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: 8
3
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Dear autowrench,

Thanks, you're absolutely right. I can't disagree with anything in your post. But, two comments if I may? I can see that comments appearing on a site with a particular point of view may be questionable, but surely they're not automatically false. Don't they deserve to be looked at and considered, even if only briefly?

Secondly, doesn't discarding things because they're on a Christian website, require us, in the name of fairness, to discard things that are on a Christ is a myth website? And there seems to be no reason to limit it to websites. If a Christian speaker says something, may we discard it because of his "agenda"? If so, then doesn't Dr. Carrier speech get discarded because of his "agenda?"

With respect,
Charles1952


edit on 27-7-2012 by charles1952 because: formatting




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The difference is that Dr. Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by QUANTUMGR4V17Y
 


Try reading Josephus, The Complete Works:

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 received 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 pricipal 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 devine prophets had foretold these and ten thousound other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

This edition was translated by William Whiston, A.M. and published by Thomas Nelson Publishers.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


That should immediately disqualify any and all of his remarks concerning Christianity and Jesus, since most of the professors teaching in colleges these days are secular huminist and rabidly anti-Christian.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1PLA1
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


That should immediately disqualify any and all of his remarks concerning Christianity and Jesus, since most of the professors teaching in colleges these days are secular huminist and rabidly anti-Christian.




You say that like its a bad thing.

Why should society have to put up with nonsense religions?

Religion should be ridiculed. Religion should not get preferential treatment.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-Christian.
edit on 27-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Dear NotReallyASecret,

Forgive me for taking just one line from your post, but the others were repetitive and merely statements of opinion.

Why should society have to put up with nonsense religions?
That sounds like "Why shouldn't society tell people what to believe?" That's going to be a hard argument to sell, what with the Constitution and all.

With respect,
Charles1952


edit on 27-7-2012 by charles1952 because: punctuation



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


John Lennon was a Satanist.

Lennon quoted as saying, "Christianity will go, it will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that. I'm right and will be proved right . . . We're more popular than Jesus now." (San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1966, p.26).
edit on 27-7-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
John Lennon was a Satanist.



You say that like its a bad thing.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


All you are doing is assuming he is a satanist. Are Muslims satanists because they don't believe in Jesus as well?

That is a very ignorant statement to make. John Lennon is one of, if not the most influential person in the past hundred years. He promoted peace and was extremely anti-war, both the opposite of Satan.

He was murdered because of his influence on millions of people. He inspired millions of people to be against war, and those in power didn't like his influence so they silenced him.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
John Lennon is one of, if not the most influential person in the past hundred years. He promoted peace and was extremely anti-war, both the opposite of Satan.


Though I liked Lennon, I would disagree with your assessment of his influence. He mainly resonated with people who agreed with him anyway, he sequestered himself for a number of years, influencing no one other than Sean, and, it's tough to argue that Rock 'n' Roll, Double Fantasy and Milk and Honey wasn't a pretty crappy run of albums.


He was murdered because of his influence on millions of people.


Well, no, he was murdered because some nut with a gun met up with him on a bad night. Whether intentional or not, Lennon was largely irrelevant to the time that he was in when he died. That might have changed, had Chapman not shot him, but I don't know that he'd have gone on to be a significant figure on the world stage, which he had not been in almost ten years.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


They say that you don't know what you've got til it's gone. Just because he had a few crappy albums has no bearing on if he was influential or not.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
The essence and Nazarenes did not believe in a literal Christ either. In fact this is why I write, real/metaphor or both because Paul is kind of a trojan horse, and Luke puts clues in there that he is working for Rome, and history is rewritten by TPTB and who pray tell is around to say anything to the contrary. If Shakespear had his hand in writing some of the psalms and old testament, who would know today? HMMM......

www.thenazareneway.com...


Luke, however, filled in many of the blanks Paul failed to mention in any of his letters to the churches. The problem is, Luke told three versions of Paul’s claimed conversion, and none of the three agree on the details:




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


They say that you don't know what you've got til it's gone. Just because he had a few crappy albums has no bearing on if he was influential or not.


Citing a Cinderella song in your reply? Clever


I could make a pretty good case for the point that a run of crappy albums would have an impact on what one's influence would be, but no. As you read more and more of my posts, you'll see that I tend to make a point, reiterate it, and then add something vapid in an attempt at a joke.

Which is exactly what I did here -- go back and look at that paragraph, in light of what I just told you.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by autowrench
 


John Lennon was a Satanist.

Lennon quoted as saying, "Christianity will go, it will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that. I'm right and will be proved right . . . We're more popular than Jesus now." (San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1966, p.26).
edit on 27-7-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


I ain't missing him any. I got to the point where i couldn't stand to listen to anymore music gratifying promiscuous sex, drugs and rock and roll. Now i only listen to KLOVE radio. I can't stand to listen to that other crap that glorifies everything but Jesus. It's like as soon as i stopped listening to that poison i could feel my spirit breathe a sigh of relief and i actually felt better.
edit on 28-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Christianity was allowed to spread by the Romans because it's never been a threat in the first place! You watch it today. Christians were never a threat to the Gov't, Leaders, far most of them won't even standout from the crowd. They are not against consumerism and they don't like sharing their stuff... Which Jesus hates by the way.

If it is Jesus' way, Capitalism will not thrive or at least, will be a lot less profitable. The economy would soon evolve into some sort of 'moneyless' system where everyone does something according to their abilities and share to one another. Also in Jesus' 'System', there is no 'Earthly Leadership'. Jesus is the leader, and everyone strives to educate each other to be a follower. This system does not concentrate power and wealth in any part of the human/Earthly system, but distributes it. This is different than even communism.

The closest thing we ever had is probably the fictional 'United Federation of Planets' in Star Trek where even though they had leaders, their leaders strongly demonstrated servitude, respect, and humility even to lower ranks, and even cadets and more primitive species they encounter. The US Gov't would particularly hate this and would certainly attempt to crush Jesus followers or anything that would mirror the 'Federation'


The Romans did try to crush the 'Jesus Movement'. But it is probably very small to make worthy of recording or why would you even record something of which is a potential high threat, you'd burn those records! Today, you search for the Truth with open eyes, testing every spirit, every idea, every theology, every book! even your motives! and then you get back to your 'Christian' brothers. Now they become your persecutors!!
edit on 28-7-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)







 
3
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join