Mod+ 241. JOSEPH ATWILL RESPONDS TO CAESAR’S MESSIAH CRITICS

[Alex]

I think Im hanging on this puppy cause it's not cut and dry. Atwell's Jesus is a fabrication by a cohesive all powerful Roman propaganda machine simply for vanity's sake. Even 3 centuries later a Flavian ruler was in on the conspiracy. That may be a new wrinkle, but scholars have been arguing Jesus never existed for centuries. It's not a new proposition and everyone has to use the same historical data and it's been gleaned through every which way. Mr. Atwell's hypothesis omits important accepted accounts. All in all, I'd have to go with virtually all modern scholars of antiquity who agree that Jesus existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I don't think conspiracies work like this. Take the kind of "false flag" operations many historians agree have played a part in almost every war the US has been in (from the Alamo to WWI, WWII, and Vietnam)... that doesn't mean one can find some secret playbook that gets passed down from one president to the next.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

I think Im hanging on this puppy cause it's not cut and dry. Atwell's Jesus is a fabrication by a cohesive all powerful Roman propaganda machine simply for vanity's sake. Even 3 centuries later a Flavian ruler was in on the conspiracy. That may be a new wrinkle, but scholars have been arguing Jesus never existed for centuries. It's not a new proposition and everyone has to use the same historical data and it's been gleaned through every which way. Mr. Atwell's hypothesis omits important accepted accounts. All in all, I'd have to go with virtually all modern scholars of antiquity who agree that Jesus existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I'm in full agreement with you here. The argument that Jesus did not exist makes no sense to me regardless who is given credit for such a fabrication.

AP

 

[Dmitch]

I don't think conspiracies work like this. Take the kind of "false flag" operations many historians agree have played a part in almost every war the US has been in (from the Alamo to WWI, WWII, and Vietnam)... that doesn't mean one can find some secret playbook that gets passed down from one president to the next.

Although some of Atwells basic storyline is not far off scholar interpretations. One of the ideas where Atwell steers off course. He contrives some conspiratorial connection with Constantine to Flavian ancestors. Constantine did influence our current Jesus tremendously. He created the New Testament. Warped the new religion to gather more power to himself, but none of that is really in dispute. Atwell's describes Jesus as a mythical typologically cast figure and makes arguments where there is only conjecture. Its widely recognized that parts of the gospels are most likely not true accounts. They may have typological origins, so what? Its universally agreed the historical Jesus is the rare case of having so rich of varied different accounts for such ancient times. There are multiple sources and accounts besides Josephus. Theres the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, which by the way does not offer a flattering picture of Jesus. The 4 canonical gospels, which scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was first and dated between 55-65 AD. There's the 3 synoptic gospels, The Pauline Letters which are considered genuine and the 4 'Great' Epistles, written between 55 AD and 58 AD. Although Paul was not with Jesus, he did hang around with his brother James and the disciple Peter. The Talmud refers to Jesus the Nazarene on 2 occasions and the Michnah which is a combination of ancient written and oral Jewish history dating back to the fall of Jerusalem states. " It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus."

Atwell conveniently places all historical accounts of Jesus after Titus Flavius arrived in Jerusalem in 66 AD. There's one problem, biblical accounts of Jesus well before that, which are objective conclusions. By the way Titus Flavius reigned as Emperor for 2 years 79-81 AD and died.

 

[Alex]

I'm in full agreement with you here. The argument that Jesus did not exist makes no sense to me regardless who is given credit for such a fabrication.

AP

Again, you're getting hung up on the wrong question/argument. Try this -- the evidence suggests that, starting with the Romans, and many, many times during the next 2,000 years, the story of who Jesus was, and what Jesus did was hijacked for political manipulation. The sum total of this deliberate manipulation makes it impossible to conclude anything about Jesus.

 

[Alex]

There are multiple sources and accounts besides Josephus. Theres the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, which by the way does not offer a flattering picture of Jesus.

All Roman court historians... all claim that Biblical prophecies of the messiah point to Titus (let that last part fully sink in... they all claim Titus is the Messiah).

This is like having three Obama staff writers draft his biography and then have someone rely on their version to write another... at the end of the day the biography would be of Obama's making.

 

[Dmitch]

Dear Alex, You have helped me to open my eyes and mind in other directions but here you totally lose me. Are you playing devil's advocate or do you really believe Jesus was a mythological character based on Atwell's theories? Yes, of course the biblical Jesus was used by political entities. There's Constantine, the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition and Reformation wars and on and on... Geez, even now Conservatives hold up the bible and their interpretation to rationalize a conservative political agenda.

Atwell's proposition that Jesus was a Roman created figure is contradicted by a much larger historical record. He bases his 'evidence' on Josephus's "War of the Jews". circa 73-75 AD. I am posting all of Josephus writings here http://www.josephus.org/
Atwell himself has no historical account or document to back him up. Only the connections he makes from his reading of the 'War of the Jews', Hence he admits "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious".
His proposition is Flavian Romans created Christianity, through Josephus who was a Flavian but Roman historians Tacitus as well as Suetonius writes Nero (54-68) was persecuting Christians in Rome in 64 AD and there were "immense multitudes of Christians in Rome". Ten years before Josephus wrote 'The War of the Jews'. The Romans hated the Christians, who were undermining their own gods. How come there were so many Christians a mere 25-30 years after Jesus's death? Could there have been a movement even before the 4 Gospels were written?

Oh, because of people as Paul, who wrote at least 4 letters between 55 and 58 AD. Known because of connections made in the letters themselves. Hey, he interacted with the brother of Jesus and Peter and was also killed by Nero. Paul, no doubt was only one of many Christian evangelists at the time.
Another in-congruent timeline is since the Romans had already completely destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. Why would they strong arm Josephus to fabricate Jesus in 73-75 AD when the Jews had ceased to be a threat.

Also isn't it strange and highly irrational that political propaganda in the form of the 4 Gospels would refute the authority that created them? It doesn't make sense and why write the gospels in Greek? Why not in Aramaic, SINCE THEY WERE INTENDED TO SUBDUE JEWS.
Roman historian Pliny the Younger writes of Emperor Trajan (98-117AD) wringing his hands over Christians living in Rome and having to kill so many people including women and children, because they refused to worship Caesar. So much so he offered pardon to those who paid homage. The Christians also were forbidden from having illicit sex and Roman slaves started to refuse sex to their masters. You mean to tell us all this was a creation by the Romans?

Last but not least, your statement about all Roman historians claim Titus was the messiah is probably true. At least for that time where he was either the son of the Emperor Vespasian or the Emperor himself. It doesn't matter whether they claim biblical prophecies say so. Why wouldn't they? After all they were non-Christian Romans and worshiped the emperor as well as other gods. It was required by law and non-compliance was punishable by death.

I'm sorry but this game is definitely over, at least for me.

 

[perandre]

Nice writeup, @Dmitch. Just a quick correction to a common misunderstanding that "[Contantin] created the New Testament".

Fathers like Ireneus even specifically discusses the NT canon in the second century, and all of the second century fathers quote massively from almost all NT books (I've read all of them).

The heretic Marcion famously cut down the canon to include only Paul's letters (most of them), and Luke. When? About yr 140.

The canon at that time was probably almost the same as today; a few letters (2 Peter etc) where disputed. Also a few letters not in out canon circulated widely (Herm., Clem, etc).

Constantin did not contribute much theologically btw. His christology was actually not as advanced as some of his opponents (they all considered Jesus divine anyways).

 

[gilius2k14]

Here's the sources from Atwill's latest published research that incriminates Suetonius as a Flavian historian and shows that Domitian was responsible for John, Romans, Acts, Corinthians, Ethesians and other books of the NT, whereas Titus and Vespasian were behind the 3 Synoptics.
http://caesarsmessiahproven.com/sevenseals.htm (Note: this is WIP and does not have any commentary right now; Shakespeare's Secret Messiah was only released last Easter weekend)
All 3 books are running in sequence.
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

Atwill is now working on his 3rd book! And I think he's hinted that Trajan also has involvement, but I am unable to confirm this at the current time.

To understand Revelation just replace Domitian with Lord Christ or God, since he takes both titles. The Holy Spirit means father and both sons. Domitian begins Relevation by warning the 7 Churches of Asia to "stay in line" so to speak. I haven't yet documented the Seventh Seal, but that is the most interesting one of all - unless you count castration, masturbation and homosexual attacks - Domitian was clearly the most perverted of the trio!

 

[Jägermeister]

The problem with Atwill's theory is that if you look at the first gospel written, Mark, you can see the author is not only referencing the Old Testament, he's even making up word games with Hebrew or Aramaic. The idea that the Roman emperors knew Hebrew or Aramaic is a little bit far fetched.

You also have the problem about very tentative connections between Josephus and the New Testament. For example, the idea of 'fishers of men' coming from the account by Josephus of Romans killing swimming Jews. There is an even better source for this, Jeremiah 16:16 "Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill and from the clefts of the rocks".

Another problem is that the gospel according to Mark shows hints that the author is not only aware of the letters or teachings of Paul, but a follower as well. So he is anti Temple, and anti Jewish laws. The author of Matthew plagiarizes Mark, but changes it to reflect his more Jewish stance. Matthew 5:18 is arguing against Paul's stance. Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" is saying Christians must follow Jewish laws.

The gospels were written by different people with different theological viewpoints, but with a strong Jewish background behind them. And the final point is, why would the Romans even bother with such a scheme, if they wanted to suppress trouble making Jews, they would do the normal thing and invade with the military.

 

[Saiko]

From my perspective - Atwill is incorrect. Also his approach make me think that he's more interested in supporting and preaching his belief rather than open research.

 

[Super Sexy]

From my perspective - Atwill is incorrect.

Who isn't?

 

[Saiko]

Who isn't?

Thankfully, a good number of people. But you don't really care about that. Your intent is to derail as many threads as you can.

 

[Alex]

The problem with Atwill's theory is that if you look at the first gospel written, Mark, you can see the author is not only referencing the Old Testament, he's even making up word games with Hebrew or Aramaic. The idea that the Roman emperors knew Hebrew or Aramaic is a little bit far fetched.

You also have the problem about very tentative connections between Josephus and the New Testament. For example, the idea of 'fishers of men' coming from the account by Josephus of Romans killing swimming Jews. There is an even better source for this, Jeremiah 16:16 "Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill and from the clefts of the rocks".

Another problem is that the gospel according to Mark shows hints that the author is not only aware of the letters or teachings of Paul, but a follower as well. So he is anti Temple, and anti Jewish laws. The author of Matthew plagiarizes Mark, but changes it to reflect his more Jewish stance. Matthew 5:18 is arguing against Paul's stance. Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" is saying Christians must follow Jewish laws.

The gospels were written by different people with different theological viewpoints, but with a strong Jewish background behind them. And the final point is, why would the Romans even bother with such a scheme, if they wanted to suppress trouble making Jews, they would do the normal thing and invade with the military.

this was an interesting show and I hope to return to this topic.

Atwill mentions a lot of very solid/unexplainable "connections". I just don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the NT was not influenced by Josephus... and once we acknowledge this it's game over for Christianity-as-we-know-it. All the rest is fun speculation.

 

[Dmitch]

Yes, it is fun to speculate. I'd love to see you pursue this, as you desire. After the interview, I went back to bible historians and read through some of the ancient material. I felt enriched by the experience. Although I don't see myself as a Christian, I admit to having a personal bias towards the existance of Jesus Christ. I like the idea that he exists on some level. I'm willing to take the medicine though, if more definitive evidence shows up.
A couple of comments, I never got the sense that biblical scholars were trying to sell Jesus. Unlike the story of the Exodus, in which no corroborative evidence exists. The consensus of scholars is yes, Jesus lived and the gospels were pieced together, possibly a hodgepodge, and probably from an older document, now lost. Religion and politics will do what they do.
I have been intrigued by the Shroud of Turin, since Rolling Stone magazine did a multi- part series in the late 1970's. 1st it was genuine, then carbon dating said 15th century forgery. Then, Dr. Ray Rogers, a Los Alamos Chemist and expert of thermal imaging presented convincing evidence in 2005, that the carbon dating tests were invalid. Is this another possible avenue? Maybe Robert Wilcox, a journalist and successful author would submit to your verbal scrutiny. He wrote an investigative book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-S...F8&qid=1418859677&sr=1-18&keywords=the+shroud

 

[Jägermeister]

Atwill mentions a lot of very solid/unexplainable "connections". I just don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the NT was not influenced by Josephus... and once we acknowledge this it's game over for Christianity-as-we-know-it. All the rest is fun speculation.

I agree there are probable connections with Josephus, especially in Luke and Acts. To clarify, I think Atwill's connections are tentative.

 

[Jägermeister]

Then, Dr. Ray Rogers, a Los Alamos Chemist and expert of thermal imaging presented convincing evidence in 2005, that the carbon dating tests were invalid. Is this another possible avenue? Maybe Robert Wilcox, a journalist and successful author would submit to your verbal scrutiny. He wrote an investigative book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Shroud-Turin-Solving/dp/159698600X/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418859677&sr=1-18&keywords=the shroud

Unfortunately, Dr. Rogers paper did not prove the c14 test wrong, it just came up with a different date, an important distinction. This tells us that one of the papers is wrong, not which one. Having read both, it is more likely Roger's paper.

The c14 test followed scientific protocols, such as a clear chain from sample taking to testing. Rogers did not, he even admits his samples were in essence stolen, even though it is hard to see how they could have been from a reading of the c14 paper itself.

There are other problems, such as Rogers claiming the shroud 'could not have become very hot' during a fire in 1532. Not only could he not know that for sure, but his experiment is dependent on knowing the precise temperature for the Arrhenius equation he uses. His work is dependent on a previous paper by Stanley T. Kosiewicz (who he does not list in the references) that is based on a constant temperature. According to a report in 1503, the shroud has been boiled in oil, and 'laundered many times', hardly constant, and this fact is absent from Rogers paper. These boilings would have destroyed vanillin, artificially aging his results.

So if the book comes to a different conclusion, then I can only presume he has either not read the papers himself, or if he had, he did not understand the implications.

 

[Alex]

Yes, it is fun to speculate. I'd love to see you pursue this, as you desire. After the interview, I went back to bible historians and read through some of the ancient material. I felt enriched by the experience. Although I don't see myself as a Christian, I admit to having a personal bias towards the existance of Jesus Christ. I like the idea that he exists on some level. I'm willing to take the medicine though, if more definitive evidence shows up.

me too. the other part of the story (I really think the more interesting part) is how/why does Christ consciousness work (e.g. prayers, NDEs) despite the fact that the Christian religion contains a lot that plainly isn't true.

 

[Alex]

I agree there are probable connections with Josephus, especially in Luke and Acts. To clarify, I think Atwill's connections are tentative.

I don't think this gives Atwill enough credit... "probable connections" is a huge breakthrough in our understanding of the Bible.

 

[Dmitch]

Unfortunately, Dr. Rogers paper did not prove the c14 test wrong, it just came up with a different date, an important distinction. This tells us that one of the papers is wrong, not which one. Having read both, it is more likely Roger's paper.

The c14 test followed scientific protocols, such as a clear chain from sample taking to testing. Rogers did not, he even admits his samples were in essence stolen, even though it is hard to see how they could have been from a reading of the c14 paper itself.

There are other problems, such as Rogers claiming the shroud 'could not have become very hot' during a fire in 1532. Not only could he not know that for sure, but his experiment is dependent on knowing the precise temperature for the Arrhenius equation he uses. His work is dependent on a previous paper by Stanley T. Kosiewicz (who he does not list in the references) that is based on a constant temperature. According to a report in 1503, the shroud has been boiled in oil, and 'laundered many times', hardly constant, and this fact is absent from Rogers paper. These boilings would have destroyed vanillin, artificially aging his results.

So if the book comes to a different conclusion, then I can only presume he has either not read the papers himself, or if he had, he did not understand the implications.

I think this is the kind of topic that would garner lots of comments. The bulk of the arguments were always the C14 testing of 1988, and it certainly follows that everyone appears to have some sort of bias. There seems to be quite a few related papers pro and con. This one in 2013 declares the shroud authentic.
http://www.dii.unipd.it/-giulio.fanti/research/Sindone/Paper Valencia.pdf
There appears to be hundreds of experts who got involved over the decades. I can't take a firm position about the validity of the C14, but other scientists have and it hasn't let up. Your making a stand on the forgery side by making personal attacks. I'm digging around and I'm finding pretty much the same kind of stuff. Dr Rogers does have his defenders though. You have to admit, there's some weird collaborative details. A podcast on the shroud would be perfect bait for the forum. I think it's a credit to the Catholic Church that they have never declared it to be authentic.

 

[Jägermeister]

I don't think this gives Atwill enough credit... "probable connections" is a huge breakthrough in our understanding of the Bible.

Having read my 'clarification' I can see it was not a clarification, my apologies. Let me try again.

I believe there are some probable connections, as noted by various historians, especially in Luke and Acts. I was not including Atwill in this group. I believe Atwill sees connections that are not real connections, as in my fisher of men example. But yes, "probable connections" is a huge breakthrough in our understanding of the Bible.