Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill

Pacifying the poor is just good business. Whether you do it with Christianity, food stamps, or reality TV, is irrelevant.

Historically, people in positions of influence used Christianity as a tool to keep masses in check, yes. But it is not the only powerful religion/philosophy to have been twisted or manipulated by people in power to serve their agenda.

And if you think that Christianity led to the Enlightenment (which is a reasonable position, though you can also say that Plato led to Christianity--through Plotinus and Co.), then it also carried the seeds of its own demise. So the revolution became the establishment, which then had another revolution built into its operating system.
 
No I wouldn't agree, we are starting with a different definition of "Christianity". Christians to me are followers of Christ, and that's it no other requirement needed. It seems like you believe a Christian can only be a follower of Christ that believes in the doctrines of Paul. There were many different forms of Christianity in the early church believing in very different things, just because the Pauline's had the most swords and slaughtered the rest doesn't make their doctrine true.

Ebionites Christians - Believed Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah
Marconian Christians - Dualists and rejected the old testament, believed Christ was a manifestation of the Greek Logos
Gnostic Christians - Hellenized, Platonic and Dualist followers of Christ
Pauline Christians - Syncretic blend of Hellenism, Judaism and Zorastrian Dualism

They were all followers of Christ so they are all Christians but believe different things.

I've always accepted Christians to be followers of Jesus as Christ who believe he was resurrected.

Would you accept that?
 
I've always accepted Christians to be followers of Jesus as Christ who believe he was resurrected.

Would you accept that?

Nope, for the reasons I stated in the message you quoted. A lot of early Christians sects didn't believe in the resurrection, why are they not Christians?
 
Nope, for the reasons I stated in the message you quoted. A lot of early Christians sects didn't believe in the resurrection, why are they not Christians?

Because by the same definition a Muslim could be a Christian, they follow Christ (as a prophet) but they reject the resurrection.
 
what an astounding discovery. Everyone from Schopenhauer to Malcolm X has said this. It is a slave's religion that makes the poor and the weak the most favored. Brilliant. And our western liberal society is just that. They love the poor and the weak. They favor them.
Yet the Christian nations are among the wealthiest. How did that work out?
 
Because by the same definition a Muslim could be a Christian, they follow Christ (as a prophet) but they reject the resurrection.

I think it could be footnoted that to be a Christian, Jesus Christ would have to be the focal point of your doctrine. The resurrection was only accepted by a few sects and within those sects they had different versions so why make that a defining characteristic?
 
Remind me who was that?

The Spanish Empire was the first political power with global reach and influence.

You can take literal or figurative interpretations of the bible and there are how many denominations exactly?

Remember that one guy, I think they call him the Pope? He said that atheists can and do go to heaven and he's only the leader of 1.3 billion Christians. I guess none of them are because you said so.

Some people say that the world is flat. That does not make it so. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the concept of "secular Christianity" has any validity when Christianity is very specifically a religion based on adherence to certain beliefs and is defined as such in all of it's foundational texts. Anybody can attempt to provide a new definition of what Christianity is but that definition must be built on something concrete and not merely erected on the emotional prejudices of the one fabricating the definition. Otherwise I could define "dentistry" as "the scientific study of plants" and all and sundry would have to concede the validity of my definition. See how little sense you are making?

Could you point out where I said that 1.3 billion Christians aren't Christians because I said so? It isn't looking good when you feel the need to fabricate arguments to attribute to your opponent. I quoted from the foundational texts of the Christian religion, which state with clarity and simplicity what it means to be a Christian. You are contesting how Christianity has defined itself from the beginning, not my personal understanding of Christianity. I simply accept what Christianity in it's foundational writings defines itself to be.

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God."
 
Fantasy, wishful thinking and self delusion?
Maybe. But it is significantly more than "slave morality." It is a form of thinking that, at the very least, presents an archetypal, psychologically valid interpretation of the world and how to make sense of human life within it.

That's nothing to sneeze at.

There are really only two options for the world:

1. Human psychology is meaningful. Therefore systems of mythology and mythic symbolism that speak deeply to the human condition are-- in at least that sense-- true.

2.Life is, at the end of the day, characterized by meaningless, stupid suffering.

I mean, it's kind of a no-brainier what choice is better (even from an evolutionary point of view. If nothing else, be a good, self-interested Darwinian organism).

And once again, have a little respect for MEANING. Show me all the beauty and goodness that nihilism has produced.
 
Last edited:
I think it could be footnoted that to be a Christian, Jesus Christ would have to be the focal point of your doctrine. The resurrection was only accepted by a few sects and within those sects they had different versions.

That wouldn't be enough because Jesus could be central and not be divine.

As far as I'm concerned a Christian is a follower of Christ generally speaking, I'm on board, but it doesn't make sense to exclude the resurrection as a central tenet. Without it, Jesus could be a carpenter who just took up teaching, and that's hardly a religious belief.

Christianity ceases to be if Christ is not God and the story ends with Jesus in the ground.

There are exceptions, I just think we should treat these beliefs as just that.
 
That wouldn't be enough because Jesus could be central and not be divine.

As far as I'm concerned a Christian is a follower of Christ generally speaking, I'm on board, but it doesn't make sense to exclude the resurrection as a central tenet. Without it, Jesus could be a carpenter who just took up teaching, and that's hardly a religious belief.

Christianity ceases to be if Christ is not God and the story ends with Jesus in the ground.

There are exceptions, I just think we should treat these beliefs as just that.

Why? 'Christos' means anointed one in Greek and in the Septuagint 'Christos' was used to translate the Hebrew 'Messiah' which also means anointed one. This says nothing about divinity and him being god. The Ebionites believed he was the Messiah and that qualifies them and Christians.
 
Because by the same definition a Muslim could be a Christian, they follow Christ (as a prophet) but they reject the resurrection.
I think what you have to remember is that Jesus was a person-- at least-- maybe a lot more.

Whatever he was, he wasn't a checklist.

If Jesus is God, then on judgment day, He will get to judge-- using his human-divine conscious personality-- who was and wasn't one of His own.

If Jesus is God, you will have to look into his eyes and hear his words. You will not be judged by a checklist or a questionnaire.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name? 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’

31 “When the Son of Man 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
 
We need to send some Sherdoggies to get access to the Vatican library so they can translate ancient texts and give us the real deal on what's going on here.

They already hired a guy to do it about ten years ago but fired him because they didn't like what he had to say which was basically we were genetically modified and there wasn't a single god but many and they weren't gods in the way we think of one. The vatican didn't like hearing that but coincidentally they made a statement weeks later that if Aliens contacted us we could turn them Christian lol.

Now I know this is about Jesus but if the old testament wasn't what it appears at the surface then this Jesus guy was conned or fucking crazy or just fictional. It makes sense since they left out a lot of texts that were part of the new testament. They tried their best to keep the narrative going the way they want it. Protestant's are in the same boat. I'd suggest doing some research on the Sumerians. A lot of stuff was taken from there.
 
Those who worship power inevitably submit before it. The irony is that the Nietzschean idealization of power makes men the slaves of those who possess it. It is itself the very "slave morality" that Nietzsche projected onto Christianity. He did not understand that in it's idealization of meekness, Christianity serves to undermine all power structures, and in doing so to liberate the individual from their coercion and influence. The love of power is what makes men slaves, the rejection of it is what frees them. Jesus refused to dominate as he refused to obey. Nietzsche however, in fetishizing domination, also fetishises submission. That is manifested in his homoerotic love affair with the idea of the ubermensch. He has become the sub to the dom. The inevitable endpoint of his system.

On the other end of the spectrum to Christianity, we have Islam. The literal translation of "Islam" is "submission". The ultimately submissive mentality of those who fetishize power is reflected in the sodomitical prayer posture they adopt. They are the subs to Mohammed's dom. He is the alpha and they are the betas.
 
Why? 'Christos' means anointed one in Greek and in the Septuagint 'Christos' was used to translate the Hebrew 'Messiah' which also means anointed one. This says nothing about divinity and him being god. The Ebionites believed he was the Messiah and that qualifies them and Christians.

Because if you don't believe in Christ as savior, then you're not actually following him as the Bible would define it. An atheist could believe in Christ and "follow" his teachings.

I think this is more semantics than anything. A Christian is a follower of Christ, but traditionally, Christ takes on certain characteristics.

I accept there are exceptions where these characteristics are disputed, but it shouldn't mean that we accept a definition where Christians don't need to believe that Christ is the Lord.
 
I think what you have to remember is that Jesus was a person-- at least-- maybe a lot more.

Whatever he was, he wasn't a checklist.

If Jesus is God, then on judgment day, He will get to judge-- using his human-divine conscious personality-- who was and wasn't one of His own.

If Jesus is God, you will have to look into his eyes and hear his words. You will not be judged by a checklist or a questionnaire.

Yeah but this conversation has less to do with truth and more with definitions. It's irrelevant if Christ is actually divine or not for the purposes of defining Christianity, the idea is that a Christian believes in Jesus as the Christ. It's why we call him Christ. if Jesus is not the Christ, there is no religion.
 
Because if you don't believe in Christ as savior, then you're not actually following him as the Bible would define it. An atheist could believe in Christ and "follow" his teachings.

I think this is more semantics than anything. A Christian is a follower of Christ, but traditionally, Christ takes on certain characteristics.

I accept there are exceptions where these characteristics are disputed, but it shouldn't mean that we accept a definition where Christians don't need to believe that Christ is the Lord.

What bible? The one that the Pauline's developed? Do you understand that your version of Christianity with the resurrection and your bible is one of many interpretations of the teachings of Jesus Christ? Your group has no exclusive claim to his title as Christ or his followers as Christians.
 
What bible? The one that the Pauline's developed? Do you understand that your version of Christianity with the resurrection and your bible is one of many interpretations of the teachings of Jesus Christ? Your group has no exclusive claim to his title as Christ or his followers as Christians.

Those exceptions don't make the rule. In order to be a Christian you need to accept that Jesus saves you.

One could still follow a non-divine Jesus, they can even call themselves Christian, but it's not the traditional view.
 
Those exceptions don't make the rule. In order to be a Christian you need to accept that Jesus saves you.

One could still follow a non-divine Jesus, they can even call themselves Christian, but it's not the traditional view.

Saves you...what? Says who? Your 'traditional view' is the view of your specific sect, the Paulines and not the others.
 
Saves you...what? Says who? Your 'traditional view' is the view of your specific sect, the Paulines and not the others.

Says every major denomination.

If it was the other way around it would be the other way around, but it's not. Christianity evolved in such a way where the vast majority of it's adherents believe that Jesus is the Christ.

You seem to be hung up on that Christianity isn't true and the way the Bible evolved is proof of that, but that's neither here nor there in this conversation. It evolved the way it did and here we are with Christians believing in Jesus Christ. Christ being his divine title...
 
Back
Top