By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - JESUS WAS A GOVERNMENT PLOT: Confirmed says Joseph Atwill

theprof00 said:
 

Jesus is not in the Jewish texts.

And don't be too sure about what people will believe. The Jews didn't exactly accept the Christians, as shown in the fall of Alexandria.

Let's not forget that most Christian/catholic holidays also occur exactly on previous pagan holidays, and also let's not forget Jesus' similarity to previous religious leaders.

Buddha:

Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:

“When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”

Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).

Krishna:
According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

Zarathustra:
Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

Attis of Phrygia:
Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

Horus:
Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

 

Interesting how most of these come from areas that the Roman's occupied.



Oh christ.  You are quoting directly from Zeitgeist aren't you. 

For example, the Attis story you quoted is completely fictional.  That's not who or what Attis was.  That's something someone made up, to make attis sound more like Jesus. Banking on the fact that the reader would know nothing about Attis.

That's the case of pretty much literally everything you've listed.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#attis

Seriously man... read something actually historically sourced... with facts.  I held such a higher opinion of you then this.

 



Around the Network
Egann said:
 

Oh, yeah, the similarities to other religions are numerous and cataloged. In fact there are a number more than you pointed out. That's not the point.

The point is that for making a religion from scratch, Judiasm is the last one you would have picked. Judiasm was one of the few religions in the Roman empire which took itself seriously because it assumed it was a factual religion. Religions for the rest of the empire were much more pragmatic and relativistic. The Jews were much more historically aware and convinced of their past than other cultures, and if you doubt compare the Torah with Virgil's Aeneid. The Torah was a history text which literally included censuses. dictating their history. Comparatively speaking, the Roman "we're descended from the Trojans" story has almost no historical detail and just about everyone who read the Aeneid regarded it as revisionistic. History just wasn't culturally important to the Romans, and it wasn't that important for most of the people they conquered. The present was always what was on their minds.

And to compound all this, Judiasm and Jews in general were distinctly unpopular because of their holier-than-thou attitude. Again, religion which took itself seriously when everyone else didn't care. 

Expecting me to believe Roman aristocrats fabricated Christianity is insane. Maybe a Jewish sect would have the knowledge and means (although motive is another matter) but Roman? How many Romans actually knew Judiasm well enough to fake it's EXTREME historophilia? When Israel was a tiny province filled with dime a dozen trouble makers? It just makes no sense. 


Well the problem is, if you read the ones he pointed out.  You'll note they actually aren't ones that are catalogued and all more or less just straight made up or embellshed.

There are broad similarties and  themes in religions, sure.  Including religions that never had any contact with each other ever.

Just how their are tons of connections between tons of mythological monsters across the world in areas that didn't traditionally mix.

 

It's ludicrous in general to suggest such things come from conspiracy theory relgion creation though.  Might as well suggest that China, Romania and North America all have vampire like creatures because of Ancient Aliens.  (also, they actually aren't very similar outside of broad strokes.  They all involve the undead though so clearly ancient aliens.)

 

A better theory though would be just to point out that people on a base level are very similar, with the same questions and fears etc.

 

Paralel Evolution.   If it can happen biologically it sure as hell can happen in religion.



If Christianity was a Roman religion meant to pacify the Jews, they certainly did a very poor job. The Gospel of Matthew was probably aimed at Greeks familiar with Mark; but Mark, Luke, and John were clearly aimed at Greeks, as were all of the epistles, and the vast majority of what would become the apocrypha. They essentially took Jewish culture, and translated it into a easy to digest form for the Platonic Greek audience.

As a result, the first strongholds of Christianity were in Western Anatolia and Greece, as well as Alexandria in Egypt. There is also tradition of Rome being an early stronghold. Israel was not. Christianity, in the the second century, quickly came to become the dominant tradition in Platonism.

Did the Roman government sponsor Christianity? If that were the case, it is fairly strange how there isn't any record of it from Roman Imperials. The earliest letters we have of any Roman officials discussing Christianity are letters from Pliny the Younger addressed to Emperor Trajan, and he doesn't seem to know what Christians are - just that they're some form of secritive cult who have a God named Christ, they met before dawn, and were suspected of disruptive, yet peaceful activity against the government.

The Messiah cults of the Jews usually sprung up when the Romans were being bastards. Hadrian, for example, decided to build a temple of Jupiter on the ruins of the Jewish Temple to God, and this caused a Jewish Messiah to arise and lead the Jews in a revolt. This ended up being the last major Messiah revolt because Hadrian committed genocide slaughtering hundreds of thousands and banishing the remaining Jews from Israel on pain of death. When the Romans wanted something, they used military brutality.

So this guy's opinion is not just far-fetched seeming, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The evidence just isn't there, but there is plenty of contrary evidence.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Kasz216 said:

Oh christ.  You are quoting directly from Zeitgeist aren't you. 

For example, the Attis story you quoted is completely fictional.  That's not who or what Attis was.  That's something someone made up, to make attis sound more like Jesus. Banking on the fact that the reader would know nothing about Attis.

That's the case of pretty much literally everything you've listed.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#attis

Seriously man... read something actually historically sourced... with facts.  I held such a higher opinion of you then this.

 

I dont know anything about Zeitgiest. Is that the athiest equivelant of loose change?



Jumpin

It's because they were not called christians

They were only called christians at antioquia, problably people thought they were followers of Crestus

Actually, I think they changed the names Yahushua, the Messiah, to Yesous Crestus, to get more followers



Around the Network

If Rome invented the bible, the bible would not preach against religion



jesus came from someones head,like the rest of the bible(the original book of science fiction).. look at other bible stories, noah's ark for example,you think a man by himself with no/little carpentry skills,primitive tools built a boat 3 quarters the size of the titanic in a weeks time. and also managed to find some spare time to go out searching for a mass amount of animals(some furicious man eating animals) all without a tranquilizer gun,a vehicle to track them down with and for safety/cover,and also i would think you would need a seperate heavy machinery vehicle to lift the animal up and put it in your first vehicle. its all insane to believe this junk



larrysdirtydrawss said:

jesus came from someones head,like the rest of the bible(the original book of science fiction).. look at other bible stories, noah's ark for example,you think a man by himself with no/little carpentry skills,primitive tools built a boat 3 quarters the size of the titanic in a weeks time. and also managed to find some spare time to go out searching for a mass amount of animals(some furicious man eating animals) all without a tranquilizer gun,a vehicle to track them down with and for safety/cover,and also i would think you would need a seperate heavy machinery vehicle to lift the animal up and put it in your first vehicle. its all insane to believe this junk


What does noahs ark have to do with historical jesus?



The flood is believed in almost all the cultures in the world



Max King of the Wild said:
larrysdirtydrawss said:

jesus came from someones head,like the rest of the bible(the original book of science fiction).. look at other bible stories, noah's ark for example,you think a man by himself with no/little carpentry skills,primitive tools built a boat 3 quarters the size of the titanic in a weeks time. and also managed to find some spare time to go out searching for a mass amount of animals(some furicious man eating animals) all without a tranquilizer gun,a vehicle to track them down with and for safety/cover,and also i would think you would need a seperate heavy machinery vehicle to lift the animal up and put it in your first vehicle. its all insane to believe this junk


What does noahs ark have to do with historical jesus?

I think the point he was trying to make is that relying on religeous texts for history or science is a remarkably poor idea since so much of the books is disprovable.  Treating the new testiment as history is almost as bad as assuming there was a historical flood.  Though the story of the flood was mentioned in babylonian clay tablets several thousand years older than the jewish text which is almost a verbatim copy of a tablet found from 7th century BCE.  Though it is clearly a religeous epic about Ea and Gilgamesh.  There is no possible way a flood of that nature happened.

1. Numerically the number of species claimed to be on board is not posssible

2. There is not enough water on earth to make it remotely possible.

3. A flood of that size would leave easily noticable geological and geomorpholocial disruptions for which there is 0 evidence.

4. The amount of rain, 40 days and 40 nights  really would not cut it, there is a limit to the amount of water the atmosphere can hold and precipitate.

But if you want to argue the historical correctness of the story, it does have several old references for which there are primary sources (one step up on the historical evidence for Jesus).  So I think it is a good example of why you should not treat religeous works as any thing other than a religeous work.