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

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.

Its not that Jesus's historicity has been pretty well established.

Its that most scholars BELIEVE that Jesus existed as a matter of self-perpetuating consensus.

Carrier thinks this will all change in the future.

Just harking back to the OP, I did listen to Carrier's speech in its entirety. It is obviously not a scholarly speech, and at some point in the Q&A, he acknowledges that it likely would be rebutted if a scholar of contrary opinion were present and felt comfortable to speak.

As the OP pointed out, we all know that Paul's experience of Jesus was exclusively visionary. This explains why there was no Roman law enforcement interest in Paul's preaching, only in the immediate effects it occasionally had on the public peace. Nobody could believe that Paul was fronting for a decades-earlier escapee who was marshalling insurgent forces in the hinterland.

But, I thought Carrier might have had a potential point. Much closer to the execution than Paul's, the defense testimonies of Peter and Stephen might have been revealing for not mentioning a solidly risen Jesus. Or, maybe the Temple authorities really were hot to involve the Romans in Jewish religious squabbles again (really? How many times can you go to that well during a miltary occupation before you look like a collaborationist?)

So, I looked at Acts 3 and 4 again, with Carrier's perspective in mind. Peter heals the crippled man in Jesus' name, and there is a trial of Peter and John for that act. Before trial, however, Peter gives a public speech, 11 ff., which mentions the execution of Jesus and his rising from the dead. OK, Carrier does say that the "street speeches" (this one occurs at the temple) are doctrinally regular. So on to trial, At 4: 10, Peter tells his judges

then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed.

That sounds like a reference to the execution and real resurrection to me. Peter and John are released with an order to cease and desist, which has no effect. We have a second trial at 5: 17 ff. At verses 30-32, Peter and the apostles (so it is unclear who says what) say

The God of our ancestors raised Jesus, though you had him killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as leader and savior to grant Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins.We are witnesses of these things, as is the holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him.

The record does not say whether the court asked what kind of witness they were, however, according to 4: 13, judicial notice was taken that Peter and John had been companions of Jesus. The bolded passage reads just as well as a summary of what Jesus taught as any sort of visionary expereinces afterwards.

Carrier also discusses Stephen, but Stephen was in the first generation of assitants appointed by the Apsotles, according to 6: 5. There's no particular reason that his trial for blasphemy would center on Jesus. The charge, so far as I can tell, was (6: 13-14)

They presented false witnesses who testified, “This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him claim that this Jesus the Nazorean will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.

Unsurpisingly, Stephen's defense oration presents his understanding of the Hebrew Bible, an inherently lengthy subject,. He did not address the destruction of the Temple, but that could be because his judges had heard enough by the time they decided to stone him.

The bottom line, then, is that I don't find anything in the trial scenes of early Acts that is inconsistent with the rest of Luke's writing. Peter has visionary expereinces, but there's nothing in his speeches, or the understanding attributed to his audience, that implies that Peter testified only to visionary expereinces of the risen Jesus.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

Dear NotReallyASecret,

I was confused before, but now I am totally baffled.

Your position seems to be that the opinions of the majority of historians is not sufficient to decide a question of historicity, because they are unwilling to disagree with each other. Regardless of that, the positions of historians will change in the future. Can that possibly be what you're thinking?

1.) How else do you propose to determine historicity? Are you going to face a group of historians and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about in the field of history?

2.) Unwilling to disagree with each other? Silly, that's how books are sold, coming up with a new theory. Every academic dreams of finding that one, new, approach that sets the world on its ear. Why else have Nobel Prizes?

3.) Carrier's got a different view, how come the consensus missed him?

4.) This will all change in the future. Why? What will change it? New evidence that nobody now knows about? And when will this change? The non-historic Jesus theory has been around for decades. You're claiming historians are ignoring a true theory that has been around as long as some of them have been alive? Isn't it more likely that they looked at it over the years and decided it was an inferior theory?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

Dear NotReallyASecret,

I was confused before, but now I am totally baffled.

Your position seems to be that the opinions of the majority of historians is not sufficient to decide a question of historicity, because they are unwilling to disagree with each other. Regardless of that, the positions of historians will change in the future. Can that possibly be what you're thinking?

1.) How else do you propose to determine historicity? Are you going to face a group of historians and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about in the field of history?

2.) Unwilling to disagree with each other? Silly, that's how books are sold, coming up with a new theory. Every academic dreams of finding that one, new, approach that sets the world on its ear. Why else have Nobel Prizes?

3.) Carrier's got a different view, how come the consensus missed him?

4.) This will all change in the future. Why? What will change it? New evidence that nobody now knows about? And when will this change? The non-historic Jesus theory has been around for decades. You're claiming historians are ignoring a true theory that has been around as long as some of them have been alive? Isn't it more likely that they looked at it over the years and decided it was an inferior theory?

With respect,
Charles1952

Take it up with Dr. Carrier who is a Columbia PhD in Ancient History.

Eight bits,

Carrier addressed some of your points rather repeatedly.

But the bottom line is that the Romans and Jews initially never believed Jesus was ever a physical person.

Thats why Peter was given so many chances.

Carrier addressed some of your points rather repeatedly.

I didn't say otherwise. I said I listened to his speech, then I reread for myself the passages he discussed, in light of his opinions, and finally, I reported my findings here.

You don't like my findings? Your exception is noted.

Carrier himself acknowledged that some other people would see it differently than he does. Put me down as one of those people. Credit him with a fulfilled prediction if iyou'd like.

But the bottom line is that noone believed Jesus was ever physical. Not the Romans. Not the Jews.

I wasn't aware that the Romans of the time could tell us much about it anyway. I suspect Pilate found more productive uses of his time than sorting out the subject people's religious controversies. Carrier's notion that Pilate would call out the militia to hunt down a missing body that Pilate would have just as happily tossed on the garbage heap is, at best, comic relief. I think Pilate just might have been willing to take his chances that there was an escaped half-dead convict in the boonies somewhere marshalling troops for a march on Jerusalem.

As to the Jews of the time, it would appear that some believed and some did not. Bodily resurrection was anticipated by the Pharisees, for example. Paul inferred physicality from his visionary experience, as you might expect a Pharisee to do.

The news in this thread was supposed to be that we were being told where to look for evidence that Peter believed that none of his expereinces of the risen Jesus were encounters with a physically embodied man. I looked where I was told, and found no evidence of it there.

That is all.

reply to post by eight bits


There's plenty of testimony in the gospels of Peter experiencing the phsyical person of Jesus pre-resurrection too, just wanted to point that out.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


And it quite obviously has to be true.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There's plenty of testimony in the gospels of Peter experiencing the phsyical person of Jesus pre-resurrection too, just wanted to point that out.

Carrier already addressed that the gospels are fiction. See this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

P.S. You do realize that the gospels were written after acts?

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Take it up with Dr. Carrier who is a Columbia PhD in Ancient History.

An appeal to authority? Boo!

Carrier isn't here to discuss it, but you are, and since you posted his video, you are what passes for a representative for him. Either respond to the post or admit that you can't.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Take it up with Dr. Carrier who is a Columbia PhD in Ancient History.

An appeal to authority? Boo!

Carrier isn't here to discuss it, but you are, and since you posted his video, you are what passes for a representative for him. Either respond to the post or admit that you can't.

How the hell am I representative of Carrier?

I am not a bible scholar.

Like I have said repeatedly, you are delusional.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There's plenty of testimony in the gospels of Peter experiencing the phsyical person of Jesus pre-resurrection too, just wanted to point that out.

Carrier already addressed that the gospels are fiction. See this thread:

I wasn't aware the Richard Carrier was the ultimate authority on the authenticity of the Bible.

Dang. An academic atheist who is trying to make a name for himself is using specious logic to declare the Gospels to be fiction! That's it, I'm gonna go be a Scientologist

P.S. You do realize that the gospels were written after acts?

You do realize that the author of Acts cites the Gospel of Luke in Acts 1:1, right? How was Acts written before Luke with that line in there?

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Take it up with Dr. Carrier who is a Columbia PhD in Ancient History.

An appeal to authority? Boo!

Carrier isn't here to discuss it, but you are, and since you posted his video, you are what passes for a representative for him. Either respond to the post or admit that you can't.

How the hell am I representative of Carrier?

By posting his video, you're on the hook for responding to questions about it, at least until he shows up. If you don't want to do that, stop posting videos and try some original material of your own.

I am not a bible scholar.

Well, in light of your professed Biblical ignorance, why do you agree with Carrier?

Originally posted by adjensen
Dang. An academic atheist who is trying to make a name for himself is using specious logic to declare the Gospels to be fiction! That's it, I'm gonna go be a Scientologist

You as a Christian may consider it specious logic. You probably also don't believe in evolution, gravity etc.

I, on the other hand, found the evidence as excellent. I mean some of the gospel stuff was directly lifted verbatim from psalms etc.

Originally posted by adjensen
I wasn't aware the Richard Carrier was the ultimate authority on the authenticity of the Bible.

well he is. now you know.

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, in light of your professed Biblical ignorance, why do you agree with Carrier?

Axe to grind against something very deep and hard to fathom, which is much easier to dismiss out of hand as having no basis in historical fact. Fearful ignorance is what it amounts to, and it's plain as day reading between the lines. Otherwise you see, the cross of Jesus Christ and his teachings and mission might have to be evaluated.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by adjensen
Dang. An academic atheist who is trying to make a name for himself is using specious logic to declare the Gospels to be fiction! That's it, I'm gonna go be a Scientologist

You as a Christian may consider it specious logic. You probably also don't believe in evolution, gravity etc.

Haha, yeah, good one. No, I'm afraid that I have a hard science background, as well as history. I probably believe in evolution more than you do

I, on the other hand, found the evidence as excellent. I mean some of the gospel stuff was directly lifted verbatim from psalms etc.

Since you are admittedly ignorant on the Bible, you probably would. Let's see if we can practice some critical thinking, okay?

Why do you think that Christians include the Old Testament in their Bible? What is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments?

Originally posted by adjensen
Since you are admittedly ignorant on the Bible, you probably would.

I said I was not a bible scholar. And you are not either.

Originally posted by adjensen
Haha, yeah, good one. No, I'm afraid that I have a hard science background, as well as history.

sure you do.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by adjensen
Since you are admittedly ignorant on the Bible, you probably would.

I said I was not a bible scholar. And you are not either.

Well, you sure know me, lol.

Still have some outstanding questions there, Ace:

1) Since you admit ignorance of the Bible, what arguments of Carrier's won you over and why, since you don't know the Bible?

2) Why would Christians include the New Testament AND the Old Testament in their Bible?

3) How did Luke write his Gospel after he wrote Acts, when he references the Gospel in the first line of Acts?

There are probably others, but since you won't answer these and just insult me instead, we can make do with the three above