Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Did Jesus Exist? Dr. Robert M Price, Dr. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald Interview Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2015
- Please support our Patreon project to receive exclusive content and interviews not available on CZcams! www.patreon.com/acsj
Historians and Apologists have been arguing for centuries about the evidence for a historical Jesus, the Mythicist theory takes the position that Jesus may never have existed as a real person and has compelling evidence to support it. Join us as we invite the top three scholars/authors in the Mythicist field to discuss the best and worst evidence for a historical Jesus.
The Authors:
Robert M. Price holds two Ph.D. degrees (in Theology and New Testament). He has taught undergraduates, seminarians, and doctoral students. He served as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Montclair and as the Director of the Center for Inquiry, Metro, NY. His numerous books include Deconstructing Jesus, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, and The Human Bible New Testament. Price is the host of the podcasts The Bible Geek, The Human Bible, and The Lovecraft Geek.
Richard Carrier has a Ph.D. in the history of philosophy from Columbia University, and is a published philosopher and historian, specializing in contemporary philosophy of naturalism, and in Greco-Roman philosophy, science, and religion, and the origins of Christianity. He blogs regularly, lectures for community groups worldwide, and teaches courses online. He is the author of many books including Sense and Goodness without God, On the Historicity of Jesus, and Proving History, as well as chapters in several anthologies and articles in academic journals. For more about Dr. Carrier and his work see www.richardcarrier.info
David Fitzgerald is an atheist activist, writer, public speaker and historical researcher who has been actively investigating the Historical Jesus question for over 15 years. He has a degree in history and was an associate member of CSER (the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion) He lectures around the country at Universities and national secular events. He is also author of NAILED: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All and The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion series.
Get to know us:
Website: sanjoseatheists...
Join us:
Meetup: www.meetup.com/...
Follow us:
Facebook: / atheistcommunityofsanjose
Twitter: / sanjoseatheists
Donate:
Website: www.sanjoseathe...
Patreon: www.patreon.co...
As Sinclair Lewis puts it: It's very hard to get a man to understand an idea when his salary depends on him not understanding the idea.
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 LMAO! Knock it off German. That piece of cloth is as fake as those snapchat filters.
@@modo203 The evidence is quiet clear. The shroud is Jesus's burial cloth.
The shroud has been dated to Jesus's time by many different dating methods.
www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4210369.stm
Also the radio-carbon dating method which dated the shroud to the middle ages has been shown to be false
www.shroud.com/pdfs/ohiomaloneypaper.pdf
The letter that claimed the shroud to be faked was itself not even a firsthand account and there's even evidence that the letter claiming the shroud was a forgery was in itself forged. Also the name of the forger is nowhere to be found in the letter.
www.factsplusfacts.com/christianitydarcis.htm
Also most of the the pollen from the shroud is from Jerusalem. where Jesus was crucified.
books.google.com/books?id=3iuwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=58+pollen+grains+discovered+on+the+Shroud,+the+largest+number+(45)&source=bl&ots=Q7-T9oIZqP&sig=ACfU3U31410qKflR873Adwmmb7FL-CyxGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-m96KiuLoAhWiSt8KHaj8A5gQ6AEwCnoECA0QMA#v=onepage&q=58%20pollen%20grains%20discovered%20on%20the%20Shroud%2C%20the%20largest%20number%20(45)&f=false
The wounds of the man on the shroud are in exactly the same placed as the wounds that Jesus received in the gospels. Even the crown of thorns are shown. The evidence definitely shows someone who was crucified.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=81FBC7EAAFCFEF6B27986010AF7BA5B8?doi=10.1.1.309.3339&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The image of Jesus also has long hair which Jesus had and matches the earliest images we have of Jesus in churches from the 5th century. The image also has pilate coins, in that time it was a custom to put coins over the eyes of a dead person.
www.haralick.org/conferences/analysis_of_digital_images_of_shroud_of%20Turin.pdf
Scientists also think that the shroud was formed by a flash of supernatural light or radiation which permanently put the image of Jesus on the shroud and it's 3d qualities also.
The shroud also cannot be recreated. The closest we got was luigi garlaschelli and even his replica was missing many key features.
www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf
So we then have a supernatural image of a guy who was crucified in Jerusalem by pontious pilate in the first century with a crown of Thorns on his head and with all the wounds described in the gospels. That sounds like Jesus. The image on the shroud was created by radiation or supernatural light by him rising from the dead.
The shroud not only shows that Jesus rose from the dead but the accuracy of the Gospels also!
@VideoAudioDisco09 Who's comment are you responding to?
@VideoAudioDisco09 The shroud of Turin is only one of many cloths Jesus was covered in.
Also the forensic study you mentioned has already been debunked.
www.uccronline.it/eng/2018/07/20/shroud-of-turin-false-bloodstains-the-only-falsehood-is-the-new-study/
Not only that, the weave of the cloth is actually one that was use during the first century and has actually never been found to be used in the middle ages. The weave, since it was advanced must have been bought by the rich man "Joseph of Arithmethie" because he was rich.
www.reasonablefaithhouston.com/2015/02/shroud-of-turin-textile-witness/
Part 2 is posted! Please support our Patreon to help us create more content! www.patreon.com/acsj
czcams.com/video/irRDkcr5Diw/video.html
Did my own research on both Carrier's and Price's books and was intrigued at how accurate they are. I think Christians should give them a read. If for no other reason than to see what the counter arguments are.
Eddie King I too was shocked at the years of research and the process involved. I wish more Christians would give read them, if nothing else but to be informed.
MrPittfan95 Atheism is a mental Illness.
Brother Keith Lawson that is an interesting view, which religion do you follow brother?
Brother Keith Lawson So doubting in a invisible anthropomorphic genie who magically speaks things into it existence using a magical incantation spell is a mental illness? I doubt that.
MrPittfan95 I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. A true Christian.
I know this is an older collection of comments but I have only recently discovered Richard Carrier. I am a newly minted fan. What I need is to find an atheist/mythicists group by me I can become part of. I feel isolated knowing the truths so many around me willfully ignore and it hurts.
It's hard being a member of the 3%!
Subversion, Manner Of Steel : group on facebook👍🏼👍🏼
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 LOL.... Your a funny Dude
@@hellogerman5559 you win the internet with the funniest comment, well done
My wife was the biggest Christian there ever was. I am a physicist, and challenged her to prove me wrong, that Jesus did not exit. After, years of studying and looking at the Greek translations, she is now the biggest atheist, I have ever known. She is happy to know the truth! She know's the bible, like the back of her hand. Most Christian's, have never read the bible. Most Christian's are the coldest people, I have ever known. The Church is in trouble, the younger generation is onto this fact, look at Church services and you will only find, people over the age of forty there!
Knowing what is printed in the Bible doesn't mean you know what the Bible says. I pray for you and your wife :)
+Sheneen Monique I beg to differ, knowing what the bible has written in it, brings one to the conclusion that's its a load of shit. plain and simple, you have no argument against it.
+John Doe Hello. I hope you are well. Your reply makes me love God, His son Jesus and the Holy Spirit all the much more. And these three are one.
Have a good day
Sheneen Monique I am quite well, thank you for the query. I have no issue with you loving your god/s. I have no issue with you having a belief. I have no issue with you having faith in your belief. What I have an issue with, is the fact that you have nothing but claims that you cannot prove. I have an issue with you trying to enforce your empty claims upon the rest of the intelligent world. With all of the information we have at our fingertips, ignorance is no longer an excuse. My suggestion is to grow up fast, we need people who can think fast and accomplish things in this world, not people standing around with their heads bowed silently, or aloud, asking some invisible entity to intervene. We have had 2000 years of the same bullshit. Its time to tackle life like an intelligent adult should.
I always have a wonderful day, Thanks :)
+John Doe The Ego latches on to religion. It's the psychological defense mechanism. And it's very painful for people to shed that Ego/religion/patriotism/etc.
1000% the best discussion and set of panelists ever! These guys complement each other so perfectly! I've watched this a dozen times and expect to watch it again and again. The level of discussion here is rarely equaled. Anywhere.
why such passion for wanting Jesus not to be real 😂😂😂
@@aquila813apologetics3 Why such passion for wanting Jesus to be real? 😂😂😂. Do you need your hand held?? Btw he is not real. Neither is the tooth fairy.
@@izifaddag8221 Most rabid je-SUS fans are lonely women... cause he is shown as kind of a "chad" and has some of the biggest social proof - a very wanted man (if he existed I mean) Remember they always say"Jesus come" you know what they mean...🤣
Great video! I do agree that Mr Fitzgerald lets his enthusiasm overcome politeness in dealing with his fellow speakers. Maybe next time he'll be more diplomatic...but the content still makes this one worthwhile. Thank you.
I agree. I hate it when people interrupt each other
True. But I still really like the guy
If I said "the majority of Quranic scholars agree that the Quran is perfect" or "the majority of Mormon scholars agree that Joseph Smith did indeed discover ancient golden tablets" would you be impressed?
The fact is the vast majority of bible scholars have been Christians, so of course bias is a big issue.
+Robbie ‘H.B’ Desiato You're completely wrong in this issue. Biblical criticism has been one major factor in the rise of secularism and atheistic humanism. These same scholars recovered the historical Jesus, precisely in order to free Jesus from the dogma of the church. Many of them are liberal Christians, but there are also a lot of Jews, atheists, agnosts and whatever working in this field. None of them is saying that Jesus was a perfect human being, or the Son of God. Only that he existed and probably was an apocalyptic preacher. That is a modest, secular claim, to which the evidence points.
@@hoog19 Great point. It goes to highlight for example of how the Catholic Church in particular has almost had this monopoly on Christian faith in essence. Very good point sir.
@@hoog19 yet the evidence doesn't support the claims.
@@TheRobdarling So you are a historian who reads Greek and has the credentials to evaluate their claims? I can, and the evidence for Jesus supports the claims that most historians make.
@@hoog19 Read Carrier's book, you will see that you are mistaken.
Jeez... Fitzgerald is so spastic and eager to bash that he misremembers many passages and Carrier has to correct him. :( He is just so eager to interrupt and show how much he knows. Price is just sitting there calmly waiting his turn and his words come out so much more elegantly. Then again, he is also a writer in the purest sense.
yeah I agree. His style of hyperbolic argumentation is why I have given up on trying to have a sensible discussion about mythicism - it is all too common alas.
Rational Agenda I guess he's probably excited, too. Sitting beside Carrier and Price. He's made it! Hell, I know a shitload about the Jesus Myth theory myself and did prob 12 or more hrs of vids on that and other related things but I don't have this burning desire to rub elbows in the atheist "community" or ride the current wave of "hey, it's cool now to be an atheist".
I couldn't even make it past the 3rd chapter of Carrier's "proving history" book. I found it silly. You're going to use a math equation to arrive at a probability of X event happening. Seriously.... you don't know all of the "what ifs" to fill IN the equation. And bottom line... no, you can't prove history. If you have a claim, just present the evidence and argumentations. If it's convincing, then you've "proved" it to that reader.
TruthSurge I really enjoyed your video series. It was probably the first one I ever watched that gave such a detailed explanation of the Christ myth. I'm going to have to que it back up in my "to watch" list.
RandomWalker39 thank ya. That first series was pretty informal and was me trying to explain what I knew at the time. Some good stuff in there though. The 2nd series (excavating the empty tomb) was not totally Jesus myth but almost everything in there points in that direction.
I had no problem with how you presented the argument in your video series - that was the way it should be done imo - here is the argument, maybe you will find it compelling, maybe not.
For me, I find many aspects of the argyument fascinating and worthy of discussion, but find the conclussion uncompelling. I am largely agnostic over his historicity, but lean more toward the mainstream being the more plausible - but the evidence is tenuous at best.
I fear for Dr. Price’s health, hopefully he is with us for many years to come. We need his clarity.
He really needs to go on a diet.
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 that old rag was debunked long ago. That’s why you don’t hear of it any longer.
Clarity about what, exactly?
@@hellogerman5559 Primitive backward people making God the best they knew - using their King/Dictator as a template - "We must get down on our knees, swear loyalty & obedience, beg for his mercy and hope for a reward"
Little did they know that the so-called for more advanced, intelligent and educated of the 21st century would be blindly following these primitive ideas of theirs
If they could see us they would die laughing at our stupidity!
Why is David interrupting Richard Carrier every time? I wish that guy would STFU and let Richard finish his thoughts, which are way more thought out than what Fitzgerald blabbers about.
Some people have a tendency to control the conversation. Not defending him for doing it. Some people just aren't aware they are doing it. People who have quips tend to do it more often
Think of Aron ra or Christopher Hitchens. Clear well thought out speakers. But they have lots of quips and like to talk over people.
It does lead to problems. I think that tendency is Hitchens argument for grounding morality was so poor.
He should have just remain agnostic about it if he didn't want to defend a concept. But he just dodges the question with a quip and quotation from a Greek philosopher
It's hard to remain completely self aware
At home with the Fitzgeralds.
Bedtime.
Mrs Fitzgerald: What are you doing tomorrow, dear? I thought we might go for a walk in the park and have lunch somewhere.
David: I thought I told you. I’m flying to Milwaukee tomorrow to give a talk.
Mrs Fitzgerald: Oh.
David: Well, aren’t you going to ask me what it’s about?
Mrs Fitzgerald: Is it about that Jesus stuff again?
David: At least, try and show some interest. This is mind blowing stuff, you know. We need to get this stuff out to the whole planet. It’s vitally important.
Mrs Fitzgerald: But, we never seem to do anything together.
David: Look, we agreed when we got married: this is my life’s mission. Nothing else matters. People must know the TRUTH.
Mrs Fitzgerald: Oh, did you remember to put the green bin out?
David: I can’ believe you said that!
Pause.
Mrs Fitzgerald: David.
David: Yes?
Mrs Fitzgerald: My mom believes in Jesus.
David: Yes, well, the less said about her, the better. Now try to get some sleep. I’ve got a busy day tomorrow. Good NIGHT!
Mrs Fitzgerald: Good night, David.
David eventually drifts off into a fitful, delirious sleep, muttering away:
Jesus doesn’t exist... Jesus doesn’t exist... no... no... get back! Get back... get thee behind me, Satan... nooooo, pleeeeease... not the closet... noooooo, aaaaaaargh!
Mrs Fitzgerald: David, David! Wake up! You’re having one of your bad dreams again.
David wakes up, sobbing: Yes, it was awful. It was so real. What’s happening to me? I think I’m losing my mind.
Mrs Fitzgerald (hugging David): There, there, it’s OK, now, Jesus doesn’t exist. It was just a dream, sshhhhhh, rock-a-bye baby in the tree top ......
He interrupts Robert Price too. This is so infuriating to watch. I’ve tried a few times in the last few days. I was looking forward to it but I think I need to find another video without the guy on the right. (David?)
Jayne Sch
Yes, David Fitzgerald is annoying. He’s not a real scholar, like Price.
Agreed. Fitzgerald is a goof ball. His high and whiny voice...should irritate the hardest atheist out there.
Would love to hear carrier's discussion in front of the society for biblical literature , and the angry Baptist rebuttal .
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 The shroud of turin has been proven to be Fake, it is from the middle ages.
Primitive backward people making God the best they knew - using their King/Dictator as a template - "We must get down on our knees, swear loyalty & obedience, beg for his mercy and hope for a reward"
Little did they know that the so-called for more advanced, intelligent and educated of the 21st century would be blindly following these primitive ideas of theirs
If they could see us they would die laughing at our stupidity!
I wish Fitzgerald would stop interrupting and allow the others to finish speaking. I wanted to hear the 2nd time Jesus is mentioned by Josephus. Guess I have to look it up.
Josephus mentioned JESUS. Even JEWISH TALMUD mentioned Him. If Jews could keep record of their Babylonian exiled. Why not 1st century history?
abukid lolwut?
Where in the Talmud is Jesus of Nazareth mentioned?
Jewish Talmud?
DF is annoying
I could listen to dr price all day I love hearing him talk
Yeah I love the guy. Even though a lot of things he uses as evidence are tangential, his knowledge of (and love for) the texts flow through his words. He's an amazing man.
i have to laugh
Look up MythVision here on CZcams. Lots of Dr. Price content.
Dr. Price could listen to Dr. Price all day. He loves hearing his own voice.
I listen to his “The Bible Geek” podcast every night!
For the 5 seconds I was a Christian, I noticed that most teachings followed by Christians are Paul's, and even then my teenage self wondered why they weren't called Paulians. It's so exciting to know that serious academics support what I have instinctively known most of my life.
+Vanessa Mc Lean :). Good for you.
With all due respect, everything the Apostle Paul teaches is directly speaking about Jesus' life and teachings. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are all historical facts...so you might take it seriously his claim to be God! Seek the truth with all your heart, and find that salvation is truly through faith in Jesus Christ.
Eddie it's true that he is most concerned with who Jesus is today (God's Son, in heaven, we serve a risen Savior, amen!!) and the most important question one can ask in this life: How do I get to heaven? However, that doesn't take away from the fact that he talked about Jesus' death and resurrection from the dead, 2 historical facts, it's the same Jesus that came to earth. In addition, everything Paul taught (about love vs hate, good vs evil, how to treat others, salvation through faith not works, etc) was fully based on his love for Jesus and spreading Christ's commands and Christ's love. I believe that what he said was inspired by God as well--but he writes everything he does out of love for Christ.
“Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are all historical facts”
😂😂😂 no they are obvious myths!
If you're concerned about Jesus' living and what he did, there are all kinds of sources, you can always start with Wikipedia, and any of the links it brings you to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus here's another link that references quite a few historical documents www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ - as far as Jesus' life, death, and resurrection recorded in the Bible, those are put together by quite a few eyewitnesses at the time of Christ, they were NOT put together by a cult, or by some people making up their own religion. His resurrection is also documented by well-respected historians like Josephus - see this link that lays out evidence for the resurrection, including historical documents bellatorchristi.com/2017/04/11/10-reasons-to-accept-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-an-historical-fact/#_ftn6. If you want to do some deeper research, some sources are below. I could also go on about the myriads of prophecies in the OT, about what civilizations would fall, about how Jesus would die, about specific historical events, etc - also the scientific facts in the Bible (e.g. the Bible described underwater currents before anyone knew about such things, the Bible described the earth as a sphere back when people thought it was flat, clusters of stars described).
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." I pray for you and others, as historically, scientifically, and personally, I know Jesus is the Son of God, and I believe that knowing you have eternity in heaven is the most important thing you can ever do.
Sources below for further research on Jesus if you delve into it yourself:
Bettenson, Henry, Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford Press, London, 1943.
Delashmutt, Gary, The Xenos Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, Columbus, OH, 1988.
Durant, Will, The Story of Civilization, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1944.
Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1974.
McCallum, Dennis, Christianity: The Faith that Makes Sense, Tyndale, Grand Rapids, MI, 1990.
Miethe, Terry L., ed., Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Harper and Row, San Francisco, CA, 1987.
Moreland, J.P., Scaling the Secular City, Baker House Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987.
Also, try reading the Bible for yourself! See that there is something different about it, that it is in fact the word of God.
Man, my life would so much easier if I could just learn to believe in fairy tales........kudos! These guys are great panellists! Very well presented!
Knowing that the 1st Gospel was written around 40 years after Jesus died I often wondered why if Jesus was bringing salvation for all of mankind that he would have told someone to "WRITE THIS DOWN".. but no, instead someone 40 years after, most likely a greek pens the 1st Gospel.. Learning how the bible was compiled was the 1st of many things that lead me to disbelieve in any deity..
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
the gospel(mark) was probably written in Rome.....the writer certainly had never set foot in Judea has he gets everything about jewish wrong.....later corrected by Matthews gospel but Luke repeated Marks mistakes
@@hellogerman5559 the turin shroud is from the 15th or 16th century........
A true masterpiece of laid back knowledgeable discourse by men who live and breath by historically accurate argumentation.!
Bravo Gentle Men !
Awesome. Would have been even better without David Fitzgerald butting in and talking over Dr Price and Dr Carrier every 4 seconds
The 27 books of the Gospels, Epistles, Revelation and Acts, known to Christians as the New Testament Bible were compiled from loose scrolls, and finished at different dates from 75 AD to 150 AD. Jesus and the stories were first told publically for decades before they were recorded on parchment. The story was constantly improved, distorted and changed, for around 300 years. The stories of the accepted Gospels all tend to duplicate each other yet, are contradictory as if they were a type of dictation taken down. Evidence for his birth does not exist as the year 0 does not exist, the date of his death and the time of his death are recorded differently in the Gospels. Almost no evidence of biographical information within the Gospels is found at all about the existence of 'Jesus" the man who was said to walk the earth 2000 years ago. No evidence about what he looked like, the sound of his voice. His lineage is totally made up, one Gospel writes he came from Adam? another that he came out of Abraham's family? The New Testament Bible is a faith document, not an academic document. For Jesus' existence to be proven it must be based on sources at the time, letters, artifacts etc. The New Testament as a concept was based on the Church's word fixing the story into stone after the Synod of 397, as Canon law, it was illegal to question the Bible or the Church from this date, thus the law stated Jesus 'must have lived'. There were ancient writers around in the first decades of the first century yet nothing has ever come to light to suggest evidence that 'If someone did walk around the streets after being crucified, it would have been recorded somewhere'.All of the Jesus miracles would have been big news but nothing real apart from the Gospels is recorded, and glorified by the Church afterwards. Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus wrote from 80 AD onwards. These scrolls had names added on by later Christian writers, i.e. the style of words is vaguely similar to the Gospels, again no evidence. A lot of the New Testament is actually for want of a basic word, a 'copy' from Ancient Egyptian legends and or Zoroastrian books - such as a god who could change water into wine, rose from the dead, was a good samaritan, a virgin birth, the god-son died for the believer's souls etc ( dated as paganism pre Christian) Tim Freke and Peter Gandy have found 180 similarities between the Jesus written about in the Bible and those of earlier religions - the New Testament Gospels, Jesus is copycat based on old myths ) These two historian academics found real hard evidence about the similarity- , The development of the Church - its rise to power, influence and its success has more to do with Paul, Peter and later Emperor Constantine plus the hard work of those former slaves who once given freedom ( living often in terrible poverty around the Empire,) was achieved wanted to believe so strongly in an afterlife as a reward for suffering throughout their lives - flocked to Christianity. These ex-slaves gradually moved into local government, trade, farming land they owned and crafts that by 290AD were great enough in number not to be ignored by Constantine who then had to accept the importance of the Christian faith to find enough soldiers for his civil war. Later as emperor, Constantine first made the 'Nicene Creed' in 325AD and then the 'Edict of Milan' just before he died 337 AD, making the Jesus story constitutional law throughout the empire, further stamping Jesus' existence, yet without any evidence. No real eyewitness or material evidence has ever been found as historical sources, to prove Jesus lived. As with all religions, belief is all in the mind. The church pulled a centralised confidence trick, to gain wealth and power. The church's marketing exercise was simply magnificent along with the ultimate logo, notably 'the cross'. The first 1500 years of the Jesus story were based on a strict doctrine and obedience, where questioning and evidence gathering were forbidden, the story of Jesus was just repeated without questioning, and no evidence of Jesus exists.
I think Fitzgerald drank about 6 Red Bulls before this talk.
Part two is the Q&A that followed the interview. Should have that up soon and will post a link here.
SanJoseAtheists How awesome is this. Thank you.
SanJoseAtheists Should be called " Stupid atheist will never be smart" This stuff was debunked years ago and using 1930's and below to support anything is " Stupid" this is 2015 and these tricks only fool people who don't understand what they see. I'll debate any of these 3 anytime and split the cost, If you only debate stupid people it's no wonder why people listen to this crap, How do you explain the distance between Mark and Luke but yet similar? How do you explain all the stories from many cities all saying the exact same things and you don't need a Bible, Do you think these people knew a Bible would be written in the first place? I don't think so, Proof they didn't copy is clear cut and How do you explain the greek versions which are accurate to the letter? You people are stupid and if anyone listens to this crap, They have no common sense and deserve to believe they came from " Nothing" The whole Universe just made itself, guess it got bored of being Nothing.
digitalhat That is so wrong I have no clue how to even apply logic to it, Okay I believed as you did at one time so I know both sides, Why did I switch? I took a sudden trip to the ER, Went back for emergency surgery, While I was under I looked down and saw everything they did to me from above the room, I told the Doctor when he came to check on me, He laughed of course and said no, most likely it was just a dream, I said okay this is what you did, this was how many people came into the room and I explained in detail everything, I told him just tell me if I was right or if it was just a dream, The Doctor said " Are you Serious" Well I can't explain that and you explained dead on which I have no explanation, I even had some trouble with my heart rate and they called a specialist in to monitor me and be ready if a problem occurs. I didn't believe totally in God before that but before I went in that OP, I prayed like no other, of course I was afraid, I told God please show me something because if I am alone, I want to know I am alone, if I die, I want to know my Life is over and that's it. My question is if I wasn't in that body and if I can look at myself from above, Explain to me how and I will go back to the idea everything created itself from some random accident, until then, I know God exist and I am not alone, we are not alone and Life is more than a heartbeat, I have plenty of proof now but I at one time refuse to see it, that's all you do and you have no proof God don't exist nor does anyone else, by the way, I am not the only one with the same type experience, explain it.
Klemin2012 *"He laughed of course and said no, most likely it was just a dream"*
..., and then you kept talking crazy to him, and he patronized you, sport.
digitalhat I work for the government so no drugs here unless they came from a doctor, How can you explain me knowing everything that happen in reality? I didn't see a fake world, I saw reality and the Doctor gave me the excuse you use until I told him what I saw, The doctor said I can't explain that, only people who knew what happened in that room was the people in it. I looked up how often this does happen and it was to many to count. Most of the cases are the same, The people prayed and were afraid, Does praying have something to do with it, who knows, it appears so, Could God answer and always be with us but we are busy so don't see it, sure. I can say I had a Life changing experience myself but it took me seeking, strange because God says check me out and I am always with you. We have many experiences in Life we can't explain in a natural way, If Life was a random accident, Why is Life not random then? We reproduce with other humans and fail safe systems apply to all Life to avoid mixture, if dna was random, why is reproduction species specific? I study insects, even the insects we try to change lose reproduction and no longer preform well, most die, so if Life is this complicated, if the information is precise, if fail safe systems are built in, how do you explain this? My logic knows software is designed and most likely we install fail safe systems to avoid fraud, Life is a billion times more complicated and written so precise, how can you think a designer could not be the cause? I don't work in that department but I do work with many scientist, The woman xx chromo was a huge study from 1996 to 2008, We concluded all humans came from a single female, Male has xy chromo and we can produce both male and female from the male gender alone by cross cutting 2 seperate genes and patching using a single dna string, now with female, it's the end of the line, can't produce a male from any female without a male. Who cares? The point is many experiments to prove evolution have all failed, The more you understand about species genomes, the more you need an outside source and it's why they call on alien races to explain it. Actually today in 2015 you listen to panspermia in almost all sciences to explain origins since Earth don't have the key and we know Life had to be placed here, we have no Earthly sources to explain Life even today, this is not my opinion, this is the common explanation. Go through a new 2015 evolution text which is 2 years behind but all the explanations are false, proven hoax, lies and misinformation, They don't have anything true to use and you don't find that strange, sure variation in species is all they have but that's not new speciation, thats the same species with the same reproduction information to produce the same species. in 150 years they still have nothing for evolution or why we have a Universe at all. I know it's hard to unlearn but if all we learn is false, that's not proof of anything, No proof exist for anything about origins, most of all astrophysics is pure guess. most of all theory changes by the month. They claim we are star dust right, no proof of what actual star dust is, all we know is what earth produces if you cook things, don't mean that's how the Universe cooks things, it's assume and teach even if it's wrong, today's science has more lies, fraud and hoax going on, I am surprized they don't change the dictionary terms to fit, Science= The lies of today will take us into the future, Bravo!
Bart Ehrman says that no scholars mention Jesus in the first 100 years of Christianity, and yet he believes that Jesus existed because someone mentioned Jesus in a letter😉
Why was Price out of words when he debated Erhman then?
Erhman couldve toyed with price if he wanted. He was so superior on why Jesus existed
this guy fitzgerald keeps interrupting everybody.
+zeus I like Fitzgerald elsewhere....but here in this particular conversation he seems to be a bit out of his league and really just seems to be trying to stay relevant in the conversation by interrupting and trying to be funny..... but he really should have just let the other two talk and finish their points.
I saw him on the Atheist Experience. He wouldn't shut up. I had to turn it off.
@Christopher M Hansen down syndrome people are cool. They aren't overexcited.
I'd say undergraduate who is on meth.
@@chippers76751 thanks, I knew I had seen him on there, but kept thinking of Paulogia instead. Now I remember him on with Tracie Harris. I'd go watch it again, but I'm kind of sick of him right now, I'll watch the Dr Price/Dr Ehrman debate instead.
Christopher M Hansen carrier is credible!
Every single day I learn more and more ! very good !
Congratultions !
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguements. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 No... No it doesn't... You should come up with a real argument
Dr. Price's reference to Oldsmobile at 46:40 is taken directy from Woody Allen's story "The Scrolls."
I'm not sure I understand what their disagreement with Ehrman is about. Is it the difference between saying that the story of Jesus is 98% invented versus 100% invented? If a person believed that the story of Jesus is an amalgamation of many charismatic preachers from roughly that time and place plus a lot of borrowed or invented stuff, would that person be called a mythicist? I don't understand.
Ironically a mythic Jesus makes more sense of the actual theology than a historical one who we simply know nothing about for sure.
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguements. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559is that all you got?😂. You have written that on every comment
Great video, 3 top chaps.
I first came across the Mythicist position many years ago in my wild, druggy musician period, via Aleister Crowley's essay "The Gospel According to St. Bernard Shaw" (which referenced some of the writers of the late 19th/early 20th century wave of Mythicism). Then many years later, I was impressed by the first true Mythicist of recent times, GA Wells, but still fairly agnostic. Then I read the Freke & Gandy books, and while I recognized that they aren't of a terribly high scholarly standard, I thought they were interesting, and they certainly ignited some debate on the web about the subject. That led me to a long period of hanging out on what used to be the BC&H sub-forum of Internet Infidels, where the topic was discussed at length, and that led me to Earl Doherty's book and Robert M. Price's writings, which tipped me further and further towards Mythicism. Then Carrier's books sealed the deal.
Carrier's books are, I think, going to be extremely challenging for historicists to respond to (although I hope someone does). It's a fascinating topic in its own right, but its larger implications for Christianity's future are interesting to contemplate too. Would it actually make much difference to most Christians if there was no man behind the myth?
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 I dunno, the shroud has always looked like a 15th century painting to me. I don't think that's how a genuine blood imprint would look on a shroud, it would be patchy, with not all parts of the face imprinted quite so neatly.
@@gurugeorge The evidence is quiet clear. The shroud is Jesus's burial cloth.
The shroud has been dated to Jesus's time by many different dating methods.
www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4210369.stm
Also the radio-carbon dating method which dated the shroud to the middle ages has been shown to be false
www.shroud.com/pdfs/ohiomaloneypaper.pdf
The letter that claimed the shroud to be faked was itself not even a firsthand account and there's even evidence that the letter claiming the shroud was a forgery was in itself forged. Also the name of the forger is nowhere to be found in the letter.
www.factsplusfacts.com/christianitydarcis.htm
Also most of the the pollen from the shroud is from Jerusalem. where Jesus was crucified.
books.google.com/books?id=3iuwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=58+pollen+grains+discovered+on+the+Shroud,+the+largest+number+(45)&source=bl&ots=Q7-T9oIZqP&sig=ACfU3U31410qKflR873Adwmmb7FL-CyxGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-m96KiuLoAhWiSt8KHaj8A5gQ6AEwCnoECA0QMA#v=onepage&q=58%20pollen%20grains%20discovered%20on%20the%20Shroud%2C%20the%20largest%20number%20(45)&f=false
The wounds of the man on the shroud are in exactly the same placed as the wounds that Jesus received in the gospels. Even the crown of thorns are shown. The evidence definitely shows someone who was crucified.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=81FBC7EAAFCFEF6B27986010AF7BA5B8?doi=10.1.1.309.3339&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The image of Jesus also has long hair which Jesus had and matches the earliest images we have of Jesus in churches from the 5th century. The image also has pilate coins, in that time it was a custom to put coins over the eyes of a dead person.
www.haralick.org/conferences/analysis_of_digital_images_of_shroud_of%20Turin.pdf
Scientists also think that the shroud was formed by a flash of supernatural light or radiation which permanently put the image of Jesus on the shroud and it's 3d qualities also.
The shroud also cannot be recreated. The closest we got was luigi garlaschelli and even his replica was missing many key features.
www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf
So we then have a supernatural image of a guy who was crucified in Jerusalem by pontious pilate in the first century with a crown of Thorns on his head and with all the wounds described in the gospels. That sounds like Jesus. The image on the shroud was created by radiation or supernatural light by him rising from the dead.
The shroud not only shows that Jesus rose from the dead but the accuracy of the Gospels also!
@@hellogerman5559 That's not what I read, but that was a long time ago.
@@gurugeorge I hope you believe in Jesus dude.
David Fitzgerald nearly ruins this interview for me. He's a total amateur and has no business being included with Price and Carrier. What really annoys me about him is he thinks he's funny. He's been trying to make a name for himself by appropriating the work of Doherty, Price, Carrier and others but really he's just a fan boy.
Lolol true
He should be seated at the kiddie table...
i agree with u Scott
As for his pathetically childish t-shirt, we'll yes the kiddies table indeed.
Bitch, bitch, bitch.
Give me 2000 years of genocide, torture, bigotry and slavery and I could have Spongebob Squarepants into history. Brute force is a very good driver of consensus.
People bitch about Richard Carrier, but goddamn it David Fitzgerald....
Enjoyed reading the comments from terrified Christians being forced to face reality as much as I enjoyed hearing this talented and informative panel.
Your terror will come.
I'm about 20 minutes in but Price would make an EXCELLENT santa claus
The problem with this chronology is that Mark was written between 40 and 45 by Cornelius (after debriefing Peter in Acts 10). Both Mark and elements of Matthew were available to Luke,in when he began Luke/Acts, during Paul's detention in Caesarea, Luke/Acts is prepared as an amicus brief for Paul's defense and ends when the issue become moot in 64 or so.
John Mark was not the author/narrator of the Gospel of Mark, but the probable custodian of the autograph and supervised its duplication in Alexandria and distribution, generally, Alexandria was the copiest center for 90% of the manuscripts before the 4th Century,
On the other hand, John Mark was probably the author of the Gospel of John and represents his response to the elders in Rome to record the sayings of Peter and other disciples. Dan Wallace has indicated that the syntax of the Greek in John was current in 50 and 60.
The crude Greek of Mark is a result of it being a translation from Latin records of Jesus' ministry assemble as part of a routine intelligence dossier on a potential Jewish insurgent. Both Mark and John begin when Jesus first appears above the Roman military horizon. The reason why Mark is so "dark and mysterious, with a little cloak and dagger towards the end" is because the spies who provided the intelligence product were reporting on a potential conspiracy from the outside and they were alert to the warning to keep the movement on the down low, the so-called "Messianic Secret" because they were looking for a conspiracy. Every place where the phrase "Immediately" appears is another discrete report from this dossier, a sort of date-time stamp, but the interior dialogue is a result of the three day debriefing of Peter in Acts 10. Cornelius is the same centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 and Mark 15:39.
The fact is that the Gospel of Mark is a war story and not a Greco-Roman biography, history or novel. As a genre, it has more in common with the citations that accompany the award of a Congressional Medal of Honor, especially in terms of the eyewitness accounts of events. As journalism, it is closer to a biop in Atlantic Monthly than any contemporary writing. The narrative if virtually free of any oral tradition in the Homeric sense. It is a first hand report of the arc of Jesus’ ministry after His baptism.
At the same time, elements of this story were being circulated in the Roman legions before Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. For various reasons, it is probable that some version of the Gospel of Peter was being transmitted by the soldiers of Pilate’s body guard (nearly half a legion or 3000 men) because it is the sort of report that Cornelius would have exchanged with Peter in Acts 10 and Peter began to circulate this part of the Passion, to which he was not witness, as part of his own informal preaching and, for that reason, became associated with him in the same way Mark became associated with the Gospel of Mark. The important thing is that this story went through the Roman legions like grass through a goose and got to Rome long before either Peter or Paul or even the first home churches became established. The essence of this story persisted until the battle of Melvian Bridge, when a critical mass of the soldiers in both armies, if not the majority, were covertly Christian and the only person actually converted was Constantine.
But the important thing to understand is that the Gospel of Mark is a war story that was being told around Roman campfires throughout the empire from the start and accounts largely for the rapid growth of the overt Christian population. The Gospel of Mark is, in many ways, naively anthropological in that it is describing a culture from the outside. It is not a story written for a Roman audience: it is a story written by a Roman soldier in a manner not unlike the sort of introduction to a foreign culture that the US Army distributes to soldiers going overseas. A good example of this is Mark 7, when the narrator explains the Jewish ritual washing as a tradition.
Cornelius may have been a God-Fearer, as Luke and Acts tend to reflect, but he is still a Pagan describing an alien culture. A lot of Romans were attracted to Judaism for its virtues, but I would also guess that Cornelius recognized Yaweh in the stories of Abraham, Joshua, Gideon from his own experience. The sacrifice of Isaac is a study in the nature of duty and Cornelius clearly recognizes Jesus’ devotion to duty, The fact is that the narrator of Mark, unlike Matthew, John Peter or Paul, shares Jesus’ ontology, that is, their relationship with Yaweh, and the resulting epistemology which flows from that relationship, Jesus is the ontology of Matthew, John . Peter and Paul and their epistemology originates with Him.
Richard Carrier has created a minor publishing empire debunking Christianity, generally, and the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels and epistles. I recommend anyone who is serious about the literature of the Bible to view his video lectures on the mythology of the Gospels, if not read his books. His insights into the internal parallel structures in Matthew and the cycles of Mark are illuminating and worth considering. He fails to make his case on several levels, the predominate weakness arising from the need to accept his world view as universal truth. His narcissism is his muse, as it turns out, and it is insufficient beyond its entertainment value in the final analysis.
But the odd thing in my mind is his failure to recognize the true nature of the Gospel of Mark as a war story. Carrier enlisted in the Coast Guard out of high school and spent several years as a seaman, during which time he would have been exposed to the genre from his DIs in boot camp until his discharge from his duties below decks. He, himself, has a war story about sleep deprivation that he claims rivals those of SEAL candidates going through Hell Wee, so he cannot complain of a lack of exposure, But he insists on remaining obtuse to the manifest reality of the literature he claims to be subjecting to his mathematical analysis. Like all of the New Atheist, he is ultimately dishonest in is appraisal.
For example, in his video lecture on the mythology of the Gospels, he comments on how the centurion is “conveniently” inserted in Mark 15:39 in keeping with his theme that the entire Gospel is manufactured from bits and pieces of legend, folklore and mythology. The problem with this, of course, is that Mark 15, and the corresponding chapters in the other Gospels, are all Roman testimony. John makes it clear in his Gospel that the Jews didn’t want to enter the unclean Pratoreum and Peter makes clear in his denial of Jesus that he is the last friendly face Jesus sees until He is brought out to be executed. An important aspect of Cornelius’ role in Mark is that he had access to all the Roman players and he assembled all the testimony in these chapters in some sort of archive and all the Gospel writers drew upon this material to write their accounts.
But that’s not the thing that bothers me about Richard Carrier. As I say, he is very astute about literature when it serves his purposes, but turns a blind eye (or deaf ear) to anything which strays from his theme. Mark as a war story falls into that category and his rather pallid assertion that Mark 15:39 is included as convenient to the construction of the story misses the point entirely. Mark 15:39 is the PUNCH LINE of the Gospel, the bland assertion :”...and I was that centurion”. The Gospel of Mark is a ghost story and Cornelius saw the ghost, live and in person. He was in charge of the execution, he supervised the test to see if Jesus was still alive and authorized the coup de grace with the spear, he reported to Pilate and he was witness to the resurrecton, being handy with his guard mount when the elders demanded a guard on the tomb. He saw all these things and summarized them in Mark 15:39. This is not oral history: this is dispositive.
But for me, the subtext of Mark 15:39 is characteristic of the ironic sense of humor which embellish war stories. Here’s the situation: Cornelius knows a great deal about Jesus and His claims and the various signs and miracles He has been performing, He has been in charge of beating the snot out of Him and nailing Him to a cross and stood and watched Him die while a a bunch of weird things begin to occur, including what I interpret as terrible storm clouds that darken the day. And finally, Jesus, who was too weak to carry His cross to Golgotha, and has seemed to languish in the manner of crucifixion, suddenly rises up and, in a parade ground voice, declares victory and dies. Now, with the passage of time, Cornelius has transliterated his reaction to that moment as “Truly, this man was the Son of God”. But that thought adheres a bit too closely to Coleridge’s criteria for the Romantic expression “Moments of great emotion recalled in tranquility”, which is to say, the Pucker Factor has been somewhat filtered out, But, in the moment, given Pilate’s bill of particulars: King of the Jews, Cornelius’s immediate response was probably closer to:
“Oops!”
Tom Wilson so much typing about pure speculation and personal wishes and dreams.
You believe some absolute bullshit wow you really went down the rabbit hole didn't you buddy.
Their arguments are not convincing. They love talking about how little evidence there is for Jesus, yet they completely gloss over the fact that there's more evidence for Jesus than lots of other, comparable figures from that time period that historians also think really existed: John the Baptist, Gamaliel the Elder, Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Judas of Galilee, Menahem ben Judah and others. Jesus is very likely to have been just like one of those figures (some of who, by the way, were also thought to have been Messiahs as well).
This is really simple when you cut away the fat ..if God exists (and his son) then the evidence should be soo clear regarding the authenticity .. that no debate or questions should exist or ever have to happen. This is the single most important event in Christianity ..the fact that here we are still questioning or nullifying it is telling in and of it self. And according to the bible we are judged and found guilty for non-acceptance of the ancient writings as proof ..and worse thrown into hell for not believing on bad evidence(having faith).
The shroud of turin debunks all their arguments. Not only does it provide support for the gospels and shows them as reliable, but also shows that Jesus rose from the dead.
@@hellogerman5559 Yes if there is a way to verify it ..without presupposition or prejudice. And conclude without a doubt it is authentic.
@@matthewlong3716 The evidence is quiet clear. The shroud is Jesus's burial cloth.
The shroud has been dated to Jesus's time by many different dating methods.
www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4210369.stm
Also most of the the pollen from the shroud is from Jerusalem.
books.google.com/books?id=3iuwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=58+pollen+grains+discovered+on+the+Shroud,+the+largest+number+(45)&source=bl&ots=Q7-T9oIZqP&sig=ACfU3U31410qKflR873Adwmmb7FL-CyxGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-m96KiuLoAhWiSt8KHaj8A5gQ6AEwCnoECA0QMA#v=onepage&q=58%20pollen%20grains%20discovered%20on%20the%20Shroud%2C%20the%20largest%20number%20(45)&f=false
The wounds of the man on the shroud are in exactly the same placed as the wounds that Jesus received in the gospels. Even the crown of thorns are shown. The evidence definitely shows someone who was crucified.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=81FBC7EAAFCFEF6B27986010AF7BA5B8?doi=10.1.1.309.3339&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The image of Jesus also has long hair which Jesus had and matches the earliest images we have of Jesus in churches. The image also has pilate coins, in that time it was a custom to put coins over the eyes of a dead person.
www.haralick.org/conferences/analysis_of_digital_images_of_shroud_of%20Turin.pdf
Scientists also think that the shroud was formed by a flash of supernatural light or radiation which permanently put the image of Jesus on the shroud and the 3d qualities also.
The shroud also cannot be recreated. The closest we got was luigi garlaschelli and even his replica was missing many key features.
www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf
So we then have a supernatural image of a guy who was crucified in Jerusalem by pontious pilate in the first century with a crown of Thorns on his head and with all the wounds described in the gospels. That sounds like Jesus. The image on the shroud was created by radiation or supernatural light by him rising from the dead.
The shroud not only shows that Jesus rose from the dead but the accuracy of the Gospels!
I am a huge huge fan of Ehrman as well as these three speakers and agree with virtually all that Ehrman argues, I think Ehrman may be a closet mythicist. Ehrman actually gives the mythicist position a small tacit nod in two of his recent books. In Jesus Interrupted, in the Miracles section on page 171 and in How Jesus Became God he hints that there were other mythic stories at the time (like Apolonius) that are very much like Jesus so there was probably a mythic aspect to Jesus' legend. Check out the CZcams interview with Ehrman called How Jesus Became God where he comes extremely close to being a mythicist (it really sounds like he'd like to come out of the closet to me).
+Bill Keon He can't. He depends on them for income.
+Bill Keon Bart Ehrman thinks Apollonius of Tyana existed (just as many historians do - I don't know any who doubt that, actually). So yes, he thinks the stories of Apollonius working miracles were legendary in the same sense that he thinks the miracles attributed to Jesus were later legends (he also thinks Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina Ben Dosa existed as well, and they also have miracles attributed to them).
@Daniel Eyre "No NT scholar even entertains Jesus mythicism " but remember that the vast majority of them are christian, so they are prevented from entertaining the mythicist idea. And remember Thomas L Thomson - he advocated the mythical patriarchs and was laughed out of town, unemployable and had to work as a house painter. And then, 50 years on, his thesis has become universally accepted in the field of biblical scholarship. The same will happen for Jesus mythicism. It's hard being a trail blazer, but the facts will speak for themselves. Read Carrier's book which gives the background on what was going on at the time of the early church and why mythicism makes so much sense in the light of that knowledge, and also some of the take downs of Ehrman's Jesus book. You will understand that it certainly is NOT a stupid hypothesis.
Smart as he is Ehrman is still a graduate of Wheaton. That alone tells all I need to know about his biases/lack of objectivity.
I am a believer but you have to observe that these men are more engaged with XC than most believers.
Even if Jesus existed as a person, it does not prove he was not delusional and his miracle stories and eyewitnesses were not made up posthumously.
This is really good. I'm looking forward to part 2.
Hopefully, we don't have to wait too much longer for Christians to come to terms with reality.
Oh it'll be a while. The median age of the hardcore "the bible said it; I believe it; that's that" crowd consistently rises, but they are also consistently indoctrinating more kids into the beliefs - beliefs which will need to be cast off. The good news is that with each generation that dies off the numbers get smaller with lack of full replacement numbers. The problem is no longer Christianity. The problem we have currently and into the future is Islam. Which makes sense, actually, because apparently there has been a shift in religious paradigm with each shift in Zodiac Age. One religion dies off, and another takes prominence.
@@dacritter8397 You will realize what Jesus did, when you figure out what is going on in this world. When you see that Satan is real and evil exist, and can be used as a form of energy/power. Demons are real, Jesus can save you with his pure blood! seek him while you can!
Are you on drugs? You know full well that god/satan is a myth! You’re a low life price of trash to spout lies! Kids could see your lies and be brainwashed. Get your head right.
Joe White Peoples like you that think God the Creator is a myth are instruments of satan and don’t even know it.
Fool repent before is too late. The only one that offers salvation after dead is Jesus Christ.
Homar Carrion, there is no such thing, the myth god/satan/lucien/natas/lord/false ruler/lucifer/janus/jupiter/zues/je sus/the borse/devil...however one prefers to say the word...is just that, a myth, non-existent. This is a known fact. Another words, it's obvious that myths are not real.
There's plenty of well known ancient historians who wrote about Jesus, one of which being Luke who also wrote a gospel. There's about 42 documents saying something about Jesus, a lot of which are not positive of Christianity. Some of these historians were Josephus, born 37 A.D.; Emperor Trajan, born 53 A.D.; Tacitus, born 56 A.D.; Pliny the Younger, born 61 A.D.; Suetonius, born 69 A.D.; and Phlegon, born 80 A.D.. The only known forgery recording Jesus is of an account by Josephus, but that record is in every copy of his original compilation containing it, so historians know that Josephus wrote an original that Christians later altered. There is a copy of it in another language, older than most other copies, that has none of the Christian praise in the interpolation. That also doesn't take into account his other record referring to James the brother of Jesus, the so called Christ. There is no alteration of that one.
We have earlier evidence for Jesus than most other ancient people, recorded by historians who were alive when most of the witnesses of the events still were. Most other ancient people weren't recorded until a century or more after the events, including kings and emperors, and they aren't disputed either. Most historians, Christian or not, don't deny Jesus was real. No one who ever wrote about Jesus was ever questioned by anyone about if he actually existed. People who knew anything about Jesus would be around to say how accurate these claims were that were being recorded. There were plenty of people who hated his teachings who would have loved to refute that he was real, if he was made up. The problem is he was seen by many people in person.
There are also scholars who believe that Luke-Acts, in the form we have, was not completed until the 2nd century. There's also the Western text of Acts that 6-8 Percent longer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
Who was Luke?
David Fitzgerald is infuriating with his constant interruptions and needless yakking on top of the others while they're making far better contributions than his own. Moderator should have asked him to pipe down.
Aren't Dr. Price and Dr. Carrier the actual experts here,or at the very least,I would like to hear more of what they have to say but this David Fitzgerald guy keeps interrupting in a clownish way,it really ruins for me,he may be a scholar of some sort but he doesn't know how to share a stage with two others speakers.
David Holcomb Yea,i don't like the guy on the end with his stand up comedy routine and his constant interruptions of the others.And to some extent,I'm not crazy about Richard Carrier either.Those two seem very immature.Dr. Price though,I enjoy listening to.
Great video. Very lively discussion with three great Jesus myth proponents. The fact that we don't have *any* writings about Jesus during the time he lived is a major cause for doubting whether he actually existed. IMHO.
bonnie43uk It is probably hard to reconstruct the origins of christianity bec. of the long period of silence from the historians when christianity was still small. Buddhism has a similar problem bec. when we have records, there were already about 20 buddhist sects so it is hard to determine what was the origin of buddhism. For christianity, the winners did a great job of destroying the writings of the competing sects so all we have are the writings of the winners like the letters of Paul. It is hard to reconstruct the origin of christianity with just the letters of Paul and without the writings of the other christian sects and without the writings earlier than the letters of Paul. It is probably a waste of time to play the bible interpretation game using the letters of Paul. I am not so sure why the consensus is so sure Jesus really existed.
***** Wise words brother :-)
bonnie43uk Ancient historians would disagree with you. There are many, many people in ancient history who don't have contemporary attestation in the sources. Yet nobody doubts their existence, because the most economic explanation of the later sources is that there was a historical figure who started the memory of hem/her.
bonnie43uk
Oh yeah :P Do you know how many writings of emperor Nero have remained during the time he lived? Answer is -- zero. ALL we know about him are from memories written by his political oponents decades later.
margus kiis Hi Margus, not sure you are exactly right concerning what we know about Nero, we have accurate coins and statues depicting his image during his reign as Emperor, we have an exact date of his birth and death and where he was born, there are quite a few accurate details about his life.
But lets suppose you are correct and we knew next to nothing, the difference between Nero and Jesus Christ in terms of importance for mankind, is that Nero wasn't claiming to be the son of God, sent down to take away all our sins and offer us eternal life.
If Jesus was who his supporters claimed he was ( the son of God), then it would help if we had some accurate details about him *during his life and ministry* . We have absolutely nothing, everything written about him was written by unknown authors decades after he had supposedly lived. Even Paul himself admits he never met Jesus in the flesh.
I love Dr. Price's response to debating Bert..so classy..so mature..
Why are George R.R. Martin, Andy Dick and Andy Kindler discussing Jesus?
What a great trio. This was a fantastic interview. ツ
This is the trinity of the guys who know their shit about how fake the existence of Jesus is... Awesome panel
Eat him & drink his blood to gain everlasting life because a gullible rib-woman doomed the entire species by making an entirely reasonable mistake because the Creator of all things who is the smartest being in all the Universe was too dumb to plant some tree out of reach of the only two people that existed at the time. And these aren't half-truths; they're 100% truths and that's the problem.. indoctrination causes people to ignore or even scoff at the truth and embrace the comfort of outright lies that are familiar to them.
@EddieRHS another brainwashed parrot defends nonsensical racist propaganda
@@Drew15000 😆😆😆...ok, right??? I mean damn! How about the one where dead Jews supposedly crawl out of their graves and start walking around in downtown Jerusalem...LMAO! Oh, and happens to not to be seen by ANYONE! I almost peed on myself laughing at that dude's comment.
Doomed panel.
CZcams: I do not understand your response to me? Never once have I ever used bad language or threatened anyone. Just stated my opinion, which your rules do not cover. I have been called every name in the book and never used profanity as a tool to reply to that person. Please, be more specific about your e-mail to me?
Although I believe in the historicity of Jesus I have respect for Carrier and great respect for Price...but Fitzgerald? Seriously? Why is he there?
His book is quite good.
Dr Price mentioned books like John Dominic Crossan's "You see where they should go next but they don't". This strongly reminded me of my reading of Bart D. Ehrman's excellent 'Jesus, Interrupted' (highly recommended). There were many instances where I could see a logical conclusion which would strongly support fictionalized stories, but Bart wouldn't go there.
Hopefully something will eventually push him over the edge.
I completely agree. Bart uses a lot of the same arguments as these guys, like that basically everything is forged and made up. But he always jumps to the complete illogical conclusion that Jesus was a real person, with very weak arguments.
I guess he has to since he works at a pretty hardcore Christian college teaching New Testament studies. They would have a hard time with an atheist already, but atleast he says that Jesus was a real person. I wouldn't be surprised if it is in his contract that he can't teach his students that Jesus didn't exist direct or indirect.
Good intellectual discussion but Fitzgerald just need to be quiet he just keeps talking over price and carrier
At 5:01 Robert Price put the whole debate in a nutshell: If there was an historical figure behind the Jesus story, that figure is lost, probably never to be discovered. In the rush to write "new" Jesus tales in the 2nd Century and beyond, plus all the paranoid secrecy of Christian orthodoxy, no trace of a real character exists.
+John Grow That's not accurate. The apocalyptic preaching of Jesus is fairly well attested in our sources. Some elements of it are pretty hard to explain if Jesus never existed. For example, it seems that Jesus taught about a cosmic figure called the "Son of Man" (who was *not* Jesus) who would come down from the clouds of heaven during the apocalypse when the temple would be destroyed. It's almost impossible to explain why Christians would invent sayings like Mark 13:26 or Luke 12:8 in which it seems that the Son of Man is separate from Jesus.
Also, evidently, Jesus didn't think he was God. Mark 10:18 - "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." - There's no way *that's* a Christian invention. There are a few other details we can piece out. He apparently taught "Let the dead bury their own dead" (Luke 9:60) even though the Gospel authors themselves revered Joseph of Arimathea for going *against* this teaching and burying Jesus.
The more you look at the small details, the nuances, the more it becomes obvious that we really can piece together at least some things about who Jesus was. The question really rests on how much.
Every time a Christian mentions Josephus, an angel gets his wings.
Wrong again. That is something that you made up.
I think it is funny when Mr. Fitzgerald interrupts Dr. Carrier! I love the guy, but be sure to allow the foremost experts to speak! Much love to all three of you, gentlemen!
I attended this presentation and subsequently listened to "The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade": www.audible.com/pd/History/The-History-of-the-Medieval-World-Audiobook/B0038U1116
The combination of the two has convinced me that Jesus did not exist in all likelihood.
I really do not like how Bart Erhman likes to point out such and such does not have a degree, does not teach at an accredited university, or any of his other condescending remarks. One should not dismiss ideas because they do not agree with the consensus view, and set your own view up as some sort of elite view when it is based on even flimsier evidence than the opponents'. The eagerness to side with the consensus is not always the way to go, as history clearly shows. What do I know though, since I do not have a degree or teach at an accredited university?
+Sean Thomas You are making a straw man. The only thing Ehrman says is that the fact that people who propose such views do either not have appropriate degrees, or, when they belong to the very very few who have a degree in a relevant field, they are not in the top universities to put it mildly, -- Ehrman says that this fact should give you pause. Not that it proves them wrong. But it should be clear that you are not siding in a debate between the best scholars, but between scholars and people who, even when they have an appropriate degree, work at the fringe of the field or not in the field at all. So what? Nothing. Ehrman only puts things in perspective. Who is more likely to be right, the top critical scholars who have many decades of research to build on for their position, or someone who is not an expert and walks into the debate one day to resuscitate a position defeated long ago? That said, Ehrman of course continues to give the evidence for the consensus position.
Academic snobbery shouldn't get in the way of truth seeking. Many gains throughout history have come through non-lettered people.
where can i see the debate between ehrmann and price?
Interesting discussion.
Jesus, what a panel! (pun intended )
Who is the Early Christianity lecturer in San Diego, Richard mentions in 11.20? I can not hear the name nor find it with google....
Arthur Droge, I think
@@lil-al Thanks a lot! That must be him. I did not know him. By the way, I'm from the Netherlands and Arthur Droge sounds 100% a Dutch name.. :-)
Bart lost so bad against price it was just sad since he was actually winning in the beginning and then its just flatlined to the level of making one think Bart is a closeted Bible humper. Making nonsensical arguments at the very end that makes any rational person scratch their head and ask is Bart a scholar a or evangelical fundamentalist?
I would have loved to have attended this lecture/Interview
Where is Q? Oh, we don't have it? No copies survive to this day? Is that like the Ark of the Covenant? Ya know, the OTHER thing that we don't have.... Coincidence? I think not.
BlackEpyon Whether or not Q existed isn't really that important, but it can solve some theoretical problems for both historicists and mythicists. Earl Doherty loves Q for example, because it says nothing about a historical Jesus and becomes additional evidence that early Christians didn't care about/know about any historical Jesus character.
Personally, I'm far more worried about people who try to do meta-meta-analysis of Q and manufacturing even older, possibly imaginary documents, based on the already possibly imaginary Q.
Gnomefro
Either way, without the original, all we can do is speculate in a vacuum.
My comment still stands. Without it, we're only speculating in a vacuum. So lets do without it.
AndroidPolitician Not really. Q isn't simply "anything at all". It's a hypothesis to explain an extremely limited amount of shared material in the gospels. You couldn't conclude that it was written by the Romans out of thin air. It's not a completely unreasonably hypothesis in itself and doesn't really buy any side of the argument any significant advantage.
But I agree with you that it's generally bad to imagine things into existence - it's just that Q in itself is probably one of the more harmless ways to do this and it does in fact explain issues in the text. It's not an accident that many people think it's a good hypothesis. As long as one realizes that it's a somewhat weak point to rest anything on alone I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea.
In any case, there are problems with dismissing the Q hypothesis as well, as Price mentioned, so you need some kind of research paradigm to try to make progress anyway..
BlackEpyon Agreed!
I am not a Mythcist but I have tons of respect for price and carrier because I truly believe they do care about the topic being discussed not because they are trying to prove wrong about Jesus existing but because I think they want tp know the truth because Jesus is such a influential and important figure in many people lives and they truly want to know if he was real .
My question is Why? What was the motivation or perhaps various motivations for making all this up?
My hypothesis is power these stories were made up to gain power and control over the lives, and deaths, of other people.
Easier to sell to every man. Then later on reveal the truth if one becomes more devout follower.
See Origen Contra Celsum and Paul.
Hell if people still believe this crap, why stop believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy lol
Patrick Spier Bravo! I am a physicist and the bible teaches that the earth is a flat, cylindrical plate. Should, god have not know this was wrong? It, would have been cruel to not tell them to boil their water. We do not have all the answer's either, but then we do not pretend too. Why can you not question god or you go to hell? I love your comment! Good one!!
+Russell Barry You can question God and go to heaven. I, as a believer in Jesus Christ, question a lot of things about God. And He, in His faithfulness and truth, reveals it through the Holy Spirit. You have a twisted view of God because you don't know Him. I know Him and He is good. I pray He is revealed to you. It is through revelation that one comes to know God, not through finite head knowledge. Finite head knowledge is false and fleeting and full of deception.
Ephesians 3:19
“To know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.”
How do you get to know a love that passes your knowledge?
Answer: Through the Holy Spirit
God loves you even though you debate Him.
God cannot deny himself.
If I'm wrong, and I know I'm not, I have nothing to lose.
If you are wrong, and I know you are, you have everything to lose.
But I pray that you don't lose everything, but you gain everything. And the name of everything is Jesus Christ.
Sheneen Monique you don't know anything about your god that someone else wrote or already said.
What a nut, so head knowledge is fleeing and false, and full of deception, tell that to the hundreds of millions of people who have benefited from scientific discoveries, no thanks to your pathetic baby killing god.
Now we are finding out that Moses. The Patriarchs, Joshua, the jews are all lies and deceptions, the jews did not conquer the canaanites they were the canaanites, talk about lies and deceptions.
What did jesus do that anymore wouldn't have done, God offered him a position 2nd to his, eternal life and everything would bow to him lol
What sane person would have said no to a offer like that.
If you know God, tell me how God formed or created the first particle of energy?
How did god create space while occupying it, or how did god create matter, by what process did he do this?
Why is god loving, he told Satan he could kill jobs entire family, just to prove a point, on a bet lol
Your god is illogical and a little sadistic baby killer, who has killed millions of people by throwing temper tantrums.
What parents would sit back and watch their children being raped and do nothing or drown their children for misbehaving, a evil parent that's who.
Patrick Spier I prayed for them too :) I have had many conversations with Messiah Jews, they love Jesus and they too say that the scriptures that they have been taught point to Jesus Christ.
I have studied religion. Had conversations with people of many different faiths and people without faith. They have left the conversations convicted about Jesus Christ. I left those conversations more in love with Jesus Christ.
Have a wonderful rest of your night!
I have to get some rest so I can go to church in the morning to worship the King of Kings.
This was a good talk.
All the best.
+Sheneen Monique "Bars in the window"?
Fitzgerald is so annoying here. Wish it was just Price and Carrier
Believe it or not-and I know he gets excited sometimes-but I enjoyed him here. I thought some of his imput kept the conversation going nicely.
People have been and still are very confused Regarding the bible even while they believed Jesus existed... Well now people are really going to be confused now that people are saying that Jesus never existed.... Heaven help us all!!!
About 14 minutes in, Dr. Bart Ehrman is mentioned, he was a conservative Christian who went to bible school and then university. His explanations of why the bible is not what's been assumed make sense. Besides his many books, Bart Ehrman has CZcams videos worth checking out.
Great conversation. But I disagree. I still think there was a historical Jesus - the sort proposed by Ehrman, Dale Allison, Albert Schweitzer, etc., that of some sort of failed doomsday preacher. That said, I have great respect for Price and Carrier. Fitzgerald though annoys me. He butts in on everyone all the time. It's as if he's trying to prove himself to the audience that he should be included in the same circle as Price and Carrier.
I couldn't agree with you more!
Of course Jesus exists, he cuts my grass.
funny thing while the jesus story was playing out, a block away no one had heard of it or wrote it down. of the thousands of documents they have from real life at the time there is no mention of any of the bible stories including Jesus. If the Jesus story was true everyone would be writing about it, but nothing, zero.
I winced every time I heard "One Corinthians".
Fitzgerald is kind of annoying
I never knew George R.R. Martin was a biblical scholar.
People have been told to believe things that's told to us because it's true without question, this to me isn't a bad thing that people are putting the gospels under a microscope. Forget the fact that the Bible we have isn't even the original copies of the text
Dr. Carrier has many very interesting points referring to Greek philology and NT studies. Mr Fitzgerald makes a lot of jokes and interruptions which seem to belittle the field of study in a somewhat counterproductive way. Maybe I am just mistaking this for a serious debate when in reality it is just "a talk over a pint"...
Yes, he needs to be sitting at the kiddy table... He all but ruined the podcast.. We have been waiting a long time to get Bob and Richard in the same room discussing their hypothesis.. But Fitzgerald nearly ruins the night..
I actually had to stop watching the video half way. Endless interruptions by Fitzgerald, aside from being incredibly annoying, made it impossible to get any information, or to follow a single train of thought.
As often happens, the least educated and least credentialed talks the most. Fitzgerald needs to learn to tone it down a bit. He constantly puts in his two cents worth, interrupts others to do it, and thinks he's funnier than he is. Price and Carrier clearly demonstrate a scholarly impression.
Dave Simonton An empty truck makes the most noise 😂😂😂
I think this conversation would've gone better if "Jesus" was defined. If there was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher named "Yeshua" who was crucified around the right time but everything else concerning him in the Bible is made up, does that count as Jesus "existing". If "Jesus" is an amalgamation of real people, does that count as existing? There are so many versions of "Jesus" that this discussion is almost impossible without clearly defining "Jesus".
One of my all time favorite show! Thank you for keep sharing!
"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me shall never walk in darkness!" (John 8:12)
How about those monster priests and preachers? Slavery in the US?
These guys remind me of 9-11 truthers.
You sound like a Butt-hurt Xtian.
It does upset me when sound scholarship is not followed.
Randy Pacchioli www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm
Sound scholarship lol
You mean scholars that believe in old folklore and make money pushing these fairytales.
There is no evidence for a historical Moses,the patriarchs,the exodus, the 31 cities Joshua was supposed to have destroyed by the sword, no evidence of a historical Jesus, his 12 disciples or Paul, all you have is here say, outside of the bible no one wrote about these people and you want to talk about ignoring scholarship lol
How about refutting these people with evidence instead of religious babble.
Btw maybe you should go back to bible school and learn what Romans 13 means so you don't need to be schooled by a atheist,
You have been drinking the kool -aid with your liberal pals.
I'm glad there's no Theist in the discussion in order to stay objective.
MrAsilvestre858 You don’t need an opponent to stay objective. Most theists would probably get offended and interrupt.
As for the example with the Buddha at the end, the existence of a historical Buddha is not essential for Buddhists, because ultimately he represents a state of the mind, not a historical saviour. You can't do the same with Christ, unless you're so progressive that the word "Christian" loses its meaning. So the mythicist position definitely destroys Christianity, while it's relatively inconsequential to Buddhism, where even the term "reality" has a different meaning, as the world is viewed as a projection of the mind. Just my three cents.
+Pawel X Not if one regards the historical Jesus as a myth while acknowledging a celestial Jesus performing a sacrificial act. There's no question that a historical Jesus could be as inconsequential to Christians as Buddha is for Buddhists, although such Christians would of course be viewed as heretics by contemporary Christians, but it's not like that isn't already true with regards to how existing Christian sects view each other.
Mr. Fitzgerald's function seems to be interrupting people who know what they're talking about.
V. annoying.
3/4 of the Mount Rushmore right here good shit
In his book On The Historicity Of Jesus Dr. Carrier concludes that in his opinion the odds are approximately 12,500 to 1 against Jesus having existed and the best possible odds are 1 in 3. Yet, in every video I have watched he only mentions 1 in 3. Is Dr. Carrier ashamed of his 12,500 to 1 opinion and seeking acceptance from the main stream of Biblical scholars or has he changed his mind? I think he should mention his real opinion in his appearances.
Jesus added into Josephus by church as per acedemia..
Original Josephus was in Aramaic not Arabic or Koine Greek..no one has that original copy.
Isaiah 7:14 says "young women is pregnant" in present tense about birth of Hezekiah in Hebrew Tanakh and DSS.
Not " virgin will conceive" as church versions modified it.
There is no city called "Nazerith" before first century.
1John 5:7-8 ,7:53,8:10 Mark 16:9-20 hundreds more added into NT not found anywhere in original Koine Greek NT.
I have never heard any of these people dispute a historical Jesus. They make obvious statements about the gospels being false, and there being no contemporary writings about Jesus, and never touch on the actual question.
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. If you claim that ZOMBIE DEMIGOD JESUS was a real person, you have the burden of proof. And your evidence for the virgin birth, zombies, miraculous resurrections, etc, is...ZERO, correct?
GeuwgleSuxBallz there is no proof to dispute. That’s what they are saying.
Awesome guys, one point I miss here is the fact that there was a major war in the biblical lands that time. What has influenced a lot. Jerusalem , Judea, Galilee all were looted and depopulated. For that reason for instance there were no early jewish converts. There were only dead jews. The story they fled to mountains and caves is pure fable; The romans spared nobody, samaritans, christians, jews alike were slaughtered.
Early christianity has his roots in 3 regions outside Palestine. Egypt-Alexandria, the coptic and gnostic(Therapists !) versions. Anatolia- Antioch, the orthodox and paulinian version. Italy-Roma, the petrian (Mithraic !) and catholic version. Palestine, the name is a contraction of Pales Aelia meaning the border-lands or marks of Aelia. Aelia one of the names of Hadrian. This emperor forbide jews to live in judea after the second jewish war. The remaining jews stick together in Galilee, Babylonia (persian empire, there was no city babylon aswell) and the diaspora. Jerusalem itself was renamed aelia capitolina and was not a place of importance before the constantine-byzantine era when it became a christian pilgrimage place.
Because the idea of a conceptual christ has already spread before the fall of Jerusalem, this explains the geographical divers roots of early christianity. It was already in the hellenistic world. There was no grow from jerusalem and there is never been an original Jerusalemic version. The Petrus-character is complete fiction. Much of it is picked from the figure of Simon Magnus, a magician or father (pater, peter, pitr, etc.) of the Mithraist brotherhood. The coming of the Holy Ghost is basically the enlightening of the Mithraistic fathers bearing torches and red caps on their heads (tongues of fire). And they were absorbed by the catholics and became their papacv.
Excuse me, but what is this? This is a very one-sided "discussion." If you were to quote Ehrman a lot, why didn't you invite him in, or at least have an opposition side?
Absolutely wonderful!!! Thank you!
Jesus was a wandering Jewish preacher who made enemies with his preachments and was arrested, tried and executed.
The miracles were inserted later to boost readership and attract converts into the new breakaway Jewish cult.
There was a troublemaking Jesus (Jesus ben Ananias) who was arrested, tried, but not executed. He died in the Jewish Roman war around 70 AD. Around the time the gospels were written there was a person crucified with two robbers, and there was some grave robbing going on. If we consider that these people and events were used to embellish Jesus ben Joseph's life, that leaves us with a wandering Jewish preacher who didn't do enough of note to make it into Josephus' list of historical troublemakers.
I can barely understand one word they are saying because all three of them are talking at the same time interrupting each other.
I'm open to the myth idea, but I find the James argument really weak (at least the way I've understood it). Every english translation of Gal. 1:19 I've seen says "James, THE Lord's brother" or "James THE brother of the Lord". Not _a_ brother, but _the_ brother -- definite article. If the original greek implies "_a_ brother", how does virtually every modern translation get this wrong?
Additionally, I may be incorrect but I cannot find anywhere in the NT where christians are called brothers and sisters _of_ Christ. They are all _in_ Christ.
Another reference to Jesus' actual brothers appears to be in 1 Cor. 9:5:
_"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"_
Robert Price's thought that _none_ of Paul's letters are genuine seems more plausible than the James argument. If anyone has input on the James idea, I'd be interested.
+Discern4 I have some input here -> "It's an argument that James is promoting and talking about".
There you go, discuss.
+Discern4
_"If the original greek implies "_a_ brother", how does virtually every modern translation get this wrong?"_
As far as I understand, it doesn't imply either "a", or "the" brother of the Lord. Apparently, there's no article in the Greek that makes the distinction so it could mean either.(I don't speak Greek so don't take my word for it, but that's how I've understood people who take the passage to be ambiguous)
+Gnomefro - I had heard an argument once that the definite article in this verse could be determined, but I don't recall where I heard that. It may have been Bart Ehrman. But even if that wasn't the case, practically every translation still renders the verse as "_the_ brother", rather than leaving room for ambiguity by using "a". They're either all biased translations, or they have a good reason to continue using "the".
+Discern4 There is no ambiguity. The Greek has the article, so the correct translation is '*the* brother of the Lord'.
+Discern4 Paul is playing down his interaction in Jerusalem with any in authority in this movement (Gal 1:16) - insisting he got everything himself from direct revelation (1:11,12). This is an important point for understanding what Paul is saying.
In this letter (1:2 where he mentions "all the brethren" and in 1:11 where they're all "brethren") he says he only talked with Peter and briefly with a certain James - and to distinguish this James from the apostle of the same (common) name, he prefixes it with "a brother".
The translators have taken certain liberties to make it sound like this meeting was with the actual physical brother of a physical Jesus. The passage is literally translated: "Other moreover of the apostles none I saw, if not James the a brother of the lord." (see the Greek here: biblehub.com/interlinear/study/galatians/1.htm) He's using the exact same word for brother that he used elsewhere in the chapter. There is nothing in the Greek to require James to be a physical brother of Jesus.
biblehub.com/greek/80.htm translates adelphos "a brother" - the exact word used in the above passage and defines it "a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian."
Of course, the Acts of the Apostles completely reverses what Paul actually relates in Act 9:26-28 - more evidence the stories in Acts were manufactured for a different reason than face value.
29:00 An important part of the rebuttal Dr. Carrier makes on the "brother of the Lord" point is that he claims Paul says we would all become brothers and sisters in Jesus on Baptism. I guess you could take that Paul says that in Romans 8, but in Romans 6 where Paul speaks of Baptism, he uses the master/slave dynamic. On Baptism you are fit to be reduced to bondage for Jesus. Always a happy thought be a slave to God.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
***** , but in Romans 6 the master/slave dynamic is used as an analogy of our relationship (as servant) to God (but not to Jesus). Your equating God with Jesus is not necessarily what Paul had in mind. For Paul, God sent his "own Son" to save humanity. The baptised become brothers unto Christ and servants unto God. You are pushing the Church Trinity doctrine too far.
***** Good point. The flow of the argument of Paul is as follows: by baptism all become children/sons of God, and so all sons become coheirs with the Son. In Rom 8:28 Paul then formulates the goal, elaborating the image of sonship: that Christ becomes the First-born Big Brother among many brothers. From the context is clear that the revelation of who are sons of God is yet to come, and that this spiritual family wil come about by becoming similar to Christ, i.e. through resurrection (cf 1 Cor 15 and Phil 3). So Paul's talk about Christians as brothers, united with the First-born, is a secondary development from the primary image of sonship. And he is talking about the final goal of salvation, which is not yet realized. To conclude from this that Paul used to speak about Christians in general as 'brothers of the Lord', is not warranted.