Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2014, 02:18 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 02:31 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am most of the way through the "documentary". It is makes a lot of bold claims and doesn't really back that up with any kind of direct evidence or reasoning. It stands to reason that the romans could have benefited from a pacifist jewish sect, but the kind of subtly so very not roman. If they wanted people to worship them, they would have created a religion for it that said so. I find it hard to believe they created a messianic figure so that people could worship the Flavian caesars as a god and not even know it.

I did a bit of fact checking, and for the most part everything seems to be ok. They made a claim that Flavius Clement I was the first pope of Rome, which a little wikipedia shows to be absolutely false.

This is the fourth supposed pope the church, if you count saint peter. He was not related to the Flavians in any way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

And here is the guy they think was the same person. Same name, but lived a different time, indeed a Flavian, never a pope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

This is the one false hood I caught. I suspect there is probably more.

They also made some very strenuous comparisons to jesus christ and the prophets Elisha and Elijah. Claiming that the prophets did "food related miracles", which is true I guess, Elijah multiplied the oil a poor person had so she could sell it and pay a debt. They mention brings people back from the dead, which I don't remember, and Elisha allegedly ascended into heaven, which did happen but not quite the same way it did for jesus.

They did bring up some good points. Jesus has no physical description. The name Jesus Christ means "savior" and "messiah" in hebrew (although I think they say it was greek. meh)". In Mathew jesus predicts the fall of the temple, which either means jesus is magic, or that gospel was written after 73CE.

fall of the temple:
https://www.christiancourier.com/article...the-temple

fun reading:
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelp...yeshua.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

The bible was written in greek, not aramaic or hebrew. I did a little research, apparently Greek was just the prefered language for literate peoples at the time. Even portions of the old testament where either written or quoted in Greek.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp177.htm

So there is a strong case that jesus never existed, but not a strong case that it was a roman fabrication.

They also make comparisons to Horus and Krishna, which I have researched a bit and they don't seem to hold up very well. They dabble a bit in talking about the birth of jesus with winter solstice and the resurrection in spring, almost like they flirted with Zeitgeist a bit. They were trying to make the case that the jesus story is related to pagan myths. Its seemed to me to be a very weak case.

I have about thirty minutes of it left, but those are my observations so far. If you want to learn more about the history of Rome and Isreal at the time of jesus and in during the formation of the early church it can be enlightening, although told at a slant. I don't think it is making a very strong case for a Roman conceived christianity however, and there are at least a few blatant, out right false hoods, that I have caught at least.

RE "This is the one false hood I caught. I suspect there is probably more."

Ah...no. Atwill wasn't referring to Clement of Alexandria. This is from the Catholic encyclopaedia...

"Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul's fellow-labourer (Philippians 4:3), and so do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome — but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan. It is unlikely that he was a member of the imperial family."

Maybe Atwill knows more about "Pope Clement" than the encyclopaedia...I'm not sure.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 02:22 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 01:58 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 08:34 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  It was just awful scholarship to say the least.

How are they able to ignore St Paul? Seriously the Pauline 7 (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) are universally authentically attributed to St Paul and all dated before 70 CE. It's convenient for their thesis to ignore them, but also very dishonest.

Ignoring everything in Christian polemic, apologetic writings from Origen, Ireneaus and Tertullian also very convenient. Let alone Roman writers of the era.

Plus the voice of the female was just annoying.

Can I get my time back? Thanks

You make a good point about Paul. Atwilll really should have discussed Paul in his book.

I'll share with you my opinion. I suspect Paul was a Roman government agent. I think he was part of the governments' prewar (i.e. pre 66 CE) effort at undermining Judaism. Here is my reasoning.

There’s a fascinating angle to consider; that the Roman government was the driving force behind Paul’s pagan propaganda. Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, and he’d already been and gone, I think because he didn’t want Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic messiah who would challenge Roman rule. I strongly suspect the government employed Paul, because they wanted to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism. They were trying to stop a war.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse. All Jews in the Diaspora felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews didn’t assimilate well in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of their Palestinian connections. Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government couldn’t pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. They needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. They were frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. I think the government thought that if they could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

There might have been many “Pauls” working as government agents. One of the reasons I suspect this is that he wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it’s obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ. The government was worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role was to stop the spread of the subversive religion. He tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their messianic message. I suspect (but can’t prove) he passed information about them on to Roman authorities. His “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his modus operandi. This explains one reason why he wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the ethnocentric antisocial practices. His aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. He failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

This theory fits with the fact Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. It could be why he didn’t publically reveal he was Roman until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers. It would explain how he managed to support himself financially. It might also be why he hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery. It explains why he often insisted that the Torah was obsolete, and why he was like a dog gnawing at a bone promoting his own theology instead. It makes clear why he wrote this to a Roman community:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 KJV.) A government agent wrote this, not a Jesus fan who had seen the light!

It explains the way he finished off his letter to the Philippians:
“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.) This confirms that he had contact with the Emperor Nero’s family.

It fits with the fact the book of Acts states:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.) So the earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

It clarifies the real reason why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by traditional Jews nearly everywhere he went, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. It explains why once the local Roman authorities knew who he was and what he was up to, he was treated so well, despite the fact he so regularly disturbed the peace. Paul’s so called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem doesn’t mean he wasn’t in league with them. Things had got a little out of control and he ended up being a source of civil unrest. He’d become a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, he incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome didn’t want. The “arrest” was, in fact, for his own safety. Reading between the lines, he was never treated like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. He had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place his safety could be guaranteed.

We don’t hear from Paul after the early 60s. This could be because the anti-Jewish propaganda project hadn’t worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be bought in. He had become redundant. There is a Christian “tradition” he was executed in Rome, but no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence to say it did. (http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...ink.html).

If this theory is true, Paul was a spy and a charlatan; a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan. I’m not suggesting that he didn’t wholeheartedly believe in the value of what he was doing. If the project had been successful the first (66-70CE) and second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. I think he knew he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end.

This means Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist messiah.
Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” come to a similar conclusion. They postulate that Paul was “…supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other – worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”

Mark, I feel, with respect, that you are missing the point.

You seem to dismiss everything in Christianity as myth or invention. But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that? Why are you so stuck on this dating when there is no evidence of it or anyone resembling this story? Sure there were lots of rabbis...not one of them crucified etc. So, if you stick with your time, you are out on a limb and just arguing with all sorts of other people. Was it Apollonius, was it Simon Magnus? Who cares. It is irrelevant. When are you going to "get it". It does not matter one bit who or when it was, it is just a story.

You miss three key points. 1. Whoever wrote the NT, did not believe it either. 2. there may be some history of the Jewish Revolt which, at the very least, is interesting, which Atwill suggests has been "buried" and 3. the people who wrote the NT knowing Jesus of 33 AD was a fiction, had some philosophy which they wanted to impose, a peaceful one. Where did they get this from and what is at it's core?

Those to me are more important than going on and on about Christianity being mythical. Yes, ok, it is, we get it. Let's move on...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 02:25 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 02:31 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am most of the way through the "documentary". It is makes a lot of bold claims and doesn't really back that up with any kind of direct evidence or reasoning. It stands to reason that the romans could have benefited from a pacifist jewish sect, but the kind of subtly so very not roman. If they wanted people to worship them, they would have created a religion for it that said so. I find it hard to believe they created a messianic figure so that people could worship the Flavian caesars as a god and not even know it.

I did a bit of fact checking, and for the most part everything seems to be ok. They made a claim that Flavius Clement I was the first pope of Rome, which a little wikipedia shows to be absolutely false.

This is the fourth supposed pope the church, if you count saint peter. He was not related to the Flavians in any way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

And here is the guy they think was the same person. Same name, but lived a different time, indeed a Flavian, never a pope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

This is the one false hood I caught. I suspect there is probably more.

They also made some very strenuous comparisons to jesus christ and the prophets Elisha and Elijah. Claiming that the prophets did "food related miracles", which is true I guess, Elijah multiplied the oil a poor person had so she could sell it and pay a debt. They mention brings people back from the dead, which I don't remember, and Elisha allegedly ascended into heaven, which did happen but not quite the same way it did for jesus.

They did bring up some good points. Jesus has no physical description. The name Jesus Christ means "savior" and "messiah" in hebrew (although I think they say it was greek. meh)". In Mathew jesus predicts the fall of the temple, which either means jesus is magic, or that gospel was written after 73CE.

fall of the temple:
https://www.christiancourier.com/article...the-temple

fun reading:
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelp...yeshua.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

The bible was written in greek, not aramaic or hebrew. I did a little research, apparently Greek was just the prefered language for literate peoples at the time. Even portions of the old testament where either written or quoted in Greek.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp177.htm

So there is a strong case that jesus never existed, but not a strong case that it was a roman fabrication.

They also make comparisons to Horus and Krishna, which I have researched a bit and they don't seem to hold up very well. They dabble a bit in talking about the birth of jesus with winter solstice and the resurrection in spring, almost like they flirted with Zeitgeist a bit. They were trying to make the case that the jesus story is related to pagan myths. Its seemed to me to be a very weak case.

I have about thirty minutes of it left, but those are my observations so far. If you want to learn more about the history of Rome and Isreal at the time of jesus and in during the formation of the early church it can be enlightening, although told at a slant. I don't think it is making a very strong case for a Roman conceived christianity however, and there are at least a few blatant, out right false hoods, that I have caught at least.

Re..."They were trying to make the case that the jesus story is related to pagan myths. Its seemed to me to be a very weak case."

Maybe. Here's my spiel on this with some good links...

In the first four centuries CE, there was a huge trade network from Europe all the way to China. Goods were not the only commodities traded; philosophies, traditions and manuscripts were shared amongst the world’s people. Rome absorbed the gods of the provinces it conquered. By the end of the first century, there were so many foreign gods that almost every day of the year celebrated some divinity. Roman citizens were encouraged to give offerings to these gods to maintain the “Pax Deorum” (the peace of the gods.) These cults, including Christianity, vied with their contemporaries for supremacy, and borrowed ideas from each other. Gods who became men, sons of gods, births to virgin mothers on or near the 25th of December, baptisms, miracles, healings, deaths due to hanging on trees or crucifixion, risings from the dead, and belief being the basis for salvation, were all traditional themes. (http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1a.htm). Here are some examples.

Krishna, the central character of an Indian myth dating back to 1400 BCE, had his birth signaled by a star in the East and attended by angels and shepherds. His father was a carpenter. A tyrant slaughtered thousands of innocent infants to get the baby. Krishna survived and grew up to raise the dead and heal lepers, the deaf and the blind. He was killed around age 30 and the sun darkened. He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and became the second person of a trinity. Christianity has repeatedly failed to make any headway in India. One of the reasons is that many Indians have recognized it as an imitation of their own traditions. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm).

Buddhist monks travelled to Egypt, Greece and Asia Minor four centuries before Jesus. Buddha, traditionally said to have lived c 600 BCE, was born to the virgin Maya. A king threatened the baby’s life. He was baptized in water, taught in a temple at age 12, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a small basket, walked on water and taught the parable of the prodigal son. His followers were obliged to take vows of poverty and to renounce the world, sex and family. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/j_buddah.html).

Dionysis of Greece was born in a manger to a virgin on 25th December, performed miracles, turned water into wine, was eaten in a Eucharistic ritual, and in one version of events rose from the dead on March 25th.

Stories about Osiris of Egypt predate Christ by thousands of years. His birth was announced by 3 wise men. He was called the resurrection and the life and the Good Shepherd. He suffered, died and rose again. His flesh was eaten as wheat cakes. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm).

He had a son called Horus, (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm) whose birth was announced by a star in the east and attended by 3 wise men. He was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on the 25th December in a cave. At age 12 he was a teacher in a temple, then disappeared for 18 years, returned into circulation and was baptized at age 30. He had 12 disciples, exorcised demons, raised men from the dead, walked on water, delivered a sermon on the mount, was crucified between two thieves, and was buried for 3 days before he was resurrected from the dead.

There were many others, including Adduk and Marduk of Assyria, Adonis, Aesclepius, Apollo, Hercules and Zeus of Greece, Alcides of Thebes, Hermes of Greece/Egypt, Issa of Arabia, Jupiter of Rome and Serapis of Egypt who had striking similarities to the Christian mythology.

Jesus had to be distinguished from these other gods, so the church fathers (and John’s Gospel) made a big deal out of how he came “in the flesh.” They then derided other gods as mythical.

It’s obvious that what became the Christian faith was a heady, plagiarized mix of Judaic, Mithraic, and other pagan myths. The existence of all these characters, sharing so many characteristics, constitutes an ancient universal mythos that’s been hidden from everyday Christians.

References:
Atwill, Joseph “Caesar’s Messiah”
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html
http://mlkkpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/k...mber_1949/
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/scriptures...mithra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development...ible_canon
http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion...mithra.htm
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/...anity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...istianity/
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/churches.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U1Grl4HSRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1IfFMoIZQ
http://www.egodeath.com/bensonmysteryrels.htm
http://department.monm.edu/classics/cour...ropattern/
http://fuzzyquark.comxa.com/original.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRKhZ81aqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lGG1fgSkl4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJk_nBNqejg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gELzYupzXs
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 02:36 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
I believe Carrier got into a small blogging war with him.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2014 03:00 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 02:22 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 01:58 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You make a good point about Paul. Atwilll really should have discussed Paul in his book.

I'll share with you my opinion. I suspect Paul was a Roman government agent. I think he was part of the governments' prewar (i.e. pre 66 CE) effort at undermining Judaism. Here is my reasoning.

There’s a fascinating angle to consider; that the Roman government was the driving force behind Paul’s pagan propaganda. Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, and he’d already been and gone, I think because he didn’t want Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic messiah who would challenge Roman rule. I strongly suspect the government employed Paul, because they wanted to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism. They were trying to stop a war.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse. All Jews in the Diaspora felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews didn’t assimilate well in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of their Palestinian connections. Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government couldn’t pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. They needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. They were frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. I think the government thought that if they could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

There might have been many “Pauls” working as government agents. One of the reasons I suspect this is that he wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it’s obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ. The government was worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role was to stop the spread of the subversive religion. He tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their messianic message. I suspect (but can’t prove) he passed information about them on to Roman authorities. His “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his modus operandi. This explains one reason why he wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the ethnocentric antisocial practices. His aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. He failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

This theory fits with the fact Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. It could be why he didn’t publically reveal he was Roman until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers. It would explain how he managed to support himself financially. It might also be why he hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery. It explains why he often insisted that the Torah was obsolete, and why he was like a dog gnawing at a bone promoting his own theology instead. It makes clear why he wrote this to a Roman community:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 KJV.) A government agent wrote this, not a Jesus fan who had seen the light!

It explains the way he finished off his letter to the Philippians:
“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.) This confirms that he had contact with the Emperor Nero’s family.

It fits with the fact the book of Acts states:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.) So the earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

It clarifies the real reason why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by traditional Jews nearly everywhere he went, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. It explains why once the local Roman authorities knew who he was and what he was up to, he was treated so well, despite the fact he so regularly disturbed the peace. Paul’s so called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem doesn’t mean he wasn’t in league with them. Things had got a little out of control and he ended up being a source of civil unrest. He’d become a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, he incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome didn’t want. The “arrest” was, in fact, for his own safety. Reading between the lines, he was never treated like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. He had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place his safety could be guaranteed.

We don’t hear from Paul after the early 60s. This could be because the anti-Jewish propaganda project hadn’t worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be bought in. He had become redundant. There is a Christian “tradition” he was executed in Rome, but no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence to say it did. (http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...ink.html).

If this theory is true, Paul was a spy and a charlatan; a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan. I’m not suggesting that he didn’t wholeheartedly believe in the value of what he was doing. If the project had been successful the first (66-70CE) and second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. I think he knew he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end.

This means Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist messiah.
Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” come to a similar conclusion. They postulate that Paul was “…supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other – worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”

Mark, I feel, with respect, that you are missing the point.

You seem to dismiss everything in Christianity as myth or invention. But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that? Why are you so stuck on this dating when there is no evidence of it or anyone resembling this story? Sure there were lots of rabbis...not one of them crucified etc. So, if you stick with your time, you are out on a limb and just arguing with all sorts of other people. Was it Apollonius, was it Simon Magnus? Who cares. It is irrelevant. When are you going to "get it". It does not matter one bit who or when it was, it is just a story.

You miss three key points. 1. Whoever wrote the NT, did not believe it either. 2. there may be some history of the Jewish Revolt which, at the very least, is interesting, which Atwill suggests has been "buried" and 3. the people who wrote the NT knowing Jesus of 33 AD was a fiction, had some philosophy which they wanted to impose, a peaceful one. Where did they get this from and what is at it's core?

Those to me are more important than going on and on about Christianity being mythical. Yes, ok, it is, we get it. Let's move on...

Re "But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so."

Ah...no I don't. The following is lifted directly from my book...

Did Yeshua Exist?

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).
Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...&letter=P)
.
We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.
What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet nothing about Jesus. Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:
“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen plus years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars, and I, suspect this refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the “church fathers,” (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If he’d preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that I think fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 02:56 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 02:22 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 01:58 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You make a good point about Paul. Atwilll really should have discussed Paul in his book.

I'll share with you my opinion. I suspect Paul was a Roman government agent. I think he was part of the governments' prewar (i.e. pre 66 CE) effort at undermining Judaism. Here is my reasoning.

There’s a fascinating angle to consider; that the Roman government was the driving force behind Paul’s pagan propaganda. Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, and he’d already been and gone, I think because he didn’t want Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic messiah who would challenge Roman rule. I strongly suspect the government employed Paul, because they wanted to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism. They were trying to stop a war.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse. All Jews in the Diaspora felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews didn’t assimilate well in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of their Palestinian connections. Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government couldn’t pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. They needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. They were frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. I think the government thought that if they could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

There might have been many “Pauls” working as government agents. One of the reasons I suspect this is that he wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it’s obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ. The government was worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role was to stop the spread of the subversive religion. He tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their messianic message. I suspect (but can’t prove) he passed information about them on to Roman authorities. His “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his modus operandi. This explains one reason why he wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the ethnocentric antisocial practices. His aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. He failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

This theory fits with the fact Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. It could be why he didn’t publically reveal he was Roman until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers. It would explain how he managed to support himself financially. It might also be why he hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery. It explains why he often insisted that the Torah was obsolete, and why he was like a dog gnawing at a bone promoting his own theology instead. It makes clear why he wrote this to a Roman community:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 KJV.) A government agent wrote this, not a Jesus fan who had seen the light!

It explains the way he finished off his letter to the Philippians:
“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.) This confirms that he had contact with the Emperor Nero’s family.

It fits with the fact the book of Acts states:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.) So the earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

It clarifies the real reason why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by traditional Jews nearly everywhere he went, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. It explains why once the local Roman authorities knew who he was and what he was up to, he was treated so well, despite the fact he so regularly disturbed the peace. Paul’s so called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem doesn’t mean he wasn’t in league with them. Things had got a little out of control and he ended up being a source of civil unrest. He’d become a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, he incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome didn’t want. The “arrest” was, in fact, for his own safety. Reading between the lines, he was never treated like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. He had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place his safety could be guaranteed.

We don’t hear from Paul after the early 60s. This could be because the anti-Jewish propaganda project hadn’t worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be bought in. He had become redundant. There is a Christian “tradition” he was executed in Rome, but no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence to say it did. (http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...ink.html).

If this theory is true, Paul was a spy and a charlatan; a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan. I’m not suggesting that he didn’t wholeheartedly believe in the value of what he was doing. If the project had been successful the first (66-70CE) and second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. I think he knew he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end.

This means Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist messiah.
Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” come to a similar conclusion. They postulate that Paul was “…supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other – worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”

Mark, I feel, with respect, that you are missing the point.

You seem to dismiss everything in Christianity as myth or invention. But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that? Why are you so stuck on this dating when there is no evidence of it or anyone resembling this story? Sure there were lots of rabbis...not one of them crucified etc. So, if you stick with your time, you are out on a limb and just arguing with all sorts of other people. Was it Apollonius, was it Simon Magnus? Who cares. It is irrelevant. When are you going to "get it". It does not matter one bit who or when it was, it is just a story.

You miss three key points. 1. Whoever wrote the NT, did not believe it either. 2. there may be some history of the Jewish Revolt which, at the very least, is interesting, which Atwill suggests has been "buried" and 3. the people who wrote the NT knowing Jesus of 33 AD was a fiction, had some philosophy which they wanted to impose, a peaceful one. Where did they get this from and what is at it's core?

Those to me are more important than going on and on about Christianity being mythical. Yes, ok, it is, we get it. Let's move on...

Re "But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that?"

1. because Josephus dates John the Baptist's execution to A.D. 27, and Jesus took over the leadership of the messianic movement after John's death
2. because Paul, who wrote in the 50s and early 60s, talks about meeting James the brother of Jesus, and Peter and John, the disciples of Jesus.
3. because James the brother of Jesus is mentioned by number of sources as taking over the leadership of the Nazarenes after Jesus' death. James is known to have died in 62 CE. (A number of sources, including Josephus, confirm this).

By the way I don't think this is set in stone. Jesus may be entirely mythical or he may be based on a character from the 60s. I just happen to think that most of the evidence points towards him dying in the 30s.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 03:14 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 02:22 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 01:58 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You make a good point about Paul. Atwilll really should have discussed Paul in his book.

I'll share with you my opinion. I suspect Paul was a Roman government agent. I think he was part of the governments' prewar (i.e. pre 66 CE) effort at undermining Judaism. Here is my reasoning.

There’s a fascinating angle to consider; that the Roman government was the driving force behind Paul’s pagan propaganda. Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, and he’d already been and gone, I think because he didn’t want Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic messiah who would challenge Roman rule. I strongly suspect the government employed Paul, because they wanted to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism. They were trying to stop a war.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse. All Jews in the Diaspora felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews didn’t assimilate well in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of their Palestinian connections. Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government couldn’t pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. They needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. They were frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. I think the government thought that if they could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

There might have been many “Pauls” working as government agents. One of the reasons I suspect this is that he wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it’s obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ. The government was worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role was to stop the spread of the subversive religion. He tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their messianic message. I suspect (but can’t prove) he passed information about them on to Roman authorities. His “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his modus operandi. This explains one reason why he wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the ethnocentric antisocial practices. His aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. He failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

This theory fits with the fact Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. It could be why he didn’t publically reveal he was Roman until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers. It would explain how he managed to support himself financially. It might also be why he hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery. It explains why he often insisted that the Torah was obsolete, and why he was like a dog gnawing at a bone promoting his own theology instead. It makes clear why he wrote this to a Roman community:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 KJV.) A government agent wrote this, not a Jesus fan who had seen the light!

It explains the way he finished off his letter to the Philippians:
“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.) This confirms that he had contact with the Emperor Nero’s family.

It fits with the fact the book of Acts states:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.) So the earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

It clarifies the real reason why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by traditional Jews nearly everywhere he went, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. It explains why once the local Roman authorities knew who he was and what he was up to, he was treated so well, despite the fact he so regularly disturbed the peace. Paul’s so called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem doesn’t mean he wasn’t in league with them. Things had got a little out of control and he ended up being a source of civil unrest. He’d become a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, he incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome didn’t want. The “arrest” was, in fact, for his own safety. Reading between the lines, he was never treated like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. He had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place his safety could be guaranteed.

We don’t hear from Paul after the early 60s. This could be because the anti-Jewish propaganda project hadn’t worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be bought in. He had become redundant. There is a Christian “tradition” he was executed in Rome, but no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence to say it did. (http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...ink.html).

If this theory is true, Paul was a spy and a charlatan; a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan. I’m not suggesting that he didn’t wholeheartedly believe in the value of what he was doing. If the project had been successful the first (66-70CE) and second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. I think he knew he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end.

This means Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist messiah.
Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” come to a similar conclusion. They postulate that Paul was “…supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other – worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”

Mark, I feel, with respect, that you are missing the point.

You seem to dismiss everything in Christianity as myth or invention. But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that? Why are you so stuck on this dating when there is no evidence of it or anyone resembling this story? Sure there were lots of rabbis...not one of them crucified etc. So, if you stick with your time, you are out on a limb and just arguing with all sorts of other people. Was it Apollonius, was it Simon Magnus? Who cares. It is irrelevant. When are you going to "get it". It does not matter one bit who or when it was, it is just a story.

You miss three key points. 1. Whoever wrote the NT, did not believe it either. 2. there may be some history of the Jewish Revolt which, at the very least, is interesting, which Atwill suggests has been "buried" and 3. the people who wrote the NT knowing Jesus of 33 AD was a fiction, had some philosophy which they wanted to impose, a peaceful one. Where did they get this from and what is at it's core?

Those to me are more important than going on and on about Christianity being mythical. Yes, ok, it is, we get it. Let's move on...

"1. Whoever wrote the NT, did not believe it either."

AGREED

"2. there may be some history of the Jewish Revolt which, at the very least, is interesting, which Atwill suggests has been "buried" "

AGREED

"and 3. the people who wrote the NT knowing Jesus of 33 AD was a fiction,"

AGREED.

"... some philosophy which they wanted to impose, a peaceful one."

YEAH, some of the time

"Where did they get this from and what is at it's core?"

I don't actually care where they got it from. The so-called philosophy in the new Testament is absolute nonsense. It's a total mishmash of ideas from other cults, Judaism, and some Greek philosophy. A lot of it originated in Paul's fertile imagination... and he was just an embarrassment.

"Those to me are more important"

good luck to you if you think the rubbish in the New Testament is important. For me, I fail to see how nonsense has any intrinsic value.

"than going on and on about Christianity being mythical. Yes, ok, it is, we get it."

I'm glad you do. The important point here is that the bloody Christians don't. They think it's real and true and they are fucking around with my world and polluting children's thinking.

"Let's move on..." To what? Discussing fucking logos? Count me out.
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
03-06-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 02:31 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am most of the way through the "documentary". It is makes a lot of bold claims and doesn't really back that up with any kind of direct evidence or reasoning. It stands to reason that the romans could have benefited from a pacifist jewish sect, but the kind of subtly so very not roman. If they wanted people to worship them, they would have created a religion for it that said so. I find it hard to believe they created a messianic figure so that people could worship the Flavian caesars as a god and not even know it.

I did a bit of fact checking, and for the most part everything seems to be ok. They made a claim that Flavius Clement I was the first pope of Rome, which a little wikipedia shows to be absolutely false.

This is the fourth supposed pope the church, if you count saint peter. He was not related to the Flavians in any way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

And here is the guy they think was the same person. Same name, but lived a different time, indeed a Flavian, never a pope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

This is the one false hood I caught. I suspect there is probably more.

They also made some very strenuous comparisons to jesus christ and the prophets Elisha and Elijah. Claiming that the prophets did "food related miracles", which is true I guess, Elijah multiplied the oil a poor person had so she could sell it and pay a debt. They mention brings people back from the dead, which I don't remember, and Elisha allegedly ascended into heaven, which did happen but not quite the same way it did for jesus.

They did bring up some good points. Jesus has no physical description. The name Jesus Christ means "savior" and "messiah" in hebrew (although I think they say it was greek. meh)". In Mathew jesus predicts the fall of the temple, which either means jesus is magic, or that gospel was written after 73CE.

fall of the temple:
https://www.christiancourier.com/article...the-temple

fun reading:
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelp...yeshua.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

The bible was written in greek, not aramaic or hebrew. I did a little research, apparently Greek was just the prefered language for literate peoples at the time. Even portions of the old testament where either written or quoted in Greek.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp177.htm

So there is a strong case that jesus never existed, but not a strong case that it was a roman fabrication.

They also make comparisons to Horus and Krishna, which I have researched a bit and they don't seem to hold up very well. They dabble a bit in talking about the birth of jesus with winter solstice and the resurrection in spring, almost like they flirted with Zeitgeist a bit. They were trying to make the case that the jesus story is related to pagan myths. Its seemed to me to be a very weak case.

I have about thirty minutes of it left, but those are my observations so far. If you want to learn more about the history of Rome and Isreal at the time of jesus and in during the formation of the early church it can be enlightening, although told at a slant. I don't think it is making a very strong case for a Roman conceived christianity however, and there are at least a few blatant, out right false hoods, that I have caught at least.

Have you watched the last 30 minutes yet?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 02:22 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Mark, I feel, with respect, that you are missing the point.

You seem to dismiss everything in Christianity as myth or invention. But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that? Why are you so stuck on this dating when there is no evidence of it or anyone resembling this story? Sure there were lots of rabbis...not one of them crucified etc. So, if you stick with your time, you are out on a limb and just arguing with all sorts of other people. Was it Apollonius, was it Simon Magnus? Who cares. It is irrelevant. When are you going to "get it". It does not matter one bit who or when it was, it is just a story.

You miss three key points. 1. Whoever wrote the NT, did not believe it either. 2. there may be some history of the Jewish Revolt which, at the very least, is interesting, which Atwill suggests has been "buried" and 3. the people who wrote the NT knowing Jesus of 33 AD was a fiction, had some philosophy which they wanted to impose, a peaceful one. Where did they get this from and what is at it's core?

Those to me are more important than going on and on about Christianity being mythical. Yes, ok, it is, we get it. Let's move on...

Re "But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that?"

1. because Josephus dates John the Baptist's execution to A.D. 27, and Jesus took over the leadership of the messianic movement after John's death
2. because Paul, who wrote in the 50s and early 60s, talks about meeting James the brother of Jesus, and Peter and John, the disciples of Jesus.
3. because James the brother of Jesus is mentioned by number of sources as taking over the leadership of the Nazarenes after Jesus' death. James is known to have died in 62 CE. (A number of sources, including Josephus, confirm this).

By the way I don't think this is set in stone. Jesus may be entirely mythical or he may be based on a character from the 60s. I just happen to think that most of the evidence points towards him dying in the 30s.

Funny thing though, paul gets pretty much every detail about Nazareth wrong. In fact, according to to the archaeology there, Nazareth probably didn't exist during the time of Jesus.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
03-06-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 03:27 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "But, you hang on to the timing of Jesus as though it has to be, "must be" someone from 30 AD or so. Why is that?"

1. because Josephus dates John the Baptist's execution to A.D. 27, and Jesus took over the leadership of the messianic movement after John's death
2. because Paul, who wrote in the 50s and early 60s, talks about meeting James the brother of Jesus, and Peter and John, the disciples of Jesus.
3. because James the brother of Jesus is mentioned by number of sources as taking over the leadership of the Nazarenes after Jesus' death. James is known to have died in 62 CE. (A number of sources, including Josephus, confirm this).

By the way I don't think this is set in stone. Jesus may be entirely mythical or he may be based on a character from the 60s. I just happen to think that most of the evidence points towards him dying in the 30s.

Funny thing though, paul gets pretty much every detail about Nazareth wrong. In fact, according to to the archaeology there, Nazareth probably didn't exist during the time of Jesus.




Does Paul mention Nazareth?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: