Open full view…

Response to criticisms, please

Mon, 03 Dec 2018 06:14:14 GMT

I have been a big promoter of Ceasar's Messiah and enjoy so much about it. But I am interested in what critics have to say as I've had my share of believing what authorities tell me without challenging it. So I came across a page with a couple of criticisms which apparently successfully contradict some key assertions in Mr. Atwill's work -see below, and I hope that someone can give me a good response. thank you "In AD 110, the Roman governor Pliny writes to the Roman Emperor Trajan about the Christian movement in Bithynia. Here Trajan tells Pliny that Christians should be killed, unless they abandon their faith." "If Christianity was a Roman conspiracy, then why would Tacitus—a Roman historian—claim that Christianity existed in AD 64? And, more importantly, why would the Roman emperor Nero persecute Christians in this way, if Rome was actually trying to support Christianity?"

Sun, 09 Dec 2018 19:18:49 GMT

Link seems to be an argument from incredulity. The Romans tolerated foreign gods but they also blamed them when bad things happened. It would've been odd if Rome did. not persecute christians. "Christianity in the Roman Empire. Roman tolerance did not extend to religions that it perceived as threats to public order within the empire. Cults such as Isis-worship were banned from time to time, when their practice caused unrest." Tacitic confirms Josephus: “The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. Tacitus, Histories 5.13”

Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:57:13 GMT

Also just from the Nero blames the great fire on christians story by Tacitus we have a priest putting words into the mouth of Nero. In light of Joe's work this is more likely propaganda rather than historical. "In ancient Rome, the quindecimviri sacris faciundis were the fifteen (quindecim) members of a college (collegium) with priestly duties. Most notably they guarded the Sibylline Books, scriptures which they consulted and interpreted at the request of the Senate. This collegium also oversaw the worship of any foreign gods which were introduced to Rome." "Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis"

Sun, 23 Dec 2018 01:52:45 GMT

The 4th philosophy(zealots) came from the Essenses. And the Essenes are made up of Pharisees. Or vice versa the Essenes were a subset of Pharisees. "Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii. And the adherents of another party call no one Lord except the Deity, even though one should put them to the torture, or even kill them. But there are others of a later period, who have to such an extent declined from the discipline (of the order), that, as far as those are concerned who continue in the primitive customs, they would not even touch these. And if they happen to come in contact with them, they immediately resort to ablution, as if they had touched one belonging to an alien tribe. But here also there are very many of them of so great longevity, as even to live longer than a hundred years. They assert, therefore, that a cause of this arises from their extreme devotion to relig ion, and their condemnation of all excess in regard of what is served up (as food), and from their being temperate and incapable of anger. And so it is that they despise death, rejoicing when they can finish their course with a good conscience. If, however, any one would even put to the torture persons of this description, in order to induce any amongst them either to speak evil of the law, or eat what is offered in sacrifice to an idol, he will not effect his purpose; for one of this party submits to death and endures torment rather than violate his conscience." "Thus the more than six thousand Pharisees who claimed to be "highly favored by God" and to possess by "divine inspiration foreknowledge of things to come," and who refused to take an oath of fealty to Herod, predicting his downfall while promising children to Bagoas, the eunuch (Josephus, "Ant." xvii. 2, § 4), were scarcely different from those elsewhere called "Essenes" ("Ant." xv. 10, § 4)."

Tue, 08 Jan 2019 10:53:58 GMT

Most of the early Christian communities were in Asia, many in territory controlled by Parthia who was in a war with Rome that lasted over 200 years. The oldest continuous Christian community just recently ended, it was in Iraq. The Christians in that community state that their church was started in 53 AD by Jews, not Romans. If Christianity was started by Romans, who took it to Babylon and how did they survive, considering that any Romans found in Babylon would be considered spys and killed?

Wed, 09 Jan 2019 17:50:51 GMT

Here is more on the great fire at Rome. The term Christian is being applied to the Zealots not the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospel of Peter reads like a rap sheet: “And I and my companions were grieved; and being wounded in mind we hid ourselves: for we were being sought for by them as malefactors, and as wishing to set fire to the temple.” As portrayed by the Gospel writer, Peter and his companion were suspected arsonists. This is in addition to lopping off the ear of the high priest’s servant Malchus (John 18:10-11), a rather unique attribute for the number one follower of the prince of peace. Simon Bar Jonah is not the son of a dove (“Bar Yonah”) as Matthew 16:22-23 portrays him. The name is a corruption for the Hebrew word for Zealot or Bandit, that is “Baryonim.”

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 13:13:56 GMT

i too am interested in responses to criticism. but it is more like wanting to find out how a magician does a trick. when at the end of a trick, the woman returns intact, i know she was not slain with the swords but i don't know how she got out of it. when JA walks you through the events of the gospels and they shadow the events reported in the wars of the jews, that is like seeing the ending of the trick. indisputable done deal. so for me, the other information fills in the blanks on why they couldn't do it one way or the other, not that it didn't get done.