Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus

For more information, visit: freethoughtfestival.org
AHA @ UW - Madison: wiscatheists.blogspot.com/
Madison Area Coalition of Reason: unitedcor.org/mad/
Richard Carrier is the renowned author of Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, as well as numerous articles online and in print. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he now specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome. For more about his work, visit richardcarrier.info.

[@LackadaisicalE]

THIS GUY IS PURE GOLD! Just went to his website and bought the main book!

[@SigelFreyr]

Well all of you who think Richard Carrier is some kind of inept scholar... you do realise that his book on this subject has passed peer-review? The first mythicist book ever to do so, in fact. When Carrier says other mythicist proponents are not to be trusted it is because they are factually wrong or fallacious. He is not being egotistical, he is simply stating a fact.

[@Bankable2790]

LOL only peer review can possibly be fact

[@carld2796]

The Bible has been "peer-reviewed", i.e. EVERY SINGLE WORD has been scrutinized for 2500 years by believers (those who have read it and found it to be true to reality) and well informed detractors. No book has been has undergone the level of criticism it has (no other could) and yet it stands as the number one best seller of all time. It is the best seller every year without exception. And yes, its popularity is significant. Carrier's "peer-reviewed" book is already forgotten.

[@Bankable2790]

@@carld2796 lol based

[@mrovin11]

@@carld2796 The Bible has been scrutinized mostly by biased Christians for centuries, and secular scholars who are under the thumb of Christian institutions. Carrier exposes their fallacious methods. The Bible is myth.

[@carld2796]

@@mrovin11 The bias straw man ploy works both ways. It was clearly evident from Carrier's first words in the video. Mock the other side, get a laugh, win the uninformed. Debate 101. The myth claim has been around since the first century. At that time it was the Gnostics who espoused it. It's resurrected every now and again. Gets a lot less convincing as the years pass by. If you want a present day agnostic/atheist scholar with the opposing view, check out Bart Ehrman.

[@formerfundienowfree4235]

Fascinating! I love how dr. Carrier is so scrupulous about his historical analysis. Applying the academic rigor.

[@dfadden62]

This is such a brilliant video! I could listen to Mr. Carrier all day. I'm someone who mistakingly thought Mithras was a dying & rising god. (Thanks to Zeitgiest) Good to know the facts here, and what really makes Mithraism similar to Christianity is the fact Mithras undergoes a passion of his own and gains victory over death.

[@robzrob]

When you critics have researched and read as much as Carrier, I might read past the first lines of your comments.

[@robzrob]

AnarchoRepublican Lol! Still good, though. What's an anarcho-republican? Never heard the term before.

[@markbelmares8012]

William Lane Craig has but I'm guessing you don't really care what he has to say since it doesn't mesh well with your worldview, yes?

[@EnnoiaBlog]

+mark belmares William Lane Craig is a walking fallacy factory. All you have done is proved that you REALLY do not understand the most fundamental structure of logic.

[@ramigilneas9274]

+mark belmares William Lane Craig is what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like. ;)

[@EnnoiaBlog]

Rami Gilneas We had to learn the fallacies according to their logical 'proof' form in my logic class. It was quite tedious to learn all those, but time well spent. I was lucky to have learned it when I was in my early 20s, as my PRECEPTS were still forming. Sadly, people like mark belmares don't know a concept from a precept -- and they're entirely beholden to fallacy. We learned fallacies in philosophy in order to avoid logical error. I am CONVINCED that William Lane Craig learned them entirely to deceive.

[@buttking6413]

If Jesus never existed, how come I'm a Christian? BOOM! Checkmate atheists.

[@buttking6413]

Pierre M Believe it or not I wasn't being sincere; but no shit the "how come I'm a Christian?" argument is one I've seen several times.

[@Assenayo]

Then why do you have a profile picture of Brett Keane?

[@bigmojo704]

+The Gooch indivijul situwation

[@TheInveritas]

How do you explain Jedi Knights in Australia ?

[@mikeq5807]

Please don't be so ignorant to think that your cult comes from Jesus. Give thanks to confused and ambitious Paul.

[@ernestschultz5065]

Now 11 years later and Dr Carrier says Jesus in all likelihood never actually existed. I think he is right. The case he makes is very compelling and seems to fit the actual facts.

[@CusterFlux]

Cool, the early "Van Halen" audio mix - signal all to the right, reverb all left.

[@cwdor]

Christianity dosent come from jesus it comes from this guy Paul in the bible who came along 4 yr after jesus died..same story as josuf smith. Its in the book of acts...

[@mikeq5807]

My thoughts exactly. Jesus was a sage, not a savior. Look within. That which is outside of you is an illusion. Paul was confused, homophobic, sexist, dogmatic. He pushed a theology of sacrifice. "I desire compassion, not sacrifice." Jesus

[@Bankable2790]

@@mikeq5807 LLLOL as if any of that refutes that “Paul was sexist!” Who cares

[@mikeq5807]

@@Bankable2790 Paul's sexism is obvious, unless you choose to be blind. Requiring a submissive attitude from wives toward their husbands is the most popular example. A non-sexist attitude is to treat people the same, regardless of sex. People are essentially spiritual beings, not bodies.

[@gordontubbs]

So Carrier's thesis is basically that a group of Jewish sectarians created a story for a new religion and "sold it as truth" because it was socially and politically advantageous. Let's not kid ourselves. Christianity was not at all socially and politically advantageous, especially starting out. If Carrier's thesis is true, why didn't we see Roman and Jewish persecution of the early Christians as attacks against the story "sold as truth"? If I were a critic and knew somebody was lying, it would be far more easier to discredit that person with the real truth. What a theory must do is adequately explain a broad set of phenomena, observation, and experience for it to be credible. Dr. Carrier's "the disciples sold it as truth" theory seems credible because it attacks how Christianity may have originated in a syncretic religious context, but it completely lacks explanatory power in regards to its earliest development, proliferation despite hostile persecution and criticism, and coherence with historical and social context.

[@Gnomefro]

_"Christianity was not at all socially and politically advantageous, especially starting out."_ Actually it was. Early Christianity presented a sort of altruistic, socialist, community model that many people find attractive. Moreover, in the beginning there was not much in the way of persecution either. _"If Carrier's thesis is true, why didn't we see Roman and Jewish persecution of the early Christians as attacks against the story "sold as truth"? If I were a critic and knew somebody was lying, it would be far more easier to discredit that person with the real truth."_ How? Carrier's thesis would involve that the euhemerization of Jesus would not be complete until many decades after the point in history where they later claimed Jesus got crucified. Carrier holds that Paul only talked about a celestial Jesus, so it's not until the gospels that you'd get a story tied very closely to the Romans and Jews of 4 decades earlier, most of whom would be long dead. _"What a theory must do is adequately explain a broad set of phenomena, observation, and experience for it to be credible. Dr. Carrier's "the disciples sold it as truth" theory seems credible because it attacks how Christianity may have originated in a syncretic religious context, but it completely lacks explanatory power in regards to its earliest development, proliferation despite hostile persecution and criticism, and coherence with historical and social context."_ Not really. This hostile persecution of yours mostly manifests in areas like Nero's reaction after the Christians torched Rome. Other examples, such as Pliny's letter to Trajan about how to react to Christians who refused to submit to the Roman gods, mostly demonstrate that there was a conflict, but not that there was rampant persecution. Clearly, Pliny saw no reason to bother them, which is why he wrote his letter. In any case, Christians view persecution as a kind of social pornography. It's very unlikely that the average Christian had many issues with persecution during that period. If they really were being hunted down and killed systematically because of their beliefs(As opposed to - for crimes against humanity as during the fire of Rome), then you are right - Christians would have been exterminated in a decade - but this simply didn't happen, because the persecution was fairly low-key. In any case, you should keep in mind that Christianity grew by spreading hearsay - not because people in Rome, Alexandria etc had any way of establishing whether Jesus in fact was executed or rose from the dead. So there's nothing less plausible about such gullible people believing a fabrication than that gullible people believe absurd stories about magic that they objectively had no rational reason to believe. It's certainly possible to object to Carrier's theory, but I think you have chosen a very poor angle of attack, given how gullible the early Christians had to have been in the first place. It seems to me your arguments would also work on Mormonism as well, as the early Mormons were certainly persecuted - to the point where open war was looming. I'd rather drive in the wedge with Carrier's claims about the pre-existing celestial Jesus. Although he has some support for it, it's pretty weak at the moment.

[@gordontubbs]

I think at this point if the argument and counterargument were to continue, then we need to clearly establish the range and extent of persecution. If you allow the Biblical account of Early Christianity, then the Book of Acts paints a very clear picture that persecution began very early on as Christianity initially clashed with Judaism. I will concede that Christianity was perhaps socially desirable from an egalitarian perspective, but "advantageous" could be a debatable term if for some Christians this meant they were at risk of martyrdom. Politically, it wasn't really advantageous until the 3rd century. Determining the strength of Christianity as a political movement in the 1st and 2nd centuries would be a difficult task, since the early church regarded themselves as apolitical if not anti-political. This is the type of context I was referring to that Dr. Carrier sidestepped. Speaking against it requires immense speculation. For instance, if Jesus died and did not resurrect, how would this have changed the Christian narrative? Would the Christian movement have imploded on itself? Would the disciples have decided (as Carrier suggests) to invent a story? There's really no way to determine any of those claims, yet Dr. Carrier seems perfectly content with speaking to Christianity's formative years from a speculative platform without addressing alternative points of view. For instance, if Jesus died and did resurrect, wouldn't this explain the dramatic rise of Christianity and its expansive evangelism as the historical context seems to suggest? The claim "Jesus is risen" is extraordinary, and would have required extraordinary evidence in order to be believed. We can only speculate as to what this evidence was. Certainly some critics would like to think that "Jesus is risen" spoke to a kind of "spiritual resurrection within yourself". If so, why didn't the disciples simply re-brand Christianity as such? Why say "Jesus is risen" as a factual statement when it could've been far easier to sell it as a figurative one? Dr. Carrier tends to think that this is precisely what the disciples did, but justifies his thesis by basically saying that other religions were doing it (that is: making figurative metaphysical statements), and Christianity is guilty by association, so you don't need to believe a lick of the New Testament because it was in all likelihood just made up. That line of reasoning just doesn't have me convinced.

[@f150bc]

I've gotten so much out of our posts you are a real inspiration.And yes you silver tongued devil you are winning over people and making many friends.

[@HConstantine]

Your judgement means the whole world to me.

[@normanvanrooy3113]

This guy is a joke. He might have a Ph.D in some ancient history, but he is obviously no expert in new testament history. He starts off as an arrogant and dismissive pundit making statements to a crowd who are already eagerly waiting for him to rip apart the notion that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Does this sound like a real scholarly start? He himself cannot construct a real history of the myth itself. It is all on speculation. Tell me Sir Richard how it was that Christianity spread to all four corners of the Roman world as well at India within 20 years of Jesus' purported death? Christianity was not fashionable in the least, but it did satisfy the deepest yearnings for love, egalitarianism, support and spirituality for hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands of people, And at the same time the state was depriving them of human rights, persecuting them beyond belief, and offering them up for public spectacle in the arenas. This is historical. It is obvious that you have done little contemplation of how this so called myth conspiracy actually began and who it served in the first century. The second century is full of testimonies to the cruelties suffered by this group and yet you cannot give any historical evidence as to the origins of the myth. Please give a credible alternative. I mean scholarly. Jesus himself did not endorse the old Judaic belief in an angry God. He pointed out that God does not judge anyone...nor would he. It is unfortunate in a way that early Christianity didn't redact the O.T. in accordance with the new teachings. And unfortunately most Christians do not realize to this day that the new testament clearly states that God judges no one. On top of that current knowledge of near death experience corabarates that when we die we will judge ourselves with God's help. The existence of life or conciousness after death is just short of being a scientifically accepted fact.

[@SeeingFlyingNuns]

I haven't even read past your first argument. Let me tell you that in reality the gospels were written CENTURIES after 30 ad. So Christianity had not spread at all, let alone to the quote on quote four corners of the earth

[@Gnomefro]

_"Tell me Sir Richard how it was that Christianity spread to all four corners of the Roman world as well at India within 20 years of Jesus' purported death?"_ Obviously it wasn't. In fact, one of the sparse sources that document that Christians existed is a letter from Pliny the younger asking emperor Trajan what on earth he was going to do with these strange new cultists. That was in 112AD. _"Christianity was not fashionable in the least,"_ Sure it was. It adopted many of the concepts of the popular religions of the day. _"but it did satisfy the deepest yearnings for love, egalitarianism, support and spirituality for hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands of people,"_ I suppose I should ask you how this would not equate to being fashionable... _"And at the same time the state was depriving them of human rights, persecuting them beyond belief, and offering them up for public spectacle in the arenas. This is historical."_ No, not really. Certainly not the bit about throwing them into arenas. While there certainly are many instances of Christians being killed, realize that the most impressive of those, such as the mass executions after the Christians torched Rome, had nothing to do with the content of the religion. They were being executed for crimes against humanity. _"It is obvious that you have done little contemplation of how this so called myth conspiracy actually began and who it served in the first century."_ At least he's not operating with your blatantly false impression. The truth is that Christianity grew about as fast as Mormonism did, which is impressive, but not so fast as to require special considerations. _"The second century is full of testimonies to the cruelties suffered by this group and yet you cannot give any historical evidence as to the origins of the myth. Please give a credible alternative. I mean scholarly."_ Well, you could read Carrier's recent book on the subject. Earl Doherty's works are also pretty good as it focuses more on how the thought patterns of the ancient world differ from those we have today - in ways that would easily allow for a gradual transition from a pure celestial myth to the gospels, to finally having a fanatical sect of believers who believed that Jesus actually existed. This may sound bizarre to you, but it actually happened with other gods that nobody believe ever walked the earth in any form. Another argument for this is that once you get rid of your false ideas of how fast Christianity spread you'll realize that the early preachers, such as Paul, appear to write about a Jesus which he knows only from personal revelation and from interpreting scripture(OT). It's well within the realm of possibility that he was simply making shit up as many other cult preachers at the same time did, then decades later the gospel writers come along and flesh his story out with a drama on earth. _"Jesus himself did not endorse the old Judaic belief in an angry God."_ The gospels say differently. According to them, Jesus claimed that the OT would apply until Judgment day. For example in Matthew 5:18-19. You can find many similar statements. _"He pointed out that God does not judge anyone...nor would he."_ No, he did not. What a strange claim. If that was true, there's no role for Jesus the Savior at all. _"It is unfortunate in a way that early Christianity didn't redact the O.T. in accordance with the new teachings."_ It may be unfortunate, but according to the gospels, Jesus did not even believe the stuff you are claiming here, so I see no reason why they would. _"And unfortunately most Christians do not realize to this day that the new testament clearly states that God judges no one."_ No, it does not. In fact, it repeatedly states that the old testament laws are still in force. I have no idea where you think you are getting your information from, but I can assure you that your interpretation is nonsense. _"On top of that current knowledge of near death experience corabarates that when we die we will judge ourselves with God's help."_ So basically, you think that people who didn't die have something to tell you about Christianity's afterlife myth? In any case, the entire body of knowledge generated by neuroscience utterly excludes the concept of a soul, so I have no hesitation with regards to simply declaring Christianity to be false on that basis alone. _"The existence of life or conciousness after death is just short of being a scientifically accepted fact."_ I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous drivel. You are not informed about this area in the slightest. We don't have the first clue how such a mechanism could even work and most near death experience phenomena have known explanations within neuroscience, such as the tunnel of light being caused by blood loss to the retina and can be replicated in centrifuges for fighter pilots etc. At the same time, we know how humans who get minor brain damage can lose selective parts of their functioning, such as speech or motor function. More damage means they lose more functions, but you claim that if you lose all of it(brain death), then suddenly you'll sprint to live with all your abilities intact as a disembodied super-consciousness? It's ridiculous. A much better explanation for near death experiences is a combination of real neurological effects, such as the blood loss thing and many others, combined with people having weird fantasies and thoughts when they think they're going to die and add fraud to that and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for it all. In any case, people from non-Christian traditions have NDEs as well, and they sure as hell don't claim to have met the Christian god, so I have no idea why you think you can conclude that there's evidence of people judging themselves with the help of your god.

[@wmthewyld]

Porcum Means Pig "reality the gospels were written CENTURIES after 30 ad" The book (The Gospel of Mark) was probably written c.AD 66-70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution. Let's see...Jesus resurrected...let's say in 33 AD and the Gospel of Mark was written in 66-70....so that puts it about 33 years after the resurrection of Jesus. Yep that is CENTURIES to a brain dead moron.

[@wmthewyld]

AnarchoRepublican another "intelligent" response from a "brilliant" atheist. These atheist are such fools.

[@normanvanrooy3113]

Gnomefro Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny mentions Christians by name. Tacitus was asking advice as to how to handle these people. During the fist and second and third centuries Christianity was considered atheistic since it had no belief in the Greco-Roman gods. No, Christianity was not fashionable and kept much of their worship secret. Remember that the Jews were the ones who were persecuting them during the 1st century--in fact the most outstanding Christian was Paul who admittedly participated in the killing of Christians. The Christians set up the first hospices to tend the needy and sick. The fall of paganism was due not to Christians burning their books, but because the populous over time preferred the Christian way as it was practiced back then; which has little resemblance to the way it is practiced today. What we have today is by and large a sham. And yes, Jesus said that he did not come to judge the world, and he said that the Father does not judge us. Read it thoroughly. The concept of a blood sacrifice to appease a wrathful "just" god was also challenged by Jesus. What do you think he meant by saying "God is not interested in sacrifice, but mercy?" If you want to learn something new I would suggest you read the scholar David Bentley Hart's book entitled "The Atheist Delusion." You will have a much more scholarly understanding of the Christianity you hate and misunderstand. I know that you believe in at least one miracle--truly a most amazing and unbelievable one. You believe it because it is part of scientism's dogma. I suspect you might define a miracle as something that manifests itself in reality through supernatural means. Maybe you have a different way of defining miracle. Think about the BIG BANG. It was an event that no known laws can explain and during the first moments of it, the laws of its expansion and makeup actually changed. There were no cosmological constants. Something huge out of nothing. Sounds pretty miraculous to me don't you reckon? If you can swallow that malarky then why get so upset when people think that it was God? Apparently something existed before there was time, space and matter. Whatever that is, it is truly unknowable and thus demands an honest reckoning with one's own scrunched up beliefs. If you apply Aristotelian logic to your BIG BANG and are honest you will come to a dead end. Near death experience is something I know a lot about. I produced a documentary on it that was well received. I have interviewed over 100 people personally and have read the accounts of a thousand more. You hard core science "aficionados" will eventually have to come to grips with the implications. Sorry, there has been no argument put forward that can explain it. Drugs, hypoxia, hallucinations do not explain the many documented cases of the accuracy of the outside events which are described in detail by the "deceased" who were out cold or were shrouded by surgical drapes. Chances are that you will have someone in your network of friends and family that will have such an experience. Google the International Association for Near Death Studies and read thousands of accounts and also peer reviewed articles about the nde. Fascinating to say the least. And you are right nde research shows that there are all kinds of different narratives experienced--not all Christian by a long shot. What it is saying and what Jesus was saying is that we have good news (consciousness continues after death) and that we do not need to fear death. And, yes Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus' death at 33 A.C.E. And yes, Judas Ditimus Thomas traveled to India some 20 years after the crucifiction and founded the Martoma Church in South India where it is still thriving. In fact he went to an existing Jewish colony there and that is where he began. Look it up. I delight in the fact that we find ourselves in a knowable physical universe that obey the rules of the game. It is impervious to delusional minds and will not render a fool as an exception. I know it is difficult for you as a staunch reductionistic materialist to be able to imagine truth outside of your existing paradigm but you might challenge yourself and take a look around.

[@gmn545]

I didn't say "wholly comparing the two", I said on the grounds that YOU provided (namely that miraculous events are tied into their narrative is what merits doubt), both are indeed equivalent.

[@f150bc]

I have already looked it up some of his quotes suggested he had faith,but upon looking deeper into his view he was an agnostic.He also thought that imagination was as important or more important than knowledge.You have to have an imagination to have faith.You can imagine many things, and thus creativity is born and new things.

[@christopheb9221]

A very important point to add is how religion is/was spread. when spreading they would replace holidays, traditions, holy sites with christian ones and this was often done forcefully. A christian evangelism technique was to destroy the local religious idol and/or temple and build over it and then nothing would happen so the people would see that their god isn't more powerful. Then the fact that it became a state endorsed religion means you had to be it to have power. Carrier made a point of people having an understanding of the same god with a different name meaning people can adapt and even if they have keep their beliefs what matters is the children pick up the new beliefs. Christianity besides having angels also has saints which people pray to.

[@TheCurmudgen]

Super. Thanks!

[@1n354a]

what other sources are there?

[@superchristian102]

Is there a text version of his speech? I don't have time to listen to all of it

[@proudfootz]

No, Dr Carrier is a historian unlike those anonymous internet trolls who attack him.

[@chase201mph]

The 4 scrolls that survived the editors cuts were written hundreds of years after this mythical event, Paul’s renderings is argued to have been written just some 70 years after mythical Jesus, but his encounter happens in a dream and his accounts of the life of Jesus was never meant to claim it happened here on earth.

[@StratMatt777]

"I've not said a single thing about his work on self esteem, as I'm unfamiliar with most of it. I'm saying this on the basis of the work with which I am familiar..." Yeah you clearly haven't learned anything about self-esteem since you aren't even of aware of your low self-esteem that causes you to have to feel superior to others- like this: "and it saddens me deeply that I have to even explain that." Wow you are so smart and aware of so much more than me!!! You are fucking amazing!

[@Jamaal4Jesus]

The Bible says if you seek Gods face with all your heart you will find Him. You also need to repent of the things that you know doesn't please God because He is holy and come to Jesus with a humble heart. God revealed Himself to me and I am not special but I really sought His face.

[@VERGIS92]

what mind tricks, we grabbed it with our hands, physically, the relic becomes strongly attractive on sick spots, extremely attractive during the first half minute. the said relic doesn't get any media attention, and is hardly known even among local priests, and the monk in charge just stood there, as if it was a normal everyday thing.

[@dirkadirkabro]

oh? and where did you get your phd?

[@grisflyt]

Some similarities between Mormons and Muslims: -Insistence that their religion is a complete way of life, meant to directly influence every facet of existence; -A belief that theirs constitutes the one and only completely true religion on the earth today; -Belief that good deeds are required for salvation just as much as faith; -Assertions that modern Christianity does not conform to the original religion taught by Jesus Christ; -Reject the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity;

[@TravelBreakthrough]

The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[

[@f150bc]

Thank you for that info, I will not use that quote again.And I will look it up to see what he said,I do however stand by the other statements theory is constantly changing and old ways are hard to give up.New ideas are challenging everything but faith it is something that you have or not.Our knowledge if you can call it that is always uncertain in the face of new discoveries.

[@daddyleon]

11:00 I wonder what would happen is you'd mix e.g. Norse mythology, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. with Hellenistic elements. Sounds like an interesting excersice. Could end up in an interesting and fun game to play too, not unlike Civ5, AoM, etc.

[@clebdabudan6601]

You know what I mean. A government ruled by god vs. a government that demands to be treated like god.

[@MegaTrain]

I think you're missing an important point: a frequent argument used by Christians is to say that the story of Jesus and the message of the gospels is so different, so unusual, so radical that it *must be true* because it *couldn't possibly* have originated in some other way. Carrier is providing evidence that there is, in fact, a plausable alternate explanation for the development of the NT and Christianity than Jesus actually having existed as a real person.

[@hexusziggurat]

"Joe, That might be the worst analogy I've ever heard." Actually that's one of the better analogies I've heard. It may be "worse" in your eyes simply b/c you place so much stock in the natural world.

[@carryall69]

The Sanhedrin 43a in the Talmud is an Amoraic reference about events that occurred from 200 AC to 500 AC.

[@ikatgoat8578]

before carrier i had never even heard the idea of a celestial jesus , However after reading the Pauline letters/writing's i see his point. I first had to consider that only 7 come from the same time period and authors.

[@mohsenhadee2414]

The volume needs enhancement .

[@gmn545]

As an epistemological stance, yes we're all agnostic; on belief, I'm a nontheist. I don't identify as 'atheist' because who wishes to be identified by what they don't subscribe to? I don't go calling everyone "aunicornists" or "aleprechaunists". I subscribe to the honest & realistic stance of agnosticism, so that's what I identify as.

[@punchinker]

I lean toward the likelihood that JC was an amalgam of several peripatetic preachers of that time, in the same way that Robin Hood, King Arthur, and many others probably originated.

[@boblackey1]

Also 500 years ago Martin Luther reject Paul as the author of Hebrews due to his study of the letter in Greek. He suggested Apollos was the author but in fact nobody knows who wrote Hebrews.

[@AaronWilkerson]

Carrier thoroughly criticized Ehrman's book on his blog, and a bit of a debate ensued. It is all accessible via a Google search.

[@MichaelFoster1969]

You do realise that just because someone ironically named the Higgs boson the god particle doesn't mean it's actually anything to do with god, right?

[@gmn545]

No it meant that I'm agnostic, like Bart Ehrman (a historian) is. And like him, it doesn't mean I ought to deny that Jesus was a real person, when (again) the overwhelming majority of historians say he was.

[@f150bc]

You can go in peace ,and leave your hate at the curb.We all have our own cross to bear, and it is equally a burden for all of us ,depending on our strength how heavy that cross is.

[@Cootabux]

Agree totally.

[@aimeecurry46]

Revelation 3:10 (KJV) - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

[@roryreviewer6598]

I think either Ehrman or Carrier could be right about the historicity of Jesus. Both have interesting points to make about the subject in my opinion and at this point I see no reason to strongly believe one over the other. Both hypothesis seem plausible.

[@zencat999]

one thing...bad sound. a "shotgun mic" or get closer to the speaker or, if you can..get a lapel mic just for recording and sync it in post.

[@HobGothlin]

Do you have a video or proof of this? because as the saying goes; “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

[@d3ci.b3L]

I think Carrier's definition of euhemerization is backwards. Looking it up, the definition says that "ancient Greek myths were imaginative or allegorical renderings of historical events".

[@VERGIS92]

there are also other weird things that have happened, not related to the cross of jesus, in the 1960s an archeology worker digging in some ruins, they had uncovered the remains of some medieval monks, he started kicking the remains with his foot, and swearing at religion, he was suddenly hit by an invisible force and fell down, when they checked on him, both the workers and the ambulance crew confirmed, that his weight had increased dramatically, as if he weighted 500kg

[@stephendevore]

If he can't even get the Roswell story right - the "flying saucer" part was actually the day it was first reported in the Roswell newspaper, not 30 years later - because he is skeptical and not careful, why would I believe he is careful when he is cynical about any ancient writing that seems fantastic to him?

[@MichaelJonesC-4-7]

The _"alien bodies"_ part wasn't.

[@Gnomefro]

Science reasons both ways and includes things like the parsimony criterion that prevents scientists from making up all kinds of assumptions that aren't required to explain the data. This is a conservative constraint that prevents a lot of nonsense from infecting models. This is perhaps where religious and scientific inference differs the most.

[@chase201mph]

With this said, Paul would have been at the very least 70 in the base case scenario for Jesus existence which is a great accomplishment in itself because the anonymous Paul lived past the average life span of the region in that time period.

[@f150bc]

I agree we make choices based on what we think we know, an agenda is formed, and everything has to support that agenda.Faith is as in "a leap of faith'you are taking a risk that its true and belief is what faith teaches us, and its faith in a knowledge you think is the truth.Knowledge wether its science or religion is taught we are not born with this ,we learn to believe or not and that is a choice not a fact.

[@OlviMasta77]

Yes its quite interesting!

[@VERGIS92]

300 years of physics, physics works great most of the time, however you have to realize that in the universe, there are many events that contradict physics, the same physics that explains so much, fails catastrophically to explain black holes, it suggest that matter moved faster than light speed during the big bang and more crazy things, oh and it has still NOT explained in detail, and in full, ordinary forces, such as magnetism or gravity, it'd be interesting to have them see the case

[@dansorci]

good talk with interesting ideas, but the audio quality really sucks

[@TravelBreakthrough]

dude guys go on wikipedia , its right there at the begining A large majority of modern day historians agree Jesus existed.

[@gmn545]

Where in anything that I cited amounts ot me stating that agnostic is a "middle ground"? I'm well aware that 'agnostic' and 'atheist' aren't mutually exclusive.

[@VERGIS92]

yes absolutely, but note, that if it's a kind of manipulation of gravitational force there's no portable apparatus that can detect it, and no Nobel prize can be won since these require mathematical proof, the phenomenon however is so jaw dropping and open to scrutiny that could (if accepted by the JREF) win the $1mil challenge. or just pass their preliminary test, which will involve investigation by both conjurers and physicists

[@cfarmerga]

Great content and good references, but it was hard to concentrate after I noticed that "ballsack" was written on the chalkboard behind Richard as he was speaking.

[@boblackey1]

The Jesus Seminar made up of dozens of skeptical/agnostic Bible scholars, voted collectively that Jesus only actually spoke about 14 % of his quotes in the New Testament. The rest are myths as are the virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, being the atonement for our sin & eternal life etc. So for the majority of skeptical scholars I know anything about, the was ONE Jesus whom myths were told like King Arthur, John Henry and to a lesser extent George Washington.

[@grisflyt]

From Wiki: "Origen of Alexandria was the first ancient writer to have a comprehensive reference to Josephus, although some other authors had made smaller, general references to Josephus before then, e.g. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, followed by Clement." The fact that none of them mentions the strongest “evidence” for a historical Jesus speaks volume. What’s Horseshit is a historical Jesus.

[@gabepearson6104]

That’s because they didn’t really have a need to, Celsus and the early critics of Christianity didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Therefore the church fathers wouldn’t need mention a historian who only basically said that Jesus was a “wise man” and that he died.

[@baasmans]

he knows the other sources. Don't worry, he's discussed them in other videos. Look up those sources yourself, they are few and far between (and quite long after Jesus was supposed to have lived). This video explains how the belief that Jesus was an actual person came into being in the first century AD (note, we only started using AD in the 6th century AD, if memory serves me correctly).

[@gigisdad]

Einstein was a deist (look it up). He was not referring to any personal go and he most certainly was not referring to the christian god. He was basically equating god with the nature of the universe.

[@BiophysicalChemist]

As displayed by your willingness to continue your replies.

[@GetMeThere1]

I'd REALLY love to see these ideas catch fire in academics. There really does seem to be substantial meat here.

[@boblackey1]

I think it is likely King Arthur also existed. But if one reads the atheist scholar Burton L. Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament, The Making of the Christian Myth" we see this Bible scholars slicing it down to just ONE person named Jesus who had a Jewish following which included Peter & his brother James and Dr. Mack finds a historical foundational layer in the gospels and a few of Jesus' quotes were actually spoken by Jesus. Most thought were words put in his mouth.

[@jacopman]

May Inquire as to how you would defined God revealing himself and/or your witness of God personally?............Exactly what is it that experience which is manifested to you and others who claim what you have stated?

[@HConstantine]

I save logical thought for published articles. KZbin exists for incensed rants, if you hadn't noticed. Although, do you find many incensed rants that refer to the relevant primary and secondary sources?

[@f150bc]

Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe" sounds like he did have faith.Many physicists are creating new theories such as "string", and multiple "dimensions" the theory of the very small also,as these come about the Einstein work doesn't always work.Even as of late the speed of light has been questioned as based on the energy of the source effecting the speed of light.Their are always new theories in science, but faith is constant you either have it or you don't.

[@grisflyt]

Times have changed. People used to get killed for not believing right. Nowadays you can believe Jesus was a space cow and still be considered a true believer.

[@VVc0mpu73r]

whoever was the operator of the camera ..... keep the thing on the board ffs u are missing slides -_-

[@chase201mph]

PS, nobody noticed any Christians until 300 years after the myth of Jesus as well….

[@Gnomefro]

But scientists also employ models of course, and in a sense they do the same thing, only at a deliberately reduced scale. And the scientific method also tried to help scientists be honest and reject models when they don't fit the evidence. Religion tends to do the opposite and say that it's wrong to ever change your mind, or at least encourage ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away falsification.

[@AzimuthTao]

Joe, You don't need to prove to me that you have great faith but your mistake is that you see faith as a positive force when in fact faith is simply the abandoning of reason.In this regard, I understand you are a person of strong faith. God is something that you have chosen to believe in and faith is the word you use to convince yourself it's ok to believe it.

[@smsimms7593]

the audio is too low

[@TravelBreakthrough]

disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

[@f150bc]

I understand that but my point is if one of his understandings is off by a small interpretation and then he builds on that down the line the accuracy of the story is long lost.Some points have to be constants to reference without doubt the other speculations in order for them to be accurate.Meanings of old written words and stories can vary greatly from time to time and area to area,the thread of the story must be followed in its own path, and even outside influences are added they are separate

[@Jamaal4Jesus]

Sure Jesus has all the answers. You should call on Him in repentance and maybe you'll experience His love and grace. He can take your bitterness away and change your hardened heart and pull you out of darkness. Jesus is awesome.

[@Tatarize]

The better question is why didn't Paul stop saying you can only really know Jesus through visions after meeting these "Brothers of the Lord". They really might have just been some Christians. Or written into the allegory later.

[@TheShorterboy]

oh crap we got a live one here in vergis92

[@gmn545]

I'm appealing to the experts in their respective fields, not to the mere opinion of the general populace, and there's a huge difference. Incorrect. To quote Stephen J. Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."

[@tangentcreative1]

Paul (saul) was not at the last supper. He had his conversion and encounter with Jesus on the road to damascus after his crucifixion.

[@gmn545]

I'm not confusing belief with knowledge; I know the difference. Again, the only reason I even brought it up was to compare the stance of another self-identified agnostic (e.g. Bart Ehrman). That's it. Nothing more.

[@hexusziggurat]

"since god knows whats best nobody must question his rules" You can question Him, many have....but you see you cannot even qualify the word "god" if you don't understand what it means. Your logic will never outweigh His, you live within a narrow "pop" of time when He exist beyond time itself....is the creator of time itself, your view of the cosmos and beyond is garnered from a limited perspective, when He is omnipresent.

[@bradgentle354]

I know this is 8 years later, but I noticed that "ballsacks" is written on the blackboard. That is all.

[@f150bc]

Also, one other thing if you think you know ,and everyone else is wrong you may be right, but that is vanity, and even Einstein has had his ideas shaken recently by new theories ,what was once thought to be known is now not.

[@clebdabudan6601]

Tell me exactly what fact I am distorting and give me evidence for support please.

[@smartesttermite01]

I'm not aware of phenomena that contradict physics but there are puzzling phenomena at the edge of our current understanding. The kind of phenomena you're describing should, if they are real, be easy to demonstrate to the satisfaction of an unbiased observer. That's why I suggest contacting local universities. There is a history of these kind of claims not standing up under scrutiny. Claims mean nothing without hard evidence.

[@D3nchanter]

You realize tacitus work was in 116 AD, well after jesus right?

[@Gnomefro]

The problem is that all theories are under determined by evidence. So if you start off with a complex preconception about reality, it's never hard to map experience to that model in various ways. Especially if one is clueless about how rational inference works and are willing to violate logic or probability theory to make it happen. This is why reasoning purely from models in that way is intellectually bankrupt.

[@YuriHazuki]

Forget Mark's 3-hour eclipse no one mentions; what about Matthew's insistence that after Jesus expired, PEOPLE CAME OUT OF THEIR GRAVES AND STARTED WANDERING AROUND TOWN?

[@boblackey1]

Tacitus is another story. I doubt Tacitus would have used some kind of hearsay that he got from a Christian in person on in writing. I think it is very likely that Tacitus had some kind of Roman source, which he often did on his various subjects, that outlined that Chrestus was the origin of the Christian religion and that this man was executed by Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Tacitus also wrote the religion was "an evil superstition" checked for a time but broke out again & spread to Rome.

[@gmn545]

That is not a standard for historians, though. As Ehrman himself points out, the "no contemporary evidence" argument applies to several other accepted people & events of history. Jesus' ministry was only 3 years, in Judaea (not exactly Los Angeles in population). Along with 1 Corinthians 15 pre-Pauline creed (dated < 5 years after Jesus' death), modern scholarship views "Antiquites" passage on "James the Just, brother of Jesus" as authentic & rejected it being the result of later interpolation.

[@VERGIS92]

we were 5 people, we tested the object on us, without the monk near it, it detected a person's migraines, and stack on his forehead, another person's vein disorder on his leg, the attraction force counters any force you apply with your hands in the first 30 secs, even a 30kg pulling force , no healing occurred to us! The artifact just produces this and knows and indicates where the problem is, I'm sorry but this defies physics as much as walking on the waves

[@VoxUrania]

What caused the shift to saviour gods in the first place?

[@MichaelJonesC-4-7]

Mystery cults.

[@ghostriders_1]

Personal Saviour cults evolved & emerged out of agricultural cults. Agricultural cults are older and was a religion that you were born into. The dying & rising saviours mirrored the dying and rising of the seasons. Personal saviour/mystery cults are Hellenistic in origins (Greek) and spread around the Roman Empire.

[@boblackey1]

With all due respect, I don't know of any serious students of the New Testament who have difficulty reading Hebrews. Indeed conservative Christian scholars have written dozens of Commentaries on the book which help the reader to understand the imagery and the sanctuary in heaven where Jesus is now high priest.

[@Gnomefro]

"But clearly to me, the view he did exist is by far the most likely." Ultimately, it boils down to what you mean by "Jesus". If one is talking about the Magic Jesus of the bible, you can get an upper limit on the probability of him existing by taking the probability of all the violations of natural law involving Jesus in NT, multiply them with each other, and subsequently stare in wonder at all the zeroes you get in the resulting estimate. It really is irrelevant what people wrote about it.

[@AuthorityQuestion]

4:53 Why to only one individual and not to a vast amount of people who could receive these messages all at once?

[@archaeopteryxxxx]

The sound on this video is poor - headphones make a BIG difference!

[@grisflyt]

Justin does not matter. Origen mentioned Josephus, but never that particular part. Why would an apologist not mention the earliest extra-biblical reference to Christian followers?