Caesar's Messiah

[Capstone]

Sorry, I missed this little gem:

You have it backwords.
It was written and intended for Gentiles not Jews.
If it was intended for Jews then it would have been written in Aramaic, not Greek.

Some have argued for the precedence of the Peshitta NT, based in part on its relative beauty and fluidity as compared to its clunky Greek counterpart, but more importantly on the ages of the respective manuscripts.

From here :

[...] “The SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in it various forms: the “Peshitto” [Peshitta, the names are often confused – Raphael] (cent. 2) and the “Curetonian Syriac” (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses [the last 12 verses of Mark’s Gospel – Raphael]. So with the “Philoxenian” (cent.5) and the “Jerusalem” (cent. 5)… Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170. Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is ready to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West. "yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same." Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses. Hence we have given this authority, where needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those “various readings” with which the Syriac agrees.” – Dr. E. W. Bullinger[...][emphasis Capstone's]

That aside, as far as the discussion in this thread is concerned ...the issue is moot, because (in accordance with Atwill's theory) the Evangelion would have been distributed in Greek and Aramaic, since both languages were spoken by Jews in various parts of the Empire.

 

[Capstone]

the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked.

Where?

In Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 3), Josephus provides the famous Testimonium Flavianum as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." [emphasis added]

That highlighted bit can be interpreted as a vague description of his general appearance -- not of the specifics of his 'looks'; but of the reported fact that he looked to be alive.

BTW, despite the fact that the legitimacy of the passage has been in question for nearly as long as scholars have been analyzing it, Atwill doesn't argue against its legitimacy; he actually demonstrates its plausible place in a typological reading that amounts to a confession of the Flavian deception.

Reading with the added context of pedimental composition:

Applied to Jewish Antiquities, the Testimonium passage about Jesus is evidently the left hand side of a triptych. The right hand side passage is about Paul, and the figure in the central panel , who is a composite of all three Flavian Emperors, wears the mask of a false god to have sex with a woman he could not persuade with gifts and money. The central focus of the triptych is that the Roman Emperors did not care about ‘this business of names’ but were willing to pretend to be a false god in order to be worshipped by the Jews. Patterns of word parallelisms link across the three panels of the triptych, to reveal the true story. (For example, the word hedone used for the Emperor’s sexual enjoyment is also used-quite inappropriately-for the way that Christ’s followers worship him, thereby linking the two stories).

To sum it up: both of Peach's objections were based on things that actually support Atwill's theory.

 

[CrackedSkull]

the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked.

Where?

In Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 3), Josephus provides the famous Testimonium Flavianum as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." [emphasis added]

That highlighted bit can be interpreted as a vague description of his general appearance -- not of the specifics of his 'looks'; but of the reported fact that he looked to be alive.

BTW, despite the fact that the legitimacy of the passage has been in question for nearly as long as scholars have been analyzing it, Atwill doesn't argue against its legitimacy; he actually demonstrates its plausible place in a typological reading that amounts to a confession of the Flavian deception.

Reading with the added context of pedimental composition:

Applied to Jewish Antiquities, the Testimonium passage about Jesus is evidently the left hand side of a triptych. The right hand side passage is about Paul, and the figure in the central panel , who is a composite of all three Flavian Emperors, wears the mask of a false god to have sex with a woman he could not persuade with gifts and money. The central focus of the triptych is that the Roman Emperors did not care about ‘this business of names’ but were willing to pretend to be a false god in order to be worshipped by the Jews. Patterns of word parallelisms link across the three panels of the triptych, to reveal the true story. (For example, the word hedone used for the Emperor’s sexual enjoyment is also used-quite inappropriately-for the way that Christ’s followers worship him, thereby linking the two stories).

To sum it up: both of Peach's objections were based on things that actually support Atwill's theory.

You fail...The 183 passage is a forgery. How does Josephus know what a jesus looked like when he was not born until 3 to 4 years after the death of this jesus.

“Now about this time there lived Jesus a wise man, if one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing [lit., the principal men] among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place had come to love him did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the holy prophets had predicted these and many other wonderful things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, continues to the present day.”

Bolded portions no doubt inserted by a later scribe....Eusibeus no doubt....

 

[GreatestIam]

Christians:

In case the significance of these findings has escaped you, the notion that your entire belief system has a fictional basis is now empirically demonstrable.

Burying your heads even more deeply in the sand than they've been ...isn't going to make the uncomfortable truth go away.

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue...?



What's it matter to you, anyway? You don't want to believe in God? Fine. Don't. But why do you have your panties in a bunch that other people do?

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Seems our friend is more spiritual than yourself as he shows his social conscience and is fighting the lies that many are foolishly believing.

Regards
DL

 

[daveman]

Christians:

In case the significance of these findings has escaped you, the notion that your entire belief system has a fictional basis is now empirically demonstrable.

Burying your heads even more deeply in the sand than they've been ...isn't going to make the uncomfortable truth go away.

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue...?



What's it matter to you, anyway? You don't want to believe in God? Fine. Don't. But why do you have your panties in a bunch that other people do?

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Seems our friend is more spiritual than yourself as he shows his social conscience and is fighting the lies that many are foolishly believing.

Regards
DL

You have no room to be condemning others for believing foolish lies.

 

[peach174]

A couple of things has been left out of what he says.
First -
the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked. That he says the man did exist.
Second - there is evidence of Aramaic manuals.
"Is It True That Some NT Documents were First Written in Aramaic/Syriac and THEN in Greek?" - Probe Ministries
Textually speaking, there is little manuscript evidence to substantiate an Aramaic precedent over the Greek. There are however, ten different Syriac manuscript sources which have survived, dating from the fifth to the tenth centuries A.D. The earliest, a palimpsest written in the 4th or 5th century, is the oldest extant manuscript which is a representative of the Old Syriac translation (which probably originated around 200 A.D). All of these manuscripts give evidence of having borrowed from pre-existing sources--the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, or the Massoretic tradition.

By far the best Aramaic specimen of the Syriac Peshitta is found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and dates from the sixth or seventh century A.D. Close behind is one in the British Museum in London which dates from the ninth or tenth century A.D.

First -
the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked.

Where?

Sorry, I thought Jesus was described by Josephus. I haven't read Antiquities for almost 20 years and went on faulty memory rather than looking it up.

I was thinking of Publius Lentullus who described how he looked.
The Description of Publius Lentullus

The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.

"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"

Many say that Publius Lentullus is a Fictitious person and that he did not exist.

Then there is also this one

The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the jewish people. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the jewish people -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

A couple of things has been left out of what he says.
First -
the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked. That he says the man did exist.
Second - there is evidence of Aramaic manuals.
"Is It True That Some NT Documents were First Written in Aramaic/Syriac and THEN in Greek?" - Probe Ministries
Textually speaking, there is little manuscript evidence to substantiate an Aramaic precedent over the Greek. There are however, ten different Syriac manuscript sources which have survived, dating from the fifth to the tenth centuries A.D. The earliest, a palimpsest written in the 4th or 5th century, is the oldest extant manuscript which is a representative of the Old Syriac translation (which probably originated around 200 A.D). All of these manuscripts give evidence of having borrowed from pre-existing sources--the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, or the Massoretic tradition.

By far the best Aramaic specimen of the Syriac Peshitta is found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and dates from the sixth or seventh century A.D. Close behind is one in the British Museum in London which dates from the ninth or tenth century A.D.

First -
the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked.

Where?

Sorry, I thought Jesus was described by Josephus. I haven't read Antiquities for almost 20 years and went on faulty memory rather than looking it up.

I was thinking of Publius Lentullus who described how he looked.
The Description of Publius Lentullus

The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.

"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"

Many say that Publius Lentullus is a Fictitious person and that he did not exist.

Then there is also this one

The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the jewish people. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the jewish people -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate

This hoax has been around a few years and was disproved a while ago. You might want to research at the Library of Congress website and find out for yourself that no such letter exists. As hoaxes go it is comical. The notion that Pilate would have even written a letter like that, and supported the notion of Jesus as the "Son of God," as in the last paragraph, is not only ludicrous, but even defies the Biblical narratives.

Please.

 

[peach174]

I never said that the Pontitus Pilate letter was real.
The only thing we have that Pontitus Pilate even existed is from an archeology site found in 1961.
Historical Notes: Pontius Pilate: a name set in stone - People - News - The Independent

People are going to believe or not believe what they want.
I know that God is real and he exists and that Jesus is real.
For believers they know he exists. Believers can feel his presence just like people who know and feel that someone is staring at them.You have that feeling.
It is about Believe without proof.
Even when Christ was alive, there were those who did not believe.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I never said that the Pontitus Pilate letter was real.
The only thing we have that Pontitus Pilate even existed is from an archeology site found in 1961.
Historical Notes: Pontius Pilate: a name set in stone - People - News - The Independent

People are going to believe or not believe what they want.
I know that God is real and he exists and that Jesus is real.
For believers they know he exists. Believers can feel his presence just like people who know and feel that someone is staring at them.You have that feeling.
It is about Believe without proof.
Even when Christ was alive, there were those who did not believe.

Why on earth would you post it then? No, you didn't post the words "this is a real letter," but the fact that you posted it in a discussion about the historicity of Jesus means that you are submitting it as evidence, is it not?

I understand how faith works. I don't make fun of faith, I only question what it means. There are plenty of people who feel the Islamic faith just as Christians feel theirs. Buddhists are all about feeling.

There has been a growing desperation to prove the validity of Christian faith, which I can understand given that more and more are leaving the chapel and more and more are entering the mosque. Even as a doubter I find that disturbing, mostly because, even though I do not share your faith, I feel more comfortable in the company of Christians than in the company of Muslims.

That is no excuse for hoaxes like the "letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar." If such a thing were such an easily recognizable lie, why even reference it? Having faith and feeling Christ's presence does not justify it.

You are essentially admitting that what you posted was not genuine, but it forces a question I have to ask. If nobody had called out the hoax, and people began to post their support of it, would you have allowed it to go on?

 

[peach174]

NO I would not have.

My point is, that the start of this thread is also a hoax, to get those that don't believe, a validation that there really is no Jesus or true Christianity.
The guy's absurd point that Christianity was made up by the Romans to squelch the post Jewish wars, so that they could then turn around, hate Jews & Gentiles, fear them and kill them is ludicrous.
The guy's theory is made up to mock Christians. I'm sick and tired of academia non believers who want to try and destroy those that believe, just because they don't believe.

It's an insult because the 1st Jewish War was around 66 A.D. ( yes, I'm using the Latin A.D. - in the year of our Lord).
Jewish Christianity started around 30 A.D. when Jesus started his preaching.
It implies that Jesus was a bought and paid servant of the Romans.
The theory would make the disciples of Jesus liars.
It makes the prophecies of the old testament lies that were written for over 1,000 years.

His followers died for telling the truth of their testimony of being eye wittinesses of the the life of Jesus, his death and his resurrection. Dying for a belief is one thing, but numerous eye-witnesses dying for a known lie is quite another.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

NO I would not have.

My point is, that the start of this thread is also a hoax, to get those that don't believe, a validation that there really is no Jesus or true Christianity.
The guy's absurd point that Christianity was made up by the Romans to squelch the post Jewish wars, so that they could then turn around, hate Gentiles, fear them and kill them is ludicrous.
The guy's theory is made up to mock Christians. I'm sick and tired of academia non believers who want to try and destroy those that believe, just because they don't believe.

Perhaps I did not get that from your post. So, you were posting something that you knew was not legitimate? If you were, you should have been more clear about your motives. Or, I wasn't paying close enough attention. That is a possibility.

I get it. I understand the agenda of those that want to mock or ridicule Christians. However, does that make the theory necessarily invalid? Theists and non-theists alike are forced to theorize about much of early Christian history. They have to. I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that virtually every theory about early Christian history gets something wrong. The history is too shrouded not to. For example, we could theorize back and forth for years about why the gnostic texts were eliminated from mainstream Christian belief via the Nicene Councils. I've read much of the gnostic texts. At times I have felt more truth and more belief in them than the accepted Gospels. Does that make Gnosticism a truer faith of Jesus, or a truer narrative of His intent for us, because I feel it to be?

Part of the piece's intent is probably to ridicule or undermine Christian faith. I don't doubt it. Then again, anything that presents an historic view alternate to what Christians would like to accept per their faith is going to be seen as an affront to their faith. I get it. But I will say that, while the conclusions are yours to question, I wouldn't call it ludicrous to theorize that Constantine's Rome was at least partially so motivated.

Is it possible that your reaction is more of a knee-jerk than an earnest appraisal?

 

[peach174]

Well I refuse to believe that Jesus was a bought and paid for servant of the Romans.
That is an insult to those that were the eye witnesses and died for their testimonies.

 

[CrackedSkull]

Well I refuse to believe that Jesus was a bought and paid for servant of the Romans.
That is an insult to those that were the eye witnesses and died for their testimonies.

And exactly what eyewitnesses were there?

 

[peach174]

All of the Deciples and all of his followers.

Around 34 A.D., one year after the crucifixion of Jesus, Stephen was thrown out of Jerusalem and stoned to death. Approximately 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem during this period. About 10 years later, James, the son of Zebedee and the elder brother of John, was killed when Herod Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Agrippa detested the Christian sect of Jews, and many early disciples were martyred under his rule, including Timon and Parmenas. Around 54 A.D., Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified. About six years later, Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote his gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword. James, the brother of Jesus, administered the early church in Jerusalem and was the author of an Epistle by his name. At age 94, he was beat and stoned, and finally had his brains bashed out with a fuller's club. Matthias was the apostle who filled the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded. Andrew was the brother of Peter who preached the gospel throughout Asia. On his arrival at Edessa, he was arrested and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground (this is where we get the term, St. Andrew's Cross). Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter, and then transcribed Peter’s account of Jesus in his Gospel. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria in front of Serapis, their pagan idol. It appears Peter was condemned to death and crucified at Rome. Jerome holds that Peter was crucified upside down, at his own request, because he said he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. Paul suffered in the first persecution under Nero. Paul’s faith was so dramatic in the face of martyrdom, that the authorities removed him to a private place for execution by the sword.

In about 72 A.D., Jude, the brother of James who was commonly called Thaddeus, was crucified at Edessa. Bartholomew preached in several countries and translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India. He was cruelly beaten and then crucified by idolaters there. Thomas, called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear. Luke was the author of the Gospel under his name. He traveled with Paul through various countries and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece. Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many known facts in about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, where he was crucified in about 74 A.D. John, the "beloved disciple," was the brother of James. From Ephesus he was ordered to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.

 

[CrackedSkull]

All of the Deciples and all of his followers.

Around 34 A.D., one year after the crucifixion of Jesus, Stephen was thrown out of Jerusalem and stoned to death. Approximately 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem during this period. About 10 years later, James, the son of Zebedee and the elder brother of John, was killed when Herod Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Agrippa detested the Christian sect of Jews, and many early disciples were martyred under his rule, including Timon and Parmenas. Around 54 A.D., Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified. About six years later, Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote his gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword. James, the brother of Jesus, administered the early church in Jerusalem and was the author of an Epistle by his name. At age 94, he was beat and stoned, and finally had his brains bashed out with a fuller's club. Matthias was the apostle who filled the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded. Andrew was the brother of Peter who preached the gospel throughout Asia. On his arrival at Edessa, he was arrested and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground (this is where we get the term, St. Andrew's Cross). Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter, and then transcribed Peter’s account of Jesus in his Gospel. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria in front of Serapis, their pagan idol. It appears Peter was condemned to death and crucified at Rome. Jerome holds that Peter was crucified upside down, at his own request, because he said he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. Paul suffered in the first persecution under Nero. Paul’s faith was so dramatic in the face of martyrdom, that the authorities removed him to a private place for execution by the sword.

In about 72 A.D., Jude, the brother of James who was commonly called Thaddeus, was crucified at Edessa. Bartholomew preached in several countries and translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India. He was cruelly beaten and then crucified by idolaters there. Thomas, called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear. Luke was the author of the Gospel under his name. He traveled with Paul through various countries and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece. Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many known facts in about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, where he was crucified in about 74 A.D. John, the "beloved disciple," was the brother of James. From Ephesus he was ordered to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.

And all these are eyewitnesses how? I see a lot of dying for something but nothing saying they ever saw a jesus. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts...Luke admits to not having ever seen a jesus in 1:1-4.... John wrote long after this jesus supposedly died and is not a witness to anything. That stuff you wrote is so ran together I am not going to try an decipher it all..Looks a lot like you copied it form Wiki.

If jesus was salvation and this god loves everybody then jesus was not historical in any sense as he did not reach everybody. And even those that thought they had been reached by a jesus did not accept him universally or completely.

The Encloypedia Biblica states that the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

In Matt 14:1 and 4:25 he claims his fame was known far and wide. Agian, in Luke 12:1 and 5:15 it says great multitudes followed him but yet no one recorded a single thing, why?

Matt 23:44-45 speaks of darkness of the Sun from the 6th to the 9th hour. Eclipses cannot occur during a full moon! And Passover only occurs during a full moon.

Matt goes on in 27:51-54 and speaks of an earthquake yet no one else records this great earth shaking event. Was he the only one that felt it?

Matt 2 speaks of Herod killing all the children in Bethlehem yet no one records this event of infanticide out side the Bible.

When the Jew Celsus ask 2nd Century Apologists Origen a staunch defender of christianity at the time what miracles did jesus perform? Origen very lamely responds." Jesus life was indeed full of striking and miraculous events, "but from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospels narratives"

Origen had no answer!

Contra Celsum 2:33

 

[Capstone]

[...] How does Josephus know what a jesus looked like when he was not born until 3 to 4 years after the death of this jesus.

Josephus wrote of many men whose lives (and deaths) preceded his birth. That's what historians do, CS.

 

[Capstone]

As for the persecution/martyrdom of messianic zealots before and after the advent of the Roman-friendly version of messianic Judaism (I.E. Christianity), the legitimate historical references are talking about the zealots of the militaristic sect on which the Flavian parody was based. Accordingly, while Christianity proper was a Roman creation, it wasn't an instance of creation ex nihilo.

In Atwill's own words (from his informal response to J.P. Holding's review of the first edition of CM):

[...] Of course, I never claimed Christianity was invented to convert the Sicarii zealots in Judea, an absurd idea. I wrote that the religion was designed to be a theological barrier to prevent the spread of the militarized messianic movement to Jews living throughout the empire.

Obviously, not all of the Jews were fooled into buying the Imperial deception, since many are still waiting today for the coming of the 'mashiach'.

 

[Moonglow]

Christians:

In case the significance of these findings has escaped you, the notion that your entire belief system has a fictional basis is now empirically demonstrable.

Burying your heads even more deeply in the sand than they've been ...isn't going to make the uncomfortable truth go away.

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue...?



What's it matter to you, anyway? You don't want to believe in God? Fine. Don't. But why do you have your panties in a bunch that other people do?

Jesus is not God or a god.

 

[turzovka]

Oh wow what an exciting revelation!

I assume then that these Romans somehow invented the miracle at Fatima where 70,000 people witnessed the sun dance and charge the earth, predicted 90 days in advance by three young children? I assume they somehow staged the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt where more than a quarter of a million Egyptians saw her for themselves over the course of about 20 evenings in the summer of 1968? I assume they arranged for St. Anthony of Padua when his body was exhumed hundreds of years later for everything to be disintegrated except for his tongue which remained incorruptible, not to mention scores of other saints whose bodies lay incorruptible?

I assume they worked on St. Padre Pio’s hands and feet every day or week to keep the ruse going about the bleeding stigmata he had to deal with every day of his life. The wounds examined by doctors that called these unhealed wounds which gave off the fragrance of roses inexplicable? I suppose your Romans were busy assembling statues of Jesus and Mary that kept weeping human tears or tears of blood which no one can explain to this day? And those exorcisms. How on earth did they get the young child to levitate or to speak Latin, or to tell witnesses in the room things of their past the child could never have known?

Shall I go on?

 

[Capstone]

Oh wow what an exciting revelation!

I assume then that these Romans somehow invented the miracle at Fatima where 70,000 people witnessed the sun dance and charge the earth, predicted 90 days in advance by three young children? I assume they somehow staged the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt where more than a quarter of a million Egyptians saw her for themselves over the course of about 20 evenings in the summer of 1968? I assume they arranged for St. Anthony of Padua when his body was exhumed hundreds of years later for everything to be disintegrated except for his tongue which remained incorruptible, not to mention scores of other saints whose bodies lay incorruptible?

I assume they worked on St. Padre Pio’s hands and feet every day or week to keep the ruse going about the bleeding stigmata he had to deal with every day of his life. The wounds examined by doctors that called these unhealed wounds which gave off the fragrance of roses inexplicable? I suppose your Romans were busy assembling statues of Jesus and Mary that kept weeping human tears or tears of blood which no one can explain to this day? And those exorcisms. How on earth did they get the young child to levitate or to speak Latin, or to tell witnesses in the room things of their past the child could never have known?

Shall I go on?

You left out the grilled cheese sandwich.