Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

DeadSeraph

TheComte
My thoughts are:

If this is true, why did the Romans continue to persecute Christians for another 300 years until Constantine made it the state religion? Why actively engage in preventing the spread of the religion that you just invented, that you want to spread, by crucifying and throwing Christians to the lions?

If the nobility of Rome did indeed invent Jesus Christ, then I doubt they would have taken such extreme measures to dissuade people from joining. Because they would want it to spread. And they were smart.

Exactly. The other glaring hole in Atwill's theory is that the new testament displays a very intimate knowledge of not only the old testament, but of Jewish customs and beliefs. The romans themselves would not have that sort of familiarity with Jewish religion. I've heard it argued that they employed Jewish scribes to author the texts for them, but this is an exceedingly ridiculous claim when one considers that the Jews regarded the romans with disdain having lived under the yoke of the roman empire for quite some time. The Jews would not have authored the text for the romans in order to further subjugate themselves, to say nothing of the fact they would have found the entire thing blasphemous to begin with (which they did).

The whole thing is nonsense and is full of so many holes it's rather comical that anyone could actually take it seriously.

It is not much different than the US and Al Qaeda. You wouldn't think that Al Qaeda would do anything to help further the American agenda...

There are defectors in any group.

TheEthicalSkeptic

Khaleesi
Actually there is more non biblical documentation of Jesus than there is Ceasar. Research it. Yes by proper name.

Yes, I read Jesus' famous work "The Gallic Wars."

As I said there are 3 Primary sources for Julius Caesar, one of them being Caesar himself. Non Biblical primary sources for Jesus include, Flavius Josephus, Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, and some even include the Koran.

eta Tacitus even mentions Pontius Pilatus by name as the man that sentenced Jesus to crucifixion.

Khaleesi

TheEthicalSkeptic

Khaleesi
Actually there is more non biblical documentation of Jesus than there is Ceasar. Research it. Yes by proper name.

Yes, I read Jesus' famous work "The Gallic Wars."

As I said there are 3 Primary sources for Julius Caesar, one of them being Caesar himself. Non Biblical primary sources for Jesus include, Flavius Josephus, Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, and some even include the Koran.

I am not claiming that he did not exist, just citing that this argument you draw from is a programmed set of apologetics material.

Yes my newspaper yesterday mentioned Jesus too. All of these documents talk about Christians promoting Jesus in the social post-facto sense as in of 'those who speak about' well after the story was already crafted (whether accurate or not), so they are no different than us mentioning Jesus, in terms of historical provenance. And us mentioning Jesus does not stand as proof either. Every mention after 60 ad, is subjective to the religion and not original. None of these references are original, only referential.

TheEthicalSkeptic

Khaleesi

TheEthicalSkeptic

Khaleesi
Actually there is more non biblical documentation of Jesus than there is Ceasar. Research it. Yes by proper name.

Yes, I read Jesus' famous work "The Gallic Wars."

As I said there are 3 Primary sources for Julius Caesar, one of them being Caesar himself. Non Biblical primary sources for Jesus include, Flavius Josephus, Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, and some even include the Koran.

I am not claiming that he did not exist, just citing that this argument you draw from is a programmed set of apologetics material.

Yes my newspaper yesterday mentioned Jesus too. All of these documents talk about Christians promoting Jesus in the social post-facto sense as in of 'those who speak about' well after the story was already crafted (whether accurate or not), so they are no different than us mentioning Jesus, in terms of historical provenance. And us mentioning Jesus does not stand as proof either. Every mention after 60 ad, is subjective to the religion and not original. None of these references are original, only referential.

I am simply pointing out that there is historical documentation of a man that existed during that time named Jesus. Some of those sources are also sources that are relied on for the lives of the Caesars. So some people would say they believe the sources on the life of Caesar but disbelieve these same sources that mention Jesus? That's just picking and choosing and is disingenuous. What you believe about Jesus' life is your choice but there is non biblical historical account of the man living.

BO XIAN
reply to post by winofiend

 

Persisting in the usual sorts of insults?

Are you suggesting I have insulted you?

Odd. Once you complemented me for sticking up for you.

I guess, when you're out of touch, you bight anything that seems to be 'coming at ya'.

1. My reality testing is likely above that of most folks. LOL. I know the clay whereof I was dug . . . compared to many so smug.

2. I noted that I had experienced praying for one person to sober up and was shocked when they did instantly . . . as was she.

3. Your biases are showing again.

4. Assumptions and biases can DENY TRUTH quite persistently over long periods of time.

However, eventually, all will be known.

Yes yes delusion.. pray some more, maybe everyone else will change for you bo. You are dangerous if you think praying sobers people up and you then let them operate a vehicle.

And to continually, now, claim some sort of psychological superiority over others, is really pushing the limits of acceptable delusion of grandeur.

Khaleesi Some of those sources are also sources that are relied on for the lives of the Caesars. So some people would say they believe the sources on the life of Caesar but disbelieve these same sources that mention Jesus? That's just picking and choosing and is disingenuous. What you believe about Jesus' life is your choice but there is non biblical historical account of the man living.

Well under this criteria Zeus has the most credence.



Seriously, I understand what you are saying. Just recognize that this is apologist material, whether true or not. It needs a dispassionate and sober look see, before swallowing.

TheEthicalSkeptic

Khaleesi Some of those sources are also sources that are relied on for the lives of the Caesars. So some people would say they believe the sources on the life of Caesar but disbelieve these same sources that mention Jesus? That's just picking and choosing and is disingenuous. What you believe about Jesus' life is your choice but there is non biblical historical account of the man living.

Well under this criteria Zeus has the most credence.

Seriously, I understand what you are saying. Just recognize that this is apologist material, whether true or not. It needs a dispassionate and sober look see, before swallowing.

And yet you believe what these sources wrote of Nero? One of the sources I listed is a MAJOR accepted source on the lives of the Caesars. So he told the truth about the Caesars and made up what he wrote in the same book about Jesus?

ETA That wasn't apologist material. That source was a rather unsympathetic reference to Jesus.

KhaleesiAnd yet you believe what these sources wrote of Nero? One of the sources I listed is a MAJOR accepted source on the lives of the Caesars. So he told the truth about the Caesars and made up what he wrote in the same book about Jesus?

Yes, there is a difference in historical documentation between a reference and a disclosure. If I reference something second hand, which I cite the source to be an extant group, with an agenda that is in question as to its bias, historically. Yes that reference is in question.

If however, if I am citing a disclosure or original work of authority, such as Suetonius' documentation of the Caesars, while he held an administrative post which oversaw the records of the government...then that is an original disclosure of first hand knowledge, and office.

... so yes, different information from the same person can come with different confidence levels. Very much so.

TheEthicalSkeptic

KhaleesiAnd yet you believe what these sources wrote of Nero? One of the sources I listed is a MAJOR accepted source on the lives of the Caesars. So he told the truth about the Caesars and made up what he wrote in the same book about Jesus?

Yes, there is a difference in historical documentation between a reference and a disclosure. If I reference something second hand, which I cite the source to be an extant group, with an agenda that is in question as to its bias, historically. Yes that reference is in question.

If however, if I am citing a disclosure or original work of authority, such as Suetonius' documentation of the Caesars, while he held an administrative post which oversaw the records of the government...then that is an original disclosure of first hand knowledge, and office.

... so yes, different information from the same person can come with different confidence levels. Very much so.

These historians, at the time of their writings, would have had access to written history that has since been lost. So by your standards, If I went to original sources of, let's say events and people during the 1940's and I wrote a factual historical account that I researched, in 2000 years those sources were gone but my historical account somehow survived, you would believe parts of it but maybe not all of it? You are picking and choosing parts of the same source to believe and disbelieve? AND when you cross reference several different sources, none of them contradict each other.

www.probe.org...

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

None of these sources contradict each other. Some have more or less information but, none contradict each other.

ETA Are you saying the Caesars that are deemed historical by you through these documents, had no agenda? They didn't review and approve of what was written about them?

reply to post by ltheghost


will certainly watch this documentary as soon as possible.

In the end...the truth will never be globally universal. Each of us has to find the truth for themselves, and die with it.

Having said that...my truth...most probably a made up fantasy...I guess I'll know for certain when I die.

Khaleesi
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I am not sure you are getting what I am saying. All of these are post-facto secondary references - who's only material to draw from was the information provided by the early Church as their source in the first place. All Circa 90-112 ad at the earliest. They are all, to the very last one, subjective and referential and not authoritative disclosures. They are no different than the Baltimore Sun doing a piece on the life of Jesus today by talking to the President Avenue Methodist Church. They are re-telling what they were told was true, by the early Church.

But if the same Baltimore Sun reporter shows the score of the American League Pennant Baseball Game - YES, I will regard that as authorative, and rightfully question that same reporter's piece on the life of Jesus at the very same time.

I am not sure how to put it more clearly. So I will have to stop there.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


That is not an accurate representation of the facts at all. The roman historians who mentioned Christians (and Jesus himself) were not citing Christian sources. They were citing roman historical documents and events. One of them even names Pontius Pilatus as the individual who had Jesus crucified, and names the former as "one of our procurators". That certainly doesn't sound like Tacitus was getting his information from the local methodist pastor down the street to me.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

who's only material to draw from was the information provided by the early Church as their source in the first place.

So you are saying these historians had no other source of information to draw on but the early Church? Really? No other sources whatsoever? These historians did not use their own resources of Roman history? They only drew from Church history when they wrote about Pontious Pilate? They had no means to consult Pilate's records of what he did during that time? Really? Roman historians relied solely on Church sources for this information? You know this for a fact?

reply to post by ltheghost

this is a bunch of crap;and coming out of the uk only proves my point.

I've broken my own rule of jumping directly to the end of a thread after reading the first page, so if this has been debunked then please throw all the rocks at me you want

Firstly, wonderful find, at last something that could smash the rule of religion point blank.

As many know I am not a man of religion, never have been and I have very good reasons, very painful ACTUAL reasons NOT to believe (no, I was molested but I was attacked by nuns as a child and saw death caused by religion in front of me).

I have always looked upon religion simply as a form of control, how simple it is to create a person who MUST be special, they should have magical godly powers and then people WILL believe because this person is so special. Put a story behind it and make sure people know that following will be good for them and not following will send them to hell and there you have it, a rule of iron without lifting a finger other than to 'pray'..

Other created religions will then piggy back on to the SPECIAL person and introduce their own, now you have sets of people controlled with all the same threats and promises. If this man can PROVE this isn't just a theory but its fact, that is if they let him live that long then this will be a turning point, sadly a very dangerous turning point for the world.

The exercised control smashed wide open, riots, revolutions and panic for those people who can't run their own lives. Of course there will be those that refuse to take it in but it will be in t he back of their minds, will they go to hell if they do this one bad thing?

The problem here is that IF this man is right and I believe he is then he's target number one for so many groups in power, TPTB won't want this man to put forward any facts and they rely on these religions for numerous reason.

I can only hope that IF he is right that his finding are taken on by a growing group that will be impossible to silence, one man alone will be wiped off the face of the planet.

So, if I've missed a debunking then I will feel very silly but I will still believe in everything I've said..

Religion is simply a form of control, fact..

dellmonty
reply to post by ltheghost

 

this is a bunch of crap;and coming out of the uk only proves my point.

I'm sorry but as home of the National Enquirer, if the story came from the US it would not make it any more credible just because an American told it...

The USA, home of many great things but not always the truth

from wikipedia:

...Although mentioned in the New Testament gospels, there are no extant non-biblical references to Nazareth until around 200 AD, when Sextus Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of “Nazara” as a village in "Judea" and locates it near an as-yet unidentified “Cochaba.”[53] In the same passage Africanus writes of desposunoi - relatives of Jesus - who he claims kept the records of their descent with great care. A few authors have argued that the absence of 1st and 2nd century AD textual references to Nazareth suggest the town may not have been inhabited in Jesus' day.[54] Proponents of this hypothesis have buttressed their case with linguistic, literary and archaeological interpretations,[55] though one writer called that view "archaeologically unsupportable".[56]...

Jesus...the "Nazarorean" had to do with his rebel Rabbi Theology School rather than the town from where he was raised
some unclear derivation of Nazra is believed to be the anti-Establishment brand of Rabbi the Jesus Ministry was
(opposing the Saducee & the Pharisee Schools of theology of the era)
see: en.wikipedia.org...



so, yeah, Jesus was not the typical 'Harvard or Yale equivelent' , Theological schooled elitist Rabbi the People were conditioned to give respect to....Jesus was a renegade rebel, outsider, Rabbi...so thats where a bunch of the 'we made him up' thoughts are founded on.


i guess the easiest comparision would be to compare Jesus with Abe Lincoln--- Lincoln was a self taught Lawyer who overcame his lack of polish as a public speaker and sought a higher calling than just being a local Lay Practice guy....Jesus did about the same things... was self taught, had some mentoring and sought a higher calling in becoming even more brilliant than the elegantly trained & schooled Rabbi's of main stream Talmud & Pharasie schools of religious training.


thats the best i can give you in laymans language

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.

Wait a minute.

You haven't read the book, and you want to have an opinion regarding the veracity of its contents?

I know most people make that silly mistake, like most participating in this discussion; but I don't know that I've ever witnessed anyone to be so accepting of such ironic laziness within themselves.

Go Read.

reply to post by St Udio


I found this ...www.holylandnetwork.com...

"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.... And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus".

(Luke, 1st 26-30)

A town in southern Galilee about 15 miles southwest of the Sea of Galilee (kineret) and twenty miles from the Mediterranean westward in the basin of the hills of the lower Galilee.

In Biblical time Nazareth was a small agricultural town settled by few dozen families. The town is not mentioned once in the Old Testament, an insignificant village, too small to be noted in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16). Nazareth is not included in the 45 cities of the Galilee that mentioned by Josephus the historian and its name is missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud. It was not expected to have a prophet, a king, or priest to ever come out of Nazareth. This prompted the response of Nathaniel in John 1:46 "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Nazareth was isolated in ancient times because no trade routes ran through the city therefore had no economical value.

The origin of the name Nazareth is still puzzling. In Hebrew the word "Nazir" - (Nazarite - Monk) A person who was dedicated to special sacred service through a vow made by the person or by his parents, which could last a lifetime or for a limited period. The early name "Nazarenes" given to early Christians, might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Or as many scholars today think that the name Nazareth comes from the Hebrew word "Netzer" (Branch) as prophesied by Isaiah that Savior will come from the branches (roots) of King David.

Either way, Nazareth became the cradle of Christianity.

At 20-33 AD the beginning Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth mark of the start of the Common Era. Excavations conducted in the region and remains of pottery prove a continuous settlement
during the period 900-600 BCE of Jewish villages and Hellenized Syrians towns. Tzippori, the capital of the Galilee, the largest of these towns was settled until the year 18 BCE. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BCE.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by ltheghost

 

Here we go again with Joseph Atwill's nonsense. I have spent far too much time looking into his claims and debunking them on ATS, and I have no interest in doing so again. 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.

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). 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.

History, logic, and reason all stand opposed to Joseph Atwill and his claims, and the only way it is possible to agree with his conclusions is to abandon all three in favor of Atwill's version of events. This is the textbook definition of confirmation bias, because a person has to want Jesus to be a fable to conclude that Atwill is anything other than a joke. 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.

These are my declining years, and I will meet Jesus soon enough..... though I wanted to congratulate on a response well said.
Were I articulate enough to formulate a reply as you did, I certainly would have.

It's too bad that peoples arrogance prevents them from freely receiving that which will influence the entire rest of their being...

Bravo... well said...