+Rand Huso some people have a hard time seperating atheism from nihilism, or seperating atheism from extreme leftist ideologies. many love to accuse atheist/agnostics of being a religion unto themselves, a false equivalence unless you're using an absurdly broad interpretation of the word religion. the commenter is borrowing tactics from a 200 year old playbook.
+wolfumz It always makes me lol when a discussion on ancient history or religion prompts accusations of being "liberal" out of nowhere from fundies, as if they are necessarily related. At first, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they are referring to liberal theology, but then I realize that they have no clue even what that is. What's especially funny in this context is that Robert Price is a total Republican/conservative.
+Saint Netzari Wrong from the first sentence. Atheists tell you that there is probably no god. There's a difference. Some atheists understand the standard model with subatomic matter and the interactions - which don't include anything supernatural. Then theists come along and claim that their sky-daddy interacts with these particles, forces, and the Higgs, and for some reason this deity temporarily and randomly suspends the "laws" of nature. No such entity has been observed. So until you have some evidence for the existence of this "god" thing, your ideas are open to ridicule and mockery - and you appear delusional. Can you demonstrate that your particular deity exists? ... I didn't think so.
Saint Netzari when athiests say there is no God, they're often referring solely to the God of the bible (given the context of the discussion). It is not difficult to look at the bible and see that it doesn't really match up to reality, and then say, "this book isn't evidence for anything. There's no way the God the bible talks about exists." The kind of thinking you're talking about, whether or not there's the possibility of a transcendent God-like entity or energy or something, many atheists will agree with that sentiment. yeah, it's possible. But where's the evidence for it? So far, I havent found any compelling evidence in this reality for a transcendent being outside of reality.
The amount of research that these 3 have done is staggering, I am blessed to be able to absorb a fraction of the information they are sharing in this talk
Did Jesus exist? The question is whether there was a historical character who was mythologized or was there a mythological character who was historicized. I subscribe to the latter.
+Hanna G Why do you think it is an "either / or" situation? I'm happy to critique the Torrah and the New Testament >>>>>There is 'evidence' enough for faith, and last time I checked, people still die. That is a non sequitur. Yes, people die. All people die eventually. Why does that justify belief in something where there is no good evidence? .... and THAT is the definition of "faith".
+Hanna G >>>>>>The real matter is that the "God" of the faith-less is not the same "God" as the faithful. ........................ Hanna...the faith-less do not have a "god" at all. Why is that a difficult concept for you to understand?
+Hanna G Heaven has not always been a part of human consciousness. The earliest form of religion, ancestor worship, did not have a concept of the supernatural - no gods, no heaven. And failure to honour the ancestors was not a sin , just something the ancestors might get angry about.
*There was a society who swallowed a lie* (a Modern Nursery Rhyme) There was a society, who swallowed a lie, It swallowed the lie, That when we die we don’t die. There was a society, who appointed some clerics, Who talked in strange tongues, and engaged in hysterics, They appointed the clerics to protect the lie, I don't know why they swallowed the lie, That when we die we don’t die. There was a society, who established a church, From ‘gods’ to one god, was not too much of a lurch, It established the church to control all the clerics, Who talked in strange tongues, and engaged in hysterics, They needed the clerics to protect the lie, I don't know why they swallowed the lie, That when we die we don’t die. There was a society, who created an army, Isn’t that barmy! Just creating an army? It created the army to expand the church, That had melded our gods, without much of a lurch The church was established to control all the clerics, Who talked in strange tongues, and engaged in hysterics, The clerics were needed to protect the lie, I don't know why they swallowed the lie, That when we die we don’t die. There was a society who killed off free speech It wasn’t much of a reach, to kill off free speech They killed off free speech to protect the army It created the army to expand the church, The church was established to control all the clerics, The clerics were needed to protect the lie, I don't know why they swallowed the lie, That when we die we don’t die. Then I was arrested.
Carrier is hilarious! I've had the exact same experience giving a scientific talk where someone asks a strange question and in a millisecond I questioned everything I know on the subject. Only to realize the question is faulty. Horrifying feeling for a split second.
Another question: as I was born and educated in Europe I am not at all at ease with the fanaticism of the American society (the non-fanatics are still a minority). It is very clear for me that the Abrahamic religions have destroyed the advanced Ancient Greek scientific tradition and have created the Dark Ages. Europe was lucky to come out of misery only because of the initial openness of the Muslim tradition (which is dead by now), yet this opinion is not mainstream. Why not?
***** Unfortunately you are mixing up true statements with falsehoods. First falsehood: you are saying that " It is not any more bizarre to say that an eternal entity who created the Universe and mankind, died and rose from the dead than it is to say we evolved from simple organisms,". Totally false! The science of evolution is based on irrefutable FACTS while the myths about a so-called son of god are based on...nothing! No proofs! Secondly, you are believing in "prophecies". Holy CRAP! Then you are saying that "The Jews have contributed more to the sciences than any other particular ethnicity". This is true today, just because the Judaic Sanhedrin does not exist any longer since the year 70 AD and as a tiny minority Jews could redirect their interest to science instead of focusing only on religion. They are paying great attention for the education of their children, which is admirable! Now about some truths in your statement: It is true that as soon as the Christian religion was proclaimed as being "equal" with the other religions in the Roman Empire (1n 312 AD), it became compulsory and all the other religions have been outlawed (in the year 380). Christians have destroyed a huge number of statues like the Taliban today, and also they have destroyed most of the Library of Alexandria. They have killed the philosophers and the ancient intellectuals, (see the horrible murder of the platonician Hypathia!).They have provoked the Dark ages. As for Jesus who chased the devils from people to pigs: if you believe that you are able to believe any lie!
Especially when David is laughing so emotionally it reminded me of my dad. My dad would be drunk to the gills and watching his favorite team win the super bowl.
I went searching once for any kind of historical evidence confirming the Buddha lived, and nearly all of the Buddhists discussing it kept saying it doesn't matter.
perhaps I missed something. But isn't it likely that Jesus didn't die on the cross. I thought Carrier said in the last video that the spear piercing the side of Jesus was added in john later in history.
I have some questions: 1. I still have no answer to the question "if everything written about Jesus has been invented, why can we find the passage when he failed with his miracles?" Everybody would expect for him to have been "perfect". 2. Why is it considered to be an interpellation whatever Tacitus said about "Crestos" and about the fact that the Christians hated the world, when in fact this is exactly what people would feel even today? (not only the gays).
wonder fuller The idea was around before Paul, but the original records have been lost or destroyed by the cult that succeeded. Jesus was an archangel that was repurposed into a replacement for Melchizedek.
Who also came up with the fictional characters King Tut and Cleopatra 2000 plus years earlier. Also who was the fool that made up the fictional Roman Empire.
Re. the question of what a Christianity that accepts the Mythicist theory might become - actually, with the prevalence of New Age thinking and the ready availability of Eastern mystical traditions, it's quite conceivable that the _visionary_ aspect of the original Christianity could be revitalized, triangulating from things like Tantric Buddhism (which has visionary practices), even resulting in a proliferation of new "gospels" straight from the horse's mouth (as it were). It could actually be very liberating for Christians. After all, in practice, for most Christians day-to-day, Christianity _is_ largely about an imaginary friend anyway. The knowledge that Christianity originated with a more "hardcore" version of the imaginary friend (full-on visionary experience, as opposed to vague feelings and daydreams) might be very appealing to young people going forward. It would be charmingly ironic (and in no small measure, actually quite just) if the "real" Christianity won through in the end, and conquered its false usurpers, rising like a Phoenix from the ashes - as a result of the efforts of atheists. :)
4:23 Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the question, but wouldn't Jesus' last phrase in one of the Gospels be a loan phrase: Eli Eli ("My God, My God") Savaktani... which should be azavtani (why have you forsaken me?)?" A guest speaker on Doug Hemp's RU-vid channel explained how this could actually be Hebrew and not Aramaic.
The bible is simultaneously a source of inspiration, and a conflicted mess of ideas that can be used to justify almost any moral outrage. There are better books, know whut I'm sayin'?
No one spoke about either the Mother Miriam, or the Miriam of Magdala. These are titles, and they aren't names. The word today that would be synonymous with Miriam is Princes. The word today that would be synonymous with Mother Miriam is Queen. A Miriam becomes the Mother Miriam when she marries a man of Jewish royal lineage. Joseph was of the line of King David. I have read that Christ translates to King. The Jewish people of those days knew Who their Christ was. The three wise kings knew who the Christ was. They went to bestow gifts on the royal family. John the Baptist said to the Christ "it is you who should be baptizing me" because he already knew who his Christ was. People don't speak much about these things. That seems strange, doesn't it? P.S. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky wrote that the three wise men followed the morning star (also known as the evening star) because Jews believed that Venus was more powerful than Mars. Romans believed the reverse. They didn't necessarily follow the morning star literally, but they followed the same star as all Jews and so were probably of one or more Jewish sects.
So i take it from this chat isiah 53 and psalms was written in around ad 70 to make it look like the prophecies had taken place yeh ? Just asking going thru a deconversion at present
space munky Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, Christian translations butcher Isaiah to infer Jesus, such as changing “like lions at his feet” To, “nails in his feet” in the English
+disastergirl888 Early Church Forefather, that was Tertullian's favorite target. Tertullian lumped Marcion in with all the pagan gnostic heretics of Christianity, because Marcion did not believe in 'Literalized Christianity.' You'll find this ironic, because at the end of Tertullian's life around 200AD, he renounces literalized Christianity as well, and becomes part of the Montanist Christian movement (which was Gnostic and Revelatory in nature).
Eleven (some say thirteen) ancient historians wrote about Jesus within a century after his death including Irenaus (130-200), Justin Martyr (103-165), Barnabas (70-130), Polycarp (65-155), Tacitus (56-117) Clement (30-100), Josephus (37-100), Ignatius (30-110), Pliny the Younger, (61-?), Suetonius (690130), and Lucian (115-200). By 200 AD, the entire Hellenistic Empire and Roman Empires had abandoned their paganism and became Christians. All based on someone (Jesus) who this historian claims never existed? How exactly could someone 2,000-years ago, be written about by historians, start a world religion that today boasts over 2 billion adherents and have never existed? This would be one mean trick...
It is likely that Jesus was the great grandson of Queen Cleopatra. Unlikely? Well a daughter of Cleopatra was given to King Phraates IV of Persian, as a diplomatic bride. But after becoming queen, she was exiled to Syrio-Judaea in AD 4. It was this story of a royal family on the move, that was the basis of the Nativity story. And this royal Persian ancestry, is why the Persian Magi (the three Kings) visited this birth. @K-Dk .
Have you ever read of the infamous book called "Anti-Knowledge, the Crutch of Capitalism"? Read Anti-Gnosis by Lily Zografou (1973) on the role of Jew-Christianism in human history. Too bad it is written in Greek.
18:40 did Richard Carrier drink out of David Fitzgerald's water? I see a bottle to the right of each of them. Does anyone see David take a drink at any time?
Thanks for uploading this discussion, we can only hope that more people become educated about this BS story, call ' The Bible" which has destroyed many lives.
I TOTALLY agree!!! What you need to explain Jesus, is what we have had for two thousand years: credulous people; people who have virtually no understanding of Astronomy Biology Physics Archeology Geology, but rather a non existence of a critical thought analysis. And being preoccupied with daily life with little time & or desire to do counter readings & or research is certainly an asset for the world Christian corporation.
I think the biggest flaw for these people is appealing to absolute certainty. There is no way of knowing whether ANY historical character really existed if you follow the same logic here.
They talk in extreme probability not absolute fact. How many times did they say "highly unlikely" or "likely". These guys are serious about there work!
Right. So how do you say that yes Socrates existed, but Jesus didn't? What mechanism do we have to decide which historical characters were real in any sense since the writings we have are all taking place after their pro porter lives?
I didn't say anything about Socrates existing. It's likely he did but defiantly not 100%. I think In the case of Jesus you have to realize that the only source we have is the bible and it cannot be read as a history book for many reasons but the main one being the authors were not historians and they were trying to advance their message. They did that by embellishment, mythicizing, and BS!
DrFeelGood I know you didn't but it's an interesting comparison. Why does the Bible deserve extra scrutiny as opposed to every other book in antiquity?
Not really. You can compare claims to what was observed. The NT talks of jc speaking to tens of thousands of people, yet we do not see evidence outside the bible. Some people could write you know.
I will accept there may have been a man named Jesus. Certainly not a God or holy person. Just a man like MLK or Ghandi that can influence masses of people.
Evidences? What kind of "evidences" are you waiting for? Papers, documents? Believe or not, even paper wasn`t invented yet. Everything was written into papyrus which was extremely fragile. People able to write anything were just a minority. Jesus was just a guy infamous in the middle of nowhere for a year. For Roman authorities he was just a fool among hundreds. Fot jews he was just an heretic among dozens. Get real!
OK, talk about it. The little charackters, were written about. Yes, I know, pop-historians usually write just like they were present, but I have to say, it is a hoax, nothing more. There are very little amount of texts survived. But pop-historians usually take some pieces of informations, create texts to fill the holes and write them down to look like they were there and filmed it. There was one Josephus and NO media, NO newspapers, NO post, no information tools like we see today. And there were dozens of every kind of prophets, saints, mystics etc etc. Why should one man interested in "serious" things write about an anarchist fool who claim being "son of Man".
They all lived after the death of Jesus. If you do not know, there was NOT tradition to collect documents then at all. There was no archives at all. All the "history" based on memories. Usually collected decades, sometimes centuries after death of subject. That wasn`t the scientific history we know nowadays.
Er... Jesus was still dead (or left Earth, whatever) as an human. Those historians could not meet him. They could only collect memories, that`s all. His followers were still just a small group among many others. There were dozens of totally different spiritual cults those days. Every region has its own cults. And remember again, there was NOT any media, journalism, at all, nobody collected documents etc etc. Historians were not interested in some small cult, they collected memories about politicians, philosophers, military leaders etc.
...But you'll never hear Price mention his "fans". I feel it's a judge of good character when a person, to a certain extent, is genuinely self depreciating and has a bit of humility because most reasonable people are well aware of how limited our knowledge on any subject is. Yes, I know Carrier has a Ph.D. in ancient history. He's still a small potato in the scheme of things.
Knowing what the bible does not teach is simple, of course there was no jesus... however knowing what it does teach is priceless, and these dudes have no idea about that:) Rather low brow actually:)
LOL idiot north africans are not black and are genetically related closest to people of the levant and southern europe . North africans and essentially all people outside of africa descend from common maternal ancestor (mtDNA haplogroup L3*). Bantus and nilo saharan are primarily L1 or L2.
Anthony Butler make Carrier and his pals your God if you want but you can’t say I didn’t warn you when “the day “ comes for you....please go here before you make your choice ...look up on you tube “Amazing Bible Prophecy Everyone Must See(70 week prophesy if Daniel Revealed)
