CAESAR'S MESSIAH: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

Lauston, do you know about this? OFFICIAL VERSION Seven of today’s most controversial Bible scholars reveal their shocking conclusions about the origins of Christianity. Based on the best-selling religious studies book by Joseph Atwill, this documentary shows that Jesus is not a historical figure, the events of Jesus’ life were based on a Roman military campaign, his supposed second coming refers to a historical event that already occurred, the teachings of Christ came from the ancient pagan mystery schools, and the Gospels were written by a family of Caesars and their supporters, who left us documents to prove it.

Dissecting the history and literature of this time, the scholars show that the Gospels are a sophisticated pro-Roman multi-layered allegorical text that could not have been written by simple Jewish fishermen. Noting that the history officially provided by the Church does not hold up to rigorous scrutiny, the scholars agree that Christianity was used as a political tool to control the masses of the day, and is still being used this way today.

I stumbled on this, this morning am listening to it, curious, interesting. I have no basis to rate it as for seriousness except that the narrative sounds rational, (lacking red flags). It would be fun to hear what some of you who are more historically informed think about it.

Yep. Atwill fell backwards into money in the 1990’s and instead of doing something useful, took up this hobby of making up history. He puts stuff out, it gets debunked, then he goes silent for a while and puts out the same thing as if it were a new discovery. He is of course right that the early history of the church doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, but there was still something calling itself a movement and creating documents in the first century. For Atwill to be right, all the historical data on that would have to be wrong. He claims the whole thing was just made up at some late date.

Richard Carrier covers theories like this in one of his intros. It might have been the print version of “Not the Impossible Faith”, but the free version doesn’t look like it has it.

Or maybe it was Proving History, where he talks about how you use Bayesian analysis. Anyway, skip this guy, go with Carrier, or Fitzgerald. They are both down to earth and fun to listen to.


Yeah, listening to Atwill talk in various other videos, I find him a bit irritating and he wastes a lot of time. I’ve thought about commenting: 'Stop telling us how great and convincing the evidence is, can you just f’n start listing your evidence - let us form our own f’n opinions. MD Murdock impresses me the most. It seems like she’s got her ducks in a row better. She does speak the languages and has read a vast quantity of ancient literature, if her research is authentic, seems worth paying attention to. I’m in early days of acquainting myself with this jazz. Or there serious objection to her body of evidence?

>When you say Atwill is making it up, are you talking about the whole Caesar and house of Flavian angle?

What about the typology interpretation? That makes a lot of sense, {thought I had something to add here but three tries later, forget about it.}

“typology” is that the correct term for stories getting turned over and interwoven with other stories, or themes?

You ever written about it? I’m certainly curious, would love to read what you (or anyone else) has to share or add.

Alrighty then, moving right along. -

Atwill’s Cranked-up Jesus


… To get the gist you can check out his PR puff piece. Thomas Verenna has already written a deconstruction of that. Notably even Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) doesn’t buy Atwill’s thesis, declaring that she does “not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis” and that “the Flavians, including Josephus, did not compose the canonical gospels as we have them.” Robert Price has similarly soundly debunked his book, even after strongly wanting to like it. …

I was heartened to read that (highlighted sentence) near the beginning. I looked at Google Scholar and DM Murdock is listed, but most for books, which I guess I can’t assume to be peer reviewed. Don’t suppose know how much peer review her work has been subjected to?



That last sentence applied to me, it’s a theory too sweet not to want to believe. Sort of like Mary of Magdalene having born a child with Jesus.

But, alas evidence is evidence, and myth is myth, even if one likes the myth. (For instance, how I’d love to believe manmade global warming hasn’t set our course on a straight road to complete self-destruction - but physical evidence is physical evidence.)

thought I’d toss that in so my pals don’t think I’ve forgotten :wink:
Even if it's turned out to be total deadend ;- )