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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Dear autowrench,

Concerning your desire for "proof." You don't have it, I don't have it, nobody has it. You know that in history, even 200 years ago, there is no 100% proof for almost anything. There is evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence, but there is never any "proof." We can't "prove" that Edgar Allen Poe wrote The Raven, but we accept it based on overwhelming evidence. Pretty much the same thing here.

You were going 60-70 years out for New Testament dating? Let me give a couple of links, one is the old familiar KingDavid8 (The name came from a character in a book he wrote for his children.)

We also know that the Gospel of Luke was written before the book of Acts (which Luke also wrote), and we can easily determine that Acts was written prior to 67 AD. We know this because the Apostle Paul was killed by Nero in 67 AD, and yet his death is not recorded in the book of Acts, when it logically would have been since Paul is the prominent figure in Acts (the same way that we could conclude that if a biography of Elvis doesn't mention his death, it was written before Elvis died). Considering the events mentioned in Acts, we can actually conclude that it was completed between 60-62 AD. Since Luke's Gospel was written before Acts, we can logically conclude that the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 60-62 AD.

John's Gospel was the last one written, but the historian Ignatius records that the Gospel was being widely taught from in 110 AD. Most scholars agree it was written between 70-90 AD, no more than sixty years after the time Jesus walked the earth, but still within the lifetime of John. The earliest date generally accepted by scholars for the death of John is 98 AD, though many believe he was still alive in the early 2nd century.
But if you're tired of King David 8, ...
www.allabouttruth.org...


It is generally agreed that the Book of Mark was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).

The Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90.

The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is believed to have been penned by the Apostle John between A.D. 70 - 95.


Sorry about the wall of text, but it leads me to think that the dating of the Gospels to 90-100 A.D. may not be accurate.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Dear autowrench,

I know that lots of posts can get snarky or sarcastic. I also know that I can't prove my sincerity, but I'd like you to try something when you have some spare time. That KingDavid8 site I've mentioned? He's running a contest, or a challenge. Basically, if you can show the similarities you've mentioned by referring to a scholarly source, referencing something from before Christ's life, he'll throw $1000 at you. It can be Mithra or any other god figure (or even Julius Caesar).

Honestly, I'd like to see you win it. It would give me some small pleasure to know that I had steered you to some money. Take a look at the site, see what you think. If you want to give it try, please let us know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Star for you, though good luck getting through to Autowrench, who continues to believe that the Bible was written by the Pisos, a Roman family, long after the time of Christ, years after I showed him that the source of that claim was some nut in Oregon. "Evidence be damned!" appears to be his motto, lol.

I think your dating references are pretty good, although I don't have an issue with people who drag John back to about 90AD. My personal theory is that the first book was the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, a book now lost to us, but written prior to 50AD and both Mark and Luke used it as a reference. The "Matthew" in the New Testament is a later translation of the original.

I base that on the belief that Matthew, as a tax collector, would be the most likely candidate among the Apostles to be literate (literacy in the First Century was almost zero, once you went past functional literacy) and, while I support the view that oral transmission was the primary method of spreading the Jesus story, it is not illogical to suppose that one of the Apostles might not have suggested creating a text to better spread the word around to the Jews (hence the "Hebrew" Gospel of Matthew.)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Dear adjensen,

Thanks very much for your kindness. I take a fairly lazy attitude, which I'm not proud of, to questions like this. It's almost as though I'm saying to myself, "Close enough for God's work." I think the evidence points clearly to the conclusion that the Gospel writers whose names are given, actually knew Jesus and recorded the events they knew about. This doesn't even count that they may have made notes while they were going along and wrote their Gospels from that.

The evidence is sufficient for me to believe in the veracity in the New Testament, and once you're there, Christianity is a small but logical step. Perhaps that's why so many fight against the Gospels. Anyway, thanks again, may God bless you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I detest people who post YouTube videos without commentary, but I think that you might find some persuasive arguments within this one:




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Just out of curiosity, how does one become the most proven person in history? What are the parameters and qualifications? Was I even considered for the title? Because I know for a fact, that I am very, very proven.
I know I have been in more photographs and videos; there is all sorts of civilian, government, and military documentation proving my existence; and I have a pretty decent online footprint.

So I ask you, what makes Yeshua so proven? Because from where I'm standing, the only way he could be more proven to exist than even me, would be to reveal himself to everybody! Has he done that? I assure you no, for I have not seen him, have you?

I think what you are really saying is you hope he proves himself someday.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Self-detestation is not healthy my friend.

Nor are one-line responses.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 
Hmmm. I'll withhold my opinions on Dr. Carrier and what I view as the flaws in his assumptions, but will address your statement on the romans not considering Jesus a real person, and thus not a threat.

I will agree that the romans may not have considered christianity so much as a threat and a nuisance, but barring all other extrabiblical references, I would consider Tacitus' Annals a firm rebuttal to the claim that the romans didn't even think Jesus was a real person:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".


I find it quite telling that the Christ-as-myth theory only sprang up in the last few hundred years...with the existence of Christ being accepted as history for the first 1800 years or so. IMHO, the real-world acceptance of a historical figure by those closest to him and only questioned by the minority of scholars almost 2 millenia later speaks volumes.


edit on 7/20/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 
Ho, autowrench - I'm wondering if you might be able to provide references to these claims about Mithra in original source material (Mithraic scripture, etc.) instead of just websites referencing books and claims by writers on the subject? The claims you've posted here and in the pages you've linked are rebutted by others (from pleaseconvinceme.com):


Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds

Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, LEAVING a cave. He was NOT born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth WAS celebrated on December 25th, but the first Christians knew this was not the true date of Christ’s birth anyway, and both Mithras worshippers and the Roman Catholic Church borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. Shepherds ARE part of the Mithras mythology, witnessing his birth and helping Mithras emerge from the rock, but interestingly, the shepherds exist in the birth chronology at a time when humans are not supposed to have been yet born. This, coupled with the fact that the earliest version of this part of the Mithras mythology appears one hundred years AFTER the appearance of the New Testament, points to the fact that it is far more likely that the Mithras legend borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around.



Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples

Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible that the idea that Mithras had 12 disciples is simply because there exists a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun), and even this imagery is POST Christian, and cannot contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity).



Claim: Mithras was called "the Good Shepherd", and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion

Truth: There is NO evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but Since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an association with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say that he was associated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is actually POST New Testament, and cannot therefore be borrowed by Christianity.



Claim: Mithras was considered to be the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

Truth: Based on the researched and known historic record of the Mithraic tradition, none of these terms has ever been applied to Mithras deity with the exception of “mediator”. But this term is very different from the way that it is used in the Christian tradition. Mithras is not the mediator between God and man but the mediator between the good and evil Gods of Zoroaster.



Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)

Truth: There is nothing in the Mithras tradition that indicates he ever even died, let alone was buried or resurrected! Now, Tertullian did write about Mithras believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. Christianity could NOT have borrowed from Mithras traditions, but the opposite could certainly be true.


Without an examination of the actual source documents, it appears these claims are fallacious or actually reversed if they do in fact refer to interpretations occurring only AFTER the events of the new testament were recorded.

I've noticed, and heard complaint time and time again, that it's easy for anyone to say anything on the internet - so on this topic, let's keep it to actual historical record and source documents which should be easy to confirm, instead of opinion and hearsay but authors hundreds or thousands of years later. Surely there is something concrete here to work with if there's any substance to it.
edit on 7/20/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ltdan08
reply to post by adjensen
 

Self-detestation is not healthy my friend.


Well, I did include a bit of commentary, just not much of one



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 



So if theirs anything new please feel free to enlighten us.


Oh pfft! Everytime we try, you argue "The Bible says it's true, so that means you are being influenced by Satan, yada yada".

Try listening with an open mind, and we might get somewhere.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

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.


Attack his arguments and evidence then.
edit on 19-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)


No its your job to present his arguments in the thread. It's not fair to make people watch 11 minutes of some wacko claiming the most proven person in history didn't exist. Most of these so called arguments have already been refuted thousands of times. So if theirs anything new please feel free to enlighten us.


Its much more than 11 minutes. There are multiple parts to the video.


Good luck with your quest to get people to watch the videos then. As a Christian I can almost guarantee his "arguments" have already been refuted. This thread isn't it worth my time...


Without watching the video and hearing the arguments, you're going to use your status as a Christian to say, "I know on faith that his arguments are invalid."

You, sir, are full of horse sh*t. And that is no exaggeration.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


No one cares that people want to follow Jesus' example. In fact, it would be a good thing if we did. My problem is with the fact that we keep believing that he'll fall from the sky and save us all.

If Harry Potter can't do it, neither can Jesus.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's a very neat dodge you did there. Don't change the subject: what three errors did you find in the first few minutes of the video?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



"Evidence be damned!" appears to be his motto, lol.


Interesting...lack of evidence is the definition of faith. Who else do we know that relies on faith?

Oh, that's right...take your condescension and shove it.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's a very neat dodge you did there. Don't change the subject: what three errors did you find in the first few minutes of the video?


Well, the aforementioned claim that a note in the Talmud dated several centuries later (when Jews would be starting to feel the pressure of this upstart Jewish sect and need to dispute it,) trumps the texts of the Christians is ludicrous. Stating that Josephus said nothing about Christians is not supported by scholars. And I don't remember the third thing, but I'm not going to watch that crud again until you tell me where you proved I was delusional



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



And I don't remember the third thing, but I'm not going to watch that crud again until you tell me where you proved I was delusional


I'm going to very respectfully ask that you watch that tone with me. Had you bothered reading my username or even checking my avatar, I'm sure you would have noted that these last 5 posts are the only posts I've made in this thread today. In fact, I didn't see it until the last half hour. Ergo, never once did I call you delusional.

Although now, I believe you may have inadvertently proved it. Congratulations for the hasty response, and inherent consequences.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 



"Evidence be damned!" appears to be his motto, lol.


Interesting...lack of evidence is the definition of faith. Who else do we know that relies on faith?

Oh, that's right...take your condescension and shove it.


Geez, you sure are cranky, miss your morning coffee?

Let's try and learn what words mean, shall we? We'll start with your "lack of evidence". What does this mean? It means that there is no (or not enough) evidence.

Now, let's switch to what I said about good old Autowrench, "evidence be damned!" What does this mean? It means that there is evidence which refutes his claim, but he ignores it.

So, on one side, "no evidence" and on the other, "evidence ignored". Do you see how these are not the same thing? Gosh, they're even polar opposites!

Now go drink your coffee and stop insulting me because of YOUR ignorance.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 



And I don't remember the third thing, but I'm not going to watch that crud again until you tell me where you proved I was delusional


I'm going to very respectfully ask that you watch that tone with me. Had you bothered reading my username or even checking my avatar, I'm sure you would have noted that these last 5 posts are the only posts I've made in this thread today. In fact, I didn't see it until the last half hour. Ergo, never once did I call you delusional.

Although now, I believe you may have inadvertently proved it. Congratulations for the hasty response, and inherent consequences.


Ah yes, you are correct, my apologies. It was the OP, who asked me the exact same thing here, and noted that he had proven me delusional.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

I have no desire to do that, I know what I know, and that is good enough for me. I have chosen my own path, not taken one someone selected for me, and have chosen my own religion, not taken the spoon-fed book religion dogma to heart. I took a long hard look way back in history, something Christians would like to see go away, and found Ancient Sumer. And discovered that the book religions were based directly on Mesopotamian/Egyptian Sun worship.

The proof I am asking for it this. People tell me they see Jesus, and speak with Jesus. I have it pretty clear Jesus is dead and in his tomb, in fact, James Cameron actually found the tomb. So we are talking Ghost Spirit here. Well, I see Ghosts, see them a lot. Why have I never seen this man so many claim to have seen? Photos can be taked of Ghosts, it has been done. And yet there is not one photo. All we ever get is Jesus face in toast, or a pizza, or in a storm cloud.
Been to a lot of churches, never saw, or heard the man.
Then there is Matthew 18:19:
"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."
If this were true, then Christians asking for things would be reality instantly, wouldn't they?
Here is another one: John 14:13-14
13 "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
14 "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."
We all know that this is not true. I know a lot of Christians that pray with all faithfulness, but their prayers went unanswered.
Why not ask him to come get everyone like was promised, instead of playing this waiting game? Why are people healed instantly, and why isn't your Satan already long dead? You all have been asking for hundreds of years now, where is the answer?
Matthew 16:28:
"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Jesus says that some of his followers will not taste death before he comes again in his Kingdom (he supposedly said this about 3 different times in the Bible). This was said almost 2000 years ago and we all know how the lie turned out.

Christians who tell lies for Jesus.
One of the things that concerns me is the many untrue statements and stories that people make up and pass on in order to cause others to believe in what they preach.

In the ferocious battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. One example: by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances; it lacks both the 'short conclusion' (of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west') or the 'long conclusion' – the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

Once the Church had grabbed mastery of much of Europe and the middle-east, its forgery engine went into overdrive.

'The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" … There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one … At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship." '
– Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.
source

Ten Beautiful Lies Told by Christians (PDF)

The Religious Right's Alternative Version of American History



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join