PDA

View Full Version : Did the Romans Invent Jesus as a Psy-Op?



frozen alchemy
9th October 2013, 02:19
It's not often that I run across something that may truly be earthshaking. This is one of those times. It just hit the wires a few hours ago. The first link is to an article about the conference to discuss this finding, the second is to the conference website itself.

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.

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

http://www.covertmessiah.com/

Edited to add, I found this movie on line; apparently this has been out a while, but first I've ever heard of it.

4UqG8w7ezUQ

johnf
9th October 2013, 03:51
Well, this part be part of the story.
I do believe various groups combined stories about more than one person into what we have toady.te
Especially the passages attributed to Paul seems to have a real undertone of fear and control.

jf

grannyfranny100
9th October 2013, 11:01
Also recommend Joseph Atwill's book "Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus," published in 2005 and the Atwill Red Ice Creations interview Sept. 4, 2013. Such theories can be intellectually thought provoking to those already knowledgeable about Edward Bernays the high priest of 20th Century American psy-ops and/or well versed in Biblical scholarship. However for those who measure their Christian spirituality by the number of Biblical quotes they can put in a YouTube comment, this could be an A-bomb mind explosion sending you into book burning behavior and seroquel anti-anxiety meds.

S-L
9th October 2013, 14:38
Why would Romans invent Jesus as a "psy-op" when the religion he helped inspire disregarded everything that Romans truly valued? Many historians have argued that it was the advent of Christianity that ultimately brought the Roman Empire down.

Davidallany
9th October 2013, 14:45
Did the Romans Invent Jesus as a Psy-Op?
I think they invented the three sisters religions. Maybe they have been trying to do it again using different methods.

Davidallany
9th October 2013, 14:51
Why would Romans invent Jesus as a "psy-op" when the religion he helped inspire disregarded everything that Romans truly valued? Many historians have argued that it was the advent of Christianity that ultimately brought the Roman Empire down.
But is history true? I think that many things can be faked. To the
Romans the point I think is not losing a battle but rather winning a war.

Cognitive Dissident
9th October 2013, 15:24
Why would Romans invent Jesus as a "psy-op" when the religion he helped inspire disregarded everything that Romans truly valued? Many historians have argued that it was the advent of Christianity that ultimately brought the Roman Empire down.
But is history true? I think that many things can be faked. To the
Romans the point I think is not losing a battle but rather winning a war.

The thesis of Joseph Atwill (who wrote Caesar's Messiah - highly recommended by the way!) is that (in very broad summary!) the Romans invented Christianity to pacify the Jews, and subsequently used it to pacify the European serfs to accept their place in society - and that the Roman Catholic Church (there's a clue in the name) knows all about this, and is still using the same tactics.

His arguments are compelling, and he has carefully rebutted on his blog all the Christian apologists who actually dare to read his book (very few for obvious reasons!). He's one of those very clever people who I guess might be a bore at a party, but he's done us all a huge service by writing his book and his subsequent work.

Religion - messing with our minds for over 2,000 years.

Davidallany
9th October 2013, 15:31
Religion - messing with our minds for over 2,000 years.
I do believe that is a fairly accurate statement. Emphasis on the word over. I wonder if there is a free downloadable pdf copy available for the book.

cursichella1
9th October 2013, 17:06
Well, this part be part of the story.
I do believe various groups combined stories about more than one person into what we have toady.te
Especially the passages attributed to Paul seems to have a real undertone of fear and control.

jf

10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

The similarities between some of these figures (Jesus, Mithra, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Horus, Dionysus, and others) is remarkable and include virgin births, carpenter father, crucifixion, temptation by satanic entity, resurrection after entombment, raising of the dead, trinity, three wise men, walked on water, cast out demons, changed water into wine, to name just a few.

What the Romans lacked in creativity as far as their story line, they made up for in elaborate costume, cunning, converts, adquisition of wealth, murderous wars and staying power.

ulli
9th October 2013, 17:20
A high school we had to take religion as a subject.

I always remember my teacher, a humble and brilliant elderly woman,
telling us that Jesus used the word "Awake!" dozens of times.

So I never found much flaw in those instructions,
even after I changed my religious orientation to Baha'i.

Waking up is hard to do, and staying awake is even harder,
so it's a message that deserves repeating.

johnf
9th October 2013, 17:37
The threat of rebellious jews sounds plausible.
The thing that we have had pointed out on various threads
concerning Jesus is that the message of love your neighbor as yourself, as well as feed the poor, etc,
have shown through as things that can raise awareness, and change lives and the world.
I think that what really threatened the roman rulers, was a movement based on positive unity.
That message came through, maybe because the only thing that can rule and control the masses is
a forced fear based, material world focused unity.
Mob rule.
Higher unity breaks out from time to time, it's sooo pesky ain't it?

jf

Nanoo Nanoo
9th October 2013, 17:40
JC was real

he lived and had a following , mary was his companion , they had a following toteach the word of healing and indipendance. They challenged the very foundations and were revolutionising communities with good messages and education.

the Jews said .. hmm we cant have that , could you romans do our bidding and make an example of him ? thanks guys !

they made an example of him by crucifiction and faked his ressurection to get the emotional responce they wanted

the roman empire later decided to create a religion based on this legend, the idea behind it was this < You see this guy hanging on this cross ? well if you try to go against us youll end up just like him ! ( i mean seriously who has their saviour depicted as being crucified on a cross .. i mean helooo ! ) , once the religion took hold they decided to fake their own fall

this was inplimented once they had established them selves as the church .. then the roman empire went under ground as a force with a god on its side .. ingenious !

They quickly grabbed lands and built churches , they paid no taxes and the people hapily donated money daily and still do.

and we all fell for it ! woow !

Absolute genius !

N

Cognitive Dissident
12th October 2013, 15:18
Religion - messing with our minds for over 2,000 years.
I do believe that is a fairly accurate statement. Emphasis on the word over. I wonder if there is a free downloadable pdf copy available for the book.


It's quite a new book, I haven't seen any copy online. But in any case it is well worth the money to buy it in paperback. Atwill has put a lot of very convincing details in there, you will probably end up looking at the Wars of the Jews and the New Testament side by side, just as he did.

frozen alchemy
12th October 2013, 16:44
This appears to be the movie they cite; it has the same information in it as the book:

0aSKN0xnfsA

araucaria
12th October 2013, 18:40
the Romans invented Christianity to pacify the Jews,
Why would they want to pacify the Jews when they had already killed about a million of them in the sack of Jerusalem (1.1 milllion according to Josephus)? How many were left to pacify, and wouldn't they be fairly docile by that stage anyway?

frozen alchemy
13th October 2013, 21:38
According to the movie and other interviews with the author, the Jews were scattered all over the Roman Empire and were showing no signs of adhering to the Roman way of doing things, which included worshiping the Caesars like Gods (heresy or worse to the Jews). The sacking of Jerusalem you mention also cost the Romans 100,000 of their own troops. Josephus was a bit of a Jewish turncoat and the Romans used him to write up a fake history (back-dated) predicting all these things that would happen, after they happened (following me here? this is strange) and all done in realistic Hebrew style writings. So in essence, he wrote of prophecy after the fact and gave the Jews what they wanted, a messiah, but made him a pacifist one who told the Jews to 'give onto Caesar what is Caesars' in essence getting the Jews to give tax money to Caesar and their messiah also. May have been the world's first false flag, of sorts, and it sure does sound plausible.

araucaria
14th October 2013, 10:50
'palausible' does not cut it. This was discussed recently on another thread. I am still waiting for a response from our friend Marlowe to the following post - perhaps you have one :)



Joseph Atwill proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt

Marlowe, my friend, he does no such thing. You are taking his word as… gospel, just as he is taking Josephus as gospel. Let me be the unbeliever here :) and pick a few holes in this story of yours.

First, let’s suppose for a moment that Josephus wrote Matthew’s gospel. Did he write Mark, which textual analysis shows came first and served as source material for the other three? He did not. Did he write Luke and John, and the Acts of the Apostles? No he didn’t. No one is claiming otherwise. Did he write the gospels of Philip, Thomas, Peter, Mary, and many others later discarded? Of course he didn’t. So many witnesses all with roughly the same story would sound impressive in a court of law.

Then perhaps Josephus didn’t write Matthew after all. Perhaps it was the other way round and he based his history of the Judaea campaign on the gospel account. We are talking after all of the Romans and their self-promotion of their ‘evil’ policies: perhaps they were even more devious about it than you are supposing. In other words, I am suggesting that the historian was writing fiction. He wouldn’t be the first.

Take Winston Churchill, who wrote his own history of World War II. Beautifully written, but historians have been picking holes in it ever since. It is a top down version by just one participant, albeit a very important one. But historians like to take into account as many eye-witness accounts as possible. These are only just drying up 70 years on.

Where did Churchill get the time? He was voted out of office as early as 1945, mostly by returning war vets who from experience weren’t buying into the war hero nonsense. In other words, Churchill’s history was denounced by millions as fiction before he ever put pen to paper. Of course he had to give a factual account of the war that everyone knew about, but he put a slant on it that did not correspond to the grassroots reality of the individuals involved in the war.

Now imagine this history being written by a German traitor, someone like the duke of Windsor… And imagine him having a monopoly on the story, no one to contradict him. Josephus was a Jewish defector who gained acceptance among the Flavians, and is the only source we have for Titus’s campaign. The manner of his defection as one of two survivors of a suicide pact arranged by himself is highly suspicious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_problem

With no one to check on him, the details of the campaign could have been entirely made up by Josephus: they did not need to have happened at all. He could have taken them from the life of Jesus, which is corroborated by many more than Josephus’s story. He might have done this out of pure laziness, or out of familiarity with the ‘typology’ principle whereby stories are based on other stories. Or he might have done it with the ulterior motive ascribed to him by Joseph Atwill, although doing the opposite to what Atwill claims. According to Josephus, the sack of Jerusalem led to 1,100,000 killed and 97,000 taken prisoner. That's quite a few people who would not be needing to turn the other cheek.

By the way, this ‘typology’ method is by no means restricted to biblical story-telling. E.H. Gombrich’s Art & Illusion describes how art has always copied art – for example, if you had never seen a whale or rhinoceros, you would just copy someone else’s woodcut or drawing. And plagiarism was rife among writers long before cutting-and-pasting made life easier for cheats and Internet searches made it harder for them.

Moreover, the ‘typology’ principle also applies to historical events. Wikipedia disambiguation lists 17 sieges of Jerusalem, and the fire that destroyed the Temple in 70 somewhat reiterates the fire of Rome probably started by Nero a couple of years earlier. Also military tactics are decided by adapting what has worked in previous battles to the present situation.

Finally, here is a character assessment of Josephus that suggests that this character should be deeply mistrusted – but why should we have any faith anyway in someone whose whole purpose as claimed by Atwill is disinformation?



Josephus's life story remains ambiguous. He was described by Harris in 1985 as a law-observant Jew who believed in the compatibility of Judaism and Graeco-Roman thought, commonly referred to as Hellenistic Judaism.[3] Before the nineteenth century, the scholar Nitsa Ben-Ari notes that his work was shunned like that of converts, then banned as those of a traitor, whose work was not to be studied or translated into Hebrew.[16] His critics were never satisfied as to why he failed to commit suicide in Galilee and, after his capture, accepted the patronage of Romans.



The historian E. Mary Smallwood wrote:
"[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefitted for the rest of his days from his change of side" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus

Cognitive Dissident
14th October 2013, 14:14
araucaria, your points are well made. Let me see if I can address a few of them. No doubt you are correct that Josephus was a lying rogue. But that is not the point.

The point is the huge number of parallels and connections between the Wars of the Jews and the Gospels. This goes far beyond copying rhinos. I may be unfair, in which case my apologies, but I sense you have not read the actual book, Caesar's Messiah. Atwill goes through every single event in the Gospels and shows how it matches the same event, in the same chronological order, as the events in the Wars of the Jews. First example, Jesus and the "fishers of men" story - at the same time in the Wars of the Jews, the Romans pushed the Jewish rebels towards the same lake, the rebels jumped in the water, and the Romans speared them from boats - "fishers of men". Yes, the humour is very dark, but that is what the Romans found amusing. Jesus = Titus Flavius (even Titus called himself the Christ!).

If you read Atwill's book, these parallels pile up so much, it is impossible to dismiss as co-incidence. If you have any Christian faith, you may find this an uncomfortable experience, but from a purely logical/rational perspective, his argument is very compelling. It's also worth looking at his blog, where he robustly defends his perspective against those few Christian apologists who have read his book and come up with some counter-arguments against some of the non-central arguments in it.

The Romans also use the Gospels to comment on the Jews - where the Gospels says someone is possessed by a demon, the Romans mean that he is a rebel against Rome. So Jesus, by casting out the demons, is doing the work of the Romans. And of course, Jesus tells us that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. Much more helpful to the ruling empire than the warlike Jewish faith of the time. And many other things, like calling almost every Jewish woman in the Gospels Mary, because that was the derogatory term that the Romans used for Jewish women.

You should also realise that this was SOP for the Roman empire - they used religion to subjugate those countries they invaded. Christianity was nothing new in that respect. It just caught on better (the subject of Atwill's next book).

I hope you have time to read Caesar's Messiah, even if it rocks your world somewhat. If you have read it, again my apologies, in which case I would be interested to hear how you would rebut its arguments.

araucaria
14th October 2013, 19:01
You are giving too much power to negative forces that are actually much weaker than you seem to think, or would be if people didn’t.

No, I have not read Atwill’s book – not, I hasten to add, out of any inability to stomach what he has to say. His method is very clear from his interview, and there is no need to quote every example to see the picture, but I will answer the points you yourself have picked out.

I am not speaking from a Christian viewpoint. My post was with reference to the existence or otherwise of the historical Jesus, not to defend the veracity of Matthew’s gospel, which clearly contains plenty of disinfo. You are suggesting that it is made up from start to finish. I am suggesting something more in line with presentday disinfo, which is usually a fairly high percentage of truth sprinkled with lies.

It would be a useful method of deception to have events coincide with one’s story by tweaking the chronology. In the Paul Newman movie The Sting, the winning betting on a horserace comes after the race is over, by recording the broadcast and tinkering with the clock - forecasting with 20/20 hindsight. ‘The huge number of parallels and connections between the Wars of the Jews and the Gospels’ may be because the gospels were a copy-and-paste job, or equally because the Wars of the Jews were a copy-and-paste job. This is probably undecidable, as there is no corroboration for the details of his history, but anything based on such an untrustworthy individual as Josephus has got to be suspect. That’s what I mean by taking him as gospel. One of the attributes of Satan is supposed to be his inability to create, so he imitates.


calling almost every Jewish woman in the Gospels Mary, because that was the derogatory term that the Romans used for Jewish women
According to archaeologists, Miriam is also the name that almost every Jewish woman had engraved on her tomb. Did the Romans have a hand in that, I wonder? Or did they just use a common name the way an Aussie would be called a Sheila, or a German used to be called Fritz?


where the Gospels says someone is possessed by a demon, the Romans mean that he is a rebel against Rome. So Jesus, by casting out the demons, is doing the work of the Romans.

Possession is a very real phenomenon to this day in all parts of the world, including among tribes uncontaminated by western culture. Rebels against Rome?


Jesus tells us that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.

This is likely one of the few sayings I would accept as probably genuine. These are words spoken in answer to a question designed to trap him, and are much more powerful (truthful?) in the anti-Roman interpretation. To distinguish God from Caesar, who claimed to divinity, amounts to rejection of Rome. When you have given God his due, what is left for Caesar? It all depends on Caesar’s alignment or otherwise with God. But actions speak louder than words.

The real point is, why the big need to control the Jews; why were they so obstreperous in the first place? I would suggest that there was indeed a real, dangerously subversive faction doing something recorded in the Gospel that would have upset the Roman apple-cart had it been allowed to get out of hand. I am referring to the episode when Jesus is recorded as driving the money-lenders out of the temple. Actions speak louder than words, but the words convey the same message. ‘You have turned a place of God into a den of thieves’. Caesar v God = temple v den of thieves. For Romans to put in people’s minds that there was something wrong with the temple setup makes no sense at all if they were using religion to subjugate.

This leads to another crucial question: using religion to subjugate: for what purpose? Joseph Farrell’s Babylon’s Banksters puts this into a broader perspective. On the one hand he posits that the bankster families operating on an international basis from way back originated in Babylon, and that the original Roman people gradually became outnumbered by the descendants of disenfranchised slaves from elsewhere, notably including… Babylonian bankster families. These people took over the temples for several reasons. Before stating the reasons, notice how the temples (i.e. ’religion’) were there first, and subsequently infiltrated – meaning that religion was not invented for a nefarious purpose. The reasons for this infiltration were to do with science: the fact that religious sites were located on a grid for example was indicative of a lost science that needed to be rediscovered for purposes of wielding absolute power, as in the golden age of an earlier civilization that destroyed itself. (I would add here that this is the mother of all reactionary politics.) Farrell shows how the science is to do with communications on the one hand, and astrology (predictive power) on the other. It was this institution, itself seeking to preserve ancient knowledge for good purposes, that the banksters wanted to take over while laundering their fake money in the process.

Nothing is clearcut. You cannot equate Jews with finance (not suggesting you are). There were good Jews – if not Jesus, people like him - fighting the archontic influence described in the Nag Hammadi documents who would have been Babylonian banksters in league with the Romans, as was Josephus. There were good Romans too, even good Caesars. In The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome, the historian Michael Parenti shows how the banksters were clearing the decks for their Augustan age. The populist Julius Caesar, no innocent himself (e.g. ‘He stole 3,000 pounds of gold from the Capitol itself, replacing it with gilded bronze’), was murdered for being overgenerous with the ordinary folk (very easily done) by a conspiracy led by Brutus, who ‘was a usurer of the worst sort and a spoliator to boot. Having lent money at 48% interest (instead of the usual 12 percent, which was usurious enough), the noble Brutus then demanded that the Roman military help his agents collect the debt from the hapless Cypriot town of Salamis in 50 B.C. At Brutus’s insistence, the town council was besieged until five of the elders starved to death’ etc. etc. (p.146).

Shezbeth
14th October 2013, 19:41
Has it occurred that ALL religions of today are the direct descendance of the Powers That Be of yesterday?

To clarify - Whether there was a Jesus is irrelevant; The profluence of Christianity had more to do with the spears in the hands of those presenting the material.

And so with all others. The teachings are a means of those who wish to do, to justify doing.

At least as far back as Sumer,....

araucaria
15th October 2013, 06:55
Has it occurred that ALL religions of today are the direct descendance of the Powers That Be of yesterday?

To clarify - Whether there was a Jesus is irrelevant; The profluence of Christianity had more to do with the spears in the hands of those presenting the material.

And so with all others. The teachings are a means of those who wish to do, to justify doing.

At least as far back as Sumer,....
I registered disagreement with this view in the post before yours.


You are giving too much power to negative forces that are actually much weaker than you seem to think, or would be if people didn’t.

That religion like everything else is contaminated by archontic forces is not in dispute. But religion is also about spirituality: there is a baby somewhere in all that bathwater. The basic Christian message, for example, in one word is love. The basic Avalon message in one word is love.

giovonni
15th October 2013, 07:06
That religion like everything else is contaminated by archontic forces is not in dispute. But religion is also about spirituality: there is a baby somewhere in all that bathwater. The basic Christian message, for example, in one word is love. The basic Avalon message in one word is love.

i like to think of it as sharing that spiritual (religious) act of love ... :)

william6565william
15th October 2013, 12:38
One thing that bothers me on this. If it is true that Jesus was a fictional character crafted by the Romans, won't that mean that Islam is considered a false religion as well since Jesus was also mentioned in the Qur'an (though as a prophet, not the Messiah)? It would also mean that Judaism ends up being the most legitimate of the three major religions because it had nearly none of the criticisms Christianity and Islam receive.

I'm not the one who likes to talk about Religion, not because I find it foolish or anything like others would see. Based solely on personal experience, I've met a number of people who led very peaceful and compassionate lives because of their religious beliefs. I made the resolution that if these people follow their faiths and led peaceful lives, then what right do I have to criticize their faith or strip it off from them?

I remember seeing actor Ricky Gervais, who is an Atheist, saying in an interview with Piers Morgan that he would oppose any attempt by the government to ban religion, no matter how foolish religion is.

Going back to Judaism, I'm curious as to whether or not that religion is also practiced in regions other than Europe or the Americas. In other words, are there Jews or at least those practicing Judaism in regions like Asia, Africa, or the Middle East?

Cognitive Dissident
15th October 2013, 13:50
One thing that bothers me on this. If it is true that Jesus was a fictional character crafted by the Romans, won't that mean that Islam is considered a false religion as well since Jesus was also mentioned in the Qur'an (though as a prophet, not the Messiah)? It would also mean that Judaism ends up being the most legitimate of the three major religions because it had nearly none of the criticisms Christianity and Islam receive.

I'm not the one who likes to talk about Religion, not because I find it foolish or anything like others would see. Based solely on personal experience, I've met a number of people who led very peaceful and compassionate lives because of their religious beliefs. I made the resolution that if these people follow their faiths and led peaceful lives, then what right do I have to criticize their faith or strip it off from them?

I remember seeing actor Ricky Gervais, who is an Atheist, saying in an interview with Piers Morgan that he would oppose any attempt by the government to ban religion, no matter how foolish religion is.

Going back to Judaism, I'm curious as to whether or not that religion is also practiced in regions other than Europe or the Americas. In other words, are there Jews or at least those practicing Judaism in regions like Asia, Africa, or the Middle East?

I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think Atwill, or it could have been someone else interviewed on Red Ice, also mentioned that Josephus rewrote some key Jewish texts and changed some customs at the same time.

Anyway, they are not the three "major" religions. They are three Jehovah-based religions. There are plenty of others if you look a bit further east... Joseph Farrell shows the insanity of Jehovah-based religions pretty well in his books.

As to the "some religious people are nice" argument, well, yes, but would they have been nice even without religion? And could their religion have made them nice without needing to have all the inherent violence/crusades/intolerance of the Jehovah-based religions? Farrell is pretty good on the two-faced, not to say schizophrenic, nature of these religions too.

Cognitive Dissident
15th October 2013, 13:56
Has it occurred that ALL religions of today are the direct descendance of the Powers That Be of yesterday?

To clarify - Whether there was a Jesus is irrelevant; The profluence of Christianity had more to do with the spears in the hands of those presenting the material.

And so with all others. The teachings are a means of those who wish to do, to justify doing.

At least as far back as Sumer,....
I registered disagreement with this view in the post before yours.


You are giving too much power to negative forces that are actually much weaker than you seem to think, or would be if people didn’t.

That religion like everything else is contaminated by archontic forces is not in dispute. But religion is also about spirituality: there is a baby somewhere in all that bathwater. The basic Christian message, for example, in one word is love. The basic Avalon message in one word is love.

araucaria, I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

I wrote the below earlier, then saw your last message - is it really true that the basic message of Christianity is love? Certainly if Christianity was only and exclusively, say, the Sermon on the Mount. But, Christianity is also the crusades, and serfdom, and burning the witches, and suppressing the heretics and the Cathars, etc., etc. and this violence has been inherent in Christianity since the very beginning, due to its Roman origins, and also due to the ruling god, Jehovah, who is hardly an example of loving kindness (Joseph Farrell is very good on showing the crazy schizophrenic nature of Christianity, you mentioned him approvingly earlier, have you read those books of his?). Anyway: back to topic.

At the outset, let me say that I am with you against the Archons. On the side of the negative forces, I would also place the Roman Catholic Church.
In supporting Atwill’s theory that the Gospels are Roman propaganda, and that Jesus is a fiction, I am not giving power to negative forces, but on the contrary undermining the ideological basis of at least some of the negative forces.

(Slightly OT, but let me also say that I am not trying to undermine the Gnostics, who I think may be fairly close to the truth – also I am not dismissing the idea of a cosmic Christ from a metaphysical perspective. But that would have to be the subject of another thread!)

To really engage in this debate, I think you are going to have to read Atwill’s book. I am really not doing justice to it in my descriptions. It is not simply that Wars of the Jews and the Gospels are similar in a “cut and paste” way. They are not. The descriptions use different words. The “events” of the Gospels are basically parallel to, and a commentary on, and a parody of, the events of the Wars of the Jews. There is no way that these two books can be separated, to the extent that common authorship is the most likely explanation.

Joseph even sneaks himself in there. Joseph of Arimathea = Joseph ben Matityahu = Josephus. It’s a joke!

Atwill’s book is full of examples of these sorts of crude/dark Roman jokes. Practically every page of the Gospels contains a reference to the Wars of the Jews. So many that co-incidence is not a rational explanation. Again, you will have to read the book to see the force of this.

But just to talk about one point, possession by demons. The Romans wrote this into the Gospels as a metaphor, they didn’t mean literal possession. They saw the Jewish rebels against Rome, prepared to commit suicide rather than surrender, as demons. So “Jesus casting out demons” is a metaphorical reference to Titus casting out the Jewish rebels during his invasion.

You are correct that the real point is, why the big need to control the Jews. The answer is that, even after the conquest by Titus, the Jews were still fanatically anti-Roman, militaristic and capable of causing serious problems for the Empire. There was a pressing need to control the Jewish religion, and ideally converting people to a more peaceful alternative, one in which it would be encouraged to, for example, “turn the other cheek”. Whether the Gospels contain some critiques of the Romans is not really the point – the point is, the whole approach promoted by the Gospels is completely different from that of the contemporary Jews, and much more conducive to civil behaviour acceptable to the Empire.

Neither is this to deny that the Gospels contain spiritual insights beneficial from a personal evolutionary perspective. Perhaps that was even part of the “bait” that the Romans included (I know: that is going down a major rabbit hole).

Finally, a related point, of Jesus as a historical figure. I don’t want to distract from the interesting conversation we are having on Atwill, but there are plenty of books showing that the death/rebirth myth of Jesus is taken pretty much entirely from earlier myths, by Acharya S and others.

Finally finally, like you I am a big fan of Joseph Farrell, no disagreements there.

Vitalux
15th October 2013, 14:01
well one thing to consider

since the introduction of Christianity, more races have been annihilated, more people have been tortured and murdered in the name of this religion.
Plus the greatest caper of them all...

is more people spend more time arguing :argue:rather or not they have been conned by the Jesus caper.

My guess, is " religion was an introduction done by intelligent extra-terrestrial entities :cantina: to demonstrate how gullible and foolish human intellect actually is.

Cognitive Dissident
15th October 2013, 14:09
well one thing to consider

since the introduction of Christianity, more races have been annihilated, more people have been tortured and murdered in the name of this religion.
Plus the greatest caper of them all...

is more people spend more time arguing :argue:rather or not they have been conned by the Jesus caper.

My guess, is " religion was an introduction done by intelligent extra-terrestrial entities :cantina: to demonstrate how gullible and foolish human intellect actually is.

Vitalux, IMHO humanity itself was a caper genetically engineered by ETs for whatever reasons - but they did it in a rush and left us rather buggy, from a computer programming perspective - witness how many genetic illnesses humans can have (many) vs. how many animals suffer from (very few) - however they probably did insert a "sheeple gene" to keep us nice and docile - and yes, probably guillible and foolish too. No doubt many Avalonians have a malfunctioning sheeple gene!

Christianity, on the other hand, purely a Roman invention. No ETs required.

william6565william
15th October 2013, 15:20
I'm not saying every religion is bad, just as the same way every form of government is (ie Democracy vs Dictatorship). I do acknowledge that every form of religion, or even the lack or absence of it, has positive and negative traits, as well as forms of extremism. But to the few who have turned up being nice people, then it's best to not bother with them on whatever criticism we have of their faiths. Besides, I think it was Sigmeund Freud that said something about how the spirituality of Religion allowed people to cope and strive for the moral disciplines in ways they cannot achieve by any other means. Had the pre-Roman civilizations discovered how Oxytocin works in determining our morality, then we would not have the need for religion at all.

There's also the notion that humans strive for the need of guidance for the sake of having "oneness with the universe" or whatever you may call it scientifically that provides a similar achievement. It's safe to assume the Romans knew that and used it to their advantage. Whether or not it works for them to this day or otherwise is another story.

Shezbeth
15th October 2013, 15:21
Christianity, on the other hand, purely a Roman invention. No ETs required.

Can't it be both? That would be consistent with Icke, et al.

Regardless the origins/intent of the religion in question, good people will strive to do good things no matter the banner they wave. This doesn't excuse them from constructive criticism tho.

Simply put, the answer to the OP's question - from both conjecture and research - is "Most probably".

araucaria
15th October 2013, 15:37
If reading Atwill from cover to cover is a condition for continued participation in this and other similar threads (for there are quite a few just now), then I shall gracefully withdraw. But let me explain why I am going no further with this writer.

If we are agreed that Joseph Farrell is pretty well on the money, then read or reread this:


they are indeed trying to reconstruct a lost mythical past: a global “golden age” with a supremely sophisticated science with which they can dominate and subjugate the earth. But to reconstruct it, on the scale required and implied by the enterprise itself, will require that virtually the entire planet and its resources must be at their disposal. Babylon’s Bankers, p.296, my emphasis

This involves not just stealing your wealth and money, but everything else as well, up to and including your freedom, your life and ultimately your mind and soul. Part of the process is to say, Religion? That was our little ploy. Temples? We built them. Sacred numbers and geometry? They’re ours too, you have no numbers left to call your own to count with. In fact, you have no language at all: all your words are lies. Actually we own you anyway, from birth in fact: through your social security number, you belong to our stock.

No, no, no and no! There is no arguing the matter. I say no, I mean no, and no it is. Period.

Cognitive Dissident
15th October 2013, 16:09
If reading Atwill from cover to cover is a condition for continued participation in this and other similar threads (for there are quite a few just now), then I shall gracefully withdraw. But let me explain why I am going no further with this writer.

If we are agreed that Joseph Farrell is pretty well on the money, then read or reread this:


they are indeed trying to reconstruct a lost mythical past: a global “golden age” with a supremely sophisticated science with which they can dominate and subjugate the earth. But to reconstruct it, on the scale required and implied by the enterprise itself, will require that virtually the entire planet and its resources must be at their disposal. Babylon’s Bankers, p.296, my emphasis

This involves not just stealing your wealth and money, but everything else as well, up to and including your freedom, your life and ultimately your mind and soul. Part of the process is to say, Religion? That was our little ploy. Temples? We built them. Sacred numbers and geometry? They’re ours too, you have no numbers left to call your own to count with. In fact, you have no language at all: all your words are lies. Actually we own you anyway, from birth in fact: through your social security number, you belong to our stock.

No, no, no and no! There is no arguing the matter. I say no, I mean no, and no it is. Period.

I shouldn't say that you have to read the Atwill book to continue the thread. That would be a bit too onerous!

But I am not completely sure what you are saying no and no to. To the Archons, to the PTB that are trying to subjugate the Earth? Then of course, we are in agreement, and I guess we would also be in agreement with everyone else on Avalon (tempting fate to say that everyone agrees, but there you are).

The slightly tricky question that we are discussing is, how the origins of Christianity fit into all of this...

giovonni
15th October 2013, 16:12
Perhaps in aiding in this organized religion roundabout (debate) it would be of importance to interject these reminding guidelines here ... of the Universal Laws that govern our reality that many of us have forgotten about... But are awakening to in this space and time ...

Reminding myself again (as to) why this Forum was first inspired and created for us known as the Groundcrew ...

From the "Handbook for a New Paradigm"

Via ~ Nick Arrizza M.D


It is called the the Law of Allowance

Basically it states that ones should let others be, pure and simple.

In other words:

Stop trying to control others.

Stop judging others.

Stop complaining about others.

Accept the decisions that others make for themselves.

Appreciate the fact that "they" are responsible and accountable to themselves for their own thoughts and actions.

The same holds for you or yourself.

Let go of any internal compulsive behaviors or thoughts.

Stop judging yourself.

Stop beating yourself up.

Accept that everything that happens to you is of your own making. Yes I know that one may be hard to swallow but if you look at it closely I think you will see that it is the truth...

So how will living in respect of this Law of Allowance change you or the world around you?

Well for you I think you will find yourself feeling a great sense of inner peace, joy, the ability to relax, carefree, a great measure of self esteem and especially a great sense of personal empowerment.

The world itself will also change dramatically because all of the competition, all of the conflict, all of the wars etc that are going on here are in part related to the fact that we are ignoring this important Law.

In the Handbook the point is made that all of this can be done easily and simply with a simple "prayer" or "mantra" which is not one of supplication but a request for true help. By true help I mean "help" that is in the nature of "assisting one''s empowerment" and not one of "expecting to be rescued".

The statement is as follows"

"I am a human becoming, help me to become"

For others it is adapted to:

"They are humans becoming, help them to become"

For the collective is adapted to:

"We are humans becoming, help us to become"

I use them whenever I feel I "challenged" by internal negative thoughts or feelings about myself, others or the planetary situation.

If you feel inspired I ask you to consider using them as well. After all it''s free and it can only change your life permanently.

If after all of this you recognize the power of these statements I sincerely encourage you to read the handbook itself in its entirety. It will help fill in the background and make known to you something important information that has been kept from humanity for millennia."

Note i have used these statements in my own personal life now for almost 6 years and have found them to be powerfully transformative of my perspective on myself, others and the situation on this planet.

Principle of Allowance (releasing control and manipulation of beings and experience)
Principle of Attraction (what you give is what you get - like attracts like)
Principle of Intention (placing intent in creation of new experience)
Principle of Harmony and Balance (that which manifests when the others are applied)

i recommend to all (seriously and sincerely) Avalon forum members (and visitors) to at least look over (read) the material in George Green's (transcribed from source) New Paradigm (4 book) series ...

After all it is what inspired this place you all visit and participate at ... :)

blessings giovonni