The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist?

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

Рет қаралды 67,897

Күн бұрын

The Origins of Christianity & Did Jesus Exist? | Dr. Richard C. Miller
Grab his book Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity
👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
See Dr. Miller's critique of the gospels
www.debunking-christianity.co...
Also grab Dr. Tomas Hagg's book, "The Art of Biography in Antiquity"
👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Subscribe to our second channel
@mythvisionTV
==============================
*SIGN UP FOR RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE*
Dr. James Tabor's "Jesus and The Dead Sea Scrolls" mythvisionpodcast.com/dss
Dr. James Tabor's "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/fir...
Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course "Paul's Legacy"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/paulslegacy
Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course "The Gospels Masterclass"
mythvisionpodcast.com/gospels
Sign up here for Dennis MacDonald's course "Reading The Gospels With One Eye on Greek Poetry - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/hom...
Dr. Kipp Davis Course "The Real Ancient Israelite Religions"
mythvisionpodcast.com/israeli...
Dr. Richard Carrier's Course "New Testament Studies For Everyone."
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/nt-...
Dr. M. David Litwa's course - "The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/mys...
Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr's course - "The Quest For The Historical Jesus" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/jes...
Sign up for Bart Ehrman's course Scribal Corruption of Scripture -
mythvisionpodcast.com/corruption
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Mark course "The Unknown Jesus"
mythvisionpodcast.com/unknown...
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - "Finding Moses"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/moses
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - "Other Virgin Births In Antiquity"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/vir...
7 hour resurrection debate Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona "Resurrection" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/res...
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Genesis "In The Beginning" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/gen...
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's "Christmas" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/chr...
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's "Did Jesus call himself God" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
======================================
RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE 👉 linktr.ee/mythvision
**GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon: 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:
mvp-courses.com/
===========================
Chapters:
00:00:00 - The Origins of Christianity and the Existence of Jesus
00:01:26 - Jesus' Crucifixion: Birth or Manufacture?
00:02:44 - The Existence of Jesus: A Story or Reality?
00:04:10 - The Mythicist View
00:05:26 - Richard Carey's Unique Perspective
00:06:43 - The Irrelevance of the Historical Jesus
00:08:09 - The Irrelevance of Jesus' Existence
00:09:28 - Debating the question of Jesus' historicity
00:10:46 - The Importance of Discourse
00:12:02 - The Futility of Mining the Non-Diamond Regions of the Gospels
00:13:13 - Challenging the Ill-conceived Origins Theory
00:14:28 - The Origins of Christianity
00:15:44 - An Apocalyptic Figure and His Followers
00:17:05 - The Absence of Jesus in Paul's Letters
00:18:26 - The Relationship Between Texts
00:19:41 - The Historical Figure of Jesus
00:21:10 - outro
#mythvision #Christianity #Jesus

Пікірлер: 805

@MythVisionPodcast 6 ай бұрын

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

@integrationalpolytheism 6 ай бұрын

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

@integrationalpolytheism 6 ай бұрын

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

@TboneWTF 5 ай бұрын

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

@louisbaudry1106 6 ай бұрын

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

@tjwhite1963 6 ай бұрын

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

@avs6362 6 ай бұрын

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

@dustinellerbe4125 Жыл бұрын

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

@Darisiabgal7573 6 ай бұрын

Are you sure Miller and Carrier exist?😎

@InquisitiveBible 6 ай бұрын

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

@HellaJ77 6 ай бұрын

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

@GameTimeWhy 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@michealfriedman7084 6 ай бұрын

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

@Sam-bc6sr 6 ай бұрын

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

@FoursWithin 4 ай бұрын

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

@eemer2437 6 ай бұрын

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

@Biblical_Mystery 6 ай бұрын

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

@grapeshot 6 ай бұрын

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

@jamesSwhite 6 ай бұрын

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

@joseerickcortes2189 6 ай бұрын

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

@oppothumbs1 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@njhoepner 6 ай бұрын

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

@icypirate11 6 ай бұрын

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

@FoursWithin 4 ай бұрын

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

@andrewdarnley4608 6 ай бұрын

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

@dustinellerbe4125 Жыл бұрын

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

@jamesboswellii2034 Жыл бұрын

Yes!

@omnikevlar2338 6 ай бұрын

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

@ericcraig3875 6 ай бұрын

Bart would never do it.

@GameTimeWhy 6 ай бұрын

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

@ericcraig3875 6 ай бұрын

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

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

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

@JC-vq2cs 6 ай бұрын

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

@Uryvichk 4 ай бұрын

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

@joehellno9097 6 ай бұрын

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

@ryangriggsmo 6 ай бұрын

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

@66hss 6 ай бұрын

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

@groundzero5708 4 ай бұрын

true

@jenst. 6 ай бұрын

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

@Fair-to-Middling 6 ай бұрын

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

@ericcraig3875 6 ай бұрын

It is a loose interpretation of the word.

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@haydenwalton2766 6 ай бұрын

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

@gregorypatricksmith8611 6 ай бұрын

Does it matter? We all know what agnostic means

@Fair-to-Middling 6 ай бұрын

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

@offgrid405 6 ай бұрын

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

@aspenhardware852 6 ай бұрын

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

@elephant_888 6 ай бұрын

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

@lampkin9287 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@VioletWonders 6 ай бұрын

Dr. Miller vids are always my favorite!

@Camerinus 6 ай бұрын

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

@kwizeralambert1316 5 ай бұрын

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

@therongjr 5 ай бұрын

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

@haydenwalton2766 6 ай бұрын

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

@Stardust-xl8nn 6 ай бұрын

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

@myfriend280 6 ай бұрын

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

@rogercarroll2551 6 ай бұрын

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

@healthyone100 4 ай бұрын

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

@BushcraftingBogan 6 ай бұрын

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

@dazv3605 17 күн бұрын

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

@travisjazzbo3490 6 ай бұрын

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

@TBOTSS 4 ай бұрын

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

@EchoP7596 2 ай бұрын

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

@travisjazzbo3490 2 ай бұрын

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

@EchoP7596 2 ай бұрын

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

@travisjazzbo3490 2 ай бұрын

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

@donseesyourshaydim7529 6 ай бұрын

Ehrman and Tabor sealed the deal for me on the question

@youngknowledgeseeker 6 ай бұрын

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

@travis1240 6 ай бұрын

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

@JohnDee0 6 ай бұрын

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

@glenncalkins4764 6 ай бұрын

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

@JohnDee0 6 ай бұрын

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

@stinklpups 6 ай бұрын

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

@EchoP7596 2 ай бұрын

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

@jtramelli5464 6 ай бұрын

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

@ciaranirvine 6 ай бұрын

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

@stinklpups 6 ай бұрын

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

@chefchaudard3580 6 ай бұрын

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

@ciaranirvine 6 ай бұрын

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

@chefchaudard3580 6 ай бұрын

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

@Gabachazo 6 ай бұрын

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

@oppothumbs1 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@Habanero777 2 күн бұрын

Precisely @@oppothumbs1

@EchoP7596 Күн бұрын

Where is that shown exactly? Crucifixion was a common punishment in the Roman Empire. What is unlikely about that?

@rhondadenis3469 6 ай бұрын

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

@kariannecrysler640 6 ай бұрын

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

@kariannecrysler640 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@Uryvichk 4 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 4 ай бұрын

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

@kariannecrysler640 4 ай бұрын

@@Uryvichk excellent points

@JohnDee0 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@outhousephilosophies3992 6 ай бұрын

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

@oreopagus2476 6 ай бұрын

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

@davefoc 6 ай бұрын

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

@lyndon4031 4 күн бұрын

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

@sleeprunning 5 ай бұрын

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

@montymartell2081 6 ай бұрын

Wow thank you again 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏💯

@bretteumont657 4 ай бұрын

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

@Lostwisdom369 Ай бұрын

I’d love to see you cover melchezidec

@TheBrandonMeek 6 ай бұрын

What translation, what language are you reading?

@manbearpig3507 6 ай бұрын

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

@glenncalkins4764 6 ай бұрын

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

@manbearpig3507 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@bvsuber1 6 ай бұрын

Interview Kenneth Humphreys

@MarthaEllen88 6 ай бұрын

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

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

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

@charleslitherbury8600 6 ай бұрын

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

@scienceexplains302 6 ай бұрын

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

@JohnD808 6 ай бұрын

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

@scienceexplains302 6 ай бұрын

@@JohnD808 I’m not coming at it from faith nor addressing only historians. For people who don’t believe in supernatural events, whether there was some guy who vaguely inspired the stories should not be of primary importance

@JohnD808 6 ай бұрын

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

@scienceexplains302 6 ай бұрын

@@JohnD808 Telling you Socrates existed is not the same as saying that whether he lived is more important than the ideas and processes he represents. Of primary importance to people who care about how history works. I never said historians don’t care whether he lived or not.

@JohnD808 6 ай бұрын

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

@Vadjong 6 ай бұрын

Where does a character fit on the scale from Alexander the Great; Plato; Robinson Crusoe; Tarzan to Darth Vader?

@jeremydurham6146 2 ай бұрын

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

@thew-heat5525 6 ай бұрын

It is no one's problem that you have faith or not. That is up to you and something you need to find.

@haraldtheyounger5504 6 ай бұрын

Obviously it is a problem for all, look how it spreads. First within a family, the children are controlled by the belief, they become the belief. Therefore, they have no freedom, only fear. And so it spreads out, preying on the weak, on the ill, on the grieving, etc. All belief is a prison... all belief is mere make believe.

@jericosha2842 6 ай бұрын

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

@oppothumbs1 6 ай бұрын

very extraordinarily exemplary true statement.

@jordanfalkowski6924 6 ай бұрын

Sometimes just seems like a version that show Wild-n- Out and then like that film Neighbors where he was starting a family and the students next door aving a party and he was jokin around about batman voice and grabbing those shroom caps. Its like not intending to continue parties. That guy with them was upset over his gal and hurt his legs as a distraction.

@chiakum 21 күн бұрын

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

@seatopiascuba3540 6 ай бұрын

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

@dagnation9397 6 ай бұрын

I have often wondered if the stories are based on more than one charismatic leader who were wandering around at the time. I don't know enough to determine if that is even a reasonable idea.

@oreopagus2476 6 ай бұрын

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

@ronnelson930 5 ай бұрын

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

@UnconventionalReasoning 6 ай бұрын

My question for people, like Derek, who "think there was probably a guy" [13:45] is to ask, "Why do you think that?" Is it a compromise or default position? It's important to have everyone, including Dr Miller, at the table. But does he have anything to say on this topic of the existence of a historical Jesus? Or should he switch to a different table, with a different but equally compelling discussion? This video was helpful, though, in firming up my mythicist position, because of a lack of evidence or justification for a secular, historical person. As sometimes happens, 20 minutes of saying nothing spoke volumes. Thanks.

@RichardMiller-ym5jc 6 ай бұрын

Hi Unconventional! The textual data takes historians like me far enough to affirm that the early Christian depictions were not well-tethered to any ontological person and, as such, such tethering was not an aim of any of the texts. Or, as I stated in the interview, such a person was nigh-irrelevant to the interests of early Christian writers. In order to take that added step of which you suggest, namely concluding that no such person Jesus ever even existed, two important pieces of evidence are lacking: 1. We’d need to see where other ancient cult leaders/founders were fabricated and historicized in proximal cultural / historical context (e.g., Apollonius, Marcus Magus, any messianic pretenders, etc). 2. We do not have anyone in Roman antiquity claiming to know that Jesus never existed. Apart from that, the mundane references in early Christian texts to Jesus’ hometown, family, execution, students, etc point toward an ontological albeit irrelevant and obscure man in 1st-century Palestine.

@UnconventionalReasoning 6 ай бұрын

@@RichardMiller-ym5jc Thank you for responding. I must have misunderstood your point, "such a person was nigh-irrelevant to the interests of early Christian writers". When you used the word, "irrelevant" in the discussion [6:45], it was the most compelling point where you say that your position is that he did exist, without any validation for why. Your two points are valid to make the positive statement that "no such person Jesus ever even existed". But this goes back to my point, why do you make the default position that he did exist? References to actual places and people, if sufficient to validate his existence, would also tend to validate the stories about him. It seems unlikely to validate the middle path, an irrelevant and obscure person. To the two "pieces of evidence": 1. Yes, other ancient cult leaders/founders are not also shown to be fabricated. But those cults *failed*. The Christ cult succeeded, so there is a qualitative difference. Having a fully fabricated being seems to have helped make a successful cult. 2. I agree, nobody in Roman antiquity claimed to know that Jesus never existed. That makes sense because people were insufficiently connected for anyone to be able to make that claim with certainty. On the other hand, if the person did exist, and the legends started to form about him, it would be more likely that someone would say, "I knew Jesus, he didn't do these things." This is why I even care about the question of historicity: fabricated person, mythical cult fits together better than real person, mythical cult, for the cult to succeed. I say the same applies to Siddhartha and Mahavira.

@RichardMiller-ym5jc 6 ай бұрын

@@UnconventionalReasoning In my study of Mediterranean antiquity, I am unaware of any cultic figure that followed the pattern you hypothesize, that is, a cult formed around a non-existent, yet historicized super-human. We see this perhaps with far less proximal / arcane figures like Heracles or Romulus, but nobody with accessible proximity to the foundations of the cult. What we do find are mundane / historical figures being mythologized into demigod or hero rank as rather commonplace as I document in my book. We also see the ancient critics of the religion claiming that is how it was founded (e.g., Lucian and Celsus). For me, then, that is the default position. Early Judaism also was not known to invent contemporary figures whole cloth. As I said in the video interview, however, like the historical King Arthur or Saint Nicholas etc, there are only two reasonable classes of theory: 1. All myth 2. Myth and legend with a decoupled historical kernel

@UnconventionalReasoning 6 ай бұрын

@@RichardMiller-ym5jc I will take a look at your book. Yes, cults typically formed around mundane/historical figures. And they typically failed. That is why I went to South Asia for a similarly successful cult. "Early Judaism also was not known to invent contemporary figures whole cloth" is also taking the default position, with minimal backing, that the major Old Testament figures were based on real people. There sometimes seems to need to be some shoe-horning to accomplish this. A side note, I would say that "evidence-based scientific research" is also a myth. That's not how scientific research is actually conducted, but it's what recent pretenders have tended to do. The "data scientists". I say that mostly to say that I have more issues with the field I am connected to, scientific research, than what I'm dabbling in, historical/religious research.

@RichardMiller-ym5jc 6 ай бұрын

@@UnconventionalReasoning, I am not following your arguments. I do not know of any proximal historicized figure invented in early Judaism. Referring back to inaccessibly ancient figures would just be more of the commonplace throughout most all civilizations, that is, etiological or “archaic” legendary tales from some dark inaccessible period of the past. Evidence for you may seem fuzzy. For me, that was my graduate focus at Princeton, namely early Jewish mythology.

@patrickoconnell9846 6 ай бұрын

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

@TheInterestedObserver 6 ай бұрын

Derek I'm pretty sure that right at the start there were two of you and the other guy used to lead the questions and interviews etc. This was years ago though

@michaeltelson9798 6 ай бұрын

I view that there was a transient preacher that had a following. He probably taught in the manner as given in the Gospel of Didymus Thomas from the Nag Hammadi library. Through parables that others at the time, such as some of the Pharisees did. There are some that did from records that did such as Hillel. The whole “telephone game” distorted the view of this preacher that walked with us to include things that humans could never do.

@terrymurphy4401 6 ай бұрын

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

@njhoepner 6 ай бұрын

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

@Zazamarkle 4 ай бұрын

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

@tibitzu365 6 ай бұрын

One question for you. How do you account for the Sumerian god of medicine's symbol being a visual representation of DNA? Coincidence? Chance?

@tibitzu365 6 ай бұрын

I hate that show, it's almost as evangelical as this channel. Still, you're not answering the question. Coincidence or chance or something else? What do you think?@@dirkjensen969

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

It's not a representation of DNA. It's a representation of two snakes winding about each other.

@pinky9440 6 ай бұрын

Can just be that whoever drew the DNA representation copied the other symbol. Who knows how DNA really look?

@tibitzu365 6 ай бұрын

Yes, we know what a DNA molecule looks like. A DNA molecule is made up of two linked strands that wind around each other to resemble a twisted ladder in a helix-like shape.@@pinky9440

@tibitzu365 6 ай бұрын

yes, which is what a double helix looks like which is what a DNA molecule looks like. It's the same. That's what a double Helix is and it's also the symbol for the Sumerian god of medicine. A double helix. Add to that that their myth is the Sumerian gods made man through mixing their flesh and blood with clay - you would need knowledge of DNA to do that. The CONCEPT is genetic.@@donnievance1942

@TheMarksT 6 ай бұрын

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

@davidwimp701 6 ай бұрын

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

@Uryvichk 4 ай бұрын

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

@davidwimp701 4 ай бұрын

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

@NoWay1969 6 ай бұрын

This is just a nearly perfect video.

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

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

@NoWay1969 6 ай бұрын

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

@bananaegger 6 ай бұрын

please make a video to explain jewish nobel prices

@BlessYourHeart254 6 ай бұрын

It matters not at all to me whether he existed or not. Even if there was a guy preaching in Judaea, no one has ever been born of a virgin or risen from the dead. Nothing supernatural and nothing worth worshipping in any event.

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

But then there are those images of a crucified corpse on a bloody linen cloth. . . . . . . . . Yeshu b. Pantera

@WorshipperOfLife 6 ай бұрын

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

@dwaynestevens8307 6 ай бұрын

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

@Truth-Be-Told-USA 6 ай бұрын

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

@jordanpeters3746 6 ай бұрын

If the references to Jesus are removed from the Greek text of Romans 1, 1-17 one is left with a text that has 1000 letters and is divided into four 51 word sections. The word God is used 8 times. In each instance the first letter of the word God, or the first of its definite article when it has one, is an even number of letters from the beginning of the text.. If the positions of these first letters are totaled and divided by 8 one gets the first letter of the Greek word in the text meaning"the present moment". The original text of Mark, before it was altered, was constructed of 51 word sections. This original text was the script of PLAY!

@jgriff5273 6 ай бұрын

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

@mwola 6 ай бұрын

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

@constpegasus 6 ай бұрын

Powerful. Only people who have been studying this stuff could understand and appreciate this conversation.

@dougrobinson6683 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@jameswright... 6 ай бұрын

@@jeffreyerwin3665 No they don't 😂

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@jameswright... 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@geraldbennett8703 6 ай бұрын

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

@danielrobbins9776 6 ай бұрын

There's a saying that this situation reminds me of, "It's 6 one way, half a dozen the other."

@hashem26962 6 ай бұрын

Dear Derek. Have ever come across a theory (advocated by an Arab Iraqi scholar by the name of Dr. Fadhel Al-Rubaie) ) that suggests that the history of the Jewish religion is "located" in Yemen and not Palestine? And that the Pharaoh was a Yemeni (not an Egyptian) King? I sent you a message through your website with a link. I have yet to read or watch this guy interviewed by a Western scholar. So far, he has several interviews in KZfaq all in Arabic.

@truthseeker5698 6 ай бұрын

Wakanda entails more reality than this person and material you referenced . Your choice of what to believe.

@gnomevoyeur 6 ай бұрын

I can’t for the life of me understand why Q is a thing. Occam’s razor just suggests that, according to the generally accepted timeline,Matthew had access to Mark and added stuff, then Luke had access to Mark nd Matthew then added some stuff and deleted some other stuff. What’s the problem that Q solves?

@Lobsterwithinternet 6 ай бұрын

⁠⁠@@dirkjensen969So you're also a follower of the ‘Dirk Jensens was a time traveler’ hypothesis. 😆

@ciaranirvine 6 ай бұрын

The "problem" is that Paul is very very light on any details about what Jesus ever said and did (apart from get crucified and rise again); and then we can SEE as you outlined how the "real" Jesus gets more and more sayings attributed to him, decades later, in successive Gospels. Which is all rather suspicious if he indeed existed as a real cult leader. So Q was invented to be the "actual source" of these later invented sayings of Jesus. It's all about this desperate NEED that there MUST be a fully-fleshed out Historical Jesus behind it all. But as Dr Miller says, this desperate hunt for the "real Jesus" is almost completely irrelevant, because it's the mythological storytelling devices, many borrowed from adjacent cultures (so obviously part of the development of the early religion) that are actually the interesting part.

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

What's most ridiculous about the Q speculation is that Bart Ehrman and others sometimes reference it as an independent "source" even though no evidence for it exists. They can't distinguish between evidence and a hypothesis.

@JohnD808 6 ай бұрын

@@ciaranirvinethis is nonsense that seems like projection from a lot of mythicist types who come to this not because they are genuinely interested in Xtian origins but because they want to ‘disprove Jesus’ (i.e., you feel that you ‘need’ Q not to exist). Burton Mack was a huge Q advocate and he also thought the historical Jesus was essentially lost.

@stephenkaake7016 6 ай бұрын

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

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

Yeah, right. Fat chance.

@stephannaro2113 6 ай бұрын

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

@canwelook 6 ай бұрын

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

@rsnc23 4 ай бұрын

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

@gulzarkareem794 5 ай бұрын

Without rain no mudy road...

@gnomevoyeur 6 ай бұрын

It’s that “all but Irrelevant “ line that seems important to me. If you take a secular view and cut away all the supernatural elements, what is left that matters? The small kernel of truth idea seems like a “fig leaf” that secular academics use because all the money comes from organisations dependent on believers.

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

Hard to "cut away" those images of a crucified corpse on the Shroud. Yeshu b. Pantera

@gnomevoyeur 6 ай бұрын

@@jeffreyerwin3665 yes. I don’t believe and think it’s all made up, but as an internally consistent argument, believing the whole story seems more sensible than the small historical figure .

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

It was recognizing that every scholar had a justification for every possible, competing "kernel of truth" out there and that they couldn't all be true that got me thinking that the whole thing looked an awful lot like a shell game. "Find the kernel of truth, win a prize!"

@donnievance1942 6 ай бұрын

@@jeffreyerwin3665 Right. The shroud that has been shown by radiocarbon dating to have been produced around the end of the 13th century on a textile characteristic of medieval Europe.

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

Medieval European textile? Where did you get that idea? The linen theads that make up the Shroud were hand spun, whereas a spinning wheel was used in medieval Europe. The herringbone weave existed in ancient times. The analysis of the Shroud's radiocarbon readings has been shown to be flawed. That data better fits Rucker's neutron absorption hypothesis. Fun fact: the The spectrum of a blood sample taken from the Shroud indicates the absence of nitrogen.* As I am sure that you are aware, neutron radiation converts nitrogen into carbon, C-14 specifically. *"COULD AN ANOMALY IN THE TURIN SHROUD BLOOD REOPEN THE 1988 RADIOCARBON-DATING RESULT?", World Scientific News, Vol. 162, pp. 102-109@@donnievance1942

@janerkenbrack3373 6 ай бұрын

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

@keithk8275 6 ай бұрын

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

@davidlaki 5 ай бұрын

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

@Theprofessorator 6 ай бұрын

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

@jeffreyerwin3665 6 ай бұрын

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

@Theprofessorator 6 ай бұрын

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

@Theprofessorator 6 ай бұрын

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

@robinbeers6689 6 ай бұрын

I'm firmly on the Carrier mythicist side. That said, it's not that there couldn't have been "a dude" as Dr. C says, it's that there is no need for one to make sense of it all.

@uncleanunicorn4571 6 ай бұрын

Carrier would point out that paul uses a different word, Gennao, When talking about normal human birth. He only uses the word 'Gennomai' When talking about fake magical bodies, Like adam, Or our proposed fake future resurrection bodies.

@relationalrighteousness616 6 ай бұрын

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