By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DarkD on 14 October 2013
Edit Thread
allenmaher said:
DarkD said:
Too many people who either haven't even read the post fully, dismissed it, or don't know what they are talking about.

The claim here is simple, the proofs that christian scholars have been using to prove Jesus lived, was actually fabricated and introduced as a new religion to a uneducated mass. According to the article, this guy is going to debate it with professionals from the religious community, the fact that he's doing that debunks pretty much all of the crap in the posts above.

Whether it holds water should be proven upon further scrutiny in the debate the guy mentioned when actual professionals will argue with him.

I watched the documentary and read the supporting material.  The crux of the thesis aside from the historical jesus arguments which have gone on for a long time on this thread, is that the Flavians manufactured a jewish messianic cult to circumvent further rebellion in judea.  The evidence they presented to make the case was a typoogical comparison of the events Titus Flavius conquest of the rebellious judea and the events of the gospels.  This was the main piece of supporting evidence for the thesis that the Flavians, Vespasian et al., invented the gospels.  And after having read through and watched the arguement I am unconvinced by it.  It is an extrodinary claim and very thin evidence, especially considering that the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavium is disputed.

The surrounding arguments, such as the rather thin historical evidnce, the inconsistencies of the gospels, and so on were interesting but did not do much to support the view that the flavians manufactured Christianity in CE 70 -80.  The letters certainly predated this and there is some historical evidence of early christians prior to this.  So while I think that the authors made interesting side arguments, they failed to offer concrete evidence of thier claims.  Why wait for a proffesional debunking, read, check facts, use critical thinking.

Because regardless of all that you mentioned, it's simply not possible to go through everything that this guy bases his argument on.  He mentioned having found multiple books the christian theological history was based off of, not just one.  So what if that one has a shaky background, who's to say that the others do.  Atwill isn't exactly here to debate flaw you've dug up.  At best you've come up with a legitimate question to ask Atwill at the debate should you attend.  

In short, it's a stupidly complicated issue with incredible amounts of research from all sides giving contradictory explanations for.  Reasearching is fine, but don't start thinking you've debunked something when you've only just probed the surface of it.