# Claims that Jesus was a Roman government plot



## Rustee (Oct 10, 2013)

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'



> 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 (full details can be found at Covert Messiah - 19 October 2013).
> 
> Although to many scholars his theory seems outlandish, and is sure to upset some believers, Atwill regards his evidence as conclusive and is confident its acceptance is only a matter of time. "I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm," he acknowledges, "but this is important for our culture. Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."
> 
> ...









This thread has the potential to end badly so play nice!


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 10, 2013)

Even if this theory is true, and that's a really big "if", there is nothing in this world that can quell the church's stranglehold on "civilized" society. At least not in our great grandkids' lifetimes.


----------



## TheKindred (Oct 10, 2013)

But then who invented the Romans....


----------



## rockskate4x (Oct 10, 2013)

As a historical figure, there is plenty of extra-biblical proof for Jesus. Some dude in Jerusalem was making a splash, whether or not he was who he said he was, or was doing miracles or whatever. While I don't particularly like people grasping at straws to try to support their religious beliefs, finding "proof" to deny his existence in history doesn't seem logical either.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Oct 10, 2013)

Well, if true, this is certainly an Earth shattering proposal. They would have had to actually had to have a physical person walking around though, because I thought it was pretty well established that some guy named Jesus was indeed real.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm all for anything which encourages people to see (any) religion as a metaphor, and gets them away from seeing (any) religion as something to be taken literally or as historical record.


----------



## EcoliUVA (Oct 10, 2013)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Even if this theory is true, and that's a really big "if", there is nothing in this world that can quell the church's stranglehold on "civilized" society. At least not in our great grandkids' lifetimes.



QFT. Evidence and fact has been flying in the face of religion for time immemorial (or at least a few centuries) and has mattered relatively little. Every major religious text has "failsafes" in place to deny this very sort of evidence, too. Tough battle, not ending any time in the near future.


----------



## vansinn (Oct 10, 2013)

I haven't poked into the works of Joseph Atwill as yet, but it's said elsewhere that Emperor Augustus in, IIRC, 1546 wanted the bible rewritten to more modern standards, and called-in 98 scholars whom, among other topics, discussed which name to tie to the concept of christ.
Two names came up, and Jesus won with two defining votes.

I can't locate the reference to this, sorry about that. might have been Michael Tsarion..

It's interesting that Pope Leo X is referred as having said "It has served us well, this myth of Christ". This is being discussed quite a lot; can't tell if it's real or not.
And, although not fully related though still an interesting angle, former pope Benedict XVI should have said "if you want salvation, do not go to god, but come to me". I can't remember where I read this, sorry.


----------



## asfeir (Oct 10, 2013)

This guy just ruined my childhood.


----------



## ncfiala (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm a Christian, but I'm not posting this to try and convert anyone or anything like that. That is a personal choice and everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves. I am posting this to say consider the source. Joseph Atwill is not a Biblical scholoar. He is not really a scholar at all. He has no credentials and undoubtedly has not spent the enourmous amount of time dedicated to study and learning ancient languages that is required for such scholarship.

Frankly, this is not new. People have made these kinds of claims before and Atwill himself published a book back in 2005 on this topic.


----------



## Edika (Oct 10, 2013)

I agree with his following statement.

"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 don't know if Jesus existed or not. I had been raised as a Christian but I have been an Atheist most of my life. All texts I have seen speaking about Jesus have been religious texts which never inspired me confidence of their validity. There have been many parallelisms of Jesus with other Messianic figures of other religions that predated him (Mithra for example) so it could be very likely he never existed.
However conscious reality, as humans perceive it, is governed by what the majority of humanity believes to be true. Without going into crackpot theory territory, manipulating societies beliefs and opinions is one very powerful weapon. If something is repeated enough times, enough years, with enough force and without a way to disprove it, then it substitutes reality even if it can come to clash with logic and common sense.


----------



## rockskate4x (Oct 10, 2013)

vansinn said:


> I haven't poked into the works of Joseph Atwill as yet, but it's said elsewhere that Emperor Augustus in, IIRC, 1546 wanted the bible rewritten to more modern standards, and called-in 98 scholars whom, among other topics, discussed which name to tie to the concept of christ.
> Two names came up, and Jesus won with two defining votes.
> 
> I can't locate the reference to this, sorry about that. might have been Michael Tsarion..
> ...



As far as the text and it's edits, manuscripts of the new testament have been extremely consistent with each other so any new testament scholar will tell you that the name "Yeshua" (Jesus) will be found in every manuscript including ones that date well before 1546, so I suspect that this is a croc designed to argue against christianity. This isn't to defend religion, I just don't like dishonesty on either side of the argument (not referring to anyone here)  As far as the Pope Leo X or Benedict XVI are concerned, this hardly has any bearing on the argument because there were plenty of "bad" or "unchristian" popes in history that the christians (even devout catholics) would see as a corruption in the church.


----------



## hairychris (Oct 10, 2013)

rockskate4x said:


> As a historical figure, there is plenty of extra-biblical proof for Jesus. Some dude in Jerusalem was making a splash, whether or not he was who he said he was, or was doing miracles or whatever. While I don't particularly like people grasping at straws to try to support their religious beliefs, finding "proof" to deny his existence in history doesn't seem logical either.



Actually no, there isn't. Paul never met him, and the first gospels were written 30 - 40 years after his supposed death. There are no contemporary records of JC. At all. Only independent documents written many years after, some of which are considered to be forgeries* (Josephus) and others (Pliny, Tacitus, writing after 60AD IIRC) that mention followers of this person but don't in any way demonstrate anything except that those followers existed.

JC could well be a legend (see John Frum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a modern example) but there definitely was an early split in 1st century Christians about whether his movement was to be purely Jewish, or to convert outsiders too. The second one won out. By this alone it seems pretty doubtful that the Romans would have anything to gain by creating a legend... The Jews were royally ....ed by Titus sacking Jerusalem in 70 CE, so having the end-times stuff that JC predicted isn't entirely out of place especially as the Jewish War approximates the times when the early gospels were written.

All interesting stuff.

Anyway. Atwill seems to be a fraud. He doesn't want to disclose his evidence except to a paying audience. Yeah, that's legit. Not.

Disclaimer: I am not convinced that Jesus was real, a combination of existing people or legends. If he did exist then he was a minor cult leader who got historically lucky. All the magic stuff? Nope, again, tacked on to the Biblical character. If you read contemporary works by Roman and Greek authors magic and prophecy is everywhere, even in work from the most highly educated people of the time. 

FWIW I don't actually care whether he existed or not. To Christians, though, it's kinda vital! 

*"Pious Fraud". There was a lot of it about when manuscripts were copied. The original text was secondary to the message that it held. Scribes were often also editing the text as they went on. The stats for copying discrepancies in the Bible are astronomical.


----------



## hairychris (Oct 10, 2013)

And just on the whole "end of Christianity" thing? Nope.

You have people like William Lane Craig openly stating that evidence does not matter as it's all "the internal witness of the Holy Spirit" so whatever anyone says...


----------



## tedtan (Oct 10, 2013)

hairychris said:


> JC could well be a legend


 
Legend? I thought he was a superstar.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 10, 2013)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Even if this theory is true, and that's a really big "if", there is nothing in this world that can quell the church's stranglehold on "civilized" society. At least not in our great grandkids' lifetimes.



And even if they could... What's the likelihood I'd give a rat's ass? If everyone's relationship with the god of their understanding is personal then why the fvck are ppl always poking their nose in?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 10, 2013)

synrgy said:


> I'm all for anything which encourages people to see (any) religion as a metaphor, and gets them away from seeing (any) religion as something to be taken literally or as historical record.



This...


----------



## flint757 (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't think anyone would care if in today's time the Roman Catholic church had less power and people actually kept their religion to themselves and their followers. The problem is neither of these things are the case. 

My mother is a christian and I'm an atheist. She knows this and tries to get me to go to Church nearly every weekend. She also refuses to have any sort of discussion on the subject because it's 'sacrilegious'. On top of that almost anything proving the fallacy of religion and/or accuracy of science is just the 'devil's' doing. So facts mean absolutely nothing, open discussion is impossible, they affect laws and public policy, try to convert people and the church is super powerful.

Religion did something right though. Making it mandatory to blindly follow ones beliefs is a brilliant fail safe to prevent fallout.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 10, 2013)

*Shrugs* 

I thought anybody who had read The Holy Bible and had more than a passing fancy in history would already know this. 

Religious people have been ignoring facts for...well, ever. This would hardly stop them for carrying on with their craziness. 

No idea if this is valid it or not. But I err on the side of caution.


----------



## anunnaki (Oct 10, 2013)

This guy shows Joseph Atwill (whoever he is) to be full of s*** > No, Joe Atwill: Rome Did Not Invent Jesus | The Musings of Thomas Verenna
I think that this Joseph Atwill guy is just being sensational to make a few bucks.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 10, 2013)

anunnaki said:


> This guy shows Joseph Atwill (whoever he is) to be full of s*** > No, Joe Atwill: Rome Did Not Invent Jesus | The Musings of Thomas Verenna
> I think that this Joseph Atwill guy is just being sensational to make a few bucks.



I haven't thoroughly gone through that, but I notice that in all the places they're "quoting" Atwill's book, what's actually been quoted are 3rd-party references to Atwill's book, noted by the continual reference to Atwill from the third-person perspective. 

Not trying to say anything more than that, yet, but that in and of itself is awfully fishy, to me.


----------



## EcoliUVA (Oct 10, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> And even if they could... What's the likelihood I'd give a rat's ass? If everyone's relationship with the god of their understanding is personal then why the fvck are ppl always poking their nose in?



I don't think Max meant it on a personal level. On a grand scale, religion hinders societal progress.

Taking it to a personal level though: it can f_ck up a family bigtime, which merits nose-poking imo. Not that this information would really matter for that purpose, or any other "try to talk sense into someone" purpose for that matter.


----------



## skeels (Oct 10, 2013)

Pffft.

Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that Santa Claus isn't real either.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 10, 2013)

hairychris said:


> And just on the whole "end of Christianity" thing? Nope.
> 
> You have people like William Lane Craig openly stating that evidence does not matter as it's all "the internal witness of the Holy Spirit" so whatever anyone says...



Craig is a joke. He is sensible to masquerade as a philosopher so as to appeal to any argument from authority.


----------



## Necris (Oct 10, 2013)

Atwill&#8217;s Cranked-up Jesus » Richard Carrier Blogs


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 10, 2013)

Epistemically and logically, it's pretty hard to 'prove' a claim such as this. As a philosopher of mathematics and logic I can't stress enough how careful people need to be with words like 'proof'. 

His theory is, of course, totally plausible, but it seems like he has a horse in the race. Christianity undoes itself - it doesn't really need these kinds of potential fabrications to be revealed as fraudulent or false.


----------



## viesczy (Oct 10, 2013)

Jesus the man or Jesus the zombie, which was discounted again? 

For the life of me I don't understand how an adult can buy the guy in the sky story. I get how a child can/could because their ability to think/reason hasn't developed, but an adult? Talking bushes on fire, virgin births, splitting seas, depictions of a white man but all the descriptions are copper skinned with hair of wool? C'mon, how can anyone be that obtuse. 

Trickle down economics is more believable. 

Derek


----------



## Waelstrum (Oct 10, 2013)

If it were a Roman conspiracy, why would they have the four gospels contradict each other? That seems like the work of four unsynchronised authors rather than anti-insurgency governmental propaganda.


----------



## skeels (Oct 10, 2013)

^ One of the points made in the blog above.

Now, the whole "guy in the sky" thing is just one way of looking at it. Ususally that's the bad way taught to so many people who never develop any kind of useful spirituality. It's kind of a cop out.

But the words attributed to that man are great. Like Ghandhi said, "I like your Christ. Christians... mmmm, not so much."

Okay, so I'm paraphrasing.

But he knocked over the money changers tables! That was bad ass! 

He was also friends with prostitutes and beggars and other such lowlives. He actually said he didn't really care for "good" people, as he figured they were alright and should just continue being alright. 

Also, wasn't his birth chronicled? I mean, wasn't Joseph returning to his hometown for the reason that it was a census year?

I am just a humble tree killer and do not claim to know such things.


----------



## White Liquorice (Oct 10, 2013)

Waelstrum said:


> If it were a Roman conspiracy, why would they have the four gospels contradict each other? That seems like the work of four unsynchronised authors rather than anti-insurgency governmental propaganda.



The previous system of Roman rule, was robbery by force. Caesar raped Gaul and enslaved 1/3 of the known world's population. So using a united spiritual doctrine is easier. The 4 gospels were written 100s of years apart. Christianity has always been closer to a political policy, than a spiritual belief, even after 2,000 yrs and apparent fairytales (gay marriage, abortion, etc). The only reason organized region continues to exist (plus all the monstrosities they've commited), is because most are too cowardice to accept that consciousness has a definite end.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 10, 2013)

Interesting angle, but it kind of smacks of the "X benefited from Y, therefore X caused Y" argument. Maybe it's just because my country's government is shut-down right now because leadership is literally too conflicted to function, but it's hard to look past the common problem with most conspiracy theories that seems to be part of the assertion in the OP, the requirement for a government to execute something perfectly and effectively without a single person involved ....ing it up or blabbing about it. 

Also, creating a counter-religion seems like a lot of unnecessary work to stick it to a small-but-feisty group in a tiny portion of the empire.


----------



## Metal_Webb (Oct 10, 2013)

anunnaki said:


> This guy shows Joseph Atwill (whoever he is) to be full of s*** > No, Joe Atwill: Rome Did Not Invent Jesus | The Musings of Thomas Verenna
> I think that this Joseph Atwill guy is just being sensational to make a few bucks.



There's sensationalism on both sides, but Verenna goes in for ad hominem attacks throughout that whole "article". If there's one thing that's not going to convince me, it's attacking the person rather than the argument itself. That guy doesn't show any contradictory evidence or refute anything.


----------



## KJGaruda (Oct 11, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Religion did something right though. Making it mandatory to blindly follow ones beliefs is a brilliant fail safe to prevent fallout.



Funny thing about that though.. I can't speak for other religions that I'm unfamiliar with, but I know personally that Christianity/the Bible says _not_ to follow blindly, it says question or test everything.

The thing about most of the hardcore Christians is that they like to cherry-pick only the parts of the Bible that sounds good to them, so that's why there are so many 'Christians' that shun their family members if they find that they're atheist/gay/etc. The foundation of Christianity is actually against that (the shunning of others), but I guess some people need to feel like they're higher than others by judging... but I digress. 

The people that actually *do* use religion to control people won't let this article knock their stride at all.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 11, 2013)

Zenki_Kouki said:


> Funny thing about that though.. I can't speak for other religions that I'm unfamiliar with, but I know personally that Christianity/the Bible says _not_ to follow blindly, it says question or test everything.
> 
> The thing about most of the hardcore Christians is that they like to cherry-pick only the parts of the Bible that sounds good to them, so that's why there are so many 'Christians' that shun their family members if they find that they're atheist/gay/etc. The foundation of Christianity is actually against that (the shunning of others), but I guess some people need to feel like they're higher than others by judging... but I digress.
> 
> The people that actually *do* use religion to control people won't let this article knock their stride at all.



Indeed.

Not just the cherry picking though. The bible may very well say to question everything, BUT I've personally never met one who didn't follow blindly for fear of being sacrilegious and probably just a general fear of finding out the truth in some cases. Nowadays people take the 'question everything' and only apply it to things outside the bible. To many if it is in the bible it is ironclad and not to be questioned. It's possible my experiences are tainted by living in the bible belt and being in a very religious family though (on paper).


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 11, 2013)

The Bible also condemns doubters and says to believe it implicitly. Take your pick of which instruction to follows. 

Really, that's what made me start thinking about the veracity of the Bible. That, and the way various religious figures in my life had to come up with creative explanations to cover inconsistencies and justify impossibilities. It rang hollow, like how people will try to connect two stories with only the most tenuous of threads.

EDIT: And more OT, there's already more than enough reason to suspect that Jesus as a real person is either dubious or a semi-historical figure without whatever this guy is peddling.


----------



## hairychris (Oct 11, 2013)

CrushingAnvil said:


> Craig is a joke. He is sensible to masquerade as a philosopher so as to appeal to any argument from authority.



Well, theologist as a real philosopher would not be able to get away with what he says.

Anyway, you know this, I know this, but he has a certain amount of clout in some circles.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 11, 2013)

hairychris said:


> Well, theologist as a real philosopher would not be able to get away with what he says.
> 
> Anyway, you know this, I know this, but he has a certain amount of clout in some circles.



I describe him as a Christian first, a theologian second, and a philosopher third.


----------



## hairychris (Oct 11, 2013)

CrushingAnvil said:


> I describe him as a Christian first, a theologian second, and a philosopher third.



I think that I made the word "theologist" up. Probably because beer. oops! 

But agreed. His arguments are weaksauce to a non-believer. They tend to fail the "smell" test even if you can't immediately find any formally defined problems with his BS.

Also his understanding of modern physics and cosmology is farcical, and he still uses it in his debates. I know that he's been corrected on these so he must be dishonest (or too stupid to get it).


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 11, 2013)

hairychris said:


> I think that I made the word "theologist" up. Probably because beer. oops!
> 
> But agreed. His arguments are weaksauce to a non-believer. They tend to fail the "smell" test even if you can't immediately find any formally defined problems with his BS.
> 
> Also his understanding of modern physics and cosmology is farcical, and he still uses it in his debates. I know that he's been corrected on these so he must be dishonest (or too stupid to get it).



Haha, theologian is indeed the correct word for a 'religious academic'.


----------



## Wrecklyss (Oct 12, 2013)

I'll admit that I didn't read the whole thread. Also, as a U.S. born Muslim soldier currently deployed to Afghanistan, I'll admit my view point is probably a little biased. 

I believe Christianity as we know it is the invention of Paul, who never actually met Jesus. It has been adapted throughout history to validate kings, emperors, popes, etc. and is far from the message originally taught by Jesus (s.a.w.) who indeed taught peace but never asked to be worshipped. 

Just what my own studies research has led me to believe. Be gentle


----------



## Jakke (Oct 12, 2013)

rockskate4x said:


> As a historical figure, there is plenty of extra-biblical proof for Jesus. Some dude in Jerusalem was making a splash, whether or not he was who he said he was, or was doing miracles or whatever. While I don't particularly like people grasping at straws to try to support their religious beliefs, finding "proof" to deny his existence in history doesn't seem logical either.



Citations pls



As for the thread, I have to say that this looks sketchy... 

-Hold on... *Cranks the soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar*

... And even if this would be true, who thinks it'll even change anything? It's not the end of christianity, as faith is belief in abscence of evidence anyway. Most of christianity is also very adaptable, and adapt they will do this time as well. Atheists do not believe in this, so it will not really change anything here either. I also hope they are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the christians might change their doctrine in the face of historical evidence, just as a scientific worldview does all the time.





Wrecklyss said:


> I believe Christianity as we know it is the invention of Paul, who never actually met Jesus. It has been adapted throughout history to validate kings, emperors, popes, etc. and is far from the message originally taught by Jesus (s.a.w.) who indeed taught peace but never asked to be worshipped.



I believe this is a quite mainstream view, it is my understanding that most scholars recognize that the catholic church most probably was more a creation of Paul of Tarsus and Saint Peter than of Jesus.


----------



## TheDeathOfMusic (Oct 14, 2013)

Zenki_Kouki said:


> Funny thing about that though.. I can't speak for other religions that I'm unfamiliar with, but I know personally that Christianity/the Bible says _not_ to follow blindly, it says question or test everything.



IIRC Lucifer/Satan was banished from Heaven for essentially _not following blindly_


----------



## ilyti (Oct 14, 2013)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Even if this theory is true, and that's a really big "if", there is nothing in this world that can quell the church's stranglehold on "civilized" society. At least not in our great grandkids' lifetimes.


 The religions of the world are eventually going to fall though, it's been on the long-term priorities list of politicians everywhere for decades. We'll see if Atwill's claim will have any motivating force in pushing that agenda forward. Honestly, Christendom probably will hold on longer than the rest, but it's on it's way out. Not to say that people themselves will stop believing, but it seems inevitable that religion's tax-exempt status is going to finally be taken away in country after country, and that will be the beginning of the end for the ones who have made themselves rich off stealing from their parishioners.

EDIT: I think it might be useful to point something out in this thread: The definition of "faith" is not the same as "credulity." Faith, according to the Bible is "the assured expectation of things hoped for; the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." Credulity, on the other hand, is "willingness to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility." That's what _many _people have when it comes to religion: They don't take the time to prove to themselves _why _they believe what they believe. But I take issue with the idea that faith and credulity are treated as the same thing. If you have done research to build your own faith in whatever it is you believe, then you have faith, and that's a wonderful thing to have. Don't follow blindly. But don't accuse someone else of following blindly when they have made that decision with their own power of reason.


----------



## fatpicks (Oct 14, 2013)

synrgy said:


> I'm all for anything which encourages people to see (any) religion as a metaphor, and gets them away from seeing (any) religion as something to be taken literally or as historical record.



Well said - I do believe there are selective good things to be taught more or less, but that's the case with virtually anything. Never believe anything from an infomercial.....


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 14, 2013)

To paraphrase Sam Harris, imagine if generations from now, the majority of the human population lived their lives in accordance with the Divinely inspired trilogy of Star Wars. Wars and atrocities were carried out, as some nations favored including the prequels, some the original trilogy, and others the sequels. Ridiculous, right?

Now explain the difference between that hypothetical situation and the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran.


----------



## Edoris (Oct 14, 2013)

Nothing new here. Atwill's claims are laughable but would be interesting to see his presentation haha.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Oct 14, 2013)

E.T.


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 24, 2013)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Well, if true, this is certainly an Earth shattering proposal. They would have had to actually had to have a physical person walking around though, because I thought it was pretty well established that some guy named Jesus was indeed real.



Well established by societies that essentially stem from theocracy (specifically Abrahimic onces) one way or another...

There's many historians that question whether there actually was such a character. There are only 3 Roman historians who wrote about him, and even then 1 is highly controversial because of his ties to the Roman empire, while the other 2 it is unclear if they are discussing the same person claimed in the New Testament. Either way, for a society that wrote about almost everything, it's a little curious that a person who supposedly caused all this trouble in the province of Judea only caught the attention of 3 individuals/historians of the time.


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 24, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> To paraphrase Sam Harris, imagine if generations from now, the majority of the human population lived their lives in accordance with the Divinely inspired trilogy of Star Wars. Wars and atrocities were carried out, as some nations favored including the prequels, some the original trilogy, and others the sequels. Ridiculous, right?
> 
> Now explain the difference between that hypothetical situation and the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran.



The only major difference, is the level of tolerance to one that would never be given to the other. Why? Because religion still holds a BS social licence in most of the world's countries.


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 24, 2013)

Wrecklyss said:


> I'll admit that I didn't read the whole thread. Also, as a U.S. born Muslim soldier currently deployed to Afghanistan, I'll admit my view point is probably a little biased.
> 
> I believe Christianity as we know it is the invention of Paul, who never actually met Jesus. It has been adapted throughout history to validate kings, emperors, popes, etc. and is far from the message originally taught by Jesus (s.a.w.) who indeed taught peace but never asked to be worshipped.
> 
> Just what my own studies research has led me to believe. Be gentle



To be fair all 3 books are inventions of someone. Whether it was Paul for Christianity or not, who knows.

Also, to not sound like a hugely biased atheist; to be fair, Christianity "as we know it", and Christianity as it is intended are 2 completely different things - I'm pretty sure if Jesus did exist, he'd be flat out embarrassed by the dumb things people have done, and continue to do, in his name.


----------



## axxessdenied (Oct 24, 2013)

Religion is no different than politics. The higher up you get, the more corrupt everyone is.


.... religion. Believe in yourself! Nobody but you can make anything happen in your life.


----------



## vilk (Oct 26, 2013)

Demiurge said:


> Also, creating a counter-religion seems like a lot of unnecessary work to stick it to a small-but-feisty group in a tiny portion of the empire.



As someone who used to study Latin and read Caesar's Gallic Wars, this is my reaction as well. The Roman Empire at the time would have had no problem marching over there and just destroying their shit if they needed to. Little outbreaks of rebellion happened constantly and throughout the Empire (how could it not with so many slaves?), and the Empire never had too much trouble taking care of it. I doubt a bunch of little Jewish tribes could have been such a terror that there would be the necessity to create a new religion to put them down.

(I would also like to say that I do in fact believe that Jesus did not ever live and that christianity was just made up/perpetuated for some sort of social control purposes. I just don't readily think that it would be for that specific reason.)


----------



## MesaBeno (Oct 27, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> As someone who used to study Latin and read Caesar's Gallic Wars, this is my reaction as well. The Roman Empire at the time would have had no problem marching over there and just destroying their shit if they needed to. Little outbreaks of rebellion happened constantly and throughout the Empire (how could it not with so many slaves?), and the Empire never had too much trouble taking care of it. I doubt a bunch of little Jewish tribes could have been such a terror that there would be the necessity to create a new religion to put them down.
> 
> (I would also like to say that I do in fact believe that Jesus did not ever live and that christianity was just made up/perpetuated for some sort of social control purposes. I just don't readily think that it would be for that specific reason.)



Agreed wholeheartedly. Jews at that time were not really an issue to the Romans...they handled them quite easily without the necessity to invent a whole religion in an effort to "fight" them or wipe them out. Makes far more sense that it was embellished and adopted as a way to maintain control over the greater Roman population. Not to mention, there is no way anyone in Rome would have realistically thought Jews would have abandoned their beliefs all willy-nilly in favour of some dude with supposed divinity. The Greeks came pretty close with their Hellenistic influences (there was a huge amount of assimilation at the time due to it). 

If Jesus did exist, he was nothing more than a man standing up against the Jewish authority of the time. He'd be considered a modern day dissident/hippie.


----------



## Wrecklyss (Oct 27, 2013)

The whole idea of Jesus S.A. as a Roman story invented for political leverage really falls apart in A.D. 54 with Nero Caesar.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Oct 27, 2013)

Necris said:


> Atwill&#8217;s Cranked-up Jesus » Richard Carrier Blogs



I was coming here to post this! When another more credible mythicist comes out saying your mythicist hypothesis is bogus, it's time to pack it up. 



Metal_Webb said:


> There's sensationalism on both sides, but Verenna goes in for ad hominem attacks throughout that whole "article". If there's one thing that's not going to convince me, it's attacking the person rather than the argument itself. That guy doesn't show any contradictory evidence or refute anything.



There are times when the person (or more specifically, their credentials) are actually problematic, and this is one of them. Atwill doesn't read Greek (the original Gospel language), but still tries to cite linguistic similarities between words in the _translated_ text as evidence. His arguments suffer as a direct result of his (lack of) credentials, hence they are relevant to the discussion.


----------



## wat (Nov 5, 2013)

This isn't even really news. Lots of historians and even theologians have known this for a long time.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 5, 2013)

I would hope so considering their titles suggest they study this sort of thing. To have not come to such a conclusion would be ri-goddamn-diculous...


----------



## vansinn (Nov 11, 2013)

We can sign up to be among the first 80.000 to colonize Mars (in 7-8 years).
Expectancies, qualifications, eating habits et al were listed..
To this, someone posted "Please, let them not include religion"


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 20, 2013)

Also, 

SO WHO WAS PHONE?


----------



## ElRay (Nov 20, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> And even if they could... What's the likelihood I'd give a rat's ass? If everyone's relationship with the god of their understanding is personal then why the fvck are ppl always poking their nose in?



Because too many theists use their (mis)interpretation, of their variation, of their chosen mythology of one ore more of the 2700+ gods worshiped by humans, to justify hate & bigotry and to pass civil laws forcing their (mis)interpretation, of their variation, of their chosen mythology on others.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 20, 2013)

ilyti said:


> ... it's been on the long-term priorities list of politicians everywhere for decades ...



Not in the U.S. and not in Canada. What we are seeing is an odd mix of politicians doing the right thing and protecting the minorities (non-christians) from the tyranny of the majority, and ignorant, self-absorbed christians knowingly and arrogantly violating laws and constitutions by forcing their mythology on others.

Even on your side of the border, Alberta still has government sanctioned religious schools, and the courts there have upheld the schools forcing religion on all, in violation of Canada's Constitution (Alberta's "exemption" not withstanding).


----------



## ElRay (Nov 20, 2013)

rockskate4x said:


> As a historical figure, there is plenty of extra-biblical proof for Jesus. ...



Actually, there isn't. There are no real historians making this claim, only a small group of Historical Jesus [pseudo]scholars. If you actually read their crap, you'd see that it does not pass any academic muster by any means and is no more valid than using "Gone with the Wind", "Grant Comes East" and "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" as proof of the Civil War. What adds insult to the injury, is that they fall back on the same strawman attacks on those that disagree and say, "See, you didn't disprove our [unproven] claims, so therefore, we're correct." nonsense that Creationists pull.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 20, 2013)

ncfiala said:


> ... That is a personal choice and everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves ...



True, but they have no right to force those views on others. And they have no special privilege to be immune from critique/comment when they bring their mythology into any public forum.


----------

