Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2014, 06:31 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Once the patterns have been observed and the typological system detected, there is only one way they can be read--no decoding or decryption needed--it's that obvious!

If the parallel system still seems less obvious or unapparent despite my colour coded table then how would you have expected the authors of the gospels or Wars of the Jews to make it even more obvious than it already is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: Jesus myth
I am curious as to the point of these discussions and debates.

What is it you (each of you) are trying to achieve?

It is obvious that the Bible is a collection of myths, invented histories, and moral instruction.

So, are you trying to prove that the Bible is concocted?
Are you seeking an argument so convincing that no one will ever take the Bible seriously?

I'm all for discovering how the Bible and its myths came about, but the arguments here seem to have lost the focus of finding facts and have devolved into silliness. And dick waving.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
14-01-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Amen... and nice pic.. furr ball
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(14-01-2014 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am curious as to the point of these discussions and debates.

What is it you (each of you) are trying to achieve?

It is obvious that the Bible is a collection of myths, invented histories, and moral instruction.

So, are you trying to prove that the Bible is concocted?
Are you seeking an argument so convincing that no one will ever take the Bible seriously?

I'm all for discovering how the Bible and its myths came about, but the arguments here seem to have lost the focus of finding facts and have devolved into silliness. And dick waving.

I'd just like to quantify what we can objectively know about Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(14-01-2014 11:06 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(14-01-2014 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am curious as to the point of these discussions and debates.

What is it you (each of you) are trying to achieve?

It is obvious that the Bible is a collection of myths, invented histories, and moral instruction.

So, are you trying to prove that the Bible is concocted?
Are you seeking an argument so convincing that no one will ever take the Bible seriously?

I'm all for discovering how the Bible and its myths came about, but the arguments here seem to have lost the focus of finding facts and have devolved into silliness. And dick waving.

I'd just like to quantify what we can objectively know about Jesus.

What we know is that none of the four Gospels are corroborated by anything or anyone outside of the four gospels.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Quote:Rome always conquered other nations Gods.

Generally, not true. The Romans usually incorporated local gods into the system and with the growth of the Imperial Cult simply had worshiping and sacrificing to the emperors added. Roman toleration of other religions was well established and it was not the Jews' god that they went after but the Jews themselves for rebelling.

I find Atwill's theory preposterous mainly because it was not necessary. The Jews had been crushed. Utterly. There were far more pressing problems in the Roman world than the fucking Jews, such as the Batavian revolt and a financial crisis brought on by the Civil War of the Year of the Four Emperors.

Besides, 40 years later when Pliny the Younger runs across a xtian group in Bithynia-Pontus they bear no resemblance to what later developed in jesus freakdom.

Atwill seems to inflate the Jews importance far beyond what it was at the time.

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
14-01-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(14-01-2014 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am curious as to the point of these discussions and debates.

What is it you (each of you) are trying to achieve?

It is obvious that the Bible is a collection of myths, invented histories, and moral instruction.

So, are you trying to prove that the Bible is concocted?
Are you seeking an argument so convincing that no one will ever take the Bible seriously?

I'm all for discovering how the Bible and its myths came about, but the arguments here seem to have lost the focus of finding facts and have devolved into silliness. And dick waving.

Hi Chas. As you know, I've written a book. The aim my book is in part to discuss the fabricated origins of Christianity. A small part of it discusses Atwill's theory that the gospels were written as a black comedy, a satire. Jesus is actually Titus, the son of God (Vespasian) and they were written to get people to respect Rome. They were written after the first Jewish war (66-70) in order to suppress the messianic dreams implicit in Judaism and commonly held amongst Jews. As it turns out, this "propaganda" was unsuccessful as the Jews, over the next 60 or so years continued to cause trouble, culminating in the second Jewish war of 132-6.

This neatly explains how Christianity, a pro-Roman religion reliant on the Gospels and said to promote pacifism and obedience, didn’t in fact emerge from a Judean cult in a nation that had over a one hundred year history of a militant struggle against Rome, but in reality materialized from Rome itself. It explains why Jesus was sometimes portrayed as a pacifist preacher. It’s why “Jesus” referred to Jews (his own companions!) who rebelled against Rome as a “wicked generation.” It could be why the “second coming” of Jesus never happened; it was Titus who came instead. It’s why the true identities of all the four Gospel authors are unknown. It’s one possible reason why they were first written in Greek, and why they’re so often anti Semitic, yet in places tried to also appeal to fundamentalist Jews.

If this is true, Christianity was a clever, and in one sense humorous, product of the broader struggle that had been going on since Alexander the Great in 333 BCE; the one between Hellenism with its polytheism, cleverness and inclusivity, and Judaism’s monotheism, faith and exclusivity. Jesus’ injunctions to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, aspire to poverty, be content with misery, dream about heaven, be afraid of hell, think like children and pay your taxes take on a cynical meaning, because they were invented to pacify peasants, slaves and religious fanatics. Titus' invented religion, the one said to be the basis of western morality, took hold partly because common people didn't have the intellectual armor to guard against it, and it eventually grew way beyond the wildest dreams of the Flavians. Christians have been unwittingly worshipping Titus Flavius for nearly 2000 years. Titus, lying in his grave, has had an embarrassed, and rather ashamed expression on his face for the last two millennia. The invention grew into a much larger monster than he could ever have imagined.

I find Atwill's theory fascinating and plausible. Some biblical scholars don't, some commentators here don't, yet it's interesting that most of them haven't even read Atwill's book and resort to attacking his perceived lack of credibility by questioning his academic credentials. (this is the dick waving you're referring to) They have a point...but it only needs to be made once....then the guts of his theory needs to be read and understood before anyone should pass judgement.

Gilius and I have read the book (I have 4 times, and have been discussing and commenting on it here and elsewhere for the last 2 years) and Gilius has put in a lot of work to document the facts. EK admits he hasn't read the book, and I don't think minimalist has read it either, yet they're happy to criticise. Richard Carrier is a smart biblical scholar, and he is scathing...but he too almost certainly hasn't read it, and his comments about it, are, in my opinion uninformed in many ways.

Hope this helps.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(14-01-2014 01:46 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Rome always conquered other nations Gods.

Generally, not true. The Romans usually incorporated local gods into the system and with the growth of the Imperial Cult simply had worshiping and sacrificing to the emperors added. Roman toleration of other religions was well established and it was not the Jews' god that they went after but the Jews themselves for rebelling.

I find Atwill's theory preposterous mainly because it was not necessary. The Jews had been crushed. Utterly. There were far more pressing problems in the Roman world than the fucking Jews, such as the Batavian revolt and a financial crisis brought on by the Civil War of the Year of the Four Emperors.

Besides, 40 years later when Pliny the Younger runs across a xtian group in Bithynia-Pontus they bear no resemblance to what later developed in jesus freakdom.

Atwill seems to inflate the Jews importance far beyond what it was at the time.

In the first four centuries CE, there was a huge trade network from Europe all the way to China. Goods were not the only commodities traded; philosophies, traditions and manuscripts were shared amongst the world’s people. Rome absorbed the gods of the provinces it conquered. By the end of the first century, there were so many foreign gods that almost every day of the year celebrated some divinity. Roman citizens were encouraged to give offerings to these gods to maintain the “Pax Deorum” (the peace of the gods.) These cults, including Christianity, vied with their contemporaries for supremacy, and borrowed ideas from each other. Gods who became men, sons of gods, births to virgin mothers on or near the 25th of December, baptisms, miracles, healings, deaths due to hanging on trees or crucifixion, risings from the dead, and belief being the basis for salvation, were all traditional themes. (http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1a.htm).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(13-01-2014 02:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please tell me whether you actually read his book, or have you just read what other people have said about him?

I got to about the 100th page and then put it down. It was blatantly obvious to me at that point that Atwill was indeed the crank I previously suspected him of being. I couldn't stand to read any more of this work of fiction.

I could invent a far better "jesus never existed" theory than that crank could ever dream of creating.

Quote:Much as I like and respect Richard Carrier, it's obvious if you read Atwill's blog that Carrier hasn't actually read Atwill's book! It's also very disappointing that Carrier resorts to ad hominems against Atwill. And, what's more, I don't find any of carriers eight points against Atwill convincing for reasons that I've already discussed.

I have read both Atwill and Carrier's blogs and you need to understand that Atwill is merely asserting that Carrier never read the book. The truth of the matter is that Carrier already had Atwill's theory before Atwill published his book because Atwill had previously published the exact same theory in a previous book back in 2001 entitled: The Roman Origin of Christianity.

Atwill's wacked out theories have been around for 13 years now, and the book in question is merely a rehashing of his previous book.The following is from Carrier:

Richard Carrier Wrote:I should also remind everyone that though Atwill is selling this as a new thing (and I’m noticing several people seem to think this just came out), he’s been shilling this stuff for many years now. My conversation with him took place in 2005, and he’d been shilling it for several years by then already: though his signature book was published that year, I found an earlier version called The Roman Origin of Christianity published in 2001, 2nd edition in 2003, subtitle “How the Emperor Titus, the ‘greatest forger in history’, created the Gospels and the character of Jesus as a satire of his military victories in Judea.” So this theory of his has been in the public for twelve years now.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664


Quote:I'll admit that Atwill is long winded and a bit repetitive. Some of his arguments are difficult to follow and complicated. Yet I'm yet to hear any really good arguments why the basic thrust of his theory is false. I'm open minded about it.

You need to read what the critics are actually saying to understand what the problem with his theory actually is. There are so many problems with it that it makes the theory itself appear to be a total work of fiction because no right-minded person with sufficient knowledge on the subject can possibly take it seriously.

Atwill seems to be someone who is desperately trying to seek out attention from world scholars, and also someone who is so desperate to disprove the existence of Jesus that he will go to any crazy lengths to do so.

Quote:I would love to discuss his theory with anyone who has actually read his book.

Good luck trying to find anybody who will actually sit there and read that book in its entirety, seriously.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Hey EK and minimalist,

Why don't you download from Amazon this recent bestseller, written by a professor of religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-life-times-...reza+aslan

It's only $5, and it's an easy, really good read.

You will both get a good understanding of the antagonism between jews and the Roman government. It will also give you a good insight into who Jesus may have been.

There's not a word in it about Atwill, yet this book helps put Atwill's ideas into context
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: