Jesus was invented by the Romans

[Seth R.]

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

Full article

London (PRWEB UK) 8 October 2013

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 (full details can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com).

Although to many scholars his theory seems outlandish, and is sure to upset some believers, Atwill regards his evidence as conclusive and is confident its acceptance is only a matter of time. "I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm," he acknowledges, "but this is important for our culture. Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."

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. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left."

Atwill's most intriguing discovery came to him while he was studying "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus [the only surviving first-person historical account of first-century Judea] alongside the New Testament. "I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts," he recounts. "Although it's been recognised by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar."

How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinised books of all time? "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played." Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that "the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is 'We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it.'"

Is this the beginning of the end of Christianity? "Probably not," grants Atwill, "but what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from. Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history. To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East."

Atwill encourages skeptics to challenge him at Conway Hall, where after the presentations there is likely to be a lively Q&A session. Joining Mr.Atwill will be fellow scholar Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book "Jesus Never Existed."

Further information can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com.

About Joseph Atwill: Joseph Atwill is the author of the best-selling book "Caesar's Messiah" and its upcoming sequel "The Single Strand."

[WordWolf]

I noticed the controversial opening- that of a confession of inventing Jesus-

is missing from the rest of the article, and from the site.

Sounds like another lie added to con people- a bait-and-switch.

There's never been a shortage of people claiming the New Testament was some sort

of conspiracy or fabrication. It's impossible to guarantee with 100% accuracy

anything from that long ago. However, other books from longer ago with less

evidence have been accepted as true beyond question and their matters were closed.

This nonsense only rises up from people with vested interests of one form or

another to try to discredit or bury the Bible, to try to pretend it's irrelevant

or doesn't matter, from an insecurity or fear it's so relevant that it haunts them

that they're willing to lie and distort historical evidence just so they can

sleep better at night, so that they can try to drown out their consciences.

History of the time before Jesus, the time during his lifetime, and the time following

all make perfect sense if the events occurred as reported, but the actions of people

don't make any sense otherwise. The people who all physically saw Jesus in a resurrected

body were the ones so committed, they were willing to die rather than recant.

If this guy's to be believed, the "martyrs" of the time were all fully aware they were

fully committed to passing along fiction-to the point of guaranteed slaughter at the hands

of the Roman soldiers under arms. Come on, a slow death just so that others are convinced

of a lie I'm passing along? Would any human willingly go to their grave KNOWING they did

so to preserve a set of beliefs that were all lie?

[Seth R.]

Want to talk about bait and switch, the Jesus of the gospels is really Flavius Titus Ceasar.

[WordWolf]

I didn't even get into that.

This one really has to reach to get there, and probably took some fascinatingly silly twists

worthy of a Da Vinci Code or something.

I mean, it's one thing to claim it's all made up,

but the early Christian Church was crushed under the collective heel of the

Roman emperors. To turn around and say it was all BASED on a Roman emperor?

There's conjecture, there's wild guesses, and then there's stuff like that.

Within years or a few decades, this will be another idea forgotten by all except

a few more tinfoil hat-wearers. There's been no lack of those.

[Steve Lortz]

" Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that "the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is 'We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it.'"

A puzzle only Atwill can put together,

"'How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinised books of all time? "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played.'"

Atwill demonstrates an abysmal knowledge of education in antiquity as well as a very shallow understanding of both the Bible and Josephus. If you want to appreciate literary games of the period, read Lucian of Samosato. He's funny, but Atwill is ignorant, and playing on other people's ignorance to sell his book.

Love,

Steve

[Steve Lortz]

I didn't even get into that.

This one really has to reach to get there, and probably took some fascinatingly silly twists

worthy of a Da Vinci Code or something.

I mean, it's one thing to claim it's all made up,

but the early Christian Church was crushed under the collective heel of the

Roman emperors. To turn around and say it was all BASED on a Roman emperor?

There's conjecture, there's wild guesses, and then there's stuff like that.

Within years or a few decades, this will be another idea forgotten by all except

a few more tinfoil hat-wearers. There's been no lack of those.

If the gospel was invented to take the combative edge off of 1st century Judaism, it was a miserable failure, as evidenced by the Jewish war in the 60s and the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 130s.

Love,

Steve

[socks]

You read my mind, Steve! (note to self: investigate possible get-into-socks-brain pattern of certain posting here....more to come)

I guess I need to read more of what Atwell is selling to comment but dammed if I'm putting more money into anyone's pocket in the name of Jesus.

I read "Zealot" couple months ago - a fact checker's nightmare. The author, a Muslim, invented and embellished facts as he wrote. It should be sub titled "Based on Events Some Believe May Have Happened This Way". I got tired after the first couple chapters and just skimmed the rest to the end - it was interesting but not really a scholarly effort, given that the author is a self described "scholar".

If it was as Atwill describes, the Roman psyche strategy did indeed fail. Or backfired - and what about Constantine? That didn't fire up until the 3rd century. Slow burn syndrome?

The premise - invent a peaceful Christ for Jews to follow that will reduce the risk to the Roman empire...

In the End Run Game, Jesus isn't widely considered to be a peaceful Messiah, for one thing - let me qualify that -

Practically speaking the entire message requires a fundamental, all-family-business-is-settled reckoning between - call them the Good guys and the Bad guys. The names and faces change regularly but even the most peaceful "age of Grace" Christians believe that at any time - BAM! He's coming back and this time...it's personal. /> Whether that be in the sky or through human transformation or anything inbetween. Thus my "Chafing at the Bit" theory - some of us just aren't going to wait.

Acts 15 - if that's part of the early history the church in Jerusalem had accepted Gentiles as Christians into the church and determined to not burden them with observing Jewish tradition - that entire growing base would reflect a different demographic in the world at that time - so the Experimental Roman Jesus exploded in a way the Romans didn't plan for - which seems either really ironic or just plain bad luck!

The records of the gospels carry the Jerusalem/Samaritan comparison, for "loving your neighbor"....that message in fact draws all Jews together if they follow it, towards a "Jerusalme of the Spirit" as it were - if that message were followed it would serve to reduce the divisiveness at that time between them - so it's interesting - the so-called-Roman-Jesus promotes a coming together of Judean and Samaritan Jews? which would potentially strengthen them not weaken them.

I'm curious how Atwell accounts for the fact that - IF - this was a Roman concoction - why there is not more Roman historical material available then - if would have been completely in their interest of succeeding to have presented more material to actually document His existence at that time - yet, we're still left with so little that the very existence AT ALL is still questioned by many. Again and as always - the primary records are then by those who participated or spoke to those who did - seems like an odd way to build a Religion if you're actually building it, versus it just "happening".

[waysider]

I knew they invented those microwave noodles I like so much but, hey, who knew?

Oops. I guess those are Ramen, not Roman

Ahhh...never mind.

[Steve Lortz]

The idea that the whole New Testament was put together by Romans is foolish beyond words. Some of the simplest expressions in the NT are incredibly complex, and involve things that people raised outside of the Jewish traditions would find baffling.

For instance, I've been working off and on for the past few weeks on Acts 2:1. It can be accurately translated, "And while the day Of Pentecost was bring fulfilled, they were all together for the same."

What does it mean that the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled? In the OT, the Feast of Weeks was the celebration of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, where each was to give a thank offering back to God of that which God had given him. It was also the celebration of the institution of the Old Covenant from Mount Sinai. Was the day of Pentecost the anti-type, of which all the previous days of Pentecost were the types? Was the outpouring of Holy Spirit that day the beginning of the harvest of souls? When people were speaking in tongues that day, were they offering thanksgiving to God by way of the Spirit? Were they giving back to God of that which He had given to them? Was the New Covenant, written on peoples' hearts by the Spirit of God, being instituted on that day?

What does Acts 2:1 mean, that they were all together for the same? The grammatical construction of the phrase translated "for the same" carries an implication of purpose. They were all together for the same purpose. What purpose could that be if not for the purpose of fulfilling the day of Pentecost? Isn't that what the verse says? And if they had come together to fulfill the day of Pentecost, why would they have come together at any place other than the temple? After all, Luke wrote in his gospel that they were in the temple through all, praising God (Luke 24:53).

That's just one verse! There are too many layers of meaning for this to be a hoax!

And we are NOT ignorant of Roman education and literature, though Atwill seems to be.

Love,

Steve

[Twinky]

This guy Atwill probably sees gas pumps and snowstorms too, or some equivalent.

[Ham]

What if you woke up one morning and found that everything you believed was just plain wrong..

an experience like that is one thing.. but then I don't know how interested I'd be in making money selling books about it..

[socks]

I wanted more but after reading everything I found, shy of buying the book - I don't see the Romans, a Roman, saying "We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it" - ever. There's no historical facts - just a projection.

Christians take a lot of heat but - after this guy started selling his book, the Pope didn't put out an order to execute the guy. Religious faithful aren't storming the streets and burning the guy's book and beating people that try to buy it. We're not crying on TV interviews and wailing to the sky about how insulting and degrading it is that this guy would demean Mohammed - er- I mean, Jesus.

Christians get crazy about a lot of stuff - but it's largely small slices of the larger demographic and as far as that goes, there's nothing inhuman about being passionate and drive towards what one believes is true. Rather, it's natural.

I swear though - I'm sick to the gut of guys like this who publish day dreams and wanna - be's and act like their scholarly credentials aren't tarnished in the process, $elling books up the ying yang, and all the while smugly attacking something they have no real chance of changing. Enough with the butter knives guys, if you want to cut Jesus Christ down to size you're going to need a bigger knife! :evilshades:/>Just say - you don't want to believe it, the bible, the stuff, and move on and stop selling books and making money off the wonderful effort you make to try and free the stupid and heal the dumb. :evilshades:/>

[Ham]

Maybe it was the other way around, Jesus invented the Romans..

[socks]

Another thing to consider about the evidence/history of Jesus - this is juat a point of my own but in response to the topic -

Jews by commandment were forbidden to make idols, "graven imags", statues, etc. to worship or pray to. Jehovah didn't want a sculpted rendering of "Himself" that mankind would go to, look at and say "this represents God", or "this is God".

Jesus - the "son of God" - would not have been treated differently by the Jews that followed Him, I would think....the Temple wasn't God or where God "was" or lived, and the N.T. speaks to that in the book of Acts. So there was no ongoing traditon of elevating iconic images of God or any of the Prophets.

Roman scupture and art was very developed at that time however - no lack of it, quite the opposite. I might conjecture if I was going to - that a Roman Jesus would have been served very well by some later statues, paintings, engravings, turning up.....just a thought.

Now - of course Roman Catholicism comes to mind - which became very involved in imagery and the desire to represent God and Jesus and all of the assorted characters of history, but these are all after the fact and make no claim to be anything other than at best, inspired efforts but with no declared claim to be accurate depictions. Today many denominations are flooded with it - shoot, we got Jesus's in America that look like Greg Allman after a good night's sleep, hot shower and hearty breakfast. No lack of it today but nothnig that comes from that era.

So rather than assuming the faux Jesus stuff is Roman developed it makes more - or at least equal sense - to take the stance that the lack of historical images and renderings is completely in context with what the Jews that converted would have done. And not done. In other words, the absence of paintings, statues, icons and representations of Jesus would be typical and characteristic of His era and the abundance that evolved later would indicate the influence of external influences and a misguided effort to basically market Christianity.

[Ham]

I mean, it's one thing to claim it's all made up,

but the early Christian Church was crushed under the collective heel of the

Roman emperors. To turn around and say it was all BASED on a Roman emperor?

That pretty much describes modern politics, does it not?

Just Saying..

[Seth R.]

Ignorance is bliss, never change, shine on you crazy diamonds.

[WordWolf]

Ignorance is bliss, never change, shine on you crazy diamonds.

Looks like we found the fourth of the three friends.

Job 32:3 (NIV)

3 He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him.

We invoked history pointed out the original premise was weak, and had easy-to-find flaws.

So, someone could look it over and change their mind and reject the original premise.

Or SOMEHOW find a way to refute the refutations (I won't hold my breath.)

Or just let it go.

What did we get?

"Hey, be cool, you ignoramuses and never grow."

Found no way to refute us, and yet had condemned us.

Really, the problem was in embracing something so silly and then publicizing it.

What you do on your own time is your own business, but if it's here,

it's open to discussion- and disagreement and attempted refutation.

If it's flawed, that's likely.

[socks]

Growing up in the 50's and 60's, raised and educated Roman Catholic, converted to Christianity and now something of a Reformed Christian I've probably been exposed to many of the same things as the rest of you.

If I didn't want to believe the history and tradition of Christianity there are many different alternates, interpretations and options. Pick one and go with it. So far I haven't seen anything that provides a factual alternate. Christianity is often criticized as being short on facts, long on faith. Fine, just don't ask me to switch to another view where there are in fact, no facts to outweigh the Christian view .That just seems silly. But believe as you will, it's a free country.

Either way, Rome came and went and the names of the Romans who supposedly cooked this up are gone and their names aren't exactly household words. Today I saw a bumper sticker that said "Jesus Loves You"....haven't seen a lot of "The Emperor Titus Flavius Loves You" stickers. Lately.

[Seth R.]

Actually WW I'm not angry, if you actually knew what what you were talking about I might be.

I'm actually happy and I find little items like the article I shared that point to some big awesome information freeing for me. The mistake people make is to think they know it all because some old dead guy said some old book says so. If you think you know what you are talking about then you wouldn't dismiss the article without further investigation into the subject, after all if these scholars are wrong then you have nothing to worry about. On the other hand if they are right most of what you believe about the bible is in question.

Judging from your strong rush to protect what you must feel is your domain it might be you that is angry, I realize people tend to want to protect what they feel is a major part of their personality. It's obvious from your moniker and avatar that you are territorial about the word, and you do mark your territory.

I had my existential crisis 13 years ago, I'm free, I exist outside the field of influence you and your friends call the word, it's magic no longer holds me. Protect your book of Roman propaganda if you want, remain ignorant if you wish, but do not pretend you know what you are talking about when you haven't even given this new information a proper investigation, what are you afraid of? Real illumination? BTW I expect nothing less then for you to continue on the way you are because it's obvious you won't change your course, you have to much invested in the word.

I can tell many people here are still under the post hypnotic influence of VPW. That is truly sad.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Seth R.

[WordWolf]

Actually WW I'm not angry, if you actually knew what what you were talking about I might be.

I never said your response was "angry."

"If you actually knew what you were talking about"

is a fine example of what I was saying you did already-

this blithe dismissal of another point of view because you don't want to believe it.

I "agree to disagree" with plenty of people rather harmoniously,

without any of us saying the other side is composed of know-nothings.

I'm actually happy and I find little items like the article I shared that point to some big awesome information freeing for me. The mistake people make is to think they know it all because some old dead guy said some old book says so. If you think you know what you are talking about then you wouldn't dismiss the article without further investigation into the subject, after all if these scholars are wrong then you have nothing to worry about. On the other hand if they are right most of what you believe about the bible is in question.

There were some rather fundamental assumptions that were visible in what

was already said, which were enough to dismiss what he said as

FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. So, to my satisfaction, I was able to make an initial

investigation, conclude it was flawed, and move on.

If I looked at the foundation of a building and found the support structures

were rotted and ready to collapse, I would have no need to investigate further

before concluding that buying the building to put things in it was a bad idea.

(And yes, I can ready very fast when I want to, and no, that wasn't the only

article I looked at before replying-it was just the first one I looked at.

The internet has lots of resources available at a glance.)

"Think they know it all because some old dead guy said some old book says so."

It must be terribly freeing to never have to consider whether the other side might

have a point you don't see, some insight you don't have, some information you

aren't aware of, and just categorically dismiss anyone whose POV you disagree

with because they are categorically unable to bring anything to the table.

Me, I am driven to keep checking alternate points of view, even ones I think

nearly everything's been said about, on the off chance there's some new insight

before I can conclude something new brings no new substance to a discussion.

No matter how fast I read, it takes a lot more time than just shrugging off

the opposing POV.

So far,

I have yet to find anyone who dismisses anything I have to say simply

because they disagree, who understands what we're disagreeing about as well

as I do-generally for that reason. I've "agreed to disagree" with lots of

people over the years and at least respected they knew SOME of what we were

talking about.

Judging from your strong rush to protect what you must feel is your domain it might be you that is angry, I realize people tend to want to protect what they feel is a major part of their personality. It's obvious from your moniker and avatar that you are territorial about the word, and you do mark your territory.

"Strong rush to protect"

Hardly a "rush" when I read everything I read first,

and hardly "strong" when I wrote so relatively little.

I wrote enough to point out it was fundamentally flawed and

too weak on which to sensibly base a position.

"It might be you that is angry."

Why does SOMEONE have to be "angry" ?

Is it because an "angry" poster can be held to be illogical

and we can ignore what they say?

Oh, and making fun of my screen-name, mixed in with some pop psychology

about why I have it. Much faster than looking up why I've used it for

decades, especially when that wouldn't support the rush to judgement

represented here.

I had my existential crisis 13 years ago, I'm free, I exist outside the field of influence you and your friends call the word, it's magic no longer holds me.

You examined your suppositions 13 years ago.

I applaud that.

I'd recommend RE-examining them anew periodically.

I do that, and sometimes I change some things,

and sometimes I find I understand some things more deeply.

It takes work, though.

And lots of reading-including reading opposing points of

view and seeing what they have to offer.

It also requires entertaining the notion that opposing points of

view have more to offer than "magic."

That might be a leap you're not ready to make at this time.

Protect your book of Roman propaganda if you want, remain ignorant if you wish, but do not pretend you know what you are talking about when you haven't even given this new information a proper investigation, what are you afraid of? Real illumination?

"Book of Roman propaganda". If it's true, it certainly wasn't proven

or supported by the author you linked here- embracing that is a much bigger

leap of faith than the ones I make to believe the Bible.

"Afraid?" I don't have infinite time so I haven't completed his book.

However, I've read what's he's said and other pages supporting him

enough to justify an initial finding that it's too flawed to waste

any more time on- as I said the first time and you ignored.

I didn't give infinite time to the guy who thought that vpw's work

was God-breathed either. I gave him sufficient time to justify an

initial finding that HIS work was too flawed, also.

BTW I expect nothing less then for you to continue on the way you are because it's obvious you won't change your course, you have to much invested in the word.

There's the blithe insult again.

It's a shame, IMHO, that you keep resorting to those

rather than checking if, just maybe, we saw something you're missing.

Historical references were pointed out, documental references were made,

but your way is much faster and much more comfortable,

I suppose.

I can tell many people here are still under the post hypnotic influence of VPW. That is truly sad.

Whenever someone lauds vpw, they vilify me among others.

I generally refuse to even grammatically be correct and capitalize his initials.

I've brought up things general and specific against him in a trove of contexts.

And yet someone can still come along and make claims like this.

And I am the one that gets accused of being dogmatic and intellectually lazy.

Something's truly sad here, all right.

Edited October 29, 2013 by WordWolf

[socks]

What a waste of time. Discussing the discussion, that's pretty much what happens and then of course disagreement = VPW has you hypnotized!

Oh well. This is the last time for me. S'yall!