Ancient Confession Found: "We invented Jesus Christ"

Cypress said:
Cite your credentials, which divinity school you went to, where your PhD in religious history is from.
Click to expand...

Don't need to. I'm familiar with what both stated. You made the assertion in the positive. It's up to you to support it.
Otherwise, you can attempt to make the case for why I should place greater weight on the opinion of an obscure message boarder, rather than the worldwide consensus opinion of trained religious scholars educated at the best universities and seminaries on the planet.
Click to expand...

No credible, trained religious scholars familiar both works support what you're claiming, sport.

Fun to see you try and pretend that you know what you're talking about when you don't.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
Don't need to. I'm familiar with what both stated. You made the assertion in the positive. It's up to you to support it.

No credible, trained religious scholars familiar both works support what you're claiming, sport.

Fun to see you try and pretend that you know what you're talking about when you don't.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you have no expertise or education - none, nada, zilch - in religious history and theology.

It would take an entire graduate school career to become familiar with the body of work pertaining to scholarly study of the historicity of Jesus. People spent entire careers looking at various lines of evidence, using inductive reasoning, and finally arriving at reasoned conclusions on the historicity of Jesus based on the weight of evidence.

You thought about this for about five minutes, and leaped out of your chair to arrive at a conclusion...a conclusion you had already pre-determined you were going to arrive at.

That's exactly what untrained, armchair experts do.

No wonder I place no weight on your opinion, compared to the worldwide consensus opinion of reputable religious historians and theological scholars.
 
Cypress said:
Okay, so you have no expertise or education - none, nada, zilch - in religious history and theology.
Click to expand...

But, of course, I actually do. It's how I know you have none and are blowing smoke.
It would take an entire graduate school career to become familiar with the body of work pertaining to scholarly study of the historicity of Jesus. People spent entire careers looking at various lines of evidence, using inductive reasoning, and finally arriving at reasoned conclusions on the historicity of Jesus based on the weight of evidence.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, that's not what I addressed at all. I addressed your asinine, ahistorical claim that Josephus, et al proved the historicity of Christ. They didn't. They merely referenced the accounts of others. You, being simple, don't understand the difference, and it's rather pathetic to watch.
You thought about this for about five minutes, and leaped out of your chair to arrive at a conclusion...a conclusion you had already pre-determined you were going to arrive at.

That's exactly what untrained, armchair experts do.

No wonder I place no weight on your opinion, compared to the worldwide consensus opinion of reputable religious historians and theological scholars.
Click to expand...

Newp. I am familiar with both Tacitus and Josephus and what they stated and what that means. You quite clearly are not.

Since you have no idea what you're braying about and cannot substantiate that jackass's claim you made, why are you continuing to bray?
 
kudzu said:
LOLOL.. It is wild.. Maybe it should be posted under conspiracy theories??

https://drjbratti.wordpress.com/201...-of-titus-flavius-military-campaign-in-judea/
Click to expand...

I support having it under religion and philosophy, even if it sounds like conspiracy. It is a pretty fine line between other people's philosophies and conspiracy theory anyway.

During my youth, I went through a time where I rebelled against the church and even thought of myself as an atheist. During this time Christian religions seemed like conspiracy to me, but later on my education changed this. I was eventually able to connect the Bible, minus some supernatural events, to the world history timeline. While I never gained "faith", I did come to appreciate Christian history and how it shaped Western Civilization.

I don't buy the opening post proposal, but I do enjoy reading stuff like that.
 
Among trained New Testament scholars and religious historians, there is almost no debate that Jesus was a historical figure.

Questions about the details of Jesus' life remain.

The Jesus as a myth hypothesis has almost no credibility among trained religious scholars and intellectuals. It has essentially been refuted.

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence


The opinion of untrained, armchair experts on obscure message boards carries no weight with me.
 
I'm one of those kind of people that says, "Prove it- and I'll believe it"!

I have nothing against you Holy Rollers and Bible Thumpers for believing whatever you want to believe, but please keep your religious beliefs outside of your politics and government policies and we'll all be fine living on the same planet together!
 
Cypress said:
People spent entire careers looking at various lines of evidence, using inductive reasoning, and finally arriving at reasoned conclusions on the historicity of Jesus based on the weight of evidence.
Click to expand...

and the idiots want to ignore them and believe some atheist who knows jack shit......brilliant......
 
kudzu said:
This is a bit much, but it suddenly everywhere. More to follow.


Ancient Confession Found: "We invented Jesus Christ"

Ancient Confession Found: "We invented Jesus Christ"
Posted on October 9, 2013 by John Oakes



Ancient Confession Found: ‘We Invented Jesus Christ.’
A new “theory” to explain the genesis of Christianity is making the rounds of skeptic websites and will soon appear at a college or university near you. It is found in a recent documentary by Joseph Altwill “The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus” I would like to present some of the claims of Joseph Altwill and his colleagues as well as a refutation of this theory. See below.

Here is a quote used as a come-on for a conference to be held in London October 19, 2013:
American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled “Covert Messiah” at Conway Hall in Holborn.
Altwill and friends such as “fellow scholar” Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book “Jesus Never Existed” have devised a new theory to explain the genesis of Christianity. According to Altwill, the Christian movement was the product of a conspiracy of the Flavian monarchs, looking for a means to produce a more passive and manipulatable populace. They propose that there never was a Jewish man named Jesus Christ, that he, obviously, never performed miracles, never taught the ethic attributed to him in the New Testament, that he did not fulfill biblical prophecies and that he did not die by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Is this a believable proposal? Is it even a scholarly proposal at all? Here is another statement of Altwill’s
The latest in Biblical scholarship has now uncovered new evidence that provides a disturbing explanation: Christianity never strayed; Jesus Christ is a fabricated cover story for an Imperial psychological warfare operation born out of the First Jewish-Roman War in the first century.

Let’s stop here. What Altwill and friends like the enigmatic Acharya S. are proposing is that Jesus never lived. Not only that, but the apostles Peter, James and John also never lived. Neither did Paul for that matter, because according to Altwill, the New Testament was written by Roman aristocrats some time after the Jewish wars—presumably after AD 80, and therefor after Peter James and Peter died. This would mean that the Christian Church itself also did not exist until perhaps AD 100 at the very earliest. We can see immediately that this theory is absolute, utter nonsense. No responsible scholar is prepared to propose that Paul never lived. We have reports about Christians in the first century. Nero was reported by Tacitus to have killed Christians for starting the fire in Rome in AD 63. Tacitus, an otherwise reliable historian tells us that the Christians followed a man named Chrestus and that they were making a stir all over the Roman Empire in the first century. This theory does not even deserve serious consideration. In fact it is a blatant lie and to hold to this theory requires that one either be ignorant of history and suspend any shred of common sense. It is a fact that Domitian outlawed Christianity in AD 95. According to this theory there was nothing to outlaw in AD 95. According to this theory Domitian was part of the clique which created Christianity, yet the fact is that he did everything in his power to destroy Christianity. Here is a fact. By the early second century there were thousands of followers of Jesus who willingly offered their lives because of a belief in a person who they knew, from eyewitness accounts, had died in Jerusalem and had fulfilled many of the messianic prophecies.
According to this viewpoint, the New Testament was the product of Roman, pagan writers. I challenge anyone to read Hebrews or Matthew or John or Revelation and to propose with a straight face that a non-Jew wrote these books. Papias, in AD 125, tells us that he knew John personally, and that he died in Ephesus. Irenaeus tells us that he knew Polycarp who knew John personally. Our friend Joseph Altwill says that the very existence of John is a myth. Also, the person that John gave his life for was a myth as well. Thousands of people sacrificed their life because of persecution for following Jesus Christ in the first century, as evidenced by those who experienced this persecution, such as Polycarp, but Joseph Altwill says that, not only were they nor persecuted, they did not even exist. Remember, this theory posits that the very existence of Jesus was not even proposed until at least AD 80. Does any kind of logic at all have thousands giving up everything, abandoning life and livelihood for an idea fabricated by a vague set of unidentified authors? Who did they read their scriptures to? Where did they do this? This is absolute nonsense and it is ludicrous to even propose that we ought to accept this junk “scholarship.” Yet, these people have the audacity to propose that this is a scholarly theory.
Let us look at some of the details, again using quotes from their website.
In their greatest victory, the messianic Jews finally succeeded in burning Rome and driving the Romans out of Judea.
So the Jews burned Rome? Do we have evidence for this? Of course not. This is sheer fabrication, invented to support a theory which is based, literally, on not a single fact.

Why was the religion headquartered in Rome?

Joseph Altwill and his friends are trying to claim that Rome created Christianity and that it was founded in Rome. Never mind that the heartland of Christian population was in Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. They want us to believe that it was headquartered in Rome. Is that true? Rome was a relatively minor church in the first century.

By the middle of the second century it had grown and become prominent, but it was not even close to being the most prominent church. The churches in Ephesus, Antioch and Alexandria were far larger and more prominent. Even in the fourth century, when Rome became a prominent church, Christianity was not headquartered in Rome. Even at this time, Carthage, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Ephesus were of equal power and authority in the church. Even in the Middle Ages, when Rome clearly became the dominant church in the West, the churches in Constantinople and Antioch did not acknowledge leadership of Rome.
Here is the essence of this “theory:”

In order to pacify the Jewish rebellion, they [the Flavian rulers such as Vespasian, Titus and Domitian] captured and burned all the Jews’ scriptures. It is around this time that a new literature emerged with the story of a very different Jewish Messiah – one who preached “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, “turn the other cheek”, and “love your enemy”.

The Bible scholars deconstruct the Gospels and the character Jesus, showing that they are based on archetypes found in the ancient pagan mystery schools and in earlier Jewish literature. Much of the teachings of Christianity are traced back to the writings of Philo of Alexandria — who was combining Jewish scripture with Greek pagan beliefs — and Stoicism, a philosophy promoted by the Flavians.

When the Flavians seized control of the Roman Empire, they needed to legitimise their rule, so they had their Jewish court historian Josephus (originally Yosef ben Matityahu who adopted the name Titus Flavius Josephus) create a large body of work which became the only official history we have of the Jewish-Roman War.

Really? All the Jewish scriptures were burned? Is there some evidence for this? Is there even a tiny scrap of evidence for this totally unfounded claim? This is sheer utter nonsense, invented for a purpose and that purpose certainly is not so as to discover truth! The claim is that the Flavian aristocracy secretly wrote a very convincingly Jewish set of writings and leaked them out to Roman people. Josephus wrote the gospel of John? He also wrote Matthew and Mark and Luke? Why did he write four gospels?

So that he could cover up for the fact that there was just one author of the Bible? Forgive me, folks, but one will have to be extremely gullible to accept this ridiculous proposal! According to Altwill, for some unknown reason, tens and even hundreds of thousands of people accepted these writings, of unknown source, and committed their very lives to a person who never even existed. They committed to apostolic traditions handed down by apostles who never even existed. Are we really expected to believe this laughable proposal?

The claim is that they created this pretend religion in order to create a more manipulatable populace. Then, Domitian did his very best to destroy the group he had just created by persecuting it (at least according to these Altwill and friends).

One would hope that Altwill would have some evidence to support his massive conspiracy theory. One would be sadly mistaken. Altwill has literally not a single piece of evidence that the New Testament was written by a Roman conspiratorial plagiarist. His only supposed “evidence” is parallels he finds between the events of Josephus’ book “The Jewish Wars” and the gospel stories. In other words, he purports to have found striking parallels between the gospel story and the story of the Jewish wars. This proves that the gospel stories are pure fabrications.

Bible scholar Joseph Atwill noticed many parallels between this historic account of the war and the events in the life of Jesus in the Gospels. Through his study of the ancient Greek texts and his discovery of an antiquated Hebrew literary genre, he found dozens of parallels between the Jesus story and the war history that occurred in the exact same sequence.

This shows that the events of Jesus’ life which supposedly took place forty years earlier, were actually all dependent on the events in the military campaign of the Roman Caesar Titus Flavius. Ancient texts were much more allegorical, multi-layered and complex than today’s writing, and when you read the Gospels and the histories of Josephus side by side, a new meaning arises which reveals the authors of the Gospels to be the Roman Flavian Caesars, their co-conspirators, and their literary team.


This is not a brand new approach. It is a logical fallacy sometimes called argument by scenario. In this approach to supporting a theory one creates a scenario and then proceeds, having assumed the answer, to find “parallels” in the writings of others which support the scenario. This is called eisegesis (reading into a text) as opposed to exegesis (taking facts from a text). If one has a totally speculative theory of history, literally without a single shred of actual physical or even historical evidence, one creates a scenario and says, “If I am right, then I will find such and such.”

Then one proceeds to find such parallels. History tells us that the search for such parallels will bear fruit if one selectively searches long enough. The search for parallels between the book of Revelation and present-day events has led to similar bogus theories that Revelation is about events of the day.

This has been applied by every generation since at least the Middle Ages, but such argument by scenario is based on a false kind of reasoning and should be rejected out of hand. What is the name of the members of this “literary team”?

Joseph Altwill’s theory is based on the thinnest of possible ice, even for a highly speculative scenario-based theory. Add to that, it requires us to believe things which are, historically, utter nonsense and completely nonsensical.

Altwill actually does have one other piece of “evidence” that Romans conspirators wrote the New Testament:

Along the way, the Bible scholars show how the Roman Imperial Cult — set up to worship Caesar as a god — formed the basis for the Roman Catholic Church, and that some of the Church’s first saints were members of the Flavian court.


continued


http://evidenceforchristianity.org/ancient-confession-found-we-invented-jesus-christ/
Click to expand...

The major problem with this obvious fallacy? If Rome invented Jesus and Christianity and actually drafted the New Testament Gospels.....why do those gospel writings directly contradict Roman Catholic practices in the fact that Catholicism uses their own BIBLE? :dunno: Its a simple thing to compare the actual writings found in the New Testament with Roman Catholicism.....to point out the contradictions. If the new testament is a fabrication of the Roman Empire it would seem logical that these fake writings would at least agree with the type of Christianity being promoted and practiced over the past 2000 years by Rome.... No? Just look at the doctrine promoted by the new testament and the doctrine promoted by Roman Catholicism.

Logically speaking if the Roman Catholic church was built upon the words found to exist in the new testament gospels (that they supposedly had written themselves) would you not be able to see in that propaganda based fallacy (false writings) the practices, organizational structures, and the same doctrine used over the past 2k years by those who supposedly invented the words found within those gospels? What does the actual new testaments writings say about themselves? "....everything that pertains to life and Godliness." -- 2 Peter 1:3 is found to exist in these NT writings..when it was Peter (the supposed 1st Pope) supposedly drafted this portion of the New Testament.

The first contradiction that exists between Catholic Doctrine and New Testament Doctrine? Catholicism recognizes the pope as the head of the church. This man is elected by Cardinals....he is the supposed Vicar of Christ (or Christs representative on earth.....or Christ here on earth, i.e., the head of the church. That's Catholic doctrine.

What's New Testament Doctrine? There is only one head...i.e., Lord of the church, the Christ Himself (Eph. 1:22-23, 4:5, and Col. 1:18). "He who is the blessed and ONLY POTENTATE, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who ALONE has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see to whom be honor and everlasting power." -- 1 Tim. 6:15-16

According to the writing supposedly written by the Romans themselves...….those writings conclude that the POPE cannot be the head of the church, that position is already filled by Christ Jesus.

Next comes the claim by Roman Catholicism that Peter was the first POPE and there has been a line of Popes succeeding Peter.....but what does the New Testament say about this? Peter stood up WITH THE 11 and preached the gospel of Christ (Acts 2:14).


Catholic doctrine differs from New Testament doctrine how? Catholic doctrine teaches through tradition that praying though and to Mary is acceptable in worshiping Mary as the mother of God, Catholicism teaches that priests must remain celibate, transubstantiation, venial and mortal sins, the perpetual virginity of Mary....etc., What does the New Testament record (the same record supposedly invented by the same Roman Catholics) have to say?

Jesus has siblings, thus Mary could not have remained a virgin (Matt. 12:46-47). There is no record anywhere in the New Testament of anyone ever worshiping and or praying to Mary. The New Testament declares that all Christians are priests of the church....not just those picked by some elite group (1 Peter 2:9) …..and the strange thing, it was the 1st pope that so declared such doctrine.

Does the New Testament declare that all Christians.....being priests of a Royal Preisthood …….live their lives in a state of celibacy? Hardly (1 Cor. 7:2) teaches that Christians can marry and have sex with their spouses. That same New Testament supposedly fabricated by Rome teaches that it is wrong to change the doctrine found within the pages of this book (Rev.22:18-19)


There it is.....if the new testament is fake....why does it not agree with the frauds who supposedly drafted it? :bigthink:
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
and the idiots want to ignore them and believe some atheist who knows jack shit......brilliant......
Click to expand...

You cannot claim to have utmost respect for experts and professional expertise in one field of knowledge, but then neglect to use that standard in another field of human knowledge.

Climate deniers, evolution deniers, holocaust deniers are infamous for disputing the worldwide, professional consensus of experts in those respective field.

I practice consistency, and I have a genuine respect for expertise, professional training, and specialized education. Irrespective of the field of knowledge.


I defer to the worldwide consensus of reputable, trained religious historians and theological scholars concerning the probable historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

I also defer to the worldwide consensus of climate scientists on global warming, and the worldwide consensus of biologists and geneticists on evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top