Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Open discussion for all registered members.

Atwill on Christian radio now

Postby DaveL » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:16 am

Atwill is being interviewed right now by a Christian theologian on a two-hour program with call-ins:

http://freedomslips.com/

Here's what he says about it:

http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Postby DaveL » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:58 am

The interview mentioned above turned out to be somewhat interesting, in that Atwill was being interviewed by a supposed believing Christian theologian, but it was just as polite as can be. The interviewer hardly objected at all to anything Atwill said. It was kind of surreal, really, and to be contrasted with the interview Atwill did on Infidelguy, where he was seriously taken to task at the end by a(n atheist) caller for supposed logical slip-ups (although the caller had not read the book). I wish I could link to either of these interviews but unfortunately neither seems available online at the moment. One listener to the recent one put a very perceptive comment about it on Atwill's blog: http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2011/12/ ... c-17-2011/

What I wanted to draw attention to today however is that Atwill and Co. are now doing a weekly two-hour show on the same tin-foil-hat network, every Sunday night at 7 pm PT. I listened to the first show last week. The network had server problems so there was dead air for 40 minutes, but then they got going and it went for a whole two hours, and I enjoyed listening to it. It had a very positive, the end of Christianity is nigh, message. There was Atwill, his music score guy from documentary, Fritz Heede (who has a you-tube channel too and has worked with Todd Rungren I think it says), and his producer. The producer said she got involved as the editor of the new edition of the book, and became convinced of it in that process. They talked for an hour and played some excerpts from the doco and then took calls. They had plenty of calls, mostly from people who'd read the book and seemed to be onboard with it, but the others were not confrontational or otherwise antagonistic either. Anyhow, I hope they keep it up.

With the documentary coming out, which features Robert Eisenmann and Acharya S, this is possibly the year that the CM thesis finally gets some attention. Having Acharya should make it of interest to the Zeitgeist crowd, which I think is a good thing, although I put no more stock in the 911 conspiracy than is reflected on the AE or NP shows. Acharya I am at least sympathetic to, and I think Matt gives her too bad of a time, even if she is somewhat woo-prone with the UFOology and what-not. She deserves credit for getting the idea of Jesus mythicism exposed to a lot of people who would have not heard of it otherwise, I think. But anyhow, for all the attention Zeitgeist got, I would always think to myself, why can't the much more compelling and defensible CM thesis get some of this attention. Zeitgeist got enough attention so that if there had been any real substance to it it could have got traction. It simply failed for its lack of merit.

It's amusing to me how much the catholic church bristled about the stupid Dan Brown book and movie, when it is an utterly harmless thesis even if it were true. Who cares if Jesus was married anyhow. Nothing could be more peripheral to any of the relevant issues. CM on the other hand is not so tame so of course the MSM can't go near it. It simply remains a mystery to me why every anti-theist doesn't feel motivated to check into it. There is nothing far fetched at all about a few people with motive and means getting together and making up a religion for a nefarious purpose. Basically, so far as we know, that's the way religions always come to exist. The modern ones have certainly come to be cynically, and as far as the old ones, I think the conviction among many that they had to have arisen innocently is ill-supported. In this case, though, it was a Roman emperor who also just happened to have an entire bureacracy specializing in creating and administering religions (of the Catholic church variety) at his command.

The show can be accessed through the CM site here: http://caesarsmessiahdoc.com/Radio/radio.html
Last edited by DaveL on Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Postby DaveL » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:59 am

(double posted, sorry)
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Acharya?

Postby dobbie » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:07 am

DaveL wrote:
With the documentary coming out, which features Robert Eisenmann and Acharya S, this is possibly the year that the CM thesis finally gets some attention.

I'm speaking just for myself, but I can't think of anybody who is much worse than Acharya S and her so-called scholarship. Any documentary that stoops to include her opinions gets less credit in my all-knowing view.
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Postby DaveL » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:54 am

Well, I don't think you should read too much into her being in it, Dobbie, in advance of seeing it. Anyhow nobody's perfect. Bart Ehrmann who I suppose is very knowledgable and I know is widely respected, argues that Jesus was historical on ridiculously specious logic. Robert Price I also admire but has astonishing lapses. Of course Atwill's not going to have a lot of mainstream people in it. He could benefit from her army of admirers, though, and armed with a workable idea they might get the thing off the ground.

I have no idea that she has even bought into his thesis. She's on record as believing the gospels were written after 100 CE I think. I don't understand why she believes this. Maybe there is reason to not consider it established they were written in the 70s and 80s (if the CM thesis is not accepted, say), but I have never heard any hard evidence they didn't exist before a date that late. Anyhow I have wondered from time to time why she wouldn't come over to the CM idea since she is already saying the Romans did it, but I don't think she says exactly who and when. So seems to me Atwill is basically giving her ideas the support she didn't have. She ought to be thanking him for proving her (partially) right.

I think the better approach is to consider the thesis on its own merits, and not get wrapped around who is for it or against it. I sometimes think Atwill overstates his case in some areas, but in the large as you probably know by now I think it can't possibly be wrong. That's because I think the parallels are too rich to be accidental, the whole idea seems entirely plausible and consistent with undisputed history, and the alternative of Christianity emerging innocently and yet eventually becoming the official Roman religion is itself very unlikely. The idea of Romans worshipping a jew in that time seems pretty ridiculous to me. They were fighting wars with them for hundreds of years.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

yik

Postby dobbie » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:20 am

DaveL wrote:
Well, I won't think you should read too much into her being in it, Dobbie, in advance of seeing it. Anyhow nobody's perfect.
Well, I don't ever expect Archarya S to be perfect. I say that she’s not a scholar of any merit, because her information is fraught with pure personal conjecture.

She's on record as believing the gospels were written after 100 CE I think. I don't understand why she believes this.
I say that when you read her reasons for believing it, you still won’t understand why she believes it. Ha. I’ve read some of those reasons, and they’re so bad, I could weep.

I think the better approach is to consider the thesis on its own merits, and not get wrapped around who is for it or against it.
Well, I’m not talking about Atwill’s thesis. I’m talking about what’s her face and her lousy ways of “scholarship.â€
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Postby Apate » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:10 am

Greetings and Whew !

I actually read all 7 pages of this thread and have read Caesar's Messiah plus have spoken to Mr. Atwill about its flaws that I percieve and how my perceptions differ , but came away very impressed with the man and understand what he is attempting to do .

Being a posting member of his forum I can truely say that his critics and some followers don't seem to understand what he is showing in his work .

The biggest flaw in the work of Atwill and theologians is they both tell us the gospels were written in the 1st century ... no evidence exists for this .

The best scholars in this field of study actually put some of the Pauline Epistles as the first writings , Robert Eisenman is among this group and basis his findings on the fact that Paul knows nothing of a human Jesus or his trials and tribulations .

The most important thing to remember is not who has the truth but that we can search without fear of persecution .

Apate The Epaphroditus
Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth .
Apate
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:23 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby DaveL » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:49 am

Apate wrote:
The biggest flaw in the work of Atwill and theologians is they both tell us the gospels were written in the 1st century ... no evidence exists for this .



I don't see how that would be particularly a flaw for CM. If there were hard evidence they were written before the 70s or significantly later, then that would be a problem, but there simply isn't much hard evidence either way on any of the NT of when it was written, is my understanding.

I was reading the other night on wikipedia about the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were probably hidden during the First Jewish War, and so anything there can be dated to that period or before, presumably. What the wikipedia article goes on about is how far back the DSSs pushed back the oldest available manuscript dates compared to what was available prior. Typically by a thousand years I guess. But they didn't have any of the literature we call Christian today, just Old Testament stuff and other stuff that was messianic but not the familiar Christianity. Rather, it is the militantly messianic literature that inspired the rebellion. This kind of Christianity does not either give Caesar His due nor turn the other cheek, ha ha. That certainly fits in fine with CM. Had there been any early gospel copies there they would disprove CM. But Atwill says that explaining the absense was one of the things he sought to explain.

As has been raised upthread (by Matt D) most scholars accept that the Pauline literature is from the 50s. This cannot be true if CM is true, of course. But, Atwill argues it too is part of the fraud, added by Domitian, along with Revelations and I recently heard or read that he also thinks G John was part of Domitian's addition. Domitian had quite a longer reign than Titus or Vespasian, so had time to do quite a lot in that department if he so desired.

So, anyhow, just what kind of evidence do you expect? Seems to me, if we accept that Josephus' War of the Jews dates to the 70s CE, which is probably not contestable (it has a dedication page signed by Titus, who died in the 70s I think), then the two-way references between WOTJ and the gospels establishes them as contemporaneous. Personally I find the nature of these mutual references very convincing that they cannot be accidental. Have I mentioned this previously?

Apate wrote:
The best scholars in this field of study actually put some of the Pauline Epistles as the first writings , Robert Eisenman is among this group and basis his findings on the fact that Paul knows nothing of a human Jesus or his trials and tribulations .



What I said already, plus the observation that (according to wikipedia) these scholars date the Pauline literature from that it is apparently set in the 50s. They have apparently not even considered it (the accepted "authentic" part at least) can be a cynical fraud from start to finish. Atwill's next book is going to explain the typology in it and revelations with respect to the historical writings by Domitian's pet historian. Is that Tacitus? For a while he had a lot of it posted on his (old) website and it seemed pretty convincing to me, just like CM.

Eisenman and Atwill are fairly close, you probably know. I think they wrote a paper together one time, and Eisenman has a blurb on the back of the CM first edtion, and is in the documentary. Did Atwill say he hoped to have him on the show? Anyhow it will be interesting to see what he says in the documentary or on the show. Most of his well-known work is older than the CM thesis. I wonder if he will buy into it unreservedly. I suspect Acharya won't. That Rod Blackhirst guy apparently came up with it independently and so is in agreement. He didn't spot the typology, he just figured it out from historical knowledge. There was a guy like that that I linked to upthread.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Re: The Odyssey a blueprint for Mark?

Postby dobbie » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:17 pm

And here's a video series with the idea that the Gospel of Mark imitated Homer's "Odyssey." Is it a reach?

Excavating The Empty Tomb - Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTJT67kgsfc&feature=relmfu
15:05

Excavating The Empty Tomb - Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-4iS1qfRo&feature=relmfu
12:10
Dobbie comment: Roman legions were typically composed of up to 5000 even 6000 men. Not just 2000 as the video claims.

Excavating The Empty Tomb - Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJAcX_K5YA4&feature=relmfu
08:07

Excavating The Empty Tomb - Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyhKhpFppI8&feature=relmfu
10:58
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Re: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Postby Lausten » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:09 pm

dobbie wrote:I'm speaking just for myself, but I can't think of anybody who is much worse than Acharya S and her so-called scholarship. Any documentary that stoops to include her opinions gets less credit in my all-knowing view.

Can't stand the woman. I agree, using her as a reference seriously degrades the work.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Postby DaveL » Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:08 pm

Lausten wrote:
dobbie wrote:I'm speaking just for myself, but I can't think of anybody who is much worse than Acharya S and her so-called scholarship. Any documentary that stoops to include her opinions gets less credit in my all-knowing view.

Can't stand the woman. I agree, using her as a reference seriously degrades the work.


I can't find it now but the other day I came across a posting by her denigrating Atwill and stating that she didn't want people to think she bought into his thesis. She scorns him for supposedly thinking a translated pun is proof, or something to that effect. Of course that is a false representation and vast oversimplification of what the thesis is all about.

I'm sure she's just jealous that Atwill figured out the true meaning of things when she wasn't up to it, and she's not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Well, two more weeks until the CM documentary blue ray is for sale, and there seems to be a lot more activity on the interwebs about CM. There are a lot of new, mostly favorable reviews for the new edition on amazon, and the sales rank has gone from around 500K to 25K. The documentary trailer on youtube went from 5K to 16K views in just a few days, I think.

The premiere info is on the CM website, of course, starting 28 Sept in LA and going for a week.

Atwill has an interesting blog post about a well-respected bible scolar agreeing on his interpretation that Josephh of Aramethea is really a reference to Josephus aka Joseph Bar Matthias. This is a guy who has been praised by Price for not being afflicted by "parallelomania" (according to Atwill : http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2012/09/ ... es-atwill/ ). This is of course something short of endorsing the entire thesis, but on the other hand it is an important element, if only a small part. How can one be a pun on the other if it is not an allusion in the gospel to how Josephus also took three people down from the cross and one lived. What is that allusion doing in there if the CM thesis is not generally true?

There are a number of new CM-related internet radio shows. A (apparently often woo-ridden) Scandanavian show called Red Ice did a Atwill interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuqwmMpV2oo . Also American Heathen did two shows, one interviewing Atwill and one interviewing the documentary movie makers (Frtiz Heede and his wife): http://americanheathen.net/podcasts/AH070712-21-S6.mp3

This is another thing I just found looking for the others, that I haven't listened to: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rob-Simone-Ta ... ic&sr=1-13

I've been busy with my crackpot hobby physics project. Anybody who's interested in fundamental physics can look at my paper where I provide a deep new explanation for the existence both the magnetic and strong forces: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4343. I suspect it will explain the existence of the weak force as well but I haven't got that far yet. Also, earlier this year I got cited in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature (American Journal of Physics) by none other than David Griffiths (who has written three very widely-used and respected physics textbooks), for my research into the effect of so-called "hidden" momentum on spin orbit coupling. The story is on my blog: http://quantumskeptic.blogspot.com/2012 ... cites.html . AJP rejected the paper but Griffiths cited the e-print on arxiv anyhow (favorably, BTW) in a review article in the same journal. (It's behind a paywall but there's proof via the Harvard ADS database linked on my blog.) I had a nice carreer going as a crackpot, when suddenly he comes along and mainstreams me, without so much as a by-your-leave. Now I have to start all over.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Re: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Postby DaveL » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:14 pm

I haven't made any comment since the CM documentary came out so I think will make just a few. It's not entirely bad but it's not great. I guess it probably won't convince many people on its own. The best it can hope for is to convince people to read the book. It's very professionally shot and assembled, though, and Fritz Heede's techno background music is pretty cool. It is seriuously marred by having Acharya in it, in that she doesn't agree with the thesis, and doesn't have anything interesting to say in it. (I thought she used to say some interesting things on occasion in old Infidelguy interviews.) Also there's some other new-agey guy who shouldn't have been included. (I forget his name and my copy is loaned out right now. When I get it back I will try to make some more specific comments.)

In addition to the full documentary, it's also possible to buy an excerpt that's about a half-hour of just Atwill explaining the "Flavian signature". I kind of like this better than the whole doco, but even so it can only make a plausibility argument since the proof is in the details. I loaned it to a friend of mine, who said he found it interesting enough so that he'd like to see the whole documentary, but not really very convincing on its face. At this point I made up an analogy that I maybe is useful here so I will share it. It is, the relationship between the canonical gospels and Josephus is similar to that between the spoof Bored of the Rings and the original Lord of the Rings. (If you liked LOTR but never read BOTR you should look into it because BOTR is very funny.)

Suppose that everyone read BOTR (under some other name than BOTR that didn't so obviously refer to LOTR, though) but that nobody had read LOTR or seen the movies, and thought BOTR was an independent and non-satirical work of fiction, and that BOTR was much beloved for its adventurous storyline and color. You, on the other hand, one day discover LOTR at a garage sale and read it and come to realize that BOTR is but a satire of LOTR. It is completely obvious that this is the case if you read both LOTR and BOTR. Pretty much every detail in BOTR can be traced in some way to LOTR, the story outlines are remarkably similar, and pretty much all of the character and place names in BOTR can be related to those in LOTR. (It's also clear to you beyond doubt that BOTR is a spoof of LOTR, not the other way around.) So naturally you try to explain your remarkable discovery, expecting to be easily able to convince people that BOTR is but a spoof of LOTR, but this turns out to be more difficult than expected.

Take for example the story of Goodgulf's encounter with the evil and powerful Ballhog. You say, it's not really about a wzard and a basketball ball hog, it's referring to a battle between a wizard named Gandalf and a creature called a Balrog that's big and burning hot and evil. In reply, you are told that that sounds only vaguely similar and isn't the least bit convincing that the beloved work of fiction BOTR isn't on the up-and-up. So you give more example correspondences but the answer is always similar. Everyone says, you could pull examples like that out of virtually any fantasy-adventure story, so it doesn't mean a thing. You are then ridiculed for your crackpottery and those rare people who actually get copies of LOTR on your advice, and see for themselves how obvious it is that BOTR is but a spoof of it, are ridiculed as gullible fools (particularly by literary scholars who have their own complex theories about the stle and rich allegorical meanings of BOTR).

I think this is not too dissimilar to the situation with the CM thesis. It's not very convincing to most people on its face, because the real proof is in the richness of the literary correspondence, and including of course the humor. If everyone has been reading BOTR and thinking it no more a comedy than we think LOTR is, but then you suddenly see how incredibly funny it is, it becomes obvious that BOTR is referring to LOTR.

It's not a perfect analogy (in that for example Josephus' War of the Jews is not a straight work of history or written independently of the gospels, whereas LOTR is independent of BOTR and LOTR has no ulterior motive (at least related to BOTR (other than to make money, obviously)).
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Re: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Postby Lausten » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:20 pm

First, Tolkien definitely had an ulterior motive. His friendship with C.S. Lewis is well known and they discussed bringing Christian themes to literature. But that's an aside.

Your analogy only applies to people who pick up two books, or movies or otherwise hear two stories and attempt to make connections between the two. That's most people. We do it, usually, we very little knowledge of the life of the authors, their motivations, what they read, what influenced them, where they traveled, who they met, what inspired them, etc. When evaluating the theme of a story, those things don't really matter. If the theme touches you in some way, that's great.

But a documentary is by definition claiming to say something about all that. It is claiming to know "why". In the case of Xtianity, where the "why" is very important, making that claim is pretty important. All of these Archarya like attempts to link other myths to Jesus do a sloppy job of it. Like conspiracy theories, they present similarities and control the information they present, leaving out contradictory evidence or any discussion of probabilities or likelihoods of the connections having happened in the ANE.

If someone was unconvinced that BOTR was based on LOTR, you could call the guy who wrote BOTR and ask him. That would pretty well seal it. Or, you could read the back cover and it would tell you. When studying history, we don't have it so easy. If some Egyptian hieroglyphs were found mixed in with the Dead Sea scrolls, that would have been nice. But we don't have that. There isn't even any half-way decent textual criticism that I have seen. It's pure speculation and fun and games. No more meaningful than trying to piece together the timeline for Star Trek.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Postby DaveL » Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:17 pm

Lausten wrote:If someone was unconvinced that BOTR was based on LOTR, you could call the guy who wrote BOTR and ask him. That would pretty well seal it. Or, you could read the back cover and it would tell you. When studying history, we don't have it so easy. If some Egyptian hieroglyphs were found mixed in with the Dead Sea scrolls, that would have been nice. But we don't have that. There isn't even any half-way decent textual criticism that I have seen. It's pure speculation and fun and games. No more meaningful than trying to piece together the timeline for Star Trek.


Lausten, the point I was trying to make is that the correspondence between LOTR and BOTR is so obvious after reading them both that there's no need to call the author of BOTR or read the back cover (or the preface). After reading them both with no confirmation from the author, I think I could feel completely certain that BOTR is a spoof of LOTR. Anybody who thinks this is plausible would probably find reading CM worthwhile.

It turns out that Atwill has now posted that "Flavian Signature" half-hour excerpt from the documentary on you tube. It's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqG8w7ezUQ

Again, I don't claim it's a convincing argument for the CM thesis in itself. Seems to me it's at best a convincing argument to read the book, and particularly that one chapter. There is an e-book version for $8.39:

http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-C ... 7s+messiah
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison
DaveL
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:35 pm

Re: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Postby Lausten » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Then I don't get the point of the analogy. I thought you were defending CM, now you are comparing it to a spoof. or, which one is a spoof now?
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests