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.
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.
Jesus is as historical as King Arthur, Hercules, Paul Bunyan, Romulus, Robin Hood, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Mohammed. All these traditions were created for reasons INDEPENDENT of whether there was ONE historical person on which they were based. The most likely answer is there were MANY historical figures who inspired the Jesus myths. I'm disappointed Dan in your refutation that Christianity arose from a wide spread Mediterranean personal savior deity tradition, which it clearly did. And defending the Christmas tree as original is okay, but petty. There is a long tradition of adorning halls with evergreen boughs to celebrate the Solstice. If Christian tradition added to that a whole tree, great, but not revolutionary.
I really don't understand the "many historical figures" theory. The historical theory is that there was a Jewish preacher who got crucified and whose followers claimed was resurrected and built first a new Jewish sect and then an entire new religion around. Our earliest writings are only a few decades later and refer to people who knew him. That much of the historical Jesus couldn't really have been a conflation of multiple people. It's certainly true that by the time of the Gospels many stories and sayings had been attributed to Jesus that he didn't really do, but things like the virgin birth are more likely made up than stolen from other real recent historical figures believed to have been born of virgins.
There are a lot more references to Jesus closer to when he is supposed to have existed than the vast majority of those you mention, except Mohammed, who as certain to have existed as the earth is round. Comparing Jesus to Osiris is laughable though.
I really have no dog in this hunt. Whether an entirely non-supernatural Jesus or Mohammed existed doesn't matter to me. BUT, if you read the history and scholarship fairly, it is clear that BOTH are far more likely a creation of myth decades and centauries after their alleged life. The contemporary record of BOTH prophets simply argues AGAINST either of them being real historical figures as described in their respective sacred texts.@@robertwilliams4682
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😊
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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'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.
@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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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??
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.
It would be good to see you do a breakdown of all the ways the NT copied the Iliad and other Greek legends, along with Zoroastrianism, etc. Not to mention the Book of Mormon copying paragraphs from adventure fiction published shortly before it was “revealed” to Joseph Smith, as well as town names in upstate New York. This was one of your more dishonest videos.
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.
I thought this was going to be about Jesus being 1/2 god 1/2 human and comparing him to Zeus' 1/2 human 1/2 god offspring Hercules. The greek gods had many 1/2 human 1/2 god offspring. I was wrong.
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.
I find a lot of Dan's videos interesting however, I see more and more he's just going around trying to debunk everyone, theist, non-theist, just promoting his education, everyone else his always wrong and he's the only one that is right. We need more inspirational videos not debates. Just saying 🤷♂️
I think there is a bit of a dying and rising motif that likely predates Christianity, but so much of the rest of this was... sad to listen to. On the other hand, maybe if you are catching greif from both sides, you are close to the right place?
The Graeco-Roman Jesus Christ circa 325AD under Roman/pagan/christian syncretism with a plethora of religions to unite the Empire under one common unity (sun god worship), yes that jesus is an invention from pagan religions .. the Messiah, Yahshua, the prophet from Natsareth, the historical figure spoken of by the Ebionites, Natasri, under 'James the Elder' in Jerusalem around 45AD,, no that's not paganism, that's the fulfillment on Tanakian Redemptive Judaism and is both scripturally and historically validated. The former is mythological the latter is historical
Is this ignorance or deliberate dishonesty?? Heru (Egyptian Horus) was said to have been birthed by virgin Auset (Egyptian Isis) after her husband (Ausar) died before the consumation of their marriage in a version of the story.
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'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.
Demonstrating potential plagiarism from so long ago is going to be an uphill battle anyway. There does seem to be some indication that pre-Christain cultures had some oral traditions that had aspects of commonality. Even the aspects of the bible [OT] seem to have been transmitted orally for hundreds of tears before being documented.Maybe this is where the guy is getting the information from? Oral traditions can vary greatly in fidelity and independent corroboration from other sources, especially over long time periods. Australian scientists have confirmed indigenous oral traditions at least two of local floods on the eastern coast of Australia, and these 'Dream-time" claims coincide with inundations of the coast due to rapid sea levels changes that are described in remarkable detail by these fire songs and dances. Fossil reefs, and other geological evidences make these cultural claims more than myth, because 7,000 to 8000 years ago these events definitely happened. So pretty remarkable fidelity of transmission over thousands of years, all things considered. Not all oral traditions enjoy this level of confirmation from independent sources. And in any case, empires from antiquity, and those of Europe not infrequently [by accident or design] tend to destroy local traditions and cultures and those with no written script are particularly vulnerable to extinction. Sometimes forcing locals to adopt the language, law, and religions of the invaders, and this included empires who subscribed to Christianity. Indigenous Australian nations, over 200 in number with unique languages, customs and oral traditions have experienced severe erosion to such an extent that many of them have lost most of the data, which dedicated researchers and indigenous folks are trying to preserve what is left. There is no doubt that this random u-tuber has not made a strong case, and Dan points out the many problems, but I still think it is fair to say that history is largely written by the victors. There is a lot of resentment against cultural appropriation by the many against the few, so at least emotionally if not factually, the criticisms track. A much more recent, and demonstrable plagiarism, conscious or not, is a not infrequent ascribing the efforts of humans to the "miracles" of god. Doctors and nurses, using all the scientific skills of medicine, won by hard study and devoted professionalism, will save a life, but no, "god did it". That gets old very quickly. And first responders and achievers of all sorts face the same baseless and undemonstrated devaluation of their skills and efforts by chalking everything up to the actions or influence of a deity. They are not responsible for good deeds, but mere puppets of this god. It is disgusting IMHO.
Is there any truth to the idea that Christ actually didn’t die on the cross move to Europe and lived a long life and had children with Mary Magdalene? I think I’ve heard you talking about this, but I don’t I don’t know it to be true, or not. Since most thing in this world is a lie. I thought I’d ask you.
You read comics I read comics, I see the Bible as a comic book in a way can be inspirational but still full of holes and works of fiction. Lost my faith a long time ago and happy not looking back.
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?
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.
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?
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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
its true what you say there is a parrelell story in the Homer stories about Jesus expelling Demons into Pigs
Jesus is as historical as King Arthur, Hercules, Paul Bunyan, Romulus, Robin Hood, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Mohammed. All these traditions were created for reasons INDEPENDENT of whether there was ONE historical person on which they were based. The most likely answer is there were MANY historical figures who inspired the Jesus myths. I'm disappointed Dan in your refutation that Christianity arose from a wide spread Mediterranean personal savior deity tradition, which it clearly did. And defending the Christmas tree as original is okay, but petty. There is a long tradition of adorning halls with evergreen boughs to celebrate the Solstice. If Christian tradition added to that a whole tree, great, but not revolutionary.
I really don't understand the "many historical figures" theory. The historical theory is that there was a Jewish preacher who got crucified and whose followers claimed was resurrected and built first a new Jewish sect and then an entire new religion around. Our earliest writings are only a few decades later and refer to people who knew him. That much of the historical Jesus couldn't really have been a conflation of multiple people.
It's certainly true that by the time of the Gospels many stories and sayings had been attributed to Jesus that he didn't really do, but things like the virgin birth are more likely made up than stolen from other real recent historical figures believed to have been born of virgins.
Read or listen to Richard Carrier.@@jeffmacdonald9863
There are a lot more references to Jesus closer to when he is supposed to have existed than the vast majority of those you mention, except Mohammed, who as certain to have existed as the earth is round. Comparing Jesus to Osiris is laughable though.
I really have no dog in this hunt. Whether an entirely non-supernatural Jesus or Mohammed existed doesn't matter to me. BUT, if you read the history and scholarship fairly, it is clear that BOTH are far more likely a creation of myth decades and centauries after their alleged life. The contemporary record of BOTH prophets simply argues AGAINST either of them being real historical figures as described in their respective sacred texts.@@robertwilliams4682
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also dying and rising beards 😉
🐖jesus 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💯💩💯💩💯💩💯♾️💩💯♾️💩💯♾️💩💯♾️💩💩💩💩
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.
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 😊
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.
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.
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.
+1 for suggesting Religion for Breakfast. Another great scholar with very interesting videos.
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.
Well, at least they weren't claiming that the story was stolen from... Freddy Fazbear.
I especially loved the wrap up about how to think about internet claims. More content about how to think would be awesome.
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
How do you explain the diabolical mimicry by Justin Martyr when he was defending the similarities between Jesus and other pagan deities?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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'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.
@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
Excellent video as always Dan, love to see it
all these people attacking you with their uninformed views.
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.
"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
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.
Jesus was never healed according to what is written on in the book of Luke
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?
Bet. But could you make a response to the guy that the guy to whom you’re responding is responding to? He’s a tool.
Odin hung on a tree, but he came after Jesus from what I remember.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
It would be good to see you do a breakdown of all the ways the NT copied the Iliad and other Greek legends, along with Zoroastrianism, etc. Not to mention the Book of Mormon copying paragraphs from adventure fiction published shortly before it was “revealed” to Joseph Smith, as well as town names in upstate New York. This was one of your more dishonest videos.
You should have a conversation with Alex O'Connor.
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.
Even as a Christian I always thought that Christmas and Easter were just Christianity overlaying pagan traditions and reinventing them.
I thought this was going to be about Jesus being 1/2 god 1/2 human and comparing him to Zeus' 1/2 human 1/2 god offspring Hercules. The greek gods had many 1/2 human 1/2 god offspring. I was wrong.
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.
I find a lot of Dan's videos interesting however, I see more and more he's just going around trying to debunk everyone, theist, non-theist, just promoting his education, everyone else his always wrong and he's the only one that is right. We need more inspirational videos not debates. Just saying 🤷♂️
I'm going to say they borrowed from outside sources. Death and resurrection doesn't mean necessary to attributed crucifixion.
I think there is a bit of a dying and rising motif that likely predates Christianity, but so much of the rest of this was... sad to listen to.
On the other hand, maybe if you are catching greif from both sides, you are close to the right place?
The Graeco-Roman Jesus Christ circa 325AD under Roman/pagan/christian syncretism with a plethora of religions to unite the Empire under one common unity (sun god worship), yes that jesus is an invention from pagan religions .. the Messiah, Yahshua, the prophet from Natsareth, the historical figure spoken of by the Ebionites, Natasri, under 'James the Elder' in Jerusalem around 45AD,, no that's not paganism, that's the fulfillment on Tanakian Redemptive Judaism and is both scripturally and historically validated. The former is mythological the latter is historical
Is this ignorance or deliberate dishonesty??
Heru (Egyptian Horus) was said to have been birthed by virgin Auset (Egyptian Isis) after her husband (Ausar) died before the consumation of their marriage in a version of the story.
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.
New year and a new beard! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
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.
So has nothing which is pagan has survived through Christianity?
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.
Demonstrating potential plagiarism from so long ago is going to be an uphill battle anyway. There does seem to be some indication that pre-Christain cultures had some oral traditions that had aspects of commonality. Even the aspects of the bible [OT] seem to have been transmitted orally for hundreds of tears before being documented.Maybe this is where the guy is getting the information from?
Oral traditions can vary greatly in fidelity and independent corroboration from other sources, especially over long time periods.
Australian scientists have confirmed indigenous oral traditions at least two of local floods on the eastern coast of Australia, and these 'Dream-time" claims coincide with inundations of the coast due to rapid sea levels changes that are described in remarkable detail by these fire songs and dances. Fossil reefs, and other geological evidences make these cultural claims more than myth, because 7,000 to 8000 years ago these events definitely happened.
So pretty remarkable fidelity of transmission over thousands of years, all things considered. Not all oral traditions enjoy this level of confirmation from independent sources.
And in any case, empires from antiquity, and those of Europe not infrequently [by accident or design] tend to destroy local traditions and cultures and those with no written script are particularly vulnerable to extinction. Sometimes forcing locals to adopt the language, law, and religions of the invaders, and this included empires who subscribed to Christianity.
Indigenous Australian nations, over 200 in number with unique languages, customs and oral traditions have experienced severe erosion to such an extent that many of them have lost most of the data, which dedicated researchers and indigenous folks are trying to preserve what is left.
There is no doubt that this random u-tuber has not made a strong case, and Dan points out the many problems, but I still think it is fair to say that history is largely written by the victors.
There is a lot of resentment against cultural appropriation by the many against the few, so at least emotionally if not factually, the criticisms track.
A much more recent, and demonstrable plagiarism, conscious or not, is a not infrequent ascribing the efforts of humans to the "miracles" of god. Doctors and nurses, using all the scientific skills of medicine, won by hard study and devoted professionalism, will save a life, but no, "god did it". That gets old very quickly. And first responders and achievers of all sorts face the same baseless and undemonstrated devaluation of their skills and efforts by chalking everything up to the actions or influence of a deity. They are not responsible for good deeds, but mere puppets of this god. It is disgusting IMHO.
It was all going so well, then you stepped on my blue suede shoes...Elvis dead ??? Sacreligious mumbo jumbo
Not to mention that the cult of Mithras was not thousands of years before Christ, but somewhat contemporaneous to that of Christ.
“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.
Is there any truth to the idea that Christ actually didn’t die on the cross move to Europe and lived a long life and had children with Mary Magdalene? I think I’ve heard you talking about this, but I don’t I don’t know it to be true, or not. Since most thing in this world is a lie. I thought I’d ask you.
1st century Jews were perfectly capable of comming up with their own mythology ;)
You read comics I read comics, I see the Bible as a comic book in a way can be inspirational but still full of holes and works of fiction. Lost my faith a long time ago and happy not looking back.
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?
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.
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?
You even say that there are older text that have Gods or deity’s return to life. Why isn’t that true. It’s just the Bible that is correct. Silly.
Did this guy just tell PHD that he doesn't read?
😅😂😢
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. 🙂
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.
I love religion for breakfast!!!
Dude, move the cam back a bit… relax!!! LOL…
I heard he traded the Holy Grail for it fair and square. Go ask him for the receipt.
I'd love to see you debate Carrier on these questions.
Please never stop doing this!!!!
“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
Why is Easter called 'Easter'?
Is The Book of Mormon stolen from other scriptures?
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.
Ken humphreys wants to chat.
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.
Just dropped by to say that this was your best to date.
Wait a minute ELVIS is still alive?
Short answer: Its all made up.
I'm amused by the idea that dozens of Gods have birthdates.
Another Dr Dan Smack down
Why have you got a top with a dragon on? Mmm
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.
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
My question is, how did we survive hanging whole candles on Christmas trees? 😂
Not everyone did, I guess.
Speaking of fish, what's up with the use of two fish and an anchor as a Christian symbol?
What do eggs have to do with Jesus?
Wait! Elvis is still alive?
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.