Problems In The Church

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Sure, it's tough for materialistic scientists and confused Christians - and those that think they are real Christians - to have their entire faith trashed by the overwhelming evidence of the Breeze-Atwill expose' but tough toenails.

Seriously? You think something like this has any credibility?

In 2003 Joseph Atwill discovered that the Roman emperor Titus Flavius, working with Flavius Josephus and other authors in his patrimony wrote the New Testament. Atwill deduced this by comparing The 'Judean War' to the New Testament. The 'Judean War', written by Flavius Josephus, was originally part of the Christian Bible, and was removed around 1100 CE. (Source)

"The 'Judean War', was originally part of the Christian Bible, and was removed around 1100 CE"

What level of delusion is required to believe that there is any shred of evidence that this is true? Do you honestly believe that no Bibles exist prior to 1100AD, no other texts that reference the Bible and its contents? Here is a copy from about 400AD, you are welcome to cite where in it the "Judean War" appears.

Nothing from Josephus was EVER in the Christian Bible, that is seriously one of the most moronic claims that I've ever seen.

Christianity has nothing to fear from any "researcher" who begins with such a ludicrous premise as that.

Originally posted by ALightBreeze

Even if Jesus were not an obvious typological character, the relationship between his ministry and Titus' campaign would, in and of itself, prove that one was based on the other. The parallels between the ministry and the campaign of the two "sons of God" do not merely occur in the same locations, but in the same sequence.

How is it that Titus agenda parallels Jesus?

Who is Titus and what's his agenda?

If you must know the 'political agenda' of Jesus (in addition to his much more important Gospel),

Is to rob those on top, of their power and bring that power to the poor. Jesus is a quintessential Robin Hood!

Anyone in power would hate such beliefs to spread. Without the cooperation of their slaves/workers even at the threat of death/torture, they have no power!

And probably to your surprise, his teachings doesn't represent the whole NT. In fact many parts of the NT opposes Jesus!

reply to post by ahnggk


There were three Flavian emperors, Titus was the second, their reign roughly lasted from 70ish BC to mid 90s BC, the time of their writing of the Gospels and most of the NT.

en.wikipedia.org...

To see the relationship between Jesus and Titus all that is needed is to view Jesus' ministry as it relates to the war between the Romans and the Jews. Though this perspective has been overlooked by historians, it is one that should be studied for several reasons.

First, because Jesus stated that all his prophecies would be fulfilled before the "wicked generation" of Jews passed away. To Jews of this era a generation was forty years in length, and Titus' war against the messianic Jews came to an end, "miraculously," forty years to the day after Jesus' resurrection

Coincidental? Hardly. When you write history, creating religions like Christianity, you can write it any way you want.

The Gospels should be read in the context of the war — this was literally the instruction that Jesus gave us. Since the Flavians were the victors in their war with the messianic movement in Judea, all the histories relating to that era, including the Gospels, should be scrutinized to determine if the Flavians produced them. Once the Gospels are viewed from the perspective of a member of the Flavian inner circle, the relationship between Jesus and Titus becomes virtually self-evident.

IOW, the Flavians mainly through the lead of Josephus, the adopted son of Vespasian (Flavian #1), wrote the gospels, most of the NT, made Jesus up as a messianic prophet who "predicted" the coming of, guess who, Titus as the "militaristic Messiah".

Every Roman historian I have rad agrees with this Titus-Messiah relationship since Titus claimed that he was exactly that.

reply to post by ahnggk

If you must know the 'political agenda' of Jesus (in addition to his much more important Gospel), Is to rob those on top, of their power and bring that power to the poor. Jesus is a quintessential Robin Hood! Anyone in power would hate such beliefs to spread. Without the cooperation of their slaves/workers even at the threat of death/torture, they have no power!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by adjensen

FYI

Save your fingers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ALightBreeze


So now you are in this thread spreading around this utter garbage that you posted in this thread? www.abovetopsecret.com... Why have you repeatedly denied any attempts to have civil discourse on these obviously copy pasted utter crap that you continue to spew? No way any historian would even spit on this nonsense. You continue to cling to this delusional notion that has already been thoroughly debunked by Seraph.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
For those interested, I have managed to track down the source of ALightBreeze's "ten years of research".

Turns out it's just Joseph Atwell and his documentary: "Caesar's Messiah"

Interested parties can read a rebuttal which points out many of the logical fallacies of these ridiculous claims here:

www.tektonics.org...

Snippet:

But the virtues over the Piso theory stop there. This time, rather than the non-existent Piso family, it is the Emperor Titus who is said to be the inventor of Christianity.

His goal was to create a "peaceful Messiah" figure for those rebellious Jews to follow, as a way of pacifying them; the joke being, that they would actually be worshipping Titus himself, unawares (more on this below).

In on the conspiracy as well was Josephus, a client of the Flavian family of which Titus was a member, and who left clues in his works for later and more clever discerners.

After 73 AD, when Rome had finished defeating the Jews, "someone" from within a circle of the Flavians (Titus, Vespasian, etc.), the Herods, and the Alexanders decided they could "tame messianic Judaism" by transforming it into a religion that would "cooperate with the Roman Empire." [6] The system and its documents were written after the war was over; that includes the material attributed to Paul [211f].

So now we have a description; let's talk about errors: A chief impetus for this idea, Atwill says [1], was that he could not conceive of how Judaism could produce two movements so diametrically opposed as the warlike Sicarii and the "peace"-advocting Jesus.

Atwill's conception, unfortunately, lacks a certain perspective; one may as well ask how early 20th century African-American society could have produced both a Malcolm X and a Martin Luther King. The clue missed is that Jesus' message was not one of peace, but of a sword, as he himself said -- the Gospel message undermined the values then held current, via subtle influence rather than direct force as the Sicarii preferred.

If Atwill cannot see that Jesus' message was not indeed, at its core, hostile to Roman authority and society in terms of the components it offered, then he needs to do some more research. Furthermore, it is clear that Atwill fails on the point of ancient social psychology. He supposes that Jesus was invented to attract militaristic, messianic Jews; yet the figure of Jesus is precisely what a dedicated Sicarii would least follow.

Jesus would be regarded as being as far out of the ingroup as could be conceived; he would even be taken by the Sicarii as a disgrace to YHWH.

Indeed, Atwill openly contradicts himself, for he claims he cannot see how Judaism could produce such diametric opposites, yet he argues that Christianity was built to make these opposites attract. He supposes, in other words, that Judaism would not produce such a group; but he hypothesizes that Jews then converted to such a group. Yet that is unreasonable even in truth, for such rebels would not approve of Jesus even as we know him; the positive view of tax collectors, Roman officials, etc. that Atwill sees would have been exceptionally repugnant to the very people being targeted.

The idea that Christianity was intended to prevent the spread of messianic Judaism to the provinces [19] ignores the fact that Jews of the Diaspora were Hellenized enough that they did not support such a movement in the first place (the misplaced hopes of the rebels, recorded by Josephus [19], notwithstanding). Atwill cannot have his cake and eat it too. In addition, the idea he sees in Paul and Josephus that "the Romans were God's servants" finds its roots in OT indications that punishers like the Assyrians and Babylonians were doing God's will -- and finds no particular favor for the Romans.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Hypocrisy is one of the biggest reasons I don't go to church, even as a believe. To me going to church is about learning and worshiping god, not dressing up and saying "OMFG! I'm a better Christian than you look how sharply I am dressing to prove it!" And other junk similar to that. So I really don't go to church anymore.

The Eurozone Christians are deflocking from the churches by the droves [deflocking, is that a word? ]. One of the reasons is that, being close to the Roman heritage of the creation of the NT, they see it for what it is.

BS$, made up fables from Flavian emperor-authors who had taxation and populace pacification as their primary objectives. Deluded citizenry living on faith and fable makes for a seriously docile, tax paying group of complacent idiots.

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Titus' war against the messianic Jews came to an end, "miraculously," forty years to the day after Jesus' resurrection

That would, indeed, be quite the miracle, given that Masada is claimed to have fallen on 16 April, 73AD.

Forty years prior to that would be 33AD, and 16 April, 33AD fell on a Thursday, while pretty much everyone (apart from whoever dreamed up the claim you cite) knows that Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected on Saturday night / Sunday morning.

But that's on the Julian calendar, which was in use at the time. Your source, no doubt, is using a Gregorian Calendar, which puts 16 April, 33AD on a Saturday. Closer, but it requires using an invalid calendar.

Oh, but there is an even easier way to tell. Let's see what old Josephus has to say about it:

This calamitous slaughter was made on the fifteenth day of the month Xanthicus (Nisan). (Source, chapter nine in there.)

So, we have 15 Nisan, 73AD (though some argue it was 72AD). Is "Nisan" just the Hebrew word for "April"? Well, no it isn't, it extends through March and April, so 15 Nisan would be closer to the first part of April, not the middle of it.

But it gets easier still!

There is significance to 15 Nisan in any year -- it marks the beginning of Passover. And when did Passover begin the year that Jesus was crucified? On Friday, of course, not Sunday.

Miraculous, indeed.

FYI

Save your fingers.

Yes, we all know that kooky ideas don't like criticism, but I don't refute this stuff for your sake, but rather for anyone else who stumbles across it and leave with the impression that the Romans wrote the New Testament, simply because no one responded in the negative.

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
The Eurozone Christians are deflocking from the churches by the droves [deflocking, is that a word?

]. One of the reasons is that, being close to the Roman heritage of the creation of the NT, they see it for what it is.

BS$, made up fables from Flavian emperor-authors who had taxation and populace pacification as their primary objectives. Deluded citizenry living on faith and fable makes for a seriously docile, tax paying group of complacent idiots.

Perhaps you might explain the fact that the Eurozone has the highest tax rates in the world, while the United States has one of the lowest? Sounds like they're a "tax paying group of complacent idiots," regardless of what their beliefs might be, no?

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The teachings of mainstream Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc..) would agree with the agenda of Titus....

....Because they don't follow Jesus, they don't know Jesus and his Father.

You may have not read my earlier post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The teachings of mainstream Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc..) would agree with the agenda of Titus....

....Because they don't follow Jesus, they don't know Jesus and his Father.

You may have not read my earlier post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did miss your post, thanks for re-linking to it!