Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus Page #5

So, this idea that the Gospels are

reliable testimony is patent nonsense.

Why are the Gospels called Gospels?

That's a critical question. Well,

Gospel in Greek is "Evangelion".

And it means good news

of military victory.

Whose military victory are we

celebrating here in these Gospels?

Well, seems to me that

we're celebrating, clearly,

the Roman military victory, because

these events:
the Battle of Gadara,

the Battle of the Lake of Galilee,

the successful Battle of Jerusalem,

these are battles that the Romans won.

Why are the Gospels celebrating

battles that the Jews lost

if these things were

written by the Jews?

The fact that the Gospels

are known to us in Greek

and not in Aramaic or Hebrew is, I

think, just evidence of their ownership.

They were not written by

any followers of Jesus,

who would have surely spoken Aramaic.

And if they had been

fishermen and simple folk,

they would not have had the

literate skills to write them anyway.

If we look closely, there

actually are clues in the Gospels

that point to who the true authors were.

A lot of the Christian

literature advocates

turning away from the Jewish

law and obeying Roman law.

All this fits perfectly into

Roman propaganda purposes.

And then you have, in general, the

portrayal of Jesus as the peaceful Jew,

who was wondering around in what is

depicted as a sort of pastural scenes,

talking to fishermen and farmers

and so forth, when, in fact,

this is a war zone. Judea is a war zone.

And you ask yourself: why is

it not portrayed as a war zone?

(?) ??? they really had it ???. ??? they have Jesus saying

'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's',

which is basically in response

to talking about money.

Whose benefit would that be?

So blatantly obvius.

The perception of Roman

characters in the Gospels,

they're all interpreted in a

favourable light. They are pro-Roman.

They do not depict the Romans as the

forces of evil. They reverse that.

It's the Jews who become

the forces of darkness.

It's very striking that

various passages in the Gospels

refer to the Jews as some people

separate from the heroes

of Jesus and his disciples.

The Jews are those who object.

The Jews are those who try

to fault the divine plan.

Now, that gives us a clue, certainly, to

who were the true authors of this book.

They are works of literature

created by people who

are trained in Jewish literature,

but whose values are pro-Roman.

The Romans wanted to

promote antisemitism

and so they arranjed the story of

the beloved man-God Jesus Christ

to appear as if the Jews

had brought about his death.

Because of this,

the Jews would have to suffer

antisemitism throughout history.

So, this was a piece of work

that could not have been done

except by a fairly stablished literary

team, such as the literary team

that was in Rome actually

writing the books of Josephus.

I mean, that was written

by a literary team

and it was written as one of

the atempts to give prominence

(?) to the Flavian Caesars which the Gospels ??? so do.

So, it is extremely likely that

the Gospels, as a form of epic

designed to magnify

alegorically the Roman Caesars,

is also written at the court

of the Flavian Emperors.

But the Jesus story

takes place many decades

before the Flavians came to power,

why would the Flavians create a work

about a Jewish messiah that

wasn't even from their own era?

The Gospels were very

precisely backdated 40 years.

Jesus's ministry was started

in 30 CE, exactly 40 years

from the destruction of the temple.

His ministry ends at Passover

33 CE, which is 40 years before

the end of the Jewish-Roman

war, which occurred at Passover,

in 73 CE, with the

famous battle of Massada.

The Gospels are backdated into

the period of Poncius Pilate,

that is to say before

the first Jewish war,

which is to say in the

Julio-Claudian period.

But this is typical of Flavian literature.

It's a Flavian tecnique.

What they do is they backdate the

story into the period of their enemies,

namely the Julio-Claudians.

And so, generation after

generation of Christian scholar,

and even secular historians,

go hunting, in the Julio-Claudian period,

for the origins of the Gospels.

They don't really find

any anwsers there.

There are allusions in the Gospels

to the destruction of the temple.

The most reasonable answer

to that is that these texts

DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH TEMPLE 70 CE

were written after the

destruction of the temple.

DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH TEMPLE 70 CE

That is to say, in the Flavian period,

after the change of dynasty.

This backdating of the

story of Jesus Christ,

40 years earlier from the time the

Gospels may actually have been written,

explains why many of the

prophecies of Jesus came true

within exactly 40 years.

What does this all add up to?

In my view,

the thing that is most significant

is the research by Joseph Atwill,

in his book "Caesar's Messiah",

which sugests that the Gospels

were actually created as works

of Roman propaganda at the

end of the Roman-Jewish war,

under the reign of Flavian emperors,

that is Titus Caesar

and Vespasian Caesar.

And if you end up worshipping Jesus,

what you really end up doing is

worshipping Caesar in disguise.

This may have been how the

Flavians finally got the Jews

to worship Caesar as a god:

by giving them Jesus Christ,

a messiah more to the Roman's liking.

But is there any actual

history to this character?

Where did he really come from?

The mistery to me begans

with his very name.

In Greek, Jesus means savior

and Christ means the messiah.

JESUS - SAVIOR, CHRIST - MESSIAH

This didn't strike me as something

you would call a young child.

JESUS - SAVIOR, CHRIST - MESSIAH

These two words are already

important within Judaism

before Jesus Christ supposedly existed.

Major biblical figures,

to a Jewish Greek-speaking populace,

DAVID - THE CHRIS would already be called Christ.

Their ears would already be

acclimated to accepting this title.

So, it isn't just a unique name of a

single person that just suddenly pop up.

What did we actually know

about Jesus Christ, the man?

I don't think that Jesus can

be historically defended.

I don't think there's any evidence that

we can extend to that particular Jesus.

So, when you actually set out to

investigate the historical Jesus,

as opposed to the Christ of faith,

you very abruptally enter a void.

You find that whereas you might

imagine the core details of Jesus

are readily known and accessible, you

actually discover there's no such thing.

Further, there've never been

any archeological evidence

of Jesus Christ that

had ever been discover.

You cannot find an established

and incontrovertible

biography of Jesus at all.

It doesn't exist.

You enter a strange twilight

zone of early Christian belief.

What we have here is not

a movement that's grown

on the accretion of legends

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes