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

Originally posted by Augustine62
The historical existence of Christ is indisputable.

www.agapebiblestudy.com...

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

That website proves nothing. In fact, even the title is a lie. It says....

THE OLDEST SECULAR ACCOUNTS & HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THE EXISTANCE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH

In the Strong's Interpretation of Mat 26:71 the writer uses Ναζωραῖος which is Greek for "Nazarite". Nazirite is a ancient Jewish vow not a city.

The Lost City
The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David: (Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. (Luke 2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

source

You know what they say, one bad apple and all that. No cite named
Nazareth means someone, or a lot of someone's, is lying through their teeth.

reply to post by autowrench


Who posted that page? I want to email them.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
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".

I think "Jesus" was in fact a combination of several people, given the attributes and history of a local God, and a fantastic story wove around him. There was not one man with that name anyway, because the letter "J" did not exist, and there are no vowels in Hebrew.
So "Jesus" is basically a white, brown haired man with an English name and look.

reply to post by autowrench

It was Yeshua or something like that.

How can someone as smart as you, not recognize a singular person of Jesus in the gospels? How can you be so smart and well informed in so many areas, and yet so blind?

reply to post by autowrench

I think "Jesus" was in fact a combination of several people, given the attributes and history of a local God, and a fantastic story wove around him. There was not one man with that name anyway, because the letter "J" did not exist, and there are no vowels in Hebrew.
So "Jesus" is basically a white, brown haired man with an English name and look.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It was Yeshua or something like that.

The name was Yahushua/Yehoshua...or Yeshua, though I've seen much complaint with this...the hebrew version of our Joshua meaning "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh our righteousness".

(Late add - yes, his name definitely wasn't "Jesus" for the reason given - it transliterated from the hebrew Yahushua/Yehoshua to greek Iesous to latin Iesus and then into english as Jesus. I may have missed some steps in there. Arguing over the evolution of names and language throughout time doesn't really apply here - and no, he wasn't white, being a first-century jew. Likely of typical middle-eastern appearance, and I'll allow for the possibility of even black, given his possible egyptian ancestry.)

That said - various hebrew letters are actually semi-vowels, dependent on the vowel markers given to the original characters - this is why Yahweh (YHVH) is rendered as "the LORD" in our bibles - the jews gave the name the vowel points for adonai because they began to consider it too sacred to say or even think outright (ignorant, but another part of their hedge around the law).

Autowrench - somewhat agreed. I don't doubt that some of the accounts were possibly embellished, especially later in christian history (what bit I've read on the Mithra stuff so far mostly seems to come into play with roman catholic teaching/doctrine) - and conflated with various other outside influences...after the first few centuries, the roman church was definitely fond of adopting pagan influence to ease the influx of new "believers".

However, in light of the internal evidences (not sufficient for you, I know) and the non-disputed external references, including some fairly hostile, I still consider it untenable to believe that there was not a first-century jewish upstart who became the foundation of christianity.

Will definitely continue reading up on Mithra and the others, but I'm still yearning for some more solid sources referencing the actual material directly. Most of the supposed connections thus far seem very tenuous and more than a little suspect.

Originally posted by autowrench
You know what they say, one bad apple and all that. No cite named
Nazareth means someone, or a lot of someone's, is lying through their teeth.

You know what they say -- "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

However, in this case, there is evidence. Here's one bit of it: Restoring a First Century Synagogue to Nazareth. Here's a refutation of Rene Salm's book on the subject: Is Nazareth a Myth?

You didn't seriously believe that a website called "jesusneverexisted.com" is going to give you an unbiased perspective, do you?

reply to post by adjensen
Even if there weren't/isn't evidence (I haven't review this much yet), I'd consider the alternative too preposterous to believe, frankly - a fledgling faith fighting - figuratively speaking - for its relevance as a supposed fulfillment of jewish prophecy and promises hangs itself out to dry by fabricating a new city in Israel when any other established city would work every bit as well?

Better to assume in my view that Nazareth was a tiny backwater village recently repopulated long after its destruction by the assyrians and still pretty much off the radar (understandably so, as this was a place of flight). And more understandable that its prominence would grow after christianity began spreading and gaining influence, as compared to a group of believers - instead of questioning why the early home of their saviour didn't actually exist - decided to just go ahead and found the town to set things right.

Basically, some things just beggar the imagination by being a bit too ludicrous to be made up, and this is one of them. Anyhow, thanks for the links as I was also unaware that the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus was suspect. Will dig into this to see if my opinions are mistaken.

reply to post by autowrench

Dear autowrench,

Thanks for mentioning your two source books (although I am sure there are more). The one by Murdock seemed to be the most immediately relevant, so I took a look.

I discovered that D.M. Murdock is the real name of someone who write more popularly under the name Acharya S.

D. M. Murdock, better known by her pen name Acharya S, is an American author and proponent of the Christ myth theory. She has authored six books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She argues that Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not surprisingly, she has, shall we say, a mixed reputaion here on ATS. But that's not good enough evidence, ATSers can believe a lot of odd things. I found a website called Rational Responders (or something close to that) and was attracted by their name. On their banner they declare themselves to be "Activist Atheists." I read an (the?) article on her and found this:

this is really what the Jesus Mythicist Campaign was meant to expose - the poor and sloppy scholarship of some of the mythicist defenders out there. Among those who would discredit the movement, I feel Acharaya S is a valid candidate who has been among other things sloppy.

Scholarship is based on foundations of scientific observation and inductive reasoning that seems to be missing from the works of Acharya S (although I have yet to read her new book, with a preface by Robert M. Price, whom I think very highly of), and worse yet, her fans seem to be trolling the interwebs with intent and purpose.

When two of her fans attempted to go head to head with me in my forum, I confronted them are some of their very glaring historical inadequacies. Here is a brief list of some of these errors:

1. Comparing Jesus to Krishna/Buddha
2. Claiming the Moses/Jesus stories are Midrash based on the Bhagavad Gita
3. Claiming that both Julius Caesar and Plato were both said to be born of virgins and sons of God
4. Claiming ALL Caesars were deified

Certainly, Acharya has been sloppy in her research, and her claims seem more like sensationalism than actual scholarship. Certainly she sells books, and that is good. I'm glad she is doing well for herself. We should all be so lucky. But, I will not, nor will I let others, promote such incredulous tripe as what we have seen above.

www.rationalresponders.com...
It may be that she is not the best possible voice to lead us through these paths.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by autowrench

 

It was Yeshua or something like that.

How can someone as smart as you, not recognize a singular person of Jesus in the gospels? How can you be so smart and well informed in so many areas, and yet so blind?

Oh, I can see Jesus most clearly in the NT, the story book that that many take as literal truth, written by unknown authors and expanded from a few fragments. I can easily find Tom Sawyer in Mark Twain's book of the same name. It is a book, friend, that's all.

There was a Yeshua, a Buddha, Muhammad, and a Krishna, a Spider Woman, and a host of other teachers sent here to Earth to correct mistakes, and to teach Humanity how to love one another. Most took the good, sage advice, and lived their lives accordingly. Christianity discarded the sage advice, in favor of making the teacher into a God, and then worshipping him as such. Even the Muslims didn't do that. "Jesus" never existed, as the letter "J" is 500 years old, and there are no Vowels in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew say Jesus is a false prophet and is not to be worshipped.

reply to post by charles1952

Someone else brought him up, I just read some books. No harm, no foul. Just because I read a person's book does not make me a disciple of that person.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by charles1952

 

Someone else brought him up, I just read some books. No harm, no foul. Just because I read a person's book does not make me a disciple of that person.

Actually, D.M. Murdoch is a "she", and she represents a good learning opportunity. If you look at her background, it is not in the field that she claims expertise in, and if you look at her sources, they are dubious, at best. Combine the two, and you have a person who has no credibility whatsoever, and with the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bit, one should dismiss her outright.

Reading books is great, but just because something is in print doesn't mean that it has any value.

.....one should dismiss her outright.

I'll bet you dismiss a lot of writers this way, don't you? I am a reader. No, not someone who picks up a book now and then, but a reader. I am reading two books right now. I read several chapters in both every day. I do not dismiss ANY author outright for any thought they may have. I let all play across my mind, and choose that which plays well. There is wisdom in most every book. For instance, I found a great deal of wisdom in this little book:

Originally posted by autowrench

.....one should dismiss her outright.

I'll bet you dismiss a lot of writers this way, don't you?

No, I don't. I dimiss purveyors of nonsense, but not until I've determined that they are, in fact, pitching nonsense. Like your goofball hero Abelard "Pisos wrote the Bible" Reuchlin.

I am a reader. No, not someone who picks up a book now and then, but a reader. I am reading two books right now. I read several chapters in both every day. I do not dismiss ANY author outright for any thought they may have. I let all play across my mind, and choose that which plays well. There is wisdom in most every book.

I'm not going to get into a contest with you as to who reads more, but I will say that there is, most assuredly, NOT wisdom in most every book. That is not to say that most books have no value, but to claim that they contain wisdom is not a rational claim (unless one doesn't include "mass media" books, then you're closer to making a point.)

From what I understand of Columbia PhD Dr. Carrier, Jesus is combination of mystical visions and pure literary invention based on old testament passages.

Jesus was never a man. He is not a historical person.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
From what I understand of Carrier, Jesus is a pure literary invention based on a direct extrapolation of old testament stuff.

That combined with visions of Jesus.

Jesus as a physical man is FICTION, and Carrier believes one day all scholars will agree on this.

Right, but the problem is that Carrier has a personal beef with Christians, so he's going to ignore positive evidence and promote negative evidence that may or may not be relevant, simply because it supports his personal belief. That's not intellectually honest.

I've made no secret of my dislike of Bart Ehrman's debate methods, but I often cite him, because, as an academic, he seems to remain pretty up and up. While they are both atheists, Carrier and Ehrman take very different approaches to the historical Jesus, and Ehrman, by far, comes off as the less biased perspective.

BTW, I'd like to apologize for taking your thread off topic. It seems to happen in this forum, more than any other, but I'm sorry for my contributions to the topic drift.

Carrier is hopeful that in the future scholars will believe Jesus is mythic.

So Carrier is confident in his arguments and evidence.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
From what I understand of Carrier, Jesus is a pure literary invention based on a direct extrapolation of old testament stuff.

That combined with visions of Jesus.

Jesus as a physical man is FICTION, and Carrier believes one day all scholars will agree on this.

Right, but the problem is that Carrier has a personal beef with Christians, so he's going to ignore positive evidence and promote negative evidence that may or may not be relevant, simply because it supports his personal belief. That's not intellectually honest.

I've made no secret of my dislike of Bart Ehrman's debate methods, but I often cite him, because, as an academic, he seems to remain pretty up and up. While they are both atheists, Carrier and Ehrman take very different approaches to the historical Jesus, and Ehrman, by far, comes off as the less biased perspective.

BTW, I'd like to apologize for taking your thread off topic. It seems to happen in this forum, more than any other, but I'm sorry for my contributions to the topic drift.

Ehrman is a clown. Makes too many academic mistakes. I prefer Carrier.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

Have you looked at many scholars besides Carrier? There is a debate about whether Jesus was God, but I thought the vast majority of opinion was that Jesus' historicity has been pretty well established.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Ehrman is a clown. Makes too many academic mistakes. I prefer Carrier.

What are the mistakes that he makes that you find comical?

As a theist, I have no skin in the game of Ehrman v. Carrier, so I can certainly switch over to your side if the argument is persuasive.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

Have you looked at many scholars besides Carrier? There is a debate about whether Jesus was God, but I thought the vast majority of opinion was that Jesus' historicity has been pretty well established.

It is, the "Jesus never existed" claim is the minority view. Ehrman, not surprisingly, has no time for anyone who claims that Christ was divine, but to claim that he never existed, as a person -- there isn't much out there to support that viewpoint.