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

[lfd0311]

Of course I’m a hater. The fact that you don’t hate child molester religions says a lot about you and your family.

LOL. I do. Christianity isn't a child molester religion. Nice try though.

You’re blind if you think it doesn’t still happen, child fucking and incest is an INTEGRAL part of Abrhamic religions, it’s in the books after all.

Not in modern practice, and definently not in Christianity as a commonly accepted practice for a long, long time.

At this very moment there’s a priest fucking a young boy, that’s pretty much a guarantee

I'll take your word for it. You seem to have a deep knowledge and infatuation with that particular subject.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

LOL. I do. Christianity isn't a child molester religion. Nice try though.




Not in modern practice, and definently not in Christianity as a commonly accepted practice for a long, long time.

2018 seems pretty modern to me
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vox...30464/supporters-defend-roy-moore-mary-joseph

 

[lfd0311]

2018 seems pretty modern to me
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vox...30464/supporters-defend-roy-moore-mary-joseph

Aaaaand.... Again, that's not even an opinion held by the majority of Christians, Republicans or people in Alabama. So nice try.

 

[ShadBo]

They destroyed the originals. You know, the ones that didn't featured a bunch of stuff about him being called Jesus and things like that? And I apologize, it's not his diary, It's the letters of Pontius Pilate.

So, again, you're talking about made up shit.

that's all accepted mythology, You're trying to argue something I'm not arguing.

What do you mean by accepted mythology? If you mean that the OT and the stories of Moses, and Moses himself are mythological instead of historical, then I agree.

These are the preconcieved notions I was talking about. So stop arguing against points I'm not making because you hate christianity and need me to make those arguments.

You aren't making any arguments. You haven't made a single argument related to my posts in this thread yet. Actually, so far it seems that we agree on at least one major point: There is likely a person (or people) at the root of the Jesus and Mohammed characters. You still haven't explained what your issue is with this position.

LOL. This is your idea of "getting reckt"? create awful, tired strawman arguments to fit your anti Christian narrative, which I called almost immediately BTW.

You use words like "narrative" and "strawman", but it's clear you do not know what those things are. It's like you have seen these words used before and you found them impressive, so now you use them to try and make your posts sound impressive, but really your posts read like a sort of butthurt jibberish.

Not really. You sort of danced around it. And this is a hallmark of dishonest, awful posters. whenever you can't make a point or someone doesn't just accept your nonsense at face value that person is "dumb".

I'm going to write the following even though I am positive it will be wasted effort because you are a moran.

I have no problem conceding that there was a real person (or people) that existed in history that the Jesus and Mohammed stories were based on. There's no reason to believe that, unlike Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are purely mythological. Ok? Are we good with that so far?

Now, this is the important part so I need you to pay attention - whether or not this person existed is independent of whether or not the stories about them are true. So when I say that I do not believe that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT was an actual historical figure because of reasons:

Spoiler

No one who wrote the NT knew Jesus.

The NT is inconsistent with major details of his life.

We have no original documents from the first century, and scraps at best from the second century.

Jesus wrote nothing at all.

There are no contemporaneous corroborations from independent sources.

I am not saying that a real person (or people) did not exist.

Do you understand? If you do, please demonstrate it so I can remove at least one palm from my face. What a fucking debacle.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

Aaaaand.... Again, that's not even an opinion held by the majority of Christians, Republicans or people in Alabama. So nice try.

So, you’re saying that there’s no correlation between biblical scripture and the views being espoused by those people?

 

[lfd0311]

So, you’re saying that there’s no correlation between biblical scripture and the views being espoused by those people?

I'm saying those people are fringe weirdos and are seen as fringe weirdos by the vast majority of people who share their religion. I'm also saying you absolutely understood that and are misrepresenting what I said for your own benefit. I'm also saying your attempt failed terribly.

 

[lfd0311]

So, again, you're talking about made up shit.

Nope. I'm sure not. Thanks for trying to refute that with a "nuh uh" because you don't like it.

What do you mean by accepted mythology? If you mean that the OT and the stories of Moses, and Moses himself are mythological instead of historical, then I agree.

That's literally what I've been saying the whole time. Again, you're having trouble understanding that because your obvious hatred of Christianity is clouding your view of what I'm saying. That's like the 5th or 6th time of said this.

You aren't making any arguments. You haven't made a single argument related to my posts in this thread yet. Actually, so far it seems that we agree on at least one major point: There is likely a person (or people) at the root of the Jesus and Mohammed characters. You still haven't explained what your issue is with this position.

I didn't have one. I asked you if you believed there was one, and you sort of gave me an answer, but not really. This is yet another topic that I've addressed about 4 times now, so stop playing games and making dishonest points.

You use words like "narrative" and "strawman", but it's clear you do not know what those things are. It's like you have seen these words used before and you found them impressive, so now you use them to try and make your posts sound impressive, but really your posts read like a sort of butthurt jibberish.

Interesting.....

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

Except that you then went on to post this:

Those silly Christians always seem to destroy any evidence that would support their story.

I suppose that tradition started early with Moses when he destroyed the first set of tablets the ten commandments were written on. I guess there would be no use for faith if there was actual proof for the things the bible claims.

This is literally the definition of a strawman. Nowhere in my post did I claim that Pilate's letters claimed that Jesus was anything that Christianity claimed him to be, nor did I say literally anything about Moses. Yet for some reason you attacked my point as if I was presenting Pilate's letters as if they proved Christian mythology verifiably true, despite the fact that I brought them up as proof that said mythology was... in fact.... just that. Mythology. That the real history, if any, had been destroyed/replaced long ago to fit the narrative early Christians needed, and they needed supporting documents to back it up. So they simply created them out of some that already existed with little regard for what was already there. Then you threw Moses in there for good measure. Something you brought up. To argue against a point I was not making. To point out how absurd you think Christianity is. An argument I was not making, attacking a position I was not defending. That's the definition of a strawman. That's you creating a narrative. Is that all cleared up now?

I'm going to write the following even though I am positive it will be wasted effort because you are a moran.

*Moron

I have no problem conceding that there was a real person (or people) that existed in history that the Jesus and Mohammed stories were based on. There's no reason to believe that, unlike Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are purely mythological. Ok? Are we good with that so far?

Finally.

Now, this is the important part so I need you to pay attention - whether or not this person existed is independent of whether or not the stories about them are true. So when I say that I do not believe that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT was an actual historical figure because of reasons:

Spoiler

No one who wrote the NT knew Jesus

Spoiler

.

The NT is inconsistent with major details of his life.

We have no original documents from the first century, and scraps at best from the second century.

Jesus wrote nothing at all.

There are no contemporaneous corroborations from independent sources.

I am not saying that a real person (or people) did not exist.

Dude, it's amazing how deeply narricisstic you are, combined with how laughably terrible your ability to grasp written information is. Let me slow things down for you. You have such a deep need to act intellectually superior to everyone it's kind of sad. Do you remember this series of posts?

No doubt a fine group of esteemed scholars, not unlike Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

The historians whose writings came to make up the New Testament. They are the oral traditions passed down through th Apostles. It is a well documented fact that Pontius Pilate's diary containing his writings about his time in Judah and his interactions with the man who came to be know as Jesus survived more or less in it's original form into the Early Middle Ages when it was taken by monks to a monastery where the current canonical story of Jesus was created, and the actual history of the real man and Pontius Pilate destroyed. All that means is there had to be a real man at the core of that to begin with.

Speaking about making shit up...

Psst.... We're talking about the same thing.... You just have a vested personal interest in this discussion, and I don't. That's the difference.

I literally just said the same thing you did. But apparently I'm making things up though. Can you read? Is following along some sort of comprehensive burden for you?

Do you understand? If you do, please demonstrate it so I can remove at least one palm from my face. What a fucking debacle

I think by now if it's not obvious that you should be asking youself that question, than you might need serious help. P.S., this is what it looks like when someone gets "reckt" by basic points....

 

[ShadBo]

Nope. I'm sure not. Thanks for trying to refute that with a "nuh uh" because you don't like it.





That's literally what I've been saying the whole time. Again, you're having trouble understanding that because your obvious hatred of Christianity is clouding your view of what I'm saying. That's like the 5th or 6th time of said this.



I didn't have one. I asked you if you believed there was one, and you sort of gave me an answer, but not really. This is yet another topic that I've addressed about 4 times now, so stop playing games and making dishonest points.



Interesting.....

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

Except that you then went on to post this:



This is literally the definition of a strawman. Nowhere in my post did I claim that Pilate's letters claimed that Jesus was anything that Christianity claimed him to be, nor did I say literally anything about Moses. Yet for some reason you attacked my point as if I was presenting Pilate's letters as if they proved Christian mythology verifiably true, despite the fact that I brought them up as proof that said mythology was... in fact.... just that. Mythology. That the real history, if any, had been destroyed/replaced long ago to fit the narrative early Christians needed, and they needed supporting documents to back it up. So they simply created them out of some that already existed with little regard for what was already there. Then you threw Moses in there for good measure. Something you brought up. To argue against a point I was not making. To point out how absurd you think Christianity is. An argument I was not making, attacking a position I was not defending. That's the definition of a strawman. That's you creating a narrative. Is that all cleared up now?




*Moron



Finally.



Dude, it's amazing how deeply narricisstic you are, combined with how laughably terrible your ability to grasp written information is. Let me slow things down for you. You have such a deep need to act intellectually superior to everyone it's kind of sad. Do you remember this series of posts?










I literally just said the same thing you did. But apparently I'm making things up though. Can you read? Is following along some sort of comprehensive burden for you?




I think by now if it's not obvious that you should be asking youself that question, than you might need serious help. P.S., this is what it looks like when someone gets "reckt" by basic points....

<mma2>

 

[Fawlty]

What preconceived notions and bias?

You a literally talking about made up things. There is no such thing as Pilate's journal.

This is fascinating. I have no earthly idea what the hell he is talking about with the monk and crap.

As far as letters by Pilate, there is a fiction novel written in the 1920s, and probably at least one early forgery. No reputable biblical scholar claims them as genuine as far as I know. This is way, way out in fringe territory.

 

[lfd0311]

<mma2>

Thought so.

 

[lfd0311]

This is fascinating. I have no earthly idea what the hell he is talking about with the monk and crap.

As far as letters by Pilate, there is a fiction novel written in the 1920s, and probably at least one early forgery. No reputable biblical scholar claims them as genuine as far as I know. This is way, way out in fringe territory.

A biblical scholar..... would claim something that doesn't fit the narrative of Christianity? Think about that really hard, Sawlty.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I also believe the Hindu caste concept of living a virtuous life in the caste you are currently in, and be reincarnated into a higher caste in the next life, is also meant to keep down the lower castes.

Basically if lower castes truly have faith, they wont act out against the higher castes. I used to make fun of the South Asian kids about it. I use to call them dalits and what not, and they get all pissed off.

 

[Fawlty]

A biblical scholar..... would claim something that doesn't fit the narrative of Christianity? Think about that really hard, Sawlty.

You're gonna have to dumb it down for me. What exactly are you trying to say here?

 

[lfd0311]

You're gonna have to dumb it down for me. What exactly are you trying to say here?

Most “bible scholars” are, on top of being very religious, authorities on what is in the Bible, not on the non religious history of the making of the Bible.

 

[Fawlty]

Most “bible scholars” are, on top of being very religious, authorities on what is in the Bible, not on the non religious history of the making of the Bible.

That isn't the same as the other thing you said. Are you intentionally putting up an ink cloud here? What I see is multiple preemptive attacks on credibility, and I put no stock in them.

Let's ignore all that and examine your claim.

Your claim is as follows:

"It is a well documented fact that Pontius Pilate's diary containing his writings about his time in Judah and his interactions with the man who came to be know as Jesus survived more or less in it's original form into the Early Middle Ages when it was taken by monks to a monastery where the current canonical story of Jesus was created, and the actual history of the real man and Pontius Pilate destroyed."


You have a burden of proof to provide evidence for your claim. Please provide evidence.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

I'm saying those people are fringe weirdos and are seen as fringe weirdos by the vast majority of people who share their religion. I'm also saying you absolutely understood that and are misrepresenting what I said for your own benefit. I'm also saying your attempt failed terribly.

Bruh, it’s in the book. If they support sexual molestation due to what their religious text said then it’s their religions fault, that’s just a fact.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Being a Christian necessarily entails accepting certain Christian claims as true, namely: the trinity, virgin birth, the resurrection and among others.

I disagree on the Trinity. I'm a member of a Christian forum and there are quite a few non-Trinitarians.

 

[squeezewax]

It's perfectly natural to be a hater of all religions as they are disgusting, mind-controlling, things.

 

[meauneau]

I disagree on the Trinity. I'm a member of a Christian forum and there are quite a few non-Trinitarians.

I changed my mind abut that. True, there are non-trinitarian Christians.

 

[Darkballs]

The historians whose writings came to make up the New Testament. They are the oral traditions passed down through th Apostles. It is a well documented fact that Pontius Pilate's diary containing his writings about his time in Judah and his interactions with the man who came to be know as Jesus survived more or less in it's original form into the Early Middle Ages when it was taken by monks to a monastery where the current canonical story of Jesus was created, and the actual history of the real man and Pontius Pilate destroyed. All that means is there had to be a real man at the core of that to begin with.

So no actual historians and no original documents.