Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Kahn

[Merged] Jesus as a tool of the Romans?

21 posts in this topic

The Romans had enough gods of their own, the reason they adopted Christiany because the belief was taking over most of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://now.msn.com/j...logical-warfare

Figured I'd throw this up for debate. I personally cannot figure how this can be claimed just from the number of associated texts pertaining to Jesus.

Associated texts?What associated texts?

http://rationalwiki....of_Jesus_Christ

Btw here is Atwill's previous film on his hypothesis.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aSKN0xnfsA[/media]

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Associated texts?What associated texts?

OK, we dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls and several of the agnostic chronicles, no problem.

Edited by Kahn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another matter which this 'research' would have to contend with is the fact that literacy was nowhere near universal in the first century AD. Books were rare and expensive, also. So such a theory would need to rely on the complicity and collaboration of hundreds of synagogues, rabbis and other local religious and political leaders to digest the written "Roman" testament, break from their Hebraic faith, then disseminate the information and somehow enforce the practice of slavery. . . . . .I don't see any of this as sociologically, politically or spiritually feasible by any stretch of the imagination.

For the past 35+ years I have engaged in continuous biblical and theological studies in the US (and Mexico and Sweden), and am fairly conversant in historical and contemporary issues--and I've never heard of Joseph Atwill.

But that's OK, he's never heard of me, either.

I enjoy creativity, originality, novelty and innovation in scholarly endeavors, but not invention.

Edited by szentgyorgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, we dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls and several of the agnostic chronicles, no problem.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are OT,and prophecy is irrevelent to historical facts.

Agnostic chronicles?That's so vague it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another matter which this 'research' would have to contend with is the fact that literacy was nowhere near universal in the first century AD. Books were rare and expensive, also. So such a theory would need to rely on the complicity and collaboration of hundreds of synagogues, rabbis and other local religious and political leaders to digest the written "Roman" testament, break from their Hebraic faith, then disseminate the information and somehow enforce the practice of slavery. . . . . .I don't see any of this as sociologically, politically or spiritually feasible by any stretch of the imagination.

For the past 35+ years I have engaged in continuous biblical and theological studies in the US (and Mexico and Sweden), and am fairly conversant in historical and contemporary issues--and I've never heard of Joseph Atwill.

But that's OK, he's never heard of me, either.

I enjoy creativity, originality, novelty and innovation in scholarly endeavors, but not invention.

When the first Gospel was written (Mark) 65-70 CE the Temple was destroyed,or very close to it.

The Jews were dispersed from Judea,and a great many were taken as slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/bible-scholar-christianity-invented-as-part-of-ancient-roman-psy-ops-campaign/

Seems plausible. All it would take is bribing a few rabbis into seeding dissent by propagating the idea of a peaceful messiah. If this began as a regional experiment that spread and diverged over a century or two, it explains how the different stories from different authors who organically arouse eventually started competing with one another, creating contradictions and inconsistencies and the need to re-consolidate into the NT some time later. I'd need to find some good references but I believe it's known the Romans saw religion as a way to control the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it sure backfired. By a lot.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe for a second that he has any form of written confession from the gospel authors.

At least, not without him producing them for thorough peer review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe for a second that he has any form of written confession from the gospel authors.

At least, not without him producing them for thorough peer review.

It would've been better if he produced the documents at the same time as the announcement. He'll show all his findings a week from now for anyone to review. The letters are not from the gospel author, but the people who conscripted the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would've been better if he produced the documents at the same time as the announcement. He'll show all his findings a week from now for anyone to review. The letters are not from the gospel author, but the people who conscripted the work.

I'm suspicious of anyone who seeks publicity first with promises of corroborating evidence afterwards. I'll guess we'll see, shortly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the first Gospel was written (Mark) 65-70 CE the Temple was destroyed,or very close to it.

The Jews were dispersed from Judea,and a great many were taken as slaves.

The Jewish Diaspora from Judea/Palestine was not a complete 'cleansing.'. The end of second Temple worship did contribute to the Diaspora, but there has remained a constant presence of synagogue-based Judaism there since the first century. The fact of enslavement has little or nothing to do with this theory; there were Jewish slaves before, during and after Jesus' time/the destruction of the Temple.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jewish Diaspora from Judea/Palestine was not a complete 'cleansing.'. The end of second Temple worship did contribute to the Diaspora, but there has remained a constant presence of synagogue-based Judaism there since the first century. The fact of enslavement has little or nothing to do with this theory; there were Jewish slaves before, during and after Jesus' time/the destruction of the Temple.

Just incase you are interested?

Josephus "Wars of the Jews". Be sure to check out; CHAPTER 3. 4,5

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, we dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls and several of the agnostic chronicles, no problem.

Did you know Yahweh had a wife named Anat-Yahu?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see where this plays into Jesus being a fictional construct.

As to the question, "Did you know Yahweh had a wife named Anat-Yahu?" Seeing how many cultures have adopted bits and pieces of neighboring and/or conquered culture's rites, deities and practices, this appears perfectly natural to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know Yahweh had a wife named Anat-Yahu?

http://en.wikipedia....phantine_papyri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anat

Thank you for the previous link to a version of Josephus' The Wars of the Jews." However, nothing in chapters 3, 4 or 5 correlates with Atwill's theory, questioned in my earlier post. I've read much of Josephus over the years.Those chapters refer to military struggle and aristocratic intrigue in the Hellenistic/Seleucid/Maccabeean period, 100 to 200 years before Jesus' life during Roman occupation (roughly 4 BCE to 30 CE). So your point is not there.

With your reference to Yahweh having a "wife" named "Anat-Yahu," which Kahn rightly points out has nothing to do with the Roman-Jesus-fictive-character-endorsing-slavery-Atwill thread, you erode your credibility further. You should read your own links more thoroughly: "The goddess 'Anat is never mentioned in Hebrew scriptures as a goddess. . ."

Say "hi" to Aunt Yahoo anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a conspiracy theory. Just because certain Roman leaders benefited from the rise of Christianity doesn't mean they had a hand in it. Over all the Roman Empire suffered as a result of Christianity. The otherworldliness of Christianity distracted citizens from civic duty. Their armies suffered as more and more soldiers refused to fight for religious reasons, which lead to their reliance on mercenary armies. Christianity generated a divide between East and West which led to the fall of Rome when the Byzantines refused to assist them against the Goths, and the fall of Constantinople when the Italians refused to assist them against the Ottomans.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see where this plays into Jesus being a fictional construct.

As to the question, "Did you know Yahweh had a wife named Anat-Yahu?" Seeing how many cultures have adopted bits and pieces of neighboring and/or conquered culture's rites, deities and practices, this appears perfectly natural to me.

None the less you still have not mentioned the associated texts that specificly supports Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the previous link to a version of Josephus' The Wars of the Jews." However, nothing in chapters 3, 4 or 5 correlates with Atwill's theory, questioned in my earlier post. I've read much of Josephus over the years.Those chapters refer to military struggle and aristocratic intrigue in the Hellenistic/Seleucid/Maccabeean period, 100 to 200 years before Jesus' life during Roman occupation (roughly 4 BCE to 30 CE). So your point is not there.

With your reference to Yahweh having a "wife" named "Anat-Yahu," which Kahn rightly points out has nothing to do with the Roman-Jesus-fictive-character-endorsing-slavery-Atwill thread, you erode your credibility further. You should read your own links more thoroughly: "The goddess 'Anat is never mentioned in Hebrew scriptures as a goddess. . ."

Say "hi" to Aunt Yahoo anyway.

WOW!

First off I meant Chapter 3 Paragraph 4,and 5 for a tale of intrigue in the Wars of the Jews.I do not support Atwill's hypothesis,but I do Francesco Carotta's which is different.

Josephus's War of the Jews follows up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

The goddess Anat was obseved by Jews in the Nile Delta,and she did not make official Canon.

You should check out "Bible Buried Secrets" for the Archeology of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm suspicious of anyone who seeks publicity first with promises of corroborating evidence afterwards. I'll guess we'll see, shortly enough.

Exactly, this is not how history is done; he's skipped the part where you submit your hypothesis and evidence for review by other historical scholars prior to providing it to the public. His theory is pretty much thoroughly demolished here by another historian who also doesn't believe there was a historical Jesus but for different reasons:

http://freethoughtbl...r/archives/4664

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.