Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2015, 09:33 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(11-02-2015 09:30 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What does everyone else think?

Whenever I think about a government being that farsighted, cunning, and successful at a conspiracy I find it hard to believe...
Consider
Big Grin

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
11-02-2015, 09:49 PM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(11-02-2015 09:33 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 09:30 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What does everyone else think?

Whenever I think about a government being that farsighted, cunning, and successful at a conspiracy I find it hard to believe...
Consider
Big Grin

Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Who else but the government had the money, the motivation or the intellectual power to create the monstrosity that became Christianity? It certainly wasn't Jesus' Jewish friends in Jerusalem.

Why would Paul have pushed his version of woo so hard? Because he thought he was telling the truth? Hardly. He knew he was spinning bullshit as a means to an end...to stop war, and get the plebs paying tax, and dreaming about heaven... not social, political and economic equity.Thumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 12:29 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Herod the Great is one of those figures in history (Caligula and Nero are others) about whom we have only the testimony of their enemies. Like Caligula and Nero, Herod had no problem with popular revolts. Their enemies were the upper classes who also happened to be the literate classes.

The Julio-Claudians made it a point to keep the commons happy in order to prevent riots in Rome. The Bread and Circuses mantra, if you will. Herod didn't do that exactly but one can envision the commons being exceedingly happy with his building projects which put money in their pockets. That much is speculation but what is not speculation is that these three horrible "tyrants" were popular with the lower classes but earned the enmity of the upper classes through taxation, judicial murders, confiscations, forced loans, etc. It's all well and good to trot out the Robin Hood mantra of the poor peasants being taxed to death but the peasants did not have money. You could kill them but that would not solve your money problems. It was the rich who had the money. You know what Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks?

In Herod's case the creation of the port of Caesarea Maritima was one of the most brilliant commercial moves in history. He built a large, well-sheltered port and the revenues he gained from it helped finance his other building projects. So it is tricky to rely solely on the calumnies of Josephus because Josephus was from a priestly (i.e. noble) family which doubtlessly bitterly resented Herod's non Hasmonean lineage and may well have regarded his building projects as a way to subvert the populace from their more traditional loyalties to the nobility.

One cannot escape the ramifications of class status when discussing antiquity. Herod was tutored by Caesar and Mark Antony and when the time came, he threw in with Octavian. He was schooled by the populaires who won the Roman civil wars...not the optimates.

BTW, you have one error in your 4 BC discussion. When Quinctillius Varus brought the legions in from Syria it was to enforce Herod's will which was that his kingdom be divided among his remaining sons. Archelaus did not get Galilee. He was tetrarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumea. Antipas got Galilee and Perea which he ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD (when Caligula booted him out) and Phillip the territories in the Transjordan. Augustus did grant a Jewish petition to remove Archelaus from office and allow the region to become a Roman prefecture in 6 AD when P. Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria and Coponius was made prefect of Judaea.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
12-02-2015, 12:43 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(11-02-2015 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 09:33 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Whenever I think about a government being that farsighted, cunning, and successful at a conspiracy I find it hard to believe...
Consider
Big Grin

Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Who else but the government had the money, the motivation or the intellectual power to create the monstrosity that became Christianity? It certainly wasn't Jesus' Jewish friends in Jerusalem.

Why would Paul have pushed his version of woo so hard? Because he thought he was telling the truth? Hardly. He knew he was spinning bullshit as a means to an end...to stop war, and get the plebs paying tax, and dreaming about heaven... not social, political and economic equity.Thumbsup


As late as 110-112 AD when Pliny the Younger reports running into a group of "christians" in Bithynia-Pontus the group he describes is nothing like what xtians later became and he, like Suetonius and Tacitus (if the passage is not a forgery) heard of Christos (or Chrestos) but they never heard of any fucking jesus. When Lucian of Samosata wrote the The Death of Peregrinus c 160 he had the gist of the story, saying "they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" but he does not mention "jesus," either. No. It is not until c 185 that we find the name of jesus written by Celsus roughly the same time as Irenaeus was writing his heavenly horseshit.
This cannot be an accident. "Jesus" seems to be a mid 2d century addition to the tale. A useful marketing technique to help spread the tale among the more gullible elements of society. But I need not point out that by 185, the Flavians had long since departed the stage of history.

As for Paul.... I'm waiting for actual evidence - not circular "it says so in Acts - that those tales of his set in the first century are any more real than the gospel tales of jesus set in the first century.

To quote George Carlin: It's all bullshit and its bad for you.

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
12-02-2015, 01:59 AM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2015 02:14 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(12-02-2015 12:29 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Herod the Great is one of those figures in history (Caligula and Nero are others) about whom we have only the testimony of their enemies. Like Caligula and Nero, Herod had no problem with popular revolts. Their enemies were the upper classes who also happened to be the literate classes.

The Julio-Claudians made it a point to keep the commons happy in order to prevent riots in Rome. The Bread and Circuses mantra, if you will. Herod didn't do that exactly but one can envision the commons being exceedingly happy with his building projects which put money in their pockets. That much is speculation but what is not speculation is that these three horrible "tyrants" were popular with the lower classes but earned the enmity of the upper classes through taxation, judicial murders, confiscations, forced loans, etc. It's all well and good to trot out the Robin Hood mantra of the poor peasants being taxed to death but the peasants did not have money. You could kill them but that would not solve your money problems. It was the rich who had the money. You know what Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks?

In Herod's case the creation of the port of Caesarea Maritima was one of the most brilliant commercial moves in history. He built a large, well-sheltered port and the revenues he gained from it helped finance his other building projects. So it is tricky to rely solely on the calumnies of Josephus because Josephus was from a priestly (i.e. noble) family which doubtlessly bitterly resented Herod's non Hasmonean lineage and may well have regarded his building projects as a way to subvert the populace from their more traditional loyalties to the nobility.

One cannot escape the ramifications of class status when discussing antiquity. Herod was tutored by Caesar and Mark Antony and when the time came, he threw in with Octavian. He was schooled by the populaires who won the Roman civil wars...not the optimates.

BTW, you have one error in your 4 BC discussion. When Quinctillius Varus brought the legions in from Syria it was to enforce Herod's will which was that his kingdom be divided among his remaining sons. Archelaus did not get Galilee. He was tetrarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumea. Antipas got Galilee and Perea which he ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD (when Caligula booted him out) and Phillip the territories in the Transjordan. Augustus did grant a Jewish petition to remove Archelaus from office and allow the region to become a Roman prefecture in 6 AD when P. Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria and Coponius was made prefect of Judaea.

Re "That much is speculation but what is not speculation is that these three horrible "tyrants" were popular with the lower classes but earned the enmity of the upper classes through taxation, judicial murders, confiscations, forced loans, etc."

That has not been the impression I've got from my reading. I have always thought that the Romans created and patronised the upper classes of the native population, as it helped them keep control of the commoners. I don't think Herod was very popular amongst the common people, even if he did give some of them a job.

What would you say the reason for the skirmishes – wars of 4 BC, 6 CE, 66 to 73 CE and 132-6 CE were? These were fights against Romans. Are you suggesting that it was the upper classes who fought against the Romans?

Don't forget the Sadducees were from the powerful, wealthy families, and they had been appointed by Rome.

Thanks for pointing out the error about Archelaus. Bit of a shame, for me...one week late. The final version of the goddamn book has already gone to the printers.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 02:04 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(12-02-2015 12:43 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Who else but the government had the money, the motivation or the intellectual power to create the monstrosity that became Christianity? It certainly wasn't Jesus' Jewish friends in Jerusalem.

Why would Paul have pushed his version of woo so hard? Because he thought he was telling the truth? Hardly. He knew he was spinning bullshit as a means to an end...to stop war, and get the plebs paying tax, and dreaming about heaven... not social, political and economic equity.Thumbsup


As late as 110-112 AD when Pliny the Younger reports running into a group of "christians" in Bithynia-Pontus the group he describes is nothing like what xtians later became and he, like Suetonius and Tacitus (if the passage is not a forgery) heard of Christos (or Chrestos) but they never heard of any fucking jesus. When Lucian of Samosata wrote the The Death of Peregrinus c 160 he had the gist of the story, saying "they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" but he does not mention "jesus," either. No. It is not until c 185 that we find the name of jesus written by Celsus roughly the same time as Irenaeus was writing his heavenly horseshit.
This cannot be an accident. "Jesus" seems to be a mid 2d century addition to the tale. A useful marketing technique to help spread the tale among the more gullible elements of society. But I need not point out that by 185, the Flavians had long since departed the stage of history.

As for Paul.... I'm waiting for actual evidence - not circular "it says so in Acts - that those tales of his set in the first century are any more real than the gospel tales of jesus set in the first century.

To quote George Carlin: It's all bullshit and its bad for you.

Re "It is not until c 185 that we find the name of jesus written by Celsus roughly the same time as Irenaeus was writing his heavenly horseshit."

I would agree with that. I found it impossible to find good evidence of Jesus prior to this time. A Christ, yes, but Jesus, no. I wasn't willing to put that in my book though, because it flies in the face of what 99% of scholars say. Nearly everyone has the gospels created between 70 and 110 CE.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 02:07 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(12-02-2015 12:43 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Who else but the government had the money, the motivation or the intellectual power to create the monstrosity that became Christianity? It certainly wasn't Jesus' Jewish friends in Jerusalem.

Why would Paul have pushed his version of woo so hard? Because he thought he was telling the truth? Hardly. He knew he was spinning bullshit as a means to an end...to stop war, and get the plebs paying tax, and dreaming about heaven... not social, political and economic equity.Thumbsup


As late as 110-112 AD when Pliny the Younger reports running into a group of "christians" in Bithynia-Pontus the group he describes is nothing like what xtians later became and he, like Suetonius and Tacitus (if the passage is not a forgery) heard of Christos (or Chrestos) but they never heard of any fucking jesus. When Lucian of Samosata wrote the The Death of Peregrinus c 160 he had the gist of the story, saying "they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" but he does not mention "jesus," either. No. It is not until c 185 that we find the name of jesus written by Celsus roughly the same time as Irenaeus was writing his heavenly horseshit.
This cannot be an accident. "Jesus" seems to be a mid 2d century addition to the tale. A useful marketing technique to help spread the tale among the more gullible elements of society. But I need not point out that by 185, the Flavians had long since departed the stage of history.

As for Paul.... I'm waiting for actual evidence - not circular "it says so in Acts - that those tales of his set in the first century are any more real than the gospel tales of jesus set in the first century.

To quote George Carlin: It's all bullshit and its bad for you.

Re "As for Paul.... I'm waiting for actual evidence - not circular "it says so in Acts - that those tales of his set in the first century are any more real than the gospel tales of jesus set in the first century."

There is absolutely no evidence that anything Paul wrote about Christ or theology has any evidence in fact, so I'm with you on this too.
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
12-02-2015, 02:08 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(12-02-2015 01:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The final version of the goddamn book has already gone to the printers.

Congratulations Smile You planning to make it available as an eBook as well?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 02:10 AM
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
(12-02-2015 02:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 01:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The final version of the goddamn book has already gone to the printers.

Congratulations Smile You planning to make it available as an eBook as well?

Thank you. Nice of you to say. Yes it will come out as an e-book. It will have about 1000 links to YouTube documentaries, other commentaries and websites, so I'm hoping it will be an interesting resource for people.
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
12-02-2015, 12:32 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2015 01:10 PM by Im_Ryan.)
RE: Full version of Joseph Atwill's Documentary
Why would Rome go through all the effort to create Christianity? They had already defeated the Zealots at Masada 10 years prior, and Titus is in the process of fucking Jerusalem and burning their 2nd temple. Not to mention what happens with Hadrian 50 years later with the Cosiba revolts...

Seems like a lot of extra effort while they're killing the Jews just fine


**Edit:
Also, I was always told in my history class that one of the reasons why the Romans hated the Jews so much was because the Jews were monotheistic, which not only clashed with their pagan beliefs, but with their centralized government (emperor is number one baby!) as well. So why would they go ahead and make another monotheistic religion in which they will have the same problems? Did they need more people to kill for another 200 years?

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: