Mod+ Is the Bible a political con job? This scholar says the proof is right in front of us |289|

"Fear Rather than Death"! This occurs in-between "Keep holy the Sabbath by restoring the right hand" (Jewish War 4,92-104 vs. Luke 6:1-11) and "John the Brainwasher" (Jewish War 4, 213-245 vs. Luke 7:18-35), so the verses in-between that are: Jewish War 4, 112-120 and Luke 7:1-10... sequence!
Fear_Over_Death.jpg
 
When Titus arrived at Jerusalem he first cut down the fruit trees and levelled the terrain - ahead of laying siege to the city in order to starve out the Jews!
Cut_Down_Fruit_Trees.jpg
 
I see all of these tables and think...

"Fruity Pebbles".
not sure what you mean??? this is the problem with the work, when you pull back to the big picture the conclusions are pretty obvious but the details require a level of rigor most shy away from... or worse yet, make fun of.
 
This seems valid, and in sequence. Jerusalem is described as a vineyard - apparently lucrative business - with a defensive wall, tower (Antonia) and a wine press--no doubt the one in Gethsemane used to prune Jesus! Here, Titus is the landowner whose slaves (ordinary troops) are sent together with his 2 sons (2 of his more distinguised soldiers) against the Jewish rebels who are holding out in Antonia.
cornerstone.png
 
not sure what you mean??? this is the problem with the work, when you pull back to the big picture the conclusions are pretty obvious but the details require a level of rigor most shy away from... or worse yet, make fun of.

It means that the presentation is terrible, Alex. He needs to be more concise and rely less on volume. Three or four pages of colorful tables alienate any casual reader, he is not proving his point by doing so as he seems to thinks. It actually seems like its the very reason why every user that was debating with him dropped the communication and disengaged.
 
not sure what you mean??? this is the problem with the work, when you pull back to the big picture the conclusions are pretty obvious but the details require a level of rigor most shy away from... or worse yet, make fun of.

Except that I have engaged gilius, looking at the details with more rigor than he provides, demonstrating the problems with one of his examples point-by-point, and his response has been just to produce more tables. There's a problem here, alright...
 
It actually seems like its the very reason why every user that was debating with him dropped the communication and disengaged.

Part of it is, as I said in my last post before returning, that I was on vacation. Part of it is that writing my dissertation and a paper for an upcoming academic conference at the same time makes me very busy. And, finally, part of it is limited motivation. If one's interlocutor refuses to address your rebuttal, why bother?
 
It means that the presentation is terrible, Alex. He needs to be more concise and rely less on volume. Three or four pages of colorful tables alienate any casual reader, he is not proving his point by doing so as he seems to thinks. It actually seems like its the very reason why every user that was debating with him dropped the communication and disengaged.
ok, so it's a style thing.
 
ok, so it's a style thing.

Yes, as I mentioned in the second thread of this series religion is not particularly interesting to me, so I have no real reason to defend it. I was reading the first couple of pages out of curiosity... Then the tables kept appearing and eventually the ninjas and pigs came out (really juvenile for someone claiming to be an amateur bible scholar). Mr. Atwill needs to try and reply instead of bumping the thread every once in a while with a new colorful table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Yes, as I mentioned in the second thread of this series religion is not particularly interesting to me, so I have no real reason to defend it. I was reading the first couple of pages out of curiosity... Then the tables kept appearing and eventually the ninjas and pigs came out (really juvenile for someone claiming to be an amateur bible scholar). Mr. Atwill needs to try and reply instead of bumping the thread every once in a while with a new colorful table.
I don't quite understand your logic... if you're not interested then why are you poking at posts 6 pages into a thread? if you've bought into the idea that Gospels prophecies were written after-the-fact by a pro-Roman Jewish historian who believed that Cesar was Messiah (which BTW not only Atwill suggests, but is also the conclusion of Christian Biblical scholar Joel Watts in ep. 290) then what's your complaint? the colors that the guy used in his tables???
 
I am not interested in religion as a practice; there is no reason why I would not be interested in what is basically a sociohistorical hypothesis. Also, I am not a skeptic, so the paranormal aspects of each credo still interest me; there is a parallel between levitating christian saints and levitating eastern monks... Which implies that similar results can be achieved by reaching an altered state, independent of dogmatic considerations. That, to me, lends more credibility to these macro manifestations of psi. In other words, a lack of interest in the tedium does not mean that I will avoid all threads that touch on the subject by default... Just don't expect me to defend their tenets.

And my complaint is that he is spamming tables for the sake of doing so, turning what began as an interesting premise into a convoluted mess just because he can't bother to debate properly. Can't he respond to the rebuttals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Gospels prophecies were written after-the-fact by a pro-Roman Jewish historian who believed that Cesar was Messiah (which BTW not only Atwill suggests, but is also the conclusion of Christian Biblical scholar Joel Watts in ep. 290)"
I am not interested in engaging with Atwill, as he demonstrates no scholarship, understanding of religions, or grasp of history.

I am interested in understanding Alex's and Joel Watts's perspective.

I thought the claim was that Jesus was non-historical. The statement here is a different thesis. Most of the New Testament includes prophetic content. Is the Book of Revelations to be understood as written by a pro-Roman Jewish historian? Are the letters of Paul included in this thesis? Are all non-canonical scriptures included or only specific ones?

Who wrote the sermon on the Mount (Mathew 5 to 7)?
 
Last edited:
if you've bought into the idea that Gospels prophecies were written after-the-fact by a pro-Roman Jewish historian who believed that Cesar was Messiah (which BTW not only Atwill suggests, but is also the conclusion of Christian Biblical scholar Joel Watts in ep. 290...

If you think Watts said that "Gospel prophecies were written...by a pro-Roman Jewish historian" then you have seriously misinterpreted your own interview subject.
 
Is the Book of Revelations to be understood as written by a pro-Roman Jewish historian? Are the letters of Paul included in this thesis? Are all non-canonical scriptures included or only specific ones?

Indeed. One of the many major thorns in the side of the Atwill hypothesis is the significant amount of scholarship (including that done by Watts, whom Alex seems to think is saying the same basic thing as Atwill) that demonstrates counter-imperial themes in the New Testament - especially in the Gospel of Mark, the Pauline corpus, and Revelation. The latter is not so mysterious as people think, and it's pretty blatantly clear that the Beast in Revelation is the Roman state.
 
cool. I feel much the same. I look back and am amazed at how long it took to really break free from my (rather ordinary, but none the less crazy) Christian indoctrination. it's shameful that we subject kids to this nonsense. equally shameful that the only ones calling out the Christians are crazy atheists with their biological robot in a meaningless universe shtick.

Every other religion disputes the Christian dogma. I dispute it on my web site. But I have a lot of respect for Christians for reasons I have posted in another thread in this forum. The Christians are a lot closer to the truth than the materialist atheists. Christianity has played an important role in the development of our civilization which protects the rights of the weak. Christian charity and love do not need "calling out". I see Christians as friends and allies not adversaries that need calling out. If you feel it shameful that kids are subjected to it, then as an insider it is reasonable for you to try to change that. But I don't see it as shameful that outsiders don't attack a religion they don't believe in. Their non-belief is a sufficient criticism.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top