It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Testament Fairy Tales

page: 22
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightBreeze
 


All you have proven here is that you have been reading some of my posts and that you are afraid to address any of the flaws I have pointed out in your theory. There are dozens of them yet you have yet to address even one.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Here;s a scholarly opinion on why the Flavians who wrote the NT were so completely exposed as fairy tale writes by myself and Joseph Atwill!!

"Caesar's Messiah has three unique and amazing features;

(1) Atwill is willing to look objectively at the facts and discard false assumptions. He makes rational judgments of the evidence and follows the implications wherever they lead. He is therefore able to show what others have missed. This is enormously exciting and refreshing.
(2) His discovery that the key events in the life of Jesus are literary satires of events in the Roman military campaign in Judea (66-70CE) shows definitively that these parts of the gospels (and one might infer probably the rest as well) were created by the Romans to deceive the Jews into worshipping a false literary messiah.
(3) His discovery that the so called 'Testimonium' passage in Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities is essentially a confession by the Flavian Emperors that they wore the 'mask' of Jesus as a false god to seduce the Jews into worshipping them in disguise, is also an ground-breaking discovery."





posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Here;s a scholarly opinion on why the Flavians who wrote the NT were so completely exposed as fairy tale writes by myself and Joseph Atwill!!

"Caesar's Messiah has three unique and amazing features;

(1) Atwill is willing to look objectively at the facts and discard false assumptions. He makes rational judgments of the evidence and follows the implications wherever they lead. He is therefore able to show what others have missed. This is enormously exciting and refreshing.
(2) His discovery that the key events in the life of Jesus are literary satires of events in the Roman military campaign in Judea (66-70CE) shows definitively that these parts of the gospels (and one might infer probably the rest as well) were created by the Romans to deceive the Jews into worshipping a false literary messiah.
(3) His discovery that the so called 'Testimonium' passage in Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities is essentially a confession by the Flavian Emperors that they wore the 'mask' of Jesus as a false god to seduce the Jews into worshipping them in disguise, is also an ground-breaking discovery."




A scholarly opinion written by yourself and Joseph Atwill??

Well @&^!. That just destroys all the inconsistencies in your own data, now doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Here's yet another reviewer of the Breeze-Atwill theory...

"Atwill heads an independent research group, the Roman Origins Institute, and previously worked on the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, his latest work will transform the field of NT research. However this new paradigm of Jesus does raise several concerns;
(1) It is emotionally hard to learn that the character of the Virgin Mary was really a satire of Cannibal Mary during the siege of Jerusalem, and that a close reading of the Gospel of John shows that Lazarus is taken out of the tomb only to provide the substance for a cannibal feast. As the text says 'they made him a supper' (KJV,ASV, NASB,LITV translations).
(2) Caesar's Messiah does not situate its findings within the existing NT scholarly literature and does not spell out how the entirety of the Gospels was actually created. It also does not discuss the implications of its thesis on the Pauline Letters and on the Book of Acts. If the Gospels are literary fakes then can both the Letters and Acts be proven to be fakes as well? The Institute's next book, covers these issues in detail, providing additional support for Atwill's thesis.
(3) Atwill will not endear himself to other NT scholars. He insists on a very high standard of evidence, and backs his findings where necessary with statistical analyses. This is similar to his ground breaking work on dating the Scrolls, published in the Dead Sea Scrolls Journal. Atwill sets standards that, to their frustration, other scholars will have difficulty in matching. "
edit on 9-9-2012 by ALightBreeze because: NYUK!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightBreeze
 




This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. If it hasn't become apparent by now to other readers that you are intellectually dishonest, this should seal the deal. You have referred to Atwill as your "colleague" in this very thread. When I pointed out that Atwill has no academic credentials relevant to the subject and asked if you had any, you remained silent.

Now you admit that you are a co-author of this theory? How much more does ATS need?

When will Breeze address all the inconsistencies in the "Breeze/Atwill" theory that I've pointed out? Hell... Get Atwill to sign up. Maybe he'll be more honest about debating the holes in his own theory.
edit on 9-9-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


About as honest as Christians are about debating the holes in their own faith?

It's a natural response. When we're trying so hard to find an answer that works, we get more and more desperate. I'm sure you've been in that position before.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


About as honest as Christians are about debating the holes in their own faith?

It's a natural response. When we're trying so hard to find an answer that works, we get more and more desperate. I'm sure you've been in that position before.


Comical. Your own bias has completely blinded you to the real debate here, and yet here you are handing out stars.

Is there even ONE among you who can see this debate for what it is? It's not about whether or not Jesus existed. It's not about whether or not you like the bible or Christians or if you were touched by a catholic priest as a child.

It's about HISTORY. And I have demonstrated fully that the "Breeze/Atwill" theory regarding the authorship of the New Testament is full of holes. It's laughable to think that any rational person would even NEED to cling to such an idea. Its full of logical fallacies.

You don't even NEED this theory to discredit the idea of a historical Jesus.

But because you hate the notion so much, here you are defending what amounts to a gross misrepresentation of historical FACT because you so desperately need to justify your own bias?

And you call Christians deluded? Look at it objectively. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been.
edit on 9-9-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Is there even ONE among you who can see this debate for what it is? It's not about whether or not Jesus existed. It's not about whether or not you like the bible or Christians or if you were touched by a catholic priest as a child.


I think you are wrong. It isn't about whether a person likes or dislikes the bible or christians but about the veracity of the NT.

You can like or dislike any one of the mythologies out there but, it doesn't make them any more or less true.
edit on 9-9-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Is there even ONE among you who can see this debate for what it is? It's not about whether or not Jesus existed. It's not about whether or not you like the bible or Christians or if you were touched by a catholic priest as a child.


I think you are wrong. It isn't about whether a person likes or dislikes the bible or christians but about the veracity of the NT.

You can like or dislike any one of the mythologies out there but, it doesn't make them any more or less true.
edit on 9-9-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Are you serious? Have you read the entire thread (specifically starting with where the debate between breeze and I started)?

I have stated MULTIPLE times (4, maybe 5 times now?) That the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant to my argument and that I could PROVE breeze's theories as to the authorship of the New Testament WRONG using non-christian history.

I have done that in spades, and have not referenced any scripture even ONCE in this argument. Now you want to tell me the argument has to do with the contents of the New Testament? No. It doesn't.

Breeze has stated categorically (in an effort to sell books I suspect) that the Flavian Dynasty of Rome was responsible for the authorship of the New Testament. I have poked so many holes in this theory it's not even funny. Page after page after page I have posted counter arguments, rebuttals, sources, and evidence as to why this theory is a gross misrepresentation of history. And yet I am ignored because "$&!@ Jesus."?

REALLY!?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Are you serious? Have you read the entire thread (specifically starting with where the debate between breeze and I started)?

Yes I have.


I have stated MULTIPLE times (4, maybe 5 times now?) That the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant to my argument and that I could PROVE breeze's theories as to the authorship of the New Testament WRONG using non-christian history.

Just because you have stated something doesn't mean that that was what the OP was about. Even if you can shoot down breeze's theory down, it doesn't prove the NT to be true.


Breeze has stated categorically (in an effort to sell books I suspect) that the Flavian Dynasty of Rome was responsible for the authorship of the New Testament. I have poked so many holes in this theory it's not even funny. Page after page after page I have posted counter arguments, rebuttals, sources, and evidence as to why this theory is a gross misrepresentation of history. And yet I am ignored because "$&!@ Jesus."?

REALLY!?

Again, even if they were not, it doesn't make the content of the NT true.
edit on 9-9-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightBreeze
 


I had to go look up "Cannibal Mary." I have never heard that story before!


Josephus estimated the number of Jews in Jerusalem at the Passover season 70 A.D. to have risen above 3 million. As the siege progressed famine set in.........................................

According to Josephus, the mad-dog behavior of the armed bandits caused great distress to ordinary people who began dying in great numbers in their homes and on the streets of starvation. In the midst of this hell was a certain woman Mary daughter of Eleazar of Bathezor, of distinguished and wealthy family upbringing. She had fled with other refugees from the her country home into Jerusalem in the spring of 70 A.D. before the advance of Roman troops. Everyone knew that she was wealthy, so she became a favorite victim of looters and miscreants who soon stripped her of everything in her possession. In the process she resisted vehemently trying often to hide her purchases, for she had money to buy food with. But the looters kept a watch on her and would thoroughly ransack her home as soon as they believed she had acquired new stores, leaving nothing for her. She soon grew weary of resisting and acquiring food for the benefit of looters. In secret she killed her suckling baby and roasted the flesh. The sweet odor of the roasted flesh attracted attention and her tormentors were on her again demanding that she give up her roast. Mary, by this time, apparently out of her mind in great distress told them coolly that she had prepared a feast for them and reserved the best part for their enjoyment. She led them to where the half-eaten remains of her baby were covered up and revealed to them the horrible sight. Even men who had become hardened by the horrors of the war were shocked and seized with fright at the sight of the roasted infant half consumed by its mother.

ezinearticles.com...:-Cannibal-Lady-Feeds-on-Babys-Flesh&id=5476400





Those who tried to escaped from the beleaguered city were taken by the Roman soldiers, whipped and tortured and then crucified alive before the walls of the city. Crucifixion beams sprang up one after the other into a forest of thousands of crucified bodies. Attacking Roman soldiers came upon of a group of about 6 000 women and children who had sought refuge in a part of the outer temple ground. They simply set the cloister on fire and burned the 6 000 souls to death.


One has to wonder why this horror is absent from the Bible. Is this not an apocalypse of a kind for the Jewish people, and especially for Jerusalem. Why does Paul overlook it. No tears for all the lost souls Paul?

It makes me question how many "Christian" martyrs of the time were really just killed for being Jews.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I never said it proves the NT to be true. My claims are that I can prove Breeze's version of events FALSE. Don't misrepresent what I have said in this debate.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 

I was replying in relation to the OP. Is the content of the NT fairy tales, regardless of who actually wrote it.

It isn't about liking or hating the bible or christians, as you claim.

edit on 9-9-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ALightBreeze
 


I had to go look up "Cannibal Mary." I have never heard that story before!


Josephus estimated the number of Jews in Jerusalem at the Passover season 70 A.D. to have risen above 3 million. As the siege progressed famine set in.........................................

According to Josephus, the mad-dog behavior of the armed bandits caused great distress to ordinary people who began dying in great numbers in their homes and on the streets of starvation. In the midst of this hell was a certain woman Mary daughter of Eleazar of Bathezor, of distinguished and wealthy family upbringing. She had fled with other refugees from the her country home into Jerusalem in the spring of 70 A.D. before the advance of Roman troops. Everyone knew that she was wealthy, so she became a favorite victim of looters and miscreants who soon stripped her of everything in her possession. In the process she resisted vehemently trying often to hide her purchases, for she had money to buy food with. But the looters kept a watch on her and would thoroughly ransack her home as soon as they believed she had acquired new stores, leaving nothing for her. She soon grew weary of resisting and acquiring food for the benefit of looters. In secret she killed her suckling baby and roasted the flesh. The sweet odor of the roasted flesh attracted attention and her tormentors were on her again demanding that she give up her roast. Mary, by this time, apparently out of her mind in great distress told them coolly that she had prepared a feast for them and reserved the best part for their enjoyment. She led them to where the half-eaten remains of her baby were covered up and revealed to them the horrible sight. Even men who had become hardened by the horrors of the war were shocked and seized with fright at the sight of the roasted infant half consumed by its mother.

ezinearticles.com...:-Cannibal-Lady-Feeds-on-Babys-Flesh&id=5476400





Those who tried to escaped from the beleaguered city were taken by the Roman soldiers, whipped and tortured and then crucified alive before the walls of the city. Crucifixion beams sprang up one after the other into a forest of thousands of crucified bodies. Attacking Roman soldiers came upon of a group of about 6 000 women and children who had sought refuge in a part of the outer temple ground. They simply set the cloister on fire and burned the 6 000 souls to death.


One has to wonder why this horror is absent from the Bible. Is this not an apocalypse of a kind for the Jewish people, and especially for Jerusalem. Why does Paul overlook it. No tears for all the lost souls Paul?

It makes me question how many "Christian" martyrs of the time were really just killed for being Jews.


/facepalm

Because the NT was written BEFORE Josephus. I've pointed this out in detail.

This is a Christian Ossuary that predates 70AD: CBS News

It confirms that there were Christians living in Jerusalem BEFORE it was sacked by Rome, and BEFORE Josephus writings of "Cannibal Mary".

I have proven over and over in this thread that Christianity as a religion PREDATES breeze's conspirators.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
has this turned into the rage in a cage?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





Because the NT was written BEFORE Josephus.


No it wasn't. Early Christians learned their stories word of mouth, oral tradition. They weren't reading the New Testament.

Paul was executed 2 years after the beginning of the Jewish wars. So there wasn't a New Testament before the Jewish wars, and Paul was a casualty of the Jewish wars, at the hand of Nero.

Josephus was a witness to these wars. There was no New Testament before Josephus, he was born between 1 and 4 BC!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





Because the NT was written BEFORE Josephus.


No it wasn't. Early Christians learned their stories word of mouth, oral tradition. They weren't reading the New Testament.

Paul was executed 2 years after the beginning of the Jewish wars. So there wasn't a New Testament before the Jewish wars, and Paul was a casualty of the Jewish wars, at the hand of Nero.

Josephus was a witness to these wars. There was no New Testament before Josephus, he was born between 1 and 4 BC!


Wrong. He was born in 37 AD. Had you bothered to read the thread and all of my rebuttals, you'd understand why this conspiracy is ridiculous. Or perhaps you'd just ignore the facts like Breeze has. Either way...

You are WRONG.

Props on your star though

edit on 9-9-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Okay, you're right about that date, 37AD. I did a search and caught a glimpse of 1-4AD, and then my internet crashed. When I rebooted I just typed the date I had seen, without re-checking the accuracy.

Never the less, there was no New Testament circulating. Early Christians didn't have copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation, etal.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join