Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 05:22 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
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.

Okay.

Thanks for mentioning all those quotes. My position is that these relatively few quotes that seem to hint at a once human Jesus are interpolations. When "Paul" writes "in the body" and "in the flesh" this raises the big red flag to me that someone, probably in the second century, is making a weak attempt to promote the humanity of Christ.

You've mentioned you don't respect Earl Doherty. I do. For anyone who is more interested in details of this please have a read here

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm

Just for the record, Richard Carrier thinks quite highly of Earl Doherty too.

You are convinced that Paul's Christ is a human Jesus. Yet you haven't addressed the fact that Paul barely (see below) talks about the events in Jesus' life other than the crucifixion and supposed resurrection. Paul never once talks about Jesus' parables or his miracles, what Jesus looked like, where he lived, or who his friends and family were. These are impossible omissions if Jesus was a recently departed human being. These are undeniable facts that interpolators were not clever enough to conceal.

You refer to the Corinthians quote. Here is my take on that...

Paul and the Last Supper
Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) and that is when, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed that he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. In this letter, Paul had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. Paul then introduced a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together, and Paul even went so far as to claim to quote Jesus:

“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and he invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What is surprising is that Paul acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person (the Lord Jesus) ate and drank with others - nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation. And so does Richard Carrier, btw.

There are four compelling reasons why this story cannot be historical.
No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/father. Yeshua would have had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners.

Yeshua was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah. To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules. Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals before consumption, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves. (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Yeshua and his followers would have been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.

This Last Supper scene was not something new. It was probably borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. Mithraic initiates believed that by eating a bull’s flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. This was also supposed to give physical strength. Yeshua would not have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, probably made this whole scenario up to mimic a popular pagan practice.

Lastly, Paul never met the Lord Jesus, so was not qualified to quote him.
The synoptic Gospels have similar verses, probably inspired by Paul’s letter.
The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Christian services in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, either literally or metaphorically, yet it has no truthful basis.

Christianity blends guilt, dependence and ceremony. The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you are a sinner. By participating in the event, people are repeatedly reminded they are flawed and need Christ and the Church to be redeemed. That promotes power; and priests and preachers know it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Okay.

Thanks for mentioning all those quotes. My position is that these relatively few quotes that seem to hint at a once human Jesus are interpolations.

This is where skepticism, reasoning, and intellectual honesty need to be employed. Therefore, to qualify your position that all these quotes are interpolations, you need to demonstrate a few things:

1. Evidence: what evidence can you provide to support interpolation.

2. Reasoning: What reasoning can you demonstrate to support interpolation. This reasoning must be supported with the evidence requested in # 1.

3. Consensus: Who, aside from yourself, agrees with your claim.


Here's your chance, Mark. The floor is yours.

Popcorn

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 04:23 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 04:42 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 03:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 03:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Okay.

Thanks for mentioning all those quotes. My position is that these relatively few quotes that seem to hint at a once human Jesus are interpolations.

This is where skepticism, reasoning, and intellectual honesty need to be employed. Therefore, to qualify your position that all these quotes are interpolations, you need to demonstrate a few things:

1. Evidence: what evidence can you provide to support interpolation.

2. Reasoning: What reasoning can you demonstrate to support interpolation. This reasoning must be supported with the evidence requested in # 1.

3. Consensus: Who, aside from yourself, agrees with your claim.


Here's your chance, Mark. The floor is yours.

Popcorn

Thankyou.

I like having the floor.

I'll repeat some of what I wrote in post 138 just so that it is all together in one spot. The following is a bit long, but I suggest anyone who is remotely interested in Paul and in the beginning of Christianity should take the trouble to at least read it.

“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known…Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change.”
(Will Durant, )

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his Christ. They were not from the Jesus in the Gospels, who was someone else.

Paul’s Christ was not the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes the modern reader knows from the Gospels. Amazingly, today’s Gospel reader seems to know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.)
What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:
“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and
“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul did not give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or Jesus’ teachings. The only facts about Christ that mattered to Paul were that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Jesus’ life.

Consider Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” Paul, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If Paul had thought Yeshua was the Son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of Jesus’ close associates. Should not Paul have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God? Yet Paul very obviously was not. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. Three years later, Paul visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way Paul casually downplays the fact that he met James, Yeshua’s brother and Cephas, who was one of Yeshua’s disciples.

In all his writings Paul did not express any pleasure or awe in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Nor did Paul ever document what they had to say about Jesus. This is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus, as they were written by no one is sure whom, by people who had no known connection to Yeshua Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts about Jesus as related by Yeshua’s family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He did not. Instead, Paul wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics.

This was not a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might care to know about Yeshua. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus in his letter. Neither Paul nor James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure - because the Gospels had not been written yet, so Jesus’ status as a legendary character had not yet been created.

Who then, was Paul’s Christ? It was someone who Paul thought had existed in heaven since the beginning of time, yet revealed to the world via Paul’s own peculiar interpretation of Jewish Scripture. In the Gentile world of the time there was competition from many dying and rising gods such as Mithras. Those gods often did not have a mortal life that was remembered, just like Paul’s Christ. It was only the myth of them dying and rising again that gave them significance, just like Paul’s Christ.

Paul’s Christ, real identity uncertain, appears to have been a Judaic myth invented to compete with these other cults. The idea that Paul’s Christ would one day be equated with Yeshua was probably never on Paul’s radar.

It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I cannot prove this happened, yet it is a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries. Or, it could be that Paul was using the (very common) name to represent a spirit, not a person.

The author of 1 Tim 6; 13 wrote that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, yet this was not written by Paul, but by someone writing many years later in his name. “Paul” does talk about what Christ allegedly said on the night he was betrayed, in the first letter to the Corinthians, but this whole passage is unique in that regard and therefore it too is suspiciously “unPauline.”

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.

Paul’s Theology
“I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul’s letters are a graft on Christ’s teachings, Paul’s own gloss apart from Christ’s own experience.”
(Mahatma Gandhi)

To the modern reader, Paul’s theology is strange, and very contrived. Numerous scholars have discussed aspects of it at great length, yet often still disagreed about what Paul may have meant. Despite that, it is important to get the drift of Paul’s key ideas.

Paul was an imaginative theologian. He claimed his Christ was a god - a very novel, indeed blasphemous idea for a Jew to entertain. All devout Jews believed in the one and only Yahweh, a god who had no family; monotheism was a central pillar of their theology. Various pagan cults, however, had gods who had families, for example the cult of Mithras and the Roman imperial cult. Was Paul trying to reinvent a basic tenet of Judaism to make it more like these pagan cults?

Christians may be surprised to learn that it was also Paul who first documented the idea that Yahweh had a son. (Rom.8; 3, Gal. 4; 4 and others.) Jews sometimes referred to a pious man or a king being a “son of God,” but it was never meant in a literal sense. Whether Paul considered his Christ to literally be the equal to God is a matter for much debate, yet there is no doubt Christians today consider Jesus was God’s son because of what Paul wrote.

Paul contended that his Christ was divine and existed in heaven before taking on a human form and living on earth. How this Christ got to earth Paul does not say, as he provides no birth story. Paul did, however, claim that Christ had a human father—
“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3–4, KJV)—which is inconsistent with his claim that Jesus was the son of God, because it is impossible to have two fathers. Paul was frequently inconsistent.

Paul was also probably the first person ever to document that a Christ had risen from the dead. Peter’s and John’s letters, found in the Bible, do mention a risen Christ, but they are thought to have been written a little later than Paul. Yeshua’s disciples did not write them.

Paul had an almost fanatical and rather morbid obsession with sin. He asserted everyone was born with the stain of original sin, inherited from his or her parents. According to Paul, sin offended Yahweh, who would forgive people only when offered a blood sacrifice, a primitive idea that was a common belief among Jews of the time (although not the Essenes.) Indeed, traditional Jews slaughtered cattle and other animals on a titanic scale in the temple to tempt Yahweh into forgiving their sins.
Paul had a highly original and rather odd theory. He claimed that his Christ had offered his life to God so that people would be pardoned for their sins. Paul’s Christ therefore became a blood sacrifice; just like a slaughtered animal. This notion is now known as the doctrine for the atonement of sin through the sacrificial death of Jesus. The Christian world has, perhaps erroneously, assumed Paul’s Christ was Jesus.

Paul claimed that his Christ then rose from the dead, which in his mind proved God accepted Christ’s sacrifice on humanity’s behalf.

Paul asserted that Christ went back up to heaven, but would be coming back soon to take all believers in this scheme up to heaven too. Even those believers who had already died (at the time of Paul’s writing) would be raised from the dead to join the other believers in heaven. Hence all who had “faith in Christ,” would be “saved” and achieve “salvation.”

Paul proposed that the primary purpose of existence was to get into heaven by becoming “one with Christ,” and thereby receive the “gift of eternal life.” (Romans 6; 23.) According to Paul, anyone who did not have faith in Christ could not be saved, so would not get into heaven. This rather contrived, complicated and confusing scheme became known as the doctrine of justification by faith.

These are the core ideas of Paul’s theology, and of today’s Christianity. It is remarkable that Paul imagined the creator of the universe had such a convoluted agenda in mind. It is also astonishing that Paul was confident enough to claim that he held the key to the post mortem destiny of all the world’s peoples.

Paul frequently took his readers and listeners on mental roller-coaster rides such as this, creating a complex web of ideas about God, Christ and man. Paul had clearly spent countless hours cogitating over theological conundrums and came to many firmly held conclusions. Paul claimed to have no doubt that he spoke the truth, and that anyone who would listen needed to be told - and the sooner the better, because he made out that the end of the world was imminent. Paul claimed he was on a mission to get as many people into heaven as possible, and was arrogant enough to insist that only he knew how to do it.

It was Paul’s unwavering commitment to these novel notions that seemed to spark his passion for evangelism.

Paul attempted, perhaps deliberately, to cajole his readers into accepting his ideas using reasoning that was often inconsistent and illogical, a fact many Pauline scholars admit. Paul made very dubious interpretations of Scripture (examples given shortly). He used strange terminology, concepts and language that made him even more difficult to understand (though that may in part be due to difficulties in translation). For example, Romans 7:7-13 (KJV) reads

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”

The modern reader is asked to perform mental gymnastics to make sense of this!
Paul was adamant the Jewish god was everyone’s. This god of his was watching you closely; God knew your every move, could read your thoughts, and judged you accordingly. Think or do or say the wrong thing, and Paul thought his god might deny you heaven, as Paul lays down in his letter to the Romans.

“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2; 5, KJV.)
Paul mixed elements of his theology in different proportions in different letters, as he tried to sell his ideas to disparate social groups, but it did not appear to bother him that he was inconsistent.

It was very important to Paul that the Jewish Messiah was not a patriotic rebel rouser, but was his Christ, God’s son. Paul did not want Jews thinking that they were more special than Gentiles. Paul wanted Jews and Gentiles to get over their differences, so he claimed they were equal in God’s eyes.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29, KJV)

For Paul, belief in Christ was a universal ideal he hoped would help different cultures get over their differences.

Considering the didactic tone of Paul’s letters, it is apparent that Paul had a personal need to be idolized and obeyed, and to help achieve this, he repeatedly reminded his readers of his own (rather dubious) credentials.
“Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?’ (1 Corinthians 9; 1,KJV.)

Paul no doubt dreamed of a day when everyone would get over their differences and believe the same or nearly the same theology, and as an added bonus, he would be admired as the most authentic religious authority.

Yet it can be argued that Paul’s theology is an over-cooked, messy brew of ideas, and the moment of enlightenment when it all makes sense never arrives.

It remains doubtful whether the people Paul wrote to would have understood all he had to say, yet some probably accepted his authority because he was so assertive.

The Source of Paul’s Theology
It cannot be assumed that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, since the evidence is quite to the contrary.

One can imagine going back in time to ask Paul from where he sourced his ideas. Paul showed signs of anxiety when his credibility was questioned, as when “his” communities were visited by someone preaching an alternate theology. Paul frequently wrote at length about himself, and often wrote how hard he worked, how genuine he was, how he had suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he was that what he was preaching was the truth. Paul’s actual answer about the source of his legitimacy might be a long time coming, yet it is embedded in his own writing. Paul thought God himself inspired his ideas. He wrote:

“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.)
Paul specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This was not the only occasion Paul wrote that God inspired him:
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

Paul openly communicated that his God, a character with whom he thought he had a special relationship, was the source of his “Good News.” What Paul probably meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret Scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee.

That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but a modern person can read any number of accounts from over imaginative people who also claim, without evidence, that they have talked to God. Some of these people who hear God are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them. Most objective people today who are aware of Paul’s circumstances would not accept Paul’s own assumptions about his own credibility.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues (the Pharisees) when interpreting Scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of Paul’s letter to the Romans:
“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

Paul promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of Scripture, and he castigated anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3 )

Yet today’s Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” is not to be found in their Scriptures. Moreover, Paul often changed the meaning of Scripture to suit himself. For example, Paul wrote,

“… so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.)

The actual Old Testament source that Paul borrowed heavily from was
“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.)

Paul merely replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology.

One of Paul’s main themes differentiating his theology from that of the Jews was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. Paul wrote,

“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.)
However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea reveals that “God” was not referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of Scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s hometown (Tarsus) was a major center of Mithraic belief. As Paul would have known of Mithras, it is probable that Paul manufactured his Christ partly based on the Mithraic model.

It is not unreasonable to consider whether Paul’s Christ was also, in part, an invention to counter the dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a Messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine Messianic Judaism, and of his own imagination. One could rightly label Paul a master confabulator, a man who invented fictions and interpretations to support his own views.

Paul must have known he was fabricating, but he did not let that niggle at his conscience. Paul was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. The more Paul thought and talked about the divinity of Christ, Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas probably became to him. It either did not bother Paul, or he was not aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. Paul did not waste time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over.

Paul could not have imagined that his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other, and it appears that he just made up parts of his theology to suit his arguments to different groups of people.

Paul was preaching and writing to people in ancient times who, judged by today’s standards, while not unintelligent, were naïve, unsophisticated and isolated. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When Paul appeared in person he was probably a confident teacher.
So Paul must have assumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there is clearly no legitimate reason why modern readers should be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 04:49 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
The fact Paul had a rocky relationship with the Nazarenes (the family & disciples of Yeshua) further undermines the the idea that Paul's Christ was Jesus...

Paul’s Relationship with the Nazarenes

At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” of about 49 CE, James convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the Nazarene’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes this meeting. It is a truly enlightening passage from the Bible:

“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Each sentence, written by Paul, reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and he writes that he was well aware that they might not accept his proclamation of “Good News:”

“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
Moreover, Paul barely concealed the fact that he begrudged them their authority. He wrote:

“…not that their importance matters much to me.”

Can anyone imagine Paul writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the Son of God? This is more compelling evidence that Paul’s Christ was not Yeshua, James’ brother.

Paul quite clearly regarded the three Pillars, including Jesus’ brother James, as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted “such people,” the Nazarenes, the family and disciples of Jesus. They did not “belong to the brotherhood.” Paul accused them of spying on “…the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” Paul said they had “…nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” Paul believed they “…want to reduce us all to slavery.” Paul thought that he was freeing people from the “…slavery…” of the Judaic Law. Paul thought that the “Good News” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to “…belong to the brotherhood…”

Then, Paul and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement, (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter did not respect his “Good News.” Paul claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of the Bible! A churlish, hostile Paul, who was probably the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples! Paul was angry and frustrated that the Nazarenes had been undermining him, and he did not hold back his vindictive retort. Paul and the pillars obviously were not preaching the same message! (As claimed in Acts.)

The historical reality revealed (in part) in this passage probably is that devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ (as per Paul) was unthinkable to them. They could not imagine there was any basis to Paul’s claim that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For the Nazarenes, the kingdom of God promised in Scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their Messiah was not some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. This Messiah was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) bring an end to Roman rule, and was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

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.)

Paul quite clearly thought that faith in his Christ made the Jewish Law redundant. Jews, however, did not buy this. They would not be Jewish if they did. James’ letter in the Bible directly contradicts Paul’s assertions. The Jews 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 is no mention in their Scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost as a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. No Jews, including the Nazarenes, recognized a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade such as 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 that 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 Paul used Scripture 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 Scripture (such as “the law”) were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and had Yeshua been alive, there is little doubt he would have been at first perplexed and then seriously offended by Paul’s idea that the Law was no longer important and that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. Yeshua must have hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and would never have imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant Gentiles a place in heaven!
Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.)

Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for Biblical infallibility!
Many Christians today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. In believing this, they are not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s.

Most Jews (the Samaritans were an exception) believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:
“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and
“Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.)

Paul was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first century Jews, this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:
“Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and
“Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.)

Paul wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and at the same time weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, it is clear from the book of Acts that Paul was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, Paul was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks. Most Jews liked to think they were part of a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder the Jewish people lashed out at Paul?

Jesus’ own people attacked Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s Churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. The Nazarenes also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the Empire. They most definitely did not preach the divinity of Christ, nor did they intend to start a new religion.

Paul, when he was not pretending to be one of the Nazarenes, considered them to be competitors. Paul got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He condemned them, using the undeniable truth of his own Gospel as justification, in his letter to the Galatians:

“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.)

Paul sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It is ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! Paul clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. Paul was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. The Nazarenes were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a militaristic Messiah, but God had revealed to him something he thought much more appropriate - his Christ! He, not they, was plugging the “Good News.”

Paul was sure he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. Paul thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew that he was not popular amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent that Paul was preaching against the Torah, and James sent Paul to the temple to be purified so as to prove that he was still a true Jew. (See Acts 21, ) This led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Romans arrested Paul he was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, and his cover, that is his masquerade as a Nazarene, was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome, and they would not have taken kindly to finding out there was a spy in their ranks. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect Paul from angry Jews. That is about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus. It appears as though Rome was looking after one of their own.

Paul was not deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome.

Paul’s modern-day reputation as an honest evangelist, and the implication that Paul taught Yeshua’s message, have no foundation, yet they have become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. To bolster Paul’s legitimacy, the author of Acts had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author of Acts even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet in Paul’s writings there is no mention of Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles. Paul most certainly would have written about these events had they been true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely was not one of them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Re....

"Who, aside from yourself, agrees with your claim."


http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prair...zarens.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 05:16 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
What the hell, I'm on a roll, I might as well present a little more evidence that Paul's Christ's was almost entirely made up and was not in any way, shape or form related to Yeshua the wannabe political insurgent or to Jesus the character in the gospels...

Paul the Salesman

It can be argued that Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. Paul hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. He had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.

Paul wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and pleaded they believe only his theology. Judging by the content of his letters, Paul was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.

“…that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

Most of the people Paul wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”) although he wrote to some Jews in the Diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. Paul thought he knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he probably imagined himself as one of the few God fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23, KJV)

Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. Paul knew that to appeal to his customers he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism. Traditional Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates, and was too anti-Roman. The Jews believed men had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. The Jews worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish Scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-Gentile God, and Jews would bow to no one but Him. The Jews had to eat kosher food, could marry only Jewish women, and were not allowed to work on the Sabbath. Jews regarded Jewish heritage and history as superior to others, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world, and they had chips on their shoulders that right now it was Rome, not they, who were in charge. Jewish Messianic dreams were a threat to Roman rule. Paul knew that the vast majority of Gentiles, including those in the Roman government, found all this inconvenient, irksome, subversive and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” Paul had to jettison the old Jewish rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the Gentile world’s liking.

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. Paul made the extraordinary claim that to obey the Roman government was to obey God. Paul 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. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. Paul declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he had sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. Paul 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 Paul’s claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.

It can be argued that Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were problematic or no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself.

Paul advocated the replacement of what he called the “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” It is evident that Paul was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams, and that he was bending over backwards to infiltrate the old religion with Gentiles and pro-Roman ideas. Paul had little idea that he was creating an almost entirely new faith, yet that is precisely what his writings helped to do many years later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 06:07 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 03:15 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

Re
"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."

Interesting. Thankyou for sharing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 06:17 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 07:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
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

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

Well… I'm interested in the truth. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether Paul was Roman, a Jew, or a Martian. I personally couldn't really care less whether he taught some of Jesus' teachings or not. However there are millions of people in the world who believe Paul's nonsense i.e. Christians, and they screw up not only their own personal lives but the lives of others, including children's. My vain hope is that some of these people might be interested in the actual historical reality of how Christianity began, and by becoming informed, may abandon their toxic Christian beliefs.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 06:48 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 06:52 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(15-02-2015 05:38 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 04:39 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  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: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

Re

"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."

I hope you do know that Paul did not write Acts?

Yes... the book of Acts does claim that Paul was a Jew. Yet I think Paul's "Jewishness" might best be called "qualified"...

Not a lot is known about Paul’s early life. According to the author of Acts, Paul was a Jew from Tarsus, a city in modern-day Turkey:

“But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people” (Acts 21:39, KJV.)

Tarsus was a large cosmopolitan city on the shore of the Mediterranean, and a thriving commercial center. In Paul’s day it was already ancient; a two-thousand-year-old seaport. A pagan religious cult, Mithraism, which originated in Persia, was very popular there, and many other faith based groups flourished there as well.

Jews living in Tarsus were a minority, yet, as was usual throughout the Diaspora, (the places where Jews lived outside of Israel) Jews living there in Paul’s time were tolerated and respected.

The book of Acts has Paul claiming his education was at Gamaliel’s school in Jerusalem. (Gamaliel was a well-known Jewish rabbi.)
“…brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day” (Acts 22:3, KJV.)

Yet Paul writes nothing in his own letters about being Gamaliel’s student, or growing up in Jerusalem. It is only the author of Acts, who never claimed he knew Paul, who makes these claims.

Although Paul presents himself as an expert in Judaism, he is not accepted as such by Jewish scholars today - and they, of all people, are most qualified to make such an assessment.

Paul had only a moderate understanding of, and no real respect for Pharisaic Judaism. He was not as endeared towards Judaism as a typical Pharisee should be. The account in Acts makes it clear that Paul was less than successful in preaching to Jews who were zealous in their beliefs. In fact Paul preferred to preach to “Hellenized” Jews, or to Gentiles attracted to Judaism, because he thought he understood them, particularly the social problems “the Law” created for them.

Tarsus was not a center of Pharisaic teaching, and evidence for the existence of Pharisees living outside Palestine in Paul’s time is weak. It is possible that the author of Acts invented Paul’s Pharisaic past to augment a tenuous Judaic link between Yeshua’s Judaism and Paul’s Christianity.

Paul was reputedly a tent maker by trade, but this was hardly his calling in life. Paul was a passionate philosopher and theologian, and it is obvious from his letters that what inspired him most was evangelizing others to convince them of his beliefs.
Paul spoke and wrote in Greek, and he had a reasonable understanding of Greek culture and philosophy. He could probably speak Aramaic too, given that he argued with James, Peter and other Jews in Jerusalem.

Paul changed his original name, Saul, to Paul, in honor of a Roman governor. Some scholars have suggested that Paul may not have been a Jew, because his theology is so obviously influenced by Gentile ideas. Yet Paul was Jewish in the sense that he had been born into a Jewish family and had been raised as such. Paul certainly passed himself off as a Jew. He claimed,

“I was circumcised when I was eight days old. As for the law I was a Pharisee; as for working for religion, I was a persecutor of the Church, as far as the Law can make you perfect, I was faultless” (Phil. 3:5–6, NJB.)

Paul declared he was educated in what he called the
“… traditions of my ancestors,” (Gal 1:14, NJB) and he clearly had a moderate understanding of Jewish beliefs. Whether Paul had a genuine respect for those beliefs is another matter.

Paul was a Roman citizen, a status he may have inherited from his parents, (Acts 22:28) although how they came to be Roman citizens is unknown. Paul’s family would have enjoyed tax breaks because they were Roman. The prestige of having the same rights and status as a native Roman was attractive. In mercantile states and cities such as Tarsus, the fact that the government embraced the upper classes of the native population was one of the most successful weapons in the Roman arsenal, as it helped them control the common people. Paul would have been comfortable communicating with Romans, and with higher-ranking Jewish officials.

Paul’s education was obviously eclectic, as Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian and other cultures influenced him. He was an urbane, well-travelled intellectual Jew from a well-off pro-Roman family that had successfully assimilated in a multicultural city. Paul probably spent much time in his youth discussing philosophical and theological issues with educated Greek friends. As a young man he would have enjoyed the lifestyle, freedom, and stimulation of living in a peaceful, successful part of the Roman Empire. Paul was from a very different world to Yeshua, a zealot from the backwater of Galilee, who was very likely illiterate, xenophobic and poor. The differences between cosmopolitan, coastal, cultured Tarsus and heated, hostile Galilee would have been startling. Paul was at home with Romans and greatly admired their culture. Yeshua had grown up in a narrow-minded Jewish environment awash with deep resentment against Gentiles. Some of Yeshua’s friends and relatives had been killed under Roman rule (such as John the Baptist, and the thousands of Galileans killed by Roman soldiers in 4 BCE and 6 CE.) Paul and Yeshua were both Jews, but they could hardly have been more different.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 08:07 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(16-02-2015 04:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re....

"Who, aside from yourself, agrees with your claim."


http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prair...zarens.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php

Please list the professional credentials of all of these people, whoever they are.

Thank you.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: