It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peter never met a physical Jesus according to Dr. Richard Carrier.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Yet we have actual correspondence to the Emperor Trajan from 103-104 A.D.from Pliny the Younger detailing how people were being forced to recant their Christianity or be punished by the Emperor's orders. You can find it in letter XCVII66 here www.gutenberg.org... If the Romans didn't see them as a threat, why persecute them?

I listened to the first 2 1/2 minute of the first video. In just that short period of time he offers the Talmud written hundreds of years later as evidence that "the New Testament is full of _____." Then he cites a passage in Josephus that scholars have called questionable evidence, but fails to comment on the second passage in Josephus that is widely believed to be perfectly legitimate.

It may be that Carrier is not knowledgable on the subject, or perhaps he is misleading us with his selections. In either event, I need more evidence which supports the OP.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Yet we have actual correspondence to the Emperor Trajan from 103-104 A.D.from Pliny the Younger detailing how people were being forced to recant their Christianity or be punished by the Emperor's orders. You can find it in letter XCVII66 here www.gutenberg.org... If the Romans didn't see them as a threat, why persecute them?

I listened to the first 2 1/2 minute of the first video. In just that short period of time he offers the Talmud written hundreds of years later as evidence that "the New Testament is full of _____." Then he cites a passage in Josephus that scholars have called questionable evidence, but fails to comment on the second passage in Josephus that is widely believed to be perfectly legitimate.

It may be that Carrier is not knowledgable on the subject, or perhaps he is misleading us with his selections. In either event, I need more evidence which supports the OP.





I may have exaggerated that point.

The point is that early on Romans and Jews never thought Jesus was ever a real person.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952 but fails to comment on the second passage in Josephus that is widely believed to be perfectly legitimate.




Your relying in wikipedia's josephus info aren't you?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Ha, figures they'd go after Peter, because he was contemporary to Paul, and a disciple of Jesus, so if the historicity or historical authenticity of Paul is valid, and no on contests that, then you have to go after Peter to try to eliminate from the framework the presence of the historical Jesus!

Check out my historical textual criticism of the story known as "The Woman at the Well" from John, and then tell me there was no historical Jesus present.

The Woman @ The Well: How the Historical Jesus Performed a "Miracle" + Reflections.

I could have predicted this, that Peter's testimony would be next up in the continuing effort to remove Jesus from the historical record.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Ha, figures they'd go after Peter, because he was contemporary to Paul, and a disciple of Jesus, so if the historicity or historical authenticity of Paul is valid, and no on contests that, then you have to go after Peter to try to eliminate from the framework the presence of the historical Jesus!

Check out my historical textual criticism of the story known as "The Woman at the Well" from John, and then tell me there was no historical Jesus present.

The Woman @ The Well: How the Historical Jesus Performed a "Miracle" + Reflections.

I could have predicted this, that Peter's testimony would be next up in the continuing effort to remove Jesus from the historical record.



He is going by what Peter actually says. So he is following the "historical record".



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Check this out - The Real Star of Bethlehem


www.bethlehemstar.net...



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Does he throw away the gospels in his analysis along with all references to Peter?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


That's nice, and your point is?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
You might be interested in Bart Ehrman's reply to Richard Carrier and his scathing review of Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" It gives considerable insight into Carrier, his character and his methods. As another poster did, I watched the first few minutes of your video, noted three blatant errors or misrepresentations, and turned it off.

Ehrman, by the way, is an atheist, who is also one of the world's foremost historians on the subject of Jesus and early Christianity, so he has no more skin in the game than Carrier does.

Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
As another poster did, I watched the first few minutes of your video, noted three blatant errors or misrepresentations, and turned it off.


And what are these 3 errors or misrepresentations you found?

In a previous thread I have already proven that you are delusional, so I'm curious what you will say.
edit on 19-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by adjensen
As another poster did, I watched the first few minutes of your video, noted three blatant errors or misrepresentations, and turned it off.


And what are these 3 errors or misrepresentations you found?

In a previous thread I have already proven that you are delusional, so I'm curious what you will say.
edit on 19-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)


lol, where did you prove I was delusional? I deal with so many kooks on here I can't remember names, sorry



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Dear NotReallyASecret,

Your relying in wikipedia's josephus info aren't you?
Sometimes I do, but not this time.

The reference in book 18 of "Antiquites of the Jews" is the one Joseph is referring to here, and most historians agree that the interpolation was only partial, that Josephus did write about Jesus, and a later scribe (probably Eusebius, or a contemporary of his) took offense to what Josephus had written and altered the passage to portray Jesus in a more positive light. There is strong evidence for this in the fact that the reference in book 18 seems to be arguing with itself, at one point calling Jesus a "man" and then saying "if it be lawful to call him a man".

The other Josephus reference is in book 20 of "Antiquities of the Jews", where Josephus writes that Jesus was the brother of James (whose trial Josephus is writing about) and that Jesus was called the Christ. This reference is not in doubt, showing no signs of interpolation. Some Christ-mythers say that the interpolation in book 18 automatically puts this one under suspicion, that if Eusebius altered one passage, he could well have altered the other. But this is impossible, since the passage in book 20 was referenced by Origen almost a century before Eusebius' time. (emphasis added)

kingdavid8.com... I've found this site to be very thorough and informative. I may not agree with 100% of his theology, but that doesn't matter. His historical analysis seems sound.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
kingdavid8.com... I've found this site to be very thorough and informative. I may not agree with 100% of his theology, but that doesn't matter. His historical analysis seems sound.

With respect,
Charles1952



Kingdavid8.com??




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Kingdavid8.com??


Maybe the first seven were taken


You're put off by a web site's name, and you call me delusional?

Be brave... click the link... read the text... refute it...

Come on, you can do it!



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Kingdavid8.com??


Maybe the first seven were taken


You're put off by a web site's name, and you call me delusional?

Be brave... click the link... read the text... refute it...

Come on, you can do it!



How does kingdavid8.com prove that most scholars accept Josephus's second passage?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Dr. Richard Carrier is a false prophet and heretic and there is much proof from the romans themselves supporting the life of Jesus Christ. I give this thread a
for being so lacking of any substance. So who cares what some Dr. Richard carrier thinks? All the evidence for Jesus is there... Its a historical fact.
edit on 19-7-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

And you will post this "proof" you speak of? I have pored over Ancient Roman times history, and Sumer History and Religion, and there is nothing there.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

source
There's a big difference between thinking for yourself and swallowing everything that's spoon fed you. A says it's true because B said so; and, B says it's so because A said so. All mention of Jesus was written by people who lived 60-70 years after the event. No proof at all. Prove me wrong.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by QUANTUMGR4V17Y
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


The most proven person in history?

Links?


Links?

Yes, links. Links to websites that show this proof you keep telling us about, and keep failing to produce. Here in ATS when you say something like that, you need to be able to back it up, or you quickly lose credibility.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


I dunno, I clicked through, saw the word Zeitgeist and knew it wasn't something I needed to read.

Most scholars accept that the passage in Josephus was altered, but they view it as an alteration, not an addition. The original most likely referred to these "Christians", but in a neutral context. Unfortunately, they tend to publish books and journal articles, not Internet blog posts, so you're on your own in tracking them down


I can verify that my copy of Josephus here (I found it at a discount bookstore and it looks cool, lol) includes it, so there you go, independent verification! (jk)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than even for Julius Caesar or any other figure in the ancient world.

More proof that the Romans authored the New Testament. Julius Caesar declared himself God on Earth. Julius Caesar=Jesus Christ.
The attributes of Jesus Christ came from Mithra, as we have explained to you before, I think.

Mithra was a very popular Roman God of the time, and with the conversation of Emperor Constantine and the Nicean Council they drew on what they were familiar with for the new religion of the Christians.

Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun.
Mithra is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo).
Mithra had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithra also performed miracles.
Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.
In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.
Mithra was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Sound like somebody you know, RevelationGeneration? You believe in a myth, man.

Mithra: The Pagan Christ

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than even for Julius Caesar or any other figure in the ancient world.

More proof that the Romans authored the New Testament. Julius Caesar declared himself God on Earth. Julius Caesar=Jesus Christ.


JC = JC? Clever!

Now explain to me how the people in Rome spoke and wrote in English.


The attributes of Jesus Christ came from Mithra, as we have explained to you before, I think.


No, they didn't.

All of the similarities of Mithra are dated AFTER Christianity had taken hold in the Roman Empire -- they are transfers from Christ to Mithra, not the other way around. (Source)

You know, I can honestly say that, in all of our confrontations over the years, I have yet to see a goofball theory against Jesus that you didn't jump on the bandwagon of, and I've yet to see you provide any intelligent responses to the inevitable refutations that didn't cite yet another goofball theory.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join