figure of a cult. Arguably it's better if your cult is based around someone that doesn't exist, because when your messiah winds up getting hit by a car and splattered all over the street it's a lot more difficult to argue that they're a magic person with superpowers.
Not impossible; stupidity is a superpower in its own right that way, but _most_ morons will leave a cult when the guy in charge croaks.
Obviously the one way around that is to build the 'he's coming back now any day for sure!' defense mechanism into it, which you see in scientology, North Korea, and christianity. Oh, did I just point out how utterly unremarkable christianity is? Oh dear.
Point is, Ehrman tries too hard. There's really no justification for doing theists' dirty work for them. If their magic man exists, he can send us a memo himself instead of through criminally-inclined ignorance-worshiping proxies. All that effort wasted trying to debate the existence of some unremarkable-if-real typical-if-fictional cult figurehead, and none of the cultists lift a finger in the meantime. They should get off their ass first, THEN the rest of us should start caring.
I feel like "the bible is wrong, therefore there MUST be a Jesus!" is evidence there IS no actual evidence for any actual Jesus. Walking back to a claim "an itinerant preacher" and saying "it is so mundane, so it most likely true" is evidence there is no evidence for it being true. That is kind of the point.
There may have been "a real jesus", by whatever metric is asserted, but even if such is granted, that doesn't CREATE evidence there was "a real jesus" even in a case where we assume for arguments' sake that there really WAS one.
That is what misses from the talk of Ehrman or Paulogia (et al), actual evidence. Sure, a claim can be pared back to a level that is "duh", but what if it is five people, no one of which manages more than 5% of the bible claims of a "real jesus", so someone born in Nazareth, but not a preacher. Definitely had to exist. A preacher born in Galilee? Several really would have existed in real life. Neither of them called Jesus or Yesua. But a story about them independently grows up and in making them one story, "the biblical jesus" grows. So there never was a real jesus, and every step was not evidenced and never was made TO be in evidence. All fine, so far, but then to claim that there is EVIDENCE for it and pointing to Nazareth and Galilee? No. Neither was called Jesus, one wasn't a preacher. The existence of either is "so mundane we can and should accept it", but not evidenced.
While I agree that Christianity IS stupid, I disagree that Dr Ehrman argues for the existence of a miracle performing, came-back-from-the-dead jesus.
Just a historical guy.
@@proculusjulius7035 Ehrman argues that there was "a real biblical jesus" in evidence. "Preachers existed at the time" is evidence that there is no evidence. He's free to assume a real jesus, though he needs to define what HE means by "a real jesus", because that still fits "does miracles and stuff" and Erhman hasn't said what does and doesn't count, but Ehrman claims EVIDENCE for that, not just that.
And provides none.
@@proculusjulius7035 Never said Ehrman argued for a miraculous magic man either; it's buried in there a bit but I did say 'unremarkable-if-true'. My point was there's no reason to go even that far. Until such time as _the people who believe this crap_ have anything more to show than how proud they are that they believe it's true, the rest of us should go no further than to pat-pat-patronize them on the head and say 'That's nice dear, now make sure you wash behind your ears like a big boy'.
Since theism is largely weaponized disingenuity at this point, getting lost in the weeds trying to argue finer points of baseless notions to satisfy said disingenuous pricks is just a time-wasting tactic that shows success for the liars. We need to stop falling for it.
@@EdwardHowton Unfortunately the issue is consequential. Even if historicity does nothing for us, it's a foot in the door for them to convert future tithe payers or anti-science voters.
GE didn't play his ukulele I was waiting for that the whole vid xD
no budget for ukulele animation 😆
I must say I was rather convinced of the historical Jesus proposal through Bart Erhman and the like, but having watched this I've done much more consideration and fact checking on things (although nowhere near enough to count of definitive) and it's really knocked me for six regarding this issue now. I think I might have to claim to be agnostic on the issue because having learned a little I've realised I know almost nothing.
Applying the same methodology to this topic as with any other I have gone through the whole gamut of thinking from "believer" to composite figure, to full on sceptic as to any historicity of jesus at all.
@James Henry Smith Prove it.
@James Henry Smith You got to the end of the copy-paste yet?
If Bart Ehrman thinks Jesus was real, that's good enough for me. As Ehrman has pointed out many times - Jesus and his story did not at all fit the Jewish idea of what a Messiah would be.
We don't know the full range of Jewish beliefs in the first century. But the fact that Paul, the other apostles, and other Jewish-Christian scriptures that definitely existed at the time suggest it all came from the scriptures. The Wisdom of Solomon ch. 2, a Jewish document, suggests a suffering and disgraced messiah that dies. So It is in fact what a jew would believe.
Bart acknowleges that Paul and early christians saw Jesus as an angelic figure. Bart thinks that his telephone-game hypothesis of oral tradition is the basis of the gospels, but does not demonstrate this, or that the origin of the gossip was actually a truth. Bart thinks that you can extract history from mythology, using historical methods, but uses these methods in a faulty way. Bart wants coitus from his christian wife. Bart has not completely severed ties with his evangelical past. Don't trust Bart on this topic.
Just go back an read the Gospels. They are FILLED with the statements "And Jesus did this just like in the scripture. Get a great annotated Bible. Line after Line of the Gospels will be referenced back to where is came from in the Old Testament. For example in Mark, Jesus' last words are “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” which is from Psalm 22. Luke changes his final words to "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” which is from Psalm 31. The casual reader wouldn't know these things.
Then there is the infamous double donkey ride. In Zechariah 9 you have “See your king comes to you righteous and victorious, but he is also humble because he is riding on a donkey, but not an adult donkey, a baby donkey.” But then Matthew completely botches the quote and has Jesus ride both an adult donkey and a baby donkey simultaneously too fulfill prophecy.
Don't try this at home friends. You have to wait until a donkey is fully grown before you put a load on it, otherwise you will break its back.
_"If Bart Ehrman thinks Jesus was real, that's good enough for me."_
So, provide evidence Jesus existed.
"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic - the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man."
It is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence Jesus existed.
The only Bible author who claimed to have seen Jesus is Paul who asserted he met him in a vision and described him as being a bright light.
The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah failed to fulfill on time, so he made one up decades after the date for the prophesied fulfillment but he set the story decades in the past to make the prophesy seem true.
The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 538 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. "Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven years, so 7 times 69 equals 483 total years beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458 BC.
Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity.
Paul's goal was to garner support for the war against the Romans.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah (literal son of God).
He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' war against the Romans.
Instead, he created one of the world's most popular religions that is based on the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism.
The Gospel authors copied, and embellished, Paul's fiction.
None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, were witnesses to the Bible figure known as Jesus.
@@godlessengineer
_"But the fact that Paul, the other apostles, and other Jewish-Christian scriptures that definitely existed at the time..."_
Name an apostle of Jesus who existed.
The Talmud mentions several people by the name 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshu'. None of them match 1:1 with the Jesus of Christianity.
But they are very, very similar put together. Of course, since we have no idea when the Jesus figure was invented (other than very likely before Jesus himself because of John the Baptist), this does not prove anything.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Not even Judaism puts those tales together to form one individual, and the rabbinic/scholarly consensus doesn't make a case for Jesus himself existing, even if teachers with similar names existed. Which is to say, Christians shouldn't use the Talmud as "evidence" that a historical Jesus existed. It would be like using modern books to prove Harry Potter was real, claiming any character named Harry was that same guy.
@@Vishanti The Jewish leader cannot exactly admit they mean Jesus as they overwhelmingly live in Christian or Muslim nations or rely on them for support. Jesus is evil in the Talmud. Although that only proves Christians thought Jesus was real and other people found out.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana But the Talmud was written and redacted when Jews weren't living in majority Christian nations (and certainly LONG before they lived in majority Muslim ones). The sages have no problem dunking on the Christian messiah, for real. But Jesus as Christians understand him is just not in those Mishnaic/Gamara writings.
@@VishantiJesus as Christians understand him is not in the earliest Biblical mentions of him either. For example, the idea he sacrificed himself for our sins only appears with Paul. Before that, it is more just to kill everyone else.
My issue with "Scholarly consensus" is
1) most scholars won't out right contradict a major religion because they fear the blowback.
And 2) the bar they set is so low. It's impossible for it to not be true. The consensus is there was a man who was born and had followers then died.....
As a fan of carriers work I liked GE summation but wish Paul would have given he reasons why he doesn't take the mythisist position
The closest I can get to mythicism is wondering how many facts about the story of jesus must be actually true for it to be considered about to be about a real person. Say 90% of the details in the stories are fabricated, but 10% is true. Is that enough to say the guy was real? Aside from that, the rest of these arguements pretty generally don't add up to a more likely explanation of the beginnings of Christianity than the 'there was a dude once of this rough description', for me. I'm sympathetic to the idea, but I don't think it's a strong enough arguement to have much actual utility in conversation.
"I'm sympathetic to the idea, but I don't think it's a strong enough arguement to have much actual utility in conversation"
The whole point is that the same can be said for the idea of there being an actual guy.
If there is 10% that is true, we have no way of knowing currently.
The utility lies in counter apologetics.
Belief isn't rational. Believers will retreat to the idea that there definitely was a Jesus in order to reconstruct the house of cards that is their faith whenever it gets a little wobbly.
Showing that there isn't any good reason to think there was an actual guy is another pillar of belief that can be knocked out.
Beyond all that though, and really at a more fundamental level, religious studies is a science. We should be demanding rigor from social sciences as much as any other. The idea that "Jesus exists" is the consensus when the evidence is so poor and there is a ton of evidence that there doesn't need to have been a Jesus in the first place seems to be plenty of reason to second guess the scholarship.
100% of the stories about jesus can be invented while there still being a historical figure.
@@godlessengineer As someone else said, there almost definitely existed a historical real Peter Parker in NYC, but even if so, ALL of the Spider-Man stories are still made up. And what digs me the wrong way is that what COUNTS as "a real Jesus" is never set and evidence FOR THAT PERSON shown, just left vague, if necessary "a preacher existed!", but not once is "a real Jesus just has to be a preacher to be real" brought up.
@@markhackett2302 To be fair, GE did actually talk about the "bare bones" properties needed for a historical Jesus in this video. Unfortunately, he didn't really address it.
This is a great question that really should be addressed if people are going to have this debate.
This was weak, but it lost me completely when GE invoked the go-to argument of every fringe and conspiracy theorist: that the experts in the field are under some kind of compulsion to adhere to the consensus view. Why not just accept that the credentialed experts in this field, Biblical scholars both religious and secular, maintain the historicity of Jesus because they honestly believe that the weight of evidence supports this view? If to sustain your position, you have to cast doubt on the motivations and integrity of every scholar in the field, I find it hard to take your position seriously.
The claim "a real jesus" carries EVERY sign of a fringe conspiracy. Demanding that ONLY a particular meaning of a word is allowed, none of the others. An unfalsifiable claim of "a real jesus". Etc.
Fail. Every religious scholar has everything to gain and lose on their standing on the historicity of Jesus. Most secular scholars just shrug their shoulders.
Exactly!
When you have to lie (or at least grossly misrepresent the facts) by stating that many scholars have to sign statements of faith (when in reality I can probably name 300 universities/colleges whose head of NT studies believes in the historicity of Jesus and definitively do not sign "statements of faith" - it's such an absurd claim. why would Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, UNC, etc. professors sign a statement of faith??) then it's hard to take you seriously.
@@natew.7951 "I can probably name 300 universities/colleges whose head of NT studies believes in the historicity of Jesus and definitively do not sign "statements of faith""
Yet never name one.
Or the evidence.
"Brother Paul" is a friar, not my mothers' son.
@@markhackett2302 UNC Chapel Hill, Yale, Princeton... the list goes on.
Looking sharp there Godless 😬 nice job, that's a lot of info to script and compile
GE -- Thanks for shortening to a single video, where I can share it and others can more quickly understand why I see the historicity of Jesus like I do. Because I don't think He existed now.
@James Henry Smith Do you think spamming something that is not true on an Atheist channel makes any difference?
@@travisjazzbo3490 Well it works for Carrier, at least with people as silly as you.
I already like both channels and this was John in prime form. Great work!
I personally think the plausibility of Jesus being based on an actual person is around 25% and John summarised why: He could have existed but the information we have works even better if he didn't-
That is what I feel like. If someone who never heard of Christianity got introduced to it and went through the data, I believe they would come out as a mythicist
As far as I'm concerned Carrier settled it. There is a whole polemic on his blog where he dismantles Ehrman on the topic as well.
Paulogia, is it really necessary to present Gish gallops in favour of fringe positions with no push back? Many of Godless Engineer's claims are extremely dubious (as is also the case with Richard Carrier).
Thus when Godless Engineer mentions that Paul commonly uses the term brother for people who are not the children of either of his parents, he treats all such uses of the term as if they were lexically identical. However, in point of fact, Paul uses the phrase "Brother(s) of the Lord" just twice, once when referring to James, and once when referring to an unclear group who were recognized as entitled to have local churches pay the living expenses of themselves and their wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). To interpret the latter example as referring to Christians in general, we must believe the Corinthian church which Paul founded both denied Paul the right to such support, but conceded it to all Christians. The other example is the famous reference to James, where James is again marked out as a person of distinction in the Christian community at the time. Clearly the phrase "Brother(s) of the Lord" is treated differently than the term "Brothers beloved by God" or "Brothers of me" and all the other variations used by Paul.
In a like manner, Godless Engineer dismisses Paul's description of Jesus as "born of a woman" on the basis that Paul describes it as "contained within an allegory". In fact, the allegory commences at Galations 4:21, where Paul starts discussing Sarah and Hagar. The mention that he is speaking figuratively is at 4:24 and is immediately followed by a clear exposition of the figurative features involved, none of which refer back to Galations 4:4. The mythicist of this passage interpretation is utterly blind to context.
“Dubious” = provides citations for everything he’s saying… 👍
@@KaitlynChloe, what I noticed was the complete absence of actual citations. Thus in discussing Josephus his citation is to "most recent scholarship". By all means, look up "most recent scholarship" and quote it to me if you believe that is a proper citation. For myself, I consider it just as much hand waving hokum in the mouth of a mythicist or historicist as I would in the mouth of an Evangelical. What is more, as a non-expert in the field, GE is not in a position to know what most recent scholarship is, because as a non-expert he is not reading a sizable fraction of the scholarship from the field, and hence is in no position to know directly what most recent scholarship says on the subject.
The lack of pushback is the issue for me here too. Paul is usually great about sources. GE just straight up misquoted texts left and right, and there were no references given for anyone to fact-check his misinformation.
@@KaitlynChloe He literally doesn't though? He just says things like "Philo says" or "Paul says" or "scholars say" usually without putting it onscreen or giving a citation. And several times he's straight up not telling the truth about what they say.
@@tom_curtis What you noticed was a figment you made up.
Some really big stretches here. Like "born of a woman" means a body manufactured in heaven with no mother rather than, you know, born of a woman? Give me a break.
He explains why (as literally explained by Paul) and provides original Greek citations. This isn’t a stretch.
I think it would be cool if Paul makes a companion video to this one at some point, presenting the arguments against mythicism in more detail. GE claims he has refuted essentially all of the evidence against a historical Jesus, but there is a lot that he has left unaddressed here.
GE makes no mention of Josephus's (almost universally accepted as authentic) mention of the existence of the execution of James the brother of Jesus, an event during which Josephus himself would either have been present in Jerusalem or have returned to Jerusalem soon after. This reference which strongly corroborates a straightforward, literal interpretation of Paul's unique description of James as the "brother of the Lord", since Josephus had no reason to use metaphorical Christian fraternal terminology.
GE also claims that there is no evidence that there were once less-corrupted versions of the Testimonium Flavianum, despite the existence of just such variants of the text-most significantly the Arabic version quoted by Agapius of Hierapolis-that are less Christianized, suggesting a more neutral original version of the text that all of the other versions gradually deviated from.
Despite GE's effort to address the question of why Christian authors would position Jesus as being from Nazareth, he does not discuss what I see as the more important question: why Christians would invent the idea that God's Messiah had to be humiliated and crucified. This was a shameful idea that was not prophesied in Jewish scriptures and had no known basis in previous Jewish thought, but is parsimoniously explained by a historical Jesus whose early followers were convinced he was the Messiah during his lifetime and after his death rationalized that it was all part of the divine plan. I have yet to see a mythicist explanation for this development that doesn't rely on more assumptions than the simple historicist explanation.
I have just finished Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and he has changed my mind, I accept that Jesus was a historical person.
The New Testament has many fragments of older texts pointing to an earlier concept of Jesus before Mark and Acts. Michael R. Licona was sacked from Southern Evangelical Seminary which is not even a university.
"I accept that Jesus was a historical person"
So what is it you are claiming is "A historical person"? NYC exists. Therefore Peter Parker was a historical person? Define your term of "a historical person".
What is your EVIDENCE for that? Don't provide any, then there is no evidence for your claim.
Does that evidence support your claim? After all, trees actually exist. Therefore I made them? Evidence has to support a claim.
What evidence disproves your claim? Picking only that which supports it is cherry picking or confirmation bias if unwitting.
Southern Evangelical Seminary is the exact kind of institution that does historical jesus studies, as evidenced by employing Mike Licona. I'm not sure what exactly in Bart's book would convince someone but I'm interested in hearing what convinced you!
@@godlessengineer I'm interested too. :) Have you read Ehrman's book? I haven't yet (I should, one of these days), but I've seen a number of his videos, and none of them presented any overwhelmingly compelling evidence or argumentation to match historicists' level of expressed certainty.
@@kevincrady2831 If you want to read a rebuttal to Mythicism, Tim O'Neill "Historyforatheists" website is for you...
@@markhackett2302 I'm sure that word salad made sense in your head but no one else has a clue what the fuck you're crapping on about.
I am not a mythicist. I believe Jesus had existed for the following reasons: We believe some of Paul's epistles are authentic, and he claimed to have associated with people who already followed the cult of Jesus, like James and Peter, whether real brother, disciples, or simply apostles. He learned some of his theology from them, and they from their cult, and some of that theology is also present in the rest of the new testament independent of Paul's writing. Stuff like mysticism about the 'Son of Man' from Daniel and the books of Enoch, and Merkavah mysticism about the 3, 4, or 7 levels of heaven, and the ascension stories.
The Maccabean Revolt, towards the end of the 2nd century BCE, had a relatively small band of Jews defeat the Seleucid Empire and set up an independent Jewish state for the first time since the Babylonian exile. No small feat. Not only was this proof positive of God's power and Jewish restoration, but it was vindication of the book of Daniel and other apocalyptical prophets and a sign for the end of times. Except that the book of Daniel was wrong at the end, and the victorious priestly family was not prophetically fit to rule because they were not of the seed of David. This sparked many eschatological interpretations, stories, and cults that existed before Jesus. The major ones were Pharisees and Sadducees, but there would have been a dozen smaller ones, eventually becoming gnostic cults. One of these cults adopted the Jesus storyline into their theology.
There are two main questions then:
1. Why was Jesus preaching in Nazareth and the Galilee for most of his ministry instead of in Jerusalem? John said that there was some prophecy about the Messiah born in Nazareth, which Mark had adopted, to be later circumvented by Matthew and Luke, but Mark did not provide this prophecy and its presence also defeated my googling skills, perhaps not surprising at that. It is more surprising that even Bart Ehrman seems unaware of any such prophecy that could make this claim remotely plausible. It is far more likely Jesus was born in Nazareth, was called by his birth city name, and had preached in the Galilee claiming to be the awaited Messiah, and accepted as such by his particular cult. Messiah figures were popping up all over the place, they were long overdue, as they still are today incidentally.
2. No Jewish eschatology predicted the Messiah dying. Isiah 53 was not understood by the Jews of the day as Christians understand it today, it was understood to refer to the whole of Israel. Most of the prophets claimed the Messiah would restore Israel and its lost tribes, make them dominant over the world, destroy all the enemies, teach the whole world to venerate God, end war forever, and usher in a utopian reality with God's manifest presence. Never was the Messiah supposed to suffer a humiliating defeat by the enemies of God.
The question is: How would any 1st century Messianic cult think that inventing an inversion of all these prophecies should be their new theology? Where would such a bizarre notion come from?
This evolution is far more explanatory if their Messiah actually died and they were in shock and in denial, and then a woman sponsor of that cult from Migdal in the Galilee called Mary related to them a vision she had of the arisen Messiah, perhaps in the form of her own ascension dialogue which they had already believed in, and on which they began revising their theology. In other words they were forced to come up with an explanation for the inversion of all the prophecies by circumstances, not because they wanted to invent it.
1. I explained how different scholars came to the conclusion that scriptural evidence was misinterpreted for Nazareth so I don't know why you're acting like I'm baselessly claiming it was based on prophecy. Matthew clearly indicates both places stem from scriptures. Isaiah 11:1 is one of those possible prophecies.
2. You can't say that they didn't read it like that Not only do you have Paul referencing scripture as the source for his suffering, the gospels cite that, and first century Jewish documents like the wisdom of Solomon also denote a suffering, shamed, and dying messiah. So your argument is just not representative of the information that we have.
Most Christians believe Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of the OT regarding the Messiah including his place of birth, suffering, and resurrection. I pretty much heard those claims all of my childhood.
I appreciate you putting up the full text of the verses Godless Engineer was summarizing, as his “summaries” added a lot of baggage not actually found in the text. It put me in the same skeptical frame of mind I enter when Christians similarly add baggage to verses to make them say what they wish they said. This video had good reasons one shouldn’t feel *positive* that Jesus existed, but go to the assumption it’s most likely he didn’t exist requires the same type of wishful Bible reading that helped cause me to leave Christianity.
No it doesn't. It just requires proportioning your belief to the evidence.
I'm an agnostic but also a PhD historian. I'll go with Ehrman, and the evidence, that Jesus was a historical person. That doesn't preclude any of what this video says about the Pauline view of Jesus.
WHAT evidence? As far as has been presented, apart from "There is no reason for the bible to be wrong, so it must be talking about A REAL JEEBUS!!!!", it is all of the level of "Peter is a common name, and photographer a common job, so there MUST be a real Peter Parker!!!".
@@markhackett2302 The bible isn’t just accepted as a whole by scholars as evidence. It’s how you treat the evidence. The job of the historian is to work out what probably happened with the sources that they have.
2 more crucial questions:
- how many mana points does it cost to turn 1 unit of water into 1 unit of wine?
- does Artemis exist?
@James Henry Smith demons have never been proven to exist. Miracles have never been proven to exist. That makes me THINK that you and/or those people are wrong and/or liars. And belief is for children.
by the way, citation needed about all the demon evidence.
But have you considered Bart Erhman's brilliant case for Jesus actually existing?
"Christian scholars think he did!"
I've read everything Bart's published, watched damn near every video lecture/debate of his, and yeah. I suspect that is job might be in jeopardy were he to go that far. His rationality seems to halt when that topic comes up. I mean, nothing I've read of his supports a historical Jesus with any evidence, and most of it makes historicity seem at best doubtful.
@@martinbranditch1128 Newton was really smart. Like REALLY smart. Still believed in God. Ehrman has a similar problem, he may be smart but that isn't proof the claim is right, else we'd still have the four elements because Plato believed there were.
@@markhackett2302 Gee, thanks for that insensible, logically unsound opinion... man. The matter of any persons' belief, on any topic, regardless of said persons' intelligence, has no bearing on the validity of that belief. Bart has never asserted that his opinions are right, without doubt. Bart, like any good scholar, simply presents the findings of his research. Interpretations of material facts are just that, and therefore not definitive. However, the research and interpretations of a professor of New Testament history, based on objective, verifiable facts, holds quite a bit more weight than the assertions of a random person making unsupported assertions, and logically unsound arguments.
@@martinbranditch1128 Gee, thanks for that meaningless but heartfelt comment. Got a point you want to make, or do you just want to whine?
This is my favorite discussion in the current religious debate
@James Henry Smith Prove it.
But Jesus did exist.
Why would a 2nd century critic of Christianity (Celsus) never question whether Jesus existed, but argue about events in his life time?
@@farmercraig6080 The same reason why Tacitus and others like him don't: They got reports from believers and just took it as a given.
The real question is why contemporary historians didn't say anything about him and his new religion and why we only see anyone acknowledging him around the 2nd century.
@@Lobsterwithinternet contemporaries did mention him, such as thallus and Phlegon. As did Roman reports.
Also you have to read works from Tacitus to understand that if he heard something was hearsay he would say, he was give his usual disclaimer that the report was unverified. But he doesn’t do that with Jesus.
Which contemporary historians should have mentioned Jesus?
I feel that if you took the gospels back to the supposed time of Christ you'd be hard pressed to find anyone matching the words and deeds. I would definitely say that the Jesus of the gospels didn't exist.
The gospels are highly unreliable at best as any sort of history. Scholars are showing more and more that they are purely literary/theological rather than literal. They borrow heavily on the Old Testament and have Jesus doing things ripped straight out of Homer. They are not written like a history, even ones from that time sight sources which the gospels don't do. Even Bart Erhman says the only thing mythicists get right is that you can not "find" the real Jesus in the gospels.
@James Henry Smith You mean grifters and con men do healings and cast out "demons". Preying on the ignorant and gullible. And not just in the name of Jesus but all sorts of gods throughout history.
So much for getting a little more sleep before work!
sleep is over-rated
"Archeologists, Can't seem to Locate 'Arumathea' where the 'Rich Man Joseph' came from to Donate his 'Tomb' ... Pretty, ... Dubious !!"
You can't cede points - like historicity - to people that don't adhere to any rules of argumentation. Many apologists take that concession and immediately conflate it into the existence of the biblical Jesus, miracles an all. To them, this isn't a discussion, it's a fight for their belief, and we know that it's allowed to "lie for Jesus" if they deem it necessary. When you give cheaters the benefit of the doubt, you lose.
I think for the sake of arguing some things, you can cede points. The point is to keep the focus on that point of argument and not get distracted by other things. It’s a useful tool. It doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with them on it, just that it’s not relevant to the current topic of conversation.
@@KaitlynChloe
Sure, if you're arguing with one person, and they're playing fair. That's not the case here. Apologists don't play fair. Period. All of their arguments are assumptions and assertions based on their core belief in God, and Jesus as a historical figure. Any concession you make becomes evidence for them. It's not good practice to make concessions to delusional people.
Yep. This is the main reason I don’t automatically grant the historicity of Jesus. I’ve had to elaborate with both apologists and believers so many times exactly what we mean when we say “historical Jesus” that I’ve gotten sick of it. By default, most of the believers I talk to seem to immediately conclude that the “historical Jesus” being discussed is fully and accurately represented in the gospel accounts.
Even if they are able to process that you’re just talking about “some guy” who probably started the religion, they’re so wrapped up in their belief system that they can’t objectively re-examine their religion in that context. To them, granting “some guy” existed automatically turns into “gospels Jesus” in their head.
Anyway, I’ve found this dance to be frustrating. So instead I staunchly assert we have no good evidence to think Jesus existed at all. Not a single contemporaneous record of him, the human man, not a single writing from anyone who even met him, is damning imo.
Discussion of Jesus’s historicity is only fruitful in circles of educated non-believers, but at that point it’s almost boring because frankly on a personal level _I_ don’t care if a dude existed or not, at all.
@@bass-tones "To them, granting “some guy” existed automatically turns into “gospels Jesus” in their head."
Well put. This behavior crops up whenever someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance. They're looking for an out, any out, in order to retain their belief.
It's weird to me to see so many people here who don't seem to get that and claim that mythicism has no utility in an argument.
Kinda makes me wonder if they've been paying any attention to all of these videos and the findings of the counter apologetics community as a whole.
@@bass-tones
And the core point for me is that, even if someone existed around whom this mythology formed, it's not the biblical Jesus - and that's the one they need to prove existed - which means they have to prove god, miracles, etc., first. They don't bother with that. As you said, that - to them - is a given.
When we cede points to apologists, those apologists then go to their followers and claim that they "won" because an atheist admitted that Jesus existed. That's why I say that they don't play fair. They'll play fair to our face, then turn around and lie about what we said to their flock.
It is odd to hear GE giving a calm and analytical presentation considering his usual loud fast talking character.
Anyway I sort of leaned towards a historical but non-magical Jesus until Bart Ehrman made the rounds a little while back. Listening to one of the top scholars in the field back up a historical Jesus by pointing to the bible and calling anyone who disagrees with him a lying idiot in typical apologist fashion kind of made me reevaluate my opinion on the matter. Now I am leaning towards him either being fictional or so exaggerated that he might as well be.
Yeah... Bart established himself early on with that position and now has to defend it so he doesn't lose credibility... But he has lost it with me... His book he wrote defending Jesus historicity was torn apart by Carrier and other historians for being extremely shoddy work - and this is from people who normally praise his work
@@travisjazzbo3490 You live in a confused delusional fantasy. What a poster child for Carrier’s fan club you make…
7:40 of course! How didn't I see this earlier? I was raised in the conspiracy theory of sprititual warfare and this was explained as evidence of Satan controling the Earth. It's fascinating as an ex-pentecostal to discover the actual meaning of the verses a was fed with.
@James Henry Smith citation f*in' needed... It's ineteresting that you feel the need to harass me
This is like all those apologists citing verse after verse, and taking them out of context.
I am not sure if a historical Jesus existed, but arguing like a conspiracy theorist taking claims from different times, places, circumstances and religions is not going to get us nearer to an answer.
What is amazing about Jesus is the lack of first hand information.
@James Henry Smith
🤣😃😐😂😅😆
Great Poe!
@James Henry Smith
Who's joking, he just ain't real.
@James Henry Smith
Are you joking or what?
@James Henry Smith
What?
I lean toward the mythicist position. Not totally convinced either way though. I just find it odd how so many, even among atheist totally dismiss mythicism. Other than fantasy fiction like Gospels and Acts, the only direct reference of Jesus as a person are two suspect and ambiguous references of James the brother of the Lord.
A lot of fantasy fiction from that time is based on people that really existed, though. And on that note, while there is no strong case of the existence of a historical person named Yeshua bin Yusef satisfying all the (mundane) characteristics assigned in the Gospels, there is equally no strong case of the stories not being based on a real person and having been invented from scratch. It is possible, but it certainly is not the most likely explanation, especially if you account for the type of literature of the times. The issue with mythicism is largely its lack of evidence.
That said, I think too many atheists grant Jesus' existence far too easily. I think it is important to recognize that there really is very little to no evidence of the historical existence of the character named Yeshua bin Yusef.
Also, another problem with mythicism is that much of what it is based on just is not accurate. For example, GE talked about how the Jewish scriptures were interpreted to prophesize the Messiah forgiving everyone's sins. But that is most definitely not the case. The Jewish concept of a Messiah was far more mundane in the Hebrew scriptures, and the only prophecies that were made were the liberation of Israel. No divinity was prophesized, and no heavenly notion of forgiveness. These are post-Jewish, Christian interpretations of the text that only became common after Christian theology had been growing for a while.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 The stories in the gospels are taken from OT literature, Paul's letters and Greek mythology. There is simply no need to postulate a person behind the stories. They are transvaluations of the popular literature of the times. Historical Jesus not required.
@@lil-al It isn't about whether there is a need to do so or not. It's about what's more likely.
@@lil-al Also, I really am not convinced that there really is much Greek mythology hidden in the Gospels. I have seen the arguments, and I do not think the arguments provide sufficient evidence for that claim.
Would be nice if there were listed sources for the vast majority of these claims. Other than just "Some scholars say all of the Josephus references are fake" without any names or links, etc. I'm not convinced by a 10-second language lesson from someone who probably doesn't speak the language and provides no source.
There were also quite a few instances of you stating your interpretation of a passage without posting the passage itself, when the most likely interpretation is not what you state. Such as the whole "Paul says God created a David-like body for Jesus" when that's not what Romans 1 says. It's just your interpretation of Romans 1 that is far from an obviously apparent reading of the text. Seems pretty disingenuous to present interpretation as fact, especially if you don't actually speak the language you're interpreting.
See also: "Philo talks about the Messiah as..." When Philo literally never uses the word Messiah/Christos once in any of his writings. He talks about Logos. And the Gospel of John, much later, connects Logos with Christ. But Philo does not.
Here's an extensive look at the critical scholarship on Josephus: ruclips.net/video/rwv1ajY29tw/видео.html.
Would be nice if you weren't lying. GE gave sources.
@@markhackett2302 He literally did not. Saying "Philo says" without showing the passage on the screen or telling us the book or page number, and then lying about what Philo says is a problem. This was the majority of his "sourcing." Saying the name of the author without telling us where we can fact check him, followed by lying about what the passage says.
@@erimgard3128 He literally did give sources. YOU don't get to move goalposts later, and not once have YOU given passages, you said "look it up", but you could do that with the citations GE gave, and you elsewhere did, proving your claim here is errant lying.
I’m surprised you actually gave this topic and credence, especially from this guy who has no credentials. There’s a very good reason this topic and Carrier isn’t taken seriously by any university or credible historians.
"There’s a very good reason" - elitism for the sake of elitism is not "good" IMO. Credential or not, anyone can ask questions. The scholarship is in how to dissect a question and determine the answer(s).
"Carrier isn’t taken seriously by any university or credible historians." - that is repeated from somewhere else. I bet you've never taken a survey of professional historians on the matter.
@@TheDanEdwards no need, why is it he doesn’t debate anyone in his circle? Why don’t other historians pay him any attention?
@Al Gore Rhythm mythicism is the flat earth of atheist circles. It’s not taken seriously by anyone who has actually studied the subject. And that’s why you won’t see academics debating the topic.
So since Erhman isn't a PhD historian, he can't say if there was a historical Jesus either.
I've always leaned on the side of there probably being a guy named Jesus during Roman times that was Jewish because it is pretty mundane, like I can say there is a guy named Stephen alive today who is Muslim. I don't know a guy named Stephen who is Muslim and maybe no such guy actually exists right now but with 7 billion people on the planet, there probably is. When it comes to the consensus of there being a real Jesus I feel like scholars can range from the most mundane of claims to the most fantastical but they would all be labeled as believing a guy named Jesus existing. I don't know about scholar but I feel like some Christians will either think that if you say that you believe a Jesus existed that you should automatically believe the fantastical claims about him or if you say you don't believe a Jesus existed they'll start saying a bunch of stuff about scholars that neither you or the person saying them to you actually understand.
Thus was excellent! Thank you!
This is really dumb. He full on says he isn't a historian, and then makes claims that almost all historian disagrees with
No, he is making a claim almost all historians would not disagree with, if only because most historians don't look at the Bible, they search other histories, such as Queen Anne history, or whatever.
@@markhackett2302where are you getting this from? You don’t understand what history is.