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

reply to post by autowrench

I have it pretty clear Jesus is dead and in his tomb, in fact, James Cameron actually found the tomb.

I was under the impression that experts had determined it to be fake? The lettering was too rough, or something.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by autowrench

 

I have it pretty clear Jesus is dead and in his tomb, in fact, James Cameron actually found the tomb.

I was under the impression that experts had determined it to be fake? The lettering was too rough, or something.

Yes it was.

Perhaps the most important debunker is professor Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original archaeological dig of this tomb in 1980. "It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner told the Jerusalem Post. "But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense."

(Source)

However, as I pointed out, in Autowrench's world, that is irrelevant and you will almost certainly continue to see him post that "James Cameron actually found the tomb".

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)

Ok, i will gladly attack his arguements . Jews require a sign to believe, as is said in both OT and NT. If they (Peter and the other Apostles) didn't see the Messiah with their own eyes work his miracles, they would never have believed him. .

Not to mention, Peter, Mary, Martha and Lazarus, as well as Judah, Simeon and some other's tombs were discovered in the 1960's in an old cemetary on the Mt. of Olives outside Bethany the town where Lazarus lived with their names, and Yeshua's name and a cross etched into their ossuaries.

reply to post by autowrench

Dear autowrench,

I'm probably misunderstanding you, because it doesn't seem as though you're playing fair. You introduce the subject of Mithra, and when the opportunity is provide to you to show your evidence (and even financially profit from it) you say:

I have no desire to do that, I know what I know, and that is good enough for me.

Ok, a position taken needs no evidence, I understand, but a few lines down you say:

The proof I am asking for it this.

If "I know what I know" is a good enough argument for you, why not apply it to others who might disagree. Of course, then we would be left with nothing to discuss as everyone would go off into their own corner and mutter "I know what I know."

Autowrench, you've got a good mind and the ability to research. Why not listen to all the sides presented here, apply your logic, explore the claims of the Christians, not looking to destroy, but to understand and experience. You don't have to accept, but at least you'll have given it a fair shot.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by adjensen

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. "

No, it is not the Bible that was authored by the Pisos, it was the New Testament. Arrius Piso to be precise. And I love how you say it was all made up by one nut in Oregon...I got my Intel from History books, not from a guy in Oregon. Here is 10 minutes of research, no nut in Oregon was found. I think perhaps you made him up.

What the Church doesn't want you to know

"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

source

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christianity

The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence

Did Christianity borrow ideas from other religions?

Information Regarding the book Piso Christ

Caesar/Piso Timeline

reply to post by Praetorius

OK, fair anough. I got what I posted from two book I read,
"The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries," by Manfred Clauss, and "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ," by D.M. Murdock. The claims are in the books, and here is some history on Mithra, or Mithras, a very popular Roman God and certainly the template for Christ.

Mithraism - Mithraic Mysteries

Mithraism

Mithras - History

Mithras - Zoroastrian Mithras

The History of Christmas

THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA

There are many book on Zoroastrianism and Mithra, and on Ancient Roman History. You have to read a lot to come to these conclusions, for no man can just tell you the way of it.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen

 

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. "

No, it is not the Bible that was authored by the Pisos, it was the New Testament. Arrius Piso to be precise. And I love how you say it was all made up by one nut in Oregon...I got my Intel from History books, not from a guy in Oregon. Here is 10 minutes of research, no nut in Oregon was found. I think perhaps you made him up.

Oops, sorry, you're right. He is from Washington, not Oregon:

For more information on obtaining a copy of "THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT," send a large S.A.S.E. to;

The Abelard Reuchlin Foundation P.O. Box 5652, Kent, WA 98064

(Source)

Nicely debunked here: On the "Roman Piso" theory

But ya didn't read it when I gave it to you before, so there's not much hope in you doing so now.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Check this out - The Real Star of Bethlehem

www.bethlehemstar.net...

Has anyone seriously considered this or looked into it..?

reply to post by adjensen

Stating that Josephus said nothing about Christians is not supported by scholars.

You mean not to Christian Scholars, right? Because other, Secular Scholars disagree.
Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).

For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been stating this passage is a true testimonial to the Divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a more rank forgery was never written. Its language is Christian. Every line in the passage proclaims it to be the work of a Christian writer. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the Divinity of Christ.

The Testimonium Question

The following passage is found in the extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus (Ambrosianus in the 11th century, Vaticanus in the 14th century, and Marcianus in the 15th century). This passage is quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century: in the Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, in the Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and in the Theophany.

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Here is the text in Greek.

Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon Iêsous sophos anêr, eige andra auton legein chrê: ên gar paradoxôn ergôn poiêtês, didaskalos anthrôpôn tôn hêdonêi talêthê dechomenôn, kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Hellênikou epêgageto: ho christos houtos ên. kai auton endeixei tôn prôtôn andrôn par' hêmin staurôi epitetimêkotos Pilatou ouk epausanto hoi to prôton agapêsantes: ephanê gar autois tritên echôn hêmeran palin zôn tôn theiôn prophêtôn tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eirêkotôn. eis eti te nun tôn Christianôn apo toude ônomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon.

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

source

Eusebian fabrications: the Testimonium Flavianum

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by autowrench

 

I have it pretty clear Jesus is dead and in his tomb, in fact, James Cameron actually found the tomb.

I was under the impression that experts had determined it to be fake? The lettering was too rough, or something.

I read that too, but then I read that the Christian Right spent a few million to cover it up, and someone even defaced the original carvings so they could not be accurately read. So, the jury is till out on this, but the original Discovery story stated it was real.

Perhaps the most important debunker is professor Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original archaeological dig of this tomb in 1980. "It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner told the Jerusalem Post. "But it’s completely impossible. It’s nonsense."

Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the ossuaries at the center of the film, was even harsher: "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever. … He’s pimping off the Bible. … Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession."

source
I highly doubt James Cameron, or Simcha Jocobovici would participate in a Hoax. What I think this is is simple, a conspiracy to cover up an important Historical Discovery by Fundamentalists.

reply to post by autowrench
First off, thanks for the links on Mithra - time permitting, I will read through them and provide my thoughts.

As to this, though...

*ahem*

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." - Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1)

...Modern scholarship overwhelmingly views the entire passage, including its reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ", as authentic and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.

Josephus also provides a generally-accepted (SOME debate, however) reference to John the baptist.

Heck, even the highly-disputed segment you posted is thought of by quite a few scholars (even some non-christian ones!) as just being a modification of an existing original reference by Josephus to the execution of Jesus...just tweaked a bit by likely later scribe(s). There's not really any good way to use Josephus as an argument against the reality of Jesus when he references Christ or related subjects several times in passages that aren't really disputed.

Take care, and thanks again.

reply to post by charles1952

On that vein, here is an offer you might consider...


I have heard, but cannot find the article, The Atheist's Handook Site is offering one Billion Dollars if anyone can prove the existence of Jesus. So far, no one has shown up to claim the money.

Here is the thing, if Jesus Christ were real, then everyone would know beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jesus us real, and there would not be any debates on his existence.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen

 

Stating that Josephus said nothing about Christians is not supported by scholars.

You mean not to Christian Scholars, right? Because other, Secular Scholars disagree.

Scholars disagree on a lot of things, but the consensus is that the passage in question was added to, not added in its entirety. All of the divine stuff was added after the fact, and the original was something along the lines of a brief notation of the minor sect (at the time of Josephus, what became Christianity was still a sect within Judaism, so it would be notable to him, as a Jewish historian.)

What about the teachings of Jesus, including the parables, and the way he rebutted the Scribes and Pharisees as per the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example. If Jesus was just made up out of whole cloth, how was anyone able to capture so well his character, charm, humor, passion, and penetrating insight within the framework, a person who was in so many ways highly unexpected and unusual and who's ideas ran so counter to prevailing views of that time. In other words if he was just a myth as the naysayers are maintaining (with a rather shrill voice) how is it that his character stands out so clearly and in a manner that is rather consistent through the gospels. Plus, when we look at certain parts of the story, like the woman at the well, or the birth story, why do we see when reading between the lines that as much or more is HIDDEN than is revealed. If it was a made up myth, and nothing more, it wouldn't hide unpleasant truths, or cover up Jesus' methods. Thus a textual criticism of the gospels themselves discounts this notion that Jesus was nothing but a conglomerate of myth, with no actual person or "there, there". That just doesn't wash or pass muster in the final analysis.

Originally posted by autowrench
Here is the thing, if Jesus Christ were real, then everyone would know beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jesus us real, and there would not be any debates on his existence.

Do you believe that Siddhartha Gautama aka Buddha was a real person? Be honest.

reply to post by autowrench

Here is the thing, if Jesus Christ were real, then everyone would know beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jesus us real, and there would not be any debates on his existence.

Dang it, quit posting things I need to respond to immediately when I'm trying to catch up on my Mithra(s) knowledge...

This statement kind of amuses me, in light of the fact that apparently everyone DID know beyond any doubt whatsoever for about 1800 years that Jesus was real, leading to there not being any debates on his existence - until almost two millenia later.

Honestly consider it - if there was any doubt, would the very real and very documented detractors and opponents of christianity during its earliest existence not have brought all their weight on the matter and used it to snuff out something they CLEARLY historically found contemptuous and problematic?

And yet there is absolutely no record of any debate for the first 1800 years of christianity on this topic? The historical silence should provide a resounding rebuke to the claim.

The historical existence of Christ is indisputable.

www.agapebiblestudy.com...

The OP's video is not only poop, it's runny with it.

Regading the similarities between Jesus and other ancient mythological traditions, which are also there and can't be denied, is it possible that the historical person of Jesus was exposed not only to ancient Jewish tradition, but also to these other streams of thought and belief, including Mithraism, Toaism, Egyptian, and even Greek thought? For example, astrologically adept Magi from the East are typically known to have been of the Persian, Zorastrian background, and there were ancient trade routes running from Sumerian Babylon and ancient Ur (Abraham's birthplace) all the way to the Indus River Valley civilization. Perhaps the historical Jesus was a highly trained initiate into just about ALL the ancient mystery religious traditions (a Magus if you will) and recognized in himself the personage they all point to and then set out to intentionally sum them all up within himself as the embodiment of that deeper mystery they all point to..

For more on this, at least as a starting point, please consider the content of this thread I put together which as far as I can tell, shows in the historical person of Jesus a highly trained spiritual "Ninja" type warrior who was much more than a carpenters apprentice.

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

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by autowrench

 

Here is the thing, if Jesus Christ were real, then everyone would know beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jesus us real, and there would not be any debates on his existence.

Dang it, quit posting things I need to respond to immediately when I'm trying to catch up on my Mithra(s) knowledge...

This statement kind of amuses me, in light of the fact that apparently everyone DID know beyond any doubt whatsoever for about 1800 years that Jesus was real, leading to there not being any debates on his existence - until almost two millenia later.

Honestly consider it - if there was any doubt, would the very real and very documented detractors and opponents of christianity during its earliest existence not have brought all their weight on the matter and used it to snuff out something they CLEARLY historically found contemptuous and problematic?

And yet there is absolutely no record of any debate for the first 1800 years of christianity on this topic? The historical silence should provide a resounding rebuke to the claim.

Well said. I will add that the path that Richard Carrier finds himself on was originally trod by the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" crowd in 19th Century Germany, and the problem with their methodology was that they were looking at the behest of Liberal Theology, which held that all those miracles and non-naturalistic stuff was clearly fiction, so surprise, surprise, that's what they found.

You can read Schweitzer's book on the movement here: The quest for the historical Jesus -- he savaged the obvious practice of claiming that the historical Jesus was merely someone who agreed with the researcher, and that effectively ended the movement.

It has been picked up again, of late, though. Folks like Carrier and the Jesus Seminar are doing precisely what Schweitzer decried in the Germans -- using invalid research methods and claims to produce a Jesus that matches what they want him to be (real, but nothing special in one case, and completely fictional in the other.)

History repeats itself, one would think that historians would be aware of that.

I think Jesus WAS an amalgam of ancient mythology AND that he was a real person, both, like a human historical crossroads if you will.

Someday, when I'm in good stead financially, I aim to write a book on this extraordinary individual and what might have influenced and motivated him and drove him to go that extra mile, and then some to.. gather all the treasure unto himself, and I'm going to call it "The Magus".