I really enjoyed this nuanced and thorough conversation and response to GE! Not having been exposed to Richard Carrier’s brilliant work in evolution, but hearing about him through the skeptic community, I clicked on a religious panel discussion last year where he was using imprecise language, making casual assertions and framing that oddly sounded like apologetic tactics- so I bailed. Wasn’t what I expected. I’m familiar with GE on the call in shows, and occasionally watched his channel before moving on. When his video posted about Dr.Kipp Davis I was curious. His demeanor and tone, speech and content completely different than I’d seen before. I can respect that he tried to approach it at a less aggressive level, but it sounded like persuasive speech and apologetics.

@TheFreedThinkerPodcast

4 ай бұрын

Thanks! Did you see my other part on this?

@jamiegallier2106

4 ай бұрын

@@TheFreedThinkerPodcast not yet- thank you, I will find and add it to my watchlist.

@TheFreedThinkerPodcast

4 ай бұрын

@@jamiegallier2106 here you go! kzread.infooURNwpm7nyc?si=KxX_1nMQ2E0VTa1f

@jamiegallier2106

4 ай бұрын

@@TheFreedThinkerPodcast wow- you are too kind, thank you! I’m looking forward to exploring your channel further. Happily subscribed.

2:05:39 - I've had similar experiences. I asked GE why he thinks Matthew cited a prophecy about Jesus being a "Nazarene" if there never was a man from Nazareth, and GE said that it's covertly mentioned in Isaiah 11:1 as a prophecy about the new messiah's origin. When I checked, it's not really. The closest thing in Isaiah 11:1 is that the Hebrew word for "branch" (a descendant of David) sounds kind of like it: netser or natzar. Even in the Great Isaiah Scroll, it doesn't say Nazarene, it says branch. Doing more research, I found that this connection was first proposed by Jerome, who also had no further explanation of how this is a prophecy about the name of the new messiah's hometown. GE just seems to have swallowed this weak connection from an apologist who, by all appearances, was searching for theological support for the idea that the new messiah came from Nazareth. In response to this and similar textual citations that don't really say what GE and Carrier claim, I'm told that the authors were simply reading from a lost variant. It seems like mythicists need quite a few of those to make their case plausible.

@Agryphos

5 ай бұрын

I grew up with that explanation as a Jehovah's Witness. Didn't know who originated it though. I'm a bit surprised he isn't more critical of this considering Matthew loves mangling "prophecies" like this.

@Venaloid

5 ай бұрын

​@@Agryphos - I'm not very surprised. Mythicists propose that Jesus is a constructed character who is built upon Old Testament prophecies about the new messiah. So, for their model to work, they need these Old Testament prophecy apologetics to be correct. I think mythicists start from a reasonable place: they listen to Christian apologists who claim that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies perfectly, and then they ask the question, "Couldn't this just mean that Jesus was invented for that purpose?" It's a very good question, and if Jesus really did fit all of these prophecies perfectly, I would be inclined to agree with mythicists. But most of these prophecies were either not fulfilled, or are not even prophecies in the first place. I think mythicists have uncritically accepted these apologetic arguments about fulfilled prophecies, without considering if these prophecies were actually fulfilled, or were actually prophecies.

@everyzylrian

5 ай бұрын

GE confused by words that slightly look alike but have nothing to do with each other. Not surprised.

@bigboi1803

4 ай бұрын

I don't think that was his exact reply as that's not the argument in full and is misleading. Regardless the answer to your question is found in proving history under jesus birth in nazareth

@Agryphos

4 ай бұрын

​@@bigboi1803 history is rarely about proof, it's about weighing probability. Mythicism is a very improbable hypothesis to explain the available data.

Former Christian, current polytheist here, and I just have to ask - why is mythicism even a thing? If they're taking the stance that Jesus of Nazareth, a wandering apocalyptic preacher from Palestine who got himself offed by Rome, never existed, then that's a heck of a claim. There were probably dozens of guys from back then who meet this criteria, and one of them was probably the guy that at least tangentially kicked the whole thing off. I'm not trying to insult anyone (not right now at least) but this has all the indications - to me - of extreme edgelord-ness: the cursing and swearing, the smarmy attitude, the accusations of "fringe" status (I'm a pagan who reveres dragons as spiritual beings - I'm on the fringe and I know it), the hyper-reliance on one or two favorite writers who are touted as if they speak gospel truth, pun definitely intended. Not trying to start a holy war here (again, pun intended), but does anyone else get this edgelord vibe from mythicists? I used to watch GE and stopped when it got overwhelming. If I'm alone in this, let me know. Again, I'm totally OK being on the fringe.

@TheFreedThinkerPodcast

4 ай бұрын

You’re not alone at all.

@DrKippDavis

4 ай бұрын

Nailed it.

I've stopped watching GE when I realized that most of the time he just talks out of his 🍑 and hardly ever bothers to check what he's asserting... And that was all stuff not related to mythicism, so I'm not at all surprised that he doesn't know what he's talking about in this area... Dunning-Kruger is his middle name

@nates9029

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, I like GE but he does have a tendency to get ahead of his skis and talk about things he clearly doesn't understand. Same with Dr. Richard Carrier. I like Dr. Carrier but he talks about things that are not in his wheelhouse and doesn't qualify the fact that these are things that are not his specialty. When you listen to Dr. Davis or Dr. Bowen, they constantly say, "this is not my area of expertise" or something like that. I wish GE would stop taking the word of Dr. Carrier as gospel and instead defer to people that understand the original languages being discussed or experts in the field being discussed. I think GE is a good guy but for some reason he buys pretty much everything Dr. Carrier says and I just don't get that. I also found it absolutely hilarious that he claimed that Dr. Kipp Davis' views are fringe. What does he think Dr. Carrier's views are?! They sure as hell aren't mainstream in any way.

@Kipp Davis. Some people can read ancient Greek at various levels of proficiency. There are few people who are 'highly proficient' and very few who are recognized as experts in the language. Just my two drachma.

@TheFreedThinkerPodcast

4 ай бұрын

Sure. And Ancient Greek and Koine Greek aren’t the same either. Maybe not as far as Middle English to English but… kind of. But here the point is that much of what GE gets wrong doesn’t even require expertise… it requires normal understanding of grammar and maybe 1 semester of Greek and to not be, and I can’t stress this enough, to not be hugely biased that you ignore all of the evidence and scholarship.

2:40 Dr. Kill claims he lived in Norway for years and yet is under a mistaken impression that Norway is by the Baltic Sea. The web of lies is unraveling...

While I think that neither side in this debate has sufficient, conclusive evidence necessary to _prove_ their position (which, credit where it's due, Carrier doesn't claim certainty, _and_ his book is full of fascinating info regardless of whether you buy the thesis or every argument (I don't))...GE is tonally insufferable, argumentally and knowledgably unimpressive, and does Carrier absolutely no favors.

I missed this today 😢

bawk bawk bawk . or maybe meow meow.

😬 P r o m o S M

Ok I’m so lost. What was GE’s point exactly?

@DrKippDavis

5 ай бұрын

1. GE believes that the term in Gal 1:19, "the brother of the Lord," is just a general reference applied to all Christians. He posits this based on his understanding of the Greek word, "adelphos," in Paul to apply only to fictive kinship relationships. 2. In a Community Post a couple weeks back I pointed out why the grammar does not support his interpretation, and that the term "the brother of the Lord," is used to distinguish from Paul's usual term "brother," and almost certainly indicates that James was Jesus's actual human brother, and not just an ordinary Christian. 3. GE called my explanation a "word salad" because he neither reads nor understands Greek, nor also basic English grammar. 4. In this video, I walk through each stage of why my explanation is correct, and his in error.

@zoookx

4 ай бұрын

He is just parroting Carrier...

@jamiegallier2106

4 ай бұрын

@@DrKippDavisnice concise explanation, much appreciated.