Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2015, 12:31 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Thanks for watching this video. The guy's got a great accent, hasn't he!Big Grin

Yes. I wish I had a Foster's.

Re "He had far bigger problems than the jews" Well.....maybe....maybe not.... The fact remains that the Jews were still a problem. Permit me a little cut-and-paste that discuss this....

Let's take a time machine back to December of 69 AD when Vespasian, gets to Rome and takes over from the various generals who defeated Vitellius for him. The country is bankrupt. There are military campaigns going on in Britain and Judaea. There was a serious fire when Vespasian's army fought Vitellius' in Rome. Vespasian's brother had been killed by Vitellius. A serious revolt was underway in Batavia and there was the aftermath of Vindex' revolt in Gaul. A number of battles had caused serious casualties to the Roman military which had to be re-built and gotten back to their positions facing the various military threats on the Rhine, Danube and Syrian borders.

Now, of all of this, the most easily solved problem was Jerusalem. In a brilliant series of movements, Vespasian had cut every route out of the city before heading off to Egypt and giving command over to Titus. When he was seated on the throne, Titus advanced on Jerusalem in February and took it in August. Even allowing for typical Josephan exaggeration ( he says over a million were killed ) it seems likely that the jews got the living shit kicked out of them. Looking at it from Vespasian's point of view, the jewish problem was pretty well solved: They were dead, enslaved, or on the run. Check off the box and move on.


"Would Titus have been interested in such an endeavor? The military suppression of Jewish insurgents had already taken three years out of his life. He had a mistress, Bernice, who was Jewish. Titus had brought back 97,000 Jewish prisoners from Palestine to Rome. It is obvious that the control of Jewish behavior would have been an important topic commonly discussed in the Flavian household, one very relevant to Titus personally, and one crucial to the stability of the government.

Again, I just don't see it. The triumph celebrated the end of the campaign. If the Jews were still thought of as a threat Titus would have still been killing them. Julius Civilis in Batavia was a threat. The financial instability of the empire was a threat. The fact that Vespasian, not a member of the senatorial class, had to win over the aristocracy, was an issue although they were pretty cowed by the fates of Galba and Vitellius. My problem with Atwill is that he has an idea and for that idea to make any sense the jews have to be a threat...so he declares them one. But when the Kitos war broke out in 115 the lesson was still pretty well etched on the Judaean mind. They pretty much sat that one out.
There is another point, though. Not all Jews were "Messianic." The split between Hellenized jews and the zealots was pretty clear. The towns of Sepphoris and Tiberias in Galilee politely invited Josephus and his army to go fuck themselves and invited in a Roman garrison. So there was no monolithic jewish mindset in 66. It is important to remember that it was the rapacious behavior of Gessius Florus who provoked the revolt, and once they were in it they were stuck with it. But how many jews really believed they weren't going to end up on the business end of a glaudius? They had to know that they had bitten off more than they could chew.



There is no doubt that the Flavians were antagonistic towards Messianic Jews, even after the war. Vespasian imposed a special tax on all Jews in the Empire, in much the same way the rest of Europe imposed economic restrictions on Germany after World War 1....

Finances dominated Vespasian's thinking. He taxed the public urinals, too. Did that mean he wanted to find a way to subvert piss?

It seems there were three tools the Roman government used to try to control the Jews; military might, economic suppression, and propaganda."

The jews were hardly unique in that formula.

Don't forget that Palestine was en route to Egypt, and Rome was very dependent on Egyptian grain.

Transport by sea was cheaper, faster and safer. Egypt had to be protected from the Parthians. The jews were no threat.

I read somewhere that the army that Vespasian took into Palestine consisted of 120,000 footsoldiers and it was the biggest Army the Romans had ever assembled. I'm not sure if this is historically true or not.

Yeah, Atwill pulled that shit in an earlier video. Here he glossed over it but essentially said the same thing. It's bullshit. Vespasian had the Vth, and Xth legions with him at Ptolemais and Titus brought the XVth from Alexandria. The XIIth was back in Syria re-grouping after Cestius Gallus' fuck up at Jerusalem. A Roman legion had a paper strength of 6,000 but were rarely at full strength. Figure 15-16,000 heavy infantry and an equivalent number of auxilliary archers, slingers, skirmishers and cavalry. Add in a few contingents of allied troops and you probably get to 40,000.

Something like 10% of the citizens of the Empire were Jewish, so Rome simply could not afford to suffer a military defeat at Jewish hands.

Again, not all Jews were a problem. Many had been co-opted into the Greco-Roman lifestyle.

Don't forget there had been previous battles involving thousands of Roman troops in Palestine in four BC and six CE.

The legions intervened in 4 BC under Quinctillius Varus but not in 6 AD. If there were local riots they were suppressed by what amounted to local garrison forces.

Hundreds of Roman troops had been slaughtered in Jerusalem in 66 CE. In the decades before that Palestine had been almost out of control.

Josephus aside, the fact remains that the XII Legion was back in the fight when Titus moved on Jerusalem. They couldn't have been chewed up that badly.

To me it is fairly obvious that Jewish peasants and the Jewish religion itself was a major thorn in the side of the Roman government.

It's a bizarre scenario but the Romans continually tried to find a Herod to run the country for them. After the great revolt, Herod Agrippa II resumed his duties as king until his death near 100 AD. So there is something to be said for that idea but when the Romans got pissed enough they simply slaughtered them in great numbers. By the time of the second and third revolts the Flavians were long gone from power so Atwill's great idea was something of a flop.


It seems distinctly possible that Paul's prattle was the pre first Jewish War government propaganda, and the gospels, well at least the Gospel of Mark, was the post war effort.

I think "Paul" is as much a literary creation as "Jesus." No one fucking heard of him until Marcion trotted him out c 140 AD. [/b]

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
[+] 4 users Like Minimalist's post
11-02-2015, 12:36 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Quote:There are non-Biblical writings that predate 74 CE that mention Christianity. Am I wrong on this?

There are claims that there are xtian writings which are first century. Evidence for those claims is lacking. A lot of those claims are based on circular reasoning. It's a very complex issue.

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
11-02-2015, 12:40 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(11-02-2015 12:36 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:There are non-Biblical writings that predate 74 CE that mention Christianity. Am I wrong on this?

There are claims that there are xtian writings which are first century. Evidence for those claims is lacking. A lot of those claims are based on circular reasoning. It's a very complex issue.

Ok, I seem to remember someone mentioning Tacitus writing about Nero persecuting Christians in the 60s. Like I said, I'm ignorant in this field.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2015, 12:47 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(10-02-2015 11:55 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I watched it. The Titus connection seems a bit loose.

It is way outside the box...a little too far out. I've got to dig out that book on Josephus I've got hidden away somewhere.

@ Minimalist I agree with many of your points about the Romans. Wasn't Constantine tho the first (of someone with lots of power) to embrace Christianity? Yes, he made it legal through his conversion and one could easily argue he set the stage for it to become a national religion.



Constantine was a murdering thug...of course they made him a fucking saint...but part of the problem with all the stories about him is that they were written down by xtian members of his entourage. One of them was a guy named Lactantius.

He recorded this tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces

Quote:Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius was an early Christian author (c. 240 – c. 320) who became an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, guiding his religious policy as it developed, and tutor to his son.[1] His work De Mortibus Persecutorum has an apologetic character, but has been treated as a work of history by Christian writers. Here Lactantius preserves the story of Constantine's vision of the Chi Rho before his conversion to Christianity.[2] The full text is found in only one manuscript, which bears the title, Lucii Caecilii liber ad Donatum Confessorem de Mortibus Persecutorum.

The historian bishop Eusebius of Caesaria states that Constantine was marching with his army (Eusebius does not specify the actual location of the event, but it is clearly not in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "(ἐν) τούτῳ νίκα" ("In this, conquer"),[3] a phrase often rendered into Latin as in hoc signo vinces ("in this sign, you will conquer").[4]

At first, Constantine did not know the meaning of the apparition, but on the following night, he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign of the cross against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the Labarum,[5] the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the Chi-Rho sign. The accounts by Lactantius and Eusebius, though not entirely consistent, have been connected to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, having merged into a popular notion of Constantine seeing the Chi-Rho sign on the evening before the battle

Did it happen or did some lying xtian just write the story?

Consider the later tale of Pope Leo going out to meet Attila to get him to not attack Rome. Nice story. But it is set in the 450's and Rome had been thoroughly sacked by the Goths in 410. It had not been the capital of the Western Empire since 280 AD anyway and it is unlikely that it would have been a rich enough target to attract the Huns.

But what a great story for the church to pump out and we all know those xtian shits were fantastic liars!

My sense is that Constantine was a politician. He took support from whoever he could get it from. If Maxentius' troops were following Sol Invictus then Constantine would have gladly accepted the support of xtians or anyone else who could help him.

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
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
11-02-2015, 12:48 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(11-02-2015 12:40 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 12:36 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  There are claims that there are xtian writings which are first century. Evidence for those claims is lacking. A lot of those claims are based on circular reasoning. It's a very complex issue.

Ok, I seem to remember someone mentioning Tacitus writing about Nero persecuting Christians in the 60s. Like I said, I'm ignorant in this field.

Tacitus was a second century writer. The passage is probably a much later forgery, anyway. No one in antiquity ever heard about it and that included xtian writers.

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
11-02-2015, 01:32 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(11-02-2015 12:47 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 11:55 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I watched it. The Titus connection seems a bit loose.

It is way outside the box...a little too far out. I've got to dig out that book on Josephus I've got hidden away somewhere.

@ Minimalist I agree with many of your points about the Romans. Wasn't Constantine tho the first (of someone with lots of power) to embrace Christianity? Yes, he made it legal through his conversion and one could easily argue he set the stage for it to become a national religion.



Constantine was a murdering thug...of course they made him a fucking saint...but part of the problem with all the stories about him is that they were written down by xtian members of his entourage. One of them was a guy named Lactantius.

He recorded this tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces

Quote:Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius was an early Christian author (c. 240 – c. 320) who became an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, guiding his religious policy as it developed, and tutor to his son.[1] His work De Mortibus Persecutorum has an apologetic character, but has been treated as a work of history by Christian writers. Here Lactantius preserves the story of Constantine's vision of the Chi Rho before his conversion to Christianity.[2] The full text is found in only one manuscript, which bears the title, Lucii Caecilii liber ad Donatum Confessorem de Mortibus Persecutorum.

The historian bishop Eusebius of Caesaria states that Constantine was marching with his army (Eusebius does not specify the actual location of the event, but it is clearly not in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "(ἐν) τούτῳ νίκα" ("In this, conquer"),[3] a phrase often rendered into Latin as in hoc signo vinces ("in this sign, you will conquer").[4]

At first, Constantine did not know the meaning of the apparition, but on the following night, he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign of the cross against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the Labarum,[5] the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the Chi-Rho sign. The accounts by Lactantius and Eusebius, though not entirely consistent, have been connected to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, having merged into a popular notion of Constantine seeing the Chi-Rho sign on the evening before the battle

Did it happen or did some lying xtian just write the story?

Consider the later tale of Pope Leo going out to meet Attila to get him to not attack Rome. Nice story. But it is set in the 450's and Rome had been thoroughly sacked by the Goths in 410. It had not been the capital of the Western Empire since 280 AD anyway and it is unlikely that it would have been a rich enough target to attract the Huns.

But what a great story for the church to pump out and we all know those xtian shits were fantastic liars!

My sense is that Constantine was a politician. He took support from whoever he could get it from. If Maxentius' troops were following Sol Invictus then Constantine would have gladly accepted the support of xtians or anyone else who could help him.

Just so we're clear, I never said he was a "believer" only that he embraced it. It was a means to an end...no different from any other "church leaders"

I have also said in another thread long before this, that the earliest Christian types weren't actually believers at all. That happened after a few generations. Christianity like all religions before it and after, are ways to control people.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
11-02-2015, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2015 01:56 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
The "Christ" refers to a messiah, not necessarily to the Jesus character so there are sects of Christianity which go back to 300 BC. Serapis worship was attacked as a heretical sect of Christianity but it was developed by the Egyptians in the 4th century BC.

Nero could very well have persecuted Christians. He may have been persecuting followers of Serapis.

According to Atwill, however, the Jesus story dates from the 60s AD. According to Ralph Ellis, the Jesus figure was Jesus of Gamala who would have been in his 50s at the time of Nero and could have had followers for some time so there is no reason in this "scenario" that there were not followers of a man called "Jesus" at the time of Nero.

There is certainly no mention of anyone called Mr. Jesus Christ, son of Mary and Joseph Christ of Main Street, Nazareth, prior to the 60s AD.

My take on this is that Atwill has a valid point because other sources indicate that the "cross" was a symbol of veneration in Egypt and is associated with Horus worship. The worhsippers of Horus appear to have arrived in Egypt from who knows where in about the 300's BC or so, according to Roberts, Penguin History of the World. (I may have the date wrong but can't be bothered to thumb through and find the correct timing) They seem to have developed into a rival cult to Osiris worshippers. I think this cult are the messianic monotheists who have come to be known as "Jews".

I also read that the Greeks in the third century BC wrote of the British Isles as home of the Hebiru and they were also referred to as "Albions". Scotland is still referred to as Alba and England is referred to as Albion. There are the Hebrides island off Scotland and Scotland is also referred to as Hibernia.

Genetic research has shown that the "British" who were pushed into the western British Isles, ie., Wales, Highlands, Ireland, are related to the Basques of northern Spain or Iberia. Alfred the Great back in the 9th century commissioned a chronicle of the British in which it is said that the British come from Armenia, which, would have been an area from the Black Sea down to Syria and Lebanon.

The point being that the name "Christ" is simply a variant pronunciation of a consonantal word and, I believe, is the same word and same concept as Horus. This cult is then supposed to have left Egypt and set up in Judea, building Jerusalem. Again, Jerusalem was spelled "Herusalem" so it is, IMO, likely that the messianic monotheists who established Jerusalem were Horus worhshippers and were militant, messianic warlike monotheists.

This is sort of what Atwill is saying, that it is completely unlikely and improbable that there was a peaceful "messiah" figure in Judea. Such a character would not have been seen as a Messiah at all. He would have been considered to be the opposite of a messiah. This cult was waiting for a warrior messiah to arrive, not a peace preacher.

There is now growing evidence that the Franks originated from Syria as well, probably later than the Britons, but they are all the same people. The Angles and Saxons also have national myths which have them originating in the Near East and DNA is confirming this, as are linguistic studies which show Anatolia as the homeland of proto-European languages.

Both the Brits and the Georgians share a red cross for a national flag and St. George as a patron saint, another Horus figure if there ever was one. The area around Georgia was also once referred to as Iberia.

This idea we have now of "Jews" being the same people we now see in Israel and Judea is simply what some here call "presentism". A "Jew" means a "Yahoo" or worshipper of "Yah". The word "Hebrew" comes from "iberu" which means someone from across a river, hence the words "over" and "aber" and "uber". Neither of these words have the same ethnic connotation now as they had back then. The word "semite" was only coined in the 17th century.

What Atwill is saying is that the Romans, in the 60's AD came up against a militant group in Judea who were very strong. My view is that this group are people related to Frankish/Armenian tribes of the area who worshipped Horus.

Atwill alludes to the "Jesus" figure being Eleazar and there was in fact an Eleazar who was a Nazarene priest and converted one of these tribes leaders, Helena and Abgharus who were "Jews" in the area of Palmyra in Syria. Again, we have the name Abgharus, Ab meaning "of" and Gharus being "Horus". This is also the origin of the name "Paris" which comes from "ap", "son of", "Aris" or Horus.

The teachings of Eleazar are indeed similar to what we know of as Christianity, ie., the golden rule etc. but his life story doesn't match with that of Jesus in any meaningful way, while the son of Helena became a High Priest in Jerusalem and led the Jewish revolt. He also had a twin brother which coincides with the Thomas of the gnostic gospels.

I have just been reading Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels again, in light of my readings of Atwill, Ellis, Donnini and there is nothing she says about the gnostic gospels which conflicts with Atwill and Ellis. She tries to suggest that there is reference to a Jesus Christ as being from the 30s AD but she refers for historical support to the Gospels themselves and to Jospephus, who both Ellis and Atwill say was the writer or one of the writers of the Gospels and to another historian who post dates Josephus. The Gnostic gospels clearly show there was a strong view that orthodox Christianity was false and a sham as was its messiah so that also coincides with what Atwill says.

I've also been rereading the NT in light of what Atwill says and it is very clearly the depiction of a gnostic religion, viz, the Word, having Eastern connections, viz, the Magi, featuring a conversion from a religion of the Magi to a Nazarene sect, was a secretive religion, viz., Jesus speaking in parables because only he and the disciples understood the inner meaning of the religion.

If Atwill is right, which I am sure he is, about Roman Christianity being an invented religion, then the underlying religion of the day was a messianic monotheism which was relentlessly militaristic. The question is, did this old religion die out? I don't see how it could have. There may have been a diaspora or forced exile of leaders of the "tribes" but it is hard to see how the entire population of the area could have been deported.

My view is that some people converted to a Christianity based on the NT, such as the Armenians and Georgians, and some carried on in the "Christianity" of this militant, messianic leader until they were subdued and suppressed by Islam which is another made up, rewrite of this religion to suit the needs of invading Arabs. I think one can see the outline of this Gnostic Christianity underlying some Muslim sects such as Alawi's, Druze Muslims, Zaidis (Shia) and in a more distinct form in Yazidis.

In other words, what the Romans were up against 2000 years ago, is what the West is still fighting today, militant monotheism. If you read Matthew Chs. 5-7 and look at what Jesus is saying, he seems to be talking about "fulfilling" a religion which is very similar to Islam. He is criticizing the same ideas that are prevalent among Islamists today.

The problem here is that most people look at this from a "presentist" position. Why would the Romans have been concerned about a messianic Jewish uprising? Well, they fought these people for a hundred years. This was no "uprising". Remember, back then the people of the Near East were not "Turks" or Arabs. They were proto-Europeans. Galilleans were named that because of their white skin and Phoenicians had red hair. Golan was named after the "gauls" who lived there. The Romans were a Gaullic tribe who settled in Italy after leaving the area around modern Bulgaria. This was a war between Europeans, Gauls, not between Europeans and "semitic" Jews or Palestinians as we know them today. This was part of a power struggle over what was the middle of the Indo-European world system and the center of trade between East and West. That is why the Romans then moved their headquarters to Constantinople...

Anyway, it's a theory...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2015, 02:43 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(10-02-2015 09:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Pardon an ignorant contributor, if you don't mind. I watched the video again and while I find the "outside the box" thinking intriguing, some things make me wonder. For instance, he mentions the Flavians' creation of Christianity to be something like 74 CE. While I know he said they wrote the gospels as if they were written 40 years earlier, this seems like a huge problem to me. There are non-Biblical writings that predate 74 CE that mention Christianity. Am I wrong on this?

Also, if they wrote the gospels, what about the gospels that have been unearthed that didn't make it into the bible? These mention Christ, etc. Did Josephus write these, too, and the Flavians rejected them? Yet they somehow survived despite an entire empire that prided itself on destroying dissenting records?

And, finally, if I remember correctly, the gospels mention the need to convert Gentiles. If the gospels were a rouse to get non-conforming Jews to follow Jesus, who is supposed to supersede all other figureheads, wouldn't this be counterproductive to convert the Roman multitude that already follow/worship the Flavians and have those followers now be dissenters, even if they unknowingly would be worshipping Titus?

This is just the tip of the dissenting iceberg for me, but I didn't want it to get too long.

Re "There are non-Biblical writings that predate 74 CE that mention Christianity. Am I wrong on this?"

I think you are spot on. My opinion (and it is just an opinion) on this is that the writings of Paul and possibly some of the Gnostic philosophies were the Roman government's pre-war propaganda effort, and the gospels were their post war propaganda effort. I suspect that Paul's Christ and Jesus were only merged together in the early to mid second century when Marcion, who probably bought Paul's writings to Rome, encountered the Roman gospels.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
11-02-2015, 03:16 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(10-02-2015 09:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Pardon an ignorant contributor, if you don't mind. I watched the video again and while I find the "outside the box" thinking intriguing, some things make me wonder. For instance, he mentions the Flavians' creation of Christianity to be something like 74 CE. While I know he said they wrote the gospels as if they were written 40 years earlier, this seems like a huge problem to me. There are non-Biblical writings that predate 74 CE that mention Christianity. Am I wrong on this?

Also, if they wrote the gospels, what about the gospels that have been unearthed that didn't make it into the bible? These mention Christ, etc. Did Josephus write these, too, and the Flavians rejected them? Yet they somehow survived despite an entire empire that prided itself on destroying dissenting records?

And, finally, if I remember correctly, the gospels mention the need to convert Gentiles. If the gospels were a rouse to get non-conforming Jews to follow Jesus, who is supposed to supersede all other figureheads, wouldn't this be counterproductive to convert the Roman multitude that already follow/worship the Flavians and have those followers now be dissenters, even if they unknowingly would be worshipping Titus?

This is just the tip of the dissenting iceberg for me, but I didn't want it to get too long.

Re "Also, if they wrote the gospels, what about the gospels that have been unearthed that didn't make it into the bible?"

Very good question, and one that Atwill fails to address.

Atwill does not explain the proliferation of dozens of now apocryphal gospels in the second century, or the success of Marcion and the Gnostics, but the reality is that any commentary about this, from anyone, is to a large degree guesswork. I will have my guess and say that these versions of Christianity, in common with Paul’s ramblings, also originated from the government for the same reason, but were pre Flavian and therefore pre-Gospel (although Marcion himself did use a version of Luke, but Marcion only appeared in the 140’s.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
11-02-2015, 03:24 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2015 03:11 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(10-02-2015 09:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Pardon an ignorant contributor, if you don't mind. I watched the video again and while I find the "outside the box" thinking intriguing, some things make me wonder. For instance, he mentions the Flavians' creation of Christianity to be something like 74 CE. While I know he said they wrote the gospels as if they were written 40 years earlier, this seems like a huge problem to me. There are non-Biblical writings that predate 74 CE that mention Christianity. Am I wrong on this?

Also, if they wrote the gospels, what about the gospels that have been unearthed that didn't make it into the bible? These mention Christ, etc. Did Josephus write these, too, and the Flavians rejected them? Yet they somehow survived despite an entire empire that prided itself on destroying dissenting records?

And, finally, if I remember correctly, the gospels mention the need to convert Gentiles. If the gospels were a rouse to get non-conforming Jews to follow Jesus, who is supposed to supersede all other figureheads, wouldn't this be counterproductive to convert the Roman multitude that already follow/worship the Flavians and have those followers now be dissenters, even if they unknowingly would be worshipping Titus?

This is just the tip of the dissenting iceberg for me, but I didn't want it to get too long.

Re "And, finally, if I remember correctly, the gospels mention the need to convert Gentiles. If the gospels were a rouse to get non-conforming Jews to follow Jesus, who is supposed to supersede all other figureheads, wouldn't this be counterproductive to convert the Roman multitude that already follow/worship the Flavians and have those followers now be dissenters, even if they unknowingly would be worshipping Titus?"

The gospels are ambivalent about this. Jesus sometimes says he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and then other times he says his apostles should go out and preach to the whole world. This is evidence that there were many different authors in each Gospel and each Gospel was added on to as time went by.

One way to counteract messianic literature was to dilute the purity of its message. The other was to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles, people who would be loyal tax paying members of the Empire. I think both Paul and the authors of the gospels were trying to get Gentiles into the Jewish religion, or perhaps supersede the Jewish religion with a watered down version (i.e. what became Christianity).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: