Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2014, 10:35 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.

"This keeps getting more and more conspiratorial with further lack of evidence." What about the evidence from Paul's letters I've documented?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 10:40 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.

"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."
.
I fail to see your point. Paul was supposedly a Pharisee. Yet he tried to change the central tenets of Judaism to make it more attractive for Gentiles. Do you agree?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 10:46 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 06:38 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  the video, if it leads you to the conclusion that Jesus never existed, is not something I would be sharing with others. it just makes you look like a gullible atheist who wants to have his demonstrably incorrect beliefs confirmed.


I think Atwill is a crackpot, however, that does not change the fact that there is no evidence that your godboy ever existed.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:13 AM
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.

"Another assumption you made is that Paul considered the Torah obsolete..."

Allow me to explain...
Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and “Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They knew there was no such thing as a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he used it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of it were redundant.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:21 AM
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.

"Heck he didn't even considered the Law obsolete either."

Um...yes he did....at times when it suited him. Allow me to explain....

According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was on the breakfast menu, with shellfish salad for lunch. He made the extraordinary claim that to obey the Roman government was to obey God. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He alleged Gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse,” and a type of “slavery.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born. Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced what he called the “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams, bending over backwards to infiltrate the old religion with Gentiles and pro-Roman ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new faith, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:34 AM
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.

"To say that Paul was not persecuted by the Gentiles is just pure fiction
(see 2 Cor 11)."

I've had a look at 2 Corinthians 11. Can't find any persecution by Gentiles there.

Why would "Gentiles" wish to persecute Paul?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:37 AM
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.

"Or that he was treated nicely by the Romans is just ludicrous."

Why do you say this? What evidence do you have that he was treated badly by "the Romans?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:39 AM
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.

"He was at times not treated nicely even by other fellow believers." Who are you referring to?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:41 AM
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.

"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."

Could you rephrase this for me? I'm having trouble understanding your point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 03:45 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 04:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

Which facts have been twisted?

Have you read the book?

Have you watched the video?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: