DEBATE on the Historicity of Jesus - Dr. Richard Carrier vs Trent Horn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Special Event:
Author and Historian, Dr. Richard Carrier (richardcarrier....) debates Author and Catholic Apologist from Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com/), Trent Horn (trenthorn.com/) on the historicity of Jesus. Mr. Horn questions Dr. Carrier on the mythicist view.
Special thanks to:
The Humanist Fellowship of San Diego
www.hfsd.info
www.meetup.com/...
The San Diego Association of Rational Inquiry
www.meetup.com/...
The San Diego Coalition of Reason
unitedcor.org/s...
www.SDCoR.org
and event organizers and volunteers: Sean Taylor, Jim Eliason, Tom Pickett, Ann Coleman, Paul Svenson, and Nick Stein.
To watch more events like this, lectures, debates, and conversations regarding religion and/or the irreligious (atheists), please do not forget to subscribe.
Special thanks from the "Make a Believer Out of Me" crew.
The exchange in the middle is utterly fascinating. More debates should be set up like this. Really hard to find examples of people actually digging deeper like this.
What a top notch discussion. I thought they showed a really high level of mutual respect and inquisitiveness towards each other. If just 10% of religious debate could be as industrious and respectful as these two gentlemen achieve here, I'd be over the moon. I'm looking at you TH-cam.
the moon dosent exist
This is my favorite Carrier debate for just there reason.
hmmm no Carrier was quite central neutral Trent Horn on the other hand was very aggressive. You are not as good a judge of character as you think you are ... it's all in the language
@ I thought Trent was miles more civil than someone like Craig Evans. I thought he would start pulling his hair out and screaming for Carrier to get off his lawn.
@@uttaradit2 We have actual EVIDENCE for the moon, stupid. Tell me more about your Book of Ancient Bullshit with the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, woman turned into a pillar of salt, the sun standing still in the sky for a full day, a man living inside of a fish for 3 days, zombie apocalypse, and a virgin-born demigod with superpowers whose magic mucus could heal the blind. LOL! It couldn't possibly be a bunch of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, New Testament professor: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term." - Who Wrote the Bible and Why It Matters
Even though most of the details went over my head, it was extremely interesting and the knowledge they both have memorized is mind blowing really.
I feel the same way a bunch! I kept realising this on my own throughout the debate. They may look at notes at times but plenty of times you seem them reply when they're just staring around to others. 👌😅😊😊😊💯
Why doesn't this debate have 14 million views rather than just 143k? This is pure gold, knowledge, intelligence and debating skill at its very best, particularly from Richard Carrier, but also to an extent from Trent Horn. I always thought the existence of Jesus had to be one of the most crucial historical issues for the western world, and here it is, being discussed in the most erudite way by two ultra heavyweights, and less than 150k people seem to be interested in hearing it (date of writing 24/02/21).
Richard Carrier has become a thorn in the side of many religious scholars.
Because he's a self-conceited specially metamorphosed idiot.
What made you think so? There's no logical necessity to that.
+Jonathan Gullett Can you prove that?
What made you think so? Just because I paid attention to your immoral demigod Carrier does not follow that I am stupid. I want to think you're projecting your own desperation and insecurity into your comments but I'd rather think you're a good person.
+Jonathan Gullett I did not provide any argument regarding my last comment so it's weird for you to point out a premise that was never there.
This was a great debate. The depth of this debate was impressive...I've seen some comments criticizing Trent Horn saying "Moving on.." and Richard Carrier saying "in my book..". I think both of these comments are justified by time restrictions. I was very impressed with both speakers knowledge, I wouldn't say either came out as a "winner", but the back-and-forth conversation without a moderator was extremely entertaining, and I think it takes a unique couple of debaters to pull that off. I got a sense that each respected the others' knowledge and viewpoints, and genuinely wanted to know more about what the other thought and why. I did not get the sense of bitterness or pride you see in many other debates, but a desire to know truth and explain how you see it. Also impressed how the audience seemed attentive and respectful for both sides. I am Catholic, this did not shake my faith, but it did increase my desire to learn more. Thank you MABOOM!
D Walk
have you read carriers book? Are you aware he was open for peer review?
Either way, Richard is more qualified on this subject then tent is.
Greg, first, learn how to spell his name correctly. Then you can move on with your BS
How about priests rapping alter boys and then covering up, how's that catholic faith thing going now?
If you saw Jesus on the cross would you be tempted to take a little nibble, you fucking cannibal
Agreed.
Debate starts at 6:25
Everyone who does this is a saint.
NoExitLoveNow thank you I hate all the shit in the beginning
@@lordmozart3087 Yeah, especially bad on universities where first the head of the unversity speaks, then the head of the department, then high ranking professors who are fan of one of the persons invited, then the organizer of the lecture/debate, and then finally it starts. I've seen it take over 25 minutes.
So it's true... he does exist
1:09:15 - look at Trent's face, his non-reaction to what otherwise would be a very reactionary trigger moment. He's an impressively patient person, imo the most respectable apologist I've seen out there. Carrier too, they're both shining examples of what a true dialectical form should be. (As so many other comment's suggest).
what's the reactionary trigger moment? When Carrier points out that Horn is improperly importing meaning into the text that isn't there? I didn't realize that this would be a trigger. Do you know of really bad debaters who would get triggered? I'd love to see that...like the bad part of me would like to see that.
I agree that they're both ...as you say, "shining examples of what a true dialectical form should be" I gained a lot of respect for Horn after this as a person and just would love to see them really hash it out like go to sources and have the discussion, is ti 50/50? Did Philo say that to the Priestess? I'd love a 12 part documentary called "Conversion" where in the end, Horn is an atheist or Horn isn't a theist ;-P
@@joshuashrode2084 Just that most people immediately react to "you can't do that" by showing face or getting defensive, often responding with "you can't either!" or "yes I CAN because...", where Trent's face is emotionless, engaged in the discussion not the debate.
I just find it incredibly impressive for some reason, and yes it's probably dangerous for him, well his faith anyway, in danger from actually applying other rational approaches to logical thinking that's so deadly to religious indoctrination, lol. And he couldn't have picked a better (or worse?) opponent for that, either lol.
@@joshuashrode20841:09:15 Carrier: "You can't say that, but it's entirely possible". You Atheists never ever really make sense. Point to Horn!
Like you Atheists put up on your bus advertising: "There probably is no God, so...." You Atheists cannot not, and never can, say definitively, there is no God. Your world view is completely irrational.
@@joshuashrode2084 Carrier: "You can't say that, but it's entirely possible". You Atheists never ever really make sense. Point to Horn! Like you Atheists put up on your bus advertising: "There probably is no God, so...." You Atheists cannot not, and never can, say definitively, there is no God. Your world view is completely irrational.
Mr. Horn had his work on full display. Mr. Carrier had his education and brilliance, no contest. Precision, details and patience prevails once more.
Huh. I think there’s a reason a historian with a doctorate is debating a random Catholic, and not, you know, other people in his field. (The reason is that he is a joke)
@@Jd-808 How many "random Catholics" do you know dissect the original Greek of scriptures and can discuss academic Christian history on the fly in a live debate? I think the real question is why popular theologians like Bart Ehrman are afraid to debate Carrier. Ehrman will debate all kinds of clowns on the theology side, but debating the biggest proponent of the idea that Jesus wasn't a historical figure is beneath him?
@@chrimony Carrier has launched all sorts of nasty personal attacks on Ehrman and many other persons it's no wonder they won't debate him.
@@tomasrocha6139 The attacks go both ways. Carrier was always dismissed right from the get-go instead of addressing the arguments.
I love trent horn but I think the typology Jesus the new Adam and mary the new eve would have been a better defence on the arguement of women under the law ,
I wonder if Carrier memorizes all verses in the Bible. Pretty amazing how he quotes them.
I think he just has a good memory like most good scholars, practices these debates a lot, and takes this topic seriously unlike many "religious" laypeople who want to hear nothing beyond "easy immortality, what else you need to follow all these rules without question of the basic ideas."
This is probably the first intelligent and well thought out attempt to rebut Carrier that I have seen. It fails, mostly because Horn can't quite escape from his Christian worldview enough, but it is clear that he has at least read and understood Carrier's work, and is familiar with the background knowledge, so Carrier is forced to actually try and defend it, rather than just pointing out how stupid the criticism is, and there are a couple of times when he does score a hit, though not on anything truly central and for the most part he fails to demonstrate that his historical view is more likely than a mythicist one, let alone that the mythicist one is unlikely.
Verry good observation!
He shows a lack of knowledge of ancient history and the later xtian commentaries.
That he stood there and said out loud that there was no evidence for sects preaching a non corporeal yeshua, is mindblowing.
Sad to see Carrier cannot of his prejudices...
This was a very good debate. Both guys knew their stuff. I wish we could have gotten a longer debate.
+grant mohler sorry Richard does not know his stuff, he is a very good sophist.
+andrew sapia So, what else is new? So were Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris!
@@andrewsapia I think Richard answered all the question all in all good debate
@@andrewsapia one guy has facts and historical records on his side- the sophist. The other guy has only a book of contradictory fables and myths, and a couple intentionally misrepresented quotes from one writer.
"Proving history" is a necessity if these arguments look equally true- they aren't.Carrier won!
I really like how Dr. Carrier never aggressively attacks his opponent, and can sight references to support his point of view. He shows his side and respects his fellow debater in saying to the audience, Read both sides and you can decide for yourself. I am a huge fan of Hitchens, Krauss, and Dawkins, and stand behind what they stand for 100%, but I feel a certain level of mutual respect is lacking in those debates. Granted when arguments fly in the face of common sense and proven evidence then such 'agression' is warranted.
"cite"
In his blog he only ever insults people
I attended this debate and was impressed to see the arguments for the mythicist Jesus are nothing to scoff at
it was a good debate and I even bought Richard Carriers book , I think after this debate it was made clear that this needs to be addressed in the Christian community, this subject is too big to get all in a few hours, I hope to see a good modern refutation of Dr. Carriers arguments in the future
The problem started as people tried to see a mythical story as real. In mean in the stories we have walking dead in the streets of Jerusalem and nobody noticed, water turned into wine and nobody noticed, people walking over water and nobody noticed outside of the stories. We have so much more evidence for miracles of all kind of goddesses and gods in antiquity.
Not even your threats of eternal fire can make those myths real
@John Donnellanthe christian myths don't have a threat of eternal damnation if you don't believe in it's deity, really ??? Don't assume that I just decided not to believe in magic I did my homework and took notes. like in the complete works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus where Plinys epistle Trajan written in 112ad raises many questions. I found to be particularly interesting that a high level Roman like Pliny would have no idea who christians were , Especially if only a few years before 500 solders "witnessed" the regrowing of a limb and his crusifiction .
But.
By your own words youre an idiot.
@Dominus Vobiscum, why should you be HOPING for a refutation of Carrier's arguments? You should, we all should, be hoping for clarification that leads to the truth.
I could listen to Carrier for days. Not only is he incredibly knowledgeable, but he's also about as down to earth and intellectually honest as they come. He controls most of his debates simply because the depth and breadth of his knowledge is so much greater than his opponents. Matt Dillahunty is a close second, but Carrier just f-ing rocks.
Matt Dillahunty is eloquent but too abusive with his phone in callers for my liking, so although I certainly ought be a fan, I don't listen in to the Atheist Experience much, for that reason. I also dislike the fact that Dillahunty is respectful to his debate opponents - because he'd be hounded out of town if he weren't - but has an entirely different standard with his more "plebby" callers.
@@laurameszaros9547 agreed. Dillahunty is a good debater but is just an asshole to his callers because he’s been doing it too long and is jaded. I don’t watch AE anymore either. The whole organization has turned into a power trip by Matt.
Carrier, historical. Dillahunty, antilogical. Harris, Emotional.
“Intellectual honesty is saying what I want to hear”
Richard Carrier is anything but intellectually honest, there's a reason no university will hire him or touch any of his mythicist works with a ten-foot pole
Although Carrier handily won this debate it has to be said that horn gave a much more sophisticated response then most apologists. Good effort and productive debate.
What do you call the when debaters get time to question their opponent in a debate on Christianity?
A *cross* examination.
Reading all these vile comments, I needed a laugh. Thank you!
You nailed it...
Sooo bad, it was a good laugh!
🤦♀️ lol.
A very cross examination judging by some of the comments. (I know I’m late to the party, but I couldn’t resist.)
Wonderful debate! Thank you for making this available to the masses. I don't find it necessary to profess or disclose my personal beliefs to think intellectual discourses about such powerful and implicating practices of religion and faith of a deity should be handled with the utmost care. If one is to believe and follow a doctrine of faith one should be of the mindset of transparency and the be able to challenge their own convictions when time and time again inconsistencies arise in both the philosophical notions of ideas and values but also the actions of its followers and what is carried out in its name.
+Rainbow Styx Excellent comment. We thank you.
What a great debate with two great knowledgeable men.
Horn gave Carrier a run for his money, but where he couldn't hold sway was contentions of non-natural and magical assertions where of course he loses all credibility. But he clearly knew his material and gave a good accounting for his theory of historicity. Not convinced, but probably as good of an accounting as I have heard in debates with Richard.
29:58 Carrier claims the Greek word used is not one Paul uses of birth. That’s a strange argument since BDAG’s first entry on the word γίγνομαι in Greek refers to coming into being by the process of birth. And of course Romans 1:3 also says “according to the flesh”, which is a detail Carrier leaves out.
His argument that the word isn’t used by Paul to refer to birth is really bad, because Paul actually does use the word specifically with reference to births. The word is also used in Paul’s Galatians 4:4 specifically in reference to Jesus being born of a woman and being born under the Law.
That is because this guy does know what he is talking about, he just spits out what are supposed facts, doing it so fast that no one grasps it, but people blindly agree with it. Take these things he is saying one at a time, and he would get nailed most every time. Just like you did. Good job. This is the dumbest debate I have ever seen.
You're reading it from a Christian viewpoint.
Being born under the law isn't a literal birth. That's the point. Neither is being born of a woman (in that passage), because the woman in question _is_ metaphorical -- the Law, Jerusalem, Sarah, or Hagar. Again, not literal.
That's the argument, anyway. That Paul starts with saying Jesus was born of a woman, but later reveals that the woman is metaphorical. Which again -- is using the word in a non-literal sense.
Fantastic debate. Horn definitely exposed some of the weak points in Carrier's argument. Was good to see Horn go straight for the jugular attacking Carrier's views head on in his opening. I was expecting a lot less from the rent-an-apologist. Carrier's rebuttals were fantastically detailed and showed that he is not some quack conspiracist (which many mythicists fall into). The line "possible but not probable" was thrown around a lot in this discussion by both, and I mostly felt that it was Carrier's views that were falling into that category. Carrier makes the best "possible" case for mythicism, but even as an atheist I have to concede that the more straight-forward and thus likely reading of Paul is that he believed Jesus had been here on Earth (even if he also believed him to be some incarnated angel or what-have-you). Carrier has stated that he wants to debate Mark Goodacre in a proper formatted debate like this (forget their brief radio interview a few years ago). Goodacre is one of the top scholars in the world, no rent-an-apologist, and after seeing Horn's not-disastrous performance here, I fear that Goodacre might be too much to handle. I would love to see that debate happen. To bad Ehrman has stated that he wants nothing to do with Carrier!
Dr. James F. Mcgrath is another good canidate.
That Ehrman does a global ad hominem on ALL people holding mythicist views yet is unwilling to debate the substance of his reasons reflects very poorly on him.
The key reasons Ehrman gives, like "Paul said he knew Jesus' brother therefore Jesus existed", are purile.
@@canwelook You can see Ehrman dismantle the mythicist argument without breaking a sweat in his debate with Robert M Price. He smart enough to realize guys like Carrier are just grifters and doesn’t want to platform them.
@@Jd-808 bart uses the bible to argue jesus existed.,...a book that has people coming back to life after 3 days zombies people turning water in wine and people walking on water....there is zero evidence outside the bible for jesus existence....whether he existed or not it's not the slam dunk you make it
that is genuinely barts only reason....jesus had a brother.....yer a story in a book......4 times i have heard bart talk about historicity and 4 times he mentions 1 thing....jesus had a brother
Great debate. I love to see such a cordial and respectful debate and exchange of ideas. I’m already familiar with Dr. Carrier and his style and always appreciate his approach but I was very impressed by Trent Horn. It’s commendable that he was able to debate the topic in such a matter of fact and scholarly way considering his personal beliefs about the divinity of Jesus. That’s just to say I’ve seen many others take things personally and begin to act incredulously that the “truth” is being questioned or doubted. His very calm and probing approach and deep knowledge of the more nuanced aspects of the material is very impressive. I gained a lot of respect for him in this debate.
Trent Horn did an outstanding job here!
***** Before or after Carrier corrected him several times and even saved him from an audience question?
in the cross examining Trent was destroyed, I mean at one point I was feeling kinda bad for him
When?
If you mean he didn't embarrass himself, that's true. He is not a typical fanatic. His arguments did not convince me that Jesus was a historical person. Carrier's points are stronger.
I think it's important to note that Dr.Carrier's book, On The Historicity Of Jesus, has been submitted for peer review.
I love the respect they have for each other, amazing debate, even tough some of it flow right over my head haha
Richard carrier destroyed Trent. Carrier is the only person who has a peer review book on this subject. Biased Christian scholars tend to not know all the facts or the research and are fighting an uphill battle as better scholars come out and say hey maybe there is reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. Carrier isnt saying that jesus didnt exist no matter what. He is saying there is reason to doubt and that there is a 1/3 chance jesus existed. Thats pretty spot on. How can you argue with that
Informative debate with capable participants, especially a display of Dr. Carrier's encyclopedic knowledge on the subject. Note how many times Mr. Horn says "Let's move on", often after Dr Carrier's "No, actually..." rebuttals.
Atheos Nous time constraints
That's called a debate...
This is profoundly painful to listen to. As a child of missionaries and pastors, I have a good idea of the current level of indoctrination that most evangelicals/fundamentalists live with. This just reminds me of just how usless and obsolete this argument is. I am a firm believer in the value of living your life according to your own life experience and not what someone else tells you about life/spirit/existence. I care about what gospels were accepted into the new testament as much as I care about what trolls for flat earth think.
Bottom line, be true to your self and seek out scientifically indisputable theories/facts.
P.S I plan to buy Dr. Carrier's book for my brainwashed family members for their contemplation.
May Jesus help you
Carrier has such brilliant work. The fact her wrote a book called PROVING HISTORY to literally teach the layperson proper methods of learning and evaluation history to the best of one's ability via true scholarship, and then his work applies those principals, was brilliant.
When he credits other scholars, including Bart Ehrman, for their brilliant work, he credits them for doing proper work and coming up with brilliant analysis. That is why I found it interesting, when Carrier and others, took down Ehrman's bad work on proving the historicity of Jesus, as he went point by point demonstrating how Ehrman didn't seem to put his normal strong scholarly effort into that particular book.
I personally believe Ehrman is secretly mythicist leaning, but can't risk his career in saying so.
I saw a recent interview with Carrier, and he mentioned that the number of respected scholars suggesting the 'plausibility' of Jesus being not historical, has grown from 4, to about 20, over over the last 6 or 7 years. I expect that will keep growing and scholars like Carrier will get his just due in 20 years for his brilliant work
to SilverLink - kudos to you - when one is brought up steeped in nonsense, it is so very hard to untwine oneself
@Ncdcfan That is exactly not what Carrier is doing. If you dig in his books, his arguments typically come with a weighing of probabilities for either historicity or ahistoricity. Plus: He is usually very generous when it comes to establishing the probability that given facts are as they are on the historicity thesis, so to say.
And if you don't agree, you really shouldn't attack him personally, as you do here, but rather attack his arguments and maybe figure out our own set of probabilities. And if anything he strengthens your faith, so be it.
@Ncdcfan Anytime you want to prove your book of debunked ancient fairy tales with the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, which promises magic poison resistance to believers---go ahead! "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). So post your video demonstrating the magic poison-resistance superpowers that Lying Jesus promised! It's not like the Bible is full of lies, right? Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term." - Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
I looked, but I never found a round 2 of this debate. On every topic, Trent stopped to move on to a new topic, but I'd like to see if he's revisited any of his positions.
Wow, this is really impressive stuff on the part of Richard Carrier. I'm fairly new to him and he's clearly an outstanding scholar/researcher as well as an original, out of the box thinker.
@Em Eye Kay Yes, I agree about Bart Ehrman, but he and Richard Carrier don't see eye to eye and had a bit of a personal falling out, I believe. Ehrman believes in the historicity of Jesus (although not in his divinity of course), and Carrier's position is that this can't be validated at all. Personally I'm not too bothered whether Jesus existed or not, though I guess it would be interesting to know, I suppose, and both Ehrman and Carrier deny the claim of divinity, which is the important issue as far as I'm concerned.
@@laurameszaros9547 wait you think Carriers a good scholar?
@@anunknownentity1637 Yes, Carrier is a fine scholar. He may or may not be right about the mythicism/historicity of Jesus, but he asks questions and sheds light where angels fear to tread, so to speak, and deserves credit for it. I guess people who want to believe the claims about Jesus' life, crucifixion, miracles, divine status and so forth aren't going to appreciate Carrier's scholarship however.
@Laura Meszaros well most scholars in general disregard his scholarship, this isn't an exclusively Christian thing. I'd recommend you watch this video
th-cam.com/video/yRL6Z_Vn-Lw/w-d-xo.html
@@anunknownentity1637 Most Nobel laureate physicists and cosmologists are atheists. Do you disregard their scholarship by any chance?
Richard Carrier presents decent argument. Except for the writings of paul. The only way his argument works is if you make an interpretation about everything. You have to make Jesus brother James not his literal brother. You have to make the seed not a literal seed. You have to make the flesh not literal flesh. You have to say the woman is Eve instead of Mary. You have to assume he was crucified in an unnamed place somewhere between earth and heaven. A place where the bible makes no mention of.
When you need that much interpretation to make something work, its probably not the right scenario. The scenario with the least amount of assumptions is usually the right one.
It's not really making an interpretation about what is said. It's examining the usage of the words and the context they are in. Doing that using the original writings rather than translations (or in some cases ASSUMED translations on Horn's part) can give different outcomes. Carrier addresses this in his book where this format limits his ability to do so.
collecemall
Yes I understand there can be different outcomes. but determining what is the right outcome is the goal.
Richard Carriers arguments reminds me of when a Christian Apologists flip and bounce verses in the Old testament in order to make them seem not as violent.
They do the exact same thing Carrier does. They'll say, well this word could really mean this, and that word could really that, and if you look at it this way it could me this.
If you have to do all of that, the scenario your trying to make may be a little skewed.
Just as much interpretation (i.e. argument and evidence) is required to adopt the positions you seem to assume are "obvious". Remember that these "obvious" interpretations are for the most part christian interpretations. Biblical scholars are still struggling to free themselves from these christian paradigms.
FramedArchitecture
"Just as much interpretation (i.e. argument and evidence) is required to adopt the positions you seem to assume are "obvious""
But see thats my problem with Richard Carriers arguments. He uses the same methods as christian apologists. They twist, wined, and bend texts in order to fit their narratives.
For every verse that says Jesus was on Earth. Carrier flips and bounces words around in order for it to mean that he wasn't on earth.
If you take what Paul says about Jesus at face value, that puts Jesus on earth.
"Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh"
Carrier says the seed isn't literal semen and the flesh is not literal flesh. So he flips the words around to fit his narrative. Just like how christian apologists do.
Alvin Elmore By "christian" interpretations I didn't mean to imply apologist interpretations. I meant mainstream interpretations that rely heavily on the christian tradition. Having read "On the Historicity of Jesus" I can tell you Carrier is not just interpreting the text on a whim or "twisting" the text to fit his needs. He is performing the same type of exegesis mainstream scholars do, but he has jettisoned many of the mainstream suppositions, which allows him to come to slightly different conclusions (on balance, he agrees with mainstream interpretations). There are a few weak arguments in the book, but it's a strong cumulative case to favor myth over history. Either way, I don't really care if jesus existed, but we should want to believe the more probable case.
Excellent debate.
Which texts actually state that Jesus was crucified in the lower heavens, rather than on earth?
Dr Carrier states that it does not affect his case if the text talks about a physical incarnation of Jesus. Why not?
Why do the gospels mention real places like the Sea of Galilee, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and so on, if nothing really happened there and if the really important events didn't take place on earth at all? Why would the apostles not have more mystical names rather than ordinary Jewish names and ordinary professions if they didn't really exist? What purpose would adding in such mundane details serve, if Dr Carrier's view is correct?
The fact that New York City is referenced as the home of Spiderman doesn't make Spiderman real.
You need to listen to Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers destroy Carrier's mythicist theory.
What's the core argument he makes?
He makes many inferences from Paul that Jesus was a real historical person, ie: He had a human brother, ate the last supper, was born of a woman etc. Carrier claims Paul's Jesus was never a human. That's just for starters. He then destroys this whole nonsense about Jesus being taken from Pagan deities.
protochris But Paul never actually met Jesus. He states pretty plainly that he never did, and is thusly speaking to Jesus or getting information via revelation. If that's not inhuman, what is?
How is Jesus NOT taken from Pagan deities? The virgin birth origin, the links to ancient heroes (David), etc...he's the very model of a modern major general....deity.
No Paul didn't meet the human Jesus; but he did speak of Christ's earthly existence, ie: "born of a woman", "of the seed of abraham", had an earthly brother-jacob/james, had dinner with his disciples the night before he was handed over, was crucified & bled, and resurrected bodily. If you compare those pagan deity births, they're not virgin in the same manner as Mary's. One became a virgin and tried to kill her own child, others morphed out of their mother's bodies. Jesus was of David's lineage, hence his claim to the Davidic throne. Jesus was not a modern general like Mohammad. He had no army, suffered death on the cross, and stated that his kingdom was not of this earth.
Yeah, um, variations in how the myth is told. Perseus had a similar origin. Alexander, Achilles, etc.
Dr. Richard Carrier is a great debater, he just needs a great British accent like Hitchens did...
+Biker Tramp It would be nice if dick had some proof he is correct.
Idiot atheist Something tells me that no amount of proof would convince you --- your choice of screen name tells me everything I need to know about your thoughts on the subject...
Biker Tramp To date, I have not been offered ANY proof that Jesus was a myth or did not exist. If you have some, I would like to see the proof.
Idiot atheist I haven't seen any proof that Unicorns don't exist, we have records of unicorns that predate Jesus --- what is your point?
Biker Tramp If you want to talk about unicorn, go to a posting about unicorns.
If you have any proof that Jesus is a myth, which is the premise of the debate, please tell me.
Wow... Dr Carrier literally took him to school. Yikes. Goes to show how much apologists fight reason to make up and defend their beliefs.
you sure youre watching the right debate? cause that never happened
The historicity of Jesus is pretty good since the overwhelming amount of historians and archeologists do not think there is any good evidence for a mythical fabrication of Jesus. The very fact that almost no mythicists exist in academia is because the historical evidence is good as is. There is no super evidence for anyone in the ancient world on their existence, but that is the nature of the historical record. Apollonius of Tyana for instance had a biography written a century after he had died. Yet I have never heard of a mythicist say he did not exist because we have such a poor record for Apollonius. Sparatcus barely was mentioned in passing in some late sources too. No contemporary who knew Spartacus wrote about him. Pythagoras had biographies written centuries after he had died. The historical record is so poor that we have a very small fraction of works that actually existed in the ancient world - and even what we have is usually incomplete too.
There are no contemporary historians for Hannibal.
Seems to be correct. If we use mythicist logic, then since we have such poor sources on Hannibal and are second hand too (similar situations to other historical figures named above) then none of them would exist and they all should be treated as mythical creatures and their sources as mythical narratives. The poor nature of the sources would affect all of the people that were described in the historical record (including archaeological references) only once (e.g. servants, family members like wives, children, etc). So should we assume most people in the records are also mythical creatures? When looking at Socrates' record, it is clear that his record is also pretty butchered since the "Socratic Problem" has haunted and obscured him quite badly. Is he mythical as well? It seems absurd to gauge the historicity of a person based on the quality of a record.
I have seen Carrier speak on mythicism before with mostly secular people in the audience and some who were religious too. He of course behaved differently there as he was more at home and as such was more loose about his mythicist beliefs. On the video here, Carrier was more respectful since he had an opponent. He got nailed hard in the Questions and Answers session since his theory IS very outlandish (he admitted that it sounds incredibly far fetched) and also is pretty much the same in many respects to previous mythicist writings (e.g. Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and others). His Cosmic Christ conspiracy theory has been debunked by mainstream scholars like Bart Ehrman. Once you question Carrier's ideas, methods, convenient dismissals of evidence, and especially his atheistic and anti-Christian biases, he and his theory fall apart. Mythicism has been around for a few centuries now and it still has virtually no following among academics who specialize in history of Rome, Greece, or Israel. It is just too absurd to be believed by anyone who lives in reality. He even has a conspiracy theory that Christians destroyed evidences, but he himself shows no evidence for such an absurd assumption. The fact that Jesus has modest sources implies that Christians were not adding Jesus everywhere to "cover up" something.
optimeg when atheists are asked for evidence to back their claim that Jesus didn't exist, they all pull the same tired rabbit out of the hat and say "You can't prove a negative", which any intelligent person knows is a logical fallacy. The saying is "You can't prove a lie"
Idiot atheist Do you even watch and listen to Carriers arguments on these vids...or just comment on them from out of your ass? There are hours of him doing nothing but presenting evidence to support the reasons he believes that Jesus did not exist. It is the Christians that are trying to switch the burden of proof and making fantastic assertions, not atheists. As far as the logical fallacy the real point is that in some cases you may be able to prove a negative, but unfalsifiable claims can not be dis-proven by default.
Anyone is free to do all the research they want in order to see for themselves if there is any credible historical evidence for the existence of "the" Jesus. And if they do honest research will most likely end up like Carrier or at the very least be astounded by how scant any "evidence" is and like myself actually feel a bit perturbed finding out I was being lied to most of my life, even if those lying to me were not aware they were lying.
david vitrogen Hmm... just a quick point. Actually Carrier does not present evidences per se he simply uses the same evidences that other have used for various interpretations and reinterprets it in his own way. In other words, he presents arguments for his thesis. But I think Bart Ehrman has it right when he says "Scholarly opinion - even highly informed scholarly opinion - is not evidence." - Bart D. Ehrman.
Thoroughly engaging debate, but I just have one question. Is that Garrett Hedlund at 01:05:20 turning his head?
One of my favorite debates where both debaters are at least operating in good faith unlike a William Lane Craig. Carrier rebuts every single point and leaves Horn twisting and appealing to some handwavy thing be it authority or denying that something is a redaction which just further makes the point that we don't know as much as the overwhelming majority of believers and non-believers thought we did. Jesus as myth was always relegated to crackpot poorly credentialed popular authors (usually). Carrier has definitely done yoemans work in trudging through the frustrating early years of Christianity to try to provide a compelling counter to the origins of arguably the most influential religion of all time.
I know this is old but on your last comment.
It sounds to me like leading the evidence instead of following the evidence. It is not a good practice to already have a conclusion.
Maybe this is a question carrier has answer?
This was a very respectful debate
Carrier destroyed this man!
Agreed….the other guy lives in fairyland.
Carrier’s “read my book” sounds like have faith in me or on how I interpret things.
He just doesn't want to waste valuable debate time, plus the book is where the arguments are academically worded properly and the applicable sources are cited. Personal interpretations, bias and especially apologetics are things he specifically avoids out of respect for the dialectic.
No. Hes TIRED of explaining the same basic shit.
The footnotes etc are all there
@@sugarnads and like Michael Belliaisle, (Arming America) Carrier has been caught again and again misrepresenting his cited source supports. It's one of the most common academic shell games, put an impressive footnote and bibliographic citation, but the source actually says something else, in fact often opposed to the citing author's position.
@@robertlehnert4148 Prove it. It's typical of Christers to make false accusation and then never back them up. So prove it. Or prove you're just blowing chunks out your piehole, which is Christian doctrine.
@@robertlehnert4148 please provide a single instance to support this. I have been unable to corroborate your claim despite trying. I have found quite the opposite.
"I don't care anymore what Christian apologists think. They are not rational people." Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, 617-18.
Appears he has changed his mind, or his book simply hasn't gained any sort of traction with scholars.
***** I certainly wouldn't dream of limiting you to two options. ^^
I suppose there are a nearly infinite number of reasons he might have accepted a debate with an apologist, but it seems odd given the above quote.
***** I made a gracious concession in my previous post, and this apparently is just not enough for you. What do you want here? A public confession that I made a logical fallacy? This was an off the cuff youtube comment, not a formal inductive argument or a debate response...
I might point out that the first part of my statement is very likely true because Carrier asks questions of his opponent, so he apparently does "care" what this Christian apologist thinks.
FramedArchitecture Surely you're capable of understanding the difference between participating in a live debate with someone to get information to an audience - vs. - personally actually giving a crap what your debate opponent really thinks, right?
delataylor Sure, I think that's a perfectly good reason to engage in debates. I wouldn't begrudge Carrier any opportunity to communicate his ideas to a wider public. But given his remark in his book, it surprised me that he would choose to debate an apologist. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would guess he would have preferred to debate leading scholars on this issue, people like Goodacre and Ehrman. And maybe he will. At any rate, there's no need to insult my intelligence with a sarcastic comment. I think we can have a nice conversation about this -- or none!
FramedArchitecture
A) As stated above from the event organizers, and in the interviews with Dr. Carrier on this channel regarding the same - Dr. Carrier *didn't* "choose" to debate this apologist as Trent Horn was chosen for him.
B) Dr. Carrier *has* debated scholars. In fact, just Google the online debates between him one that you mentioned, Dr. Ehrman. Ehrman, now refuses to debate Carrier anymore. You do realize this isn't the only debate that Dr. Carrier has been in, right? So please look up the rest before publicly stating they don't exist and that Dr. Carrier won't do them; because that is embarrassing.
C) Regarding your intelligence, I reread my comment and don't see that I mentioned it, much less insulted it. Further, the only argument I can even see made regarding me implying anything about your intelligence, is that I assumed you had enough of it to realize the comment you made, may have been flawed.
D) After your comment that started this thread trying to insult Dr. Carrier and his work, please don't play the victim by claiming others are insulting you.
E) I hope you understand (and appreciate the warning), should your next comment to me not be a simple retraction and/or apology, I now feel comfortable taking a stab at your intelligence.
i would have loved to have read some of those books in alexandria
Maybe they slipped the damning theological Books out before the Fire and they now reside at The Vatican.
Carrier interrupts too much.
Also, extreme pet peeve is when people in arguments just throw out “the scholarship says” or “the scholarly consensus is” as proof of their argument. It’s a basic appeal to authority fallacy, which wouldn’t necessarily be an issue if I had a background knowledge of the scholarship, but I don’t so my inclination is to believe that that is a weak part of the persons argument and they don’t want to open themselves up to attack on that point. Carrier did this repeatedly and given that at other points he had no issue being didactic about the evidence he believed supported his position, I am suspicious of his choice not to recapitulate the scholarship but merely to reference it. My suspicion is compounded by the fact that Carrier repeatedly insisted on his interpretation of the text but then dismissed Horn’s interpretations as “assuming context,” as if his interpretation relies on nothing and stands on its own.
I’m on Trent’s side and this was a good debate and Carrier is good at marshaling his case, but I’m not convinced by his case. I think Trent’s two points at the beginning about what Carrier’s case had to demonstrate are sound, and I don’t think Carrier met either of them in this debate. Trent’s position wins even though this wasn’t a great debate performance on his part.
It's not a fallacy if you are just citing the facts - RC never made an argument that it is true because the majority believe X.
This is better than battle rap 🔥
Best. Fucking. Debate format. Ever.
It’s always fascinating to watch Richard’s mastery of the subject. His reason and logic are on a solid foundation. Trent’s arguments are a house of cards. It’s always confusing.
Full of BS (carrier)
@@supersmart671 Liars can CLAIM anything, and fools can believe anything on faith, but “The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded.” So let me know when you find some evidence to support absurd claims about an *INVISIBLE MAGIC SKY GENIE* , or that he impregnated Jesus’ mother 2,000 years ago, or that Jesus was a *VIRGIN-BORN DEMIGOD WITH SUPERPOWERS* and that his *ROTTING CORPSE MAGICALLY RETURNED FROM THE DEAD* before levitating bodily into outer space, or evidence for the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, etc.
Carrier is only a master of sexual harassment, there's a reason that no university will touch any of his works with a ten-foot pole or hire him.
It is most difficult to debate Richard Carrier on this subject matter. Again, he doesn't claim that a mere mortal Jesus did not exist, but that there is more evidence that he didn't actually exist than did exist.
I would have to read the supporting documents myself to know which of them is wrong. Either way, it is clear that one of them is able to generate vast amounts of supporting data for the motivated cognition leading up to their wrong conclusion. That is sad.
Welcome to the world of scholarship
Trent Horn - "let's move on"...in other words - " I stand corrected".
Raoul Borans Also, "we don't have time for that." means "I am afraid I'll get my ass handed to me if I pursue this."
Raoul Borans 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Interesting note in Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted: "What do Greek and Roman sources have to say about Jesus? Or to
make the question more pointed: if Jesus lived and died in the first
century (death around 30 CE), what do the Greek and Roman sources
from his own day through the end of the century (say, the year 100)
have to say about him? The answer is breathtaking. They have absolutely
nothing to say about him. He is never discussed, challenged,
attacked, maligned, or talked about in any way in any surviving
pagan source of the period. There are no birth records, accounts of
his trial and death, reflections on his significance, or disputes about
his teachings. In fact, his name is never mentioned once in any
pagan source. And we have a lot of Greek and Roman sources from
the period: religious scholars, historians, philosophers, poets, natural
scientists; we have thousands of private letters; we have inscriptions
placed on buildings in public places. In no first-century Greek or
Roman (pagan) source is Jesus mentioned."
Even born-again Secularist Ehrman dismisses mythicists like Carrier out of hand. Your selective c&p of Ehrman is embarrassing for your sake as this NT scholar, with 99.5%+ of his non-religious peers, accepts as established fact that there was a historical human being known as Jesus of Nazareth, who existed, preached, and was crucified by the Romans in the first third of the 1st century AD.
In regards to lack of contemporary textual records, it's curious how the mythicists seem to think there's all these archives of complete Roman birth, tax, death, and court records, all neatly coded, filed, and cross-referenced. Perhaps that's a wee bit of an exaggeration, but not much when it comes to the mythicists' rhetoric.
Consider this, on textual evidence alone, there are no contemporary written accounts of the Emperor Nero. There are two brief accounts about 25 years later, and a longer text 50 years later, and all three of Senatorial class writers. These accounts refer to earlier records, but those texts--along with 99%+ of almost all Roman and Greek records--have fallen victim to fire, mold, mice, or other agents of entropy.
@@robertlehnert4148 Ehrman says Jesus probably existed but has nothing but scorn for the supernatural claims/ elements of his life. He thinks the body was thrown in a communal grave - end of story.
@@jonfromtheuk467 Many people have noted that Ehrman is almost schitzophrenic when you knowingly compare his academic against his popular writings. The former are sober, generally within the evidence, even for the Secularist side of NT scholarship. The popular, while in a engaging pros, are full of over reaching propaganda, and full of the attitude that believers MUST be ignorant and dishonest.
@@robertlehnert4148 Well I have read many of his non academic works and didnt pick up that attitude. In fact my claim about his claim about that what probably happened to Jesus body, came from watching debates and reading his blog, not from the books (from my memory that is)
@@robertlehnert4148 "that there was a historical human being known as Jesus of Nazareth, who existed, preached, and was crucified by the Romans in the first third of the 1st century AD."
That's literally all the Christers have. No mention of miracles or resurrection or being a "god."
You even said so yourself.
Nobody asked Carrier the most basic question Why? What possible motive could Paul have had for making up a new messiah and religion which led to beatings, flogging,imprisonment and execution?
Same question could be posed to many other religious leaders or pioneers throughout history who suffered for what they believed to be true - it's not a good argument I'm afraid.
First, you have no evidence that a single word in the Pauline epistles originated from a 'Paul' in the 1st century. Dr. William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University: “First, not a single early manuscript of an individual Pauline letter has survived...All we can know with certainty is that the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted-and perhaps produced-by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries...What the earlier text of Paul's letters may have been remains, probably forever, shrouded in the mists of obscurity. Suppression and destruction of earlier manuscripts would suggest, however, that these manuscripts may have differed in significant ways from the standardized text that survived.” - Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.
If the question is why liars lie...because they're liars. Dr. Rafael Lataster: “The secular and objective scholar must see Paul either as a liar, mentally disabled, or someone who otherwise treats hallucinations and dreams as real, like many members of charismatic cults.” - Questioning the Historicity of Jesus.
@@HughJaxident67 Crap. Other charlatans have had all kinds of motives-power, women, wealth... name one of these religious leaders you refer to who had nothing to gain by their lies.
@@markmooroolbark252
*Crap*
LOL great argument...oh wait, no it's not!
*Other charlatans have had all kinds of motives-power, women, wealth... name one of these religious leaders you refer to who had nothing to gain by their lies*
No, you're making the claim, you cite these alleged specific examples. Furthermore, any concept of personal gain or sincere conveyance is totally IRRELEVANT to whether or not the claims being made are actually true.
Once again your argument falls flat on its face.
What a wonderful and dynamic debate. Thank you for sharing this. As a gentle and possibly food for thought enabling critique, Trent may not have fully and meaningfully addressed the argument which Richard is host to and which Kent, himself, shared within his opening statement. And that is of the probability of Paul having experienced a hallucination or other property of mind which may have been used as a foundation for his allegorical storytelling and writings. There is lots to explore in the discourse between these two gentleman.
Impressive job Mr Trent.
center the camera please! It drives some of us crazy :P
After 2000 years, truths drift into legends and legends become myths.
01:48:00 - Horn: If the gospels are 99% wrong about jesus they're 1% right, historicity wins.
*record scratch*
Well Horn can subtract numbers. But how does he find that needle in the haystack?
That is a misrepresentation
Terrible audio engineer... the over driven mic is fully red on the meter.
Atleast u can actually hear what theyre saying
Now I'm really confused. It's no wonder us Christians have the problem we do with doubt. This really puts a damper on conclusiveness.
Dr. Carrier is absolutely fantastic. I have never seen him lose a debate and he absolutely thrashed Trent into oblivion. Well done to Dr. Carrier.
and i find him very courteous to his opponent
Two opening statements followed by an hour of Carrier having to respond to silly attacks. Horn follows the only debate tactic that Christians have left to them: Attack every thing the opposite side says, hope to disprove even one, then claim victory.
Thats what happens in a debate where both parties do not agree.
Middle part is a cross examination which is more valuable than a debate.
I've watched this debate twice and I am not sure why anyone thinks Carrier won, or even holds his own. Most comments on this page say he won, but doesn't he conceded defeat at 1:11:00 when Carrier says Paul's writings need Jesus to have a body. His main point was Paul doesn't seem to think Jesus had a human body, but then Carrier says "He (Jesus according to Paul) had to be born of the slave women he had to be born of this word, in order to have a body of flesh that would be corrupt, therefore capable of dying therefore killing sin in him."
Carrier is clearly in control, and Trent is playing catch up. The point you raise is the second time in the conversation in that Carrier discusses being born vs being created.
Try to watch again, but really listen when Carrier talks about that stuff earlier.
There was no win interms of convincing eachother, but Trent clearly didn't understand lots of stuff, said a lot of things which Carrier refuted and then Trent had no rebuttal, and Trent tried to hustle 30 mins discussion time to attack attack attack, asking different questions rapid-fire style, but Carrier answered with ease. Incredible how he remembered things which were asked of him.
Notice that Trent remembers parts which he wants to ask, but Carrier remembers crazy passages which are asked out of the blue.
Watch it again, and you should see that Carrier comes out on top.
I get Carrier's argument. Paul is only using the different word because he is saying God made his own body and became a man as opposed to a normal birth. Paul only means Jesus didn't 'begin" the way people do.
What I'm saying is, Carrier says Paul's story requires Jesus to have a physical body, but Carrier's entire argument (and book) are that Paul doesn't think Jesus has a physical body.
Trent is more trying to show why Carrier's arguments are weak, but Carrier is basically ignoring the problem and repeating himself. Trent just moves on because Carrier's responses are so bad.
wow, please tell me you are not this bad at comprehension.
rohadt Anyad Fell free to explain what you think I am not comprehending. Carrier's argument is a joke and proof you don't have to be Christian to fall for some pretty stupid stuff.
1:10:07 - 1:10:30 (and resulting discussion til asking for time)
Dr. Carrier is saying the entire Galatians 4 (and more, maybe? They're geeking out well beyond my means) is an allegory. He can concede that Paul is saying Jesus needed to be Flesh and thus corrupted/corruptable so sacrifice would work, which fulfills Judaic prophecy.
That still doesn't mean it actually happened; it means the elements of the *story* (allegory!) were necessary to prove the argument (that Paul was making), "Don't go back to Judaism, follow Christianity..."
Dr. Carrier can, and did, concede that point and it doesn't diminish his argument...it really bolsters his argument and Mr. Horn doesn't recognize that; probably because they are somewhat arguing cross purposes (in that Horn doesn't fully grasp Carrier's position/contextual analysis). I think that's kind of the mistake you might be making here too, Leon.
The more I watch debates and the more I hear about arguments for God, Jesus, etc it’s just strikes me as so absolutely ridiculous holding such beliefs are. Intellectually it is truly ridiculous sounding. Essentially an all powerful magical being (aka God) for some unknown reason decides to create the universe (how we dont know) and humanity. He then gives them free will to decide to love and worship him or not and assigns certain people (aka prophets) to write down his laws about how we should behave but then humanity goes south so he creates himself in human form as his own son to be a blood sacrifice for saving humanity from themselves. Also God has no issues appearing to individuals and even whole groups of people in biblical times doing miracles but is no where be seen in the age of science, technology or cameras. Finally, a person could be a kind and loving good person their whole life but still be doomed to eternal damnation for simply not believing in this being despite despite giving us big brains and then wiping the universe of any solid evidence for their existence. In other words, eternal punishment for a finite crime. Given just this and not even going into all the stories it sounds completely ridiculous. I truly am baffled that so many ADULTS who clearly are capable of rational thinking in their daily lives some how continue to believe in such obvious nonsense. It really is Santa Clause for adults.
What's the best way to handicap your opponent? Simply take the podium with you
I do enjoy a good debate, however, there are time when I enjoy a good trouncing even more. There was no wiggle room for the Catholic lecturer. Good job Dr. Carrier.
Dr. David Corner, Senior Lecturer at California State University: “we ought to proportion our certainty regarding any matter of fact to the strength of the evidence.” - The Case Against Miracles.
at least three gods and none remembered to prevent religions and cancer!!!
Carrier dominates. Ehrman is running scared. Nobody comes more prepared to these debates than Carrier. He is in his prime. Enjoy.
A truth seeker is exactly that, someone who genuinely wants to look at evidence as it stands in the world and learn about the true wonders of the world. A christian has 1 objective above all else in the area of scientific enquiry, and that is to make sure that their religion is immune from all attacks and how they can adapt what little truths they can find toward that end. They even sermon around this. They are completely presumptuous in their belief that their god is it, it's not even a questionable option. When you are so overwhelmed by your beliefs, so indoctrinated to a state of perfect 'hypnosis' there is no option to extreme for you to employ towards the control/survival of your belief, not murder, not slavery, etc ... how do we know all of this to be irrefutably true? because the crusades were 1 of many examples of this very fanaticism at the peak of it's intensity at a time in history, that resulted in war, death, famine ... I've said it before religion is not the solution to these issues, it is THE CAUSE! If you disagree with me, you need answer 1 question, when last did you see massive population of scientists/truthseekers pick up arms and march to war against the world to push their message under duress?
Richard Carrier destroyed him
Nope lol
Richard did destroy that guy, the christian had no idea what he was talking about . He had read to actually read the bible , while richard didnt . Richard fully understands the bible and its clear the christian does not..
Not at all.
@@dynamic9016
The only thing you can say is , "not at all," .....reallly????
@@Shawner666 What should I say?.. Are you dictating to me what to say?.. I don't have much to say n that's all..
how anyone with half a brain could believe these fairy tales is beyond me. Praise science
There are plenty of atheists in secular academia who are
A) professional scholars and who
B) specialize in secular research in the ancient world and who
C) have arrived at the historicist position that Jesus was an historical human being with nothing supernatural about him who really died from crucifixion and stayed dead.
I'd like to see one of these responsible atheists who know their ancient history professionally and who are historicists take on Richard Carrier in a debate like this one. If anyone here knows of such a debate on TH-cam, please point it out to us.
Thank you.
Can you name one of these "atheists in secular academia who are professional scholars that specialize in secular research in the ancient world" that did scholarly research on the historicity of Jesus? We'll set up the debate.
FYI: Dr. Bart Ehrman took a quick stab at this, but didn't end up doing "scholarly" work on this subject. He will not do this debate.
The reason Christian apologists can't even get their arguments off the ground is that they can't prove a single word in the epistles or gospels actually originated with the original author it's ascribed to. Dr. William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University: “First, not a single early manuscript of an individual Pauline letter has survived...All we can know with certainty is that the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted-and perhaps produced-by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries...What the earlier text of Paul's letters may have been remains, probably forever, shrouded in the mists of obscurity. Suppression and destruction of earlier manuscripts would suggest, however, that these manuscripts may have differed in significant ways from the standardized text that survived.” - Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.Dr. William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University: “First, not a single early manuscript of an individual Pauline letter has survived...All we can know with certainty is that the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted-and perhaps produced-by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries...What the earlier text of Paul's letters may have been remains, probably forever, shrouded in the mists of obscurity. Suppression and destruction of earlier manuscripts would suggest, however, that these manuscripts may have differed in significant ways from the standardized text that survived.” - Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.
It seems Carrier disagrees with your argument:
“Another possibility, of course, is that ‘the brother of the Lord’ in Gal. 1.19 is a scribal interpolation, intended to create a reference to Jesus’ brother where once there was none. *But that is very unlikely.* It would have a prior probability of perhaps 1 in 1000” _(On the Historicity of Jesus_ page 591).
Stimulating debate by both men, with the advantage clearly going to Richard Carrier, whose expertise and knowledge clearly surpassed his opponent's. In particular, Carrier neutralised each challenge posed by Horn (who was still very good). Carrier showed there ARE rational and logical grounds to doubt Jesus existed. Therefore Christianity lies on a dubious foundation.
For a religion that claims that our eternal destiny depends on faith in Jesus (the stakes are that high!), the fact that it is reasonable to doubt the reliability of the New Testament and of Jesus himself demolishes the Christian claim. If the stakes are that high, then Christianity MUST have a very sturdy defence for itself - but it clearly does not! Christianity is based on FEELING that it is right and true - without robust evidence to underpin it.
exactly!
only if you except Trent Horn has the one and only defender for it...he is not, though I did not think Horn at any disadvantage. Thought he clearly had the edge. But even so, there is a wealth of evidence against carrier position, his argument is rather funny
A Escoto , there is no sound evidence against Carrier's position. There is only conjecture.
Paul Sandberg you could apply that to Carriers position.....
A Escoto , not quite. Carrier isn't denying that Jesus existed. He just finds no sound evidence to prove that Jesus did exist. He believes that Jesus "probably" did not exist. All Christians INSIST that Jesus existed.
Carrier: "I base my argument on the evidence"
Trent: "I believe it, therefore it's true."
The Roman historian Tacitus confirms the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. He was a teenager during 70AD, when the Jewish temple was destroyed.
@@SpotterVideo No, he's merely describing what Nero used as a scapegoat for his oppressing of Christians. Tacitus wrote:
"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Chrestians. Their founder, one Chrstus had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."
@@estebansteverincon7117
"Their founder, one Chrstus had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."
@@SpotterVideo That's a title used by Christians, not a specific name. Famous people in antiquity were addressed by their names: Nero, Tiberius, Julius Caesar, etc. They weren't addressed as 'emperor, king, general, historian,' etc. Besides, Tacitus also wrote: "This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread..: " No one would accept 'superstitions' as real-life events.
Trent: "I base my argument on the evidence"
Carrier: "I believe it, therefore it's true"
By far the best defence of historicity in a debate against Carrier, so far. Great performance by both debaters.
***** Yeah, the Adam blunder was embarrassing for Horn. But, at least, he studied deeply for the debate, unlike the previous debaters. However, he built his case almost entirely on negative arguments against mythicism, instead of presenting a positive case in favour of historicity, which made him be on the defensive the entire debate. Zeba Crook built a good positive case, but had very poor rebuttals to Carrier's arguments. I think he just glanced at them quickly and didn't bother to research and study them decently. Trent Horn was much better prepared, and put up a good fight, where the Adam situation was a low point.
***** OK, having now carefully heard the debate several times, I tend to agree a bit more with you. Horn was very assertive and fluent in his arguments, which made him seem better than he actually was. I now see that he was unable to clearly refute a single argument made by Carrier. The "descended"/"came into being"/"manufactured" issue was the only one where I would declare a tie. On all other points, Carrier won.
Perhaps because the Goodacre debate made such a strong impression on me, I tend to use that as a reference, making everyone else look astonishingly good. Horn and Crook were probably on par in their performance.
So ironic how Trent Horn states "that in order to believe the mythical view of Jesus, you have to believe some REALLY BIZARE ideas and some REALLY IMPLAUSIBLE ideas". Really Trent !!! Whereas believing that Jesus was the result of a MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, who could WALK ON WATER, perform MIRACLES (such as magically being able to make fish and bread multiply, giving sight to the blind, healing lepers, bringing the dead back to life, ) see into FUTURE and finally he was able to be RESURRECTED himself...takes no bizarre or implausible ideas!!!!! And with that comment Trent lost the debate before Carrier even spoke, through destroying his own stance, lol.
Rui Afonso Trent didn't do a good job, but made the best possible points he could.
Defending the Bible against an educated historian is literally impossible.
Even saying Jesus 100% existed just means your ignorant.
Craig Evans recently defeated Carrier in a debate as well.
I really wish I could respect Dr. Carrier's arguments, but the convenience of nearly every piece of literature his opponent sites being a deemed a "forgery" or "interpolation" by "most experts" is laughable.
The MAJORITY of early Christian writings are fraudulent: "Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it was forged...only two authors named themselves correctly in the surviving literature of the first Christian century. All other Christian writings are either anonymous, falsely ascribed (based on an original anonymity or homonymity), or forged." - Dr. Bart Ehrman ehrmanblog.org/it-has-arrived-forgery-and-counterforgery-in-early-christian-polemics/ Why did they need to lie and forge documents to bolster the Jesus story if Jesus actually existed?
Same thoughts. All the Dr. Carrier's answers are like "every dog know this".
But he is right about them. You should research those issues.
Carrier always on top of the game.
A lot of arguments by Carrier, are arguments from silence and it is mere speculation as to what people might have believed about these myths, that cannot be confirmed at all. He is justifying "myths" as being some kind of truth, when the word means just the opposite and they come off as being totally ridiculous. If these myths have such credibility, how come hardly anybody today even knows about them, and believes in them, and that is not just in the West, but even in other modern cultures of the world. Ancient myths do have similarities, and perhaps they did borrow ideas from one another. However, the story of Christ is very different and much more credible, and historically provable. Not only that, but before Christ came to earth, the Old Testament, predicted his coming, thousands of years before, with uncanny accuracy and so many times throughout that testament, that it would be virtually impossible for Christ to have fulfilled all the prophecies. What you have here is just a new "myth" being made up, only another attempt to discredit the bible using vague illustrations, and comparisons and monstrously mis-characterizing what is written in the biblical text. The story of the life of Christ in the New Testament and the early spread of Christianity into the world is coherent in its content, and is believable, unlike ancient myths. These myths are pure nonsense that no scholarly Jew would have used to formulate the story of Christ. Jews, 2000 years ago, were by far, not stupid people and would never have bought into Carrier's theory of things. Real historians acknowledge myths in the history of mankind, but they are not seen as credible, factual history. Myths are but whimsical stories with no foundation, merely thoughts of mystics throughout the ages, less credible than a comic book. They have no rational basis, so they fade into the past, until someone digs them up to make a specious case against something that they hate. Real historians, even if not favorable to Christian beliefs, would write this guy off as a charlatan or conspiracy theorist. Brilliant in his double talk, I will give him that, but he certainly is not "proving" anything by all this fast talking gibberish. This man is spreading a most fantastic lie, but it is seen as sure conformation, of what people already want to believe, is the truth. Our "tolerant" culture today has been bred to be ferociously intolerant against anything they do not say is true. The bible, once again made accurate predictions of this and about this age, long before it came. Lies are a powerful force, because they defile our thinking. There is a powerful force in the world, who we call Satan, the father of lies, and he will blind your eyes. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Complete delusion
Honestly someone believed he existed so he did
The bible proves the bible ummmmmm
Totally circular arguments he should be embarrassed just preaching
Jesus destroyed, again.
I find that Trent was substantive and Carrier was assumative. It got to be annoying- when Carrier refers to 'his book'-. I agree with Trent that if you set the bar too far for any mundane details..then nothing can be proven. That's like saying If we can't put the stars in a petri dish- then we can't prove so and so...
On the flip side of that token, when you set the bar too low then miraculous details are unjustifiably thought to have been proven.
The tactic is basically throwing shit and hoping something sticks. Dr. Carrier handled each interlocutor eloquently often having to correct them. Props to Trent for still moving forward after being corrected for false statements several times. I really want to see a round 2. It would really be better if there were another scholar who specializes in defending the historicity of Jesus. Keep in mind, Carrier states that his research could've led him to that conclusion.
“What if there were no virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no miracles, no raising of the dead, no walking on water, no bodily ascension into heaven on the third day? Well, that would be nearly as bad as if Jesus never existed at all. All of Christian history would still be founded on a myth or on a lie. It would still be a sham. And all the efforts of Christians worldwide, throughout all of history, would still be in vain. ” Dr. David Skrbina, professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan, The Jesus Hoax.
@@mythbuster1483 that's pretty savage!
@@WorkingFromHomeToday452 Yes, it's funny that Christians try defending a 'historical Jesus' when either way, their 'Christ of faith' has been debunked, and the literary character of Jesus in the gospel fairy tales is fiction.
@@mythbuster1483 funny how he sneaks the Sermon on the Mount in there. Not going to make a great case that all of that was just made up by Matthew
to all those who believe in GOD, does this debate not inculcate the quixotic problem in understanding of the bible and GOD'S word....It is so CONFUSING !!!....would not GOD make it SIMPLER !!!!!!!!!!!....if god is a perfect being, understanding that 99% OF THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS ....HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS BEING SAID.....if god wants to be followed or obeyed....HE WOULD HAVE MADE HIS HISTORY MUCH SIMPLER !!!!!!!!!!
and given to ALL mankind at the same time, correct?
You must be dump
If God wanted you to follow all His orders, then he would have made you into a wind-up toy. Think about that.
If God did exist there would be no need to discuss it. He could for example put knowledge in our DNA. I hope humanity will see religion as just history and finally move on.
Carrier is a walking library
This is just my own idiosyncrasy--therefore worth exactly what you paid for it-- but every time Dr. Carrier says "One Corinthians" or "Two Peter" instead of "First" or "Second," an angel gets its wings ripped off inside my soul.
Much kudos to Carrier, but I find it bizarre that we are still discussing the nuances and interpretations of the writings of authors who lived 2000 years ago, people who would have been forgotten by history if the Romans hadn't adopted Christianity as their official religion. We are modern humans burdened with a brain that didn't evolve for the modern world, it is deeply hard wired into us to believe mythology. Maybe we will out grow this nonsense eventually.
50 years from now, this debate will be the equivalent of arguing about Lord of the Rings, and the historicity of the Elves going to Valinor.
+LindaStevensBZ I am sure the Communists in 1917 thought so
22grena --- Like the religious mafias before them, the Communists tried to control the masses by way of intimidation and control of information. The information revolution, and the inexorable march of science, spells doom for religion.
LindaStevensBZ A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing especially with hipster atheist conspiracy theory fucking bores
Knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in the eyes of the religious royalty. Religion flourishes only in the absence of knowledge and understanding.
+22grena
"I am sure the Communists in 1917 thought so"
- What does a dogmatic, political ideology have to do with you having no evidence for your religious claims?
Everything Carrier says about the mythical Jesus and the thoroughly mythologized gospel accounts can be retained while at the same time assuming there actually was a historical Jesus, a charismatic figure around whom, even though he failed to hail in the Kingdom of God, a resurrection cult sprang up. Paul caught the 🐛 and he effectively preached it to the Gentiles. The empty grave stories established themselves later.
I’m looking forward to watching the video but the empty tomb “story” was established the morning of the resurrection and recorded in the gospels. You have some evidence contrary to the contemporary written accounts?
This shows how Mr. Horn lacks knowledge of the christian historicity.
This is the equivalent of a heavyweight (Carrier) fighting a featherweight (Horn), literary NO CONTEST.
Still, the common denominator is that Mr. Horn is well bellow Dr. Carrier standard of knowledge.
+Oscar Alvarez The fact that Carrier has such a command of the biblical scripture and knows its history and such really puts him head and shoulders above those who merely attempt to interpret it.
David Butler
Well said.
Trent Horn is insane, 100% complete insane
why?
While I don't share Trent's views, I see no good reason to think he's insane. Holding some delusional beliefs, sure, but that's a far cry from insanity. That would be David Wood.
I'm an atheist who just got Trent Horn's book. Listing to him speak I am hoping he will be a real challenge to my worldview.
It did always bother me that movies like (The God who Wasn't There) claim Paul didn't think Jesus was on earth.
It drives me crazy that even Immortal Technique thinks the Houris nonsense is true. I am hoping Tech is just using it cause it rhymes
Christianity has a looonnng way to go before I buy a virgin birth etc.
So you giving us an update?
Carrier be like “ in my book”
Horn be like "this is getting too hard for me, let's move on"
@@mver191 No, actually Carrier is so sure that he is right, he can't understand what Horn is trying to ask him. It seems that Horn prefers to let audience decide which one really has a point. Although a mythicist thesis seems to be far more plausible, we must not forget that it is also based, many times, not on proofs but on a hypothesis.
"We filled a book with what Jesus said
, So we could all disagree on what he meant to say" - Quiet Company, Preaching To The Choir Invisible, Pt. II (What Do You Think Happens When We Live?)
It must be telling that when asked for a scholarly defense of the historical Jesus there were Crickets.
Actually the mas majority of scholars agree Jesus existed as an historical figure and I like how Carrier quotes John Dominick Crossan on support of the Gospels being parables but yet John is the same guy who accepts Jesus as an historical figure lol.
There you go. These so-called Christian Scholars are basically compromised. Their very livelihoods depend on their acceptance and hawking of Jesus C.as an Historical figure. Of course most of them know or suspect better. That Jesus C.in the Gospels is 100% a literary creation. There were other wannabe Messiahs..and certainly many of them were crucified by the Romans. But these were not Peace loving tax paying wimps. These were Messianic Jewish Nationalists and called for a Violent overthrow of Roman Rule over Judea.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have explicit descriptions of A Jewish Messiah. An extremely Violent figure, this was their 'Christ' aka Messiah.
@@damouno To paraphrase Mark Twain. Religion started when the first con man met the first sucker.
Great Point. 1st con man met 1st sucker. Hahahaaa..:)
It was wrong, poor formatting, to force one side to ask questions of the other side without the reverse for an equal time: This gave Carrier the floor to shape and dominate the discussion, as there is only so much you can argue within a question.
+cloudsabove No one forced Trent to ask questions, he just had questions that he wanted to ask. Carrier was capable of asking questions if he wanted, but what would he have asked? "How do you reconcile the things I've said with the things you believe?" That was the whole point of his debate. Carrier made his points.
More to the point, the person asking the questions traditionally has the power to shape the conversation. Trent was the one who picked his questions, Trent is the one who led the discussion, Trent is the one who had to floor to bring up any holes in Carriers thesis, Trent is the one with all the opportunity to bring his best guns to bear, Trent is the one who could shape the discussion how he wanted. Carrier only responded. The reason it FELT like Carrier could shape it was because he tore Trent's objections to pieces.
Your claim that "there is only so much you can argue within a question" shows a lack of understanding about how debate works. If you get to pick the next topic for discussion, you have the power to pick the passages or evidence that best supports your work and you get to bring up the specifically glaring holes you find in the opponent's contentions. The weak position is the one that can only respond to the opponent within the confines that the opponent has restricted you to by way of the wording of the question.
All of this really to say that your basis from the beginning is wrong. No one made Trent ask the questions. He did that on his own.
That was painful to listen to. Dr. Carrier destroyed him on Heaven #7.
Pretty Good debate I thought. It would have been nice if it was more of a structured debate though, with more time allotted for rebuttals and closing statements. I thought Mr. Horn handily won the debate. I don't think Dr. Carrier ever really addressed Trent's first point of where were all these early Christians that believed Jesus had no earthly existence. Also, I found Dr. Carrier had to spin texts to seemingly absurd degrees to fit in with his position instead of just taking them at face value. Mr. Horn definitely did his homework for this debate. He was able to go toe to toe with each of Dr. Carriers points quite well. I would even say I think Trent did better than Dr. William Lane Craig did against Carrier. Mr Horn is a still a bit green on the debate scene, but what he has done so far has been very good imo. I'll provide some links to a few more of his debates if anyone is interested.
Abortion Debate: Trent Horn vs Professor Cecili Chadwick
Abortion Debate: Trent Horn vs. Professor Cecili Chadwick
Trent Horn vs Jim Travis: "Does God Exist?"
Horn/Travis Debate - "Does God Exist?"
Trent debated Dan Barker, but it is not online yet. You can get the MP3 here:
shop.catholic.com/mp3-god-supreme-being-or-imaginary-friend-a-debate-on-the-existence-of-god-between-a-catholic-and-an-atheist.html
So ironic how Trent Horn states "that in order to believe the mythical view of Jesus, you have to believe some REALLY BIZARE ideas and some REALLY IMPLAUSIBLE ideas". Really Trent !!! Whereas believing that Jesus was the result of a MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, who could WALK ON WATER, perform MIRACLES (such as magically being able to make fish and bread multiply, giving sight to the blind, healing lepers, bringing the dead back to life, ) see into FUTURE and finally he was able to be RESURRECTED himself...takes no bizarre or implausible ideas!!!!! And with that comment Trent lost the debate before Carrier even spoke, through destroying his own stance, lol.
thetruth8720 I guess that depends on your worldview. These ideas aren't that bizarre to a Christian who believes that Jesus is God, the same Prime Mover and Pure Being/the Ground of Being that the philosophers and theologians used to describe God. A Christian could easily turn the tables on the atheist worldview. For example, atheism offers no answer for objective meaning, the foundation of knowledge, consciousness, objective truth, existence, objective morality, emotions as purely illusory, nihilism, etc.
Kolbe19 That's called an argument from ignorance! Also why should atheism even be concerned with those issues. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a deity exists, atheism is not a worldview. What makes your statement even worse is that Christianity is not able to answer these questions. Its a very lazy and very flawed system to think that just because we do not know or understand something we should claim a God did it !!!!!
thetruth8720 How is this an argument from ignorance? I'm not saying things like: Because atheism has not shown Christianity to be false, therefore Christianity is true. That would be an example of an argument from ignorance fallacy. All I am saying, is that atheism, when taken to its' logical conclusions, can be shown to have some really "Bizare" and "Implausible" ideas" of its own.
And I don't buy the notion that atheism isn't a worldview. Atheist still make a claim of knowledge that there is no God. Is Atheism true? If all that atheism is, is just a lack of a belief in God, that means babies are atheists. Dogs are atheists. Doors are atheists. This definition just doesn't make sense and is to broad of a meaning. Atheists must shoulder at least some burden of proof that there is no God. Even professional atheist philosophers agree with this notion, as you will see in this link:
philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/is-a-lack-of-belief-the-best-we-can-do/
Why should atheism be concerned with those issues?"
I would think that atheists would at least have something positive and affirming to say about the meaning of life, free will, consciousness, objective morality, objective truth, knowledge and so forth. These are life's biggest questions after all.
"What makes your statement even worse is that Christianity is not able to answer these questions".
Well I would respectfully disagree here. It seems you might be operating under the presupposition that everything must be explained and understood by the scientific method. This line of thinking is self-refuting. Once you get out of that framework, I think you will find Christianity to offer a strong case for the existence of God. Perhaps you can offer specific reasons why you think Christianity does not answer these questions?
Kolbe19 The argument from ignorance point I am making is that because at present we do not have a sound explanation for consciousness /existence, this can not be used to strengthen the argument for a God (that's an argument from ignorance). Not sure what you mean when you say that "atheism taken to its logical conclusions, can be shown to have some really "Bizare" and "Implausible" ideas" of its own". Again, atheism makes no claims, atheism rejects the claim that a God exists. Atheism does NOT claim no God exists neither does it impart ideas !! If someone makes the claim no God exists then YES, they have the burden of proof. Atheism does NOT make that claim, atheism rejects the claim that a God exists. These are two entirely different claims. You also said " I would think that atheists would at least have something positive and affirming to say about the meaning of life" To me part of the meaning of life is to spend the one life that I know I have, enjoying the company of my friends and family. You also said " It seems you might be operating under the presupposition that everything must be explained and understood by the scientific method" What other way can there be?