Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2014, 10:15 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 08:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 06:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok Chas...I hear you that you don't find the arguments convincing, and you want direct evidence. In fact I heard you each of the previous 7 times you've said exactly the same thing. I respect that opinion. There's no need to keep saying it.

Now...please...in your next post...take things just a little further. Tell me some specifics. Talk around the topic. Demonstrate you've genuinely considered the possibilities. For example, which claims are too forced and contrived and why? Or...the podcast about the Flavians being great propagandists doesn't support Atwill's theory because...."

Then other people (like me) can learn from you and the conversation moves forward.

That's a reasonable request and I will address it. However, for the next few days work demands take priority.

No worries. Thanks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 10:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "1) If the romans invented Christianity, why did they do so a poor job of making people believe it within palestine?"

You're absolutely right that they did have almost no success in Palestine.

Let's assume that my theory that Paul was a Roman government agent is correct. He spent some of his time in Palestine. This was in the 50s and early 60s. We know from secular history that Palestine was a hotbed of political dissent in the 50s and 60s. Zealots terrorised the countryside. Messianic fervor was in the air throughout Palestine in the 60’s. James’s death (62CE) helped fan the flames of the smoldering resentment that many Jews felt towards the Romans. Law and order slowly broke down in Jerusalem and throughout Judea.

Unpopular appointments to the temple priesthood (not a new phenomenon in Jewish history) only made the situation worse. Fights broke out between powerful Jewish families in Jerusalem. Zealots roamed the country districts and sicarii terrorized the streets of Jerusalem. Roman procurators, who were often corrupt, failed to keep the peace, and in frustration ruthlessly executed many, which further inflamed the bad feelings and made it easy to blame Rome for the unrest. To live in “God’ s land” was a nightmare for all Jews and their imperial masters.

In November 66 CE, zealots slew more than six hundred Roman troops and drove the rest out of the city. Gessius Florus, the Roman procurator, fled to Caesarea, and Jerusalem came under the command of a number of Jewish factions. This was a large-scale Jewish revolt. I think Yeshua had tried to do this thirty years earlier, so if he’d been alive he would have been very excited. The kingdom of God was one small step closer to becoming a reality.

This contrasts starkly with the traditional totally false picture told about life in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, with thousands of Jews said to have been converted to Christianity.

Why was the new propaganda so unsuccessful? I think it was because if you had been born a Jew, then priests have been brainwashing you and your family since the day you were born. You were told you were one of God's chosen people. Your penis was made to look different. You could only eat kosher food. You kept holy the sabbath. You could only marry other Jews... And she had to be a virgin to maintain the purity of the Jewish race. Your temple was magnificent. You just thought you were so fucking special. Along comes this character named Paul, and he said all of that was no longer relevant, that Jews and Gentiles were the same in God's eyes, and that the laws of the Torah were basically redundant because of the new kid on the block, the Christ.

Jews didn't buy this. It's possible that some Helenized Jews bought into it but the whole damn spiel was heresy to true Jews. Paul turned his attention to gentiles, because he thought as he was getting nowhere with traditional Jews, it was easier to weaken them by downplaying their exclusivity and diluting their faith with his version of Judaism (Christianity)

I think Paul was trying to stop the war. Traditional fundamentalist jews, particularly poor peasant Jews, dreamed about their Messiah... he was to be a political leader that set up the kingdom of God on earth. This kingdom of theirs would've put the Jews where they thought they belonged; At the top of the world's pecking order. Paul replaced this hoped-for political Messiah with his Christ, the mythical son of God who had already been and gone. He replaced the Jewish earthly kingdom of God with the spiritual kingdom of heaven and voila! Christianity was born.

It was propaganda that just didn't work, and it never stopped the first Jewish War. It was only after the war that the Jesus character was invented, which I think was the government's second attempt to undermine jewish messianic aspirations.

All of these things are either facts or very reasonable assumptions based on the facts. The political climate in jerusalem during that time was not conducive for a religious reformation. All these circumstances would have existed regardless of a Roman plot or not, so that don't explain anything, only describe it as it was. This means that the Flavians where either 1) unaware of the lack of success of their messiah in the holy land or 2) ambivalent about it. We know this because there is no evidence that they tried any harder. There was no evident response to their lack of success. There is no evidence that they increased their efforts or changed tactics. This speaks to more than incompetence, this speaks to the Flavians essentially giving up almost as soon as they started.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 10:38 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 11:24 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
"2) Many of the leaders of Israel were already in Rome's pocket, it would have been easy to get them to distribute their gospels if they wanted to. Why such a subtle play of it? Why wasn't the government more involved?"

Very true that many of the leaders were already in Rome's pocket. In fact we know who they were… the Saducees (the high priest and those associated with him), the Sanhedrin (Jewish Judges) and the Herod Dynasty, as well as many of the richer more powerful families who were given land (at the expense of the peasants) by the Romans.

It wasn't as easy as just simply telling these people to totally reinvent their religious beliefs. Consider an analogy. Think of the USA in Iraq. I'm sure the US army has made allies with a number of Islamic leaders. Money and force will always buy you friends. Yet could the USA get these people to turn into Christians? No way! If you've been worked on by rabbis, priests, Imams or preachers since you were a kid, its highly unlikely you'll jump ship unless absolutely forced to. These guys are professionals; they know how to brainwash people. ( Take Jeremy as a typical example...not particularly smart and not an original thought in his rather small mind...everything that comes out has been placed there.)

Rome befriended the upper classes in the provinces they conquered; it was one reason why they were so successful. Yet they knew they couldn't complete with the brainwashing of Judaism, so they tried to reinvent Judaism as a pacifist subservient religion, and they failed. In the process they invented something new… Christianity.

As the second century wore on, and particularly after the Second Jewish War of 132 to 135 CE, jews became less of a threat. The Flavian dynasty ended in 96 CE and a completely different government took over. What one government did wasn't necessarily the policy of the next government, and this is why I think the original reason Christianity was created was soon forgotten. This would help explain why many years later, in isolated pockets, when various churches became too powerful and threatened the authority of the government, some Christians were persecuted.

And what Bucky so eloquently said.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 10:47 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 10:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  2) Many of the leaders of Israel were already in Rome's pocket, it would have been easy to get them to distribute their gospels if they wanted to. Why such a subtle play of it? Why wasn't the government more involved?

Very true that many of the leaders were already in Rome's pocket. In fact we know who they were… the Saducees (the high priest and those associated with him), the Sanhedrin (Jewish Judges) and the Herod Dynasty, as well as many of the richer more powerful families who were given land (at the expense of the peasants) by the Romans.

It wasn't as easy as just simply telling these people to totally reinvent their religious beliefs. Consider an analogy. Think of the USA in Iraq. I'm sure the US army has made allies with a number of Islamic leaders. Money and force will always buy you friends. Yet could the USA get these people to turn into Christians? No way! If you've been worked on by rabbis, priests, Imams or preachers since you were a kid, its highly unlikely you'll jump ship unless absolutely forced to. These guys are professionals; they know how to brainwash people. ( Take Jeremy as a typical example...not particularly smart and not an original thought in his rather small mind...everything that comes out has been placed there.)

Rome befriended the upper classes in the provinces they conquered; it was one reason why they were so successful. Yet they knew they couldn't complete with the brainwashing of Judaism, so they tried to reinvent Judaism as a pacifist subservient religion, and they failed. In the process they invented something new… Christianity.

As the second century war on, and particularly after the Second Jewish War of 132 to 135 CE, jews became less of a threat. The Flavian dynasty ended in 96 CE and a completely different government took over. What one government did wasn't necessarily the policy of the next government, and this is why I think the original reason Christianity was created was soon forgotten. This would help explain why many years later, in isolated pockets, when various churches became too powerful and threatened the authority of the government, some Christians were persecuted.

And what Bucky so eloquently said.

All of those things would be true if Christianity was not a Flavian plot. If you want to provide validity to a theory, you need to present evidence that shouldn't be true given the previously commonly excepted theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
07-06-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 10:29 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 10:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "1) If the romans invented Christianity, why did they do so a poor job of making people believe it within palestine?"

You're absolutely right that they did have almost no success in Palestine.

Let's assume that my theory that Paul was a Roman government agent is correct. He spent some of his time in Palestine. This was in the 50s and early 60s. We know from secular history that Palestine was a hotbed of political dissent in the 50s and 60s. Zealots terrorised the countryside. Messianic fervor was in the air throughout Palestine in the 60’s. James’s death (62CE) helped fan the flames of the smoldering resentment that many Jews felt towards the Romans. Law and order slowly broke down in Jerusalem and throughout Judea.

Unpopular appointments to the temple priesthood (not a new phenomenon in Jewish history) only made the situation worse. Fights broke out between powerful Jewish families in Jerusalem. Zealots roamed the country districts and sicarii terrorized the streets of Jerusalem. Roman procurators, who were often corrupt, failed to keep the peace, and in frustration ruthlessly executed many, which further inflamed the bad feelings and made it easy to blame Rome for the unrest. To live in “God’ s land” was a nightmare for all Jews and their imperial masters.

In November 66 CE, zealots slew more than six hundred Roman troops and drove the rest out of the city. Gessius Florus, the Roman procurator, fled to Caesarea, and Jerusalem came under the command of a number of Jewish factions. This was a large-scale Jewish revolt. I think Yeshua had tried to do this thirty years earlier, so if he’d been alive he would have been very excited. The kingdom of God was one small step closer to becoming a reality.

This contrasts starkly with the traditional totally false picture told about life in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, with thousands of Jews said to have been converted to Christianity.

Why was the new propaganda so unsuccessful? I think it was because if you had been born a Jew, then priests have been brainwashing you and your family since the day you were born. You were told you were one of God's chosen people. Your penis was made to look different. You could only eat kosher food. You kept holy the sabbath. You could only marry other Jews... And she had to be a virgin to maintain the purity of the Jewish race. Your temple was magnificent. You just thought you were so fucking special. Along comes this character named Paul, and he said all of that was no longer relevant, that Jews and Gentiles were the same in God's eyes, and that the laws of the Torah were basically redundant because of the new kid on the block, the Christ.

Jews didn't buy this. It's possible that some Helenized Jews bought into it but the whole damn spiel was heresy to true Jews. Paul turned his attention to gentiles, because he thought as he was getting nowhere with traditional Jews, it was easier to weaken them by downplaying their exclusivity and diluting their faith with his version of Judaism (Christianity)

I think Paul was trying to stop the war. Traditional fundamentalist jews, particularly poor peasant Jews, dreamed about their Messiah... he was to be a political leader that set up the kingdom of God on earth. This kingdom of theirs would've put the Jews where they thought they belonged; At the top of the world's pecking order. Paul replaced this hoped-for political Messiah with his Christ, the mythical son of God who had already been and gone. He replaced the Jewish earthly kingdom of God with the spiritual kingdom of heaven and voila! Christianity was born.

It was propaganda that just didn't work, and it never stopped the first Jewish War. It was only after the war that the Jesus character was invented, which I think was the government's second attempt to undermine jewish messianic aspirations.

All of these things are either facts or very reasonable assumptions based on the facts. The political climate in jerusalem during that time was not conducive for a religious reformation. All these circumstances would have existed regardless of a Roman plot or not, so that don't explain anything, only describe it as it was. This means that the Flavians where either 1) unaware of the lack of success of their messiah in the holy land or 2) ambivalent about it. We know this because there is no evidence that they tried any harder. There was no evident response to their lack of success. There is no evidence that they increased their efforts or changed tactics. This speaks to more than incompetence, this speaks to the Flavians essentially giving up almost as soon as they started.

Good points! Thanks!

I think we need to realise a few things. Vespasian was emperor from 69 to 79. His son Titus was very close to him. When dad died, Titus ruled from 79 to 81. Titus died of natural causes in 81. The other son, Domitian, ruled from 81 to 96, when he was assassinated. Domitian was the black sheep of the family. He wasn't very close to his father or Titus. He was very jealous of Titus. He was also very paranoid about getting assassinated (quite rightly as it turned out). He wasn't as much into propaganda as his father and his older brother were. My point is that I'm not so sure that Domitian pushed the Christianity thing much. This could be why you quite rightly point out that there's no evident response to their lack of success.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
07-06-2014, 11:04 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 10:47 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 10:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  2) Many of the leaders of Israel were already in Rome's pocket, it would have been easy to get them to distribute their gospels if they wanted to. Why such a subtle play of it? Why wasn't the government more involved?

Very true that many of the leaders were already in Rome's pocket. In fact we know who they were… the Saducees (the high priest and those associated with him), the Sanhedrin (Jewish Judges) and the Herod Dynasty, as well as many of the richer more powerful families who were given land (at the expense of the peasants) by the Romans.

It wasn't as easy as just simply telling these people to totally reinvent their religious beliefs. Consider an analogy. Think of the USA in Iraq. I'm sure the US army has made allies with a number of Islamic leaders. Money and force will always buy you friends. Yet could the USA get these people to turn into Christians? No way! If you've been worked on by rabbis, priests, Imams or preachers since you were a kid, its highly unlikely you'll jump ship unless absolutely forced to. These guys are professionals; they know how to brainwash people. ( Take Jeremy as a typical example...not particularly smart and not an original thought in his rather small mind...everything that comes out has been placed there.)

Rome befriended the upper classes in the provinces they conquered; it was one reason why they were so successful. Yet they knew they couldn't complete with the brainwashing of Judaism, so they tried to reinvent Judaism as a pacifist subservient religion, and they failed. In the process they invented something new… Christianity.

As the second century war on, and particularly after the Second Jewish War of 132 to 135 CE, jews became less of a threat. The Flavian dynasty ended in 96 CE and a completely different government took over. What one government did wasn't necessarily the policy of the next government, and this is why I think the original reason Christianity was created was soon forgotten. This would help explain why many years later, in isolated pockets, when various churches became too powerful and threatened the authority of the government, some Christians were persecuted.

And what Bucky so eloquently said.

All of those things would be true if Christianity was not a Flavian plot. If you want to provide validity to a theory, you need to present evidence that shouldn't be true given the previously commonly excepted theory.

Please outline what you think the "previously commonly accepted theory" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 11:20 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
"3) Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written? If Titus commissioned it before he died, wouldn't that mean that Josephus and others would have been working on it starting some time around 81AD? If you are generous, the first writings of the gospel of matthew where published in 100AD and perhaps as late as 140AD. Why the time gap?"

Joseph published the Jewish War in 78 CE.

Atwill places the Gospels having been created during the reign of Vespasian and Titus i.e. sometime between 70 and 81.

You are placing Matthew around 100 A.D. at the earliest. I must admit I tend to agree with you as I find little evidence of the Gospels in the first century too. However the vast majority of scholars claim the first gospel was written as early as about 70, after the first Jewish War.

So now the ball is back in your court. You are coming up with a theory that places the Gospels later then what most scholars say. Please provide your evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 10:47 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  All of those things would be true if Christianity was not a Flavian plot. If you want to provide validity to a theory, you need to present evidence that shouldn't be true given the previously commonly excepted theory.

Please outline what you think the "previously commonly accepted theory" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing.

The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church. What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist.

(07-06-2014 11:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "3) Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written? If Titus commissioned it before he died, wouldn't that mean that Josephus and others would have been working on it starting some time around 81AD? If you are generous, the first writings of the gospel of matthew where published in 100AD and perhaps as late as 140AD. Why the time gap?"

Joseph published the Jewish War in 78 CE.

Atwill places the Gospels having been created during the reign of Vespasian and Titus i.e. sometime between 70 and 81.

You are placing Matthew around 100 A.D. at the earliest. I must admit I tend to agree with you as I find little evidence of the Gospels in the first century too. However the vast majority of scholars claim the first gospel was written as early as about 70, after the first Jewish War.

So now the ball is back in your court. You are coming up with a theory that places the Gospels later then what most scholars say. Please provide your evidence.

I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 12:45 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 11:51 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please outline what you think the "previously commonly accepted theory" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing.

The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church. What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist.

(07-06-2014 11:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "3) Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written? If Titus commissioned it before he died, wouldn't that mean that Josephus and others would have been working on it starting some time around 81AD? If you are generous, the first writings of the gospel of matthew where published in 100AD and perhaps as late as 140AD. Why the time gap?"

Joseph published the Jewish War in 78 CE.

Atwill places the Gospels having been created during the reign of Vespasian and Titus i.e. sometime between 70 and 81.

You are placing Matthew around 100 A.D. at the earliest. I must admit I tend to agree with you as I find little evidence of the Gospels in the first century too. However the vast majority of scholars claim the first gospel was written as early as about 70, after the first Jewish War.

So now the ball is back in your court. You are coming up with a theory that places the Gospels later then what most scholars say. Please provide your evidence.

I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?

"The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church."

"generally accepted" by whom?

Which 150 years? When did the 150 years start?

What church? There were literally hundreds of churches. Which writers? How did they know of a Jesus? What figures?

My point is that there is no "generally accepted theory"...unless of course, one just somehow believes the whole show got started by the disciples of Jesus (it didn't) and the books were written by the followers of Jesus (they weren't) and the Christian institutions that developed were the successors of Jesus (they weren't). This may be what credulous Christians, or Christians who haven't checked out the history believe, but it's not the story "generally accepted" by scholars.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 12:51 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 11:51 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please outline what you think the "previously commonly accepted theory" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing.

The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church. What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist.

(07-06-2014 11:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "3) Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written? If Titus commissioned it before he died, wouldn't that mean that Josephus and others would have been working on it starting some time around 81AD? If you are generous, the first writings of the gospel of matthew where published in 100AD and perhaps as late as 140AD. Why the time gap?"

Joseph published the Jewish War in 78 CE.

Atwill places the Gospels having been created during the reign of Vespasian and Titus i.e. sometime between 70 and 81.

You are placing Matthew around 100 A.D. at the earliest. I must admit I tend to agree with you as I find little evidence of the Gospels in the first century too. However the vast majority of scholars claim the first gospel was written as early as about 70, after the first Jewish War.

So now the ball is back in your court. You are coming up with a theory that places the Gospels later then what most scholars say. Please provide your evidence.

I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?

"I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?"

I think your question is

"Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written?"

That's what you're asking I assume. Well...Josephus wrote in the 70's, the first gospel was written in the 70's, so I'm not sure where you get "decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written" from. Perhaps I misunderstand you?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: