@@DiddleyBoh why were you shocked? The only argument the historicism crowd has is as hominem. Go ahead and talk to any for over a minute and watch them lose their mind.
I feel like Jon kept trying to make Richard say that he thought he was just a super-smart genius who was leagues ahead of his time. That's NOT what Carrier was saying, he was saying that no one else has touched this subject in peer-reviewed literature in so long that he was really the only modern game in town,and when people keep addressing the 1923 argument they're not addressing what he's proposing. that's not arrogance IMO
even if it were, its not like the point is impacted about it. If I was the most insufferable rude person in history and you were the nicest most charismatic one you could still be incorrect and I could be correct about a statement of fact.
Carrier deserved a better debate opponent, but overall the conversation was decent (mostly as a result of a unique format and Carrier's own performance).
Why do you suppose Carrier reached out to Seattle Atheists when he was coming to town, and not universities or historical organizations. I guess he knows his target audience.
Cameron Gallegos Tweet was really really really outclassed, academic types won't debate him because they don't want that to happen to them in front of everyone LoL
IDK how he expected anything else : layman talked to some scholars vs a guy who studied it hardcore for six years, got a PhD for the work, and published.
This Jonathan guy sounds like a middle schooler who didn't read the book and gets called up in front of his class to present his book report. Embarrassing.
+Jonathan Tweet you did your best and I believe you were sincere. But I'd have to say that you didn't seem very well prepared or knowledgeable about this topic. Either way I enjoyed it
Tim Blizzard Are you sure Carrier is a New Testament scholar with the credentials and experience of Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, Burton Mack and Bishop Spong? These 4 men have been around for decades and have many peer reviewed papers and books. In Galatians where Paul says he went up to Jerusalem to meet those who were apostles before Paul was an apostle Paul writes he met only Peter and he met James the Lord's brother. Carrier says that passage likely means spiritual brother rather than blood brother and if we could be sure it means blood brother which most scholars hold, then the debate about Jesus being entirely mythical would be over. To me the proof blood brother is what is meant here is Paul didn't apply it to Peter who clearly was a spiritual brother. And Paul says Jesus was born UNDER THE LAW which means Jesus was a Jew. Last time I commutated with Carrier he wasn't absolutely certain the Jesus myth theory was right. He said there just isn't enough information to be dogmatic. So to me unless you're going to agree with Robert Price that ALL of Paul's letters are fakes, which Carrier doesn't agree, the Jesus myth theory fails. No wonder the majority of skeptical New Testament scholars find it unconvincing. You need to check out some of the Bishop Spong vids here on TH-cam. The Bishop is much more experience at New Testament criticism than Carrier with all due respect to Carrier.
I love how, every time, in every debate, when the interlocutor is speaking, Carrier is busy taking notes and looking up sources. And the interlocutor is almost /never/ doing that. That's what sets them apart.
WLC is certifiably insane. IMO Carrier isn’t capable of believing anyone is as lunatic as WLC. Probably spent the whole time nauseated and mentally stunned any still living brain that messed up could even wear shoes..
It's weird Richard didn't point out that, at a popular level, 2nd Temple Judaism included angel worship, and so the worship of a purely celestial Jesus fits perfectly in that context.
@@SouthGallaecian yeah there really was nothing original about the whole thing. If Paul were alive today he would be running a yoga studio, greet people with namaste, tell you about the dangers of gluten, and be able to sing some song written by a 25 year old millionaire in the 1960s as if it was the most profound thing ever. The only thing that made Paul stand out is he was just better at it compared to most self-help shaman gurus.
@@SouthGallaecian to be fair if you ran a used car dealership you would definitely want him as one of your salesmen. He was this tiny guy, with speech problems, and half blind yet people listened to what he had to say. They were afraid of him, loved him, and admired him. He wasn't a deep thinker he was a deep speaker. A pity he didn't use his powers for good instead of evil.
@@donaldclifford5763 just succumbs? You meant "tweet" as in X or am I mistaken? Anywho... this debate seems interesting, but it is so old I cant even respond to it, and I dont even like Carrier... Atheism+ was bad, and the boolean argument is mostly a tautology... but still, he thought me a lot about bibliography... so thanks... but care anybody to told me the best jesus proof by date? I like Hermann and all, but he is all about Paul... and I'll never understand whyyyyy. So Paul most probably write those letters, and is conversion is genuinly absurd... anything better? Just curious
Dr carriers patience is absolutely amazing. I've watched him in multiple debates and it is exceedingly rare that anybody can even close to describe his actual position they just constantly argue these ridiculous strawmans and then scoff and insult him and he just calmly eviscerates their responses it is rather impressive
It was weird because they were coming at it from different angles. John was arguing as a 2nd hand reviewer of other people's first-hand scholarship (and mostly just "comments" rather than total works on the issue), while Richard was arguing as a 1st hand researcher himself. So, John had a vague picture cobbled up without many exact details, and Richard had a bunch of detail on his side. Richard is right, someone needs to do a scholarly counter-rebuttal, not just settle on the work from the 1920s.
letsomethingshine - that's the fundamental problem. Scholarly consensus should only be convincing to people who do not work in the field. To a professional academic historian the number of people who disagree with you is irrelevant. I'm just finishing a PHD in ancient history and I can point to numerous examples where a specific book has successfully challenged scholarly consensus - that's how the field moves forward.
Imo Ehrman is a superb interviewee, but a very poor debater. He gets nervous at every attack, stops thinking, laughs, stutters a bit, but never really counters. Carrier seems not to be able to recognize personal attacks whatsoever. I think he overestimates his opponent’s intelligence and sense of fair-play..
The pushy “tell me you are proud of yourself being ahead so I can call you to arrogant to listen to the ideas” sprinkled every third speaking opportunity had already crumbled his credibility for me. Not to mention my active ignoring his start off Pauline admissed at the beginning “I learned everything I know about my favorite non-historian Bible scholars and theologians by reading Wikipedia and the I also talked to them a bit and they CONFIRMED me.” Without having proven to us that his confirmation bias was tested against. I feel it is obvious from the evidence that the character of “Jesus” is a coagulation of historical Joshua’s and non-Joshua’s including the Jesus/Joshua general that Rome killed with a catapult and likely they nailed his body to a tree to display his criminality in terms of civil war aka sedition aka treason aka insurrection.
Jonathan's closing butthurt statement surprised me because he looked as a student listening to a teacher and agreeing with almost everything he says. It wasn't even a debate. It was funny though that Richard wasn't even paying attention to his rumbling but the moderator couldn't take it anymore.
I am a professionally trained statistician and an avid amateur historian (hist. of Jesus is one of the foci). Totally agree with Richard about history and probability - historians don't know it and are afraid of it, and until they learn it and start applying it, history will not be a real science.
I'm a professional historian, and history will never be a real science. The problem with statistical tools like this is data acquisition. Bayesian logic really only helps you organise your probabilities, which are still arrived at by critical evaluation of the evidence by traditional historical means. I'd be open to using it, but i cant see how I would have included it in my PHD thesis, for instance.
@@timblizzard4226 mtg spot on, the universe (including time) is only deterministic for us at some scale, so while history will probably never be as accurately discoverable as future events, probabilities are always going to be the clear and far winner. Besides, most of us don't have such enormous bloody claims attached to our certainties about things like history, so if Jesus is God and God is real, he'd better figure that out soon if he wants intelligent people to worship out of respect lol
The great example of John not being knowledgeable is the cargo cult. He says his explain action. Richard corrects him and he has nothing to refute it. When Richard explains about Adam and Eve he can't refute it. His whole argument is, I know Jesus is real because a bunch of people who never saw him said so.
This is probably one of the most aggravating debate I’ve ever watched. The moderator talked more than the speakers did and the side who was arguing for the historicity of Jesus did nothing but agree with Richard the entire time and then at the very end decided to go completely as hominem instead of doing a closing statement. Overall this debate was a complete mess from how it was organized but I thought Richard carried it very well and as always I thought he won
I think Jesus probably existed but I hate the way this historicity guy argues. every time it's just appeals to authority with massive doses of contempt for his opponent. Richard just deals with the issues in a polite and knowledgeable way and that's why i love to listen to him
Yeah - Carrier can be defeated within the documents themselves by anyone capable of doing translation and how he cherry picks his evidence for a mythicized Jesus directly from Paul (ignoring the implication of Gal 4:4 which is completely the nail in the coffin for that argument in that book, as well as assuming Hebrews is purely heavenly but ignoring the fact that there is a pivot point in the discussion prior to those portions). I'm doing a debate on this on Thursday with a student who knows Carrier's argument in and out and I'm reading his two works...his second work and his use of Bayes' theorem is unknown in ancient history and he breaks one of his own works in "Proving History" (reading a document through for understanding) - he can't read all of Galatians and Hebrews with his ideas...and he says the Gospels "forgot the cosmic element" (I can assure you they did not) and in addition there are statements about the temple in positive ways that would make little sense to have been written by Christians after the destruction of the Temple where Christians and Jews would have been more divided...I know Jesus history is hard but it is necessary to do the hard work and parallelism for mythological elements is important (and gone waaaaaay to far by most mythicists) it is also important to do parallelism for ancient history....and the mythicists from what I have read do not do this.
Jon: No doubt. Cause talk is cheap and cost you exactly nothing. I am not all the way there on the "Mythicist" position but I am getting there. I would love to see how a person explain away the total lack of evidence for Jesus, the forgeries and the misrepresentations (for lack of a better word). The only thing holding me back is my own personal cognitive dissonance.
I completely agree, I'm personally agnostic about historical Jesus, but every time I've seen him argue with people this is the pattern - people just appeal to scholarly consensus as if its an argument. Consensus is a guide for people who are not specialists, its not something you should use to rebut a specialist PHD historian. There have been numerous times scholarly consensus has been successfully challenged by a single book, that's how the field moves forward.
@@christopherheren3237 If you think Gal 4:4 is the "nail in the coffin" for mythicism, then you need to *actually* read Richard's book. Gal 1:19 is far better evidence for a historical Jesus. Which is neat, but even that can be explained under a mythicist theory, so overall I mean anybody who actually studies the evidence, will surely realize, that it's just...not great.
Had to downvote this video because, as a moderated debate, it was pretty bad. Allowing one debater to spend such a large chunk of time with personal attacks on the other is a recipe for failure. I have a feeling a few times when Carrier said “I don’t understand your question”, what he was really saying was “How much of an asshole do you want to show yourself to be Tweet?” Also, the line of argument that goes “So you’re the only one who’s right and everyone else is wrong, huh?” would work much better in a world where Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin had never existed. But alas, one person has proven to be right when everyone else was wrong far to often in this world for that to be a valid argument.
There is a debate between Mr. Tweet and Aron Ra which is often peppered with Jon claiming that he is not a "fake atheist." I didn't know what this was referring to. Now I do. He is certainly not a scholar of Richard Carrier's caliber (though that does not negate any knowledge he has acquired) and clearly fails to make many points with which Aron agrees. The "fake atheist" label doesn't matter. I wouldn't care if they were two theologians. The facts stand on their own merits and interpretations should have evidence to back them up, regardless of whether they offer conclusive proof. Now to watch this one. I hope Jon comes off as slightly more prepared and knowledgeable than he did in ep77 of Ra-Men. However, since that only happened two weeks ago, I'm not sure he can prepare better than he did in the future. =)
I am also very skeptical about Tweet's motives here. I think I would predict that since Carrier has been saying for a while now (and others like Matt Dillahunty) that the official scholarly stamps need to start being put on mythicism, the 'other side' picked up on it and said 'we'd better get some historicity atheists asap'. I sometimes wonder if Bart Ehrman is 'influenced' ($) to maintain a strong conviction that Jesus existed, though I like him anyway. You cannot hide from the truth, as long as there is someone who refuses to quit searching for it. I say this especially to any religion with a mainstream agenda. YOUR days are numbered, and I say that without irony. This is not because we hate it. We just don't buy your nonsense. It's not congruent with reality. Sorry. Try thinking for yourself.
Yep, but He started much earlier. From the moment that He try to extort answer that "All the scholars are 100 years behind" only for that reason to use it at the end as straw man argument.
Marcin K. Definitely, I thought it was extremely tongue-in-cheek when I heard that. I swear Richard's face gets one or two shades redder during that awful sneer. How ignorant, if you think about it!!! What the hell, Tweet?! More like a Crow!
Jonathon, on your blog you posted; 1. You thought the best outcome of the debate was "it was a useful start at addressing the serious problems with Dr Carrier’s hypothesis" and 2. That you were sorry to everyone involved for not been given the chance to explain why you were being so aggressive towards Carrier regarding the hundred year gap between pier reviewed scholarship After re watching the debate, anything at all you think you might like to add?
When Tweet began explaining how he thought he could pick out the authentic Jesus saying from the Gospels, I thought for sure I'd read the description wrong and he was arguing as a Christian.
Tweet made a point out of reminding us that a good skeptic knows that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence, while at the same time inadvertently also reminding us about poisoning the well and constructing strawmen.
Carrier has a good case but I feel he didn't really get to spread his wings in this format. It's quite clear that the Christian story is rooted in Mark, which is 100% allegory and quite clearly built from Paul's "announcement". It's also clear that Paul never knew or met the Jesus, outside of dreams and visions.
If there was a human being (Jesus) is neither here nor there. The point is that the birth, life, death and resurrection is completely mythological. This is the argument.
Here’s an idea. Don’t interrupt the speakers whose actual opinions we care about. Whenever they actually interacted with genuine conversation, the moderator dude would just stop the momentum. The Tweet dude was a complete jerk with no actual evidence based arguments. He just didn’t seem to like Richard and that was his basic argument. Total waste of Carrier’s time.
ALL who argue for religion, no matter how polite, or intelligent, or informed, cannot get around one basic fact realted to what is called Occams Razor. There is no reason to postulate supernatural causes. So they can only attempt to obfuscate this with sophistry or tricks, and the ol faith claim!
Andrew G - LMFAO, you're hilarious. Why so defensive? Because you are too immature to face your own mortality and thus believe in a iron age fairy tails so you can not be scared of the dark? Don't like people outlining how RIDICULOUS these ideas are? Fucking pathetic.
Andrew G lmfao, I read your comments bitch. You know god doesn’t exist, right? And when you die you simply won’t exist. Can your 7 year old ego handle that? Somehow I don’t think so.
Flesh and blood is part of the mythicist thesis, and is also a weird thing to have to say if Jesus was supposed to be a historical person. Being "hanged" is something that happened to demigods as well as to real people, so that's not an argument for either side.
I was curious about Tweet's claim that Jews didn't name their children after angels so I went to a website for Jewish names with historical references. I found several angel names that were also given to human figures in the Jewish scriptures. Examples are Azriel, Gavriel/Gabriel, Micheal and Uriel. There are several other angel names used as given names, but it's unclear whether or not they were used as given names in 1st century CE. That "fact" against a Celestial Christ hypothesis is now (and easily) disproven. Link: www.aish.com/jl/l/b/48967016.html
You can know your argument is on weak footing when you worry about the feelings of other Scholars and choose to attack your opponent for your ending argument and midpoint argument rather than to refute his claims. I hear no refutation or debate about Richards claims. And if you listen to his claims at face value everything he saying seems perfectly plausible. I do think most Scholars throughout history have a huge bias. Most scholars in the field today are biased. This isn't your normal scientific or even less normal biblical field of study. The vast majority of people that would ever go into this field are theists and therefore are extremely biased. You want to hear a probability. Pretty much every major figure in the Bible was invented out of whole cloth. Adam & Eve, Moses, all the characters for the most part in the Gospels. Why is it so hard to believe that in a religion that started off celestrial and no Scholars really refute this. So lit the religion started off as celestrial and just like most of the other figures including God himself, none of them are real. Why is it so hard to understand? It honestly doesn't matter what most scholars believe. The fact is Jesus has written Nothing by himself. There are no first hand accounts of Jesus or his existence. So no matter how many scholars think he existed, it's the claim that he actually did that needs to be proven. Just like the god claim itself.
Good grief, could the moderator just please let them finish their thought before pulling the hand brake? The conversation & ideas are more important than ZOMG, he went 20 seconds over!
I really like the unusual way that this debate was moderated. I'll take a look at some more SA videos and see whether you have used / developed this in other places
For an academic forum there does not seem to be much historical analysis of the Roman records for the period, given the Romans spent a lot of their time writing and keeping records, as did the Jews. It seems odd that we can read about Caesar's campaigns and his dealings with the tribes he conquered, but apparently not a word from his adopted son Caesar Augustus who reigned during and after Christ's life-time, or from any contemporary writers? If Jesus made anything like the stir portrayed in the Gospels, surely Roman literature from the period would have endless reports of at least the trial. I don't see how endless discussions about the contents of the OT and NT or St Paul's epistles can help one way or the other, given they were written decades or centuries before or after the relevant events. I would like to know how much if any literature there is from the Roman literature of the period in question.
Why does the moderator need to talk that much? I can “summarize” myself. Carrier is the absolute best though. Great dude! Opponent guy is out of his league though, a total tool.
i found him at least in the begining quite useful. That is a great idea to let someone else summarize the ideas just spoken. It should be more often used in debates
Jonathan's entire closing argument completely ignores the argument from Carrier. Instead of addressing the argument, Jonathan instead attacks the person who makes the argument. I think that's quite telling. If Jonathan had a good reply to Carrier's argument, he would've used that instead attacking the man himself. Perhaps Jonathan wasn't the greatest historicist advocate for this debate
Great, a guy that studied all of the 'general consensus scholars' debating an actual historian who has continued to investigate the historical Jesus. The crucifixion was real and Tweet just got nailed.
This one crashed and burned. Richard remains undefeated. Incredible! "He's got mean things to say about lot's of other scholars.........................uh and no one is picking up his work" Fallacious AF. All I heard was "WAHHHHHHHH"
So "the world's leading Jesus doubter" has defeated "an amateur historian". Colour me unimpressed. Actually I feel that Carrier has already lost the moment he agreed to have this debate. Because if any real historian took him serious, such debates would not happen.
I guess he did, he is a PhD historian and an eloquent guy. I would expect him to win against a nobody with no academic training in historical sciences. But that's like the school bully beating up a three year old. The question is, what do real experts make of mythicism, how do they deal with the arguments? And the answer is: They tear it to shreds.
+dasGagaTier Unfortunately most debates Ive seen Richard Carrier in, his opponents have a tendency to resort to ad hominems down the line. So far, out of all his debates Zeba Cook and Trent Horn were the only two to really stay on topic. Trent Horn also attacked the main weakness in Carriers position. Which is the flimsy reach he does trying to connect Pauls Letters to the Ascension of Isaiah. That is the major flaw in Carriers position. And so far Trent Horn was the only one to address it directly.
6 years in trained greek and roman historical scholarship (Carrier) against wikipedia summary' representant (Tweet)of a consensus dated back to mid 19 century (where jesus =historical prophete). But Current consensus apparently has not yet reviewed Carrier' work which requires the application of baysian theorem.
historicity argument never made sense to me. Clearly, it's all a bunch of myth and the "historical" Jesus lived at different time, bore a different name and preached a different doctrine. So if that's still Jesus then yes, he's historical.
At the end Jonathan makes a big fuss about how he doesn’t think it’s plausible that the Jews would have an important figure whom they worshipped yet resided only in the celestial realm and asks for an example of another Jewish deity or figure that doesn’t come to earth and is only celestial? Ummm has he forgotten about the central figure that their monotheistic religion was based on?? Perhaps he wasn’t viewed as strictly celestial in the early Yahweh cult but from post-exilic right to this period in question Yahweh fits that description. Or maybe he thinks that Yahweh was earthly bc he came down once year to the temple during Yom Kippur?
Yes, I agree that religion changed from a more airy-fairy to a more tangible ("montheistic") one. [In fact, Judaism was not monotheos in its origin, Elohim stories and so on...]
I think John was too quick to take offense at Richard's words related to being '100 years in advance'. It seems that those words were misunderstood by John. Richard is really not that arrogant, just well-prepared.
Boa tarde Richard Carrier, meu nome é Maykon, atualmente curso história e me baseio muito em seus livros. Acho que você e alguns outros trazem uma busca histórica séria no qual também defendo um Jesus Mito. Continue sendo o mesmo Richard Carrier, pois você está mudando vidas aqui no Brasil.
"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations" - Romans 16:25-26
Jonathan Tweet The Jews don't even recognize "Satan" as an entity of any kind. Its a bastardization of the word. The word "satan" (note the lower case) is a term that simply means "one who stands in the way". Its not even necessarily a bad or "evil" term. Say, for example, that you are headed into town to kill an enemy. Suddenly a horse (or any other creature) appears in the roadway (does not require any supernatural means of appearing) and is blocking your way. He is Literally "standing in the way" and is thus a "satan" even though he is preventing you from harming another. As for "Satan's fall" christians totally got that wrong. It actually refers to an unpopular king who liked to dress in the finest clothing though he acted like an asshole. The story was simply a way of saying "Yeah he's dressing well now but his day is going to come!" without getting their heads cut off. It also refers to the brightest star in the sky (besides sol) the planet Venus which appears to fall from the sky each day. Modern age people know that its not actually falling. It's simply setting. Again the comparison to the king was just a way of saying he would fall from power. And that whole "Hell" thing has nothing to do with Judaism and therefore nothing that a Jew such as Jesus (real or imaginary) would have preached. Its actually Persian in origin. The christians basically took anything they wanted from any religion they came across and mixed it in. The christmas tree and Easter bunny for example were pagan fertility symbols.
AronRa sent me here (more exactly, it was Jonathan in the comments there). Just wanted to leave a blurb in order to follow this interesting comment threat more easily. Cheers!
At 1.22.50 Jonathan continued talking about his problem with stuff ONLY happening in heaven. That even Satan came down to earth. And Jesus according to carrier didn't. Wouldn't that point work equally well in favour of carriers thesis, ie that Paul and his people at the time were waiting for Jesus to come to earth, after first taking care of the heavenly business? So, if they believed that the devil and deamons did come to earth, they were believing in the end time to come when the Obligatory earth trip would happen?
this might have been one of the best 'debates' on the subject (more like a conversation which is far better) i've ever seen. and the moderator was amazing, truly spot on with all his interruptions. this guy should be in every debate ever made from now on what also helped is that there were no fundamentalist delusions on either side. what i didnt like a) is the fixation of "RC being 100 years ahead of all other scholars" phrase. he clearly meant that chronological speaking, and not that he is 100 years more advanced in expertise from everybody else b) again with this "thing" people have against Bayes' theorem. I'm 100% with richard on this, bayes' theorem is an amazing tool that gives *CLARITY* to all the assumptions a historian (or anyone) reaches. Being THIS opposed to having clarity on our assumptions and everybody being irked when they hear the word 'bayes' worries me deeply edit: i wrote my comment before i saw the last 5 minutues of the debate. OK WTF just happened there? tweet does a 180 and does an ad hominem atttack and his arguments are complete NONSENSE 1) "how sceptical should you be with someone who says the experts are wrong?" it's the EVIDENCE that matter. if he has the evidence to back up his claims then where the fuck is the problem exactly 2) "his hypothesis has stretches" care to elaborate on where is the stretch? and how exactly is his hypothesis stretched compared to the mainstream lunacy that jesus was a god-man raised from the dead to atone for a sin that 2 people and a talking snake committed? 3) "no one is picking up his work" now this is a ridiculous argument and even he knows it. you can tell by how much he struggles to get the words out of his mouth. i could mention 100 names to completely obliterate his nonsensical argument but i'll mention just one: galileo 4) "he gained $ 20k from atheist organizations..." ok this is so ridiculous of an argument on multiple levels,i dont think it's even worth bothering... what a terrible way to end an otherwise great debate
I'm not convinced by mythicism, but I had to turn this off around the 57 minute mark because the historicist would not get off that stupid, snide, obtuse kick about "How many years ahead of historians" Carrier was, when Carrier never said anything like that. The historicist seemed unprepared and uninterested in a genuine nuts and bolts debate on the evidence. He was more interested, I think, in trying to be some kind of anti-myther hero by putting the evil Richard Carrier in his place. It didn't work, though, the historicist just sounds like an immature, temperamental kid attempting and failing to take down an opponent who is far out of his league both credentially and as an experienced debater. And as I said, I'm not even a mythicist. This kid just gave a shitty performance.
He also belabored the fact that there existed no parallel Jewish sect with virtually identical features to Christianity, as though that were some sort of refutation to mythicism, which it certainly is not.
Johnathan Tweet was out of his league.. Carrier, being good-natured, was taking it easy on him, could have made an ass out of him.... Still Mr. Tweet, with no real ammo, resorted to personal attacks at the end..
I don't see the point debating with someone who is restricted to secondary sources and translations of the primary sources; and who uses mainstream opinion, experts, and encyclopaedias as a method of verification. A waste of time, with a truly obtuse concluding statement.
Another thing for Jonathan and others to think about, that I am surprised Carrier and his side rarely brings up: Question: Would you agree that relying on research that assumes a point, like the historicity of Jesus, in order to make a point - like the historicity of Jesus - is Fallacious? Suggestion: Is this not exactly the case with 99% of Jesus research - Ie. it ASSUMES the historicity of Jesus. Dealing ONLY with the question of what parts of Jesus life were more or less likely true -GIVEN that he existed? Suggestion 2: This is wildly different from doing research around the question regarding if he existed in the first place, since. Comments from Jonathan or others?
Not sure I get what you mean. What do you mean by "Carriers history?" Would you agree that relying on research that assumes a point, like the historicity of Jesus, in order to make a point - like the historicity of Jesus - is (at least potentially) Fallacious?
@Mattias Davidsson "Comments from Jonathan or others?" Okay, I can comment..... What are your opinions on Islam's take on Jesus? That he's a Prophet but not the Son of YaHWeH? *OR* If you'd prefer, as the Jews tend to prefer him, that he's a wise teacher but not Omnipotent or Omniscient? I mean.... Why do you reject *THEIR* research of Jesus and assume it is bunk? "Dealing ONLY with the question of what parts of Jesus life were more or less likely true -GIVEN that he existed?" Oh, like the part where he was given *perfume* by the Three Chinese Guys while he was being born in a Barn? That Star Baby? Just asking.... Need to know what I'm dealing with here... "Dealing ONLY with the question of what parts of Jesus life" Well, what parts of Jesus' life do we *absolutely know* vs what do his followers *say* he said? I mean, are you talking about *The Bible* or do you rely on other sources outside of Christians? Are you catching my drift? At all?
Why is the Christian attacking Richard with his last two min., Richard didn't do that? he should be talking about why he believes the Bible lies right or why Jesus existed.
Jonathan seems to be out of his depth. He does not seem to understand peer review. A lot of jesus "historians" seem to site other people who have written as though their writings are authority.
Jonathon Tweet lost this debate. It’s not even close. Mostly because he sounds very amateurish by his tone of voice. Most of his arguments seem to be a tone that implies everyone knows the Jesus was a guy. Then sort of making fun or pointing out flaws in his opponent rather than giving any evidence for his own argument.
Oh that ending just was beautiful the way that Christian guy just slanders Richard and yet Richards points still landed and effected the audience to vote less and less for Jesus in favor of Richard than the laugh afterwards by him just made the victory even sweeter that Christian guy didn't look happy at all at the end.
If you look at the description just under the Title and the Subscribe button line you will see that Jonathan Tweet is actually a Seattle based Atheist. I also thought that he must be a Christian until I noticed that. I think a number of people who have commented on this debate have, perhaps as a result of this, been unduly harsh on Jonathan Tweet. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't dream of debating a scholar of the stature of RC. It sounds as if a lot of Christian Bible scholars (i.e. the vast majority of the breed) don't fancy doing so either; the only notable one that I've watched, William Craig - Lane ( I hope I've got that name right) opted for the tactic of throwing out so many different concepts and claims that there was insufficient time for RC to debunk them all - something that RC referred to in his closing statement at the time, saying that that meant his opponent could thereby claim a technical victory, given that he didn't have time to debunk them all. I think you could see Jonathan's closing statement as being nothing more than making the best effort he could to defend his position - by attacking RC's position as best he could. He didn't seem too upset at the vote outcome, and I imagine he was expecting it. Without wishing to sound patronising I was impressed with the arguments that he managed to raise and mostly, with how he handled the debate. I would have called in sick! However I thought that the structure of this debate was ground-breaking and, in the main, Brendon Hendrickson's moderating of it was really excellent - there were a couple of moments where I wondered for a second whether he was teetering on the edge of partiality - but nothing compared to the partiality I see if and when I watch MSM broadcasters chairing debates, which are mostly laughably awful. RC was as impressive as usual, of course. I would like to see this type of debate (no doubt with some tweaking being applied) used again, but where the debaters were, with all due deference to the brave Jonathan Tweet, of similar academic standard ( if that's possible) - perhaps someone like Bart Ehrman, if he could be persuaded to risk it.
I would love to see a debate with a competent opponent for Richard. Jonathon was not a good challenger because he lacked a lot of knowledge. The weakest argument is when you don’t support your own argument and only poke fun at your opponents and also don’t fully understand your opponent’s argument.
U can kind of tell Joshua has only a cursory acquaintance with Carrier's work on this subject. He would have way better responses if he actually read the work.
I feel bad for Jonathan. To be that outgunned and that…wrong…total evisceration. The just-so stuff historicists come up with to explain how Paul never mentioned disciples, a ministry, miracles…and at the same time write off the in-your-face evidence of “according to scripture” is….wanna say desperate. But to be more optimistic…it’s encouraging now that people are arguing nuance of just how untrue the story…rather that ‘it’s all true’ vs ‘only partially true’…this is progress! But yeah, Dr. Carrier mopped the floor with this dude. 🎉
If you'd rather listen to the moderator waste time than the actual people debating, congrats, this debate is for you. Horrible format, bad moderator, with a heaping side of Tweet ad hominem attacks at the end. It's like thanksgiving with the family - not over soon enough.
Notice at the 50:59 mark that John is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority in part and the fact that he does not address Richard’s points in his refutation. This is a common tactic of “debaters” who do not know their arguments inside and out, and who have also not adequately digested the arguments of their opponents. When the persons who John mentions start with the assumption that Jesus existed, over the past supposed 200 years of academic investigation, he’s doing so partially because he wants that premise to be real and factual, whereas Richard comes with arguments and critiques.
I think the format "inspired" them to be meaner than they needed to be, and simultaneously required them to be briefer than they needed to be. I'd like to see a debate where both parties had the time it takes to really explain their individual positions.
It was an unfair battle from the beginning. Putting amateur Jonathan opposite professional Richard was asking for trouble. You can´t really blame him for being a bad loser.
Johnathan stood no chance,as no one who sided with Jesus's historicity. They always debate opinion not fact. His lack of factual information forced him to try to ridicule Richard and led him to ask irrelevant questions subjecting from a great debate.
I love the moderators little burn towards Tweet at the end about when the brain becoming heated it’s harder to stay logical, and ass-hat giving the moderator a “go to hell, snowflake” look as he’s trying to dig in his pocket for his car keys so he can pump out some adel lyrics on the way home crying.
Jonathan's closing statement is 100% ad hominem. That tells you everything you need to know.
I was shocked that Jonathan concluded the debate with an ad hominem attack on Richard Carrier. Worse than bad form; insufferably rude.
@@DiddleyBoh why were you shocked? The only argument the historicism crowd has is as hominem. Go ahead and talk to any for over a minute and watch them lose their mind.
Atheist Historicism is a religion!! /s lol
I feel like Jon kept trying to make Richard say that he thought he was just a super-smart genius who was leagues ahead of his time. That's NOT what Carrier was saying, he was saying that no one else has touched this subject in peer-reviewed literature in so long that he was really the only modern game in town,and when people keep addressing the 1923 argument they're not addressing what he's proposing.
that's not arrogance IMO
Thank, that pretty much summarizes what Jonathan failed to take into account.
biblical historians have been asleep at the wheel for centuries.
- fact
even if it were, its not like the point is impacted about it.
If I was the most insufferable rude person in history and you were the nicest most charismatic one you could still be incorrect and I could be correct about a statement of fact.
Argument from authority.. might as well just go “all in” with, “God said it in the bible, are you saying you’re smarter than GOD???”
@@isiahs9312
Newton.. js
I like how Richard did such a good job with this debate all while furiously writing his next book.
Carrier is a genius. So easy to listen to
Carrier deserved a better debate opponent, but overall the conversation was decent (mostly as a result of a unique format and Carrier's own performance).
Why do you suppose Carrier reached out to Seattle Atheists when he was coming to town, and not universities or historical organizations. I guess he knows his target audience.
So you're admitting that you're not up to his level, and that he should have been arguing with actual academics?
Cameron Gallegos Tweet was really really really outclassed, academic types won't debate him because they don't want that to happen to them in front of everyone LoL
For sure, actual experts in any field have no time to debate fringe theories. I like this topic because it shows just how biased atheists can be
@@JonathanTweet
Biased to following actual, credible evidence.
Wow, what a failed ending - thanks, Jonathan, for letting everyone know how you behave when you lose a debate.
IDK how he expected anything else : layman talked to some scholars vs a guy who studied it hardcore for six years, got a PhD for the work, and published.
This Jonathan guy sounds like a middle schooler who didn't read the book and gets called up in front of his class to present his book report. Embarrassing.
Not my best performance ever, that's for sure
+Jonathan Tweet you did your best and I believe you were sincere. But I'd have to say that you didn't seem very well prepared or knowledgeable about this topic. Either way I enjoyed it
Thank you, Shawn. I was sure not prepared for the turn that the debate took.
He's not a professional historian. Carrier is.
Tim Blizzard Are you sure Carrier is a New Testament scholar with the credentials and experience of Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, Burton Mack and Bishop Spong? These 4 men have been around for decades and have many peer reviewed papers and books. In Galatians where Paul says he went up to Jerusalem to meet those who were apostles before Paul was an apostle Paul writes he met only Peter and he met James the Lord's brother. Carrier says that passage likely means spiritual brother rather than blood brother and if we could be sure it means blood brother which most scholars hold, then the debate about Jesus being entirely mythical would be over. To me the proof blood brother is what is meant here is Paul didn't apply it to Peter who clearly was a spiritual brother. And Paul says Jesus was born UNDER THE LAW which means Jesus was a Jew. Last time I commutated with Carrier he wasn't absolutely certain the Jesus myth theory was right. He said there just isn't enough information to be dogmatic. So to me unless you're going to agree with Robert Price that ALL of Paul's letters are fakes, which Carrier doesn't agree, the Jesus myth theory fails. No wonder the majority of skeptical New Testament scholars find it unconvincing. You need to check out some of the Bishop Spong vids here on TH-cam. The Bishop is much more experience at New Testament criticism than Carrier with all due respect to Carrier.
I love how, every time, in every debate, when the interlocutor is speaking, Carrier is busy taking notes and looking up sources. And the interlocutor is almost /never/ doing that. That's what sets them apart.
Carrier got his butt kicked debating WLC. He learned but he still believes Jesus wasn’t real. Poor fool him
@@michaelbrickley2443 lol
WLC is certifiably insane.
IMO Carrier isn’t capable of believing anyone is as lunatic as WLC.
Probably spent the whole time nauseated and mentally stunned any still living brain that messed up could even wear shoes..
It's weird Richard didn't point out that, at a popular level, 2nd Temple Judaism included angel worship, and so the worship of a purely celestial Jesus fits perfectly in that context.
Richard hadn’t started Second Temple Judaism’s real historical evidence as much as the Roman Empire’s non-Jewish cults.
@@SouthGallaecian yeah there really was nothing original about the whole thing. If Paul were alive today he would be running a yoga studio, greet people with namaste, tell you about the dangers of gluten, and be able to sing some song written by a 25 year old millionaire in the 1960s as if it was the most profound thing ever.
The only thing that made Paul stand out is he was just better at it compared to most self-help shaman gurus.
@@isiahs9312 Absolutely. A true literary and theological genius.
@@SouthGallaecian to be fair if you ran a used car dealership you would definitely want him as one of your salesmen. He was this tiny guy, with speech problems, and half blind yet people listened to what he had to say. They were afraid of him, loved him, and admired him. He wasn't a deep thinker he was a deep speaker.
A pity he didn't use his powers for good instead of evil.
"How skeptical should you be of a scholar..." - attacking people not ideas. Fatality, a total loss for the Jesus-real side...
Tweet succumbs to the temptation of group think.
@@donaldclifford5763 just succumbs? You meant "tweet" as in X or am I mistaken? Anywho... this debate seems interesting, but it is so old I cant even respond to it, and I dont even like Carrier... Atheism+ was bad, and the boolean argument is mostly a tautology... but still, he thought me a lot about bibliography... so thanks... but care anybody to told me the best jesus proof by date? I like Hermann and all, but he is all about Paul... and I'll never understand whyyyyy. So Paul most probably write those letters, and is conversion is genuinly absurd... anything better? Just curious
@@Ferny1981Utube The gentleman's name is actually Jonathan Tweet. Easily confused of course with Twitter.
Dr carriers patience is absolutely amazing. I've watched him in multiple debates and it is exceedingly rare that anybody can even close to describe his actual position they just constantly argue these ridiculous strawmans and then scoff and insult him and he just calmly eviscerates their responses it is rather impressive
John's closing won for the most dishonest ad hominem argument ever.
It was weird because they were coming at it from different angles. John was arguing as a 2nd hand reviewer of other people's first-hand scholarship (and mostly just "comments" rather than total works on the issue), while Richard was arguing as a 1st hand researcher himself. So, John had a vague picture cobbled up without many exact details, and Richard had a bunch of detail on his side. Richard is right, someone needs to do a scholarly counter-rebuttal, not just settle on the work from the 1920s.
Tweet seems to be suffering from a little Dunning-Kruger effect
Terrible ad hominem.
letsomethingshine - that's the fundamental problem. Scholarly consensus should only be convincing to people who do not work in the field. To a professional academic historian the number of people who disagree with you is irrelevant. I'm just finishing a PHD in ancient history and I can point to numerous examples where a specific book has successfully challenged scholarly consensus - that's how the field moves forward.
Attempting to caricature Dr Cartier appears to be the agreed upon strategy and not engaging in scholarly debate. 🙄
8:55 Interesting that Bart Ehrman is happy to help Jonathan prepare to debate Dr Carrier yet refuses to debate him in person.
Imo Ehrman is a superb interviewee, but a very poor debater. He gets nervous at every attack, stops thinking, laughs, stutters a bit, but never really counters.
Carrier seems not to be able to recognize personal attacks whatsoever. I think he overestimates his opponent’s intelligence and sense of fair-play..
Tweet lost all credibility with that character attack at the end.
The pushy “tell me you are proud of yourself being ahead so I can call you to arrogant to listen to the ideas” sprinkled every third speaking opportunity had already crumbled his credibility for me. Not to mention my active ignoring his start off Pauline admissed at the beginning “I learned everything I know about my favorite non-historian Bible scholars and theologians by reading Wikipedia and the I also talked to them a bit and they CONFIRMED me.” Without having proven to us that his confirmation bias was tested against. I feel it is obvious from the evidence that the character of “Jesus” is a coagulation of historical Joshua’s and non-Joshua’s including the Jesus/Joshua general that Rome killed with a catapult and likely they nailed his body to a tree to display his criminality in terms of civil war aka sedition aka treason aka insurrection.
Jonathan's closing butthurt statement surprised me because he looked as a student listening to a teacher and agreeing with almost everything he says. It wasn't even a debate. It was funny though that Richard wasn't even paying attention to his rumbling but the moderator couldn't take it anymore.
You can tell Jonathan Tweet felt he was losing the argument, he began to attack Carrier, not the argument.
It shows his bias, and lack of open minded free thinking.
I am a professionally trained statistician and an avid amateur historian (hist. of Jesus is one of the foci). Totally agree with Richard about history and probability - historians don't know it and are afraid of it, and until they learn it and start applying it, history will not be a real science.
I'm a professional historian, and history will never be a real science. The problem with statistical tools like this is data acquisition. Bayesian logic really only helps you organise your probabilities, which are still arrived at by critical evaluation of the evidence by traditional historical means. I'd be open to using it, but i cant see how I would have included it in my PHD thesis, for instance.
it is useful only if you have several competing theories and you want to compare them
@@timblizzard4226 mtg spot on, the universe (including time) is only deterministic for us at some scale, so while history will probably never be as accurately discoverable as future events, probabilities are always going to be the clear and far winner. Besides, most of us don't have such enormous bloody claims attached to our certainties about things like history, so if Jesus is God and God is real, he'd better figure that out soon if he wants intelligent people to worship out of respect lol
Well, history's not a science, so there's that.
@@BenjWarrant but statistics is math so it gives a whole new toolset to a historian if he/she knows statistics. Most of them don't though.
The great example of John not being knowledgeable is the cargo cult. He says his explain action. Richard corrects him and he has nothing to refute it. When Richard explains about Adam and Eve he can't refute it. His whole argument is, I know Jesus is real because a bunch of people who never saw him said so.
"His whole argument is, I know Jesus is real because a bunch of people who never saw him said so."
Religion in a nutshell.
@Second Lite I don't have to believe, they have to demonstrably prove their claim or STFU.
@Second Lite Empty threats are just that: empty.
@Second Lite Seek professional psychiatric help.
This is probably one of the most aggravating debate I’ve ever watched. The moderator talked more than the speakers did and the side who was arguing for the historicity of Jesus did nothing but agree with Richard the entire time and then at the very end decided to go completely as hominem instead of doing a closing statement. Overall this debate was a complete mess from how it was organized but I thought Richard carried it very well and as always I thought he won
Wow talk about being angry when all of your answers were shut down honestly and politely ! Well done Richard
Yeah and politely...Carrier is polite when speaking, but when he writes, he's something else.
@@christianazegba7163 ...and? It's a book, not social interaction.
I think Jesus probably existed but I hate the way this historicity guy argues. every time it's just appeals to authority with massive doses of contempt for his opponent. Richard just deals with the issues in a polite and knowledgeable way and that's why i love to listen to him
Yeah - Carrier can be defeated within the documents themselves by anyone capable of doing translation and how he cherry picks his evidence for a mythicized Jesus directly from Paul (ignoring the implication of Gal 4:4 which is completely the nail in the coffin for that argument in that book, as well as assuming Hebrews is purely heavenly but ignoring the fact that there is a pivot point in the discussion prior to those portions).
I'm doing a debate on this on Thursday with a student who knows Carrier's argument in and out and I'm reading his two works...his second work and his use of Bayes' theorem is unknown in ancient history and he breaks one of his own works in "Proving History" (reading a document through for understanding) - he can't read all of Galatians and Hebrews with his ideas...and he says the Gospels "forgot the cosmic element" (I can assure you they did not) and in addition there are statements about the temple in positive ways that would make little sense to have been written by Christians after the destruction of the Temple where Christians and Jews would have been more divided...I know Jesus history is hard but it is necessary to do the hard work and parallelism for mythological elements is important (and gone waaaaaay to far by most mythicists) it is also important to do parallelism for ancient history....and the mythicists from what I have read do not do this.
Jon: No doubt. Cause talk is cheap and cost you exactly nothing. I am not all the way there on the "Mythicist" position but I am getting there. I would love to see how a person explain away the total lack of evidence for Jesus, the forgeries and the misrepresentations (for lack of a better word). The only thing holding me back is my own personal cognitive dissonance.
I completely agree, I'm personally agnostic about historical Jesus, but every time I've seen him argue with people this is the pattern - people just appeal to scholarly consensus as if its an argument. Consensus is a guide for people who are not specialists, its not something you should use to rebut a specialist PHD historian. There have been numerous times scholarly consensus has been successfully challenged by a single book, that's how the field moves forward.
@@christopherheren3237 Carrier has resoundingly addressed this.
@@christopherheren3237 If you think Gal 4:4 is the "nail in the coffin" for mythicism, then you need to *actually* read Richard's book.
Gal 1:19 is far better evidence for a historical Jesus. Which is neat, but even that can be explained under a mythicist theory, so overall I mean anybody who actually studies the evidence, will surely realize, that it's just...not great.
Had to downvote this video because, as a moderated debate, it was pretty bad. Allowing one debater to spend such a large chunk of time with personal attacks on the other is a recipe for failure. I have a feeling a few times when Carrier said “I don’t understand your question”, what he was really saying was “How much of an asshole do you want to show yourself to be Tweet?”
Also, the line of argument that goes “So you’re the only one who’s right and everyone else is wrong, huh?” would work much better in a world where Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin had never existed. But alas, one person has proven to be right when everyone else was wrong far to often in this world for that to be a valid argument.
Its like the moderator constantly wants to demonstrate that he has also studied the topic instead of just letting these two guys talk.
Why are the moderator and the wiki-editor speaking as if talking to particularly dense children? Was this debate held in a daycare center?
It seemed that Jonathan Tweet was starting to evangelize towards the end just to try and win the debate...No logic
There is a debate between Mr. Tweet and Aron Ra which is often peppered with Jon claiming that he is not a "fake atheist." I didn't know what this was referring to. Now I do. He is certainly not a scholar of Richard Carrier's caliber (though that does not negate any knowledge he has acquired) and clearly fails to make many points with which Aron agrees. The "fake atheist" label doesn't matter. I wouldn't care if they were two theologians. The facts stand on their own merits and interpretations should have evidence to back them up, regardless of whether they offer conclusive proof. Now to watch this one. I hope Jon comes off as slightly more prepared and knowledgeable than he did in ep77 of Ra-Men. However, since that only happened two weeks ago, I'm not sure he can prepare better than he did in the future. =)
I am also very skeptical about Tweet's motives here. I think I would predict that since Carrier has been saying for a while now (and others like Matt Dillahunty) that the official scholarly stamps need to start being put on mythicism, the 'other side' picked up on it and said 'we'd better get some historicity atheists asap'. I sometimes wonder if Bart Ehrman is 'influenced' ($) to maintain a strong conviction that Jesus existed, though I like him anyway.
You cannot hide from the truth, as long as there is someone who refuses to quit searching for it.
I say this especially to any religion with a mainstream agenda.
YOUR days are numbered, and I say that without irony.
This is not because we hate it.
We just don't buy your nonsense.
It's not congruent with reality.
Sorry.
Try thinking for yourself.
Yep, but He started much earlier. From the moment that He try to extort answer that "All the scholars are 100 years behind" only for that reason to use it at the end as straw man argument.
Marcin K. Definitely, I thought it was extremely tongue-in-cheek when I heard that. I swear Richard's face gets one or two shades redder during that awful sneer. How ignorant, if you think about it!!! What the hell, Tweet?! More like a Crow!
You did not expect logic to save puperstition did you?
Jonathan Tweet your closing statement made me cringe.
He sounded like a xtian apologist.
And the vote total shifted hard to Carrier.
I rewatched this and still find this moderator absolutely horrendous. It’s like he halts the discussion just so he can hear himself talk
Jonathon, on your blog you posted;
1. You thought the best outcome of the debate was "it was a useful start at addressing the serious problems with Dr Carrier’s hypothesis" and
2. That you were sorry to everyone involved for not been given the chance to explain why you were being so aggressive towards Carrier regarding the hundred year gap between pier reviewed scholarship
After re watching the debate, anything at all you think you might like to add?
shane thompson Lol 😅
He’s an ass hat.
When Tweet began explaining how he thought he could pick out the authentic Jesus saying from the Gospels, I thought for sure I'd read the description wrong and he was arguing as a Christian.
And I was gobsmacked that he thought the words attributed to Jesus were somehow "genius".
Guy whose claim lacks evidence poisons the well by saying Carrier's claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tweet made a point out of reminding us that a good skeptic knows that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence, while at the same time inadvertently also reminding us about poisoning the well and constructing strawmen.
Carrier has a good case but I feel he didn't really get to spread his wings in this format. It's quite clear that the Christian story is rooted in Mark, which is 100% allegory and quite clearly built from Paul's "announcement". It's also clear that Paul never knew or met the Jesus, outside of dreams and visions.
Love how Richard snubs both these guys at the end…👍😂
If there was a human being (Jesus) is neither here nor there. The point is that the birth, life, death and resurrection is completely mythological. This is the argument.
that was a debate among atheists about a historical enigma. No christians here
@@fileleutheros2577 lol. Are you just stating a fact about the people debating or was there a greater point?
Here’s an idea. Don’t interrupt the speakers whose actual opinions we care about. Whenever they actually interacted with genuine conversation, the moderator dude would just stop the momentum. The Tweet dude was a complete jerk with no actual evidence based arguments. He just didn’t seem to like Richard and that was his basic argument. Total waste of Carrier’s time.
ALL who argue for religion, no matter how polite, or intelligent, or informed, cannot get around one basic fact realted to what is called Occams Razor. There is no reason to postulate supernatural causes. So they can only attempt to obfuscate this with sophistry or tricks, and the ol faith claim!
Chris Goldthorpe - everyone there was an atheist.
Andrew G - wah wah wah
Andrew G - LMFAO, you're hilarious. Why so defensive? Because you are too immature to face your own mortality and thus believe in a iron age fairy tails so you can not be scared of the dark? Don't like people outlining how RIDICULOUS these ideas are? Fucking pathetic.
Andrew G lmfao, I read your comments bitch. You know god doesn’t exist, right? And when you die you simply won’t exist. Can your 7 year old ego handle that? Somehow I don’t think so.
Jonathan makes NO CASE that Paul wrote or knew anything - from any source - about Jesus' life on earth.
Paul knew that Jesus was a man out of flesh and blood and that he was crucified. Just read the epistles.
Flesh and blood is part of the mythicist thesis, and is also a weird thing to have to say if Jesus was supposed to be a historical person.
Being "hanged" is something that happened to demigods as well as to real people, so that's not an argument for either side.
I was curious about Tweet's claim that Jews didn't name their children after angels so I went to a website for Jewish names with historical references. I found several angel names that were also given to human figures in the Jewish scriptures. Examples are Azriel, Gavriel/Gabriel, Micheal and Uriel. There are several other angel names used as given names, but it's unclear whether or not they were used as given names in 1st century CE. That "fact" against a Celestial Christ hypothesis is now (and easily) disproven. Link: www.aish.com/jl/l/b/48967016.html
Can you name the part of Carrier's history that he himself considers least plausible? If so, then you know where I'm coming from, for starters.
Non sequitur Jon. Admit the point before moving on to a different argument.
He's full of logical fallacies.
Seriously, no one got the People's Judean Front joke??
You can know your argument is on weak footing when you worry about the feelings of other Scholars and choose to attack your opponent for your ending argument and midpoint argument rather than to refute his claims. I hear no refutation or debate about Richards claims. And if you listen to his claims at face value everything he saying seems perfectly plausible. I do think most Scholars throughout history have a huge bias. Most scholars in the field today are biased. This isn't your normal scientific or even less normal biblical field of study. The vast majority of people that would ever go into this field are theists and therefore are extremely biased. You want to hear a probability. Pretty much every major figure in the Bible was invented out of whole cloth. Adam & Eve, Moses, all the characters for the most part in the Gospels. Why is it so hard to believe that in a religion that started off celestrial and no Scholars really refute this. So lit the religion started off as celestrial and just like most of the other figures including God himself, none of them are real. Why is it so hard to understand? It honestly doesn't matter what most scholars believe. The fact is Jesus has written Nothing by himself. There are no first hand accounts of Jesus or his existence. So no matter how many scholars think he existed, it's the claim that he actually did that needs to be proven. Just like the god claim itself.
+Ryan McNeil Very well said Ryan!
Good grief, could the moderator just please let them finish their thought before pulling the hand brake? The conversation & ideas are more important than ZOMG, he went 20 seconds over!
Mr Tweet doesn't just seem to get it.
He's erected a mental fortress around his cherished belief. Well informed, but close minded.
I really like the unusual way that this debate was moderated. I'll take a look at some more SA videos and see whether you have used / developed this in other places
For an academic forum there does not seem to be much historical analysis of the Roman records for the period, given the Romans spent a lot of their time writing and keeping records, as did the Jews. It seems odd that we can read about Caesar's campaigns and his dealings with the tribes he conquered, but apparently not a word from his adopted son Caesar Augustus who reigned during and after Christ's life-time, or from any contemporary writers? If Jesus made anything like the stir portrayed in the Gospels, surely Roman literature from the period would have endless reports of at least the trial. I don't see how endless discussions about the contents of the OT and NT or St Paul's epistles can help one way or the other, given they were written decades or centuries before or after the relevant events. I would like to know how much if any literature there is from the Roman literature of the period in question.
Why does the moderator need to talk that much? I can “summarize” myself. Carrier is the absolute best though. Great dude! Opponent guy is out of his league though, a total tool.
Moderator is very annoying
i found him at least in the begining quite useful. That is a great idea to let someone else summarize the ideas just spoken. It should be more often used in debates
Jonathan's entire closing argument completely ignores the argument from Carrier. Instead of addressing the argument, Jonathan instead attacks the person who makes the argument. I think that's quite telling. If Jonathan had a good reply to Carrier's argument, he would've used that instead attacking the man himself. Perhaps Jonathan wasn't the greatest historicist advocate for this debate
Great, a guy that studied all of the 'general consensus scholars' debating an actual historian who has continued to investigate the historical Jesus. The crucifixion was real and Tweet just got nailed.
Raoul Borans ohhhhhhh!
The irony of someone who's not even a scholar on the matter attacking with ad hominems an actual scholar on the matter...
What set early Christianity apart is Paul not the mythical Jesus.
How are they separate?
@@donaldclifford5763 one was a physical person the other a myth
It really doesn't matter at all. Was it all completely made up, was it based on some dude, regardless, it's made up bulls@$t.
Gary Bertrand It matters to historians.
This one crashed and burned. Richard remains undefeated. Incredible!
"He's got mean things to say about lot's of other scholars.........................uh and no one is picking up his work"
Fallacious AF. All I heard was "WAHHHHHHHH"
carrier carries
This moderator annoys me immensely.
Im not a Jesus Mythicist, but Carrier won this debate.
So "the world's leading Jesus doubter" has defeated "an amateur historian". Colour me unimpressed. Actually I feel that Carrier has already lost the moment he agreed to have this debate. Because if any real historian took him serious, such debates would not happen.
I disagree with Carriers position, but judging this simply as a debate, he made his point more clearer then the other guy.
I guess he did, he is a PhD historian and an eloquent guy. I would expect him to win against a nobody with no academic training in historical sciences. But that's like the school bully beating up a three year old. The question is, what do real experts make of mythicism, how do they deal with the arguments? And the answer is: They tear it to shreds.
+dasGagaTier
Unfortunately most debates Ive seen Richard Carrier in, his opponents have a tendency to resort to ad hominems down the line. So far, out of all his debates Zeba Cook and Trent Horn were the only two to really stay on topic.
Trent Horn also attacked the main weakness in Carriers position. Which is the flimsy reach he does trying to connect Pauls Letters to the Ascension of Isaiah. That is the major flaw in Carriers position. And so far Trent Horn was the only one to address it directly.
dasGagaTier "they tear it to shreds"
Citation needed. please cite one peer reviewed paper "shredding" Carrier
6 years in trained greek and roman historical scholarship (Carrier) against wikipedia summary' representant (Tweet)of a consensus dated back to mid 19 century (where jesus =historical prophete). But Current consensus apparently has not yet reviewed Carrier' work which requires the application of baysian theorem.
Facts and logic destroys theist nonsense every time
no theists in this debate....
File Leutheros , that's a strawman since I never claimed there was.
Theist nonsensical rhetoric certainly is destroyed by facts and logic though.
Louis Gedo
Interesting opinion you got there, although I would beg to differ
agentmikster44 , which specific nonsense doesn't get destroyed by facts and logic?
Very poor format here, the moderator speaks more than the debaters.
historicity argument never made sense to me. Clearly, it's all a bunch of myth and the "historical" Jesus lived at different time, bore a different name and preached a different doctrine. So if that's still Jesus then yes, he's historical.
This situations happen when you put a Prius and Ferrari in the same race. NO need to explain the allegory.
Yes but did those cars really exist here on earth or on outer space?
At the end Jonathan makes a big fuss about how he doesn’t think it’s plausible that the Jews would have an important figure whom they worshipped yet resided only in the celestial realm and asks for an example of another Jewish deity or figure that doesn’t come to earth and is only celestial? Ummm has he forgotten about the central figure that their monotheistic religion was based on?? Perhaps he wasn’t viewed as strictly celestial in the early Yahweh cult but from post-exilic right to this period in question Yahweh fits that description. Or maybe he thinks that Yahweh was earthly bc he came down once year to the temple during Yom Kippur?
Yes, I agree that religion changed from a more airy-fairy to a more tangible ("montheistic") one. [In fact, Judaism was not monotheos in its origin, Elohim stories and so on...]
Why do we need the moderator guy to summarize their positions? I’m watching it and can understand for myself what each position is.
I think John was too quick to take offense at Richard's words related to being '100 years in advance'. It seems that those words were misunderstood by John. Richard is really not that arrogant, just well-prepared.
Boa tarde Richard Carrier, meu nome é Maykon, atualmente curso história e me baseio muito em seus livros. Acho que você e alguns outros trazem uma busca histórica séria no qual também defendo um Jesus Mito. Continue sendo o mesmo Richard Carrier, pois você está mudando vidas aqui no Brasil.
Slam dunk for Carrier. Speaks clearly from the evidence. Won't comment on Tweet, as there's nothing really positive to say about his 'evidence'
Such an obnoxious moderator. You'd almost think the discussion was about him
"Yeah... uh.... satan's fall". I love how Richard can shut down an argument with just 2 words. Its fantastic
And then Jonathan moved the goalposts...
At what point in Jewish history did Satan's fall change the way Jews related to God? At what point in history did Jews say, "Satan fell recently?"
"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations" - Romans 16:25-26
Jonathan Tweet The Jews don't even recognize "Satan" as an entity of any kind. Its a bastardization of the word. The word "satan" (note the lower case) is a term that simply means "one who stands in the way". Its not even necessarily a bad or "evil" term. Say, for example, that you are headed into town to kill an enemy. Suddenly a horse (or any other creature) appears in the roadway (does not require any supernatural means of appearing) and is blocking your way. He is Literally "standing in the way" and is thus a "satan" even though he is preventing you from harming another.
As for "Satan's fall" christians totally got that wrong. It actually refers to an unpopular king who liked to dress in the finest clothing though he acted like an asshole. The story was simply a way of saying "Yeah he's dressing well now but his day is going to come!" without getting their heads cut off. It also refers to the brightest star in the sky (besides sol) the planet Venus which appears to fall from the sky each day. Modern age people know that its not actually falling. It's simply setting. Again the comparison to the king was just a way of saying he would fall from power.
And that whole "Hell" thing has nothing to do with Judaism and therefore nothing that a Jew such as Jesus (real or imaginary) would have preached. Its actually Persian in origin. The christians basically took anything they wanted from any religion they came across and mixed it in. The christmas tree and Easter bunny for example were pagan fertility symbols.
AronRa sent me here (more exactly, it was Jonathan in the comments there). Just wanted to leave a blurb in order to follow this interesting comment threat more easily. Cheers!
At 1.22.50 Jonathan continued talking about his problem with stuff ONLY happening in heaven. That even Satan came down to earth. And Jesus according to carrier didn't. Wouldn't that point work equally well in favour of carriers thesis, ie that Paul and his people at the time were waiting for Jesus to come to earth, after first taking care of the heavenly business? So, if they believed that the devil and deamons did come to earth, they were believing in the end time to come when the Obligatory earth trip would happen?
Jonathan Tweet indulges in character assassination... unsuccessfuly
this might have been one of the best 'debates' on the subject (more like a conversation which is far better) i've ever seen. and the moderator was amazing, truly spot on with all his interruptions. this guy should be in every debate ever made from now on
what also helped is that there were no fundamentalist delusions on either side.
what i didnt like
a) is the fixation of "RC being 100 years ahead of all other scholars" phrase. he clearly meant that chronological speaking, and not that he is 100 years more advanced in expertise from everybody else
b) again with this "thing" people have against Bayes' theorem. I'm 100% with richard on this, bayes' theorem is an amazing tool that gives *CLARITY* to all the assumptions a historian (or anyone) reaches. Being THIS opposed to having clarity on our assumptions and everybody being irked when they hear the word 'bayes' worries me deeply
edit: i wrote my comment before i saw the last 5 minutues of the debate. OK WTF just happened there? tweet does a 180 and does an ad hominem atttack and his arguments are complete NONSENSE
1) "how sceptical should you be with someone who says the experts are wrong?"
it's the EVIDENCE that matter. if he has the evidence to back up his claims then where the fuck is the problem exactly
2) "his hypothesis has stretches"
care to elaborate on where is the stretch? and how exactly is his hypothesis stretched compared to the mainstream lunacy that jesus was a god-man raised from the dead to atone for a sin that 2 people and a talking snake committed?
3) "no one is picking up his work"
now this is a ridiculous argument and even he knows it. you can tell by how much he struggles to get the words out of his mouth. i could mention 100 names to completely obliterate his nonsensical argument but i'll mention just one: galileo
4) "he gained $ 20k from atheist organizations..."
ok this is so ridiculous of an argument on multiple levels,i dont think it's even worth bothering...
what a terrible way to end an otherwise great debate
I'm not convinced by mythicism, but I had to turn this off around the 57 minute mark because the historicist would not get off that stupid, snide, obtuse kick about "How many years ahead of historians" Carrier was, when Carrier never said anything like that. The historicist seemed unprepared and uninterested in a genuine nuts and bolts debate on the evidence. He was more interested, I think, in trying to be some kind of anti-myther hero by putting the evil Richard Carrier in his place. It didn't work, though, the historicist just sounds like an immature, temperamental kid attempting and failing to take down an opponent who is far out of his league both credentially and as an experienced debater. And as I said, I'm not even a mythicist. This kid just gave a shitty performance.
He also belabored the fact that there existed no parallel Jewish sect with virtually identical features to Christianity, as though that were some sort of refutation to mythicism, which it certainly is not.
Carrier has a PHD, Tweet doesn't.
Johnathan Tweet was out of his league.. Carrier, being good-natured, was taking it easy on him, could have made an ass out of him.... Still Mr. Tweet, with no real ammo, resorted to personal attacks at the end..
I don't see the point debating with someone who is restricted to secondary sources and translations of the primary sources; and who uses mainstream opinion, experts, and encyclopaedias as a method of verification.
A waste of time, with a truly obtuse concluding statement.
Another thing for Jonathan and others to think about, that I am surprised Carrier and his side rarely brings up:
Question:
Would you agree that relying on research that assumes a point, like the historicity of Jesus, in order to make a point - like the historicity of Jesus - is Fallacious?
Suggestion:
Is this not exactly the case with 99% of Jesus research - Ie. it ASSUMES the historicity of Jesus. Dealing ONLY with the question of what parts of Jesus life were more or less likely true -GIVEN that he existed?
Suggestion 2:
This is wildly different from doing research around the question regarding if he existed in the first place, since.
Comments from Jonathan or others?
Can you name the part of Carrier's history that he himself considers least plausible? If so, then you know where I'm coming from, for starters.
Not sure I get what you mean. What do you mean by "Carriers history?"
Would you agree that relying on research that assumes a point, like the historicity of Jesus, in order to make a point - like the historicity of Jesus - is (at least potentially) Fallacious?
Starting to think that Jonathan isn't capable of an argument without attacking someone first.
The further we get from comparing evidence, the better mythicism sounds
@Mattias Davidsson
"Comments from Jonathan or others?"
Okay, I can comment.....
What are your opinions on Islam's take on Jesus?
That he's a Prophet but not the Son of YaHWeH?
*OR*
If you'd prefer, as the Jews tend to prefer him, that he's a wise teacher but not Omnipotent or Omniscient?
I mean.... Why do you reject *THEIR* research of Jesus and assume it is bunk?
"Dealing ONLY with the question of what parts of Jesus life were more or less likely true -GIVEN that he existed?"
Oh, like the part where he was given *perfume* by the Three Chinese Guys while he was being born in a Barn? That Star Baby?
Just asking....
Need to know what I'm dealing with here...
"Dealing ONLY with the question of what parts of Jesus life"
Well, what parts of Jesus' life do we *absolutely know* vs what do his followers *say* he said?
I mean, are you talking about *The Bible* or do you rely on other sources outside of Christians?
Are you catching my drift? At all?
Why is the Christian attacking Richard with his last two min., Richard didn't do that? he should be talking about why he believes the Bible lies right or why Jesus existed.
Wait, what??? Was THAT your closing statement? This is what happens when an amateur debates an actual scholar. It showed every time.
RC is great as always!
Jonathan seems to be out of his depth. He does not seem to understand peer review. A lot of jesus "historians" seem to site other people who have written as though their writings are authority.
jonathan was mor e of a insult thrower than a debater
Jonathon Tweet lost this debate. It’s not even close. Mostly because he sounds very amateurish by his tone of voice. Most of his arguments seem to be a tone that implies everyone knows the Jesus was a guy. Then sort of making fun or pointing out flaws in his opponent rather than giving any evidence for his own argument.
One way or the other, this is an outstanding debate format
Let. Them. Talk. The overzealous moderator was far too...wait let me see if I can summarize...
Oh that ending just was beautiful the way that Christian guy just slanders Richard and yet Richards points still landed and effected the audience to vote less and less for Jesus in favor of Richard than the laugh afterwards by him just made the victory even sweeter that Christian guy didn't look happy at all at the end.
If you look at the description just under the Title and the Subscribe button line you will see that Jonathan Tweet is actually a Seattle based Atheist. I also thought that he must be a Christian until I noticed that. I think a number of people who have commented on this debate have, perhaps as a result of this, been unduly harsh on Jonathan Tweet.
I'm an atheist and I wouldn't dream of debating a scholar of the stature of RC. It sounds as if a lot of Christian Bible scholars (i.e. the vast majority of the breed) don't fancy doing so either; the only notable one that I've watched, William Craig - Lane ( I hope I've got that name right) opted for the tactic of throwing out so many different concepts and claims that there was insufficient time for RC to debunk them all - something that RC referred to in his closing statement at the time, saying that that meant his opponent could thereby claim a technical victory, given that he didn't have time to debunk them all.
I think you could see Jonathan's closing statement as being nothing more than making the best effort he could to defend his position - by attacking RC's position as best he could. He didn't seem too upset at the vote outcome, and I imagine he was expecting it. Without wishing to sound patronising I was impressed with the arguments that he managed to raise and mostly, with how he handled the debate. I would have called in sick!
However I thought that the structure of this debate was ground-breaking and, in the main, Brendon Hendrickson's moderating of it was really excellent - there were a couple of moments where I wondered for a second whether he was teetering on the edge of partiality - but nothing compared to the partiality I see if and when I watch MSM broadcasters chairing debates, which are mostly laughably awful. RC was as impressive as usual, of course.
I would like to see this type of debate (no doubt with some tweaking being applied) used again, but where the debaters were, with all due deference to the brave Jonathan Tweet, of similar academic standard ( if that's possible) - perhaps someone like Bart Ehrman, if he could be persuaded to risk it.
@@robertdavidson8028excellent comment robert
I loved the moderator. He did a great job keeping the conversation constructive and had a very polite way of taking no crap from anyone.
Alicia Nieto really? For me he kept interrupting and making weird rules etc. He talked way too mucb
Jonathan Tweet needs to learn from Richard's methodology. His lack of scholarship is betrayed by his poor attitude.
he is not a scholar. He is a bully who has nothing to say except pout downs of Carrier. He embarrassed himself.
Just found a snippet that came up on my TikTok while scrolling & so happy I can listen to the whole thing.
The dude in the middle is not honest.
and Carrier shines.
I would love to see a debate with a competent opponent for Richard. Jonathon was not a good challenger because he lacked a lot of knowledge. The weakest argument is when you don’t support your own argument and only poke fun at your opponents and also don’t fully understand your opponent’s argument.
U can kind of tell Joshua has only a cursory acquaintance with Carrier's work on this subject. He would have way better responses if he actually read the work.
I feel bad for Jonathan. To be that outgunned and that…wrong…total evisceration. The just-so stuff historicists come up with to explain how Paul never mentioned disciples, a ministry, miracles…and at the same time write off the in-your-face evidence of “according to scripture” is….wanna say desperate. But to be more optimistic…it’s encouraging now that people are arguing nuance of just how untrue the story…rather that ‘it’s all true’ vs ‘only partially true’…this is progress!
But yeah, Dr. Carrier mopped the floor with this dude. 🎉
Richard clearly wins, but is this really fair? John seemed like middle school baller against an NBA first draft pick.
Who else can take him on?
If you'd rather listen to the moderator waste time than the actual people debating, congrats, this debate is for you.
Horrible format, bad moderator, with a heaping side of Tweet ad hominem attacks at the end. It's like thanksgiving with the family - not over soon enough.
Absolutely mindboggling that a layman would think he could debate a leading scholar and completely unsurprising that he would resort to insult.
Dr. Carrier wins another debate!
Doesn’t count, too easy.
I feel that the moderator spoke more than the debaters. And his voice was annoying.
It felt like it was a 3 way debate.
"He's got mean things to say about their scholars" Really! Are you a child
Any of these mean things untrue?
@@donaldclifford5763 4 year old post. I'm not re-watching it to find out. 😆
@@lesterfalcon1350 You're not missing anything. The mean things refer to his book.
Notice at the 50:59 mark that John is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority in part and the fact that he does not address Richard’s points in his refutation. This is a common tactic of “debaters” who do not know their arguments inside and out, and who have also not adequately digested the arguments of their opponents. When the persons who John mentions start with the assumption that Jesus existed, over the past supposed 200 years of academic investigation, he’s doing so partially because he wants that premise to be real and factual, whereas Richard comes with arguments and critiques.
I think the format "inspired" them to be meaner than they needed to be, and simultaneously required them to be briefer than they needed to be. I'd like to see a debate where both parties had the time it takes to really explain their individual positions.
It was an unfair battle from the beginning. Putting amateur Jonathan opposite professional Richard was asking for trouble. You can´t really blame him for being a bad loser.
Johnathan stood no chance,as no one who sided with Jesus's historicity. They always debate opinion not fact. His lack of factual information forced him to try to ridicule Richard and led him to ask irrelevant questions subjecting from a great debate.
I give Tweet credit. I know I couldn't have made his case any better. And probably no one else either.
I love the moderators little burn towards Tweet at the end about when the brain becoming heated it’s harder to stay logical, and ass-hat giving the moderator a “go to hell, snowflake” look as he’s trying to dig in his pocket for his car keys so he can pump out some adel lyrics on the way home crying.