Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

reply to post by DeadSeraph


its obvious that your head is about to explode here, and i can see in each of your three paragraphs that you hate this guy and everything he says because it contradicts your own beliefs, but could you explain why you think he's wrong? he's taking on all skeptics in person at his presentation. what you got?

reply to post by Khaleesi

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?

They usually say the same thing Christians say. You'll find out when you die, he is real.

If you are an atheist, do you approach believers of other religions (non Christian) with the zeal you approach Christians to denounce their beliefs?

When I drive through the main part of the little town I live in, it isn't any other religion I see standing on the street corner preaching to everyone who passes by. It is only Christians who do that. So I don't have to worry about the other religions. They aren't knocking on my door at 8 in the morning, or when I'm eating dinner. Needless to say, I don't have to approach them, they do a damn fine job of finding me, and everyone else they can preach to.

On Topic: This video is supposed to be a short presentation of Atwill's evidence, for those interested.

A 34-minute presentation on the Flavian Signature by Joseph Atwill, this video is separate from the Caesar's Messiah documentary - it is mainly a tool for anyone interested in understanding an abridged version of Atwill's core discovery The Flavian Signature in a direct way.

For myself, I seriously doubt this disproves Jesus existence. But I'd be interested in what he has to say. That the new testament was written by the Romans, is not a new idea. Its been done before.

Not buying it. Jesus was not a made up figure.

Romans were terrible at myth stories. Most romans had a copy cat civilization which barrowed heavily from other cultures like the greeks. They suck at myth stories. They weren't original and they were too war like to think in psychowarfare

Urantia1111
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

its obvious that your head is about to explode here, and i can see in each of your three paragraphs that you hate this guy and everything he says because it contradicts your own beliefs, but could you explain why you think he's wrong? he's taking on all skeptics in person at his presentation. what you got?

I don't hate him. I find his revisionist history ridiculous, and I have spent a lot of time looking into his claims precisely because some people thought it had merit. For me it's not a matter of his beliefs conflicting with my own spiritual beliefs. It is a matter of history, and he is rewriting it to sell books and suit his own agenda. I don't have a vested interest in peddling Christianity. I believe people can make up their own minds about which religion they choose (if any at all). What I take contention with is someone who completely fabricates untruths and peddles them as historical fact. Even Christianity's most vociferous opponent (Richard Dawkins) admits that it is highly likely that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Star for you but can't the Talmud be addressing the propaganda and not a real person ? Since Christianity did fracture Judaism some refutations is expected in the Judaic historic records.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

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?

Not that I necessarily believe this guy, because I haven't heard his claims yet. But to answer your question...
Because persecution works. If you want to solidify a religion in the minds of its followers. Persecute them. With a few exceptions. The rest will then cling to it. Especially if you tell them beforehand they will be persecuted.

Panic2k11
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Star for you but can't the Talmud be addressing the propaganda and not a real person ? Since Christianity did fracture Judaism some refutations is expected in the Judaic historic records.

The talmud mentions jc being a magician and into adultery. Because he was surrounded by women... did you know early Christianity was majority a woman religion before men made church hierarchy

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Methinks thou doth protest too much.

NO 'historical' figure is LESS documented than Jesus.

I suppose it's one of those 'faith' things, along with walking on water, rising from the dead, being born of a virgin inseminated by a god, etc.

Rename your 'god' Zeus and see how ridiculous it all sounds?

Oops I really messed this post up! Deleted.

Bisman

whyamIhere
C'mon man.

Jesus is the most documented person in History.

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

while I do believe Jesus existed. I also know he is incredibly undocumented...
ghere is so little information about him. and it ALL comes from the bible. a sourse that on its own, can't really be trusted to cite history.

Why exactly can't the bible be trusted to cite history accurately? Taking any and all supernatural events out of the picture, what makes you doubt the historic accuracy of the text? The places are right. The people are right. The events are right....

I've studied and studied....I love history and I love archaeology.With that being said, I have never in my measly 15years of research found anything in history or archaeology that is contradictory to what we find in the biblical texts....

Unlike other religious texts(the book of mormon just as an easy example) the people the places and the events can be visited and examined today. We have evidence of events like the wall of jericho collapse...We have evidence of people such as King Belshazzar and even whole tribes like the Hittites....and we have evidence supporting the places such as Sodom & Gomorrah....
Unlike the book of mormon...where we can't even see the tablets that were "translated"...we have zero evidence of any of the tribes such as the Nephites....and we have zero archaeological findings of any of the events described therein....

There is definately an air of authenticity attached to the biblical texts...atleast historically...

A2D

Klassified
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

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?

Not that I necessarily believe this guy, because I haven't heard his claims yet. But to answer your question...
Because persecution works. If you want to solidify a religion in the minds of its followers. Persecute them. With a few exceptions. The rest will then cling to it. Especially if you tell them beforehand they will be.

The problem with your theory is that the Romans themselves wrote about the Christians in no uncertain terms. Tacitus wrote of them:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

It is obvious that the Romans viewed early christians with contempt, and felt they should be stamped out, not encouraged in some grand conspiracy religion that they themselves authored.

To be such a doubted being. Its amazing time related to BC and AD is based on the...

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I understand what you're saying, and I've read that before. My point was, you ask a hypothetical question, and I gave you an answer. It isn't theory. It's psychology.

IF the Romans wanted to solidify Christianity. They would first persecute it, then accept it later on. I'm not saying that's what happened. I was just chasing the hypothetical rabbit you provided.

Mugen
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.

I would not rely on ATS to form your opinion about religion. Religion is what you make of it. It includes everything from radicals (terrorists with extremist ideologies), to people who identify with a religion because the overall theme resonates with them. People that judge it harshly only see the negatives - the extremest side or how religion has been the cause of all war. I would say it is not religion at all that has been the "cause" of wars. How can a non physical thing cause a war? It is people who start wars, and how they deal with their beliefs is shameful.

And the old testament is bummer to read. Start with the new testament if your going to read the bible for the first time. It's so much easier to understand. Or to really make it interesting begin by looking at prophecy. The bible is a history book just as much as a religious or spiritual one.

Does anyone remember proto thread allroads lead to rome??...

reply to post by Jordan River


All roads Lead To Rome
Wonder why it was closed.

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)

Agreed. And Titus 1:14 needs to be always remembered. The Fables will never cease.

reply to post by TKDRL


That guy was hard to talk to. You try to debunk his theory he would say that he's only looking at it from a specific time period


Proto got banned

signalfire
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

NO 'historical' figure is LESS documented than Jesus.

I suppose it's one of those 'faith' things, along with walking on water, rising from the dead, being born of a virgin inseminated by a god, etc.

Rename your 'god' Zeus and see how ridiculous it all sounds?

Wrong. Jesus of Nazareth is VERY well documented. We aren't talking about a mythological god here. We are talking about a historical figure. What you believe about him is your choice, but comparing Jesus of Nazareth to Zeus just puts your ignorance on display.