Remember the "scholar" who claimed Jesus didn't exist? Here's his so-called "proof"! - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Self-professed Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill’s claim that Jesus Christ was contrived by Romans to exert political control has been met with both dismissals and intense scrutiny. TheBlaze interviewed Atwill to learn more about the theory before he unveils purported evidence at a symposium in London, England, on Oct. 19. Atwill, who lives in California, will outline beliefs he has long-espoused about Jesus. He told TheBlaze that his event, called “Covert Messiah,” will be used to corroborate his contention that the ministry of Jesus was manufactured as a “prefigurement” to Roman emperor Titus Flavius’ military campaign. It’s no surprise that Atwill’s bold claims about Jesus are sparking a terse response from academics and the general public. Some critics point to the fact that Atwill is not truly a Bible scholar and that he has no formal education in the subject-matter — a fact he openly admits. “I never make public discussions about the thesis without making sure that everyone knows I am an independent scholar,” he said. “The problem is I am just producing a different quality of evidence.” Atwill argues that the Gospels and Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews” — a book documenting first century Judea — are intentionally interconnected. Rather than separate works of literature, he claims they were created with a singular perspective. Thus, the self-professed Bible scholar says that “the ministry of Jesus is dependent on military campaign of Titus Flavius.” A press release surrounding his upcoming symposium further expounds upon these theories: 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.” Atwill argues that the supposedly faux character of Jesus actually leaves hints and predicts that Titus Flavius will be coming. “Many people read the gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the most significant [character] in the literature … Jesus is looking forward to someone who is more powerful,” he said. “The son of man can only be one person. … Titus Flavius is the individual he looks forward to.” Atwill also told TheBlaze that the Gospels are essentially a “false flag literature” and that the Romans were simply pretending to create a Jewish text so that they could use it as a political weapon. The impact that this has had, he argues, extends well beyond the first century. “Europeans are still recovering from having both our intellectual capacities taken away from us over the 1000 years,” he said of the faith’s influence. While Atwill, who was raised a Catholic, said he’s not an atheist, he declined to share his current theological views. In the past, though, he has said that Christianity has been used for both good and evil. “I think that what the real lesson I see in this whole business is that the ruling class have developed a kind of weaponized anthropology and developed ability to control subjects,” Atwill said. “And religion is a weakness they have identified.” Atwill not only believes that the Flavians, a Roman ruling class, not only invented Jesus, but that they also intended for Christianity “to be a device of anti-Semitism.” During a time in which Jewish residents were waiting for their Messiah, he says they were a constant source of insurrection, leading the Romans to seek out an equalizing and tempering force. “When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare,” Atwill said in the press release. “They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system.” While his press release claims a “controversial discovery” will be released to the public and that an “ancient confession” will be found, it’s unclear if Atwill will present any new material. “You will get at the event just a review of the material and a way of essentially demonstrating that,” he told TheBlaze. “It’s something that is a tangible artifact that individuals can look at and verify.” Atwill said he will be going over the literature to show that his theories hold up when the documents are taken apart and critically analyzed, however there is no evidence that a literal “artifact” will be shared with the masses. The amateur scholar obviously has no shortage of critics. Among them is Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian theologian and philosopher. In a press release decrying Atwill’s claims, Craig’s beliefs on the matter are outlined. At the heart of his counter arguments, Craig believes that the Jesus theory is agenda-driven, as Atwill has called Christianity “damaging and repressive” in the past. In addition to claiming that the overall thesis is wrong, Craig digs into some of the finer details. “The recorded teachings, deeds, and life of Jesus are too Jewish and too religiously consequential for Roman contrivance,” the statement reads. “Perhaps the reason why Atwill was astonished that scholars have never drawn the parallels between Jesus and the Roman Caesar is because they aren’t there.” As TheBlaze previously reported, Patheos blogger James F. McGrath agrees with this assessment and doubts that the symposium will be groundbreaking. Of Atwill’s claim to be a Biblical scholar he wrote, “there is no evidence that he has relevant qualifications or research to his name.” Professor James Crossley from the University of Sheffield in South Yorkshire, England, too, previously told The Daily Mail that theories like Atwill’s are not accepted among academics. “These types of theories are very common outside the academic world and are usually reserved for sensationalist literature,” he said. “They are virtually non-existent in the academic world.” Atwill’s views were first made public in his 2005 book “Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus.”[/QUOTE] Or in other words, this guy is stupid. [editline]19th October 2013[/editline] Source: [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/18/false-flag-literature-self-professed-bible-scholar-digs-into-explosive-claim-that-jesus-never-existed/[/url]

allahu ahkbar [editline]18th October 2013[/editline] tl;dr the roman's invented jesus as a means of political conquest on the jews.

[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;42567434]Or in other words, this guy is stupid. [/QUOTE] Didn't we pretty much establish that when we last discussed this?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42567590]Didn't we pretty much establish that when we last discussed this?[/QUOTE] Yep.

[quote]“They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system.”[/quote] Makes no sense, why would the create a completely new "faith" in order to combat Jewish beliefs when they could have simply promoted their own more and harder?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42567643]Makes no sense, why would the create a completely new "faith" in order to combat Jewish beliefs when they could have simply promoted their own more and harder?[/QUOTE] It's hard to kill an idea, but its easier shape one. With the belief in Jesus already stemming from Jewish roots it's a lot easier to promote that than to impose something entirely different. While I don't agree with this guys reasoning, I don't find it too hard to believe that the Romans would use a religion in order to control a population. Of course the supporting evidence isn't there, but one can always don their tinfoil hat and believe whatever.

[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;42567434]Or in other words, this guy is stupid. [editline]19th October 2013[/editline] Source: [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/18/false-flag-literature-self-professed-bible-scholar-digs-into-explosive-claim-that-jesus-never-existed/[/url][/QUOTE] Do you think he's stupid because he believes Jesus never existed or his reasons for believing so? You didn't offer any constructive criticism of his ideas which gave me kind of a "How dare he say my savior didn't exist!" vibe. Tbh, there isn't a lot of evidence for Jesus's existence. IIRC the oldest secular mention of Jesus didn't occur till a decade or so after his supposed crucifixion. Now, I don't know whether to believe Jesus was actually a normal person or just a fictional character, but I don't really care and I wouldn't be surprised either way. The only new idea here is the Roman's construction of the myth, and that's probably not even really new. People have been contemplating Jesus's existence (or lack thereof) for a long time.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;42567751]Tbh, there isn't a lot of evidence for Jesus's existence. IIRC the oldest secular mention of Jesus didn't occur till a decade or so after his supposed crucifixion. [/QUOTE] I think Tacitus was first, writing in the late first century, close to a hundred years after the crucifixion

Duh you guys, the BIBLE is the first record of Jesus. [sp]yes I'm fucking kidding[/sp]

The first mention of Jesus pops up 100 years after his supposed death? Brb playing chinese whispers for that long... Explains everything.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;42567505]allahu ahkbar [editline]18th October 2013[/editline] tl;dr the roman's invented jesus as a means of political conquest on the jews.[/QUOTE] I think the proof that the man himself existed is pretty strong. The whole son of God who could perform miracles things is the shaky part.

It's pretty well established that he was a real person, the point of debate is if he was just hustling everyone or not.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;42567751]Do you think he's stupid because he believes Jesus never existed or his reasons for believing so? You didn't offer any constructive criticism of his ideas which gave me kind of a "How dare he say my savior didn't exist!" vibe. Tbh, there isn't a lot of evidence for Jesus's existence. IIRC the oldest secular mention of Jesus didn't occur till a decade or so after his supposed crucifixion. Now, I don't know whether to believe Jesus was actually a normal person or just a fictional character, but I don't really care and I wouldn't be surprised either way. The only new idea here is the Roman's construction of the myth, and that's probably not even really new. People have been contemplating Jesus's existence (or lack thereof) for a long time.[/QUOTE] I love it when people like this try and act smart when they're obviously just trying to pick a fight.

I'm a self declared scholar on why this guy is a fruitcake

Historians overwhelming believe Jesus Christ was a real person who existed, the only people that seem to doubt this are atheists who don't give a shit about Historians at all and get most of their history knowledge from scientists. This causes bullshit such as this. [img]http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2009/090330-dark-ages.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=plunger435;42568807]It's pretty well established that he was a real person, the point of debate is if he was just hustling everyone or not.[/QUOTE] I really don't think it is. I realize absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I'm really not seeing anything concrete. I don't think there is a lot of evidence to prove it either way. [QUOTE=Stents*;42568876]I love it when people like this try and act smart when they're obviously just trying to pick a fight.[/QUOTE] You must really be loving your own post then, because that's exactly what you're doing.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;42568955]Historians overwhelming believe Jesus Christ was a real person who existed, the only people that seem to doubt this are atheists who don't give a shit about Historians at all and get most of their history knowledge from scientists. This causes bullshit such as this. [img]http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2009/090330-dark-ages.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] actually the Muslims and Chinese were busy inventing the Arabic number system and the Chinese were inventing explosives and a lot of science was happening, just not in the Christian world

[QUOTE=Thom12255;42568955]Historians overwhelming believe Jesus Christ was a real person who existed, the only people that seem to doubt this are atheists who don't give a shit about Historians at all and get most of their history knowledge from scientists. This causes bullshit such as this. [img]http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2009/090330-dark-ages.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Jesus killed my space colony. >:(

[QUOTE=Thom12255;42568955]Historians overwhelming believe Jesus Christ was a real person who existed, the only people that seem to doubt this are atheists who don't give a shit about Historians at all and get most of their history knowledge from scientists. This causes bullshit such as this. [/QUOTE] I believe the main sources for jesus's existence as a real person were 4 different historians in the area within a hundred, to a hundred seventy years. One of which has been discretided as a fraud inserted into history by a later historian. The other 3 are rocky proof that are considered "eye witness" but they are literally not even within a hundred years of his life. Historians are not overwhelmingly on one side of the other and this angsty atheist bullshit only stands in the way of someone having a real discovery counter popular thought.

I think super hollier-than-thou religious people can be just as bad as super imposing "nope no chance" atheists. Its definitely both sides.

the idea that they wanted to curb jewish extremists by creating another religion that would be (and actually became more) just as extreme seems stupid. romans hated christians even more than jews as well for quite some time

Wait why would the Roman government make a religion to contest both Judaism and Roman beliefs, specifically because Christians back then were pacifistic (or at least Jesus was) so they couldn't recruit them as auxiliaries and they didn't believe in the Emperor's divinity. Unless they wanted to combat the Emperor, but then it still wouldn't make sense. [editline]18th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Matthew7434;42569770]actually the Muslims and Chinese were busy inventing the Arabic number system and the Chinese were inventing explosives and a lot of science was happening, just not in the Christian world[/QUOTE] The Chinese and the Arabs don't get the credit they deserve for their inventions. Hell, a couple of historians just ignore them and keep jerking it to the Greeks.

Somehow I don't think a Roman emperor would be too happy about creating a religion which actively rejected the emperor-cult and the entire basis of his power.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42570004]I believe the main sources for jesus's existence as a real person were 4 different historians in the area within a hundred, to a hundred seventy years. One of which has been discretided as a fraud inserted into history by a later historian. The other 3 are rocky proof that are considered "eye witness" but they are literally not even within a hundred years of his life. Historians are not overwhelmingly on one side of the other and this angsty atheist bullshit only stands in the way of someone having a real discovery counter popular thought.[/QUOTE] I would think the most realistic explanation would be that there was a Jew named Jesus in that region some time ago, but of course whether or not he did all the things attributed to him (not even including the supernatural ones) is a different question than whether or not he existed at all. After all, wasn't 'Christ' more of a title than a name?

[QUOTE=Thom12255;42568955]Historians overwhelming believe Jesus Christ was a real person who existed, the only people that seem to doubt this are atheists who don't give a shit about Historians at all and get most of their history knowledge from scientists. This causes bullshit such as this. [img]http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2009/090330-dark-ages.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] The Dark Ages isn't even a real term used by historians. They tend to cringe like fuck if you say it near them. The "Dark Ages" wasn't even dark, in the Christian world, we had nice advancements like quality steel, plate armor, crossbows, castles, modern metallurgy, the discovery of the American continents, etc. It wasn't a dark age, it was actually better than Roman times. Slavery didn't exist, there was serfdom, but you weren't completely stripped of your humanity like a slave would.

[QUOTE=Megafan;42571070]I would think the most realistic explanation would be that there was a Jew named Jesus in that region some time ago, but of course whether or not he did all the things attributed to him (not even including the supernatural ones) is a different question than whether or not he existed at all. After all, wasn't 'Christ' more of a title than a name?[/QUOTE] Hell, his own name wasn't even Jesus. IIRC, the word "Jesus" is actually just a mistranslation of the Greek (because the Bible was originally written in Greek) version of "Joshua" (which was, hilariously enough, "Yesus").

[QUOTE=Megafan;42571070]I would think the most realistic explanation would be that there was a Jew named Jesus in that region some time ago, but of course whether or not he did all the things attributed to him (not even including the supernatural ones) is a different question than whether or not he existed at all. After all, wasn't 'Christ' more of a title than a name?[/QUOTE] it means 'anointed one' or somethin

[QUOTE=zombini;42571150]The Dark Ages isn't even a real term used by historians. They tend to cringe like fuck if you say it near them. The "Dark Ages" wasn't even dark, in the Christian world, we had nice advancements like quality steel, plate armor, crossbows, castles, modern metallurgy, the discovery of the American continents, etc. It wasn't a dark age, it was actually better than Roman times. Slavery didn't exist, there was serfdom, but you weren't completely stripped of your humanity like a slave would.[/QUOTE] The life expectancy of the peasant in the Middle Ages was actually higher than that of the average Roman Citizen. All that fanciful bullshit about a behind times is retarded, the only things we lost were the giant fucking wars that happened, they became a lot more small scale and very closed fighting between nobles.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42571928]The life expectancy of the peasant in the Middle Ages was actually higher than that of the average Roman Citizen. All that fanciful bullshit about a behind times is retarded, the only things we lost were the giant fucking wars that happened, they became a lot more small scale and very closed fighting between nobles.[/QUOTE] That said, scientific growth in the western world came to a near standstill, but feudalism was just as reponsible for that as religion.

Just watch the 700 club once and you'll realize everything Atwill wrote is completely true.