Robert Price - The Case Against The Case For Christ

[theoriginalprisonerX]

The Pope wears a very nice Dagon hat and the Jews with their mushroom cult caps, what a bunch of wacky guys.

[theoriginalprisonerX]

By the Holy Horns of Moses! The Moon Priest, I say Jesus is the Sun of God! So says Chronus or El of the very same Elohim, The Gods. If only we knew who Abram from Sumeria, or Abraham was sitting and breaking bread with. What planets were they the Gods of? And who were the "people" who were hanging around outside the Garden of Eden? Only Baal knows I suppose.

[standinstann]

30:39. Wait, if this wasn't a prediction or a prophecy (which I grant 100%), then why on earth would Mark have used it to "fill in the gaps" pertaining to the crucifixion? That sounds like a pretty arbitrary posit, why not use an 'actual' prophecy if he was going to insert anything into the dialogue?

[JoshuaAbrahamm]

Great!!!

[saburius]

Christians are batshit crazy!

[timemantis]

If Dr. Price would make such a mistake in saying that James and Jesus were the sons of Damneus, in reference to Josephus' Antiquities 20:203 -within 10 minutes of this interview- what other blunders might he be making in his zeal? Clearly the passages reveal that Jesus "called Christ", Jesus "son of Damneus" and Jesus "son of Gamaliel" (20:213) are three different people! But Dr. Price's agenda may have caused him to miss something so basic perhaps.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis You are obviously missing the point. the passage in Josephus that claims Jesus is the Christ is purely fraudulent. Josephus, a Jew until his death would not be claiming this person Jesus to be the messiah. It's obviously an insertion of doctrine by a forger. The other claim of Jesus turns out to be a son of Damneus, equally not the Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 The passage reveals that Jesus “called the Christ” and Jesus “son of Damneus” were 2 different people. Later in the chapter we read of another Jesus as well (the son of Gamaliel). So Jesus “called the Christ” and the brother of James- is the Jesus of the Bible. This passage (in Antiquities book 20) does not indicate that Josephus was a follower of Jesus, but that he merely acknowledged that this is what He was known as.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis you stated [The passage reveals that Jesus “called the Christ” and Jesus “son of Damneus” were 2 different people.].

Ya I know, why are you telling me that. However, Jesus “called the Christ” portion is complete forgery and is agreed upon by most scholars as fraud in it's entirety.

The Jesus brother of James refers to the sons of Damneus. Sorry, no Jesus Christ there.

Josephus 37-100AD is writing Antiquities in 94AD, and can not be considered contemporary.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 As far as I know, only the passage in Antiquities 18 has been largely contended, with most scholars agreeing on only partial interpolation as I stated. It is present in all Greek manuscripts. However, the Antiquities 20 passage has not been a source of controversy since the Josephus 20 passage is available in All Josephus manuscripts! –I guess we are going to have to disagree on what the scholars say, but how can you disagree with what the manuscripts say?

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis Any reference to Jesus "as the Christ" in Josephus is fraudulent. Josephus was a Roman Jew.

If Josephus is actually referring to Jesus of "Nazareth" of which there is no mention, do you think Josephus would be referring to Christians in any way? There is silence.

Josephus is writing 50 years after Paul's spreading of Christianity.

In antiquities Josephus is telling how Jesus the son of Damneus becomes high priest because of his brother James' execution.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 Also, where are you getting “sons” of Damneus? I read only “son”.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis Josephus tells us precisely who James is the brother of – Jesus bar Damneus.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 Not sure where you are getting your info from. Tell me what chapter and verse says that James was the brother of Jesus “bar Damneus”. I was referring to Jewish Antiquities book 20:200, 203 and 213. Which passage are you looking at?

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis Antiq 20.9.... called together the Sanhedrin and brought before them the brother of Jesus,... James by name . . . And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood, which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.”

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 Exactly, You are paraphrasing -not directly quoting the exact passages I am looking at. It does not say that James was the brother of Jesus bar Damneus. It says James was the brother of Jesus, “who was called Christ.” Each Jesus of the chapter is differentiated: One is “called Christ”, another is “the son of Damnes” and a 3rd Jesus in the same chapter is called “the son of Gamaliel” (20:213). You see? read straight through, its quite clear. And don't erase words.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis ..but "called the Christ" is a fraudulent addition. It is likely that the whole "brother of Jesus, him called Christ" is forgery as well because the Greek "Iakobos onoma autoi" simply means "whose name was James" and fits in. The point is the passage is about what Ananus did as high priest and how he was removed and replaced with Jesus, son of Damneus. If the brother of Jesus part was authentic, it would point to Damneus.

I will continue:

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 It is only your assumption that Jesus “called Christ”- is a fraudulent addition. I don’t follow your statement concerning the Greek you sited or what relevance it has to the conversation. And where is your source for this Greek? I want to look at it. “Autoi” is plural. Are you sure you’re writing it correctly? Further, for Josephus to simply mention that Jesus was known as “Christ” doesn’t mean he was a follower, just objectively stating what others thought.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis It's a very good assumption based on Testimonium Flavianum being obvious fraud. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Also, why would Josephus give Jesus such an important title with out ever writing about him any where else in his volumes?

If he were actually referring to a real Jesus, the title of "Christ" would merit a larger explanation, not just a side mention in passing.

Josephus spends some time on John the Baptist. Surely the stories of Jesus had spread farther and greater.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 You assume once again that the Antiquities 18 passage is COMPLETE interpolation –which I stated earlier is probably not the case. I believe that Jesus was mentioned in these passages originally, but probably WITHOUT the portion which indicates that Josephus personally accepted Him as Messiah. The manuscripts support these conclusions so why assume otherwise? In stating Jesus was called Christ Josephus is simply being objective NOT giving a personal testimony.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis Most scholars with out a faith agenda will agree the whole passage is forged. However, let's say you are correct and there is a mention of Jesus but all the religious faith statements are forgery.

This will verify the early Christians were dishonest and fraudulent. It will also nullify the claims of Jesus miraculous life on earth. It will verify that the stories of the gospels are myth.

What's left standing is just another desert preacher no more important than John the Baptist.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 Most scholars “without a faith agenda…”? Interesting how you qualify what you stated in an earlier reply. So would you agree with me that most scholars (.) would agree with the partial interpolation view I present? Secondly, if only the “faith statements” are fraudulent what is proven is that 1) the parties guilty of interpolation (and NOT all early Christians) were dishonest and 2) Josephus is actually a valid extra-biblical source. It would say nothing more.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis No, I don't agree with you that there is partial fraud. It is very apparent there is complete fraud and non christian scholars would agree. Nice try.

Either way, what is proven is that christianity is a fraud as a whole.

It proves there was lack of historical evidence (actually, none at all) for Jesus of Nazareth.

If Josephus is a valid extra-biblical source, it's most definitely not a source for verification of the gospels stories as history. It suggests quite the opposite.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 I didn’t ask if you agreed personally with the partial interpolation view of the Antiquities 18 passages. I only asked whether you’d concede that most scholars-whether Christian or not- think it is valid. I am asking what ALL scholars think about the passage, not only non-Christians. I agree with you that simply agreeing that Josephus is a valid extra-biblical source, on its own, does not prove or disprove Christian dogma. That wasn't Josephus' intent. 

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis I don't know what all scholars think. However, I do know truth isn't a numbers game.

Remember Galileo?

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 That’s a good point. But my point here was to reveal that Dr. Price made a blunder and perhaps the reason for it. Clearly, the Antiquities 20 passages teach that Jesus “called Christ” (the brother of James) was not the Jesus son of Damneus. I do not believe your argument against this was even consistent with Dr. Price’s argument. Does he actually believe the “called Christ” portion in Antiquities 20-is not authentic -as you do?-OR that its misunderstood by Christians?

[boblackey1]

@timemantis Josephus is very likely the author of "the Jesus brother of James called Christ" passage but also the "TF". Recently I was introduced to Josehpus scholar Alice Whealey, PhD by Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, PhD and the is Dr. Gary Goldberg who has the site wwwdotjosephusdotorg and it turns out that it is almost certain that Josephus did write the James passage and the TF. BUT! some zealous Christian scribe later made some minor changes to the TF. Price is wrong. Sorry about that.

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis There wasn't enough room to quote the whole passage but I was purposely leaving out the doctrinal portion of "him called Christ". See, this is a faith statement taken out of the Gospels. It's not something a Jewish historian would be claiming. As we see blatant forgery in Antiq 18: Testimonium Flavianum is a doctrinal statement of faith as well, we know that Josephus has been tampered with by Christians.

This evidence of tampering raises some important questions.

cont:

[ninjamojo711]

@timemantis The evidence of tampering points to dishonesty by the early Christians.

It verifies the fact that the historicity of Jesus was in question very early on....and that there was a lack of historical evidence so Christians needed to commit fraud.

[timemantis]

@ninjamojo711 Most scholars believe that the first passage (in book 18) originally did contain the reference to the Jesus of the Bible, but that the interpolation merely consisted of Josephus’ acceptance of Him as Messiah.

[MATZAMAN76]

How anyone can say.."Christianity IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH" is beyond me and the ultimate display of ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty.....I guess the truth takes a back seat to ego...

[hanselos]

Price doesnt seem to give any evidence in this talk at all. All he seems to be saying is he thinks ist not right.

[surshot56]

@hanselos Even if he did that wouldn't deter you from your faith.

[hanselos]

@surshot56 Umm.... yes proof is quite useful in um.... proving things

[surshot56]

@hanselos Yes it is, but you Christians don't have any. Plus, Price is a scholar. I'd listen to him.

[mjt532]

I realize Price is 'out there' in terms of his scholarship, but I didn't hear him say that much that could be described as ridiculous.

[MushroomedAnymore]

One needs corroboration from solidly established multiple sources to back up any assertions made by a text, e.g. The Bible. We can only go so far in belief as evidence allows us and that would be straight agreement between a limited number of points by all sources. This is not a matter of belief qua belief but ethical and firm belief on what solid evidence allows. No one can be held morally to more than this.

[LothairOfLorraine]

Christian apologists may argue from the pre-supposition of Biblical literalism, but, Robert Price argues from the pre-supposition of Biblical minimalism. He assumes that the entire Bible is made of myth, while apologists assume it is not.

[Tridhos]

I too like this guy and enjoyed his book Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? I just wish more of his books were available in the kindle format.

[mrpayne123]

I use to listen to the Bible Geek (probably will again soon) and one thing Price said kind of troubled me. He claimed that Glenn Beck usually did thorough research. I may have judged Beck without knowing much about him but from what I've seen he is more of an entertainer appealing to emotions and biases than a reporter.

[mrpayne123]

I like Price, but I would like to see him and Bart Ehrman talk/debate. It is easy to find any suave scholar convincing, particularly when his conclusions support your skepticism/beliefs and you aren't extremely knowledgeable on the subject.

Does Price think that Jesus might not have existed? I always here Ehrman scoff at this claim, but I can't remember him fully and clearly explaining why it is such ludicrous suggestion to even consider. I should probably do some research myself now.

[XSC3]

@mrpayne123 that would be very entertaining. Ehrman would fold him up like a paper airplane

[bunnycatch3r]

I kept waiting for him to exclaim "Inconceivable!!"

[007thinkagain]

WHY NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THIS?!:

Run From the Cure- The Story Of The Best Medicinal Plant: /watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

Forbidden Cure: /watch?v=ZRL1tqgH-Nw

[time2drawtheline]

How do we know anything has ever happened at all... At the end of the day whether anyone chooses to believe or not they make a choice. It's personal. It's what we believe when we're alone that counts.

[DonJulioBlanco2002]

Great discussion, very educational.

[EdM021]

20:25 The Gospels were written by urbanites who knew nothing about agricultural practices and perhaps even thought food came from a store! xD

[chatpilot]

I tried to read The case for Christ and couldn't make it out of the first chapter. To be fair I saw the documentary on it and was disgusted with the many false statements made on it. The actual process of Strobels so called "investigation" was incorrect and the conclusion was the beginning of it all. He basically did an ass backward investigation which was biased toward contradictory information. All of his so called experts were believeing apologists. Price just brings these things out clearly.

[quicklyitgoesby]

I really enjoyed this discussion, and I look forward to reading Robert Prices book!

[quicklyitgoesby]

Excellent discussion! Lee Strobel's slipshod approach to "investigative journalism" into The Case For Christ is pathetic and holds zero droplets of water. He only interviews one side of the available viewpoints, and each of these people start from a presupposition that creates a totally circular argument, therefore begging the question. As a result, the entire "investigation" is complete garbage.

[sirdelrio]

Great point: why does somebody that is being 'inspired' by the creator of the universe, need an eye witness at all??? if god is whispering to me, that's all I need. If the authors of the bible actually wrote them in isolation both from the world and each other, then it would be something. But no, mere human falibility, mere human mistake.

[sirdelrio]

How can anybody still believe this book is the inspired word of a god, when EVERY SINGLE WORD in it is strictly bound to cultural contingencies of its time. It's plain and simple rants written by bronze age minds. There's nothing divine in it.

[sirdelrio]

Hey, everybody, second person of the trinity here! That was hillarious.

[thedagonjones]

Who was the fool who disliked this? Must have known his crap is in the wind. Truth hurts.

[TheParagon2012]

@TheParagon2012 Oh, found it. Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot. Funny though, it's only 55 minutes whereas this one is 1:25 and even it seems to cut off at the end.

[mik99D]

Ditto. His books are not available here in the UK. It would be a good idea if they where put on Audible. Then we could hear him read them (foreign accents included please!)

[jdt2003]

Dr Price should have his own TV show...can't believe he isn't known by more people

[mbturner625]

Price is priceless

[XSC3]

@mbturner625 for comedy yes, for reputable scholarship, no. is he trying to break John Allegro's record for ridiculous claims regarding Christianity and the Bible? Bob, for the love of all that's good, just stop already. all I see is someone willing to support anything sensationalist and contrary.

[mbturner625]

@XSC3 dammit I have no idea what I said that you are replying to (youtube, reform your comment system, seriously) but are you implying Robert M. Price only seems to support ideas that are contrary to the norm? That's not at all what it seems like in the Bible Geek. Most of what he says is sensible and reasonable, and he's good at pointing out obvious apologetics wherever they appear. Do you have any actual examples where he says something as foolish as you imply?

[robtul12]

@mbturner625 Couldn't agree more. I love him. 

[AdairZionist]

Love The Bible Geek!

[PopeFlippant]

Big fan of Dr. Price here! As well as being a genuinely nice guy he's also one of the most entertaining writers of our time. "The Bible Geek" podcasts are great. His books are superb: "The Pre-Nicene New Testament," "The Reason-Driven Life," "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man," etc etc, all great fun. Even his page is a "must read".

Cool guy.

[MonoMoth]

@PopeFlippant I just started to get wind of Price I think he is great I am going to check him out more.

[timemantis]

@PopeFlippant What a blunder Dr. Price makes right in the beginning. The passages in book 20 of Antiquities does NOT say that James and Jesus were the sons of Damneus! Look again at the passages! Clearly there is a Jesus “called Christ” and another Jesus of 20:203. Also consider Jesus son of Gamaliel of 20:213. These are not “called the Christ” as was the brother of James in 20:200.

[drflynn73]

Nice interview. I really like Bob's sense of humour. He should get together with the Monty Python crew.