His "modal arguments" are total logical nonsense, as in any pseudo-mathematical model of any science. They are very popular in pseudo-physics, in QM or cosmology, and the existence of aliens:"if possible (that something exists), then possible" is a logical fallacy known already to Stoics that
Extraordinarily is an extraordinary claim, especialy when we have Farage and the USA has Trump, and the Jesus cult members want to tell us magic exist and they talk to God so can commit us to eternal hell for not believing their anti-science clap trap..
First time here, but I do regret the heavy-handed interrupting of the guest. It sounds like the host is insecure about the possibility of losing control of the discussion.
I am inclined to favor the mythicist view, but there are couple of blatant mistakes that most mythicists debaters make (even Carrier) when defending their position: First, there is a difference between Christians being spiritual/fictive brothers of EACH OTHER, vs being brothers of Jesus himself. If any ordinary Christian is a “brother of the Lord”, then why ONLY James is referred to like that. There are MANY reasonable ways to explain this distinction -but most mythicist debaters ignore the other good explanations, and just dismiss the argument. Also, in Paul’s letters there is another line where he refers to the “brotherS” of the Lord (in plural) implying that there are several such “brothers” (not just James). So, the idea that any ordinary Christian can be called “Brother of the Lord” is not a valid answer. Better explanations: 1. Interpolation. “Brother of the Lord” is not attested in Marcion’s version. 2. Special Status. “Brother of the Lord”, being a title for a particularly high rank leader of the congregation. 3. Name of a specific sect within the Christian movement. (Dr. Price defends this position) 4. Euphemism for a deceased or martyred church member. James died after Paul met him, so when Paul writes about him he recognizes his passing and “sainthood” by assuming he has now become a “spiritual brother of Jesus in Heaven”. So, there are several better ways of explaining the “Brother” expression than just dismissing the problem.
Godless Engineer is very skilled at shifting the burden of proof onto his opponents.... And Jacob is too much of a genuine gentleman to debate a mythicist....
Jacob did great. Mythicist play a strange game of saying the text is too ambiguous and simultaneously saying then it must mean it happened in another realm despite the crucifixion, born of a woman, under the law. It’s somehow ambiguous but clearly in another realm?
"must mean" is a strawman (whether intended or not). there are many good arguments as to why mythicism is postulated. the ambiguity aspect of the writings is neither a strong argument for historisity or mythicism.
@@glennmaillard9076 I appreciate the question glenn. what I think you should do (as a comprehension exercise) is to read the original comment and my response several times. have a think about it, and if you're still at a loss, get back to me and I'll elaborate. I say this because I think what I said follows rather clearly from what tookie stated.
@@haydenwalton2766 You know, I’m nit one to suggest someone who is not clear on what say or write has necessarily a comprehension problem. When asked a reasonable question, I tend look at what I write and ask myself ‘how do I rephrase what I’m saying?’ Im confident you don’t have only one way of expressing an idea? I’m sure you can have another go. But no problem if you haven’t got the energy to simplify for those like me weak of comprehension, lol. Cheers. 👍
@@glennmaillard9076 as you may appreciate, this topic can get very complex, but.. the writings of "paul" (the authentic ones, at least) are very ambiguous in their meaning. it looks like they may well be referring to a celestial being rather than an actual person. the commenter stated that mythicist (generally) say this "must mean" that the figure is celestial. this is a strawman. this is not the standard mythicist argument. there can be good arguments made either way because the text is quite ambiguous IMO. having looked extensively into the topic (which is an absolutely fascinating one, I highly recommend you dive in if you haven't already) I'm of the opinion that the mythicist case carrier presents is the most likely explanation.
It is true that Christians were referred to as brothers of the Lord and might be called a brother of the Lord. But sometime the devil is in the details. Paul does not call James "A" brother of the Lord, meaning one of many, but rather "THE" brother of the Lord, meaning one and only. Just like there is a difference between being a godless engineer and being the Godless Engineer.
@@todradmaker4297 Or maybe Paul just meant James the brother of the Lord, the brother of Jesus his readers might be or were familiar with. Just as Josephus calls James the brother of Jesus. Galatians is generally pretty unambiguous. A straight reading seems to me to be James is Jesus’ brother. Half-brother would work just as well.
@@Ryansarcade9 I have not found the two James listed together. The three ‘pillars’ seem clearly to be James, Peter and John. Whenever it’s Peter, and James and John the sons of Zebedee, it’s Peter, James and John. Notice sequence change from James first (pillar) to Peter first with James (the Less) and John. James the Less was executed early (from memory). In the early part of Acts it’s always Peter and John out and about. James the brother of the Lord does not appear (not obviously anyway) until the later Acts where Paul has a meeting with James the brother of the Lord and Peter and John (three pillars in that order). So, for me, James is either brother or half brother of Jesus. If only half brother, I can’t help thinking James might be described as that in some way, because it would have been less uncomfortable for later Christians. I think James was called brother of the lord because he was his brother, and it was a very well known fact in the 1st century. So pointless to ignore. He was known as THAT James.
Godless engineer is a pretty mediocre intellect who has learned a few fancy phrases and facts which he uses to try to convince people, in vain, that he is master logician armed with encyclopedic knowledge. His transparent pretentiousness however only makes him a bit sad, but in combination with arrogant aggression towards Jacob that makes him unbearable
GE strikes me as an apologist. But if his is not a Christian view (whatever kind of Christianity that might be) he seems one of those guys who love being a devils advocate. Not an ‘occasional’ devils advocate to clarify a matter, but a lover of ‘devils advocacy’, which I find tiresome to say the least.
Jacob: mythicists agree with you in that it is not a extraordinary claim that Jesus lived and died, and later was deified/mythologized. But I would like historicists to admit that it is not a extraordinary claim that Jesus was initially a demigod (like may other demigods of Greek literature) that later was reified/euhemerized.
Jesus wept! the Godless Engineer & his constant interruptions! Here’s a hint- don’t do that, make your point at the end of the other person’s point, that way we’ll be able to follow more thoroughly the conversation. I switched off after 10/15 mins, couldn’t take it anymore, couldn’t follow Jacob’s counter argument, all I could hear was the other guy saying ‘look at me!, look at me!’ 🤫
Paul doesn't mention Roman crucifixion. He says Jesus was hanged, but doesn't specify how. It is the same word for hanging that was used after stoning somebody.
Paul is likely referencing the Torah (hanging a criminal on a tree Deuteronomy 21:22).. Its just a typology. Paul's mythical cosmic god man is not literally hung on a tree (or roman crucifixion), but is just being displayed in the 'heavenly realms, under the principalities and powers' and is put under the curse as was a criminal in Torah.
@@keyserwillhelm7673 stauron. Its meaning is ambiguous and refers to all manner of suspension punishments by all manner of societies (Jews, Persians, Romans, demons, etc). See Gunnar Samuelson’s book Crucifixion in Antiquity
Hmm, the way Jacob is constantly interrupted and never allowed to finish his arguments are not at all nice. It seems like a deliberate way of destroying Jacobs chances of arguing. This is not a debate but a monologue from someone who doesn’t accept to listen to others and loves their own voice. Jacob comes out at the knowledge one.. ..but as a debate it was useless… If the two of you will share channels in the future, please set up proper debate rules, since as for now common courtesy is not respected and it doesn’t give listeners what they want in terms of a good debate. Amen
Re: Paul did not say Jesus was "Crucified". Here, Paul references Deuteronomy 21:23, which uses the phrase "hung on a tree" (Greek: ξύλον, xylon). This evokes the idea of Jesus' death being like a criminal's execution, as described in Jewish law, but it doesn't necessarily mean he was crucified on a traditional Roman cross. The word ξύλον can mean "tree," "wood," or "a wooden structure" and does not specify a cross. Philippians 2:8: "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-even death on a cross!" Paul uses the term σταυρός (stauros), which typically means "an upright pole" or "stake." In Roman contexts, this term is often associated with crucifixion, but it can also be understood as a more generic execution device. 1 Corinthians 1:23: "But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..." Paul uses ἐσταυρωμένον (estaurōmenon), which means "crucified" or "executed on a stake." Again, the exact shape or type of the structure is not explicitly clear.
The guest reminds me of philosophers who aren't convinced that this world is real. The joke about the Jewish kid who told his rabbi that he'd lost faith in college.The punch line, pun intended, is that the rabbit hit the kid in the nose and asked, "So what hurt"
Jacob at 49:30 you say the text of As Isaiah outside the pocket gospel says Jesus dwelt among men. Where in the Ascension does it say that? I didn't recall that so scanned the text and couldn't find the citation
@@History-Valley ah okay. I meant outside the pocket gospel. 11.2 is the beginning of the pocket gospel (in any instantiation or variant) which is precisely whats being disputed as original to the text. I'm agnostic as to whether some part (or variant of) 11.2-22 is original to the AoI, so its not like I'd fault you for saying I (Jacob) am going to proceed as though it is authentic and original to the text. But if that section is an interpolation, as scholars before Carrier and apart from the myth theory argued, then Jesus being on earth or among men is not in the Ascension
@@benholman6 I either receive proof it's an interpolation or I will not accept at all because if we start playing that game, anyone can remove anything from any text they don't like.
@@History-Valley agreed, I just didn't think that was clear in that part of the conversation, as I thought you were saying "granting the interpolation", there's still a line saying he dwells among men-- which isn't the case. I certainly don't think this is an instance of just "removing a text thats inconvenient". This strikes me as very similar to 1 Thes. 2.13-16, in that there are independent arguments on the matter apart from a debate over Jesus ever being on earth (whether they are convincing arguments, I've yet to decide). I suppose it just depends on what you mean by "proof". I'm not faulting you for having a high standard for a suspected interpolation, but most investigations of suspected interpolations in any classical or ancient text doesn't involve manuscript proof, in a strict sense. Rather it involves a convergence of arguments (stylistic, linguistic, theological, logical, etc - and in some cases manuscript variants) for probability. That said, I also am not presently affirming AoI 11.2-22 is an interpolation.
To be honest, I go with Socrates (if he ever existed, but much better evidence than for the Jesus dude) - I know that I don't know. I guess if there was a guy, then the stories around him are fiction. I am fine with it that there was this lad, and maybe he had a brother. I am leaning now that there was a Christian movement more Jewish in the 1st century, and after the destruction of the 2nd temple and after the Bar Kokhba revolt, Christianity needed to separate and distinguish itself from the Jews. I think many of the letters of Paul are interpolated.
I would take a step backwards, to see the forest, not only the trees. None of the pre-gospel Christian texts mention an unambiguously earthly Jesus. For example, Paul's writings were later redacted by historicist sects. If they made any changes, they would be to remove mythicism (and maybe to add historicity), leaving or adding ambiguous expressions (that can be interpreted either way).
Godless Engineer is a terrible debater. I'm sorry, but he gets too emotionally attached to ideas and then gets offended too easily. He needs to steel man more often and be ready to concede (at least temporarily) and move on. He gets stck where he shouldn't.
Paul's claims are extremely ambiguous, at least to me. His famous phrase in Galatians 1:12 goes like: “For I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Or, depending on translation: “For I neither received it from a human, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” If Paul knew that a real Jesus existed (after all, he had interaction with the Jerusalem Church and in Acts 15 Barnabas & Paul meets with James, Peter and the other Apostles in Jerusalem), even though he did not meet him, and was crucified, why would he write “For I neither received it from (a) man.” It makes more sense to me that if he really knew something about Jesus, he would write something like, “For I neither received it from Jesus (from Jesus himself) (from our prophet) (from the crucified man under Pilate) (from the son of Joseph and Mary) (from the Nazarene) (from Jesus whom I did not meet). “From man” or “from a man” is a quiet impersonal choice of words; it is kind of ethereal. In my view, this supports the Godless Engineer or mythicist position. Paul is writing a letter to people he supposedly met in the past during his "travels". Let's be down-to-earth here. He must have told these people who Jesus was. These people must have asked him, "My dear Paul, can you tell us some more details about this guy you're talking about, this Jesus. Then these people receive this letter from Paul, and he writes that he did not receive The Way's message from Peter or James or the Jerusalem church, but "through a revelation" from Jesus Christ, through "a dream". I try to imagine these Galatians reading this, 2,000 kilometers away. When he was here, Paul told us what Jesus did in his lifetime, and now he tells us that he knows him "through revelation". They must have been quite perplexed, as I am personally. Let's say you're a member of a group that wants to defend and promote the ideas and general message of Martin Luther King, but you were born in 1985. You never met Luther King, but you know quite a bit about him from other older members of the group who met him and attended some of his meetings, and from books. Suppose you wanted to write a letter to prospective members to convince them of the truth of King's ideas, would you write, “For I neither received it (King’s message, revelation) from man, neither was I taught it, but “through the revelation” of Martin Luther King. I think you'd rather write something like, “For I neither received it from Reverend King, neither was I taught it by him as I never met him, as I was not born in the 1960s, but by other followers of Reverend King.” Such a message would have made it much more personal and believable to Galatians.
The idea of "The Brother" of the lord" is common cult language. in a cult, a "Brother" is often described as a fellow founding member of the cult. Not everyone in the cult is an official "Brother", but someone high up in the cult, a founding member, like James, is considered a "Brother". has nothing to do with blood line association with Jesus, rather, James status as a founding "brother" of the christ cult
It begs the question, though, why is only James labelled so among so many other ‘brothers’? Galatians seems such a straight forward text. If it is uncomfortable for James to be Jesus’s full brother, why not Jesus’s half brother. Mary or Joseph might have had other children. Did Joseph have a second wife before or after Mary? Did Mary have children after Jesus was born? (The divine impregnating idea seems fanciful to me btw. Nonsense). If Galatians is not fiction - or all fiction - then a straight rendering of James as Jesus’s full or half brother seems pretty clear. It’s only uncomfortable for certain folks, among them modern Christian apologists, but others too. Jesus as a real human being - however little we can plausibly guess about his life - seems pretty unremarkable to me. I find it hard to believe that the Jesus figure was made up out of thin air, nor giving him brothers - half or full - a good strategy for transforming him into a god-man.
@@glennmaillard9076 The name James (literally Yaakov in hebrew) is super common in the first century ..There were plenty of people named "james" in the christian cult, Paul was simply saying which James he meant, by calling Him James the "Brother" referring to the leader and one of the founding cult members. thats all ... note: by you going on about Joseph and mary, etc. to make a case, keep in mind your going off of the gospels to make that case . your NOT going off of actual history.. so your basing your case on completely fabricated myths. are you sure you want to do that? Note: I am 80% mythicist. I believe that there may have been a Nazarene preacher, similar to the Jesus narrative, as there were at least 200,000 Torah zealous jewish men who were crucified by the Romans.. so, the odds of 1 out of that 200,000 men being a Rabbi and preacher around the gallilee, is very possible.. using a crucifed Jew for the basis of your myth, and wanting to add historical credibility to it, well surely the Jews were crucified by the thousands, so it seems like a reasonable person, or even analogy, to use one of those Jews to base your myth on .. note: I'm critiquing the Jesus story from the perspective as one of the Jewish faith btw
@ Think of it this way. If Jesus was a real person, he had a real mother and father. Following on from that, Paul knew of a James, brother of Jesus. Whenever Paul mentions ‘brothers’ (and ‘sisters’) he is clear what he means. James is called brother of the law Lord in a very straightforward way in Galatians, there is no sense of ‘brotherhood’ at all, just straight forward ‘kinship.’ The unambiguous reading is James is kin of Jesus, a brother or a half brother, though if half brother, I think other later Christians would have honed in on that. To me Christians knew exactly who James was. I’m pragmatic about it. We can’t know, but I think a Jesus existed as a man. He was not born with divine intervention. Whether his real parents were Joseph or Mary is immaterial at the end of the day. I use their names but call them Fred and Lucy if you like. You’re right about all the James’s in the record, but only one James is brother of the Lord in Galatians. It’s an unambiguous way of referring to him, or, at least, I see no reason to see ambiguity. Which begs a question for me. ‘Must everything in the Pauline (believed authentic) letters ambiguous to a mythicist?’
@@glennmaillard9076 A valid question then would be,," Is there any historical evidence that a man named James, who lived in first century Judea, who was part of the 'christ cult', and had a brother named Jesus who was crucified" .. is there a shred of evidence that such a James ever existed? if not, the the mythicist idea still holds weight regarding Paul's "james" figure. . we need historical evidence, not just assuming James was a real person who was brother of a real Jesus. especially when the letter of Galatians may simply be Epistleary Fiction. . which was common in the first century.
Just a note: the author of Mark replicates what Gleason calls ambiguity, and he then creates three distinct types of brothers called James. Who wants to be more clever than Mark and know what brother means? Do you think that Mark knows exactly and just wants to create confusion? Or to ask differently by refering to the temple discourse, where he asks the reader to reconcile Rom 1:3 and Psalm 110! Don't you think that Mark was indeed very confused about christian claims and apologetics? And he even tells you how confused he was? Another example: In the Sanhedrin trial, the accuser's testimony is considered inconsistent But what is consistent is the very theologian, to whom the _the temple not build by hands_ refers to, when Paul divorces resurrection and parousia in starting in the 2Cor phase. We can come up with other examples which demonstrate that Mark shows his confusion. And from this you can gather, that he too (and his partners in confusion) had no clue what was meant by James the brother of the Lord.
@26:00 concerning _as in heaven so on earth_ (supposing that is meant), the difference whether Paul might have shared such as belief as Gleason believes, while Jakob does not: We are dealing with the argument from silence here. And we have to carefully observe ourselves how we shift various criteria around to create Paul in our image, cause that is what we most of the time do.
@59:00 concerning the longer endings (plural) of Mark: Even if all mss had the longer ending, the abrupt ending at Mk 16:8 would be overwhelmingly original based on internal grounds. Scholars can't read Mark. And since they can argue through mss they don't care to read Mark. It's a shame that the obvious is never brought up when argueing against the longer endings.
@1:00:00 Jakob _internal inconsistency does not necessitate inteporlation_ But without an explanation to the interpolation you need to assume it. Romans or Ephesians have both in close proximity the contradiction that a) election is predetermined, or b) it is adoption through grace. So to assume that the author wanted be self refuting in the first place is a special proposition. In War of the Jews, Herod is banished to Spain, in the Antiquities he is banished to southern france. Which one is it? Here you can say that the contradiction emerged because Josephus was informed differently by his sources across time. Josephus, the not so historian, does not care to clear up the contradiction. So when we see strong internal conflicts, then we should indeed strongly question same authorship.
Guys, think deep at scale. The animals brought before the Adam to name are microbial life within you, awareness is only in the physical body temporarily. Christ made it possible for me to return to my body for a short time. The experience of traveling in the body in the Mandjet. Didn't even know what that was. Double headed baboon boat. When the bark is removed, there is no pain.
Dr Markus Vinzent said on History Valley a couple months ago that there is no mention of James being a brother of Jesus in Paul's letter's as part of Marcion's gospel.
And? In reality comment’s and side notes like that have been added to documents during history to explain things a bit further and later those comments have been included in the document.
@@MikeatthenetThe point is that if Marcion is the original then what Bart Ehrman (and everyone) says is the strongest argument for historicity (“if Paul knew Jesus’s brother then Jesus must have existed”) has no basis in Paul’s writings- IF Marcion’s galatians is what PAul actually wrote.
That's based entirely on an absence of evidence, and it is a fallacious argument since we have no complete copy of Marcion's gospel or Marcion's epistles. Likewise, since Marcion denied the physical birth of Jesus, he may well have excised things. So there is no reason to even trust Marcion's account as far as I'm concerned.
It would only seem ambiguous if others are referred that way as Jacob says. The whole Galatians is worded in very straight forward terms. In other words, it’s only ambiguous if you want it to be. GE is seemingly an unambiguous apologist.
IIRC, it's one of those passages that is neither attested by the early Church Fathers as having been present, nor as having been absent (like Luke 1-2 or Romans 16, etc.). So we simply don't know.
Yes he very likely did exist. There are things in the gospels that are very hard to explain otherwise e.g. birth in Nazareth, and Pauls letters have details that call him a flesh and blood human, and there is no debate at all about his earthly sxistence with for instance the doubting Galatians when James' faction went to visit them and told them about circumcision and what Jesus was all about regarding the Law, etc.
An unusual belief you’ve got there. I haven’t heard anyone recently claim Odin existed. Plenty have claimed Jesus existed. Take your pick as to whether Jesus was human, divine or become divine or adopted. Yes, and maybe Jesus of the Gospels might have been a created hero.
Whoever the Godless Engineer is, he is extraordinarily rude …
His "modal arguments" are total logical nonsense, as in any pseudo-mathematical model of any science. They are very popular in pseudo-physics, in QM or cosmology, and the existence of aliens:"if possible (that something exists), then possible" is a logical fallacy known already to Stoics that
Extraordinarily is an extraordinary claim, especialy when we have Farage and the USA has Trump, and the Jesus cult members want to tell us magic exist and they talk to God so can commit us to eternal hell for not believing their anti-science clap trap..
First time here, but I do regret the heavy-handed interrupting of the guest. It sounds like the host is insecure about the possibility of losing control of the discussion.
@@francisgruber3638 GE is a debater kind of guy, not much of a listener.
GE is an arrogant bully
John is like that. He is holding back here😂
@@riley02192012yes he can be
I am inclined to favor the mythicist view, but there are couple of blatant mistakes that most mythicists debaters make (even Carrier) when defending their position:
First, there is a difference between Christians being spiritual/fictive brothers of EACH OTHER, vs being brothers of Jesus himself. If any ordinary Christian is a “brother of the Lord”, then why ONLY James is referred to like that. There are MANY reasonable ways to explain this distinction -but most mythicist debaters ignore the other good explanations, and just dismiss the argument.
Also, in Paul’s letters there is another line where he refers to the “brotherS” of the Lord (in plural) implying that there are several such “brothers” (not just James).
So, the idea that any ordinary Christian can be called “Brother of the Lord” is not a valid answer.
Better explanations:
1. Interpolation. “Brother of the Lord” is not attested in Marcion’s version.
2. Special Status. “Brother of the Lord”, being a title for a particularly high rank leader of the congregation.
3. Name of a specific sect within the Christian movement.
(Dr. Price defends this position)
4. Euphemism for a deceased or martyred church member. James died after Paul met him, so when Paul writes about him he recognizes his passing and “sainthood” by assuming he has now become a “spiritual brother of Jesus in Heaven”.
So, there are several better ways of explaining the “Brother” expression than just dismissing the problem.
You're not alone in listing the other possibilities.
Godless Engineer is very skilled at shifting the burden of proof onto his opponents.... And Jacob is too much of a genuine gentleman to debate a mythicist....
Jacob did great. Mythicist play a strange game of saying the text is too ambiguous and simultaneously saying then it must mean it happened in another realm despite the crucifixion, born of a woman, under the law. It’s somehow ambiguous but clearly in another realm?
"must mean" is a strawman (whether intended or not).
there are many good arguments as to why mythicism is postulated.
the ambiguity aspect of the writings is neither a strong argument for historisity or mythicism.
@@haydenwalton2766 Could you run that by again? I’m. It trying to be funny, but I find your comment ambiguous. State what you mean.
@@glennmaillard9076 I appreciate the question glenn.
what I think you should do (as a comprehension exercise) is to read the original comment and my response several times. have a think about it, and if you're still at a loss, get back to me and I'll elaborate.
I say this because I think what I said follows rather clearly from what tookie stated.
@@haydenwalton2766 You know, I’m nit one to suggest someone who is not clear on what say or write has necessarily a comprehension problem. When asked a reasonable question, I tend look at what I write and ask myself ‘how do I rephrase what I’m saying?’ Im confident you don’t have only one way of expressing an idea? I’m sure you can have another go. But no problem if you haven’t got the energy to simplify for those like me weak of comprehension, lol. Cheers. 👍
@@glennmaillard9076 as you may appreciate, this topic can get very complex, but..
the writings of "paul" (the authentic ones, at least) are very ambiguous in their meaning. it looks like they may well be referring to a celestial being rather than an actual person.
the commenter stated that mythicist (generally) say this "must mean" that the figure is celestial.
this is a strawman. this is not the standard mythicist argument.
there can be good arguments made either way because the text is quite ambiguous IMO.
having looked extensively into the topic (which is an absolutely fascinating one, I highly recommend you dive in if you haven't already) I'm of the opinion that the mythicist case carrier presents is the most likely explanation.
It is true that Christians were referred to as brothers of the Lord and might be called a brother of the Lord. But sometime the devil is in the details. Paul does not call James "A" brother of the Lord, meaning one of many, but rather "THE" brother of the Lord, meaning one and only. Just like there is a difference between being a godless engineer and being the Godless Engineer.
@@todradmaker4297 Or maybe Paul just meant James the brother of the Lord, the brother of Jesus his readers might be or were familiar with. Just as Josephus calls James the brother of Jesus. Galatians is generally pretty unambiguous. A straight reading seems to me to be James is Jesus’ brother. Half-brother would work just as well.
But Jesus had other brothers too
If Paul wastrying to specify “James the Christian/brother of the Lord” as opposed to a separate “James the Apostle,” then it makes sense.
@@Ryansarcade9 I have not found the two James listed together. The three ‘pillars’ seem clearly to be James, Peter and John. Whenever it’s Peter, and James and John the sons of Zebedee, it’s Peter, James and John. Notice sequence change from James first (pillar) to Peter first with James (the Less) and John. James the Less was executed early (from memory). In the early part of Acts it’s always Peter and John out and about. James the brother of the Lord does not appear (not obviously anyway) until the later Acts where Paul has a meeting with James the brother of the Lord and Peter and John (three pillars in that order). So, for me, James is either brother or half brother of Jesus. If only half brother, I can’t help thinking James might be described as that in some way, because it would have been less uncomfortable for later Christians. I think James was called brother of the lord because he was his brother, and it was a very well known fact in the 1st century. So pointless to ignore. He was known as THAT James.
Godless engineer is a pretty mediocre intellect who has learned a few fancy phrases and facts which he uses to try to convince people, in vain, that he is master logician armed with encyclopedic knowledge. His transparent pretentiousness however only makes him a bit sad, but in combination with arrogant aggression towards Jacob that makes him unbearable
Vapid ad hominem.
GE strikes me as an apologist. But if his is not a Christian view (whatever kind of Christianity that might be) he seems one of those guys who love being a devils advocate. Not an ‘occasional’ devils advocate to clarify a matter, but a lover of ‘devils advocacy’, which I find tiresome to say the least.
He's a bully. I refuse to watch him.
Sometimes difficult to watch yes
GE is pretty low bar
Jacob: mythicists agree with you in that it is not a extraordinary claim that Jesus lived and died, and later was deified/mythologized. But I would like historicists to admit that it is not a extraordinary claim that Jesus was initially a demigod (like may other demigods of Greek literature) that later was reified/euhemerized.
Jesus wept! the Godless Engineer & his constant interruptions! Here’s a hint- don’t do that, make your point at the end of the other person’s point, that way we’ll be able to follow more thoroughly the conversation. I switched off after 10/15 mins, couldn’t take it anymore, couldn’t follow Jacob’s counter argument, all I could hear was the other guy saying ‘look at me!, look at me!’ 🤫
Paul doesn't mention Roman crucifixion. He says Jesus was hanged, but doesn't specify how. It is the same word for hanging that was used after stoning somebody.
Weird. What is that word?
@@keyserwillhelm7673 stauros
Paul is likely referencing the Torah (hanging a criminal on a tree Deuteronomy 21:22).. Its just a typology. Paul's mythical cosmic god man is not literally hung on a tree (or roman crucifixion), but is just being displayed in the 'heavenly realms, under the principalities and powers' and is put under the curse as was a criminal in Torah.
@@keyserwillhelm7673 stauron. Its meaning is ambiguous and refers to all manner of suspension punishments by all manner of societies (Jews, Persians, Romans, demons, etc). See Gunnar Samuelson’s book Crucifixion in Antiquity
The host needs to shut up and stop talking over Jacob, who I’ll wager knows a lot more than this mouthy guy
Hmm, the way Jacob is constantly interrupted and never allowed to finish his arguments are not at all nice. It seems like a deliberate way of destroying Jacobs chances of arguing. This is not a debate but a monologue from someone who doesn’t accept to listen to others and loves their own voice. Jacob comes out at the knowledge one..
..but as a debate it was useless…
If the two of you will share channels in the future, please set up proper debate rules, since as for now common courtesy is not respected and it doesn’t give listeners what they want in terms of a good debate.
Amen
Re: Paul did not say Jesus was "Crucified".
Here, Paul references Deuteronomy 21:23, which uses the phrase "hung on a tree" (Greek: ξύλον, xylon). This evokes the idea of Jesus' death being like a criminal's execution, as described in Jewish law, but it doesn't necessarily mean he was crucified on a traditional Roman cross. The word ξύλον can mean "tree," "wood," or "a wooden structure" and does not specify a cross.
Philippians 2:8:
"And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-even death on a cross!"
Paul uses the term σταυρός (stauros), which typically means "an upright pole" or "stake." In Roman contexts, this term is often associated with crucifixion, but it can also be understood as a more generic execution device.
1 Corinthians 1:23:
"But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..."
Paul uses ἐσταυρωμένον (estaurōmenon), which means "crucified" or "executed on a stake." Again, the exact shape or type of the structure is not explicitly clear.
The guest reminds me of philosophers who aren't convinced that this world is real. The joke about the Jewish kid who told his rabbi that he'd lost faith in college.The punch line, pun intended, is that the rabbit hit the kid in the nose and asked, "So what hurt"
Silly rabbit!
@afwalker1921 Not too good at doing this on a phone. And I remember that commercial!
@@terrybaker1147 Kisses from Crazyland...
Jacob at 49:30 you say the text of As Isaiah outside the pocket gospel says Jesus dwelt among men. Where in the Ascension does it say that? I didn't recall that so scanned the text and couldn't find the citation
It’s in the Latin Ascension of Isaiah 11.2.
@@History-Valley ah okay. I meant outside the pocket gospel. 11.2 is the beginning of the pocket gospel (in any instantiation or variant) which is precisely whats being disputed as original to the text. I'm agnostic as to whether some part (or variant of) 11.2-22 is original to the AoI, so its not like I'd fault you for saying I (Jacob) am going to proceed as though it is authentic and original to the text. But if that section is an interpolation, as scholars before Carrier and apart from the myth theory argued, then Jesus being on earth or among men is not in the Ascension
@@benholman6 I either receive proof it's an interpolation or I will not accept at all because if we start playing that game, anyone can remove anything from any text they don't like.
@@History-Valley agreed, I just didn't think that was clear in that part of the conversation, as I thought you were saying "granting the interpolation", there's still a line saying he dwells among men-- which isn't the case. I certainly don't think this is an instance of just "removing a text thats inconvenient". This strikes me as very similar to 1 Thes. 2.13-16, in that there are independent arguments on the matter apart from a debate over Jesus ever being on earth (whether they are convincing arguments, I've yet to decide). I suppose it just depends on what you mean by "proof". I'm not faulting you for having a high standard for a suspected interpolation, but most investigations of suspected interpolations in any classical or ancient text doesn't involve manuscript proof, in a strict sense. Rather it involves a convergence of arguments (stylistic, linguistic, theological, logical, etc - and in some cases manuscript variants) for probability. That said, I also am not presently affirming AoI 11.2-22 is an interpolation.
To be honest, I go with Socrates (if he ever existed, but much better evidence than for the Jesus dude) - I know that I don't know. I guess if there was a guy, then the stories around him are fiction. I am fine with it that there was this lad, and maybe he had a brother. I am leaning now that there was a Christian movement more Jewish in the 1st century, and after the destruction of the 2nd temple and after the Bar Kokhba revolt, Christianity needed to separate and distinguish itself from the Jews. I think many of the letters of Paul are interpolated.
Constant interruptions. Dogmatic assertions. Impossible to listen to. FFS
I would take a step backwards, to see the forest, not only the trees. None of the pre-gospel Christian texts mention an unambiguously earthly Jesus. For example, Paul's writings were later redacted by historicist sects. If they made any changes, they would be to remove mythicism (and maybe to add historicity), leaving or adding ambiguous expressions (that can be interpreted either way).
Godless Engineer is a terrible debater. I'm sorry, but he gets too emotionally attached to ideas and then gets offended too easily. He needs to steel man more often and be ready to concede (at least temporarily) and move on. He gets stck where he shouldn't.
GE is as about as low tier as you can get.
Paul's claims are extremely ambiguous, at least to me. His famous phrase in Galatians 1:12 goes like: “For I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Or, depending on translation: “For I neither received it from a human, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
If Paul knew that a real Jesus existed (after all, he had interaction with the Jerusalem Church and in Acts 15 Barnabas & Paul meets with James, Peter and the other Apostles in Jerusalem), even though he did not meet him, and was crucified, why would he write “For I neither received it from (a) man.” It makes more sense to me that if he really knew something about Jesus, he would write something like, “For I neither received it from Jesus (from Jesus himself) (from our prophet) (from the crucified man under Pilate) (from the son of Joseph and Mary) (from the Nazarene) (from Jesus whom I did not meet). “From man” or “from a man” is a quiet impersonal choice of words; it is kind of ethereal. In my view, this supports the Godless Engineer or mythicist position. Paul is writing a letter to people he supposedly met in the past during his "travels". Let's be down-to-earth here. He must have told these people who Jesus was. These people must have asked him, "My dear Paul, can you tell us some more details about this guy you're talking about, this Jesus. Then these people receive this letter from Paul, and he writes that he did not receive The Way's message from Peter or James or the Jerusalem church, but "through a revelation" from Jesus Christ, through "a dream". I try to imagine these Galatians reading this, 2,000 kilometers away. When he was here, Paul told us what Jesus did in his lifetime, and now he tells us that he knows him "through revelation". They must have been quite perplexed, as I am personally.
Let's say you're a member of a group that wants to defend and promote the ideas and general message of Martin Luther King, but you were born in 1985. You never met Luther King, but you know quite a bit about him from other older members of the group who met him and attended some of his meetings, and from books. Suppose you wanted to write a letter to prospective members to convince them of the truth of King's ideas, would you write, “For I neither received it (King’s message, revelation) from man, neither was I taught it, but “through the revelation” of Martin Luther King. I think you'd rather write something like, “For I neither received it from Reverend King, neither was I taught it by him as I never met him, as I was not born in the 1960s, but by other followers of Reverend King.” Such a message would have made it much more personal and believable to Galatians.
Great debate, thank you. I need to read Carrier book since this heavenly crucifixion is news to me.
Great read and a long one. 1400 pages😂
@@The_Gypsy_Prince-y3v already downloaded 710 pages lol
@@munbruk good luck! It's a page turner
Best book is the Jesus puzzle by Earl Dougherty. That is all you need
@@dukegroovy5162 I am not mythicist. Jesus was a prophet. The biographies were filled with myths. I just want to see the heavenly crucifixion thing.
Did Saul hunt down Christians in the 'heavens?' 😅
No one doubts the earthly existence of Christians. Or Mormons though we doubt Moroni.
@macroman52 this one thinks Jesus "was crucified in the heavens."
@@macroman52 why tho? If we argue like GE we should take everything as being in another realm
The "one party" that killed Jesus...was the "godless" party...whether they were Jew or Gentile.
It doesn't matter if he was real or not he wasn't smart enough to make a pair of pants and a t-shirt.
The idea of "The Brother" of the lord" is common cult language. in a cult, a "Brother" is often described as a fellow founding member of the cult. Not everyone in the cult is an official "Brother", but someone high up in the cult, a founding member, like James, is considered a "Brother". has nothing to do with blood line association with Jesus, rather, James status as a founding "brother" of the christ cult
It begs the question, though, why is only James labelled so among so many other ‘brothers’? Galatians seems such a straight forward text. If it is uncomfortable for James to be Jesus’s full brother, why not Jesus’s half brother. Mary or Joseph might have had other children. Did Joseph have a second wife before or after Mary? Did Mary have children after Jesus was born? (The divine impregnating idea seems fanciful to me btw. Nonsense). If Galatians is not fiction - or all fiction - then a straight rendering of James as Jesus’s full or half brother seems pretty clear. It’s only uncomfortable for certain folks, among them modern Christian apologists, but others too. Jesus as a real human being - however little we can plausibly guess about his life - seems pretty unremarkable to me. I find it hard to believe that the Jesus figure was made up out of thin air, nor giving him brothers - half or full - a good strategy for transforming him into a god-man.
@@glennmaillard9076 The name James (literally Yaakov in hebrew) is super common in the first century ..There were plenty of people named "james" in the christian cult, Paul was simply saying which James he meant, by calling Him James the "Brother" referring to the leader and one of the founding cult members. thats all ... note: by you going on about Joseph and mary, etc. to make a case, keep in mind your going off of the gospels to make that case . your NOT going off of actual history.. so your basing your case on completely fabricated myths. are you sure you want to do that? Note: I am 80% mythicist. I believe that there may have been a Nazarene preacher, similar to the Jesus narrative, as there were at least 200,000 Torah zealous jewish men who were crucified by the Romans.. so, the odds of 1 out of that 200,000 men being a Rabbi and preacher around the gallilee, is very possible.. using a crucifed Jew for the basis of your myth, and wanting to add historical credibility to it, well surely the Jews were crucified by the thousands, so it seems like a reasonable person, or even analogy, to use one of those Jews to base your myth on .. note: I'm critiquing the Jesus story from the perspective as one of the Jewish faith btw
@ Think of it this way. If Jesus was a real person, he had a real mother and father. Following on from that, Paul knew of a James, brother of Jesus. Whenever Paul mentions ‘brothers’ (and ‘sisters’) he is clear what he means. James is called brother of the law Lord in a very straightforward way in Galatians, there is no sense of ‘brotherhood’ at all, just straight forward ‘kinship.’ The unambiguous reading is James is kin of Jesus, a brother or a half brother, though if half brother, I think other later Christians would have honed in on that. To me Christians knew exactly who James was. I’m pragmatic about it. We can’t know, but I think a Jesus existed as a man. He was not born with divine intervention. Whether his real parents were Joseph or Mary is immaterial at the end of the day. I use their names but call them Fred and Lucy if you like. You’re right about all the James’s in the record, but only one James is brother of the Lord in Galatians. It’s an unambiguous way of referring to him, or, at least, I see no reason to see ambiguity. Which begs a question for me. ‘Must everything in the Pauline (believed authentic) letters ambiguous to a mythicist?’
@@glennmaillard9076 A valid question then would be,," Is there any historical evidence that a man named James, who lived in first century Judea, who was part of the 'christ cult', and had a brother named Jesus who was crucified" .. is there a shred of evidence that such a James ever existed? if not, the the mythicist idea still holds weight regarding Paul's "james" figure. . we need historical evidence, not just assuming James was a real person who was brother of a real Jesus. especially when the letter of Galatians may simply be Epistleary Fiction. . which was common in the first century.
GE should go debate Flint Dibble …
Just a note: the author of Mark replicates what Gleason calls ambiguity, and he then creates three distinct types of brothers called James.
Who wants to be more clever than Mark and know what brother means?
Do you think that Mark knows exactly and just wants to create confusion?
Or to ask differently by refering to the temple discourse, where he asks the reader to reconcile Rom 1:3 and Psalm 110!
Don't you think that Mark was indeed very confused about christian claims and apologetics? And he even tells you how confused he was?
Another example: In the Sanhedrin trial, the accuser's testimony is considered inconsistent But what is consistent is the very theologian, to whom the _the temple not build by hands_ refers to, when Paul divorces resurrection and parousia in starting in the 2Cor phase.
We can come up with other examples which demonstrate that Mark shows his confusion.
And from this you can gather, that he too (and his partners in confusion) had no clue what was meant by James the brother of the Lord.
@26:00 concerning _as in heaven so on earth_ (supposing that is meant), the difference whether Paul might have shared such as belief as Gleason believes, while Jakob does not:
We are dealing with the argument from silence here. And we have to carefully observe ourselves how we shift various criteria around to create Paul in our image, cause that is what we most of the time do.
@59:00 concerning the longer endings (plural) of Mark:
Even if all mss had the longer ending, the abrupt ending at Mk 16:8 would be overwhelmingly original based on internal grounds.
Scholars can't read Mark. And since they can argue through mss they don't care to read Mark. It's a shame that the obvious is never brought up when argueing against the longer endings.
@1:00:00 Jakob _internal inconsistency does not necessitate inteporlation_
But without an explanation to the interpolation you need to assume it.
Romans or Ephesians have both in close proximity the contradiction that a) election is predetermined, or b) it is adoption through grace.
So to assume that the author wanted be self refuting in the first place is a special proposition.
In War of the Jews, Herod is banished to Spain, in the Antiquities he is banished to southern france. Which one is it?
Here you can say that the contradiction emerged because Josephus was informed differently by his sources across time. Josephus, the not so historian, does not care to clear up the contradiction.
So when we see strong internal conflicts, then we should indeed strongly question same authorship.
Guys, think deep at scale.
The animals brought before the Adam to name are microbial life within you, awareness is only in the physical body temporarily. Christ made it possible for me to return to my body for a short time. The experience of traveling in the body in the Mandjet. Didn't even know what that was. Double headed baboon boat. When the bark is removed, there is no pain.
When carrier becomes the new Messiah I'm sorry GE holds this as a position of faith and is as annoying as a evangelical at times.
For many outside of Europe or the American continents Jesus is not even reverent
relevant?
@@munbruk Good question!
@@gary100dm ??? Not sure what you are taking about. Jesus is very relevant in Africa and Asia snd Australia for example
which of the hundreds of human family statements in scriptures/bible are real?
Both of these guys are amateurs. Listen to Carrier or Dr Price for the real deal.
I see a point in both opinions on the ascention of Isaiah.
Iam divided.
Good that Jacob stayed respectful.
Dr Markus Vinzent said on History Valley a couple months ago that there is no mention of James being a brother of Jesus in Paul's letter's as part of Marcion's gospel.
And? In reality comment’s and side notes like that have been added to documents during history to explain things a bit further and later those comments have been included in the document.
@@MikeatthenetThe point is that if Marcion is the original then what Bart Ehrman (and everyone) says is the strongest argument for historicity (“if Paul knew Jesus’s brother then Jesus must have existed”) has no basis in Paul’s writings- IF Marcion’s galatians is what PAul actually wrote.
True. But is Marcion first?
I doubt it...
That's based entirely on an absence of evidence, and it is a fallacious argument since we have no complete copy of Marcion's gospel or Marcion's epistles. Likewise, since Marcion denied the physical birth of Jesus, he may well have excised things. So there is no reason to even trust Marcion's account as far as I'm concerned.
@chrish4309 why because he denies the birth of Jesus?
That is not a fact.
It would only seem ambiguous if others are referred that way as Jacob says. The whole Galatians is worded in very straight forward terms. In other words, it’s only ambiguous if you want it to be. GE is seemingly an unambiguous apologist.
Is “brother of the lord” in Marcion’s version of galatians?
No it is not, according to Marcus Vincent
IIRC, it's one of those passages that is neither attested by the early Church Fathers as having been present, nor as having been absent (like Luke 1-2 or Romans 16, etc.). So we simply don't know.
Yes he very likely did exist. There are things in the gospels that are very hard to explain otherwise e.g. birth in Nazareth, and Pauls letters have details that call him a flesh and blood human, and there is no debate at all about his earthly sxistence with for instance the doubting Galatians when James' faction went to visit them and told them about circumcision and what Jesus was all about regarding the Law, etc.
th-cam.com/users/clipUgkxU9uuoTA2BD3sh268Zd_UoGvwEuDiZBca?si=9qIYS6Nn8NwKxUVb
Rubbish
Yes
spacely sprockets gospel
If you don’t know this, you don’t know much of anything.
Jesus existed if Odin existed.
An unusual belief you’ve got there. I haven’t heard anyone recently claim Odin existed. Plenty have claimed Jesus existed. Take your pick as to whether Jesus was human, divine or become divine or adopted. Yes, and maybe Jesus of the Gospels might have been a created hero.