Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 05:38 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 07:31 PM by Free.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(15-02-2015 04:39 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:No. Carrington is a fucking joke. No one takes him seriously.

Really? Then where are all the listings of ancient writers who did quote that passage in Tacitus? I haven't seen them.

You know, just because some fuckhead with a theology degree wants to believe something does not make it true. They believe in a lot of silly shit.

I have spot checked Carrington's claims and he's right. Ancient writers...xtian or Greco-Roman...know nothing of this 'Nero persecuted the xtians for the fire' bullshit.
And Tacitus probably wrote "chrestians" anyway.

Yes, really.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not any other writers quoted Tacitus or not, for how the fuck does your fallacious argument from silence in any way whatsoever invalidate Tacitus?

Just because somebody didn't say something means that Tacitus's entry regarding Christus is some kind of Christian interpolation? How the fuck do you even arrive at this fallacious reasoning?

Dude ... that is fucking retarded. As atheists, we have an obligation to subscribe to a higher standard of reasoning than theists, so why the fuck are you attempting to use fallacious arguments from silence to justify your position?

In order for you to qualify an argument from silence as being valid, you are required to conclusively demonstrate just cause for the silence. You have failed to do that, and that is why your argument is fallacious.


Quote:
Quote:The first Christians were all Jews, for fuck sakes.

Yeah we've all heard the stories that the jesus freaks tell. I'm asking for the evidence and all I ever get is shit like you are spouting. "Everybody knows." "Scholars say." "Tradition records." It's always the same old shit. Atwill is not convincing....but at least his shit is different.

The current evidence definitely implies it. Paul was a fucking Jew, for fuck sakes. His letters say it all over the place. Here's two examples:

Act_21:39 But Paul said, I am a man, a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no small city. And I beseech you, allow me to speak to the people.

Act_22:3 I am truly a man, a Jew born in Tarsus in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the exactness of the Law of the fathers, being a zealous one of God, as you all are today.


And in regards to Jews being the first to follow Jesus ...

Rom_1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile, and not as the Jews, why do you compel the nations to judaize?


Do you see "Christian" in there anywhere? Do you see, "to the Jew first?" Do you see Paul as regarding Peter- a follower of Jesus- as being a Christian, or is he calling Peter a Jew?

FFS dude, the original followers of Jesus were all Jews. The name "christian" didn't exist at the time of Jesus.

It was the followers of Paul- The Gentiles aka Greeks & Dispersed Jews- who were called Christians.

Act_11:26 And finding him, he brought him to Antioch. And it happened to them a whole year they were assembled in the church. And they taught a considerable crowd. And the disciples were first called Christian in Antioch.

I'm sure you can reason that the followers of Jesus were first named as Christians at Antioch and not Jerusalem? According to the history of Antioch, it wasn't until near the mid AD 40s that Antioch was evangelized, which means the followers of Jesus (or Paul) were not regarded as Christians until more than 10 years after the purported time of Jesus of Nazareth.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
I see. As Caesar said - men willingly believe what they wish and you are one of them.

The simple fact that not a single ancient writer - even the xtians who would have had good reason to make use of that passage - ever mention it does not impress you. Please understand that I do not give a flying fuck what impresses you. It impresses me as well as the fact that no Roman prior to 185 ever heard of fucking "jesus" and there are no catacombs for xtians in Rome and that no xtian seems to have heard of fucking "paul" prior to 160-170 either. You obviously are desperate to believe in this bullshit so I will simply dismiss you at this point.

And spare the "St." paul bullshit, too. He's a literary invention just like the godboy.

That said, I don't buy Atwill's bullshit, either.

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
15-02-2015, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 09:14 PM by Free.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(15-02-2015 07:59 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  I see. As Caesar said - men willingly believe what they wish and you are one of them.

The simple fact that not a single ancient writer - even the xtians who would have had good reason to make use of that passage - ever mention it does not impress you.

Why the fuck would any early Christian want to have anything to do with quoting from Tacitus? For what fucking purpose would any of them need to quote Tacitus?

Can you even provide one valid reason why any early Christian would have any need whatsoever to quote Tacitus?

Quote:Please understand that I do not give a flying fuck what impresses you. It impresses me as well as the fact that no Roman prior to 185 ever heard of fucking "jesus" and there are no catacombs for xtians in Rome and that no xtian seems to have heard of fucking "paul" prior to 160-170 either. You obviously are desperate to believe in this bullshit so I will simply dismiss you at this point.

Wow! You are one sorry ass conspiracy theorist! You spout your fucking bullshit as if it's based upon some kind of authority without it ever crossing your duped mind that what you consider to be "facts" are nothing more than the rantings of twisted, and uneducated fucktards.

So you deny that Tacitus never actually said anything about Jesus. That's fine, but understand that the scholarly community laughs at you, and they are far more learned than you'll ever be capable of.

And now you claim that no Roman mentioned Jesus, yet fail to understand that Origen wrote a book called Contra Celsum in AD 245, and within that book he quotes Celsum- a Roman- who wrote a book called The True Discourse at approximately AD 160 - 70. Within those quotes Jesus is mentioned several times.

So now we have 2 Romans who mentioned Jesus. Interesting, isn't it?

Also, Clement of Rome was a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul, and he wrote a letter to the Corinthians around AD 95. He died around AD 100, aged in years. He mentions Jesus and Paul in his letter. This, by the way, is a contemporary's non biblical source for both Jesus and Paul.

So that kinda blows a very big hole in your bullshit doesn't it?

By the way, this Jesus existed/didn't exist crap is all just a game to me. I really don't fucking care if he existed or not, but I will not deny the history just because i don't fucking like it.

I rather like the idea that the Christian god got his sorry fucking ass handed to him by the Romans, who strung him up on a couple of sticks, spit on him, and then made a fucking fool of him. Wow, what a god he was, eh?

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(15-02-2015 01:11 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 11:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok, thanks for replying.

As to your point B and C… no one knows if the comments made by Tacitus in the early second century were genuine or not.

No one has ever even adequately disputed it. People say lots of things, and bring many questions about it, but every last argument against it utterly fails to bring a single stitch of evidence to dispute authenticity.

I have seen all the arguments, and all miserably fail. No one- not Carrier, Price, or any proponent for Mythicism- has ever brought a single stitch of evidence to dispute Tacitus.

I find it exceptionally suspicious of those who claim this particular passage regarding Christ and the Christians to be not genuine, yet have no problem accepting that the rest of this massive book to be genuine.

This unwarranted suspicion reeks of ulterior motives, demonstrating extreme bias all in the name of militant atheism.

Quote:I think there was talk of a Christ long before the gospels were written. I agree with you that Paul wrote before the gospels and before the Flavians and before the first Jewish War. People assume Paul was writing about Jesus but that is one really big assumption.

We've been down this road before, Mark. The assumption about an assumption here is all yours. You, and others like you, are trying to create a Christ Myth theory that falls a great distance short of reality. Paul's letters demonstrate ad nausium that he knows Jesus was a human being, was regarded as Christ, and was crucified.

Your Christ Myth theory is absolutely untenable.


Quote:Paul was writing about a Christ. I strongly suspect that Paul's Christ and Jesus were only merged together early in the second century. In the past I have rabbeted on about this ad nauseam on this forum. So there is little doubt that a type of Christianity did exist before the gospels were written, but it was one that knew nothing of Jesus (who was created in the gospels).

You have stated this before, but didn't provide any evidence at all to support this hypothesis. You cannot use your other hypothesis regarding your idea of Paul's Christ to support this hypothesis when neither hypothesis can be demonstrated as tenable. That's like stacking one unproven claim upon another, but at the end of the day, nothing has been demonstrated to be true.

Quote:What I have just written above would make sense of the fact that outside the gospels there is no first century Biblical author that talks about the miracles or the sayings or the life of Jesus. All they talk about is a crucified and resurrected Christ as per Paul.

See, you are speaking of the embellishment of a historical figure in regards to Jesus. Of course it doesn't work when you look at it from that perspective. But when we look at Jesus as but a mere man who got his ass handed to him by the Romans, and who's followers then went out and fabricated a bunch of bullshit about him, your entire position looks silly from a strictly historical perspective.

Quote:As to point D, it was never a common knowledge. It was meant to be a secret. The deception wouldn't have worked if it was common knowledge.

And you somehow think that everybody in ancient history- Romans, Jews, Christians, et al, could all be left in the dark about this supposed conspiracy?

Aside from the fact that there is not a single stitch of evidence whatsoever to support this laughable conspiracy theory, to expect an entire civilization to have absolutely no record of anything about this is stretching it to crazy proportions.

Quote:Yes it is guesswork on Atwill's part. Yet it is an educated guess with a lot of circumstantial evidence. Consider the following. No one knows for sure who originally wrote the fucking gospels. All the evangelical types and all the historians are all guessing. Atwill is just another historian having a good guess. So he is no more "wacky" than all the others.

No, he doesn't even have circumstantial evidence. He makes it up. He reads into it and pulls out of it something so implausible as to not be tenable.

Just because he can demonstrate a 1% possibility to something by no means makes it plausible or tenable.

It makes it ridiculous.

"Paul's letters demonstrate ad nausium that he knows Jesus was a human being," NO

"was regarded as Christ," YES

"and was crucified." YES
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 09:25 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(15-02-2015 09:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Paul's letters demonstrate ad nausium that he knows Jesus was a human being," NO

What part of the following quotes from Paul are you denying?


Quote:Rom_1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God

Rom_1:6 among whom you also are the called-out ones of Jesus Christ:

Rom_1:7 to all those who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the 3 quotes above, Paul clearly identified Jesus as being the Christ.

Quote:1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

And in the quote above, he shows that this very same man, Jesus called Christ, was crucified.

Quote:Rom_5:15 but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

And here we have Paul clearly describing his Jesus Christ as being a fleshly man.

Hence, there is no other logical conclusion other than that Paul's Christ was based upon an actual man named Jesus, who was crucified.

Why do you do this to yourself, Mark? Why? What's the fucking point?

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 10:02 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Free...cool your jets big fella.

We're not arguing over the family farm here.

You can repeat yourself as often as you want, and make many expletives, but that doesn't make you right.

If Paul knew of a human Jesus that was the Christ he would've said so. He would have documented something this Christ said or did. He would have been interested in talking to Jesus' brother, James, and Mary the mother of the son of God. Paul did none of these things. His Christ was a spirit, a god man, a ghost. I'm sorry if that concept for some reason upsets your world, but that's just the way it is.

Think of it like this. Paul, or people writing in his name, wrote over one third of the new Testament. Yet there is barely a mention of what Jesus said or did. Nothing about miracles nothing about parables nothing about Jesus's birth or his life. All that mattered to Paul was that the god man was crucified and died for your sins.

If Paul did know of Jesus, it was only the crucified zealot who had been knocked off a few years earlier. The same can be said about James, Jesus's brother. James never mentions Jesus' exploits either, because the bullshit in the gospels hadn't been written yet.

Sit back, pour yourself a Fosters, and think about it for a while.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 09:58 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(15-02-2015 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 09:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Paul's letters demonstrate ad nausium that he knows Jesus was a human being," NO

What part of the following quotes from Paul are you denying?


Quote:Rom_1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God

Rom_1:6 among whom you also are the called-out ones of Jesus Christ:

Rom_1:7 to all those who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the 3 quotes above, Paul clearly identified Jesus as being the Christ.

Quote:1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

And in the quote above, he shows that this very same man, Jesus called Christ, was crucified.

Quote:Rom_5:15 but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

And here we have Paul clearly describing his Jesus Christ as being a fleshly man.

Hence, there is no other logical conclusion other than that Paul's Christ was based upon an actual man named Jesus, who was crucified.

Why do you do this to yourself, Mark? Why? What's the fucking point?

Drinking Beverage

"Why do you do this to yourself, Mark? Why? What's the fucking point?"

I once spent about four months of my life trying to figure out who Paul was and what he knew about Jesus and what his relationship with the Family and disciples of Jesus was. I eventually came to some firmly held conclusions which I've attempted to share with you. I've told you that I agree that Paul's Christ was a crucified and resurrected figure. You have provided quotes that confirm that Paul thought Christ was crucified and resurrected, which is exactly what I said. You've quoted Paul saying that Christ was born of the seed of David "according to the flesh." It hasn't occurred to you that that was an incredibly strange thing to write. It hasn't occurred to you that this is entirely in contrast to nearly everything else Paul writes about Christ, and is therefore almost certainly an interpolation... Someone trying to give Paul's Christ some sort of humanity.

Maybe this helps...

Most Christians who become aware of Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus are perplexed, and with good reason. The almost complete absence of descriptions of Jesus in Paul’s writing undermines the account about Jesus’ activities in the Gospels. If Yeshua had been an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds, Paul would have documented it, and he did not.

Outside of Jewish scripture Paul only ever acknowledged one source of wisdom—himself.

Just who Paul thought his Christ was is a difficult concept to grasp, and maybe it is not worth spending too much time on. It is worth remembering that the sources of Paul’s ideas are obscure; that Paul’s writings have been tampered with, and that original meaning is often lost in translations. Further complications are introduced by realizing that the Jesus stories we know so well only finished being cobbled together in the fourth century, and that Paul had never read them.

Free, you sound angry and pissed off and aggressive; you may not be that, but it's not pleasant corresponding with someone like this. I'll be very happy to keep chatting but could you tone it down a little bit?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 11:01 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Mark,
Here's a link to an interesting article in the HTR (Harvard Thelological Review) about your favorite PR dude : Eusebius. Tongue
https://www.academia.edu/10742787/_Euseb...15_129_154

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 11:03 AM by Free.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Quote:If Paul knew of a human Jesus that was the Christ he would've said so.

He did, many times.

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

The words "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" provide direct evidence that Paul believed that Jesus' Jewish lineage physically came from the House of David.

Rom_5:15 but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Here Paul describes Jesus as existing as a physical man.

Rom_15:8 - Rom_15:16 And I say, Jesus Christ has become a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the nations, ministering the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Here Paul confirms that Jesus was a minister to the Jews (circumcision), and from there Paul took the teachings of Jesus to the Gentiles (nations).

1Co 11:23 - 1Co 11:25 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; And giving thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me."

Here we have Paul quoting the words of Jesus on the night Jesus was betrayed by Judas. This quote is verbatim to the Gospel accounts.

2Co 4:10 always bearing about the dying of the Lord Jesus in the body, so that the life of Jesus also might be revealed in our body.

And here we have Paul confirming that Jesus had a physical body which died. Paul states that it was necessary for Jesus to die so that the life of Jesus would be revealed in others.

I haven't the first clue how you can deny this evidence, Mark. I guess you have your reasons. Obviously you have some kind of belief system of your own regarding all this, just like Earl Doherty did, and who also has been soundly and decisively refuted.

To me, your position on this is nothing more than a work of fiction. It falls so far outside the boundaries of reality and reason that it cannot be regarded as any kind of authentic history whatsoever.

Good luck with that.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
I cannot fathom why anyone would get worked up about who Paul was. His story mimics that of Josephus so Atwill, and others, say he is Josephus.

What doesn't make sense is that whoever he is, he is supposed to be going around the Near East telling congregations in an established Church about Jesus Christ. So, who are these folk? What religion do they belong to that they listen to Paul?

Achryra is now saying there was a "Christianity" which goes back before Jesus. That must be the case because Jesus is supposedly the "messiah" of this religion.

Atwill makes a good point when he says that what we know as Judaism is not messianic at all. So the religion of that day was monothistic monotheism and this Paul fella felt it necessary to go out and tell them something. Why?

My take on this is that this militant monotheism was made up of followers of Horis and that Horis is the same word as "Christ" but that we do not a consonant in our alphabet to represent this sound. The consonant is likely to have been like the "ch" in the Scottish word "loch". In fact, Horis is alternatively spelled "Karas". This Horis figure is the same figure in many religions, ie., Haris in Indian means "guardian".

The origin of this is the worship of stellar figures. Horis is actually the star/planet configuration of Orion. I live in the Middle East near Syria so when I look at the night sky I see this figure rising in the east. It's a constellation which looks like a running man with a bow and arrow and a big phallus which is now referred to as his "belt". On his back is a cross configuration with Jupiter (Zeus) at the top. As the evening progresses this figure rises in the sky so at it's height it is right up above in the centre of the southern sky with this huge cross strapped to its back.

I studied Feuerbach in university and he developed a theory that gods are actually a projection of human characteritics on mythical figures. This Horus/Orion/Christ figure represents men's own view of themselves as fighters who avenge wrongs against themselves, their families. It justifies male aggression and notions of revenge and deifies them.

That is what makes this type of religion so strong, because it is based on a male instinct which is then superimposed on this stellar figure which keeps coming back night after night to avenge the "death" of the father, the Sun. Horis' left eye is the moon which he loses and then regains. This is the waning and waxing of the moon.

This notion/word gives us Herusalem and the Horites of Petra and figures such as St. George and the notion in Islam of the warrior Jesus who is going to return and slay the false messiah at the gates of Lydda (birthplace of St. George).

When Paul/Joseph/whoever is talking about the Christ, he is talking to people who, like milllions throughout the IE world, were believers in this religion of an avenging deity represented by the flying celestial avenging schlong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: