Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 04:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think the parsimonious explanation of the evidence is that the Romans used and manipulated Christianity as opposed to making it up from whole cloth.

ok. I agree they used and manipulated it.

This begs the question, then, who actually invented it? As I said, it certainly wasn't a Jewish invention. Jesus' family and followers (if there ever was a Jesus) had nothing to do with it. Paul didn't write the gospels. Somebody did. And if we don't suppose it was the government, it's hard to find a motive for the gospels' creation, let alone a source for the funds and the organisational ability to spread a new religion around the empire.

I don't think it was invented full blown; more like a simple story accreted details, imaginings, and borrowings.

We already know that Christianity has added many, many things as it spread to other cultures.

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
13-02-2015, 05:42 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 04:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 04:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ok. I agree they used and manipulated it.

This begs the question, then, who actually invented it? As I said, it certainly wasn't a Jewish invention. Jesus' family and followers (if there ever was a Jesus) had nothing to do with it. Paul didn't write the gospels. Somebody did. And if we don't suppose it was the government, it's hard to find a motive for the gospels' creation, let alone a source for the funds and the organisational ability to spread a new religion around the empire.

I don't think it was invented full blown; more like a simple story accreted details, imaginings, and borrowings.

We already know that Christianity has added many, many things as it spread to other cultures.

Yeah, ok.

But who started the ball rolling, and why? I don't think we know.

In my opinion, the most likely candidate is the government.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 04:46 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Who invented Osiris? Or Hercules? Or Shiva? Or Quetzlcoatl? Or Santa Claus for that matter?

The most ardent xtian will admit that there are thousands of gods who were invented by humans who were not real. And with the same stupid look on their faces will insist that their boy is real.

Humans are not that hard to figure out.


Remember what Pliny reported c 110 AD in Asia Minor:

Quote:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

No "jesus." No "virgin birth." No "crucifixion." No "apostles." No "resurrection." No "ascension." No "devil." No "jewish priests." No "Pilate." No, nothing.
Actually, fairly similar to the paul stuff which doesn't know about any of that other bullshit, either. Even under torture, no one mentioned a convicted criminal who came back from the dead. I have to think that had he heard such a statement that Pliny, as one Roman aristocrat to another, would have mentioned it to Trajan maybe with a comment like "Get a load of what these schmucks believe, boss."

Alas, nothing like that.

And don't forget the Damascus, thing. I can't recall if I ever mentioned that to you?

Agreed.

I don't think you have mentioned the damascus thing. Please fill me in.

When Pliny wrote, c110 AD, there were many different types of Christianity. Don't forget it is possible the gospels existed at this time, yet the "?Christians" that Pliny encountered had never read them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 07:12 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
There are few historical markers in any of the pauline letters. One that does exist is the following from 2 Corinthians 11

Quote:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Now, 2 Corinthians is always referred to as one of the "authentic" epistles. Some people say there are 4 and some say 7 but 1 & 2 Corinthians are always included.
The fanatics think "authentic" means that Paul wrote them. I would suspect that it means that the same author wrote them, whatever his name might have been. But none of that matters here.

History tells us of two kings named Aretas. Aretas III and IV and both were kings of Nabatea. Aretas III died in 62 BC and Aretas IV c 40 AD.

For illustrative purposes I will include this map of First Century Palestine:

[Image: palestine-under-the-herods.jpg]

Note the distance between Damascus and Nabatea.

Christian assholes will twist their scrotums into knots trying to claim that the Aretas in question is Aretas IV who died in 40. It seems highly unlikely.
Aretas IV makes his appearance in Josephus' history as the father of the woman who Herod Antipas divorced in order to marry Phillip's widow, Herodias.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

Chapter V

Aretas attacked Antipas and defeated him. Now, it was almost never a good idea to attack a Roman ally and Tiberius duly ordered the Legate of Syria, Lucius Vitellius Veteris to punish Aretas. Vitellius is important in that he helps us date the story. Vitellius served as consul in 34 AD and, under the system used by Augustus and Tiberius he became eligible for one of the primary military commands upon completion of his one-year term. So the absolute earliest that Vitellius could have arrived at his post was the Spring of 35. But from the discussions in Chapter IV it seems unlikely that Vitellius would have gotten this as his first order. Chapter IV discusses Vitellius' activities vis-a-vis the Parthians which were the serious threat in the region....not Nabatea. So realisitically we are looking at 36 maybe 37 for Vitellius' campaign against Aretas. Under the best of circumstances this doesn't leave a lot of time for "paul" to be persecuting jews and have his "moment" on the road to Damascus before Aretas dies. But it is actually even worse than that.

Christians have invented some sort of "settlement of the east" by Caligula in which Damascus was given to Aretas IV. Again, there are any number of issues with that absurd idea. Not the least of them is that no Greco-Roman historian seems to know anything about it. Josephus tells us that in 66 when the jews revolted and attacked the XIIth Legion that the citizens of Damascus rose and massacred the jewish community there which certainly seems as if they regarded themselves as Romans. Second, Damascus was the western terminus of the Silk Road. Arguably the richest piece of real estate in Syria and the Romans were not likely to give that away to a man who they were chasing in 37 and only stopped because Tiberius died and Vitellius decided he had better wait for orders from Caligula. Finally, as can be seen on the map, Nabatea is a long way from Damascus. Such a territorial exchange would be virtually worthless to Aretas as he would have to traverse 150 miles of Roman territory to get there. It would be like the US offering Nevada back to Mexico and saying "good luck getting there because we're keeping Arizona."

What Caligula did, and this is duly recorded, is boot Antipas out of Galilee and Perea and make his boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa, the king. Nothing about Damascus.

Now this could be dismissed as circumstantial evidence except for one problem. Aretas III did capture Damascus and rule it for nearly 20 years. The problem for the jesus freaks is that he captured it c. 84 BC and lost it in 64BC to Gnaeus Pompey and his legions. So, what we have is "paul" or whoever describing an actual historical situation, albeit a century and a half too early for it to do the xtians any good.

Beginning in the 80's BC the Hasmonean king, Alexander Janneaus had a civil war in Judaea on his hands with much shifting of alliances and meddling by other local powers. This actual historical background for Nabatean control of Damascus makes a lot more sense than the xtian bullshit story that they try to cram on Aretas IV.

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
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
13-02-2015, 07:33 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 07:12 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  There are few historical markers in any of the pauline letters. One that does exist is the following from 2 Corinthians 11

Quote:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Now, 2 Corinthians is always referred to as one of the "authentic" epistles. Some people say there are 4 and some say 7 but 1 & 2 Corinthians are always included.
The fanatics think "authentic" means that Paul wrote them. I would suspect that it means that the same author wrote them, whatever his name might have been. But none of that matters here.

History tells us of two kings named Aretas. Aretas III and IV and both were kings of Nabatea. Aretas III died in 62 BC and Aretas IV c 40 AD.

For illustrative purposes I will include this map of First Century Palestine:

[Image: palestine-under-the-herods.jpg]

Note the distance between Damascus and Nabatea.

Christian assholes will twist their scrotums into knots trying to claim that the Aretas in question is Aretas IV who died in 40. It seems highly unlikely.
Aretas IV makes his appearance in Josephus' history as the father of the woman who Herod Antipas divorced in order to marry Phillip's widow, Herodias.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

Chapter V

Aretas attacked Antipas and defeated him. Now, it was almost never a good idea to attack a Roman ally and Tiberius duly ordered the Legate of Syria, Lucius Vitellius Veteris to punish Aretas. Vitellius is important in that he helps us date the story. Vitellius served as consul in 34 AD and, under the system used by Augustus and Tiberius he became eligible for one of the primary military commands upon completion of his one-year term. So the absolute earliest that Vitellius could have arrived at his post was the Spring of 35. But from the discussions in Chapter IV it seems unlikely that Vitellius would have gotten this as his first order. Chapter IV discusses Vitellius' activities vis-a-vis the Parthians which were the serious threat in the region....not Nabatea. So realisitically we are looking at 36 maybe 37 for Vitellius' campaign against Aretas. Under the best of circumstances this doesn't leave a lot of time for "paul" to be persecuting jews and have his "moment" on the road to Damascus before Aretas dies. But it is actually even worse than that.

Christians have invented some sort of "settlement of the east" by Caligula in which Damascus was given to Aretas IV. Again, there are any number of issues with that absurd idea. Not the least of them is that no Greco-Roman historian seems to know anything about it. Josephus tells us that in 66 when the jews revolted and attacked the XIIth Legion that the citizens of Damascus rose and massacred the jewish community there which certainly seems as if they regarded themselves as Romans. Second, Damascus was the western terminus of the Silk Road. Arguably the richest piece of real estate in Syria and the Romans were not likely to give that away to a man who they were chasing in 37 and only stopped because Tiberius died and Vitellius decided he had better wait for orders from Caligula. Finally, as can be seen on the map, Nabatea is a long way from Damascus. Such a territorial exchange would be virtually worthless to Aretas as he would have to traverse 150 miles of Roman territory to get there. It would be like the US offering Nevada back to Mexico and saying "good luck getting there because we're keeping Arizona."

What Caligula did, and this is duly recorded, is boot Antipas out of Galilee and Perea and make his boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa, the king. Nothing about Damascus.

Now this could be dismissed as circumstantial evidence except for one problem. Aretas III did capture Damascus and rule it for nearly 20 years. The problem for the jesus freaks is that he captured it c. 84 BC and lost it in 64BC to Gnaeus Pompey and his legions. So, what we have is "paul" or whoever describing an actual historical situation, albeit a century and a half too early for it to do the xtians any good.

Beginning in the 80's BC the Hasmonean king, Alexander Janneaus had a civil war in Judaea on his hands with much shifting of alliances and meddling by other local powers. This actual historical background for Nabatean control of Damascus makes a lot more sense than the xtian bullshit story that they try to cram on Aretas IV.

Very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing this. I have never heard any of this before.

So whoever wrote 2 Corinthians was either lying, or mistaken, or was writing a century and a half before Paul is traditionally said to have lived.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 07:38 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 07:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 07:12 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  There are few historical markers in any of the pauline letters. One that does exist is the following from 2 Corinthians 11


Now, 2 Corinthians is always referred to as one of the "authentic" epistles. Some people say there are 4 and some say 7 but 1 & 2 Corinthians are always included.
The fanatics think "authentic" means that Paul wrote them. I would suspect that it means that the same author wrote them, whatever his name might have been. But none of that matters here.

History tells us of two kings named Aretas. Aretas III and IV and both were kings of Nabatea. Aretas III died in 62 BC and Aretas IV c 40 AD.

For illustrative purposes I will include this map of First Century Palestine:

[Image: palestine-under-the-herods.jpg]

Note the distance between Damascus and Nabatea.

Christian assholes will twist their scrotums into knots trying to claim that the Aretas in question is Aretas IV who died in 40. It seems highly unlikely.
Aretas IV makes his appearance in Josephus' history as the father of the woman who Herod Antipas divorced in order to marry Phillip's widow, Herodias.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

Chapter V

Aretas attacked Antipas and defeated him. Now, it was almost never a good idea to attack a Roman ally and Tiberius duly ordered the Legate of Syria, Lucius Vitellius Veteris to punish Aretas. Vitellius is important in that he helps us date the story. Vitellius served as consul in 34 AD and, under the system used by Augustus and Tiberius he became eligible for one of the primary military commands upon completion of his one-year term. So the absolute earliest that Vitellius could have arrived at his post was the Spring of 35. But from the discussions in Chapter IV it seems unlikely that Vitellius would have gotten this as his first order. Chapter IV discusses Vitellius' activities vis-a-vis the Parthians which were the serious threat in the region....not Nabatea. So realisitically we are looking at 36 maybe 37 for Vitellius' campaign against Aretas. Under the best of circumstances this doesn't leave a lot of time for "paul" to be persecuting jews and have his "moment" on the road to Damascus before Aretas dies. But it is actually even worse than that.

Christians have invented some sort of "settlement of the east" by Caligula in which Damascus was given to Aretas IV. Again, there are any number of issues with that absurd idea. Not the least of them is that no Greco-Roman historian seems to know anything about it. Josephus tells us that in 66 when the jews revolted and attacked the XIIth Legion that the citizens of Damascus rose and massacred the jewish community there which certainly seems as if they regarded themselves as Romans. Second, Damascus was the western terminus of the Silk Road. Arguably the richest piece of real estate in Syria and the Romans were not likely to give that away to a man who they were chasing in 37 and only stopped because Tiberius died and Vitellius decided he had better wait for orders from Caligula. Finally, as can be seen on the map, Nabatea is a long way from Damascus. Such a territorial exchange would be virtually worthless to Aretas as he would have to traverse 150 miles of Roman territory to get there. It would be like the US offering Nevada back to Mexico and saying "good luck getting there because we're keeping Arizona."

What Caligula did, and this is duly recorded, is boot Antipas out of Galilee and Perea and make his boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa, the king. Nothing about Damascus.

Now this could be dismissed as circumstantial evidence except for one problem. Aretas III did capture Damascus and rule it for nearly 20 years. The problem for the jesus freaks is that he captured it c. 84 BC and lost it in 64BC to Gnaeus Pompey and his legions. So, what we have is "paul" or whoever describing an actual historical situation, albeit a century and a half too early for it to do the xtians any good.

Beginning in the 80's BC the Hasmonean king, Alexander Janneaus had a civil war in Judaea on his hands with much shifting of alliances and meddling by other local powers. This actual historical background for Nabatean control of Damascus makes a lot more sense than the xtian bullshit story that they try to cram on Aretas IV.

Very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing this. I have never heard any of this before.

So whoever wrote 2 Corinthians was either lying, or mistaken, or was writing a century and a half before Paul is traditionally said to have lived.

PS I fail to think of a good reason why anyone in Damascus would want to capture Paul. He was just an eccentric oddball spouting theological shit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Quote:So whoever wrote 2 Corinthians was either lying, or mistaken, or was writing a century and a half before Paul is traditionally said to have lived.

Essentially.

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
13-02-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 07:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 07:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing this. I have never heard any of this before.

So whoever wrote 2 Corinthians was either lying, or mistaken, or was writing a century and a half before Paul is traditionally said to have lived.

PS I fail to think of a good reason why anyone in Damascus would want to capture Paul. He was just an eccentric oddball spouting theological shit.


If that is what he is doing. But there was a civil war raging in Judaea and after that a series of dynastic squabbles. Suppose enemies of one side took refuge in Damascus and then the Nabateans switched sides? Might they not arrest those rebels?

Remember, I am not persuaded that any of this shit deals with religion. I think it is about political power.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
13-02-2015, 09:33 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(13-02-2015 08:12 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 07:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  PS I fail to think of a good reason why anyone in Damascus would want to capture Paul. He was just an eccentric oddball spouting theological shit.


If that is what he is doing. But there was a civil war raging in Judaea and after that a series of dynastic squabbles. Suppose enemies of one side took refuge in Damascus and then the Nabateans switched sides? Might they not arrest those rebels?

Remember, I am not persuaded that any of this shit deals with religion. I think it is about political power.

Exactly. Religion and political power were more or less same thing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 11:24 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Some things never change.

[Image: toadies.jpg]

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: