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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Historians? In my research, the Religious ones agree that Jesus was a real man, while the Secular ones do not agree. Outside of the books of the Bible, there are no real mention of the man Yeshua, or of him doing any of the things that are claimed in the Bible. The earliest mentions of him by other historians that can be considered trustworthy, are references to his followers, not the man himself. And since the authorship of the books of the Bible are mostly anonymous, and with translation and edits, it is difficult to place any "truth" value on them. Certainly, a cult of followers had arisen by the middle of the 2nd century, so it is very possible that the person existed. However, that says not a thing about his, and the Church's claims of his Divinity, or the validity of any of the Biblical stories about things he may have said or done.

Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?

The Mythology of Christ




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Dear autowrench,

Good post with a lot of meat in it. I had several questions beginning with your definition for religious versus secular historians, but then I paused. It seemed only fair to look at the links you so kindly provided, So I clicked on the first which begins with:

"......What is a good source? A contemporary historian -- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes -- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally.
If that is the standard required for a good source, then not only is Christ's historicity destroyed, but so is Muhammed's, and almost everybody's from before, what, 800 A.D? And the source can't be just anyone who witnessed it, the link says it has to be a historian who saw it. This quote is talking about journalism, not history. I'm sorry to learn that Homer, Plato, Thucydides, never lived, or can't be proven to have lived.

If that's the standard, I surrender, you win. But had I realized this earlier, I could have saved a lot of typing.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I agree with Ehrman that the historian's job is to locate the most plausible hypotheses about what happened. What happened in the remote past isn't directly accessible to any of us in the present, with or without a Columbia Ph.D. A consensus will form about the plausible hypotheses, and it will persist barring new evidence.


The earliest mentions of him by other historians that can be considered trustworthy, are references to his followers, not the man himself.


There is also an early mention of his predecessor, John the Baptist, whose existence is attested by Josephus. So, a reasonable secular question is whether or not there is a "Jesus-shaped hole" in between John and the Jesus movement. If there is, then it is reasonable (not obligatory, but entirely reasoanble) to hold that Jesus lived, more likely than not.

John's movement was centered off in the boonies. It is entirely plausible that one of his disciples took the movement to the belly of the beast, Jerusalem. That is the sort of mission that could get a man killed. If that man's cohorts survived him, for example by running away and laying low for a while, then they might regroup thereafter to found what we eventually encounter as a Jesus movement.

When they regroup, there is the curiosity that while they revere John, they do not promote him as Messiah, but rather Jesus. This in itself is evidence that the person who brought the core group together was a distinct person from John. Long story short, why invent a second hero, when you already have a martyred hero with a popular constituency, a proven brand name?

If there were no John the Baptist, then you could easily make a case that the Gospels are a second Daniel, a fictional hero story in the form of a biography. The people who promoted the second-Daniel story were skilled at public relations (they did charity work, for example) and primary health care (at the time, exorcisms and spells). Woo hoo, we have a neat little package that fits all the facts, and has no real Jesus, nor any need of one.

But apparently there was a John the Baptist. He's got his own miraculous birth story, his own theophanies among followers, no doubt many wise sayings (or if not, then they can be ghost written later - the Hebrew Bible is full of them as has already noted). His name will work at least as well in exorcism as Solomon's, which was in use along with Jesus' for that purpose. Good PR is good PR regardless of in whose name you're handing out food or nursing the sick, etc.

A John the Baptist movement, then, could have worked. And yet, the Way isn't John's movement, it's this other fellow's. That needs to be explained, and an easy way to do that is to infer that a living person came between John and the Way.

Whether there was anything supernatural about that hypothetical person isn't a historical question. The plausibility of the reality of that hypothetical person doesn't depend on the commentator's being religious or not. It's a secular question, and the consensus that Carrier hopes will shift is secularly founded, as much as he might wish it were just the God Squad.
-
edit on 25-7-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
this is such a dumb post. Any historian knows there's way more proof of Jesus being alive and well than most other famous historical people. But no one young Dr has it right doesn't he. He's figured out what's illuded billions of people.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
this is such a dumb post. Any historian knows there's way more proof of Jesus being alive and well than most other famous historical people. But no one young Dr has it right doesn't he. He's figured out what's illuded billions of people.


You think there is more evidence of Jesus than "most other famous historical people"?

Where is this evidence?

Most scholars merely believe that its more likely Jesus existed than not.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Dear NotReallyASecret,


Where is this evidence?

Most scholars merely believe that its more likely Jesus existed than not.
How do you think historians and scholars get their beliefs? They look at the evidence presented by history and research, weigh this and that, and decide which hypothesis is the most likely. They continue to believe that until new evidence shows up to change their beliefs.

To rephrase your statement, "Most scholars, after weighing the evidence available and using recognized historical techniques have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed, and they use that as their accepted theory."

Thanks, I agree with you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
this is such a dumb post. Any historian knows there's way more proof of Jesus being alive and well than most other famous historical people. But no one young Dr has it right doesn't he. He's figured out what's illuded billions of people.

You know, people in ATS keep saying this,

there's way more proof of Jesus being alive and well than most other famous historical people
but in truth, we never, ever see any of this so called proof you all say you have, or know of.
Many years ago I set out on a research project to prove to myself whether Jesus was a real being, or not. There is only one real source of the man, and that is the "Q" document.

In Law we have a concept called Burden of Proof.

Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.

Here is my own rule of thumb:
"Assume everything you know is a lie, until it checks out and is proven true."

It would be extremely difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, with some Myths woven in. Stories whose true authorship can never be authenticated, and which cannot be corroborated.... except by other hearsay evidence. Although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable. Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand.

To add, "Testimony" is not historical fact. The Bible is not Historical Fact, or Historical Records.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
In Law we have a concept called Burden of Proof.


That's pretty funny, coming from you.


Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand.


Why would you expect that Philo, who lived in Egypt, not Israel, who was a Jewish Philosopher and died in 50AD would have anything to say about Christ? Why do you assume that, simply because he lived around the same time, he must have heard of Christianity?

In the case of Josephus, there are three passages of note and on two of them (one referring to "James, brother of Jesus", and the other regarding John the Baptist) there is little scholarly dissension on their authenticity. The final one, which is likely what you are addressing, does not appear to be an addition, but rather a modification -- the bits about him being divine are almost certain additions by a later scribe, but most scholars view them as additions to an existing bit of text regarding Christ and Christians.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
final one, which is likely what you are addressing, does not appear to be an addition, but rather a modification -- the bits about him being divine are almost certain additions by a later scribe, but most scholars view them as additions to an existing bit of text regarding Christ and Christians.


Wrong, all of Josephus's references to Jesus are fake. Thats the real majority opinion. Stop relying on Wikipedia.
edit on 26-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Dear NotReallyASecret,


Wrong, all of Josephus's references to Jesus are fake. Thats the real majority opinion. Stop relying on Wikipedia.

You've picked a difficult position to defend. I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion, but I'd also ask you if you have read what is being discussed?

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
Did you notice the phrase "Jesus the so-called Christ?" That wasn't written by a Christian. Who do you think wrote it? What is the "real majority opinion" concerning who wrote it?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by adjensen
final one, which is likely what you are addressing, does not appear to be an addition, but rather a modification -- the bits about him being divine are almost certain additions by a later scribe, but most scholars view them as additions to an existing bit of text regarding Christ and Christians.


Wrong, all of Josephus's references to Jesus are fake. Thats the real majority opinion. Stop relying on Wikipedia.


Wikipedia? You need to stop relying on your own inflated impression of yourself.

Kindly display the evidence you have that the "real majority opinion" (of scholars, not of halfwits who think something is true just because they want it to be,) is that all three of Josephus' references are fake.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


You have been shown proof but you put your fingers in your ears and clap your hands because you hate God and want to believe the devils lies.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Philo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philo (20 B.C.–50 A.D.), known also as Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς), Philo Judaeus, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, Yedidia, "Philon", and Philo the Jew, was a Hellenistic Jewish Biblical philosopher born in Alexandria.

He was, in fact, a Jew.
Philo Judaeus

List of early writers who could have mentioned Jesus
(But Did not) Thanks to our member Iasion.

Why Are The Ancient Historians Silent About Jesus?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by autowrench
 


You have been shown proof but you put your fingers in your ears and clap your hands because you hate God and want to believe the devils lies.

Please point out to me the post where I stated that I hate God. And anyone who is not brainwashed knows there is no Devil, only in minds like your own. Is all you can do is insult and call names? That is real christian of you. Notice I used the lower case. You, my friend, are about as close to being a Satanist as I have ever seen, what with your constant support and propaganda on your mythical devil.
I leave you with a song....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Dear autowrench,

I must thank you again for stretching my mind and encouraging me to explore. Thanks, you're a good friend.

Before looking at the individuals mentioned though, I noticed that your point is about the people who could have mentioned Jesus in their writings. Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the reasons why they should have written about him?

Here's something I found interesting:

As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; he never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed.
Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought."

Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such an uproar?

Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.).
On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts. In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers.

To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified -- at least until his followers inspired a reason for depth investigation.

Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it.
Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He traveled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?

Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also.


www.tektonics.org...

I'm not terribly disappointed that he wasn't written about by many.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Oh, by the way, that member "Iasion?" He discussed this with the people over at www.tektonics.org... They answered him in detail over his list. Please look at it if you're interested.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

It is not surprising at all to see that that website www.tektonics.org... is a Christian site. Of course they would be against anything not Christian, or which debunks Christian teachings. That doesn't make it so, friend.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen
 

Philo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philo (20 B.C.–50 A.D.), known also as Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς), Philo Judaeus, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, Yedidia, "Philon", and Philo the Jew, was a Hellenistic Jewish Biblical philosopher born in Alexandria.

He was, in fact, a Jew.




I said that he was Jewish in that reply. I also said that he lived in Egypt, not Israel, so to assume that he knew of some minor sect in another country is irrational. Your claim seems to be that anyone who lived at the time of Jesus and wrote something should have mentioned him, but that's also irrational. No one but his followers would publicize him and his actions, they were few in number until the Gentiles started getting on board, and there was no mass communication back then.

People tend to look on ancient times through the lenses of today and make unreasonable assumptions about the past, predicated on today.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join