Did the Romans invent Jesus ?

Did the Romans invent Jesus, David ickes latest headline

The new age half truth movement his followers, who see icke as their messiah , also Jesus did not exist

Though on you tube there is a good video by an agnostic historian, who claims its clear Jesus did exist,

other non biblical proofs Archaeological proof to , as well as biblical proof.

that Jesus existed, was the founder of the christian faith ,that Jesus was crucified,


David Icke has long said that there was no 'Jesus' and now a major documentary by scholars and researchers concludes that 'he' was the invention of the Romans

Tuesday, 11 September 2012 10:47 www.davidicke.com...

The topic of Jesus Christ is like kryptonite to David. I used to follow David's work for a long time and he's rarely ever mentioned Jesus. Why? I honestly don't know, but now it seems that David is trying to push back that kryptonite by coming up with some bogus claim saying Jesus is an invented person.

There's non-believing historians who go into detail how Jesus really was a real person and how this man caused an uproar in those days. There's more written evidence for Christ than there is for Alexander the Great... it's unbelievable people will say he flat out didn't exist. Give me a break.

The Romans where mainly Pagans until Constantine had his "vision" of a cross in the sky..He than converted Rome to Christianity..So no, I don't think they invented him...If it wasn't for that "vision" Christianity would of most likely died out, and now unfortunately , we've been stuck with this archaic ,infantile non-sense for over 2.000 years..All because some guy most likely saw a shooting star..Just a side note..That hog bellied trog David Ike just wants your money

Even if he didn't exist... whoever wrote the gospels had the right idea...

Short answer....Yes. Long Answer......religion is the root of all evil. The Bible says.

www.youtube.com... Atheist over whelmed, that Jesus did exist.

I believe Jesus was a real person and his story (minus the miracles and virgin birth) is true. Some of his story was altered by Romans in order to take control of people.

Whether the man with Jesus' story was actually named Jesus is up for debate. I believe there is a strong possibility that John the Baptist was the actual person that the gospels spoke of, the Romans just switched his name out for Jesus.

I believe Leonardo Da Vinci hinted at this possibility in many of his paintings, especially in his depiction of John the Baptist. Da Vinci had strong ties to the Catholic Church and was privy to things no one else was allowed to see or know.

I think one reason they would have changed his name is because he was possibly gay. Da Vinci painted John with very feminine qualities and "Jesus" even had an apostle that he kissed regularly named John.

Maybe the apostle John was actually the apostle Jesus and they just switched out the two? All of this is just speculation on my part, I am still in the process of studying this theory and trying to put the pieces in place.

I also believe that Da Vinci's The Last Supper depicts Jesus and John sitting beside one another at the table, not Mary Magdalene. It was also John/Jesus at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion.

Like I said, this is pure speculation on my part.

reply to post by dwarfflex


There is a thread where this subject was debated hotly here: www.abovetopsecret.com....

The real debate as to the authorship of the New Testament and whether or not the Romans were responsible for it starts on page 10, and goes on for most of the remainder of the thread.

It's a long read, but I have raised some points that not only put the particular theory to rest (the Atwill conspiracy), but also have linked to resources and pointed out flaws in the idea of a Roman authorship of the New Testament without using an ounce of NT scripture.

While I can't say the idea is 100% debunked, I would call it 98% debunked.

I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a fabrication.
I do believe that the later proponents of his works and deeds, i.e. Paul, simply sought to cash in for their own gains by combining existing mystery religion and Gnostic doctrine mixed with a little Hebrew in order to obtain a following of their own. The Council of Nicea was probably one of the worst things to happen to the message of Jesus of Nazareth. My own opinion of course. We all have our own interpretation of Things. And all are welcome and shouldn't be discounted or discouraged.

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
The Romans where mainly Pagans until Constantine had his "vision" of a cross in the sky..He than converted Rome to Christianity..So no, I don't think they invented him...If it wasn't for that "vision" Christianity would of most likely died out, and now unfortunately , we've been stuck with this archaic ,infantile non-sense for over 2.000 years..All because some guy most likely saw a shooting star..Just a side note..That hog bellied trog David Ike just wants your money

edit on 12-9-2012 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)

Constantine actually never converted to Christianity until he was on his deathbed. This is recorded. His mother was the Christian. Even after all of that "seeing a Cross in the sky during battle" he never converted according to written record. Whether or not he believed something different is anybody's guess since none of us knew him personally to know any different.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by dwarfflex

 

There is a thread where this subject was debated hotly here: www.abovetopsecret.com....

The real debate as to the authorship of the New Testament and whether or not the Romans were responsible for it starts on page 10, and goes on for most of the remainder of the thread.

It's a long read, but I have raised some points that not only put the particular theory to rest (the Atwill conspiracy), but also have linked to resources and pointed out flaws in the idea of a Roman authorship of the New Testament without using an ounce of NT scripture.

While I can't say the idea is 100% debunked, I would call it 98% debunked.

edit on 12-9-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

...this.
Though I'd say 98% is being generous to David Icke.

Romans would hate Jesus....

Romans would love our modern-day Christians...

Did Romans invented Jesus? Probably no.

Did Romans invented Christianity? Catholics and all other denominations (Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc..) Probably YES!

Originally posted by ahnggk
Romans would hate Jesus....

Romans would love our modern-day Christians...

Did Romans invented Jesus? Probably no.

Did Romans invented Christianity? Catholics and all other denominations (Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc..) Probably YES!

That sort of sums it up. The Romans certainly took control of the religion and distorted it, but I wouldn't say pentacostals or baptists are part of that. This kind of ties into the Lutheran reformation (which is also covered in the thread I linked above).

reply to post by the owlbear


Touche my friend..I guess we will truly never know since none of us where there..If we only had a way to go back and see it first hand.....To bad Pellegrino Ernetti lied about the Chronovisor

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
reply to post by the owlbear

 

Touche my friend..I guess we will truly never know since none of us where there..If we only had a way to go back and see it first hand.....To bad Pellegrino Ernetti lied about the Chronovisor

you win the star and a grin, my friend

Did the romans invent jesus. LOL!

Sorry,. Just trying to understand what you're implying here..
So the romans wrote a book against their will, condemning their own ways?
Learn me.

Jesus did not found the Christian religion.Jesus was a Jew.His family and followers invented the Christian faith as a moneymaking venture.Oh,and to spread his teachings,too,I guess.Seems to have worked.2000 years later and people still won't shut up about him.

Originally posted by mardukiscoming
Jesus did not found the Christian religion.Jesus was a Jew.His family and followers invented the Christian faith as a moneymaking venture.Oh,and to spread his teachings,too,I guess.Seems to have worked.2000 years later and people still won't shut up about him.

Jesus was a jew? By birth yes, but the old religion is defined as "a stumbling block" or has that implication by way of the new testament teachings.

The jews offered him up (as was predicted) to be executed by the romans when people started confessing that he performed miracles and spoke with infallibility.
To claim to be god, back in those times was punishable by death.

reply to post by HamrHeed


Honestly dude,I wouldn't know.I stopped going to church when I got old enough to recognize the utter hypocrisy that runs rampant in the Baptist Church.The Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.And I am expected to take it on faith that some guy 2000 years ago was born of an immaculate conception and later died for my sins.A bit of a stretch.I don't fault anyone for being religious.I even believe a lot of good comes from religion and religious persons.But it ain't for me.

Originally posted by mardukiscoming
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

Honestly dude,I wouldn't know.I stopped going to church when I got old enough to recognize the utter hypocrisy that runs rampant in the Baptist Church.The Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.And I am expected to take it on faith that some guy 2000 years ago was born of an immaculate conception and later died for my sins.A bit of a stretch.I don't fault anyone for being religious.I even believe a lot of good comes from religion and religious persons.But it ain't for me.

Free will was a gift to us, as was this existence and chance of life. I never believed fully and it was out of my own ignorance, I couldn't see the fathers' works in my life.
The living word and this expression lives through me as I post this.