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

[Voodoo_Child906]

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...

Just because it evolved that way because your sect had more swords doesn't make it true, I'm going with the impartial definition of Christ, which has no connotations of your Pauline sect.

 

[dontsnitch]

Just because it evolved that way because your sect had more swords doesn't make it true, I'm going with the impartial definition of Christ, which has no connotations of your Pauline sect.

It's not about what's true, I can't state that enough.

By your own admission Pauline Christianity won. It is now the major sect and the most popular interpretation by far. It's why we call these people Christians, and frankly, it's pretty silly to suggest that the definition of a Christian could include people who reject Jesus as Christ.

Yes, there are exceptions, but it is not the rule. You are welcome to use the impartial definition, but we both know such a definition carries an asterisk for good reason.

 

[ultramanhyata]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html


This is the identical set of conditions present today with Christians today.

"Outlining his ideas in a blog posting on his website Mr Atwill writes: "Christianity may be considered a religion, but it was actually developed and used as a system of mind control to produce slaves that believed God decreed their slavery.

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
"

Bringing the Alex Jones CT's to biblical studies. What a load of nonsense.

Secular scholars have argued for decades if not centuries that nothing Jesus taught was especially original but simply a restatement of religious concepts that had preceded him.

Now this joker proposes that Jesus' teachings were strategically formulated towards a specific end in a unique time and place. He knows how to get eyeballs and sell books in 2018.

 

[Strychnine]

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

It's not about what's true, I can't state that enough.

By your own admission Pauline Christianity won. It is now the major sect and the most popular interpretation by far. It's why we call these people Christians, and frankly, it's pretty silly to suggest that the definition of a Christian could include people who reject Jesus as Christ.

Yes, there are exceptions, but it is not the rule. You are welcome to use the impartial definition, but we both know such a definition carries an asterisk for good reason.

Ahh so might makes right, if Islam eventually get's more followers and dominates Christianity then we will use their definition of Christ as a prophet.

 

[dontsnitch]

Ahh so might makes right, if Islam eventually get's more followers and dominates Christianity then we will use their definition of Christ as a prophet.

If in 1000 years, Christianity and the Bible continued to evolve and it's adherents eventually settled on believing that Allah is the Christ, then obviously Christianity would mean something different. I may argue the truth of such a claim, but I wouldn't argue the semantics.

As it stands right now, Christianity means faith in Jesus Christ. Just because there are exceptions doesn't change that. Again, I think we're dealing with semantics here.

I understand there are people who call themselves Christian who do not fit into the traditional mold. I simply think that when dealing with definitions we should speak practically, which to me means that we don't include every single non-traditional definition to the point of absurdity where even atheists and Muslims could classify as Christian.

I'm just repeating myself at this point, we can agree to disagree on the finer points. I actually think your objection would be quite powerful in a debate about hermeneutics or inerrancy or what have you, but here I think we're just arguing about the meaning of words which I'm going to bow out of.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

If in 1000 years, Christianity and the Bible continued to evolve and it's adherents eventually settled on believing that Allah is the Christ, then obviously Christianity would mean something different. I may argue the truth of such a claim, but I wouldn't argue the semantics.

As it stands right now, Christianity means faith in Jesus Christ. Just because there are exceptions doesn't change that. Again, I think we're dealing with semantics here.

I understand there are people who call themselves Christian who do not fit into the traditional mold. I simply think that when dealing with definitions we should speak practically, which to me means that we don't include every single non-traditional definition to the point of absurdity where even atheists and Muslims could classify as Christian.

I'm just repeating myself at this point, we can agree to disagree on the finer points. I actually think your objection would be quite powerful in a debate about hermeneutics or inerrancy or what have you, but here I think we're just arguing about the meaning of words which I'm going to bow out of.

That is interesting, so for you the semantical (Is that a word) use of the word will depend on a majority consensus instead of the actual meaning of the word. How many followers or better yet what is the percentage of followers would have to agree that Jesus was only a prophet for you to declare that yes semantically Jesus was a prophet and not god?

 

[mrbaapt]

Not to mention that atleast Westerners allowed their slaves/servants to reproduce unlike the Turks/Arabs/Chinese who just cut them and turned them into eunuchs.

Slaves in the Americas were bred like livestock for the purpose of increased productivity and even traded in Brazil for cattle. The pervasive "Strange Fruit" phenomena in the south is a parallel narrative of castration and humiliation to what happened in Asia (Not quite the same but equally cruel and insidious)

There are no remnants of Africans in the Middle East even though millions of African slaves were imported to the Middle East, up until the late 1800's.

Agreed, nothing flourished or grew like it did in the Americas.

It might be a fucked up thing to say but African-Americans should consider themselves fortunate that they ended up on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, rather than into the hands of the Middle Easterners. Christian slavemasters, while brutal, were not genocidal unlike the Islamic ones.

Agreed. The selective breeding of slaves in the US inadvertently created the rosters for professional sports. Talk about unintended consequences.

 

[dontsnitch]

That is interesting, so the for you the semantical (Is that a word) use of the word will depend on a majority consensus instead of the actual meaning of the word. How many followers or better yet what is the percentage of followers that would have to agree that Jesus was only a prophet for you to declare that yes semantically Jesus was a prophet and not god?

I think you misunderstood. I don't have to accept the truth of such a claim, just the definition. Like I said, if in 1000 years Christianity evolved, I would accept the meaning had changed. Like you, I wouldn't accept the truth of it.

I don't know at what point the exception becomes great enough that it's no longer the exception, but when it comes to the divinity of Christ or the resurrection, they're central tenets. The exception to this is a small fringe.

 

[ShinkanPo]

It will be hard to establish anything at this point. Just let the historians sort this out but people will have biases on this issue.


Same problem with Islam or the origin of any religion in particular.

 

[ithinktheymad]

Unfortunately, kids have died since the beginning of time; that's not a Christian invention-- and just destroying everything beautiful that a culture has ever produced wouldn't change that fact. Quite the opposite. (Mao actually tested this theory.)

In fact, do you know what people have turned to since the beginning of history when plague, famine, tyranny and warfare strike? You know what helps the *keep living*?

Hint: It's not edgy nihilism.

I said hungry not dead and nothing about destroying anything.

What about when the famine, tyranny, and warefare is caused by an oppressive system? The type of system that siphons resources from the poor and uses those funds to build large ornamental buildings that they have limited access to. You know unless they give away everything they own to work for that institution.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I think you misunderstood. I don't have to accept the truth of such a claim, just the definition. Like I said, if in 1000 years Christianity evolved, I would accept the meaning had changed. Like you, I wouldn't accept the truth of it.

I don't know at what point the exception becomes great enough that it's no longer the exception, but when it comes to the divinity of Christ or the resurrection, they're central tenets. The exception to this is a small fringe.

I'll accept this, my definition is technically true based on the dictionary definitions and direct translations, your definition is semantically true by the most common vernacular usage today. I guess we'll just have to debate which one gets the astrix.

Also in the future if the majority of followers do not follow today's central tenets, then they will cease to be central tenets and be semantically replaced by Jesus being a mortal prophet.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'll accept this, my definition is technically true based on the dictionary definitions and direct translations, your definition is semantically true by the most common vernacular usage today. I guess we'll just have to debate which one gets the astrix.

Also in the future if the majority of followers do not follow today's central tenets, they they will cease to be central tenets and be semantically replaced by Jesus being a mortal prophet.

Agreed.

 

[luckyshot]

I said hungry not dead and nothing about destroying anything.

What about when the famine, tyranny, and warefare is caused by an oppressive system? The type of system that siphons resources from the poor and uses those funds to build large ornamental buildings that they have limited access to. You know unless they give away everything they own to work for that institution.

That's not really the way it works, though. Building a cathedral employs hundreds of people for years-- sometimes several hundred years. Afterwards you have something of infinite value; whereas, before you had a bunch of rocks in a quarry somewhere. Who was oppressed in this process?

Or think of the blank slab of marble that became Michelangelo's David. Who was that blank slab of marble feeding? Who had to starve for Michelangelo to carve it? And what has it done since? (Generated millions and millions and millions of dollars.)

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

Bunch of godless heathens in here

 

[PainIsLIfe]

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire.

The Bible is incoherent and can't even decide how many realms of the dead there are in this belief system.

You still miss the point Jesus=Yeshua, God=YHWE=Allah, and Hades=Shoel.
It would be the same as saying a near-side cradle isn' a small package because people from different place use different terminology.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

You tryin' to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?!

 

[ithinktheymad]

That's not really the way it works, though. Building a cathedral employs hundreds of people for years-- sometimes several hundred years. Afterwards you have something of infinite value; whereas, before you had a bunch of rocks in a quarry somewhere. Who was oppressed in this process?

Or think of the blank slab of marble that became Michelangelo's David. Who was that blank slab of marble feeding? Who had to starve for Michelangelo to carve it? And what has it done since? (Generated millions and millions and millions of dollars.)

Where do you think the money for cathedrals came from? Are you not familiar with the concept of serfdom?

 

[ithinktheymad]

You still miss the point Jesus=Yeshua, God=YHWE=Allah, and Hades=Shoel.
It would be the same as saying a near-side cradle isn' a small package because people from different place use different terminology.

Read that verse again.

 

[ndwolfwood]

Where do you think the money for cathedrals came from? Are you not familiar with the concept of serfdom?

They created the wealth through effort.

I suggest libs look that idea up.