"Caesar's Messiah" by Joseph Atwill (resources and discussion)

Anyone up for a discussion of this book??

Originally posted by Lilitu
www.caesarsmessiah.com...

www.amazon.com...=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7188025-8619003?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205433904&sr=1-1< br />

Caesar's Messiah, a real life Da Vinci Code, presents the dramatic and controversial discovery that the conventional views of Christian origins may be wrong. Author Joseph Atwill makes the case that the Christian Gospels were actually written under the direction of first-century Roman emperors. The purpose of these texts was to establish a peaceful Jewish sect to counterbalance the militaristic Jewish forces that had just been defeated by the Roman Emperor Titus in 70 A.D.

Atwill uncovered the secret key to this story in the writings of Josephus, the famed first-century Roman historian. Reading Josephus's chronicle, The War of the Jews, the author found detail after detail that closely paralleled events recounted in the Gospels.

Atwill skillfully demonstrates that the emperors used the Gospels to spark a new religious movement that would aid them in maintaining power and order. What's more, by including hidden literary clues, they took the story of the Emperor Titus's glorious military victory, as recounted by Josephus, and embedded that story in the Gospels - a sly and satirical way of glorifying the emperors through the ages.

- source: www.abovetopsecret.com... *
* didn't want to bump a two year old thread for one quote *

I found a free ebook version of the book on scribd:
www.scribd.com...

I have read this and will happily give this book as my highest recommendation for research on this topic. Has anyone here read this book who would be interested in discussing it?

PEACE!
- Jon

EDIT: found a youtube vid of an interview with Joseph Atwill, the author. ENJOY!



[edit on 5-4-2010 by benpadiah]

I am totally into Caesar's Messiah.
Ia m very much interested to see Christians trying to disprove this theory.
It is so solid.

I would be very interested in discussing this book. First, I have to state that I still haven't fully completed it yet, though I've read a substantial portion of it.

Some of his facts were a bit of a stretch, but one section I found particularly compelling. This was his explanation of the empty tomb. I was aware that the NT gospels do not agree on the details of the empty tomb. Some say there was 1 angel, some say 2, some the other disciples were notified and in some they were not. I always thought this was very curious that they did not agree since this is one of the most critical stories of the bible, Jesus' resurrection. But this book was the first to point out that each gospel empty tomb story has a time stamp. One says the women came before dawn, one says early in the morning, and so on. This was the first time I had ever heard this and it turns out to be true! And if you put the empty tomb stories together according to their timestamps, they do tell a different story! It seems very unlikely that each story would specifically mention a time (or time stamp) if there wasn't a specific reason for it.

I found this to be absolutely incredible! It does appear to show the hand of "somebody," whether you believe it to be Flavious Romans or not, writing something into the gospels that has nothing to do with Jesus.

This was the first explanation I have ever heard about why the gospels do not agree on the empty tomb story. I am amazed that more people (religious scholars and such) aren't talking about this.

What did you (or anyone else) think of that section?

I just finished reading this book, and to be honest, I think this book has the power to CRUSH the truth of Christianity. It is the most groundbreaking expose probably ever created.

One thing however dumbfounds me. Robert Atwill's book almost seems too good. How could he have discovered all this? It seems too sophisticated.

Here's a possible explanation, if you like.

The Romans created Christianity, as Atwill shows. It is irrefutable. The Jesus resurrection narratives in the 4 gospels definitively proves it. The connections made between Jospehus' war of the Jews and the gospels is astoundingly clever, especially after the empty tomb chapter. And who could doubt the Romans didn't have the sagacity, wit and wrathful irony not to do something like this?

They were psychologists. They looked at the Jews, the way they think, and they literally took their religion and created a counter-religion. This counter-religion is Judaic, but it contains kernal ideas of Roman and Greek philosophical beliefs, imbedded in the veneer of a Jewish theology. The surface level teachings of the New Testament are good basic beliefs which mostly build upon the spirit of the Hebrew Bible. But then interspersed is what you could call 'gnostic' beliefs. In fact, this religion seems to be an allegorical redaction of Philos philosophy! As Atwill shows, it was the Alexanders - Philo's family, along with the Herods and Flavians, who created this religion. It came from their chief thinkers, philosophers and mystics, who imbedded both extremely deep beliefs, as well as an acerbic revelation: a brazen statement of the Roman source of the new religion.

Thus, the Gnostics were condemned because they were outside the established authority. They were teaching gnostic-level or hidden allegory of the gospels and pauline writings to a group outside established circles, inviting laymen to study it. The establishment - even though positively aware of these esoteric ideas - couldn't allow people going behind their back doing these sort of things.

Has anyone here read The Brother's Karamazov? Remember the Grand Inquisitor story Ivan told to Alyosha? Well, that's the grim logic Rome used in creating Christianity. It's also why the new authority was established in Rome, and just to show how ironical the Romans were - just as Atwill describes, beautifully, they established the Vatican at Nero's circus! A place of 'games', gladitorial fights, and races. This is what the kingdom of Christianity ultimately symbolizes. The same establishment, the same people, with essentially the same philosophy as old pagan Rome, ruling behind the veneer of the good religion of Christianity, feeding the ignorant masses a myth to keep them happy. Dostoevsky ingeniously described the logic of these people.

So, I think the Roman Catholic Church retains the memory of Rome's creation of Christianity. I also think as the heirs of the helm of the Roman empire - the pontifex maximus, a title of Caeser - they are simply carrying on the political project of Rome into the modern era, and so, preserved the tradition of New Testament interpretation, both in it's spiritual, as well as in it's ironic forms.

In short, I think Robert Atwill must have had some help with these interpretations. Whether they came from without, or he himself is simply publicizing this ancient secret of the Christian tradition, I just can't explain how he could come over this by accident. Its simply too thorough. As he noted, nobody in history saw this. Not even a personality as irreverent as Machiavelli, or any other irreverent bible scholar and student of Greek/Roman intellectual traditions, came by it.

But, if he did, he only deduced what is already so obvious to many people. The Jews were rebelling against Rome, and so Rome used the religion of the Jews to contain/control the forces of Jewish messianism. It's too coincidental that this religion showed up at that time. It's theology also contradicts basic tenets of Judaism.

Anyways, after reading this book, I can now better understand the mindset of those Popes who watched with glee as they forced the Jews to walk under the arch of Titus - symbolizing Romes victory over the Jews.

reply to post by IJustWant2Know


It is both amazing, and easy to explain. As this project is still in force, they can't be having people talk about this book, lest it's gravity subvert their future plans.

I'm not going to bother with a lengthy rebuttal since I've literally spent hours and hours researching and debunking this theory...

But I will say this: Secular history simply does not support this idea at all. In fact, it suggests that Atwill's theories are demonstrably false.

If you'd like to read a lengthy debate about it, you can find it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The issue is brought up on page 9 and debated ad nauseam until near the end of the thread.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Are you Christian?

reply to post by dontreally


Yep. Doesn't really matter if you're Christian or not though (and I have taken that position in the debate, if you bother to read the thread). It is provable using SECULAR historical resources that Atwill is out to lunch.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I found his thesis pretty convincing.

Of course, as a Christian, with your beliefs, and feelings with regard to your faith, it could be crushing for you to accept that your religion is a mythos just like most other religions.

As a student of the Bible myself, and a reader of Hebrew, I am often astounded at the intellectual depth of the Hebrew scriptures. From Genesis, trough Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, etc, the prophetic writings and the psalms, the Hebrew bible conveys the metaphysical, theological, ethical, epistemological and political beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.

You are emotionally compromised. You can no more talk about this with perfect clarity than a relative can serve as a witness for a defendant. You're disqualified on emotional grounds.

Of course, if you simply cared for the spirit of the scriptures, whether it is based on real events or not should be irrelevant.

I've read many of the books on Hebrew typology that Atwill recommends in his book; from Robert Alter's 'art of biblical narrative', Yoram Hazony's 'philosophy of the Hebrew scripture', Leon Kass' 'reading genesis'. And so, knowing and accepting the reality of how the Hebrews thought, I can see how the Romans and their Jewish accomplices could devise a new testament along similar lines. Atwill's thesis is just an extension of these ideas.

Now, the Hebrew bible was born in a different time and place from Christianity. Whereas political events - Roman occupation and oppression, led to the creation of Christianity by the Romans, the Hebrew Bible may have been based on actual events, perhaps mythologized a little.

However, you can't ignore the perfect logic Atwill uses in challenging the absurdity that a religion amenable to Rome was born at a period of Jewish rebellion against Rome. The likelihood that this was just coincidence, is too great! Human beings are not that politically different today compared to 2000 years ago. Just as socialists, communists, and nationalists build or exaggerate false ideas - myths, or hopes - in the minds of the masses, so too do did the Romans do in their day.

At the root of it, that idea bothers you. And so you're not able to admit the largesse of Atwill's discovery.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I found his thesis pretty convincing.

Of course, as a Christian, with your beliefs, and feelings with regard to your faith, it could be crushing for you to accept that your religion is a mythos just like most other religions.

As a student of the Bible myself, and a reader of Hebrew, I am often astounded at the intellectual depth of the Hebrew scriptures. From Genesis, trough Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, etc, the prophetic writings and the psalms, the Hebrew bible conveys the metaphysical, theological, ethical, epistemological and political beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.

You are emotionally compromised. You can no more talk about this with perfect clarity than a relative can serve as a witness for a defendant. You're disqualified on emotional grounds.

Of course, if you simply cared for the spirit of the scriptures, whether it is based on real events or not should be irrelevant.

I've read many of the books on Hebrew typology that Atwill recommends in his book; from Robert Alter's 'art of biblical narrative', Yoram Hazony's 'philosophy of the Hebrew scripture', Leon Kass' 'reading genesis'.

Now, the Hebrew bible was born in a different time and place from Christianity. Whereas political events - Roman occupation and oppression, led to the creation of Christianity by the Romans, the Hebrew Bible may have been based on actual events, perhaps mythologized a little.

However, you can't ignore the perfect logic Atwill uses in challenging the absurdity that a religion amenable to Rome was born at a period of Jewish rebellion against Rome. The likelihood that this was just coincidence, is too great! Human beings are not that politically different today compared to 2000 years ago. Just as socialists, communists, and nationalists build or exaggerate false ideas - myths, or hopes - in the minds of the masses, so too do did the Romans do in their day.

At the root of it, that idea bothers you. And so you're not able to admit the largesse of Atwill's discovery.

edit on 10-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

If Atwill was capable of producing a sound case, I would be willing to give it credence. The reality is that he has done no such thing, and the dates simply don't line up. It doesn't matter if you believe in a historical Jesus or not, Atwill's claims that the new testament was authored by the Flavian Dynasty do not stand up to historical scrutiny, PERIOD.

Let's assume that you have studied the bible to the extent that you claim. You should know right off the bat that the notion the new testament casts rome in a favorable light is nonsense. Taking a few scriptures out of context (Such as "give to caesar what is caesar's") does not indicate the religion was invented by the romans. As is said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and Atwill has provided little in the way of evidence).

It's not a matter of emotional attachment. It's a matter of historical accuracy. Are we to believe that roman historians were in on this charade? Why do we find historical evidence of Christians being blamed for the great fire of rome (which predates the Flavian Dynasty)? Why also, do we find evidence of Christians being persecuted in Christianity's earliest years? If Rome authored the religion in some sort of grand conspiracy to subjugate the Jewish rebellion, why attempt to crush the very religion it supposedly authored for this purpose?

You can point fingers and claim I have an emotional investment in the argument all you like. The same could be said of your own investments. The point is this: History does not support Atwill's claims.

Originally posted by dontreally
In short, I think Robert Atwill must have had some help with these interpretations. Whether they came from without, or he himself is simply publicizing this ancient secret of the Christian tradition

What if you never did believe the Jesus myth and go on to ask the question “what made the Romans make/use the Jesus myth as a basis of control (shifting the empire to be based on theocratic rule)” - then wouldn’t the “how they did it” become clear?

ps i think its - **Joseph** Atwill

So christianity is a fraud? I always suspected such, I never really liked the idea of a god that would smote people so much, a very tyranical god that is jealous and wrathfull. Was it abraham that he told to kill his son? Thats cruel and after all if he had created him then why would he need to test his faith? It makes no sense. But some would say that god created us and we fell because some ancestor ate an apple yeah right that makes sense too its all so clear now. Those crafty romans I salute you for your cleverness.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

casts rome in a favorable light is nonsense

Are you serious?

Ok. The Jewish messianism of that era was militaristic. Jesus preached a very docile and pacific religion.

That's not to Rome's advantage?

, and the dates simply don't line up.

What dates?? There's no proof of the gospels in the era described you mean??? It was circulated during the Flavian Dynasties, so, towards the end of the Flavian dynasty 70-96. Whats the issue? Because we have no specimens from that era, his thesis couldn't be possible?

There's no date problem, at all. And it is especially illuminating, as he shows, how the first Caeser to publicly declare himself a Christian, was FLAVIUS Constantine.

A name always bespeaks something about your origins. Flavius Josephus, for instance, was actually Yosef Ben Matthias. He hellenized his name and took on the 'name' of his Roman "lord", the Flavians. He used a name to express his own philosophical or ideological connections; he wasn't a "Jew" in the spiritual sense anymore, but a Roman, and flavius reflected that.

For the first Christian emperor to have the same name as the family who destroyed the first temple, and subsequently created Christianity, is too coincidental.

The Romans loved conspiracy. Maybe they never thought the religion would catch on like this, who knows? It may have been a localized thing to deal with the Jews of the empire. But it grew beyond the Jews, and eventually became so widespread that Rome decided to transform its outer image into the 'church' of Christianity.

Originally posted by Bilky
So christianity is a fraud? I always suspected such, I never really liked the idea of a god that would smote people so much, a very tyranical god that is jealous and wrathfull. Was it abraham that he told to kill his son? Thats cruel and after all if he had created him then why would he need to test his faith? It makes no sense. But some would say that god created us and we fell because some ancestor ate an apple yeah right that makes sense too its all so clear now. Those crafty romans I salute you for your cleverness.

And this, is a shining example of why I bothered to research Atwill's claims, and look into the actual history of the period to discern if there was anything to them or not. Here we have someone who has taken a cursory look at the material, and allowed his or her pre-existing bias to cloud their judgement to such an extent that they are willing to take Atwill's claims as truth without bothering to do so much as 20 minutes of research on their own.

It's one thing to speculate or postulate on the origins of myths or religions. It's another to rewrite history and have people blindly assume it's fact. I'm all for facing cold hard reality. What I cannot support is it's fabrication.

From the thread I linked to:

-Josephus didn't meet vespasian until some time around 67AD. We know that paul began his writings in 48 or 49AD. That means that Josephus would have been 11 or 12 years old when some of the earliest writings of the NT began. Are we to imagine that Josephus wrote these books at this age? It's preposterous.

The general story of the conspiracy theory is that this grand plot was concocted to pacify the Jews and put down any rebellions they might try to start. Some flaws in this theory:

-Why would the romans need to do this when they had already crushed the Jewish uprisings, and leveled the temple?

-Why are other historians who mentioned Jesus (or even the "Christians" of that time), conveniently omitted from this theory?

-Why would the Jews accept this religion in the first place? It makes no sense. They would have found it heretical and an abomination to YHVH (which they did, and still do).

-If the goal was to convert the most zealous jewish militants at the time, then the logic the New Testament would pacify them is completely backwards. If anything, it would have inflamed them even more.

-The theory centers around the assumption that the NT speaks favorably of the Romans. It does no such thing and is full of criticisms against Rome and the corruption there in.

-TACITUS, The Annals of Imperial Rome Book XV, chapter 47 (A.D. 64) [during the Great Fire of Rome]
"...neither human resources, nor imperial generosity, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated the sinister suspicion that the fire had been deliberately started. To stop the rumor, NERO, made scapegoats--and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved CHRISTIANS (as they were popularly called). Their originator, CHRIST, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the Procurator of Judaea, PONTIUS PILATUS (governor from 26 to 36 A.D.). But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out again, not just in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital. First, NERO had the self-admitted Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned--not so much for starting fires as because of their hatred for the human race. Their deaths were made amusing. Dressed in wild animals' skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be seton fire after dark as illumination.... Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man's brutality rather than to the national interest."

-If the argument is that Tacitus was in on this conspiracy, Why does he condemn the Christians? His words here seem to indicate that the Romans considered Christians a problem, not a boon to their cause. They also imply (having been written in 117AD) that Christians existed BEFORE the reign of Vespasian, and BEFORE Josephus even MET Vespasian.

-Vespasian was dispatched by Nero in 67AD to put down the Jewish uprising. This is when he encounters Josephus. In order for the New testament to have been a Flavian Conspiracy, Nero would have had to of been in on it.

-The Great Fire of Rome occurred in 64AD. Christians were subsequently blamed for this fire. Are we to believe that numerous ROMAN historians were ALL in on this conspiracy, and rewrote their own history to accommodate Vespasian's grand conspiracy?

-Vespasian was a roman general before he was emperor (serving under Nero). Are we to believe that a Roman general would have an intimate enough knowledge of Old Testament works and Jewish customs, beliefs, and practices (not to mention a command of the greek written language as well as hebrew and aramaic) that he could have orchestrated the creation of an entire religion targeting messianic jews PRIOR to his dispatch in 67AD? He subsequently invaded Jerusalem and razed the temple. In order for Vespasian to have procured the JEWISH scholars necessary to undertake this massive hoax, and allow them time to write the New Testament (or even Paul's letters) He would have required AT LEAST 5 years to produce even ONE book of the NT. This says nothing of WHY any jewish scholar would offer to author a religion to subjugate his own people in the first place.

-Tacitus (as I have already pointed out) spoke of Christians in a very anti-christian manner. There is no way around this. On top of this, Tacitus wrote based on Documents he had access to at the time (which he cites) including documents from the reign of Tiberius (who he explicitly names as the Emperor during the period of Christs execution). Not only does he do this, He names Pontius Pilatus as the procurator of the region.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

We know that paul began his writings in 48 or 49AD.

And how do we know that? Or is this just a commonly accepted academic theory?

According to Atwills theory, the Romans backdated their writings into an earlier period.

There are no physical specimens from that era.

Josephus didn't meet vespasian until some time around 67AD.

The book is backdated. There are no writings from that era.

Ignatius of Antioch was the first Christian to use the label in self-reference and made the earliest recorded use of the term Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός), around 100 AD

Link

I know it's hard to take. I can only stress that it is the spirit, theology and meaning of the scriptures that should matter to you. Not the historicity.

You can't posit an academic theory of Christian theologians as if it were evidence.

Christianity made it mainstream in the late 1st century because it was created by the Flavians, the House of Alexander and the house of Herod, based on the philosophy of Philo and correlated with Josphus' war of the Jew (with an intimation or two from other works) in the 70's or 80's.

This theory is so sound, it only politics that is keeping it from mass publication.

Why would the romans need to do this when they had already crushed the Jewish uprisings, and leveled the temple?

Because there was still Jewish rebellion? Looked what happened in 131? The 2nd Jewish rebellion. It is clear they did not completely stymy the rebellious spirit of the Jews. During this brief 'respite' between wars, the Romans hatched Christianity.

Why would the Jews accept this religion in the first place? It makes no sense. They would have found it heretical and an abomination to YHVH (which they did, and still do).

Hundreds of the thousands of Jews in this time period were Hellenized. Simply look at Philo. The culture about them was Greco-Roman. Judaism was hardly surviving in its original form; there was wide religious segmentation, for example, between the pharisees, who taught a more legalistic Judaism based in an esoteric tradition (these were the authentic Jews), and the Sadduccee, or hellenized Jews who were installed as temple priests during the Hasmonean dynasty. There was thus a huge romanized Jewish population where Christianity could grow from.

-The theory centers around the assumption that the NT speaks favorably of the Romans. It does no such thing and is full of criticisms against Rome and the corruption there in.

And yet it insists on submission. Render what to Caesers what is Caesers. This is pacifism. The Jews would bear arms and fight to their deaths; the Christians, who may have hated the Romans, wouldn't get involved, because Christs kingdom "wasn't of this world".

If the argument is that Tacitus

Tacitus was in on the conspiracy. He himself despised the Jewish religion, so why wouldn't he be aware of the religious agenda of the Flavian court?

And please. There's no contradiction in both sustaining and criticizing a party that you control. Here's an example, the CIA is involved in the drug trade, yet the government criticizes the drug trade, and even forms agencies to help counter it. They both fund it and make money off of it, and 'counter' it by dealing with a part of it. Or, the US' funding and aiding of Islamist terrorist organizations, amidst a war on terror.

Theres no contradiction; it's sophisticated political logic.

Vespasian was dispatched by Nero in 67AD to put down the Jewish uprising. This is when he encounters Josephus. In order for the New testament to have been a Flavian Conspiracy, Nero would have had to of been in on it.

Why? Vespasian may have developed it on his own with his own circle of thinkers. In fact, since Vespasian had so much contact with Jews in Judea, he would have been the first emperor to have become aware of the weltanschaung of the Jews. And he, his family and other Jewish families came together to create the religion.

Roman general would have an intimate enough knowledge of Old Testament works and Jewish customs, beliefs, and practices

Atwill mentions time and again that Jewish scholars in the house of Alexander and Herod were involved with the creation of the new testament. And why do you keep emphasizing 67? It didn't have to be written then. It could have been written after '70 and backdated to 33 CE, to show that Jesus' predictions were fulfilled by the emperor Titus.

All your complaints are extremely untenable. Again showing your emotional investment in rejecting Atwills thesis.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Bilky
So christianity is a fraud? I always suspected such, I never really liked the idea of a god that would smote people so much, a very tyranical god that is jealous and wrathfull. Was it abraham that he told to kill his son? Thats cruel and after all if he had created him then why would he need to test his faith? It makes no sense. But some would say that god created us and we fell because some ancestor ate an apple yeah right that makes sense too its all so clear now. Those crafty romans I salute you for your cleverness.

And this, is a shining example of why I bothered to research Atwill's claims, and look into the actual history of the period to discern if there was anything to them or not. Here we have someone who has taken a cursory look at the material, and allowed his or her pre-existing bias to cloud their judgement to such an extent that they are willing to take Atwill's claims as truth without bothering to do so much as 20 minutes of research on their own.

It's one thing to speculate or postulate on the origins of myths or religions. It's another to rewrite history and have people blindly assume it's fact. I'm all for facing cold hard reality. What I cannot support is it's fabrication.

And what I cannot support is the endorsement of a two thousand year old book written by nomads who didn't know s#it from clay. As i said in my post am i to blindly believe that I am a fallen creature because two humans ate the forbidden fruit? Anyone who does has sold their individuality and substituted it for guilt and the only chance of salvation in a tastless wafer . The old church used to sell wavers for a fortune garaunteeing a place in heaven, so no matter what those bastards did to the peasants they still had a get out of jail free card. Look I've been very accomodating to christianity[ I am baptised roman catholic btw] but its a fable. A well written fable if you are a ten yr old.

reply to post by dontreally

And how do we know that? Or is this just a commonly accepted academic theory? According to Atwills theory, the Romans backdated their writings into an earlier period. There are no physical specimens from that era.

It is a commonly accepted academic theory. Joseph Atwill is neither a historian or an academic, and possesses ZERO credibility, so again, there is no evidence to back up his claims on this issue.

The book is backdated. There are no writings from that era.

Which book is back dated? Paul's writings, or Josephus' writings? And to what date?

I know it's hard to take. I can only stress that it is the spirit, theology and meaning of the scriptures that should matter to you. Not the historicity. You can't posit an academic theory of Christian theologians as if it were evidence. Christianity made it mainstream in the late 1st century because it was created by the Flavians, the House of Alexander and the house of Herod, based on the philosophy of Philo and correlated with Josphus' war of the Jew (with an intimation or two from other works) in the 70's or 80's. This theory is so sound, it only politics that is keeping it from mass publication.

What's hard to take? The idea that the romans authored the NT? Yes it IS hard to take, because there is ZERO evidence to support it and a mountain of evidence to suggest Atwill's theories are complete nonsense. There are NON CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL EVIDENCES TO BACK THIS UP.

Christianity was in no position to make anything "main stream" in the 1st century AD because it was in it's earliest stages and being persecuted not only by it's Jewish contemporaries, but by the Romans as well. It could not have been created by the Flavian Dynasty because it can be PROVEN by NON-CHRISTIAN sources that Christianity predates the Flavian Dynasty.

Because there was still Jewish rebellion? Looked what happened in 131? The 2nd Jewish rebellion. It is clear they did not completely stymy the rebellious spirit of the Jews. During this brief 'respite' between wars, the Romans hatched Christianity.

Well then why persecute Christianity if the Romans created it to pacify the Jewish rebellions? Atwill's theory again falls flat on it's face.

Hundreds of the thousands of Jews in this time period were Hellenized. Simply look at Philo. The culture about them was Greco-Roman. Judaism was hardly surviving in its original form; there was wide religious segmentation, for example, between the pharisees, who taught a more legalistic Judaism based in an esoteric tradition (these were the authentic Jews), and the Sadduccee, or hellenized Jews who were installed as temple priests during the Hasmonean dynasty. There was thus a huge romanized Jewish population where Christianity could grow from.

This does not indicate in any way shape or form that the Flavian Dynasty was responsible for the authorship of the NT (again, since Christianity predates said dynasty).

And yet it insists on submission. Render what to Caesers what is Caesers. This is pacifism. The Jews would bear arms and fight to their deaths; the Christians, who may have hated the Romans, wouldn't get involved, because Christs kingdom "wasn't of this world".

How does pacifism indicate the religion was authored by the Romans? If this is the case, Why would the Romans (supposedly being the true authors of the NT) record the persecutions of the Christians by the Romans, and subsequent executions of some of the Churches founding authors in the New Testament itself?

Tacitus was in on the conspiracy. He himself despised the Jewish religion, so why wouldn't he be aware of the religious agenda of the Flavian court? And please. There's no contradiction in both sustaining and criticizing a party that you control. Here's an example, the CIA is involved in the drug trade, yet the government criticizes the drug trade, and even forms agencies to help counter it. They both fund it and make money off of it, and 'counter' it by dealing with a part of it. Or, the US' funding and aiding of Islamist terrorist organizations, amidst a war on terror. Theres no contradiction; it's sophisticated political logic.

He also despised the Christian religion if his writings are any indication. Do you have any proof that he was in on this grand conspiracy?

Why? Vespasian may have developed it on his own with his own circle of thinkers. In fact, since Vespasian had so much contact with Jews in Judea, he would have been the first emperor to have become aware of the weltanschaung of the Jews. And he, his family and other Jewish families came together to create the religion.

Christianity not only predates Vespasian's reign, it predates his dispatch to Judea by Nero (and can also be dated to the great fire of Rome).

reply to post by DeadSeraph

It is a commonly accepted academic theory. Joseph Atwill is neither a historian or an academic, and possesses ZERO credibility, so again, there is no evidence to back up his claims on this issue.

There is no evidence of Christianity before 100 CE. Period.

There are NON CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL EVIDENCES TO BACK THIS UP.

Yes, from during or after the reign of the Flavian dynasty.

Christianity was in no position to make anything "main stream"

It's not that difficult to make a religion mainstream. How do you think the earliest religions were born? It's simply takes some agents of the new religion to promulgate amidst circles where the ideas would be accepted.

As said, but simply, is unimportant to you, there were plenty of Romanized, disenfranchised, malcontent Jews who would embrace a messianic religion with a pacificist twist.

Well then why persecute Christianity if the Romans created it to pacify the Jewish rebellions

This does not 'debunk' his theory. Admittedly, it does weaken it somewhat, but at this point it only requires a bit of imagination; the Christians may have been militant as the early Jews were - since the Jewish leadership no doubt was cognizant of the Roman connivance in creating a 'new testament' - and so they may have used these energies against the Christians themselves.

Such inner power struggles happen all the time beneath the external strains.