People who call Richard a Crank dont realise he has 4 Degrees from two of the best Universities in the World,moreover,his evidence is peer reviewed and published in top Journals ..so his evidence is in the main stream of Ancient History
@sugarnads4 жыл бұрын
Doesnt their stubborn notions
@AnonymOus-dp3jj4 жыл бұрын
Wait wait peer reviewed no it is not! Most 99% scholars disagree with him as he misquotes tacitus, joesiphus, and popius and dont think his thoery that egypt and palestine ruled by Rome only scrolls found were in egypt not Palestine! Guy is to afraid to get peer reviewed, his sources are magical and mysterious!
@surfk98364 жыл бұрын
@@AnonymOus-dp3jj Check Sheffield Phoenix. The "scholars" you refer to are Christians trained and employed apologist who have signed an article of faith in order to keep their jobs. They literally say, no matter what evidence is presented I will not change my mind. This is willful ignorance. And that is the antithesis of scholarship.
@jaylee67694 жыл бұрын
all those degrees and he's still constantly wrong
@jaylee67694 жыл бұрын
@crystalmtn01 I have better things to do. But I'll just say that his understanding of the Bible is often incorrect. I could spend a day correcting him and create a video on it but what good would it do? I'd just have a bunch of atheists sending me hate messages and you all probably still wouldn't understand it. I could point out how the old testament constantly preludes and alludes to Jesus. I could concurrently prove how the old testament compliments the New Testament to ensure there's no way a mere human could create a synergistic work such as the Bible over the course of two centuries in 66 books. I could successively and painstakingly correct his errors in understanding the Bible and prove he's wrong in his understanding of so many books and verses. But what good would that do? Would it bring any God-hating atheists to Christ? I doubt it
@eddieking29769 жыл бұрын
I find Carrier's honesty and transparency refreshing. He definitely knows his stuff.
@eddieking29767 жыл бұрын
Agnes Philomena I've read both authors extensively, and both have good points to be made. But too call Carrier a scam artist is an ad hominem attack that has no merit. Carrier's writings are well-researched.
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
It helps when you can make up the stuff.
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
Here's the thing: Tiberius proposed to the Roman Senate that Jesus be elevated to the status of deity, which the Senate refused to do. In addition. Tiberius also stated that Christians should be left unmolested. According to Tertullian, this was the first recorded use of the nomeclature "Christian" and was 5 years or so before it surfaced in Antioch. This tends to indicate that the label was coined by the Roman soldiers familiar with the followers of Jesus and attached it in the same way US soldiers called the Buddist monks who burned themselves alive "ZIppo Monks". Accoding to Tertullian, this proposal was based on intelligence that had bubbled up the chain of command from Palestine prior to his, Tiberius', death in 37. Tertullian was quoting from Roman archives (Apology; Chapter 5). Now, as far as I know, the only version of those events circulating in Palestine immediately after the resurrection was what has been called The Gospel of Peter, which contains details Peter could not have been privy since he ran away before Jesus was delivered to the Romans and was probably conveyed to him by Cornelius during the debriefing described in Acts 10. So, some version of the Gospel of Peter is what Tiberius found credible enough to advance this proposal and the probable source, based on the perspective evident in the text, was the Roman soldiers who were there and conducted the crucifixion of Jesus and were witness to His resurrection, In addition, Pilate was relieved of his post in 36 and, according to a legend, made the same proposal to Rome at some point. There is no reason why he didn't report this event to Tiberius. The Praetorian Guard were the people who would have vetted this intelligence for Tiberius. After his debriefing of Peter in Acts 10, Cornelius assembled the Gospel of Mark as an intelligence appreciation from spy reports in the Roman military archives and Peter's testimony and forwarded it up the chain of command around 40. The Gospel of Mark begins when Jesus appeared over the Roman military horizon and virutally everything in Mark 15 is Roman testimony by definition. Cornelius was from the Italian regiment, which meant he was probably a forward member or associate of the Praetorian Guard and his report, The Gospel of Mark, represents due diligence in an issue of the Roman emperor, who was Caligula at the time. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is a legal argument establishing the continuity of Jesus' ministry with the legacy of the Law of Moses, a point important to the establishment of Christianity within the especial status of Jews, which conforms with the effect of Tiberius' proposal if it had been adopted by the Senate. In addition, the Gospel of Luke/Acts is a amicus brief prepared by Luke for Paul's defense in Rome and it seems to have been commissioned by a member of the Equestrian class, which included the Praetorian Guard, so Luke/Acts can be seen as an expansion on Marks account of Jesus' ministry and complementary to Romans. Finally, when Paul got to Rome, he mentions that the Praetorian Guard was part of his personal ministry (Phillipians 1:13). Finally, it strikes me that, while John Mark was NOT the author of the Gospel of Mark, it seems likely that he established the first Christian publishing house in Alexandria and began producing manuscripts from the autograph of Mark. According to Dan Wallace, 90% of the manuscripts produced before the 4th Century came out of Alexandria and we know that John Mark was in Alexandria at the time Paul was in Rome and he, John Mark was asked to assemble his memories of Peter's ministry, which became the Gospel of John, The prelude to John regarding the Logos reflects the mid-Platonic teaching of Philo of Alexandria who died in 58, when John Mark was part of that community, The Gospel of John is a companion to The Gospel of Mark and their chronology begins to intersect in Mark 11 and John 11. While Mark is a portrait of the Jesus conspiracy from the outside, John reflects a domestic portrait, Very likely, the Roman intelligence archives in Caesarea is the Q source, As John Mark remarks at the end of his Gospel, if all the action of Jesus was recorded, the world could not contain the books. I realize this doesn’'t fit Richard Carrier's Marvel Comics version of the Gospels, but, then, his protocols for history tend to reflect the "alternative facts" criteria of the Trump administration.
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
Thevandalists Except for Tertullian's citation in his Apology, Chapter 5. Tertullian was a Roman lawyer from Cathage who converted to Christianity and quotes from Roman archives, that is, official records of Roman legislative activities. Tertullian's integrity was his stock in trade and any premise that he may have created "False news" or "alternative facts" which could have been easily verified is simply not credible, Buth then, intellectual honesty isn't really your strong suit, is it?
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
+0nly This Well, I didn't delete it, but the curator of this page is in the habit of regularly deleting my posts as apparently inconvenient to the veneration of Richard Carrier. As I write this, there are two posts, one a reply to you and another applied to the open forum, both of which unfold when the 'Show More" prompt is clicked,
@jurassicwanderer11119 жыл бұрын
A great talk. I am coming to appreciate Richard Carrier more and more.
@akosikuyzak7 жыл бұрын
Because you're on the same stupidity level.
@ClannCholmain6 жыл бұрын
I am a Crusader hi. If you can prove that your favourite mythological being is real, and also prove all the other gods are imaginary, you’ll be world famous. Good luck!
@ClannCholmain6 жыл бұрын
sharper110 interestingly the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery, why is that, do you think?
@p.bamygdala21394 жыл бұрын
Truth Crusader calls the participants stupid to silence the opposition. I love the irony, but doubt that TC even realized it.
@basilharrison30714 жыл бұрын
"If you look at any book, like the Quran or the Book of Mormon for example, when you look at these silly stories you wouldn't believe them." As a recovering Mormon that is music to my ears.
@BurnBird12 жыл бұрын
But would that make you believe that Joseph Smith wasn't a real person who had never existed? That he originated as a celestial being and was later put into history by his believers?
@MikeTooleK9S Жыл бұрын
@@BurnBird1 if Jesus was a real guy, he would be a Paul Atreides villain and all good people would need to be 'anti-christ'. the kafkaesque genius of it they got this world rigged.
@tomasneel1980 Жыл бұрын
humbly, this lecturer is a narcissist looking for ppl like you maybe to flatter as he is flattered by your attention. . . he cant disagree with out being disagreeable and looses all credibility. E=mc2 unless your an atheist , then it means nothing, they skip over that part , and entropy when they explain the big bang and evolution , its sister fallacy . i use to think this way once, but i learned for myself the Savior is real, lives, and is the Son of the Most High. The Lord has blessed my life and family like millions of us. I admonish you to read about the Great Apostasy in the Book of Mormon . and the apostasy thats happening in science, constitutional government, education.. family etc...You will learn the truth, best wishes ps... how ironic this man and many like him with his flattering words has Judeo/.Christian name s in his family bloodline, .and uses the Christian Calendar to celebrate his birthdays. Like the well educated Thomas Jefferson eloquently penned '' its self evident. !''
@Nick-Nasti Жыл бұрын
@@BurnBird1because of first hand accounts by independent, credible sources. Something the Bible is lacking in most cases.
@BurnBird1 Жыл бұрын
@@Nick-Nasti First off, how could a source be a first-hand account, but not independent. Secondly, Paul of Tarsus is a first-hand account of early Christianity. While he personally never met Jesus, he did meet his disciples. That being said, Paul is the only first hand account in the bible. It's unknown if Josephus witnessed the things he says about James, since he loved in Jerusalem at the time of the events he describes, but it's simply unknown if he was a first-hand witness.
@pathologyiscool3 жыл бұрын
I just read Carrier's article on why Daniel is a forgery. Brilliant and easy to understand writing with appropriate citations. I love this guy because he is smart, articulate and intellectually honest with his material. I suggest it for anyone with an interest in the "prophesies" of the Old Testament.
@Vitalclubsport4 жыл бұрын
One of the most fundamentally relevant researches of our times regarding the true origins of Christianity....
@MythVisionPodcast Жыл бұрын
This was fantastic
@think20865 жыл бұрын
Basically, Christianity is ancient Jewish fanfiction gone wild.
@santiagomarin11163 жыл бұрын
more like gone wrong
@travisjazzbo34903 жыл бұрын
Good way of putting it
@littlejoe25953 жыл бұрын
Islam: hold my beer
@justarshad83543 жыл бұрын
@@littlejoe2595 not really.quran has 0 contradictions and all of the story are newly narrated even go to the extent in correcting OT mistake.read the full book .you'll notice its a very strange scripture..
@justarshad83543 жыл бұрын
@Kokichi World Order okay kid..keep your childish opinions to yourself..
@GhorestFoul8 жыл бұрын
Q: What is the internal temperature of a Tauntaun? A: Lukewarm
@greense655 жыл бұрын
When I read Luke's gospel, it struck me very clearly as a rebuttal to Matthew's, so I have since been surprised at the apparent scholarly consensus that the two works were written about the same time and uninformed of each other. Needless to say, I was interested to hear in the early minutes of this lecture that some scholars actually do view Luke's gospel the way I read it.
@barnabyrt10128 жыл бұрын
Years ago when I read Acts I found a passage that reminded me of the Iliad. I knew I wasn't misguided...
@jamesbarlow72387 жыл бұрын
It isn't precisely causality that is necessary. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a LOGICAL fallacy!
@LittleImpaler6 жыл бұрын
Parts of bible are taken from Homer.
@APsupportsTerrorism3 жыл бұрын
@@jamesbarlow7238 Nobody said anything about causality. These are Greek writers writing Mythology... of course they cribbed Homer.
@1008360710 жыл бұрын
Why videos of Richard Carrier have always such a poor sound.
@peteralleyman13884 жыл бұрын
Act of god.
@pmtoner98524 жыл бұрын
@@peteralleyman1388 god is so weak he can only manage to marginally affect the sound quality?
@mouthpiece2003 жыл бұрын
Because they didn't have good sound technology back when you wrote your comment.
@beastshawnee49874 жыл бұрын
so when I was 8-10 I was a baby expert on Greek mythology, plus the Roman and Norse equivalents-Loved the stuff. So then when I was eleven Mom encouraged me to read the bible which I found to be choppy, poorly written in parts and then I finally got to the New Testament and was like HUH? this was the same bad Xmas fairy tale written 4 times and obviously each time contradicted itself. I was flipping back n forth and thinking wow-that is just wrong that they keep changing the story. How is this nasty, boring, contradictory book considered holy?! How can they think it was god’s word and written by god’s holy hand? And I came to the conclusion that these people who would argue to the death at me had CLEARLY never read this book. It took me a year to get thru it myself because it was so boring in so many places. I put it down for long periods to gulp down dozens and dozens of other books. But I kept it up until the very end. I didn’t realize most of them were only hearing cherry picked passages at their churches. Rarely did the preachers bring up stoning bad children-and non-virgins.
@henochparks2 жыл бұрын
The New Testament does not say to stone bad children or non virgins...best to tell the truth.
@yaruqadishi8326 Жыл бұрын
Once you read Mesopotamian Sacred Scriptures now instead of just Greco-Roman and Egyptian if you have it if you just read the outside stuff from secular and Christian viewers who are very ignorant and ignorant instead of pagan restorationists who represent our sacred tales and stories we want to call mythology but really is our tails and events and themes and world.
@MrWaterlionmonkey Жыл бұрын
@@henochparks Matthew 15:4-6 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. .
@henochparks Жыл бұрын
@@MrWaterlionmonkey humm you do not know he is quoting the old testament? Not the teaching of Jesus? The society of the old testament was a closed one with.different laws then later. Best study up.
@MrWaterlionmonkey Жыл бұрын
@@henochparks is Jesus condemning this teaching in this quote? No, he is not. In fact he's affirming it. He is saying the priests are wrong for not following the law in killing disobedient children. Which means he thinks it's fine.
@brendenwilliams69828 жыл бұрын
Lol , so many angry christians in the comments.
@brendenwilliams69828 жыл бұрын
it's all just silly mythology.
@Questron717 жыл бұрын
+Matt Russell we should go the next step and ask "have there ever been true, honest, actual christians"... after all if you look how they behave that seems to be very unlikely too ;)
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Brenden Williams The thing a lot of Christians don't understand is that this is not a debate for or with Christians. This is an atheist debate. The most likely historical Jesus has nothing to do with the gospels, and was a failed apocalyptic prophet. The funny thing is that a revelatory Jesus, as advocated by Carrier, is actually less damaging to Christianity than the most-likely historical Jesus. If the revelatory Jesus is real, Christianity could still be fundamentally true. With the failed prophet, Christianity is just mythology built on garbage.
@brendenwilliams69827 жыл бұрын
great comment. thanks
@Itsatz07 жыл бұрын
Nick Can More ignorant? AhhhHaHaHa!
@utinam404110 жыл бұрын
Looking forward to reading the forthcoming book on the historicity of Jesus; always find Richard Carrier crystal clear, intellectually rigorous and rather engaging in his enthusiastic, boyish way. I wonder, though, if it would make much difference to the future of Christianity if he can "conclusively" demonstrate for all to see that it is built on fictional foundations. Christians, like all religious people, have always believed what what they want to believe, irrespective of reality. Where I live (Sweden) most Christians seem quite happy with the non-historicity of Jesus. I've even heard a priest declare openly at the Christmas midnight service that St Mathew's account of the nativity is a fairy story. None of this made any difference to his deep belief in Christianity, or, as far as I could tell, to the congregation's, The meaning of the story is mythic. As some chappie recently said (I forget his name): If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people.
@randypacchioli293310 жыл бұрын
Actually Carriers' views are in the minority even among liberal scholars.
@Gnomefro10 жыл бұрын
bob lackey _"Dr. Craig along with Billy Graham, the Pope & any student of the New Testament who is a believer can site dozens of passages that make it clear salvation is a free gift."_ a) It's a book. There's no automatic connection with reality there. b) Cherry picking the bible can be done for pretty much any view one wants. For example, if one wants to go with what the Jesus character says in the bible, then the old testament still applies and will continue to apply till judgment day. Paul rejects this and discards Judaism. The people you mention here essentially take Paul's word over Jesus and should be called Paulians. _"Right now skeptical scholars have little doubt Jesus existed as a human being & many such as the Jesus Seminar hold that a few of his quotes in the gospels are probably from Jesus. Last I read, the hold that about 13% are with the rest made up quotes & stories."_ Well, the Jesus Seminar essentially approaches the question with a methodological presupposition that the gospels have historical content. That's really the only reason they can arrive at that conclusion you're talking about. If they had to back any of that up with actual historical evidence, they'd come up completely empty handed. All they're doing is really comparing documents, not doing history in any real sense, like perhaps there being possible to back up the claims of what Jesus said with contemporary archaeological evidence.
@randypacchioli293310 жыл бұрын
Amen bro. Salvation is a free gift. Over 150 passages in the NT use the word " believe" or "faith" ( which is a synonym for "believe") as the only condition for salvation. Saved by grace through faith.
@boblackey110 жыл бұрын
Gnomefro What? Back up any quotes from Jesus with archeological evidence? There is NO archeological evidence to back up anything Paul said or Pontius Pilate. As a matter of fact, we don't every have any quotes from Pilate except in the gospels and they may not be genuine. NONE of Pilate's letters, decrees and orders exist either formal or informal. If Pilate were not claimed to have been involved in the execution of Jesus, only a few esoteric ancient historians would even care about him and they would have virtually NOTHING to examined him with. Nobody knows what happened to Pilate, when he died, were he is buried and NO writings are extant..right?
@YY4Me1339 жыл бұрын
Randy Pacchioli - - "Actually Carriers' views are in the minority even among liberal scholars." All that matters is the evidence, and it's all on Carrier's side.
@antqdavis624 жыл бұрын
Great historian of our time
@whoeverofhowevermany4 жыл бұрын
Wow, the idea that the authors of the books of the Bible were reacting to each other makes sense. Almost like they were just people, and would have acted like people.
@bonnie43uk10 жыл бұрын
Oh to have a time machine and go back and check all this stuff out. For me, the sheer fact we have so little info on Jesus himself from non Christian sources gives me great cause for doubting any of it actually happened. We know humans have a great propensity for mistakes and seeing things that aren't there, .. and then telling others the amazing things we saw. Say something with enough conviction, and others will buy it, ..from past experience I even include myself. We are all gullible to a certain extent. All religions are cults that have just taken root.IMHO.
@bwoutchannel635610 жыл бұрын
Actually there is a good amount of scholarly evidence. Read Bart D. Ehrman - Did Jesus Exist - The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Good Luck.
@bonnie43uk10 жыл бұрын
Vincent Licitra I'm pretty sure Bart agrees with me that evidence of actual miracles are practically zero.
@bwoutchannel635610 жыл бұрын
Bart believes that the stories of the events were believed by the writers who took an oral tradition of the word and put it in written form. Think of a computer geek or someone following the latest technologies putting all of the written material about Jesus and mankind onto the digital cloud; stuff which is relevant to true belief in Jesus and actual doubt. In the ensuing years, through fires, indifference or carelessness every actual book gets destroyed or degraded to bits and pieces etc, and from which scholars must try to reinvent human history as well as the historical history of Jesus. Would they understand that there was a difference in understanding about many things and particularly about Jesus? Would that take away from your knowing in the here and now so many actual things which you've read in full. No. It is just a process and so Catholics have the oral tradition which started once Peter came into full communion with Jesus, after his, that is Peters faith journey. This is the Catholic way.
@bonnie43uk10 жыл бұрын
Vincent Licitra Hi Vincent, .. the trouble with oral tradition is it's fallibility, passing something on orally is fraught with the dangers of miscommunication, we are all fallible when it comes to passing on a message, we may mis-hear a word here or there and the message will take on a totally different meaning altogether. Written word can also be quite fallible, lets not forget it was only 500 years ago or so that the printing press was invented, .. prior to that, everything had to be written down.
@bwoutchannel635610 жыл бұрын
bonnie43uk The most authentic oral tradition is the celebration of the Eucharist. Here is the requirement which Jesus acted out in both word and submissive act. Love for humanity and a way back from the sin of Adam and Eve. Mary was and is the vessel from which the new covenant is brought about. You are hung up on something that is hidden from sight; both yours and mine. Does the fact that Someone from the prehistoric past failed to leave absolute evidence of life from that period preclude it having existed? Must a person insist that unless I see an actual living prehistoric creature and each and everyone which are said to have existed than I shall refuse to fully believe this? These questions are useful until they become redundant and needlessly circular which is what happened to Bruno who wasn't condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, neither for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors; that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician and other outlandish views which even the Calvinists and the Lutherans excommunicated him for. Your journey is of a path wide and inviting to the many who wish to propound on all manner of things useful and useless. It is a natural proclivity to see the other than that which beckons the soul forward. Your strength will dwindle in a flash if you continue in such a manner.
@Triangulations10 жыл бұрын
Brilliant lecture -- thank you for sharing.
@ian_b5 жыл бұрын
Sadly, whenever I see the name Homer I think Simpsons first, Classical Greece second.
@danielkonecny4844 жыл бұрын
It's because Homer Simpson is the most significant philosopher in history.
@ivanterebli250310 жыл бұрын
Please understand that Luke (fictional himself) has claimed that he is writing history. There's the lie.
@APsupportsTerrorism3 жыл бұрын
I mean, Star Wars starts off with "In a Galaxy far far away..." as if it's recording history. Many fiction use this immersive ruse, and the audience is in on the game. We know Star Wars and Game of Thrones aren't History. The difference is that Christians are ret. And to beat this home, Richard makes very good points in the opening regarding the author's intents. He's taking notes from Matthew, Mark, and Josephus... but he doesn't copy Josephus' style. On the contrary, he adheres to the style of other contemporary fiction writers. He was writing fiction for fiction readers... people of the time knew this was a mythological fiction, and he intended it to be read as such (even if he put in immersive language to play narrator). But Christians are ret.
@1emailer7 жыл бұрын
Why does God, creator of all the heavens, galaxies and countless planets including everything from the ant to the blacks, Asians and Jews, decide to show himself at that point in history? Moreover, why would he appear to favor one of his created people (The Jews) over another? Could this be a rallying cry of an oppressed people? if a smartphone was in every hand could the Bible story be told?
@DocZom7 жыл бұрын
What kind of god chooses one group over another as favorite? The kind of god created by the group claiming to be chosen, of course. How can any rational person believe such chit?
@vadinhopsc7 жыл бұрын
Not only.... try to figure out what we, humans, mean to the universe as we know now it really is. I reached to 6 times 10 to the minus 33. Try to write it down. And among all of the humans, he chose a small village in then Palestin. Unlikely right? Oh! But god can do anything!
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Agnes Philomena You believe unlikely events are necessarily miracles? What is the threshold of statistical odds where unlikely events become miracles? What is the range of conditions under which life can form? We don't even fully understand the limits of which life on our own planet can adapt to survive in. It seems you are laying claims to knowledge beyond current human understanding. Do you think you are some kind of a god yourself?
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Agnes Philomena Where is the straw man? How is my question an argument? Let's look at what you said before: "Perhaps without realizing, you merely stated that the odds of human life emerging in the universe were practically impossible. So you have pretty much admitted that humans are a miracle." You stated "odds" which are "practically impossible" is an implicit admission of a "miracle". Your own words, not mine. I'm just using your words and asking for clarification on your definition. Maybe the better way to ask the question is what are the odds which are "practically impossible"? Since those odds would seem to constitute a miracle by your standard.
@vadinhopsc7 жыл бұрын
Agnes Philomena No.... you misunderstood me. To be insignificant it is not any kind of miracle. It will be difficult to prove it, but I think that life must be very common in the universe. In our Earth, life began just some hundred million years after the Earth was formed. Just because there were the proper conditions (remember that those conditions were not the current ones...). Therefore, I believe that, given the proper conditions (water, light, not so hot, not so cold, and so on) life is an inevitable consequence. Hardly a miracle, right?
@chriswest66523 жыл бұрын
This is all so amazing. A real eye opener.It seems to show apologists really dont care about the truth That is, their obligated to, at the very least, to bring up these objections even if it isto reject them without argument.
@BlackstoneGod10 жыл бұрын
Good presentation. I've gone through Richard Pervo's 'The Mystery of Acts' and for an introductory book, I found it amazingly thorough and detailed, viewing Acts from many different perspectives.......of course the conclusion is obvious - Acts is either entirely, or almost entirely fiction (but that we shouldn't blame Luke for this - he wasn't trying to write history). This just adds more fuel to the fire, an historical fire in which Acts can quite happily burn as far as history is concerned.
@BlackstoneGod7 жыл бұрын
You're conflating real people and real places, with Luke writing real history; you also clearly haven't watched the video because it deals with this very issue. You can quite happily have real people in real places and references to real documents (Paul's letters), but the stories involving them can still be complete fiction (this was and still is standard for a whole wealth of fiction). For example take Paul's conversion narrative in Acts 9, Paul states in Galatians 1:17 he didn't first go to Jerusalem but to Arabia then returned to Damascus and only went to Jerusalem after three years, and he only met Peter and James the Lord's brother, and was unknown by sight to the churches in Judea. Luke re-writes this as Paul's journey from Jerusalem (where Paul said in Galatians he didn't go) to Damascus as a conversion story (something Paul himself never mentions) based on Luke's own road to Emmaus narrative - the people, places, and documents referenced may be real but the story according to it's very own source is clearly a fiction. Luke isn't writing history, at best he's re-writing it. Seriously, watch the video; the Burton Mack reference at 16:35 is very insightful.
@jamesbarlow72387 жыл бұрын
b.s. ...luke definitely was trying to write history and says so
@BlackstoneGod7 жыл бұрын
Okay then, so we should just take his word for it even though a cursory analysis clearly indicates he's fudging the facts (at best). Try reading what Luke writes in comparison to even poor examples of historians of his time, for example Seutonius who actually engages with his sources by sometimes identifying, analysing and even criticising sources; our evangelist does none of this in either his gospel or Acts.
@BlackstoneGod7 жыл бұрын
james barlow Again, the video responds directly to this claim.
@richardcolludo57817 жыл бұрын
I am looking forward to using this video, especially the part about Paul as Odysseus to teach about the logical fallacy of "false analogy." The more you focus into the details of the comparison, the less Dr. Carrier's case holds up. Since most long-distance travel in the ancient world used naval transportation, so it only makes sense that 1) Shipwrecks occur 2) How else can you describe being in a shipwreck without using the language of describing the sea 3) How else can you survive a shipwreck if not by clinging to wreckage? 4) If you are on an island, you will have to get a new ship to continue your journey. It is not sound logic to assume too that just because the Odysseus myth is mythical that its shared properties with Paul makes the Acts account mythical as well. Not sound logic, but it will make a great example for my students! Thanks Dr. Carrier, you've given me some great logical fallacy examples. Keep it up.
@nataliepotter3635 Жыл бұрын
I Love how easy this kzfaq.infoUgkxvAj3godqGAIP5rApM1laH767JGtPG1-h carrier is to adjust from my friend to me taking turns holding the baby! It provides great support on my back too! This has definitely made shopping easier! I always get asked where I get it too!
@przemyslawkapica85397 жыл бұрын
Thank God Richard Carrier appeared
@Assenayo10 жыл бұрын
One of the biggest questions were who wrote Luke & Acts? I've heard many good arguments that it could have been Polycarp but one also cannot overlook it's similarities with what we have left of the Gospel of Marcion
@farmercraig60803 жыл бұрын
The early church is unanimous that Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. Irenaeus ( 130-202 AD) writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.” Often, Irenaeus will add “Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles” before quoting Luke’s Gospel. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that “the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.” Since the Gospel of Luke was written by a Gentile, Marcion, the ancient heretic, only allowed an abbreviated form of Luke’s Gospel in his canon. Irenaus notes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.” Luke was also known by Clement of Rome (35-100 AD) who by 96 AD had quoted in his writings 15 out of the 27 New Testament books as scripture. From the evidence by the early church, Dr. Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the Third Gospel. Internally, a few distinctive markers are found. First and most noticeably, the author of the Third Gospel writes to one “Theophilus” (Acts 1:3)[1] and seeks to provide an “orderly sequence” (Acts 1:3) of the life of Jesus, after having had “carefully investigated everything from the very first” (1:3) according to what the “original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down” (Acts 1:2). From this information, one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus’s life. But, the author had access to those who had. Second, the author of the Third Gospel also authored the book of Acts. The level of detail and precision, writing style, the similar address to Theophilus, as well as the connective clause in the first of Acts connects the two works to the same author.[2] Third, the level of Greek used in both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts is highly advanced. Having taken biblical Greek courses, I have found that a person learns first from the Gospel of Mark and John before tackling the Gospel of Luke. Due to the high degree of Greek employed in the Third Gospel and the book of Acts, one can deduce that the author is quite advanced in his education. Fourth, the author focuses on Jesus’s ministry to the Gentiles and to the outcasts of society. The Sermon on the Plain is preserved in the Third Gospel. There the author notes that people came to hear Jesus from all around. The author notes that many of the people who heard Jesus were Gentiles from the region of Tyre and Sidon (Luke 6:17). Fifth, the author describes medical matters far more and to a greater degree than the other Gospels. In Luke 4:38, Luke is sure to note that Simon Peter’s mother-in-law suffered from a high fever. In Luke 14:2, the author describes a man’s body that had “swollen with fluid.” Such details indicate a man who has an eye for medical matters. Sixth, because of the author’s involvement with the book of Acts, one can deduct from the “we passages” that the author was a close associate of the apostle Paul. For instance, the author of Acts writes that “When it was decided that we were to sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Imperial Regiment” (Acts 27:1). Finally, the author had access to a great wealth of Jesus’s teachings that are not found in the other Gospels. For instance, it is only in the Gospel of Luke that one reads the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Lost Son. The author would have needed to have access to multiple eyewitnesses to be able to possess such knowledge and to be able to construct the orderly account that he did. All in all, the internal evidence strongly points to someone of the calibre of Luke, the physician. Luke would hold the educational background, the eyewitness access, the resources, and the training needed to construct both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe there are any other contenders. Why choose a non-eyewitness who was a Gentile[3] for the author if it had not been so?
@ghostriders_13 жыл бұрын
@@farmercraig6080 because Craig there were no eyewitnesses.
@farmercraig60803 жыл бұрын
@@ghostriders_1 the New Testament gives eyewitness accounts multiple times. The letters of Peter and John. The intro of Luke, the gospel of John tells us the author is a disciple of Jesus.
@ghostriders_13 жыл бұрын
@@farmercraig6080 the letters of Peter & John do no such thing. Not only are they of unknown authorship, the names representing late church legends the writers themselves do not identify themselves as Peter or John let alone THE Peter & John. As if this wasn't enough there are no specific historical details of Jesus in the letters. 2 Peter is definitely a forgery but 1 Peter may be authentic but you have to abandon the mythic descriptions of him as an illiterate fisherman. Luke's preface is fake and he does not follow thru with his claims. John does not say any such thing, he doesn't even claim to be John. At one point he claims to be using eyewitness testimony but a close reading reveals he probably means Lazarus who began life as a fictional character in Luke!
@farmercraig60803 жыл бұрын
@@ghostriders_1 peters letters are named. John is probably know by contemporaries of his ie polycarp. Clement of Rome a contemporary of Peter quotes both of peters letters. So their not forgery’s. Both accounts give eyewitness testimony. That’s pretty easy to see. Ie 2 Peter 2:16, 1 John 1:1-2.
@bellunderwood42726 жыл бұрын
I often wonder if it was ever meant to be taken seriously, maybe it was all written as a "novel " ???
@jones13518 жыл бұрын
The best question - for me - was posed at 1:07:33, 'If you were to witness something that has a very small probability, naturalistically, would you doubt your senses or would you believe it?' I, like Dr. Carrier, 'was convinced by religious experience.' This is a story too long for this forum, but the experience led me to give 7 years of my life to Pentecostal 'Holiness.' Although that's all behind me, I'm still left to wonder about that /those experience(s). As yet I'm not convinced they can be explained as just hallucinations. But, Dr. Carriers response gives me at least a path to follow in trying to determine their true nature; notably what were the surrounding circumstances? I'm not looking to justify the Christian or any other religious explanation for the phenomena; I'm long past that. My goal is to try to answer the question that still haunts me decades after the fact: 'What was that?' I suspect that many people remain in the 'Faith' despite logic and evidence on the strength of similar events. I know that I was, so I'm slow to dismiss them all as either dishonest or dupes or lunatics.
@senorpoopEhead8 жыл бұрын
Interesting. I, too, had "experiences" that caused me to hold on to faith for many years. It was only as I got older that I realized that all I experienced was me.
@jones13517 жыл бұрын
VideoAudioDisco09 I get it. I was where you are. The only word that describes it all for me is unique. I don’t mean it in the appalling way our society misuses that word. I’m referring to the dictionary definition: one of a kind, nothing like it etc. Unless or until you experience it you just won’t know. I know how hyperbolic that sounds. I also know that it’s completely subjective; I can’t point to it like I could the sun or any other objective thing. So, I understand the doubt. But, I also can’t deny that something happened. Was it a hallucination? I don’t know. It would almost have to be because it was beyond the pale of normal experience. If I was hallucinating, it’s the only kind I’ve ever had; no voices or visions etc. I will say that once it happened, I instantly understood why those peculiar people shake, rattle and roll. However, striped of all the religious dogma, I’m still left with the memory of that experience and wondering what the hell was that?
@senorpoopEhead7 жыл бұрын
jones1351 It was dopamine. :)
@jones13517 жыл бұрын
Gen Meow Possibly. If so, it was a hell of a dose.
@jones13517 жыл бұрын
VideoAudioDisco09 Yeah. It's a mystery to me. When I first heard Dr. Carrier talk of hallucinations, I thought, okay - an answer. But in time it just lead to more questions. Why this hallucination? Why were other people (otherwise very sane, rational,competent etc) having this same hallucination. What was happening at Azuza in L.A.? Where they all having this flavor of 'brain disorder'? Has anyone done any serious deep study of this phenomenon? So far I've found little more than speculation. It could have been this or that anomaly... But, no real studies that address this specific phenom. So, I'm left with an open mystery. But, nothing nothing new there. The mind is about 80% mystery locked in a black box. We have a long, long way to go in it's study.
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
Cornelius, The Gospel of Mark and the Passover Plot Richard Carrier’s expectation, if not impelling hope, seems to be that, if he sufficiently denies, debases, debunks and deconstructs the Gospels, Jesus will cease to exist. Or something. He has already gone on record as denying the existence of Jesus, so, I assume he will make the world safe in some way. Assuming that Islam will not rush in to fill the vacuum he intends to create. Speaking only for myself, of course, but all his research and formulations tend to reinforce the divine nature of the Gospels as literature. Of course, I tend to see all literature as being inspire, but it seems to me that Carrier is suffering from the misapprehension that Jesus is a product of the Gospels, generally, and, probably, Paul’s inventions, in particular. That proposition suggests to me a certain “wag the dog” approach to the issue that sets aside the cross as the existential structure from which the narrative organization originates. The cross is what places Jesus in history and the resurrection is what impels the witness into narrative and the narrative into scripture and the scripture into a post-graduate project and revenue stream for Richard Carrier. I mean, this guy keeps complaining that God won’t communicate with him and his entire personal balance sheet is a material measure of the rewards of a profound personal relationship with God. But that’s just me. Irony is just one of the elements of literature that seems to be lost on Carrier. Now, Carrier’s premise that Luke/Acts are contrived but not history in the post-Hegelian sense of the word, or history in the conventions of Antiquity sense of the word is largely correct. Acts, in particular, seems to have been initially conceived as something of an amicus brief for Paul’s defense in Rome when Paul was first confined in Caesarea in 59. This gave Luke the opportunity to interview all the various players in the life of Jesus not included in the Gospel of Mark, which was available to him as a guide in his research, As I understand it, the Greek Luke employs suggests that his ultimate audience was the Equestrian class and the narrative itself, in both Luke and Acts, is sympathetic, if not complementary, to his Roman market and the various conventions he employs (that Carrier painstakingly points out) were intentionally employed precisely to engage the sympathies of the Roman legal system and to present Paul at the greatest possible advantage. It is not improbable to expect that this presentation would have included various addendum of Paul’s writings which would have emphasized Paul’s constructs of Christian stewardship which essentially endorsed the extension of the political status quo as a reflection God’s Will. The Apocalypse of Jesus and John the Baptist was a Jewish destiny and not Rome’s. And, of course, Acts ends before Paul’s execution, when the exercise becomes moot. One of the people Luke probably interviews for Acts is Cornelius, who mentioned briefly at 36min12sec. which Carrier brushes aside as someone Peter was sent to save. First of all, this is a pivotal moment in Christianity, the moment when a Jewish cult begins to transform itself into a universal message, Galatians is a direct result of this moment, the instant Christianity becomes gentile. The first nine chapters of Acts is a process of identifying a Christian doctrine, which occurs within 18 months of the cross, and consolidating this doctrine as the universal standard, which occurs with the conference of Paul with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. Acts 10 is the moment when this doctrine, outlined in Acts 10: 34 - 43, is transmitted beyond the boundaries of Israel. It is important to understand that Cornelius is the same centurion mentioned in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 and that he, Cornelius, was justified Solo Fida BEFORE Peter visits him at his home in Caesarea in 40: for this reason , Cornelius (and his household) are the only people invested by the Holy Spirit before baptism in the Bible, In fact, this event is sometimes referred to as the Second Pentecost. The significance of this event, in part, is that Christian doctrine is being transmitted independent of, and before the missionary, of Paul. While is it evident that Carrier’s characterization of the political dynamics of the nascent movement were not as harmonious as depicted in Acts, the issues centered around how to assimilate Gentiles, but this doctrine was settled law, so to speak. In the final analysis, Carrier fails at his task to disrupt this doctrine in spite of the elaborate fan dance of his literary deconstruction. However, the evidence is that Peter’s visit to Cornelius resulted in an exchange of information during the three day debriefing that manifests today in The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Peter. Let me begin with the Gospel of Peter. I am not making a brief for the Gospel, per se, which seems to be a 2nd Century creation, However, there are elements in the Gospel that appear in various ways in Matthew and Luke, in the first place, and, in the second place, could not have occurred in the purview of Peter at the time. In fact, none of the Roman content in all of the Gospels was available to the Disciples because they had gone to ground and would not resurface until after Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb. In fact, the purity laws prevented the Jews from entering the Praetorium during the Passover, as John makes clear. Nevertheless, elements of the Gospel of Peter began circulating among the Roman soldiers before Mary arrives at the tomb, in particular the actual moment of resurrection, itself. Cornelius was one of the eyewitness to these events and provided Peter details which became part of Peter’s general narrative and incorporated by Matthew and Luke in their versions as it accommodated their purposes. For me, the most authentic element of the Gospel of Peter is the exchange between one of the condemned men and the Roman soldiers, when the thief taunts the guards with the innocence of Jesus and the guard returns the taunt by promising to extend his suffering by not breaking his legs. This is so typical of the economics of soldiering it could have occurred yesterday in Ft. Benning. And, of course, this is one of those moments Luke reconfigures the moment to suit his own purposes. But the most important result of the meeting between Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 is the creation of the Gospel of Mark by Cornelius. The narrative arc of the Gospel of Mark begins at the moment when Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent. As NT Wright observes, there were a number of self-appointed Messiahs crucified in the century before Jesus and a number in the century after, including the Zealots whose insurrection led to the destruction of Jerusalem and Massada. The difference is the resurrection, the report of which began to circulate through the Roman legions before the sun came up on the first Easter and arrived in Rome long before either Peter or Paul made the trip. Spies for Rome and Herod began to assemble intelligence dossiers on Jesus as soon as He came up out of the Jordan and were available to Herod at the time of His arrest and interrogation by both Pilate and Herod. It is hard to say how forma Herod’s intelligence system was, but the Romans were expert in crucifixion,, engineering, war making and bureaucratic record keeping. The evidence is that Cornelius had extensive eyewitness reports on the activities of Jesus long before His arrest and that these individual reports were strung together with Peter’s witness by the mechanism of ‘immediately’ as a substitute for the date-time group of the bureaucratic time line. Cornelius probably had a huge amount of material on Jesus, including his own experience of the resurrection, that he was able to assemble from Roman and Jewish sources after his interview with Peter and the result is the Gospel of Mark. Commentators all observe that Mark is written for a Roman audience and that the syntax of the Greek is crude, lacking the fluency of Luke or the literary complexity of Matthew that Carrier details. Well, the fact is that Mark is probably a translation from the bureaucratic Latin in which the original documents were recorded and the working tongue of Cornelius, who fought and communicated in Latin professionally, In addition, Cornelius did not write for a Roman audience, per se, but wrote an idiomatic report for other soldiers in much the same way a member of an occupying military might write a tourist guide for fellow soldiers visiting the territory. For example, the details of Jewish purity traditions in Mark 7, which are left out of Matthew, have that anthropological voice characteristic of the foreign guide pointing out customs of the local populace to visiting firemen. Cornelius didn’t need to be reminded of Jewish customs when Peter arrived at his home, which even Peter was amazed to admit “I don’t belong here” or words to that effect. Finally, it would not surprise me if the autograph of Mark was a codex, as the assembled dossier on Jesus would have contained numerous pages of loose papyrus and it was just easier to bind it all together on one edge and the technique stuck. This autograph was completed sometime between 40 and 45 CE, at which point John Mark, returned from his abortive mission with Paul and Barnabus, took the text to Alexandria and began the process of copying and transmission, which is why his name is associated with the Gospel. The reason why Cornelius doesn’t take credit for it is because it is a document of sedition and would have gotten him crucified. In fact, the Gospel takes a great deal of trouble to establish the chain of custody of Jesus’ corpse and then very carefully excludes any of the details found in Matthew, Luke and the Gospel of Peter from the narrative except the arrival of Mary Magdalene at the tomb. I believe that Mark 16:8 ends the Gospel because it, the Gospel, was originally intended as an aide memoir for Roman soldiers telling their version of events around campfires and in home churches throughout the Roman empire. The real Passover Plot doesn’t involve the swoon theory so popular among Muslims and Jewish antagonists, but the secret among the Roman soldiers as to the source of the Gospel of Mark and the war story of the resurrection which was circulating in the Roman legions before 40 CE.
@The231447LucidDevTeam5 жыл бұрын
Some myths take forever to die out...
@psiclops5219 жыл бұрын
Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Marge says "yes".
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Agnes Philomena Are jokes logical fallacies?
@txvoltaire3 жыл бұрын
When I was in Catholic school, I was taking notes one day, the nun was walking around while lecturing and noticed that I had written "Ax of the Apostles"! She was not amused!
@eddieking29767 жыл бұрын
The one thing both Ehrman and Carrier agree on is there's no way to prove the resurrection or supernatural powers of Jesus.
@Assenayo8 ай бұрын
They also believe that Acts is mostly fiction
@brianomoli46 ай бұрын
There is a way to prove it. IT’S NOT POSSIBLE TO COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!! Are we to believe that it is not possible to come back from the dead EXCEPT Jesus? That is a case of Special Pleading. He was either not dead or not real. There are no other options.
@damiendavisisraelcom86038 жыл бұрын
It's time to go eat and drink,,,, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
@willempasterkamp8625 жыл бұрын
Of course there is no eastern jewish (aramaic/hebrew/greek) source Q. The gospels were written in Rome. There is some stoicism (Seneca) and some parts of the family life of Nero in the gospels. The gospels are not only build on the Old testament and the jewish apocriphe writings. There must be some pure roman source(s) too. Good job done by Carrier.
@littlejoe25953 жыл бұрын
You don't need a PhD to know that humans don't resurrect or turn water into wine. You do need a PhD to make it look like it's not absurd to claim such nonsense is possible.
@krisrhodes518010 жыл бұрын
I'm confused on one point. You say that Acts is fiction, but you also say that Luke is lying. These seem like incompatible claims--if it's fiction, it's not making claims about what actually happened, so it can't be lying. Can you clarify what you meant by these two claims?
@ivanterebli250310 жыл бұрын
***** The lie is that the fictional Luke claims to be writing history. That's the lie. He mimic Josephus et. al.
@beeeefcurtains10 жыл бұрын
When you're writing fiction as if it were fact, you're lying. That's what Luke, or whoever wrote Luke-Acts, did.
@jcandnp10 жыл бұрын
he means that Luke is lying about what he himself did. for example, Luke CLAIMED to use a method of strict copying of his sources, but this is a lie because he changes all his source material to tell a different style of (fictional) story.
@Sportliveonline7 жыл бұрын
this guy is the top man on the planet
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Agnes Philomena I find it fascinating you are willing to sacrifice your concepts of god and worship in the name of your religion. If anything can be a god, then it is surely not a special or meaningful concept.
@Discern410 жыл бұрын
37:19 Paul doesn't rise from the dead. Acts 14:19-20 says the people stoning Paul _thought_ he was dead, so they threw him out of the city. Then "while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city" again. The author does not indicate that he thought Paul was actually dead. No one in the text calls it a miracle and no one is said to be amazed. No one thanks God. The impression you get is that Paul either faked it or was unconscious. To say Paul is actually resurrected is dishonest and trying too hard to compare him to Jesus. 18:52 Hundreds _do_ accept Christ after hearing one sermon. I've been to christian services in Africa where literally hundreds of people accept Christ at one time (eg, open-air Reinhard Bonnke meetings). This is not something that can be considered impossible. 20:35 Why would the Romans think Jesus was an escaped convict when they saw him die, and even checked that he was dead? Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were more like angel visitations (walking through walls, appearing and disappearing). If people claimed to see Jesus afterwards, it would seem more likely that the Romans figured they were desperate people hallucinating or making up stories. I don't think police did a manhunt for Elvis after people claimed he was alive. There's some great information in the video, but some of the arguments are surprisingly sloppy.
@agimasoschandir9 жыл бұрын
I would generally agree with you about Paul not being dead, but if I can try some apologetic mumbo jumbo: The passage says the people supposed he had been dead, which any Christian will tell you he is alive (almost 2000 years old and still going strong), but note it says in Matthew 28:17 "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." So, Paul was dead to those people because they did not believe he was alive, just like there are those that do not believe Jesus is alive today (actually, they usually say "JESUS LIVES!). So when he came back to Lystra later, it was a though he had been resurrected. I suppose when the people saw him again they shouted in Lycaonian "PAUL LIVES!" :P You see, you have to know how to read the Bible :P I was watching a Islamic video and near the end, there were many people who wanted to convert and become a Muslim. I thought it was strange that there were so many I would have taken to already be Muslim, including covered women that were in the back segregated, that were asking to be converted, but it may have been as much they wanted to declare their faith among many witnesses, they may have already been faithful. It may be that the hundreds of Christians may already have a belief in a god, but may want to officially "convert" before many. I also got the impression in the Muslim video that many were sort of crowd-peer pressured to announce their conversion as well. Crowds do that to people, make them want to be accepted and have a feeling of belonging.
@Discern49 жыл бұрын
Agimaso Schandir Yep, your explanation of Paul sounds like a genuine christian apologetic - full of slippery reasoning! haha But Richard Carrier's point is that to the reader (us, not the Lycaonians) Paul was resurrected. But when any miracle takes place in the New Testament, the authors make it clear that you know about it. You aren't left pondering whether a miracle took place or not.
@agimasoschandir9 жыл бұрын
Discern4 Miracles. Thought I would look up some definitions: "[A miracle is] an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating *without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses* [my emphasis]..." and continues" "The credibility of miracles is established by the evidence of the senses on the part of those who are witnesses of them..." [www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/miracle/ and christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html] "_A miracle is an event which the forces of nature-including the natural powers of man-cannot of themselves produce, and which must, therefore, be referred to a supernatural agency (Fisher 1900, 9)._ A miracle is a divine operation that transcends what is normally perceived as natural law; *it cannot be explained upon any natural basis.* [my emphasis]" and again continues "True miracles must be subject to sense perception." [www.christiancourier.com/articles/5-what-does-the-bible-say-about-miracles] There are probably many more, all trying to convince that they actually happened, and not just in Christianity.
@movienut33569 жыл бұрын
Discern4 I have watched almost all of your videos and they are really good so I have a question then do you think Jesus really existed? If he did do you think the bible portrays him accurately as far as his life. I know you don't think he is or was the son of god because I know you are not a Christian. I by the way am an agnostic atheist.
@proslice569 жыл бұрын
movie nut If you claim to be an agnostic atheist then you contradict yourself by asking the question, " Do you think jesus really existed?" By your claim you know the answer to the question!
@michaellastname49229 ай бұрын
The obvious question with these debunkers: were you there? In person? And if not -- certainly not in Dr. Carrier's case -- all this verbiage amounts to just another historical fabulation.
@arvydussibonus17122 жыл бұрын
1:07:22 Sums it up so well. Acts (and the Bible in general) has the same probability of being true (ie extremely low probability) as the Koran, Book of Mormon, Scientology, Greek mythology, etc.
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
Dr. Richard Carrier and the limits of the theology of probability A problem with Richard Carrier’s general premise is that God fits into the box of Carrier’s invention, a conceit common with Muslim apologists. While Islam is a Gnostic construct, Carrier presents a construct based entirely on a reflection of his narcissism. Which is characteristic of the new atheist. The constant appeal to what is probable obviously provides enormous comfort to him, but, but definition, God operates outside the boundaries of probability. More to the point, God defines probability: the usefulness of science is precisely that it responds to these limits and recoils from approaching, much less crossing, this epistemological horizon. In particular. Carrier’s premise fails in the face of the Gospel of Mark and the collateral evidence that: (1) Cornelius the centurion was the author of the Gospel (and not John Mark); (2) Cornelius was an eye witness to the resurrection; (3) the report of the resurrection was beginning to circulate in the Roman legions before Mary Magdalene arrived at the empty tomb; (5) this report became the basis for the Gospel of Peter and had proliferated throughout the Roman legions before either Peter or Paul got to Rome; (6) both Roman authorities and Herod began to assemble an intelligence dossier on Jesus after he appear above the Roman military horizon; (7) Cornelius wrote the Gospel of Mark soon after he debriefed Peter as described in Acts 10. which is to say, the Gospel of Mark was on the market around 40 CE before or contemporaneous to Galatians; (8) Cornelius substituted Peter’s testimony for the elements of the Gospel of Peter while transmitting this eyewitness account to Peter; (9) Cornelius augmented Peter’s testimony with eye witness reports from the Roman dossier on Jesus, which manifests as the Messianic Mystery while the frequent employment of “immediately” (or words to that effect) represent a substitute for the date-time group of each report from the field; and (10) John Mark became the custodian of the autograph and took it to Alexandria for systematic copying and distribution, which is how his name became associated with it (for issues of discretion, Cornelius kept himself free of this association). There are a number of characteristics of the Gospel which tend to indicate this origin. First of all, the Greek is reported to be crude, with a liberal employment of the “historic present” which would reflect the stenographic nature of the initial composition. In addition, Latin was Cornelius' first tongue, in which he fought, trained, garrisoned and conducted business as a military bureaucrat: the intelligence dossier would have been maintained in Latin. Cornelius had an idiomatic command of Aramaic, given his engagement in the synagogue at Capernaum, Finally, he would have had a pedestrian, at least, grasp of Greek in self defense when dealing with his Equestrian masters, but without much facility in composition, The result in the crude syntax of Mark. In addition, while the theology, ontology and epistemology of Peter in the narrative of Mark originates with Jesus (as does Matthew, John and Paul), the ontology and epistemology of Cornelius, the narrator, is the same as Jesus, which is to say, YHWH. As a combat veteran, (which pretty well defines the essential role of the centurion), Cornelius had a direct and personal acquaintance with YHWH, an experience in common with the modern veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, as well as the first responders on 911 at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. It is the nature of Duty. It is this relationship that informed Cornelius’ involvement with the Jewish God: he heard the stories of Abraham, Joshua and Gideon, and recognized the element common to his own experience. In addition, the theology of Cornelius was DUTY, in the Duty, Honor, Country sense of the word, a discipline missing in Richard Carrier’s sheltered existence. Cornelius expresses this theology in Matthew 8:9 and he recognizes a commitment to a similar theology in Jesus. One of the reasons why the Gospel of Mark seems to many commentators as strange bordering on weird is because it isn’t a Jewish perspective in any sense of the word. Cornelius saw Jesus like a soldier on a mission, In many ways, the Gospel of Mark can be seen in the same genre as the narrative accompanying a Congressional Medal of Honor, awarded posthumously. In many ways, Jesus was both Abraham, delivering the sacrifice, and Isaac, the sacrifice and Cornelius understood this before the Disciples did. Faithful unto Death. There were 500 Roman soldiers who were witness to various phases of this drama and the Gospel of Mark goes to a great deal of trouble establishing the chain of custody after Jesus was declared sufficiently dead for Roman purposes to release the corpse. For the purposes of the Gospel, Jesus becomes a Jewish problem after He is released to Joseph of Arimathea because, even as late as 40 CE, any Roman possible collusion in His resurrection would amount to sedition. And all the while, the story of the resurrection was driving the expansion of Christianity throughout the Roman empire by way of the soldiers. As important as Paul’s personal missionary was, especially in the development of a coherent epistemology, it doesn’t begin to explain its vitality outside of the Eastern rim of the Mediterranean. Something else what happening and it occurred far beyond the horizon of probability.
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
ajs1031 You make my point exactly: both Muslim and New Atheist apologists flinch away from actual intellectual engagement and depend upon mockery, sarcasm, sophistry, mis characterization, denial, dishonestly and ad hominem attacks in their pathetic attacks on history. The only difference between you and some Jihadist is that you don't have the balls to try to kill me, shit for brains,.
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
ajs1031 I don't have any problem with science, shit for brains. I'm not a creationist: science is an element of stewardship of the earth and dominion of the universe. My position is that the purpose of the Bible is epistemological and that one result of Jesus's ministry is that the question of God is settled and allows believers to approach the universe with the same material bias as atheist. If fact, the arc of epistemology runs straight as a laser from Socrates to Jesus and directly to Isaac Newton, who was very Christian. Modern epistemology begins with Kant, whose memo on the repudiation of David Hume's nihilistic skepticism you have apparently not read. David Hume is the favorite substitute for epistemology of the New Atheist because you can prove anything you want to and then wipe the slate clean like a metaphysical Etch-a-Sketch. I mean, if you are trying to discredit my personal theology with science, you are wasting your time: I probably agree with you withing the finite limits of the paradigm. For example, DNA lhas apparently established that the European populations originated from 13 women in Africa at some time prior to the 70,000 year window you cite. This is one of the important elements of modern biology arising directly from Darwin. And, of course, Darwin is a result of the epistemology that Isaac Newton established when he reconciled Descartes and Locke, Newton gave us the fulcrum with which we can lever the world and Darwin is just one example and both are a result of the epistemology of Jesus. Now, as I say, science and religion represent different lines of inquiry, although sciece emerged from religion, but is has become manifestly useful to separate the metaphoric content of the two paradigms, But this DNA trail of these 13 women allows the two paradigms to cross usefully. The number 13 is associated in Biblical numerology with the Finger of God, such as a lightening strike. These 13 womdn represent a moment when God entered history (in the form of DNA) and established homo sapien fully within the parameters of empirical science. I, personally, don't need this divine definition to ground my faith in either evolution or God, but it is a nice touch that I have found is characteristic of God's sense of humor. I mean, if this this particular genetic window is true, he is making fun of you and the New Atheists. If it is not true, it undermines the Creationist position, And, yea or nay, it has no effect on the validity of evolution which DNA reinforces with each episode of Criminal Minds. So, with all due respect, go fuck yourself. i don't need a third rate mind explaining the product of first rate inquiry in either the field of science of religion. Once upon a time, I did business with Soviets who were real atheists. The New Atheists are orphans of the narcissism generated by the Self-Esteem model of Ayn Rand and Nathan Brandan. Christopher Hitchens being the exception. He was an unrequited lover of Marxist fairy tale and was determined to force the rest of the world to share his disappointment in his boyhood crush on a false god. Neither you or Carrier rise to his level of incisive cognitive analysis or expressive grace. Get a job at Starbucks and invent names for your customers: it will be far more constructive.
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
***** You have some real problems with language, don't you, Cranial space. I never said anything about my scientific basis of anything. It is your claims to scientific rigor that is in question. I have described the experiential basis of my relationship with God. The fact that He meets me on my terms is pretty much the point of the Gospels. You just confirmed it. I hadn't noticed it before you mentioned it. See, the Holy Spirit is working in your life. too. Praise the lord!!
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
ajs1031 Well, I seem to have the same standards for scientific phenomena, such as evolution, as Cranial Damage. and I agree with Richard Carrier that the Gospel of Matthew is a literary materpiece and that Jesus did, in fact. rise out of the mythos to become existentially livid , historically, so I guess I do have pretty low standards of evidence. As for my personal experience, I can only report what has happened, Beyond my personal witness, I offer no evidence, so your complaint is with my veracity and accuracy of detail, and not of evidence. Mocking me isn't a dispositive argument. It proceeds from opinion and, well, it's like your asshole: just something everybody has.
@Thomasw5409 жыл бұрын
***** What evidence are we talking about: evolution or my witness of my relationship with God? If it is evolution, which is pretty much grounded in Darwin, hook, line and sinker, then it isn’t anecdotal. If it is my personal witness, I’m the first to admit it is anecdotal. As of the nature of the relationship between the number of women from which the populations of Europe derive and the numerology of the Bible, the significance rests entirely upon the rigor of the chain of evidence underwriting the general observation in the first place, which, of course, is DNA. This sort of “coincidence” occurs in the fabric of the Bible in many different applications, but I happen to particularly enjoy this particular one because it tends to undercut the Creationist objections to Darwin, at least indirectly. I mean, it was not unusual for the floors of buildings to be numbered without a 13th floor because of its association with the finger of God. As I say, in this particular case, it would be without significance without the rigor of science which exposes it. The fact that it seems to me to be God making fun of dumb-fuck atheists in the bargain just enriches the “coincident”. Now, as to my personal witness of my relationship with God, which is necessarily anecdotal, I am far less concerned with the views of evangelical atheists determined to believe in nothing, than with those people with whom I should share a common experience, people like Bart Ehrman before his slide into apostasy. The fact is, I don’t think he ever knew either God or Jesus in the way I profess. I am not in any position to judge. But NOT believing in God is not possible for me, having stood at the foot of the throne of The One as described in Revelation 4:2. That’s the big problem for Job: the mind cannot erase an idea once it has been introduced and it is apparent that my experience of God is the same as Job’s, although I am not righteous in the way he was. But, like me, he was surrounded by people without the essential epistemological anchor for his demonstration of faith in the face of bad advice. Frankly, it is my epistemological anchor in The One that serves as the foundation for my faith in science and my lack of faith in certain doctrines, such as Islam and Solo Scriptura, which are both dialectical in nature and represents, in argument, an arena similar to a dialogue between a devoted Marxist, like Christopher Hitchens back before the moral collapse of the system of thought , and, say, Ayn Rand. Marxism is the far more elegant construct in contrast to Rand’s Objectivism, in the same way Solo Scriptura is far more developed than Islam, but they are all four static doctrine, legalistic in nature and, as Putin observed of Marxism, a fairy tale. All four lack any epistemological dynamic. Which, of course, it the essential weakness of Carrier’s deconstruction of the Gospels. Jesus went to the Cross for the same reason Socrates embraced the hemlock: to capture the imagination of His disciples and reconfigure their world view epistemologically, Everybody around Jesus had their own agenda which they assumed Jesus to be an element in fulfilling (with the exception of some of the women and the centurion). The manner of His death vacated those expectation traumatically and then His resurrection so completely overwhelmed their experience that the only resolution to the impulse set into motion in their hearts and minds was to dedicate their bodies, existentially, to the witness of the mythos become logos and the logos become flesh that, 2000 years later. James Carrier is earning a living denying occurred. And, of course, my point is that, epistemologically, Jesus settled the issue of God so that people like Isaac Newton could approach the cosmos in the same manner as, say, Richard Dawkins, and allow man to put travel to the moon. From my perspective, there is a thread of inquiry that runs, straight as a laser, from Socrates to Jesus to Newton and out beyond the horizon in a Star Trek kind of way. So, the idea that God is giving dipshits like you, two, the finger with the 13 women DNA has established as the origins of the European populations perfectly credible. It is just one example of God and Science to produce a necessary outcome. The purpose of the Bible is epistemological. That should be clear to even the most brain dead atheist or creationist, who are basically different sides of the same coin. But here is something for you to complain about in the root cellars of your tiny brains: the Biblical source of the stars in Old Glory is Genesis 15:5 and the stripes Genesis 28:12, Jacob’s Ladder, which is a metaphor for the pattern of systematic and rational inquiry we now call the Scientific Method. One of my complaints about the evangelical adherents to Solo Scriptura is that they blame the Enlightenment for the secular resistance to their perversion of Christianity for purely ideological purposes (such as sabotaging Obama’s presidency). However, one of my complaints about atheists is that they are too fucking stupid to separate their narcissism from the source of the agenda which makes their conceits possible. But, every time you sing the National Anthem the rest of your lives. Old Glory is just another example of God waving His middle finger at your sorry ass excuse for a yearning for Truth and revealing it as the intellectual equivalent of Viagra while you seek vainly to inflate your puny mental powers in your own mind.
@carmelo15097 жыл бұрын
I think he means Maltese, not Maltans (13th. minute). But this is very informative. I learned a lot from it.
@thecrowing19893 жыл бұрын
In one of the infinite multiverses Dr. Carrier is a reknowned Christian apologist
@simeonsamuel84959 ай бұрын
Great talk but poor sound quality ASUSUAL.
@krisbest64058 ай бұрын
Thank the Universe for my Australian life, few apologists ,few guns, few gangs, few filthy cities and few Karens , and an aged pension that is comfortable.Million dollars houses mostly empty is common .
@APsupportsTerrorism3 жыл бұрын
21:50 Can't agree with that. Let's take Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, for example. The latter is a nominally historical account (mimicking the style of Chinese dynastic records), but is infamous for its bias. The former is mostly mythmaking - but does capture the Societal conflicts in Japanese prehistory. We can't know all of the specifics, but it's fairly obvious Amaterasu is a stand-in for the prevailing Yamato state and Susano-o for the absorbed Izumo faction. Thanks to Archaeology we know that Izumo had a massively impressive Grand Shrine, where Susano-o was revered. We know that they did bury hundreds of swords - they've been discovered, as stated in the myths. And we know that their ruling class became the central Priest class within the Yamato power structure, as a sort of compromise / negotiated truce. The myths in Kojiki are clearly depicting societal level interactions... not unlike the concept behind Hetalia. I believe this can be carried over to Western Pagans as well. The way certain gods fight, the way gods are adopted... how they're adopted, the treatment they get after adoption, the syncretization of differing religions tells a valuable story between cultures. Because the conflicts are represented symbolically, it's oft been observed that the Kojiki is more honest and less biased than the Nihon Shoki. As Cambridge' 4 Volume History of Japan noted, the Kojiki becomes more valuable as a historical source because the subjects are symbolically depicted (and therefore the writers don't have to self-censor), vice the heavily propagandized Nihon Shoki which must carefully toe the lines of their masters.
@farrex02 жыл бұрын
That was never the argument tho, if you see the method, fantastical claims is only one of the several variables.... What you have shown by showing the archaeological findings, is that they weren't lying, which is one of the variables. There is a methodology for deciding how accurate accounts are, and bias is taken into account. So the argument was never if it has supernatural things it is not history, and if it doesn't it is.... specially since it accounts for several variables. In that same system, Chinese records would be bunked, because of the lies, which is a variable. Also, written records are not taken as gospel, because personal bias is always accounted for. That is why scholars love to compare different accounts and try to see what each author is trying to accomplish. But what is uncovered archaeologically takes priority over what was written, physical evidence is the strongest kind in historical studies. Archaeological findings are compared to what was written to know how accurate the writings were. So in the case of the Japanese records, they discovered it was true thanks to the archaeological findings, if there weren't any findings, it would have been taken as legend or myth. But even then, it doesn't mean any of the fantastical things, those Japanese writings described happened, it only means they were based on a historical event, which makes them legend, not history. History on those legends, would only be that which can be proven outside of the text... If a city is claimed to exist on an ancient text, in an otherwise perfectly historical account, it is not taken as if the city exists, until they find the actual city. The problem with most of the bible and Gospels, is that there are very few archaeological findings to support what it says. In most cases there are either no archaeological findings, or archaeological findings that contradict what the bible says. So if you only have one book, and no physical evidence at all. There is absolutely no physical evidence that what the Gospels described to have had happened, happened. There are no external accounts of what they describe, which is incredibly important, if one person could at least corroborate one of the stories it would help a lot. But there is no physical evidence, no external sources to corroborate any of the events. The only thing you are left with, is analyzing the text of an incredibly fantastical tale, that seems to be written with a narrative and agenda in mind...
@Reepecheep7 жыл бұрын
Uh... love me some Richard Carrier, but he isn't called God or rise from the dead in Acts 14. It says that he is called thought to be a God by the Greeks when he heals a man, but not in a similar way. They call him Hermes, because he speaks for the Gods. He is then stoned for blasphemy. The chapter explicitly states that he ISN'T dead, but that he is thought dead and leaves later.
@BibleLosophR Жыл бұрын
Carrier's statement here that the Peter and Paul (and their respective communities) were in opposition to each other contradicts his claim that 1 Clement wasn't written in in the 90s but rather in the 60s of the first century. Because 1 Clement teaches that both Peter and Paul taught essentially the same gospel message and that upon their deaths they went to heaven. I suppose this apparent contradiction in Carrier's view could be resolved if his views on the re-dating of 1 Clement is a relatively recent position which he came to accept after his lecture in this video (which seems to have been given 2014).
@nishuee934910 жыл бұрын
A small correction, the shipwreck is in "2" Corinthians, not the 1st. 32:29
@Spartacus_Clips6 жыл бұрын
nishuee stfu
@p.bamygdala21394 жыл бұрын
I just thought of an interesting parallel: There's a poem that's popular among Christians called "Footprints". It tells of a dream where a person is walking and talking with Jesus. The story shows that humans have problems, and doubt their faith, but then their faith is restored at the end. The purpose of the poem is to convey instructions about faith. It's not meant to be taken as something that literally took place. The particulars of the story are just tools to convey a message. I wonder if that's how Acts and the Gospels were intended to be received.
@damenwhelan32362 жыл бұрын
It was talking with someone abiut that poem what lead me to question everything
@generalmax42527 жыл бұрын
I have studied Church history since 1980. I am more of a Christian now than then. The Fire of the Holy Spirit Burns in me Hotter than ever. This guy needs to go back and study some more.
@humbleopulence3 ай бұрын
Isn't it also very strange that all the 1st century sources that could refute this claim are lost to us and we only have a handful of non christian sources that mention christians and even then we can show that these references were inserted into the record much, much later? This religion isnt acting as though its legitimate in its claims
@James-qo7uz4 жыл бұрын
How do you answer Christians who retort that people like Paul had no motive to make up a different religion, to be persecuted for their “new” beliefs, and to die and be martyred for those beliefs. So Paul just hallucinated is the answer?
@surfk98364 жыл бұрын
Paul died because he believed in something that was wrong. Just like the people of Heaven's Gate and Jonestown.
@Tysto2 жыл бұрын
I go back & forth on whether Carrier is right & Jesus never existed. There is plenty of embarrassment in the gospels where they have to bend over backwards to explain something they could have just left out if Jesus was completely fictional. I kind of like Einhorn's idea that Jesus was the Egyptian of 20 years later, & the anachronisms are from the gospel writers putting him back in peaceful times to separate him from the violent rebels of the 50s. _BUT_ if you move him in time & make up most of his biography & all his miracles and crucifixion _and_ we don't know the Egyptian's name, isn’t that pretty much the same as making him up in the first place?
@paulvossus42827 жыл бұрын
The gospel NEVER writes that Jesus or Christians needed to become Jews or Circumcised to become a Christian. Carrier is not correct is not correct. Yes, Luke, wants to correct the order of Matthew and Luke tell the reader that he is doing. Carrier is correct on the "Q" document. No evidence. Carrier is very correct on Luke is not a historian at all but a Gospel and Acts writer. Luke is writing stories about the Christian growth. it is not a complete history at all. Luke was not writing a complete history at all. It is key document about Paul and Peter's role in the Christian church history. IT is not a history book but the stories of Paul and Peter. Luke is trying to get the story straight by using sources but he did change what he thought he should do. It is NON- Fiction books. The history is accurate but hardly correct. Why does Carrier to jump to fiction as an assumption . Acts is very accurate on location and city locations. No one can say the stories are accurate or not since it is a subjective document since it comes from only one source with a small amount of validation from Paul's letter. Acts did happen since we have no other counters to the story line. Yes, novels and real stories are very much a like. Luke and Paul are well known to be in Jerusalem just like Paul states he was trained by a great teacher in Jerusalem. Acts does not rewrite any parts of Paul's letters. Paul conflicts with Peter were on table fellowship. Peter did not eat with gentiles and Paul tells his he is wrong in to his face. That is not about Hebrew traditions at all. Carrier is wrong about how he puts this together and is quite misleading. Paul and Peter in Acts 10 and 15 agree with what gospel message. Luke would have had a Greek OT books and that is why they are used in Acts 2-5. Luke uses the Greek OT books since Luke was a Greek speaker first. The Greek OT would be just what Luke would know. Carrier actually supports what Luke would have done. Nice job Carrier. Carrier reads into Luke and Acts so much that I just think he looks for similarities and then concludes they are just the same story but never thinks that stories many times read very similar and are in fact two different stories. WW2 battles sound a like - tanks and planes were used. Men died. battles were on land......... I could go on but you get the point. After a while Carrier just drones on. the process of a person calling to follow Jesus is about the same for 2,000 years. So they are all the same method but are very different people and time frames. With Carrier logic, there has been only one person converted and is repeated for over 2,000 years and the church is really only one person based on some Greek story. Carrier, when you add it all up, is just full of himself and proves nothing and creates fiction himself. Nice - what a joke. Maybe Carrier is just Luke in another body from 2,000 years ago and Carrier got his stories from a Greek writer named Bulchoi.
@ghostriders_14 жыл бұрын
Matthew's Jesus is decidedly Torah-observant: "Don't even think that I've come to abolish the law and the prophets -- I have come not to abolish but to fulfill," pronounces Matthew's Jesus (5:17).
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
+Burnt Toast >>>>You seem to enjoy an elaborate story, but it seems to lack any evidence>>>Do you accept the common view in biblical scholarship that 6 / 13 of the canonized Pauline Epistles were forgeries?Do you accept all holy texts from all religions at face value, or just those for Christianity?
@AeonAxisProductions Жыл бұрын
I like to think of it like monty python and the holy grail when they all split up to look for the grail lol
@george5120 Жыл бұрын
Cheap microphone. Poor acoustics. I couldn't listen to this for that reason. Such a shame because I really wanted to hear Richard carrier.
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
+Burnt Toast First of all, the Romans wouldn't have wasted an instant searching for Jesus because the practice at the time was to substitute the person in charge for the condemned prisoner, which is to say, the centurion or the entire guard mount, That's why the Roman soldiers went to the Jewish authorities, to establish an excuse for the lack of the corpse. Otherwise, a new corpse would have been manufactured in the person of a Roman substitute. This is also why neither Mark nor Luke mention the guard mount at the tomb: official Rome had a long memory: the mention of Sejanus as late as 70 could get you executed and Cornelius, the author of Mark, was very careful to avoid naming names that could have triggered reprisals and Roman due process, Tiberius ran Rome through Sejanus increasingly from 15 until he was condemned by Tiberius in 31 and executed. Tiberius died in 37. Tertullian wrote his APOLOGY in 180 or so and had no influence on Tiberius' proposal to the Senate. And a reason why his proposal failed was his failure press the flesh in Rome to lobby for it: the Senate rejected it because it wasn’t their idea. Politics worked back then pretty much the same way it does,today. I'm not interested in proving the Resurrection of Jesus which is firmly established, but in Cornelius as the author of Mark, who assembled the spy reports about Jesus as a potential insurgent that were collected before His arrest and woven into the narrative that included the testimony from Peter's debriefing described in Acts 10 into a fuller intelligence report on Jesus in 40, now called The Gospel of Mark. I don't have to prove the existence of the Gospel of Mark: even in your obtuse mind, it’s literal existence should be evident. However you want to characterize the intelligence that convinced Tiberius to propose Jesus as Deity is fine with me, but it would have included the Roman elements of what we now call the Gospel of Peter, which were transmitted to Peter by Cornelius in 40 and became part of Peter's standard stump speech in some way. But the Roman contents of the Gospel of Peter (which Peter would not have been privy to) began circulating among the two legions deployed around Jerusalem before Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. I mean, it takes incredible credulity on you part to assume the Romans would have remained passive to this extra-rational event simply because Jesus was Jewish. Judaism perplexed them, generally, and there were 2000 soldiers as Pilate's body guard who participated in the torment of Jesus, all in good fun, so His existence was a given before His Resurrection occurred. The Romans endorsed all gods and religions as a practical manner, so long as the Emperor was officially worshipped above all others, a requirement the Jews were allowed to side-step as long as they prayed for the Emperor. There weren't any atheists or, in your case, anti-theist in Rome at this time. Tiberius didn’t need to be convinced that gods existed and Jesus most certainly cleared the bar in that respect. The intelligence Tertullian depended upon coming from Palestine came from the same Roman sources that produced the Gospel of Mark, most likely including Pilate's testimony (I have encountered a legend that Pilate petitioned Rome to elevate Jesus as deity, but Pilate's career after he was relieved as Proculator in 36 is obscure to me at the moment). The Gospel of Peter records the events in Mark 15 (as a proxy for all the Roman content in the Gospels) from the perspective of the soldiers who were there at the Cross, as part of the guard mount at the tomb and in their petition to the Jewish authorities. These experiences would have been part of the intelligence coming up through the chain of command, although they predated the creation of the oral tradition of the Gospel of Peter after 40, Maybe it would help you to rename these experiences the Gospel of Pilate, because it is under his watch in Palestine they first began to circulate and bubble up the Roman chain of command to Tiberius. There is nothing about the Resurrection that is rational, That is the nature of miracles. You sound like a Muslim who cannot imagine God doing exactly what God does. God broke into history specifically to demonstrate His extra-rational, supernatural nature and to validate the universal experience of His existence. Tertullian developed the doctrine of the Trinity, among other things. His fraud on the issue of Tiberius would have been exposed at that time by his many enemies and theological rival and ended his historical influence. The “history” he refers to was still intact when he wrote his Apology: Suetonius lost access to these official archives shortly after beginning his work on the 12 Caesars in 121, but Tertullian didn't and his reference to them was a challenge to contemporary skeptics to discover a "fish tale", No one did.
@Harvindeful10 жыл бұрын
Bad lighting...bad sound...really poor judgement on the part of the cameraman all make for a very dull lecture.
@RalphEllis2 жыл бұрын
Carrier claimed the following: >>Carrier says: >>No mention is made of any arms being taken (onto the Mount of Olives). Has Carrier ever read the New Testament? Jesus ordered swords to be purchased in Luke 22:36. They were delivered to Jesus in Luke 22:38. Jesus went to the Mount of Olives in Luke 22:39, and those same swords were used on the Mount of Olives in 22:50 to cut off an ear. Why does Prof Richard Carrier not know of this? . >>Carrier says: >>Jesus is not the high priest in any Gospel narrative Yet Hebrews 7 details how and why Jesus became High Priest. The explanation is complex, because Jesus was not a Levite and needed an excuse. . >>Carrier says: >>There is no revolt in the Gospels. Yet Mark 15:7 says, quote: “And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made revolution with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.” In what way is that not a revolution? . >>Carrier says: >>The only Jesus the Talmudic rabbis know about died >>before the Romans arrived in Judaea. Jesus is called Yeshu the Nazarene in five places in the Talmud (see Sanhedrin 43). In addition, the Jewish Encyclopaedia says: “the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ is given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Giṭ. 57a” So Jesus is to be found in the Talmud, under the name ‘Yeshu the Nazarene’ and under the pseudonym ‘Balaam’. Why does Richard Carrier not know of this? . >>Carrier says: >>The Vulgate Cycle misidentifies Vespasian as the son of Titus. Why does Carrier not know that the Vulgate Cycle has the opposite naming convention for the Flavian emperors, to that given by modern scholarship. (Vespasian and Titus have exactly the same names - Titus Flavius Vespasianus Augustus.) . >>Carrier says: >>The Vulgate Cycle (calls) Vespasian a leper rather than the emperor. Richard Carrier does not know that lepros (a leper) refers to someone with scales (of a fish). Thus Vespasian (ie: Titus) was being identified as a supporter of Christianity, because the symbol of Christianity was and is the fish (the Christian Ichthus). . Just what does Richard Carrier know, exactly? Ralph .
@SKILLIUSCAESAR Жыл бұрын
The last 2 seem hinky, but I love criticism with examples!
@yaruqadishi8326 Жыл бұрын
And the longest piece of the Christian Bible is acts not Matthew but Acts. And it's stephen's speech to his fellow jews and the sanhedrin.
@idrissahmat4984 жыл бұрын
Carrier is the GOAT
@EleanorPeterson2 жыл бұрын
A depressing thought is that, 2,000 years from now, historians will be expected to give as much credence to printed collections of the idiotic Tweets of today's public figures as they do to the impartial, peer-reviewed, scholarly works of people like Carrier.
@BurnBird12 жыл бұрын
I mean, most of Carrier's work isn't peer-reviewed and what was peer-reviewed of his is a bit iffy, since he personally chose who got to review his work. Even that aside, Carrier probably shouldn't be remembered by history 2,000 years from now, considering his history of sexual harassment.
@johndavis95915 жыл бұрын
I used to ask myself What have the authors of the bible been smoking LSD????The answer to this question is no, nothing.. When one is bone stupid, one does not have to be on anything..
@henkvandergaast39485 жыл бұрын
Can we be honest..Acts is so late (a boys own novel) that you could assume.. Paul invented Peter and acts makes a story
@stephenmascari9503 жыл бұрын
- ... would like to listen but the sound quality is quite poor .....
@mikebrunet548 жыл бұрын
danieljivers Richard has proven nothing but the Heptadic text of the Greek copies of the synoptic gospels does refute Richards plagiaristic hypothesis.
@ruetheaterrace884322 күн бұрын
This takes it a step too far! Mr. Carrier is reaching and degrading the legacy of Homer. Mr. Carrier’s education does not qualify him analytically adept. BTW I am Atheist. But I believe the Flavian Theory has more credibility than this drivel
@MinisterRedPill Жыл бұрын
A bunch of assumptions taken as truth smh no proof that Mark came first. The logic is "Mark has least details so it must have been written first!" That's the foundation of their assumption.
@monsterclass3 жыл бұрын
Carrier needs to create more great minds like his
@Thomasw5408 жыл бұрын
Here is one symptom of the harmful effects of Ayn Rand's dialectic on the spiritual health of the American culture. The tension which sustains the paradox of We, the People and I, a Person, is what prevents the US Constitution from become moribund, It is the source of the continuing revolutionary nature of the document and its mechanisms and the reveals the nature of the fallacy of Antonin's static concept of "original design". Rand's dialectic reduces this paradox to dilemma and then forces a false choice between "We, the People" and "I, a Person". The irony is, of course, that Rand demanded slavish collective devotion to concept of the US Constitution as an expression of "I, a Person" in the name of individuality. A result of this dialectically enforced fallacy is the spiritually toxic American culture that causes a combat veterans to commit suicide every 20 minutes. www.npr.org/2012/05/22/153222485/i-vs-we-the-heart-of-our-political-differences
@Sportliveonline7 жыл бұрын
brilliant mind
@randypacchioli293310 жыл бұрын
Historians agree that Luke was a first rate historian.
@rsr78910 жыл бұрын
No. Stop posting things you pulled from your ass.
@randypacchioli293310 жыл бұрын
rsr789 You do realize Carrier's view is not looked as accurate by most scholars.
@rsr78910 жыл бұрын
Randy Pacchioli Demonstrably prove your claims. Using scholarly evidence. And by scholars, I mean historians, his peers, not those with a religious agenda to push.
@queball3910 жыл бұрын
Are you saying the gospel of luke was written by a person named luke? How do you know that?
@rsr78910 жыл бұрын
Jonathan Thomas He doesn't know that. Unless he thinks that the bible is true because the bible says its true, which it isn't due to circular argumentation fallacy; in which case see my first sentence.
@brucefulper42044 жыл бұрын
Please remaster the audio. Take out the room. Please
@alittleofeverything41903 жыл бұрын
It's kind of funny they call it Acts of the Apostles instead of just The Apostles. It begs the question cuz how can there be acts if there were no apostles.
@EricHort-cx1jp11 ай бұрын
People only believe what they want to believe without finding out for themselves. We all.are responsible for out own eternal destinies.I know where my hope rests A university cannot give you a faith in God and His word the Bible.
@libertine56062 жыл бұрын
The shipwreck wasn't 1 Corinthians. It's 2 Corinthians.
@SipiweMashingaidze5 жыл бұрын
Very interesting!
@RalphEllis2 жыл бұрын
The historical Jesus was a 1st century king of E.dessa. Biblical: King Jesus Em Manuel of Judaea. Historical: King Izas Manu of E.dessa and Judaea. See book: Jesus King of E.dessa. Ralph
@christophertaylor31508 жыл бұрын
Question- Does anyone know of any other work of fiction that contains the type of details that Acts and the Gospels contain from ancient literature?
@altratronic8 жыл бұрын
+Chris Taylor Yes. Homer.
@Questron717 жыл бұрын
What do you mean with "type of details"? Supernatural claims? Wonders? Or the actual level of how much about a single event and subject is described? I'd turn that around and claim that nothing in the bible is unique in what it describes or how it does that and yet it is taken as "truth" and other things are just ancient literature or mythology. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
@TorianTammas7 жыл бұрын
The Illiad and the Odyssey to name just two of the most well known. They have much more detail, cover a longer period of time, show more persons, show these persons interact. Furthermore we have all kind of biographies of gods and other characters in antiquity
@generationxpvp4 жыл бұрын
All of euhemeris works.....
@alistairmackintosh94123 жыл бұрын
Lucius Apuleis
@gamesbok7 жыл бұрын
You use the term, 'Circumcision' as if it was a small thing.
@EvieDoesYouTube5 жыл бұрын
The main case against Q is that he was just Picard's version of The Great Gazoo from the Flintstones.
@paulvossus42829 жыл бұрын
How would have Luke every had a chance to know the writings of Josephus? No explanation is given. Luke and Josephus were 30 years apart in time. Did Josephus have his books published some how? I bet Carrier has not explanation. Plank riding is the norm when a boat goes down, they did not have life jacket back in Roman days!! Carrier creates more historical ideas that are never supported. Bart Ehrman and any other experts would have a field day with Carrier comments. How about they corroborate each other - Josephus and Luke seem to know the same truths and therefore, Josephus seems to support Luke rather Luke copying Josephus at all. Carrier take makes a nice story but I would love to ask two or three question of Carrier and it would blow up Carriers ideas. 1) how does Luke know Joesphus' history? How do the Rome written Josephus get to Luke and then Luke weave a story around it in Acts.?? Seems like a major stretch. 2) Why do they not corroborate each other? Could not Luke and Josephus know the same history? 3) Why can not God use visions to create direction to people he needs to have follow him for the future of the church?? Paul is not raised from the dead, since the stoning did not kill Paul. Very wrong for Carrier in this case. Carrier takes similar ideas and jams them together. Not whole armies. What a strange way to be historical. What a bunch of crap!!! I would not take Carrier as anything truthful and I find him someone who would never get a PHD from the School of History. Just goes to show you a PHD does not mean they even know what they are talking about. Nice try Carrier but you are not fooling anyone.
@Gnomefro9 жыл бұрын
Paul Vossus _"How would have Luke every had a chance to know the writings of Josephus?"_ Probably the same way the church father Origen did. Early Christians quoted Josephus all the time. _"No explanation is given. Luke and Josephus were 30 years apart in time. Did Josephus have his books published some how? I bet Carrier has not explanation."_ Honestly.... no explanation is needed. His works were widely distributed. _"Bart Ehrman and any other experts would have a field day with Carrier comments. How about they corroborate each other - Josephus and Luke seem to know the same truths and therefore, Josephus seems to support Luke rather Luke copying Josephus at all."_ I don't understand how you can pick that conclusion out of thin air. _"Carrier take makes a nice story but I would love to ask two or three question of Carrier and it would blow up Carriers ideas."_ I doubt it. _"1) how does Luke know Joesphus' history?"_ Seriously? You're talking about the personal historian of Vespasian. He had massive resources to distribute his works. _"How do the Rome written Josephus get to Luke and then Luke weave a story around it in Acts.?? Seems like a major stretch."_ Well, Acts isn't just a copy of Josephus, and the existence of Josephus' works of course isn't the motivation for the creation of Acts. It just happens to be the most likely source of the historical details. _"2) Why do they not corroborate each other? Could not Luke and Josephus know the same history?"_ You don't even believe that it's possible for Josephus' works to be distributed to Luke, so I see no reason why you'd think it likely that they could both know the same history through other means. However, the reasons for drawing such conclusions revolve around textual analysis. You'll suspect copying when the same events are listed in the same order and with the same details etc. Corroborative accounts will typically differ quite a lot in what they focus on. _"3) Why can not God use visions to create direction to people he needs to have follow him for the future of the church??"_ Well, if "god" is a creature that can do anything by definition, then of course he could do that as well. The problem is that such a claim about god can explain anything but predict nothing, so such a hypothesis is inherently unbelievable. The bigger problem however, is that Paul talks about Jesus as a spirit being, which seems to contradict the later gospel narrative around Jesus having an earthly ministry.
@paulvossus42829 жыл бұрын
Gnomefro Nice try but I bet their are only very few copies of Josephus works today. Now a better explanation is that Luke travel to Rome and met Josephus late in life and that they shared some time together. It is a bit of a stretch to think that it happened but that would be the way I would go. I hardly think that Luke used Josephus and Carrier has not final proof at all. It could be said that Josephus used Luke's writings since Josephus would not know much if anything about Paul's travels unless he read them from Luke's writings. So Carrier ideas are pure speculation at best and of course he never sites a source in detail. Maybe his book does. But any good historian could counter Carrier's comments. It just find then way beyond the norm.
@infocus9 жыл бұрын
+Paul Vossus "Luke and Josephus were 30 years apart in time." We know when Josephus wrote, but not Luke. Luke's gospel has been dated to anywhere between 80-110, with Acts being written after the gospel, and with possible rewrites well after that, in different parts of the empire. So, it's entirely possible, if not likely, that the author of Luke/Acts was familiar with the writings of Josephus, especially when one considers the status Josephus had. We don't know the status Luke had, as we do not know who he is. Also, bear in mind that Carrier's objective here is not to give an exhaustive report of his findings, but rather a 45 minute overview, so there's likely plenty of detail, including source material and textual analysis, that we're not going to hear in this lecture. His books go into much greater detail, of course. "Why can not God use visions to create direction to people he needs to have follow him for the future of the church?" Fair question, but that's an element of faith, not history. Carrier is interested in history, not any particular Christian theology. "I would not take Carrier as anything truthful and I find him someone who would never get a PHD from the School of History." Well now. That'll show 'em.
@paulvossus42829 жыл бұрын
infocus Paul the Apostle clearly had visions. Paul writes about them in detail. That does not make them false, it makes them unverifiable to others. The visions are personal to Paul. Now, I find Carrier to have used his PHD credentials to help him make himself known and to make a living. I suppose that is the American Way - and that does not make him more truthful or correct but it does earn him a good amount of Money and at least he does use it to better his fame and fortune. I still do not trust him at all. I don't think he is at allhonest. But having a PHD or MD, or doctors degree just means you did the work to the standards set but has nothing to do with honesty, humbleness or doing good for society. In fact people with PHD's have been some of the most stupid, ungrateful people I have ever met. Many Phd's are fine and worthy of the title. I find way too often in Carrier's writing that he make subtle errors that prove his point but are either out of context quotes or jumps to conclusions that are not proven for backed by evidence but are just his opinions. He many times uses verses out of context or setting or makes general comments that are again, lacking evidence or validity. To say that 1 Timothy is a forgery is quite a set when he again his opinion on the text but never takes into account or explains the other side of how it could be from Paul. Carriers work lacks balance of ideas at times or not at all. Carrier has every right to be skeptical but in fairness to the topic I believe a more balance approach would make him come off as more credible and honest. Skipping the other side of an issue comes off very poorly when a person looks at the other view points. I would recommend that Carrier add more counter poiint and let the reader come to her own conclusion. Maybe that would hurt his current status as a mythologist. By Definition, mythologist seem to lack the skill to balance mythical with historical truths.
@infocus9 жыл бұрын
"That does not make them false, it makes them unverifiable to others." -Correct. But, a) we're talking history here, not faith, and b) we're talking Acts, not Paul's letters. "To say that 1 Timothy is a forgery..." -I do think that "forgery" can sound harsh, but his contention that Paul did not write Timothy is not his own. It's the standard non-fundamentalist scholarly belief. "He many times uses verses out of context or setting or makes general comments that are again, lacking evidence or validity." -Well, that may be a fair criticism, at least on the surface, as taking verses out of context is likely the most common error made with regard to scripture...but I've found that across the theological spectrum, and especially in fundamentalists, who seek to support a conclusion rather than allow the data to lead to a conclusion. In this case, I don't think that's what Carrier's doing. "I believe a more balance approach would make him come off as more credible and honest." -Depends what you mean by "a more balanced approach". He has examined the data, which he is imminently qualified to do (regardless of your disdain for some PhDs), and come to his conclusion. It may not be the correct conclusion, or the only conclusion, but that IN NO WAY means he lacks honesty. That argument is coming from the fact that you disagree with him. Had he said things you agree with, you'd call him honest and qualified. "By definition, [mythicists] seem to lack the skill to balance mythical with historical truths." -By definition? How so? Again, you seem to be attacking skill because you don't agree with the conclusion, theologically speaking. Studying history is not about "balance". It's about examining the available data and coming to the most probable, most defensible conclusion. Are there other conclusions? Of course there are, but Carrier's position is that his conclusion is the most probable and most defensible. Have you read his books? Because, without that, then you're lacking a great deal of critical data needed in order to offer any sound critique of what he is saying.
@lukehoefler43177 ай бұрын
luke was an outstanding historian just by being so flawed
@Thomasw5407 жыл бұрын
+Burnt Toast Well, the issue isn't how incredible you find it: everybody thought it was incredible at the time. The reason why we are still discussing it 2000 years later is because, as improbable as it may seem, it actually happened and the Roman soldiers who were there are the reason why we know about it. >>>> Don't you think it would at least be possible for Tertullian to be lying about this?
@yaruqadishi8326 Жыл бұрын
Paul is Not as Odysseus but a similar ish like tale but with devilish corruptions. Nothing to do with Priam or Hector or Achilles.
@ideasandwich39759 жыл бұрын
Carrier says a next book might explore what the underlying historical thread to Luke's (obviously) revisionist "history" (historical fantasy) might be..... Please write the book Richie! Or someone out there write it! I need it for my own projects so I can proceed. Get to work, lazies! (And morono-apologists, please go sit down, shut up, and let the adults talk for a while. you had two thousand years of abuse. Give the honest thinkers a turn finally, fank you very much, not afraid of your threats anymore).
@sirdelrio7 жыл бұрын
I don't take Carrier seriously because he makes special pleading regarding Apollonius and Pythagoras (historical characters with mythical biographies) and because he has not thoroughly contrasted the NT with Josephus. The latter narrates a very interesting series of events that begin at the end of Felix's tenure: 1) a false prophet takes a large crowd of followers from the wilderness into the mount of olives and promises the liberation of the jews, this man was ambushed and the crowd dispersed, but he escaped. 2) in this same period Josephus notes the existence of a "deluted sect in the wilderness" that was promising liberation. 3) the next year, allegedly another impostor is said to have been inviting crowds to follow him to the wilderness. This man is said to have been executed alongside his followers. 4) the next year, the zealots arrive in Jerusalem and start profanating the temple. They claim authority to name the high priest. These men are repressed by procurator Festus. 5) when Festus died, the high priest Ananus gathered an illegal sanhedrin and stones James son of Damneus for blasphemy against the temple. 6) the sicarii, the black hand of the zealots, kidnap Ananu's son and demand the release of their partisans. 7) a rivalry emerges between the aspiring intruders, the followers of James and Jesus sons of Damneus, and the official priests behind Ananus. A guy named Saulus, close to the herodians, is said to have taken side against the followers of James and Jesus. 8) the crowds reject the priesthood of Ananus, and revolts grow numerous from the stoning of James, Ananus and Jesus son of Gamaliel try to calm down the crowds, but they are slain by the zealots. 9) Josephus also notes the appearance in Jerusalem of a farmer named Jesus, that arrived 4 years before the war (exactly the time at which the false prophet and the impostor are supposed to have acted), preaching the destruction of the temple, and some nonsense about the bridesmaids and the bridegroom. This man is said to have been repudiated and humiliated by the authorities, and that he was interrogated by the roman procurator. This man was whipped "until his bones were laid bare", and is said not to have responded a word or cried during his torture. Please tell me that Josephus does not offer corroboration to gospel narratives.
@donaldwhittaker79877 ай бұрын
Good stuff
@classicgameplay107 жыл бұрын
There are many inacuracies in this video just like the other. You didnt had to become jew to enter original christianity, you just had to become Bnei Noah.
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Classic Gameplay *False*. Circumcision was a major issue as it was required by early Christians, and it is *NOT* a part of Noahidism. Learn your religion.
@burnttoast1117 жыл бұрын
Classic Gameplay Acts is usually dated to 80-90 AD. This is not the work of early Christians. To be clear, I mean the 1st Christians, who were there at the "ground floor", when the religion got started. This is significant, in that if you look at the history of the cargo cults, their history of their own origin radically changed within 1 generation. Do you believe all 13 epistles attributed to Paul in the NT are authentic?
@MrSahansdal9 жыл бұрын
Christians, keep your head on straight, and don't take the church on its word. They are clueless. The Gnostics had the original tradition. Acording to the Gospel of Judas: 'Judas' was the self-sacrifice, turned into a 'traitor' to hide his successorship (Judas was James)... "The Bible says Saviors- Obadiah 1:21" on Amazon
@cheriekorer3526 жыл бұрын
MrSahansdal qae
@wantanamera3 жыл бұрын
James was a piece of shit who literally hated the world and everybody who disagreed with him. If that is the “original tradition” then no thank you, you can keep your gnostic garbage. Gnosticism represents the worst parts of Christianity.
@mikebrunet549 жыл бұрын
Kenny I don't waste a lot of time with Richards ramblings because many can see in our present day all things Biblical are being fulfilled.. The Bible predicted crucifixion a thousand years before it was invented . The Word of God will never be overturned and the majority it says will not not choose Jesus Christ. The Bible speaks of those who will be beheaded and return with their Messiah and will judge the fallen. Angels and those on earth that persecuted them
@Faeriedarke8 жыл бұрын
+Mike B Someone has done a real mind bending job on you, I almost feel sorry for you. Brainwashed doesn't even begin to describe it.
@mikebrunet548 жыл бұрын
Vanessa your so cool..look at you little miss hipster..You got nothing but voodoo don’t you..So dark and so hip..please save the crazy talk, just shows you justify sin..and don’t believe in God.. There’s only one way to believe..You either got faith in One True God who has told you the end from the beginning or You mock those who know Him and really got not problem with Satan hating Gods Saved...Beheadings you probably ignore and you are probably unaware of the Masonic agenda in this world..You have very little knowledge about anything I can tell...
@David-gb7mp4 жыл бұрын
With every slide it just gets more and more ridiculous. I thought I read the bible, nah
@therenewedpoet42923 жыл бұрын
Nice. I have been against Q for awhile. Probably disagree on everything else, but hey common ground
@think20865 жыл бұрын
Also, E.W. Bullinger may have been a hardcore believer, but his study bible is amazingly useful as it shows the literary structure (as the evidence of the divine design of the Bible, of course haha). But it shows structure and has a treasure trove of other useful things any scholar could use.. I wonder if Carrier has a copy.