Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Electronic Harassment / Mind Control / Subliminal Programing > The Nature of Matrix Religions and what they mean.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 25-12-2017, 07:30 PM   #1
mo_123
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,789
Likes: 87 (68 Posts)
Default The Quran Lies

Jesus is mentioned by name 25 times in the Quran

Jesus is a fabricated story made up by the PISO family of Rome...

do a search and you will find some links...

none of the famous authors at the time of Jesus didn't even know about Jesus...

if the Quran can lie about Jesus, what else can it lie about?
Likes: (1)
mo_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2017, 07:47 PM   #2
mo_123
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,789
Likes: 87 (68 Posts)
Default

i forgot to mention 3 names

SEMIRAMIS - NIMROD - TAMMUZ
mo_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2017, 09:28 PM   #3
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default Th Roman Piso conspiracy theory debunked

The Roman Piso conspiracy theory debunked

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roman_Piso
The Roman Piso theory is a pseudohistorical theory of the origins of Christianity. It states that a conspiracy of well-educated Romans — the Piso family — wrote the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels, as a social control mechanism. Its advocates call it "The New Classical Scholarship". Nobody else takes it seriously.[1]

The theory originated in Bruno Bauer's Christus und Caesaren (Christ and the Caesars) from 1877, which claimed that that the Romans had authored the New Testament and that Josephus Flavius was the inventor of Jesus.[2]

The Pisos are also claimed to have invented the Christian calendar,[3] rather than it having been proposed around 525 and adopted in the 800s.[4]

Joseph Atwill,[5] in Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, claims that the events of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels parallel the military campaigns of Titus Flavius in Josephus' Wars of the Jews. Atwill's theory is based on Bible Code-style pareidolia applied to the four canonical Gospels (ignoring the forty-plus others) and apparently only in English translation (his claimed puns don't work in the original Greek). Conspiracy connoiseurs will delight at Atwill's explanation:[6]

How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinised books of all time? "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played."

Other proponents include Abelard Reuchlin (the "Abelard Reuchlin Foundation" used to sell his 1979 pamphlet The True Authorship of the New Testament on the subject in the newspaper small ads; he invented the supposed kingpin of the conspiracy, Arrius Calpurnius Piso), James Ballantyne Hannay and Jay Gallus, and an author who writes as "Roman Piso" (John Duran, who used to advocate this theory on Usenet).[7]

A decent takedown of this nonsense is here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200809171...98/000498.html
A longer one here:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.html
And Richard Carrier knocks it out of the park here:
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664
It's people like this that give Jesus mythicists a bad name.

In real life

Gaius Calpurnius Piso was a 1st century Roman senator, who gave his name to the actual Pisonian conspiracy, a plot to usurp Nero. This had nothing to do with religious works over in Judea.
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.

Last edited by surfer12; 25-12-2017 at 09:35 PM.
Likes: (1)
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 02:31 AM   #4
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,968
Likes: 3,888 (2,124 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo_123 View Post
Jesus is mentioned by name 25 times in the Quran

Jesus is a fabricated story made up by the PISO family of Rome...

do a search and you will find some links...

none of the famous authors at the time of Jesus didn't even know about Jesus...

if the Quran can lie about Jesus, what else can it lie about?
Spot on Mo ... Anyone who is still hanging on to christianity should see this video by Joseph Awill ...It's the culmination of his life's work , and it blows christianity out of the water ....

http://

Might be a good idea to relocate this thread to "de bunking religions" section
oz93666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 02:37 AM   #5
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Spot on Mo ... Anyone who is still hanging on to christianity should see this video by Joseph Awill ...It's the culmination of his life's work , and it blows christianity out of the water ....
Over the last 17 years on Internet forums, I've had so many debates on this topic and those that promote the idea of a Pagan Christ are doing nothing less that falling in line with the Pagan belief system and the occult cabal that's behind the NWO agenda. Click on the link at the bottom of quote below and go to towards the end of the page and read the long exchange between the author and Atwill. Atwill is a total crank. If this Roman family invented the belief system as we know it today, why on earth did they include in their scriptures the prophecies that the Church would be exposed as a modern version of the Old Babylonian Pagan religion (Babylon the Great)? Why did they prophesy that the Church would end up becoming Satanic and that it will go off into destruction? The book of Revelation actually exposes the global Reptilian NWO agenda, so why should this Roman family want to do that? Why did they prophesy that NWO agenda would fail and the reptilian Serpent crushed in the head by Christ? Why did the Roman Church make every endeavour to prevent that Bible from being translated so that ordinary people could not understand it? Why was there never any debate and even not the slightest rumours, or murmurings, in the early centuries amongst Gnostics and Christians that the Christ story was a fabrication? There isn't a single serious academic university scholar who specialises Classics that takes these old Pisonian conspiracy theory claims seriously!

Quote:
Atwill’s Cranked-up Jesus

Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university.

Note that I have divided this article into two parts, the second (titled “Our Long Conversation”) is something you can easily skip (see the intro there for whether reading it will be of any interest to you). So although this post looks extraordinarily long, it’s really that second part that gives it such length. You can just read up to the beginning of that section though. You don’t have to continue beyond that to get the overall point.

Atwill Who?

Atwill is the one dude I get asked about most often.[*] And now apparently even Dawkins is tweeting about Atwill, thanks to his upcoming venture into England later this month to sell his weird Roman Conspiracy variety of Jesus mythicism. To get the gist you can check out his PR puff piece. Thomas Verenna has already written a deconstruction of that. Notably even Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) doesn’t buy Atwill’s thesis, declaring that she does “not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis” and that “the Flavians, including Josephus, did not compose the canonical gospels as we have them.” Robert Price has similarly soundly debunked his book, even after strongly wanting to like it.

Atwill is best known as the author of Caesar’s Messiah (subtitle: “The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus,” Roman meaning the Roman imperial family…yeah). In this Atwill argues “Jesus [is] the invention of a Roman emperor” and that the entire (?) New Testament was written by “the first-century historian Flavius Josephus” who left clues to his scheme by littering secret hidden coded “parallels” in his book The Jewish War. Atwill claims to prove “the Romans directed the writing of both” the JW and the NT, in order “to offer a vision of a ‘peaceful Messiah’ who would serve as an alternative to the revolutionary leaders who were rocking first-century Israel and threatening Rome,” and also (apparently) as a laughing joke on the Jews (Atwill variously admits or denies he argues the latter, but it became clear in our correspondence, which I will reproduce below…it’s weird because making fun of the Jews kind of contradicts the supposedly serious aim of persuading the Jews, yet Atwill seems to want the imperial goal to have simultaneously been both).

Notice his theory entails a massive and weirdly erudite conspiracy of truly bizarre scope and pedigree, to achieve a truly Quixotic aim that hardly makes sense coming from any half-intelligent elite of the era (even after adjusting for the Flynn effect), all to posit that the entire Christian religion was created by the Romans (and then immediately opposed by it?), who somehow got hundreds of Jews (?) to abandon their religion and join a cult that simply appeared suddenly without explanation on the Palestinian (?) book market without endorsement.

I honestly shouldn’t have to explain why this is absurd. But I’ll hit some highlights. Then I’ll reveal the reasons why I think Atwill is a total crank, and his work should be ignored, indeed everywhere warned against as among the worst of mythicism, not representative of any serious argument that Jesus didn’t exist. And that’s coming from me, someone who believes Jesus didn’t exist.

Historically, Atwill’s thesis is more or less a retooled version of the old Pisonian Conspiracy Theory, by which is not meant the actual Pisonian conspiracy (to assassinate Nero), but a wildly fictitious one in which the Piso family invented Christianity (and fabricated all its documents) through its contacts with the Flavian family, and thence Josephus (who indeed adopted that family’s name when they made him a Roman citizen, after he had tricked his officer corps into committing suicide and then surrendered to the Romans during the War… oh, and conveniently declaring Vespasian the Messiah).

This pseudo-historical nonsense is over a century old by now, first having been proposed (in a somewhat different form) by Bruno Bauer in Christ and the Caesars in 1877 (Christus und Caesaren). It has been revamped a dozen times since. Atwill is simply the latest iteration (or almost – there is a bonkers Rabbi still going around with an even wilder version). Atwill’s is very much like Bible Code crankery, where he looks for all kinds of multiple comparisons fallacies and sees conspiracies in all of them, rather than the inevitable coincidences (or often outright non-correspondences) that they really are. Everything confirms his thesis, because nothing could ever fail to. Classic nonfalsifiability. He just cherry picks and interprets anything to fit, any way he wants.


Article continues:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.

Last edited by surfer12; 26-12-2017 at 03:14 AM.
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 03:17 AM   #6
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Joseph Atwill's "Caesar's Messiah" debunked:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.php
This one can only be charitably be described as "way out there." It does have the endorsement of a credentialed scholar or two; albeit, those who are also regarded as "out there" by their peers (e.g., Robert Eisenman). This is the sort of thing peer-reviewed periodicals like the Journal of Roman Studies would never print.

So what's the theme? I'll lay it out in three categories, noting Atwill's most notable and signifcant failures in each case:

The Roman Piso theory...

Caesar's Messiah is like this theory in terms of conspiracy-mindedness, viewing Christianity as an invention of the Roman establishment for a purpose. It does exceed the credibility of the Piso theory by a razor-thin margin, inasmuch as it at least uses real people rather than inventing them out of nothing but semantics.

But the virtues over the Piso theory stop there. This time, rather than the non-existent Piso family, it is the Emperor Titus who is said to be the inventor of Christianity. His goal was to create a "peaceful Messiah" figure for those rebellious Jews to follow, as a way of pacifying them; the joke being, that they would actually be worshipping Titus himself, unawares (more on this below).

In on the conspiracy as well was Josephus, a client of the Flavian family of which Titus was a member, and who left clues in his works for later and more clever discerners.

After 73 AD, when Rome had finished defeating the Jews, "someone" from within a circle of the Flavians (Titus, Vespasian, etc.), the Herods, and the Alexanders decided they could "tame messianic Judaism" by transforming it into a religion that would "cooperate with the Roman Empire." [6] The system and its documents were written after the war was over; that includes the material attributed to Paul [211f].

So now we have a description; let's talk about errors:
• A chief impetus for this idea, Atwill says [1], was that he could not conceive of how Judaism could produce two movements so diametrically opposed as the warlike Sicarii and the "peace"-advocting Jesus.

Atwill's conception, unfortunately, lacks a certain perspective; one may as well ask how early 20th century African-American society could have produced both a Malcolm X and a Martin Luther King.

The clue missed is that Jesus' message was not one of peace, but of a sword, as he himself said -- the Gospel message undermined the values then held current, via subtle influence rather than direct force as the Sicarii preferred. If Atwill cannot see that Jesus' message was not indeed, at its core, hostile to Roman authority and society in terms of the components it offered, then he needs to do some more research. See here:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
• Furthermore, it is clear that Atwill fails on the point of ancient social psychology. He supposes that Jesus was invented to attract militaristic, messianic Jews; yet the figure of Jesus is precisely what a dedicated Sicarii would least follow. Jesus would be regarded as being as far out of the ingroup as could be conceived; he would even be taken by the Sicarii as a disgrace to YHWH.

Indeed, Atwill openly contradicts himself, for he claims he cannot see how Judaism could produce such diametric opposites, yet he argues that Christianity was built to make these opposites attract. He supposes, in other words, that Judaism would not produce such a group; but he hypothesizes that Jews then converted to such a group.

Yet that is unreasonable even in truth, for such rebels would not approve of Jesus even as we know him; the positive view of tax collectors, Roman officials, etc. that Atwill sees would have been exceptionally repugnant to the very people being targeted. The idea that Christianity was intended to prevent the spread of messianic Judaism to the provinces [19] ignores the fact that Jews of the Diaspora were Hellenized enough that they did not support such a movement in the first place (the misplaced hopes of the rebels, recorded by Josephus [19], notwithstanding).

Atwill cannot have his cake and eat it too. In addition, the idea he sees in Paul and Josephus that "the Romans were God's servants" finds its roots in OT indications that punishers like the Assyrians and Babylonians were doing God's will -- and finds no particular favor for the Romans.

• One also wonders why in the world Titus would care to start a new religion for Jews that he had already soundly beaten on the battlefield. One also wonders how and why a mission to the Gentiles got started; indeed, why Titus would allow his own "Frankenstein's monster" to get loose onto persons with whom he had no problems of loyalty.

• Even more problematic for Atwill is what is said by Roman writers whose works he ignores. Tacitus' comment in Annals 15.44 places the origins of Christianity, and Roman reaction to it, nearly a decade before Titus' final victory. Atwill says nothing at all about this critical passage; nor does he mention Pliny's letter to Trajan asking what to do about Christians.
Atwill wishes to posit convenient forgetfulness as the cause of the loss of knowledge about Christian origins; and how credible is it that Hadrian and Pliny "forgot" this, or did not know about it? How credible is it that Domitian (himself a Flavian) persecuted Christianity and forgot that his own relatives had created it in the first place? Why would some of those relatives actually become Christians?

Atwill makes no effort to explain how Christianity spread; he offers a single paragraph on this saying that "wicked priests" introduced the religion to the masses (Jewish?); but then, "The first people to hear the story of Jesus would most likely have been slaves (Gentiles???) whose patrons simply ordered them to attend services. After a while some began to believe, then many." [258] End of explanation.
....meets Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions....

Atwill appeals to the use of "typology" by the Flavians -- who learned the technique from Judaism -- as evidence of Christianity's Flavian origins. The claim that the Flavians had to borrow "typology" is wrong to begin with; even the ancient pagans thought in terms of probabilities (prior recurring themes and actions) so there was no need to borrow the idea from Judaism. Otherwise, Atwill assumes, as Helms does, that use of typology proves wholesale invention; and that claim we have refuted in the linked article.

It is linked as well with Atwill this his third aspect:

...meets Dennis Ronald MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. No, there's no thesis of Homer being copied here; but Atwill uses some of the same principles as HEGM to make its own case.

One chapter early on is devoted to finding parallels between Jesus' recruitment of disciples to be "fishers of men" and Titus' campaign on the Sea of Galilee. The prime comparison speaks for itself as unreasonable: Atwill parallels Jesus' "become fishers of men" statement to the Roman act of dispatching Jews who had fallen into the sea during a naval battle by hitting them with darts or cutting off their hands -- thus becoming "fishers of men" because the Romans "caught like fish" the Jews in the lake. It is hard to say how one "fishes" men being killed and allowed to sink and drown. For Atwill, it is proof enough to stretch the point to make this "grim comedy" [40].

It gets no better, as Atwill stretches between Matt and Luke for the two phrases associated with the fishers of men story by each, "do not be afraid" and "follow me," and makes it into a parallel of Josephus reporting how Titus not saying these words, no; but telling his men not to desert him (but rather, implicitly, follow him) into battle.

And more, as Atwill hops around Matthew and Luke ranfomly, turning a mention by Josephus of a "Coracin fish" as a parallel to a condemnation of the city of Chorazain in Matthew 11:23, nowhere near the "fishers of men" story. The city's name means "smoking furnace" and has nothing to do with fish.

In a second story, Atwill draws a connection between a Mary in Josephus (see more on this below) and the one in the NT; namely, that the former is said to be "pierced through her very bowels and marrow" because of hunger, while the latter is to be "pierced through your own soul" (Luke 2:35) because of grief over her son's death. His rationale that "soul" and "bowels" are synonymous does not work for it is merely a tenuous, contrived connection of the same type above, making soldiers who kill men in the water with darts and swords into "fishers".

Those who need as reminder of how this sort of theorizing can be misused are reminded that it is just as easy to do the same elsewhere, as for example we did with Lincoln and Kennedy. When there are no constraints, as there are when Atwill operates, any such connection can be made.

His further appeal to the former Mary's roasting and eating of her infant son as a "blackly comic" [52] type of the Passover lamb (!), and describing that child as a "sacrifice," speaks for itself as a distortion of concepts as well as of the English language.

Atwill also cannot understand how it is that the eating of this infant would prompt this Mary to say, "Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." He finds in this a lampoon, in which Christ is the one to "complete the calamity."

More informed scholars find in this an allusion to the Deuteronomic (28:53) warnings of cannibalism as a curse of the Jews for disobedience, one of many "calamities" to befall them, and perhaps one of the last yet fallen upon Jews being besieged in Jerusalem, and also a sign to the "varlets" (the Jewish rebels) who were the root cause of the siege, and hence her own drive to cannibalism.

A score of Atwill's errors are the result of not recognizing (as MacDonald did, though less often) that some commonality reflects a commonplace. The use of spittle by both Jesus and Vespasian to heal an illness [27] reflects then-current perceptions that a holy man's spittle had healing properties -- not a unique point of contact between Jesus and Vespasian. (Atwill also omits how Vespasian healed a man's withered arm, by stomping on it -- which finds no parallel with Jesus.)

But perhaps his largest error of this sort (and overall) is finding commonality in names. He marvels that there was a "Jesus" who preached and a "Jesus" who also led rebels against Titus on the Sea of Galilee [43] -- oblivious to the point that (as we have heard so much about, related to the "James ossuary") "Jesus" was as common a name for Jews of that period as "Bob" is for men today. He makes the same error concerning "Mary" (a name held by up to a third and at least a fourth of Jewish women of this era; thus, despite Atwill, there is no oddity in two sisters having variations of that same name [88], and his argument that the Romans turned "Mary" into a "nickname for female rebels" [90] is shown erroneous). And the same error is made with "Simon." Atwill did no checking into this subject beyond the list of Biblical names in a chart from Webster's [302] and so errs badly when he declares how unlikely it is that the NT and Josephus would record so many Jewish people with the same names.

Like MacDonald, Atwill also freely roams all over the texts to make his tenuous connections. He treats the Gospels as a uniform whole (in other words, the conspiracy is assumed in order to prove it) so that, for example, he pulls the use of the word "Gethsemane" from Mark and combines it with Jesus' bloody sweat (mentioned only in Luke) to create a whole parallel [108] to what are also two separate stories in Josephus.

This methodology is explained as part of the whole scheme that only Atwill has been able to discover, a scheme that "kept the comedy from being too obvious" other than to "readers alert enough to combine elements from different versions" and speaks as well of Atwill's magnified self-perception as it does of his creativity. As with MacDonald, Atwill is constrained to explain why generations of intelligent and credentialed scholars (he is, by the way, merely a "businessman") have missed these points for thousands of years. His explanations that everyone else has been unable, as he has, to "contradict a deeply ingrained belief" [2] and that their religious leanings have rendered their intellect "powerless" [196] to discern the truth speaks for itself in terms of what he must do to explain this, and it also speaks for itself that he must use the "apparent vagueness" [97] of the alleged parallels as a supposed proof of the validity of his thesis.

Finally, let's note some of Atwill's most peculiar errors:
• It is claimed that the church's "structures of authority, its sacraments, its college of bishops, the title of the head of the religion, the supreme pontiff-- were all based on Roman, not Judaic traditions." [20-1].
This is partly false, partly misleading. The advanced structure of pontiff and college did not exist until much later, when indeed, Roman influence abounded (Atwill is mistaken to ascribe the title of "pope" to men as early as Clement I [30]; it was not used as a title for one man until St. Siricus in 384).

It was also not until much later that Rome was chosen as the church's headquarters, despite being also the center of persecution [24](with Jerusalem destroyed, Rome is no more an odd choice than New York would be today). The authority structures and sacraments, however, mirror the Jewish synagogue -- and a universal structure of everything from religions to fireman's clubs, which had communal meals and organizational structure built on the same basic model.

Atwill also misuses Clement's letter to Corinth, which does not say anything about the "church's authority structure...resembling the Roman military" but rather appeals to the universal virtue of order and discipline.

There are even more errors where Atwill's use of the popes is concerned. He hints at malfeasance in that Irenaeus names the "sixth" pope Sixtus; it would not occur to him that the one with the strained imagination was Sixtus himself, in choosing the name, not Irenaeus. He also says that the name of the third pope, Anacletus, means "irreproachable" and connects this to the letter to Timothy that says that a bishop must be "irreproachable"; he is confusing anegkletos ("irreproachable") with anacletos ("called forth, invoked").

• The question is asked [21], "...how did a religion that began as verbal traditions in Hebrew or Aramaic change into one whose surviving Scripture is written almost entirely in Greek?"
Aside from neglecting scholarship that finds Semitic roots behind NT texts (though no doubt the Flavians did convenient research to ensure this?), it ignores the point that expressing its texts in the lingua franca of the day (Koine Greek) is exactly what we would expect from a missionary faith. It is a better question why Titus published in Greek material that was intended to target people who mainly spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.

• Atwill misreads [44] Jesus' prophecy as saying a "Son of Man would come to Judea...encircle Jerusalem with a wall, and then destroy the temple..." No prophecy of Jesus says that "the Son of Man" would do these acts; they are corollary acts to the enthronement of the Son of Man in heaven, and thus Atwill's claim that Titus "fulfilled" and identified himself with the Son of Man is gravely in error.

• There is the standard error reading Matt. 27:24 as anti-Semitic [54].

• Atwill makes much of Titus using the word "repent" as Jesus did. The word itself is used dozens of times in the Old Testament; and the theme itself is all over the OT, and no doubt it and its permutations appear in other secular works.

But Atwill claims, "Jesus never gives an answer to the question" of "exactly what sin does he wish the Jews to repent of" [57].

What sin? Does Atwill suppose that Jesus is supposed to be walking around with a list of every particular and unique sin every person has committed and announcing them to each person one at a time? The obvious answer to the question is, "whatever sin you have done".

• The same error concerning "Immanuel" [94] that Miller has answered here.

• The standard error concerning Zachariah and Berechiah [195], used for Atwill's purposes, as he explains away the lack of match to what is said by Jesus (in terms of the exact name and location) as part of the way of obscuring the joke.

• Atwill uses the invented Pope Leo X "fable" quote though he somehow manages to attribute it not to Leo, but to Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI (who was 10 years before Leo). No source is cited for this attribution.

• Atwill carelessly attributes the words of John the Baptist to Jesus [296].
In the end, creativity is Atwill's most-used method, and the number of props and contrivances he must use to hold up his theory, undoes his credibility as a researcher. Atwill again and again says that this or that point in the NT is some sort of "joke" or "satire" on some historical event concerning Titus. The method is epistemically useless because it is unfalsifiable; Atwill is also inevitably unable to explain why the jokes are actually funny. As subjective as humor is, Atwill's mere word that X was "funny" to the Flavians rings hollow.

His further claims that the histories of both Josephus AND the Gospels were "fictitious" [20] bespeak a writer of the sort who would rather believe that Jesus had an unknown evil twin who faked his Resurrection appearances than accept that the Resurrection actually occurred.
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.

Last edited by surfer12; 26-12-2017 at 03:24 AM.
Likes: (1)
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 05:27 AM   #7
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,968
Likes: 3,888 (2,124 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfer12 View Post
Joseph Atwill's "Caesar's Messiah" debunked:
Certainly all the christians will be working overtime , desperate to debunk this .

Many can't let go of a lifetime of indoctrination.

But I challenge anyone to watch that video and no be impressed.
oz93666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 07:52 AM   #8
metak88
Senior Member
 
metak88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 206 (136 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Spot on Mo ... Anyone who is still hanging on to christianity should see this video by Joseph Awill ...It's the culmination of his life's work , and it blows christianity out of the water ....

Might be a good idea to relocate this thread to "de bunking religions" section
If anyone wants to delve deeper into this then the book is a much better choice.

https://archive.org/download/pdfy-9SJQolWByYI1w0U4

But, keep in mind that it's written by a businessman with no training in any relevant field.
__________________
In rehab...
metak88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 09:24 AM   #9
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,968
Likes: 3,888 (2,124 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metak88 View Post
But, keep in mind that it's written by a businessman with no training in any relevant field.
"As a youth, Joseph Atwill studied Greek, Latin and the Bible at St. Mary's Military Academy, a Jesuit-run school in Japan. In college he studied computer science, and was co-founder of a series of software companies including Ferguson Tool Company and ASNA. After 1995, he returned to Biblical studies.[39] Working with Robert Eisenman, he authored a paper on radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[40] In 2014, Atwill self-published another book, Shakespeare's Secret Messiah...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Messiah#Author

http://

I'm just listening to the above for the first time ... According to Atwill , Shakespeare was a jewish woman ...lol .. who am I to disagree??

This is another bombshell , and explains why the establishment pushes Shakespeare as the greatest literature ever writren...

It's Another Psi-op !!

From 40 mins onward the video discusses the mind control (psi-op) nature of Shakespeare and the bible , both authored by jews ... and now the jews continue their mind-control , but using Hollywood.

From 50 mins onward they cover the jewish take down of the west through immigration ...jewish control of federal reserve ...

54:10 Atwill .."One ethnicity (jews) dominating another ... tiny fraction of the population ... why do the jews have this sort of influence?"

Last edited by oz93666; 26-12-2017 at 01:12 PM.
oz93666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 12:49 PM   #10
mo_123
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,789
Likes: 87 (68 Posts)
Default

thanks for the links oz...i will watch them when i can..
mo_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 12:57 PM   #11
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metak88 View Post
If anyone wants to delve deeper into this then the book is a much better choice.

https://archive.org/download/pdfy-9SJQolWByYI1w0U4

But, keep in mind that it's written by a businessman with no training in any relevant field.
Thank you. Which is why these theories aren't taken seriously by people who have seriously studied the subject.
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.

Last edited by surfer12; 26-12-2017 at 01:01 PM.
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 12:59 PM   #12
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
According to Atwill , Shakespeare was a jewish woman ...lol .. who am I to disagree??
Atwill is a joke!
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 01:00 PM   #13
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Certainly all the christians will be working overtime , desperate to debunk this .

Many can't let go of a lifetime of indoctrination.

But I challenge anyone to watch that video and no be impressed.
Atwill's book was already debunked ago. When are you going to address the questions I asked you in my previous post?
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 01:25 PM   #14
oz93666
Senior Member
 
oz93666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 7,968
Likes: 3,888 (2,124 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfer12 View Post
Atwill's book was already debunked ago. When are you going to address the questions I asked you in my previous post?
I just saw two foot of print pasted from another site in your last post , I scanned through it , didn't see any questions from you.

Atwell is a well respected biblical scholar , what gives him credibility is his understanding of the the area of conspiracy in general , he has videos on many subjects from the Beatles to one's like this ....

http://

I haven't watched this one yet ...I will latter , and give a report ...
oz93666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 02:05 PM   #15
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
I just saw two foot of print pasted from another site in your last post , I scanned through it , didn't see any questions from you.
I was referring to the questions I wrote in this post:

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...41&postcount=5

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Atwell is a well respected biblical scholar , what gives him credibility is his understanding of the the area of conspiracy in general , he has videos on many subjects from the Beatles to one's like this .....
Well respected? by whom? Which academics respect Atwill? Atwill is a total crank. There isn't a single serious academic university scholar who specialises Classics that takes these old Pisonian conspiracy theory claims seriously!
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.

Last edited by surfer12; 26-12-2017 at 09:23 PM.
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 02:34 PM   #16
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,028
Likes: 143 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo_123 View Post
Jesus is mentioned by name 25 times in the Quran

Jesus is a fabricated story made up by the PISO family of Rome...

do a search and you will find some links...

none of the famous authors at the time of Jesus didn't even know about Jesus...

if the Quran can lie about Jesus, what else can it lie about?
There have been many avatars fitting the 'Jesus' bill.
Have they all been fabrication?
There is knowledge in most religious teachings, unfortunately we tend rely on the priests interpretations.
Maybe you should read your book without influence from your local Mullah or internet posts and see what syncs with you.
You might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 03:02 PM   #17
mo_123
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,789
Likes: 87 (68 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
There have been many avatars fitting the 'Jesus' bill.
Have they all been fabrication?
There is knowledge in most religious teachings, unfortunately we tend rely on the priests interpretations.
Maybe you should read your book without influence from your local Mullah or internet posts and see what syncs with you.
You might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
i have read the quran many times over in English, and it dosnt say anything about annunaki, watchers, Nephilim, previous incarnations of jesus..or anything else that matters..
mo_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 07:19 PM   #18
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,028
Likes: 143 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo_123 View Post
i have read the quran many times over in English, and it dosnt say anything about annunaki, watchers, Nephilim, previous incarnations of jesus..or anything else that matters..
Ive never read it but I recon it mentions the jinn.
Why would it mention other avatars of Jesus?
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 08:04 PM   #19
mo_123
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,789
Likes: 87 (68 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
Ive never read it but I recon it mentions the jinn.
Why would it mention other avatars of Jesus?
you are right about the jinn, there is a full chapter dedicated to them...

I'm looking for the truth, and if the theory about the piso family is correct then there is no truth in the quran
mo_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2017, 08:23 PM   #20
surfer12
Senior Member
 
surfer12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,476
Likes: 1,249 (812 Posts)
Default

Atwill doesn't know what he's talking about. Atwill claims Christ was conceived by the Romans in 73 AD, but the Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ much earlier than that, in 64 AD.
Tacitus on Christ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]

Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]

Historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[10][11]

Authenticity and historical value

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[41][42] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[42] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[5][6][7][42]
__________________
.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (TROUBLE FOR THE WICKED): I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
God is pure and does not approve of evil. The word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew does not mean evil in the moral sense. Contextually, when God speaks of creating evil, he is speaking of the calamities that he brings upon the enemies of his purpose.
.

Last edited by surfer12; 26-12-2017 at 08:24 PM.
Likes: (1)
surfer12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.