I'm sure Paul met (or attended one of His "lectures") Jesus, as a student of Gamaliel or a zealous Pharisee. Perhaps he even witnessed the crucifixion and hailed it as a good thing. I'm am very certain that He later met the glorified Jesus on the road to Damascus, and was blinded by the Glory of Him. One thing common to many textual and historic critics, is the ignoring the role of God in the production and preservation of the New Covenant texts. They criticize, also, on the fact that the earliest witnesses, like Jesus, were expecting an imminent return, which never happened. I believe we all will witness the second coming immediately upon our physical death, when we enter eternity and the Judgement. "For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." I believe I will experience the parousia either when I am awake (alive) or at my death (sleep). That is an expectancy of imminently, like the early church. "“But concerning that day and hour (parousia or death/sleep) no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” If we believe that we enter eternity and the perousia at the moment of death (which is often described as sleep), it really does occur within "this generation." Think about it. When we sleep, while alive, we have no consciousness of time. Death, if it be like sleep, we will awake into the parousia. "For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep." AND "...obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." AND “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."
You did not mention the peer-reviewed works of Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Rafael Lataster which came to the conclusion that Jesus probably did not exist. Why not? You mentioned Dr. Ehrman's non-peer reviewed book. Taoism formed without it's mythical founder, Lao Tzu. There was no Vishnu or Krishna to found Hinduism. There probably was no Patanjli to found yoga. Zoroaster was the mythical founder of Zoroasterism. Seems to me that mythical founders are the norm, not the other way around.
Mike: It looks like you haven’t read Richard Carrier’s book (on the Historicity of Jesus) and alternative view to explain this- until you do those mythical claims you cite in this video are very random. And here’s a fun fact that will wet your appetite: Mythicism actually supports early and prePauline christology!
I'm not a Christian, and I agreed with most of this. There are enough unknowns and oddities in the earliest texts (not to mention the vast amount of early Christian forgeries) to warrant asking the question of Jesus's existence, however I find that when one shifts the question from 'Did Jesus exist?' to 'How did Christianity begin?', then the most straight forward explanation is that there was a Historical Jesus.
No, mythicism still works better if you look at Christianity as just one out of many offshoot of apocalyptic/messianic Judaism which origin can be traced back to the old testament era with the writings of the book of Daniel. So in short, the Jewish religious communities were so into the Daniel apocalyptisn that there were many apocalyptic/messianic Jewish movement that came to be in early 1st century AD because they were reading the Jewish scripture and came to expect the messiah to come at that time. Fact is, we actually have historical documentations for the existence of different self proclaimed messiah usually named Jesus that existed in around the time that the Jesus was supposedly existed. So Jesus was a common phenomenon for the Jewish religious communities at the time where Jesus of christianity supposedly existed. All in all, the actual basis for historical Jesus of christianity is actually nothing more than Christian claims rather than real historical happenstance.
@@Napoleonic_S OK, so if lots of Jews were expecting the Messiah to arrive in the 1stC, then it's no surprise that one movement might get swept up into thinking their guy was the guy. If anything, this only adds contextual credibility to the idea that there was a Historical Jesus as a would-be Messianic claimant. Who are the other "self proclaimed messiahs usually named Jesus" that you refer to?
@@scottbignell Yes you can say that one group thought that their cult leader was the messiah, but it's very likely that he was never resembled the Jesus that we familiar with today, I'm not just talking about appearance but also his life, his work, his teachings etc... If that actual Jesus was nothing like what described in the gospel, how would you say that he was historical, for analogy, Abraham Lincoln was real but Abraham Lincoln the vampire hunter is not. About the other Jesus, one of the most prominent one is Jesus ben Ananias, an actual Jewish rebel leader who died in the war of the 70. And here lies the reason and the problem, you have to understand that before Christianity came to be dominant, when you studied the Jewish apocalyptic ideology, the messiah was supposedly to liberate the jew from actual worldly oppression, so no wonder if such rebel leader Jesus was seen as a messiah, and that he fit more as the messiah than the pacifist Jesus that we now familiar with. It's more plausible that the pacifist Jesus that we are familiar with was basically invented by the jew who remodel their apocalyptism and messianism after the jew as a nation was defeated by the Romans, partly as a coping mechanism like what most cults and religions do when their predictions and prophecies didn't work.
You've changed the goal posts from discussing whether or not there was a Historical Jesus to whether or not the Historical Jesus was a pacifist. Scholars differ on that issue. What they don't differ on (with only a handful of exceptions) is that there was a Historical Jesus. If the Historical Jesus wasn't a pacifist, then he's still a Historical Jesus! Jesus ben Ananias isn't who you think he was. He is never described as a "rebel leader", nor did he claim to be "Messiah", and nor was he "prominent". He's just a one off "end is nigh!" nutter whom Josephus describes briefly. He is never described having a following, let alone being a "rebel leader" or Messianic-claimant. So I ask again: Who are the other "self proclaimed messiahs usually named Jesus" that you speak of? Because Jesus ben Ananias isn't one of them.
@@scottbignell No, it matters in this context, because Abraham Lincoln the vampire hunter is not a historical figure even if he was based on a historical figure. Sure Jesus ben Ananias wasn't the Jesus but he was the type of messiah that the jew wanted and anticipated, the Christian pacifist Jesus was a rather new thing that Christian started to promote after the war ended and the jew and their apolicaptism lost to reality. There are scholarly studies that examine the similarity between some of Jesus ben Ananias story with the Christian Jesus, do you deny such plausibility? That the gospel writers could've inserted Ananias' story into the Christian Jesus story? I mean we can't prove such a thing anymore, but if it really happened that way then would you still say that the historical Christian Jesus was a separate figure from Ananias? I forget who were the other Jesus figures and can't find it on the internet lol, but the point is that the messiah figure was a common trope and occurance during that time in Israel. The assertion that the Christian Jesus actually existed as an ordinary guy is actually has more similarity with the assertion that Jesus is god than with fact that someone proven to exist like (ironically) Jesus ben Ananias.
One of your references is Richard Carrier. I heard him speak at a local event sponsored by atheists. One assumption piled upon another. Carrier is part of the POINT ONE PER CENT (.1 %) of folks with a legit ancient history degree who will not admit Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived in the first-century AD. He is in denial.
@@theoskeptomai2535 “There are seven historians who believe Jesus didn’t exist or are agnostic about his existence.” - Richard Carrier, in his debate against Licona
@@randomperson2078 And again, it matters not the numbers of historians that are skeptical. To present such figures as evidrnce of historicity is a known _fallacy._ Only demonstrable facts and sound premises logically inferred from those facts have import in an argument. What was the percentage of scholars who insisted on a _geocentric_ Earth before 1543 AD? Venture to calculate THAT percentage?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Modern history doesn’t work the same way medieval physics did. That’s like saying “I know 99% of climate scientists believe climate change is mostly caused by humans, but 99% of physicists in the 1530s thought the Sun went around the Earth!” It’s not a known fallacy to appeal to relevant experts.
One fact that Christians (none that I have ever encountered) never address is that there are no firsthand eyewitness accounts of this Jesus when, if the events as depicted in the gospels were true, one would reasonably expect there to be such. Second, Christians never account for the fact that there are no known contemporary historian accounts that were written _about_ this Jesus.
@@theoskeptomai2535 not a Christian but I can address those: (1) Jesus' earliest followers were probably all illiterate, as was 95% of all ancient Palestine. So... there is no reason to think a firsthand witness would write an account. None of those witnesses could write. And Roman authorities put down people like Jesus very often and never wrote about any of them, because... they didn't care about them. So, there is simply no reason to expect any eye witness account. (2) Contemporary historians never wrote about the life of Pythagoras, or Judas the Galilean, or Caiaphas the High Priest, or the Egyptian prophet, or Theseus, or... 99.999999% of all ancient Jews. So, again, this is entirely and totally irrelevant. If you deny the historicity of Jesus based on a lack of contemporary or eyewitness testimony... then you mine as well just deny the existence of all ancient poor people. Mine as well just deny the existence of the lower class, as Justin Meggitt noted. Your arguments are simply irrelevant the minute you do a basic socio-economic class contextualization of ancient Judea.
@@chrish4309 First and foremost, I am not presenting an argument for I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM. I am simply establishing FACTS. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this? I did not state nor even infer that Jesus did not exist. I am NOT a mythicist. Yes. You are correct that only about 5% of Judeans were literate in the 1st century. And _if_ there were firsthand eyewitnesses to the supposed events surrounding Jesus as depicted in the gospels, it is highly unlikely any of those eyewitnesses could provide a _written_ firsthand account. But THAT does not change the FACT that there _are_ no firsthand eyewitness accounts of this Jesus. The fact that it would be unlikely a firsthand eyewitness _could_ write a written report does not mean that there actually _were_ first hand eyewitnesses to this Jesus. I will in fairness stipulate this does not mean there weren't firsthand eyewitnesses to Jesus. But one thing remains a FACT, the gospels, written in Greek (literate Judeans would have wriiten in Aramaic or Hebrew) several decades after the supposed events are CERTAINLY NOT firsthand eyewitness accounts. The best case would be these gospels accounts are accurate and authentic secondhand accounts. Yet I have not heard you (or any other Christian) acknowledge this fact. And you are being disingenuous. A sincere and honest interlocutor would have confirmed my statement, "You are right Theo, there are no known firsthand eyewitness accounts of Jesus (an genuinely honest agreement) and THEN made the counterpoint. "However Theo, I would like to point out that only 5% of Judeans were literate, so if any Judean did witness Jesus firsthand, he or she most likely would not have been able to provide a WRITTEN firsthand account of such witness. All firsthand accounts would necessarily be oral. All written accounts would have been second or even thirdhand." So now I will ask: 1) Do you understand that I am _not_ claiming Jesus did not exist? 2) Will you agree I am not presenting an argument, but rather simply stating relevant facts. 3) So, do you accept the FACT that there are no known firsthand eyewitness accounts? Yes or no. 4) Do you recognize I accept and will state the counterfact you have presented? I will address contemporary historians next.
@@chrish4309 First and foremost, I am _not_ denying the existence of Jesus. I am simply stating the fact that no contemporary historian, living in the 1st century, wrote _about_ him.
@@theoskeptomai2535 "But THAT does not change the FACT that there are no firsthand eyewitness accounts of this Jesus" Cool. The fact is still irrelevant and tells us nothing and does nothing. "The fact that it would be unlikely a firsthand eyewitness could write a written report does not mean that there actually were first hand eyewitnesses to this Jesus." I never said there were. I was just explaining why such a fact is completely irrelevant and indicative of nothing at all. Also people who had no witnesses to their existence famously have brothers who saw them (Gal. 1:18-19). Paul is arguably second-hand. "CERTAINLY NOT firsthand eyewitness accounts" Cool. Thanks for noticing what every critical NT scholar has for generations. I don't use the Gospels for Jesus' existence, nor do I think they can be used to reconstruct his life. So I don't care that they are not eyewitness accounts. "THEN made the counterpoint" I see no need to restate the obvious. It isn't disingenuous. I just have better things to do than give you validation on something we both agree on. I agreed in the statement there are no contemporary or eyewitness statements about him, when I explained why there were none. By fiat, if I explain why there are no contemporary or eyewitness accounts, I am agreeing in context. ------------------- (1) Sure, honestly don't care if you are claiming he existed or not. (2) Sure, honestly don't care if you have an argument or not. (3) I already said I accept that fact. Read my first comment. It is just a completely and totally irrelevant fact. (4) Sure, honestly don't care if you do or not.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 in other words, you won't debate him? It's easy to insult someone, even easier to dodge them. Both make your argument, and your scholarship, look weak.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 yeah, you operate in a cloistered world with no challenges to your outdated research. Join us in the real world someday. Your argument is one of authority, not evidence.
I don't think its professional to attack people's character and mannerism's as a method to establish your perspective as the correct one. its a fallacy as well and i lost respect for this youtuber after that point. focus on facts, evidence and statistics.
Wow. Thanks so much for this. This sort of thing is long overdue.
“Christology so low they could win a limbo contest against a leprechaun”🤣🤣
Thanks Dr. Bird for this. Christians need to bd equiped with this. Im asked alot of questions of stuff they watch on youtube.at my work. From USA.
I'm sure Paul met (or attended one of His "lectures") Jesus, as a student of Gamaliel or a zealous Pharisee. Perhaps he even witnessed the crucifixion and hailed it as a good thing. I'm am very certain that He later met the glorified Jesus on the road to Damascus, and was blinded by the Glory of Him. One thing common to many textual and historic critics, is the ignoring the role of God in the production and preservation of the New Covenant texts. They criticize, also, on the fact that the earliest witnesses, like Jesus, were expecting an imminent return, which never happened. I believe we all will witness the second coming immediately upon our physical death, when we enter eternity and the Judgement. "For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." I believe I will experience the parousia either when I am awake (alive) or at my death (sleep). That is an expectancy of imminently, like the early church. "“But concerning that day and hour (parousia or death/sleep) no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” If we believe that we enter eternity and the perousia at the moment of death (which is often described as sleep), it really does occur within "this generation." Think about it. When we sleep, while alive, we have no consciousness of time. Death, if it be like sleep, we will awake into the parousia. "For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep." AND "...obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." AND “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."
@4:11 - Man, that is some deep stuff going on there
You did not mention the peer-reviewed works of Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Rafael Lataster which came to the conclusion that Jesus probably did not exist. Why not? You mentioned Dr. Ehrman's non-peer reviewed book. Taoism formed without it's mythical founder, Lao Tzu. There was no Vishnu or Krishna to found Hinduism. There probably was no Patanjli to found yoga. Zoroaster was the mythical founder of Zoroasterism. Seems to me that mythical founders are the norm, not the other way around.
There were also the mythical characters Gutama in Buddhism and Lehi in Mormonism. You are correct about mythical founders being the norm.
Good stuff! Thanks
Mike: It looks like you haven’t read Richard Carrier’s book (on the Historicity of Jesus) and alternative view to explain this- until you do those mythical claims you cite in this video are very random. And here’s a fun fact that will wet your appetite: Mythicism actually supports early and prePauline christology!
You know, of course, none of the arguments for historicity establish a formal condition.
I'm not a Christian, and I agreed with most of this. There are enough unknowns and oddities in the earliest texts (not to mention the vast amount of early Christian forgeries) to warrant asking the question of Jesus's existence, however I find that when one shifts the question from 'Did Jesus exist?' to 'How did Christianity begin?', then the most straight forward explanation is that there was a Historical Jesus.
No, mythicism still works better if you look at Christianity as just one out of many offshoot of apocalyptic/messianic Judaism which origin can be traced back to the old testament era with the writings of the book of Daniel.
So in short, the Jewish religious communities were so into the Daniel apocalyptisn that there were many apocalyptic/messianic Jewish movement that came to be in early 1st century AD because they were reading the Jewish scripture and came to expect the messiah to come at that time.
Fact is, we actually have historical documentations for the existence of different self proclaimed messiah usually named Jesus that existed in around the time that the Jesus was supposedly existed.
So Jesus was a common phenomenon for the Jewish religious communities at the time where Jesus of christianity supposedly existed.
All in all, the actual basis for historical Jesus of christianity is actually nothing more than Christian claims rather than real historical happenstance.
@@Napoleonic_S OK, so if lots of Jews were expecting the Messiah to arrive in the 1stC, then it's no surprise that one movement might get swept up into thinking their guy was the guy. If anything, this only adds contextual credibility to the idea that there was a Historical Jesus as a would-be Messianic claimant.
Who are the other "self proclaimed messiahs usually named Jesus" that you refer to?
@@scottbignell
Yes you can say that one group thought that their cult leader was the messiah, but it's very likely that he was never resembled the Jesus that we familiar with today, I'm not just talking about appearance but also his life, his work, his teachings etc...
If that actual Jesus was nothing like what described in the gospel, how would you say that he was historical, for analogy, Abraham Lincoln was real but Abraham Lincoln the vampire hunter is not.
About the other Jesus, one of the most prominent one is Jesus ben Ananias, an actual Jewish rebel leader who died in the war of the 70. And here lies the reason and the problem, you have to understand that before Christianity came to be dominant, when you studied the Jewish apocalyptic ideology, the messiah was supposedly to liberate the jew from actual worldly oppression, so no wonder if such rebel leader Jesus was seen as a messiah, and that he fit more as the messiah than the pacifist Jesus that we now familiar with.
It's more plausible that the pacifist Jesus that we are familiar with was basically invented by the jew who remodel their apocalyptism and messianism after the jew as a nation was defeated by the Romans, partly as a coping mechanism like what most cults and religions do when their predictions and prophecies didn't work.
You've changed the goal posts from discussing whether or not there was a Historical Jesus to whether or not the Historical Jesus was a pacifist. Scholars differ on that issue. What they don't differ on (with only a handful of exceptions) is that there was a Historical Jesus. If the Historical Jesus wasn't a pacifist, then he's still a Historical Jesus!
Jesus ben Ananias isn't who you think he was. He is never described as a "rebel leader", nor did he claim to be "Messiah", and nor was he "prominent". He's just a one off "end is nigh!" nutter whom Josephus describes briefly. He is never described having a following, let alone being a "rebel leader" or Messianic-claimant. So I ask again: Who are the other "self proclaimed messiahs usually named Jesus" that you speak of? Because Jesus ben Ananias isn't one of them.
@@scottbignell
No, it matters in this context, because Abraham Lincoln the vampire hunter is not a historical figure even if he was based on a historical figure.
Sure Jesus ben Ananias wasn't the Jesus but he was the type of messiah that the jew wanted and anticipated, the Christian pacifist Jesus was a rather new thing that Christian started to promote after the war ended and the jew and their apolicaptism lost to reality.
There are scholarly studies that examine the similarity between some of Jesus ben Ananias story with the Christian Jesus, do you deny such plausibility? That the gospel writers could've inserted Ananias' story into the Christian Jesus story? I mean we can't prove such a thing anymore, but if it really happened that way then would you still say that the historical Christian Jesus was a separate figure from Ananias?
I forget who were the other Jesus figures and can't find it on the internet lol, but the point is that the messiah figure was a common trope and occurance during that time in Israel.
The assertion that the Christian Jesus actually existed as an ordinary guy is actually has more similarity with the assertion that Jesus is god than with fact that someone proven to exist like (ironically) Jesus ben Ananias.
One of your references is Richard Carrier. I heard him speak at a local event sponsored by atheists. One assumption piled upon another. Carrier is part of the POINT ONE PER CENT (.1 %) of folks with a legit ancient history degree who will not admit Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived in the first-century AD. He is in denial.
Where did you get the .1% figure. Is this a percentage you yourself calculated? And if not will you cite the source that made such a calculation?
@@theoskeptomai2535
“There are seven historians who believe Jesus didn’t exist or are agnostic about his existence.” - Richard Carrier, in his debate against Licona
@@randomperson2078 Dr. Carrier is referring to _published_ historians.
@@randomperson2078 And again, it matters not the numbers of historians that are skeptical. To present such figures as evidrnce of historicity is a known _fallacy._ Only demonstrable facts and sound premises logically inferred from those facts have import in an argument. What was the percentage of scholars who insisted on a _geocentric_ Earth before 1543 AD? Venture to calculate THAT percentage?
@@theoskeptomai2535
Modern history doesn’t work the same way medieval physics did. That’s like saying “I know 99% of climate scientists believe climate change is mostly caused by humans, but 99% of physicists in the 1530s thought the Sun went around the Earth!”
It’s not a known fallacy to appeal to relevant experts.
One fact that Christians (none that I have ever encountered) never address is that there are no firsthand eyewitness accounts of this Jesus when, if the events as depicted in the gospels were true, one would reasonably expect there to be such.
Second, Christians never account for the fact that there are no known contemporary historian accounts that were written _about_ this Jesus.
@@heyheyheychad Would you care to discuss the historicity of Jesus?
@@theoskeptomai2535 not a Christian but I can address those:
(1) Jesus' earliest followers were probably all illiterate, as was 95% of all ancient Palestine. So... there is no reason to think a firsthand witness would write an account. None of those witnesses could write. And Roman authorities put down people like Jesus very often and never wrote about any of them, because... they didn't care about them. So, there is simply no reason to expect any eye witness account.
(2) Contemporary historians never wrote about the life of Pythagoras, or Judas the Galilean, or Caiaphas the High Priest, or the Egyptian prophet, or Theseus, or... 99.999999% of all ancient Jews. So, again, this is entirely and totally irrelevant. If you deny the historicity of Jesus based on a lack of contemporary or eyewitness testimony... then you mine as well just deny the existence of all ancient poor people. Mine as well just deny the existence of the lower class, as Justin Meggitt noted.
Your arguments are simply irrelevant the minute you do a basic socio-economic class contextualization of ancient Judea.
@@chrish4309 First and foremost, I am not presenting an argument for I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM. I am simply establishing FACTS. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this? I did not state nor even infer that Jesus did not exist. I am NOT a mythicist.
Yes. You are correct that only about 5% of Judeans were literate in the 1st century. And _if_ there were firsthand eyewitnesses to the supposed events surrounding Jesus as depicted in the gospels, it is highly unlikely any of those eyewitnesses could provide a _written_ firsthand account. But THAT does not change the FACT that there _are_ no firsthand eyewitness accounts of this Jesus. The fact that it would be unlikely a firsthand eyewitness _could_ write a written report does not mean that there actually _were_ first hand eyewitnesses to this Jesus.
I will in fairness stipulate this does not mean there weren't firsthand eyewitnesses to Jesus.
But one thing remains a FACT, the gospels, written in Greek (literate Judeans would have wriiten in Aramaic or Hebrew) several decades after the supposed events are CERTAINLY NOT firsthand eyewitness accounts. The best case would be these gospels accounts are accurate and authentic secondhand accounts. Yet I have not heard you (or any other Christian) acknowledge this fact.
And you are being disingenuous. A sincere and honest interlocutor would have confirmed my statement, "You are right Theo, there are no known firsthand eyewitness accounts of Jesus (an genuinely honest agreement) and THEN made the counterpoint. "However Theo, I would like to point out that only 5% of Judeans were literate, so if any Judean did witness Jesus firsthand, he or she most likely would not have been able to provide a WRITTEN firsthand account of such witness. All firsthand accounts would necessarily be oral. All written accounts would have been second or even thirdhand."
So now I will ask:
1) Do you understand that I am _not_ claiming Jesus did not exist?
2) Will you agree I am not presenting an argument, but rather simply stating relevant facts.
3) So, do you accept the FACT that there are no known firsthand eyewitness accounts? Yes or no.
4) Do you recognize I accept and will state the counterfact you have presented?
I will address contemporary historians next.
@@chrish4309 First and foremost, I am _not_ denying the existence of Jesus. I am simply stating the fact that no contemporary historian, living in the 1st century, wrote _about_ him.
@@theoskeptomai2535 "But THAT does not change the FACT that there are no firsthand eyewitness accounts of this Jesus"
Cool. The fact is still irrelevant and tells us nothing and does nothing.
"The fact that it would be unlikely a firsthand eyewitness could write a written report does not mean that there actually were first hand eyewitnesses to this Jesus."
I never said there were. I was just explaining why such a fact is completely irrelevant and indicative of nothing at all. Also people who had no witnesses to their existence famously have brothers who saw them (Gal. 1:18-19). Paul is arguably second-hand.
"CERTAINLY NOT firsthand eyewitness accounts"
Cool. Thanks for noticing what every critical NT scholar has for generations. I don't use the Gospels for Jesus' existence, nor do I think they can be used to reconstruct his life. So I don't care that they are not eyewitness accounts.
"THEN made the counterpoint"
I see no need to restate the obvious. It isn't disingenuous. I just have better things to do than give you validation on something we both agree on. I agreed in the statement there are no contemporary or eyewitness statements about him, when I explained why there were none. By fiat, if I explain why there are no contemporary or eyewitness accounts, I am agreeing in context.
-------------------
(1) Sure, honestly don't care if you are claiming he existed or not.
(2) Sure, honestly don't care if you have an argument or not.
(3) I already said I accept that fact. Read my first comment. It is just a completely and totally irrelevant fact.
(4) Sure, honestly don't care if you do or not.
Debate Dr. Carrier, he will destroy your arguments.
Matt, sorry, I'm at the big table with the grown-ups.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 in other words, you won't debate him? It's easy to insult someone, even easier to dodge them. Both make your argument, and your scholarship, look weak.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 I operate in a certain theatre of academic discourse, Carrier is in a different theatre.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 yeah, you operate in a cloistered world with no challenges to your outdated research. Join us in the real world someday. Your argument is one of authority, not evidence.
I don't think its professional to attack people's character and mannerism's as a method to establish your perspective as the correct one. its a fallacy as well and i lost respect for this youtuber after that point. focus on facts, evidence and statistics.