I may be one of the last to know about this but for the record here it is. Now why can’t all tenured academics learn how to debate this topic civilly and respectfully like these two guys? Such a refreshing — and very informative — debate.
The following two tabs change content below.
Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Another Angle on Paul - 2023-03-20 05:40:12 GMT+0000
- Jesus’ Unheroic Moment in Gethsemane – and a return to Vridar/Vardis Fisher - 2023-03-17 09:12:36 GMT+0000
- From Humble Beginnings: A Tale of Two Divinities — Jesus and Apollo - 2023-03-15 09:09:56 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
8 thoughts on “DEBATE on the Historicity of Jesus – Dr. Richard Carrier vs Trent Horn”
That really was a pretty good debate. I love how at one point they both admitted that they were “nerding out.” Also, I thought it was curious that Horn, as a Catholic, argued that “brother of the lord” means biological brother. I thought Catholics traditionally interpret that phrase as referring to apostolic brotherhood.
The standard Catholic understanding of “brother of the Lord” is that it means James was a half-brother of Jesus — supposedly, the progeny of Joseph from a previous marriage. Other “brothers and sisters” were understood to be cousins of Jesus. The perpetual virginity of Marriage, which is an article of faith in Catholicism, requires that no other human was a full sibling of Christ.
I see. I wasn’t fully certain about this. BTW, here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: ‘But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord’, St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college.”
I stand corrected.
I didn’t know about it. Thanks for the link, Neil.
And yes, this is how these debates are supposed to be done.