The Invention Of Jesus (Roman Conspiracy; Atwill's Theory)

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,113
Likes
6,442
Points
294
#1
Another article on a made-up Jesus but this time we know who made him up and why Rome has always been the centre of Christian power.

Joseph Atwill - Hour 1 - Caesar's Messiah, The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus


Joseph Atwill is an independent scholar who has set the world of New Testament scholarship in a new direction. In his book "Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus", Atwill outlines the series of events in Jesus' ministry that are parallels with the events of the battle campaign of Titus Flavius as recorded by Josephus Flavius in "War of the Jews". Numerous scholars had noticed the parallels between the Gospels and Josephus' work before, but Atwill is the first to notice that all the parallels take place in exact sequence and draw a revolutionary conclusion. Follow along in this program as Atwill contends these correlations, talks about linguistic typology and the reasons why the imperial Cult of Rome, with the Flavians at the center, wanted to invent the story of Jesus Christ for their own benefit.
listen here..

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 120218.php


We're going to be hearing a lot more about this I reckon.
 

Zilch5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,566
Likes
23
Points
54
#6
jimv1 said:
We're going to be hearing a lot more about this I reckon.
I finally found the time to listen to it. I don't think we will hear any more about this as it is circumstantial evidence that you can believe in or not - a lot like the bible really. Mind you - as a master plan, maybe the US should have tried something like this in the Middle East? :twisted:
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
11,640
Likes
7,736
Points
309
#7
Jesus Invented to Pacify the Poor.

Another take on Jesus-the-totally-invented. Joseph Atwill argues that the structure of the gospels* was derived from Josephus and that the key teaching was to render unto Caesar.

*For the purposes of his argument, the four gospels seem to be reduced to a single "sequence of events." This newspaper summary does not explore why such a cynical fabrication required four often contradictory accounts of the story. :spinning
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,047
Likes
127
Points
114
#8
JamesWhitehead said:
Jesus Invented to Pacify the Poor.

Another take on Jesus-the-totally-invented. Joseph Atwill argues that the structure of the gospels* was derived from Josephus and that the key teaching was to render unto Caesar.

*For the purposes of his argument, the four gospels seem to be reduced to a single "sequence of events." This newspaper summary does not explore why such a cynical fabrication required four often contradictory accounts of the story. :spinning
Or, why it took a further 350 years to really take root. Plus, the author apparently doesn't really understand, just how deeply subversive the Jesus of the gospels must have been, if his some of his sayings, doings and parables are to be believed. It's the little details, including the contradictions, that would have been hard to fake.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,047
Likes
127
Points
114
#9

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
23,433
Likes
15,393
Points
309
#10
That could be any learned, clever, subversive and humane originator though, doesn't even have to have been any one person.
 

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
23,433
Likes
15,393
Points
309
#12
There were scores of self-proclaimed Messiahs around at the time. You really couldn't walk down the street without falling over one, as was hinted at in The Life Of Brian. (In which fillum Jesus Christ himself appears of course, in the far distance.)

So yet another one being wheeled out for the crowd and flogged on his way to Golgotha wouldn't have seemed out of the ordinary, and the odd Barabbas might well have got off with a slap on the wrist.

Reminds me of the rumours about whether or not Shakespeare wrote all the plays. Did he? Did Francis Bacon? Was it a learned consortium? Who knows? :lol:
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
25,654
Likes
9,376
Points
284
#13
escargot1 said:
There were scores of self-proclaimed Messiahs around at the time.
There are scores around now! There's even something called a "Messiah Complex". People go to Jerusalem and try to convince others they're the Second Coming of Christ.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,113
Likes
6,442
Points
294
#14
The point is that Jesus HAD to exist. He had to exist in order to create a religion based on a messiah - a real person had to exist. So a real person was made up based on various messianic tittle-tattle going around at the time.
And He had to perform the miracles expected of a messiah of the time - which were a bunch of stories everyone knew at the time and can be traced back to the Gods of Egyptology.

The religion was back engineered from a fundamental need for power and control.
 

SHAYBARSABE

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
1,500
Likes
32
Points
54
#15
jimv1 said:
The religion was back engineered from a fundamental need for power and control.
Engineered, perhaps. Some people wanted power and control, but they would not have succeeded if the real need--across the greater number of people--was for an ethical system that worked.

What Judism and Christianity demand is that the needs of the whole society be taken into account, not just the needs of the people at the top. Judism is about a specific people, but it is about every person within that group, rich or poor. Christianity expanded that demand to cover everyone else, not just our blood relations or tribal members or citizens, but everyone.

As humans, we're not good at doing this. Christianity got subverted into putting emphasis on atonement which is simply a way to sidestep any inconvenience we might feel in taking care of each other.

In the same way, these various researchers who, with some regularity, prove that Jesus didn't exist, are adding to a pile of excuses people can use to explain terrible behavior.

It's not news. And it doesn't help.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,113
Likes
6,442
Points
294
#16
SHAYBARSABE said:
jimv1 said:
The religion was back engineered from a fundamental need for power and control.
Engineered, perhaps. Some people wanted power and control, but they would not have succeeded if the real need--across the greater number of people--was for an ethical system that worked.

In the same way, these various researchers who, with some regularity, prove that Jesus didn't exist, are adding to a pile of excuses people can use to explain terrible behavior.

It's not news. And it doesn't help.
Forgive me for paraphrasing your argument but now the Daily Maul has this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acter.html

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'
Writer Michael Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus existing in history
Jesus is thought to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire
However Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries
Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors
He says this is surprising despite the ‘alleged worldwide fame’ of Jesus
And this has led him to believe that Jesus was a 'mythical character'






The 126 texts he studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus - but none mention him.

'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not - and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions - I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character,’ he writes.

‘"Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.’

Of the writings he examined, written from the first to third centuries, he found only one book that contained a mention of Jesus - The Jewish Wars by the Roman historian Josephus Flavius written in 95 CE, but he claims it is fabricated.

Paulkovich says the mentions of Jesus were added later by editors, not by Josephus.

Even in the Bible Paulkovich says Paul, often credited with spreading what would become Christianity, never refers to Jesus as a real person.

‘Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus' nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,’ he writes.

‘Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.’
Of course the comments as a digression are hilarious in all ways and back up all shades of view - which is all the internet shittily does these days . However. I do take exception to your comment about

In the same way, these various researchers who, with some regularity, prove that Jesus didn't exist, are adding to a pile of excuses people can use to explain terrible behavior.

It's not news. And it doesn't help.
It's quite the opposite. It is news. And the atrocities (naw...let's say 'terrible behaviour') condoned by 'God' and 'Jesus' have seen people flayed, burned, put to the sword, exiled, excommunicated and buggered by priests and generally persecuted in ways you couldn't imagine.

I mean...how much worse could you imagine it being?
 

sherbetbizarre

Special Branch
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
3,757
Likes
1,955
Points
169
#17
Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'
American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled "Covert Messiah" at Conway Hall in Holborn.

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm
 

Ermintruder

Existential pixelfixer
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,970
Likes
5,970
Points
209
#18
I've just watched the full documentary "Caeser's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus" which is based upon the book of the same name by Joseph Atwill (who figures strongly in the documentary).

It is an outstandingly-good piece of work, and appears at first-take to be an utterly-convincing demolition of Christianity. There is very convincing evidence presented that Jesus Christ never existed in a conventional sense, but was actually Titus Flavius.

I would strongly recommend that you watch it, all 1hour 23mins of it

If you are new to this, or are an active religious literalist, the documentary will shock you. But you still need to watch it..


(The word 'Gospels'=Evangelos in Greek, with its literal meaning 'War Reports'...because the New Testament is in reality a rehashed Roman Empire battle history in allegory and parable)
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
22,994
Likes
25,229
Points
284
#20
Jesus is thought to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire
As 'BC' stands for "Before Christ", how could Jesus Christ have lived from about 7BC onwards? .. is the writer suggesting Jesus, real or not, was there already for about 7 years before he was reportedly born? ..
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
10,256
Likes
10,190
Points
294
Location
Out of Bounds
#21
As 'BC' stands for "Before Christ", how could Jesus Christ have lived from about 7BC onwards? .. is the writer suggesting Jesus, real or not, was there already for about 7 years before he was reportedly born? ..
The 'BC / AD' business arose long after the fact, and the dividing point was presumably set somewhat arbitrarily. In the subsequent centuries the calendar underwent major changes, further complicating the assignment of dates. The notion of assigning dates 'before birth' and 'after death' meant there was a gap in the timeline associated with Jesus' lifespan, and there wasn't any solid basis for calculating how many years that lifespan spanned.

Basically, this gap was eventually closed to fix the unacceptably sloppy timekeeping. This meant the 'gap years' had to be indexed along with all the others, and this pushed some years into the 'BC' side and others into the 'AD' side.

The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that mentions the star storyline, and it claims Jesus was born while Herod was king. Herod is believed to have died circa 4 BC (though some suggest it was more like 1 - 2 BC). A number of astronomical events (supernova; comet; planetary / astrological conjunctions) have been proposed as the origins of the Star of Bethlehem storyline, and the earliest one I know of is claimed to have occurred circa 7 BC.

This is why the earliest 'real timeline' timeframe for Jesus' birth is often cited as circa 7 BC.
 

Ermintruder

Existential pixelfixer
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,970
Likes
5,970
Points
209
#22
In addition to the highly-recommended "Caeser's Messiah" documentary cited above, may I also support the value of the YouTube video embedded below: please don't be put-off by the name of the channel badge-hosting it (UFO TV) or its duration (2h20m).

Just watch it in comfortable segments- but do watch it. Marshall Payn is extremely-effective as writer/key presenter, and I have to acknowledge that the "bible scholars" quoted in the documentary show complete objective savagery in their analysis of the subject (in a style that I'm both surprised and enthused by).
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
832
Likes
969
Points
94
#23
However Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries
Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors
Is there any evidence though that Flavius' reference to JC was added later? And Josephus wrote a few things during the first century CE. Surely that's close enough?

I think JC was a real person. If he was the Messiah or just a naughty boy, that's anyone's guess and/or belief.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
22,994
Likes
25,229
Points
284
#24
The 'BC / AD' business arose long after the fact, and the dividing point was presumably set somewhat arbitrarily. In the subsequent centuries the calendar underwent major changes, further complicating the assignment of dates. The notion of assigning dates 'before birth' and 'after death' meant there was a gap in the timeline associated with Jesus' lifespan, and there wasn't any solid basis for calculating how many years that lifespan spanned.

Basically, this gap was eventually closed to fix the unacceptably sloppy timekeeping. This meant the 'gap years' had to be indexed along with all the others, and this pushed some years into the 'BC' side and others into the 'AD' side.

The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that mentions the star storyline, and it claims Jesus was born while Herod was king. Herod is believed to have died circa 4 BC (though some suggest it was more like 1 - 2 BC). A number of astronomical events (supernova; comet; planetary / astrological conjunctions) have been proposed as the origins of the Star of Bethlehem storyline, and the earliest one I know of is claimed to have occurred circa 7 BC.

This is why the earliest 'real timeline' timeframe for Jesus' birth is often cited as circa 7 BC.
Thanks for explaining that, interesting stuff.
 

skinny

Antediluvian
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
5,957
Likes
4,867
Points
234
#25
Myth or man (probably both), the appeal of the character and his agenda resonates through the millennia. If an invention, he's a work of true genius. If a man whose life story was recorded, even from a distance, it changes everything if it's true. Everything. I've given up on Christianity and the big skydaddy paradigm, but not the person of Jesus. There's something there can't be ignored, mocked or dismissed without diminishing oneself in the process. That's weird.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
832
Likes
969
Points
94
#26
In addition to the highly-recommended "Caeser's Messiah" documentary cited above, may I also support the value of the YouTube video embedded below: please don't be put-off by the name of the channel badge-hosting it (UFO TV) or its duration (2h20m).
I watched 45 minutes of it last night. It doesn't really question that JC existed, but it excoriates the Bible for inaccuracy and contradiction. And Paul of course gets his share of abuse. Not much new so far - but it does mix historical and theological criticism something shocking.

That is less than helpful, as many believers aren't interested in the Bible as literal history. They interpret the text according to their theological belief systems.

Those who take it literally can't be swayed by historical arguments, as they simply explain them away in order to fit their beliefs.
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,626
Likes
3,718
Points
159
#28
I've never really got the 'Son of God' angle. Or rather , the '3 who are 1' If God and Jesus are the same entity He spends a lot of time talking to Himself.

I should make it clear that I do believe that Jesus existed and that he was born with a special purpose, but I also think religion has built such an elaborate structure about his teachings that the essence is often lost in the smoke. I had an interesting discussion with a Moslem evangelist - they regard Jesus as another prophet, not God, so they see worshipping Jesus as blasphemy. My counter argument is that one does not worship Jesus, one thanks him profoundly. 'Our Father' - our creator - is God. (call him Jehovah or Allah if you wish - I dare say its all the same to Him). Not Jesus.

My rationale is that someone we could recognise as human in essence was needed by God to be 'the face of God', because God Himself is too outside of our ability to understand to be effectively worshipped. He's not some beard in the sky, but an entity of unknown form and powers. And limitations, albeit they may be self-imposed.

And no, I don't believe he created the world in seven Earth days, and if you read Genesis carefully I don't think that's what it says either. It says there are seven steps or phases, the first couple of which could not be days because day hadn't yet been created. I believe he is responsible for setting the whole thing in motion at the Big Bang. And then various other adjustments to the experiment. The whole existence of the universe may be only a couple of months to Him.

Ooops, sorry. Don't know where that came from :) New Year, I suppose!
 

Comfortably Numb

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
2,016
Likes
2,279
Points
153
Location
Phone
#29
I've never really got the 'Son of God' angle. Or rather , the '3 who are 1' If God and Jesus are the same entity...

...Ooops, sorry. Don't know where that came from :) New Year, I suppose!
:bish: Enjoyable read! Guess one of the inherent issues is not only what the Church hierarchy decided should be included in the Bible, all those years ago, it's what they were uncomfortable with and left out! :cyb::bomb:
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
312
Likes
796
Points
99
Location
Lincolnshire UK
#30
Interesting thread.

As an atheist, the fact that I do not believe in God means that, necessarily, I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God.

That said, did Jesus exist? As with the existence of Robin Hood or Homer, it all depends how you phrase the question.

If "Jesus" means "a young Jewish man of lowly birth, who lived around 0 to 30 AD (give or take), who preached, and who was crucified," then he may well have existed.

If "Jesus" means "A person who was born of a virgin, in a manger in Bethlehem, and who was literally the son of God, and who grew up to perform miracles like turning water into wine, raising the dead, and feeding thousands of people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, who was crucified and literally rose from the dead," then, in my personal view, he did not exist.

As with all historical, mythical and legendary figures, we have to assume that at least some of the stories are not true. The question then becomes, how many of those stories are essential to the definition of the person whose existence we are questioning?

If we had documentary evidence of William Shakespeare's birth, marriage and death, but we discovered that he wrote no plays or sonnets, then, in a sense, "Shakespeare" did not exist.

If we trace Robin Hood to written records of a particular outlaw, who lived in Northumberland in Saxon times and stole from the poor and kept the proceeds for himself, then that is not evidence that the Robin Hood we are interested in existed.

In a similar way, how much of the Bible story can we manage without before we say that the Jesus that we understand when we use the name did not exist? The manger? The date? The key locations? The cursing of the fig tree? The casting out the money lenders? The sermon on the mount? The water into wine thing? The rising from the dead? Which are an essential part of the definition, and which are peripheral?

Many of the ideas attached to the traditional view of Jesus can be found in other religions. For example, Odin is said to have sacrificed himself, hanging from a tree, and suffering from a spear wound.

That said we cannot judge Jesus by the works of the various churches established in his name. He is not reported as having expressed a view on female bishops, or transubstantiation/consubstantiation, or the burning of heretics (although he may well have been "against"), or whether the Bible should be printed in Latin, Greek, or English.

Jesus, whether he literally existed or not, should be judged on the strength or otherwise of his teachings. Most people assume that the central tenets of Christianity are "basically a good thing" (forgiveness, no judging, being kind, etc.) although it is interesting to read Bertrand Russell's alternative views in his book, "Why I am not a Christian."

Funny thing is, we know more about Seneca than we know about Jesus, and we not only have reports of what Seneca taught, but we have his actual written words in abundance.

Edit: originally I said, "If we traced Robin Hood... Tudor..." but of course that would make no sense as written references to him predate Tudor times. I have therefore changed it to Saxon. This is a hypothetical illustration, not a statement about the "real" Robin Hood who, as we all know, was Errol Flynn in a hat.
 
Last edited:
Top