Bunk: "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" - YouTube

The following video is pure bunk:

I added the following comment over on YouTube:

I blogged about this and then discovered via a later video that Chris White and I share the exact same views/points: [mouseover the following, which is a link] "Caesar's Messiah Debunked - Joseph Atwill's Covert Messiah Refuted"

On Google+, unfortunately right now one must mouseover a link in a comment from YouTube before it will turn to the link color. Perhaps that's browser dependent.

That comment links to this video:

Here are some additional thoughts I have after watching the "Cesar's Messiah Jesus A Roman Invention" video:

Tom1

Tom Usher

That Jesus is a composite of preexisting pagan religious figures, as alleged by Timothy Freke in the video, has been thoroughly debunked by true scholars of the ancient texts and of the archeology associated with those religions and myths. Those true scholars totally reject the "scholars" theories held out in this video.

If you research the sources of the self-styled scholars in this video, you will mostly find that they ultimately end with dead ends where the original source based his or her opinion on a complete misreading and/or ignorance of the true text and archeological evidence or simply made it up. A great deal of the basis for this video comes out of Theosophy, which lacks any credibility.

There is nothing amazing about the patterns discussed in this video other than that Jesus prophesied and it came to pass.

Of course he was saying that God (Jesus), would allow Titus power over the unrepentant Zealots and other Jews, including Benjamin, who rejected Jesus as Christ, Jesus as King of the Jews.

The theological understanding in this video is nearly devoid. It mischaracterizes Christianity, falls short of deep interpretation, takes it as literal while simultaneously complains about the literalness of Christian fundamentalists (who often don't follow the basic teachings of Jesus as documented in the Gospels, which term, by the way, does not refer to militarism – the so-called scholar in the video simply made that up or learned it from another careless/ignorant "scholar").

This video is humanistic where its adherents have a personal problem with their own egos where they cannot accept to give credit over to God. It is also syncretic, meaning it rejects the teaching of Jesus about Jesus (as the one and only path to God) but rather wishes to avoid the implications of the full teachings of Jesus because those teachings tell them that they are still sinners. They can't bring themselves to repent, to humble themselves before God.

The video is not enlightening. It's darkside. Satan is the ultimate "humanist." That's not to say that humans can't improve. Of course they can. What they can't do is join God while simultaneously rejecting him, rejecting Jesus Christ.

Also, his name, Yeshua, transliterated as Iesous from the Greek, doesn't mean just "savior" but rather Yahoveh saves. It matters.

God is not a Hindu god or Buddhist god or Druid spirit or nature or anything other than the God, Yahoveh, of Yeshua Mashiach, Yahoveh saves the anointed, Jesus Christ.

In addition, there are the Thomas Christians of India, who had nothing to do with Rome. The same may be said of the Celtic Christians.

This video is deeply flawed and misleading.

When Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, he also said to render unto God what is God's. It's painfully obvious that had Jesus been a Flavian invention, he would not have been making perfectly clear that Caesar is not God. Those of the Jews who were anti-Jesus were trying to trap Jesus into saying something where they could point the Romans to it so the Romans would declare Jesus a criminal and imprison him or whatever.

Jesus was making even a larger point still. He was making a statement about the source of mammon, which we call money. Money is not necessary in God's kingdom. Money came out from other than God. What has not come out from God is anti-God.

In addition, an abomination in the Temple or in the synagogues necessarily included any statue of any Caesar. If the Flavians invented Jesus, why would they make it anti-Christ, anti-Christian scripture, to put a Flavian's statue in a synagogue? Is that the way to get the Christians to obey the Flavians? Is that the way to get the Christians to secretly worship Titus? It's ridiculous on it's face.

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luke 11:23)

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. (Mark 12:17)

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Luke 16:9-13)

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: (Mark 13:14)

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31)

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11)

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:11)

Does any of that sound like something the Flavians would write to get Christians to obey and to secretly worship Titus?

You will note that Jesus said that Caesar by way of his, Caesar's Roman Empire, was sinning, though to a lesser extent than the deliverers, the Pharisees, at el. No Caesar before, during, or after has ever been any god of Christianity to any degree.

Atwill's pattern from the Old to New Testaments which he attributes to the Flavian's genius is not the doing of the Flavians. Jesus was more than well aware of the Old Testament scripture. He knew full well that when the tribes of Israel failed to heed the Holy Spirit that finally some other nation would get the best of them. Many nations defeated the tribes of Israel. Major cases include the Assyrians and Babylonians, then the Greeks, followed by the Romans. Who couldn't know that if the Jews continued to turn away from God and continued to be Zealots for the wrong spirit, that the superpower of the day, the Romans, would crush them? Saying that in no way said that the Roman Empire was following God the way Jesus would have had them.

From Vespasian, who reigned from 69 to 79 AD, it wasn't until Constantine I, who reigned from 306 to 337 AD, that a generally consistent thawing toward Christianity began. What happened with Constantine was the co-optation of Christianity for militaristic ends: totally anti-Christ!

Book 6, Chapter 5, paragraph 4, "The Jewish War," by Josephus:

Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

It was Josephus who understood that God uses empires to punish Israel. Book 3, Chapter 7, paragraph 31, "The Jewish War," by Josephus:

It was certainly God therefore who brought the Romans to punish the Galileans, and did then expose the people of the city every one of them manifestly to be destroyed by their bloody enemies; for they fell upon the gates in great crowds, and earnestly calling to those that kept them, and that by their names also, yet had they their throats cut in the very midst of their supplications; for the enemy shut the gates of the first wall, and their own citizens shut the gates of the second, so they were enclosed between two walls, and were slain in great numbers together; many of them were run through by swords of their own men, and many by their own swords, besides an immense number that were slain by the Romans.

Only people who don't think beyond what Joseph Atwill and his clique of non-scholars are telling them will fall for his ridiculous theory. I've only scratched the surface of debunking it. There's plenty more that could be said, but why waste breath on it? There's nothing there in Atwill's theory, no merit.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.