Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2014, 08:15 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2014 08:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
"Falsely signed letters" means the SIGNOR is purposely using someone else's name, in a purposeful attempt at deception by the SIGNATURE, nothing else. They were not, and it was a common practice. ... ie the "school" of the named signor. You're committing the Fallacy of Presentism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_...nalysis%29

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Mark how does Paul (as a supposed agent of Caesar) gt away with saying this:
"Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers (ἀρχόντων) of this age (αἰῶνος), who are doomed to pass away. (καταργουμένων, or coming to nothing)" 1 Cor 2:6

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 03:39 AM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2014 03:44 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(10-06-2014 05:57 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Show me the evidence you've considered the arguments seriously, and then I'll take some notice of you.

Mark, seriously mate. You sound like a Christian.

What can I tell you? I have been reading Roman history since the age of 16. I am now 50. I particularly enjoy Aemianus and Julian. Pliny was cool. Loved Dio.

Anyway. The burden of proof lays at your feet. I already sent Atwill packing when he came to us at Landover when I was administrator.

He has nothing. Personally, proving that Josephus wrote the NT would be awesome. But he does not appear to have done so.

If you are out to disprove the NT, you are wasting your life with Atwill. He is a crack pot trying to sell BS. I rate him up there with Ken Ham.

Life is short Mark. Use your time wisely.

Okay… that's interesting that you've studied so much Roman history. You say the burden of proof lies with me. Well go back and read my posts. I've written thousands and thousands of words. So far all you've said is that you disagree and that he has "nothing." Is that it from you? Can't you, um, at least, comment on something I've written? Or what Atwill has written?

By the way I'm not necessarily going to argue with you. I'll be very pleased if you can help me look at this from another angle. But to just stand on a platform criticising others doesn't achieve much unless you can back it up.

By the way, I don't get why you think I am trying to "disprove the new Testament." What is that supposed to mean?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 03:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2014 04:06 AM by John.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(10-06-2014 08:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Falsely signed letters" means the SIGNOR is purposely using someone else's name, in a purposeful attempt at deception by the SIGNATURE, nothing else. They were not, and it was a common practice. ... ie the "school" of the named signor. You're committing the Fallacy of Presentism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_...nalysis%29

Yes, that is what it means if you latch on to the literal meanings. And that is not what Mark meant in his post (correct me if I'm wrong, Mark), since there are a grand total of two letters in the NT where by any stretch of imagination "the SIGNOR is purposely using someone else's name, in a purposeful attempt at deception by the SIGNATURE", namely 2 Thessalonians and Colossians, both of which also happen to introduce themselves as the supposed signor in the prescript. Thus, Mark rather meant what I described in my previous post, that the letters purported to convey someone else's views by false introduction, which applies up to 10 letters (6 deutero paulines, james, jude, 1 & 2 peter).

And in any case, I'm still waiting for your references for whatever you think was the common practice. What "schools" are you talking about? What "teachers"? What "students"? And most importantly, what "letters"?

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 04:00 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(10-06-2014 09:05 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Mark how does Paul (as a supposed agent of Caesar) gt away with saying this:
"Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers (ἀρχόντων) of this age (αἰῶνος), who are doomed to pass away. (καταργουμένων, or coming to nothing)" 1 Cor 2:6

Mate....don't know the answer to that. I've had a good look at the passage in context.

I can tell you that I think Paul was very manipulative and frequently lied. He was frequently inconsistent… one of the reasons scholars spend useless hours trying to harmonise his ideas so they make sense. Some of what he wrote was interpolated nonsense from second century evangelicals.

Paul seems to be rabbeting on about the foolishness of men's wisdom as compared to God's...one of his repetitive themes. It wouldn't be beyond Paul to be lying about this.

The quotes I gave you that back up my idea that he was a Roman government agent are pretty consistent and clear.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(10-06-2014 05:57 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(10-06-2014 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Show me the evidence you've considered the arguments seriously, and then I'll take some notice of you.

Mark, seriously mate. You sound like a Christian.

What can I tell you? I have been reading Roman history since the age of 16. I am now 50. I particularly enjoy Aemianus and Julian. Pliny was cool. Loved Dio.

Anyway. The burden of proof lays at your feet. I already sent Atwill packing when he came to us at Landover when I was administrator.

He has nothing. Personally, proving that Josephus wrote the NT would be awesome. But he does not appear to have done so.

If you are out to disprove the NT, you are wasting your life with Atwill. He is a crack pot trying to sell BS. I rate him up there with Ken Ham.

Life is short Mark. Use your time wisely.

"I already sent Atwill packing when he came to us at Landover when I was administrator."

Please tell me more. What do you mean by this?

Have you read Atwill's book? Can you be more specific about why you find his theory so wrong?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Mark, I have a sincere question for you concerning the topic of the thread: What were the key factors that compelled you to hold your current views (about the involvement of the Roman government in the birth of Christianity)? I take it you haven't always held the views you now hold, so I'm curious as to what changed your perception. To give you something in comparison, for a long time I was compelled to think that Jesus was just an ordinary nobody who by a series of unmiraculous events turned into an obsession for some of his disciples/followers and the rest is history. This changed when it was pointed out to me that there's next to nothing about an earthly Jesus in the commonly held genuine letters of Paul, something that I hadn't noticed while reading the NT. When I read the letters again, whilst not taking for granted that they speak about Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels and subsequent works, I was compelled to think that Paul wasn't writing about someone who had lived for 30 years in Galilee before turning into a minister and getting himself killed shortly thereafter. That was an eye-opening moment. The second building block was the (ever growing) realization of how much of the Gospels' content is paralleled in the OT in the form of Moses, Elijah, the Book of Isaiah and Psalms (among others). The historicity of Jesus got undermined to the degree of agnosticism even if it were true. I'm wondering if you could give a similarish account of what made you think the way you think now.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 04:41 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(09-06-2014 03:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 12:12 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Everything you say supports Atwill's approach. If you find a book and all it has on it as the author's name is "Bob" and it is about flying men, then you assume it is not true, for a start.

If you then start to recognize some sort of ethical message in it and a story of the flying men which correspoinds to some other story you have read, the intelligent approach would be to examine the text itself and see if it is based on some other text, has some ideas in it which come from somewhere else, so you can figure out who wrote it and "why" they wrote it, what purpose it has. Beyond that, and certainly relying on it as accurate in any way is pure folly of the worst kind becaue you can't rely on any of it.

No one would take, for instance, anything like a gospel style piece of writing and present it as evidence in a court other than as evidence of itself, like a loaf of bread, rather than it's truth.

What happens in religious discussions is that "different rules" apply. People make them up as they go along or just don't have the sophistication to even understand what it is to say that one is able to "prove" anything by referring to a book whose author is unknown.

Atwill goes about as far as one can in showing that the book itself is just a fraud because it discloses patterns which show it is a plagiarism and fake. Until anyone can counter that, he presents the best evidence to date that the work is fiction. Whether it has some historical basis is another matter but there isn't any point trying to use it as a historical work because if it is a fiction then any of it or all of it can be invented including the names of the authors, dates, times, events. It may be a deliberately misleading piece of fiction in which those aspects which seem most reliable, like its setting in the time of Herrod are, in fact the most misleading.

"What happens in religious discussions is that "different rules" apply."

Good point. Evangelical types continually do this. In a couple of days I will be debating pastor Phil Fernandes on the topic "did Jesus rise from the dead" on radio in the USA. I've been listening to his podcasts and watching his debates. He commonly resorts to the tired old argument that we just must remember that the Bible is the word God… end of story. I've got a feeling I'm going to be repeatedly reminding him that you can't just do that and he's going to be replying that he can.

He rambles on about "hermeneutics" which as best I can work out is just the art of trying to make the Bible say what what you want it to say.

I got my months mixed up. The debate is on the 12th July....

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/healingxout...reasonable
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2014 02:11 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(11-06-2014 04:38 AM)John Wrote:  Mark, I have a sincere question for you concerning the topic of the thread: What were the key factors that compelled you to hold your current views (about the involvement of the Roman government in the birth of Christianity)? I take it you haven't always held the views you now hold, so I'm curious as to what changed your perception. To give you something in comparison, for a long time I was compelled to think that Jesus was just an ordinary nobody who by a series of unmiraculous events turned into an obsession for some of his disciples/followers and the rest is history. This changed when it was pointed out to me that there's next to nothing about an earthly Jesus in the commonly held genuine letters of Paul, something that I hadn't noticed while reading the NT. When I read the letters again, whilst not taking for granted that they speak about Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels and subsequent works, I was compelled to think that Paul wasn't writing about someone who had lived for 30 years in Galilee before turning into a minister and getting himself killed shortly thereafter. That was an eye-opening moment. The second building block was the (ever growing) realization of how much of the Gospels' content is paralleled in the OT in the form of Moses, Elijah, the Book of Isaiah and Psalms (among others). The historicity of Jesus got undermined to the degree of agnosticism even if it were true. I'm wondering if you could give a similarish account of what made you think the way you think now.

Hi John, thank you for your question.

I'll try to keep this answer brief and to the point. I've spent way too much good time trying to understand the history. This Jesus character, if he ever existed, must have been a Jew, not a Christian. His family and followers were Jews too. His very Jewish family continued to exist and lead a bunch of fundamentalist Jews called the Nazarenes for a few hundred years after Jesus' death.

If one reads the gospels with a critical eye it is very obvious that this Jesus character was a political insurgent who tried to start a war with Rome. He grew up in Galilee, an area with a long history of political upheaval against the Romans. He led a troop of young galilean men around the countryside, marched into Jerusalem, upset the tables in the temple, was arrested and crucified by the Romans. He has "zealot" written all over him. Yet in the gospels he is usually presented as a benign preacher who told people to love their enemies, forgive everyone, pay their taxes to Rome, and turn the other cheek. What balderdash!

The Jews, at least the common Jews, were brainwashed by priests. They thought they were God's chosen people and that they were really special. Yet here they were suffering from the burdens of landlessness, taxation and violence. They dreamed about the Messiah who would lead them in a battle against their Roman rulers and establish a kingdom of God on earth. They wanted to be what the Romans actually were... the people at the top of the pecking order.

So I think the Roman world invented the story of Jesus to convince the Jews that their Messiah had already been and gone and he wasn't a political King but some saviour of souls. I suspect they borrowed details of the real Jesus and reinvented his motives and his personality and his religion to suit themselves.

This was as best I can remember something I didn't read anywhere... it just grew in my mind. I found a number of other authors around the world that had the same suspicions and then I found Atwill who proposed how it was done.

I think the Flavians did invent "Jesus." I think Paul was working for the Roman government. As you so rightly point out, Paul knows bugger all about a flesh and blood Jesus… because he wrote before the Gospels. The gospels were written after the first Jewish war.

I think Marcion introduced Paul's writings to the catholic church in Rome in the 140s. I think Paul's Christ was then written into the Gospels. This could be why the original version of Mark (probably the first gospel to be written) didn't contain resurrection appearance of Jesus until much later in its life.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Paul was based on the character Saul who had foreskins delivered from David, but got his name changed to Paul (means "Tiny") after a gay sexual attack followed by--not just circumcision--but castration: "To the Jews I became a Jew .. To the weak I became impotent!"
http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/sevenseals.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: