This man, Dr Carrier, has given me an explanation, to questions I have asked, my parents, and priests, since I was 12yo. As to the Christian religion, and where it came from. As science show us how old the earth is, the known universe, Dinosaurs, Evolution etc. So I have never really believed, and was puzzled as to why, every Sunday, my family did the exact same thing, but nothing changed, other than growing older, leaving school, working etc. And the years when by. Now I am in my late fifties, and have an understanding as to where this thing called Christianity comes from. It appears to fit in with the ' Flat Earth myth ' , which makes sense.
Watching his lecture freed me from religion. I no longer think there is a Jesus watching my every step as the whole thing seems like a pyramid scam. It's always felt like one because prayers rarely work and could be explained by biological processes and people's compassion. It's one of the biggest scams in human history and it needs to be exposed.
@@CellGames2006 I feel sorry for those early Christians who were willing to die for someone that's just a myth. They never saw Jesus cure the sick, or feed the hungry...it was all fiction written by four evangelists who all connived to write about this mythological man. They're just all crazy wanting to die for someone they haven't seen before.
@@tikbalang9245 I think there is some power in faith and could be something beautiful, but also can bring the worst in someone who is not very critic when they make choices
Hey, check out some research by Paula Fredriksen; she is not a bad storyteller and draws a vivid picture of the Mediteranian worldview in the context of Paul!
What makes Dr. Carrier credible is his acknowledgement that humans have commonalities consistent over centuries. When one reflects on the limits of formal education, communication, and common knowledge at the time, the gospels were 'crafted' and 're-crafted' to explain what could not be easily understood and explained. Factor in the human need for some to seen as important and knowledgeable, and things start to make sense. Thanks for sharing the video excerpts.
@@henochparks Who will? Members of any Abrahamic-god based zombie rabbi death cult would be crushed if they attempted to debate someone who knows significantly more about their idiotic beliefs than they will EVER know. Don't be so pathetically antagonistic and foolish.
@@murielpucoe9213 Are you asking for proof that imaginary beings don't exist? The job of finding proof falls on the one who says something exists, all we can do is point out all of your hypocracy and tear all of your stories apart and show their nonesense.
All the questions I've had that no Christian could ever answer for me, I now have answers. Looking at Christianity as history makes no sense. But when you look at actual history, the influence of other religions and the evolution of Christianity, it makes perfect sense when you see it for what it truly is...a manmade construct. I'm glad there are people like Dr. Carrier and Dr. Price that tell the truth about religion. Thanks for posting this.
If Jesus was crucified, he existed and since we know he was crucified he obviously existed and all those who say he didnt exist are just wrong. Bart Erhman Atheists have done themselves a big disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. It makes you look foolish. Bart Erhman Price and Carrier fall under here. Take it from Bart😂
He lied about most of the history that was told here, so your gullibility to change your entire world view over one little kid on youtube is even more fascinating to me than anything else.
Saying he existed and was crucified is one thing. However, saying he was a demi-god, and resurrected are two completely different claims. You would need to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was both “divine” and resurrected. Believers bridge that gap whilst simultaneously dismissing other claims of dying and rising god(s) claims. 🤦🏼♂️
@@koppite9600wow, since you said they are wrong it must be true 😂 Both of those scholars know more about the Bible than you and your entire church combined.
it's so ironic that Carrier as an "outsider" has more "insider" knowledge of the mysteries that the gospels purport to hide than the actual insiders who actually look at the texts as is expected of the outsiders
Atheism is focused on objective reality, not myth. Now one can make an argument that objective reality is an allusion. I disagree partially with that assumption. We have a sensory experience. All I can say is that the input of our sensory experience is a true experience based on my sensory experience.
This video needs to be on everybody‘s list. (I hope the algorithm agrees.) This is the single most thought provoking video that I watched in a long, long time: especially the end. I binged Richard Carrier yesterday, and I love his Mythical Jesus, but here he is speaking a universal truth: people need to more consciously construct their world view. It is way too circumstantial: depends on where you grow up, who your teachers are, what books you find at the book store, nowadays what videos the algorithm suggests. - How is pedagogy the most important thing I never thought about? - Oh, I get it: I am not a father, thus I am still a kid myself, despite nearing 50 years. - Well, maybe that’s another circumstance.
If you liked this presentation you should buy the audiobook version of his book “On the Historicity of Jesus” and at the same time buy the paperback version so that you can follow along as Richard reads his own book, then move to “proving history” and do the same thing, and then do the same thing with “Hitler Homer Bible Christ” just those 3 books are over 54 hours, and 1464 pages of material, and those numbers don’t cover reading his blog, articles or chasing down the offshoots his work introduces you to and that you just have to chase to find the answer.
@@rexrambo7686 to each their own some people like to chase scholarship and some don’t, there is so much more to Rick’s work than just discussing the existence of the supposed progenitor of a religion that pushes hate, bigotry, and beliefs that are wholly in consistent with reality. His class series on the New Testament through Derek’s platform is also incredible, but just his “Proving History” work is worth reading as a standalone work without even considering the Historicity of Jesus, but on how to examine history properly, personally it has played a roll in my life as a professional genealogist, after reading it I now look at the facts and stories we compile and prove for families in a different light it really improves your level of discernment and critical thinking.
Damn. This was the best two hours of my time I’ve used in a long time. Why two hours? Because I watched it twice. The last several minutes were spot-on!
I have to agree with you. It has been so educational for me that I had to watch it two times as well. It really pulled it together on how many religions localized core ideas in mystic religions to each create something unique that they could claim as their own. We each create our own stories but the Jews, Mormons, Witnesses, Christians and Muslims did it on a grand scale. I can see the whole puzzle much more clearly now. Wow, that was helpful.
Well reasoned? The guy is nuts. At 4:14 he makes up a convo with Carro and they come up with a conclusion. At 21:00 when talking about Mark he becomes a psychic .. he automatically knows Mark is rewriting Moses.
Carrier, a treasure trove of information.. He needs to do more debates, to expose more unsettled or doubtful assumptions about history... Seems Apologists and Historians alike fear a confrontation with him.
He's a globe-earther in a flat-earth world. Very likely that people will look back at him as not a visionary but a brave iconoclast since he's not really saying much that is new, it's just that he's one of the first scholars willing to say what many before said behind closed doors.
Reasonable Speculation sadly I can’t remember who pointed it out but his talk here reminds me of someone who simply said ‘Jesus was a Jew, preaching Judaism to Jews.’ This fact has been obliterated by current Christianity in which we are persuaded that Jesus was preaching something entirely different.
Carrier admits plenty of uncertainty about the origins of Christianity and the Gospels. Christians, however, admit no uncertainty about these things (although they often disagree among themselves about them).
Even the Gospels have plenty of uncertainty about the origin of Christianity, assuming that Christianity begins with the birth of Jesus. According to _Matthew_ 2:14, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph "took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt." I.e., to escape the wrath of Herod (who died 4 BCE), Joseph & family left Bethlehem to the *southwest,* to Egypt. But according to _Luke_ 2:22, after the birth and circumcision of Jesus, the family left Bethlehem to the *northeast,* to go to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem they walked right past the king's palace, to get to the Temple and make the required blood sacrifice for a first-born male child. So, which is correct? Exit Bethlehem to the southwest or northeast? Those are exactly opposite directions. Flee the king of Judaea or walk right past his fortress? Clearly the 'inspiration' of an all-powerful god is not all it's cracked up to be. Or, as Carrier proposes, the Gospels are just stories; historical fiction created decades after the purported events by fallible human authors, working with nothing but their own imaginations and the knowledge of other Ancient Greek stories.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell
@@broddr: I'll concede your point about leaving Bethlehem in two different directions, but you like so many atheists are confused when it comes to the direction of the Gospels influence. Matthew may not have written an accurate history of the life of Jesus, if that was really his intention, but his influence wasn't Greek but Hebrew. His declarations about the deity and christology of Jesus is rooted in the Exodus, and the Law and the Prophets. Luke's influence is rooted in 1st and 2nd Samuel and the book of Daniel. Drop the Greek influences idea. It doesn't work, not even with the mythology.
They should teach rationality but they won't because it will destroy religions, look at Europe we do teach rationality in school and we've abandoned Christianity.
@Jeffrey Janzer isn't that's what you're doing? Notice how Carrier shows no primary sources to back up his claims, just a bunch of hypothesis. The Bible on the other hand has historians, archaeologists and scholars who agree that the Bible is legit. Notice he's the only one making these arguments with no proof whatsoever. The only people who want to jump on the Carrier bandwagon are those who made up their minds from start to reject Jesus Christ. That's cognitive bais.
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Randel Helms, professor at Arizona State University: "The Gospels are, indeed-and to a much greater degree than those who read them with pious inattention even begin to realize-imaginative literature, fiction, and critics have been using such terms about them for a long time." Gospel Fictions, pg 11, www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-Randel-Helms/dp/0879755725
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Alvar Ellegård, Professor at the University of Gothenburg, "the Jesus of the Gospels is essentially a myth. The Gospels are largely fiction." Theologians as historians, journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/scandia/article/download/1078/863
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Thomas L. Thompson, professor at the University of Copenhagen: "the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed." www.amazon.com/Messiah-Myth-Eastern-Roots-Jesus/dp/022406200X
We will try! We just interviewed Sam a couple of weeks ago. shepherdexpress.com/arts-and-entertainment/books/a-human-conversation-with-author-sam-harris/
Hi@@dbz1978Howard, I have read about 90% of what Carrier has published and maybe 80% of Sam. And nearly every time Sam's trajectory moves towards the Historical and Biblical I cringe. Sam would do so much better in discussions if he could load Carrier's Bayesian Jesus info. It's like a biologist debating a creationist but the biologist doesn't know about DNA. Here is an example, imagine Josephus come up, wouldn't it be nice if Sam knew the entire Testimonium of Josephus is a near perfect noun and verb paraphrase from Luke 24:19-21.
@@dbz1978 wow...wrong...totally WRONG... Dr. Carrier and Dr. Harris are complete opposites in regards to political leanings... Harris is a non-liberal, non-SJW Atheist and Carrier is a 100% Liberal, 100% SJW, 100% Feminist Anita Sarkeesian worshiping atheist...
@@sailure1 Sam Harris cares strongly about democracy, climate change, scientific thinking. He diverges from many of today's liberals in his criticism of Islam, and especially of Islamists - those Muslims who would impose their religion on others. Harris is critical of Christianity too. His small book 'Letter to a Christian Nation' leaves no doubt of that.
Wow. I am amazed at some of the conclusions Carrier makes in the last few minutes: “The Bible doesn’t speak to people so well any more. In fact, Jesus is kind of a dick” “Fiction has replaced the Bible for many people - Star Trek, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones - for creating a moral worldview” “In ancient times, Philosophy replaced Religion as a rational alternative to the (superstitious) worldview. However today Philosophy is seen as abstract and not relevant to everyday problems. It would be great if Philosophy were to be reinvigorated as an active cultural discussion about a moral worldview” “Political belief for many has replaced religion” (He doesn’t mention the Trump Cult, but that’s the biggie obv) I could listen to Richard Carrier talk forever.
LOL... if you had the super power to make a fig tree wither on command, wouldn't you be better served using that super power to make the fig tree bear fruit spontaneously?? :)
he is amazing actually because I'm an unknown writing a book that includes construction of religions and science that proves the supernatural wasn't required for everything that exists, and Dr. Carrier took time to help me with the Pliny letters to Trajan. His personal effort for me was a surprise when I can't even get the time of day from much lesser in the field of refuting religion, like bloggers with only 20,000 followewrs.
Another excellent breakdown. You are a gifted communicator. You have done a great job finding the right puzzle board for all these puzzle pieces that generations of scholars and we masses have been stumbling over for generations. Thanks you for a gambit at clarity on these important issues.
@@Entropy3ko You mean, most "biblical scholars". And that would be because... most biblical scholars are christian, and are terrified of what Carrier has to say.
Came across a site called www.doesgodexistandbeyond.com/ looks at faith with Reason, Logic and Primary Evidences. Has some very interesting information about non biblical sources on the resurrection accounts that's not well known. Worth a read if anyone's interested.
Entropy3ko That is because they have not read his books or listened to his talks. They have only “heard” he is a Jesus mythicist, and write him off. Jesus mythicism is only a portion of his entire content. Further, he does not assert that a historical Jesus was an impossibility. However, the supernatural, demi-god Jesus of the gospels certainly is a myth. That is definitely the “mythicization” of a possible historical figure. Bart Erhman must oppose Carrier, because he would lose his job at Chapel Hill, otherwise.
It really needs more views. Coming to terms with admitting that the dominant world views that have grown in popularity / population size / spread and dogmatic depth over the centuries were even originally creatively crafted / invented by humans in the first place. That the only „revelation“ there ever was, was men’s thoughts „revealing“ themselves by appearing in their minds, is in itself a trivial but world shattering revelation for me right now as I type this. While every now and then there have been genuine new ideas, of course the process also includes a lot of regurgitating and chewing of old problems and solutions, simply because we can’t escape the human condition; we have grown up with stories, were implicitly and explicitly taught by our parents and teachers and peers and culture in general. - Grasping ownership of your very own world view seems like a logical step in intellectual and emotional development. How come that this never occurred to me as a task? That I was accepting all the circumstance of the building of my own mind, without asking too many questions? That I was ok with growing, instead of building / constructing? What could be more important than self-authorship and the building of your own mind? How come I just accepted that I was soaking up ideas and just went with whatever sticked / seemed appropriate? - Shouldn’t there be a process for building minds? Pedagogy should be a solved field after so many millennia? - I‘ve been watching a lot of Joscha Bach over the years: learning to build a mind from the ground up, as he is introspecting and helping invent / create AI. - Why did it never occur to me, that I was attracted to his talks, because my own mind tried to awaken itself into self-authorship? - I was always more fascinated (like Sam Harris) with the idea of things just happening (Free Will as an epiphenomenon), with the laws of the universe, than with the idea of self-made-men and agency. That the only thing one can truly change, is perspective. That form follows function, that the world is built from the ground layer up. - Why did it take me almost 50 years to recognize the importance of agency, of creativity, of self-authorship? - The thing why revolutions don’t happen at a personal and societal level is not, because the situation isn’t bad enough / wouldn’t warrant it, but that the base layer of self empowerment hasn’t been taught sufficiently. When Joscha Bach talks about „getting access to the room with the cookies“ in your mind (= the dopaminergic reward system in your brain) only being the first step, but as an adult you should learn to only reward yourself with cookies for eating your salad, I always knew that I hadn’t even found the key to that room yet, not even talking about the salad. I suspected that I had so few „Eureka“ / revelation moments in my life, because evolution deemed it to be counter productive and found it only appropriate for people in their teens. - Yet it never occurred to me, that key is laying there openly, that one only has to realize it and grasp for it. - Has anything changed today? Have I truly grasped what it means to set my own values, twiddle my knobs not from where they are, but from where I want them to be? Has it become easier to kick myself in the ass now? Did I learn to fly? - Maybe „defying gravity“ is not just a good song, but a life lesson, that I am only now beginning to grasp.
One of my two favorite authors about Christianity. Too bad Ehrman (my other favorite) won't have a debate or at least a discussion with Carrier. That would be really cool.
Watching RU-vid can be depressing, especially the "ancient technologies" and "pyramids are power conductors" malarkey. But then I watch this. There is hope.
This is an amazing interview. The first ~2/3 is interesting in a historical sense, but the last 20 or so minutes where he talks about the push-back from the entrenched status quo and its chilling effect on honest scholarship and the pursuit of truth really gives perspective and a sense of outside objectivity that is exceedingly rare in society at large or at all in popular culture. I was also pleased to see him mention how fiction has been taking the place of faithfully (naively) believed religious dogmatic scripture. The messages and the *quality* and *honesty* of Hollywood movies and popular books is extremely important. And then he goes even further to expound upon how our mode of thinking is based on religious dogmas that have taken the place of attempts at evidence-based classical philosophical structures. I have a pretty low opinion of pure philosophy, but when used in the sense of empirically-informed philosophy of science, it's a vital part of humans comprehending the world and making informed rather than arbitrary dogmatic moralistic decisions.
Always enjoyed Dr. Carrier's work. Was suprised to learn his view on the Q/Quelle/source. The overview was incredible. The sequence of events and knowledge on the subject of the history of the gospels, was definitely packed with valuable info. Thank you!
He wasn't wrong when he said the field was either filled with bias or Amateurs back in 2012. His ground work will lay the foundation for the future of rigorous fact checking of accepted authority.
There is Carrier, then there is everyone else. I wish he was around when I was in second year theological college, it took 5 years to realise the bs I was taught. He would have convinced me in an hour.
Long before you were born, people like you had been written by Paul. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Someone should write that: "Philosophy for the common man". However, it might not spread far in book form. The common man doesn't read books, much less books on philosophy. Most religious people learned about their religion aurally through authority figures: clergy speeches, parents, school, etc. Instead, make the new message a TV or film series with various tie-ins: posters, web and social media, etc. I can't wait to read it!
Actually, Richard identified that we are already doing this through things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, etc. These really are the modern-day popular philosophies of our time (and, IMO, hold up far stronger than Christianity ever did!).
I love listening to Dr Carrier articulate his knowledge on the subject. He has definitely done his homework and an expert in his field. He is so much easier to understand as opposed to the confusing explanations from the various apologists. I've tried several times to listen and see if the apologists can give an understandable scholarly response. I think actual research material to support their beliefs are very limited so the apologist's argument becomes bogged down in semantics.
This was gold. Now all I need is a debate between this awesome dude and some other pro-historicity atheist and I'll be settled on the matter. About the question of philosophy as a substitute to religion, that would only get rid of the tradition crap while keeping an unnecessary spiritual drive. As a scientist it feels to me like we should also get rid of that spirituality/mysticism. Why can't we all be humans that accept the truth of our mortality and stop the futile searches for a meaning of life? And as for the religious morality and whose philosophical equivalent is ethics, science tells us there isn't an absolute one. But that's ok too, we don't need absolute ethics either, we can just decide as humans, independent from religious or scholars, what we think is good or not. That's what democracy is supposed to be after all. We could all realize for instance that if we're all being selfish dicks, life is going to be hell, so we make laws and social ethic codes that ban those behaviours and we're set. We don't need religions nor philosophy, we need science aka the truth, because the truth, yes it hurts, but it's amazing... I wouldn't give up my knowledge of anything even for the greatest of spiritual comforts.
You might like the Science of Consciousness, which seems to be where the religious/spiritual debate is heading. You might find interesting.... www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?
The whole Paul thing blows my mind!!! I just can’t believe Christians today accept Paul’s letters AND the Gospels. I feel like it’s gotta be one or the other.
Look up some of the surveys and polls that have been done asking Christians and Evangelicals about their knowledge (lack of, actually) of the bible. It's pretty revealing. Most are exposed to the bible only on Sundays and whatever bit the priest or preacher has selected for this that weeks sermon. Ironically, atheists tend to know the bible and theology much better than believers do.
@@11thstory in my opinion it is absolutely crucial, as the historical records research is in a class of its own. Richard Carrier needs to be heard by a vast audience.
@Stacy Caruso The truth: Jesus is a character in a book of debunked ancient fairy tales who tricked gullible believers into killing themselves: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools think fairy tales are real? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
I think a good tool of trying to figure out Christianity’s “origins” would be to look at the groups/sects that came out of Christianity centuries later: Protestantism, Seventh Day Adventists etc....in what I have learned from my own continuing journey through knowledge and self enlightenment, it seems that mass faith movements lose incredible steam after their initial “runs,” not being able to answer key existential questions and falling into mythological stories to maintain power over large human populations. They just reach a point where they are not enough. Fundamentalist movements try to purge and return beliefs - basically “repackaging the old” - in a vain attempt at re-selling the antiquated while relying on new “modern zeal” and “consumer marketing.” Our “god” Now is either a CEO, a Military Autocrat, or a Pit Boss in a casino crossed with a new car salesman or tele-marketer.
You've bought into crankery, Nurse Grace. No serious historian doubts the existence of a real-life Jesus - it's the best explanation of the evidence (like Paul writing in the 50s about meeting Jesus' brother James). You really have to twist like crazy and go way against Occam's razor to fall for the notion that Jesus never existed.
The historical Jesus was a 1st century king of E.dessa. Biblical: King Jesus Em Manuel of Judaea. Historical: King Izas Manu of E.dessa and Judaea. See book: Jesus King of E.dessa. Ralph.
@William Burns Jesus Christ this is accurate. I love when a writer writes "good, mentoring Janeway" lik in "The Omega Particle", but she really is reckless as hell and an egoist.
Sorry I haven’t had time to watch the entire, but how did Christianity start/emerge, according to Carrier? Did Paul and early Christians believe that Jesus was a celestial being? Can someone explain?
Hi, Thank you for the questions. I encourage you to watch the entire video, if you get a chance. We also have the interview timestamped in the description so you can jump to a question of interest. Carrier believes that Christianity evolved out of a Hellenistic Mystery Jewish sect. Mystery cults were prevalent during that time. His book "Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ" elaborates on your second and third question in his Amazon book description: "The earliest Christians believed Jesus was an ancient celestial being who put on a bodysuit of flesh, died at the hands of dark forces, and then rose from the dead and ascended back into the heavens. But the writing we have today from that first generation of Christians never says where they thought he landed, where he lived, or where he died..." Soon we will have another video that takes a slight but perhaps notable twist on Carriers position. Another interesting recommendation is "The Immortality Key by Brian Muraresku. www.brianmuraresku.com/the-immortality-key He denotes the connection that early Christianity had with the Greek's popular Dionysus cult and its relationship to psychedelics.
Carrier’s work is crucial to biblical criticism and I enjoy his work. I do not arrive at the same conclusion for every point, but his perspective is vital for arriving at the truth.
I agree with you. We provided the interview because it adds to the larger discussion on the historicity issue as well as context. Thank you for checking it out.
I'm only familiar with the basics about Christianity, so a lot of this detail goes over my head. I would need a schematic diagram to follow your explanation. But I do know that in a world where people would sit around a fire at night, any stories would have to be simple and entertaining to engage the audience. Most people couldn't read and write so they would require someone to spread the stories by word. For those religious academics who could read and write, I would imagine writing stories was in itself a new and exciting technique. There must have been a lot of experimentation on how you write a story with both language and plot. It would also suggest paper and ink had become available in affordable quantities. The Romans had industrialised the production of paper. Manuscripts would no doubt be traded and some become more popular than others. They would have been in competition with each other. There is also a tint of early socialism embedded within the gospels I've heard of. But fundamentally, it all based upon the ancient ceremony of human sacrifice to appease the gods.
Thank you for the insightful comments! Carrier argues that Christianity, like most religions, was shaped by a highly educated elite. The Gospels and letters are composites influenced by Homer, Greek and Roman hero motifs, Stoicism, Hellenism, Dionysus, Jewish mysticism, and Platonism, among others, making it a syncretic tradition. In its first few centuries, Christianity was notably diverse and inclusive, contributing to its widespread appeal. This spread was further influenced by factors such as the Jewish wars, the displacement of rebels and authorities, the roles of women and slaves, and the invention of the codex (bound pages). I differ slightly from Carrier in that I believe Christianity did not originate from a specific individual but rather emerged as a broader movement that spread throughout Greece and the Jewish diaspora.
I don't want to be insulting,however it seems to me that Americans attachment to fantasy is the main reason they are so susceptible to the magical thinking and conspiracy theories.
47:53 While being a Meta argument, I love how obvious this is. - If everybody is doing it, of course it could as well have started that way with Mark. - You keep the best parts of the old message, that people already are familiar with / still recognize, yet tune it to fit your own preferences. While often complete rewrites get thrown out, people want to still recognize some stuff they have grown up with: you can’t just write your own book, you always need to pretend that it is the way it was always supposed to be (- back to the original message; ancient roots, put it in the mouth of a famous wise man), but Mark really pulled it off. - And still people kept the Old Testament. And still people kept 4 Gospels. - It’s layers upon layers in many cases, yet sometimes it’s also alternative versions. - It’s a bit like parallel keeping of older versions of a Wikipedia article, or preserving most of the internet in the „Way back“-machine (- unless the NSA wants something scrubbed for National Security reasons: I wonder wether the NSA keeps an unscrubbed version of the „Way back“ machine for themselves…). Edit: I think he is spot on at the end: the alternative way to „historical“ tradition, is admitting that we just do Thought Experiments / Fiction / recognize that there is „story“ in „history“. And tbh: Rabbis and Philosophers have always done it - in the East and the West: wether they are stories along the lines of „someone asked Konfuzius / Rabbi X / wise man Y…“, fables or trolley problems, wether you read Isaac Asimov’s short stories or Ephraim Kishon‘s: working on the questions of your time often means spelling them out, as there is only so much you can hold abstractly on your inner stage of mind and treat hypothetically. - Just spell things out as stories, and things become easier to comprehend and teach and tell. Making up examples, and keeping the good ones, turning conundrums and truths into Bonmots or Haiku’s: that’s what writing is for. Not just the factual, but also the counterfactual: stories are the work bench of our mind.
Insightful and funny! The Gospel narratives and Plato's dialogues share a striking similarity in how both employ characters to advance complex philosophical and theological discussions. The Gospels are often presented through interactions with various individuals-disciples, Pharisees, and others-who serve as foils or prompts for his parables and lessons. Similarly, Plato uses Socratic dialogues, where Socrates engages with different characters, each representing various viewpoints or levels of understanding. Through these interactions, Plato’s writings convey philosophical ideas on justice, virtue, and the ideal society. I believe the Gospel narratives, written to a Hellenized Greek audience, offered a critique of Rome's war with the Jewish nationalistic factions utilizing the central character to condemn the religious hierarchy and to correct the nationalistic tendencies of his disciples. Not putting the Gospel writings within that political milieu would be like talking about New York in 2001 without mentioning 9/11.
As an anecdotal side note about the wayback machine getting scrubbed: about twenty years ago, a firm in Germany was working on a super-cavitating anti-torpedo-torpedo project named „Barracuda“. - When I tried to look it up later, the firm developing it had taken down its website for that product. But I could still find the website on the wayback machine. When I looked for it a while later, it was even gone from the wayback machine. - Maybe I’m too dumb to find it, and it‘s only deleted from Google search, but that experience made me suspect foul play / national security intervention.
I got to where I am politically by examining the things I claim to value and seeing how well they hold up to intense scrutiny. My favorite example is a category of what I consider to be human rights: The things you need to live. I was taught, "He who shall not work, shall not eat." Initially it was phrased to condemn people who couldn't work as well, but a reexamination of it revealed the word "Shall." Okay, so it only refers to people who refuse to work, right? So, the people who don't work because they are disabled, or don't because there isn't any work to be had, should still be fed, right? After all, the expression came from a time long before we ever solved the issue of food availability. Just like that, I was no longer angry about people using welfare. Sure, I could be mad at people abusing the system, but I was able to relax about them and treat them as just part of the cost of making sure people who don't deserve to starve, don't starve. Things carried on for a few years until I was brought to mind of the prison system and how poorly they are run. But at least we feed them, right? We have to. Not feeding them would be cruel. We accidentally acknowledge that even prisoners, those who are under confinement for breaking our laws, shall not be cruelly treated by starvation. If the lowest of the low, those who broke society's rules, still deserve to eat...then doesn't that mean everyone deserves to eat? They deserve to eat because, in the prisoners' case, if you don't feed them they will die, and any sentence becomes a death sentence. But that still means we acknowledge that our lowest humans have the right to that which they need for survival. Suddenly that opened a new sphere, and it's one of a few I dwell in now, and am still exploring, that everything you need to live is a human right. Clean air, water, and food. Shelter. Healthcare. *I say all of this to provide an example of what I think Richard Carrier is talking about when he says that we need the skills to question our worldviews and build our own based on what holds up and what doesn't.* I had help finding my legs here, sort of, in that I did have some exposure to formal logic and debate in high school and college. I had further help from people who didn't realize what they were doing. They thought they were just making conversation to help a slow watch pass faster, by first taking things people said, then taking an almost absurd extreme of them, to see where the break points were. While they weren't talking much about politics, it was still a practice which I carried with me out of the Navy and into civilian life. Yep. I arrived at a leftist worldview in part due to the accidental practice I got of examining worldviews while I and my crewmates were bored on our ship in the Navy, and from the necessity of admitting I was wrong if I was holding to a wrong position, a principle taught and reinforced in logic classes. I graduated a pro-life abstinence-only Christian Reaganite Republican. I am now a godless socialist. Like, an actual socialist, not the farce of state capitalism that is China, nor the lie of authoritarian bureaucracy that was (and still is) Russia. Bernie was my guy in 2016 and 2020, but in truth I want someone to the left of him as well. Anyway, good luck out there. I know I'm two years late to the discussion.
I would give you a fractal of thank yous. I resonate with you in my arrival to become a leftist. Enjoyed your creativity with words, from a linguist and non-religious person, but love me some Buddhism. Good luck out there.
This is why I find it so laughable that “fervent” US Christians are partial to Trump - a man who best approximates Satan from the Gospel - while vilifying Liberals, who are uniformly in favor of the ethical teachings of Jesus. Their “religion” has made them blind rather than elevating them. My father, a hateful racist, remains a fervent Catholic. He is not Christian in any way, except for showing up at Mass on Sundays.
Your explaining of the Hellenistic culture and mystery religions, the basic shell, eventually taken up by the Jews who called it their own was extremely helpful to me in understanding the picture. Each religion internalized their practises as self-discovered, leading to professing as the only authentic religion, stigmatizing other religions. This is why they have totally rejected the Mormons, Muslims, etc. I’ve always wondered why the Christians to strongly rejected the Muslim faith as false, but the Christians have followed the same path of developing and collating unauthenticated stories from a variety of sources to compile their own unique”Bible”. Your lecture has been enormously enlightening to me!
Very insightful! I agree. People must find their path inwardly. The Gnostics understood. Use experience as your guide. The error lies in trusting the outward. The guidance is inward.
I agree, at least to the extent that I am not going to believe any theology just because of peer pressure or because of what some ancient book says. I figure that if there is anything that God wants me to know, then he can tell me himself.
@@george5120 God, within you, is always speaking. The individual is often not attuned, not able to hear. In silence, inward silence, you will hear. God is like a television set within you, if I may use so crude an example. Although it is turned off, the broadcasting of insights and wisdom is always available when you turn it on ----- that is, when you are connected to the source through the consistent practice of inner silence.
I read the bible....once. Found some of it interesting and alot of it strange and scarcely relatable to today's society, very chauvinistic, found God to be so cruel that your supposed to worship him out of fear and I don't think I'd even want to know a good like that...
I love that he mentioned that spouses who _do_ believe in Jesus' historicity may be very hurt to have their scholarly spouses declare otherwise...because Darwin waited _decades_ to publish for exactly that reason. As for the fact that more and more people are deriving moral guidance from fictional literature, they always have; the difference is that _today's_ fictional literature isn't old enough for anybody to think it historically accurate. What's frustrating is that, among today's population, many who have turned their backs on Religion often just go on to _religiously_ embrace cobbled, _superficially_ understood tenets of miscellaneous Asian religions...erroneously thinking that being ancient and/or Asian somehow validates them...under the umbrella term of New Age Spiritualism, trading one delusion for another. This is because...as Dr. Carrier mentioned...our society doesn't teach people to think critically or skeptically; in fact, the prevalence of Religion _demands_ that children _not_ be taught such skills.
If there were dozens of other Gospels floating around in the 1st century that explains the Q to AT what is the big deal about Q there were probably A 100 Q documents I'm just making a point what's this stuff about Q when we had numerous other Gospels floating around That could have easily gotten lost forever so what's the big deal about a queue there was probably 6 or 7 queues
I think Carrier was making the point that we do not need a specific source gospel of Jesus's sayings for the Matthew and Luke differences. No mention of the any source gospels by the church fathers. according to the 4th century church historian, Eusebius.
I have to say I think Carrier makes the mythical Jesus idea a worthy hypothesis. I can't see it becoming the mainstream though given a few simple facts: Paul does seem to say he met the brother of Jesus, and we have a couple of other non-Christian sources that unambiguously place the Christ figure historically. There is a good case to be made against each of those points though... we'll never know.
If Jesus was crucified, he existed and since we know he was crucified he obviously existed and all those who say he didnt exist are just wrong. Bart Erhman Atheists have done themselves a big disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. It makes you look foolish. Bart Erhman
Being this specialized in a subject takes years and years of devoted scholarship in a narrow field. Reading helps but can't necessarily provide the natural recollection and synthesis of info that Carrier has
@@davidjackson6152 - So says an idiot. How many times have you read the Bible? Have you studied it? Do you have a PhD in early history? Do you have a degree at all? But he is the idiot?! Right.
Average intelligence, lots of experience and research. Other people could be in his shoes. I love his work, but he’s not exceptionally smart, just learned.
Theres a reason why theists can’t actually address Carrier’s arguments, and instead complain they’re not worth addressing. If it were so easy to debunk, you would think someone would have done it by now.
No one attains enlightenment (Christ Consciousness) if they do not feel worthy, and christianity can not exist without making people believe they are unworthy... crazy world:)
@@tompastian3447 You ARE The Temple of the Holy Spirit, Consciousness. WE are only judged by our higher selves, the Christ, Christ Consciousness. We learn by making mistakes. Embracing religion is a HUGE mistake. There is healthy pride and unhealthy pride. Pride that makes us think our "religion" is better than someone else's, is unhealthy pride. The 2nd commandment speaks to that... THAT is vanity. There is no excuse for parking any religion between us and our Consciousness, which is God, the Source.
Jesus is so obviously and proven to be a mythological construct and mutating legend based on old testament and older pagan religions demigods and savior miracle men mythemes, 100%fictiono doubt about it.
You're missing the key question after your final point, Dr. Carrier. I agree that philosophy is what replaces religion, but the key question then becomes: "Why is religion so attractive to people, and philosophy isn't?" It's because religion gives something philosophy doesn't, something essential that everyone desperately wants but very few actually have. Intimacy. Closeness. Love. However you want to call it, the belief in an omnipresent God has an amazing advantage of a perfect lover for anyone, something philosophy doesn't offer to the average person. You can get that kind of intimacy from philosophy if you go deep enough and realize how you're connected to everything through actions and consequences, but it's not the same as just telling someone that the greatest Being in the Universe knows everything about them and loves them deeply despite everything (and might help you avoid death). A whole lot of people can't even get love from their own families, and while it may be a delusion, you know a belief in the love of a God has comforted an uncountable number of people through some horrible times. This is why religion, specifically the Abrahamic religion, is so strong, and will probably not go away until the entire species undergoes a collective maturation, whatever form that takes.
We are thinking, feeling and sensing beings. Religion just doesn't provide ideas, but ritual and community which may give comfort in difficult times. However, we might be entering a new age of science which may offer a greater experience. I recommend the book "Stealing Fire" for anyone interested in moving beyond religion and philosophy. stealingfirebook.com/
Religion promises an eternal life (although provides no evidence of it) and people really don't want to die. So it has won out over philosophy for some, as philosophy only discusses this life.
For some , maybe mostly older generation, they need a belief in a higher power to get past the pain, to recover from grief. Faith and meaning to help them overcome. But maybe movies in the future will show how characters learn to grieve from and recover from watching or listening to someone's philosophy ?
Well first of all I would need confirmation that it wasn't a hallucination. If I then was able to confirm it was in fact god then I would at that point believe in it but I wouldn't follow it or its rules as required in the bible as many of them are repugnant and the god of the bible is a baby murdering tyrannical monster.
