I love that your factually-based analysis cuts all ways: I've seen you debunk erroneous Christian claims, and anti-Christian claims, and neo-Pagan claims, and all other claims that lack foundation in the texts and information itself. THANK YOU for this.
agreed! That's what happens when you stick to evidence and data! Some ideas will validate your beliefs and others will refute your beliefs! Just makes sense!
@@KhalerJex One can be both, as myself: I'm atheopagan, accepting and promoting science for my cosmology, the search for truth and wonder in a way that honors the scientific method, and engaging in community and ritual focused on reverence and celebration of the natural world.
To be fair, why would an Atheist read the bible? Its just a fact that the vast majority of Christians have not read the bible. They're the ones who actually believe that stuff and yet know barely anything about it. Atheist dont believe in that stuff, while they should still fact check their claims and be informed on what they are arguing, its not as big a deal if an Atheist hasnt read the bible vs a Christian.
The more wrong they are, the more emphatic and confident they seem. As an atheist, I am always pleased to see religious apologists schooled by Dan but it is also vitally important that people like this man are equally refuted. His unpleasant arrogance would be grating if he were correct but being also utterly wrong makes him irritating. There is absolutely no need to invent or believe nonsense in order to argue against religious claims. The best way is to use demonstrable facts.
"The Nyingma school asserts the birth of Garab Dorje to have been a miraculous birth by a virgin daughter of the king of Odiyana (Uddiyana), and that he recited Dzogchen tantras at his birth.[42]" wikipedia In the Ramayana, Vishnu incarnates himself as a man, Rama, in the womb of Kausalya, one of the wives of the king Dasharatha.[35] In the Mahabharata epic, Surya, the god of the sun, impregnates Queen Kunti before her marriage to King Pandu, causing her to give birth to their son Karna.[36][37] wikipedia Also, remember that the "holy spirit" makes Mary conceive. That sounds like some form of divine impregnation. Hmmmmm... India would have been known to Rome. The Silk Road. The Spice Road. Traders. Stories. I'm not sure I buy the "data" requirement so much. The only reason I know this is because, when I was a Christian, a former Hindu, was badmouthing Hinduism and we Christians were taught about the evils of Hinduism. Maybe the sex thing was the Christian contribution to the story because Christianity seems a little sex negative. But the rest of it? It's like saying that Bridget Jones' Diary (movie) was different from Pride and Prejudice because Bridget doesn't have 4 other sisters. I've read Pride and Prejudice.. uhhh.. yeah, Bridget Jones' Diary is a riff off of that book. There's a reason that I and others are skeptical. Christianity is just a primitive fantasy novel. It's not that hard to see some of the inspiration in that series vs. say. Islam or Judaism or Hinduism.
@@jenniferhunter4074 It's also worth remembering that a lot of these ideas - like the virgin birth, are somewhat later developments. Paul and Marc don't mention them, though both do mention Mary (or at least Jesus being born of a woman.) Even if the virgin birth as a doctrine was drawn partly from other traditions, that says nothing about whether or not there was a historical Jesus.
@Outspoken.Humanist Thank you. The intensity with which he promotes random, unstated sources that confirm his biases is akin to that of apologists and their unfounded biblical claims. BS claims need to be called out, otherwise we'd be back to geocentrism and ballistics not being a science.
@@Ighnot 100% I was raised Christian but never really read the Bible. In my early 20's I began to question and worry and I set out to read it in full, in order to both answer questions and bolster my belief. It had the opposite effect and by the time I was finished, I no longer believed at all. It is, however, the gift that keeps on giving. I'm 65 now and I still read it and I still find new nuggets of pure gold that make me laugh with amazement at how people can believe such nonsense.
Speaking as someone who identifies as an atheist, it's very hard to find something that annoys me more than an atheist who will swear that bad information is true, especially when it's because that bad info would make their case much easier if it were true.
The idea seems to be that there was a real, historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher in the first century and was crucified by the Romans, but that he is surrounded by so much legendary storytelling that it's hard to tell which stories about him are actually true.
Basically. All we really know about Him from a historical perspective is that He was a preacher who claimed some quality and partnership with God and was crucified.
That is one idea, yes. The problem is that the evidence for historicity is entirely dependent on Paul and whether or not his ambiguous language points one direction or another. The gospels aren't indicative of anything except that a tradition of depicting Jesus as historical emerged sometime after 70CE. It's not just that it's hard to tell which elements of the gospels are historical, it's that there's sufficient reason to believe that none of them are.
Hello, Dan, I am a fan and patreon supporter of your work here and also Data over Dogma. I do appreciate you responding to poorly argued mythicist or atheist/agnostic etc. vids, too. I hope that creators will learn to be more accurate and clearly sourced including links in social medias descriptions or comments. That said, I find your responses overly literal or hedged and far too dismissive of the overall theme of the video, if poorly done. Yes, this creator should not have used the word "stolen," certainly. In the world of the social medias, shock value gets rewarded, so shame on the algorithm programmers. Yes, the creator is also completely wrong that the deities he cites were crucified - in their mythic stories they variously died, were killed or were dismembered and then reincarnated, translated, or various other tropes of returning to an embodied or ongoing existence after death or serious bodily torment. Scholarly mythicists did not "make up" the crucifixion of other gods, I have never seen that argument among legit scholars ever. Citation needed ;) . This creator was certainly mistating the means of death of the various gods he cites. So your correction is technically true and also a red herring IMO. His larger point of legitimate underlying literary and cultural dependence and interplay between Jesus stories and GrecoRoman and other regional god stories and myths remains valid. The point of the authors of various gospels - canonized and non- was likely not to exactly copy other god figures and deities as well as fellow humans - but to make their character even better. They were also in competition with each other and had fundamental philosophical and theological differences. So in correctly calling out the creator's errors, I feel like you failed to engage with it fairly but instead kept dismissing older scholarship rather then drawing in the most current and exciting literary and scholarly work in these fields. The authors of the gospels were likely elites acculturated, and educated in GrecoRoman culture in an ancient melting pot of peoples, beliefs, and traditions. Scholars like your fellow Didaskaloi instructor Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh explore this extensively and make compelling cases for gospels as products of their literary and political culture. As many have pointed out, the concept of plagiarism did not really exist in GrecoRoman times and the various modern academic disciplines didn't, either. There were categories of text types, though, among elite literate producers. Students were taught based in the classic epics like Homer. Their exercises included mimesis, using existing stories as a basis for their own productions. Simple copying ("stealing") was just poor work. Ancient historians had systems of citation to make it clearer to readers what was being actually quoted from other works, more generally referenced, or just hearsay or their own writings. Dr. Steve Mason's work is a good reference here, among many others. So I find it misleading at ~1:45 that you do concede the literary allusions but then claim these have little to do with Jesus traditions. This is false. The literary traditions and ways the gospel authors and numerous redactors and editors told stories are the entire basis of the Jesus tradition as we have it. Paul barely speaks of any historical Jesus and did not know him. Q is speculative. We've got nothing but literary traditions. The gospels are not histories, though as Mason demonstrates convincingly, the author(s) of Luke/Acts knew and used Josephus' works to add details and truthiness. When you dismiss dying and rising gods as an out-of-date hypothesis, you also fail to address more recent and better documented scholarly work, for example Dr. Richard C. Miller's Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, www.routledge.com/Resurrection-and-Reception-in-Early-Christianity/Miller/p/book/9781138048270 As far as I understand, there is no contemporaneous evidence for the life of Jesus in the known textual or material record save for a contested passage in Josephus and perhaps the Jesus family tomb and ossuaries as researched by eminent scholar Dr. James Tabor. So to place mythicism into the same category as flat earthers is deeply irresponsible. Dr. Miller addresses this in his video with host Derek Lambert on the Mythvision channel The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist? ruclips.net/video/KTM-BdAjetc/видео.htmlsi=2YU3J7J7oDVQmczN In his tome On the Historicity of Jesus, Dr. Richard Carrier lays out his methodology as well as evidence and arguments. He concludes a ~30 % chance Jesus existed. Note that this is not a claim of the accuracy of any gospel stories, only his existence as a historical person. One may disagree with his evidence, analysis, or conclusions and bring counter arguments - that is how scholarship is supposed to work. However, dismissing it out-of-hand as a fringe, non-consensus view is a logical fallacy, the appeal to popularity. Dr. Carrier is probably the most well known scholar taking mythicism seriously, but certainly not the only one. Carrier lists numerous scholars who fall on the spectrum of of Jesus being entirely or partially mythological: www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420# I certainlly agree with fellow Data over Dogma host Dan Beecher that people questioning dogma and religious textual or cultural claims need to do their homework, be more careful, avoid exaggeration and misinformation, and show their work. I encourage the creator of the original video to go back to the drawing board, do better research, and re-do the video with better arguments and evidence. Or just re-post and share much better ones out there, including numerous interviews with other scholars. There's a lot more there there in exploring early Christianities in context. OK this comment is getting absurdly long so I will take up other concerns in a separate comment.
I don't think he reads these, but I appreciate the thoroughness you're using to back up your points here. I think that Dan could've steel-manned the argument a bit to make up for the lack of detail provided in the tiktok he took issue with, and then dismantled that as well. For example, the parallels of Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus would've been nice to have been brought up and then looked at more critically. It did feel as if Dan made a throw-away video purely for content here. I personally like the channel Esoterica for more in-depth analyses on these and lots of other similar topics of interest.
This is a fantastic comment and I really enjoyed reading through your explanations. I totally agree that this video does not do justice to the very rich and complex history being discussed. Thank you for taking the time to add that richness back in 😊
The story of Odin sacrificing himself on the World Tree is a pretty close pagan parallel to the story of Jesus being sacrificed on a cross. However, It was not written down until centuries after the time of Jesus. Some scholars believe the myth of Odin sacrificing himself on the Yggdrasil was influenced by the story of Jesus rather than the other way around.
@@zero-dollartrader6440 Osiris was either drowned or killed directly by Seth, Dionysos was "killed" by Zeus while showing his presence ot Semele, Krishna was killed with an arrow Osiris was revived with mummification, Dionysos was "revived" by being grafted into Zeus' thigh, Krishna did not revive but ascended. There's not much similarity, I don't think. Reviving is not a particularly unique event in mythology and religion. If anything it was already a present concept in Second Temple Judaism, with the stories about Elijah and his bones resurrecting people, or the events detailed in the Book of Enoch, even though the immortality of the soul was a contested topic (if anything this is why it's not very common in the Hebrew Bible). I think what particularly separates the Jesus resurrection myth from other resurrection myths is that Jesus resurrected himself in the story, whereas Osiris was resurrected via Isis' actions, Dionysos was resurrected via Zeus' actions and so on.
@zero-dollartrader6440 Osiris was resurrected, though not crucified (though in some versions, his remains were placed inside of a tree trunk, which became a pillar). Dionysus was not resurrected, but was sometimes said to have been born from the remains of the god Zagreus. And Krishna wasn't resurrected or crucified, he was killed by an arrow, and his divinity returned to its original state while his body remained dead. The point of the video is that the story of Jesus is not copied from an earlier story, even though some of the themes and signs/miracles are common to many religions.
When people overplay the parallels between Jesus and other gods they’re actually shooting themselves in the foot. By making up or exaggerating parallels, they distract from the actual parallels and similarities that are there.
@Sewblon I always cite the massacre of the innocents in Matthew as an example. That story was clearly borrowed from the story of Moses. But beyond Moses; variations of that motif are told of Romulus, Perseus, Jason, Oedipus, Sargon, Cyrus, Hercules, Zeus etc etc... A king tries to kill the hero as an infant to prevent them from fulfilling a prophecy or prevent them from inheriting the throne.
Dude cultural exchange has been something going on since whatever member of the genus Homo invented culture- it doesn’t matter if religions or culinary arts, or forms of art or poetry interact . . .ya know what that proves, that we are all at our core people. That’s all- no need for arguments
Mythicists will always confuse me. Christians start with the assumption that it is true, so they find ways to make everything in the book work. Mythicists start with assumption it is false, so they look for ways to show it must be made up. How is that any better than following the data?
More technically, the current main mythicist hypothesis is that the earliest Christians, like Paul, believed that they were talking about true things-- a high Christology divine figure called Christ that was created by God like Adam, and with a story hidden in scriptures that included an indication that he had already suffered and died in some act of celestial atonement, not necessarily on Earth. As Adam is believed buried in the third heaven, the stage for any kind of action with a divine figure could be Earth or in the several layers of heaven, where both fleshly beings and demons also lived and interacted. In other words, Paul believed there really was a fleshly human-like Christ. It was later literary talents in late 1st century and early 2nd century that took these early Christian beliefs and made them into exciting stories of miracles in historical time, perhaps originally for teaching purposes, but ultimately for polemics and indoctrination. Many of the stories of Jesus are recrafted Old Testament stories, but one-upping everything-- Jesus is the new Elisha but better-- the new Joshua but better-- the new Moses but better (and in some cases, like figures in Greek and Latin literature, but better). I also think Mark is creating the character of Jesus to chide and criticize actual historical figures like Peter for not getting the doctrine right. I think the writer behind the gospel called "Mark" came from a community influenced by Paul's thinking about Gentile Christianity, and the gospel became a way to establish authority for those views by having everything come from Jesus' mouth, including the criticisms of Peter, which in turned was directed at other communities that believed in some sort of celestial Jesus who would be the harbinger of the end times and would ultimately appear in glory. As modern mythicists point out the phrasing for a "second coming" doesn't line up with what is actually in the text. There is a belief that Christ is coming, but actually for the first time on Earth. The divine act of salvation, though human-like suffering in crucifixion, already happened, according to interpretations of various scriptures and through visions, which is what Paul is mostly talking about.
@@thomasb331 Again, I don't see how you'd get there without the presupposition that Jesus was not a historical figure. Saying "Paul was just dealing with scriptural interpretations and visions" makes as much sense as saying "Matthew and Luke don't contradict because Luke just decided not to include to flight to Egypt." It's conjecture to support a conclusion.
@@RhewinBTW just asking - how come the Holy Family took it on the lam and made it to Egypt tout de suite on their own, with a new mom and newborn-and it took Moses and the Israelites 40 years to cover the same distance? Favoring winds?
@@steveOCalley historically? Neither event probably happened, at least not as described. Exodus appears to be a distant memory of a much smaller escape from Egypt. Within the narrative, God forced them to wander for 40 years due to disobedience. They weren’t trying to get there for 40 years. The narrative in gMatthew is the author attempting to draw parallels to Moses. It’s unique to that gospel, and it’s not supported by any other sources.
yeah i heard stuff like that like over 10 years ago. when i checked reliable sources - like that guy himself advises - i found that the very few similarities were superficial.
Yes, and Inanna clear died in the story. Dan is being dishonest here. “164-172After she had crouched down and had her clothes removed, they were carried away. Then she made her sister Erec-ki-gala rise from her throne, and instead she sat on her throne. The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook.“
Many of his specific examples are wrong but it is certainly a fact that early Christianity represents a syncretism of Jewish and Hellenistic/Roman beliefs. Romulus and Remes were born of a Vestal Virgin impregnated by Mars. Ishtar and Osiris died and rose again. Early Christians didn't "steal" anything but many details of the story of Jesus also didn't come out of nowhere with no antecedents.
You also have other stories in the bible that very much had their origins in previous pagan beliefs that pre-date the bible, such as the story of the Flood. The bible is a manmade creation, and as you said, it didnt just come out of nowhere. Its definitely based upon the beliefs and society of its time, and like basically anything, its not wholly original either. While some aspects here or there may be unique to it, many arent. Also, when this guy said the "Christmas tree" was a Pagan thing, that may be wrong, but the holiday and celebration of Christmas IS a pagan thing. Im honestly surprised Dan didnt clarify that. Christianity didnt invent the tradition of christmas, they took existing religious practices and incorporated it into their own religion.
@@eragon78 I think the whole flood myth being borrowed thing is completely ridiculous. If a flood of some significance took place in that part of the world (we know it wasn't global), it makes perfect sense for multiple cultures to have their own take on it, and it makes perfect sense for many details to overlap, given that the origin of the stories would have been the same for all cultures in the area. I think it makes more sense to say that the proto-Hebrews who later committed their version to writing simply had just that -- their own version of the same story. They didn't copy Gilgamesh. They simply had a parallel construction based on some common ancestor.
@@avishevin3353 Maybe, but many cultures that had flood stories similar to that in the bible, that also existed in the same regions, and pre-dated the Noah flood story, its not too unreasonable to suspect that inspiration was taken from those stories and mixed up and adapted for a "modern at the time" version for the Noah flood story. Its possible it was completely independently derived, but I find this highly unlikely since those other flood stories would have been around and almost certainly would have been believed by many and inspired those who wrote the Noah flood story. Especially since im not sure if there is good archeological evidence of massive local floods around the time the Noah flood story was written. Its so exaggerated that its clearly mythological at that point. Now, the idea of "Floods happen, so what if a REALLY big one happened by a god?" probably isnt all that unique an idea (in fact, we know that American ancient civilizations had flood stories too for example), But there are some that predate the bible in the same region with striking similarities, so its hard to say that those had NO influence on the Noah flood story. But Ill admit, im not a scholar on this issue, so im sure people far more educated would be more adept at knowing if there is previous pagen influence for the Noah flood story than me.
@@eragon78 My point is that the similarities between flood stories are _expected_ if they derive from the same source. Whether that source was an actual event or just an invented tale doesn't matter.
@@avishevin3353 Well, if the story was "an invented tale" from previous pagen beliefs, then thats what my point was. My point is that the Bible borrowed, at least in part, stories from previous pagen beliefs. It was influenced by the beliefs at the time. And yea, of course similarities between the stories are expected. That is similar to the point I was making too. The flood is just a good example of one such area where you see these similarities.
Dan, do you consider Joseph Campbell to be a mythicist? What are your thoughts on the tradition that the Christ descended into hell between the time of his death and his resurrection?
The Bible says that JC descended to hell for the 3 days he was dead. I was Eastern Orthodox Christian for awhile, and at Pascha they chant that "Jesus conquered death (Hades), by death (thanatos). My favorite Orthodox Byzantine icon of the resurrection shows Jesus standing on the gates of Hades, pulling Adam and Eve out of their graves.
Dan, I'd love you to do a follow-up video and (instead of responding to this random youtuber) address the recent scholarship from Richard C Miller, Dennis R MacDonald, and Robyn Faith Walsh who disagree with you and who show quite a bit of evidence that gospel stories were based on Greek/Roman literature and mythic traditions. Miller specifically discusses "divine translation" tropes that were used in Romulus and Heracles myths (among others) which he claims was familiar to the readers and was used to exalt Jesus to the level of these other heroes. Similar to the others, in Jesus' case this divine translation occurred by his resurrection and ascension, which is described using unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to descriptions of these other gods and heroes.
I agree with you on this. People often get this idea from the start of the film Zeitgeist and then go around spouting like they have just had a revelation. No research just the word of a disingenuous film-maker.
When in 3rd grade at my Christian elementary school, we were being taught Greek mythology and Hercules came up. I said just like Jesus. The nun was none too happy. I think my atheist journey began that day.
@maklelan about his last claim: is there no data that the concept of “apostheosis” predated the Gospels and that at least some Roman emperors were described as having had “ascended”? Thanks for the great video by the way, love your content.
Any and all Christians who dislike Dan should watch this. Dan isn't biased AGAINST traditional Christian claims; he also debunks bogus claims from non-Christians.
As far as Easter eggs goes, the Pesach Seder seems to have developed pretty early on in the the first few centuries of the common era, and eggs roasted in their shells are a traditional feature of that, certainly going back before the practice became common in Christianity.
I agree with @basedgamerguy818 . It's generally good to avoid "these things both involve eggs, they must be connected." While it can hint at somewhere to look for evidence of a connection, that conclusion needs something more, well, conclusive. Chicken eggs have been used as food for a LONG time, and the idea of 'chickens don't stop laying during lent, hey, we have all these eggs afterwards' doesn't need any connection to any other egg tradition or symbology.
@@basedgamerguy818 I very much agree! But then, so would the non-existent pagan egg customs that people like to claim. I’m just pointing out that there already existed an egg-related custom from within the larger Abrahamic tradition for festivals at that time of year (indeed, in the festival primarily influencing Easter), so insisting it has to be pagan influence is silly. Eggs are a universal food and are universally used as symbols, no one needs to be borrowing them from anyone else.
I really enjoy your channel and episodes. However, after watching this episode, I was wondering if you have given any thought to having a real-time debate/discussion with a mythicist (Richard Carrier comes to mind) about the historicity of Jesus? Or is the topic too far from the legitimate scholarly consensus to engage with?
You and Religion for Breakfast have helped me root out false beliefs I held, and I appreciate that. Wanting the truth lead me away from religion, and I'm glad I can still follow it even when I don't like the results.
I truly appreciate your rebuttals Dan. I would like to ask an open question. According to the abridgement of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that I read. I remember reading that the Christians and Pagans were warring against one another in Rome or in the Roman Empire. Anyway eventually the Christians won these battles. In the book I was told that the Christians lacked any traditions themselves therefore they borrowed a few. Is this true? Is there any data that shows this? I have not read the book by Gibbon, but I do have it. Historically how accurate is Gibbon's book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?
as someone who grew up in a hindu family I can very definitively say Krishna was not at all crucified or resurrected. Krishna died when he was shot by a hunter who mistook him for a deer, and due to the fact that he was cursed by Gandhari who hated him for literally causing all her children to die. There were no crosses or even capital punishment involved. And although you could kind of say Krishna "resurrected," that's because Krishna is an earthly incarnation of the transcendent deity Vishnu who incarnates multiple times as multiple people, and so one could argue that Krishna "resurrected" as a later incarnation of Vishnu. Bit of a stretch, but either way still not at all equivalent to Jesus's story. He also has no narrative about salvation in the same way as Jesus... he was quite literally a politician, who willfully hurt people he respected for the greater good of the world
Every time I see someone say, "It's documented" or "it's been proven" without showing those things it makes me wonder why they don't just show it. If they can prove their points then they should do that and if they can't then they shouldn't imply that they can Thank you for calling them out on their baseless claims, it's far easier to spread misinformation than it is to debunk it so I appreciate you having the knowledge to do so
To be fair, sometimes its not easy to find those texts. For example, "its been proven that global warming is real, and caused by humans." This is absolutely true....however actually finding proper scientific sources that SAY this is a lot harder than it seems. Not because they dont exist, they do, in plentiful numbers, but because its the cumulative consensus over hundreds of papers through decades of research. And its all dense scientific literature thats hard to read. If you've ever tried to find scientific papers to source your claim, let me tell you, its a bitch. Even when you find a paper you think supports your claim, you have to at least skim through it if not read it in full in order to make sure it actually SAYS or ADDRESSES the point you're trying to make. Again on the global warming thing, Im sure you can agree this is pretty much a settled debate with nearly full consensus on the side of science, making the claim "its been proven...." a TRUE claim, but would YOU know how to actually go and find scientific papers to prove it? A lot of people wouldnt, even if it absolutely is a true claim. Even if you know HOW to do it, it can still be pretty involved and take quite a bit of time. ive spent hours searching for sources to claims before, its a lot of work, especially for a random internet discussion when you know most times people arent even going to read your sources and just throw it out. The thing is, most people, especially non-scholars, get their information from trusted sources of authority. Stuff like science educators, or scholars, or other such examples. This is because the average person cant easily find and read scholarly sources on topics and digest it. But sourcing an authority figure isnt "proof" of anything. While you may trust that person, and that person may even likely be completely right and informed on that topic, it doesnt mean that its a citable source of proof. The proof probably DOES exist, and there probably ARE papers on that stuff if a scholar is saying it, and you can know that to be the case making the statement "its been proven to be true" or "its been documented' a TRUE statement. But just because it HAS been proven or documented, doesnt mean its easy for a layperson to FIND those documents and be sure they have the right sources, or all of the sources needed to affirm the claim. Especially as a non-expert in the field who may not have the skills necessary to verify they have the right information. Anyways, you are correct that people should learn how to find this information, and/or be more willing to actually search and find this information. its an important skill to have, especially if you're prone to throwing out the information. But there are definitely times people do say this stuff, and its absolutely true, and they KNOW its true, but actually finding the sources is just really hard and they may not even know how. Doesnt necessarily make it ok to make claims like this, but its not as simple as "just show the source". Its not a trivial thing to just have lying around for every claim, even when you know you're right about it.
The only other culture I know of even having the concept of deities sheding blood on behalf of humans is Mayan. The idea that the divine can bleed or even care about humans are not common religious concepts.
@nikoblack1272 Most Mediterranean (Egypt, Greece, Arabia) deities are forces of nature, which can be appealed to but not trusted. Norse, Hindu, Chinese and Shinto kinda fall into a ruler state but based on the cultures understanding of rulers so Norse clanleaders, Hindu distant kings, Chinese unreachable beurocats, Shinto out of touch ruler gods but lots of weaker local protectors. Northern Native American gods are more like the living parts of nature, you respect and emulate them but don't try to control them or start thinking you can talk to wolves now. A good comparison is Egyptian vs Mayan emperors/Pharoah. They are both divine but the Pharoah does not serve the people, the people serve the Pharoah and pay tribute to him. The Mayan Emperor was the opposite, he had divine blood that he shed for his people, his pain was the sacrifice needed to keep the Empire prosperous. Normally humans are paying the deity if they are noticed at all, rarely are the deities acting out of love for their worshipers.
It's not just Christians who are in the cross-hairs. It creates a greater form of credence with Dr McClellan when he isn't just speaking to religious videos but will tackle other forms of misunderstanding.
I'm almost as tired of the silly mythicist claims as I am of the Christian claims that Jesus is going to come back and barbecue everyone or whatever. Thank you for making these videos.
Richard Carrier says that Ishtar was crucified and resurrected in cuneiform tablets from 1500 BC. He cites the book "History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History" by Kramer for this claim. But that book is from 1988. So its likely not reliable. Andrew Criddle says that in the Sumerian story "the descent of Inanna" (Inanna being another name for Isthar) the text reads "The afflicted woman was turned into a piece of meat. And the piece of meat was hung on a hook." That isn't exactly the same thing as crucifixion.
Dionysus is shown on a cross, Osiris came back from the dead, and many other bits and peices were cleverly woven together, by Josephus and his Flavian Family. The proof is out there, it's called Ceasar's Messiah.
If you watch enough of Dan's videos back-to-back it's interesting to see areas where he begins to contradict himself, and areas where he doesn't know as much as he'd like you to think. However, he tries to put a sense of authority into everything he says to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about. And maybe sometimes he really thinks he does even on the topics where he really doesn't. Such an approach would fit perfectly with his Mormon upbringing.
Word choice People always develop ideas on existing ideas That is not stealing Most of my life I thought christmas trees did come from pagan german practices I never cared So what How does that matter People sometimes act like somehow this is some great gotcha on practicing christians Symbols mean what people decide they mean Symbols do not mean what they meant thousands of years ago
Says the guy who doubled down on a three part video series after the first one already demonstrated he didn't comprehend what he was reading. But hey, stay mad forever I guess.
@@rainbowkrampus ah, yes. As if Carrier's tiny-fisted tantrum had any relevance at all to scholarship taking place within the field of early Judaism. His entire "rebuttal" is deeply entrenched in the same problems I pointed out in my vdeos: Carrier can't read the literature, and he is poorly acquainted with the field. These result in his repetition of elementary mistakes that he won't overcome until he takes the time to listen and learn from scholars who know what they are doing.
From what I've seen in the back and forth between the two of you this past year, a big crux of the disagreement is his takeaways from relevant scholars like Daniel Boyarin. Carrier acknowledges that he is not trained in ancient Hebrew and instead sites scholars who are. You seem to be arguing that he is misconstruing their words, unless I'm mistaken. Has there been any effort to reach out to Boyarin or any of his other references who are still alive? Seems like it shouldn't be that hard to clear up. To be clear, Carrier doesn't claim they are mythicists themselves, but that some of their conclusions lend credence to the theory as a whole.
Whenever the word 'mythicism' comes up in social media, the indomable crusader Sir Kipp appears and charges mercilessly against the heathens!!🙄. Happy new year!! Hope it broadens your perspectives. 🙂
Can you please do a video on "why arent christians pacifists"?? Because in matthe 5:39 jesus says "do not resist an evil person" can you elaborate on this??
The concepts of virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension have precedents in ancient mythologies and religions, although Christianity's specific narrative is unique. Here are some examples: 1. _Virgin birth_: - Ancient Egypt: Isis and Osiris - Greek mythology: Persephone and Dionysus - Hinduism: Krishna and Buddha (some traditions) 2. _Crucifixion_: - Ancient Mesopotamia: Tammuz and Attis (gods who died and were reborn) - Greek mythology: Prometheus and Apollo - Roman mythology: Hercules 3. _Resurrection_: - Ancient Egypt: Osiris and Isis - Greek mythology: Dionysus and Persephone - Mesopotamia: Tammuz and Inanna 4. _Ascension_: - Ancient Mesopotamia: Etana and Elijah (both ascended to heaven) - Greek mythology: Hercules and Dionysus - Buddhism: Siddhartha Gautama's ascension to nirvana However, it's essential to note that: 1. _Context and meaning_: These ancient myths and legends had different contexts, symbolism, and meanings than the Christian narrative. 2. _Influence and syncretism_: Christianity emerged in a multicultural environment, and early Christians may have borrowed or been influenced by existing mythological themes. 3. _Unique Christian narrative_: While individual elements have precedents, the specific combination and interpretation of virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension in Christianity is distinct and forms the core of its theology. Keep in mind that exploring these parallels can enrich our understanding of cultural exchange and the evolution of religious ideas, but it's crucial to approach these comparisons with nuance and respect for the unique contexts and beliefs of each tradition.
The thing is, the disciples didn't use Christmas trees or Easter eggs, they are later traditions introduced into later Christianity, and adopted by the Catholic church, remember the disciples were mostly Jewish, so Pass over and Hannukah were what they celebrated.
It’s an interesting paradox that the faithful state with certainty what is not proven, and the skeptics inquire “Who was this Jesus?” The difference is called “faith” but should be considered the uncritical acceptance of the unproven for the sake of personal comfort.
As I understand, a lot of these things had their own spin by borrowing similar elements from older traditions then embellished later on as the dogmas and canon were being developed hardly constitutes as "stealing" anymore than it is a rehash of something already done before. Some people like to use the word "steal" to sound profound and provocative, I don't know. While I'm not a mythicist, they do provoke some interesting theories on some similarities between these other traditions and canon. I share Dan's frustration that the whole "internet sez" mentality can muddy the waters from having good discourse on the matter.
I'm not even religious, and that assertion still drives me nuts. It's STILL being passed around like an STD. (Your only protection is knowledge-the data speaking for itself.) My favorite part of the assertion of the story of Jesus being stolen from pagan sources is that sometimes someone will mention that Horus or Osiris or some other god was referred to as "the sun of god." That wordplay only works in English and maybe German and Dutch. It immediately breaks down once you move outside the Germanic languages. And not a single person who's asserted that to me has ever been able to point to any document that says any pagan god was the sun/son of any other god. Man, that really annoys me.
Hello. I appreciate your content. In regards to Christmas Trees, according to Jeremiah Ch. 10 1-5 werent the "nations" cutting down these trees and adorning them and anchoring them down? Could this be considered a practice that "Pagans" were doing long before Christianity? Not to say the meanings and reasons were not different in each case, Pagans reasons versus Christians reasons. But maybe he is pointing out that the practice as a whole was the "pagans" and the "christians" practicing idolatry but "pagans practiced it long before christianity. Christians just using it to "Symbolize" the birth of jesus. Im not sure why Jeremiahs "nations" were doing it nor why the israelites were told not to be afraid of them.
There is good reason to believe that this text refers to Asherah poles which were an important part of Canaanite polytheistic belief. Tertullian writes in 197 CE about Christians decorating their homes with evergreens which they may have got from the Roman custom of decorating their homes and temples with evergreen boughs for Saturnalia. In Medieval Europe decorated trees were set up each Christmas eve to represent the Tree of Life in Paradise and plays were performed about Adam and Eve to represent humanity's Fall in contrast to the following Christmas day representing humanity's renewal through Jesus's coming.
Let me point at a different historical figure that we seem to know a little bit more about, Nicholas of Myra, who is thought to have lived from 15 March 270 until 6 December 343. You may be more familiar with him under the name of Santa Claus. We can trace the myth developing over those 1700 years, and there is almost nothing of the historical figure left apart from the name. Humanity has a remarkable capacity to make up stories.
Wait a minute. 1. What the original creator is saying isn't factual and they conflate too many items together. 2. However, in Dan's response, I sense a Dogma and not Data in his comment that mythicist are "making it up" and that a historical Jesus is the most likely event leading to the formation of Christianity. 2a. We know that a number of primarily Biblical figures that scholars used to believe were real are now largely considered either non-historical or mythological. Examplea are: Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David (contested), and even most recently Paul (though most still lean that he existed). Given that, mythicist may simply be at the front of our understanding of the data rather than "making it up". The idea of mythicism is at least plausible with this in mind. 2b. We also know that we have very limited evidence of an actual historical Jesus. Only a couple of sources who only mention a Jesus in relation to the people that worship Jesus, not that there is eye witness evidence that anyone met a Jesus and recorded it in his lifetime. So, while a historical Jesus is plausible as well, it's not a forgone conclusion. 3. We have a lot of evidence for humans taking mythical deities and giving them human backstories ( Romulus, Osiris, Hercules, etc) and examples of people taking elements of actual people to make a composite mythological person (King Authur, Ned Lud, the aforementioned Kind David, etc). So, again, a non-historical Jesus isn't unplausible. Anyway, that is my 2 cents. Seems like there is an inherent supposition that "of course he existed" when their is evidence that makes a non-historical Jesus equally as plausible.
Crucifixion was actually a very common form of execution for political prisoners in ancient Rome. It's not that big of a stretch that somebody with a cultish following would be killed that way.
I love Dan's teaching, but he's off the rails here. The educated mythicists don't teach or believe crank nonsense, and they laugh at this stuff as well. So Dan is strawmanning here. Uggggggg....
I understand mythicists to be those who claim there was no historical Jesus. This means more than just rejecting supernatural claims about Jesus. It also means rejecting a natural man going by that name existed, preached and undertook some of the actions attributed to him.
This is something i'd like to know as well, i was just at 30 seconds in and his comment of "this is what mythicists made up" as far as i'm aware a mythicist is someone that doesn't believe the biblical jesus existed because the lack of contemporary evidence. then when it comes to non-biblical it's just repeating hearsay many many many years later
I agree with Bob Oak's definition. Much like historicist, mythicist encompasses a wide range of ideas. Christians are historicists just as an atheist who thinks Jesus was just some dude are historicists. There have been at times christian mythicists as well as the crank ones demonstrated in the video and those who take a more grounded view. These are big umbrella terms.
@@boboak9168 What about people who are somewhere in the middle? People who think that Jesus could have been a composite of a few different people, who really did exist and promote certain teachings, but probably didn't rise from the dead and etc.? Do they still count as mythicists? Because that's basically how I would describe myself. It feels more intellectually honest than claiming to believe all of it when I simply cannot.
Wow. There is a lot of Misstatements collected by our skeptic friend. Kind of a nut case. Thanks, Dan, for putting those to rest. However, I think the best OT reference to a Divine birth for Jesus is not Isaiah but Genesis 3:15.
Great video Dan, as an atheist I always cringe when I hear those arguments especially when there are far better and easier ways to point out errors in the Bible's account of history, the influence of Egyptian laws, Greco-Roman influence and the whole story of Noah being a regurgitation of a previous story about Gilgamesh to name a few, also the very beginning "2024 years from what" surprised you didn't correct that error..
Dan, you are gaining credibility with me as “the last stand” against misinformation, whether intentionally misleading or erroneous claims. If you’re not the real deal, then as Peter asked, “Where then will we go?”
I've never thought that it was stolen from other gods but I can clearly see how they copied elements from heroes of old in other of the stories to be familiar with Greek and Roman listeners. Like the virgin conception, the prosecution by Herod, the ascension into heavens, and a few other things. Doing so to embellish the story of a real character with mythology that would sound familiar in the Roman world. I think about Romulus, Heracles and a few other heroes whose stories have some coincidences that cannot be, scuse me for repeating the term, mere coincidence.
Dan, the whole Jesus story is an astological allegory. Even the crucifixion has to do with the crux (Southern Cross). The three day resurrection has to do with what is observable during the time of "Christmas" astologically. It's obvious that many religions of the region were pointing to the same observable phenomenon. They were all, including Christianity, trying to explain their observations with astrology and mysticism. Those were the tools of the day so there's going to be a lot of overlap.
To the extent thre are some similarities - and it is wildly overblown as you have shown - it is because certain themes resonate in hirtory and the human mind.
What would be helpful would be you giving your viewers the tools to find primary sources themselves... how is this done? Where does one look? Is it costly to do this? Would someone who doesn't have a PhD have the tools to do these kinds of things? If not, how does someone trust this PhD scholar over any other PhD scholar?
Can you please explain the difference between "resurrection" and "dying and rising?" I am presently failing to see the difference. Is it "how the being was brought back to life" that is the difference? Is it "why the being that was brought back to life" that is the difference? Is it some other characteristic or situation that causes the difference?
I agree with Dan's view on this. However, there is a theme in Greek literature/myths of people "disappearing" from enclosed places and often reappearing after death. Most notably Callirrhoe. Surely the writers of the Gospels would have read these texts when learning Greek and been influenced by them?
I like these posts because they succinct and clarifying. However, this one is bad and not only because the assertions of the man he's debunking are grossly generalizations and pieces of misinformation. If Dan really prioritizes Data over Dogma, he should study the latest peer-reviewed academic woks on minimal mythicism so as to properly address the theory. Even if he doesn't agree, totally or partially, with the conclusions, he'll get tons of bibliography to argue from (so, more Data). "On the Historicity of Jesus" and "Proving History" by Richard Carrier; "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" by Raphael Lataster; and "Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity" by Richard Miller (an historicist, by the way) are some peer-reviewed books I would recommend.
What’s interesting about this is that all the folks that prop up verses that support their preferred power structure will never stitch this video to support the wire thin venn diagram overlap where the scholarship matches their beliefs (i.e., the historicity of Jesus). 🤔
I mean, modern christians aren't concerned with historicity in any sort of academic sense. I don't know why there would be any sort of expectation that they would rely on a minimal historicity defense when they already believe in the maximal historicity of Jesus for reasons having nothing to do with evidence.
Religious fanatics and anti-religious fanatics using the same tactics to humiliate the other… It’s almost as if they’re all just the same species behaving in predictable ways 🤔 The Jesus story doesn’t have to be “stolen” to be disproven for having happened in the way described in Christian scriptures. It could be entirely unique starting from the time of Jesus. A very good reason for it being unique is that it was based on a true story of an actual person that people were expecting would be a true messiah to them, and the embellishments were added to maintain its relevance when things didn’t turn out as the original followers - or even Jesus himself - had been anticipating.
There is no primary text that supports a singular jesus either. And guardians of the intersection of the spiritual and material world do excist. For example in the ancient Uyghur (Probably the general central asian heaven worship) religion. I have been told by uyghurs that they were christians before they became muslims because they worshipped the idea of this intersection. The guardian is some times depicted as fixed to a cross. A clear representation is a voudou spirit called Baron Samedi. This may be a later artistic representation but may also have excisted in west africa. I personally think this is the originn of selling your soul to the devil at the crossroads Since Baron Samedi will eat his own flesh if he can't give you anything you want. Probably a way to demonise the beliefs of the slaves.
Notice how mythacists use Christian terminology to describe pagan stories, and pagan terminology to describe things in the Christian narrative, as a way to make them sound as similar as possible.
I personally, never had an issue concerning the births of people......billions of people being born, alot of them will have the same birthdate.....even more so when you bring god into the picture...it could also be that, people born on a specific date, could very well be pre-determined to make a huge impact on the world.....and even if you go the myth concept, that would place importance upon the date, and not the person of the myth....and with the idea of it being a myth, I can understand why some people might want to celebrate a birth, and hence, try to figure out a date for which to celebrate.....even if the person is real, if we don't know the actual birthdate, it would still be understandable to figure out a date to honor the person
At some point I was exactly like the dude in the American shirt. I am pretty sure I have said every single one of the things he said. I wouldnt say I was a mythicist, I tend to find myself in the Bart Erhman camp, Jesus was almost certainly a real dude, certainly no god. But as far as all the other assertions this dude made, there must be a "first time" account that we can track back to, right? I mean if you are saying that there is no material supporting any of what dude said, there must be a time where those elements first appeared. Where might I be able to find first accounts of these type of assertions?
I guess it depend on what you mean by elements and what qualifies as a first appearance. Break things down far enough and you can always find elements that already existed, at least until you just lose it all into prehistory. Take Jesus's birth: there are plenty of demi-gods born to mortal women and gods, which could be kind of an influence, but is it really the same idea as the virgin birth in Luke or Matthew?
I love that your factually-based analysis cuts all ways: I've seen you debunk erroneous Christian claims, and anti-Christian claims, and neo-Pagan claims, and all other claims that lack foundation in the texts and information itself. THANK YOU for this.
agreed! That's what happens when you stick to evidence and data! Some ideas will validate your beliefs and others will refute your beliefs! Just makes sense!
YES!! One of the reasons I trust him more than most!!!
Amen to this.
I don't think this guy is an pagan. he is an atheist. I thought the same stuff 14 years ago.
@@KhalerJex
One can be both, as myself: I'm atheopagan, accepting and promoting science for my cosmology, the search for truth and wonder in a way that honors the scientific method, and engaging in community and ritual focused on reverence and celebration of the natural world.
Oh, the delicious irony of hearing him say "But people like you don't read. You'd rather just listen and believe." Thanks for the the education, Dan!
Double irony, maybe?
To be fair, why would an Atheist read the bible? Its just a fact that the vast majority of Christians have not read the bible. They're the ones who actually believe that stuff and yet know barely anything about it.
Atheist dont believe in that stuff, while they should still fact check their claims and be informed on what they are arguing, its not as big a deal if an Atheist hasnt read the bible vs a Christian.
Yeah, that was classic. The ignorance is astonishing.
No Christian that I know thinks that Jesus was actually born on December 25th.
Ask the Catholics. lmao
Gods never die. It’s part of the job description.
@@zero-dollartrader6440 HUH?
Jesus was born on a worm day.
Oh Americans think that and even think he would have spoken English
The more wrong they are, the more emphatic and confident they seem.
As an atheist, I am always pleased to see religious apologists schooled by Dan but it is also vitally important that people like this man are equally refuted. His unpleasant arrogance would be grating if he were correct but being also utterly wrong makes him irritating. There is absolutely no need to invent or believe nonsense in order to argue against religious claims. The best way is to use demonstrable facts.
"The Nyingma school asserts the birth of Garab Dorje to have been a miraculous birth by a virgin daughter of the king of Odiyana (Uddiyana), and that he recited Dzogchen tantras at his birth.[42]" wikipedia
In the Ramayana, Vishnu incarnates himself as a man, Rama, in the womb of Kausalya, one of the wives of the king Dasharatha.[35] In the Mahabharata epic, Surya, the god of the sun, impregnates Queen Kunti before her marriage to King Pandu, causing her to give birth to their son Karna.[36][37] wikipedia
Also, remember that the "holy spirit" makes Mary conceive. That sounds like some form of divine impregnation. Hmmmmm...
India would have been known to Rome. The Silk Road. The Spice Road. Traders. Stories.
I'm not sure I buy the "data" requirement so much. The only reason I know this is because, when I was a Christian, a former Hindu, was badmouthing Hinduism and we Christians were taught about the evils of Hinduism.
Maybe the sex thing was the Christian contribution to the story because Christianity seems a little sex negative. But the rest of it? It's like saying that Bridget Jones' Diary (movie) was different from Pride and Prejudice because Bridget doesn't have 4 other sisters. I've read Pride and Prejudice.. uhhh.. yeah, Bridget Jones' Diary is a riff off of that book.
There's a reason that I and others are skeptical. Christianity is just a primitive fantasy novel. It's not that hard to see some of the inspiration in that series vs. say. Islam or Judaism or Hinduism.
@@jenniferhunter4074 It's also worth remembering that a lot of these ideas - like the virgin birth, are somewhat later developments. Paul and Marc don't mention them, though both do mention Mary (or at least Jesus being born of a woman.)
Even if the virgin birth as a doctrine was drawn partly from other traditions, that says nothing about whether or not there was a historical Jesus.
@Outspoken.Humanist Thank you. The intensity with which he promotes random, unstated sources that confirm his biases is akin to that of apologists and their unfounded biblical claims. BS claims need to be called out, otherwise we'd be back to geocentrism and ballistics not being a science.
The Bible, properly read, is the best route to Atheism.
@@Ighnot 100% I was raised Christian but never really read the Bible. In my early 20's I began to question and worry and I set out to read it in full, in order to both answer questions and bolster my belief. It had the opposite effect and by the time I was finished, I no longer believed at all.
It is, however, the gift that keeps on giving. I'm 65 now and I still read it and I still find new nuggets of pure gold that make me laugh with amazement at how people can believe such nonsense.
Speaking as someone who identifies as an atheist, it's very hard to find something that annoys me more than an atheist who will swear that bad information is true, especially when it's because that bad info would make their case much easier if it were true.
It shows bad character to refute logic at the price of personal emotional comfort.
@@steveOCalley That's an excellent way of putting it. Are those words your own? If so, well done.
The idea seems to be that there was a real, historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher in the first century and was crucified by the Romans, but that he is surrounded by so much legendary storytelling that it's hard to tell which stories about him are actually true.
Ding ding ding! It’s really not very complicated at all!
Hit the nail on the head. He’s shrouded with so much bs it’s hard to see the truth
Basically. All we really know about Him from a historical perspective is that He was a preacher who claimed some quality and partnership with God and was crucified.
@thepalegalilean but even that is disputed.
That is one idea, yes.
The problem is that the evidence for historicity is entirely dependent on Paul and whether or not his ambiguous language points one direction or another.
The gospels aren't indicative of anything except that a tradition of depicting Jesus as historical emerged sometime after 70CE. It's not just that it's hard to tell which elements of the gospels are historical, it's that there's sufficient reason to believe that none of them are.
Hello, Dan, I am a fan and patreon supporter of your work here and also Data over Dogma. I do appreciate you responding to poorly argued mythicist or atheist/agnostic etc. vids, too. I hope that creators will learn to be more accurate and clearly sourced including links in social medias descriptions or comments. That said, I find your responses overly literal or hedged and far too dismissive of the overall theme of the video, if poorly done. Yes, this creator should not have used the word "stolen," certainly. In the world of the social medias, shock value gets rewarded, so shame on the algorithm programmers.
Yes, the creator is also completely wrong that the deities he cites were crucified - in their mythic stories they variously died, were killed or were dismembered and then reincarnated, translated, or various other tropes of returning to an embodied or ongoing existence after death or serious bodily torment. Scholarly mythicists did not "make up" the crucifixion of other gods, I have never seen that argument among legit scholars ever. Citation needed ;) . This creator was certainly mistating the means of death of the various gods he cites. So your correction is technically true and also a red herring IMO. His larger point of legitimate underlying literary and cultural dependence and interplay between Jesus stories and GrecoRoman and other regional god stories and myths remains valid. The point of the authors of various gospels - canonized and non- was likely not to exactly copy other god figures and deities as well as fellow humans - but to make their character even better. They were also in competition with each other and had fundamental philosophical and theological differences.
So in correctly calling out the creator's errors, I feel like you failed to engage with it fairly but instead kept dismissing older scholarship rather then drawing in the most current and exciting literary and scholarly work in these fields.
The authors of the gospels were likely elites acculturated, and educated in GrecoRoman culture in an ancient melting pot of peoples, beliefs, and traditions. Scholars like your fellow Didaskaloi instructor Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh explore this extensively and make compelling cases for gospels as products of their literary and political culture. As many have pointed out, the concept of plagiarism did not really exist in GrecoRoman times and the various modern academic disciplines didn't, either. There were categories of text types, though, among elite literate producers. Students were taught based in the classic epics like Homer. Their exercises included mimesis, using existing stories as a basis for their own productions. Simple copying ("stealing") was just poor work. Ancient historians had systems of citation to make it clearer to readers what was being actually quoted from other works, more generally referenced, or just hearsay or their own writings. Dr. Steve Mason's work is a good reference here, among many others. So I find it misleading at ~1:45 that you do concede the literary allusions but then claim these have little to do with Jesus traditions. This is false. The literary traditions and ways the gospel authors and numerous redactors and editors told stories are the entire basis of the Jesus tradition as we have it. Paul barely speaks of any historical Jesus and did not know him. Q is speculative. We've got nothing but literary traditions. The gospels are not histories, though as Mason demonstrates convincingly, the author(s) of Luke/Acts knew and used Josephus' works to add details and truthiness.
When you dismiss dying and rising gods as an out-of-date hypothesis, you also fail to address more recent and better documented scholarly work, for example Dr. Richard C. Miller's Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, www.routledge.com/Resurrection-and-Reception-in-Early-Christianity/Miller/p/book/9781138048270
As far as I understand, there is no contemporaneous evidence for the life of Jesus in the known textual or material record save for a contested passage in Josephus and perhaps the Jesus family tomb and ossuaries as researched by eminent scholar Dr. James Tabor.
So to place mythicism into the same category as flat earthers is deeply irresponsible. Dr. Miller addresses this in his video with host Derek Lambert on the Mythvision channel The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist?
ruclips.net/video/KTM-BdAjetc/видео.htmlsi=2YU3J7J7oDVQmczN
In his tome On the Historicity of Jesus, Dr. Richard Carrier lays out his methodology as well as evidence and arguments. He concludes a ~30 % chance Jesus existed. Note that this is not a claim of the accuracy of any gospel stories, only his existence as a historical person. One may disagree with his evidence, analysis, or conclusions and bring counter arguments - that is how scholarship is supposed to work. However, dismissing it out-of-hand as a fringe, non-consensus view is a logical fallacy, the appeal to popularity. Dr. Carrier is probably the most well known scholar taking mythicism seriously, but certainly not the only one. Carrier lists numerous scholars who fall on the spectrum of of Jesus being entirely or partially mythological: www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420#
I certainlly agree with fellow Data over Dogma host Dan Beecher that people questioning dogma and religious textual or cultural claims need to do their homework, be more careful, avoid exaggeration and misinformation, and show their work. I encourage the creator of the original video to go back to the drawing board, do better research, and re-do the video with better arguments and evidence. Or just re-post and share much better ones out there, including numerous interviews with other scholars. There's a lot more there there in exploring early Christianities in context. OK this comment is getting absurdly long so I will take up other concerns in a separate comment.
I don't think he reads these, but I appreciate the thoroughness you're using to back up your points here. I think that Dan could've steel-manned the argument a bit to make up for the lack of detail provided in the tiktok he took issue with, and then dismantled that as well. For example, the parallels of Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus would've been nice to have been brought up and then looked at more critically. It did feel as if Dan made a throw-away video purely for content here. I personally like the channel Esoterica for more in-depth analyses on these and lots of other similar topics of interest.
This is a fantastic comment and I really enjoyed reading through your explanations. I totally agree that this video does not do justice to the very rich and complex history being discussed. Thank you for taking the time to add that richness back in 😊
The story of Odin sacrificing himself on the World Tree is a pretty close pagan parallel to the story of Jesus being sacrificed on a cross. However, It was not written down until centuries after the time of Jesus. Some scholars believe the myth of Odin sacrificing himself on the Yggdrasil was influenced by the story of Jesus rather than the other way around.
Osiris, Dionysos/Bacchus, Krishna predates him however. lmao
@@zero-dollartrader6440 Osiris was either drowned or killed directly by Seth, Dionysos was "killed" by Zeus while showing his presence ot Semele, Krishna was killed with an arrow
Osiris was revived with mummification, Dionysos was "revived" by being grafted into Zeus' thigh, Krishna did not revive but ascended.
There's not much similarity, I don't think. Reviving is not a particularly unique event in mythology and religion. If anything it was already a present concept in Second Temple Judaism, with the stories about Elijah and his bones resurrecting people, or the events detailed in the Book of Enoch, even though the immortality of the soul was a contested topic (if anything this is why it's not very common in the Hebrew Bible). I think what particularly separates the Jesus resurrection myth from other resurrection myths is that Jesus resurrected himself in the story, whereas Osiris was resurrected via Isis' actions, Dionysos was resurrected via Zeus' actions and so on.
@zero-dollartrader6440 Osiris was resurrected, though not crucified (though in some versions, his remains were placed inside of a tree trunk, which became a pillar). Dionysus was not resurrected, but was sometimes said to have been born from the remains of the god Zagreus. And Krishna wasn't resurrected or crucified, he was killed by an arrow, and his divinity returned to its original state while his body remained dead. The point of the video is that the story of Jesus is not copied from an earlier story, even though some of the themes and signs/miracles are common to many religions.
I especially loved the wrap up about how to think about internet claims. More content about how to think would be awesome.
+1 for suggesting Religion for Breakfast. Another great scholar with very interesting videos.
When people overplay the parallels between Jesus and other gods they’re actually shooting themselves in the foot. By making up or exaggerating parallels, they distract from the actual parallels and similarities that are there.
Like what?
@Sewblon I always cite the massacre of the innocents in Matthew as an example. That story was clearly borrowed from the story of Moses. But beyond Moses; variations of that motif are told of Romulus, Perseus, Jason, Oedipus, Sargon, Cyrus, Hercules, Zeus etc etc... A king tries to kill the hero as an infant to prevent them from fulfilling a prophecy or prevent them from inheriting the throne.
Dude cultural exchange has been something going on since whatever member of the genus Homo invented culture- it doesn’t matter if religions or culinary arts, or forms of art or poetry interact . . .ya know what that proves, that we are all at our core people. That’s all- no need for arguments
Not to mention that "stealing" - plagiarism - is a modern concept applied to 2000 years ago.
Mythicists will always confuse me. Christians start with the assumption that it is true, so they find ways to make everything in the book work. Mythicists start with assumption it is false, so they look for ways to show it must be made up. How is that any better than following the data?
More technically, the current main mythicist hypothesis is that the earliest Christians, like Paul, believed that they were talking about true things-- a high Christology divine figure called Christ that was created by God like Adam, and with a story hidden in scriptures that included an indication that he had already suffered and died in some act of celestial atonement, not necessarily on Earth. As Adam is believed buried in the third heaven, the stage for any kind of action with a divine figure could be Earth or in the several layers of heaven, where both fleshly beings and demons also lived and interacted. In other words, Paul believed there really was a fleshly human-like Christ.
It was later literary talents in late 1st century and early 2nd century that took these early Christian beliefs and made them into exciting stories of miracles in historical time, perhaps originally for teaching purposes, but ultimately for polemics and indoctrination. Many of the stories of Jesus are recrafted Old Testament stories, but one-upping everything-- Jesus is the new Elisha but better-- the new Joshua but better-- the new Moses but better (and in some cases, like figures in Greek and Latin literature, but better). I also think Mark is creating the character of Jesus to chide and criticize actual historical figures like Peter for not getting the doctrine right. I think the writer behind the gospel called "Mark" came from a community influenced by Paul's thinking about Gentile Christianity, and the gospel became a way to establish authority for those views by having everything come from Jesus' mouth, including the criticisms of Peter, which in turned was directed at other communities that believed in some sort of celestial Jesus who would be the harbinger of the end times and would ultimately appear in glory.
As modern mythicists point out the phrasing for a "second coming" doesn't line up with what is actually in the text. There is a belief that Christ is coming, but actually for the first time on Earth. The divine act of salvation, though human-like suffering in crucifixion, already happened, according to interpretations of various scriptures and through visions, which is what Paul is mostly talking about.
@@thomasb331 Again, I don't see how you'd get there without the presupposition that Jesus was not a historical figure. Saying "Paul was just dealing with scriptural interpretations and visions" makes as much sense as saying "Matthew and Luke don't contradict because Luke just decided not to include to flight to Egypt." It's conjecture to support a conclusion.
@@RhewinBTW just asking - how come the Holy Family took it on the lam and made it to Egypt tout de suite on their own, with a new mom and newborn-and it took Moses and the Israelites 40 years to cover the same distance? Favoring winds?
@@steveOCalley historically? Neither event probably happened, at least not as described. Exodus appears to be a distant memory of a much smaller escape from Egypt. Within the narrative, God forced them to wander for 40 years due to disobedience. They weren’t trying to get there for 40 years.
The narrative in gMatthew is the author attempting to draw parallels to Moses. It’s unique to that gospel, and it’s not supported by any other sources.
yeah i heard stuff like that like over 10 years ago. when i checked reliable sources - like that guy himself advises - i found that the very few similarities were superficial.
Well, at least they weren't claiming that the story was stolen from... Freddy Fazbear.
I think it was Inanna or Ishtar that had a "going to underworld" experience and coming back out?
True, she was murdered, hung up "not crucified" and came back from the dead.
Yes, and Inanna clear died in the story. Dan is being dishonest here.
“164-172After she had crouched down and had her clothes removed, they were carried away. Then she made her sister Erec-ki-gala rise from her throne, and instead she sat on her throne. The Anuna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook.“
New year and a new beard! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Also dying and rising beards 😉
🐖jesus 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💯💩💯💩💯💩💯♾️💩💯♾️💩💯♾️💩💯♾️💩💩💩💩
Many of his specific examples are wrong but it is certainly a fact that early Christianity represents a syncretism of Jewish and Hellenistic/Roman beliefs. Romulus and Remes were born of a Vestal Virgin impregnated by Mars. Ishtar and Osiris died and rose again. Early Christians didn't "steal" anything but many details of the story of Jesus also didn't come out of nowhere with no antecedents.
You also have other stories in the bible that very much had their origins in previous pagan beliefs that pre-date the bible, such as the story of the Flood.
The bible is a manmade creation, and as you said, it didnt just come out of nowhere. Its definitely based upon the beliefs and society of its time, and like basically anything, its not wholly original either. While some aspects here or there may be unique to it, many arent.
Also, when this guy said the "Christmas tree" was a Pagan thing, that may be wrong, but the holiday and celebration of Christmas IS a pagan thing. Im honestly surprised Dan didnt clarify that. Christianity didnt invent the tradition of christmas, they took existing religious practices and incorporated it into their own religion.
@@eragon78
I think the whole flood myth being borrowed thing is completely ridiculous. If a flood of some significance took place in that part of the world (we know it wasn't global), it makes perfect sense for multiple cultures to have their own take on it, and it makes perfect sense for many details to overlap, given that the origin of the stories would have been the same for all cultures in the area.
I think it makes more sense to say that the proto-Hebrews who later committed their version to writing simply had just that -- their own version of the same story. They didn't copy Gilgamesh. They simply had a parallel construction based on some common ancestor.
@@avishevin3353 Maybe, but many cultures that had flood stories similar to that in the bible, that also existed in the same regions, and pre-dated the Noah flood story, its not too unreasonable to suspect that inspiration was taken from those stories and mixed up and adapted for a "modern at the time" version for the Noah flood story.
Its possible it was completely independently derived, but I find this highly unlikely since those other flood stories would have been around and almost certainly would have been believed by many and inspired those who wrote the Noah flood story.
Especially since im not sure if there is good archeological evidence of massive local floods around the time the Noah flood story was written. Its so exaggerated that its clearly mythological at that point.
Now, the idea of "Floods happen, so what if a REALLY big one happened by a god?" probably isnt all that unique an idea (in fact, we know that American ancient civilizations had flood stories too for example), But there are some that predate the bible in the same region with striking similarities, so its hard to say that those had NO influence on the Noah flood story.
But Ill admit, im not a scholar on this issue, so im sure people far more educated would be more adept at knowing if there is previous pagen influence for the Noah flood story than me.
@@eragon78
My point is that the similarities between flood stories are _expected_ if they derive from the same source. Whether that source was an actual event or just an invented tale doesn't matter.
@@avishevin3353 Well, if the story was "an invented tale" from previous pagen beliefs, then thats what my point was.
My point is that the Bible borrowed, at least in part, stories from previous pagen beliefs. It was influenced by the beliefs at the time.
And yea, of course similarities between the stories are expected. That is similar to the point I was making too. The flood is just a good example of one such area where you see these similarities.
Dan, do you consider Joseph Campbell to be a mythicist? What are your thoughts on the tradition that the Christ descended into hell between the time of his death and his resurrection?
The Bible says that JC descended to hell for the 3 days he was dead. I was Eastern Orthodox Christian for awhile, and at Pascha they chant that "Jesus conquered death (Hades), by death (thanatos). My favorite Orthodox Byzantine icon of the resurrection shows Jesus standing on the gates of Hades, pulling Adam and Eve out of their graves.
@@oceanside13Just a small correction: Jesus resurrected the third day, but that doesn't mean he was dead for three days. It lasted some 36-40 hours
Dan, I'd love you to do a follow-up video and (instead of responding to this random youtuber) address the recent scholarship from Richard C Miller, Dennis R MacDonald, and Robyn Faith Walsh who disagree with you and who show quite a bit of evidence that gospel stories were based on Greek/Roman literature and mythic traditions. Miller specifically discusses "divine translation" tropes that were used in Romulus and Heracles myths (among others) which he claims was familiar to the readers and was used to exalt Jesus to the level of these other heroes. Similar to the others, in Jesus' case this divine translation occurred by his resurrection and ascension, which is described using unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to descriptions of these other gods and heroes.
I agree with you on this. People often get this idea from the start of the film Zeitgeist and then go around spouting like they have just had a revelation. No research just the word of a disingenuous film-maker.
When in 3rd grade at my Christian elementary school, we were being taught Greek mythology and Hercules came up. I said just like Jesus. The nun was none too happy. I think my atheist journey began that day.
@maklelan about his last claim: is there no data that the concept of “apostheosis” predated the Gospels and that at least some Roman emperors were described as having had “ascended”? Thanks for the great video by the way, love your content.
Romulus, the first king of rome, has stories of him ascending to heaven on a cloud and becoming a god
Any and all Christians who dislike Dan should watch this.
Dan isn't biased AGAINST traditional Christian claims; he also debunks bogus claims from non-Christians.
hes mormon , mormonism is a cult and a lie from the devil
Just saying something is debunked doesn’t debunk it…because most everything he says is bs can be proven just as much as the jesusers stories
I like your analysis. Helps deal with a LOT of erroneous concepts we have all been flooded with over time.Thanks
How do you explain the diabolical mimicry by Justin Martyr when he was defending the similarities between Jesus and other pagan deities?
Excellent video as always Dan, love to see it
Please never stop doing this!!!!
As far as Easter eggs goes, the Pesach Seder seems to have developed pretty early on in the the first few centuries of the common era, and eggs roasted in their shells are a traditional feature of that, certainly going back before the practice became common in Christianity.
That wouldn't be anything like what Easter eggs are though
I agree with @basedgamerguy818 .
It's generally good to avoid "these things both involve eggs, they must be connected." While it can hint at somewhere to look for evidence of a connection, that conclusion needs something more, well, conclusive.
Chicken eggs have been used as food for a LONG time, and the idea of 'chickens don't stop laying during lent, hey, we have all these eggs afterwards' doesn't need any connection to any other egg tradition or symbology.
@@basedgamerguy818 I very much agree! But then, so would the non-existent pagan egg customs that people like to claim. I’m just pointing out that there already existed an egg-related custom from within the larger Abrahamic tradition for festivals at that time of year (indeed, in the festival primarily influencing Easter), so insisting it has to be pagan influence is silly. Eggs are a universal food and are universally used as symbols, no one needs to be borrowing them from anyone else.
I really enjoy your channel and episodes. However, after watching this episode, I was wondering if you have given any thought to having a real-time debate/discussion with a mythicist (Richard Carrier comes to mind) about the historicity of Jesus? Or is the topic too far from the legitimate scholarly consensus to engage with?
You and Religion for Breakfast have helped me root out false beliefs I held, and I appreciate that. Wanting the truth lead me away from religion, and I'm glad I can still follow it even when I don't like the results.
Odin hung on a tree, but he came after Jesus from what I remember.
I truly appreciate your rebuttals Dan. I would like to ask an open question. According to the abridgement of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that I read. I remember reading that the Christians and Pagans were warring against one another in Rome or in the Roman Empire. Anyway eventually the Christians won these battles. In the book I was told that the Christians lacked any traditions themselves therefore they borrowed a few. Is this true? Is there any data that shows this? I have not read the book by Gibbon, but I do have it. Historically how accurate is Gibbon's book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?
Horus wasn’t crucified. He was taken apart then Osiris put him back together brought him back to life with the help of Anubis. I believe.
as someone who grew up in a hindu family I can very definitively say Krishna was not at all crucified or resurrected. Krishna died when he was shot by a hunter who mistook him for a deer, and due to the fact that he was cursed by Gandhari who hated him for literally causing all her children to die. There were no crosses or even capital punishment involved. And although you could kind of say Krishna "resurrected," that's because Krishna is an earthly incarnation of the transcendent deity Vishnu who incarnates multiple times as multiple people, and so one could argue that Krishna "resurrected" as a later incarnation of Vishnu. Bit of a stretch, but either way still not at all equivalent to Jesus's story. He also has no narrative about salvation in the same way as Jesus... he was quite literally a politician, who willfully hurt people he respected for the greater good of the world
Every time I see someone say, "It's documented" or "it's been proven" without showing those things it makes me wonder why they don't just show it. If they can prove their points then they should do that and if they can't then they shouldn't imply that they can
Thank you for calling them out on their baseless claims, it's far easier to spread misinformation than it is to debunk it so I appreciate you having the knowledge to do so
To be fair, sometimes its not easy to find those texts.
For example, "its been proven that global warming is real, and caused by humans." This is absolutely true....however actually finding proper scientific sources that SAY this is a lot harder than it seems. Not because they dont exist, they do, in plentiful numbers, but because its the cumulative consensus over hundreds of papers through decades of research. And its all dense scientific literature thats hard to read.
If you've ever tried to find scientific papers to source your claim, let me tell you, its a bitch. Even when you find a paper you think supports your claim, you have to at least skim through it if not read it in full in order to make sure it actually SAYS or ADDRESSES the point you're trying to make. Again on the global warming thing, Im sure you can agree this is pretty much a settled debate with nearly full consensus on the side of science, making the claim "its been proven...." a TRUE claim, but would YOU know how to actually go and find scientific papers to prove it? A lot of people wouldnt, even if it absolutely is a true claim. Even if you know HOW to do it, it can still be pretty involved and take quite a bit of time. ive spent hours searching for sources to claims before, its a lot of work, especially for a random internet discussion when you know most times people arent even going to read your sources and just throw it out.
The thing is, most people, especially non-scholars, get their information from trusted sources of authority. Stuff like science educators, or scholars, or other such examples. This is because the average person cant easily find and read scholarly sources on topics and digest it. But sourcing an authority figure isnt "proof" of anything. While you may trust that person, and that person may even likely be completely right and informed on that topic, it doesnt mean that its a citable source of proof. The proof probably DOES exist, and there probably ARE papers on that stuff if a scholar is saying it, and you can know that to be the case making the statement "its been proven to be true" or "its been documented' a TRUE statement. But just because it HAS been proven or documented, doesnt mean its easy for a layperson to FIND those documents and be sure they have the right sources, or all of the sources needed to affirm the claim. Especially as a non-expert in the field who may not have the skills necessary to verify they have the right information.
Anyways, you are correct that people should learn how to find this information, and/or be more willing to actually search and find this information. its an important skill to have, especially if you're prone to throwing out the information. But there are definitely times people do say this stuff, and its absolutely true, and they KNOW its true, but actually finding the sources is just really hard and they may not even know how. Doesnt necessarily make it ok to make claims like this, but its not as simple as "just show the source". Its not a trivial thing to just have lying around for every claim, even when you know you're right about it.
The only other culture I know of even having the concept of deities sheding blood on behalf of humans is Mayan. The idea that the divine can bleed or even care about humans are not common religious concepts.
what makes you think this? my understanding is that deities caring about humans is more common than not
@nikoblack1272 Most Mediterranean (Egypt, Greece, Arabia) deities are forces of nature, which can be appealed to but not trusted. Norse, Hindu, Chinese and Shinto kinda fall into a ruler state but based on the cultures understanding of rulers so Norse clanleaders, Hindu distant kings, Chinese unreachable beurocats, Shinto out of touch ruler gods but lots of weaker local protectors. Northern Native American gods are more like the living parts of nature, you respect and emulate them but don't try to control them or start thinking you can talk to wolves now.
A good comparison is Egyptian vs Mayan emperors/Pharoah. They are both divine but the Pharoah does not serve the people, the people serve the Pharoah and pay tribute to him. The Mayan Emperor was the opposite, he had divine blood that he shed for his people, his pain was the sacrifice needed to keep the Empire prosperous. Normally humans are paying the deity if they are noticed at all, rarely are the deities acting out of love for their worshipers.
I'd love to see you debate Carrier on these questions.
Even as a Christian I always thought that Christmas and Easter were just Christianity overlaying pagan traditions and reinventing them.
Wow! I never thought I would ever see a video where Dan was actually kind of generous towards the Bible. This was very interesting.
When you mention a RUclips video, it would be nice to link it in the description. Thanks!
It's not just Christians who are in the cross-hairs. It creates a greater form of credence with Dr McClellan when he isn't just speaking to religious videos but will tackle other forms of misunderstanding.
Just dropped by to say that this was your best to date.
“But people like you don’t read” I often find that the people who say this are in fact the ones who don’t read
"Data > Dogma" t-shirts are cool and all, but what we really want is one that says, "Alright, let's see it"
There is an Egyptian event on in a movie the mummy that is similar to what the resurrection is explained like
I'm almost as tired of the silly mythicist claims as I am of the Christian claims that Jesus is going to come back and barbecue everyone or whatever. Thank you for making these videos.
Richard Carrier says that Ishtar was crucified and resurrected in cuneiform tablets from 1500 BC. He cites the book "History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History" by Kramer for this claim. But that book is from 1988. So its likely not reliable. Andrew Criddle says that in the Sumerian story "the descent of Inanna" (Inanna being another name for Isthar) the text reads "The afflicted woman was turned into a piece of meat. And the piece of meat was hung on a hook." That isn't exactly the same thing as crucifixion.
Dionysus is shown on a cross, Osiris came back from the dead, and many other bits and peices were cleverly woven together, by Josephus and his Flavian Family. The proof is out there, it's called Ceasar's Messiah.
Add: Bacchus literally says: "For the wages of sin is death." hoho ~ I'm pretty sure I read that shit somewhere.
If you watch enough of Dan's videos back-to-back it's interesting to see areas where he begins to contradict himself, and areas where he doesn't know as much as he'd like you to think. However, he tries to put a sense of authority into everything he says to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about. And maybe sometimes he really thinks he does even on the topics where he really doesn't. Such an approach would fit perfectly with his Mormon upbringing.
You mean debunking mythicist bullshit?
Word choice
People always develop ideas on existing ideas
That is not stealing
Most of my life I thought christmas trees did come from pagan german practices
I never cared
So what
How does that matter
People sometimes act like somehow this is some great gotcha on practicing christians
Symbols mean what people decide they mean
Symbols do not mean what they meant thousands of years ago
Richard Carrier incendiary blogging-bot activated.
Says the guy who doubled down on a three part video series after the first one already demonstrated he didn't comprehend what he was reading.
But hey, stay mad forever I guess.
@@rainbowkrampus ah, yes. As if Carrier's tiny-fisted tantrum had any relevance at all to scholarship taking place within the field of early Judaism. His entire "rebuttal" is deeply entrenched in the same problems I pointed out in my vdeos: Carrier can't read the literature, and he is poorly acquainted with the field. These result in his repetition of elementary mistakes that he won't overcome until he takes the time to listen and learn from scholars who know what they are doing.
From what I've seen in the back and forth between the two of you this past year, a big crux of the disagreement is his takeaways from relevant scholars like Daniel Boyarin. Carrier acknowledges that he is not trained in ancient Hebrew and instead sites scholars who are. You seem to be arguing that he is misconstruing their words, unless I'm mistaken. Has there been any effort to reach out to Boyarin or any of his other references who are still alive? Seems like it shouldn't be that hard to clear up. To be clear, Carrier doesn't claim they are mythicists themselves, but that some of their conclusions lend credence to the theory as a whole.
Similar to being set upon by two she-bears.
Whenever the word 'mythicism' comes up in social media, the indomable crusader Sir Kipp appears and charges mercilessly against the heathens!!🙄. Happy new year!! Hope it broadens your perspectives. 🙂
You should have a conversation with Alex O'Connor.
Can you please do a video on "why arent christians pacifists"?? Because in matthe 5:39 jesus says "do not resist an evil person" can you elaborate on this??
Is Jesus’ story just stolen from other gods? You betcha, Red Ryder.
The concepts of virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension have precedents in ancient mythologies and religions, although Christianity's specific narrative is unique. Here are some examples:
1. _Virgin birth_:
- Ancient Egypt: Isis and Osiris
- Greek mythology: Persephone and Dionysus
- Hinduism: Krishna and Buddha (some traditions)
2. _Crucifixion_:
- Ancient Mesopotamia: Tammuz and Attis (gods who died and were reborn)
- Greek mythology: Prometheus and Apollo
- Roman mythology: Hercules
3. _Resurrection_:
- Ancient Egypt: Osiris and Isis
- Greek mythology: Dionysus and Persephone
- Mesopotamia: Tammuz and Inanna
4. _Ascension_:
- Ancient Mesopotamia: Etana and Elijah (both ascended to heaven)
- Greek mythology: Hercules and Dionysus
- Buddhism: Siddhartha Gautama's ascension to nirvana
However, it's essential to note that:
1. _Context and meaning_: These ancient myths and legends had different contexts, symbolism, and meanings than the Christian narrative.
2. _Influence and syncretism_: Christianity emerged in a multicultural environment, and early Christians may have borrowed or been influenced by existing mythological themes.
3. _Unique Christian narrative_: While individual elements have precedents, the specific combination and interpretation of virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension in Christianity is distinct and forms the core of its theology.
Keep in mind that exploring these parallels can enrich our understanding of cultural exchange and the evolution of religious ideas, but it's crucial to approach these comparisons with nuance and respect for the unique contexts and beliefs of each tradition.
As an atheist it drives me nuts when other atheists spread misinformation like this. It weakens our case so much.
Ain't that fuckin' right.
The thing is, the disciples didn't use Christmas trees or Easter eggs, they are later traditions introduced into later Christianity, and adopted by the Catholic church, remember the disciples were mostly Jewish, so Pass over and Hannukah were what they celebrated.
It’s an interesting paradox that the faithful state with certainty what is not proven, and the skeptics inquire “Who was this Jesus?” The difference is called “faith” but should be considered the uncritical acceptance of the unproven for the sake of personal comfort.
As I understand, a lot of these things had their own spin by borrowing similar elements from older traditions then embellished later on as the dogmas and canon were being developed hardly constitutes as "stealing" anymore than it is a rehash of something already done before. Some people like to use the word "steal" to sound profound and provocative, I don't know.
While I'm not a mythicist, they do provoke some interesting theories on some similarities between these other traditions and canon. I share Dan's frustration that the whole "internet sez" mentality can muddy the waters from having good discourse on the matter.
4:52, the way you phrased the third point makes it sound like you're saying the opposite of what you meant, unless i'm tripping.
My question is, how did we survive hanging whole candles on Christmas trees? 😂
Not everyone did, I guess.
I'm not even religious, and that assertion still drives me nuts. It's STILL being passed around like an STD. (Your only protection is knowledge-the data speaking for itself.)
My favorite part of the assertion of the story of Jesus being stolen from pagan sources is that sometimes someone will mention that Horus or Osiris or some other god was referred to as "the sun of god." That wordplay only works in English and maybe German and Dutch. It immediately breaks down once you move outside the Germanic languages. And not a single person who's asserted that to me has ever been able to point to any document that says any pagan god was the sun/son of any other god.
Man, that really annoys me.
I'm going to say they borrowed from outside sources. Death and resurrection doesn't mean necessary to attributed crucifixion.
Hello. I appreciate your content. In regards to Christmas Trees, according to Jeremiah Ch. 10 1-5 werent the "nations" cutting down these trees and adorning them and anchoring them down? Could this be considered a practice that "Pagans" were doing long before Christianity? Not to say the meanings and reasons were not different in each case, Pagans reasons versus Christians reasons. But maybe he is pointing out that the practice as a whole was the "pagans" and the "christians" practicing idolatry but "pagans practiced it long before christianity. Christians just using it to "Symbolize" the birth of jesus. Im not sure why Jeremiahs "nations" were doing it nor why the israelites were told not to be afraid of them.
There is good reason to believe that this text refers to Asherah poles which were an important part of Canaanite polytheistic belief. Tertullian writes in 197 CE about Christians decorating their homes with evergreens which they may have got from the Roman custom of decorating their homes and temples with evergreen boughs for Saturnalia. In Medieval Europe decorated trees were set up each Christmas eve to represent the Tree of Life in Paradise and plays were performed about Adam and Eve to represent humanity's Fall in contrast to the following Christmas day representing humanity's renewal through Jesus's coming.
@@shanegooding4839 And obviously the 2nd coming is not real. Best regards.
Let me point at a different historical figure that we seem to know a little bit more about, Nicholas of Myra, who is thought to have lived from 15 March 270 until 6 December 343. You may be more familiar with him under the name of Santa Claus. We can trace the myth developing over those 1700 years, and there is almost nothing of the historical figure left apart from the name.
Humanity has a remarkable capacity to make up stories.
Not to mention that the cult of Mithras was not thousands of years before Christ, but somewhat contemporaneous to that of Christ.
Wait a minute.
1. What the original creator is saying isn't factual and they conflate too many items together.
2. However, in Dan's response, I sense a Dogma and not Data in his comment that mythicist are "making it up" and that a historical Jesus is the most likely event leading to the formation of Christianity.
2a. We know that a number of primarily Biblical figures that scholars used to believe were real are now largely considered either non-historical or mythological. Examplea are: Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David (contested), and even most recently Paul (though most still lean that he existed). Given that, mythicist may simply be at the front of our understanding of the data rather than "making it up". The idea of
mythicism is at least plausible with this in mind.
2b. We also know that we have very limited evidence of an actual historical Jesus. Only a couple of sources who only mention a Jesus in relation to the people that worship Jesus, not that there is eye witness evidence that anyone met a Jesus and recorded it in his lifetime. So, while a historical Jesus is plausible as well, it's not a forgone conclusion.
3. We have a lot of evidence for humans taking mythical deities and giving them human backstories ( Romulus, Osiris, Hercules, etc) and examples of people taking elements of actual people to make a composite mythological person (King Authur, Ned Lud, the aforementioned Kind David, etc). So, again, a non-historical Jesus isn't unplausible.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents. Seems like there is an inherent supposition that "of course he existed" when their is evidence that makes a non-historical Jesus equally as plausible.
Crucifixion was actually a very common form of execution for political prisoners in ancient Rome. It's not that big of a stretch that somebody with a cultish following would be killed that way.
A quick question: How do you define a Mythicist? (I am curious to know if I count as one - although I don’t disagree with anything presented here.)
I love Dan's teaching, but he's off the rails here.
The educated mythicists don't teach or believe crank nonsense, and they laugh at this stuff as well.
So Dan is strawmanning here.
Uggggggg....
I understand mythicists to be those who claim there was no historical Jesus.
This means more than just rejecting supernatural claims about Jesus. It also means rejecting a natural man going by that name existed, preached and undertook some of the actions attributed to him.
This is something i'd like to know as well, i was just at 30 seconds in and his comment of "this is what mythicists made up"
as far as i'm aware a mythicist is someone that doesn't believe the biblical jesus existed because the lack of contemporary evidence. then when it comes to non-biblical it's just repeating hearsay many many many years later
I agree with Bob Oak's definition.
Much like historicist, mythicist encompasses a wide range of ideas.
Christians are historicists just as an atheist who thinks Jesus was just some dude are historicists.
There have been at times christian mythicists as well as the crank ones demonstrated in the video and those who take a more grounded view.
These are big umbrella terms.
@@boboak9168 What about people who are somewhere in the middle? People who think that Jesus could have been a composite of a few different people, who really did exist and promote certain teachings, but probably didn't rise from the dead and etc.? Do they still count as mythicists? Because that's basically how I would describe myself. It feels more intellectually honest than claiming to believe all of it when I simply cannot.
Wow. There is a lot of Misstatements collected by our skeptic friend. Kind of a nut case. Thanks, Dan, for putting those to rest. However, I think the best OT reference to a Divine birth for Jesus is not Isaiah but Genesis 3:15.
Great video Dan, as an atheist I always cringe when I hear those arguments especially when there are far better and easier ways to point out errors in the Bible's account of history, the influence of Egyptian laws, Greco-Roman influence and the whole story of Noah being a regurgitation of a previous story about Gilgamesh to name a few, also the very beginning "2024 years from what" surprised you didn't correct that error..
This one felt a little personal 😂
Temper the study of scripture with the fact that works of fiction are also known to be thousands of years old.
I love religion for breakfast!!!
Dan, you are gaining credibility with me as “the last stand” against misinformation, whether intentionally misleading or erroneous claims. If you’re not the real deal, then as Peter asked, “Where then will we go?”
I've never thought that it was stolen from other gods but I can clearly see how they copied elements from heroes of old in other of the stories to be familiar with Greek and Roman listeners. Like the virgin conception, the prosecution by Herod, the ascension into heavens, and a few other things. Doing so to embellish the story of a real character with mythology that would sound familiar in the Roman world. I think about Romulus, Heracles and a few other heroes whose stories have some coincidences that cannot be, scuse me for repeating the term, mere coincidence.
You can know the past as well as you can the future.
Dan, the whole Jesus story is an astological allegory. Even the crucifixion has to do with the crux (Southern Cross).
The three day resurrection has to do with what is observable during the time of "Christmas" astologically.
It's obvious that many religions of the region were pointing to the same observable phenomenon.
They were all, including Christianity, trying to explain their observations with astrology and mysticism. Those were the tools of the day so there's going to be a lot of overlap.
“Do your own research” or “Look it up” aren’t sources. If you don’t provide evidence for your claim, it is merely just an opinion.
To the extent thre are some similarities - and it is wildly overblown as you have shown - it is because certain themes resonate in hirtory and the human mind.
What would be helpful would be you giving your viewers the tools to find primary sources themselves... how is this done? Where does one look? Is it costly to do this? Would someone who doesn't have a PhD have the tools to do these kinds of things? If not, how does someone trust this PhD scholar over any other PhD scholar?
Can you please explain the difference between "resurrection" and "dying and rising?" I am presently failing to see the difference. Is it "how the being was brought back to life" that is the difference? Is it "why the being that was brought back to life" that is the difference? Is it some other characteristic or situation that causes the difference?
I'm amused by the idea that dozens of Gods have birthdates.
People who watched Zeitgeist once time:
Did he say Mithras was born on Dec 25th "thousands of years" before Jesus? I doubt that Mithras worship even existed in any form pre-Iron Age.
I agree with Dan's view on this. However, there is a theme in Greek literature/myths of people "disappearing" from enclosed places and often reappearing after death. Most notably Callirrhoe. Surely the writers of the Gospels would have read these texts when learning Greek and been influenced by them?
I like these posts because they succinct and clarifying. However, this one is bad and not only because the assertions of the man he's debunking are grossly generalizations and pieces of misinformation. If Dan really prioritizes Data over Dogma, he should study the latest peer-reviewed academic woks on minimal mythicism so as to properly address the theory. Even if he doesn't agree, totally or partially, with the conclusions, he'll get tons of bibliography to argue from (so, more Data). "On the Historicity of Jesus" and "Proving History" by Richard Carrier; "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" by Raphael Lataster; and "Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity" by Richard Miller (an historicist, by the way) are some peer-reviewed books I would recommend.
So he should waste time pretending mythicists actually have any points?
Is The Book of Mormon stolen from other scriptures?
What’s interesting about this is that all the folks that prop up verses that support their preferred power structure will never stitch this video to support the wire thin venn diagram overlap where the scholarship matches their beliefs (i.e., the historicity of Jesus). 🤔
LOL 😂 at you're ignorance! I just did !
I mean, modern christians aren't concerned with historicity in any sort of academic sense. I don't know why there would be any sort of expectation that they would rely on a minimal historicity defense when they already believe in the maximal historicity of Jesus for reasons having nothing to do with evidence.
Religious fanatics and anti-religious fanatics using the same tactics to humiliate the other… It’s almost as if they’re all just the same species behaving in predictable ways 🤔
The Jesus story doesn’t have to be “stolen” to be disproven for having happened in the way described in Christian scriptures. It could be entirely unique starting from the time of Jesus. A very good reason for it being unique is that it was based on a true story of an actual person that people were expecting would be a true messiah to them, and the embellishments were added to maintain its relevance when things didn’t turn out as the original followers - or even Jesus himself - had been anticipating.
Have you read second century Church Father and theologian Justin Martyr diabolical mimicry
There is no primary text that supports a singular jesus either. And guardians of the intersection of the spiritual and material world do excist. For example in the ancient Uyghur (Probably the general central asian heaven worship) religion. I have been told by uyghurs that they were christians before they became muslims because they worshipped the idea of this intersection. The guardian is some times depicted as fixed to a cross. A clear representation is a voudou spirit called Baron Samedi. This may be a later artistic representation but may also have excisted in west africa. I personally think this is the originn of selling your soul to the devil at the crossroads Since Baron Samedi will eat his own flesh if he can't give you anything you want. Probably a way to demonise the beliefs of the slaves.
all these people attacking you with their uninformed views.
Notice how mythacists use Christian terminology to describe pagan stories, and pagan terminology to describe things in the Christian narrative, as a way to make them sound as similar as possible.
Did this guy just tell PHD that he doesn't read?
😅😂😢
I personally, never had an issue concerning the births of people......billions of people being born, alot of them will have the same birthdate.....even more so when you bring god into the picture...it could also be that, people born on a specific date, could very well be pre-determined to make a huge impact on the world.....and even if you go the myth concept, that would place importance upon the date, and not the person of the myth....and with the idea of it being a myth, I can understand why some people might want to celebrate a birth, and hence, try to figure out a date for which to celebrate.....even if the person is real, if we don't know the actual birthdate, it would still be understandable to figure out a date to honor the person
At some point I was exactly like the dude in the American shirt. I am pretty sure I have said every single one of the things he said. I wouldnt say I was a mythicist, I tend to find myself in the Bart Erhman camp, Jesus was almost certainly a real dude, certainly no god. But as far as all the other assertions this dude made, there must be a "first time" account that we can track back to, right? I mean if you are saying that there is no material supporting any of what dude said, there must be a time where those elements first appeared. Where might I be able to find first accounts of these type of assertions?
I guess it depend on what you mean by elements and what qualifies as a first appearance. Break things down far enough and you can always find elements that already existed, at least until you just lose it all into prehistory. Take Jesus's birth: there are plenty of demi-gods born to mortal women and gods, which could be kind of an influence, but is it really the same idea as the virgin birth in Luke or Matthew?
Did you not watch the whole video or what? He addressed this.
Speaking of fish, what's up with the use of two fish and an anchor as a Christian symbol?
Another Dr Dan Smack down