Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

DeadSeraph
reply to post by ltheghost

 

What I have discovered is concrete proof that his claims are completely bogus, but no amount of evidence was good enough for his adherents, and they basically just plugged their ears and screamed as loud as they could no matter which facts were presented to them that effectively dismantled their claims.

Sounds like business as usual for those hostile to God, Christianity & Christians.

They seem to have this fatal flaw . . . assuming that THEY are the supreme judges of, arbiters of and verifiers of truth . . . except that they also claim . . . out of the other sides of their mouths and fingers that there is NO SUCH THING AS TRUTH. . . . except, of course. . . when they want to claim that everything hostile to God and Christianity is truly truest truth.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Atwill is a snake oil salesman and nothing more. His goal is to sell books, not discuss the truth. All of his claims fall apart under the light of history (history which anyone can research if they are so inclined).

I thought he rather smelled that way.

The simple fact of the matter is that history indicates that Christ was a real person, and that people willingly went to their deaths in defence of their belief in Him. Nothing Atwill is claiming is "new". All of his claims have already been discussed in his books as well as on threads here at ATS, and I see nothing in the article that indicates he has any "new evidence". Just more of his tired claims that the romans invented Christianity because he says so.

. . . He has basically completely reinvented history to suit his personal agenda. People capable of critical thinking would dismiss him outright because of this, but because he attacks religion people buy his books and parrot his nonsense. If a scientist did this, he'd be out of work and in need of a career change.

I wonder what degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER he has . . . and what his connections are to the globalist oligarchy.

What is the root of his hostility?

This was my intuitive best guess at how history most likely played out. 'Witty' rulers of wealth and power creating a story to keep the population they were ruling over in check and in line and obedient. Also a great tool in conquering and converting other populations.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, to name 3 Roman historians. The Talmud even acknowledges that Jesus existed. If he is a myth, why wouldn't Jews simply dismiss him as such, instead of writing about why he was a heretic? The history is there for you to research if you want.

edit on 8-10-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

I researched about Josephus and it's thought to have been edited by someone. I wouldn't use him as an example. I'll research the last two you mention.

reply to post by ltheghost


From your source.

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

The best part

Atwill encourages skeptics to challenge him at Conway Hall, where after the presentations there is likely to be a lively Q&A session. Joining Mr.Atwill will be fellow scholar Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book "Jesus Never Existed."

Well he is open to questions.

Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left."
Atwill's most intriguing discovery came to him while he was studying "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus [the only surviving first-person historical account of first-century Judea] alongside the New Testament. "I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts," he recounts. "Although it's been recognised by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar."

Well I do agree that the Jesus story has been borrowed from elements of much older religions. This seems far mor plausible and achievable than what is actually written in the bible. Occams razor says.....

reply to post by danielsil18


If you are so inclined, you can read this thread here on ATS. It is a very long thread, but I spent a lot of time debating someone who was claiming to have co-authored material with Joseph Atwill. The thread is sort of disjointed and runs off in multiple directions, but my arguments against Atwills theories are all there if you feel like reading the debate. It is mostly discussed between myself and a member named ALightBreeze where you will find the material in question.

There are many other books that discuss the historicity of Christ from a non-christian perspective. The majority of scholars agree that he was a real person. His divinity and miracles are certainly up for debate, as that takes faith, but his existence is generally acknowledged as a historical fact by all but a few scholars. In the end, the only way Atwills grand ancient conspiracy theory works is a total rewrite of accepted ancient history, with a healthy dose of ignorance. It simply doesn't make sense when you add up all the surrounding context of the history of Christianity and what people had to say about it's founder shortly after the period of time Christ is believed to have been crucified, Or how the romans violently persecuted early Christians (supposedly the religion they themselves crafted to pacify the jews, according to Atwill).

I smell the latest psy-op to confuse the world. Acharya S. has her fanatic fans, but most thinkers see her for a fraud. So, is this astro-theologies new preacher or is he just going to say gov't psy op and come at it from a new angle.

I know, maybe Jesus was in on it with the Romans, they told him where to preach, they hid in the hills with fish and bread to refill the disciples baskets to feed 10,000 people, they had people pretend to be dying, blind, cripple and like some name it and claim it Sunday preacher Jesus showed up, puts some mud in a guys eyes, touched a few people staged to act healed, and the masses ate it up!

Then they did a false flag event in the temple and had him rough up the money changers and put on a good show while preaching to give coin to Caesar, but obey God and love one another, to turn the other cheek, to carry a roman's pack an extra mile! Yes, I see it now, it was all a psy-op!

WRONG

Jesus followers died horrible deaths and they would have had to be in on it too. Or are you going to say that they were in on it too, and never really died as history says they did? My oh my, I can hear the whispering voices in the doubters heads as they have to wonder how they kept it all a secret and how the Pharisees went along with it, and how it grew into a worldwide movement which has caused more than a few troubles for world leaders.

Yes, the manure is getting thick, but people are so desperate to deny God, deny Jesus / Yeshua, and get rid of morality, truth, and the golden rule. The world is ripe for harvest, but sadly they have no idea who they are running to.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I don't know Joseph Atwill and I'm not defending him at all.

About Jesus having been a real person, I'm one of the people who accept Jesus could have been real.

Now the miracles, like you said, it's up to faith.

reply to post by danielsil18

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[17][18][19]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[20] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[17][21]

Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[17][22][21]

It's from wikipedia, so I suppose you can argue about the source, but the sections from Josephus writings which were thought to have been edited later by Christians are very minor. The bulk of his writings where he mentions Jesus and other people mentioned in the New Testament are thought to be authentic.

Interestingly, Atwills entire theory centers around the fact that Josephus writings so closely parallel the narrative written down in the New Testament. He draws the conclusion that because a non-biblical source seems to coincide with the New Testament, that must mean the author was "in on it". It really is an outlandish claim when viewed in the context of actual history.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You dont get it... All those stories are from the new testement. And this theory is that the new testement was created after jesus' death to control and pacify and strike fear and obedience into the population with the idea of god. Besides the new testement where are the accounts of miracles occurring? And even if there were sparse accounts of miracles occurring, there are probably more accounts of miracles occurring from members on ATS over the past 10 years.

TKDRL
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

That is quite laughable...... Most documented person in history? Maybe if you count each bible ever printed as a different account of events......

Actually there is documented evidence (non biblical) of Jesus' existence. Whether you believe he is the son of God is your choice but, there are Roman documents. Research it.

As a side note, I have a question for those that do not believe in Jesus. Do you believe in Mohammed? Why or why not? If you do not, what do Muslims say to you when you tell them Mohammed wasn't real? Are you as willing to dismiss Mohammed to Muslims? Why or why not? If you are an atheist, do you approach believers of other religions (non Christian) with the zeal you approach Christians to denounce their beliefs?

It does smell like a psyop.


Here's what I know. Joseph Atwill studied at St.Mary's Jesuit Military school

For those well versed in earthly hierarchical cults, sects, societies, then you know the level psyop the Jesuits are involved in when it comes to covert worldwide affairs.

For those who don't, your choice to look into it or not.

and something else no one has addressed,if they did do it, it didn't work. rome brunt jerusalem to the ground 70 ce, then two more times,117ce and then 135ce. before Hadrian renamed it palaestine, in hopes of removing the memeory of the jews. and still there remained jewish people.

then the romans turned on Christians, and killed them wholesale and fed them to loins.

it would seem to be a sad waste of all that time and effort to rid themselves of the jews, only to create a much more powerful belief.

ImaFungi
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

You dont get it... All those stories are from the new testement. And this theory is that the new testement was created after jesus' death to control and pacify and strike fear and obedience into the population with the idea of god. Besides the new testement where are the accounts of miracles occurring? And even if there were sparse accounts of miracles occurring, there are probably more accounts of miracles occurring from members on ATS over the past 10 years.

Oh, I "get it". If you are assuming that there is some credibility to his theory, then perhaps you can answer a question for me. Why would the romans need to strike fear and obedience into the Jewish people with the idea of a God when they already had a God (and a temple built for him)? Secondly, If the idea was to introduce a new "passive" roman friendly religion, why would they turn around and violently persecute Christians immediately following the time Christ is thought to have been crucified? Wouldn't the Romans want this new religion they supposedly authored to flourish? Why attempt to violently stamp it out?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Oh wow. I'm going to check it out! (Puts on reading glasses, I love this stuff)

reply to post by Conluceo


Dang!! I was just showing interest in an interesting historical discussion...I may have walked into some Davinci Code NWO type ish.....lol (Going into question everything mode)

After a while on ATS I realized religion is bunk. Although I still believe the bible to be somewhat meaningful. I guess just the Old Testament now... even though i've not read past the first 5 pages.

If true.... i'd like to know the thoughts of the hardcore believers.

DeadSeraph

ImaFungi
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

You dont get it... All those stories are from the new testement. And this theory is that the new testement was created after jesus' death to control and pacify and strike fear and obedience into the population with the idea of god. Besides the new testement where are the accounts of miracles occurring? And even if there were sparse accounts of miracles occurring, there are probably more accounts of miracles occurring from members on ATS over the past 10 years.

Oh, I "get it". If you are assuming that there is some credibility to his theory, then perhaps you can answer a question for me. Why would the romans need to strike fear and obedience into the Jewish people with the idea of a God when they already had a God (and a temple built for him)? Secondly, If the idea was to introduce a new "passive" roman friendly religion, why would they turn around and violently persecute Christians immediately following the time Christ is thought to have been crucified? Wouldn't the Romans want this new religion they supposedly authored to flourish? Why attempt to violently stamp it out?

Maybe the Romans wanted to try a different approach compared to Nero's approach? It would make sense to create a religion to control the masses especially if you are responsible for killing their messiah. Crafty, but I'm still not sold that the Romans were that smart to create Jesus. Just think about the delusion you would have to create. You would have to pay people to basically lie to others about the existence of Jesus, then spread it like wildfire. Hmm...it was a time before the internet....hmmmm...It can be used to control behavior.... Damnit I don't know which way to go with this!!! It's possible and then it's not!

Interesting that its not been mentioned this is old news and that the linked material is to lead people to a marketing campaign.

It's very much like marketing any book, video or event. Sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize!!!

If this had any merit it would be common knowledge rather than an obscure book most people never heard of.

Look at how much was profited from "The Davinci Code" (for lack of another example off the top of my head) based on utter garbage. There is big money in controversy. I would actually be surprised if the author behind closed doors, alone in his own head actually believes the claim.

ImaFungi
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

You dont get it... All those stories are from the new testement. And this theory is that the new testement was created after jesus' death to control and pacify and strike fear and obedience into the population with the idea of god. Besides the new testement where are the accounts of miracles occurring? And even if there were sparse accounts of miracles occurring, there are probably more accounts of miracles occurring from members on ATS over the past 10 years.

Well, do you think a lot of the rich and learned of the Jewry were out following Jesus around since he hung out with tax collectors, drunks and whores or the poor people ? It is they who would have been doing the writings. Nonetheless I did find this as an example:

Here is a couple. There are references to Jesus' miracles in the Jewish law books and histories. For example, around AD 95, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcannus of Lydda speaks of Jesus' magical arts and around the same period, AD 95-110, there is ritual denunciation saying that: "Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray". Also around 110AD we hear of a controversy among Palestinian Jews centering upon the question of whether it is permissible to heal in the name of Jesus. The above comes from "Jesus and His Story" by Ethelberg Stauffer.

There is also a roundabout reference by Julian the Apostate, Roman emperor from AD 361 to AD 363, who was one of the most gifted of the ancient adversaries to Christianity. In his work against Christianity, he states: Jesus has now been celebrated about 300 years; having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and blind people and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany". Julian in essence ascribes to Christ the power to perform miracles.

source

Of course we have Hebrew Matthew which seems to testify of Jesus words and deeds.

“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”

Papias indicates that Matthew had written his gospel called by him the “Oracles of the Lord” first in Hebrew (Aramaic) and that anyone who did not speak and write Hebrew (Aramaic) translated it as best he could. This tells us not only that Matthew’s gospel was first written to Hebrew (Aramaic) speaking Jewish-Christians probably in Judea, but also that it was not understood by Greek speaking Jews, thus implying the need for Matthew’s Greek version.

When Papias mentioned the Hebrew origin of Matthew, he must have been assuming the existence of the Greek Matthew because he wrote a work entitled “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.” Eusebius testifies to Papias’ work in his Church History (3.39.1), “There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord."

Eusebius tells us in the same passage that Irenaeus makes mention of these books as the only works written by him, in the following words: “These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him. These are the words of Irenaeus.” This most likely was a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew since Papias called it the “Oracles of the Lord.” Also, Papias, like most Gentile Christians at that time, didn’t know Hebrew so he could only have been expositing the Greek Matthew.

source

The Hebrew and Greek Gospels Written by Matthew the Apostle of Jesus Christ

The Main Evidence

reply to post by Khaleesi


I didn't say there was none, but the most documented person in history is downright laughable. More documented than ceasar, napolean, atilla? I am sure there are thousands more documented, and also by proper name, rather than some vague description etc.