The fictional Pope Peter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2015, 02:21 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(27-05-2015 07:32 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  ^^^^^^^^
I have wanted to pick that one up. It is kind of awkward though with my wife. At the same time, she buys these silly bible studies with our money. She just makes me feel guilty for spending it...... dammit.

oh, poor you.

She tells you what books you're allowed to buy? That's not fair.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 02:27 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(26-05-2015 09:14 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 03:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "If it wasn't for the Roman Empire "ruling the world" at that time, I have no doubt that Christianity would have coalesced around Jerusalem or even have died out eventually if a semitic or eastern power was in charge."

Agreed...sort of. I would take the argument one step further. I would say that Christianity wouldn't have even been created it hadn't been for the Roman government. I think they did, in fact, invent it.

Yabut Mark, how do you explain all of those eyewitnesses that the bible says saw the miracles and everything? And do you really think that people would die for a lie? ........................Josephus!!!! Yeah, Josephus proves it!!! Did you also hear they found Jesus' home? The bible just keeps getting proven more and more each day. I really think you just want to sin and be angry. Big Grin

How did you know? I'm just seeeeeeeeeething with anger.

Gotta go now to check out some porn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 03:26 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(28-05-2015 02:10 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 04:50 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  A Roman government "agent?" Really? How very modern a concept.

I could have said "spy" or "propagandist" or "employee."

Whatever you call it, I suspect he was working for the government.

The Roman government at the time was very proficient at controlling popular opinion; so it is not a modern concept.

We know for a fact that Josephus was a client (PR dude) working for Vespasian, (Rome). He wrote one of his books attempting to prove the Roman Emperor was the Messiah.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-05-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Quote:The Roman government at the time was very proficient at controlling popular opinion; so it is not a modern concept.

That's Atwill's bullshit and I don't know where he gets the idea from. Then again, most of his ideas are based on air. The Romans were content to have people honor the state gods and to make it easy for them they incorporated lots of local gods into the pantheon.

Now, once you get to Theodosius and his xtian fixation we see that change but in truth the Western Empire did not last all that much longer. Perhaps at that point it was not worth saving?

Josephus was a traitor. Rather than kill himself he defected to the Romans after Jotapata and tells a story quite similar...one might say eerily similar...to his Masada tale of years later. But "historians" championing their patron is hardly anything new.
One simply must keep in mind that he was sycophant and dismiss it when he claims that Vespasian healed the sick while shitting golden coins.

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
28-05-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(28-05-2015 10:17 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:The Roman government at the time was very proficient at controlling popular opinion; so it is not a modern concept.

That's Atwill's bullshit and I don't know where he gets the idea from. Then again, most of his ideas are based on air. The Romans were content to have people honor the state gods and to make it easy for them they incorporated lots of local gods into the pantheon.

Now, once you get to Theodosius and his xtian fixation we see that change but in truth the Western Empire did not last all that much longer. Perhaps at that point it was not worth saving?

Josephus was a traitor. Rather than kill himself he defected to the Romans after Jotapata and tells a story quite similar...one might say eerily similar...to his Masada tale of years later. But "historians" championing their patron is hardly anything new.
One simply must keep in mind that he was sycophant and dismiss it when he claims that Vespasian healed the sick while shitting golden coins.

I concur with this. I don't believe that the Romans created Christianity thru Josephus or any Roman plants in Jerusalem TBH. I'm still inclined to think that Christianity did separate from Judaism fairly early around the time of Paul's letters. However, I believe Paul injects an awful lot of Greek philosophy/ideals that make it sound a little like the early development of "Christian gnosticism". I think the Gospel of John has an awful lot of Greek influence and Gnostic undertones in it as well.

It seems to me that the most likely explanation of how Christianity formed was it evolved out of a Jewish sect that centered around Jesus. Now whether Paul was an outright Christian or if he was a part of a new Jewish sect that broke away from James' sect, the Essenes or if some of the apostles actually broke away themselves after the crucifixion - I don't know. While I know people swear the hand of Rome tries to use it to control the Jews, I think it's more likely a mingling with the Jewish faith with Greek culture. I see the hand of Greek culture and Persian influences from Mithra and Ahura Mazda influences. IDK, right now I'm spit balling more than anything and I have a lot of reading ahead of me to consider.

I'm going to start with Bart's book on the bible forgery and Friedman's books about the Pentatuch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Quote: I'm still inclined to think that Christianity did separate from Judaism fairly early around the time of Paul's letters.


But when was that? The problem with this Paul shit is that early xtian writers never heard of him. There is not a single reference to "paul" in any of Justin's apologies written around 160 AD. Justin knows about Marcion and Marcion was a heretic. But Marcion produced a canon of scripture which included 10 epistles of this so-called "paul" as well as the Gospel of the Lord - which seems to be Luke.

Now, Marcion was denounced as a heretic. Yet, by the end of the 2d century we have the proto-orthodox incorporating the paul stuff and Luke into their version of the canon. Ask yourself, is it reasonable to think they would denounce the heretic but use the heretic's documentation? I imagine there was a major re-write going on. The problem is, we don't know what these originals said we only have what emerged later on. One thing the proto-orthodox did take from Marcion was the extreme anti-semitism.

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
28-05-2015, 06:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2015 07:35 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(28-05-2015 10:17 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:The Roman government at the time was very proficient at controlling popular opinion; so it is not a modern concept.

That's Atwill's bullshit and I don't know where he gets the idea from. Then again, most of his ideas are based on air. The Romans were content to have people honor the state gods and to make it easy for them they incorporated lots of local gods into the pantheon.

Now, once you get to Theodosius and his xtian fixation we see that change but in truth the Western Empire did not last all that much longer. Perhaps at that point it was not worth saving?

Josephus was a traitor. Rather than kill himself he defected to the Romans after Jotapata and tells a story quite similar...one might say eerily similar...to his Masada tale of years later. But "historians" championing their patron is hardly anything new.
One simply must keep in mind that he was sycophant and dismiss it when he claims that Vespasian healed the sick while shitting golden coins.

I suggest you listen to Mike Duncan's podcast on the history of Rome episode 73. He repeatedly makes the point that Vespasian (emperor from 69 to 79 CE) was a great propagandist and thereby controlled popular opinion...how Vespasian commissioned Flavian versions of history to be written. I think the gospels were another such Flavian version of history.

Sorry I've just spent 20 minutes trying to find a way to link it but I can't.

This one on Vespasian mentions this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S686u6FvRCs

By the way I had come to this conclusion long before I had read or even heard of Joseph Atwill.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(28-05-2015 12:51 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote: I'm still inclined to think that Christianity did separate from Judaism fairly early around the time of Paul's letters.


But when was that? The problem with this Paul shit is that early xtian writers never heard of him. There is not a single reference to "paul" in any of Justin's apologies written around 160 AD. Justin knows about Marcion and Marcion was a heretic. But Marcion produced a canon of scripture which included 10 epistles of this so-called "paul" as well as the Gospel of the Lord - which seems to be Luke.

Now, Marcion was denounced as a heretic. Yet, by the end of the 2d century we have the proto-orthodox incorporating the paul stuff and Luke into their version of the canon. Ask yourself, is it reasonable to think they would denounce the heretic but use the heretic's documentation? I imagine there was a major re-write going on. The problem is, we don't know what these originals said we only have what emerged later on. One thing the proto-orthodox did take from Marcion was the extreme anti-semitism.

I agree with what you wrote about Paul and Marcion. Justin never talks about Paul. I think at the time Justin was writing (c 150's) Paul was the enemy because Paul was Marcion's guru.

I suspect what happened was that in the later second century, after Marcion was kicked out of Rome, the Catholic church absorbed Marcion's writings (ie Paul) and embraced them as their own.

They then merged the gospels ( the original versions thereof) with Paul's Christ. This would explain for example why Mark's Gospel originally had no resurrection story in it.
Christ the son of God became one with Jesus the Jewish Messiah.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2015, 09:02 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Quote:This one on Vespasian mentions this too.


Commemorative coins and arches? Claudius did the same thing in Britain. So did Trajan. So did Hadrian. Sorry, but this is hardly evidence of anything other than standard operating procedure for an emperor.

I'll see if I can find the other video after I finish watching the ball game.

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
28-05-2015, 09:04 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Quote:after Marcion was kicked out of Rome


Some day we need to talk about this, Mark. You're one of the few who could discuss it rationally.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: