Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2014, 07:36 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2014 07:51 PM by djkamilo.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 10:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.

Do you understand the magnitude if the stretch of your theory on top of the one from the YouTube video?

It requires for the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Flavian dynasty to work postmortum in one conspiracy theory in common to repress an insignificant people group not half as dangerous as the Carthaginians or the Parthians. Even the film admits that the Jesus story cannot be linked to the pre Flavian Caesars now you say it can be in some alternative universe.

Many people don't get the contextual and historical significance of Paul holding to the credal affirmation of "κύριος Ἰησοῦς" ('kurios iesous' or Lord Jesus in English) that Paul repeats again and again (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11 among others). Josephus says in The Jewish Wars (7.10.1) that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor or someone else κύριος because they equated the term κύριος in Greek with אֲדֹנָי in Hebrew which was reserved for God. The term itself was a political and legal term to describe dominion which only Caesar legitimately held. Anyone using the term for another person and refusing it to Caesar was perceived as violating the Leges Maiestatis and guilty of treason against Caesar.

As a matter of fact in Romans 13 which you quoted sometime ago Paul refers to those in governmental authority (ἐξουσίαν) as servants (διάκονός and λειτουργός) of God, the very antithesis of κύριος or Lord which is a Pauline term only reserved for Jesus in his letters. This just doesn't fit your theory I'm sorry to say.

“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
06-06-2014, 02:06 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(05-06-2014 07:36 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 10:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.

Do you understand the magnitude if the stretch of your theory on top of the one from the YouTube video?

It requires for the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Flavian dynasty to work postmortum in one conspiracy theory in common to repress an insignificant people group not half as dangerous as the Carthaginians or the Parthians. Even the film admits that the Jesus story cannot be linked to the pre Flavian Caesars now you say it can be in some alternative universe.

Many people don't get the contextual and historical significance of Paul holding to the credal affirmation of "κύριος Ἰησοῦς" ('kurios iesous' or Lord Jesus in English) that Paul repeats again and again (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11 among others). Josephus says in The Jewish Wars (7.10.1) that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor or someone else κύριος because they equated the term κύριος in Greek with אֲדֹנָי in Hebrew which was reserved for God. The term itself was a political and legal term to describe dominion which only Caesar legitimately held. Anyone using the term for another person and refusing it to Caesar was perceived as violating the Leges Maiestatis and guilty of treason against Caesar.

As a matter of fact in Romans 13 which you quoted sometime ago Paul refers to those in governmental authority (ἐξουσίαν) as servants (διάκονός and λειτουργός) of God, the very antithesis of κύριος or Lord which is a Pauline term only reserved for Jesus in his letters. This just doesn't fit your theory I'm sorry to say.

It's not just "my" theory. 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.” Many other commentators have reached similar conclusions.

I don't think the theory that the Roman government created Christianity, in itself, is that far-fetched. It is big in the sense that it means that the entire basis of Christianity is fraudulent. Do you agree?

The Jews were not an insignificant group. Roughly 10% of the people in the Roman Empire were Jewish. What makes you say they were insignificant? In the first Jewish War there were roughly 150,000 people in the Roman army that marched into Palestine. From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 02:19 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 07:36 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Do you understand the magnitude if the stretch of your theory on top of the one from the YouTube video?

It requires for the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Flavian dynasty to work postmortum in one conspiracy theory in common to repress an insignificant people group not half as dangerous as the Carthaginians or the Parthians. Even the film admits that the Jesus story cannot be linked to the pre Flavian Caesars now you say it can be in some alternative universe.

Many people don't get the contextual and historical significance of Paul holding to the credal affirmation of "κύριος Ἰησοῦς" ('kurios iesous' or Lord Jesus in English) that Paul repeats again and again (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11 among others). Josephus says in The Jewish Wars (7.10.1) that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor or someone else κύριος because they equated the term κύριος in Greek with אֲדֹנָי in Hebrew which was reserved for God. The term itself was a political and legal term to describe dominion which only Caesar legitimately held. Anyone using the term for another person and refusing it to Caesar was perceived as violating the Leges Maiestatis and guilty of treason against Caesar.

As a matter of fact in Romans 13 which you quoted sometime ago Paul refers to those in governmental authority (ἐξουσίαν) as servants (διάκονός and λειτουργός) of God, the very antithesis of κύριος or Lord which is a Pauline term only reserved for Jesus in his letters. This just doesn't fit your theory I'm sorry to say.

It's not just "my" theory. 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.” Many other commentators have reached similar conclusions.

I don't think the theory that the Roman government created Christianity, in itself, is that far-fetched. It is big in the sense that it means that the entire basis of Christianity is fraudulent. Do you agree?

The Jews were not an insignificant group. Roughly 10% of the people in the Roman Empire were Jewish. What makes you say they were insignificant? In the first Jewish War there were roughly 150,000 people in the Roman army that marched into Palestine. From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.

You could say much the same things about the Celts in Britannia. The Romans handled them the same way they handled Isreal; brute crushing force. Take their towns and kills their leaders. The Romans where not a subtle people. If this was their tactic then it didn't work very well. Very few Jews from Isreal proscribed to Christianity, the majority of the followers lived some place else.

It should also be noted that the new testament is not so much pro roman as anti temple jewish. The bad guys in the Jesus myths are rich people and the priestly aristocracy. The Romans just happened to be there at the time.

The biggest problem with these theories is that Christianity just didn't spread from roman sources. There are two many early christian sects, and very detailed accounts of early christian leaders. You have to explain a lot about Paul's motivations and the Roman persecution of early Christians in order to even get close to the theory, and then you have to give a plausible source for the fabrication of the religion. Is it possible that Christianity was a Roman plot to subvert the jews? Sure. Has a clear and coherent theory of how this could have happened been presented? No. Is there any substantial evidence to support this claim? Not really. The burden of proof just hasn't been met.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
06-06-2014, 02:34 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 07:36 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Do you understand the magnitude if the stretch of your theory on top of the one from the YouTube video?

It requires for the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Flavian dynasty to work postmortum in one conspiracy theory in common to repress an insignificant people group not half as dangerous as the Carthaginians or the Parthians. Even the film admits that the Jesus story cannot be linked to the pre Flavian Caesars now you say it can be in some alternative universe.

Many people don't get the contextual and historical significance of Paul holding to the credal affirmation of "κύριος Ἰησοῦς" ('kurios iesous' or Lord Jesus in English) that Paul repeats again and again (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11 among others). Josephus says in The Jewish Wars (7.10.1) that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor or someone else κύριος because they equated the term κύριος in Greek with אֲדֹנָי in Hebrew which was reserved for God. The term itself was a political and legal term to describe dominion which only Caesar legitimately held. Anyone using the term for another person and refusing it to Caesar was perceived as violating the Leges Maiestatis and guilty of treason against Caesar.

As a matter of fact in Romans 13 which you quoted sometime ago Paul refers to those in governmental authority (ἐξουσίαν) as servants (διάκονός and λειτουργός) of God, the very antithesis of κύριος or Lord which is a Pauline term only reserved for Jesus in his letters. This just doesn't fit your theory I'm sorry to say.

It's not just "my" theory. 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.” Many other commentators have reached similar conclusions.

I don't think the theory that the Roman government created Christianity, in itself, is that far-fetched. It is big in the sense that it means that the entire basis of Christianity is fraudulent. Do you agree?

The Jews were not an insignificant group. Roughly 10% of the people in the Roman Empire were Jewish. What makes you say they were insignificant? In the first Jewish War there were roughly 150,000 people in the Roman army that marched into Palestine. From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.

I don't think there was a Jesus story prior to the Flavians. Paul had his Christ story which was something quite different. The Nazarene's may well have held their Jesus in some high regard but this is not the Jesus of the Gospels.

"Many people don't get the contextual and historical significance of Paul holding to the credal affirmation of "κύριος Ἰησοῦς" ('kurios iesous' or Lord Jesus in English) that Paul repeats again and again (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:11 among others). Josephus says in The Jewish Wars (7.10.1) that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor or someone else κύριος because they equated the term κύριος in Greek with אֲדֹנָי in Hebrew which was reserved for God. The term itself was a political and legal term to describe dominion which only Caesar legitimately held. Anyone using the term for another person and refusing it to Caesar was perceived as violating the Leges Maiestatis and guilty of treason against Caesar.

As a matter of fact in Romans 13 which you quoted sometime ago Paul refers to those in governmental authority (ἐξουσίαν) as servants (διάκονός and λειτουργός) of God, the very antithesis of κύριος or Lord which is a Pauline term only reserved for Jesus in his letters. "

Thanks for sharing this. Makes sense.

"This just doesn't fit your theory I'm sorry to say."

I think I need to explain my theory a bit better than I have. I don't want to become too wordy though. I'll be happy to share some more if you want. I would particularly like you to critique my ideas if you have the time.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 02:49 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 04:01 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 02:19 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It's not just "my" theory. 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.” Many other commentators have reached similar conclusions.

I don't think the theory that the Roman government created Christianity, in itself, is that far-fetched. It is big in the sense that it means that the entire basis of Christianity is fraudulent. Do you agree?

The Jews were not an insignificant group. Roughly 10% of the people in the Roman Empire were Jewish. What makes you say they were insignificant? In the first Jewish War there were roughly 150,000 people in the Roman army that marched into Palestine. From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.

You could say much the same things about the Celts in Britannia. The Romans handled them the same way they handled Isreal; brute crushing force. Take their towns and kills their leaders. The Romans where not a subtle people. If this was their tactic then it didn't work very well. Very few Jews from Isreal proscribed to Christianity, the majority of the followers lived some place else.

It should also be noted that the new testament is not so much pro roman as anti temple jewish. The bad guys in the Jesus myths are rich people and the priestly aristocracy. The Romans just happened to be there at the time.

The biggest problem with these theories is that Christianity just didn't spread from roman sources. There are two many early christian sects, and very detailed accounts of early christian leaders. You have to explain a lot about Paul's motivations and the Roman persecution of early Christians in order to even get close to the theory, and then you have to give a plausible source for the fabrication of the religion. Is it possible that Christianity was a Roman plot to subvert the jews? Sure. Has a clear and coherent theory of how this could have happened been presented? No. Is there any substantial evidence to support this claim? Not really. The burden of proof just hasn't been met.

"The Romans handled them the same way they handled Isreal; brute crushing force."

Yes… there were uprisings against the Romans in Palestine in the 50s and 40s BCE that were suppressed with brute force. There was another in four BC and then another in six CE, and thousands of Jews were killed,and thousands more marched off to slavery in Rome after these wars.

"The Romans where not a subtle people."

True, but they weren't stupid either. They knew that propaganda could be just as powerful a weapon as force. Using the army all the time was expensive financially and taxing on morale.

'If this was their tactic then it didn't work very well. Very few Jews from Isreal proscribed to Christianity, the majority of the followers lived some place else.'

I totally agree. "WW2" of 132-5 CE was never prevented.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 02:59 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 02:19 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It's not just "my" theory. 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.” Many other commentators have reached similar conclusions.

I don't think the theory that the Roman government created Christianity, in itself, is that far-fetched. It is big in the sense that it means that the entire basis of Christianity is fraudulent. Do you agree?

The Jews were not an insignificant group. Roughly 10% of the people in the Roman Empire were Jewish. What makes you say they were insignificant? In the first Jewish War there were roughly 150,000 people in the Roman army that marched into Palestine. From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.

You could say much the same things about the Celts in Britannia. The Romans handled them the same way they handled Isreal; brute crushing force. Take their towns and kills their leaders. The Romans where not a subtle people. If this was their tactic then it didn't work very well. Very few Jews from Isreal proscribed to Christianity, the majority of the followers lived some place else.

It should also be noted that the new testament is not so much pro roman as anti temple jewish. The bad guys in the Jesus myths are rich people and the priestly aristocracy. The Romans just happened to be there at the time.

The biggest problem with these theories is that Christianity just didn't spread from roman sources. There are two many early christian sects, and very detailed accounts of early christian leaders. You have to explain a lot about Paul's motivations and the Roman persecution of early Christians in order to even get close to the theory, and then you have to give a plausible source for the fabrication of the religion. Is it possible that Christianity was a Roman plot to subvert the jews? Sure. Has a clear and coherent theory of how this could have happened been presented? No. Is there any substantial evidence to support this claim? Not really. The burden of proof just hasn't been met.

"Is it possible that Christianity was a Roman plot to subvert the jews? Sure."

I'm glad you are open-minded about this. In fact I think it's up to the historian to postulate the details because, in fact, I think it's the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity. Even evangelical types don't have a believable theory as to how Christianity spread... So there is no plausible alternative that I am aware of.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 03:08 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 02:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 02:19 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You could say much the same things about the Celts in Britannia. The Romans handled them the same way they handled Isreal; brute crushing force. Take their towns and kills their leaders. The Romans where not a subtle people. If this was their tactic then it didn't work very well. Very few Jews from Isreal proscribed to Christianity, the majority of the followers lived some place else.

It should also be noted that the new testament is not so much pro roman as anti temple jewish. The bad guys in the Jesus myths are rich people and the priestly aristocracy. The Romans just happened to be there at the time.

The biggest problem with these theories is that Christianity just didn't spread from roman sources. There are two many early christian sects, and very detailed accounts of early christian leaders. You have to explain a lot about Paul's motivations and the Roman persecution of early Christians in order to even get close to the theory, and then you have to give a plausible source for the fabrication of the religion. Is it possible that Christianity was a Roman plot to subvert the jews? Sure. Has a clear and coherent theory of how this could have happened been presented? No. Is there any substantial evidence to support this claim? Not really. The burden of proof just hasn't been met.

"Is it possible that Christianity was a Roman plot to subvert the jews? Sure."

I'm glad you are open-minded about this. In fact I think it's up to the historian to postulate the details because, in fact, I think it's the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity. Even evangelical types don't have a believable theory as to how Christianity spread... So there is no plausible alternative that I am aware of.

You could make similar claims about every religion. They all started the same way; somebody made some stuff up, and then he told some folks, who bought into, and eventually people start writing things down. Paul was not the first christian, he converted after all. Someone would have had to tell Paul about it. As the years go by and more generations carry on the mythos grows. It makes more sense that Christianity grew organically than it was fabricated as a part of roman conspiracy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
06-06-2014, 04:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 04:36 AM by Chas.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(05-06-2014 05:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 04:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I know enough to recognize bullshit when I see it.

Chas, this is the thinking atheist forum.

Except you seem to have abandoned critical thinking and replaced it with obsession.

You said: "Even evangelical types don't have a believable theory as to how Christianity spread... So there is no plausible alternative that I am aware of."

That is not critical thinking.

Quote:We're here to think and learn from each other.

I want to learn from you. I value your opinion. I actually read what you write.

My first post on this subject was to the effect that I would be overjoyed for this to be true, but I would await evidence.

I am still waiting.

Quote:But you've said the same thing over and over in every post, and haven't contributed more than one useful piece of information. You've not negated or commented on a whole world of information I've shared with you. That devalues my efforts and spoils a good conversation.

I have expressed skepticism which you seem to have abandoned.

Quote:By the way, I don't have an overwhelming need to be right. I do, however, want to learn, especially from smart people.

Let's put our egos in our back pockets.

The only ego in this game is yours. As I said, I would welcome real evidence that this hypothesis is true, but I am still waiting for it.

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
06-06-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(05-06-2014 03:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 02:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm sure that's what he meant too. Hopefully he'll address some specifics as to why he thinks Atwill's theory is bogus. It's impossible to debate the issue with him if he doesn't.

I have already made the point: You have supposition and you do not have evidence.

If you go to a court and sit at the back and plug your earholes and don't listen while evidence from an expert is being given and then come out and say that there was no evidence, that is entirely because of your own behaviour.

Atwill presents evidence which he says is of a similar nature and standard as DNA evidence. He sets out the basis of why that is so and then sets about outlining the evidence itself. Unless you read the book you can't understand why what he is saying is strong evidence so you just posting the word "crap" all the time is just you demonstrating your own attitude of ignoring evidence and trying to suggest that your "witty" little outbursts are better than this type of evidence. It may wash around here with people because it seems there are only about two of us who have bothered to read Atwill's book and both of us have been presented with some evidence which, if Atwill is right, means something and no one out there, anywhere, has been able to counter the basis of his method of proof and it's near certainty, even if, like Carrier, they have been able to suggest there might be some debate over one incident in Atwill's catalogue of events.

So, read the book and stop "shitting" on people for expressing a well argued and unchallenged hypothesis. If you think it such obvious "crap" then it will be easy for you to read it and pull it apart, since you seem to think you are so clever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
06-06-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 02:14 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 03:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have already made the point: You have supposition and you do not have evidence.

If you go to a court and sit at the back and plug your earholes and don't listen while evidence from an expert is being given and then come out and say that there was no evidence, that is entirely because of your own behaviour.

Atwill presents evidence which he says is of a similar nature and standard as DNA evidence. He sets out the basis of why that is so and then sets about outlining the evidence itself. Unless you read the book you can't understand why what he is saying is strong evidence so you just posting the word "crap" all the time is just you demonstrating your own attitude of ignoring evidence and trying to suggest that your "witty" little outbursts are better than this type of evidence. It may wash around here with people because it seems there are only about two of us who have bothered to read Atwill's book and both of us have been presented with some evidence which, if Atwill is right, means something and no one out there, anywhere, has been able to counter the basis of his method of proof and it's near certainty, even if, like Carrier, they have been able to suggest there might be some debate over one incident in Atwill's catalogue of events.

So, read the book and stop "shitting" on people for expressing a well argued and unchallenged hypothesis. If you think it such obvious "crap" then it will be easy for you to read it and pull it apart, since you seem to think you are so clever.

I wouldn't call his hypothesis "unchallenged", especially because he is essentially the only biblical scholar that agrees with him. Being of a minority opinion doesn't mean your wrong, but it might mean your theory is suspect.

If there are some really good points in the book than educated us all and post them. For my part I am not going to take the time to wade through three hundred pages and do my due diligence researching it to prove you wrong. The burden of plausibility, in this case, is really on you and Mark. I can't speak for anybody else, but for my part if you lay out a good argument I will adopt your position or at least admit that it has some merit. Based on what evidence has been presented in this thread and in the video there just isn't sufficient evidence to persuade anybody, in my opinion. Forgive me if I remain skeptical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: