Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

reply to post by signalfire


Is that you, Joe?

usertwelve
All we really need to know is right here. Would be more credible if it were released to the scientific community for scrutiny and validation. Here we have a paid Symposium created for profit.

Oh, FFS!

It's a day long symposium. Do they give away Bibles for free now at Barnes and Noble?

There's a venue to be rented, refreshments to be served and set-up and cleanup crews to be hired. Or do you only trust information given away for free, and any time anyone charges ticket prices, they're instantaneously suspect.

Really, grasp at straws with some small amount of meat on their bones. This is pitiful.

I like the line that many "biblical scholars" (oxymoron) find his claims outlandish. Yet many of those same "biblical scholars" have no problem personally believing the supernatural claims and extravagant lies about this person (who almost certainly didn't really exist).....nothing outlandish about them at all.....

DeadSeraph
reply to post by signalfire

 

Is that you, Joe?

Thanks for the compliment, but no. Just a lifelong atheist who saw through this crap a long time ago, and is getting truly sick of the immaturity and illogical nature of most humans.

I'm also sick of being lied to by institutions whether governmental or educational. We can't deal with reality until we're clear on what reality is, and religion is for childish minds, not sane adults.

wildtimes
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

They are written by published scholars, one of which maintains a neutral position on the historicity of Jesus and the other of which believes Jesus to have never existed (yet still manages to point out the incredibly obvious flaws in Atwill's theories that you are apparently incapable of seeing).

So, it's not that YOU believe Jesus absolutely, positively existed, just that YOU don't think his line-item comparisons hold water. But, he's going on tour, and if he is such a lame-brain, why would they host a conference for him to do so?

I don't really have a dog in this fight, DeadSeraph, because I'm not a "Christian". But it seems to me, in my 6th decade of life, that the stories in the Bible are STORIES. Historical fiction. Some names and places may have been real, but others have never been "found" and still others are suspect.

Your gripe is just with Atwill's scholarship, then. Correct?

You oughta fly to the conference and stand up and confront him then! Woot! We'll be REALLY famous if you can do that - a public debunking of this person's audacious and obscenely ridiculous claims. The GALL! Pfft!!

I do personally believe that Jesus existed, and I identify as a Christian. I'm sure that is no secret. But yes, you are correct that my gripe is with Atwill's scholarship. His claims are unfounded and outlandish, and I don't think I'm alone in asserting as much. Even non-christian scholars have called him out and highlighted the inaccuracies of his work.

As for flying to the conference to confront him, I'd like nothing more. Would you be willing to foot the bill for me? Things aren't so blessed with my bank account if you know what I mean

reply to post by Fromabove

Jesus said, "I am not of this world..." and to his people he said, "You are not of the world even as I am not of the world."

Let's say he did say that. (Despite the fact that it's hearsay to begin with).

What he meant was, then, that we are ALL part of the Divine. Children of God. Yet you 'believers' think you get a monopoly on 'salvation.'

::WHERE IS THE EYEROLL EMOTICON?:::

signalfire

DeadSeraph
reply to post by signalfire

 

Is that you, Joe?

Thanks for the compliment, but no. Just a lifelong atheist who saw through this crap a long time ago, and is getting truly sick of the immaturity and illogical nature of most humans.

I'm also sick of being lied to by institutions whether governmental or educational. We can't deal with reality until we're clear on what reality is, and religion is for childish minds, not sane adults.

But you're ok with being lied to by Joseph Atwill because you don't like religion?

signalfire
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

You just can't help continuing to prove how irrational 'faith-based' people are, can you?

It's like watching Richard Nixon declare himself 'Not a Crook!'

And with the same amount of bemusement on the part of people who have already seen through the ego driven smokescreen.

And to those of faith, they might look upon those who spin tales against the Lord as desperate and irrational seeing that they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to fight against other people's beliefs, and particularly the beliefs of a Christian.

Trying not to LOL here, but doesn't it seem a bit strange that you don't see these types running all around disproving Islam, Buddhism, and many other religious peoples? No, it's just that Jesus.

It's like watching the most educated and scientifically skilled person alive trying to explain life when he can't even understand or explain the beginning of everything out of nothing at all.

reply to post by signalfire

Do you believe the content is more credible this way rather than allowing a peer review?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Sorry, mate. If I could, I would. And be your roadie to film the entire disgraceful event of him being put in his place once and for all.

But, no. This stupid 'global economy' has not been my friend.

Jesus Christ certainly never existed. Jesus the Nazarene, perhaps.

Christ was an ancient title that Caesar was using, at the time. Jesus would never have taken Caesar's pagan title from him.

There is absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ, anywhere outside of the Bible. All the citations, posters have listed in this thread, have all been debunked.

For those who say that only a Jew could have penned the New Testament, therefore, they think they've successfully debunked Atwill, didn't consider that Josephus was a Jew.

reply to post by signalfire


From what I have observed, it seems to me that the majority of humans are not comfortable with the responsibility of ascribing meaning and/or significance to their own life. I see this as neither immature nor illogical. I see it as a necessary step between animalism and metacognition. That is to say, this is a relatively minuscule intermission in the leap between insect and god. Once we fully understand what consciousness is, where ideas come from, and the essence of thought itself, I think we will be well on our way to outgrowing the need for deities. I say this for a very simple reason: I feel our consciousness reflects the universe. The more we understand what thought is, the more we understand the nature of the universe. And the more we will understand what those godly aspects of our observation actually are. I have always said that the key to understanding God is understanding who is looking at God. The lens taints the image, so to speak. Compensate for the flaws of the lens and the software translating the image, understand how such flaws impact the image being translated, and you have a clearer depiction of both yourself, the image, and the relationship between the two.

But no one wants to be so honest with themselves, do they? That's just absurd.

wildtimes
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Jesus said, "I am not of this world..." and to his people he said, "You are not of the world even as I am not of the world."

Let's say he did say that. (Despite the fact that it's hearsay to begin with).

What he meant was, then, that we are ALL part of the Divine. Children of God. Yet you 'believers' think you get a monopoly on 'salvation.'

::WHERE IS THE EYEROLL EMOTICON?:::

To say that we are all of the divine would be incorrect. We are not. Only some of us are from God. The rest are the seed of Satan, the fallen angels, and Nephilim. The Bible is clear on this. The ones that are not of God are of the world. They are fleshly and terrestrial in nature. They cannot understand God, His words, nor Jesus. Only those that belong to God understand.

But we do talk to the rest of the world as we do here because we don't know who is and is not of the world until they speak, then it is known.

What they see as a fable story and a lie of deception is the power of God to those who are not of this world. So that is why Jesus makes a big difference to those who are of the world, and those who are of God.

reply to post by Fromabove

Trying not to LOL here, but doesn't it seem a bit strange that you don't see these types running all around disproving Islam, Buddhism, and many other religious peoples?

*raises hand*. Erm, no, it's not a selective objection. Not on everyone's part, at least. Mostly those are Chrisitans trying to debunk other Sects, or Islamists trying to debunk Christianity, etc. The NONBELIEVERS don't take sides.

No, it's just that Jesus.

Incorrect. I do my best to debunk ALL of the debunkable nonsense that gets "preached" from someone's pulpit.

It's like watching the most educated and scientifically skilled person alive trying to explain life when he can't even understand or explain the beginning of everything out of nothing at all.

I agree with signalfire.

What are YOU afraid of, Fromabove? What's it to you? I attack ALL organized religions when they are worthy of attack and ridicule. BECAUSE, it's time for humanity to wake up, step up, and fix the mess ourselves. We are on our own to fix what we broke.

whyamIhere
C'mon man.

Jesus is the most documented person in History.

You can question his story.....but he certainly wasn't made up.

This man from the article seems to think its a pretty open and shut case.

Is this the beginning of the end of Christianity? "Probably not," grants Atwill, "but what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from. Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history. To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East."

I never thought I'd say it, but I feel sorry for the ruling American Conservative
Christian. Their world is falling apart. Whether its Jesus was a made up politically
motivated story like Mithra or Horus or Titus Flavius, or that their Preident
is a African American named Barrack Hussien Obama. Gays are getting married
and celebrating by smoking weed in Oregon and Colorado. Rough days indeed for the
average Billy Graham loving Christian, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

reply to post by Fromabove

To say that we are all of the divine would be incorrect. We are not. Only some of us are from God. The rest are the seed of Satan, the fallen angels, and Nephilim. The Bible is clear on this.

YOU JUST QUOTED HIM SAYING WE ARE!!!

What
Ev
Er.

Unbelievable. UnFREAKINGbelievable. :shk: The Bible does NOT PROVE THE BIBLE IS CORRECT.

Satan is ALSO a construct. You don't get out to the liberry much, eh?

Just a few thoughts from reading the thread....


I have starred all those who have in their first post indicated their religious persuasion, alway's easier to navigate when you can see whether a post comes from a particular side of the fence so to speak. Poster bias, should always be transparent.

Not sure if this info relates in any particular direction, but Jews do not acknowledge, or incorporate Jesus, that is why even to this day they only read from the old testement.

Love from an atheist x

This thread has been moving fast, so I just want to drop a dime real fast for thought.

All religions have a Jesus, Moses, Noah, Joseph, Mary et cetera. The stories themselves can all be traced back to Sumeria. This does not, however mean there was not any of the above figures that we have been conditioned to know. This does however show that at "ONE" time or another, these figures were very well much alive.

Lastly, I would declare the report a hoax to dismiss and attack an entire religion and belief set.

That is all.

usertwelve
reply to post by signalfire

 

Do you believe the content is more credible this way rather than allowing a peer review?

You could not get a credible peer to review it.

It's laughable at best and wild speculation to be sure.

usertwelve
All we really need to know is right here. Would be more credible if it were released to the scientific community for scrutiny and validation. Here we have a paid Symposium created for profit.

So in the lack of evidence and contrary proof, let's discredit him for making symposium fee?!

This should keep your mind occupied for a bit...