Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[proudfootz]

It's probably too much to start a new conspiracy thread, so will make a short reply here. Two words: controlled opposition.

"A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said ''"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

Count Mirabeau was part of the controlled opposition, because although everyone thought he was supporting the revolution, in reality he supported the monarchy and was a personal friend of the king. He was a government agent. " -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Controlled opposition

Also, there were many different Christian sects at the time, and those who were different than what the Romans wanted no doubt got persecuted, like the Gnostics. Christianity was turned into an early and very successful controlled opposition movement. Protestantism was a later controlled opposition, manufactured by the Vatican. Islam was yet another controlled opposition started by the Vatican.

Thanks for the reply!

But as far as I can see the Romans did not practice this technique on their opposition (the Gauls, the Britons, the Germans, the Persians, the Egyptians, et al).

The Romans were clever - no doubt. But their typical response to opposition seems to have been brute force (as seen in Judea time and again).

 

[davefoc]

With controlled opposition it's important to make it look real. They needed to act as if Christianity was an enemy of the Roman power elite. It's a huge stage magician trick basically.

Without dates and locations I'm still not sure what you're proposing. If you are proposing that Constantine envisioned creating a national religion as a means of unifying his country, that seems like a real possibility and I've seen something like that suggested before. It is also way out of the time frame in question here.

If you're suggesting the Romans created a Christian movement in Jerusalem among the Jewish population contemporary with the life of the hypothetical HJ for the purposes of creating a controlled opposition, I think it is wildly unlikely that you are correct about that. Since there is almost no reliable evidence about any hypothetical early Jewish Christian group it seems remote in the extreme that you would have any evidence about the specifics of what the Romans had to do with the group.

If you're suggesting that the Romans created a Christian movement amongst gentile followers of a Judaism based religion roughly around the time of the creation of Christianity for the purposes of controlling a tiny population without any known significant political power I can't imagine why you would think they would do something like that. Do you have any evidence for any of your posts about this? Could you be more specific about what you are talking about?>

The same with Martin Luther that managed to escape being burned at the stake, not because the Catholic Church was powerless but because they allowed it to happen and most likely even trained Luther for the task of starting Protestantism as a controlled opposition movement.

Frankly, this idea sounds nuts and I'm not sure you're suggesting it as a hypothetical wildly unlikely possibility or you really think this happened.

 

[Brainache]

It's probably too much to start a new conspiracy thread, so will make a short reply here. Two words: controlled opposition.

"A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said ''"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

Count Mirabeau was part of the controlled opposition, because although everyone thought he was supporting the revolution, in reality he supported the monarchy and was a personal friend of the king. He was a government agent. " -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Controlled opposition

Also, there were many different Christian sects at the time, and those who were different than what the Romans wanted no doubt got persecuted, like the Gnostics. Christianity was turned into an early and very successful controlled opposition movement. Protestantism was a later controlled opposition, manufactured by the Vatican. Islam was yet another controlled opposition started by the Vatican.

I'm a little surprised to say that I think you may have a point. But I think the "Controlled Opposition" was being run by the Herodians in Judea, not the Romans.

In my thread "Paul the Herodian..." I propose the idea that Paul and his cohorts in Antioch were propagating a form of Messianic Judaism in opposition to the James Gang in Jerusalem; That "Menachem The Essene" was the "Manaen" who was raised by Herod the Tetrarch and who later tried to take over the Revolt against Rome before being thrown out by the Zealots.

I propose that Paul, Menachem, Lucius etc (the list of names is in Acts) were trying to take control of the opposition to Rome in Palestine and that they were tools of the Herodian ruling family.

I don't think that the Romans under Nero were that subtle, they were more likely to just chop heads off, rather than get involved in complex plots.

 

[dejudge]

Without dates and locations I'm still not sure what you're proposing. If you are proposing that Constantine envisioned creating a national religion as a means of unifying his country, that seems like a real possibility and I've seen something like that suggested before. It is also way out of the time frame in question here.

It boggles the mind how people here can invent their own stories from imagination.

We have writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius where it is claimed and implied that Vespasian was declared the Prophesied Messianic ruler--the God, Savior and Healer of the Roman Empire.

There was NO new religion installed by Roman Emperors up to the 4th century.

Romans were still sacrificing to Greek/Romans Gods and to the Emperor of Rome up to the 4th century

Josephus' Wars of the Jews 7.4

But as soon as the news was come that he was hard by, and those that had met him at first related with what good humor he received every one that came to him, then it was that the whole multitude that had remained in the city, with their wives and children, came into the road, and waited for him there; and for those whom he passed by, they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of his countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome.

Suetonius' Life of Vespasian

A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. 3 Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success.

Any person who worshiped any other characters as Gods would be systematically eradicated as is found in the Pliny letter.

Pliny's Letter to Trajan

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.

 

[davefoc]

[post above]

My apologies, but I don't see how this relates to anything I've posted. I also don't seem to understand what Anders Lindman is talking about so perhaps the problem is mine.

 

[davefoc]

...

I propose that Paul, Menachem, Lucius etc (the list of names is in Acts) were trying to take control of the opposition to Rome in Palestine and that they were tools of the Herodian ruling family.

...

I should probably read through that thread before asking a question. I think I did in part but it was awhile ago anyway.

But could you supply a few more details of this idea? I get the idea that Paul might have been a tool of the ruling family, but is your claim here that the Herodians hatched a plan to undermine an anti-Rome movement by creating a sect to counter the anti-Rome movement and Christianity arose out of an amazingly garbled version of the story promulgated by the sect that the Herodians had created? Sorry, I'm being serious here but I am afraid I am way off the mark as to what you mean.

 

[Brainache]

I should probably read through that thread before asking a question. I think I did in part but it was awhile ago anyway.

But could you supply a few more details of this idea? I get the idea that Paul might have been a tool of the ruling family, but is your claim here that the Herodians hatched a plan to undermine an anti-Rome movement by creating a sect to counter the anti-Rome movement and Christianity arose out of an amazingly garbled version of the story promulgated by the sect that the Herodians had created? Sorry, I'm being serious here but I am afraid I am way off the mark as to what you mean.

It's something like that. If Prof. Eisenman's hypothesis is correct, Paul was the "Spouter Of Lies" who poured deceit upon "The Peoples" (usually meaning the gentiles and the "God-Fearers" or "Nil'vim") mentioned in the DSS (notably the Habakkuk and Psalm 37 Peshers and the Damascus Document). This lying Spouter is depicted as leading the people astray by removing the observance of the Law as a requirement for righteousness, just as Paul did.

Whether or not Paul came up with this on his own, or as an agent of the Herodian ruling class, I'm not sure.

This Menachem character is interesting, I'm not sure if he is the "Manaen" mentioned in Acts as being one of Paul's companions at Antioch and as being "raised with Herod The Tetrarch as a brother", but there is mention in the Talmud of one "Menachem The Essene" who was raised by Herod (in the sense of being promoted in rank) and given gifts etc by Herod as well.

Josephus also mentions a Menachem who came down to Jerusalem at the start of the revolt bearing the King's colours. He tried to take over the revolution, but the other Revolutionaries threw him out.

So, I'm drawing a bit of a long bow, I know, but the references are there in the "Paul the Herodian..." thread somewhere, maybe start at around page 9 or ten. I don't have time to look it up now.

Habakkuk Pesher:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Psalms Pesher:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

Damascus Document:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

"Manachem" in Josephus:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-2/chapter-17.html

.... In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition, and gave orders for continuing the siege; but they wanted proper instruments, and it was not practicable to undermine the wall, because the darts came down upon them from above. But still they dug a mine from a great distance under one of the towers, and made it totter; and having done that, they set on fire what was combustible, and left it; and when the foundations were burnt below, the tower fell down suddenly. Yet did they then meet with another wall that had been built within, for the besieged were sensible beforehand of what they were doing, and probably the tower shook as it was undermining; so they provided themselves of another fortification; which when the besiegers unexpectedly saw, while they thought they had already gained the place, they were under some consternation. However, those that were within sent to Manahem, and to the other leaders of the sedition, and desired they might go out upon a capitulation: this was granted to the king's soldiers and their own countrymen only, who went out accordingly; but the Romans that were left alone were greatly dejected, for they were not able to force their way through such a multitude; and to desire them to give them their right hand for their security, they thought it would be a reproach to them; and besides, if they should give it them, they durst not depend upon it; so they deserted their camp, as easily taken, and ran away to the royal towers, - that called Hippicus, that called Phasaelus, and that called Mariamne. But Manahem and his party fell upon the place whence the soldiers were fled, and slew as many of them as they could catch, before they got up to the towers, and plundered what they left behind them, and set fire to their camp. This was executed on the sixth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul].

And:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-15/chapter-10.html

Now there was one of these Essens, whose name was Manahem, who had this testimony, that he not only conducted his life after an excellent manner, but had the foreknowledge of future events given him by God also. This man once saw Herod when he was a child, and going to school, and saluted him as king of the Jews; but he, thinking that either he did not know him, or that he was in jest, put him in mind that he was but a private man; but Manahem smiled to himself, and clapped him on his backside with his hand, and said," However that be, thou wilt be king, and wilt begin thy reign happily, for God finds thee worthy of it. And do thou remember the blows that Manahem hath given thee, as being a signal of the change of thy fortune. And truly this will be the best reasoning for thee, that thou love justice [towards men], and piety towards God, and clemency towards thy citizens; yet do I know how thy whole conduct will be, that thou wilt not be such a one, for thou wilt excel all men in happiness, and obtain an everlasting reputation, but wilt forget piety and righteousness; and these crimes will not be concealed from God, at the conclusion of thy life, when thou wilt find that he will be mindful of them, and punish time for them." Now at that time Herod did not at all attend to what Manahem said, as having no hopes of such advancement; but a little afterward, when he was so fortunate as to be advanced to the dignity of king, and was in the height of his dominion, he sent for Manahem, and asked him how long he should reign. Manahem did not tell him the full length of his reign; wherefore, upon that silence of his, he asked him further, whether he should reign ten years or not? He replied, "Yes, twenty, nay, thirty years;" but did not assign the just determinate limit of his reign. Herod was satisfied with these replies, and gave Manahem his hand, and dismissed him; and from that time he continued to honor all the Essens. We have thought it proper to relate these facts to our readers, how strange soever they be, and to declare what hath happened among us, because many of these Essens have, by their excellent virtue, been thought worthy of this knowledge of Divine revelations.

 

[dejudge]

It boggles the mind how people here can invent their own stories from imagination.

We have writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius where it is claimed and implied that Vespasian was declared the Prophesied Messianic ruler--the God, Savior and Healer of the Roman Empire.

There was NO new religion installed by Roman Emperors up to the 4th century.

Romans were still sacrificing to Greek/Romans Gods and to the Emperor of Rome up to the 4th century.

Josephus' Wars of the Jews 7.4

But as soon as the news was come that he was hard by, and those that had met him at first related with what good humor he received every one that came to him, then it was that the whole multitude that had remained in the city, with their wives and children, came into the road, and waited for him there; and for those whom he passed by, they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of his countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome.

Suetonius' Life of Vespasian

A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. 3 Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success.

Any person who worshiped any other characters as Gods would be systematically eradicated as is found in the Pliny letter.

Pliny's Letter to Trajan

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.

My apologies, but I don't see how this relates to anything I've posted. I also don't seem to understand what Anders Lindman is talking about so perhaps the problem is mine.

My apologies to you. You may have a problem. You respond to posts which you now admit that you don't understand.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]There was NO new religion installed by Roman Emperors up to the 4th century. [ . . . ]

Is this strictly true?
I had the impression Isis and Sarapis were popularised in the first centuries of our era by Imperial favour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Isis_in_the_Roman_Empire

 

[dejudge]

I propose that Paul, Menachem, Lucius etc (the list of names is in Acts) were trying to take control of the opposition to Rome in Palestine and that they were tools of the Herodian ruling family.

Your proposal is Crackpot, Crackpot, Crackpot !! Acts of the Apostles is NOT a credible historical source and is a known major source of fiction, myth fables, discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events that could not have happened.

 

[Brainache]

Your proposal is Crackpot, Crackpot, Crackpot !! Acts of the Apostles is NOT a credible historical source and is a known major source of fiction, myth fables, discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events that could not have happened.

So therefore everybody named in it is a myth? Really? Even when we have other sources naming the same person?

I'm not talking about anything miraculous here, just one of the people who was said to be one of Paul's companions at Antioch.

 

[dejudge]

Your proposal is Crackpot, Crackpot, Crackpot !! Acts of the Apostles is NOT a credible historical source and is a known major source of fiction, myth fables, discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events that could not have happened.

So therefore everybody named in it is a myth? Really? Even when we have other sources naming the same person?

I'm not talking about anything miraculous here, just one of the people who was said to be one of Paul's companions at Antioch.

Your proposition is Crackpot. Saul/Paul of Tarsus in Acts is without corroboration in all non-Apologetic sources which mentioned the Herodians or Manahem.

 

[Brainache]

Your proposition is Crackpot. Saul/Paul of Tarsus in Acts is without corroboration in all non-Apologetic sources which mentioned the Herodians or Manahem.

Unless you count the "Saulus" in Josephus. He seems a likely candidate to me.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

...But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.
...

 

[dejudge]

Unless you count the "Saulus" in Josephus. He seems a likely candidate to me.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

Your proposal is still Crackpot. You have NO evidence that Saulus is Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was supposed to be in Rome around c 62-64 CE for at least 2 years awaiting a hearing or trial under Nero.

In fact, Saul/Paul was supposedly held in CUSTODY since the time of Felix and sent to Rome under Festus.

Saulus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9 was in Judea when Jesus the son of Gamaliel was high priest c 62-64 the same time Paul in Acts was locked up or in Rome.

Please, no more Crackpot proposals.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Brainache]

Your proposal is still Crackpot. You have NO evidence that Saulus is Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was supposed to be in Rome around c 62-64 CE for at least 2 years awaiting a hearing or trial under Nero.

In fact, Saul/Paul was supposedly held in CUSTODY since the time of Felix and sent to Rome under Festus.

Saulus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9 was in Judea when Jesus the son of Gamaliel was high priest c 62-64 the same time Paul in Acts was locked up or in Rome.

Please, no more Crackpot proposals.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

But Acts is a load of mystical apologetic nonsense, isn't it? Why have you suddenly decided to believe what the authors of Acts want you to think?

 

[dejudge]

Your proposal is still Crackpot. You have NO evidence that Saulus is Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was supposed to be in Rome around c 62-64 CE for at least 2 years awaiting a hearing or trial under Nero.

In fact, Saul/Paul was supposedly held in CUSTODY since the time of Felix and sent to Rome under Festus.

Saulus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9 was in Judea when Jesus the son of Gamaliel was high priest c 62-64 the same time Paul in Acts was locked up or in Rome.

Please, no more Crackpot proposals.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

But Acts is a load of mystical apologetic nonsense, isn't it? Why have you suddenly decided to believe what the authors of Acts want you to think?

You have no idea how history is done. You knew in advance of posting that Acts is a "load of mystical apologetic nonsense" yet used it to argue that Paul in Acts was a figure of history.

Your proposal is a perfect Crackpot.

 

[Brainache]

You have no idea how history is done. You knew in advance of posting that Acts is a "load of mystical apologetic nonsense" yet used it to argue that Paul in Acts was a figure of history.

Your proposal is a perfect Crackpot.

A "perfect crackpot"?

I'm just revealing your own inconsistencies, how is that "crackpot"?

This confusion is entirely yours.

 

[dejudge]

A "perfect crackpot"?

I'm just revealing your own inconsistencies, how is that "crackpot"?

This confusion is entirely yours.

Your memory has failed you again. You are using a list of names in Acts which is a "load of mystical apologetic nonsense".

...I propose that Paul, Menachem, Lucius etc (the list of names is in Acts) were trying to take control of the opposition to Rome in Palestine and that they were tools of the Herodian ruling family.

But Acts is a load of mystical apologetic nonsense, isn't it? Why have you suddenly decided to believe what the authors of Acts want you to think?

You believe the "load of mystical apologetic nonsense" called Acts contains the history for your Crackpot proposal.

 

[Brainache]

Your memory has failed you again. You are using a list of names in Acts which is a "load of mystical apologetic nonsense".





You believe the "load of mystical apologetic nonsense" called Acts contains the history for your Crackpot proposal.

All I'm taking from Acts is a couple of names, unlike you who earlier called Acts a book of nonsense, and then used it to argue all sorts of the usual rubbish:

Your proposal is still Crackpot. You have NO evidence that Saulus is Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was supposed to be in Rome around c 62-64 CE for at least 2 years awaiting a hearing or trial under Nero.

In fact, Saul/Paul was supposedly held in CUSTODY since the time of Felix and sent to Rome under Festus.

Saulus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9 was in Judea when Jesus the son of Gamaliel was high priest c 62-64 the same time Paul in Acts was locked up or in Rome.

Please, no more Crackpot proposals.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why are you using Acts to talk about where Paul was and what he was doing if it is all nonsense?

You appear to not even know what it is you are arguing anymore.

 

[dejudge]

All I'm taking from Acts is a couple of names, unlike you who earlier called Acts a book of nonsense, and then used it to argue all sorts of the usual rubbish

You don't know how history is done that is why your proposal is Crackpot. You took a couple of names from a "load of mystical apologetic nonsense".

Saulus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9 is NOT Saul/Paul in Acts.

Saul/Paul in Acts was in custody or in Rome c 62-64 CE while Saulus was in Judea at around the same time when Jesus the son of Gamaliel was high priest.

Plus, you cannot show that Saulus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9 was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin.


Romans 11:1 KJV---I say then , Hath God cast away his people? God forbid . For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.[/quote]


Philippians 3:5 KJV---Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.

You just take stories in Acts and Galatians 1.19 at face value without even doing any proper research.

Please, no more Crackpot proposals.

Jesus the Rabbi is crackpot.

Paul the Herodian is crackpot.

Saulus was Paul is crackpot.