Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2014, 03:46 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2014 03:50 AM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 03:34 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 03:27 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  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?

I don't know. It might have only been mentioned in the gospels. I assumed that if paul claimed to meet people who new jesus he would have met them there.

EDIT: No he didn't. You can disregard if you like. The gospels written by paul say almost nothing about jesus except that he was the messiah and that he died and came back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 04:17 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 06:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Peter was never a "pope". That was clearly invented later. Neither was he ever a "bishop" in Rome. That role did not even exist in his lifetime. There is no reason to accept the RCC "papal listing" as real, without external evidence. A listing in Wiki is not evidence. The assumption of primacy of (a) central Roman seat of Christianity is one of the disturbing things here. We know it existed in many communities, some very important ones, in various other forms, not just the Roman version.
A couple other things are interesting, to me. We know for a fact that Josephus' *history* was an attempt to portray/validate Vespasian as the messiah. The messiah was to be "the anointed one" ... ie a real historical KING in the Davidic line, (anointed as KING of the Jews), who would lead them out of real political historical bondage from their occupiers. That was the role of a "messiah". Not all Jews were apocalyptics however. (See : How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee of Dr. Bart Ehrman). Josephus was not some sort of "objective Jewish observer" which many Christians seem to want to hold to. The "literary" typology of the gospels is correct, (and Carrier would agree with that), in it's archetypical form (as "mythology"), which Carrier has demonstrated. The thing that makes me uneasy here, is this video never mentions the HUNDREDS of other gospels we know were circulating. Did Rome invent them all ? I like that it mentions Philo, as his Jesus is disturbingly similar, (a "divine figure ... which does not mean *equivalent* divine status as Yahweh), dies for sins, (out in space somewhere), rose form the dead etc, and most of all, I like that it mentions the "war zone" which is totally forgotten today when people think about the era. Jerusalem was OCCUPIED, and the Jews HATED that. In general the factions of the Jews in the 4 canonical gospels do portray the waring factions of Jewish authorities as inept fools, and the Jesus group as somehow "other", (even though we know they were really and only a sub-sect in Judaism, at least in Palestine, for many years.)

BTW, I still want to know why the arch of Titus fails to show the Arc of the Covenant, (which would have been removed from the temple in Jerusalem). If there really was one of those in the Temple in Jerusalem, surely they would have used it. It is not displayed on the Arch. (There is a box, and we know what that is, but it's not the Arc). If there was an arc, they would have displayed it. I know no one was actually allowed into the Holy of Holies, except the High Priest, once a year. Something stinks there.

The philosophical underpinnings of Christianity seem to be more in line with Zoroastrian Mithraism than anything else, (to me), and this video seems to ignore the writings of Saul of Tarsus, which in many ways support what they are saying, and could be used, but don't. Tarsus was an important seat of Mithraism. But I haven't watched the whole thing yet. It seems to have some elements of truth in it. Some nuances I disagree with. I'll try to go through it again and make a list.

"The thing that makes me uneasy here, is this video never mentions the HUNDREDS of other gospels we know were circulating."

Very good point. Atwill really should have tried to address this. This is how I see it....

Atwill doesn’t explain the proliferation of dozens of now apocryphal gospels in the second century, or the success of Marcion and the Gnostics, but the reality is that any commentary about this, from anyone, is to a large degree guesswork. I’ll have a guess and say that these versions of Christianity also originated from the government for the same reason, but were pre Flavian and therefore pre-Gospel (although Marcion himself did use a version of Luke, but Marcion only appeared in the 140’s.) These cults were very much influenced by Paul.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 04:45 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
I posit this for anyone's comment (except yours Jeremy)...

Josephus writes of a starving Jewish woman, named Mary, trapped inside Jerusalem during the war, who, in desperation eats her own child:
“There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the house of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time... What she had treasured up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose... but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food, while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; ... She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, “O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews.” As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight, when she said to them, “This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice, as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for me also.” After which those men went out trembling, being never so much frightened at any thing as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6, 3, 201-212.)

Atwill thinks this is a lampoon of Christ, whose mother was Mary, and whose body is literally eaten by Christians. Josephus is not just ridiculing Christ, but saying that he is a myth intended to “complete” the calamities of the Jews by making a mockery of their religion by creating the Christ, a “by-word to the world.” It fits with the idea Christianity was created to promote anti-Semitism, and that some Jews, the seditious rogues, rejected Christ. I find this convincing, as I can think of no other sensible explanation for the phrasing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 02:25 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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

Oh, conspiracy theorists supporting conspiracy theorists. Ohmy What a surprise. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 08:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 02:25 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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

Oh, conspiracy theorists supporting conspiracy theorists. Ohmy What a surprise. Drinking Beverage

Have you watched the documentary yet?

What is your opinion on why the gospels and Christianity was created?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 12:10 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This is compulsory viewing in my opinion.

Please watch it before it's taken off youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlDa7ObXNdw

It is supposition and twisting of facts, unsupported by hard evidence. In short, a conspiracy theory.

It falls short of ralphellis-level absurdity, but it doesn't come within hailing distance of credible.

Many religions have been started, and we know how some of them came about.
There is nothing special about Christianity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-06-2014, 05:11 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 02:25 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 02:31 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  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.

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.

That's all bull honkey and you should know better.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(02-06-2014 04:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 06:22 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Dodgy Fucking black hebrew israelites.

You're doing what now? o.O

Very funny. The video is made by a black hebrew israelite. It is better if you don't know who hey are. Dodgy

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(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.”

Very fancy theory, now Nero is involved in the myth of Jesus too? This keeps getting more and more conspiratorial with further lack of evidence. It does say something when you take Paul's letters out of context and for some reason rely on the author of the third gospel for a correct biography of Paul. However I'll take your points one at a time.

The reason that Paul disliked Phariseism was due to theological reasons. He blows things like circumcision out of proportion because of the implications they raise in regards to the atonement (Gal 3:1-5:12, Romans 4, Phil 3:1-14) not because of any other documented reason ever.

Another assumption you made is that Paul considered the Torah obsolete, considering he uses a lot of Genesis in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians to support his theology. Heck he didn't even considered the Law obsolete either. Just antithetical to 'dikaiosis' yet still valid and still in effect (even including circumcision) in many cases particularly in Rom 1:32, Rom 2:1-3:31.

I don't know how "although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them"(Rom 1:32) is a watered down version of Judaism but maybe we have different definitions.

To say that Paul was not persecuted by the Gentiles is just pure fiction (see 2 Cor 11). Or that he was treated nicely by the Romans is just ludicrous. He was at times not treated nicely even by other fellow believers.

The Romans 13 passage is really the closest thing you have to making your case. It is however in line with Paul's thinking of obedience and a hierarchical authority in the cosmic scale: "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor 11:3.

But then if you think Paul is completely dishonest as part of a master plan to dissuade Jews from becoming militant. No historical record will mean anything especially from his own hand.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
03-06-2014, 10:33 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 07:29 PM)djkamilo 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.”

Very fancy theory, now Nero is involved in the myth of Jesus too? This keeps getting more and more conspiratorial with further lack of evidence. It does say something when you take Paul's letters out of context and for some reason rely on the author of the third gospel for a correct biography of Paul. However I'll take your points one at a time.

The reason that Paul disliked Phariseism was due to theological reasons. He blows things like circumcision out of proportion because of the implications they raise in regards to the atonement (Gal 3:1-5:12, Romans 4, Phil 3:1-14) not because of any other documented reason ever.

Another assumption you made is that Paul considered the Torah obsolete, considering he uses a lot of Genesis in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians to support his theology. Heck he didn't even considered the Law obsolete either. Just antithetical to 'dikaiosis' yet still valid and still in effect (even including circumcision) in many cases particularly in Rom 1:32, Rom 2:1-3:31.

I don't know how "although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them"(Rom 1:32) is a watered down version of Judaism but maybe we have different definitions.

To say that Paul was not persecuted by the Gentiles is just pure fiction (see 2 Cor 11). Or that he was treated nicely by the Romans is just ludicrous. He was at times not treated nicely even by other fellow believers.

The Romans 13 passage is really the closest thing you have to making your case. It is however in line with Paul's thinking of obedience and a hierarchical authority in the cosmic scale: "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor 11:3.

But then if you think Paul is completely dishonest as part of a master plan to dissuade Jews from becoming militant. No historical record will mean anything especially from his own hand.

"Very fancy theory, now Nero is involved in the myth of Jesus too?"

Yes. I think the government was trying to stop a war. Paul was part of the pre-war propaganda. The gospels were the Flavian effort after the war. I don't, however, think Paul's Christ was the Jeebus we know from the gospels.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: