The historicity of Jesus, An interview with Dr Richard Carrier 2020 - Was Jesus real?

[@eatfrenchtoast]

Good to see Carrier back out here. Hope he keeps making appearance's.

[@Crecganford]

Thanks Nick, he will be talking to me again in the new year, I'm just gathering more questions to ask. If you have any suggestions then please let me know

[@tarakerac]

@@Crecganford Ask Richard next time about the Psilocybin Cults, and if the Roman-Judeo civil war was purely economical or the Romans banned drugs :) Thnx

[@Crecganford]

@@tarakerac If time allows then absolutely, I'm quite interested in these aspect too. The interview should happen one the second week of January, so keep your eyes peeled

[@bluegreen6153]

@@Crecganford on that subject could you ask if he has read any of John Marco Allegro books and what he thinks of Allegro's theory's

[@Crecganford]

@@bluegreen6153 Hi, if time allows as we now have a heap of questions to ask for th enext video, but if not don't worry as I will ask him back again! He thoroughly enjoyed this chat so I hope he'll be willing to give me more of his time.

[@themythiclife8206]

Dr. Carrier’s work is well worth the money. I’ve read “On The Historicity of Jesus”, “Jesus From Outer Space”, “Hitler, Homer, Bible Christ” and “Proving History”. Earl Doherty’s “The Jesus Puzzle” is an easy read and was what got Dr. Carrier looking into the thesis. That’s a great introduction, followed by “Jesus From Outer Space”.

[@maykonnem1576]

Sou do Brasil e adoro os livros do Dr Richard Carrier. Tenho todos os seus livros, e na minha opinião, foi o único a fazer uma pesquisa seria nesse campo, ademais concordo plenamente com Richard Carrier em relação ao Jesus histórico, pois para mim, não há necessidade de existir um homem por trás do mito, mas pode muito bem, assim como a lenda de Moisés, a comunidade cristã tê-lo criado um Jesus para formalizar os seus ideais.

[@matthewsmolinsky5605]

Love Carrier, a rare independent scholar.

[@Crecganford]

Thanks for watching the video, I hope to speak to him again in the New Year

[@Crecganford]

@@matthewsmolinsky5605 I've removed Daniel from the channel as I felt he was very negative in his approach to commentary. I don't mind different views but not in the manner he was applying them.

[@PBAmygdala2021]

@@Crecganford I suspect that's the same Daniel who preaches on The Friendly Atheist and elsewhere.

[@zoookx]

Yep, because nobody wants to employ him.

[@matthewsmolinsky5605]

@@zoookx who Carrier? The people employ him, no need for some corporate entity to step in. We support him directly.

[@Facetiously.Esoteric]

I don't know how I've never come across Carrier before. Thanks for the introduction. It's nice to see an actual scholar espousing the same ideas and views I have had for decades. I need to get his books.

[@Crecganford]

Yes, when I first saw him he's ideas were well thought, and so I brought On the Historicity of Jesus. Very interesting book. My second interview with him was much better I think, a lot of great information on the New Testament.

[@mattlangevin9167]

Probably bc he's really creepy and started hiding after affidavits he submitted showed how much of a wierdo perv he is lol

[@localbod]

That was a really enjoyable interview. Thankyou for asking pertinent questions and allowing your guest to speak. High quality content.

[@inquisitivemind007]

Richard has the mind of Sherlock Holmes - he is simply the best.

[@Crecganford]

I'm very impressed by his research too. He is back in a few weeks so keep an eye out for that interview where we dig a bit deeper into this. Thanks for watching and your support!

[@thenobleone-3384]

He's a smart man I walked away from Religion completely cause of Dr Hagins who is similar to Richard.

[@Crecganford]

He definitely knows his stuff, thanks for watching

[@drtn6206]

Carrier is so well spoken and have great arguments. Earlier I did believe that Jesus might have been a real person, but now I'm highly doubting that

[@Crecganford]

Yes, he has a convincing argument. Thanks for watching :)

[@dpell3543]

I think there was an apocalyptic preacher whose followers saw him like Elvis and these stories were piled on him.

[@dpell3543]

I don't discount Carrier's ideas. And he leaves more for a historical jesus

[@drtn6206]

@@Crecganford thank you 👍

[@jmarsh5485]

I agree, very intuitive arguments. For me separation of Jesus from other religions in common thought. The gospels written in Greek is a major puzzle piece I've needed for awhile personally. Although I've been aware of the multiple writers being suspect. I think he's gonna get his book bought by me soon. Top stuff @Crecganford

[@craighorton9398]

I appreciate your scholarship and integrity Dr. Carrier.

[@herbieshine1312]

Oh the algorithm provides! So good to find this in my suggestions. Thanks for uploading. Fascinating as always with Richard Carrier.

[@Crecganford]

And thank you for watching

[@unrecognizedtalent3432]

Can't believe Crecganford interviewed Richard! This is great!!

[@WJSpies]

After a couple online lectures and a few podcast interviews I've come to view Dr Richard Carrier as the person who makes the most sense (logically speaking) on the validity/invalidity of a historical "Jesus." It doesn't take long (a couple/three decades) for a semi believable mythology to emerge on almost anything; things as common as say.. a baseball player's performance, or someone's national political stature, etc. etc. - that based on my own personal anecdotal, critical thought, observations - more or less believable... empirically speaking as it were. Thanks for this perspective, added to a dark foggy, too often politicised, mist of post-antiquity religious spiritually. With that said, however much is understandable, believable, credible, etc etc.. kinda sorta as it were. (Now impossible to truly sort out, after 20 or more centuries of defused religious subterfuge). Yikes! wtf.. frustration on steroids!

[@Crecganford]

Thanks for the feedback and supporting the channel by watching the video. I'm speaking to him again this week, so look out for that of this channel hopefully next weekend.

[@stevemaldonado1795]

Yes

[@Doct0rLekter]

I mean, shoot, a sect of American politics has managed to create a version of a known event that is patently false, and yet is able to convince millions of people of its supposed, “veracity”

[@RalphEllis]

But Carrier explains nothing about this era, he just says the gospels are mythical. If he had looked at the history, he would have found that Jesus was an AD 60s king of Syria and Judaes. Biblical: King Jesus Em Manuel of Judaea. Historical: King Izas Manu of E.dessa and Judaea. See book: Jesus King of E.dessa. Ralph

[@spacelemur7955]

@@RalphEllis If he read the sports pages, he would have found out that Jesus still appears repeatedly in Major League Baseball and can play every position!

[@unrecognizedtalent3432]

My two great history passions coming together! Jesus study and earlier creation myths! I'm aboard!

[@OmniphonProductions]

When I first heard Dr. Carrier talk about the Euhemerization of Jesus, it' blew my mind...and yet, having previously read Thomas Moore's _Utopia,_ the idea of presenting radical political views via _claimed_ interactions with a _fictional_ character made perfect sense. For that matter, Euhemerization "by committee" explains all the self-contradictory claims _within and throughout_ the New Testament quite effectively. (It also explains Moses, Noah, and many _Old Testament_ characters that _most_ Christian and Rabbinical scholars agree _also_ never really existed.)

[@Crecganford]

Spot on!

[@victormelendez7476]

Carrier is the best. He is definitely up there with all others:Harris, Ana hershi Ali, Dennett

[@bicokun]

Cool, I used to read Richard Carrier’s blog all the time and checked out his Historicity of Jesus stuff. Kind of amazed to see him on video, though, because I know he’s older than me but he definitely looks like he’s barely out of high school.

[@rafaeldiromano2085]

Great interview! Good and informative responses and questions. Good to see two people with a passion for history and valuing truth and accurate historical storytelling and daring to investigate them thoroughly.

[@mikekash6520]

FYI they do speak Greek in the whole Levant area it’s the international language of the time in that area Josephus speaks and writes fluent Greek that means he was educated in Greek and all the translations in Latin are synoptic

[@kellydalstok8900]

Josephus was an educated man. The son of a carpenter and fishermen would only have spoken Aramaic.

[@AIainMConnachie]

I enjoy listening to Dr Carrier. Sobering to realise that he too, is proselytising. Would love to run some Nietzsche past him. Some Alan Watts Rudolf Otto & Mircea Eliade too.

[@cageragepodcast2795]

I love the listing from minute to minute. Great interview! I get frustrated listening to hosts and debaters interrupt Dr. Carrier in other podcasts. Nice work man!

[@Crecganford]

Thanks for supporting the channel and the feedback, that's really appreciated. He's on again in a few weeks and I'll carry on letting him talk lots :)

[@chadwagoner7056]

Subscribed

[@Crecganford]

@@chadwagoner7056 Thank you :)

[@inquisitivemind007]

@@Crecganford can we post questions for you to ask him?

[@Crecganford]

@@inquisitivemind007 Of course, although I have plenty right now, but if I can fit some more in I will, if not we can get him back for a third time, it's no problem :)

[@Youtube304s]

Should have Dr. Michael Heiser on to point out some of the obvious flaws in a large part of Carriers positions. People really seem to want what this guy says to be true, its a fascinating study about people being bored with doctrine or misinterpreting what the scholarship actually says.

[@aidanhschofield]

I have not made a serious study of Michael Heiser on Richard Carrier but all I could find was no more than sophisticated jeering.

[@owretchedman]

I've never put together that the gospels are a response to 70ad. This makes a lot of sense. Good show.

[@gwynethvdoherty9584]

Awwwwe, I miss his curly hair..I know that is a flippant and superficial thing to say but I really liked his hair when it was long and curly...I think he is an awesome guy..charismatic and great communicator ...I'd love for him to visit Ireland touring Humanist, Secular and Freethinking groups here..😁 Thankyou for uploading this..☘️💪🏻😁

[@valalexander2502]

Great topic I've found a Jerusalem bible in a yard sale i was shocked about the wording in this book keep up your good work peace to all

[@noelliebtsie]

This was my thought as well. Bring back the curls! Edit: I think he's brought them back. 🥳

[@travisjazzbo3490]

Rockstar... Wish more were ready to hear truth

[@Crecganford]

He's just told me he wants to talk more in January, so look out for more truth then!

[@myphonroboshoes2091]

Love that the library he talks about has now had the first book decoded

[@adampatrick4917]

I've just recently finished Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, and this was a fantastic listen!!

[@Crecganford]

Thank you.

[@damenwhelan3236]

"It's like we have a hero's tale of the USA written in Italian..." Columbus just sprang to mind for some reason...

[@juanjoseph]

Columbus has really nothing to do with the US tho

[@jamesfrancese6091]

@@juanjoseph Right, and that would exemplify how much a figure can be ahistorically mythologized - even with the figure’s exploits fully recorded in the early modern period, and a fairly clear archaeological and written record of the continent, along with a fully operational educational system ensuring that >95% of the current population is literate and exposed to “history”, there is a common understanding in the US that Columbus “discovered and founded America”, and is thus an “American hero”. There are statues of him everywhere, and Columbus Day was declared a national US holiday.

[@juanjoseph]

@@jamesfrancese6091 It is a bad example because italian to the US is not the same as koine greek to the ancient mediterranean world. Also, Columbus is a "hero" whereas Jesus is quite more than just a hero or even a profet. There's a reason why you need to know greek and latin when studying the ancient medieterranean...

[@jamesfrancese6091]

@@juanjoseph Well, the process of Columbus’ contemporary “heroization” was spurred mostly by the political advocacy of Italian immigrants in the US, who came to exert a huge influence on American culture in the 20th century. So it is true to say that Italian cultural influence was necessary for Columbus’ later stature in US historical narrative, but yes, not via linguistic hegemony as you point out. I don’t think we’re going for an overwhelming equivalence here; there are just amusing similarities which make for an analogy.

[@bazelarobert144]

ok, but what about Jesus on a toast bread??? isn't that the strongest proof that Jesus is real and alive,you never mentioned that,probably you don't have any argument against that. Appreciate your research and your work.

[@Crecganford]

Good point, well made :)

[@MrKenny777]

It's funny that Jesus mythicists are ridiculed when it all boils down to what one believes is most plausible. A man who rose from the dead and fed the 5,000? Or a mythical amalgam of all the pre Christian gods? I believe the latter.

[@jonathanbrown351]

Loved it Xians the fabricators!! Well, i didn’t realise by how much re gospels. Very enjoyable

[@jackwilmoresongs]

Well, I think Carrier didn't find the truth he hungered for when he was into Taoism and turned his announce instead to oppose the Christian Gospel. "When a man's folly brings him to ruin his heart rages against Jehovah." (Prov. 19:3) Why didn't he go get his doctorate in eastern religions ?

[@YY4Me133]

@@jackwilmoresongs Provide credible evidence that Jesus actually existed and Richard Carrier will change his mind.

[@judyives1832]

@@jackwilmoresongs No one’s “heart rages against jehovah” because there’s no good evidence that he exists. Theists are always accusing atheists of being “angry at god”, but you can’t be angry at someone that doesn’t exist. We can be angry at the harm religion does, but not at an invisible, undetectable, imaginary deity.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

@@judyives1832 Sure they do. One expression of this displeasure is to claim God imaginary. Another expression is to twist the mentality around in pretzel shapes imagining things like a DNA molecule is the result of lucky accidents. Rage, annoyance, desperation, lampooning, ridicule, caricature, - other forms of suppressing the conscience.

[@mythbuster1483]

@@jackwilmoresongs “The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded.” So let me know when you find some evidence to support absurd claims about an *INVISIBLE MAGIC SKY GENIE* , or that he impregnated Jesus’ mother 2,000 years ago, or that Jesus was a *VIRGIN-BORN DEMIGOD WITH SUPERPOWERS* and that his *ROTTING CORPSE MAGICALLY RETURNED FROM THE DEAD* before levitating bodily into outer space, or evidence for the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, etc.

[@spanellaful]

The fact that most of the scriptures is “made up” doesn’t mean that Jesus was not an historical character. The Carter’s hypothesis makes sense only for the Protestants that that adopted the doctrine of “sola scriptura”.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Like Dr. Carrier, I have never encountered any credible evidence for the historicity of Jesus or any of the events surrounding him as depicted in the gospels. I researched this topic exhaustively for 15 months defending my thesis (MDiv, Ecumenical Studies).

[@superlight7654]

Please investigate the Shroud of Turin. The last examination confirmed the person appearing on the Shroud confirms what was written in the Bible. The image cannot be explained using the latest technology. A group of people including Jewish scientists carried out the examination. An earlier examination took a sample of the cloth but it had been contaminated due to the cloth being mended due to fire and water damage. The image is 3 dimensional. The person on the cloth has all the markings of crucifixion. Unfortunately, the teachings of Jesus have probably been controlled and manipulated by those seeking power and control. Earlier claims that the Shroud are a fake from the middle ages does not stack up with the evidence. I understand how people can believe this author. Evidence is not always forthcoming in all situations. Traditions and beliefs can be passed down by each generation without written evidence. Consider the Australian Aborigines, they did not record details as we do but their knowledge about their environment and ancestors cannot be matched.

[@KipIngram]

53:00 - The power that detailed modern Christian beliefs have to "insert themselves" into a topic is hard to overestimate. It even happens in fiction. I am a fan of an urban fantasy book series by Jim Butcher called The Dresden Files. Christian-related themes appear to a limited extent in the series, along with elements of Norse mythology and more. Jim is kind of an equal opportunity writer in that regard. Anyway, I help moderate the Reddit community devoted to the series, and I am constantly amazed at how people will import Christian ideas and apply them to the story in ways that are *not* justified by the published words themselves. But you just can't argue with these people in a rational way - they're dead set and they will not budge. So it's a really strong effect.

[@SoulStar2332]

The argument that the similarities of the savior God myths shifts the burden of proof for Jesus' historicity feels misguided. Why isn't it just as likely Jesus was a real figure who's narrative was blended with popular myths of the time?

[@thoughtful1233]

That's certainly possible. But the use of other stories to form the Jesus story makes Jesus's existence more superfluous to the existence of his religion. Thus it does move the needle towards greater uncertainty in his existence. But it is only one piece of the puzzle.

[@ArcaneMormon]

I think a better question would be, why is Jesus the only Euhemerized god who is taken as historic?

[@humbleopulence]

I agree with Arcane Mormon. It's far too strange to accept that of all the euhemerized Gods, that the last on the list is real when his predecessors aren't. If anything the first would be real, and the rest a copy. But we know that even the first (Inanna) was also not considered real Therefore, neither can Jesus

[@schen7913]

It's because of all the _other_ weird things. Like how Paul doesn't know or talk about knowing a single detail of Jesus's life and deeds. Or how, if Paul is telling the truth about never having met Jesus, it means he _hallucinated Jesus_ after Jesus was already dead. If Jesus is historical but not miraculous, yet Paul can still hallucinate him, then that makes it more likely that _everyone_ could get away with hallucinating him. At some point, the needle moves enough.

[@თemo]

Thanks for the video.

[@carolynoneill3423]

Thanks!

[@Crecganford]

Thank you so much for watching and your support. It is appreciated.

[@BruceTGriffiths]

Glad to hear Richard speaking. I am curious if he could comment about the Jesus of Jewish angelology and if he could expand on that evidence.

[@Crecganford]

Thanks for watching the interview Bruce, I'm hoping to speak to him again in the new year so if I get a chance to ask him I will.

[@ghostriders_1]

He has lectures on KZbin going into this. Jesus is first identified in the written record by Philo before Paul in the pages of Zecharia (sic) .

[@ValeriePoynter]

Loved it! Thanks 😊

[@Crecganford]

Thank you

[@dessertstorm7476]

One thing I would ask any academic with a fringe theory or controversial stance is where does their opinion deviate from other respected scholars. There must be some key points that one side sees totally differently or just ignores. What are those key things.

[@Crecganford]

That is a sign of a good listener, to what the person who disagrees with you knows that you do not.

[@KipIngram]

1:06:16 - How much would it cost to recover that library "right"? Is it something one could envision funding via a Kickstarter campaign or something like that? I would contribute to that for sure.

[@Crecganford]

Work is just starting on it now, the first lines of the first scroll were recovered earlier this year. And so perhaps in the next ten years something may happen, very exciting times.

[@EmL-kg5gn]

17:44 In 1 Corinthians 15 in the translations I grew up reading Paul talks about the appearances of Jesus to various people after his death, which are said to be evidence of his resurrection on the third day. Is Paul’s authorship of that passage in question? Is there translation errors? Or am I somehow misunderstanding something about the way that gets interpreted from this perspective?

[@KipIngram]

Is that a Lagrange point space habitat in Dr. Carrier's background? I'm unsure - it looks more like it might be a torus-shaped thing, as opposed to the cylindrical ones I've seen previously.

[@celestejones6315]

So... Real question... Does anyone here happen to know specifically the reasons why he shrugs off Acharya S's work on mythicism as "crank"? I ask because I've not seen much from her work directly besides a couple of interviews and whatnot, but all I know mostly is that she was criticized with some of the exact same criticisms Carrier still even gets today, even from some of the same people (looking at you Bart Ehrman, lol). And I plan to read her work at some point just out of curiosity regardless. However, the only criticism I've seen him give is that she was wrong specifically about the birth story of Jesus as it would pertain to a comparison she made with Horus, because I know he's real big on getting everything right with Horus misinformation that's widespread on the internet lol, but is there more to it than that? I've been a huge fan of Carrier's work on mythicism for several years now, and I'm just curious what it's about, I guess. Because it just seems like it would be weird and out of character for him to point out one mistake she made and then debase the rest of her work as bogus, particularly when after making that mistake she couldn't have even self-corrected it because she died not long after due to cancer... And from what I know of her, she knew several foreign languages including ancient Greek, she specialized in Greek classics, among other credentials and experience. I would be super disappointed and surprised to think that it would be anything along the lines of having to do with her not having a PhD or having access to certain source materials or anything like that alone, and I would seriously doubt any of these cases to be true. But, as much as I honor his work, I know he can also sometimes put too much weight on things like asserting that peer-reviewed research is unbiased and can put it on a pedestal at times as the end-all-be-all with academic research (when having been a peer-reviewed author under my maiden name, I can say it's *definitely* not unbiased, lol) among other sometimes overly rigid assertions when it comes to research and historical methodologies I've noticed here and there, though I appreciate his thoroughness and realize that's a major burden that does fall on Atheist scholars or activists within a Christian hegemonic society... So I'm just curious... But again, I don't know much about her work beyond that, as well as how most of her criticisms are just about verbatim the same Carrier gets himself all the time. So does anyone here happen to know more about this...?

[@psilosydetrusenses4125]

I’ve always been curious. If churches didn’t exist yet then how was Paul writing to a church? I am having trouble even believing the letters were even sent at all and not written right there in Corinth etc.

[@Crecganford]

That is a good point, I hope to have Richard back soon, so can ask him that :)

[@cageragepodcast2795]

@@Crecganford my understanding is that a"church" was anywhere a teacher taught(theology.)

[@dpell3543]

The churches started in people's homes. They evolved from there

[@psilosydetrusenses4125]

@@cageragepodcast2795 wait. So let me get this straight? The letters were supposedly sent to regular people that already believed the stuff he was talking about? Not to an actual institution? This is getting fishier and fishier.

[@psilosydetrusenses4125]

@@dpell3543 Right. So these letters are like personal stories sent to people that already believe it. And he wrote these things “so that you may believe” 🤦🏾‍♂️😂😂

[@djangohill55]

I haven't seen a Dr. Carrier interview for years. Hehehe, is this the start of a come back or have I just been out of the loop for too long?

[@thomaspayne7617]

Is there a timeline graphic anywhere that shows all the renowned people (historians, leaders, etc) that would have been present (temporally and spatially) during Jesus's time?

[@Crecganford]

That's a good question, I'm not sure if I have one to hand, but I will look around and post it here if I find one.

[@ejv1963]

@Thomas Payne, Check David Fitzgerald @ 38:04 in kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2iwg3Z8Yr6Unpo

[@thomaspayne7617]

@@ejv1963 thank you for that link and time stamp.

[@unicyclist97]

Interesting that Carrier said Pilate committed suicide, which is a dubious claim from Eusebius rather than a reliable earlier source.

[@TonyMidyett]

Dr. Carrier is broadcasting from the Ringworld! 😊

[@oscartjerrild9689]

I would have lived to see him dissect some of the actual sources that people cite as proof that there probably was a historical Jesus. For example, I've seen ppl cite roman execution records. Most of the time he speaks about the possibility of creating a figure like Jesus without any historicity, which I don't doubt is possible. But surely there must be some form of possible evidence that the majority of scholars point to when they say, he most likely was a historical figure.

[@codewordslinkydog]

Great conversation

[@TerryUngerFree]

Agreed. The greatest tale ever sold.

[@badunius_code]

35:55 important thing to know about Pilate is that his position in Judia was a punishment, an exile. His career was basically ruined at this point. Also he was a hard-core quirites. So he had a very hard time putting together Jewish poverty and Perushim priests wearing literal kilograms of gold as ceremonial dresses. And keep in mind that those dresses were buried along with their owner, because it was sacrilegious to reuse this gold.

[@Sal.K--BC]

1:02:23 If Paul sent the letters that he wrote to the different congregations, why would he have copies of them? Unless, he wrote them out twice, which seems unlikely.

[@Crecganford]

Good question, and thanks for watching. I don't actually know if we have the original letters, but I'll be putting a question to Richard this week about this. Thank you

[@MrKreinen]

Suppositional thinking is one of the great strengths of mystics "channeling" visions, making prophecies and writing scriptures that speak to people profoundly, many of which bare the style of a folk-religion of culture-hero allegories. Historic literalism was the downfall of Christianity's relevance.

[@stevemitchell8267]

Dr. Carrier should own his opinion expressed in his Book On The Historicity of Jesus that the odds are one in 12,500 against historicity and not just mention his view that the most favorable odds are one in three if you look at all the factors most favorably to the historicity view.

[@kylecross8770]

Was there evidence in Roman archives about Pontius Pilot getting in trouble for letting Jews practice their law? Or would that be too vague?

[@mikev4621]

Considering Celsus lived in the 2nd Century, is it likely any of his works would be buried by the AD 79 eruption at Herculaneum?

[@AdeebaZamaan]

Christianity won because Constantine had an amazing mom!

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

When, if ever, are we going to get Carrier V. Ehrman?

[@Crecganford]

I would like to see that... if it hasn't happened in 5 years, I will make it happen if they're both willing to participate, or that's my hope

[@dpell3543]

Ehrman's just not interested

[@unicyclist97]

Carrier caught Ehrman lying and proved it. Ehrman hasn't talked to him since. Unfortunately Ehrman's fanboys won't read Carrier's evidence.

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

@@unicyclist97 Can I ask what the lie was? Is it on Carrier's blog somewhere?

[@mythbuster1483]

@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Search Google for "Bart Ehrman and the Elusive Historical Jesus" by Raphael Lataster.

[@sebolddaniel]

Hipparchus invented Trigonometry (Carrier mentions him). It is only appropriate that the Hipparchus satellite put up in the eighties and I believe another one put up later extended astronomers' ability to do very accurate trigonometric measurements of the distances of the nearest stars by measuring triangulations from opposite ends of Earth's orbit looking out at some star. Our earlier from-Earth parallax measurements were not all that accurate past twenty or thirty light years. We used to believe that Betelgeuse was eight hundred light years but have reduced it to five hundred, I believe. Most importantly was to get an accurate measurement to the first "standard candle" which is the North Star, the nearest Cepheid variable star at 433 light years which gives us the ability to do accurate luminosity measurements to Cepheid stars in galaxies up to 130 million light years, which are nearby galaxies. Beyond that we have to use other "standard candles"

[@michaeljcross87]

I appreciate a much of this and I enjoy listening to this channel but I do think there is a significant amount of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. I have a PhD in theology and religious studies from the University of Louvain in Belgium. So many historical documents from Jesus' time mention Jesus including the Jewish Roman writer Josephus and Tacitus. That there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth is almost undeniable in my opinion. There are so many sources not including the canonical gospels which mention the historical Jesus. I am fairly good with ancient Greek and Greek was the lingua franca of that time in that region. Even Romans spoke Greek. The author of the Gospel of Matthew is obviously Jewish. I don't think that can be denied. I am not convinced of your arguments. There is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus. It's not about making up lies at all. The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as Apostle Paul, Josephus, Q and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews. I think there are quite a few holes in your arguments.

[@Chromexus]

The references in Josephus have been discussed and appear to me ( and others) to be forgeries. At any rate, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus but wrote his histories many years later. Tacitus mentioned Christians, which Dr Carrier and others cheerfully acknowledge existed, but was not a witness to the life of Christ. The one mention in "Paul's" letters is ambiguous and , should it prove to be a mention of a blood brother of Jesus, poses doctrinal problems in any event. In any event, Dr Carrier and others have books on these subjects that delve into the issues. Even should you disagree with them, the books are worth reading.

[@michaeljcross87]

@@Chromexus Thank you for your response. I am considering to read them and I will continue to research this subject. I am open to learning more. But I would like to know the grounds which are used for claiming that the writings of Josephus are a forgery. That's a serious claim. Josephus was a Jew and was no friend of Christians. I don't know what motive he would have had to claim that Jesus was a real person. If he knew this Jesus was fake or perhaps just some spirit then he would have said so. Doctrine doesn't matter to me here. What matters, I believe, is that a Jesus of Nazareth existed and that he was crucified at the time of Pontius Pilatus. Obviously people claimed he was God. That's another thing. I think we also have a great evidence for the existence of Mohammad. That the angel Gabriel appeared to him and that he was God's greatest prophet is another matter, a more theological matter. I think, simply as someone who uses the historical critical method, that a Jesus of Nazareth existed. He's even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls: see blogs.timesofisrael.com/jesus-discovered-in-dead-sea-scrolls/

[@Chromexus]

@@michaeljcross87 What is being claimed ( by many) is not that "the writings of Josephus are forgeries" but that the "testimonium Flavium", which is the only direct reference to this Jesus ( there were several "Jesusues" around this time, some were revolutionaries that opposed Rome) was a Christian interpolation, added to the text much later by Christians because for Josephus to have not mentioned Christ was an embarrassment to the Church, which was rising in power. Can't re,member the name of the desert father this was attributed to but a little googling will churn up a lot of scholarly reseach that questions the mention (s) of Jesus. They are identified as interpolations ( common themn) by later writers. Carrier recently addressed this again :www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437 To me, that is the most persuasive argument. therefore if Josephus is part of the doctrine of "multiple attestation" I would have to discount it, as do most. The other "sources '" you cite are biblical and have been shown not to be reliable by Carrier, Price, and other scholars. There are many historical errors in the bible and the synoptics are, in any case, thought to be largely copied , either from Q ( who some say does not exist) or Mark. In many cases, word for word, which makes "multiple" attestation highly unlikely. as just one example, it is acknowledged that many of the letters of "Paul" were not written by "Paul". But even so, Paul does not largely speak of Jesus as a human who walked the earth. So there is also that. while I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe, you have not cited anything factual that would cut against Dr. Carrier's arguments. This includes the very sloppy argument that you posted from Israel Times. AS the article itself says, most scholars reject this interpretation.

[@michaeljcross87]

@@Chromexus Paul writes very often about Jesus the man. See 1 Corinthians 15 where he talks about Jesus dying. I am not convinced by the arguments here that Paul simply thought of Jesus as a spirit and not a man. 1 Corinthians is universally accepted as being entirely authentic. All of Paul's writings emphasize the crucifixion and that Jesus was a biological descendant of David "according to the flesh". Paul also writes in Greek because it's the lingua franca of the time. Everyone spoke Greek. It was the common language. I think there are many holes in his argument here that he hasn't addressed. Also, Carrier's theories are very fringe and most scholars agree that there was in fact a Jesus of Nazareth, whether you believe that he was God or not is a different story.

[@michaeljcross87]

@@Chromexus I would also like to see Carrier evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of each attested event or saying represented in the gospels. These criteria are the criterion of dissimilarity; the criterion of embarrassment; the criterion of multiple attestation; the criterion of cultural and historical congruency; the criterion of "Aramaisms". The authors of the gospels, and not just the canonical gospels, didn't have access to all the information we have today. They were quite limited. That they could piece together such a "made up" story in the first century doesn't seem possible. I would recommend reading about the "triple tradition" which is material shared by the three synoptic gospels, and the "double tradition" which is shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark - this is the Q source. The unique material in Matthew and Luke is Special M and Special L. There is a chart which I am unable to post here but is based on A.K. Honoré, "A statistical study of the synoptic problem", Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr.-Jul., 1968), pp. 95-147.

[@Communitis]

When he mentions that there are lots of models that fit the evidence, this is the most important point when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and which must ultimately prevail over the theologically reinforced historical consensus. There are definitely models for a historical Jesus that can't be true, but there are simply too many models and mechanisms that can explain the mythos of Christianity as historicist. There's no debate that Christianity came about through mythmaking to support specific theologies; the myth that is disputed is the idea that the man himself is a myth. When there are so many that can be so easily true as the rest to explain the collection of literature that mentions this particular savior figure in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, the conclusion that this is inherently and irrevocably a practice restricted to pure speculation is unavoidable, and it is impossible to say that any speculation is not wild, pointless, and erroneous by default. The fact that we can only speculate on the subject, and must conclude that any of such is wild and erroneous, in addition to that there will most likely never emerge sufficient evidence even to narrow it down any further, means any certain models saying we know anything, or that there is any serious likelihood that there was a man, must be dismissed on lacking evidence and sound historical methodology. It is true that the mythicist hypothesis is equally speculative under the circumstances, but it's the only one that can arguably be said not to be wild speculation that tempts something that requires any further proofs to say it holds better than the rest. It's the only one that doesn't make a positive claim, and what can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The positive claim requires definite proofs to hold, and the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant forwarding the hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this, combined with the wealth of evidence we have of mythmaking, legendary accretion as an actual tendency, religious trends and styles, even rhetorical and literary practice, and parallels to existing literature and mythology belonging to the culture that produced them, all weigh more heavily in favor of the hypothesis that the man himself was as much myth as the stories about him. Even without that, the proposition that there was both man and myth is a more complicated set of circumstances than there was just myth, which requires a bunch of additional complicated history and human involvement and activity to be propositionally true at the same time as what the other proposition suggests; active, fervent mythmaking. We have evidence of that in spades, though we equally have evidence of a lot of apocalyptic preachers and messianic claimants that sound similar and fit the description equally well, but no evidence of a specific man that we can say was definitely _the_ Jesus Christ, and no evidence that supports any version of him that is conclusive and identifiable in any way. We have no evidence that precludes the possibility that there was such a man, but the one thing we do have evidence of is the practices that must be going on in which that has to occur, we just don't have evidence to conclude it was the only thing going on, i.e., that it is the only _plausible_ explanation. Ockham's razor states that the simplest explanation is the best, so mythicism, therefore, must ultimately win out as the most sensible hypothesis based on probability, which must hold given that Hitchens' razor must mean we cannot accept what we cannot prove. The two combined mean that, while we can't be sure that there was no man, we can better accept the more easily true statement that 'there was never a man,' since we don't need one to explain what we find, and the statement 'there was a man' cannot hold without sufficient proof. But we can say that the former is more true than the latter with the kind of evidence we have that can better be explained thereby, and less well explained by a hypothesis requiring more going on than what we see, and more evidence to show it. It would take so much more to be certain there was a man, and that this is not what it looks like, that the proposition that there was a man comparatively borders on the preposterous and absurd, given what we know about the human tendency to stretch the truth and create comforting soothsayings and myths to advance theological imperatives, and the value of evidence and reasonable estimation of what we know, and know to be likely. It would be an equally absurd statement to say there couldn't have been a man, or that lacking evidence is enough to conclude with reasonable certainty that there was not one, but to say we have enough evidence to affirmatively uphold historicity tempts absurdism more than saying, 'we don't have enough evidence to truly know, but there was most probably not a historical Jesus.'

[@RalphEllis]

The Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug by Heron of Alexandria. The feeding the 5,000 with bread and fish, was the knowledge (bread) of the Age of Pisces (two fish). The magi coming to the birth was highly likely, if Jesus was a prince of E.dessa. The parable of the vineyard owner was talking about Rome (tenant) and Ed.essa (landlord). The teaching the priesthood at 12 years old, was simply a high-class bar mitzvah. The crucifixion was recorded by Josephus in Ad 70 - exactly the same. And Carrier is wrong, the gospels were written in Aramaic first, and translated into Greek by Epaphroditus. R

[@KipIngram]

My knee-jerk feeling about the historicity of Jesus issue is that it really depends on whether you're going for the whole enchilada or not. If you are talking about a divine Jesus, then whether or not he existed matters a whole lot - it's the entire question in fact. But if you're debating between "didn't exist" and "existed as an ordinary guy," then... who cares? It doesn't really matter that much beyond general historical interest. I don't mean to denigrate the study of the issue - it's certainly *interesting* as a historical question. But it really just becomes a question just like whether an individual named Homer existed. Interesting, but not terribly significant to us as a culture today. I would argue that the social factors in our culture today that make this a significant issue arise from people taking the other position - that Jesus was real and also divine.

[@henrybyrd5402]

Interesting but I could only listen. Trying to watch with the constantly disappearing and reappearing chair and headphones was too distracting.

[@Crecganford]

Thanks for your support, and for watching. He's background has caused a lot of debate

[@Mighty.Titan1]

The following is not to prove anything, it is just an Interesting observation. Ok, there are three divisions in the Tanakh. Let's ascribe number 12 to the book of The Twelve (minor prophets) instead of number 1 (as one book). And let's view the book of Ezra and Nehemiah as two separate works. Now, let us look at the structure of the N.T. You may notice a 3-part division there as well. Namely: 'gospels', 'letters' and just a single book, 'the book of Revelation'. The structure of the N.T. in a way seems to mirror that of the Hebrew Bible. The 'gospels' section (4 Gospels plus one "different" - Acts) reflects the Pentateuch (4 plus one "different" - Deuteronomy). So, we have that numerical correspondence, '5' vs '5'. The 'letters' (total of 21) would have a numerical representation by the '3' (a result of an operation 'sum digit'). This reflects numerical value of the third section of Tanakh - Writings (Ketuvim). Here Ezra-Nehemiah is included, and this section contains 3 books of wisdom, group of books called "five scrolls" (5), and 4 books of histories (when Ezr/Neh is viewed as 2). That gives a total of 12, and numerical representation by the '3' (in operation 'sum digit'). So, there it is '3' vs '3' correspondence. And the number 1, representing the last section of the N.T., 'Revelation' numerically reflects Prophets (Naviim), the second division of Tanakh, where we have 19 books, when Minor Prophets are taken as 12 individual books (as proposed above). So, here it is '1' vs '1' reflection. I noticed a comment here or elsewhere to the vlogger about 3, 6, 9. I have read almost everything Nicola Tesla published. Often one will find that 'that famous quote' about 3,6,9 is assigned to N. Tesla. I dare anyone to show us the source of the quote. Good luck with that. '3' 39 books in the O.T. (Protestant). 3+9=12; 1+2=3. '6' 24 books in Tanakh. 2+4=6; '9' 27 books in the N.T. 2+7=9. To me, texts like Genesis, Exodus, Ezekiel, Daniel or Revelation are purely kaballistic works.

[@barrylyndongurley]

Evidence based thinking is not likely to ever take hold beyond a small percentage of people. If we humans can avoid destroying ourselves for at least one more millennium, maybe that could rise to 5%. Until then, let's not pray, but rather act toward that goal, using all our patience and humor to help make the medicine go down.

[@jennifersilves4195]

…through reading science and thinking logically and stuff.

[@davidmontoute2074]

The original Jewish Christianity certainly didn't "die out" as Carrier says. It continued to live on amongst the Arabs and eventually evolved into Islam. Simply check the parallels between Elkasite theology and praxis, and those of early Islam.

[@Crecganford]

Thats very interesting, I shall look into that more. Thankyou

[@davidmontoute2074]

@@Crecganford , this Turkish author has explored some of the theses concerning "Jewish Christianity" and its links to Islam. If you look around, you can find a free PDF copy of the book. But i's worth buying anyway, as it puts often complex academic ideas into digestible form: www.amazon.co.uk/Islamic-Jesus-International-Mustafa-Akyol/dp/1250199352 That was a great interview with Richard, by the way. Thanks for posting it.

[@Crecganford]

@@davidmontoute2074 I'll take a look and thanks for your feedback

[@TGReign]

People are certain God does not matter like they breathe with certainty. Thank you for sharing. Curse demys Air Jesus.

[@Cat_Woods]

If the author of Matthew was bilingual with Aramaic and Greek, why did he only know the Septuagint mis-translations of the supposed "prophecies" in the Hebrew Bible? Why wasn't he quoting from the Hebrew or from an Aramaic translation? Always seems to me that the author of Matthew was not a very educated Jew by Jewish standards, despite his arguing for a Torah-observant sect of Christianity. Maybe he was a Greek who actually was circumcised to convert and didn't like that other people were being allowed to convert without doing that?

[@doncamp1150]

It takes a strange reading of 1 Corinthians and Galatians to conclude that the Apostles only encountered Jesus i visions. It also is a strange reading of Paul to say that there is no reference to historical events related to Jesus. The crucifixion is of course the most often mentioned. The fact that Jesus was of the lineage of David. You cannot be of anyone's lineage unless you are a real person. There is also, of course, the mention of Jesus' brother and the other Apostles who had seen the risen Jesus. How can one be risen unless he was once alive and then dead? Puzzles everywhere.

[@unicyclist97]

It only takes reading what Paul directly and repeatedly said to understand that he was very explicit about only having visions and scripture as his sources. Both the historical and mythical Jesuses include human bodies that were staked, so that doesn't argue for either position. Paul doesn't actually say Jesus was descended from David, he said he was manufacture from the sperm of David. As this appears to be based on a prophecy, it could have been made up for either kind of Jesus.

[@unicyclist97]

Paul doesn't mention Jesus' brother. That's a common misquote. He actually mentioned a brother of the lord, and repeatedly points out that all Christians are brothers of the lord. He doesn't show any signs that there was any other kind of way to be a brother of Jesus, in fact. That's evidence against historicity.

[@doncamp1150]

@@unicyclist97 I have to disagree. He had what he called a vision on the Rd. to Damascus, but he did not receive the "gospel" he speaks of at that time. That came later. Probably in Arabia. He also says that he met Jesus in the same way as the Apostles did, that is in a physical appearance. The physical resurrection is the point of 1 Cor. 15 after all.

[@doncamp1150]

@@unicyclist97 Shy single out James as the brother of the Lord when surely Cephas would have been as well? Inn Greek it is τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. That is THE brother of the Lord. If James had been one of many including Cephas it would have not had the definite article τὸν.

[@donrayjay]

Is that a New World Translation on the shelf? Old style black cover version

[@Crecganford]

Yes, I have a few versions of the bible on my bookshelf, and many more as ebooks

[@KarensOpinionsMayDiffer]

“ Christians were fabricators” “Prolific liars“ So nothing has changed. 😆 Very thankful to be introduced to Richard Carrier, who validates my lifelong beliefs.

[@webbess1]

Cool, now do Muhammed.

[@mark6809mm]

Do the Religion of Peace. Fuck off they’ll kill him!😅

[@sebolddaniel]

Carrier walks on water. Kipp Davis says Carrier is not a real scholar and is "despicable." Daffy Duck agrees with him: "He is dethpicable" I took a gander at my Bible--I have one--and Richard is correct. Paul is at the end. That is amazing because he was first and had nothing to say about Jesus' life. I just assumed that Paul was at the beginning because I have been listening to these Myth Vision channels for so long and pictured Paul's letters as first because he was first.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

54:24 Does anyone know exactly who he is referring to: "Akaria S", ", Atkins"?

[@dw1166a]

Acharya S. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

[@christianityisunstoppable4155]

Osiris was know mythology. I was hoping for some of these saviour gods and how they’re the same. Saying you have evidence and presenting evidence are different things. I think the reason he didn’t give any “comparative “ saviour gods is he know his arguments are weak. Give us some names. Let’s see the evidence.

[@dorothyvanbrocklin2424]

Does it make you feel like a man to slander Acharya when she's not here to defend herself and you Mischaracterize her work?

[@davidmontoute2074]

I agree. Early Acharya was a bit unreliable, but her work greatly improved later on. Her "Did Moses Exist" was excellent. Carrier is a bit too dismissive of her. He also references "Atkins", when he really means Atwill. Maybe a chill pill is in order, so he can slow down a little, and take a breath.

[@skaifers189]

What are your thoughts on the Judas the Galilean as Jesus theory?

[@unicyclist97]

They're not similar enough, and are both explicitly separated in Acts.

[@AdeebaZamaan]

William Blake called the Jesus of Christianity a vegetation god (resurrecting every spring), but favored Christianity as the best story. Blake's Jesus is the Divine Imagination. But then Blake studied Swedenborg. And IMO Masonic ideas. But ultimately his protagonist says "I must build my own system or be a slave to another man's!"

[@Crecganford]

Interesting, although Christianity is built on the shoulders of other culture's beliefs.

[@AdeebaZamaan]

@@Crecganford Blake was syncretic. It was an era of discovering, rediscovering, and producing its own great myth systems -- remember Ossian? That wasn't really discovered, but invented? Everyone wanted to be the Milton of his own era and create a new Great English Epic. If you're interested in Blake, check out "Jerusalem"--the hundred plate illuminated epic, not the song sung in Anglican churches-- and read it if you can. Most people don't want to read it, so don't try to write your dissertation on it!

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

"all the other Saviour Gods are non-historical people" that could be the case, but even when Supernatural components of the various stories are removed, it's difficult to prove there was Not some real person that the myth developed around.

[@Crecganford]

Hi, and thanks for watching. Richard acknowledges that, saying there is a chance that this is true, that there was an historical person that Jesus developed around, but that is less likely than it not being true.

[@stuart3178]

@@Crecganford There are other historians with Phds that don't believe Jesus was mythical. At the end of the day if you are an atheist that will affect your ways of thinking in all areas of your life won't it - it's inevitable. There are 351 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled In Jesus Christ. He said there is a 1/3 chance Jesus was real.. well with the odds of all the prophecies all tying up with Jesus you have a certaintly He was real. Some of the prophecies out of over 300. The time of His birth (see the Daniel 8 & 9 Timeline). He would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2) He would be born of a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14) He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12) He would be mocked. (Psalm 22:7,8) He would be crucified. (John 3:14) He would be pierced. (Psalms 22:16) He would die with the wicked, but He would be buried with the rich. (Isaiah 53:9)

[@TheGahta]

@@stuart3178 You do realize that taking the bible, which was deliberately put together, as at one point making a prophecy and in another part "fulfilling" it does very little to your point. Even more so its confirmation bias par excelence if you dont also look at prophesies that didnt go nowhere (then again even if there are none, we run into the first point of the bible being put together deliberatly)

[@mythbuster1483]

@@stuart3178 Regarding Isaiah 7:14, Dr. Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Professor of Religion Emeritus at Wells College: "Stated simply, the author of the Gospel of Matthew made a mistake in quoting the Greek translation of Isaiah as a proof-text for the virgin birth. The mistake resulted from the fact that the author of the Gospel of Matthew used not the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, which was clear on the matter, but that he used instead a Greek (mis)translation of Isaiah, the Septuagint. The author of the Gospel of Matthew may not have been able to read the text of Isaiah in the original Hebrew, so we cannot assign blame entirely to him. But we can assign blame to modern translators who can read Hebrew and who intentionally continue to perpetuate the error. Modern translators are sometimes still reluctant to acknowledge the simple truth that Isaiah was not referring to Mary and Jesus...In fact, it is very likely that the passage in Isa 7:14 in the Greek (mis)translation is the sole basis for the church's belief that Jesus was born of a virgin." The New Testament: An Introduction to Biblical Scholarship, pg 56-60

[@mythbuster1483]

@@stuart3178 Plagiarism isn't 'prophecy'. The gospel writers simply wrote the Jesus stories based on Old Testament stories. This debunks your book of ancient mythology and doesn't help your case. Dr. Gerd Ludemann, New Testament scholar at the University of Göttingen: "The New Testament authors derived most events of the Christmas story from prophecies of the Old Testament and misrepresented their original intent in order to make them seem to point to Jesus....The reported worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus did not occur. The reported murder of children in Bethlehem ordered by Herod the Great did not occur...The story of the star of Bethlehem is a fiction intended to emphasize the importance of Jesus. The logical conclusion is unavoidable: the Christmas stories recounted by the Bible and those Christian churches that present them as actual events have lost all historical credibility." - The Christmas stories are pious fairy-tales

[@damenwhelan3236]

Where is the "buried somewhere near the moon" idea come from? Anyine point me in the right direction?

[@unicyclist97]

Plutarch's description of Osiris is a similar context. And the burial of Adam in the Lower heavens from The Revelation of Moses / The Life of Adam and Eve. The citations are all in Carrier's books on this subject.

[@DavidFraser007]

Why did christianity become so popular? I think widespread is a better adjective. It certainly became toxic and started the dark ages.

[@jonnywatts2970]

I have long argued with my family about the idea of morality coming from Christianity. I refuse to accept that there would be no morality without Christianity. The golden rule is all you need. However I do believe the USA is falling apart due to the loss of morality. Christian morals are a great way to live and the reason for the success of our country.

[@joergf6]

Jesus original name was Brian.

[@lil-al]

The only thing I didn't like about this interview is that Richard has cut off all his curls.

[@avvocato5543]

1:01:35 The early pre-Constantine Christianity was not a go along to get along religion. Rome was tolerant of local established religions as long as they did not interfere with Rome's established practices such as tributes to the gods. The Christians were persecuted in part because they didn't do this as it was viewed as worship or tolerance of the Roman gods. Refusing to acknowledge this was viewed by the government as approaching sedition so thus the persecutions. Somehow this still didn't lead to the end of the religion but perhaps the Christian pragmatists then were playing it cool and not declaring publicly their underlying beliefs.

[@unicyclist97]

Or their beliefs just changed over time as they rejected their Jewish roots. Even the gospels already show this shift towards anti-Jewish sentiment.

[@Meadows1719]

It's kind of sad that people are hanging their hat on this guy. Has he ever debated anyone who knows their a stuff? He seems to be throwing out all kinds of random opinions based on I don't know what. ....Mark read the stories in school? What!? He just said that but it's not the only random statement that gives me pause.

[@Crecganford]

He gives reasons for the "Mark read the stories at school" comment, writers of Greek would have read Herodotus, would be familiar with myths that are repeated in the Jesus tales as they are in other religions, and Richard has debated many people too. His book was peer reviewed so had much opportunity to be challenged. I think your counter argument needs to be more thorough to be considered having any merit.

[@Meadows1719]

@@Crecganford frankly I don't know that it's worth my energy. I find what he says here fragmented and opinionated rather than factual.

[@Meadows1719]

@@Crecganford for example WHY would a Greek student in school who's read in Herodotus have been familiar with the history of Jesus? That's like saying college grads of the 21 century know Jesus is a myth because they took psychology courses and those courses claim there is no God. That's on you guys to be more factual and honest.

[@Crecganford]

@@Meadows1719 That isn't what he said, which was that the original writers of the gospel were familiar with Herodotus. So perhaps it is on you to quote Richard honestly and in context, and for you to justify any comments you write on why you didn't think that was the case so if others can be bothered, they can respond to you in a constructive way. That's how good discussions work.

[@nycbearff]

Read his books, which are well footnoted and well researched, then follow the footnotes to his sources and read them, and then come back with any evidence at all that he is only giving opinions. He does his research well, he's an excellent scholar.

[@expandingknowledge8269]

I don't want to lean to one side or the other. I have researched religion and mythology for forty years, and want to absolutely know not just believe in information. Much disinformation on both sides pushing a narrative. I find strict Atheists nauseating, and Religionists extremely deceptive and fabricate evidences to fit their narrative and push an agenda. I do think Carrier Is very well schooled, and offers credible information. Debate between Atheists and Religion well go on until the end of times.

[@nycbearff]

So little remains from the ancient world that you can never "absolutely know" most things. The best you can do with the remaining evidence (and lack of evidence) is assign probabilities of sources being accurate or events actually happening in the real world.

[@expandingknowledge8269]

@@nycbearff I suppose Elvis has left the building so to speak, and no one really seems that interested in history. I have concentrated my remaining days to my family, and just trying to be happy. Life's to short to have deliberate sessions on if something is, or is not. 🤗

[@donrayjay]

I know Carrier doesn’t tend to respond to questions without payment, but I wonder how can he say the gospel of Matthew held the gospel message was only for Jews, when the final verses of the gospel include the commission to make disciples of all the nations?

[@Crecganford]

He answers my questions without payment, although not always in a timely manner. But I'll note that down on my list of questions to ask him when I get the chance

[@ghostriders_1]

He did qualify it by saying as long as you convert to Judaism.

[@ghostriders_1]

Have you got any other quotes from Matthew indicating that it was written for gentiles?

[@Crecganford]

@@ghostriders_1 I can ask him this specifically, he's really busy but he said he should be able to sit down with me in a few weeks for an hour, so will try and ask him more then.

[@prins424]

Original version may have been "jews only", things got changed and added later. That's my guess but a scholar can make a case

[@rajasmasala]

I think Jesus was historical, he was just any old prophet and certainly not the most popular in his day (as much as he is reported to have been relatively more brave than others of his profession, c.f. the compromises Mohammed had to make in his preaching to not get his throat slit), the thing he did have was the Apostles (and Mary) who were clearly the real talent. Jesus or the same figure for the Apostles and Mary / Madgdalene of whatever name. Prophet was pretty much nearly a profession in those days. But necessarily that would mean he would be completely untraceable in historical record.

[@kamalanathansps3660]

IF GOD IS IMMORTAL, WHEN DID HE CLAIM & WHO WERE PRESENT WHEN THAT CLAIM WAS MADE ABOUT GOD? WHY DID ANYONE BELIEVE ABOUT THIS GOD?

[@dcmurray6466]

If you want to read all those missing books, first, build a time machine . . . .

[@yaruqadishi8326]

Matthew was never first and revelation is never last. And there has been huge redactions in the christian texts. 1thessalonians is first and 2peter is last.

[@yaruqadishi8326]

To add more insult to injury on jesus christianity in full is the original jesus lie message was alot lot weaker then the improved forged Falser message about him thathas been allowed to infect the world today and been for the last 2000 years or so less.

[@prof.dr.4224]

Jesus was mentioned in the history written by the Roman historians (Josephus and Tacitus). The idea that Jesus actually visited India can be traced to the Russian writer Nicholas Notovitch (1894) and his book The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. In it, Notovitch claims to have visited the monastery of Hemis near Leh, Ladakh in 1887 and to have read manuscripts there telling of the travels of Jesus, known as “Issa,” in India, including his teachings, his work with untouchables, and his conflicts with Brahmans and Zoroastrian priests (Crossan, 1998; Bentley, 1992). Swami Avedananda, a brother monk of Swami Vivekananda verified the claims of Notovitch by vising the same monastery in Ladakh in 1922 and supported Notovitch (Avedananda, 1988). In 1929, Nicholas Roerich and his son George Roerich went there and found clear evidence to support Notovitch (Roerich, 1929; Roerich, 1931). Dr. Richard Carrier has little knowledge. Reference: Avedananda, 1988, Journey into Kashmir and Tibet, Calcutta: Vedanta Press. Borg, M., 2005, “The Spirit-Filled Existence of Jesus.” In The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eds. James Dunn and Scot McKnight. New York: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Crossan, J. D., 1998, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper. Notovitch, N., 1894, The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ, New York: Simon & Schuster Prophet, Elizabeth., 1986, Lost Years of Jesus, New Delhi: Jaico Roerich, N., 1929, Altai-Himalaya, New York: Frederick Stokes. Roerich, G., 1931, Trails to Inmost Asia: Five Years of Exploration, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

[@Crecganford]

I think you've missed the point, and that is that if Jesus didn't exist he couldn't have travelled to India. However, show me a peer reviewed academic paper showing proof he did visit India and I'll consider changing my mind.

[@prof.dr.4224]

@@Crecganford I ( along with Dipak Basu) am about to publish a book, Ethics, morality and Business by Palgrave-Macmillan-Springer. Please read Chapter 5 of that book. It was peer-reviewed by three academics, unknown to me.

[@Crecganford]

@@prof.dr.4224 I will look out for that then, and I'll let Richard know as well. Thank you

[@IronHayden]

A man named Jesus never existed.

[@telleroftales5309]

hard to take this guy seriously with his cocky know-it-all demeanour.

[@torontoash45]

If you watch the debate between Richard and William Lane Craig he didn´t do so well did he? nor with Bart Erhman . Atheists seem to think they found their Poster boy who will debunk things such as the existance of Jesus Well think again

[@unicyclist97]

WLC used fallacies and lies to defend his position, so I can hardly count him as winning. Do you have a link to this video of Ehrman debating Carrier?

[@torontoash45]

WLC did not use fallacies i suggest you listen to the video again and try to be impartial . As for Erhman there are some good videos ,but not sure on KZbin where Carrier couldn`t keep up to Erhman . Also check out Debate with Phil Ferndandes

[@kamalanathansps3660]

IS GOD IMMORTAL?