/lit/ - Literature

>>5844660
>skewed/biased to meet some political end

yep, just like the book in your picture.
SJW when will they learn?

>>5844668

sarcasm? can you just answer the fucking question I'm really not in the mood for this right now

guns, germs, steel is just as inaccurate and biased as Zealot.

>>5844660
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/scholarly-misrepresentation/

>>5844690

can you elaborate? lack of citations? misleading inferences?

>>5844660
>reza aslan

Trash/10

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtvXbEMkiCY

>>5844699

his PhD is a in Sociology with a specialization in history of religion dumb dumb

If you want to know about why societies rise and fall read Gobineau.

>>5844734

>Fr.

Dropped

>>5844660
Not at all, as Jesus is a literary character, an allegory, not an historical person. People can speculate all they want, but there are no material proof of the existence of Jesus.

The official literary corpus written about him thought, typologically represent him as the prophetic forerunner of Titus Flavius, a Roman emperor. The most logical theory is that Christianity is the reformed Flavian imperial cult.

Pic related, this book details the typology linking Jesus to Titus.

>>5844734

I don't even need to watch the video. If Fr Barron is against it, you know it's shit.

I'm not even catholic or theist lol, but Barron is based as fuck.

>>5844783
lol nah

>>5845218
>replying to pasta

Watch some of Aslan's "debates"

He tries to pass off history, logic, and truth as some kind of arbitrary western invention of the 20th century.

According to Aslan, if you pointed to a rock on the ground and asked a biblical man what it was he wouldn't be able to answer you, because "reality" is a modern invention.

>>5845218
Nice refutation, it will convince someone, I'm sure
>>5845240
Not pasta, I actually write unique post each and every time. Too bad if it irk your theist beliefs. You're the butt of a nearly two thousand years old joke.

>15 (now 16) posts, not a single one on-topic
Good job, /lit/

>>5845320
I'm sure complaining about it will make everything better.

>>5845320
All these posts are somewhat on topic, but of unequal quality
>>5844690
>>5844699
>>5844734
>>5844740
>>5844783
>>5845256
So stay on topic. I say Aslan's muslim faith keep him from writing relevant things on the history of the New Testament, as he's bound to believe in Jesus as some historical character. Faith and the scientific method are incompatible.

>>5844660
It's an accurate and well written book that's not skewed. It's a perfect introduction to the subject as it's not really a scholarly work; give it a whirl.

>>5844783
How do you contradict that there's a clear succession of teachers that we know existed and who claimed to have been taught by the original disciples? You really think the Jerusalem church under James didn't exist? Note this isn't arguing that Jesus was definitely divine and definitely God Himself or whatever, but it seems pretty compelling that a man called Jesus the Christ existed.

>>5845393
Nah bro the apostles and early church fathers and people who knew them were bullshitting the whole time :DDD

>>5844683
>>5844706

>not in the mood

top kek got an argument to win faggot?

le edgy 'imma go navy seal on you'

HAHAHAH

Fucking stupid tumblr fuck

>>>GTFO

>>5845364

I just conceded my post was off-topic as well. That doesn't make it OK, nor unamusing.

>>5845446
But it does, however, make you a gigantic cock

>>5845448
That's just an opinion of someone who shits up quality /lit/ threads.

>>5845393
Indeed, I don't believe James,Paul or any of the ''original'' disciples ever existed as anything but fictive characters. There are no physical proofs of their existence either. None of their contemporaries wrote about them.

The first material proof of Christianity's existence is the Flavia Domitilla's graveyard in Rome. The second (or it may be the first, they are temporally near) is a satiric graffito of Jesus carved into the wall of the Imperial Palace's servants's quarters in Rome. (Pic related) Both physical proofs suggest not only a Roman origin, but an imperial one also. Flavia Domitilla was a member of the Flavian imperial family. The first pope with a historical presence, Clement the first, is also a member of the Flavian family.

An intertextual reading of the New Testament with Josephus's histories reveal a typological parody between Jesus's ministry and Titus Flavius's campaign throught Judea. Think about it: everything Jesus predicted, Titus accomplished. Galilee reduced. Jerusalem encircled by a wall. The city and temple destroyed, with not a single stone left another one.

Jesus wasn't a god nor a man. Only a joke at the expense of Jews and slaves, who Romans intended to subdue through a spiritual version of stoic philosophy.

>>5845461
>Paul

We have absolute proof that Paul himself wrote at least seven of the epistles.

>>5845480
Really? How so? He told you so in a dream? Magic thinking is not proper historiography. Just admit anybody could have written those texts.

>>5845484
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

I don't know why I get so worked up about this 'parody' shit of yours when absolutely nobody takes it seriously. Maybe because of the sheer wrongheadedness of it all. Maybe because if it's all a joke it's one of the least successful jokes of all time, considering Christians eventually overran the empire and contributed to its downfall.

>>5845484
>complains about "not proper historiography"
>unaware that the very same proper historiography asserts that Paul personally wrote those epistles
Seriously, why didn't you even google this. The broadest consensus is that Paul personally wrote at least seven of the epistles, the other guy didn't list them but here they are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

Yes, I know Christianity makes you upset, but there's no point in being irrational and letting your distaste for a religion get in the way of accurate history. If you disagree with the consensus, take it up with the historical community.

>>5845461

that's stupid, jesus/apostles/christianity were written about as soon as they got recognition i.e. since the end of the 1st century ad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

wiki gives a few links to prove that
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[57][59][60][nb 10][77]

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

>>5845493
>using wikipedia as a source
Group thinking isn't relevant historiography.
>absolutely nobody takes it seriously
Go read the book's amazon reviews. Nearly everybody who read it are flabbergasted. 5 stars reviews abound. Only a few theists are butthurts because they can't refute the author.

>Christians eventually overran the empire and contributed to its downfall.
Absolutely terrible grasp of history. Nobody takes Gibbons seriously anymore. His prose is very good, the rest is terrible. Christians were not a significant factor in the Roman empire's fall.

Also, consider that Constantine's father took the Flavian name, making in a way Constantine's dynasty the second Flavian dynasty. No historian every understood this name-taking, but the Flavian hypothesis throw new light on this little known fact.

Historians work with material evidence. You want to show off your faith? Fine, but don't claim it's rest on historical proofs.

>>5845532
wiki mentions some serious sources, you mentioned some pseudo-scientific book about titus flavius

also
>Group thinking isn't relevant historiography.
>Go read the book's amazon reviews.

well it's funny

>>5845501
The broadest consensus before was that all Paul's epistles were genuine. Every time someone question the very basis of this ''consensus'', it falters. Its basis is nothing but magic thinking. They have no scriptural evidence of what they advance. They have faith. Good for them, but the scientific method isn't about faith.

>>5845514
Same kind of ''consensus''. All these ''scholars'' are theists repeating and congratulating themselves in their closed circles. You can assert something a million times, it doesn't make it true. What I posted earlier >>5845461
are the first material proofs of Christianity.

Tacitus wrote in the second century, and there is contention on what he really meant. Followers of Christos can mean Jewish messianic rebels.

As for Josephus, I suggest you read him yourself, or failing that, that you read Caesar's Messiah. Josephus' writings about Christians are satiric, and the broader meaning become clear when you read his whole corpus intertextually with the New Testament.

>>5845556
You don't even know what satire means, and you're using it improperly.

>>5845540
>some pseudo-scientific book
It's a literary analysis. Literature isn't science. Interpretation of literature isn't science.But the New Testament and Josephus's works are literature, thus it is relevant. Your ''serious sources'' are biased. If they question the pseudo historical basis of their religion, they will destroy the very faith of their fellow believers. They can't do this.
>well it's funny
You claimed nobody agreed with Atwill's theory, I posted something asserting the very contrary. You're truly a low class sophist.

>>5845560
You like wikipedia so much, here is their definition:

>Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule.

The New Testament is a satire of the Jewish messianic rebels' fanaticism and illogical beliefs.

You don't understand historiography, and are using it improperly.

>>5845568
If there's so much truth to Atwill's theory, why does he seem to be the only serious scholar supporting it? You would think perhaps other historians would speak up in favor of it. Moreover, you would think it would have seriously latched on with the New Atheists.

Popularity isn't the only judge of a theory's veracity, but broad consensus is important.

>>5845580
Several serious scholars approve of Atwill's theory, and some of them participated in his documentary. As I said, it's a literary analysis, and historians usually prefer to look at historical documentation or coins. It isn't well known enough, and that's why I post about it.

>>5845484
>Magic thinking is not proper historiography

Says the guy posting le epic flavian conspiracy and claiming that Josephus is satirizing Jesus' life, something zero Josephus scholars have suggested.

>>5845601
Interpreting the evidence is anyone's prerogative. Your appeal to authority fails and isn't related to historiography, I don't think you understand what that word means.

>>5845568
>Many (in fact, the majority of) serious historical scholars agree that there existed a guy people now call "Jesus Christ"
>Many (similarly, the majority of) serious historical scholars agree that his Apostle Paul did actually write a minimum of seven of the epistles attributed to him
>"Well that doesn't count, you can assert something a million times, it doesn't make it true."

>why should we take Atwill seriously
>"Several serious scholars approve of Atwill's theory"
oh lel

>>5845611
I was replying to >>5845580 assertion. Keep implying your strawmen fool.

>>5845615
>strawmen
>used direct quotes
welp, talk to you later bro, thanks for the quality chat.

>>5845625
>implying
Another word you don't understand. Thank for derailing the thread, come back anytime.

>>5844706
Shut up newfag.

>>5844783
>>5845461
The book looked interesting, but after looking it up the only resources available on it are the authors blog and a couple of discussion sites with actual, accredited historians (apparently Joseph Atwill never even received a degree and has no formal historical studies under his belt?? Not exactly a good sign). On top of those, it looks like the only academic contribution he's made to the field of history is...requesting new dating on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So,

>Atwill has had no actual training in the study of history
>Atwill has no actual credentials from any university in the field of history (though he studied computer science in college for an unnamed period of time)
>Atwill has been called out by other (accredited) historians for being inaccurate and incorrect, with reasoning given by said accredited historians
>Atwill has contributed nothing else to historical academia except being a part of a joint request with several others requesting renewed dating on the Dead Sea Scrolls
>no resources to be found beyond author's personal blog, a discussion site featuring an interview with an accredited historian calling Atwill out on being bullshit, and a "parapsychology", "consciousness science", and "near-death-experience" website where Atwill did an interview promoting his book

Yeah, no thanks. I'm going to have to go with the actual historians here. Looks like a fun read though, I'll put it on my "to-read" list, next to Chariots of the Gods. Thanks.

>>5844783
>The official literary corpus written about him thought, typologically represent him as the prophetic forerunner of Titus Flavius, a Roman emperor. The most logical theory is that Christianity is the reformed Flavian imperial cult.

The official literary corpus written about him though, typologically represent him as the Messiah, descended from the House of David. The most logical theory is that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.

>>5845514
>[57][59][60][nb 10][77]

All of these are Christian theologians. Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

>>5845670
>muh diploma fetishism
Atwill studied has been studying the Bible for the last 60 years. The ''accredited'' historians you mentions are the usual christian theological charlatans. They strawman arguments he never made, while ignoring the very relevant typology he unveiled. Prime among these is the ''three men crucified, one survives'' parallel in Josephus' Vita that is getting much discussion these days.

To disparage people with enough intellectual curiosity to actually look into his thesis just because they have strange or alternative hobbies is vicious and dishonest. I don't like ''parapsychology'' either or the others things you quoted, but I'm not going to go out of my way and defame honest work because some people I have no affinity with took the time to consider Atwill's work.

And again, it's a literary analysis. It has historical content of course, the analyzed works can't be considered without their historical background. The thesis is written for a general readership, not a chosen few.

>>5845722
The typology also represent him as the Messiah indeed, but the New Testament goes out of its way to state that being a member of the House of David is not a requirement for being the Messiah. The Gospels' different genealogies show this. Anyways, how can Jesus be descended from the House of David if he's the son of God and a virgin? I'm afraid you have a most erroneous understanding of the Bible

The Jewish messianic rebels believed also in a messiah, but coming from the House of Aaron. Material evidence point out that the Flavians made a mockery of all this, and appointed themselves as the Messiah. Josephus himself applied the Star prophecy to Vespasian.

MUH GENES BROUGHT MODERNITY

>>5847064
>any argument against a self-labeled conspiracy theory is a strawman
>every historian with a degree from a recognized university is a christian theological charlatan
thank you for informing us, I never knew. /lit/ is surely the better for this post. Together, we can destroy diploma fetishism. I see now that whether or not you study and contribute to a field, like history, has no bearing at all on whether one should take you as a serious authority on that field, btw I am a leatherworker, please buy my book proving why the Golden Gate Bridge is an engineering disaster and conspiracy

>>5847113
Sophistry. Not every historian is a christian charlatan. Those who are usually posted here from the aggregated website specifically created to defame Atwill's theory are charlatans. They hold ''History of religion'' B.A. from no name private colleges from no-where, USA. You refuse to quote them directly because you know they don't have the precious contribution you so invaluably estimate.Try to refute the core of Atwill's theory with sound arguments instead of the usual appeal to authority platitudes. You never try, because you know you will fail.

>>5847198
>Not every historian is a christian charlatan
>Just those that disagree with my favorite blogger's book

>from no name private colleges from no-where, USA
>author in question literally does not name the college he went to...where he didn't even study history

>"sound arguments"
>none presented in the thread for the self-labeled conspiracy theory
it's only getting better

>btw I am a leatherworker, please buy my book proving why the Golden Gate Bridge is an engineering disaster and conspiracy

>>5847241
>Just those that disagree with my favorite blogger's book

There are about five attempts on the internet that try to refute Caesar's Messiah. I recall two of them who have the aforementioned History of religion B.A.. The others are anonymous. Keep grasping at straw, two nobodies with are B.A aren't respected historians.

>author in question literally does not name the college he went to...where he didn't even study history
Atwill is an autodidact Bible scholar. I know this upset people like you who terribly rely on authority, but freethinkers will keep thinking. Shitposters like you will keep shitposting.

>none presented in the thread for the self-labeled conspiracy theory
Now you're just baiting
>>5844783
>>5845461
>>5845532
All this posts present arguments, especially the second one. Ignore the material evidence and rely on group/magic thinking is the credo of christians apologists.

And I don't see why you're repeating your terrible analogy. Do you think it has literary merit? If so, you're more deluded than I thought.