Mythicism Debate: Did Paul Believe in a Celestial Jesus? Dr. Richard Carrier vs. Jonathan McLatchie
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Atheist mythicist scholar Dr. Richard Carrier debates Jonathan McLatchie on the historicity of Jesus, in particular whether Paul believed in a celestial rather than an earthly Jesus.
I'm agnostic on the existence of a singular character at the root of the new testament myth but I have to say Carrier presented a coherent case. Mclatchie was a desperate waffling mess.
5:59 "As a Christian, i have a belief that I'm a Christian because Christianity is true."
Sounds legit
The bible is true because the bible says it's true... case closed atheists! :massive sarcasm:
The bible is true because it's backed by empirical evidence, it is philosophically coherent, and it is consistent in logic.
@@eversosleight... the bible is not backed by empirical evidence but is accurate if thrown within 3 feet of its target
@Language and Programming Channel how is the bible inconsistant with empirical evidence or logic
@demigodzilla Before I answer, what presupposition(s) lead you to believe that it's incoherent?
I don't know why they didn't just invite god to this debate. Then they could have nailed all the details.
He has trouble finding day care for his son. Last time didn't end well.
The part about undesigned coincidences really makes me believe that religion must rot people's brains or something.
aren't coincidences by definition undesigned?
@@annoyance82 True, it's a terrible name for an "academic" to give to anything.
well, that would explain why mclatchie is an idiot
Carrier: Look at all of these clear inconsistencies and gap theories.
Jonathahn Mclatchie: Jesus is the lord and savior so how can we not assume all of those things don't matter?
A summary of the debate, for those of you who don't have much time.
I'm afraid that's about the sum of it!
Justin had to bail out his fellow Christian a few times to avoid a total embarrassment.
@AnarchoRepublican, you don't need to be a Christian to be a Republican.
i'm a tad befuddled by the term "undesigned coincidences", because the "undesigned" is totally unnecessary. if it were a "designed coincidence", well... it wouldn't be coincidence.
removing the wordplay boils the argument down - one person noticing enough similarities to think there's a purposeful pattern, and another person asserting that they're all coincidence.
patterns have always been coincidence...
Coincidence means “to coincide.”
An undesigned coincidence means the stories coincide but in ways that aren’t by design. Meaning, they have details that fit together, but clearly weren’t put in the stories on purpose to make the story more plausible. They’re mentioned in passing, and only become noteworthy on inspection and reflection. They’re mentioned in a very casual, artless way.
You can dismiss these as mere coincidences, but when you’re talking about Acts, that becomes much less plausible given the presence of the “we” passages, the sheer number of these coincidences, the amount of difficult local knowledge Luke displays in Acts, the universal attestation of the early members of the Church of Luke and Acts to a traveling companion of Paul named Luke, etc
I’d consider Acts/Luke a better reflection of what Paul thought than Richard Carrier’s fringe conspiracy theories where he explains away passages that contradict his thesis by proposing alternative, strained interpretations 2,000 years later that also (more) comfortably fit the interpretation implied by books like Acts/Luke.
its just apologetic gobblydegook to bedazzle the lemmings.
Double team on carrier and he still destroys these two
Carrier can handle most all apologists ...bring them on
That was no double team. To be fair to Justin Brierley, he is very good at staying neutral.
@@brianennion4832 the moderator may not have doubled up on him but he did have to rescue Mclatchie on multiple occasions
The host is an apologist! 😂
Pointless argument. You have an evidence based historian questing for truth trying to have a debate with someone completely crippled by wish fulfilment and preconception. And why oh why does every single apologist think they can conjure a 'gotcha' moment from their cherry-picked scripture??? It's nauseatingly puerile.
carrier is more an atheist apologist promoted by atheists ehrman is better
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa ; you are wrong... Ehrman is so concerned about staying in the “mainstream club”, that he contradicts himself, and cherry picks passages to try and Back his version of an historical Jesus...
ehrman agrees with real historians Christians still respect ehrman even though they dont agree with him unlike carrier and carrier is apologist but atheist mythist apologist
So sad to see grown men desperately wanting their fairy tales to be true. Grow up guys. We are all going to die and there isn't anything you can do about it. Ditch your religion and make the most of your life.
Wow. This is what happens when you start with an assumed conclusion and work your way backwards; you have a huge blind spot on your logic. Even the Christian host understands the points Carrier is making concerning John cribbing from the other Gospels.
gospel of john is independent so is mark but scholars say Mathew and Luke copied from mark and another independent source
"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
even carrier is doing that he has mythists view and anything that goes against that he reinteprets that to fit the mythist view
@@jayd4ever No, he was not always a mythicist at all. He became so after carefully examining the evidence. This evidence he summarised in his book On the Historicity of Jesus. You should read it, it is very accessible and is FULL of footnotes and information.
He outright goes through why in his book.
Carrier's beating one apologist after another
This is the first time I've come across your channel. It was suggested on TH-cam after I watched Dr Carrier on The NonSequitur Show. I'm familiar with Dr Carrier's work and find his reasoning compelling. McLatchie clearly presented his case, but I wasn't convinced by his arguments and assertions. I was impressed with your moderation. Advert breaks were distracting.
McLatchie is dreadfully incoherent
Very true he was as incoherent in questioning PZMeyer
beats me why he bothers, although he'd probably make a hash of washing your car. it's great insofar as carrier needs more airtime.
@AnarchoRepublican No that shows your total lack of understanding of the subject. Go and read some real science books on the subject and stop listening to apologists.I do enjoy science fiction ... the emphasis is on the word"fiction"
Jonathan Mcclatchie had the nerve to go on Atheist Debate and say he "debated RIchard Carrier". And he called his book a "train wreck". Excuse me as I go dry heave.
Why can't he just call him Richard? Does that bug anyone else? He just comes off like a prick.
1:10:10 and on, Richard breaks Jonathan and he starts skipping like a broken record, until Justin steps in and breaks the loop😂
Not enough Carrier in the interview. Still Carrier prevails with logic and knowledge and his opponent is left with the same responses ..."well I don't agree".....and "let's move on".
Carrier's position remains the most probable.
joel rivard No, it doesn't.
Carrier wins and eventually scholarship will follow and mythicism will be the standard position in the field.
joel rivard Mythicisim has been around for good 300 years, and yet it's only champions are "independent scholars" (fancy speak for "Scholars who can't even hold down a job because of how ludicrous their positions are when using historical methods). Haven't you noticed how;
1. No mythicist holds any significant position in mainstream scholarship or any teaching university, where their ideas can be heavily addressed and critiqued to bits?
2. No mythicist has been able to publish in any peer reviewed journals concerning the topic of the ahistoricity of Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a mortal man?
3. No mythicist ever has any of their books peer reviewed before publishing anything related to the historicity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?
Joel Rivard, you may interested to know that Carrier's work is not taken seriously by actual scholars in the field, for a number of reasons. You may want to read a peer-reviewed takedown of Carrier's book. Here is a very brief comment by a scholar in the field, and at the bottom, you can find a link to the peer reviewed takedown. www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-reviewed-journal-takes-richard-carriers-jesus-mythicism/#B1P6bQ6DrbZUXLhk.99
Carrier addresses all of this in other lectures and interviews. He's also won every debate against historicity and divinity sides. It will take time for scholarship to change. It's no surprise that the field is help up by bureaucratic, political, ideological and other reasons.
It took Einstein over 10 years to get general relativity accepted. Things move slow and pointing to mainstream positions as any evidence for anything is ludicrous.
People come along with new information, diehards refuse to change, generations pass, eventually it's accepted.
There is no question that eventually mythicisim will become the standard over the next several decades.
As a Christian I never could reconcile the differences between Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching. I always got really weird answers from other Christians. Now it makes even less sense lol...
like what
@@jayd4ever www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
I've read a lot of responses to these points, and the site includes some responses, but the responses involve a lot of theological and mental acrobatics to reconcile.
it's simple. paul's jesus is the celestial being of philo. the historical jesus of the gospels comes from mark, who is using paul as his source material. The other gospels are using mark as their source material. everyone pretends the gospels come first, but this is backwards.
Bruh half this debate is just interruptions for ads. It's so annoying especially near the end that carrier wasn't able to make points any longer than a few sentences. When you're discussing the historicity of jesus you have to have time to discuss and make your points
As always, Carrier is never at a loss for countering any of the supposed strongest arguments for the historicity of Jesus.
why doesn't he debate bart ehrman or michael grant he is just atheist apologist
Ehrman refuses to debate him.
Don't know who Michael Grant is.
Raoul Borans Last read Bart Ehrman decided Richard Carrier is an arrogant and egotistical prick who addressed Dr. Ehrman with such nasty language in his critique of Ehrman's book did Jesus Exist? that Ehrman said he wouldn't debate Carrier or anyone who is so crass and scholars who disagree continue to be polite and professional. But Carrier spoke to and shook hands with Ehrman after his debate in Milwaukee with Bob Price. So maybe Ehrman has a different impression of Carrier now. Ehrman the man fears no one in a NewTestmant/Christian origin debate. Michael Grant died in 2004 and was a well respected classical ancient historian and expert in Tacitus the ancient historian. Grant was a religious skeptic but accepted a historical Jesus who likely did utter some of the sayings quoted in the gospels. I think the skeptical Jesus Seminar voted Jesus said about 13% of his NT quotes.
Obviously, Ehrman still fears Carrier.
Price is nowhere near the skilled debater and has nothing close to the historical knowledge of Carrier which is probably the reason Ehrman really won't debate him.
If you're intellectually honest enough to listen to it, there is no one who can dismantle Carrier's hypothesis hands down. The best anyone can do is present an argument that could go either way.
That is the problem of interpreting an ancient religious text.
We know what it's meant to tell us but what is the truth behind the story?
Once you strip away all bias, you have to use historical context and probability.
That is what Carrier has done with the Jesus story and any reasonable person has to admit the possibility or they are just being ignorant to facts.
Raoul Borans Ehrman is a textual critic, Greek and Hebrew scholar and has 30 plus years of New Testament study at the PhD level. Carrier is not as schooled in New Testament as Ehrman. Carrier is a classical historian with emphasis on the first century. So they are not exactly the same kind of experts. Ehrman would challenge Carrier on the James the Lord's brother passage in Galatians for example explaining how the Greek and context shows a blood relative. Carrier would counter as he does here that one can't be sure if Paul means spiritual or blood brother. Ehrman is convinced a historical Jesus existed and Carrier doubts it but is not certain. I've written Carrier and while he thinks the mythical Jesus theory is compelling and to him more probable, he told me it's possible Jesus did exist and if so the Christ of the church and gospels is mythical as skeptical scholars all agree. It would be a mistake to say Richard Carrier is more advanced in New Testament than Bart Ehrman or a James Tabor or a Burton Mack or a Bob Price. If Carrier researched and studied the New Testament to the depth of the men I just mentioned while he worked his PhD at Columbia I has escaped my attention. Of course I'm not saying Carrier isn't an expert and ancient historian. I'm saying his degree is different than Ehrman or Price or Mack or Tabor. Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins had different degrees but lectured both lectured about the universe. No Ehrman says he will debate anyone on the New Testament providing the money is there which he denotes to charity. He charges a hefty sum because he hasn't the time to debate frequently. Milwaukee atheists raised Ehrman's expensive fee for the Price debate. Price is absolutely a NT expert but apparently is not in the best of shape these days but did okay to me but not as sharp as he would have been 5 or 10 years ago.
McLatchie keeps serving up 'nothing balls' and Carrier consistently knocks them all into the deep, 'nose bleed' seats at Logic Stadium. Sorry McLatchie, you're not quite ready for the Big Leagues and your textual reaches expose a circular devotion to a desired conclusion not a commitment to a detached, objective methodology that takes us where the evidence leads.
Why is this guy even attempting to go up against Carrier? Wanted to commit debate suicide, I guess.
Lol check out his "debate" with Dilahunty. It's hilarious because he has learned NOTHING.
All religious scholars sound the same , desperately clinging to passages that conform to their delusion of their beliefs .
Majority of atheists who interested in this subject just don't care what the truth is , but are interested in the truth . It makes no difference wether historical Jesus existed or not . But to people like mclatchie it matters a great deal . If mclatchie found out Jesus never existed his world would crumble !!
new militant atheists are against the truth they want to prove Christianity is wrong
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa
I can't speak for every athiest , but all Richard carrier is doing is studying history . It's got nothing to do with right or wrong . It's got to do with what is ! Nothing more . Evidence shows Christianity is as with all religions , simply a product of its time , Ignorant of reality and facts . People still cling to religions for traditional values , a sense of belonging , fear of death and the worse kind brainwashing
no he isn't he reintrepreting to fit his mythist view you must be atheistic moran if you think carrier is not apologist for atheism and mythism
@AnarchoRepublican
Where is he wrong ?
@@jayd4ever
What is he reinterpreting exactly?
Pathetic. Mclatchie should "thank God" he had the moderator to save him. Then he had the nerve to go on Atheist Experience and call Carrier a "trainwreck"
Do you know what episode that was a kinda wanna see that
This guy believes food magic is real and it's one of his reasons to be compelled. What a dumbass.
McLatchie seems a very smart person. But, he equates the supposed amount of detail in the Gospel to "must be true". Has he ever read "Lord of the Rings" by Tolkien? The whole Bible pales in comparison to the amount of vivid detail in these 3 books. I guess it must be true that story about hobbits and dragons. It must have happened before they went extinct! No way someone could ever make that up...
those books are known fictional books not every book is written as history
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa Only known fiction because we know who wrote it, he stated that it is fiction and none of the elements can be proven to be real. The Bible? We do not know who wrote it, we can not verify that the events are real or fictional and the events described often contradict physics or known history. The historical nature of the events has to be demonstrated before we are in a position to accept it as history. We are far from that.
@@jayd4ever the bible is a known fictional book.
@AnarchoRepublican How many people write a book has no bearing as to whether the content is real or fictional. I wonder which New Testament book are you certain about its author and how did you determine that?
So, remember, how many people write a book does not imply “non fiction”
Also, a man walking on water, scaring away demons, flying on camels or cruising around in majic carpets is likely fiction unless you have such good evidence that can convince you otherwise.
Just checking: I am assuming you don’t believe Mohamed rode around in a flying horse. Right? And if you read that in a Bible, would you be gullible enough to believe it? Or are you really that gullible?
I really wish Christians would evaluate the quality of their evidence (ie their bible) before hanging all their arguments on it. Uncritically accepting the gospels as reliably historical without looking at what actual biblical scholars are saying about them being myth (along with most of the Old Testament), makes them look as silly as Muslims proving their religion is true using only the Koran.
Acts of the Apostles has long ago been recognised as non - historical and highly Fictional. Centuries ago biblical scholars began to notice that it was incomplete and tendentious-its picture of a harmonious church is quite at odds with that given by Paul's letters, and it omits important events such as the deaths of both Peter and Paul. The mid-19th-century scholar Ferdinand Baur suggested that Luke had re-written history to present a united Peter and Paul and advance a single orthodoxy against the Marcionites. (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who wished to cut Christianity off entirely from the Jews). Acts must be met with highly critical assessment of its historical nature. The Jesus Seminar a diverse background of prominent biblical scholars concluded:1. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
2. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as one of his sources.3. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historical source can be definitively identified for Acts.4. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.5. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.6. Acts constructed its story on the model of epic and related literature7. Acts constructed its story to fit ideological goals.8. The author of Acts created names for characters as a storytelling device.9. As a product of the second century, Acts is a historical resource for understanding second century Christianity.10. The Acts Seminar has not found there to be a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts.
hifastflyer There are only two Bible scholars in the Jesus seminar bro. That are prominent at least.
hifastflyer Also, the consensus on the dating of the Book of Acts puts it in the *1st century*.
Acts used many early 2 nd Century writings such as Josephus as source material. Most biblical scholars now recognise Acts is pure FICTION.
m.th-cam.com/video/xyIx4aImz8o/w-d-xo.html
it is accepted as historical and of value and everything except john in new testament is accepted to be first century but scholars disagree if it was written by luke Christians say
Far from accepted and most scholars recognise the complete myth and fictitious stories of the Acts and also it is very late 2 nd century. Carrier dstroys the myth of Acts in this video using peer reviewed scholarship not Blind Faith in delusional religious fairy tales. th-cam.com/video/B5MUUP4l6l4/w-d-xo.html
Richard for the obvious win. No surprises here.
I reserve a particularly vehement contempt for people like Jonathan McLatchie. He's highly intelligent and very well educated, yet he clings to embarrassing nonsense like Christianity. There are a lot of poorly educated people out there who really don't know any better, but this guy should. The only conclusion you can reach is that he is profoundly dishonest.
he is accepting what Christians teach and most academics and scholars say
He just desperately wants to go to heaven I think.
That’s how indoctrination works, even Newton was a devote Christian.
It's more of a mental virus than a matter of intellect
Yeah I followed this guy for a few years when I was Christian. Found him on something called the trinity channel. He even talked to me face to face in a video call once to answer some of my questions, I had set this up on some apologetics page. I think he's one of the more intelligent apologists and he has a lot of potential to use his mind for the good of others but he's either so brainwashed by christianity or he's extremely good at hiding his dishonesty. To me he seems to believe he's doing something good and he seems to genuinely care about people. Maybe I'm wrong
One good possible invited to your program is Matt... Matt Dillahunty .
I love how Mclatchie continues to fall them coincidence while Carrier is actively saying scholars agree John had a copy of the gospels. He completely ignored him and kept repeating himself.
“I don’t think it’s likely to have so many coincidences.”
“Yeah they aren’t coincidences.”
“I still don’t think the coincidences are likely.”
what scholar most accept that luke and matthew may have used mark and another indepedent source but mark and john are indepedent
> The scholarly consensus in the second half of the 20th century was that John was independent of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but this agreement broke down in the last decade of the century and there are now many who believe that John did know some version of Mark and possibly Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order. Key terms from the synoptics, however, are absent or nearly so, implying that if the author did know those gospels he felt free to write independently.
It’s standard New Testament scholarship. Look it up if you want the sources. Readily available in Wikipedia.
@@jayd4ever No. Luke and Matthew (use each other and) are using Mark. John is using all 3.
Carrier wins this easily...!!! If this *gabby narrator would just shut the hell up* , we might have enough time to hear Dr. Carriers views..... seems he thinks he must spoon feed and repeat EVERYTHING both Dr. Carrier and *Mumbles McLatchie* say , which takes most of the time away from Richards answers... !!! 🙄😳🙄
carrier said enough
Holy sprite is out of carrier mind.
Apparently Bart Ehrman is now also of the opinion that Paul believed in a celestial Jesus. Specifically, he wrote on his blog yesterday that "... in Galatians 4:14 Paul is not contrasting Christ to an angel; he is equating him to an angel".
like explaining algebra to a cat..
Elaine Pagels' recent book, "Gnostic Paul" quite likely is helping to shift the scales towards Paul's ability to expound a Mythological Jesus at the same time it is as milk being lapped up by hordes of theistic kittens. In the process, Paul's Gnostic terminology is rather self-evident as being heard dualistically, but particularly 'pneumatic' in everything, even Resurrection. It is quite clear that Paul and John are two which stand against the three synoptic 'gospels'. By the way, Jewish sources which know that the Davidic line came from the grandmother Ruth are aware that both David and Jesus are Convert- genealogy derived, NOT Jewish. But it's not to be the issue---- the progress of Soul and Spirit are .
" the progress of Soul and Spirit are " What is your evidence for these things?
All I know is king David would have been a Moabite not an Israelite. Ha, go figure
I've often invited historicists who think that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus to provide a simple list containing Paul's supposed references to Jesus's parables, baptism by John, raising of dead people, cures, exorcisms, conflicts with Pharisees, priests, scribes, family, disciples, his transfiguration, his calming the storm, his miracle at Cana, his walking on water/stilling storms, selection of "the Twelve", his friendship with Lazarus, his long stay in Capernaum, etc., etc. No one has ever provided such a list. The Epistles cite nothing whatsoever about a historical Jesus, which means either that they had no example to cite, or dismissed it for unknown reasons. If Jesus existed, the Epistles would mention his ministry and teachings plentifully - just as any book about Scientology would mention founder L. Ron Hubbard, and any book about the Gettysburg Address would mention Lincoln. Not mentioning the historical Jesus in books purportedly founded on his historical existence strongly indicates that they had no historical figure to cite. Carrier makes a lot of sense.
Stephen Bastasch Hi Stephen. Do you mean inviting the average Christian in the pew at mass or Sunday sermon? Most don't know much about the letters of Paul. I doubt you mean a pastor, priest or scholar with an advance degree. I'm an agnostic but raised in the church. Probably became a skeptic at age 13. But I did try to pass my tests in school and remember in 1st Cor 11:22-24 Paul mentions the teaching of Jesus per the last supper which closely parallels Luke 22:19-20 and Luke was supposedly written years after Paul wrote. In Gal 4:4 Paul wrote Jesus was born of a woman which to me indicates Paul knew nothing about the later virgin birth doctrine so important to Catholics. And in Gal 4:4 Paul states Jesus "was born under the law" which means to any Jew reading or hearing Paul say this 2,000 years ago that Jesus was a JEW! In Romans 1:3 Paul claims Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. 1 Cor 9:5 Paul says Jesus had brothers and in Catholic school it's twisted to claim Paul was actually referencing cousins because in Catholic theology Mary remained a virgin. Paul knew Peter had a special role in the Jerusalem church and James was Jesus' brother but in Catholic school you better put cousin if you want to pass. I think it's a better than 50/50 chance Paul meant blood brother for James in Gal 1:19 because Peter is also mentioned but no mention of Both Peter and James being brother of the Lord so a spiritual brother doesn't seem likely to me. Dr. Carrier is no hack though. I've swapped Email with him several years ago and he indicated if we knew with certainty Paul met the actual blood brother of Jesus then Jesus likely existed. And that while he (Carrier) doubts Jesus existed unlike most PhD level scholars, Carrier told me it's possible he did and then the Jesus people such as Tabor, Mack, Ehrman would likely be who Jesus was but the Jesus of the Catholic faith is myth. Also I find the position of Bishop Spong on the virgin birth to be convincing. That Paul never heard of it. It was invented by a gospel writer because he didn't read Hebrew and had a bad Greek translation of the Jewish Bible that read a virgin would be with child when the Messiah would be born and the actual Hebrew text reads young woman not virgin.
born of a women doesn't go against Jesus being a virgin
Iloveapplefritters In Galatians Paul argues that his concept of the gospel is correct because he received it by no man but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. James and Peter who apparently were apostles before Paul held a different twist on the gospel. Paul writes in Galatians he rebuked St. Peter to his face and rejected the arguments from men sent by James.
Stephen Bastasch There is absolutely no reason to because the writings of Paul leads every believer to Jesus in the gospels which is why all Christians accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and are saved by him.Stop ignoring the proof like Carrier does. If Carrier was correct Christians would not believe in the Jesus in the gospels and yet every Christian does.
Stephen Bastasch I Love Apostle Paul. For you.
th-cam.com/video/Vd-dawntk9U/w-d-xo.html
This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own. Sam Harris.
And Harris is a fool
What leads a grown man to dedicate his life to trying to convince people ancient magic ghost stories are real ?
Exactly. Why would Paul and others invent a figure and preach about this invented figure when it led to floggings, beatings and a brutal nomadic existence which ended in death by decapitation? What was the pay off? Where is the motivation?
Not only Paul... David Koresh, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, John of Leiden, etc.
Carrier could strengthen his arguments about Paul by reading up more on "Gnosticism" (for want of a better word). It's surprising he doesn't mention the Gnostic connection with some of the key terms in the Pauline epistles. Archontes, aiones, pneumatikoi, etc.
Exactly. Paul's entire entire alleged encounter with jesus was a personal revelation, which is exactly what Gnosis is
Carrier has an article about gnosticism, it didn't exist. He is well versed.
mclatch: we have the _last_ supper in corinthian...urm it's the *LORD'S* supper. Very telling.
Nothing has done more to push me toward, and reinforce, my atheism than apologists of McLactchie's ilk.
While understanding it's a radio program, then pretty good, buf if I should compare it to a typical debate one could watch on TH-cam then I would have to say the moderator is very interruptive, stuttering and thus annoying. He would have been a better moderator if he wouldn't come in between these two all the time, rephrase stuff and ask further questions of his own... it was a big annoyance. Otherwise, thanks! (both to the creators and the uploader)
Christian apologists are alwasy seething by the end of these debates but trying maintain the facade that they're credible people
Paul never existed. Duh
say that about about all people at that time who were not men of authority like rulers
This is Dr Robert Price's position. Need to re-read his book again. The Colossal Apostle, I think it is.
Is this a debate between John and Carrier or Carrier and the moderator? SMH this was two vs one and Carrier STILL won the day hahaha
Carrier is fishy.
He says the epistles have a certain intent which only he knows. When you read Paul innocently you find Jonathan's position.
@@koppite9600 when does he claim only he knows that? Time stamp?
@@49perfectss he is arguing from that angle. He doesn't trust Paul to be without an agenda.
@@koppite9600 I don't trust your ability to accurately interpret what is being said as I do not recognize what you're talking about being in this debate. Which is why I'm asking for a time stamp to an example.
@@49perfectss I can't place a timestamp but that's what he argues.
He says Mark is rewriting Moses when we have no proof of this.
He says the early Christians are copying the religions around him.. unless he is psychic he shouldn't know this etc.
I've found it 39:23 he says they are writing a legend.. Tell me how carrier knows this.
40:48 Carrier automatically knows that something is being propagandised... this is possible IF Carrier is attacking the texts from a biased angle
Could someone grab this Jonathan guy a glass of water? Thanks.
A great book on Acts is, " the Mystery of Acts" by Richard I. Pervo.
What an unfortunate last name.
Wow John knows nothing about history! He just wants the Bible to be true so he blindly accepts it's claims and he thinks that's convincing? Carrier buried him here by simply exposing how little he knows! Well done Richard. John it was hilarious watching you rage quit against Matt lol
This pagan Christian is giving me a headache
why
Jesus is faux.
Richard carrier is someone I view as a foolish mythicist who completely ignores the main stream accounts for the historical existence of Jesus for his own agenda. Bart even called him extremely rude if I remember correctly so it’s hard for me to believe that he’s truth seeking and instead just looking to disprove something he hates.
Surprise, Carrier who went to school in Berkley believes in a new age Jesus.
@AnarchoRepublican Dr. Carrier stated he used to be a Taoist.
@AnarchoRepublican He said he was a Taoist. Past tense.
@AnarchoRepublican My elder son's dealing with Dr. Carrier never found him to lie,
The new age jesus is the original jesus, patterned after the inana cult.
@@spiritsplice Who Moved the Stone? by Frank Morison (Author)
"I owe Morison a great debt of gratitude. Who Moved the Stone? was an important early link in a long chain of evidence that God used to bring me into his kingdom. Morison’s stirring intellectual exploration of the historical record proved to be an excellent starting point for my spiritual investigation." --From the foreword by Lee Strobel
Good for you Jonathan McLatchie for bringing up Richard Carrier's appeal to consensus on the authorship of the (alleged) Pauline writings. He does this in every talk I've seen of his - appeals to scholarly consensus when it confirms his position or points out that scholarly consensus is an insufficient argument when it doesn't. For the record I think his argument is decent overall and I don't believe Jesus existed but his hypocrisy on this massively grinds my gears.
He doesn't appeal to the consensus, he says that he agrees with it based on the evidence presented. This saves him summarising the arguments, which in the case of the disputed letters of Paul is considerable. Whereas the consensus re Q is based on very little evidence that doesn't ALSO imply that Matthew=Q, so he doesn't agree with that, and does agree with the arguments against the existence of Q which are based on evidence. By agreeing with some consensus's he's shortcut the evidence, which he just references.
carrier is doing the same thing like when he choose only 7 of accepted paul epistles
@@jayd4ever Pretty much every NT scholar accepts only 7 genuine letters. Get a grip.
Greetings from Pakistan.
Dr Jonathan you’re an inspiration. Your messages touched my heart and mind.
God bless you ✊❤️
He got his ass kicked in this debate. Perhaps you ought to listen more carefully
Great JOb Jonathan in both debates. Blessings!
It is just simply wrong of Paul to state rulers are not a terror to good works. That is a stupid saying for the history of humanity is more than not, littered with terrible and terrifying rulers. This is one of the stupidest sayings I can think of in the Bible.
where he say that
@AnarchoRepublican Most often, Governments suppress their people, not for moral reasons of safety of freedom, but for their families and personal aggrandizement of leadership and wealth. The leaders are wealthy and people often not and people without knowing about relationships, money, or physical health.
Richard Carrier just projects the way HE operates onto everybody else involved in faithfully transmitting the record of Christ's life. The person most afraid of being pick-pocketed is the pick-pocket himself. He knows how to do it and suspects everyone.
Nonsense, stop being dishonest.
Richard is only making light of the points. it is clear for who ever listens carefully John is actually bringing good points
"The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way. . .Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. . The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people." (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels "The Critique of German Ideology")
"No investigation, no right to speak: Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense.These people are bound to make a mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses and prove incapable of solving any problem at all." (Mao tse-Tung)"Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike. Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all." (Thomas Paine "The Age of Reason")
Best evidence rule applies predicated upon dispassionate collection of all relative data, shared with colleagues to examine indepence of his or her critical examination. when a party wants to present to dispassionate cologues. evidence the contents of a document at trial, but that the original document is not available. In this case, the party must provide an acceptable excuse for its absence. If the document itself is not available. Marxian materialist conception of history -- Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", David Ricardo "Principles of Political Economy" and Karl Marx "Capital" are analysis of modes of production and appropriation based on empirical data explaining relations of production. """""""
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. . . The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class; about the premises for the latter sufficient has already been said above." (Marx/Engels ibid.)
Karl Kautsky Foundations of Christianity Book Four: The Beginnings of Christianity V. The Development of the Christian Community
Proletarians and Slaves
WE HAVE SEEN that some elements of Christianity, such as monotheism, Messianism, belief in resurrection and Essenian communism arose within Judaism, and that a part of the lower classes of that nation saw their longings and wishes best expressed in the combination of those elements. We saw further that all through the social organism of the Roman world empire conditions prevailed which tended to make it more receptive, particularly in its proletarian parts, to the new trends stemming from Judaism, but that these currents not only broke away from Judaism as soon as they came under the influence of the non-Jewish milieu, but were even directly hostile to it. They now merged with currents in the dying Greco-Roman world which changed the spirit of strong national democracy that prevailed in Judaism up to the destruction of Jerusalem into its complete opposite, replacing it with spineless submission, servility and longing for death.
As the current of thought was thus changing, the organization of the Christian community too was undergoing a deep transformation.
At first the community had been permeated by an energetic though vague communism, an aversion to all private property, a drive toward a new and better social order, in which all class differences should be smoothed out by division of possessions.
The Christian community was indeed originally a fighting organization, if our hypothesis is correct that the various violent passages of the Gospels, which are otherwise inexplicable, are remnants of the original tradition. That would also be in complete accord with the historical situation of the Jewish commonwealth of that time.
It would be quite incredible that a proletarian sect should be unaffected by the general revolutionary state of mind. Hope for the revolution, for the coming of the Messiah, for social change permeated all the first Christian organizations in Judaism at any rate. Care for the present, that is practical work on a small scale, was far in the background.
This state of affairs changed after the destruction of Jerusalem. The elements that had given the Messianic community a rebellious character had lost, and the Messianic community became more and more an anti-Jewish community within the non-Jewish proletariat, which neither could nor wanted to fight. The longer the community lasted, the clearer it became that they could no longer count on the fulfillment of the prophecy, still to be found in the Gospels, that the contemporaries of Jesus would live to see the revolution. Confidence in the coming of the “Kingdom of God” here below faded; the Kingdom of God, that was to have descended from heaven to earth, was transferred more and more to heaven; the resurrection of the body was transformed into immortality of the soul, for which the bliss of heaven or the tortures of hell were reserved.
The more the Messianic expectation of the future took on these celestial forms, becoming politically conservative or indifferent, the more practical care for the present came to the fore. And the practice of communism changed in the same degree in which revolutionary enthusiasm waned. That practice had risen originally from an energetic though vague drive toward the abolition of all private property, a drive to relieve the property of the comrades by making all property common.
www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch10.htm#s3
Interesting debate Johnathon thanks. We need to meet up again love to share and hear about what we each have found in Abraham antetype and Christ. And more biology please. YHWH bless you.
I" know that God made my son " no, you can't KNOW it , (if you can't show it) you can only believe it,no matter how certain you are of that belief.
Don't exclude Asherah in your blessing. Remember that the oldest artifact we have for YHWH is "Yahweh and his Asherah". Just because a bunch of later guys decided to remove and vilify her doesn't mean we should follow suit! Perhaps you should say "YHWH and his Asherah bless you."
People who study witness testimony for a living have come to the faith by looking at the New Testament and determining it's actual witness testimony.
People who study eye witness testimony all come to realize it is not something to be trusted
Erroneously
Experience is also one of the greatest teachers of all time, but we do not call 'him' Rabbi, or insist that he could speak Aramaic, and had to be historical. Hysterical! The Sun is the mystery of that only "life giver" which dispels the merchandise of Lies.
Carrier has never explained as far as I am aware why Paul and others created this mythical figure. Humans do things for a reason. They are motivated by greed, lust for power and I have never heard a motivation ascribed to Paul or the gospel writers. So what is it?
Thus, because I am not smart enough to debunk R.C's arguments, as a Christian this is highly frustrating. How can we conclusively know what to believe?
Frankly, Richard Carrier’s arguments and positions are very easy to debunk. I’d be happy to do a Zoom call to discuss if you’re interested?
@@JonathanMcLatchie Well, I am no good at these type of things.
@@JonathanMcLatchie
*Frankly, Richard Carrier’s arguments and positions are very easy to debunk.*
And yet you spectacularly failed to do that.
@@JonathanMcLatchie weird you didn't do that in this debate then... Kinda just kept getting your arguments shredded while exposing your lack of biblical familiarity... Almost like you lying to yourself... Huh.
@@49perfectss I would be interested to hear which of my arguments you think Carrier refuted?
The fact that Paul preached to the gentiles and the majority of Christians are gentiles PROVES that Paul believed in Jesus. Richard Carrier is ignoring the proof.And so do we thanks to Paul preaching about Jesus to gentiles and revealing what Jesus did for us after he died and rose again because Jesus paid for our salvation in full and that now salvation through Jesus is a gift from God ,not of works, lest any man should boast.This makes Christianity the only unique religion in the world because ALL other religions teach works for salvation.
And yet Paul knows next to nothing about Jesus's life and allegedly met some of Jesus's disciples and he was writing circa 20yrs after the alleged Crucifixion - explain that if you can!!! 'Believing' in something doesn't make it true and is not 'proof'.
HughJaxident67 I already have given proof that Paul spoke of Jesus in the gospels because for 2000 years Christians have been saved by Jesus of the gospels who died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead and paid for our salvation in full. Stop ignoring the proof like Richard Carrier does. You really think that Christians don't know who Jesus Christ is? You're just fooling yourself with nonsense. You might not know who Jesus is but Christians do.
+abelcainsbrother
*I already have given proof that Paul spoke of Jesus in the gospels*
Paul had no idea about the 'Jesus in the Gospels', he was writing BEFORE the Gospels were written for goodness sake! Moreover, Paul's references were exclusively scriptural and through revelation through scripture, not an earthly Jesus who he knew nothing about and never met.
*because for 2000 years Christians have been saved by Jesus of the gospels who died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead and paid for our salvation in full*
Ignoring the fact this is a non sequitur following on from your initial (and false) assertion, you cannot demonstrate or present evidence for any of this. Furthermore, Jesus was allegedly god incarnate, the same god who was solely responsible for giving humanity a sinful nature in the first instance! And why a barbaric human blood sacrifice to achieve this exactly? An all powerful god could simply forgive and not have to resort to 'blood magic'. The whole premise of your religion is absurd and immoral.
*Stop ignoring the proof like Richard Carrier does*
There is no 'proof' buddy, that's the point, and you've offered nothing but baseless assertions to date.
*You really think that Christians don't know who Jesus Christ is?*
Correct! None of you actually 'know' Jesus Christ, indeed, there is no good evidence the man even existed.
*You're just fooling yourself with nonsense*
Unfortunately, it's your position that can be summarized as nonsense, not mine.
*You might not know who Jesus is but Christians do*
Nope, you just believe in a proposition, one absent of evidence or reason.
HughJaxident67 The proof you ignore is the millions of Christians world wide who believe in Jesus Christ of the gospels but as usual you as an atheist ignore evidence but accept atheism without any evidence at all it is true.You have a habit of ignoring evidence to believe lies and it is because you are an atheist who thinks that because you're an atheist you don't need any evidence and have none.
HughJaxident67 LOL! The truth hurts you and I hope it does.Learn to go by evidence and you'll reject atheism.You might not become a Christian but you'll reject atheism right off the bat due to a lack of evidence.
People like Richard Carrier are akin to a man who makes a convincing sounding argument that my wife doesn't exist... And yet I just got off the phone with her. If only Carrier would speak with people like Ronald H. Nash, Michael J. Kruger, and James White, then he could be educated properly about the reality of Jesus.
Closer to him making an argument that unicorns don't exist while you think you have an invisible intangible one in your garage that you can't prove. Nice strawman I guess lol
@@49perfectss
And yet we know that God exists because He told us that He does. Therefore any arguments to the contrary are rather silly.
@@lawrencestanley8989 lol we don't know a god exists at all. That's why atheism is the fastest growing view on gods in the world. When did you think we found a god? Haha what a silly response. Did you also find the unicorn?
@@49perfectss
Are you interested in a serious conversation based on rationality and facts, or are you here only to mock that which you do not know?
@@lawrencestanley8989 I want reason and evidence. You have given nothing but a claim that this response tells me you can't back up. I would love an adult conversation. What evidence so you have for a god?
Evidence: a fact or set of facts that are independently verifiable that point to the truth of one proposition or conclusion over and exclusive to any other.
I wish Dr Carrier would use his intelligence to take his thesis to the next level.
How does one who's life has been dedicated to the ideals of christianity for a lifetime (self-sacrifice, discipline, generosity [religious tend to be the most generous charitable givers], personal responsibility, and honor of the dignity if the individual, move from faith to faithlessness? Atheists tend to be more leftist/trusting in government in a way that almost replaces "god" with the State (Stephan Molyneux). From what i can tell, religion seems to be innate to the human mind, and when one god is removed, thw void is filled by sometimes less admirable "gods or ideals."
We humans need direction/responsibility.
I would love to hear a convo between Jordan Peterson and Sr Carrier. I think it would change Carrier's life.
*What a ridiculous rant!*
Stephan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson?
I just puked in my mouth a little bit
Malenaux and peterson are both jokes.
A caricature of what "intelligence" looks like, for stupid sycophants.
Even if you could prove belief in God is innate (rather than just assert it) it: 1) does nothing to prove God's are real 2) ignores that there are other innate things that are harmful and can be overcome.
Carrier is regarded as a fringe dweller by secular historians. Why is this the case? Why would non believing historians find his arguments so weak and unconvincing? Nobody has ever explained this to me.
The mental gymnastics would be a lot more enjoyable to listen to if they weren't leading people straight to Hell. Rock solid defense, Johnathon. Thank you.