HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Caesar's Messiah, The Rom...

Fri May 11, 2012, 02:54 PM

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.

54 replies, 5945 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Caesar's Messiah, The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (Original post)
Why Syzygy May 2012 OP
Viva_Daddy May 2012 #1
rug May 2012 #2
Why Syzygy May 2012 #14
rug May 2012 #16
Why Syzygy May 2012 #17
rug May 2012 #18
Why Syzygy May 2012 #13
leveymg May 2012 #3
leveymg May 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #9
Why Syzygy May 2012 #6
struggle4progress May 2012 #4
Why Syzygy May 2012 #7
struggle4progress May 2012 #8
Why Syzygy May 2012 #11
Why Syzygy May 2012 #12
struggle4progress May 2012 #21
laconicsax May 2012 #24
struggle4progress May 2012 #26
laconicsax May 2012 #25
Why Syzygy May 2012 #38
laconicsax May 2012 #40
Andy81 May 2012 #20
JeffP Oct 2013 #42
cbayer Oct 2013 #43
JeffP Oct 2013 #44
struggle4progress Oct 2013 #46
AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #10
daaron May 2012 #15
Joe Atwill May 2012 #19
rug May 2012 #22
Joe Atwill May 2012 #29
rug May 2012 #32
Why Syzygy May 2012 #35
rug May 2012 #36
Why Syzygy May 2012 #37
rug May 2012 #39
grantcart Oct 2013 #49
rug Oct 2013 #50
grantcart Oct 2013 #51
rug Oct 2013 #52
HereSince1628 May 2012 #33
AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #27
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #28
Joe Atwill May 2012 #30
muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #31
Why Syzygy May 2012 #34
JeffP Oct 2013 #41
gopiscrap Oct 2013 #45
grantcart Oct 2013 #48
grantcart Oct 2013 #47
dimbear May 2012 #23
3Pence Nov 2013 #53
gopiscrap Nov 2013 #54

Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:19 PM

1. A dubious claim at best. It is far more likely that the Gospel writers plagerized Josephus as they

did Homer when inventing their fictional divine hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Reply #1)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:24 PM

2. I don't think Creative Speculation itself would take this.

"One hates to be so severe in the analysis of the work of an innovative thinker who gives us the gift of a fresh reading of familiar texts, but in the present case it is hard to euphemize. The reading given here is just ludicrous."

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Fri May 11, 2012, 05:01 PM

14. Is that

the guy who tells you what to think? I'm bringing this and other studies like it here because in a discussion about religion, they warrant investigation. If you'd rather not participate in an investigative/reasoning/evaluating activity, you are excused. No forced labor here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #14)

Fri May 11, 2012, 10:21 PM

16. No, but if I had to pick one, he'd beat out your guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #16)

Fri May 11, 2012, 11:17 PM

17. so

are you saying that if you had to pick out someone to tell you what to think . he would beat out my 'guy'? Interesting approach. I don't have a guy and I would not want to pick one out. I like the investigative approach I mentioned. yeah . I'd rather think about things using my own grey matter. But I'm sure you would pick . well . someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #17)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:40 AM

18. I'm glad this guy's thinking resonates with your grey matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_Daddy (Reply #1)

Fri May 11, 2012, 04:57 PM

13. There are other good working theories ...

No attempt has been made so far to match any or all of these to one another.

This is another very good investigation.




We re-visit the work of Ralph Ellis, who joins us to discuss his series of six books on the topic of "Biblical Patriarchs as Royal Pharaohs of Egypt". Ralph has been researching biblical and Egyptian history for more than 30 years. Being independent from theological and educational establishments has allowed him to tread where others do not dare, and it is through this independence that Ralph has discovered so many new biblical and historical clues about what might be the truth. Perhaps one of the biggest 'cover-ups' is the fact that the Israelites were originally Egyptians, the Hyksos shepherd pharaohs who were ejected from Egypt in the 17th century BC. But this simple correlation colors the rest of biblical history, for it means that both King Solomon and Jesus were also of Egyptian heritage. We begin to look at many of the missing historical characters and re examine the timeline, the placing and in some cases the naming of certain biblical and Egyptian historical events. Topics Discussed: missing historical characters, Adam and Eve, sheperd kings, Old Testament, reassessment of biblical history, victimhood, Babylon exile, Egypt, the historical propaganda story, Judaism "light", persecution of the Christians, church of Jesus, Judaism, Eden in Egypt, the Nile, Amarna, El, Elohim, Yahweh, Akhenaton and Nefertiti, the Gen esis story, two main exoduses, revolutionaries, horrible living conditions in Amarna, pyramids, astrology, precession, messiah, Thoth, chronologies of the pharaohs, Saul, St Paul, Josephus and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:26 PM

3. Can you give us a synopsis of what the purpose of the alleged Imperial conspiracy was?

I've long wondered why it was the Jewish people who have historically borne the brunt of the enmity for "killing our Christ", while it was actually the Roman proconsul who ordered the execution and Roman soldiers who carried out the dirty deed of crucifying a rebellious Rabbi.

One would think that rational people, if they have to continue to blame someone for the death of Jesus, would focus more on the occupying Imperial power. But, that's not how it's worked all these centuries - maybe that result was not entirely accidental? Is Atwill making a similar point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:37 PM

5. This from Price's critique (above) sums it up, but Atwill strays further afield:

I will return presently to a handful of oddities that Atwill rightly points out, providing tasty food for further thought. But first I want to provide a broad sketch of the sense I think Atwill’s theory would make of New Testament phenomena, which is not to say it is the only theory that might account for these features. Picture a religious ethic of conspicuous compromise with the occupying authorities, a gospel that tells its believers not to resist any who confiscate their property, but to pay Roman taxes and to carry a legionary’s field pack twice the distance stipulated by Roman law. Imagine a story that blames not just Jews but implicitly nationalistic, messianic Jews for the destruction of their temple. A story that has the messiah predict that the kingdom will be taken from Jews and given to a more worthy nation. Keep in mind how the preacher of this sect befriends Jews who collaborate with Rome and eulogizes a Roman centurion for having faith unparalleled among Jews. He is declared innocent by Roman authorities but nonetheless is done in by Jewish rulers. Then think of how the predictions of the fall of Jerusalem a single generation later correspond so closely to Josephus’ account of the events, and furthermore, how Josephus even mentions Jesus as a righteous man and even as the messiah of prophetic prediction (though he himself had proclaimed Vespasian the proper object of such prophecy). When someone suggests that Christianity may have been a “safe,” denatured, Roman-domesticated, messianic Methadone to replace the real and dangerous messianic heroin of the Zealots, and that Josephus had something to do with it, it does not sound unreasonable on the face of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #5)

Fri May 11, 2012, 04:12 PM

9. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:37 PM

6. Not really.

Although he does write:

This latest ground-breaking work in Christian scholarship reveals a new and revolutionary understanding of the origin of Christianity, explaining what is the New Testament, who is the real Jesus, and how Christ's second coming already occurred. The book Caesar's Messiah shows that Jesus was the invention of the Roman Imperial Court. Their purpose: to offer a vision of a “peaceful Messiah” who would serve as an alternative to the revolutionary leaders who were rocking first-century Israel and threatening Rome. This discovery is based on the parallels found between the Gospels and the works of the historian Josephus, which occur IN SEQUENCE.

Some readers will find this analysis disorienting. Joseph Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah, says, “My book is in no way a criticism of the faith of contemporary Christians. I felt required to present my findings because of the light they shed on the origin and purpose both of anti-Semitism and the way that governments use propaganda to control their subjects.”
http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

There are other scholars who interpret the story differently. A couple of them have valid ideas as well.


eta: This concept cannot be adequately explored via a one hour presentation. However, I believe it warrants being thrown on the table with the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:35 PM

4. Atwill is an entrepreneur with an undergrad comp sci degree

As far as I can tell, nobody with any significant knowledge of early Christianity regards "Caesar's Messiah" as worth any attention at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Fri May 11, 2012, 03:42 PM

7. We need to

be reminded that *history* has been written by clerics. Our education system is based on cleric approved knowledge. I'm not satisfied to simply accept the story as the Religious have written it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #7)

Fri May 11, 2012, 04:05 PM

8. You can, of course, choose your reading to grind whatever axes you like,

though I suspect almost nobody will confuse such ax-grinding with scholarship

There are also informative and interesting readings of these old texts which do not involve traditional religious assumptions

But Atwill sounds neither informative nor interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #8)

Fri May 11, 2012, 04:44 PM

11. I'm not grinding axes

so I'm not sure if that was meant for me. It wasn't very clear.

There are endless informative readings. Then Clerics decided what *really happened*.
This is described in the works of Fomenko. His scholarly papers are in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko
(born 13 March 1945 in Stalino, USSR) is a Soviet and Russian mathematician, professor at Moscow State University, well known as a topologist, and a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a supporter of revising historical chronology.

The wiki that points to the full body of work. Fomenko didn't write these on his own. Panels worked as teams, iiuc. The findings received some sort of peer review. The deets are in the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

I have no final end point to defend at this time. I only have as a premise that we don't have the full story or all of the full stories, and that much was done to design to that end.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #11)

Fri May 11, 2012, 04:51 PM

12. The first book ..

I have started reading this book. I can't get into deep defenses or anything because I'm just not that proficient.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/2913621074/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=oceanartsta06-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=2913621074

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #11)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:42 PM

21. Fomenko seems to be a good mathematician, but based on the Wikipedia summary

of his historical views, I think I will not be rushing to study his ideas about chronology:

... Fomenko is a supporter of drastically revising historical chronology ... He ... claims ... the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event ... As well as disputing written chronologies, Fomenko also disputes more objective dating techniques such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko

That is ... um ... how shall I say it ... very original. I do not know how to choose between the natural alternative hypotheses, that either Fomenko has an offbeat sense of humor or is barking mad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #21)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:50 PM

24. Why didn't you quote the full two paragraphs?

 

You left out some of the best bits!
Fomenko is a supporter of drastically revising historical chronology. He has created his own revision called New Chronology, based on statistical correlations, dating of zodiacs, and by examining the mathematics and astronomy involved in chronology. Fomenko claims that he has discovered that many historical events do not correspond mathematically with the dates they are supposed to have occurred on. He asserts from this that all of ancient history (including the history of Greece, Rome, and Egypt) is just a reflection of events that occurred in the Middle Ages and that all of Chinese and Arab history are fabrications of 17th and 18th century Jesuits.

He also claims that Jesus lived in the 12th century A.D. and was crucified on Joshua's Hill; that the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event; and that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians. As well as disputing written chronologies, Fomenko also disputes more objective dating techniques such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating (see here for an examination of the latter criticism). His books include Empirico-statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications and History: Fiction or Science?.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laconicsax (Reply #24)

Sat May 12, 2012, 10:18 PM

26. I guess I figured I quoted enough to make the point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #11)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:53 PM

25. Did you actually read the Wiki entries you cited?

 

Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Saying that Fomenko is a crank would be insulting to other cranks.

Edited to add: Not only that, but Fomenko would absolutely reject the premise of your OP since, in his view, Jesus lived in the Middle Ages and all of Roman history was invented after the 11th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laconicsax (Reply #25)

Tue May 15, 2012, 04:41 PM

38. They don't cancel out.

The *historical era* can be moved without completely discarding either one.

Many of us here can agree that the story as told via mainstream religions isn't the sure fire solution.


I'm having trouble putting meaning into words this afternoon. I can try again later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #38)

Tue May 15, 2012, 05:20 PM

40. They absolutely cancel out.

 

Fomenko's thesis is that none of it was written until a millennia later by confused Europeans.

If he's right, the Romans didn't write anything about Jesus for any motive.

Of course, Fomenko's "New Chronology" is so laughably stupid I doubt even the History Channel would do a show on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Sat May 12, 2012, 10:00 AM

20. This is one of the most important books of our time.

Biblical scholars are blind, ask about similarities between works of Josephus and NT
http://altbibleschol.freehomepage.com/Josephus%20Parallels.html
http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2010/05/12/hadrians-parody/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 09:41 PM

42. Unimpressed by your 'call to authority'

I'm trying to think if I can imagine a less impressive group of 'scholars' than those 'believers' and 'non-believers' who spend their lives studying ancient 'original' Biblical manuscripts. The problem with this particular group is that there simply ARE NO 'ancient original Biblical manuscripts'. As Bart D. Ehrman has made abundantly clear Biblical scholarship has no source materials--NONE. It has always been complete speculation about copies of copies of copies. I am entirely unimpressed by your allusion to those with 'knowledge' of early Christianity. Please, cite for me one so-called Biblical scholar who has made a serious and academic refutation of 'Caesar's Messiah'. I'll look forward to reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JeffP (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 09:45 PM

43. Hello and Welcome to DU and to the Religion Group.

Just wanted to give you a heads up. You are posting in a very old thread that has been archived.

There are a couple threads on this topic in the main religion group, so you may want to take a look at them and participated there. That way, more people will see your responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #43)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 09:49 PM

44. Thank you!

I needed you look more closely at the dates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JeffP (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 10:20 PM

46. You may want to look at some of the references in this thread:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Fri May 11, 2012, 04:40 PM

10. Great catch. Thanks for posting it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Fri May 11, 2012, 05:27 PM

15. Hm. This doesn't seem completely legit on premise.

 

Though I admit I don't watch internet videos or listen to podcasts, only because I prefer to get my info my reading, so can only speak to the premise.

Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic Christian currently in the midst of some questioning, so forgive any offense, I only intend to lay out the complexity of the issue before making presumptuous claims. I'm an old hand on Randi.org, but a noobie, here. I don't intend offense, but let's say I'm testing the waters, curious to know if skepticism, in it's most philosophical sense, is welcome in this group, or no. I do hope not to get binned.

My issue with this thesis is that while there are conflicting theories of the development of early Christianity, it is generally agreed that the foundational roots of the creed lie in the intersection of the Hellenistic Levant and North Africa, still under the sway of Zoroastrianism (in all its diversity and longevity). Sure, Rome was also heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism via Hellenism - Sol Invictus was the State religion, and Mithraism the dominant royal cult of Rome in the centuries in the neighborhood of 0 CE, and both were Syrian/Babylonian in origin. But so were a bazillion other teensy cults scattered about from China to the Ivory Coast, or Hyperboria (pardon my disparate timelines).

The very idea of "magic" was introduced to Greece by Zoroaster's disciple, Osthanes, centuries earlier. It's this wellspring of belief in magic that so influenced early Christianity, and gives it's peculiar respect for the Miracle Man -- the Mystic and Prophet who owes no allegiance to a human King. By the time of Jesus, such thinking was thoroughly ingrained in the populace, and had splintered countless times.

I do believe my agnosticism stems from a conundrum tucked away in here: was there was enough complexity, and enough archetypical similarity between various Zoroastrian-based sects (including Judaism, to a large extend -- see Ezekiel and the Babylonian exile) to really fuel the sort of myth-formation that many modern Biblical scholars of the academic stripe have argued must have occurred? (At least, since l'fin-de-siecle, with it's Salons and enlightened self-honesty (thank you, novelists)).

It's almost like the debate over global warming, except we have no recourse to science for objective answers. Was there enough metaphorical CO2 in the atmosphere to force a stable-state shift? Clearly, something happened. It was either divine, or human, or neither.

So are we back to Nice?

I am forced to wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:50 AM

19. Caesar's Messiah

To all:

I will be happy to answer questions and comments concerning my thesis.

Joe Atwill

author Caesar's Messiah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #19)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:38 PM

22. Is this your thesis?

Titus had Josephus invent Jesus and had four Romans write the four Gospels to invent a religion that would divide occupied Palestine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Sun May 13, 2012, 10:46 AM

29. Hi Rug:

No.

Joe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #29)

Sun May 13, 2012, 01:31 PM

32. Hi Joe,

What is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #32)

Tue May 15, 2012, 01:31 PM

35. rug

How many times have you listened to the audio I posted in OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #35)

Tue May 15, 2012, 02:04 PM

36. Once.

It would be helpful if you can distill it into a sentence or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #36)

Tue May 15, 2012, 04:36 PM

37. If it will help, I'll do something

I've already listened to it about half a dozen times. This one hour interview is just the front page. I've read/heard about other theories that either support or offer different view points. I've not taken the effort to piece them all together.

I'll make a point to listen to this particular one again and make some notes for you.

I reject so much partisan story telling. Confusion is not a bad thing. It's a catalyst for new concepts, twists and turns. I never fall in line for the conventional ways ... So even if this is not fully understood, and draws from unfamiliar ideas, imo the task is beneficial to expand our awareness.

I'll get back to you with a synopsis as you request. It's nice to hear your willingness to look closer.

Since I'm not 'selling' this thesis, I don't have a story board or anything. But I will definitely get back and see if I can give you what you've requested here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #37)

Tue May 15, 2012, 04:57 PM

39. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #36)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 01:28 AM

49. Have you seen how much money they are making off of finding a "Mermaid"?

Reality shows trailing Sasquatch?


Two sentences.


If you want a point by point then this undergrad Rutgers student has done a decent job from a classics point of view. From a biblical scholarship point of view there would be another 50 pages.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/

Oh and see reply # 41 and tell me that isn't Joe's sycophantic sock puppet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #49)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 11:04 AM

50. Something's going on to kick a 15 month old thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #50)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 12:40 PM

51. The 'scholarship' attributed to this would be the same as a

Creationist explaining that all of the different species that were found at Galapagos were the result of something that was found in the book of Job.

The authorship and purpose of the three synoptic gospels is something that has been studied for a couple of hundred years and which there are hundreds of thousands of books on.

I had one professor that spent 14 years on the book of Matthew. He took off 2 years to live and study in Germany so that he could fluently read all of the German scholarship on the subject. This guy is to Biblical scholars as a cub scout is to Seal Team 6.

Most of the scholars are not related to the Church and the peer review process is the same as any other academic discipline, brutally honest and highly competitive.

So the idea that Christianity was somehow invented or encouraged by the Romans is just laughable. To begin with Palestine was a small little backwater in the Roman empire. The early Church was not a happy place. All of the narrative books of the Bible were written in deep crises. Genesis was written during the Babylonian Captivity, the Synoptic gospels were written trying to patch together a broken movement struggling to understand how this terrible murder and the destruction of the Jewish establishment by the Romans (and the loss of the Temple) were part of God's plan.

Beyond that there are too many intrinsically non Roman elements (beyond the structure, content, style and authorship) to allow anybody above a cartoon level of thinking to think that this is plausible.

Just how, for example, would the Romans come up with Pentecost?

It is a poorly informed non scholarly profit making enterprise trying to duplicate the financial success of The Da Vinci code with spurious books and movies.

The Romans weren't in the 'myth building' business. They were in the 'co-opting and destroying' business. This is what they did with the Sadducees and the Temple.

All of these attempts follow the same fallacy. Because they see the Jewish and early Christian writers borrow heavily from other sources, including Pagan sources they try build constructs that it came from those sources rather than the obvious, and well established point that the Jewish tribes were very good at intellectual integration and absorption which accounts for numerous outside influences going all the way back to the Noah myth to the Roman Jew Paul who showed that he could and would take any non Jewish metaphysical thought and adapt it to explain his Christian faith and experience.

I don't mind a little charlatan hucksterism with a view of putting some dollars in a person's pocket, I object that it is such a poorly done one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #51)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 12:45 PM

52. Ok, OK, I'm convinced!

Lol, great work, grant. It's hard to believe that this gets even a passing glance, let alone is posted four times on DU and tweeted by Dawkins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #29)

Sun May 13, 2012, 11:13 PM

33. So...without any judgement about your thesis...

Welcome to DU

I hope your interactions here are enjoyable for you and other DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #19)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:54 PM

27. Thank you for the information you've already provided. I'm looking forward to reading your book.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #19)

Sun May 13, 2012, 10:45 AM

28. What's your explanation for Tacitus' description of Nero's persecution of Roman Christians?

He places them before the Jewish rebellion, but describes them as a small sect, on bad terms with the Roman Empire and thus easy to blame for Rome's fire. This does not fit with the idea of Christians as an obedient-to-Rome version of the Jews.

And if the entire religion was an invention to get better cooperation with Rome, why did it fail so badly at that, for the first couple of hundred years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #28)

Sun May 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

30. Hi Muriel:

The Christians that set fire to Rome - if this was an historical event - would have certainly been the Christians that rebelled and drove the Romans out of Judea in 66 CE.

This was simply how long it took.

Joe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #30)

Sun May 13, 2012, 10:58 AM

31. Ah, so your thesis is not that Josephus et al invented Christianity

for the Vespasian dynasty - just that they wrote the gospels to try to change it into a Roman-friendly religion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #30)

Tue May 15, 2012, 01:25 PM

34. Hello!

Didn't expect to see you here. I find your thesis fascinating, as well as a few others covering the events. Anything you can share/add here is greatly appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Atwill (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 09:18 PM

41. Thank You Mr. Atwill

Thank you for your most remarkable book. I have searched all day for serious and scholarly responses to 'Caesar's Messiah'. Robert Price's response made absolutely no academic scratch in you thesis whatsoever. To say that I am impressed and stuck senseless by the weight of your work is an understatement. Have any serious Biblical scholars made any reasoned attempt to refute your book or have they mostly been railings like Price's--much bark with no bite.

What you suggest is extraordinary, beautifully reasoned, and will hit the small community of Biblical scholarship both the 'faithful' and atheists alike and their followers like a fire which shall burn their houses down. Imagine realizing that the whole historical house of Christian cards has simply turned up to be a psychological operation the success of which no one could have dreamed. Your book certainly puts 'Scientology' and 'Mormonism' and so many previous and more recent human fabrications in humorously good company. I look forward to reading more from your desk.

Again, Thank you! Jef Powers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JeffP (Reply #41)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 10:04 PM

45. Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #45)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 01:23 AM

48. sychophantic adoration to a third rate huckster who just happens to join DU

the day after the huckster joins and has been searching all day for scholarly responses to this third rate trill and cannot find the dozens of reviewers who have laughed themselves hoarse reading and reviewing this garbage but instead comes here and magically finds the author of his dreams in a political forum that has no serious audience in peer review biblical or roman studies.

One reviewer summed it up with this simple sentence:


This is the sort of thing peer-reviewed periodicals like the Journal of Romans Studies would never print




I checked a couple of reviews and this one is as good as any:

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/

I mean this is just golden cow scat. Seriously. Why? Because that is what you’re watching.


They would have laughed him out of the introductory New Testament class at Princeton Theological Seminary.

This falls above the discovery of Mermaids but below the discovery of Sasquatch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JeffP (Reply #41)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 01:02 AM

47. Thank you Joe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:11 PM

23. It is true that there was a dearth of first names in Palestine in the first century.

That shortage has led to an enormous amount of misunderstanding.

It evidently stems from the practice of naming grandsons after their grandfathers in hopes of material or spiritual reward.

Our current system with far more unique names makes history run a lot smoother.

See the Talpiot Tomb for examples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:28 PM

53. Edwin Johson

I think the thesis makes good sense, considering that there a strong case that New Testament was written by the same group of people who also wrote the works of Josephus. Re: The Rise of British Culture, by Edwin Johnson.

He makes a good case of arguing that Christianity before the invention of the printing Press ( you're correct Gutenberg didn't exist either, just check it, nothing was known of him and not even until 100 years after his death - burial place unknown - no book existed printed with his printing atelier's name on it. ) was more Arian/Nestorian in nature.

He further argues it was the Benedictines of Monte Cassino ( Judenberg = Gutenberg ) were the ones who introduced the Printing press. He argues the Quran was the first printed holy book and in the 14th century the Jews of Spain wrote their own version not even called Old Testament at the time. The Benedictines then took it upon themselves, building upon the writings of the Jews of Spain, to write the New Testament basing the three gospels (very similar) as response and fulfillment of the Jewish books and mingling it with their Rule of St. Benedict. The gospel of St. John was in fact written earlier. They also wrote almost all Church Father's writings, to give the new distance of the West from the Eastern forms of Christianity a more authoritative foundation. Hence the same arguments over and over again for a thousand years. Amongst those writings was also Josephus' history of the War with the Jews, which was much more recent in origin, namely from 1200-1300.

Monte Cassino was also instrumental in laying the foundations of Rome as seat of the Papacy since 1417. It is also clear in that the Papal families in those days had mostly a Jewish Origin. Hence Rome indeed did create our version of Jesus. This Jesus is distinctly and historically different from the Jesus in the Quran, who is much closer to Moses and most likely the source for the book of Yoshua in the Old Testament. The figure Yoshua again does not exist in the Quran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3Pence (Reply #53)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:17 PM

54. welcome to du

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread