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

[lfd0311]

How ironic.

LOL

I already told you I don't think that. Can't you understand what you read?

original comeback bro, where'd you get it. If that wasn't what you meant, then why did you say that?

 

[meauneau]

LOL

original comeback bro, where'd you get it. If that wasn't what you meant, then why did you say that?

Maybe English isn't your first language that's why you don't understand what you read.

 

[lfd0311]

What do you think the writings were about? You can disavow me of any false assumptions you might think I have. I can't read your mind. There are several possibilities. But the one thing I know that you are saying is that Pilate wrote about Jesus. What is the evidence for that? What are you basing that on? Which scholar's work would you refer me to?

Yes. Herod and Pilate also wrote many letters to each other, some of which may have contained real references to Jesus. Nobody knows what the writings were about, because they no longer exist and all that's left in their place are obvious forgeries and doctored copies. I can't believe I have to lead you around by the nose like this.

 

[lfd0311]

Maybe English isn't your first language that's why you don't understand what you read.

Are you just like hanging around out of like... some perverse need for attention? You're dismissed.

 

[lfd0311]

I know what you are doing. You invite him to state what your position is so you can accuse him of misrepresenting you lol while you jerk off.

Nah, I'm not trolling him outright like I am you. You're so obviously stupid that I don't even really bother taking you seriously. Fawlty at least is receptive to information, despite his other flaws.

 

[Fawlty]

Yes. Herod and Pilate also wrote many letters to each other, some of which may have contained real references to Jesus. Nobody knows what the writings were about, because they no longer exist and all that's left in their place are obvious forgeries and doctored copies. I can't believe I have to lead you around by the nose like this.

But if that is true, how can you then assert all of the other things? You can't establish any of this.

"May have contained references to Jesus" is a far cry from "Wrote about Jesus, the writings survived, were taken by the church, destroyed to cover up Pilate's history, all to fabricate the canonical Jesus."

And your argument for the existence of Pilate's writing about Jesus is very flimsy speculation. This is one good reason that it's not a mainstream view, or as you claim, a "well-documented historical fact."

You claimed it was a well documented historical fact, yet you have completely failed to meet even basic standards for establishing your claims.

 

[meauneau]

Nah, I'm not trolling him outright like I am you. You're so obviously stupid that I don't even really bother taking you seriously. Fawlty at least is receptive to information, despite his other flaws.

Information which you refuse to supply. And when you do supply it it makes you look even more stupid.

Check the post above this one.

 

[lfd0311]

Information which you refuse to supply. And when you do supply it it makes you look even more stupid.

Check the post above this one.

@meauneau respond please

 

[Ruprecht]

Not exactly an original idea.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

I think he's drawn a long bow with the Josephus parallels. Really long.

 

[ShadBo]

Maybe English isn't your first language that's why you don't understand what you read.

I was going to ask him if English was his first language, but I became convinced that it is and he is just unintelligible.

@lfd0311 please respond.

 

[lfd0311]

But if that is true, how can you then assert all of the other things? You can't establish any of this.

"May have contained references to Jesus" is a far cry from "Wrote about Jesus, the writings survived, were taken by the church, destroyed to cover up Pilate's history, all to fabricate the canonical Jesus."

And your argument for the existence of Pilate's writing about Jesus is very flimsy speculation. This is one good reason that it's not a mainstream view, or as you claim, a "well-documented historical fact."

You claimed it was a well documented historical fact, yet you have completely failed to meet even basic standards for establishing your claims.

OK, Fawlty, It's getting late, this is getting boring, and I won't be able to get on tomorrow, so I'll leave you with this.

Since you're clearly too lazy to look into anything, but clearly arrogant and self important enough to claim that I'm talking about "fringe theories" that wouldn't be supported by "any bible scholars you know of", I'll help you out.

One of the central points of disagreement between Athiests and Christian Historians is the real, historical life of Jesus. One of the main reasons for that is because there is so little actual historical documentation about the actual man who we know today as Jesus. Part of that is because he was only prominent in Israel for what is a roughly three year period in history (probably) and really can't be verified outside of Religious texts. This is one of the things that people like Atwill, and more recently Richard Carrier have latched onto in a weird attempt to "prove" that there was no man at the center of this.

This is a big problem for the Christian historians, and one that is widely accepted as being caused by a number of things:

1.) Jesus was nowhere near as important of a figure in his time as the religion that sprang up around him would like to think that he would have been, nor anywhere near as important as that religion eventually became.

2.) There is very little historical references to him out side of those directly having to deal with him

3.) As a result of this, what actual history of the time there was, and there would have been a lot, as the Romans kept extensive, meticulous records of everything, where far from flatering. As a result of this, once Christianity became the dominate religion, they had to cook the books to some extent. Many documents dealing with him had to be edited to better fit what by that time had become established canon, and it's one of the reasons that scholars believe there is nearly no record of Pontius Pilate anywhere in Roman history other than in religious based texts. There are 3 whole contemporary references to him in history, of a man who was clearly of some status and ability and was a close personal friend of Seneca the Elder.

This is the widely accepted position amongst Christian historians. That in it's attempts to arrange canon, the early church did far more harm than good. It's why Tacitus' writings on Jesus, though non religious have to be taken with a grain of salt, for the simple fact that he calls him "Christos" which is not a name that would have been used at the time. It’s why Josephus’ writing that mention Jesus can be called into question, because, despite the fact that Josephus was a Hebrew man who both spoke and wrote Greek, people can call into question copies of his Greek writings for no other reason than the fact that he was a Hebrew. Because there is so much other clear and obvious tampering. It’s why much of the New Testament Apocrypha is apocrypha in the first place. Because it either came along after the Bible was compiled and established as Canon, or didn’t fit the narrative. Even things like the Letters between Herod and Pilate and Pilate to various other people, which form the basis of the knowledge that we actually have on the secular history of the subject, what remains is part of that New Testament Apocrypha, and is some parts heavily doctored. But it had to be there to begin with for the story to even have originated to begin with.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just an uniformed fringe theorist talking out of my ass.

 

[lfd0311]

I was going to ask him if English was his first language, but I became convinced that it is and he is just unintelligible.

@lfd0311 please respond.

@ShadBo are you mad you got “reckt”? Please respond

 

[horc00]

I'm scrolling through the last page of this discussion and all I can think about is this...

 

[Fawlty]

I'm scrolling through the last page of this discussion and all I can think about is this...

I think of Jim Norton talking about a barely overweight woman saying "Do a Pilate you slob"

Your thoughts are a lot better than mine.

 

[horc00]

I think of Jim Norton talking about a barely overweight woman saying "Do a Pilate you slob"

Your thoughts are a lot better than mine.

 

[Fawlty]

OK, Fawlty, It's getting late, this is getting boring, and I won't be able to get on tomorrow, so I'll leave you with this.

Since you're clearly too lazy to look into anything, but clearly arrogant and self important enough to claim that I'm talking about "fringe theories" that wouldn't be supported by "any bible scholars you know of", I'll help you out.

One of the central points of disagreement between Athiests and Christian Historians is the real, historical life of Jesus. One of the main reasons for that is because there is so little actual historical documentation about the actual man who we know today as Jesus. Part of that is because he was only prominent in Israel for what is a roughly three year period in history (probably) and really can't be verified outside of Religious texts. This is one of the things that people like Atwill, and more recently Richard Carrier have latched onto in a weird attempt to "prove" that there was no man at the center of this.

This is a big problem for the Christian historians, and one that is widely accepted as being caused by a number of things:

1.) Jesus was nowhere near as important of a figure in his time as the religion that sprang up around him would like to think that he would have been, nor anywhere near as important as that religion eventually became.

2.) There is very little historical references to him out side of those directly having to deal with him

3.) As a result of this, what actual history of the time there was, and there would have been a lot, as the Romans kept extensive, meticulous records of everything, where far from flatering. As a result of this, once Christianity became the dominate religion, they had to cook the books to some extent. Many documents dealing with him had to be edited to better fit what by that time had become established canon, and it's one of the reasons that scholars believe there is nearly no record of Pontius Pilate anywhere in Roman history other than in religious based texts. There are 3 whole contemporary references to him in history, of a man who was clearly of some status and ability and was a close personal friend of Seneca the Elder.

This is the widely accepted position amongst Christian historians. That in it's attempts to arrange canon, the early church did far more harm than good. It's why Tacitus' writings on Jesus, though non religious have to be taken with a grain of salt, for the simple fact that he calls him "Christos" which is not a name that would have been used at the time. It’s why Josephus’ writing that mention Jesus can be called into question, because, despite the fact that Josephus was a Hebrew man who both spoke and wrote Greek, people can call into question copies of his Greek writings for no other reason than the fact that he was a Hebrew. Because there is so much other clear and obvious tampering. It’s why much of the New Testament Apocrypha is apocrypha in the first place. Because it either came along after the Bible was compiled and established as Canon, or didn’t fit the narrative. Even things like the Letters between Herod and Pilate and Pilate to various other people, which form the basis of the knowledge that we actually have on the secular history of the subject, what remains is part of that New Testament Apocrypha, and is some parts heavily doctored. But it had to be there to begin with for the story to even have originated to begin with.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just an uniformed fringe theorist talking out of my ass.

We're not arguing historicity, though I'm sure I'd fare pretty well in that discussion with you, since you attempt to cast Atwill and Carrier in the same light, which is a hilarious blunder. I could be swayed either way about the existence of a Jesus person, and though I lean against his existence I think I could make a pretty good case for his existence as well. Not relevant to your claims, though.

So let's get back to the claim.

You are talking about this letter:

1. Know and see, that in the day when you delivered Jesus to me, I took pity on myself and testified by washing my hands that I was innocent concerning him who rose from the grave after three days, and had performed your pleasure in him, for you wanted me to be associated with you in his crucifixion.
2. But I now learn from the executioners and from the soldiers who watched his sepulchre that he rose from the dead. And I have especially confirmed what was told me: that he appeared bodily in Galilee, in the same form, and with the same voice, and with the same doctrine, and with the same disciples, not having changed in anything, but preaching with boldness his resurrection and an everlasting kingdom.
3. And behold, heaven and earth rejoice; and behold, Procla my wife is believing in the visions which appeared unto her when you sent that I should deliver Jesus to the people of Israel, because of the ill-will they had.
4. Now when Procla, my wife, heard that Jesus was risen and had appeared in Galilee, she took with her Longinus the centurion and twelve soldiers, the same who had watched at the sepulchre, and went to greet the face of Christ, as if to a great spectacle, and saw him with his disciples.
5. Now while they were standing and wondering, and gazing at him, he looked at them and said to them, What is it? Do you believe in me? Procla, know that in the covenant God gave to the fathers, it is said that everybody who had perished should live by means of my death, which you have seen. And now you see that I live, whom you crucified. And I suffered many things, till I was laid in the sepulchre. But now, hear me and believe in my Father -- God who is in me. For I loosed the cords of death and broke the gates of Hades, and my coming shall be in the future.
6. And when Procla my wife and the Romans heard these things, they came and told me weeping, for they also were against him when they devised the evils they had done unto him. So that I also was on the couch of my bed in affliction, and put on a garment of mourning, and took unto me fifty Romans with my wife and went into Galilee.
7. And when I was going in the way I testified these things: that Herod did these things by me, that he took counsel with me, and constrained me to arm my hands against him, and to judge him that judges all, and to whip the Just One, Lord of the just.
8. And when we drew near to him, O Herod, a great voice was heard from heaven, and dreadful thunder, and the earth trembled and gave forth a sweet smell, like to which was never perceived even in the temple of Jerusalem.
9. Now while I stood in the way, our Lord saw me as he stood and talked with his disciples. But I prayed in my heart, for I knew that it was he whom you delivered to me, that he was Lord of created things and Creator of all.
10. But we, when we saw him, all of us fell upon our faces before his feet. And I said with a loud voice, I have sinned, O Lord, in that I sat and judged you, who avenges all in truth. And lo, I know that you are God, the Son of God, and I beheld your humanity but not your divinity. But Herod, with the children of Israel, constrained me to do evil unto you. Have pity, therefore, on me, O God of Israel!
11. And my wife in great anguish, said, God of heaven and of earth, God of Israel, do not reward me according to the deeds of Pontius Pilate, nor according to the will of the children of Israel, nor according to the thought of the sons of the priests, but remember my husband in your glory!
12. Now our Lord drew near and raised up me and my wife, and the Romans. I looked at him and saw there were on him the scars of his cross.
13. And he said, That which all the righteous fathers hoped to receive, and saw not -- in your time the Lord of Time, the Son of Man, the Son of the Most High, who is forever, arose from the dead and is glorified on high by all that he created, and established for ever and ever.


1. Justinus, one of the writers in the days of Augustus and Tiberius and Gaius, wrote in his third discourse: Now Mary the Gailaean, who bore the Christ who was crucified in Jerusalem, had not been with a husband. And Joseph did not abandon her, but continued in sanctity without a wife, he and his five sons by a former wife; and Mary continued without a husband.
2. Theodorus wrote to Pilate the Governor: Who was the man against whom there was a complaint before you, that he was crucified by the men of Palestine? If many demanded this righteously, why did you not consent to their righteousness? And if they demanded this unrighteously, how did you transgress the law and command what was far from righteousness? Pilate sent to him: -- Because he wrought signs I did not wish to crucify him, but since his accusers said, He calls himself a king, I crucified him.
3. Josephus says: Agrippa the king was clothed in a robe woven with silver, and saw the spectacle in the theater of Caesarea. When the people saw that his raiment flashed, they said to him, Until now we feared you as a man; from now on you are exalted above the nature of mortals. And he saw an angel standing over him, and he smote him to death.

​

This is utter nonsense mythmaking. It's kind of funny that you would try to say that the original copy of this was destroyed in order to suppress knowledge of Pilate to create the Jesus myth when it supports the myth of Jesus' execution and resurrection.

There is no evidence I have seen to suggest this was some kind of response to some other phantom document or any kind of cover-up. That seems to be pure baseless speculation. It's just a forgery, and a late one at that.

It dates from the 6-7th century and I could not find even one reputable scholar claiming it as authentic. In the scholarly world, it seems to be nothing more than a curious footnote in the study of various forgeries that were attributed to Pilate.

Bart Ehrman had this to say about it in Forgery and Counterforgery:

"As a final forgery to be considered from the Pilate cycle, the Letter of Pilate to Herod is principally concerned with showing how Pilate, along with his wife Procla and Longinus, the soldier at the cross, all converted to become follows of Christ after the resurrection."

 

[IamStryker]

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
"

That sounds like a load of horse shit.

 

[Trotsky]

@meauneau

Please talk to me

This is the most embarrassing, petty, and self-owning display I have seen online in a very long time.


Reminds me of:

"Let's get back to this lady who said communist down here. What did you mean by that?"
"All you have to do is study it out, just study it out and you'll see - you haven't done your homework buddy"
"What do I need to study?"
"That he's a communist and those of us who are not voting for him know it."
"And what do you mean by communist?"
"You don't know?"
"Just tell me, help me out here. I just want to know what you mean
"Oh I know what I mean."
"Well tell me what you mean when you just accused the guy of being a communist. Do you think he's an American?"
"Oh no."
"What country is he from?"
Just because he was born here doesn't mean that he thinks like us -- he's a communist, buddy."

 

[Trotsky]

@lfd0311 Do you remember when I referred to a journal entry by Christopher Columbus that described raping a native? Remember how, upon researching and learning that the journal entry to which I was referring was actually written by a different explorer, I retracted my claim and admitted that I was wrong? Remember how what I didn't do was just keep insisting that the journal by Columbus actually existed and refusing to provide support for my claim?

Why can't you do that? Admitting you were wrong or that you can't sufficiently support your claim is a heck of a lot less embarrassing that just digging yourself deeper and refusing to acknowledge that your claim is bunk.

 

[sweede]

This is the most embarrassing, petty, and self-owning display I have seen online in a very long time.


Reminds me of:

"Let's get back to this lady who said communist down here. What did you mean by that?"
"All you have to do is study it out, just study it out and you'll see - you haven't done your homework buddy"
"What do I need to study?"
"That he's a communist and those of us who are not voting for him know it."
"And what do you mean by communist?"
"You don't know?"
"Just tell me, help me out here. I just want to know what you mean
"Oh I know what I mean."
"Well tell me what you mean when you just accused the guy of being a communist. Do you think he's an American?"
"Oh no."
"What country is he from?"
Just because he was born here doesn't mean that he thinks like us -- he's a communist, buddy."

It´s really sad to think about it. That she might not even know how stupid she sounds. Sadly this is the picture we have. The stereotype, half the american population is labeled like this in the eyes of the general public of the world.