Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Jesus Was Invented by Romans

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7















News reports are circulating around that a new document claims that Jesus is an invention of the Roman empire in order to pacify its subjects.  As expected, atheists are shouting "ah ha!"  

Is this really so?

The idea comes from Joseph Atwill who is a self-professed American Biblical scholar.  He says he will release the details of his discovery in his work "Covert Messiah" soon.  Atwill says he wants people to know the "truth."   He claims that 'alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods.'  While this is not new, the story appeared last year; Richard Dawkins immediately forwarded it on twitter.  Ignorant atheists who claim to value the ability to question, ironically do not question this news and blindly accept its contents.   

Many Biblical scholars quickly came forward to describe Atwills' theory has nonsense and unfounded.  Some of these scholars are even those who believe Jesus existed but that He was not Divine.  Atwills claims a document from a Roman aristocrat says that the Romans invented Jesus in order to control rebels in Rome.  You can read more of this in his site: http://www.covertmessiah.com/ 

Is Atwill right? 

Absolutely not!  His work can be considered the equivalent of September 11 conspiracy theories.  Atwill is simply recycling the same rubbish that Jesus and other deities/figures have some similarities.  He then concludes that this must mean that Jesus is made up.
Moreover, he adds a text written by a Roman aristocrat to somehow "prove" his theory.  He completely ignores that there are extra-biblical texts supporting the fact that a man named Jesus Christ lived, performed miracles and died over 2000 years ago.  Furthermore, these sources clearly depict that this man was worshiped as a God.  See my debate with an atheist here:

 Is Christ a myth?

If we critically analyze Atwill's work we can see many discrepancies.
  1. He ignores the other sources proving Jesus existed which no scholar rejects.  Even an atheist scholar named Michael Grant said that to claim Jesus is a myth is unfounded.    
  2. Atwill claims Jesus was invented in order to control rebels.  Even if this were true, history shows that this did not work and did not happen. The Roman empire was eventually taken over by the Catholic Church.  Moreover, how can inventing a male figure control rebels? This makes absolutely no sense.  
  3. Atwill also ignores the witness of early Christians who had nothing to do with Rome.  They obviously encountered a person so powerful that they transformed their lives; many even died for the faith this man spread around.  
  4. He ignores that Simon Peter, the first Pope ordained Ignatias of Antioch and that an apostolic succession did occur at a point in time which continues even till today.  The Church did not just appear out of nowhere for the heck of it.  The Catholic Church is not a random anomaly in space and time.  Obviously, something happened to trigger the formation of this huge religion.  Ideas last when they provide fruit.  It is clear that Christianity has such a strong substance in the past that it developed into the powerful force it is today.  Only trees with deep strong roots have a strong foundation and grow strong without interruption.   
  5. Moreover, let's not forget the billions who encounter Christ even today.  


Here are some quotes from scholars, many who are atheists or agnostics.  They all testify to the truth that Jesus is real.

Bart Ehrman,
"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. ….. We have one author who actually knew Jesus' relatives and knew his disciples - Paul."

Michael Grant:
"[That Jesus was a myth] has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars .... no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University:
"some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. ….. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton University:
"Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." (Jesus Within Judaism)
"No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings"
(Jesus and Archaeology, 2005)

Jeffery Jay Lowder:
"I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Craig Evans:
"Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. .... the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding"

Tom Wright:
"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency, as I and many others have shown in works of very detailed historical scholarship. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did, and most agree that he did and said a significant amount at least of what the four gospels say he did and said."

Professor Robert van Voorst ("Jesus Outside the New Testament", p14, 16)
"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."

The verdict is in by over 99% of scholars: JESUS DID EXIST!

Christians have no need to be concerned with this guy's work.  He is just trying to sell a book.  I can write a book saying Thomas Pain did not exist and claim that because we don't have his body, I am correct in making this claim. This would be poor research and logic.  Atwill is doing the same.  He is repeating old refuted arguments and adding a text to them in order to infer that Jesus was an invention only because a Roman around that time period said so.   This is called the False Cause fallacy.

It is a sad day in academia when any text can be used to formulate all kinds of theories.  Imagine 2000 years from now, some scholar reads your best friend's journal where he/she speaks ill of you and that scholar then declares you a jerk only because of that best friend's journal entry.

Atwill is not taken seriously by any scholar in academia.  Even atheists are skeptical of his supposed claims.

Jesus Christ existed as living human being who performed miracles proving Him to be Divine; He still exists today and lives among us in the Blessed Sacrament.  He also lives in the Word we read at Mass and at home in the Bible.  He also lives in our hearts and knocks on the heart of even atheists.  He is also in every person we encounter.

May Jesus Christ be praised forever!        






Sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/biblical-scholar-claims-jesus-was-invented-by-romans/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-09-26/film/caesar-s-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims/

http://www.covertmessiah.com/

http://www.sott.net/article/267291-Ancient-confession-found-We-invented-Jesus-Christ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451087/American-Bible-scholar-claims-ancient-confessions-prove-story-Jesus-Christ-entirely-fabricated-Roman-aristocrats.html


http://www.dailypaul.com/247330/the-roman-empire-and-the-catholic-church-are-about-to-fall-the-roman-conspiracy-to-create-jesus-christ-unveiled

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/no-joe-atwill-rome-did-not-invent-jesus/



3 comments:

  1. I'm sorry, but this assessment is just as ridiculous as the "we" invented Jesus Christ claim. Jesus's existence has not been proven in the least (outside of voluminous adventures in confirmation bias to do so, and it is egregiously deceitful to claim otherwise. The author above claims Paul as confirmation for Jesus's historicity which is tantamount to asking James Frey if 'A million Little Pieces' was non-fiction. Jesus's existence is refuted not by discipline-bound pseudo-historians with "doctoral degrees in divinity", but by history itself, and forensic analysis of comparative myths, religions, and anthropology. Simply put, fictitious name, birth, birthplace, dubious parentage, hagiography, astrological allegory, scant empirical evidence, outlandish death and unsubstantiated claims of miracles indicates invention, wishful thinking, pseudepigrapha, plagiarism, tampering, and in the end irrefutable mythology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, no scholar holds your uninformed opinion. There is indeed evidence for Jesus. In fact, there is MORE evidence for Jesus than for Alexander the Great and even some of the Roman emperors we constantly hear about. Your assertion is based on ignorant atheist propaganda like that of Atwill who splice up bits and pieces here with mix of speculation and assumed similarities to come to the conclusion that Christ is a myth. Again, no informed scholar holds this position. Atheist Michael Grant who is a very well respected historian clearly stated that the suggestion that Jesus is a myth is unfounded. You can choose to believe what a 100% of scholars do not believe, that is your choice. However, it would be foolish to adopt a position that has no substance and that no seriously scholar takes seriously. Paul is mention because he is also a recorded historical figure who preached Jesus' words. Referring to Paul is no different that referring someone who knew Lincoln and wrote on him. Your ideas are based on uneducated views that have been refuted.

      Delete
  2. While I am a firm atheist (by the way, kudos to you for tolerating all my comments recently), even I think the "Jesus Myth Theory" is stupid. The only "notable" atheist I know that flaunts intellectual credentials and says Jesus could be a fabrication is Richard Carrier- and he's a proponent of "Atheism+" which is a stupid marriage of atheism and social justice warrior silliness. He's hard to take seriously.

    In fact, the stories of Jesus in the New Testament are one the very few times critical thinking can be applied and arrive with a positive result. For one, why would the Jews of the time conceptualize a Messiah other than a conqueror? Another "proof" lies in the conflicting stories of Jesus birth. While it's a key example we atheists enjoy poking fundamentalists with to demonstrate "inerrancy" is a myth, massaging the story about the census and Bethlehem/Nazareth is only needed if the author is dealing with an actual person as their subject. If Jesus were nothing more than an invention, the author could simply have him be from Bethlehem rather than concoct the story about traveling for the census.

    I fail to be convinced that Christianity is true or even reasonable. But to deny/doubt that Jesus was a real person? That kind of behavior from anti-theists gives atheists a bad name.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (473) God (320) Atheism (253) Jesus (217) Jesus Christ (215) Bible (180) Pope Francis (166) Atheist (154) LGBT (132) Science (125) Liturgy of the Word (106) Christianity (88) Rosa Rubicondior (78) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (66) Prayer (56) President Obama (56) Physics (47) Philosophy (43) Vatican (39) Christian (38) Christmas (34) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Psychology (32) Women (29) Biology (28) Liturgy (28) Politics (28) Baseball (26) Religious Freedom (24) Space (22) Pope John Paul II (21) NYPD (20) Holy Eucharist (19) Pro Abortion (19) Supreme Court (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Death (14) Health (14) Astrophysics (13) Christ (13) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Illegal Immigrants (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Apologetics (10) Poverty (10) Muslims (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Barack Obama (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Massimo Pigliucci (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)