Romans Made Up Jesus as Wartime Propaganda to Pacify Jews, US Scholar Claims

a reply to: JDmOKI

Well maybe you should ask yourself why would the Roman's or the jews who just executed a rebel write about him?

wiki Josephus

Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century CE and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70 CE), including the Siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War ( c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews ( c. 94). The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation

Christians wrote about him but the Roman's and jews didnt hmmmmm I wonder why.

There were no "Christians" to write about him in the early church. They were described as Jewish Christian.

wiki

According to Hurtado, a proponent of an Early High Christology, the devotion to Jesus as divine originated in early Jewish Christianity, and not later or under the influence of pagan religions and Gentile converts.

Before tarring all atheists as the same perhaps get your own terminology in order.

Words and time lines do matter.

a reply to: trollz

I am not concerned of his birth and neither should you.

If you knew when he was born would you change? Would you submit to hi's teachings? Is his birth that important to you?

P.S I have researched his birth and know the time frame. So do you want his birth certificate because I want Obama''s real birth certificate.

a reply to: Mach2

which has no "first person" accounts, the only mention of Jesus is a passing comment by Josephus, and that was decades later.

Of note also is the fact that Josephus mention of Jesus was a later addition to his text, the Testimonium Flavianum ( possibly a forgery in its entirety )

www.truthbeknown.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

This theory that Jesus was made up by the Romans to pacify the Jews has been pushed for many years.

1. 85% of ALL ancient records have been destroyed or otherwise lost. This includes the great libraries of Alexandria and Constantinople. Even the original Bibles published by Emperor Constantine in 325AD have all been lost.

So Christianity has been ROBBED leaving only fragments of its history, teachings and spirituality. Europeans rely on the King James Bible published in the 16 century from copies of copies of copies.

2. The Romans actually promoted MITHRAISM NOT Christianity. Why? Because the Jews were heavily into BLOOD SACRIFICE and so were the Romans. Mithraism practiced Tauroboliums - bull sacrifices in which the participants would bathe in the blood of a dying bull.

3. Why would the Romans promote Christianity which ENDED BLOOD SACRIFICE when the Jews had practiced this for over a 1,000 years.

4. Jesus was against blood sacrifice. He stopped it by freeing all the sacrificial victims on Passover. The Bible is clear on this. The Jews had Jesus crucified THE NEXT DAY for this blasphemy.

5. The first Christian emperor of `Rome', Constantine banned the wildly popular gladitorial games as a form of blood sacrifice.

6. Emp. Constantine was NOT Roman. He was born in Serbia of Non Roman parents. Constantine hated Rome so much he moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople.

7. The adoption of Christianity did not pacify the Jews. It enflamed them.

What was the real year in 1 BC ?

😎

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Non believers have no guilt for their open and hidden sins because they do not believe in Jesus or the teachings of the bible.

For that to be logically true then you would have to prove first that "sin" is a universally accepted clearly defined act and secondly its self-referential. Guilt comes from reflection and moral self critique.

No need for Jesus or jehovah ( who loved blood BTW ) or a human sacrifice for atonement.

Yuk! Blood sacrifice - such a pagan belief.

a reply to: Deetermined

If you wanted a dying Roman Empire to last for ever change it to Christianity over time. Same power structure now rests in Rome.

The better question you have to ask followers is turning the other cheek quelled rebellion against Rome rule. The wolf in sheep's clothing still rules today.

a reply to: gort51

Very well expounded. And of importance is Sauls "conversion" to Paul. He preached a universal "church" accepting of gentiles.

Brings the Jews and the rest of the world under the same "spell"

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: KKLOCO
This has been discussed before — in one of the most popular threads on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nice!! Make ATS Great Again

Will have to spend some time on this one - 219 Pages and 607 Flags!!

Be prepared for a deep deep rabbit hole... One of my favorite threads ever. Mining for gold. I’ve got to give it another read. It’s been several years.

originally posted by: gortex
Interesting theory , it would probably explain why there's no mention of Jesus in the historical record.

But there is mention of Jesus in the historical record.

Here's an article from the Guardian

Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

a reply to: Mach2

But not a single one during his lifetime?

That we have found anyway.

Just for the record, I am not an atheist, but your reasoning is not sound, and lacks critical thinking.

How? People are saying that no historical record exists. There are 27 books that were written about him.

Many books have been written about Star Trek as well. Does that mean Spock was a real person?

You are citing a known fictitious book as proof Jesus was not a real person. I think it is not my critical thinking skills that are lacking.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: gortex
Interesting theory , it would probably explain why there's no mention of Jesus in the historical record.

But there is mention of Jesus in the historical record.

Here's an article from the Guardian

Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

There are other things but it seems it is not time yet.

The ossuary of Jesus’ brother. Paradiso However, in 2004 the Israel Antiquities Authority sued Golan, claiming the artifact was a forgery. After an eight–year trial Golan was acquitted on the grounds that forgery had not been proved. Where can it be seen: It can’t.

a reply to: Mach2

Stated like a good loyal sheep cult member.

I don't mind being a sheep.

John 10:14–15 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father.”

The blood sacrifice bit intrigues me and makes a strong case that Christianity was not a Roman sponsored invention.

However, it must be reiterated: observant Jews do not recognize the divinity of Jesus, whether he existed or not. I feel like this fact get's glossed over in a lot of these discussions because, Christians -- for the most part -- cannot even comprehend the Jew's lack of belief in a Christian messiah / savior.

I honestly don't know (or particularly care) who is right or wrong here, but lets not conflate the "reality" of Jesus, as written, with the Jewish faith. A Jew for Jesus is a Christian, full stop, insofar as their religion is concerned.

a reply to: Mach2

Aside from the bible, which has no "first person" accounts, the only mention of Jesus is a passing comment by Josephus, and that was decades later.

Incorrect.
You have the Quran.
Jesus is mentioned over 20 times.

And , I do not do a website like Wiki anything where anyone can edit and place their own facts there.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Mach2

Aside from the bible, which has no "first person" accounts, the only mention of Jesus is a passing comment by Josephus, and that was decades later.

Incorrect.
You have the Quran.
Jesus is mentioned over 20 times.

And , I do not do a website like Wiki anything where anyone can edit and place their own facts there.

The Koran is far from being a contemporary source. Would you not agree?

I didn't use wiki as a source. I just pointed out that wiki was only used for word definition. It can be trusted for that. I do agree, though, that it does have shortcomings as a research tool.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
The blood sacrifice bit intrigues me and makes a strong case that Christianity was not a Roman sponsored invention.

However, it must be reiterated: observant Jews do not recognize the divinity of Jesus, whether he existed or not. I feel like this fact get's glossed over in a lot of these discussions because, Christians -- for the most part -- cannot even comprehend the Jew's lack of belief in a Christian messiah / savior.

I honestly don't know (or particularly care) who is right or wrong here, but lets not conflate the "reality" of Jesus, as written, with the Jewish faith. A Jew for Jesus is a Christian, full stop, insofar as their religion is concerned.

Look at the reasons the Jews did not think Jesus was the messiah they are still waiting for. They thought he would come and accomplish these things in his life not come and die. I am sure they did not like that he offered outsiders what had been their privileged position with God also.

Specifically, the Bible says he will: Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel

(Isaiah 43:5-6). Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore."

(Isaiah 2:4) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Long list here
www.aish.com...

a reply to: Mach2

I didn't use wiki as a source. I just pointed out that wiki was only used for word definition. It can be trusted for that. I do agree, though, that it does have shortcomings as a research tool.

It is actually a (very) good starting point if you follow all of the listed reference citings and don't just read what they say.

Anyone interested i thought this was interesting.
12 JULY, 2019 - 21:07 ED WHELAN
World’s Oldest Christian Letter Found On 3rd Century Egyptian Papyrus
www.ancient-origins.net...

Interesting thread, the only thing we can be sure if if jesus was real he was definitely a lefty

a reply to: SeaWorthy

A) were they roman Christians , or some other group who converted to Christianity, or were they Jewish converts???


Because the topic only concerns Jewish converts not other Christians..


B) I’m not sure what you mean by the historical and biblical scholars ...


All the biblical (Christians) believe the modern KJV interpretation, basically.. the historical and critical scholars do not..

The critical and historical consensus is that every surviving biblical text except for maybe mark was written by Roman Christians for roman Christians, no Jews involved