I would buy any book this man wants to write. What a fascinating lecturer, every single time.

@nosuchthing8

2 жыл бұрын

Yes hes amazing

@notyourbusiness2687

2 жыл бұрын

What's his name?

@FrankMerton

11 ай бұрын

I watch you fairly often, and often what you say is sensible, but I have to tell you it seems a huge rationalization. You want to believe in Christ and all that but you also want to be scientific, but all you end up doing is lying to yourself, probably to protect the indoctrination you got as a child.

@lexolexoh

8 ай бұрын

He's not as qualified on Buddhist historicity though. There's quite a few errors in the amount of sources which do detail Strong evidence of the Early Gotamas life. Other than that yes excellent!

@user-lg5vh2df4k

4 ай бұрын

Lol😂

Lectures do not come better than this.

Im extremely impressed by how you, a follower of the philosophies of Jesus of Nazareth, take a very nuanced apporach to the history of the movement. As an exchristian I must say, I consider these lectures most valuable and I learn so much. Thank you.

@commonclayofthenewwest6045

2 жыл бұрын

Ex Christian is an odd term to use. I don't think you leave Him once he truly reveals himself to you. It's like a marriage or an education, where you choose to be there. No divorce or dropping out will happen, because it's not a normal earthly union. This is, what Christ claims, the beginning of the truth of God. . It happens, we're all self involved. So don't take it too personal

@saintbrush4398

2 жыл бұрын

@@commonclayofthenewwest6045 Okay, bud. Glad you know me better than I do according to a series of gospels that have littpe historical accuracy.

@SspaceB

2 жыл бұрын

@@saintbrush4398 they have vast and compelling historical accuracy.

@luizarthurbrito

2 жыл бұрын

@@commonclayofthenewwest6045 another former catholic here! There's a legion of us.

@Instramark

Жыл бұрын

@@commonclayofthenewwest6045 Brainwashed and dangerous.....thanks a lot, Trumper.

I tried to write some elaborate comment, buy to put it simply: I really enjoy your lectures:) Thank you!

@adelaperezdelviso1

9 ай бұрын

Excellent!!!❤

I can't wait for this one! Love all your work!

Thank you John, I absolutely love your lectures and listen to them over and over always looking forward to the next 🙏

There's so little known about who Jesus was that everyone really sees what they want to see.

@RobertWBates-hw5ej

Жыл бұрын

Not knowing everything about Jesus, but being inspired by the details we know from the Gospels, proves the power of the mystery of the faith. It is why we go to church, ask ministers to explain Christian theology, and read the Bible ourselves to learn more and yet never learn everything. That is the power of religion as we all try to learn and change our lives to live like him.

superb lecture. Big thank-you sir.

Would be really interesting to see a civil discussion (not debate) with Carrier and Hamer.

@paulrichards6894

Жыл бұрын

it would be like a fight between tyson fury and a sweet old lady

wow john, you give an exclamation point! to your name along with a long line of “johns”. your synthesis of religious thoughts is fresh and “enlightened”. i’m not a believer but you give me hope for the future of mankind.

As always, I thoroughly enjoyed your lecture. And I'm loving this format where questions are handled at the end without all the interruptions. Thank you! I'll continue donating because you are consistent in giving balanced presentations.

@ndagi50

Жыл бұрын

0

Having grown up in the Utah-based LDS Church, where the view of Christian history was presented solely as Jesus died -> the Church immediately apostasized -> Joseph Smith fixed everything, I find it refreshing and amazing that such an informative view of the historical background of everything is being presented and/or hosted by a Mormon offshoot group

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

The “ historical” in “ historical jesus” adds what?-As far as you can discen it if you can Ihave *no_idea* what the " historical" is supposed to add , have you?

@agl9591

Ай бұрын

John hamer is a former latter-day saint lol

Yet another fascinating lecture from Center Place

@mugikuyu9403

2 жыл бұрын

Too bad the guy doing the lectures is a Moron..sorry, I meant Mormon.

@nosuchthing8

2 жыл бұрын

@@mugikuyu9403 boo on thee

@mugikuyu9403

2 жыл бұрын

@@nosuchthing8 Boo on me? How dare ye.

@ano1962

2 жыл бұрын

Bgbbbbbbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybybyyyyyyyybybyybyybbbbbybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybbyybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybbybyybybybbyybybbyybbybbybbybyybybybybyybbybyybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybybbyybybybybbyybybybybybybybybbyybybybybybybybybybybybybbyybybybybybybybybybybybybybybbyybbyyybbyybybybybybybbyybybybybbybyybbybbyybybybybybbybbybbybybbyybbbybbyybybbybybbbyybybybybbyybbyybybybbybbbbbbbbybybbbbyyybbbbbbyttyyyyttttttyttttyyyyttytyytyttyyttytytytyttytyyytyyytyttyttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybbybbybbyybbyybbybybybybybybybyybybbybybybyybybbyyibybÿbyyybtbbbbbtbbtbbbtbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

As always very well done. Very well researched. Thank you.

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

Ho do you know it is(whatever you mean by but have no idea) " well researched"? What do you suppose the " hyarorical" adds to " historical jesus"?

Thank you very much for this informative and very interesting lecture, I agreed with you on nearly all the points you made. Just one small correction from me as a Historian specializing in Roman history: Constantine did not make Christianity the sole official state religion, this would only be done decades later. He merely supported the Christians, ordered to cease their persecution, granted them privileges and incorporated certain Christian elements into his reign. But Christianity can not be called a real 'state religion' of the empire until the reign of Theodosius I.

@Stupidityindex

2 жыл бұрын

Jesus has been proven a complete fiction by Atwell. Atwell explains everything the which was a mystery to others. You have better read his book before making comment like in this video. Gunnar Heinsohn has a few things to tell you about the first 1000 years, too.

@gabrielszohner6243

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stupidityindex proven by Atwell huh ? LOL

@truthterrain3484

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stupidityindex is it atwell or atwill (Joseph)?

@jessereichbach588

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stupidityindex I wouldn't say Atwell "proved a fiction". Which is really really difficult. But he did provide a good argument against the likelihood of a historical Jesus. All though I don't doubt there could have been a "Yeshua" pushing Hebrew mysticism in the 1st century or even being a false messiah. There were enough false messiahs in that period where it's not out of the question. But there is no proof of it either. It would have been easy enough to just take the name of a false messiah and apply it to a set of Jewish beliefs, fables and mysticism, which is obviously what it would have been. And it also would have been quite different than what became Saul and Constantine's version of Christianity.

@Jay-pw7pg

Жыл бұрын

Seems like splitting hairs. Certainly it was the start of institutionalizing Christ-ism.

Another excellent presentation from John Hamer. Thank you

Great questions guys. I especially liked the Paul letters question

@alfredoesparza1893

2 жыл бұрын

Así es , ami también me Fasinan las Cartas de SAN PABLO , grazie pur le Aporte .

Excellent Presentation and breaking the stories up into segments make it easy to follow

Incredible lectures! Thank you

@TheologyAcademy_AR

2 жыл бұрын

You are welcome 🙏🏼

@haze1123

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheologyAcademy_AR You?

True expert on this subject

Excellent content, thanks for these!

enjoyed watching

This was excellent, the best lecture I have heard on this topic. Kudos also to the participants for their questions and responses.

@DearMe247

11 ай бұрын

Jesus teaches by being the cHANGe JESUS [on his own bROCKen cro$$] wants to be and why only 1 in 3 CHRISTians on the cross are IN NO CENT CHILDren as only children are the innocent lambs of sacrifice by the RAM$ until HE comes back as a L-ion.. L = 12 and 50 in roMAN #$'s so 50% of the 12 `1 + 2 and where 2 are walKING, 1 is taKEN and the other is LEFT beHIND ~ situated at the back; posterior. "he snagged a calf by the hind leg" .. a calf and a lamb is a CHILD!!!

Thanks for another great lecture

Excellently Done!

Good lecture, keep them coming and one day you shall top over 100,000 views when posting. Don't get why you don't have that many now. When I seen title of "the historical Jesus" I almost didn't want to watch it bc I've been watching a lot of "historical" videos on it as of late. Yours at least included the Bible with all its pros and cons. Lots of good videos on this site with lots of subject matter dealing with history etc

Thanks! Super great lecture as always!

@zeke634

Жыл бұрын

Why aren’t any of you pointing out buddah was a scythian not Indian? Scythians were aryan tribes .

So sad to miss the live but thankful I can still view the recorded lecture. I look forward to having incorporated Centre Place's schedule into mine. Still working on that sync.

Mr Hamer gives a quick run down of four authors that examine the historical Jesus but what I would really like to see, is his own book one day.

@FrankMerton

11 ай бұрын

"Historical Jesus" is meaningless. We can assume all sorts of miracle workers were about, as they are today, and no doubt some of them were named Jesus. Since you admit the Gospels are basically fiction, and since we really have no honest contemporary, or even near-contemporary, historical confirmation outside Christian circles, the assertion that He existed is kinda worthless.

@thechatteringmagpie

11 ай бұрын

I am more Ehrman than Carrier, so unlikely to agree. Have a nice day.

@Chomper750

8 ай бұрын

@@FrankMertonYou cannot hand wave away “Christian sources”. First, the Bible text writers were Jewish. Second, they are still sources.

@TorianTammas

7 ай бұрын

​@@thechatteringmagpieFantasy fan fiction stories in koine greek about a dead aramaic speaking preacher are full of mistakes in geography, culture and religion that they can only be produced by foreigners who had only interest in there fan fiction

@TorianTammas

7 ай бұрын

​@@Chomper750Fan fiction in greek about a dead aramaic speaking guy remains fan fiction.

Much wisdom is gained here.

Thank you for a fairly level-headed assessment of the situation. I am a mythicist so I came to your talk rather skeptical. I was glad to see you making a very clear distinction between an historical Jesus and a Jesus of the Faith. That said, I felt that there was an important mythicist point that I think you (and most people) forget about (though I might have missed it) and that is what I refer to as the Patchwork Jesus approach. There are contradictions in the Gospels and Acts . There are gospel tales that are almost certainly reworks of OT passages. There are the features common with other pre-Jesus savior figures that are either true for those other saviors or false for Jesus. Start paring away the less-than-certain information about Jesus (even the name Jesus / Joshua might be a title (the secular messiah modeled after Joshua) rather than a personal name) and you are, pretty much, left with, "there was a man involved in a religious movement in the first half of the 1st Century which merged with other movements and heavily modified by Paul to become the Christianities that we know today". The rest is all a patchwork construction based on a few core facts that even the best biblical scholars can rarely agree on. Even if there is an historical figure, any factual features of that figure are lost in myth and all that remains is patchwork mythical figure. And that doesn't even begin to cover the conflation of any Earthly Jesus and a Celestial Christ. Again, thanks for the talk.

@danieleyre8913

2 жыл бұрын

The contradictions between Gospels are mostly between Matthew and Luke, which were authored about the same time and independently. There aren’t really any contradictions between the Pauline epistles when you remove the pseudo parts.

@danieleyre8913

2 жыл бұрын

@@annascott3542 The OP mentioned Paul. _"Which leads to the conclusion that whatever is in the gospels that’s not in Paul is fluff."_ No it doesn't. It is entirely possible that there's content in the Gospels that are based on real events that aren't mentioned in the epistles.

@TorianTammas

7 ай бұрын

​@@danieleyre8913Possible means you havent won the lottery. Why do you feel the necessity that fan fiction filled with mythology is anything but that?

@danieleyre8913

7 ай бұрын

@@TorianTammas Okay you’re obviously not very smart. As anyone with an IQ over 85 should not need explaining: I’m using the word “it is possible” in this context as a more more polite way of saying “does not necessarily mean”, not as any basis. Perhaps I should have not been so polite. The idea that something in the gospels has to have also been in the epistles to be valid is moronic. The epistles are letters between Paul and early Christians where he defends his position and gives instructions. The gospels are mythologisings of Jesus to shoehorn him into being the Jewish messiah.

well done; thank you

I love all the context. It's what brings life to our bible stories. We never read the bible much in our church and from that lack I developed an undying curiosity about everything biblical. And a certain amount of scholarly objectivity and depth is just what John has presented. Thank you!

@HistoryandReviews

Жыл бұрын

Church is not a building

@chriscullen6949

Жыл бұрын

too busy asking you for money?

@t.g.9782

Жыл бұрын

@@chriscullen6949 THE Devil Has Already started to take the CATHOLIC church

@annwood6812

Жыл бұрын

@@chriscullen6949 My church (religion for the overly picky) created so much new scripture and instruction since 1830, the reading and study is overwhelming for everyone. The money thing didn't take much time at all. How long does it take to say: Pay Up? 🙂

@sebolddaniel

8 ай бұрын

Which John? "In the beginning was the word," John? Oh, John the lecturer is cool. I don't understand why they never taught us this stuff in school. They were teaching atheism through their abuse any way. Maybe Satan can help the priests and nuns solve their sexual problems together rather than take it out on children.@@t.g.9782

Superb lecture !!!

To be famous, deny the famous.

Sargon of Akkad's reign was from 2334 BCE to 2279 BCE and the Assyrian texts that detail his birth and childhood are from the 7th century BCE. They state, "My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and ... years I exercised kingship."

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

who told you that"Sargon of Akkad's reign was from 2334 BCE to 2279 BCE," and why do you believe them?

This was great!

Great lecture!

Like usual, you deliver a delightful historical account of what we have in the gospels.

What an incredible lecturer.

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

Realy, what do you suppose the " historical" adds to " hysorical jesus? Is perhaps just another example of how the kninderlander suppose words to be magic?

Thank you John 😊 Blessings to all.

This is an amazing and top (academic) quality video lecture and Q&A. I say this as a social scientist who has also studied ancient Middle East history and interfaith dialogue

@DavidWilliams-on9bu

Жыл бұрын

I find it without merit; by saying that the "Roman Empire" tried to "control Judaism" after the destruction of the Temple. The Caesars, Pharaohs, and Emperors knew that once a Religion was adopted as "the Law of the State"...then it would only take one generation of massacres of other religions...to ensure the conversion of the Society. Bucking "the Religion/Law of the State" during the Era; was a death sentence. This is evident in the letters of Pliny, the Younger. I listened to this over several days...mainly because he is so boring. However, at around the 45:00 minute to 55:00 minute of this video...he thoroughly covers "baptism" as it is found "in the BY BA'AL". No Jew under the Tanak....would ever "go to a river to get dunked for the FORGIVENESS OF SIN". The TANAK had only one remedy..."give you Sin Offering to the High Priest....AT THE TEMPLE". This was not some "water ritual". In fact...it was not a "ritual among the Greeks", either. The word: "baptizo" comes from "bapto" and among the Greeks of that Era ... the classical Greek usage of the word "bapto" related to the "sinking of a ship, or drowning". This word had zero significance to either Jew or Greek. The word is an entirely made up "tradition" due to Mithraism and its adoption into Christianity after the time of FLAVIUS CONSTANTINE...of the "continuing" Flavian "Pontifex Maximus" Dynasty. I suggest that this gentleman presents "zero evidence" that Jesus actually existed. In fact, in the Original "Apology" for dumping Christos-ianity onto this Planet by the "Dynasties"... Justin Martyr in his FIRST APOLOGY, Section 21; states that "Jupiter created everything, including JeZeus".....aka Jew Zeus....aka I.E. Zeus. It's really not as complicated as this man portends. Just keeping accepting "Scholarship"....from these men with "some degree" from the Universitas. It is interesting that the word: degree comes from the Latin: degradus. so...all the "schoolers/scholars" were "programmed" and then given a "degree" after being "degraded". duh

Excellent

Excellent presentations, thank you for all your hard work, very much appreciated.

@DearMe247

Жыл бұрын

Scholars$ alWAYs$ disagree as SCRIPTureS is a sumMARY of HIStory and to FIGure out who is who you need to know their #'s is their names ... to match HIStory w/SCRIPTureS that alWAYS$. repEATS$ as they are MANmade 'records' by GREEdy white meN of the BAR CLUB of scounDRels$ on the hILLs$ of jeRIChO is yer lawYER poliTICianS$

Well done.

I think a big part of christianity’s success is how quickly content was written about Jesus compared to other religion’s founders. Jesus being said to walk on water being written closer to his death than Sidartha being said to have levitated doesn’t make it more likely but it “feels” like it does to us.

Again, excellent

I’m no mythicist but I think Dr Carrier deserves more credit than that. If I’m not mistaken he leans closer to a 33% chance of a historical Jesus and it doesn’t necessary rely on probability, I mean he has several well thought out books that go into great lengths covering everyone from Josephus to Tacitus, to the Talmud point by point. I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusion, but it did get me thinking. I recommend everyone at least check out his online lectures or debates. The man’s a force to be reckoned with.

@robinbeers6689

4 ай бұрын

I am a mythicist and I agree heartily. Going against "the consensus" now and then is how we make progress.

@jasonbishop5345

3 ай бұрын

@@robinbeers6689i think in 20 years, the scholarly consensus of the Historicity of Jesus will change. Carrier will be the next Dr. Tim Thompson of the 1970s who speculated Moses was not historical.

Love your work. Thank you. On R. Carrier, I read his book on the Bayes theorem approach, and it was a mistake trying to wedge historical/lit analysis into a mathematical formula. But it is a useful model for thinking about historical knowledge, which is uncertain. It's about what's probable given all this other stuff we accept as fairly certain. For me, Jesus need not have walked on Earth to explain all that was written about him. Whether he walked or didn't, he's been lied about a lot by powerful people, so much so that who the man actually was doesn't seem to matter. I'm for certain values he is said to have promoted, and I take them quite seriously, whether he lived or not.

thank you much~

Amazing work as always!

@TheologyAcademy_AR

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you 🙏🏼

I can not find words to express my gratitude for these lectures. There are objective, equidistant, modern and very informative. Thank you CentrePlace and John Hamer.

@dannymunro7454

2 жыл бұрын

Equidistant?

@VSP4591

2 жыл бұрын

@@dannymunro7454 Yes, equal distance from the main Christian denominations.

Grasias me gusta la lectura grasias bendisiones

I will be there in 5 mins to take a look.

Thanks!

best analysis of jesus

Thanks

This made me wonder even more that why Israel Finkelstein still holds on to his possible "Moses like figure" even though we know better today that real historical events don't create myths, legends, fictions and other untrue stories. On the contrary, the writing and study of history rejects and overturn them completely. And he also insists that there has been some kind of small movement of the people that, according to Finkelstein, has served as a source of inspiration and is reflected in the core of the Exodus narrative. But it is more likely that there has never been any of Exodus, Moses, Joshua, Shaul, David, or Solomon. Just like most scholars have accepted. And the 20,000 to 140,000 imagined wandering Israelites on the desert aren't "small movement of the people." There should be many visible and permanent traces of such a great desert march if it were true. But actually there are none. But thanks for your video and good presentation.

@wannabe_scholar82

Жыл бұрын

I've heard that some scholars hold that there may had been a Moses like figure that inspired the story of the exodus because Moses isn't a hebraic name but an Egyptian one, along with this the tribe of levi seems to have alot of Egyptian characteristics within it than any other tribe of isreal.

@whiteypanda6144

Жыл бұрын

Are you saying Moses, David, Solomon, didn't exist at all? There's plenty of evidence outside the Bible that they did. Diodorus siculus wrote about Moses. The merneptah stele speaks of David.

@wannabe_scholar82

Жыл бұрын

@@whiteypanda6144 Moses probably didn't exist, David and Solomon probably did exist but even that is still somewhat shaky.

@whiteypanda6144

Жыл бұрын

@@wannabe_scholar82 supposedly around the time of Jesus, the priesthood could still trace their lineage back to Aaron. That would suggest Moses was real. Who knows

@TorianTammas

7 ай бұрын

​@@wannabe_scholar82So Spidermqn is real as Peter Parker's name is so special tbat it can't be made up. Same for Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker and the jnvisible pink unicorn.

This was very good. Thank you! 1:51:23 The apologist Frank Turek often asks atheists "if Christianity were true would you become a Christian?" Well my question is, if what about Christianity were true? Your answer explains why that question is weird to me. So thank you.

Thank U, Infinite Intelligence 🙏

Oh, thank you for this. You are such a guy. I am going back to India next month for a four month geriatric run around the country. The Indian Museum in Delhi has the best stuff in the country, but it is surprising how most of the carvings only go back a thousand years, very few over two thousand years which for a five thousand year old Hindu religion seems a little puzzling. The Bangkok National Museum has a wonderful collection of Buddha statues from all over Korea, China, Myanmar, Thailand. Especially the funky oval shaped heads of those Myanmar Buddhas are the best, and you can shoot photos sans flash in both of these Museums. Shoot everything you see. It is gorgeous. Surya the sun god is cool, too, and can be seen also in the national museums in Hanoi and Saigon along with Cham Hindu art in the Cham Museum in Danang. But the Bangkok National Museum is a good starter and easier to get to. The Jakarta National Museum has been pretty much pilfered. The New York Met has an excellent Buddhist/ Hindu collection. Reply

Brilliant!

Where does Paul talk about Apostles and their wives going two by two? That sounds awesome.

Happy new year John

So good. An excellent and interesting lecture. Looking forward to more of the same.

This man is a genius.

I wish I lived in Toronto

There is another historical Jesus. Jesus the Magician as advocated by Morton Smith. Very interesting book.

Discussion of Jesus begins at 18:00.

Please, please, please do a full debunking of Caesar's Messiah!

I love your videos. I am an atheist now, but suppose now I put my faith in really smart people, and you seem to be one. The subject is fascinating and you are amazing for covering it. Thank you!

@marymorningstar4508

Ай бұрын

if you are putting your faith in people , you are putting your faith in a limited amount of knowledge and will never find truth, Truth is way beyond the mere mind of the naked ape called man. God is way beyond our wildest imagination as is Jesus. I know this because it did not come from a book or man's lips. There is much more to what we can't see than what we do see with our human eyes.

@SeattleDinghyer

Ай бұрын

@@marymorningstar4508 any human who thinks a sky daddy created everything including trillions of galaxies with billions of stars , and at the same time cares who you have have sex with is delusional. You're apparently one of them.

During the q&a the question of was Jesus married.. some people say he must have been but the same people freely accept that John the Baptist wasn't

@70AD-user45

Жыл бұрын

Only the Mormons, a looney cult, say Jesus was married.

jesus was a charismatic guy with a wonderful look on life, or an enthralling creation of a fantastic fictional writer ... maybe. either way his story can be an inspiring example to get through life in a good way.

@Lobsterwithinternet

2 жыл бұрын

So can Superman or Spiderman.

@marymorningstar4508

Ай бұрын

This world is mysterious and all you have to do is to look at it with clear eyes and you can see that. Jesus is more real than you or I and I know this not by faith or reading books or listening to lectures of men who think they know. You are living in a big mystery and most people miss the true meaning of life because they are blinded by their own human ego and desires of the flesh. Your own mind is one of the biggest liars there are and it constantly fools you. God is not something made up by man. God is the only reality there really is. You are living in the world of the father of lies and it is full of deceit . Deceit would not be called deceit if it were so easy to detect. It is very easy to fool people because just living in this body limits our mind. Reality is far too vast for the tiny mind of man to comprehend.

Wonder why George Bernard Shaw said "bible is the most dangerous book on earth. Don't allow your children to have access to it. Keep it under lock and key". Also would like to know your views on the"true doctrine " by Celcus a Greek philosopher that lived in the second century who also mentioned that Jesus father was a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

Bernard Shaw ever was a tendentious old fart

Carrier and Lataster have raised some good points regarding a lot of this information.

54:59 I love this part. It seems so simple; however, this way to attest the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth or any other figure it never occurred to me. It reminds me of triangulation in qualitative research. I like the way John explains matters of religion, history, and faith.

@kinanshmahell8065

Жыл бұрын

its not hammer acts as if josephus is a reliable source while admitting that it was doctored by christian monks

Plus Rabbi only means "teacher", and the many different sects weren't necessarily official. Even if there was a temple rule to be an official rabbi with a post and influence, a teacher out in the boonies wouldn't have been restricted by such code either way. His students saw him as a Rabbi so he was a Rabbi. A scholar and teacher, normally one who studies Jewish law.

At 1:13:55 you say that in the Gospel of John we can see that Jesus second coming had already occured. Which passage are you referring to? As a preterist this sounds incredibly interesting.

@HistoryandReviews

Жыл бұрын

Well I think he means in Luke. In Luke jesus says the kingdom has already come and is inside you

@DigitalPros702

4 ай бұрын

*Prophets

I am Assyrian and we speak modern day Aramaic. Cephas is actually pronounced “Kee-pa” and Kee-pa means rock in Assyrian. .

@hassanmirza2392

2 жыл бұрын

It is like Peter in Greek or Samad in the Arabic language.

@nicholassmith1240

Жыл бұрын

Peter in modern Greek is Petros

@merivatkhoury

Жыл бұрын

I know to be Butros in Arabic.

For what its worth, Carrier gives a one out of three chance of Jesus being historical. So he's not a total denier.

@kamilgregor

2 жыл бұрын

Richard Carrier does NOT think the probability of Jesus' existence is one in three. He thinks it's 1 in 12,500 or 0.008%. In the book, he gives two probability estimates - an estimate based on his best probability assessment (0.008%) and then an "a fortiori" estimate based on him being maximally charritable to historicity (32%). It's important to emphesize that in the book, he repeats over and over how the "a fortiori" estimate is not reasonable at all and how he must completely bend over backwards to get historicity to at least that probability. We can even quantify how much less reasonable he thinks the "a fortiori" estimate is compared to his best estimated - about 4,000 times less reasonable! Let's reflect on this - Richard Carrier says that the evidence is not strong either way, but he still ends up being more confident that a guy didn't exist 2,000 years ago than he is about a coin flip landing heads THIRTEEN TIMES IN A ROW! This is completely ridiculous and should have been a massive red flag for him that there's something wrong with his numbers. They actually approach confidence levels in natural sciences - for example, my unborn child had 1 in 9,000 odds of having Down Syndrome based on a first trimester pre-natal screening. Richard Carrier is more confident about Jesus not existing based on what he thinks is weak evidence than he is about a chiild having Down Syndrome based on DNA testing! What does he think the probabilities are for ancient events with great evidence? Higher than for experimental results in particle physics?! So why does everyone think that Carrier puts the probability at 30% Well, because that's the number he has been giving outside the book in the last couple of years. If I was a complete asshole (and I am), I would say he has realized how nuts his best estimate actually is and how saying he's 99.992% confident a guy didn't exist 2,000 years ago makes him look bad. It's amazing how many people all falling for this.

@brianhall7953

2 жыл бұрын

@@kamilgregor People can evolve and change their mind. Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus was published almost 8 yrs ago. In his most recent discussions he does give the 1 in 3 probability. Doesn't change the fact that Carrier believes that the man known as Jesus, in all likelihood, probably did not exist.

@kamilgregor

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianhall7953 Wait, do you seriously suggest that over the last 8 years, he became FOUR THOUSAND times more confident that Jesus existed?! What amazing evidence for Jesus' historicity has he discovered that he didn't know when he was writing the book?

@entwood

2 жыл бұрын

The arguments Carrier puts forth are the important part of his work. The speaker only harrumphs the use of Bayes theorem. Little wonder, as the evidence he outlines for the historicity of Jesus suffers badly when exposed to those arguments.

@mglenn7092

2 жыл бұрын

@@kamilgregor Obviously both you and John Hamer like lying and chasing after straw men. Also obviously, neither of you have read Carrier's work (let alone understood it) or listened to Carrier's presentations. Because you aren't representing Carrier's actual main arguments against the historicity of Jesus. Plowing down a straw man answers nothing. Oh, and just listened to a fairly thorough presentation by Carrier after watching this. Carrier does give about a 1 in 3 chance for their being a historical guy at the root of the Jesus story. I'm inclined to believe Carrier when he speaks for himself over liars who misrepresent others' positions.

As for Jesus I think what is important is that people tend to believe in narrative that is more appealling or for some reason more utilitarian. Everything that exists from definition exists because there was a force or condition usually both that allowed this, or conidition allows, force enforces (in other words will ) and aim is the immediate goal of achieving that .. Jesus apart from being a historical figure is the idea of human who can overcome or rise above human current condition and elevate it higher despite impossible odds. The reason he had to be poor and with no political influence is that people of power already have it and may not feeel the need as much to solve their problems so much as people who are inferior in mind and body and stature. Those people need to believe that they can rise above this and become Christs, can redeem themselves. JUst because it is hard to do it oneself so there is this Jesus who can do this for us .In fact, because we need to believe in him , we effectively do it ourselves but because of him we can believe because so far we did not have strength to do it. Now when someone who is not God but who has God's attributes can help us so we become like God in our own concrete circumstances. Because we are tiny Gods we are deemed to be children of God. God uses will and imagination to make things happen. So do we. Yet we wander inthe dark because we do not know what effectively is good .Good things can lead to bad things and vice versa. But not always. Like eating sweets is good because may be nice , the same as drinking alcohol but generally it is not good idea. Fasting is bad but can help a lot. On the other hand too much fasting may be bad too. Same goes for setting up a family. It is good but then more responsibility that means you become bound to some sort of contract. If you break it there are some consequences. If you do not set up a family you sort of effectively deprive yourself of good things family brings but if everyone went that route the human race would stop to exist on Earth. (Highly technical analysis, reality is usually not what we think, that is why Jesus is so mysterious).

I hope I can go to a John Hamer lecture someday

Very thoughtful and interesting. One small detail. I think that earlier English translations than the King James Version also used James as the translation of Jakobus or Jacob. I don't think this was done to flatter King James. The Latin title of the King was in any case Jakobus and King James I of England was King James VI of Scotland so the title of James was well established. John likewise is the translation of Johannes; Peter, Petrus.

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

akobus or Jacob or just james - all one. It is called the king james versuin because that king the first of that name of England and the sixth of scotand fancied himself as some sort of scholar which he may have been but nothing can go beyond maybe or possibly in relation yo that dream the psst which lives in the dreamland called belief, that greatest and most stupefying of the weaknesses of men(human beings/dreaming machines) in the they tend to believe passively mechanically- rather like the WRNS motto. They believe faute de mieux. They have no choice. Some things just*cannot* be known-directly immediately personal experienced(as directly immediately personal as pain)and there is no finer example of that that than that dream the past to which the civil burden of(whatever proof may be)aplires- more likely than not or otherwise or *probably the case for when it comes to that dream the past it is never possible to be sure or certain, but what but death taxes is certain ot sure. men being confined to what one English barrister called the three P's;Probably Possibly Perhaps which is the best you will get when it comes to what cannot be known(directly immediately personally experienced(as directly immediately personally as pain), such as that dream, past, in relation to which what options are there but believe or guess when you simply*cannot* know(as defined which who can better)?

@cpnlsn88

2 ай бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl We call it the King James Bible now as a way of describing it. It wasn't called that at the time and was in fact a minor revision, albeit scholarly, of the existing English Bibles in use, not a new translation.

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

@@cpnlsn88 "We" being you and which specific identifiable interlocutor? How do you(could you) know hat it was "called "at the time"? you are betting on the good old standby of the liar fcuk it, just say it are you not? quite right, most are as credulous as imbecile children *most* of the time. why *not* just say" all tigers wear pink pyjamas to bed"?-who is going to contradict you? and you were betting no-one would ask how you could possibly know "what it was called that at the time, were you not?Anyone can say that99.9% of the wealth of the world is owned by 1%of the population because who could gainsay it? You are always safe to bet the farm on the passive credulity of men(human beings/dreaming machines because 96.7534%of the time no-one will say Call. why *not* just say fcukit and lie?who could possibly contradict you on " what it was called at the time? Just your bad luck that you bumped into an old liar-catcher with fifty years experience in his profession but what were the chances of that?In fact 100%of the wealth of thr eorld(which could mean anything could it not?) is owned by 100%of the population. If in doubt preface your lie either with " in fact" or " scientists say" or " most people.."and the chances are it will be swallowed whole "It wasn't called that at the time", my.... arse! not to worry I'm not going to turn you in to mister god or whatever. pip pip.

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

​@@cpnlsn88 Shrug. The puzzle is wjy graft the jesussey(gospels) onto what is the foundational document of a religion that has *Fcuk_Nothing* to do with it. why suppose - as the bhillbilly bigoted literalists do that a book that has *fcuk_nothing to do with your relion -if you delude yourself that you areable to be able to be a christian is " the word ofwhatever god may be- which reeks of idolatry, see schedule 9000 of the cammandments(miscellaneous amendments) commandment). I know we Jews are jolly clever chaps but it is taking flattery a bit far to suppose that what our rabbis' writings are whatever kind of idolatry"the- word- of -god" may be. We Jews rather deplore idolatry don't you know. You belittle-not o say spit on god when you redice id down to being anything like me(humsn beings/dreaming machines) and supose it to use or need language and have likes and dislikes as them men on which your idol is based;" god as a person is pure savage idilatry mumbo jumbo, which reveals *fundamental_ misunderstanding* of what god is and rediuces it down to something so *little* and banal which is pure_Idolatry or just asinine anthropomorphism- the mister(sic) god onsense best summed up by the master thus:/>>>>> "“Here you should know that your contemporary favorites very often use a notion taken by them from somewhere, I do not know whether instinctively, emotionally, or automatically, and expressed by them in the following words: ‘We are the images of God.’ “These unfortunates do not even suspect that, of everything known to most of them concerning cosmic truths, this expression of theirs is the only true one of them all. “And indeed, each of them is the image of God, not of that ‘God’ which they have in their bobtailed picturings, but of the real God, by which word we sometimes still call our common Megalocosmos. “Each of them to the smallest detail is exactly similar, but of course in miniature, to the whole of our Megalocosmos, and in each of them there are all of those separate functionings, which in our common Megalocosmos actualize the cosmic harmonious Iraniranumange or ‘exchange of substances,’ maintaining the existence of everything existing in the Megalocosmos as one whole. “This same expression of theirs-’We are the images ofGod’-can here serve us as a very good additional illustration in explanation of how far what is called ‘perceptible logic,’ or, as it is sometimes still said, ‘Aimnophnianmentation,’ is already distorted in them. “Although this expression corresponding to the truth exists there among them, yet concerning the consideration of its exact sense, as in general concerning every short verbal formulation, they at best always express with their strange short-sighted mentation-even if they should wish with their whole common presence actively and sincerely to reveal their inner representation and essential understanding of this expression of theirs-something as follows: “‘Good ... if we are “images of God” . . . that means . . . means . . . “God” is like us and has an appearance also like us ... and that means, our “God” has the same moustache, beard, nose, as we have, and he dresses also as we do. He dresses as we do, doubtless because like us he is also very fond of modesty; it was not for nothing that he expelled Adam and Eve from Paradise, only because they lost their modesty and began to cover themselves with clothes.’ "

Why is there a difference between the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus?

hallelujah💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕

❤️

There seems to be only two possibilities: Either the faithful created an earthly Jesus to represent the creed, or they created a legendary Jesus that completely erased the earthly Jesus from history. Either way, the actual Jesus is long forgotten (and very well dead).

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

What do you suppose" history" to be*othter_than* a set of vague beliefs about the pre-now? Not only is there *Absolutey_No* way of experiencing the past because it cannot be experienced thus there is no mechanism for discovering whether or nota chap called jesus(or anything for that matter)ever existed, it is utterly irrelevant to the signal if it ever had a source. Whether or not there ever was a chap called jesus(are anything-at-all)about the past is not something that can be*Known*which I define as directly imediately personally experienced(as directly immediately personally as pain) If you do, why do you give a sh1t whether or not there ever was a chap called jesus when it is some thing that simply *C-a-n-n-o-t* be known one way or the other.. *N-o-t-h-i-n-g* can be*known*(as defined) about the past. May there once was a chap called jesus, may be not; what does it matter if there was or not? It is utterly irrelevant to that form of dreaming and stupefaction called *belief* whether not it has a matching or corresponding counterpart in what-is-and-cannot-be-different. What does it matter if what is believed is not true or has mo matching or corresponding counterpart in what-is-and-cannot-be-different? Granted that that form of dreaming and stupefaction called *belief* is the *exact_oposite* of knowledge(direct immediate personal experience(as direct immediate and personal as pain), but what does that matter or signify?If dreams scratch the itch, go with the dreams; why not? I think you are attaching to the word history or historical a significance that it simply *will_ not* bear -IT -*-does_not-*- mean has a matching or corresponding counter part in what -is-and-cannot-be- different

@Bluesruse

2 ай бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl History isn't about vague beliefs of the past. It isn't even about what happened in the past. It's about what we can _claim and show_ to have happened based on evidence. You are mixing history with philosophy. As to the existence of any particular person, it matters as a _historical_ question. It matters whether Julius Caesar existed. Or Adolf Hitler. If you're talking about existing as in personal experiences, then might as well say that all gods ever conceived existed, including the other mystery cult deities (Dionysus, Osiris, Zalmoxis, etc.). Or didn't, based on other personal experiences. But that's not a question of history. Nor are single personal experiences necessarily evidence of the commonly agreed reality. Plenty of people experience all kinds of whacky stuff right now. Just because you feel like a bullet won't kill you, doesn't make it true.

@vhawk1951kl

2 ай бұрын

@@Bluesruse *You_say*: "History isn't about vague beliefs of the past. It isn't even about what happened in the past. It's about what we can claim and show to have happened based on evidence." That is what you(rather incoherently) *Say* Are you saying that you*Don't* have any beliefs about the past? It is Axiomatic that you cannot directly immediately personally experience(as directly immediately and personally as pain)*Anything_Whatsoever* of the past(which no more exists that that dream the future exists) Do the logic:*If(which is axiomatic) *Nothing* can be known-defined as directly immediately personal experienced(as directly immediately and personally as pain) then for you or anyone to have*Any* idea of the past , it *Can_Only*be something *shortof or less than knowledge and that*Can_Only* be belief- *What_else* is there? You say what history*Is_Not*, but do not set out whatever-you-mean-by-but-have-not-the faintest-idea"History *Is* *Be*_cause* you have not the faintest idea because it has never crosed your mind to question what history (or anything very much) *Is* You appear to be an Elsie kinderlander and thus for you-or you suppose, words and language to be magic or reserved to those you suppose to be in authority(and you are no authority on anything are you Elsie?) *I* say otherwise and*Specifically* that it (history) is*Self_evidently* no more that a set of vague beliefs about the past- which.... it..... ... clearly.. *Is* because it *Can_Only* be something short of knowledge(which I define as direct immediate personal experience(as direct immediate and personal as pain)-which you cannot better. *T-h-e-r-e-f-o-r-e* (what-you-call)history *Can_Only* be something *short* of that(knowledge-as defined) for which the*Only* word is Belief. You_say* - and I quote:*"we"* can claim and show to have happened based on evidence."-*Huge_mistake*. " We" being *you*and which specific identifiable interlocutor?- but no matter (you*-yes *You*Elsie can" show" something based on what specific evidence(which word you define how?)? You are clearly no kind of lawyer or any kind of graduate an clearly out of your depth when it comes to matters which requite both-but again no matter, but it goes deeper(and you drown) "*Evidence*" to *" show"*what, to what end or purpose? - to induce *what*? Belief?- what *else* is there*?For what*Else* would you"show evidemce....., to achieve*what*? You are about to demonstrate that you have absolutely_no* idea to what end or for what purpose you would" show evidence" "which means what and what specific whatever-you-mean-by-but-have-not-the faintest-idea"evidence? Is the past evidence or evidence the past? You*wil* demonstrate that you have no idea. Take my advice don't do or try to learn law; you simply do not have the wits; you do not know what you mean by evidence and have *no_idea* who "*we*" is, and *even_less* of an idea of show to what end(or achieve what? It was fortunate that you did not use the words"*prove or proof* because you have *Abolutely_No* idea what that either of them mean either. You also clearly have neither any idea of the difference between knowledge and information, and less of an idea that there is any difference between the two. It is *Axiomatic* that nothing can be *known*(as defined) of the past or *anything* that no longer exists, and thus, if you are to have *Any* idea whatsoever of what cannot be known(as defined) it *Can_*Only* belief Res ipsa loquitur,*and* Quidd est demonstrandum so that is check mate. You are a kinderlander -American are you not, and you *don't* have any higher learning or a degree, do you? In sum:History is and *can_be*no more than a set of beliefs(and what belief is*Not* vague? about what cannot be experienced(because it no longer exists in the realm of what can be directly immediately personally experienced)- namely what-is-called- the past

What about the Hebrew bones in Egypt, and ancient Egyptian poem, talking about the plagues and giving jewelry to people that brought the plagues. I can’t remember all the details right now I would have to come back and post the sources for that. I also saw an Egyptian tomb that looked like it portrayed Joseph in a statue. There is also a canal that is named after Joseph in Egypt. That is all fantasy?

you forgot to mention that all the gospels were anonymous and were given names that featured in Paul's letters by the church

Is there any painting of Jesus's figure or a bust of Jesus to prove how Jesus looked like like the one of Joephus?

Interesting

So, a lot of speculation has arisen over the decades to Christ’s physical appearance and ethnic and racial background: First of all, his father Jacob had Egyptian heritage (allegedly), and his mother Mariam (“Mary”) was of Levantine heritage. Ancient Egyptians were a mixed race of Hitites (Turkish), Hyksos (Arab), and Nubians (Sub-Saharan Africans). Levantines were primarily Turkish, who were a mix of Caucasians and East Asians back far enough. Christ also had Royal Blood in his genes that can be traced all the way back to Noah, who was called a “Red Man”, just as his ancestors did all the way back to Adam. “The Red Man” was most likely referring to the ancestors of all Eurasians and were allegedly of a people called the Solutreans, who were the Proto-Native Americans that migrated across the Bering Strait, settling in ancient North America before the Great Flood. Consider also the part of the world that Christ was born into (the Eastern Mediterranean called the “Levant”), which was a literal crossroads of all races and cultures of Men at various times. Remember, Mount Ararat (the mountain that Noah and his sons landed on after the Great Flood) was where they settled and eventually spread out from in all directions. It’s no coincidence that Israel and Babylon were founded as a great nations near this geographic area, and these cities were multicultural and multiracial with their Caste Systems. Christ is literally a mixture of all races of Men in equal portions both physically and genetically: it’s God’s way of representing Mankind completely in one body. I figured he looked like a bearded and leaner Vin Diesel with a more aquiline nose, dark, wavy or curly brown hair, with hazel or green eyes, with a tanned or ruddy complexion.

Carriers' calculation is maybe wrong but to trust the Gospels which have copied from each other and their authors clearly invented stories which was the zeitgeist of this area. People at the time weren't concerned about details but more about putting a good story out. Josephus's text seems to me that Christians added it later into it. Why has Filo not mentioned Christ? And Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus after his death, seems wrong too

GREAT JOB JOHN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY FAITH GREW AS I WATCHED. AMEN

@HistoryandReviews

Жыл бұрын

Your faith should have died

The historical easter Bunny is NEXT

could "the one who called" the Galatians be the Holy Spirit and not Paul?

Check out the fantastic and funny song from the musical "Porgy and Bess" called "It Ain't Necessarily So".

“If you fast, you will be at fault. If you pray, you will be wrong. If you give to charity, you will corrupt your mind. When you go into any land and walk through the countryside, if they welcome you, eat whatever they offer you. You can heal their sick. It is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, it is what comes out of your mouth that defiles you.” - Yeshua

@curbroadshow

2 жыл бұрын

Who wrote that?

@slicktrickyes

2 жыл бұрын

@@curbroadshow Didymus Judas Thomas 👍🏻

@slicktrickyes

2 жыл бұрын

@@curbroadshow Gospel of Thomas, Logia #14, Translation by Jean-Yves Leloup 👍🏻

@curbroadshow

2 жыл бұрын

No, I mean, who wrote it?

@slicktrickyes

2 жыл бұрын

@@curbroadshow Didymus Judas Thomas > Twin Judas’ Twin aka Yeshua 👍🏻

have you heard of “korean jesus”….he was depicted in the 22 jump street movie

Amazing 👏