or with somebody you don't get commissioned by the Senate as I got a carrier said earlier Sanhedrin was not just like all Jews that were Pharisees not all Pharisees were in the Sanhedrin in fact some were Sadducees it was a select few so to even be commissioned by them you won favor with somebody if it's not Gamaliel who else was it I don't know but it was obviously somebody of great importance and he had worked his way up if you would through the ranks yeah thanks for adding that I forgot about that earlier that we should have made that point to people as well that there are there are Sadducees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin and they disagree with each other they're probably other sectarians too but I think the Essians tended to stay away from those political organizations but there were probably there were many there were dozens of sects so there could have been other sectarians and the Pharisees were split between two sects the questioner mentioned Hillel but they're also the Shammites who are super conservative Shammites, yeah so and they're super conservative even the you know even the Hillelite rabbis are like whoa these guys they're really conservative so it depends on who has what power went right who can influence what but there's a good question is to I think what the questioner is doubting whether Paul persecuted Christians it sounded like that I say that because I've heard other people say this I don't understand why they would doubt this Paul himself mentions it multiple times as a actually a particular particular stumbling block for him like getting accepted so so that and but he uses it as a classical minister narrative right is like oh I was this unrepentant sinner this horrible person and then I found Christ and became wonderful and so on so it's almost the same thing you see if a lot of ministries so there's nothing unusual about that that happening but Paul does mention it now one thing Paul doesn't mention is why there's no mention of what authority he was acting under why he was persecuting him or what he did like what were the penalties what laws was he enforcing we don't know like Paul never says or at least if he did say we don't get to read that letter and and even as an ancestral he said his ancestral traditions and the law right that's vague right what law right what were they breaking there's over 600 there's over 600 in the law yeah I know even so it is there's no obvious violation of the law in in the Christian teaching at that time so so that you know we don't know and we would love to know what it was that Paul thought was so offensive that you would go hunting these guys but we know those things happened there were you know sectarian persecution we know their accounts of pursuing sorcerers for example but Talmud seems to tell stories of the Christians being persecuted as sorcerers that's probably made up but but it's an example of the kind of thing happening the question is what were the actual laws that they were violating and why were they so serious that there would be a guy who would go out of his way to go town to town looking for them we don't actually know and even acts is vague on the actual the I would say they argued over the person they were all disagreeing about the person of who Jesus was could it be claim to be was there's no law against that there's no law against that that's the thing but heresy it's heresy there's no such thing as heresy either heresy isn't a law a false prophet it was so they put prophets to give you an example heresy is different from violating the law Sadducees were heretics to the Pharisees there was nothing illegal and no one was persecuting Sadducees and in fact you see in the Talmud like they were heretics because they denied the resurrection and the Pharisees punishment for that was well God just won't resurrect them then nanny nanny that that's all they did right so there's no like legal persecution of let me reuse a word let me reuse the word blasphemy and blasphemy blasphemy is a specific law but the Christians weren't breaking it because blasphemy means uttering the name of God in vain like uttering it aloud there's a very specific law at that time that's a very specific act Christians weren't doing that so they couldn't have been false prophet was put to death and that's that was their association was what they're called right so that's a hypothesis but is that well that's that's not max no one is executed and acts for being a false prophet no one Paul isn't doesn't mention executing you know persecuting well Stephen claims they murdered the Messiah the next one previewing but that would be the false prophet would be Jesus right he's already dead so you wouldn't go persecuting people talking about a false prophet they would have to themselves be the false prophet to end up on the dock right so that so that anyway so we don't know we don't actually know why Paul is persecuting Christians it had to be something this one from Don Fulman says for Dr. Carrier what other main figures in the Bible do you think didn't exist other than Jesus Paul existed James existed but Jesus didn't I am assuming they mean the New Testament because a lot of people in the Old Testament didn't exist I would say I don't think Elijah and Alicia it were real I think they're made up heroes I don't believe Moses existed I don't think any of the patriarchs are historical in fact like about half of the Old Testament they're fictional characters but when you get to the New Testament I think they're like about half the apostles might be invented so like Thomas Didymus I think is a fabrication because he doesn't exist in any of the early lists of apostles and Thomas Didymus is a fake name it just means twin twin so it's not a name so it's twin in Greek and twin in Aramaic so I think Thomas is made up I think Lazarus is made up and in fact we see him get made up Luke makes him up in a parable has Jesus literally speak of Lazarus as a fictional character the name is Eliezer it's a common Jewish name but the figure of Lazarus gets turned into a real person and John and I think that's made up I don't think the Lazarus and John was a real person and there are probably other apostles that weren't real the ones who confirm are real are the ones that Paul mentions because he mentions them I'd say apostles not disciples so like Kaphos, Peter James and John Paul actually mentions those guys and so and he mentions them as apostles and as ranking apostles the pillars are actually the top three and in the Gospels they maintain that order but James, John, and Kaphos are the top three so I think that's the tie-in but I'm less certain about the other apostles I think some of those lists of names are made up some of those people are probably made up You got it Ann Thank you very much for this question coming in from Amir Eshaf Ruh says to Dr. Carrier Jesus was a historical person in parentheses and they say Romans 1 verse 3 and Galatians 1 verse 18 okay sorry let's see I don't recognize it sounds like stuff we already covered in the debate so it's the way they put it is it reminds me of deductive logic but it's not the way that they put the question is I've never seen it so Amir if you could put it in the live chat then another way for me to understand I'm but this one coming in from Carrier he's talking about him being a descendant he's talking about him being a descendant of David I'm assuming that's where he's going with it yeah the word descendant is not in Romans 1 however this one coming in from Constellation Pegasus says what writings exist that show Jews were ordering the killing of this new sect called Christians I would like to see that like to see look documents about this is that what they're saying I think that's what they're saying I mean I mean this gets to a point that I think I think Dr. Boyce and I didn't get into because I think we both agree with our knowledge of history 99.999% of all documentation won't have survived and in fact we know like the origins of Christianity there were there would have been tons of letters in Paul's day Paul's not the only one writing letters and we don't even have all his letters he even references other letters that we don't have but there have been tons of other missionaries writing letters so and that's just the Christians who have you know interest in preserving their own history even they didn't preserve almost all of their stuff and so if you get to other groups like we have almost nothing from Judaism about Christians gosh I think until the Talmud I don't know if we have any actual Jewish text about that but it's not because the Christians didn't exist it's because Jewish text didn't survive so there would have been tons of documentation but there's no necessary expectation that it would survive now there are certain versions of the historicity of Jesus the theory where it would entail if that version were true that would entail a survival of certain documents but all that would mean is that that's argued against that particular version of historicity so like the Matthew says Jesus was famous all across Syria that can't be true if that were true we'd have a lot more documentation survival but if Jesus was just pretty much a minor guru and Christianity was a very small fringe sect there were like dozens of Jewish sects and we have almost no documentation on any of them and if Christianity was like the smallest one we have no reason to expect any survival of documentation so that doesn't really argue that and that Christians didn't exist or it doesn't argue that Jesus didn't exist either the silence of the record is a weak argument for that reason I don't know if Dr. Boyd says anything to add to that I agree and I mean Paul said he did it so I mean there's an early the first century right there and and it is a statement against interest and there's no doubt that Tacitus and others recognized they were at least concerned with these meetings these secret meetings that were happening around the time of the mission so but they were they were having church but they were worried about conspiracy I hadn't thought of this before that's a good point to make a distinction Tacitus is talking about Roman law not Jewish law and the law that the Christians were violating under Rome was illegal assembly so assemblies yeah we yeah it's illegal assembly so we take the the amendments for granted the right to assembly is explicitly in the United States Constitution that is actually the first time in history I think where that right to assemble was actually established so that you couldn't outlaw it most of the time assemblies were illegal without the permission of the government you had to have a license to assemble so severe was this law under Rome that the Asia Minor which is now Turkey had been so rebellious that the emperor was not even granting licenses to assemble to build fire departments so it says the thing that Pliny the Younger is really concerned about is like can't you let us form fire departments we need fire brigades so that we can fight fires in the cities and this is nope they've become political they're not allowed so they wouldn't even give licenses for fire stations they would in other provinces but in Asia Minor they weren't but this is the illegal assembly is what and we really have the letter of Pliny the Younger when he's persecuting Christians himself it's very explicit that it's the illegal assembly law that he's enforcing there he says they were not guilty of anything else so that's they feared conspiracy though they feared overthrow conspiracies and meetings yeah but that never comes up an actual trial document so like that's why it doesn't come up in Pliny the Younger or Trajan Trajan's own letter on the Christians doesn't mention any such concern in fact it's clear that they had no such concern because Trajan says leave them alone but it was the the daunting the government was the thing but Paul is actually you mentioned his Greek name it's actually a Latin name Paul is Roman which may be Paul loss in Greek Paul loss in Greek I guess it's his his name's Greek Paul loss but that comes from the Latin word yeah yeah yeah right so so that's why probably that's why people probably thought he was a Roman citizen now one could think correct maybe Paul was operating as a Roman operator like enforcing illegal assembly laws but he doesn't seem to mean that either because he seems when he's talking about his own trials and stuff he's only interacting with the Jews he's not being attacked by the Romans he's as a turncoat against the Romans or anything like that and he never mentions working for the Romans in this either so I think he's he's got to be Jewish law that he's enforcing seems pretty clear that's the mindset that he was in and required that revelation like you said he I think he did either genuinely or really he had a genuine turn apart for sure whether that was based on genuine experience or not either way but so anyway the Romans had different interests in the Jews so so there but still this there are different different laws were applying to who is persecuting whom this one coming in from Amir Ashafra thanks for letting me know they said that you're putting it in probability terms and now I actually understand it okay so basically they said the probability that Jesus existed given Romans one verse three and Galatians versus chapter one verse 18 is greater than the probability that he doesn't exist given those same verses and then I'll I'll read the read you the verses they say it's first Romans one three says regarding his son who asked who's earthly life was a descendant of David and then Galatians 118 says then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him 15 days give you a chance so we already cover this in the debate the word descendant is not in there that's a translation license someone took license with the words it actually says made of the seat of David and I do think Paul means literally made of the seat of David I think God formed a mortal body of Jesus out of the seat of David and there's precedent and basis for that I cite a bunch of it not just in my book but more recently in Jesus from outer space I cite some more examples of attestation of this kind of thing so it's vague point being it's ambiguous as to whether he means an earthly person or a celestial mortal someone who was temporarily immortal in a celestial realm so that's vague unfortunately as to historicity that's why it doesn't give you the greater than operator at best it gives you an equal and then the same thing with Galatians we went all we covered Galatians heavily in our debates so you can just go back and when you said the descendancy you're talking about the word spermitas there what what do you mean it's not there I'm the seed or often crimson seed it's semen literally yeah but usually it has that descendancy implication right but the word is not there it's very important because a lot of people think the word matters and but that word's not there so if you're to translate it correctly it just means made out of the seed of David but that's a weird phrase and ambiguous as to what it means what does that mean does it mean descent or does it not mean descent that would depend on your interpretation of the text so we can't use the text to defend the interpretation just from coming in from do you appreciate your question this one from Brandon Hansen says question for Dr. Carrier why do some atheists confuse faith and blind faith isn't faith reasoned from evidence and blind faith is based on nothing do you agree I'm not sure the context of how that's relevant to our debate today I have a stickler about semantics I am a big proponent of ordinary language philosophy so the word faith is multi-valent like most words so it depends on the context of what you mean so faith can just mean confidence which can be won by evidence or someone could use faith specifically to mean confidence without evidence like it does actually have that meaning so it depends on the context of who's using the word for what when so I don't see the question being useful you got it and Don Fulman says Dr. Boyce is there more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than most any historical figure of the time well certainly the first century you know when it comes to Pontius Pilate or it comes to say say Caiaphas the high priest that's mentioned in the Gospels or Annas the high priest there are traditions that seem to later come in about these high priest or about I mean even even Tacitus we just saw mentioned Pilate but when it comes to the amount of evidence for a historical figure of that time I think we have more evidence for a person like Jesus than we do just about anybody in that companionship of that timeline that's not true at all Pilate we have his autograph signature on a stone we don't have that for Jesus we have a contemporary a detailed contemporary account by Filo of Alexandria who was an ambassador to Rome about these issues so like he actually was first not firsthand but he was actually there in that region at the time and actually understood all the story of what was going with the webpilates we have a much better account for much more reliable source a nameable, identifiable contemporary source but what Hila did there's no information outside of his signature I mean there's there's not a ton of information yeah we have a lot Filo writes Filo writes a lot and Josephus has a huge huge name but this is actually accepting the gospel narratives as independent sources in the first century and that's why I know but Josephus is not writing a mythology right so Josephus has has a source cited history and he's actually from the region of the time so so when Josephus gives detailed stories about Pilate we have nothing like that for Jesus like nothing not even close and Filo writes a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than anybody else writes about Jesus other than the Gospels of course but that's that's particularly the problem the Gospels are mythologies and Paul they're not history well and that's but that's what we were debating is I don't think Paul ever gives us details about a historical like earthly walking Jesus he doesn't give us a narrative about Jesus nothing like we have for Pontius Pilate for example I can give you a quick quick response Dr. Boyce since the question is originally for you if you want otherwise we can jump to the next question no that's that it's just it all comes down to how you accept the gospel narratives and Paul and your perspective it comes down to that based on how you weigh the evidence this one that's one way to put it the mythic life says Hebrews 138 quote Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever unquote does this description fit a historical or mythical character best well I would say both but let Dr. Boyce answer that I mean the point of that is that Jesus what the writer of Hebrews is talking about his eternality whereas this was a great debate in the early church I mean for example many believed at a later time that Jesus began his origin whereas the writer of say the gospel John defended the origin being before time that he was there with God and all things were made by him and for him then this Gnostic group came and there this was a debate in the early church theologically that's actually in Paul so Paul has Philippians the pre existence of Christ he mentioned he was sent yeah right he mentioned well he had the opportunity to be equal to God and chosen not to be that's actually kind of a very similar reference to the what's called Jewish emanation theory so the idea that what's in John is right out of Judaism that the Logos was unified with God and then emanated from God and became a separate entity the first Archangel Filo talks about this the Archangel of Archangels who's the Logos of God so this and even John 1 is past tense Jesus was God then he became the Logos etc etc so that's Jewish totally Jewish there's nothing actually weird about it it's more in line with what Paul teaches in Philippians where Jesus exists before and he says in 1 Corinthians 8 that Jesus is the agent of creation which is the same thing as the Angel of Archangels or the Angel of Angels that Filo talks about the Logos is also the God's agent of creation and so there's a lot of other parallels between this angel and Jesus in Paul just from Paul straight along but that I don't use that as an argument that Jesus was mythical and here's why is because that is equally likely on both theories it is equally likely that if there was a historical Jesus just as Bart Nerman has said in his book how Jesus became God that very early on Christians came to believe like right out of the gate practically after his death that Jesus must have been the incarnate angel of archangels so they believed in his pre-existence probably not during his ministry we can't really know because we don't really have eyewitness documents from that period but certainly almost immediately after we see this in the creeds that Paul's talking about they believe that he was the incarnation of this angel and one can believe that about a historical person we have examples of Gurus in India for example who claimed to be you know the long the avatars of whatever and so on so there's a lot of people who claim to be the incarnation of something or other that goes back to time immemorial who are real people and I think that's completely explicable and would totally make sense in that time Bart Nerman's book goes into why it made sense in that time he talks about a lot of contextual documents and stuff that show that this was in line with Jewish thinking at the time it wasn't that weird or Jesus was a celestial figure and it was always so but became mortal in some other you know like a lower celestial space both theories explain that evidence equally well so I don't think that evidence argues for historicity or against it agreed I actually agree with that I think that I think all that speaking of is his eternality and anybody from either side could take that to me yeah it's a question of are they attributing that to a historical person or not and they easily could right right you got it and Jeff is G peck sicken 007 says Paul never said he ate in each chapter he wrote ergo Paul must have never eaten think it was some sort of I don't know what particular part of the debate is so this is interesting so this is Bayesian logic here this is the mistake a lot of people make when you look at the likelihood which is probability of E evidence given or probability of the yeah given the hypothesis every single time sometimes mathematicians because they assume you already know all the math they drop B just background knowledge but the term B should be in every one of those so it's normally P E given H and B and B this is very important so the probability of E on H depends on background knowledge so for example is it expected based on the way people wrote back then based on human nature based on how letters were formed etc is it expected that someone would mention that they ate in every chapter of a letter they wrote the answer is no so the hypothesis does not predict that Paul would do that consequently there's nothing unexpected about it so the probabilities don't go the way that the questioner was trying to get it to go I don't I don't think that's a good argument at all by the way and Paul did say he would not eat certain things in Romans 14 if it offended his brother there is a chapter I don't I don't suggest that argument so I I wouldn't I would never attribute it to you either this one coming in from Dustin Ellerby says does the god of Israel in parentheses Trinity have a brother I don't know who that's question too but I mean no could you read the question again I didn't understand it you bet they said does the god of Israel in parentheses Trinity have a brother I know there's no teaching of that anywhere um I mean it would also depend on which era you're talking about like if you go way back to the Abrahamic era where we're actually not in monotheism yet or hinotheism I don't understand the question so I really can't answer it you got it and thanks very much for this question Nicodemus the daemon says after reading phylo I agree with Dr. Carrier bro or was it bow and arrow says why Jesus come from three of 14 generations of ancestors in parentheses 314 I don't understand that question either I don't I don't I don't get it neither is it about if you think about Matthew specifically with the numbers of Matthew or am I misunderstanding I don't know it doesn't mention it they they just said why Jesus why does Jesus come from three of 14 generations of ancestors in parentheses 314 three of 14's is Matthew's genealogy so it can't be Luke he's gotta be talking about Matthew but that's that's Jewish writing that goes back to numerics very important numbers in sections 314 so that's why again I think Matthew originated as a Jewish account I think it was a Hebrew account because he used a lot of Hebrew numerics in the 14 I will agree I'll agree with that part that that Matthew is clearly Jewish he is a Jewish Christian and definitely imports a lot of Jewish ideas like that so that's totally expected that sort of it's not literally gamatria but it's it's it's that kind of thinking you got it this one coming in from Quani upstate says if everything if everything people claim to have witnessed regarding Jesus occurred does it prove he was everything he was said to be i.e. the son of an all powerful God who is is that to me they don't I would definitely I'd mention it if let's see I think it's for both of you I never put anything I just read it can you read it can you read it again he said and that's that's a good point folks if you can do me a favor if you can address it even if you think it's obvious for who it is for it oftentimes isn't for me and oftentimes for the guest neither so they say even if everything it's almost midnight don't make me think too hard okay oh my gosh yeah there it is yeah they say if everything people claim to have witnessed regarding Jesus occurred does it prove he was everything he was said to be I see the son of an all powerful God I'd say that's for you Dr. Trump of course and everyone knows my answer to that one I would say regardless of regardless of which way you go in this for me as a Christian there is a faith element you're not getting out of this without a an element of faith because if you are not the eyewitness but you choose to believe the evidence of cooperation of the eyewitnesses you're you're not just believing an event by eyesight you're you're believing it by groups of bringing evidence of a case so you're putting your faith in something evidential so I do think there's a level of faith there so does it prove everything no because you can have two people and Jesus did this if you look at the gospels he performed certain miracles in front of two crowds and certain crowds came up with denial of what he did and then the others believed what he did so even when Jesus had scenarios like that happening in his ministry there was two opinions about him he proved he tried to prove himself as the prophet of Moses he said Moses testifies against you because he spoke of me Jesus did all kinds of things to to demonstrate his messiahship and some believed him some didn't so does it absolutely prove everything no because people in his day said it didn't prove anything and they saw him actually do things so eyewitness accounts are important but you still have to have some level of faith even with eyewitness accounts of my opinion you got it thank you very much for this question coming in from James W good job debaters and Dr. Carrier really enjoyed it Amy Newman and I are hosting an after show link in description tell us why you think Jesus didn't exist and that is indeed true that link is in the description along with our guests and then said thank you James my pleasure and this one coming in from Finding Truth says does Carrier actually believe this how does he define they're giving you the heat Dr. Carrier Dr. Carrier they say how does he define evidence did Julius Caesar exist what is that let's see jug slash container I have articles on both those things you'll be delighted so go to my website richardcarrier.info in fact let me quickly I still have an article on Julius Caesar did Julius Caesar exist how do we know this I would recommend that you start however with my article on Hannibal so you can type in Hannibal because I think there's only one article but about the historicity of Hannibal read that because I go into the methodology of how we do this I have a whole chapter on this and Jesus from outer space as well if you want to do that but I including Caesar there's a section on Caesar in there but from Hannibal you can find my article on Spartacus and from Spartacus the opening paragraph links to all my other articles one of which is on Caesar and so you can find my article on that there as to how do I define evidence I have a whole article on that as well Bayesian definition of evidence so you can probably blog or search my blog for Bayesian definition of evidence maybe or try some different phrases and stuff you'll find my article on how you define evidence using Bayesian logic got you this one coming in from do appreciate it Alexander writes says this might have already been mentioned I'm coming in late but what do you think all the witnesses who saw Jesus actually saw or who did they see I think it's for you Dr. Carrier okay so I have another article you can check it out on the 500 so use the number 500 so then he appeared to 500 so you can you can search my blog for that and I have a whole article on it I'll take that as asking what my opinion is not necessarily what I think I can prove because I think in reality we don't know so the end of the day as a historian we don't know we can talk about hypotheses we can order those hypotheses and rank them in terms of probability but we don't we don't have an account from anyone and we don't have any evidence to pertain to to really say for sure that we know like we know various things could happen but I suspect that the appearance to the brethren and Paul is very explicit that there's only one appearance of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 that is all at once he doesn't say that he appeared to the 12 all at once he just says to the brethren all at once so there's only one group experience in that list and it's to all the brethren and I think he said all the brethren originally I think pentak I think he said all the brethren on pentacost and that because the Greek is very similar I think there's been a corruption but whether that's the case or not I think acts two is a embellishment kind of like a mythologization of the event Paul is talking about so I think it was something like that it was an ecstasy similar to the shakers would have or the Seventh Day Adventists or the Vodun rituals where masses of people have like personal experiences like lights in the sky or feeling a presence and they all interpret this as them all having a visitation of the deity or spirit or angel or whatever it is so I think that's what actually happened I think it was an ecstatic event everybody had a personal hallucinatory experience it was a simple experience it wasn't an actual Jesus figure with beard and everything and they interpreted as a celestial Jesus a heavenly Jesus appearing to them and confirming things to them whether verbally or only conceptually we don't know but that's what I think happened and it would be congruent with what we scientifically know of how religious ecstasies and revelations occur throughout world religions in history you got it and thank you very much for this question Amir Ashafra appreciate it says why is Jesus being manufactured out of David's sperm more likely than Jesus being a descendant of David biologically from natural birth the latter is more parsimonious more parsimonious and least ad hoc yeah except it requires a historical man right so I think you have your order of causation backwards so let's look at the scenario if Jesus didn't exist then they could not use that argument right if Jesus did not exist there's only one way they could get the Nathan prophecy to be true which is to make it literally true to make it exactly what the passage says it says literally the messiah will be made of the sperm of David's belly not a descendant no literally because it was about Solomon Nathan's prophecy was originally about Solomon it was so it really was it meant directly from David like no intervening steps just David and Solomon so if there's no historical Jesus and you have to believe in a messiah that has undergone his incarnation and death to to reverse the sins of Satan you know the destruction of Satan of the lower world and so on if you if you're going to sell this to yourself even much less to other people you have to sell it as congruent with a Nathan philosophy so you there's only one way to do that which is God took semen from the belly of David and used it stored it and used it to make the body of Jesus for that very purpose so that scripture would be fulfilled the word of Nathan is literally true in that case and we have many examples of weird prophecy interpretations exactly like this not exactly like this but a lot like this in its weirdness and we have a lot of examples of evidence of sperm banking like this there was an angel for example called the angel of night that used to collect semen deliver it to God and then ask God if this semen would become a villain or a hero and God would say whatever and then the angel would go back and re-implant it so so this kind of semen manipulation cosmic semen manipulation wasn't a going belief at the time and we have a similar example for Zoroastrianism where the semen of Zoroaster was stored in a lake for a thousand years and then impregnated a woman later in that case it was impregnation of a woman but it has its idea of the supernatural preservation of the seed to affect a goal that the God had later on but the reason is is that when you when the prophecy says this has to happen so the only way you can have a messiah that didn't historically exist is if you came up with some way to make the Nathan prophecy true and there's really only one way to do it well it's like if I can add to that really quickly the the the writers of Kumeran about second century for second century BC were actually using that Davidic prophecy anticipating what a messiah would look like if he came on the scene they understood the prophecy of Second Samuel referring back to that Davidic covenant the king that will reign forever an eternal kingdom they obviously didn't believe it happened in David's lifetime and they were still having this expectancy yeah yeah by then no one no one was interpreting the prophecy literally anymore you couldn't right they expected it to come under David bloodline but you could go back to preserving it literally preserving the word of God to be literally true on the cosmic model so so there's actually that's actually an argument for it but the point point in terms of Bayesian probability is that they had to do this the probability that they would do it is a hundred percent so that's another example of background knowledge changing the predicted probability so even on mythicism it 100% predicts that they're going to come up with some sort of way to make the Nathan prophecy true so so consequently that doesn't that doesn't help us change the probability of historicity this one coming in from constellation Pegasus says I've learned a lot tonight I was under the I was under the impression from others that Paul persecuting Christians was false and didn't happen this is a thing going around so I've run into more and more people making this assertion I don't know where it comes from or or why I don't understand what the motivation is like how does this help the cause of atheism or anything I don't know I don't know it's strange there's no reason to believe that I don't know why people are saying that and thanks and good day to you sir says Richard Dr. Carrier I've heard you say Bayesian reasoning was used to crack the enigma code in World War II sorry for being slightly off topic but was curious maybe I'm not sure I'm not as up on the enigma code history but it has been used to do a lot of cool shit so Barge McGrane has a book called The Theorem That Would Not Die and it is a great history of Bayes Theorem and it will cover that story if it's if that's a thing so if you're interested that that'll be the place to go you got it I'm sure Wikipedia covers it too I want to say even the 21st century now thank you so much folks for all of your questions we've got to let these guys go it's getting late but want to say huge thank you Dr. Carrier and Dr. Boyce it was a great one where you literally do appreciate you guys hanging out with us it was a fantastic debate and thanks for being with us tonight right on that's awesome thanks guys I'll be right back in just a moment folks with updates about upcoming debates and the channel so stick around for that post-credits scene in just a moment I'll be right back he's in my dear friends thrilled to have you here I've got to go pretty quick because it's actually it's even late here it's 10 o'clock here so I've got to get to sleep because we have a debate tomorrow morning at the bottom right of your screen that's the debate we're going to have tomorrow morning it's going to be controversial it's going to be juicy you don't want to miss it my dear friends and thanks for your last so sorry we didn't see it quite on time constellation Pegasus says last question why were the Gossels written so late after the death of Jesus I am so sorry that we didn't get to ask that in time we wrapped up before I even saw your question so we do want to say thank you folks for all of your support of the channel thank you for hanging out here whether you be Christian atheist Muslim you name it we are glad you were here my dear friends we really do hope you feel welcome and thanks for all of your support we are absolutely pumped we just had our first ever in person conference if you hadn't seen it we've been releasing footage debates from that conference all week amazing my dear friends I hope you're well though I want to say hello to you in the old chat is good to see you nano as well as Don Larson Jr thanks for your kind words I love you too and Joe the Toe good to see you again Zach Morgan pumped that you were with us says where is godless girl I don't know I don't know I'll ask slang good to see you Dominus Augustus glad you are here Dan R pumped to have you with us Saichonav good to see you again thanks for your support and I gotta tell you folks Saichonav seriously did probably more work I really do think he did do more work for making the conference happen last weekend I want to say huge thank you to Saichonav huge thank you to Amanda for helping us find a venue that was affordable it was a huge success you guys we are so pumped that all of the debates amazingly I didn't even expect it weeks out I told Bob aka Saichonav I said I don't think I think someone's gonna have COVID and not make it or maybe they missed their flight or their flight gets canceled I said I don't think we're gonna have all the speakers make it to get to have all the debates we plan but we did amazingly we had 14 debates four of which have yet to be released we're gonna release them in the next several days on this channel so you can watch those in-person debates they were fantastic several of them being religion debates several being political debates I've gotta tell you you guys we are pumped as we have taken that huge step at modern day debate as we strive to fulfill the vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field as we try to get people from all walks of life talking we have got to tell you my dear friends we hope you feel welcome we appreciate you being with us thanks alien beast for your kind words I see you there in the old live chat and I appreciate that encouragement and Tesla Tesla glad you were with us as well as frog hands and JG glad you guys are here amazing John Kramer happy you're with us KCA Randy and gross patate am I saying it right let me know glad you're with us Don Fulman thanks for being a channel member that means a lot it's true folks we do have channel memberships we appreciate you guys supporting the channel anyway you do in fact if you want to do a good deed today and you haven't hit the like button yet hey that's a way to do a good deed before the day wraps up if you want to hit that like button that really does help us we're at 255 we can totally get to 260 we are so close thanks for being with us though my dear friends thanks for all of your support of the channel and the vision as we no matter whether we be Christian atheist Muslim black white gay straight Biden backer Trump supporter Bernie bro all of us agree on this that everybody should have a fair and neutral platform so that they can make their case and it's a good thing that we have people from different walks of life engaging with each other that we don't become siloed off and separate from one another but that we instead are engaging with people from all walks of life we think that there's a great potential for great things to come from that just like tonight's debate I got to tell you I thought tonight was a fantastic debate we really do appreciate Dr. Carrier and Dr. Boy seriously really do appreciate them it's been a fun one cranky beast 2259 good to see you thanks for your kind words it was it was seriously a fun conference seriously if you guys didn't see it like some of the debates have been off the walls oh my goodness you guys it was so fun destiny versus Daniel and whether or not liberalism is required to basically dominate Islam was the most juicy and frankly my favorite debate of the whole conference it was amazing so I got to tell you you guys you have to check out the debates though and I'm still just looking at I'm like wow that was so fun we can't wait we want to do debate con 2 in 2023 and we are considering seriously considering and by seriously I mean we're already planning it out a tour this summer where we will hold even bigger debates and by even bigger I mean like only the biggest only the most amazing debates as we are excited my dear friends we are on a determined march to fulfill the vision of providing a level playing field and so if you agree with us on that vision that it's good that everybody has their fair shot to make their case and that it's good to have people from different walks of life engaging with one another hit that subscribe button join the vision and join us as we carry through with this movement into the future we're determined folks and hey we've already shown you I mean we've done successful crowd funds we have done in-person debates we've even done our own two-day conference it's getting real folks we're doing big things real things and it's just going to keep getting bigger and more amazing so join us while we are young hit that subscribe button because someday we're going to look back and we're going to say wow you remember when we were little and we were just 63,000 subscribers you were just a small channel back then we are going to do big things and this is just the beginning just for Grinn it's good to see you in the old live chat get real glad you made it Mike Cook thanks for being with us as well as Gricksley Panda thanks for being a channel channel member that means a lot Sideshow and Ave thanks for being a channel member and also I can say like I said Sideshow and Ave basically you could say the main leader for the conference did so much work at organization organization seriously and Wesley Currie the second thanks for coming by I see you there in the old live chat as well as David glad to have you with us and Apostate Prophet says in May I will debate Ali G on modern day debate Apostate Prophet good to see you and it's true we are planning on kicking off our modern day debate tour this summer with that very debate namely Apostate Prophet against Ali Dawal it is going to be huge it's going to be we're thinking probably New York City I've got to talk to them and kind of keep following through with setting that up but I got to tell you it's going to be massive it's going to be a huge way to kick off that tour we are pumped you guys so I've got to tell you my dear friends we are glad to have you with us we appreciate all of your support Apostate Prophet trolled in Ali Dawal in the old live chat Joe Jones good to see you and thanks for becoming a member Yamil Saret let me know if I'm pronouncing it right thanks for becoming a member seriously we appreciate that support we really do and we are excited about the vision you guys I am pumped I really am I'm excited because we're seeing we're like hey we can keep doing bigger and better things we're going to learn from our mistakes we're going to learn how we can do bigger better more kind of like nuance and like finely tune things in order to fulfill the vision that we had mentioned James Ortiz good to see you we are pumped you are with us as well as Joe Jones glad you were with us and Master Optics good to see you again Heat Shield glad you were here Brooke Chavis glad to see you oh the Twitch chat amazing is there anybody in the Twitch chat I'm sorry I know there's Brooke I know my guess is Tepatzel and Ozzie and are in there too who else is in there is it let's see you guys if you didn't know we do have a Twitch chat and we do have a Discord which is linked in the description my dear friends we often have to have the official modern day debate after show in the Discord because modern day debate does have a Discord it's linked in the description I highly encourage you check it out if you like Discord hey we'd love to have you there I'm not personally able to make it all the time because right now I'm just trying to play catch up with a lot in life and usually it's also hard for me to make it just because it's we're on a number of platforms and so for me to try to get on all of them it's tough but we do want to say we appreciate you guys thanks for your support Don Fullman thanks again for becoming a member and my dear friends you guys were pumped about the future seriously Brooke Chavis thanks for your support and being a member I see you there and I've got to tell you my dear friends we are planning on big big things for this tour this summer seriously it is we really think we're like it's going to blow the ceiling off of the internet world of debate and this conference seriously was such a blast and we're just so excited that it had a huge impact and so my dear friends I want to say thanks for all of your support we'll be back tomorrow night I got to go because I got to get some sleep because tomorrow we will be holding a debate at one p.m. Eastern so technically it's not in the morning it's in the afternoon depending on where you live you can see that at the bottom right of your screen should ex-Muslims be punished we'll say it is going to be a lively one and also though if you haven't seen this you guys we're absolutely pumped about this this is huge you could say that Shabir Ali is kind of like the I would say maybe the William Lane Craig of Muslim debaters or the Matt Dillahunty of Atheist debaters he is pictured at the bottom right of your screen Shabir Ali is arguably maybe the best Muslim debater he's definitely up there in terms of the very best in the English speaking world I've seen so many of these debates with all sorts of people so and I've got to tell you Shabir Ali the fact that we have him coming on on Monday like less than a week that is going to be a huge debate you guys we are absolutely pumped as we are just seeing big things happen here and so we want to say we appreciate your guys' support thank you guys for helping us make this happen you guys you make this channel awesome I'm dead serious about that one is for example your questions during the Q&A you guys make the Q&A fun also though even just hitting that like button we passed our goal we're at 264 right now so we blew past 260 thank you guys for your support that way even just hanging out here though I got to tell you that really does help us we want an eclectic group of people from all walks of life and we really do have that here and I've got to tell you my dear friends we are pumped because there's a lot of big things coming up on modern day debate and so seriously we appreciate it I'm excited to see you guys in just a little bit for that juicy controversial debate tomorrow night you don't want to miss it or I should say that's right tomorrow morning for me it's 11am in the morning because I'm in mountain time for you most of you I know are in eastern time at least if you're in the U.S. and then many of you might be who knows where you are but wherever you are we're glad you're with us we really do hope you feel welcome as we are a neutral platform wanting everybody to feel welcome and excited to fill fulfill the vision of providing that level playing field for everybody to make their case as we try to get people from all walks of life talking so thanks everybody we hope you have a great rest of your night and we're excited about the future see you tomorrow amazing isn't that amazing he's a beta male


This is Orson Welles, speaking from London, the Black Museum. Here in the grim stone structure of the Thames, which houses Scotland Yard, is a warehouse of homicide, where everyday objects, a flower pot, a coffee cup, a curtain rod, all are touched by murder. Here's a shilling. This is a familiar object, a shilling. It's a coin of the realm. So much silver alloyed with harder metals for purposes of wear, milled edged, engraved with the face of a British sovereign. Very familiar object indeed. It's a lucky piece all right, Inspector. Lucky for you, Barth. That's just what I mean, sir. Shillings don't buy much these days, but this one bought plenty. Now the Black Museum, starring Orson Welles. In the Black Museum, Scotland Yards Museum of Murder. Here's a small radio made for entertainment, for obtaining all the sounds that reach out through the ether, the area, thing for joy, for pleasure, but note the little wires protruding here, connected to the switch that turned this little sound box on, and the man turned that knob, as was his habit, with a little extra wires conducted current to an explosive. The man died. Later, he was swallowed to death by his murderer. Oh yes, here we are. Here's the shilling, subject of our story. Some tarnished still, gleaming silver, without a doubt it passed through many hands, proposed in pockets and purses. And then one day, a telephone rings. So many things are heralded by that sound. This one rings in an office in the yard. Two men interrupt a desultory conversation, one of them picks up the instrument. Inspector Graves office, for you, Inspector. Thank you, Sergeant. The inspector listens briefly, acknowledges the message, hangs up the telephone. Well, well, well. Troubles, sir? Not yet. Just an interesting bit of information. Remember Joey Barth? Dartmoor, isn't he? Not after the night. Oh, is he that long since we sent him away? Time off for good behavior. He gets out in the morning. Wonder if brother Davey knows. Same idea across my mind. How do you suppose it feels, Sergeant? Then know your brother is getting out. When you've taken over his business, bar, band and bottle club, and your brother believes you framed him into Dartmoor. There's a word for it, sir. Uncomfortable. That, of course, is an understatement, particularly when it's well-known, both to the underworld of London and to the police, that brother Joey has sworn to get brother Davey as soon as such action is possible. Now, obviously, no self-respecting police force appreciates murder. Follows them at certain precautions, must be taken. Sergeant, will you arrange for a 24-hour detail to stay with brother Joey from the moment he leaves the hospitality of Dartmoor tomorrow? Yes, sir. And advise the station house, which covers brother Davey's rather disreputable club, that Davey is expecting company. Yes, sir. I'd rather like to be there, you know, when Joey tells his brother he wants the club back and his share of the earnings of these past six years. Yes, it must have been quite a meeting. It took place, of course. No question about that. In fact, no attempt was made to prevent it. The police knew when it happened. They knew exactly when Joey Bart walked past the uniformed dormant into the nightclub in question. They so reported to Inspector Graves for some 45 minutes later that his telephone rang once more. Inspector Graves' office. Detective Smythe here. The inspector available. Just a moment. Smythe, Inspector. He's on the Bart matter. I'll take it. You'll Smythe? I'm in Davey Bart's office as the club inspector. Where's Joey? Gone, sir. We saw him go in. We didn't see him get out. More self-respecting police force does not appreciate murder when the murder is committed while policemen are on watch outside the scene of the crime. It is appreciated even less if possible. Therefore, action is required. General alarm for Joey Bart. Description is available. Yes, sir. Close that club and the whole customers will start until I get there. Let's go, Sergeant. All the resources of a great police department spring to life. And soon the inspector and Sergeant Max will are at the scene viewing the body of Davey Bart to the hole in its chest. Yes, that's Bart all right. All right, Smythe, let's have it. Well, that's just the way we found him, sir. A sprawl like that. Gun near him. Nothing's been touched except a check for fingerprints. Pictures have been taken? Yes, sir. Column have been here? Yes, sir. All right, take him away. Sergeant, very good, sir. Print's on the gun. Only the dead man's. Just the one set. There he is. Medical report? Shot at close range. Powder burns. It's a .38 automatic. I can see that. Anything else? Well, there's a wall safe. It was searched. What's this? It's a shilling, sir. What's it doing here? It was lying there on the desk when we got in, sir. The lights were on and it was shining in the lamp. Quite clear, wasn't it? A killing. An ex-convict disappeared open and short, simple. Still, the evidence must be collected with a view toward the eventual trial. You're George Lyle. Yes, sir? You have a record. Well, I went away once. Three months. Attempted robbery. Since then? I worked for Mr. Bach. Doing what? Oh, sort of his, uh, assistant. Yes, I know what you mean. All right, what happened here tonight? Well, Joey came here and the boss told me to let him in. Joey told the boss he needed money. The boss said he didn't have any. They started to argue. That was when the boss told me to wait outside and I did. Hear anything? Oh, the place is soundproof, Inspector. The nearer thing. Why did you come back inside? Took a chance. Seemed like an awful long time when Joey didn't come out. I found him. The boss I mean. What do you know about this? Hey, that's the boss's lucky piece. When Joey asked for money, the boss took it out of his pocket and told him it was all the money he had on him. That's when Joey said, I ought to kill you for that.  Build a case. Interview the employees. First the doorman. Well, I was a kind of surprised inspector, but Mr. Bart said let Joey in the club when he showed up. Why? Why everybody knows, sir. Joey thought Mr. Bart framed him to get the club away from him. So you let him in? So I'll let him in. See him leave? No, sir. He must have gone out the back way, through that door. It leads out to the kitchen and the dressing rooms. There's a rear exit, sir, out in the alley behind. Now it's the turn of the kitchen help. The man in the best position to notice anything is the second cook. Yes, sir. That's my position opposite the door. Did you see anyone go by tonight? Only waiters and the girl in the show. The girl in the show? Yes, she has a dressing room in the hall. She sings. Her name? Ms. Fair, Mitzi Fair. Get the girl, Sergeant. Yes, sir. You just station all evening? The chef, he called me over to taste his dressing. Only once. All the rest of the time, I... Yes, but you must have missed anyone who went through the hall during that time. Well, it was only a minute or two. That would be enough. All right, leave a name and address for the constable on... The henchman, Lyons, saw and heard nothing. The doorman was too far away. The kitchen help was too busy. Still, everyone seemed to have known that Joy Bart was there that night, everyone, including the girl in the show. You sing in the floor, show, Ms. Fair. Is that it? I had the show, you might say, or what? Yes, was. The club is closed. You'll need another job. Thanks for the two weeks' notice. We can do without that. What do you mean I am the show? Well, I sing for the piano. Well, the band rest. There's no line, no comics. The space is too small. I see. What's your background, Ms. Fair? It was the usual shabby story, the early ambitions, the voice that failed to make the big time the small jobs to make a living in the eternal hope for the break. Then the steady work in the club. Any particular reason why Dave Bart kept you here so long? If you mean what I think you mean, there was nothing like that. Did you know his brother? Well, only to hear Davey talk about him. I came here after Davey took over.   See you in a stranger tonight? Not tonight. Other nights? Maybe. Maybe not. And if I had, I'd know better than to talk, Inspector. Davey operated within the law, as far as I know. But I've been around, Inspector. I knew anything. Chances are my life wouldn't be worth that shilling. You ever see it before? Looks like any other to me. I'm told it was Davey Bart's lucky piece. Oh, then? Well, I wouldn't know. With me, a shilling's a shilling, and they don't come my way easy. Now, today, a shilling can be found in the Black Museum. In just a moment, we will continue with the Black Museum starring William Well. Braves waited in his office at Scarfland Yard for the report he knew was inevitable. But Joey Bart had been run to work. This was routine. Meanwhile, he sifted facts with Sergeant Maxwell. Nothing to it, Inspector. It's Joey. It couldn't be anyone else. Say that in court, and a smart lawyer will prove it could have been anyone of a dozen people. Reasonable doubt, that's all. But Joey said he'd get his brother once he got out. That's not evidence, and you know it, Sergeant. There's plenty of evidence of the gun for instance. Davey's gun registered with only Davey's prints on it. A dormant saw him go in. Lions were here at the beginning of the fight. The open safe. With nothing stolen. At least plenty of money in it, and Joey came for money. He left by the back way. Well, no one saw him. If no one saw him go out, they could have missed someone else coming in. Our case is full of holes, Sergeant.  You see, it's one thing to be certain in your own mind that someone committed murder. It's another thing to prove it in court, where your facts are subject to attack by lawyers, subject to the workings of 12 mines in a jury box, subject to the judge's interpretation of reasonable doubts. The inspector knew this. Ah, the telephone again. Perhaps this time. Dave speaking. Smile here, Inspector. We've found Bart. He's holed up in a tenement in the East End. 409 Ellison. One of those places cut up into one-room flatlets. He's in the third floor rear. Set the cordon slide, seal the place, and don't go in until I get there. The quarry run to earth, his hole sealed front and rear by the cordon of police. The inspector arrives. All under control, Smile. Yes, sir. He won't get out the back way this time. Good enough. Let's go in. A small, tight group gathers around the inspector. Smith, Maxwell, several uniformed constables all around. The end of the Ramshackle building start at the rickety stairway. Somehow this place escaped the holocaust of Hitler's bomb. It's old. Dirty. Dangerous. The landings are illuminated by fitful light from flickering yellow electric bulbs and fixtures that once held gas burners. The third landing, the group stops. Splits up. Each man takes his station one to each side of the doorway. The officer with a gun in position to shoot off the lock on the scaly door. The inspector with Sergeant Maxwell and Detective Smith facing the doorway. Here it goes. You know who it is about? Open up. Ladies and gentlemen, come in. Check him out, Sergeant. Yes, sir. Oh, does he want to be inspector? No weapon. Very well. I could have told you that. No guns for me, inspector. Hey, I'm glad you got here first though. I thought maybe it was some of David's boys with the same idea you have. But I didn't kill him. Now, about sense killing the goose with the golden eggs, is there, inspector? They took him to the yard. Held for questioning, the record said. The questioning was sharp and to the point. What did you get from your brother? A hundred pounds to start. That was all? Oh, he argued first, but I got good and sore. Trotterman's life wasn't worth the shilling he threw at me. We know about that. Yeah, George and Lyons were still there. After that day threw him out. Then I told Dave I could prove he'd framed me. He acted like he believed me. Told me I'd be a fool to take the club back after the way he built it up. Said he'd cut me in for plenty. He went to the wall safe. Took out a hundred quid and gave it to me as a down payment sort of. Of course I took it. And took his shilling, too. Told him he'd get his luck back when I figured he was going to be a regular on the payoff. You took his shilling? Yeah, here. That's it. He had it since he was a kid. See that, Nick, isn't it? He got that, putting it on a railroad truck so as the train could run over it. Sergeant, bring Lyons and the fair girl down here. Yes, sir. You see anybody in that back hall boat? Nobody. Dave said to go out that way. And I did. I wanted a little privacy, you see? Your boys were with me all the way to the club from Dartmoor. Do you hear anything in that hall? Only the pans in the kitchen. Now look, Inspector. I didn't kill him. Why should I? He was paying off. Nobody kills a guy who pays. Maybe. Maybe not. Outside, Barton, wait there. I'll see you again later. An accommodating ex-convict to say the least and willing to talk, willing to talk his head off. The inspector was puzzled. This was not part of the usual pattern. The puzzle seemed deeper when Mitzi Fair told him. That chili? No, that's not Davis. Davis was the one on the desk. I watched him play with it lots of times. You're certain of that? I'm sure. Positive. And the puzzle seemed deeper still when George Lyon said. Yeah, I remember now. That Nick in the shilling. Hey, Inspector, if Joey had this shilling with him, who put the other one on the desk? Know something about him? The answer to that question could be very interesting. Very interesting indeed. A whole new avenue of inquiry suddenly opened up. Suddenly became possible that Joey Bart had not been the last person to see his brother alive. It's a matter of who is telling the truth about those coins, Sergeant. If Lyons and Bart are, then the girl is lying. If the girl is honest, then Lyons and Bart are both lying. How do we find out, Inspector? We take our time. And we let Joey go. For the time being. For the continuous watch on him, of course. Arrange for it, will you, Sergeant? I want a little quiet. I've got some thinking to do. The Inspector had his peace and quiet briefly. Shortly thereafter, he adjourned to the Padlock nightclub with Sergeant Maxwell and Detective Smith. I saw him to provide wall-to-wall carpeting.  Well, it helps for soundproofing. How are you coming along with the wall, Smith? Nothing hollow. Soundproof tiling under all the draperies. Hello? Here's something. Back at the couch, Inspector. Bobby pin. Blonde. The singers are blonde. Two badges, not the only blonde in London. If she were, we'd have to prove she dropped it after Jerry left this office. Oh, nothing doing on the walls, Inspector. Next. The desk. Take it apart, if necessary. Yes, sir. Dave Bart, look too honest, Sergeant. There's a reason for soundproof offices. If there's any record of that reason, it'll be here someplace. Well, the girls have something about visitors. Back door visitors. I know she did. Hello. Here's something. False bottom to this drawer. It measures six inches deep on the outside and only four and a half on the inside. Sliding panel? Probably. Sounds hollow enough. Ah. Here it is. The bottom slides back when you press this nail head. A couple of letters here. The record book. Good work, Smith. Well, Mr. Bart was methodical. Record of payment to the witnesses who swore his brother into prison. Income from various enterprises. Letters. Well, well, well. Enough there on the girl to keep her working for free the rest of her life. To say the least. Then it's for girl, Inspector. Or Jerry. Or both. Or neither. Lyons? There's a great deal on him, too. His 90-day sentence seems to have covered up a small item which could have meant ten years. Apparently several people were interested in the sudden death of Mr. Dave Bart.  Leave everything as it was, except for the papers. We'll take those. And as we leave, Sergeant, suppose you forget to snap the lock in the front door. Understand, Sergeant? Yes, sir. It was neat. Neat and simple. The bait, of course, was the contents of the drawer. Three people were interested in what it contained. Given an open padlock, the opportunity to search, the magnet, which was the letters and records in that desk, should draw at least one person back to the room where someone had killed Dave Bart and left a shilling on the desk. The inspector waited. With him, Sergeant Maxwell and Detective Smith, the dozen assorted detectives and constables. They waited in the silent darkened nightclub behind the door with its open padlock. They waited in the dark hallway near the kitchen, among the piled up tables and chairs in the main room. They waited in the echoing empty club. Waited for the sounds they knew would come. Sounds which did come when the safety of night shrouded the street outside. The door, Inspector. I heard it, Sergeant. Crouched in the darkness, they heard the footsteps. Light, tentative. Then bolder, more confident, as eyes became accustomed to the gloom. A moment later, another one such. Quiet, Sergeant. The first intruder was aware of the second. More quickly, now the footsteps came into the main room of the club, crossed the dance floor. Suddenly, the second person broke into a run. Caught up to the first. Thought you'd come back, eh? Try to pin it on me. Did you with the sick and shilling? Now listen, outside the door, didn't you? That's when I came through. All right, Smith. The lights. What's all this? All right, God. Miss Fair, we'll take over now. Smart coppers, eh? Seeing in the dark, waiting, eh? I told you once, Inspector, no gun from me. She's got one, though, in her bag. Try to sock me with it. Well, Miss Fair, why did you plot that sick and shilling? I knew George was in there. We'd heard me crack about the shilling. I went in after George left. I wanted my letters. David may be miserable enough with them, and we argued. He tried to threaten me with his gun. I cried for it, and it was gone. I thought if there was a shilling, you'd think it was George. Yeah, a woman. Every time it's a woman. Never mind, boss. You can tell that to your friend. Miss Fair, you're taken in charge. And the charge is murder. And today, the shilling, which was the main clue in this case, can be seen in an honored position in the Black Museum. Orson Welles will be back with you in just a moment. Orson Welles. There was no premeditation. That was clear. And certainly there was provocation. Miss Fair went away, convicted of manslaughter. Joey Bart eventually reopened the club, which had been his property in the first place. Seems to be going straight. Only time, and a careful eye of the Metropolitan Police will know about that. Meanwhile, the shilling, contributed by Joey Bart, remains in its customary place in Scotland Yard, in the Black Museum. And until next time, we meet in the same place for another story about the Black Museum. I remain as always obediently yours. Starring Orson Welles is presented by arrangement with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer radio attraction. The program is written by Aura Marion, with original music composed and conducted by Sidney Torch. Produced by Harry Allen Towers.


Welcome. This is Melissa Armo with the stock swishing and reviewing Apple really nice move to the downside today Wasn't going to do this and then decided to do it and I was certainly glad I did This is actually gapping down tonight as we speak So I called a put in this today and we did a day trade this today And I did say to everybody I want everybody as this is an all-day trade Although you could have got out of it, you know, I called it and then it dropped fast and you could have Get out of it. I thought this would make a larger move than it did today Market was back and forth all day today. So if the market had fallen more this would have but This still did fall and still to break the low and still to continue lower in the afternoon I just think it ran out of day, but anyways, this looks good. This looks great This is lower and like I said, this is gapping down tonight. So this is a live gap The stock closed at 174 21 boom. It's down. It's not down a million miles. It's down 30 cents But it's still down And I do believe this is lower. Now. Let's just quickly look at this Actually the cues are up, but I think that's because of Amazon So Amazon is up a wee bit tonight on news And that's why the cues are up slightly even though Apple's down again Things are not going together a hundred percent, which is unusual even in the sector You got to look out for specific things right now. I like this. We did it today We may do it tomorrow. Who knows? We'll see. Good luck, everyone If you have any questions email me and Melissa the stocks wish calm the next golden gap class It's only actually a few more this year. I can't even believe it. This year is just going like that September 30th and October 1st is the next class a couple weeks away Sonnet Berlin start trading with us. You can make money for the class Email me and Melissa at the stocks wish calm if you'd like more information. Have a great day everyone


Hello, my name is Ilder Vitor Lumapeirae, I'm going to present the Paper Bootstrapping fully homomorphic encryption over the integers in less than one second, and now I am a post-doctor researcher at Kozik, KU Leuven, but this paper was basically written while I was working at the University of Luxembourg. So as you may know, there are basically two main families of fully homomorphic encryption schemes. The scheme is based on the learning with errors problem, which we call LWE, and the scheme is based on the approximate greatest common divisor problem, which we call AGCD, and the schemes based on this problem are the ones that we call FHE over the integers. The LWE problem is well known, so basically we have a secret, which is a vector, mod Q, and we sample uniformly random vectors, and then noise terms, usually they are following a discrete Gaussian distribution, and then we compute the inner product of this uniform vector by the secret, and we add the noise term, then given many of these samples, AIBI, we have to find the secret S. There is also the ring version of the LWE problem in which we basically replace vectors by polynomials. So for the AGCD problem, the secret is just an integer P. We also sample uniform elements, but they are not vectors, just integers, and noise terms, and then we multiply this uniform element by the secret, and we add the noise, and then this Xi is what we call an AGCD sample, and then given many of these AGCD samples, we have to find P. So we have these two families of homomorphic schemes, and every time one technique was proposed to improve the schemes based on one of these two problems, this technique was quickly adapted to the schemes based on the other problems. So for instance, we have modular switching for schemes based on the LWE problem and on the AGCD problem. We also have batching encryption for both hardness assumptions. We have schemes with quasi-dative noise growth also based on these two problems. However, these new fast-boost-strapping methods that run in less than one second only exist for schemes based on the LWE problem. So we can ask ourselves if it's possible to adapt these fast-boost-strapping methods that run in less than one second to FAT over the integers. And that's the question that we answer in this paper. But how these fast-boost-strapping procedures work? So in general, the bootstrapping is the evaluation of the decryption function homomorphically, so that at the end we generate a new ciphertext encrypting the same message, but with a smaller noise. So we have this base scheme, which is the scheme that we want to bootstrap. It's a simple scheme that encrypts bits into vectors modq, and it has this important property that the encryption is done in two steps, and the first step is a linear one in which we compute the inner product of this vector, which is the ciphertext, with this other vector, which is the secret key.  And then the second step of the decryption is just extracting the most significant bit of this value that we computed. So since this step is computed modq, it's natural to use a scheme whose message space is aq. So the scheme we use to bootstrap the base scheme is the GSW scheme because the noise grows slowly with this scheme. Message space of GSW is actually a ring of polynomials, so it's not zq, but what we do is we select an element y, which is actually a power of x, such that the order of y is equal to q in this ring. Then we see that because the order is q, when we multiply two powers of y, we're actually adding the exponent's module q. So this means that we can use the homomorphic multiplication of GSW to compute linear functions in the exponent of y. In particular, we can compute this first step, which is linear. So few in TFHE use the homomorphic multiplication of GSW to compute this inner product modq in the exponent of y. So they start with the encryption of m that belongs to the base scheme and has large noise. And then they obtain a GSW encryption of y to the power of this inner product, which is actually just the noise plus the message. And this ciphertext has a small noise itself, although e is large. Then they have this final step in which they transform a GSW encryption of a power of y that depends on m into a base scheme encryption of m. And then the noise of this final ciphertext is just slightly bigger than the noise of this GSW encryption, so it's a small noise. So what happens when we try to replace the LWE by the AGCD problem in this bootstrapping framework? Well, essentially we have three problems. So the first problem is that we need a GSW scheme based on the AGCD problem and the existing schemes are not practical, especially when we try to use them to encrypt polynomials. The second problem is inherent to FAT over the integers. So here we have to work module P. So we have a base scheme ciphertext with this format and the first thing we want to do is to reduce c module P so that we get the scaled message plus the noise. But this means that the message space of the GSW scheme has to contain a power of x of order P. For the LWE problem, this works fine because here we have q and q is small and public. But in our case, this implies that n is exponentially large in Lambda because P is exponentially large in Lambda. So you can see that in this case even adding two polynomials already takes exponential time. So this will not work. And also, in our case, P is actually the secret key. So the bootstrapping cannot leak these modules. But if we choose n such that we have a power of x of order P in this ring, then actually n is leaking information of P. Third problem, even if we can perform this reduction mod P on the exponent of y, at the end we still have a GSW encryption of a power of y. And we have to transform this into a basic scheme ciphertext encrypting m. To solve the first problem, let's construct a GSW scheme that can work natively with polynomials. So consider a cyclotomic polynomial ring r and then we can sample a random polynomial k from this ring. Now given n AGCD samples, ci, so each ci is an integer, it's clear that we can multiply each ci by a power of x and add all of them. And then we will obtain a polynomial c that can be written in this format. And then it's clear that having n of these AGCD samples or just having c, it's the same, right? Now we can randomize this polynomial c by multiplying it by this hidden random polynomial k and then we will obtain a polynomial c bar. Now we ask you to find p and k. So we call this the r AGCD problem. And here we see that c is just equivalent to the AGCD basically. And then we are randomizing the AGCD problem here. So this r AGCD problem cannot be easier than the original AGCD problem. With this we can encrypt polynomials in two types of ciphertexts. The first one is the escalar ciphertext. In this case we take a polynomial m and to encrypt it we multiply by a scaling vector. We sample two polynomials r and q and we multiply q by the secret integer p. We add all these three terms and we randomize them with the secret polynomial k. So we are encrypting a polynomial m into another polynomial. The second type is the vector ciphertext. In this case r and q are vectors of polynomials, g is just this special vector here. So it's just a vector with powers of some integer, for instance it can be 2. And then instead of the scaling vector we are multiplying m by this vector and we are randomizing all of this with the secret polynomial k. So we are encrypting a polynomial m into a vector of l polynomials. Then we define this mixed homomorphic product in which we take a scalar ciphertext, a vector ciphertext, then we decompose the scalar ciphertext in base b so that we have l polynomials with small coefficients and then we just have to compute the inner product of this vector times the vector ciphertext itself. So this is the inner product so of course at the end we have a scalar again. And just like for the TFHE scheme which has this external product, using this mixed homomorphic product is more efficient than simply using the GSW homomorphic application. With this we solved the first problem. So now we have a GSW-like scheme that operate homomorphically on polynomials. Now we are going to solve the problem related to the size and the secretness of p. So we have this base scheme ciphertext that has this format. And the problem here is p because p is secret and it's too big. So maybe one idea would be to apply a modular switching like the one described in this paper so that we replace p by n and then we have this new ciphertext c prime. In this case we can define y as x square and then it's clear that in this ring since x to the n is minus 1, x square to the n is equal to 1. So the order of y is n. And then we could define the bootstrapping keys as GSW encryptions of these powers of y. So what we put in the exponent are powers of 2 multiplied by 0 or by 1. Then given this ciphertext c prime we can compute the binary decomposition of c prime and then we have these bits and we use the bits to select the bootstrapping keys that we want to multiply homomorphically. So we multiply these bootstrapping keys homomorphically and you see that if you replace b by ci here and we multiply all of them we are actually adding the exponents. So what we have at the end is this summation in the exponent of y but this summation is exactly c prime because the ci is here are just the binary decomposition of c prime. So what we get at the end is y to the power of c prime but module n because the order of y is n. So c prime module n is exactly the message times a scaling factor plus the noise. And this is exactly what we want in the exponent. Well, but things are not that simple and what we did here is simply not secure. So the problem is that this module switching is intended to switch the secret key p to another secret key. But we replaced p by n and n is public. So it's clear that if you have c prime and you have n you can simply decrypt c prime to recover the message m. Okay but maybe we can switch from p to n in a hidden way maybe using the homomorphic corporations of JSW scheme so that the c prime is only produced in an encrypted way. And having an encryption of c prime then is safe. But how can we do this? So we have the base scheme ciphertext with this format. And it's clear that if we simply multiply c by n and divide by p we are replacing p by n and then the noise and the scaling factor will be multiplied by n over p. But this is okay because then it means that we just have a new noise term and a new scaling factor. Moreover if we consider this module n then this term disappears and what we have is the new noise plus the message times the scaling factor. So considering this we can try to include this n over p in the bootstrapping keys so that this information that is performing the module switching is hidden is encrypted in the bootstrapping keys. So for instance instead of just using powers of 2 in the exponent of y we can use powers of 2 multiplied by n over p and then we can compute the binary decomposition of c itself not of c prime and use these bits to select the bootstrapping keys that we want to multiply homomorphically as we did before. So now when we multiply this bootstrapping keys again we are adding the exponents so what we have at the end is n over p which is a common factor times this summation. But this summation is simply c so we have n over p times c module n because the order of y is n and then this is simply the noise plus the message times some scaling factor. So this is exactly what we want to have. Oh wait but we have a problem again so the problem now is that the bootstrapping keys are not well defined. So here the problem is that these fractionals that we are trying to encrypt in the exponent they are not integral they are really rational values so we cannot encrypt these powers of y in this way but something that we can do for sure is rounding these fractions. So we can define the bootstrapping keys using the same fractions here the powers of 2 multiplied by n divided by p but rounded and then we know that for n value x when we round x what we get actually is the value itself plus some epsilon that is smaller than one half. So if we do the same sequence of homomorphic multiplications as before so we take the basis chem ciphertext c we compute a binary decomposition of it and we use the bits c i to select the keys and we multiply the keys what we will be doing then we will be summing the same values as before plus the small epsilons so as before we will have c times n divided by p module n this is simply the the scale of noise plus the message times delta prime and the sum of all these epsilons so we have a new epsilon term here which is a smaller than gamma over 2 right gamma is the number of terms in this product and over 2 because each one is a smaller than one half so this is okay right this we can simply consider that this r prime plus epsilon is the new noise term so we are really getting something in the format that we wanted the scaled message plus some noise and this time it's secure because c prime is just being produced in the exponent of y so it's encrypted and everything is well defined because we are just using integers here so with this we solved the first two problems now we have a GSW like a scheme that works with polynomials and we also solved the problem related to p now we still need the way to transform this GSW encryption of this power of y into a base scheme encryption of m to solve the third problem we propose a functional key switching procedure so let's consider two rings r1 and r2 each each ring is defined by these integers n1 and n2 so let's also consider two secret keys each key is composed of the integer and the secret polynomial then given the two keys and also one function f we can generate a public key it's actually the key used to perform the key switching procedure this key is essentially one encryption of sk1 times the truth table of f under the secret key sk2 then using this key switching key we can take an encryption of a message m under the first key and we can produce an encryption of f of m under the second key also this first encryption belongs to r1 and the second encryption belongs to r2 so this means that we can also switch the rings if we choose r1 different of r2 in particular if we set n1 as an integer n and n2 as simply one then the first ring is a polynomial ring and the second ring is actually just the integers so this means that when we switch from r1 to r2 we are actually switching from the ragcd problem to the original agcd problem because now we have something over the integers then this also means that we can we are taking a ciphertext of the gsw and we are producing a ciphertext of the basis scheme also because we know some bounds to this value e and we know that delta is bigger than e we can easily choose this function f such that f of this power of y is equal to m so if we put all of this together we see that using the functional key switching procedure we can actually switch from a gsw encryption of some power of y of this format to an encryption of m a basic scheme encryption of m and then this encryption does not depend on e so we have removed the original noise that we had before and the noise in this encryption is just slightly bigger than the noise in this gsw encryption which is small so our bootstrapping procedure works like this at the end we start with an agcd encryption of m with large noise then we use the mixed homomorphic multiplication of our gsw scheme to switch the modulus from p to n and perform the reduction module n then this produces an encryption of a power of y under the agcd problem and then we use the functional key switching procedure to transform this encryption of power of y in a basic scheme encryption of m with small noise so we have adapted this bootstrapping framework from fio and tfat to full homomorph encryption over the integers and we implemented the proof of concept in c++ and we showed that we can also perform the bootstrapping less than one second and the source code is available on github and if you have any questions or comments please just contact me and i will be for sure happy to discuss


Paul George. We've always had epic nights. We play Blackjack. We play similar styles. I'm picking Chandler Parsons. I'm playing Blackjack. Crops. Connor McGregor. And we're playing Blackjack. Sean's picked you. How cute. Oh, wow. Shout out, Sean. We have a chance to do that tonight. Nobody, myself. They'll probably make me lose money. I'm count betting on myself. I mean, it's got to be Rob Gronkowski, right? I think he and I are going to sit at the Blackjack table. Robert Downey Jr. Blackjack. I was going to say Drake, but they say there's a Drake curse. My homie, Trevor Know. We're going to go out and we're going to play some Blackjack. Honestly, Jennifer Lopez, she's like, my idol, I honestly would just do slot games. I would love to hang out with her.


We stand at a remarkable time in our history. We, the youth of the world, are leading global change for the first time thanks to our interconnectedness. Beyond 2015, a UN-promoted platform has offered us a chance to influence the global development agenda for the next generation, our generation. We've taken this opportunity to make our voice heard through a large-scale crowdsourced initiative culminating in this year's Global Youth Summit, where more than 500 of us met in Costa Rica with a simultaneous participation of 54 self-organized hubs around the world to debate and agree on the development priorities which we want world leaders at the UN General Assembly to act on. As ambassadors of one-third of the world's population, we identified the lack of universal access to information and communication technologies as an obstacle to our intellectual, economic and political empowerment which needs to be overcome. We want to get ahead. Government, civil society and the private sector should work together to provide the resources we need to innovate and create the businesses and industries of the future. We need access to education and knowledge-sharing regardless of our location or economic status. We want to change our world. Member States should put mechanisms in place that make voting, openness and accountability more feasible online. Communication technologies must be used as a means of engaging young citizens with the leaders who represent us. We want to respect our environment. Transparency of information on environmental issues is needed as is guidance on ways to protect the environment and to handle natural disasters in an efficient way. The use of sustainable energy sources should be extended urgently. We want to be smart and safe online. We are aware of the positive and negative aspects of new technologies and call for education and support to make our online communities safe. The same rights of freedom of speech, association and privacy existing in the real world should be extended online and we want to be healthy. Innovative systems should allow patients to connect to health services to improve issues of accessibility, affordability and acceptability while taking into account best practices and bioethics. We need access to information about healthy lifestyles and how to deal with issues of disability including the stigma associated with many diseases. We believe beyond 2015 is the start of a global inclusive dialogue leading to a world where information and communication technologies can overcome the major development challenges of our time and create new opportunities for young people everywhere. This is our vision for the future and we're determined to make it a reality because this is the world we want.


Hi there I'm Sandy Allnacht artist and paper crafter here on YouTube and I'm going to be embossing on airbrush today and using a breast cancer fundraiser stamp set. I'm part of a surprise blog hop for Ellen Hudson celebrating the stamp set that came out a while ago but we wanted to raise some awareness and remind you to get the girls checks. Okie doke and make a card to send to a friend who's suffering from this dreaded awful thing called cancer. Since I'm going to be airbrushing I've got my Nina card stock ready and I'm going to use my Ellen Hudson craft assistant that black square metal thing because it's really easy to clean. I'll take my Copic marker and pop it into the air gun kind of turn it so that I make sure I get at the right angle and when I press that button I get a different kind of spray if I hold it way back or a different kind of spray you want to hold it up close and I just want to make basically pink paper and why wouldn't I just use pink paper well because I couldn't do the rest of things I'm going to do on this card for one but I can also make it whatever color I want when I airbrush it myself. It's really hard to get airbrushing even and that's one of the reasons why I'm actually gonna do the stamping on top of it because I know how hard it is. It took me like three tries to get this video done because I wasn't able to seemingly get it even. That's just one of those things that happens sometimes the marker jams up a little bit and you have to jiggle it around a little bit or pull the nib out a little further and other times you just need to re-ink and that is apparently what I had to do because part way through this I decided to check the other nib to see if I even had ink left in the marker and it needed some assistance so that is another issue you may have if your airbrush does not blow out a ton of color. Now often I want this really light color so yeah this is one of those few times when I wanted a relatively heavy coverage I didn't want to just color on the page I wanted a really soft look but I was struggling with this so I decided to re-ink it and look at what happened immediately as soon as I put ink in my marker. Oh my goodness how ridiculous is that I sometimes wonder how I survive as an artist when I can't even figure out that my own marker needs to be refilled so I just spray a couple of times over the whole thing it's not real easy I find to just do it all in one swoosh one spray which probably would be better if you can just do it all in one move across because filling in all those spots to try to even it out is relatively hard. So I may be doing it the hard way I'm no pro at airbrushing I just kind of like doing it it's kind of fun to try some techniques with it from time to time so I'm just kind of making it up as I go along right but the air the embossing that I'm going to do on here is going to cover that anyway so I put the messier side on the place where I'm going to stamp well actually that the right hand side is the better side so I'm going to stamp first my sentiment and that one I'm going to emboss in white and I didn't use any kind of embossing buddy or anything on this before starting to do my powder and my my stamping normally you would do that because you don't want the the static to hold extra little bits onto your paper but on this airbrushing it doesn't stick to any of that which is kind of nice as long as you don't finger it a whole lot I suppose because what it sticks to is the grease in your fingers that that kind of whatever whatever is in your your skin so just don't touch it and you'll be fine now the flowers I had set up in the misty just whole group of them so I could do a panel down the side and just use do stamping on part of my piece of paper and then I'm turning my my paper so I don't have to just pick up the stamps and move them again I'll just turn the paper to figure out exactly what angle I want them at so that I can fill in the top and the bottom and these are actually layering stamps but I'm using them just individually because I want to just flower shapes and these I'm embossing in clear and do not look at the fact that I have big chunks of stuff in my clear embossing powder I've had that thing around for ages and I really need to just dump it because it's full of goobers but it still works and I'm of the belief that when things work just use them so there you go and look at that how it changes the color a little bit of the embossing I thought that was really cool I had an idea it would work and then it actually did work in real life which was very fun the stamp set also comes with dies for the flowers but it also comes with this extra die there's no stamp for this one but it's the ribbon and I thought I would airbrush that as well so it would match everything else in the same color and I'm airbrushing both sides because I wanted to get around the edges I didn't want a white edge showing so I figured if I airbrush the backside as well then the front side wouldn't have that white edge all the way around it so I just kind of move it around until I get it all done airbrushing is kind of it comes out of the marker and an angle so you need to sort of adjust a little bit as you go so this can be the one piece of dimension on my card I'm using some of the Tombow what are these called power they used to be called power tabs now they're called extreme tabs I guess you can call them extreme because they're very sticky but they're thinner dimensional than using the precious the big roll of the 3m tape so if you ever want a low profile bit of dimension on your card these are perfect for that they're also super sticky you can cut them in half put little pieces around that ribbon portion etc and there you go very very simple and straightforward card in a really fun technique because I got to get my airbrush out and who doesn't like that right added a few little bubbles on it a little bit of sequins just because it's perfect for the princess warrior that's going to receive my card so that's about it for me make sure you go see the blog hop and visit everybody else and see all the wonderful cards they've made I'll leave a link here for you to the other video I made with this stamp set so you can get another idea and you can click on my face to subscribe if you haven't yet already and I will see you guys another time go get the girls checked okie doke bye