The Jesus Question - a Conversation with Dr. Robert M. Price
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2024
- On June 6, 2015, Seth Andrews presented Dr. Robert M. Price, author and expert on the historicity of Jesus, with several questions in regard to the Christ story.
Fascinating. This guy seems authentically interested in the historical truth. Thanks for the vid.
I bet I’ve watched this 8-10 times... Only because Dr. Price gives us so much valuable info in this 24 minute segment... Well worth anyone’s time to listen to and study... Thank You for all you give us Dr. Bob...😊
I love Dr. Price. I could listen to him all day. Great wealth of info he's got and seemingly instant recall to it.
Same. A scholar.
Much respect.
Robert price is one of my favorite people. I know he was having trouble getting financed on CZcams here a couple of years ago but I need to find him I love listening to him and I love his sense of humor!!!
Finally some information instead of propaganda. Thanks man. Good work!
As a historian, I can't understand why this is even an issue. Those claiming that Christ was a real person have simply not met their burden of proof. We wouldn't allow the type of evidence used to prove the historicity of Christ for any other historical figure yet we allow this character to seemingly automatically find his way into the history books. Rather than having to defend this, I'd like to see those claiming he was real actually demonstrate the truth of their claim. What other person's existence is essentially never questioned while at the same time there isn't a single contemporary account of that person? It's unprecedented and it's about time historians begin to act like historians and not only doubt his existence but demand that those making the claim produce the same form of credible evidence that is required to demonstrate the existence of any other historical figure. When it comes to figures like Homer and Socrates, at best historians will say they likely existed but we can't be certain. But when it comes to Christ, his existence is a bear certainty. I can't even count the number of discussions I had with my professors while in graduate school and they all seem to agree but simultaneously shrug it off. I just don't get it.
why dont u think thay he was real?
this is an interesting comment. I agree that there is not and cannot be certainty, and I do see the Jesus case very much as Socrates - that with the evidence we have, it is quite possible he was a real figure. So far as I know, in ancient history, in such cases the assumption is that such figures did exist. It is just a pragmatic assumption.
There is no particular burden of proof on the historicity side - it applies equally to the mythicist side. There are ancient texts that exist - historians are tasked with historically contextualising those texts in the most plausible way.
Was there really a Queen Boudicca that led the mid first century revolt against Roman occupation in Britain? You would think there is no doubt when reading popular history, but really we do just assume it.
I have noticed the same thing along historians. It almost amounts to being to much effort to question it.
Ed Gloss History is a subject for weak students. It is meant as a consolation for students who are not able to study mathematics and physical sciences or even biology. There is nothing to be proud of.
My concern is what about the cast of characters in Jesus life did they exist if they did than Jesus tearful existed.
The Price is Right!
Why can't you just leave other cultures alone
Neil Degrasse/Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins,Sam Harris, Dorothy Murdock, Richard Carrier, and most specially Robert M. Price. These guys change my perception and indeed freed me.
How can anyone even keep up with him?...lol
He's a living encyclopedia of ancient Bible culture and history
This is just one of the reasons I'm atheist now.
I left the myth 3 years ago. I won't say I am atheist. I believe there is probably a creative force to the universe, and that we are created. But that's it. It's just what I believe. No dogma. No pushing my belief on anybody. I'm guessing that's agnostic but don't get caught up with terms. Now I read more Buddhist and Gnostic writings. But I am a conservative, grumpy, old veteran...not a California nutter.
Baldwin II I think it's called deism
Same. It just took a little education.
🤓
@@coeurdelion1193 You may very well be interested in the findings of Matthew Lacroix ..... a common era Indiana jones, the bringer of truth and rational thinking. Worth a look.
Bob is a knowledgeable fellow.
Thanks for this! I could listen to him for days.
I personally think Jesus was just some sort of philosopher or someone similar to Ghandi, but as the time went on people made up stories and deformed reality. The results being that he is the son of god, making miracles, etcetera.
I used to think that, but now I am more convinced educated people sat down and wrote the whole fiction for their own individual purposes.
@@Doriesep6622 To control the uneducated masses. An invisible being watching what you do causes you to act right. Kind of like Santa Clause. I've seen writings where the educated Romans laughed at the uneducated Christians. How they could make up any story and get them to believe it.
Ghandi was a politician
King Izas of Edessa, one of the leaders of the Jewish revolt, was crucified along with Jesus of Gamala and Bar Kochba. They were left on the cross but according to Josephus he asked Titus if they could be taken down to be buried as a token of good will to the defeated Jew's. Izas was the only one who lived after being left up there for three days. This is all from the research of Ralph Ellis, and I find it might be the closest thing to a historical figure that mirrored Jesus of Nazareth. Izas was a Nazarene Jew like Queen Helena.
Thank you for having Dr. Price as a guest. I very much enjoy his speaking style in addition to his perspective.
The fact that there are doubts makes me believe that he never existed, if a God came to earth to tell us that he loved us and to prove that he existed, then there would be no doubt.
That’s a logically fallacious way of looking at it. What makes you so certain that there would be no doubt? For all we know, there could be a sadistic god, or an indifferent god.
It really makes no sense that God incarnated as a human would not have any uniquely new knowledge, that everything he did or said had parallells in existing Jewish scripture or Greek philosophy and mythology. There is so much there that just makes no sense when taken literally.
I had the privilege of attending a speech by Seth Andrews in Mobile, Alabama. The man is a brilliant orator, secularist and atheist.
"We do know of people inventing gods."
All gods are invented.
***** Not the one who shoots lightning...that one is real. I seen lightning strike a power-box a long time ago and he cursed me with tinnitus. To this day I can still hear him howling in fury inside my head, he doesn't let me sleep much anymore.
Hail LightningDude.
***** You know what he meant. :P
***** Yes, but not necessarily by deliberate fraud; that's what he means, I'm sure. While I've heard of the mechanical snake god, I think a better example from that period would be all the Roman Emperors. If that isn't cynically motivated fraud, I don't know what is...
***** Even people in these times are inventing Gods. L. Ron Hubert for one. Joseph Smith.
***** I think the term "invented god" in this case is for those gods that was made purely for a purpose of parody, scam or similar effects. The difference is not much.
I love when Price illustrates the similarities between Jesus and the god's that came before him, christian apologists just focus on the few differences as if it explains away the similarities. "Well that's all well and good that Inana was crucified in the 7th level of hell and rose on the third day, but did she have a beard?". The level of evidence the religious require is infantile.
+Slenderchunk LOL! That's an awesome point. Ironically, the very first renditions of Christ had no beard! He was clean shaven for some reason (which doesn't really comport with his Judaic tradition) but after he became "defied" the early Christians wanted to make him more like Zeus and the other pagan gods, so they threw a beard on him!
+Slenderchunk Early in this video he says that there were parallels between Jesus and the Jewish Rabbis of the contemporary time period. Can anyone cite sources for that? I searched online but couldn't find anything.
This Santa Clause Prophet for Profit is a tub of goo, read Nikola Tesla and Edgar Cayce, there is the truth you seek, do not be fooled by this prince of the Earth!!! Tesla and Cayce said it ALL came from a DIVINE Universal GOD consciousness!!! Don't be lead astray by the deeds of Bad Santa!
Jeremiah 1:5 would have to be proof of the preexistence.
You should read Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Jesus made a lot of claims that were completely unique. Religion is taking care of widows and orphans, pretty infantile I guess... Isis/Inana/Ishtar never existed.
Wonderful, love his every word.
Jesus, like so many "heroes" of the past, followed the Hero's Journey. The standard plot that we recognize as part of a resonating fictional account. Real lives aren't nearly that "set."
Yes, the book by Joseph Campbell, The Hero with 1 ooo faces is a good read since you're interested in this sort of thing.
This was lovely, Seth! Thank you.
Fabulous interview...Keep up the good work, Seth!
Great Interview, and although it's 11 hours premature, Happy Birthday, Dr. Price!
If the Gospels were describing a mythical figure then they must have bee a conspiracy, or an attempt to create a myth for their Messiah hero. Mark was the first Gospel and it appears to be an original historic fiction with no precedent. It is written in omniscient narrator style in that he knew the private thoughts even of Jesus when Jesus was in solitude. The fast moving stylized dialogue of Marks Gospel and the set scenes appear to be intended for theatrical production (Deus ex Machina). There were many many theaters in the Eastern Roman Empire. We know very little about what was shown on their stages. I often wonder if this was one of the first vehicles to promote the new religion, and that a company traveled from city to city making a performance in Greek in each theater, or on the Areopagos in Athens as Paul did.
The Jesus in Mark's gospel was not viewed as powerful enough, so in later redactions of the first story new miracles and powers were added.
Popular first century religious drama is later believed to be true.
Note in one of "Paul" 's letters he states about the resurrection "as it has been portrayed to you". Sounds like a theater production to me.
DB Cisco So the biggest idea in christianity could have been a script not scripture? Makes sense that performance would have spread ideas quickly. Still what a thought. Theater the basis of the beliefs of billions.
@@gregorywebster6640 a big clue is when 'Paul' Says about his Christ: "As he was portrayed to you." Similar phrases apply to the 'stage plays' of many Roman mystery cults.
Om(not)god....I never thought of this
Why did they write it? For honorable purposes or for control? A lot of it is BS but there are some nuggets in it. Some good stories, plagiarized good stories.
Good stuff, Seth. Thanks to you and Dr. Price for putting this out here.
For people my age, it's interesting to watch the Jesus-Mythicism hypothesis follow an almost-identical narrative arc as the *Moses* - Mythicism hypothesis did from the mid-1970s until its final acceptance 2 decades later.
Thomas Thompson faced *exactly* the same fatuous claim in the 1970s: " *No reputable scholar believes that Moses and the patriarchs were mythical figures* ."
And of course he also faced calls for his expulsion from academia; attacks on his livelihood and reputation... the whole _schlemiel_ .
By 1995, the mythicist hypothesis was the mainstream (but only as it related to OT Nonsense).
I was only 9 when Thompson's " _The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives_ " was published in 1974; by the time I read it (in the mid-80s) it was still absolutely a fringe opinion - even among atheists. (In typical 'me' fashion, I considered it inherently plausible, and accepted its conclusions: it gave me something to argue about with atheists *and* believers).
By the time I graduated university, Thompson's hypothesis was not considered remotely controversial: the evidence had accumulated; the previous 'consensus' narrative had been debunked.
Nowadays - a mere 20-some years later - it is a sign of doctrinaire non-scientific religiosity if anyone still accepts the historicity of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, the Patriarchs, the Captivity in Egypt; the Exodus, the book of Joshua, or the kingdoms of David, Saul or Solomon. Thompson has won, resoundingly.
And once the historicity of Jesus is thrown into the garbage, it'll be all over (except for the monumentally gullible, and those who make a living exploiting the gullible).
Abrahamic religious institutions have played this stupid game for centuries: when another part of their nonsense is picked apart, their first claim is that "No credible/reputable scholar believes that the old story is wrong"... it's a form of rear-guard action
Thanks for the comment Geoffrey, much appreciated. Do you have a blog or website where you publish or catalogues your observations, comments experinece etc.? Your above points sketch a clear outline of perception/idea change. Again, thanks for sharing. Cheers
I've read Acharya S's book "christ in Egypt". It scarcely cites any primary sources, provides bogus etymologies supported nowhere else, and is so full of easy to refute stuff that it's hard to think she even meant to be taken seriously. And dI'm an atheist! Have you read her book? There's a reason it's (And Joseph Campbell etc.) are in the same section of Bookstores as stuff on Ufos and bigfoot! I agree with everything Rob Price says EXCEPT this!
Wait, a Biblical scholar who isn't convinced of the historicity of Jesus? Quick, somebody tell Reza Aslan! He apparently doesn't think such a thing is possible...
Prove it.
Aslan has concluded Jesus was a Zealot.
We mythicists are growing.
So are anti vaxxers.
Anti-vaxxers are not the same group as mythicists--not generally.
Super interesting stuff. Cracking age-old mysteries.
Thank you Dr Price!
Love hearing Bob Price talk.
Awesome interview seth! This topic is very interesting. Although odd how the people in in the comments who most likely haven't spent a day researching this just knows what's accurate. Then they use the Argument from popularity lol
I love Dr. Price, but he is the Jack Kerouac of biblical scholarship. I'm gonna have to watch this a second time to digest everything. Fantastic all the same.
I'd say he is more like the inspector Clouseau of Bible scholars.
G Powers I don't think anyone who believes in magic people in the sky has any right to call anyone names. Just sayin'.
+G Powers why would you say that?
alexandria ledgerwood By all means then try Some Sam Harris and Richard Carrier. Dawkins can't hurt sprinkled with a healthy helping of Christopher Hitchens. Exercise the demons of religious indoctrination.
proslice56 *"healthy helping of Christopher Hitchens."*
This, especially this.
I have read some of the comments I think it is hilarious and simultaneously insulting that you have armchair scholars on here talking shit about Price who has not one but two PhD's. I love it when uneducated people attack people that are educated. It's like going to your doctor and telling him he doesn't know what he is talking about lol. Also Carrier, Price and several other scholars hold the possible myth position. It is easy to go on wikipedia and pull a little info and pretend you know shit. These men spent years studying these subjects.
You appear to believe only "armchair scholars" disagree with Price. Spoiler alert: He is as respected amongst his peers as Ken Hamm is among biologists.
If there were a secular "amen" I would say it to your comment
movie nut Arguments from authority is no less pathetic. I happen to not believe in a historical Jesus, based on the lack of convincing evidence. However, citing how many PhD's someone has, or insulting your ideological opponents is not an argument against the historicity of Jesus. Cite the evidence in your favor, sweetie. Because your comment indicts your own ignorance.
movie nut Wow, you are naive.
This guy is out of his depth! He may have two PHD’s but has no understanding of biblically history or accuracy
Jesus = Santa for adults
The only, and really big, difference is that, as long as we believed to Santa as children, it worked !!
How do you know that Jesus is Santa for adults?
Keith Clark You’re an idiot.
Infantile argument from a person with an IQ of peanut butter.
@@PlayerOneUp That's not an argument. It says a lot about you though.
I definitely think the mythicist view has some credibility. To me, the problem is that EVERY story of Jesus is a story that is either a straight up miracle story, or told with a clear parallel to another story, and/or moral message OBVIOUSLY BEHIND it. We don't have stories of Jesus that are simply mundane facts about his life; they're always loaded with some kind of esoteric wisdom. What this indicates is that every story was INVENTED.
Think about the leaders of North Korea. We have a bunch of myths about them, and we also have a bunch of mundane facts about them. They're real people who have been mythicized; when EVERY story of a person is clearly invented for some reason, you've obviously got a case of complete fabrication.
So if the stories of him are inventions (as they clearly are), what are we left with? We're left with contemporary written accounts (None!), and then...Paul. It boils down to Paul. I haven't taken the time to reconsider his writings and comb over them after having learned much of the mythicist notions, but it seems to me that there is indeed a VERY good chance that Paul is totally euhemerizing Jesus. He never met him, never claims to have met him, and NEVER mentions anything historical about Jesus that cannot be viewed in some other way!
superdog797 Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.
I also was confused about the role of Saul of Tarsus until I read The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, by S. G. F. Brandon. Mr Brandon was an Anglican priest who had an open mind and did a great deal of research into the subject of Saul in the process of getting information for his main subject. Excellent reading...particularly his conclusion at the end of the text, just in front of the foot note explanations.
I've read Acharya S's book "christ in Egypt". It scarcely cites any primary sources, provides bogus etymologies supported nowhere else, and is so full of easy to refute stuff that it's hard to think she even meant to be taken seriously. And dI'm an atheist! Have you read her book? There's a reason it's (And Joseph Campbell etc.) are in the same section of Bookstores as stuff on Ufos and bigfoot! I agree with everything Rob Price says EXCEPT this!
Everything Paul says about Jesus is mytho-theological, and everything in the gospels is myth. What can we say about Jesus? That he existed, and nothing else? I don't know if I consider that to be existing.
Good point. It’s weird that there’s not a single little factoid about the everyday life of Jesus. For instance, we know some things about Muhammad, founder of Islam. He had a cat, for example. I can’t point to anything about Jesus other than miracles, death and resurrection.
One of the reasons why I have never particularly thought that the argument that the Bible we have today, or more specifically, the Five Books of Moses, is likely riddled with errors because it is just a copy of a copy of a copy and so on, is the manner in which a Torah scroll is written by Jewish scribes. They are incredibly expensive and start at $25,000 and can go up to $60,000 or even higher depending on variables including the scribe, the type of lettering, the parchment on which it is written, etc. (one could, if trained, write their own for at little at $3,000-$8,000). The process is incredibly detailed and it takes years for a scribe to train for the job.
There are exactly 304,805 letters and it can take a professional scribe well over a year to complete one and an amateur upwards of 5-10 years. When it's done, it's checked and rechecked by multiple people including other scribes and not just for textual errors but for errors in letter size, spacing, detail (the design if each letter must be accurately transcribed as well) and many other little things. It's not just the words that are copied but each page and indeed each line contains the same number of words from scroll to scroll. This isn't just someone haphazardly copying a book.
Given how specific the process is--a scribe is even required to take a ritual bath before every writing session--the argument that little, if anything, has changed since the original is one I'm inclined to accept as valid. This in no way suggests that it's contents have any validity--I don't think they do at all--but I think it's a safe bet that the version we have today, at least the Five Books of Moses, is identical to the original. I've seen the process a dozens of times and I must say that it's impressive in its attention to detail. For those who believe, the Torah scroll is worth risking ones life. It's no small thing for a Jewish community. The rules surrounding evrry aspect of it are vital to the survival of Judaism. There is literally a parade when one is finished. I'm not kidding. An actual parade in the street with a party after. I'm as certain as I can be about something that the scrolls have been accurately copied throughout the centuries and it's particularly interesting to note that completely isolated Jewish communities which have later reunited have compared their Torah scrolls and they were identical. There are many such examples. I can't say the same for other books of the Bible or any from the New Testament but it must be understood that a scribe was a professional. Only select people did it so those charged with copying the various texts did so with great pride.
+Ed Gloss The earliest christian scribes were not highly trained, highly paid professionals. They were amateurs, working for free in their spare time for tiny churches.
That's why the earliest manuscripts are also the ones with the most variation.
I like how Price compared Jesus to other gods and shows that Christianity is based on a number of other religions and that Jesus is just another supposedly divine being in a long line of divine beings created by mankind over many years.
Except that argument has been around over 100 years and was debunked. czcams.com/video/0Z996Ur3foY/video.html
Cool idea to memorize the Josephus passage. Think I'll try that.
Robert M Price is debating Bart Erhman in October 2016.
straight from the Horus's mouth lol.
Great talk. Audio over-compressed, though.
I'm for death after life not life after death.
A supernatural divine Christ?....................hell no, no such thing...........might as well believe in superman.
A human Christ?...............maybe don't know for sure, but it doesn't matter.....because if he's not supernaturally divine then existing or not as a human doesn't matter..........because if he's just human then orthodox Christianity is finished.
EXACTLY!!!!
Agreed.
I've felt that there was probably a man at the core of it, one of the messianic prophets in the region at the time, he may even have been called Jesus. A seed pearl for the accretion of the legend.
This man seems more honest.
I love his works, and he seems so careful, and contemplative. I can't for the life of me understand why he supports Trump.
A lot of his fellow PhDs is similar fields don't understand why he takes such a contrary position in the face of evidence. No, that's not true. They know it's because there's no money is being last to agree with the scholarly consensus. Getting a job in academia is growing increasingly difficult, but if you're selling something different...there's the rub.
Naahh Liam. I'm sorry but that is clearly horseshit. You sound like you have not actually listened. If anything the bias is clearly on the other side. To baldly assert that the contrary position is where the money is at is patently absurd. And maybe you are projecting a little. Not everyone's overriding concern and priority is making bank.
His fellow PhD's, who disagree with him. What exactly is the compelling evidence they bring to bear to show that Jesus/Yeshua was indeed a real person? The evidence up to now seems ridiculously scant and straw clutching at best.
Is there ANYONE of historical importance that we insist existed on less evidence that we have for Jesus?
Going off Price for a moment. Has there yet been an academic rebuttal or response to Carrier's book about the historicity based on Bayes theorem? I have yet to hear a reasonable response. I would be interested to see/hear one.
What! Oh no, my love for him has dropped.
Careful and contemplative people tend to support Trump, the real, only begotten son of God.
I see this as a red herring. What difference does it make whether Jesus was as a complete myth or whether the bible greatly embellished a dude that really existed? In either case the miracle performing, resurrected God man as depicted in the four gospels is still fiction. That's the only Jesus deserving of our skepticism.
The video is very nice, but the audio could use a bit of tweaking.
looks like a very happy pleasent man...
I remember my first exposure to Dr. Price. It was in Brian Fleming's "The God Who Wasn't There" I mistook him for George R.R. Martian
99.9 % of the worlds s scholars reject Price's claims. Many have laughed at him. Jesus was indeed a real person.
Amazing Santa speaks about Jesus, this must have a momentous occasion
...
So how did Jesus/Christianity start ?
Hi there Seth-Man,
thank you for this thoughtful interview of Dr. Price, very interesting.
Why they don't get people like this guy and others on tv facts are refreshing God to control sheep mans idears
I saw the thumbnail and thought it said the uncle Jessie question.
dooksa hazzerz
"Foreknowledge is not a product of Evolution & Miracles breaks all the Science of Logical Reasoning"
boom
Please rephrase that; I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
he didnt expand on what actually happened at the council of nicea? Can anyone enlighten me?
StevenGaspard Constantine called a bunch of Christian leaders from across the Empire to Nicea in order to consolidate the myriad Christian ideologies. The nature of the Holy Trinity was essentially defined at Nicea. Monism and Arianism (and many others) were deemed heretical.
He seemed to more insight than that... I know what the CN was, but what is it that he knows that we dont...
If you're interested in this question, consider donating to the kickstarter campaign to have Bob Price debate Ehrman on the historicity of Jesus. Ehrman has stated that all of his $5,000 speaker's fee will go to charity if it goes ahead. So it's for a good cause too. www.kickstarter.com/projects/1202932161/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman-and-robert-price-debat
no sound
The biblical King Jesus Em Manuel was actually King Izas Manu of Edessa, the Jewish leader of the Jewish Revolt in AD 70. King Izas was crucified by the Romans in AD 70, but was taken down early by Josephus Flavius (of Arimathaea) and survived. Yes, this is all from real history. See ‘Jesus, King of Edessa’.
For more clarity see the film "Caesar's Messiah": czcams.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/video.html
When the question is asked: Did Jesus exist? there are actually two questions being asked:
1) Had there been a person named Jesus, who greatly influenced his surroundings? And,
2) Had there been a person named Jesus, who possess supernatural abilities, that could undermine the laws of physics?
When adherents to religion pose this inquiry, the first is meant, but the response they hear, they believe implies the other.
Whatever the case Bob and Richards work especially sure shows how flimsy the evidence is for the historicity of even an ordinary man.
Not up to your usual audio standards, Seth; When I tune into the Thinking Atheist, I expect to hear the voice of god. :)
It puzzles me why the scrolls were kept in secrecy after they were discovered, not shared with the experts. Could they be redacted to conform?
Seth, I hope you've learnt a bit about audio since this.
Dr. Robert Price reminds me of Yusuf Estes
no audio
16:46 Thank You!!
For acknowledging that BCE/CE is Not anymore scientific then BC/AD.
Even I can admit that it's more of a matter of preference... Even though I feel that those who insist on using BCE/CE, are discriminating against Christians specifically.
Id be curious to see just how much, if at all was documented by Romans concerning crime and criminals. If Rome in fact documented every crime, there would be something about Jesus. And if there wasn't, but they did document everything, well you get the point.
I tend to lean toward Bart Ehrman's view. As I interpret it Jesus seems to have originally been a charismatic person who formed a cult. He was later mythologized by later and later authors and followers. The way he was written in Mark and later evolved through Matthew and Luke before how he ended up in John seems to agree with this. Granted, the writings of Paul suggest a purely mythical Jesus.
It's a topic I don't know enough on and there may no longer be enough evidence to ever conclude. Still, to me Occam's Razor suggests there was, like most cults, one founding charismatic member that was eventually exalted.
OnekiKai The problem is, if there was an actual cult leader who was exalted why does it seem Paul's Jesus is purely mythological? He mentions other apostles but there is no suggestion that they were disciples of an actual man but people, who like Paul, knew Jesus through revelation.
The basic myth theory, that Christianity began as a Jewish mystery cult getting revelations from an Archangle Jesus who was later euhemerized fits the evidence well.
+OnekiKai "one founding charismatic member that was eventually exalted"
It's certainly not a stupid notion, but in the process of stripping away layers of legend, why stop there? The charismatic human leader could also be an exaggeration. You don't even need a real person to be the origin - some stories begin as exaggerations of false rumours, or just plan lies.
Except we have early evidence that the story of the resurrection goes back to with a very short time (weeks) of the events! Not enough time for the so-called myth of the resurrection to be invented.
Dion Sanchez what evidence?
The complete and utter lack of a single scrap of primary historical evidence is impressive if he was a man, let alone a powerful sorcerer necromancer.
Interesting interview. I'll have to agree with many points made.
I do tend to look at things a bit different, however.
Imagine, if you will, someone in about 1000 years finds a book or maybe several books, or even old scripts, for a work of fiction. Say a certain movie or T.V show.
The main character is the leader of over 400 followers, with a tight knit group at his side, preaching the goodness of humanity, having battles with the evil ones, and loving women, throughout the known worlds.
Places that may be known of, or even still exist at the time, could be mentioned, giving the impression of historical accuracy.
It may be in an ancient, long dead language, that only historians can possibly decipher.
There could be many different authors writing their versions of this person, and many interpretations of the stories. There could be pages missing, that would have to be filled in, either through educated guesswork, or hypothesis.
Did these people really exist?
There are also stories of Christ in Scriptures of Islam and the Baha'i Faith i. e. He said: "Free Me from the bonds of the world of the body, and liberate Me from this cage, so that I may ascend to the heights of honor and glory, and attain unto the former grandeur and might which existed before the bodily world, that I may rejoice in the eternal world and may ascend to the original abode, the placeless world, the invisible kingdom."
Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.
That is total bullshit. And virtually all doctors did not believe in germs at on time. The case for popularity. Give it up, dope.
What happened to the thinking atheist?
His microphone turned into a potato.
3:33 you see it
The story of ISA is about saving his people the JEWS from REBELLING against the Roman occupation of ISREAL .
JOSEPHUS said Jesus stood on the temple mound and told his people the JEWS , that if you rebell against the ROMAN occupation of ISREAL you'll lose and be taken out of ISREAL .
The JEWS did not listen and REBELLED on three occassions and were taken out of ISREAL as Jesus had prophecied .
The supposed birth date of Jesus (December 25) coinciding with other deities is non-evidence to me as this was a date later adopted by the "early church" hundreds of years later after becoming the state religion...and thus is not the 'official' birth date given by the bible/gospels.
Jesus is a man made mythical hero. A god/man created by the new Christians to compete with other religions for power and influence.
What kind of proof is given to back up the story in the Talmud that Jesus existed?
Ha! Ha!
It's written down centuries later and it does not line up very well if at all.
18:34
The problem with the traditional "Mythicist" view, i.e. people like Jordan Maxwell and the Zeitgeist interpretation, is that there's no need for concepts like the crucifixion or the resurrection to be based on the sun or borrowed from previous myths. The reason being that there were literally thousands of jews at that time being crucified for claiming to be the messiah. Why wouldn't it just be based on that? And as for the character of Jesus, he appears to be a composite of all the jewish rebels mentioned in Josephus, and a couple other old testament figures most noticeably Joseph and Moses. And it appears to me at least, that Jesus is probably loosely based on Josephus himself. Josephus was the childhood prodigy who outsmarted the elders and was schooled in every sect and interpreted visions, etc. And if we assume that Jesus was a real person, then we're forced to conclude that all these parallels we see between Jesus and the rebels mentioned in Josephus, who on their own don't quite meet the necessary criteria, but, when combined they perfectly resemble Jesus as he appears in the gospels, you'd have to explain these parallels away as mere coincidence. But, what are the chances that it's all just coincidence? I don't know, but it seems highly unlikely to me.
However, at a later point in time, the Jesus narrative was definealty interpreted as an allegory for the sun. When we read Thomas Paine's remarks about Jesus it's apparent that at some point in time this was the popular interpretation at least among the intellectual elites.
@@thoughtprocess4306 But if the character of Jesus was based on many people rather than a single founder than the historicity of Jesus isn't true
@@miguelpereira9859 Your right, the historicity is false!
It is said that "a person dies twice, once as you would expect, and then the second time when nobody again ever speaks your name"
What if the very act of worshipping this person, is the very thing that keeps him from returning for judgement day (because he hasn't died that second way yet)?
Or, more likely.
Jesus was the first evangelical peacher and his followers just "exaggerated" the details of their stories repeatedly until it was finally written down🤨
This ought be taught in usa schools as religous “study” instead of just belive any bullshit we toss at you.
IESOUS CHRISTOS anagrams to OSIRIS SET CHOUS ('chous' means "a measure of capacity equal to 12 cups").
So the bible we can read today isn't far off from the earliest copies of it? That's interesting to know. Some groups claim you can't trust the bible because it was so distorted by translations and copies...and in fact, that's not the case. King James notwithstanding, I take it? It's the most poetic to those who learned that version first.
There is no doubt that Shakespeare wrote his plays, and shame on Dr. Price for giving air to the Anti-Stratfordians.
Everyone pay attention to 4:50. Excellent response.
Historians don't just say A ripped off from B. It's angry and cynical atheists who simply make that relationship. Science and history dwell heavily on nuance, and if you can't understand that, stop calling yourself a skeptic. "Atheist" confers no special abilities or critical thinking.
The mythicist error: _"the burden of proof is on the historicists."_ No it's not! It is not an experimental situation where mythicists represent the null hypothesis. And there is no way that the contradictions in any way outweight the correspondences between various stories about Jesus. The historicists and the mythicists have a very similar proof situation: they have to convince the *true* seeker of knowledge that their description of how our concept of Jesus developed from a historical versus not a historical Jesus. This isn't an academic proof situation where the mythicists represent an opposing view against an academic research presentation made by the historicists -- this is a situation where the independent public chooses between two models.
Rursus, .... what model have you chosen and why ??
I like all the stuff he says but I think he needs to get his inhaler, is this guy dead yet or still alive first time hearing him
Professor Price . You will see it clearer if you see this . The Jewish sects were really different religions. Jesus also combines different theologies and Paul continues with this practice. Because we call them all today just Jews we think they must have been one religion in general . They hated each other they were so different . The gospel writers and Paul are doing what Jesus did. That is why they feel free to do it.
and endless other Greek Jews were doing.
I've never really seen people entertain the idea of the existence of more than one person being recognized as Jesus. I think it is reasonable to think that people, knowing and believing a prophecy would look for someone that could fulfill it, much like the Doomsayers we have today. It makes more sense for me that the miraculous acts atributed to Jesus came from diferent sourcers, specialy considering the variety of BS that Jesus is capable of doing without any consistency. Other thing is that, when Jesus is condemned to crucifixion, no one but his followers seens to be capable of recognizing him - even if the story is not even close to real and is made to portrait the act of betrayal, I don't see why no one else could recognize him, unless if there wasn't only one, but several people claming or being clamed as a Messiah.
Well, just my 2 cents, I guess.
I had Qumran fever, the diarrhea it's the worst.
It's no exaggeration to say that Christianity is the single biggest social phenomenon in human history. That fact alone seems to be overwhelming evidence of the historicity of its founding figure. I'm only a layman, but that's how I suspect most laymen see the problem.
It's kind of like the speculation over whether Shakespeare was a secret Catholic (or Protestant). Or whether his plays were actually written by Bacon. Speculation that can ultimately never be resolved, but which keeps tenured academics busy writing papers. If we could resolve the speculation conclusively, the implications would be massive, but the fact remains that we can't.
So what are the implications here? The most significant one seems to be that if some historical Jesus never existed, then Christianity has no kernel of truth whatsoever, and literally billions of Christians have been deceived on that point. It raises the question of whether this deception was deliberate. I could go on and on.
It just seems a little convenient for us atheists, and quite possibly counter-productive. The believer might phrase it as "You choose not to believe Jesus existed because you don't want to have to believe in Christianity." This hypothetical believer might then become even more entrenched in her belief because questioning such a fundamental figure would seem exactly like (for instance) insulting her mother. I am perfectly willing to grant the conventional wisdom that a historical Jesus did exist, and spend my time addressing the innumerable, easily verifiable flaws that plague Christianity. I admit it's a pragmatic way of attacking the issue, but sometimes that's the best we can do.
+donquickoats
"It's no exaggeration to say that Christianity is the single biggest social phenomenon in human history"
There are many other religions that would disagree with that statement. Also replace the word "christianity" with "the internet" or "modern communications" and they would be defendable positions.
"That fact alone seems to be overwhelming evidence of the historicity of its founding figure."
What would be overwhelming evidence is actual overwhelming evidence rather an assumption of truth. History is an actual academic discipline. By its nature you are really talking about what is reasonable to believe about the past.
The popularity of idea does not relate to the truth of it. That is what the whole concept of urban myths are about. (I am not saying Jesus is an urban myth). Urban myths are popular ideas that despite their popularity are incorrect.
Jesus gets at least 15 on the Raglan scale.
Less then than some real historical figures.
Does it even matter that we can obviously trace the stories back to previous myths? What bearing does this have on the possible existence of a cult leader, that would have been so much like hundreds of other cult leaders that were not famous enough in their time to have any history written about them. I think it's strange to even address these myths when considering a historical Jesus. Seeing that there is no evidence for the man, himself, I think the only thing that we have is human nature. I think there was a Jesus, simply because most cults have a leader, and if a cult existed back then, it seems likely that when writing down the stories of their dear leader that had died or disappeared decades before, that they would incorporate all kinds of tropes, but one thing that they would likely get right is that they had a leader, and that he had a name.
***** Yeah, but since I am talking about if he existed or not, and you started with, "Whether the man himself existed or not,..." Everything that you typed here is useless for two reasons. The first reason is that it is obvious general knowledge that need not be stated. The second reason is that it is no way relevant to what I stated which addressed nothing about any church or any religious person in any way.
***** This is all true. Why did you write it?
***** Yes, all true. Why did you type this?
GeuwgleSuxBallz
" it seems likely that when writing down the stories of their dear leader
that had died or disappeared decades before, that they would
incorporate all kinds of tropes, but one thing that they would likely
get right is that they had a leader, and that he had a name."
Your assumption that "cults usually have leaders" is true, in Jesus' case the 'leader' was Paul. He was the David Koresh having visions of a space Jesus (which he'd read about before having his visions in the OT - he conveniently 'witnessed by vision' what the OT said he should witness as to give himself credibility when preaching that the messiah had returned). Everyone believed in the 7 heavens (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) as realms of the gods. It's very plausible to assume Jesus started as a myth and was made into a man when you understand the worldview people had (Roman gods were interchangeable with Greek gods which were interchangeable with Thracian gods etc, they all lived (and died) in these 7 heavens). So Paul has his early christians, who didn't literally believe in a god-man walking around spitting in his hands and rubbing his eyes to cure blindness. But then when people had splinter groups and disagreements over how closely they should follow the Jewish law for instance. Mark then brings Jesus to Earth in a beautiful myth which uses all poetic tools from other myth: All names have meanings to the story, Jewish parallels to Jesus (He's the scapegoat, and the murderer Barabbas [who's name means 'son of the father'] is the goat scheduled for slaughter but then given a reprieve). Mark wrote a myth to convey hidden messages to true followers. People then, as time passed, realized that thinking Jesus was real gave them credibility over gnostics (I think Price talked about that in this vid) "You may have had visions, but we got this stuff right from Jesus' real life apostles!".
Jesus was also clearly a re-branding of Moses for the new age, mimicked his miracles, died on a hill, had 12 followers, almost every aspect of Moses is found paralleled in Jesus, this doesn't happen to real people, it happens to created people (Just as Moses was a creation and there's zero evidence of exodus as even Jewish scholars admit.)
All this makes logical sense and so what seemed likely was in fact very unlikely. More people believed in space saviors than earthly ones at the time of Jeebus. It was only after political needs required a real Jesus that we found a real Jesus.
It matters a lot to christians that Jesus was real, not to me. But if we're to call them out for belief in the untrue (which I do whenever they become bigoted with their pet monster), mythical Jesus evidence is a very good tool.
Slenderchunk I'm not talking about Paul, as his leadership is well documented and not worth speculating about. There is no need to rehash the Jesus myth either. I just think that cult leaders were very common back then, and almost all of them were not famous enough to have any documentation about them. So if cults generally had leaders, who was leading this cult that Paul ended up leading? I'm going to bet it was some guy who's name ended up being translated into Jesus eventually, and had all kinds of myths built around him by people that knew almost nothing about him. You say this doesn't happen to real people. If the people creating the myths know almost nothing about the guy they are mythologizing, how could it be different if he was real or not?
God still loves you all unconditionally, no matter what you say about him, he loves you! God bless each and every single one of you. I hope and am praying that you, my brothers and sisters, find Gods love.
Thanks for the thoughts. (of course, since we don't believe in any god, then well . . . )
Why do we have to find it? Do your children have to find your love?
It is very easy to see why Jesus is a myth. If he had been a real historical person, we would have several different stories about his life, derived from the different witnesses of his deeds. Mary Magdalene recolections would have nothing to do with those of Peter. The episodes remembered by his alleged brother James of their common infance would have widely differ from those of his alleged brother Judas.
But the fact is that we only have ONE mainstory (Mark) that is reproduced almost verbatim by Mathew, with a few pious aditions by Luke. Evidence clearly points to Mark as the "author" of this pesher (based on OT profecies about the Messiah), and not on the recolection of real witnesses to a real life.