We invented Jesus

[Megatron]

Gee that sounds familiar... just like the spring fertility festival that somehow became the weekend that Jesus died and came back.

One of the most hilarious things about growing up christian, or being surrounded by christians, is hearing them try (often quite poorly) to explain what eggs and rabbits have to do with Jesus

[Megatron]

But, for reals, I always thought Jesus was a real dude. Of course there was no divine conception or whatever - but I kinda assumed the "virgin birth" thing meant Mary was either raped or had some kind of affair, used the divine conception thing to hide it, and was convincing enough that some people believed her.

That enough would be sufficient to launch a little cult. Hell, there are nutters around today who would buy that shit hook, line and sinker. Then Paul meets this dude and writes a bunch of bullshit that, again, people believe.

Doesn't sound unrealistic at all. A story like that, 2000 years ago, certainly takes a smaller leap of faith than Scientology required out of people born in the 20th century, and look how many people bought that horseshit

It's almost weirder to consider the fact that he didn't exist. Don't most people who create a cult or whatever usually put themselves in the center of it? Doesn't it usually take some nutter saying he's some form of god on earth, or that he's got said god on a two-way radio?

[Vivisectus]

Well, we do have a recent example of a non-historical messiah figure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

edit: actually, looks like there might have actually been someone who adopted the name!

[godfry n. glad]

So, hey....October 19 has come and nearly gone. What did Atwill offer up?

Anything? Anything at all?

It was supposed to be released at a Conway Hall event.

I haven't heard any breathless news reports about how Christianity has been definitively debunked as a Roman sham. I wonder why?

[lpetrich]

Yup. Nothing new. Nothing at Covert Messiah - 19 October 2013 or at Joseph Atwill's Blog since that date. What a flop.

I must say that I've come across an even weirder conspiracy theory, that it was Constantine who invented Christianity, complete with inserting references to it in older books (Mountain Man Dot Com).

It's completely possible that there was a historical Jesus Christ who had little resemblance to what comes down to us in the New Testament and elsewhere. Around half a century ago, the Rastafarians of Jamaica turned Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia into a messiah figure.

Historical basis for King Arthur - Wikipedia goes into gory detail.

Arthur Pendragon supposedly lived around 500 CE, complete with supposedly building a sizable empire. But let's see what we have.

He's not mentioned in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (~890) or Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (~731), and his first mention of him is in a work attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius around 820. "Nennius" lists 12 battles that Arthur fought as a "war commander" (dux bellorum), and states that he fought alongside "the kings of the Britons" rather than himself being a king.

Nennius is followed by various other chroniclers who mention Arthur, chroniclers who add bits and pieces as they go. The situation changes dramatically in 1136, when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his monumental History of the Kings of Britain (Historia Regum Britanniae). It contains not only a detailed biography of Arthur, but also lots of details of the people he associated with, woven together in a complex story. It is the beginning of the familiar form of Arthurian lore.

There's been a lot of argument about who the historical King Arthur had been, and even speculation that he had been entirely mythical. I've done a Lord Raglan scoring of him, and he scores around 14.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Yup. Nothing new. Nothing at Covert Messiah - 19 October 2013 or at Joseph Atwill's Blog since that date. What a flop.

I must say that I've come across an even weirder conspiracy theory, that it was Constantine who invented Christianity, complete with inserting references to it in older books (Mountain Man Dot Com).

Kookaburra Jack, over at Secular Cafe, is a ardent partisan of the Constantine/Eusebius conspiracy crowd. For what it is worth, Eusebius of Ceasarea was a lying lapdog who cobbled together the 'apostolic transmission' with a fair amount of material he probably invented himself. I suspect that he and his acolytes probably got a good start at destroying whatever materials hindered their program.

[lpetrich]

His profile there refers to this page at mountainman.com.au about this theory.

It must be pointed out that mountainman's theory requires much more fakery effort than Joseph Atwill's theory. Xianity was much bigger in 300 CE than in 100 CE, and it also got much more outside mention by 300 CE than by 100 CE. At that earlier date, there are hardly any outside references to Xianity, mostly some controversial and likely bogus references in Josephus's works.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

His profile there refers to this page at mountainman.com.au about this theory.

It must be pointed out that mountainman's theory requires much more fakery effort than Joseph Atwill's theory. Xianity was much bigger in 300 CE than in 100 CE, and it also got much more outside mention by 300 CE than by 100 CE. At that earlier date, there are hardly any outside references to Xianity, mostly some controversial and likely bogus references in Josephus's works.

Yeah...I agree. However, with the Constantine situation, we actually have inklings of tampering and meddling on the part of Eusebius of Ceasarea, Contstantine's Christian lapdog. The entirety of his history of the church is an imaginative attempt to blend real history with wishful thinking and outright lies to establish an 'apostolic transmission' which legitimates the 'orthodoxy'. So, to a certain extent, there was indeed ongoing propaganda manufacture in the fourth century from before the Nicean confab, right on through to the Theodosian Edicts. I also suspect that Eusebius was involved in (perhaps began) the gathering and 'redacting' of existing historical records which reflected negatively upon his claims on behalf of 'the church' (one of the reasons why we don't happen to have the Tacitus chronicles of the period covering the crucifixion - it didn't support orthodox claims).

Remember, the entire 'history' has been repeatedly tampered to suit specific interests....which is what I learned from Bart Ehrman.