The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist? | Dr. Richard C. Miller

[@MythVisionPodcast]

$10 off all of our courses, use code: BLKFRIDAY2023 at checkout by visiting our website at www.mvp-courses.com. The sale ends Monday November 27th.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

Well, this is refreshing. I thought mythvision had gone over to the "consensus" a long time ago. This video is EXACTLY right. It's puerile and idiotic to rule out the idea that Jesus didn't exist in history, AND it misses the point.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

13:45 Derek, you are very right. While the likes of Neal Sendiak and Jacob Berman have gone full dogmatist on this issue, YOU have maintained the higher ground consistently. You are definitely not the enemy of mythicists. That's very clear.

[@TboneWTF]

Praise the Almighty Dollar! Thank you Lord for all the money you send your way. God is good and money is better.

[@DrWrapperband]

The Jesus cult was anti all the other cults and "John the Baptist" was in Josephus, so he was a person they were trying to show their made up guy was greater than.

[@AngelicLee-o6y]

16:20 16:23 ​@@integrationalpolytheism

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Glad to see Dr. Miller giving Dr. Carrier some love and respect!

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Are you sure Miller and Carrier exist?😎

[@louisbaudry1106]

Hello from France. I've been keeping up with your work for a few years now, and I must commend you on the remarkable improvement in the quality of your content. Please continue to excel in your endeavors!

[@tjwhite1963]

Love this! I agree 100% !!! Thank you Derek and Dr. Richard C. Miller, first of all, for your intellectual honesty, and secondly for your dispassionate intellectual rigor. Bravo!

[@avs6362]

​@@ring-tone278 So, what does it tells you about God?

[@HellaJ77]

I think one, or more, people existed who eventually formed the Jesus character found in the NT. And if a human named Jesus, who was head of a group, did indeed exist; I am sure he would be flabbergasted at the narrative formed around him.

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@user-cw3ox2nn5tyeah but the Qur'an is incredibly recently written. Why would we take that as evidence of Jesus existing?

[@donnievance1942]

@@GameTimeWhy He didn't say we should. He just said that is the perspective of the Quran.

[@michealfriedman7084]

The Qur'an was written 600 years after the death of a man named Jesus.

[@Sam-bc6sr]

Another source that nobody considers is Jewish history and tradition. Judaism believes that Jesus was a fraud and magician who deceived people, and that his followers stole the body from the tomb. It doesn't like Jesus one little bit... but it never claims he didn't exist. If there was any doubt, Jewish writings could just say, "We have no idea what the Christians are talking about, there's no record of this man." They don't.

[@FoursWithin]

​@@ring-tone278 Nope Jesus prophesied nothing. But the authors of the Bibles put practical propaganda rhetoric in the mouth of the Messiah CHARACTER.

[@offgrid405]

Thanks Derek for not 'running with the crowd'. I think that it is an absolute disgrace that people like Bart and Co. run down Carrier's work and distance themselves from him and his excellent work. Personally I am a 50/50er, but to ridicule the mythicist position is mind-bending to say the least. We know the motives fulwell, but seeking the truth is so important and I completely understand where Carrier, Price and others are coming from. The whole Paul not quoting any sayings or deeds of Jesus is to me, a big red flag. Thank you both for opening your minds amd sharing your thoughts.

[@aspenhardware852]

Barts arguments for the existence of Jesus Are lame. I am sure there were a bunch of apocalyptic/ nutters preaching on street corners wishing the Romans would go back home. Any of them or parts of some of them Could make up the myth of Jesus

[@elephant_888]

⁠@@aspenhardware852💯. Bart’s also smart enough to know he’s BS-ing too!! His appeals to scholarly consensus had me face-palming.

[@lampkin9287]

Why would Paul quote the saying of Jesus if he wasn’t a companion? There’s a clear difference between Paul and the disciples and it’s obvious. Paul’s prospect is within reason.

[@donnievance1942]

@@lampkin9287 That's the whole problem. Paul never quotes Jesus at all except for one sentence he heard in a vision of Jesus. And Paul never claims to have been a companion of Jesus. Nobody else claims that either. It is well understood that the only relationship Paul ever claims to have with Jesus is having a visionary visitation from Jesus many years after he left the earth. You seem to be completely uninformed about what's in the New Testament or what scholarship says about the New Testament. Try not writing bull$h!t comments about things you've clearly never studied at all.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

the images of a crucified corpse on a bloody linen cloth are not "lame.". . . . . .. @@aspenhardware852

[@InquisitiveBible]

Great interview. We benefit a lot from having Dr. Miller's voice in this conversation.

[@eemer2437]

I love how professional you and your guests are. Great channel and content. Your guests are so accomplished and make very compelling arguments.

[@grapeshot]

Doesn't matter to me either way but if he did exist as far as I'm concerned he was nothing more than he first century Galilean cult leader.

[@icypirate11]

Thank you Derek for having Richard C Miller on. I found his book really hard to read so I really appreciate these interviews.

[@FoursWithin]

​@@ring-tone278 Maybe someday you'll finally see the light and understand that the Bible is simply CULT IDEOLOGY. nothing more.

[@joseerickcortes2189]

An amazing interview! The closest we can get to a historical Jesus is mere speculation. Many New Testament scholars ought to be more humble and respond with a simple, 'Who knows!' regarding what he said, did, or even if the movement was started by a single man. One intriguing question could be: if we were to step into a time machine back to 1st-century Judea, how could we discern the 'Jesus' among all the apocalyptic preachers if none of the attributes of the gospel can be found?"

[@oppothumbs1]

Jesus was not God, could have been a man. But who cares? God is Imaginary. Jesus said judge not lest ye be judged. But he said a lot of nonsense and stuff and wanted eternal hell for moral people of science, reason, or just skeptics. He likes Slavery, knew nothing of germ theory or science, and made no good predictions unless you really want to stretch what he said and be illogical. Nothing special, just a wise man (lol)of his time, and most of what was written about him was made up years later. Can the censor please not delete this? Jesus said Judge not lest ye be judged. What possible harm does this do? What if I am a God and you delete this .. there might be consequences (ha)

[@donnievance1942]

The upshot of what has been reliably determined so far is that, while it's possible that the mythical Jesus might have derived a few elements from some real character, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that such a character definitely existed. Thus, there is not sufficient evidence to make a good case for an historical Jesus or to prove that one didn't exist. What seems certain is that any real person who contributed to the myth is highly unlikely to have resembled the myth in any large way,

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

These images of a bloody crucified corpse on a long linen cloth srep backin time for us. . . . . . . . ..

[@njhoepner]

@@ring-tone278 A "Lord" he never quotes from, whose teachings he never uses, whose actions he never mentions (aside from insisting on a resurrection), whose instructions he never passes along, whom he never relies on as authority for any of his positions even in his most argumentative letters (and most of his letters make numerous arguments). It's like Jesus is a figurehead for him and nothing more...and that says something important.

[@mwola]

Our LORD JESUS CHRIST is same YESTERDAY..TODAY and FOREVER MORE. Book of HEBREWS 13:8

[@rainbowkrampus]

Always nice to see more Miller. One of these days I'll get around to shelling out for his book. Totally agree that the animosity is unfounded and that the wholesale rejection of the premise by the academic establishment is a travesty. Never mind certain internet personalities. Barring the need to put anti-fundamentalism first and foremost though, I'd still say that it's a pretty big deal that we don't really know anything at all about the supposed founder of one of the largest religions in history nor of the origins of that religion. Strictly from a historical perspective, it's kinda important. We might never have a concrete answer but we should try to get as close as possible within the bounds of reason and demonstrable reality.

[@dazv3605]

I haphazardly came across your podcast today while searching for content on the myth of the resurrection. To make my story short, I ceased to believe when I got diagnosed with bipolar. I deconstructed and it took my a while. I was aided by the fact that I never truly believed in the whole resurrection idea. I also doubted that God existed.

[@Biblical_Mystery]

Wow, I'm thoroughly impressed! The effort and creativity you've put into this video really shine through. Can't wait to see more!

[@joehellno9097]

Myth Critic?! Yes! I like it. Doc Miller is authoritative and eloquent without ever being egocentric, intolerant or humorless. My kind of mythicist! And of course, Derek, whose 'talking his way through it' analysis is expanding in sophistication weekly, continually comes at it all with his infectious enthusiasm. Compliments for both men!

[@Fair-to-Middling]

After watching this I realize that I am an agnostic, in regards to the historical Jesus. 😊

[@ericcraig3875]

It is a loose interpretation of the word.

[@donnievance1942]

@@dirkjensen969 He's not talking about gnosticism, which is a class of theological beliefs. The word "agnostic" is usually used without any reference to the belief system of gnosticism. It means an epistemological stance in regard to any number of unspecified issues, relative to which the agnostic position is that of claiming not to know or believe in either side of the issue. If you don't know that, you're remarkably ignorant of philosophical terminology. Fair-to-Middling used the word "agnostic" in an entirely appropriate manner. Gnosticism dates back a couple of thousand years. Thomas Huxley coined the term "agnostic" in 1869, and he was not discussing gnosticism at all.

[@haydenwalton2766]

that's all fine, but for all intents and purposes, both mythicism and thinking that the religious jesus was loosely based on a real person - is virtually the same thing. I don't think people like dr carrier clarify this enough when stating that there may have been a historical figure at its core.

[@gregorypatricksmith8611]

Does it matter? We all know what agnostic means

[@Fair-to-Middling]

@@dirkjensen969 Well, I see your point, and hadn't even considered that. During my current journey into deconstruction, I find that being agnostic is used even with the term atheism. Many argue one can be an 'agnostic atheist'. In checking with Google this morning, I find their definition as follows: noun: 1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

We need a MythVison Roundtable of discussion on these topics with scholars Dr. Miller mentioned and add Dr. Ehrman as well.

[@jamesboswellii2034]

Yes!

[@omnikevlar2338]

I want to see Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier that would be the debate I want to see.

[@ericcraig3875]

Bart would never do it.

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@ericcraig3875except he always does take these debates. I don't know what you and the other anti-Bart crowd are talking about.

[@ericcraig3875]

@GameTimeWhy he has only taken 1 jesus hisorisity debate in his career, over 6 years ago, against Price, who while he is a scripture genius, he is also a nut, especially on this topic. Carrier has wanted to debate this jesus apologist for over 5 years. Bart has run the whole time. He gets creamed online. He knows he would be humiliated. His jesus apologetics are so unintelligent and untruthful, he makes far right theologian apologists look good. He is a joke on this topic. He contradicts himself constantly. He wrote an entire book about it and never supplied evidence.

[@lewmap]

So many educated guests, and the host believes... Paul. Jesus was a guy because Paul says so. Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul who had a vision, heard voice of Lord. Paul who wrote a lot but wasn't interested who "the woman" was. And because people were mentioning popular method of capital punishment - Jesus was a guy. WHAT kind of argument is this? Jesus Christ!

[@jonathanvordzorgbe4845]

There is an art to knowing what an author takes for granted in their writing, and what they are specifically trying to emphasize. The point of Paul’s letters are clear, he was writing to argue his point and address specific issues in his churches. None of these arguments were about the historicity of Jesus. Anything historians glean from them are things Paul is taking for granted and making off-hand comments about or using as the basis of his arguments. My discomfort with mythicism is that it takes these points specifically and frames them in the most extreme or nuanced way that goes beyond their role in Paul’s letters. Eg. if Paul says Jesus was born/manufactured of a woman.. in a context where he’s showing his actions and ties to Judaism… he’s doing just that because there’s a bigger point to be made. Translating the word to mean manufactured just to prove that Jesus wasn’t talked of as a human is really reading a lot into an offhand comment. Also.. “under the law” for a celestial being would be a weird concept… especially when Paul uses the same phrase to describe other Jews, who are undoubtedly human. So yea, it’s not that crazy to reject mythicism if these are some of the arguments it makes

[@66hss]

Since the case of Muhammed already shows us that you really don't need a historical figure to justify a birth of a world wide zealous religion, it has been so much easier to understand the same goes for christianity.

[@groundzero5708]

true

[@Camerinus]

Wow -- That was amazing. The issue of methodologies is indeed very important. Most or at least many Biblical scholars, just like classicists, are *philologists* first and foremost. The text (OT, NT, Herodotus, Xenophon, Cicero, Tacitus, etc.) is seen as the ultimate monument, the ultimate holder of THE truth, and other disciplines such as Archaeology or Epigraphy are treated as ancillary - "les disciplines auxilières", as they say in French. If you don't believe me that Bible and Religious Studies are largely philological, just have a look at the recently defended theses in any major university. The lists -and the theses- are mostly available online.

[@kwizeralambert1316]

Hello, would you provide examples of at least 3 thesis or research papers ?

[@Camerinus]

@@kwizeralambert1316 -- I did, but my comment has been erased, by KZbin I presume, probably because I included a link to a page outside YT. That page on the Duke University website provided the list of PhD theses at Duke in Biblical Studies and it confirms my statement. (I'm writing this as a reminder to do the research again later.)

[@JC-vq2cs]

Thank you both! This so perfectly captures my current opinions after several years of diving into religious studies as someone raised nonreligious and now curious and openminded about all of it. If there was a guy at the root of Paul's visions of Jesus the Christ, he is so mythologized that its effectively the same thing as him never existing. The evidence is overwhelming. Now can we please move on? I concur that there is so much more fruitful inquiry to pursue in working together on the 95%+ agreement that the gospels & other Xian texts are creative fictions responding to the cultures & politics & literary works of their time. Ditto the Septuagint/OT. That is the historical & archaeological & literary puzzle to keep working on. I so appreciate Derek & Mythvision for the curiosity & honesty & willingness to question & change opinions in the face of new evidence - and especially to be civil abd also have frank convos with so many scholars. If only Mythvision had the resources to host big conferences or retreats. Maybe someday!

[@Uryvichk]

The more I think about it, the more I think that IF there was a historical Jesus, his actual life and teachings were an inconvenience to Paul's intended message. That's why -- if there was a real man -- Paul is so deeply disinterested in anything other than his bare qualifications for Messiahship and the idea that he died and resurrected (and Paul may not mean "resurrected" in exactly the way many now think, though he clearly believed Christ was alive in some sense after his death). The life and teachings of a historical Jesus didn't help his message to the gentiles, so to whatever extent Paul even knew about it, he discarded it in favor of placing his Christ at a distance, with apostles between his word and what early proto-Christians heard. Basically, even if there was a historical Jesus, Paul's "Jesus Christ" is made up to suit his own ends and legitimate his own authority, a distant "risen Lord" who conveniently can't be questioned by converts and whose will can only be known through the apostles... and Paul very clearly does not want other apostles preaching to his churches, see Cephas in Galatians and Apollos in Corinthians. Paul's Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels don't agree, and most probably, both of them are fake and tell us nothing about any real Jesus who might have existed (beyond perhaps being an apocalyptic and Messianic preacher, if that).

[@ronnelson930]

*I haven't a problem with historical Jesus existing but proving his divinity is where theists have all their work ahead of them*

[@jgriff5273]

The reason why some people believe the one called Jesus didn't exist is because they refuse to believe Jesus was an African man, hair of wool, skin of burnt brass. Jesus or any of the Israelites/African were never Christian. They were spiritual people given laws and a way of life by the Most High Yah. Christianity was and is especially today, a Greco-Roman religion. The Jesus of eurocentric Christianity is not the Jesus of the bible.

[@andrewdarnley4608]

The audience stands to it's feet to cheer Richard Miller Jr's outro.

[@VioletWonders]

Dr. Miller vids are always my favorite!

[@therongjr]

It astounds me, Derek, that you are so extremely knowledgeable about all of this . . . I can't even imagine! 🤯

[@ryangriggsmo]

I really like your podcast and watch all your stuff. Don't get stuck. Keep going. The cool thing about questioning everything is that you get to turn around and do the same to your ideas that 'freed' you. Don't lose the galaxy for the trees. God's real y'all.

[@donseesyourshaydim7529]

Ehrman and Tabor sealed the deal for me on the question

[@youngknowledgeseeker]

Dr. Robyn Walsh also is persuaded that Jesus is not a "whole cloth" myth.

[@travis1240]

Yeah I think that position is probably the right one, but I've found Ehrman in particular less than convincing because he won't honestly and sincerely engage with the subject.

[@kariannecrysler640]

I like seeing the scientific method use in this way. I personally think a guy existed, but if you don’t test it against no existence you haven’t done your best to find the best understanding. It’s a wonderful way to resolve things, even if it seems a headache lol

[@kariannecrysler640]

I would also add I think the gospels are myths. They would contain nothing about “the guy” at all.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

The long linen cloth contains something: blood stains and images of a crucified corpse. . . . . .. . @@kariannecrysler640

[@Uryvichk]

I think it's also important to just challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and ask how confident we can actually be, even if we think the weight of the evidence is still in favor of historicity. For instance, I think it's perfectly fair to conclude that the evidence we have is really bad, weak, and biased at best, and still come to the conclusion that there is a historical man somewhere behind it all; yet I also think it's perfectly reasonable that someone could look at all the same evidence and think there probably isn't; and it seems completely reasonable for someone to look at the evidence and say "Honestly, this is not enough for me to say either way." If we're willing to temper our confidence by actually examining the evidence and asking if we'd accept it for other claims, I think we'd end up a lot closer on a great number of these debates with most academically-minded people who aren't outright Christian fanatics.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

None of the 24 scientists who personally examined the Turin Shroud in 1978 was a "Christian fanatic." Some were Jewish, some were atheist. All expected to solve the mystery of the Shroud's images on the very first day. But after five days of gathering evidence and three years of analysis, those scientists had to admit that they had no answer other than to say that the images on the Shroud were NOT the work of an artist. @@Uryvichk

[@kariannecrysler640]

@@Uryvichk excellent points

[@Phi1618033]

The problem with the mythicists' argument is that once you make the claim that Jesus the man never existed, you are now obligated to explain how a movement centered on a man can form without the actual man. Who was the person who decided that his name was Jesus and why? Who decided that he came from Galilee and why? Who decided that he was baptized by John the Baptist and why? Who decided the names of his twelve disciples and why? Who decided that he came to Jerusalem for the Passover with his followers and why? Who decided that he was arrested and crucified for his incendiary preaching and why? There are all these questions about particular aspects of the story that need to be explained if the actual man never existed. Or we can simply make the obvious assumption that these details are the actual details of an actual man who actually existed. Most legendary figures are based on actual people who actually existed, but the legend that grew up around them is clearly fiction.

[@Paul_Ernst]

Except Richard Carrier explained all these things already. Even Richard Miller would agree that we have no data that the historical man was actually called Jesus. As for 'who decided ...', its clear from the many inconsistencies in different sources that many people were making up many things along the way. For example, name the 12 apostles.

[@Phi1618033]

@@Paul_Ernst Carrier has not at all explained it. Conjecture is not evidence. Lack of evidence is also not necessarily itself evidence. We know for a fact that George Washington actually existed, but I'm sure you'll still find plenty of people out there who really believe the cherry tree story, which we are pretty confident never happened. So just because we can't prove the cherry tree story happened, that doesn't mean that Washington the man must have never existed. This is textbook arguing from ignorance: a common fallacy used by conspiracy theorists. This is the convoluted reasoning used by mythicists.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

Yup, too many people have a binary view of the world.

[@ciaranirvine]

All these questions and more are fully covered in Carrier's On The Historicity Of Jesus. He lays out all the cultural, religious, social, political influences of the time and references similar developments of more modern belief systems like the Pacific Cargo Cults to show how none of this is at all unusual and has happened many times throughout history. Turns out you don't actually NEED a historical Jesus to explain anything about early Christianity (though even Carrier thinks there's about a 1-in-3 chance there is some sort of historical character at the root). Making up stories from the surrounding cultural fabric is just something humans have always done.

[@Peejayk]

Read Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. Many cults and movements (in fact most) in ancient past were built on mythical figures. Carrier suggests Peter and others were early members and their preaching was from revelation from him. The Gospels are pure myth built from Pesher and Midrash eg Mathew’s virgin birth is a Midrash about Moses; the crucifixion is a Pesher of Psalm 22. Carrier actually doesn’t 100% give into Mythicism- he gives historicity a 1/3 chance. It is also possible that Jesus was a legend built on a real character- a martyr of sorts eg Epiphanus writes about the Nazoraons who believed their Messiah was someone who died in around 50BC on the Passover. The name of Jesus is really interesting- it was perhaps given to him (if he was historical) or a mythical name based on Zechariah 3 -6 which indicates the Messiah would be called Yeshua Ben Jahozadek. “Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord.” ‭‭Zechariah‬ ‭6‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NIV‬‬ bible.com/bible/111/zec.6.11-12.NIV The Hebrew word for branch is Netzar; from which Jesus of Nazareth erroneously developed

[@jamesSwhite]

Great video, great insights, great info- as usual from these 2. ❤

[@myfriend280]

I appreciate Dr.Miller’s insights and am glad to have them in the conversation about the historical and mythological Jesus. Nevertheless, while I do compliment his use of a brilliantly charged phrase, what he refers to as a “fool’s errand,” respectfully, I consider to be the necessity of modern Christian scholarship. Personally, nothing has enriched my life more than the knowledge I’ve acquired on the quest for the historical Jesus. The Jesus I uncovered is both simple and phenomenally profound.

[@sleeprunning]

Coming from business, science, music/creative writing - this whole field stands out in the personalization of ideas. Ad hominem, ad nauseum. Such a waste of time, but great hostile rhetorical tactic. "Ignore the player; play the ball."

[@RightOnBro72]

Best video on this topic so far. Very glad to hear Derek say he doesn't think that "Magical Jesus" existed. Similarly, there might have been a guy named "Robin Hood," but if he didn't split the arrow or rob from the rich & give to the poor, the story is meaningless. (Miller's reference to Peter Pan was too fictional.) With all these guys doing video podcasts saying they can't deny the historical Jesus, it just seems like an effort to appease the Jesus-worshippers by saying, "yeah, he might have really existed" so they can get more donations. I say just the opposite -- if Christians want me to believe some guy (even if they can't spell his name) was born of a virgin, walked on water, and really rose from the dead, (kind-of important when no human being has ever done any of these things,) all they have to do is prove it!

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

I mean, in general, gangs and cults try to glorify their leaders, so it's very possible that there was a cult leader named Jesus and a gang leader named Robin. Possibly several.

[@Gabachazo]

Born of a virgin, crucified and raised from the dead .... All these beliefs were predating the supposed time of Christo-inanity... Be fooled or be informed!!!

[@oppothumbs1]

Zoroastrianism is considered the first major religion. It originated in ancient Persia (modern-day Iran - boo!) around the 6th century BCE. Christianity and other religions borrowed the the virgin birth, the son of God, and resurrection.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Don't forget that bloody linen cloth with its images of a crucified corpse (predating the time . . .LOL)

[@donnievance1942]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 Look, you've already been informed about the scientific debunking of your ridiculous relic. Did you even bother to look up the Shroud in Wikipedia, as I suggested? If you didn't, you're in bad faith. Stop spamming.

[@Habanero777]

Precisely ​@@oppothumbs1

[@Gabachazo]

@@oppothumbs1 EXACTLY!!! Zoroastrianism is the blue print of Chrisian beliefs...

[@jtramelli5464]

refreshing to hear a historicist who isnt just rage blind about mythicism... i am very agnostic about it, but i do find it really weird how upset most get at even considering mythicism

[@ciaranirvine]

I suspect the rage is because it cuts to the heart of their own personal identities. And not even the actual Believers, but some secular Bible scholars too. "If it is all just made up like any other human myth, what have I spent my life doing?"

[@stinklpups]

Exactly. They don't want to realize that they were studying Harry Potter...

[@chefchaudard3580]

⁠@@ciaranirvinewhat are you talking about? Scholars work don’t depend on the existence of an actual guy named Jesus. They study the time, the people, in short, history. Like those who take the Iliad or odyssey as their source dont care if Ulyss or Homer ever existed. Or the ones studying Rome if Remus or Romulus actually existed. Even if tomorrow it was proven that jesus is a complete myth, scholars would accept it and the tons of books written by scholars through the ages would require only minor updates. You have a very short sight of what scholarship is.

[@ciaranirvine]

@@chefchaudard3580 Yeah take your faux-outrage to someone who cares, buddy. The thread is specifically about the people who fly into a rage at the mention of mythicism and take it personally...

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@ciaranirvine ha! A straw man! OK… You can beat it all you want. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[@JohnDee0]

Some stories about John the Baptist are also related to John Hyrcanus II

[@glenncalkins4764]

I've never heard of Hyrcanus before, but for some time have felt that John the Baptist (JtB) was the source of Jesus's teachings. His (JtB) death was too well documented for him to be "risen," so an imagined ideal student became the source for Paul's Helenistic-Jewish mystery cult's God. That JtB had precursors is no surprise.

[@JohnDee0]

@@glenncalkins4764 Joihn Hyrcanus II was very popular High Priest among the people of his time and Herod the Great got him beheaded because of that at the same place John Baptist got supposedly executed....

[@manbearpig3507]

love the dr. Miller interviews personally I lean mythicist but its entirely possible there was a historical man that had small following n got on the wrong side of the Romans. Have been watching this channel n others like History Valley for years n there seemed to be a slow but steady lean towards ostracizing mythicist's n dismissing off hand. Not saying Derek has been unfair to mythicist's far from it however some guests(who shall not be named) and some viewers which obviously changes over the years most certainly r

[@glenncalkins4764]

I'm sure there were many local leaders who got on the wrong side of The Romans, and there were sources (mostly from OT Scripture) used to create the New Testament, but is there anything in the NewTestament gospel that requires a historical figure to explain? The question is not "What historic figures are behind the Biblical Jesus?",but "How did an obscure Jewish Sect evolve into Christianity?" Hints at Mystery cults, and Cosmology are more interesting than historical Jesuses.

[@manbearpig3507]

@@glenncalkins4764 totally agree its such a wide open question that has been shoe horned by academia plagued by dogmatic tribalism

[@donnievance1942]

I'm not sure that the larger trend has been to dismissing mythicism. I think that, over the long term, mythicism is going to prevail-- at least in the sense that whatever real person might have contributed some small elements to the Jesus myth is unlikely to have borne any significant resemblance to the literary character of the Gospels.

[@jenst.]

Thank you Derek for the finely-edited interview. I am wondering whether we could get Miller and Carrier together on camera to discuss the differences? Both the "born of a woman"-citation as well as the missing quotations in Paul's letters seem like a good starting point for that.

[@bretteumont657]

Dereck I know he doesn’t reveal to much because he wants you to buy his book. I was like you. Felt guilty about kicking off Christianity once I accepted the true facts that are suppressed by churches it felt like a weight was lifted off my shoulders love your channel

[@Stardust-xl8nn]

Videos with timestamps and small size somehow make it interesting to watch the videos. Plz write books about your work so that people can read them too

[@davidwimp701]

I believe the hardest part of deciding if Jesus is historical is deciding what you mean by historical. I think there was a Jewish Jesus but the Christian Jesus might properly be viewed as mythical.

[@Uryvichk]

Carrier talks about a "minimum historical Jesus" in On The Historicity of Jesus. He basically says the minimum historical Jesus would be a guy in 1st Century Judea who had a following that later began to propagate the idea that he had been raised from the dead after his death. Nothing else about him needs to be true, not even that his name was Yeshua/Jesus, not anything he supposedly taught, not that he was actually crucified by Romans, etc. At that base level, it's certainly possible that such a person existed. Indeed, numerous people meet the first two requirements, and there's even hints in the Gospels that people may have thought similar about the third in the case of John the Baptist. However, is the evidence we have enough to say that this person who possibly existed probably existed? I'm still a little bit skeptical, but it's not unreasonable to disagree on it.

[@davidwimp701]

@@Uryvichk I don't believe his followers claimed Jesus was raised from the dead at least not bodily. Modern Christianity arose from stories people heard and then greatly enhanced. It has a literary foundation. I am not saying Jesus did not exist. I am saying the real Jesus was nothing like the Jesuses of the gospels.

[@scienceexplains302]

Mythicism is a secondary or tertiary issue. The main issue is “What happened?” _(edit after 3 comments: *“What happened and why?”*)_ The secondary is “Which claims of the Bible are true?” And once you have rejected the supernatural claims, it doesn’t matter very much whether Paul or Mark were talking about one specific human being. It matters a little because it helps in a small way to analyze in assessing the higher level questions.

[@Jd-808]

It sounds like you are coming at this from a faith perspective. Historians don’t ‘reject’ supernatural claims. They examine why they are being made, which is what Miller does splendidly well in his book.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Jd-808 I’m not coming at it from faith nor addressing only historians. For people who don’t believe in supernatural events, whether there was some guy who vaguely inspired the stories should not be of primary importance

[@Jd-808]

@@scienceexplains302 ‘of primary importance’ to whom, and in what sense? It’s a binary historical question. I could say that whether or not Socrates existed is not important, since what is really important is the culture at the time provided the soil on which these ideas could grow, & that these ideas were produced and developed is what ‘actually matters’. Historians however would disagree, & tell me that regardless of my priorities, Socrates existed.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Jd-808 Telling you Socrates existed is not the same as saying that whether he lived is more important than the ideas and processes he represents. Of primary importance to people who care about how history works. I never said historians don’t care whether he lived or not.

[@Jd-808]

@@scienceexplains302 may have misunderstood the point you were making - I absolutely agree with that - the bigger questions regarding Xtian origins are why Jesus was portrayed the way he was. But the result is that to a large degree asking ‘what happened’ & ‘which claims are true’ isn’t as helpful as asking why these claims are being made.

[@rogercarroll2551]

Very meaningful. I am definitely in the camp of Dr. Miller.

[@healthyone100]

i was a very strict vegan christian for a long time, i think Jesus did exists but he was not a savior, i'm still a vegan but Jesus is NOT my savior!

[@Theprofessorator]

I 100% agree that the historical Jesus is irrelevant at this point. It's clear that Jesus didn't matter enough in his own life for anyone of note to take notice and I know that's going to be called an argument for silence, but at this point. I'm happy to eat that and move on. If we find something in the future that's more compelling, I'll eat every last bite of what I said. There would be no shame in admitting you were wrong on this topic. I'm ready for the evidence.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Evidence: images of a crucified corpse on a linen sheet. Lots of blood, too. Yeshu b. Pantera

[@Theprofessorator]

@user-cw3ox2nn5t alright, I've read your novel and I'm worried that your Christian upbringing has skewed what you think a rebuttal is. Nothing you've said actually refutes what I've said. Everything you said just elbows itself in to make room for what you already want to believe to be true, to be possible. Nothing you said changes the probability. Nothing you said is evidence. Everything you said is conjecture. But there is not even the beginning of a rebuttal in your response. You're entire "rebuttal" is "but maybe you shouldn't trust your observation, because it could be wrong." and that could be true of ANY historical event. To which I say, go read what I actually said. I. Am. Ready. For. The. Evidence. 🙂

[@Theprofessorator]

@@user-cw3ox2nn5t I don't want evidence for my claim. I don't have a claim. I'm asking for evidence for the Christian claim. I'm merely pointing out that telling me to consider that there might be evidence to the contrary, isn't evidence to the contrary. You follow the data. You don't make a bunch of assumptions and then look for data to fit your assumptions which is what you're asking me to do. Everything that you want me to "consider" is a presupposition you have, that you want me to have, so I can follow you to your conclusion. It's not about emotions. It's not even a personal attack, but I can see you're already looking to dive for cover behind "persecution" with the "emotional ramble" jab. You wanna discuss hard data? Bring it. Any day of the week. Don't bring presuppositions. I'll see right through it.

[@tomo4938]

Please tell me that it’s a good idea to buy SBL Study Bible.??? Thank you!!!

[@Truth-Be-Told-USA]

Who moved a mountain with prayer like is promised in Matthew? Why zero witnesses for Matthew 27:52?

[@BushcraftingBogan]

Little Dude at the end. 😂 WE. ARE. MYTH VISION! ❤

[@davefoc]

Many years ago now I spent several years trying to figure out whether a historical Jesus existed and trying to figure out what the history of early Christianity was. There has never been a video like this that more closely reflects the opinions that i developed in that time more than this video. 1. Whether Jesus existed is not an important historical question. Even assuming that he existed so little is known of his life and beliefs that what we know about him can not provide useful information about the time he may have lived. 2. The views of secular scholars that believe he probably existed and those that believe he probably didn't exist can be very similar. 3. Relentless churning of the Gospels looking for some kind of truth is futile. The Gospels were written in the third person like historical fiction because that is what they are.. The history of early Christianity in the early period after the death of a hypothetical Jesus seems more like a jumble of possibilities to me than history, Maybe there is something there that can be known and I just don't know it.

[@buc701]

Even most secular historians believe a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and people claimed he rose from the dead . BC AD you guys are trying to rewrite history - and not very well BTW

[@glennalphonse9711]

Hello Gentlemen great topic. I often wondered of all the people that was crucified by the Romans and others none of them were Gods only begotten, what kind of a Father all mighty, ruler over all things Creator of the world would send the only begotten son into the Earth for something so dangerous.. When the Father could have just spoken a word and that would have taken care of it.God may have sent the son ,But the Most High wouldn't have The true Creator would have handled it.Not the Son.Just Me 🤥

[@JohnDee0]

Abraham. Moses and Joshua are probably all stories....It seems that every time the situation requires a Messiah , they make it up for the occasion..... and there is good reasons to think the same thing about Jesus during the conflicts between the Jews and the Romans and especially after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Yes! And they made up these strange images of a crucified corpse on a long linen sheet for that very purpose! Yeshu b. Pantera

[@donnievance1942]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 Go away. Nobody but the most primitive terbaccy chawin' cultist has not heard about the scientific deconstruction of the Shroud relic. Just look it up in Wikipedia, for crap's sake.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

The WIKI article has been bullied into fiction by those who hate religion (and there are many) It talks about how popes have viewed the Shroud but fails to mention Pope Pius XI who spent several years researching the Shrouds' history and publicly stated that the Shroud was authentic. It gives precedence to Dr. McCrone and his conclusions , but never specifically mentions the STuRP team that used four tons of instruments and concluded that the images on the Shroud were not paintings and were not the work of an artist. The article falsely states "...all of the hypotheses used to challange the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted .. ." which is simple not true. Rucker's neutron absoption hypothesis has not been refuted and has actually been scientifically supported by the finding that the nitrogen in the Shroud's blood is missing. There are too many false statements in this article to even list here. I'll go away when someone makes those unnatural images of a bloody corpse go away, because human corpses are not capable of recording such images, but this one did so. @@donnievance1942

[@lyndon4031]

I like the short format videos better. I get lost when they are more than an hour long.

[@NoWay1969]

This is just a nearly perfect video.

[@donnievance1942]

@@dirkjensen969 Where's the reference to anything that would make your comment interpretable?

[@NoWay1969]

@@donnievance1942 Just giving a pat on the back. They nailed the framing of these ideas.

[@oreopagus2476]

Jesus beamed up to heaven from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1) and that is the same spot he will touch down. From Zechariah 14: “Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.” In 1964 a geological fault line was discovered that runs from east to west under the Mount of Olives.

[@JayWest14]

The fact that the mimetic parallels are coming to light, revealing what many have already believed, is great but why they haven’t picked up on the choices of names the author chose to use is beyond me. I’m no scholar by any means but what I’m seeing is the hidden allegorical structure that blends in with the Jewish-Roman Wars and the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Who was Joshua in the books of Exodus and numbers??? He was a commander that led the Israelites from one era into another, taking Israel from being the suffering servants to the promised land.

[@hopeful135]

I share my inner thoughts as to why I am still a Christian. Why I believe in Jesus despite knowing that the bible is not inerrant. That the bible has been corrupted through copying, bad translations, and parts of this book which is history of the human writings of the Isralites. It is not an accurate, complete and precise narrative of what God wants us to hear. It is not a science book. This belief in inerrancy which when it is confronted with the truth of its history dismantles rapidly the faith of many a believer. When we learn that the bible is not perfect, some people cannot handle that because that was the basis of their belief system and it was what they were taught. They lose their faith because the object of their faith and what they worshipped was destroyed. And that was the infallible Bible. Jesus came into the world when Jewish solidarity centered around the teachings in the Talmud which was the Mishna (oral law) and the Gemara combined. In it were the oral laws (613 of them) and commentary of which was viewed more important that their scripture. Here are a few comments Rabbi’s made regarding their views. “Scripture is like water, the Mishna like wine; The Gemara like spiced wine.” “The study of Scripture is non-meritorious; the study of the Mishna deserves a reward; the study of the Gemara is an unapproachable virtue.” “He who only studies the Scriptures is but an empty cistern.” “Words of the Scribes,” said Rabbi Johanan, “are akin to words of the Law, and more beloved.” The Jews had proclaimed that there were 613 precepts, of which some were "light" and some were "heavy."* It therefore became a frequent question among them, " which was the first and great commandment ? " In the tract Shahbath we are told that the most important law was the one about fringes, so that, on one occasion, R. Rabba, having accidentally stepped on and torn his fringe while mounting a ladder, would not move until it had been mended. How little the Jews are ashamed of a judgment so diametrically opposed to the opinions of their mightiest Prophets is shown by the fact that no less a person than Rashi, even in the twelfth century, is still bold enough to repeat that the Law about fringes is the first and great commandment.! Such was the difference between the spirit of the Prophets and that of the Rabbis, in whose days " there was no Prophet any more !” It would seem highly unlikely that the character depicted of Christ in the Gospels could have been fabricated out of this legalistic Jewish culture that was ubiquitous in this period. It would seem more likely that this Jesus was a real person whose values were at odds with the religious culture He was born into and that the righteousness that He proclaimed would be strongly opposed by the status quo of the legalistic religious hierarchy. It is really highly likely that God sent His Son instead of a small elite group creating this character in history. In summary, the Christianity that has done the most good reflects the character of the Christ and He is the focus of our worship and loyalty. To place our faith and confidence in a book without error is a sure way to replace Christ as the head of His Church and water down the righteousness which are in the teachings of Christ alone. And that He was a creation in the minds of a few men seems quite at odds with the moral temperament at that time. One can pick or poke at the discrepancies that one can find in the accounts of Christ, his works and miracles, but a firm picture of the man emerges in all these imperfect accounts of an individual who possessed a higher life that was dedicated to the service of others at the expense of His personal comfort and eventually His very life. I don’t think that the best minds at that time could have created this character because of the low moral temperament at that time. If the focus is on Christ I believe there is enough evidence played out in the Gospels to form a solid basis for belief, and a description of life that we all should follow for the benefit of mankind. If the focus is on inerrancy, and discrepancies, then we will be disappointed as faith falters and we miss the clear picture of the Son of God. He draws us to Himself because He performs in a life a perfect expression of goodness, selflessness, mercy and truthfulness which no man is able to create but only by God who is able to replicate Himself in human form. I can follow this one character whom no man can create, only God.

[@jericosha2842]

I'm reading through Miller's book. Very good and thorough, but man his word choice is very dense. Not a knock, because it's largely good for me. Causes me to slow down.

[@oppothumbs1]

very extraordinarily exemplary true statement.

[@rhondadenis3469]

Your son is adorable. I love the outro. ❤❤❤❤

[@themythiclife8206]

Thanks!

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Thank you so much!

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Thank you 😊

[@geraldbennett8703]

The church and Christian are wise, because we understand it others are ignorant of the Truth of Jesus

[@etevejames4264]

the whole religion was created by Paul. if you delete Pauls writings then there is no Christianity and we wouldnt be here talking about this.

[@EvilXtianity]

Paul created Christianity in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy expired unfulfilled.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@user-cw3ox2nn5t _"Christianity predates Paul..."_ Source? _"The role of the apostles and early Christian communities..."_ Source?

[@EvilXtianity]

@@user-cw3ox2nn5t _"However, it is important to consider multiple perspectives and engage in a constructive discussion."_ Are you disputing that the first mention of Jesus is by Paul in 48 AD and that none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus?

[@canesrule96]

It's all speculation so I don't mind replying with more speculation. It is more likely that Christianity existed before Paul's writings. But Paul would end up creating his own church/doctrine that would make most other early iterations of Christianity moot. Paul's writings to other leaders in the church seem to be stressing his doctrine and correcting false teachings

[@pat-rick9846]

This is who we are, explorers - seekers. As established by our conditions at birth. We were astonished, dependent, fragile, and incompetent. But we were full of potential and of sound mind. Designed to grow, but challenged both physically and emotionally to understand. And above all, free in thought and choice.

[@oreopagus2476]

The father of Jewish historian Josephus was Matthias III, who served as a priest at the Temple in Jerusalem. Since Josephus was born only 4 years after Yeshua of Nazareth's crucifixion, I think it's very likely he learned about Yeshua from his father, since it would have been a big deal that his body was not found in the tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea. The Jewish leaders never did produce the dead body of Yeshua, which would have stopped the "Jesus movement" from spreading. The Roman historian Tacitus was stating a FACT that a first century man that he referred to as Christus/Christ was ordered crucified by Pontius Pilatus (Latin name for Pilate). Yeshua (Jesus), Matthias III, Josephus, Pontius Pilatus/Pilate, Herod the Great, Tiberius Caesar Augustus, and Joseph ben Caiaphas were all real people of the first-century AD.

[@stephannaro2113]

First: To most people the question "Was there a historical Jesus?" assumes a water-walking virgin-born, so to answer in the affirmative is irresponsible and frankly wrong. There is no escaping that. We can of course try to spell out clearly exactly what we mean: "The water-walking is certainly not historical", but is it worth that effort? Second: To a point Miller makes here: Gmirkin claims that "Moses" was originally an invention as part of anti-Jewish slander which Jewish scholars turned around: "Nope, he was a hero who did x, y, z." So they turned a (fictional) bad guy into a (fictional) "good" (from the authors' perspective) guy. Per Valliant and Fahy, and now Miller, similarly we have about Jesus: a (by Roman perspectives) (fictional or factual) bad guy turned into a (fictional) "good" from the authors' perspective) guy. In both cases a co-option of a character for own ends. And if the authors who created this Jesus 2.0 really was tightly involved with the Josephan circle, they could well have known the details of the Moses precedent. To such authors, the details about the "real" Jesus would not be exactly irrelevant, but rather undesirable and best forgotten and replaced with the new ideas. ie Even if there was a historical Jesus, he is nowhere to be found in the christian writings - maybe Josephus is our best source.

[@terrymurphy4401]

Doesn't matter if God is real or if religion is real as much as death has come out of it much more has come out it keeps us on our toes and makes us treat us each other much better

[@njhoepner]

It seems to me to make people treat each other horribly, it provides so many many reasons for anger and hatred and bigotry (among other things). I have yet to see people kill each other over disagreements about the meaning of Plato's writings, and I've never seen anyone quote Seneca to justify misogyny or bigotry or book bans. I think we'd be better off without religion. If the biblical god did exist, it seems to me it would be a crime against humanity to follow him/her/them.

[@ZazaMarkle]

You sure? What happened all the wars that made in the name of god?

[@WorshipperOfLife]

Why do people continually deny the existence of the one who brought the gospel message to the world?

[@jeremydurham6146]

The problem with trying to "get to the kernel" is that you will never be able to get to that kernel of absolute truth. Atheism, Creationism, Evolutionism, Scientism, etc. all rely on faith, theory, belief, rationalism, or whatever else you want to call it. Calling it by a different name does not impart objective truth. No matter how close in time or proximity you get to the origin of these belief systems the same issue holds true. The process of living and experiencing the human condition is the only way to contextualize and approach truth. Is this by design or happenstance? The unlikely probability of our fragile existence that is completely reliant on a highly organized and infinitely complex organic existence speaks for itself. Make no mistake, no matter what you decide to believe about our origin, it will always be a religious belief. "Religion: a particular system of faith and worship." "Worship: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion."

[@botarakutabi1199]

Why list atheism with that? It isn't a belief, it's stating a lack of belief. An atheist is someone who isn't convinced any gods exist, that's not the same as believing they don't exist. Me saying I'm not convinced there's an even amount of leaves on earth isn't me saying I am convinced there's an odd amount. Are we not using truth in the same way? I define truth as that which can be demonstrated to comport with reality, or that which can be shown to be real. I don't think "living" is the way we figure out what is true. We test things. Facts build on facts. You use evidence to substantiate truth claims, evidence being a body of verifiable facts that solely indicate the truth of a claim. If the facts can only be the way they are with the claim being true, then we treat that claim tentatively as true.

[@haydenwalton2766]

great discussion. more from dr miller please perhaps with dr carrier ??

[@travisjazzbo3490]

This was excellent. Best short interview you have done in my opinion on this subject. Dr. Miller giving Dr. Carrier really gets my respect. People really have no idea how Richard Carrier was trained and how qualified he really is on this subject and ancient history in general. He is known for this subject, but he is actually an expert in Roman History etc. He also literally wrote a book called 'Proving History' where he helps lay people understand the rigors necessary to do this work and he often cites how historians do not put their research through those rigors which makes it not strong research, according to the very guides that historians have agreed to!

[@TBOTSS]

Carrier was humiliated by William Lane Craig. He also debated in a series of posts with the physicist Luke Barnes on probability theory. Carrier was quickly outmatched and ran away.

[@EchoP7596]

Carrier isn’t respected because his scholarship is very bad.

[@travisjazzbo3490]

@@EchoP7596 BS. Give me on refuted scholar of this work on is peer-reviewed work and why everyone is chicken of debating him. Why? Because they will get exposed that's why

[@EchoP7596]

@@travisjazzbo3490 There have been multiple scholarly articles written about how bad his book is already. I’m not going to bother giving you a list because I’m sure you would just reply: “Richard has responded to their arguments and they didn’t really read his book.” Scholars don’t waste time debating him because they have actual jobs doing real scholarship. He has all the time in the world because he’s an internet blogger. Despite what you may think, most of what Carrier postulates isn’t new. It’s just been rejected by scholars for decades.

[@travisjazzbo3490]

@@EchoP7596 FOLLOW THE MONEY... That is where these 'scholars' are at... Just like COVID... Academics and medical people must have known better, while ethical people weren't allowed to tell the truth of the matter. FOLLOW THE MONEY... The Jesus Business is a a trillion dollar business. TRUTH is not popular

[@dougrobinson6683]

"If Jesus did exist, he was all but irrelevant to the composition of the Gospels." Thank you, Dr. Richard C. Miller. This statement is completely consistent with everything on Mythvision, and exactly what I keep trying to say.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

LOL! Images of a crucified corpse on a bloody line cloth say otherwise. . . . . . . . .

[@jameswright...]

​@@jeffreyerwin3665 No they don't 😂

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

But they do, and you can't make them go away. .. . . . @@jameswright...

[@jameswright...]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 But they don't, and you can't prove otherwise because the shroud is proven fake. There is no evidence for Christianity outside of the bible. The historically scientifically and morally wrong book.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

A proven fake? LOL! I suppose that you are refering to the discredited conclusions of the British Museum in 1989. The scientists there were under pressure to come up with a date because a lot of money was on the line, and the Museum needed to validate its new AMS C-14 dating process. Its scientists manipulated the data and the statistical analysis as well which explains why the Museum refused to release the Shrouds' raw C-14 data until forced to do so in 2017. All of this is not mentioned in the biased and bullied WIKI article on the Shroud which falsely states that "... all of the hypotheses used to challange the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted . .. " The article never mentions Rucker's neutron absorption hyupothesis, much less the recent finding that the nitrogen in Shroud blood crusts is MISSING! @@jameswright...

[@bvsuber1]

Interview Kenneth Humphreys

[@chiakum]

Question: Do you believe historical figures and events ever happened before? Or all of the historical records passed down to us are all myths?

[@janerkenbrack3373]

My take (for what it's worth) is that there was a Jesus (or whatever his name was). He was a charismatic apocalyptic figure who claimed to be the prophesied Messiah. It is best to think of him as we think of modern day cult leaders. Narcissistic to the extreme, and delusional as to his own nature. He took his show to Jerusalem and turned it up to eleven. This got a quick response from local Roman authorities who crucified him. His followers, unable to comprehend or accept that he was actually dead, began telling each other stories about how he was resurrected, and that he will be coming back. Paul, who heard some of these stories, and perhaps during his own psychotic breakdown, imagined this figure appearing before him. Paul wrote and said a lot, and any amount of it could be fabricated from voices in his head. He disagreed with people that knew Jesus, but they weren't as effective at spreading the word, so Paul is the one who started the religion, broadly speaking. Later there were new converts who were well educated, and they began writing down the stories that were passed around, with each generation adding its own claims, often to assuage skeptics, until there were so many books relating to Jesus that they were collected as the Bible. This in turn was worked and reworked until a consensus was agreed upon about what to include. By the time this new church was organized and spread around the region, the story had become a legend of fables built around an original figure, who would probably not recognize the claims made about him.

[@relationalrighteousness616]

Anyone who claims Jesus never existed demonstrates their own heart. They believe someone did not give his life for those who continually deny him because they would never dream of mimicking Pat Tillman, who was not truly atheist. No true atheists would do what he did.

[@geraldbennett8703]

Matthew didn't speculate about Jesus Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Shared via Bible KJV The New Testament is not so called whatever, but pure History You are speaking from lack of History and knowledge, bad philosophy

[@conquisitorveritas]

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Tim 1-2, 7

[@kwamemaatranyame-mentuhote9952]

Mythical position is the only convincing position right now No primary sources

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Primary source: miraculous images of a crucified corpse on the Shroud. Yeshu b. Pantera

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@jeffreyerwin3665A shroud carbon -dated to the 16 century.

[@donnievance1942]

@@Lobsterwithinternet No. Dated to around the end of the 13th century. Produced on a medieval textile type.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@donnievance1942 Looked back at it to confirm. Thanks for the correction.

[@davidlaki]

Dr. Miller’s facial reaction to Derek saying “my wofe made my kids.” LOL Priceless.

[@rsnc23]

I think you two should do a program on Tinkerbell, Flash Gordon, does Mariah really hit those high notes or do her people alter things like Britney's people and was it Martians or The Smurfs that made Android Bezos. One thing that dude is forgetting is Jojo Siwa also deserves a Seat At The Table. Go JoJo! Go JoJo! Go JoJo!

[@faarsight]

Of course it's not an important question. But it is an interesting question.

[@ArdwanGh]

Hi. Here is a Mandaean guy. Who knows the origin of Christianity and Ishu. If you wanna know anything feel free to ask anything. And remember Ishu was a Babylonian (Mandaean) Corrupted messenger.

[@billcook4768]

In the absence of evidence, it seems more likely to me a religion would spring up around a historical person than not.

[@EvilXtianity]

Jesus is a fictional character.

[@Someone-mf1tz]

People plz don't rule out the mythical Jeebus too easily Check out the criminally underrated channel named 'dragons in genesis podcast' especially his 'shift in judaism', 'enoch' and 'Paul in epistles' playlist which explains the origin of the Jeebus character Also read David Fitzgerald,Dr.Richard carrier,Dr.Dennis r McDonald,Dr.Robert price,Mike Lawrence books.they make a strong case for mythical jeebus

[@matthewbrown3273]

What gets me is how a homeless person with no money or status in life, who came from the most poverty stricken area 2000 years ago became the most famous "fairytale" who ever existed or some claim "never existed." That same knowbody, changed Rome, the dating system we go by today (B.C and A.D) has millions of followers around the world today. People can't even be surprised or terrified without subconsciously saying "Jesus" or "Jesus f'n Christ" out of pure reaction. Countless movies made about him. People's careers, scholars, archeologists, podcasters like this one that dedicate their lives trying to prove he never existed. Comments that everyone took time out of their lives to type out on this post. I'm truly amazed how someone of "no importance" from ancient times lives rent free in all your heads..lol praise Jesus Christ yall. I love it😅

[@EvilXtianity]

@@matthewbrown3273 _"That same knowbody, changed Rome, the dating system we go by today (B.C and A.D)..."_ That was a political decision made in 525 AD. Therefore, what?

[@aaronaragon7838]

Nobody can certify Confusius or Socrates existed, yet they dominated Chinese and Greek thought for 2500 years.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@aaronaragon7838 _"Nobody can certify Confusius or Socrates existed, yet they dominated Chinese and Greek thought for 2500 years."_ The difference is that we know how the Jesus fiction started.

[@montymartell2081]

Wow thank you again 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏💯

[@charleslitherbury8600]

Dang it, I guess i won't hang stockings this year! God Bless!

[@stinklpups]

Derek, if you don't believe in a celestial Jesus, which is the more likely thesis in Richard Carrier's study on the historicity of Jesus, where do you think his calculations are wrong? Or do you have different facts that Carrier ignored? Or do you believe the less likely thesis though, but if that's the case, why?

[@EchoP7596]

Carrier’s method is bunk, and he skewers the data with ad hoc interpretations of the data.

[@stephenkaake7016]

I begged God and was trained to be a holy person, I had a greater mind, now I have a mind that corrects me, I should be interviewed about the Truth

[@donnievance1942]

Yeah, right. Fat chance.

[@michaelhenry1763]

Yes, Jesus existed, just as Paul, Peter, John the Baptist, and Herod the Great existed. Are the stories told about them in the gospels and Acts true ? No.

[@dwaynestevens8307]

I have to look the name of it up, but pastors have a commentary and introduction to the Bible that most of them consider reliable and authoritative. It say that there is not enough confirmable historical information to constuct of biography or comfirm the existence of a man called Jesus, simular to if we were to say Zeus was a real person. I find that intresting within itself

[@canwelook]

'Atrocity of mistreatment (of Carrier) by the field' (i.e. by Ehrman).

[@keithk8275]

But was Jesus the name of the historical Jesus? Or was it given later in the stories?

[@TheBrandonMeek]

What translation, what language are you reading?

[@MarthaEllen88]

What does Dr Miller think about 'the sayings' part of the synoptics and in Thomas? What chance some of these go back to Jesus, if Jesus was a real historical figure?

[@rainbowkrampus]

Assuming there was a real guy, the thing it would definitely tell us is that this wasn't the group of ascetics who cast off their worldly goods that the gospels later made them out to be. Publishing a collection of sayings would be expensive. Which means they would have been more of an organization than anything else. Which entails a base of operations, some sort of hierarchy etc. If there's already an established organization in the 1st century, the likelihood is that it has roots going back before the 1st. Which throws the entire narrative of Jesus into question. That said, I think that this is an indicator that the early sayings collection idea doesn't really work. All of the organizations large enough to produce print materials in Jerusalem got wrecked in 70. You have to assume that unlike all the other groups, this one in particular survived and managed to preserve some form of the texts they produced. Couple that with the stuff Miller and MacDonald talk about and I think that there's no reason to think that ideas like Q make any sense whatsoever.

[@TheMarksT]

In search of the 'Holy Grail', literally! The only question I have left is did someone named Yeshua play "Jesus" with nothing but stories, stories his followers wanted to believe! Stiring up trouble and getting himself crucified, and many of his followers too! Nothing more!

[@nschlaak]

We either have to accept that the people who lived during the time of Jesus and wrote about Him outside of the Scriptures are telling the truth, or we can't accept any historical evidence as anything but mythical. We can't have it both ways.

[@PhilSophia-ox7ep]

Of course you can! Don't be absurd. Caesar's accounts of his military campaigns, Columbus' diary of his travel across the atlantic, and Plato"s dialogues about Socrates all contain mythical elements. That means they don't have historical value? Absolutely silly.

[@kanweiwu7339]

The teachings of Jesus are very similar to what are taught by Buddhism but based on different historical backgrounds.

[@seatopiascuba3540]

Look at the legend being played in the present day with Star Wars, mythical heroes really don’t seem to need a distant past.

[@outhousephilosophies3992]

Loved 🥰 the ending …. We are mythvision lol 😂 awesome and very cute

[@bobnodzo535]

You can say that Jesus was real as a person who raised the dead; went to Lazarus talked him out of suicide, was blind and now I see; someone so lost in life and through his conversation opened his eyes to the goodness within himself and those around him, cured the lepers; went to them to secure though physically impaired created a wholeness within their heart and minds which brought them peace. I think some would agree that when crucified he wasn’t hoisted up above most likely depicted he was probably a few feet above otherwise how could they get him down plus those nails had to go through flesh, bone and the cross itself as the Romans would have taken away the hammer and ladder which were used the acts of Jesus were real but became legendary and prolific as time passed