Dr Richard Carrier - Christianity without Jesus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 сен 2015
- At the Pennsylvania State Atheist & Humanist convention, (PAStAHcon) Dr. Richard Carrier expanded on his interpretation of scriptural history - that Christianity was an entirely human concept not inspired by any Christ other than one from human imagination.
Развлечения
if Moroni is the founder of the church of LDS, why aren't they called Morons?
+littleworldscollide xD
for obvious reasons I think, believers don't like truth, hence they don't want to be called morons.
+littleworldscollide Did you say LSD?
+littleworldscollide Maybe the same fella that claimed to see this angel was also a wee bit dyslexic.
+littleworldscollide This is why i knew joseph smith is one of the biggest trolls in history.
+littleworldscollide They aren't?
"Jesus was originally a space alien-"
Giorgio Tsoukalos: *bursts through the wall like kool-aid man*
Hahaha
This comment made my day. Thank you.
Giorno's theme but played on a theremin
Hey Aron, I'm not sure if you read these, but I just want to thank you for everything you've done. You and Matt Dillahunty are big reasons why I became an atheist and woke up from the delusion of religion. I'm not afraid to say I'm an atheist (I live in Georgia) and I just wanted to give a formal expression of gratitude.
He gets a lot on comments. So you live in our backwards state. I moved around a bit but i am back just across the river in SC. But they are not any better over here. in fact who did to politicians ask what they should do on the legalization of cannabis? you got it sky fairy preachers and cops. Yes the two groups that have no idea what they are talking about. One who has no clue and does nothing. and the other that runs around making problems for those who smoke it.
Congrats on being a free thinker. science freed me long ago
The video makes a lot of great connections. It's kinda sad when you realise that people in the 21st century still believe in blood magic and non-falsifiable claims of a supreme deity.
They cannot let go of lost loved ones, and refuse to face their own mortality.
The only way for "everlasting life" is thru worship of a god.
@@kinglyzard yep. I think the desire to believe starts their...ego
It's hard for people to change their views when they were told the same thing their entire lives. It's also harder when they are told since a young age they will be tortured and constantly burning for eternity with no hope of knowing anything else if they lose their Faith.
It's really quite amazing that many/most "Christians" know almost absolutely NOTHING about the historical context of the scriptures they believe to be the "gospel" truth, especially when it comes to the formation of the early church and its relation to the Jewish tradition from which it originally stemmed. I don't always appreciate Carrier's rather overly flippant and dismissive approach to his material, but it was an entertaining and informative lecture nonetheless.
+Martin Rayner That's what the religion is based on - taking everything out of its original context. Not to mention, there is no way a rational person can believe that crap, only if they know nothing about the original context. But then again, a rational person would try to look up whether something is true, before believing it.
+Martin Rayner The vast majority of them don't even have a clue what's IN the bible at all except for a small select few lines of scripture they like because they are popular... That's what I really don't get... They don't even have the time to read their own Bible.
+Martin Rayner It doesn't really surprise me, I didn't realize how flimsy ancient historical texts were until I started researching accounts about various earliest Roman Generals including Mummius and finding that much ancient texts are missing and some have obvious fill in the blank areas and some are written by enemies of the people they mention.
Prior to my research, I always assumed that there was many ancient historians for any given generation from Ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt... and I found out that very few writers often just one, and of their writings it's scant, and each one appears even when they claim they're don't have some ax to grind, or others who did have axes to grind centuries later obviously added stuff to to the most recent and only surviving copies, any more later copies or originals that are discovered, we find that entire new passages were added later not just additions above the line spaces or margins of copies.
Makes me skeptical on all ancient history. You quickly discover the saying history is written by the victors is very true, with an addition history is also rewritten or added by much later victors too. Making finding out exactly what happened incredibly difficult.
It's amazing but then again, they even don't know their Bible, so why would they know anything outside of the Bible that explain why the Bible is composed as it is.
But in reality, you don't have to look further than the Bible to see how flawed it is. Bart Ehrman, who is an expert in the study of the Bible, The New Testament to be precise, says that people miss the inconsistencies because they read gospels one at a time, vertically. When you read them horizontally, in such a way as to compare the accounts of the same events, you often come up with things that do not match up, an sometimes, you have 4 different accounts of the same event, and these are not simply mild differences, but very important distinctions.
Further, he points out that there are only some 5000 thousand original manuscripts of the New Testament, and manuscripts are copied by hand. Now, even in modern books that are not hand-copied but rather typed and printed, and carefully proofread, you still get errors. People of those ages simply had no other option, but were probably unaware how unreliable the method is. And upon analyzing those manuscripts the conclusion was that there were more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Go figure.
You could say that most Christians know little about the Bible or you could equally say that those who learn much about the Bible tend not to find it credible.
I have now added Richard Carrier's books to my reading list. Thankfully he has audiobooks available as well so I can get those in on drives and walks.
Liar. Everyone knows atheists don't walk. They fly, and have hoofs.
Umm...what?
+Juxtavarious
Satire.
soupalex
Seems like a stretch, but alright.
+Juxtavarious I think it was supposed to be like the jokes about baby-eating atheists. Mildly amusing in an ironic sense. But of course, if you have to explain a joke, it stops being funny, so... oh well.
Apologetics: "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"
I love it!! So true! Did you come up with it?
Thanks for the post Aron, an excellent, educational and concise presentation, in the emotive struggle against ignorance and superstition.
+JesusFriedChrist #emotion #
+skyzthelimi7 I agree, but in addition to it... he also makes it sound a lot like an interesting Fantasy story, kind off Game of Throne-sy. With blood magic, etc. It's a rhetorical device, I know, and it works, but it's also really amusing.
+daddyleon There was a lot of stuff like that back then, and in a lot of ancient mythology... kind of shows what we have in common... The kind of stories people like to spread (and remember most easily) are ones that are interesting and have lots of adventures in them... the ones that capture their imagination most... I mean, people LOVE Game of Thrones...
If you can, have a look at the epic of Gilgamesh, or go deeply into Egyptian mythology... These were popular traditions in the area that you can see influenced the writers of the O.T. and were chock full of this kind of thing... Stories were a bit harder to come by back then too, and mostly existed in people's heads and passed around verbally... most people would have been illiterate. It's kind of interesting to think of religion as also being basically pop entertainment. but this kind of thing is probably what made it so appealing to people and drew them in. People heard an interesting story they liked and told others.
superstition? keep watching!
Jesse Finnerty Oh, yes I know the Epic of Gilgamesh. I've listened to it several times now. (I use 'Enquidou' as a nickname on some places, as a play(?) on the name Enkidu in the epic). Come to think of it now...Gigamesh is a bit like Jamie. Doing 'nonredeemable acts' but still being a hero.
I'm nowhere near familiar enough with Egyptian mythology,..or Norse, or Greek, or whatever. I should be, because I do find it so interesting. But... isfaik there aren't books written about it in the same way as GoT/aSoIaF or the bible are. If you know if there are.. please do tell me. Then I know what I'm going to read next (at least if it´s in audio book form, otherwise it might be on my to do list - I'm freakishly dyslectic).
Just as I suspected.... Inanna was tried in a kangaroo court proving conclusively that Hell is in fact, situated somewhere in Australia.
Up until that fateful day, the country was actually called Awe-straylia.
Australia, once were awesome.
If only it was still Awesome :( So many years of right wing uber-conservatives and happy-clappers is fucking up my country. Off-shore detention, Indue cards, attacking the poor and disabled as "lazy" , etc etc etc now this BS "religious discrimination" act that actually lets bible bashers use it as an excuse to be complete arseholes because "It's my god given right to be a complete cunt".
@@databanks The "religious discrimination" thing really is infuriating. Here in the US, conservatives use the idea of religious discrimination as an excuse to circumvent the rule of law. i.e. with the contraception mandates for example. Set aside all the braying and heehawing about "conscience," their POV essentially boils down to "I don't agree with this law, so why should I have to follow it?"
What a lovely defense. Boy I wish I could use that. "Officer, my religion says cocaine is sacred. If you arrest me, you're violating my freedom to practice my faith."
Yeah Ive been following Carrier for a long time. And over the summer I set aside the time to listen to his audible book on the historicity of Jesus. And I too am convinced there was not a historical Jesus. I think at the very least after you read his book, you will be agnostic on his existence. Unable to push out the probability above 50% either way.
+Parker I Personally Well, as far as it goes to the supernatural Jesus, I think everyone here would say they are as sure as they can be that he doesn't exist. On the historical Jesus as you mentioned, I'd say I'm personally almost as convinced, as there is just so much known about the Bible at this point that is being withheld from people in the church that would definitely cause people to stop believing, assuming they'd be willing to accept the evidence. The fact that most of his life is a complete mystery is a good clue for me, but I invented my own version of Jesus, (who I call Jesus 2500) who was a real person born at the time he was in the Bible, but taken by time travelers in the year 2500, given technology to do "miracles" which no one at the time could possible understand, and also sent a clone Jesus to replace him at the time of his Crucifixion. If I was a writer or illustrator, I'd definitely turn that into a really kick ass comic book.
+DragonCharlz Why include cloning in a theory that already has time travel? That's not parsimonious. All the time travelers would need to do would be to take a version of Jesus from before his death and bring him forward to after his death.
I often wonder why we never hear about atheist Christians. Jesus could be lord and savior without being a god. Jesus being a time traveler is just as plausible, and the theistic part of Christianity seems secondary in a religion that's focused on worshiping a human being.
Ansatz66 I guess cloning him would be a bit excessive, was just trying to make a way to crucify him without leaving him actually dead.
+Parker I Agnostic? To say the least. Richard Carrier (and others) made it very clear to me Jesus is a made-up character.
+Parker I I bought the book last year after watching a few of his lectures like this one.I can't say he's a great writer. The first 3 chapters start around 1 in 3 sentences with a conjunction which quickly starts to grate, but it gets better (or maybe I stopped noticing) after that.I wouldn't go as far as to say that I'm convinced there was no Jesus, but it's fair to say I am convinced that the balance of evidence sits most strongly with a celestial origin for the character.I immediately came up with a competing theory that he didn't even consider though. That a celestial character was replaced by a real man very early on in the cult. I'd call it the "David Icke theory".The apostles all teach from celestial and scriptural revelation, but then some adult comes along claiming, perhaps with a sincere belief, to be Jesus incarnate. He dies, perhaps even by crucifixion, and a decade or 2 later the gospels start appearing among some of the descending sects.I dare say Dr Carrier could put together evidence that sits very badly with this theory, but I found that it has a very similar probability to the purely celestial theory, based on all the evidence he reviewed in his book.We know that "David Ickes" do crop up frequently enough and that they often gain a large and loyal cult following, so why not in a superstitious apocalyptic mystery cult where there must be a high concentration of individuals with more than a few screws loose?All in all it is a very thought provoking read though and it's altered the way I think about anything that doesn't have an obvious A or B conclusion and the way I'd argue in that situation. It gave me a completely new reasoning tool.
Very well done.
This is an excellent informational video. Thanks Aron, and thank you very much Richard.
All Christian followers should really know where their Christianity comes from, if they wish to keep their religious perspective and convictions. That way, they won't need to deceive themselves in order to believe in a God!
I'm listening to his new book (On the Historicity of Jesus) on Audible right now. It can be a bit dry, but it's fascinating stuff. He reads it himself, which I think helps a lot in comprehending his argument.
It’s one of the least dry scholarly monographs you’ll find. It’s written in a way that is easy to understand yet doesn’t dumb down nearly anything.
Well that makes a lot of sense. Thanks to all concerned.
One of my biggest question is how were the Gospels presented to the public. Mark appears to be written as theatrical production according to Ken Humphreys. I would agree.
+CHAS1422 You may want to check out Scripting Jesus by L. Michael White. I've only read about 100 pages or so, but it has a pretty good discussion of this issue.
Excellent summary of the myth origins of Jesus. I should have waited instead of doing all that study myself! LOL
I'm somewhat new to this idea of free thought and following evidence (terrible I know). One thing I was struggling with is how/why the whole Jesus thing was completely fabricated (mostly how). Been wondering if there is any fact that it might be based on, or simply made up. This video explains it all perfectly. Thank you for clearing this up!
+Dennis Trinka
As he pointed out, pretty much all the main characters in other religious are fictitious creations that weren't based on real people and most people these days have no trouble accepting that as fact. It's only once you start talking about a religion that you've grown up with, whether as an indoctrinated practitioner or just having been exposed to it throughout life, do people find the notion that it's main characters are fictional to be an absurd one. Those OTHER religions are fairytales dreamt up in the minds of ancient, superstitious people but MY religion was built around actual people and events!1!
Ł loop
Welp, I'm a believer and I'm 2 minutes in and already had to look up this philo character lol.
....and?
@Part-Time Vegan how are you now?
I wonder why Christians don't question the similarity between Jesus and the numerous other figures in history in larger numbers. That seems like a pretty good reason to question your beliefs.
I hope to see you speak in the Columbus, OH area sometime soon, AronRa!
+Robert Schoen
1. They just deny those other figures ever existed. Saying they are myths.
2. They'll say, "Oh those are pagans. That's different"
3. Claim to have no idea what you're talking about, and deny all citations you provide.
+Jack Dingler That makes sense, but how does it not eventually hit home to look into this stuff a little more? Question it more?
+Robert Schoen Most of them don't even know that the parallels exist. Most don't even know about any parallels to earlier mythological figures. Churches trying to sell an ideology won't discredit themselves by giving people this information.
+Robert Schoen they have been indoctrinated to belive that when stuff begins to make sense, satan is in full effect.....basically you cannot trust your own brain or opinions, coz satan. that leaves (cherry picked verses of) the bible as the ultimate authority, and by proxy, authority church or religious figureads.
+Robert Schoen If religious people were capable of questioning their religion and coming to rational conclusions, they wouldn't be religious.
This is why so many people deconvert: because they *are* capable, and eventually wind up doing it.
For anyone who's interested, the conference was held in Harrisburg, PA, September 11 - 13, 2015.
Dr Richard Carrier great video thank you for sharing
He's interesting. I'd like to hear him speak with other skeptics who are well schooled in archeology, history, archeology and ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc. Not debating with apologists but strictly other intellectuals who have conflicting info to compare and contrast.
After listening to this very informative video, I'm happy with my Agnostic Deism: it "saves" me from having a lot of 'theistic' headaches :D ^_^
Now it's time for a *cold* beer ^_^
I only wish I could see Dr. Carrier. The sound is great.
Richard Clarke
No.
Now you can see him only as through a glass darkly, but when he returns you will see him face to face.
I really appreciate #AronRa/Dr. Carrier and their efforts. Soon to be patreon.
I’ve had Christians point out the Moses -Jesus connection to me in order to further prove that God exists. Lol It’s all “a perfect divine plan”.
Might as well point out foreshadowing in Harry Potter if that’s the basis of their arguments
Good that we now know that moses most definitely, never existed
@@poozer1986 The Moses narrative is way more preposterous but it's quite similar to Christ in how if there was ANY historical person underneath it all they are so buried by myth and narrative that they're unknowable.
@@LordJagd precisely. If jesus, or moses existed, which I'm not convinced they did, they certainly would be nothing like what we know of them today. In fact, they probably wouldn't recognise their parts in the bible, at all
Wow! I Never Knew, Iv'e Learned Something Today. Thanks AronRa :)
Continuing this argument, it seems highly possible that the logos described by Philo of Alexandria might actually be the earliest form of Jesus which eventually evolved into a heavenly savior and later into an allegedly historic figure.
It seems highly ridiculous to pretend that the Ancient Greek concept of the logos has anything whatsoever to do with the primitive tribal religion that was Judaism let alone its bastard offsprings, Christianity and Mohammedanism.
@@tomgoff7887 Have you paid attention to Carrier's talk? Hellenic concepts did have an influence on Judaism
That is essentially Carrier's argument. Jesus started out as an angel like figure that was then put on a historical setting in metaphorical parables, then sold as absolute history
@@miguelpereira9859 Yes. The point I was trying to make (badly) was that there was no such concept in early/original Judaism and it is obviously a later addition. It is clearly incompatible with the idea of a single omniscient and omnipotent god.
@@tomgoff7887 I agree, Judaism cannot be seen as a monotheistic religion. There is a specific word for this concept which I can't remember, the belief in various Gods but the worship of only one.
I would argue that Catholicism cannot be seen as monotheism also
The possible existence of "just a man Jesus" comes no where to being the God-man depicted in the gospels so for me the entire question is a red herring.
What's more important is that we understand the extraordinary claims layered on this character (the miracles, resurrection and God status) have no basis in reality and can summarily be rejected. I don't actually care if some unremarkable, banal version of Jesus did or didn't exist.
Great lecture, very interesting!
It is amazing how so many of these comments are irrelevant to the topic he is covering. I also find it amazing the amount of arm chair scholars that attack him. It takes a special level of arrogance for people who I am willing to bet don't have half the education he has saying he is wrong or doesn't know what he is talking about. How about remove your ass from your computer chair and go out and get a bachelor's degree then a master's degree then finally a PhD. Oh, also start publishing peer reviewed books and start giving lectures until then I personally don't give a shit about your opinion.
movie nut I agree up to the point you tell people to back away from the computer...when the computer has more info available than all the libraries in all the universities put together ...go to university today and they send you to the computer...
As a fan of Egyptian mythology, it is always so painful when people try to compare Jesus to Horus, because Horus NEVER went through ANY of the "parallels" they try to draw. It's always disheartening when a good point is ruined by bad information.
Yes THANK YOU.
Im an atheist but a lot of these comparisons seem like they're reaching when you actually go look at the myth people claim Jesus is based off of.
RC, good talk, man...
I find Carrier analysis attractive, but each time I seeking for his references, I look the texts and don't see the quotes he uses say what he says they mean (for example Philo in the all context don't call the angel jeshua)
I have to read his book when it will be edited in France, because until that, I only have a whole guess and interpretation to fulfill the Jesus un-historicity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of that theory, but when I speak about those things with historians, they interpret the data with another conclusion i.e. "it's attractive but it is not conclusive enough".
Will that book be edited one day in France?
If Richard Carrier wishes, I know a bunch of CNRS theologians who may be interested to read/ translate his book.
Completely convincing argument.
3:40 since outer space was not known in those ancient times, I hardly think anyone could have believed there was an outer space with some great distance between Earth and the moon. At most I think they could have believed it was all part of the Earth's atmosphere under the firmament upon which the sun and moon rode or were affixed. They probably thought the moon was just out of reach above the clouds. So to say "outer space" and "aliens" is just to confuse people for the sake of either making a kind of joke or just using hyperbole but then you are stretching the truth when the whole point of talks like this would be to get to something as CLOSE to truth as possible.
Jesus would have been thought to have been "crucified" in either the lowest level of heaven or the atmosphere (as there was no outer space known then) - the place ABOVE where humans could reach back then but still below the clouds, moon, etc (ie, below heaven but above earth). Ascension of Isaiah corroborates this because Jesus descends through the 7 levels of heaven and is killed when he reaches the lowest level but it isn't entirely clear just where he is killed, imo.
So, it does seem that Satan also was believed to actually RESIDE in heaven (the lowest level?) because Ephesians interprets Paul in just this manner saying that there were evil powers at work in the heavenly realms.
1:18 Where in Philo's writing do we find the name "Jesus" or "Iesous" or "Joshua" or similar? I couldn't find it. Maybe I just didn't know where to look or what to look for. I think this is a tad confusing because it sounds as if Philo is naming this angel but is he? I need to understand what Carrier is really claiming here. I don't remember seeing any Jesus in Philo's claims but maybe he's using indirection and the character in Zechariah Carrier mentions is named Joshua. ? Anyway... maybe I can figure it out with a little searching.
+ManMadeGod
Maybe you don't understand the difference between a handful of wealthy Greeks speculating on these things and the 99.9% of the REST of the world believing the older, outdated (wrong) beliefs such as a flat earth and dome upon which the "heavenly bodies" were affixed and rotated around the earth. Mesopotamian cosmology. Might want to look that up.
What is your evidence that by the 1st century CE, most people in the Mediterranean areas believed that the earth was spherical? Same for outer space. ? One Greek's speculations in a writing would not be able to do that in those days when the INTERNET didn't exist. Information would not filter around that way. The VAST majority of people would still be raised to believe what their parents believed. An academic in Athens making speculations ... it would not have the ability to fully blossom until much later. The same Greeks also speculated about the heart and brain and even a few speculated that the brain was actually the center of the senses and cognition rather than the heart. But this was not proven. It was a mere hunch that would take another thousand to 2000 years to finally filter around and get proven such that MOST of the people on Earth believed it instead of the OLDER belief that the heart was where cognition and the senses were processed. In the 1st century, most people would have believed the heart was where thoughts originated. The writers of the Bible and even the author of Revelation believed that the heart and interestingly the KIDNEYS were sources of cognition. People were still debating this long into the new millenium (people = wealthy, 1%).
You must also believe the ancient Egyptians knew more about anatomy than our doctors today, right? Why, they HAD TO HAVE! How else could they know how to embalm a body to last 3000 years?????
+ManMadeGod "Argumentum ad populum aside, "
holy mother of gawd.... seriously? This is the VERY issue we are discussing! MOST people believed in a flat earth with no outer space and this in the 1st century. Accuse me of a logical fallacy when this is the very topic at hand!! I have no desire to argue with you. Believe what you prefer. Point is that if you think Philo or Paul believed that an outer space existed, then you'd need to provide some evidence that this is the case and I note that you provided NONE to answer my questions in the previous post. bye.
I think Carrier is using the tern to mean the heavens.
TruthSurge It is an analogy-Jesus Christ! Don’t be so thick! They knew nothing of outer space so they made up heaven and the levels of heaven...and placed it where we know outer space is.
Everyone but the writers of the Bible knew about outer space.
@AronRa do you have a date for this video? when was it filmed? thanks
At 12:15 he says the "pagan" savior gods were considered to be the "son of god"? What god might Osiris (and the others) be a son of? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I dont recall any ancient religion having a supreme deity who had this kind of role. I mean, it sort of implies that the god whose son is capable of overcoming death&save humanity must be something fundamentally different from what I had known all the other random pagan deities to be... something much more transcendental and fundamental...
Very interesting. thanks
+madeyemalk Try watching it first.
+Drimirin Gonna need some aloe...
+Drimirin for dat sick burn!
Fantastic
Philo's quote: " (146) *And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God* , nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s sons.” For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word".
Carrier is taking too many liberties. It says the archangel of many names is the "first-born word", "the name of God", "the word", "man according to God's image". In the other passage says he's God's image, not "man according to..." as in the former. In neither says he is the son of God, and by no means that his name was Jesus. I'm not defending christianity, just pointing out sloppy tendentious scholarship.
Zechariah on the other hand DOES NOT talk about an angel named Jesus. He talks about Joshua/Jeshua as High Priest in heaven standing before the angel of the Lord, so clearly Joshua is not the angel of the Lord. He literally calls him A MAN: "Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" Later he says that this high priest will rebuild the temple and reign there, so most likely a messianic figure, not an angel. It's somewhat a stretch to equate Philo's angelic high priest, with Zechariah's Joshua High Priest. If anything they are talking about the same office with different perspectives on who's supposed to be appointed: for Zechariah is a messianic human figure, for Philo is a kabbalistic heavenly being.
I do believe Jesus was considered to be the incarnation of the angel of Yahweh, but more in the line of Margaret Barker's Great Angel. It's true that christians assimilated these traditions, but it's not the case that either Philo was talking about Joshua, nor that Jesus was crucified in the heavens. That's just Carrier's necessary argument for mythicism.
I think Carrier is trying to find a Jewish basis for the mystery religion, but like all mystery religions they’re often only barely based on actual mythology of foreign cultures. I think it’s way more likely they chose the name Iesous because it means savior. That’s it. Don’t need to connect it to Philo at all.
I'm surprised he left out Baal:
He's mentioned frequently in the old testament. Battles with Mot, the death god. Baal's death curses the land and weather. He's resurrected and Mot is defeated. Ball becomes king of the afterlife, returns to earth ending the curse on the land, then builds his palace.
It's practically blow for blow here.
thanks again
10:15 The spirit of the cell phone speaks to us. All hail the angel Hertzmarconi!
Understanding plasma cosmology and catastrophism offers a new insight into this celestial imagery.
What the hell is plasma cosmology
I love Richard Carrier. He's amazing.
There's some weird beeping at 10:19-10:21, just letting you know.
It's inference from a cell phone
+AFGNCAAP the great lol i thought someone was about to call my cell i had in my pocket
'Twas blood magic.
I just looked up his references to both of the works of Philo, and the name of this archangel is not "Jesus" (or any other variant of the name, like Joshua, Yeshua, etc.) but rather, "the East." (On the Confusion of Tongues, 62.) Can anyone verify Carrier's claim that this being had the same name as Jesus?
I think Philo is talking about Joshua Ben Zechariah or something. I don’t think the Philo connection is actually useful because it’s so indirect and Carrier explaining the prevalence and basics of dying-and-rising mystery religions is enough.
I appreciate much of Carrier's work but what about his negation of parallels between Horus and Jesus? There is at least one such important parallels. Diodorus Siculus did confirm the resurrection of Horus when referring to Isis' miracle, book 1 chapt.25 verse 6 p83 "Furthermore, she discovered also the drug which gives immortality, by means of which she not only raised from the dead her son Horus, who had been the object of plots on the part of Titans and had been found dead under the water, giving him his soul again, but also made him immortal."
It’s because that Zeitgeist movie made up a bunch of fake information on Horus so I think he doesn’t find it worth using as an example.
As much as i love learning about all those theories - what difference does it make, in the end? It's like arguing about how many angels can fit on a head of a pin.
You kind of answered this question in your first line... It's not because it serves a purpose of any kind, it's just because it's interesting. Why do people spend time and effort and money researching anything at all about ancient history or prehistory? Very little of it has any relevance to our modern society or the issues we face, but for many people it's fascinating. The same is true of the issue of whether or not Jesus was real- it's not likely to convince many Christians to give up their faith and it's not a good argument to start with when debating Christians, but as a topic in general it's incredibly interesting.
The Gospel According to Dennis the Menace.
Could Carrier please stop equating the celestial realm with outer space? These are two different concepts. The people didn't even have a concept of "outer space" back then. It might sound funny but undermines your image as a serious historian.
Lea Brocksieper he's just using modern language because there is no celestial realm so why use that term?
Gods don’t exist but that doesn’t mean you need to call them acorporal superhumans or something.
Dr Carrier mentioned "original apostles" 21:06
Were men actually claiming to be original apostles of Jesus? ...or were the original apostles merely mythical characters?
-
Stuff written by Paul=> _Paul meets apostle Peter and Jesus' brother James, risen-Jesus appears to James, Paul confronts Peter at Antioch._
But risen-Jesus obviously did _not_ appear to James. It's myth or fiction. Is _"Paul Confronts Peter"_ also fiction? Was James a fictitious character? or were these guys trying to get famous by claiming they were related to Jesus?
-
Was Paul a real guy, or an amalgamation of early Christians writing sectarian propaganda?
-
these are just questions running through my head as I listen to the lecture ;)
It's long been my own personal pet theory that Paul was the great inventor of the early christian religion. He had his psychotic break on the road to Damascus and from that point on he was 'hunting Jesus' much like Alex Jones and David Icke. As he hunted out stories among the Jews of a Messiah he was, possibly unwittingly, cross pollinating details between different communities and getting sold his own echo along the way. As for him meeting the apostles he could have dreamt it, been conned by a charlatan or other mentally ill person or could have lied about it In an attempt to draw out a real apostle. It certainly seems that his letters are full of his attempts to modify and homogenise the faith in different locations, as if the sects themselves were wildly different to begin with.
Consider a modern day conspiracy theorist trying to track down the truth about Roswell Aliens and Magestic 12 and MK Ultra. Just terms and the loosest of ideas yet look at the rich tapestry of lore that has spread interweaving them. Once a buzz starts and everyone starts making wild guesses and sharing them, whole in depth narratives can be found. All it takes is someone capable of moving and spreading the narratives and a search for an ill defined 'truth' that must be 'out there'.
Paul does seem, to me, to be the unwitting author of the early Christian faith.
+AnonEyeMouse No evidence for any of that, but it's a hell of a lot more likely than jewish zombies with infinite buoyancy and curative spit.
That's always the problem with discussion the existence of Jesus. There's zero proof the guy ever actually existed (not that wouldn't also prove Spiderman and Harry Potter, at least), plenty of reasons why it could very well be invented out of whole cloth, but no way of actually determining which of those reasons might be the correct one.
I personally favor the "mythical character based off an amalgamation of other wandering charlatans and parasites" idea, but ultimately the discussion is pointless: the only thing that matters is whether or not Jesus actually was everything the bible says he was, and the answer to that is a resounding "Don't make me fucking laugh".
For Paul being the originator, I think it's fairly well established that Paul's epistles and letters are the basis for what is christianity today. It's also the basis for everything islam is, from women being forced to dress modestly to doing nothing but praying if you can avoid pesky useless tasks like "eating" or "working", to avoiding alcohol and music and fun because it wastes time better used sucking God's dick.
"There's nothing new under the Sun" indeed.
I always wondered how you can study all that stuff and still be a Christian! Like, how is it possible to believe that religion evolved over time and that Christianity borrowed from earlier religions and also believe that Christianity is true?
Let me see if i understand this. The people who make this stuff up end up not taking credit for it. There was no Moses or Abraham, so neither of them can actually be credited for creating the Old Testament text. The authors needed some celestial or divine source to whom to attribute their writings. If they claimed to be divine themselves, people would probably be asking them to perform miracles as evidence. So they made up some spiritual being or prophet who met such a spiritual or celestial being and attributed their own writings to that prophet or celestial being.
Have I got that right?
There is another step. After making up the god figure, they give it some human existence story. Roman emperors went the other direction, human to god.
Could it be archeologically discovered today if the long passages in the Gospels were actually plagiarized by some hither-to unknown Greek author? Some parts of them read like ancient Homeric play scripts.
"Paradise" is from a Persian word meaning "garden".
+CHAS1422 and I think Jews believed that the garden of Eden was actually going to be in one of the 7 levels of heaven. was it level 3? I can't remember. I think it was 3 because doesn't Paul say he was caught up to the third level and if I'm not mistaken doesn't he call it paradise? grrrrr memory cannot work... search engine to the rescue.....
ahhhhh I'm right. 2 Cor 12
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I
cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
****such an one caught up to the third heaven.****
How that he was caught up into ****paradise****, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
paradeisos para (beside) deis (park or enclosed area for hunting)
Beliefs... they all evolved over time and that's the irony. Christians rage about evolution while there is no one version of "christianity" in all of history. It was in constant evolution at all times.
+TruthSurge Indeed! Evolution, marriage, reproduction with deviation and survival of the.... It is difficult to see beyond the paradigms of our own time and resonate with the minds of the ancient authors. We have to position our thoughts with their understanding and style before we can really grasp what they were writing about and how they were syncretizing previous or parallel literature with their own, and what other religions were competing for followers and for power. In most respects these were simple minded people in their understanding of their world. But in literature, metaphor, symbolism, and allusion, pageantry, art and architecture they were fairly sophisticated. Paradise was a very alluring concept. The Muslims also believed in 7 heavens. In the Hadith where Muhammad leaves the temple mount in Jerusalem, he allegedly describes his journey through all seven. "See ye how Allah has created the seven heavens, one above the other" Q71:15
True believers are idiots and miss the historical evolution of concepts.
CHAS1422 Still strange to me how these ancient people were willing to combine parts of other beliefs with their own or try to make them seem like the same thing. If you believed X back then, what was your motivation for jumping to X 2.0? Just more perceived benefits? Like with Jesus you didn't need to keep the laws or sacrifice anymore AND you'd get raised from the dead when he appeared at the end of time to live forever! I guess I'd get on board with that. heheheh
I would like to see one example of the "missing" documents in that 80 year gap. keep watching!
"There was a pre Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being actually named "Jesus".....
In what language? "Jesus","Yeshua", or something else?
Kinda wondering how are Richard Carriers claims there was no jebus doing with other scholars? so basicly a peer review.
+themplar well, you really shouldn't expect the majority of scholars to agree with Carrier at this time, because the vast majority of biblical scholars are just Christians who wanted to go learn more about their holy book.
It'd be like asking if the majority view among Christian theologians is that God exists.
My suggestion:
Check out Carrier's sources yourself. Look for the most objective biblical scholars you can find, and check their sources. Read up on Osiris, and Baal, and Prometheus, etc.
Don't let the Christian scholarship majority rule your beliefs about the bible.
***** Yeah i get that is the main problem, that most scholars are already part of the fanboy club. So i guess there is no science in scholarship.
How about with other secular scholars? Or is theology completely void of science and scientific methods?
themplar I don't know a whole lot of biblical scholars, but there are some good ones in Christian Dilemmas
Bart Ehrman is an agnostic atheist, and thinks there was most likely a historical person. I have not seen Ehrman directly address ehumerization argument. I summarize his argument as 'if they just made it up, they would have made up more flattering stories.' But I am very amateur.
+themplar By secular I'm assuming you mean not funded by or publishing for a religious institution. Harvard has a Divinity School, but also a Biblical Studies PhD program. There are plenty of respected scholars like Robert M. Price and Bart Ehrman who have concluded that, while there might have been other rebels or preachers named Yeshua/Jesus living before 70 A.D., there is no single person that can be solidly linked to the character described by Paul or in the Gospels. Mythicism isn't a new idea: www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/09/the-myth-of-mythicisms-newness.html
Hello! 👋 🙋♂️
I heard someone mention my name in the video, what's up? 😲 🤣
is it possible that the myth of Jesus was created for a reason that was actually good? if you read enough NT you start to see Jesus as a bit of a codeword for long needed change and modernization, both social and political. like Robin Hood or the Lud guy from the Luddites
Not really.
As barbaric and evil as the god of the old testament is, Jesus manages to one-up him in a rather subtle way. He introduces the concept of eternal, implicit sin, that can only be forgiven by dedicating your life and wallet to clergy and other religious leaders that desperately need money. All this despite him supposedly dying (for only a few days at that) to forgive said sins. Yet, every child born is still guilty.
He also is a hypocrite and false prophet that gave bad advice (don't save your money, give away your possessions, steal, etc).
He actually made life MORE difficult. Not only do not murder, but don't even get angry! Not only don't commit adultery, but don't even lust!
How does one religion borrow mythology from another separate religion? Wouldn't adherents of both religions consider it heresy?
what about the "general resurrection" is this not unique to Christianity?
188basstrom no it's a Jewish idea.
Bring him back
"Blood magic"
Christianity is more beautiful without the historical Jesus. Carrier has done the Church a great service.
10:18 someone sent a text message
2 Peter references 1 Peter therefore it's fake? What is the logic behind that?
1 peter 2 peter 3 peter more
My old beliefs : the Jehovah's Witness belief of Jesus, First of all gods creations, used to make all of creations. He was originally the arch angle Michael before he was sent down to earth, born and renamed Jesus. He went back, spiritually as an arch angle in the heavens.
So is Jesus a Time Lord.
And Matthew wrote his gospel because of a reason. I think this reason was the competition from the new messiah in the person of Simon bar Kokhba. This also gave Matthew (who was intimate with the culture, customs, laws, landscape of the area) the opportunity to correct many of the problems in Mark in those same areas. This explains why Matthew is chock-full of impressive credentials for Jesus together with lots of miraculous events and deeds.. something Simon couldn't claim.
Unfortunately, Matthew didn't realize that Mark was completely allegorical.
+Rand Huso Do you think it's possible that Mark was written as a satire lampooning Simon bar Kokhba and his followers (those who claimed he was the messiah)?
+All Hail Sir Microcosm Not sure. Matthew seems to be written for a definite purpose - to overshadow the boasts of another claimant (probably in the person of Simon), as well as the obvious need to correct problems in Mark - and from a very definite Jewish perspective. However, I don't see anything like this in Mark. I'm of the opinion that Mark knew that Jesus didn't literally exist, but was a celestial emanation, however Matthew is just the opposite - for him Jesus very definitely existed (a considerable passage of time may be indicated). This makes for some creativity required of the author of Matthew.
Do you have some ideas that I could explore? I've got McDonald's book (but have yet to find time to read it) on the Greek / Homeric influence on Mark. I'm just not sure that Mark could be interpreted as describing a physical person who curses barren fig trees knowing it's not time for figs - which might be a required interpretation if he thought Jesus actually existed. What ideas are going through your head?
Rand Huso My own issue with Mark is how contrast Jesus is compared to the other two Synoptics, John, and other extant Christian texts. In Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus is self-assured and knows his power; whereas with Mark he seems to be at the mercy of unseen forces and given to emotional tirades (going so far as to claim even God had forsaken him). It also lacks a proper resurrection account, with the women fleeing from the tomb and telling no one that Jesus had risen. All of this sticks out to me. Why is Mark portraying Jesus in such a negative way? It only struck me a few months ago that the writer could in fact be mocking an over zealous messiah cult buy casting its leader as a failure. This failed messiah could be very well be bar Kokhba. I know this doesn't explain why Matthew would take up Mark and use it as a source, so I'm not sure about it myself. But the late dating Mark and the events at the time seem all too conspicuous.
I haven't read McDonald's book and I'm not really interested if Mark was borrowing from Homer. When it comes to the similarities with the Gospels and pagan legends, for me, this shows more of a literary pattern that any story could fall into. Even though the Greeco-Roman Hellenized empire was replete with myths of miraculously conceived, dying and rising gods, I don't think one can point to a smoking gun. I'll read it one day for sure, it just doesn't fit my objectives at the moment.
+All Hail Sir Microcosm I'd guess multiple influences were involved in the writing of Mark, including some Egyptian myths. Late date is certain, as the Jesus described is vastly different from that discussed in Paul's legitimate corpus, but I suspect it was already old by the time Matthew took to his rewrite. I think Mark was trying to make Jesus come across as human. Matthew has his Jesus be miraculously in control. Luke has his Jesus be a stoic. John has his so lofty that had he been really around at the time he'd have been stoned for blasphemy.
It's good to keep an open mind about this, especially when all the pieces haven't come together yet. I've just now got my hands on Carrier's latest book and I should be getting stuck into it shortly.
Rand Huso Indeed, I think even if the use of satire is not being employed by Mark, it definitely seems to be a polemic against a Christian sect. Perhaps it was originally mocking the ideal of a flesh and blood Jesus, which was then turned on it's head by Matthew, in much the same way Marcion's Gospel was turned into Luke. Whatever the case maybe, there is something fishy going on between the Synoptics.
On another note, what has become of Xoroaster? Did he ever finish his book project? He just dropped off the earth.
I would like him to explain why he thinks Gabriel is the founder of Islam. Angels are described as messengers of God, conveying messages to earthly prophets. That doesn't make them founders of any religion.
He'za comn' any moment now,,, I'm going to hold my breath. Onward Xtian Soldiers. UUhhggghh - It didn't work. Gawwd made me breathe !
Could you provide info on Zionism? The book of Isaiah provides many clues.
Created to conquer the Pagan world and fulfill "prophecy" of a world worshipping their God. The God who chose them...The world to come.
Paul created it, from bits and pieces of the old testaments and other systems.
There's this terrible fog at the beginning of Christianity (and other religions as well but lets keep focused)
Well accept for some of the more modern ones like Mormonism and Scientology were the members only wish there was a fog.
Jesus was mentioned in the history written by the Roman historians (Josephus and Tacitus). The idea that Jesus actually visited India can be traced to the Russian writer Nicholas Notovitch (1894) and his book The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. In it, Notovitch claims to have visited the monastery of Hemis near Leh, Ladakh in 1887 and to have read manuscripts there telling of the travels of Jesus, known as “Issa,” in India, including his teachings, his work with untouchables, and his conflicts with Brahmans and Zoroastrian priests (Crossan, 1998). Swami Avedananda, a brother monk of Swami Vivekananda verified the claims of Notovitch by vising the same monastery in Ladakh in 1922 and supported Notovitch (Avedananda, 1988). In 1929, Nicholas Roerich and his son George Roerich went there and found clear evidence to support Notovitch (Roerich, 1929; Roerich, 1931).
Dr. Richard Carrier has little knowledge.
Reference:
Avedananda, 1988, Journey into Kashmir and Tibet, Calcutta: Vedanta Press.
Borg, M., 2005, “The Spirit-Filled Existence of Jesus.” In The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eds. James Dunn and Scot McKnight. New York: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Crossan, J. D., 1998, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper.
Notovitch, N., 1894, The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ, New York: Simon & Schuster
Prophet, Elizabeth., 1986, Lost Years of Jesus, New Delhi: Jaico
Roerich, N., 1929, Altai-Himalaya, New York: Frederick Stokes.
Roerich, G., 1931, Trails to Inmost Asia: Five Years of Exploration, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Christians forged that. Also Tactius never spoke of Jesus in the way you think. Christians around him mentioned him
Pretty much everything yo said is BS when it comes to actually scholarly work
For the Jews. whoever come to their aids and bring them to the promise land were all considered Jesus. ( Ye shu ) .
During that times, There were many Jesuses .. But as Richard notes , there has not been an creditable source indicating that any of the Jesus was divine. (It is not much different in the Vietnam war . All VietCong were called Charlies, and there were many stories of Charlie fighting with the Yanks .... . take your pick and you will have a difference version of story to tell. )
American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill in his book " Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" gives a very good account that the News Testament was a Roman political invention to demonizing the Jews..
I think Terry Davis must've watched this video.
lol, a pastaconvention
all touched by his noodly appendage, huh?
RIP headphone users @ 8:24
Try this, but on the topic 'CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT JUDAISM'. Now that would be the problem for you.
Forget all about jedis, imagine Luke skywalker didn’t even exist never mind actually being a Jedi, how could Star Wars be written without Luke actually existing.
Here is a twist that George Lucas had written, that darth maul would be chopped in half by obi one and he obviously falls down a massive pit only for him to be resurrected to become the leader of a criminal organisation.
in episode 8 things like the force were seen just as a cleverly devised myth, only for Rey to have a first person experience with an old Luke skywalker who teaches her the way of the force.
so how do we stop people from believing in religion and get some fucking oversight?
Probably impossible; a large part of religious inclination appears to be biological in origin. A psychological side effect of human's evolved tendency to see patterns in the world around him. Useful for survival, but also maladaptive.
There is nothing wrong with using history or a lack of history and science to illustrate the nonexistence of God. But I am equally convinced by the simple question: Where is God?
Heaven - buzzing like a drone bee in orbit around its queen. You'll have no sense of self. In your orbit around the Great One on his throne, you will be commanded to praise and worship Him - and his Son sitting at His right. And the Holy Ghost and the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. Wow!
Since your "self" or "ego" has been destroyed, you will be simply chattering unthinking praises at your God. Worship him. Worship him! Best of all? You get to do it forever. Yes, for all eternity. Enjoy 'your' victory over death!
18:41 "If you need to see the logic of it...."
"see the logic"
"logic"
aha... ahahahaha...
CARRIER IS A TOTAL STROKE ..BUT HES AN ATHEIST SO HE AINT ALL BAD
I needed a good laugh today. There are just people who will find any way they can to tear apart other people's religions. Why? They have too much time on their hands? Do they just want to make fun of others? Do they want to be patted on the back for tearing apart the beliefs of others? I'm glad I live where this man has the right to do this and I'm glad I"m smart enough to NOT believe this stuff, lol. I've read the Bible from front to back and even though I question things in it I believe it was "inspired" by God. I do NOT have a religion. I have a relationship. Have a good day all.
Oh yeah, the weird specimen against the big consensus of Jesus existence.
STAR WARS Jesus
If there were no God, there would be no moral standards
Of course, these morals are the best:
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Leviticus 19:19)
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. (Leviticus 19:27)
All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 9:10)
Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk. (Exodus 23:19)
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Rape is only punishable by 50 shekels of silver, payable to the father of the victim, and marriage to the victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Unless, of course, you are the rape victim and your attacker was holding your mouth shut, because God’s punishment for those who don’t scream loud enough to be heard while being raped is death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Yet, there is no God and we DO have moral standards! Weird, huh?!
Funnily enough the Greeks managed to come up with entire systems of Ethics without basing them on divine command. Indeed divine command is an awful way to build a moral standard as god can command anything. Indeed if you look at the old Testament you see plenty of examples of the Biblical god commanding genocide, blood sacrifice and enslavement.
Ah yes. Richard don'tcallitcheatingcallitpolyamery Carrier.
Self-replicating whatnot Well you have to learn to tell stories when you wife asks what you where doing last night.
Oh. Is this an ad hominum attack? Haven't seen one of these beauties for a while. Harkens back to a less civilised time, where only idiots attacked the messenger and not the message...
Thank you Dr Carrier for eloquently debunking the contrived nonsense that is Christianity
Holyshit?
Oh it's this face again. *Hey AronRa, if you keep putting him on your channel, think about making him issue a public apology for his A+ antics and then upload that too.*
Carrier is very good at his stuff. But for everybody who knows his past, it's kinda hard to stomach 30 mins of Carrier's mug. A "sorry for having been a massive dipshit" would make it go down more smooth. Just saying. Have an upvote though, I'm in a good mood today.
+mnotsureifserious And before SocJus apparatchiks flock to this comment to say that I'm attacking the person and not addressing the arguments in the video... I'm not talking about that. It's a really enlightening presentation. I'm talking about the context of AronRa giving this guy air time on his channel.
Pedro Amigo
You got criminal record data to back that up, or are you just ASSuming?
But hey, If I were as bald as you are, I'd be mad too.
mnotsureifserious
I might know something the police doesn't.
Pedro Amigo
If you do, then the number is 911 for Canada/USA and 112 for the European Union. Talk to them about it, not to me.
Pedro Amigo
Don't worry about having kids, Mr. Clean. That's not a problem _you'll_ ever have to deal with. Btw, have you tried follicular transplantation? I'm told it yields good results...
and he doesn't mention "horus" from the egyptian book of the dead! wtf? horus story is the MOST like christ!
He has in other lectures. Depending on the topic, he lectures certain points.
Not even remotely close. The myths about Horus look nothing like the myths about Jesus. Horus was a warrior prince who did battle against his Uncle. He was not a preacher and certainly didn't wonder around teaching or performing miracles. Indeed when Horus needed magic he had to turn to the other gods to work it for him. But then again, Dr Carrier straight out said this.
@@KonradZielinski i think maybe you need to read the "egyptian book of the dead" again. horus story closely models jesus on many fronts. crucifiction, zombieism, and was given many of the same monikers. sure it gets confusing because the jesus story is just another perversion of the same old stories plageurized so many times through the iron and bronze ages. and then of course changed at "nicean" counsils and later by kings etc. what the great joseph campbell dubbed the "heroes journey". whats important is that its all nonsense made up by highly ignorant people of the times and used to control power. the bible is still nothing more than the "classic" con job! nothing more! yet we allow its impetus for ignorance and debilitation of the mind to remain such a destructive and shackling force on our species. religion must die for man to really thrive and move forward!
@@fableslayer I have read the Mytho of Horus. Crucifixion wasn't even practiced in Ancient Egypt. For a start wood was an expensive commodity that had to be imported. And no Horus was not resurrected, the resurrected god in Ancient Egypt was Osiris.
The only similarity I recall is that depictions of Isis with the Baby Horus were rather common, and this quite likely did contribute to why Early Christians started making similar depictions of Mary with the Baby Jesus.
Charms of Baby Horus where seen as a way to protect infants from scorpions, snakes and other deadly creatures because in they myth Horus was said to be such a born warrior that he killed scorpions and snakes even as a baby / toddler.
@@KonradZielinski yes. i stand corrected! its been a long time for me now. i have since moved on to other battles for reason in this world! thanks for this though. i do however remember finding entire paragraphs and even more that were obviously plageurized from the "book of the dead" and used in the bible. many of them actually. hey if you are into this stuff check out the comparison between the book of "proverbs" and the hindu writings of the "upanishades"! clearly more plageurism there too!