New Book -- Creating Christ

[Richard Stanley]

I dunno. Nazarene just sounds kinda like Nazirite.

I have speculated on at least one other thread that the Nazarite vows appear to be special purity rites (over and above ordinary Judaic purity rites) for preparations to become a king, an annointed messiah. Or someone connected to such a messiah, hence Queen Helena being so persistent as to take the vows 3 times to complete properly. And so, in my opinion, a Nazarene is someone who follows a Nazarite.

Notice how the Nazarite vows are recorded in Numbers 6, but there is no discussion of them beyond Samson being a Nazarite, that is, until the apocalyptic times where the messianic king is expected.

From the Egyptian, the NZR root means related to the 'prince', and hence is symbiotic with such as 'branch' -- e.g. the 'royal' Root and Branch of Jesse, etc.. Why would anybody give a damn about Jesse the shepherd? Because he wasn't a literal shepherd, but an encrypted symbolic shepherd from ...

Samson is no exception here, as his parents are the leaders of the Danites, and they are visited by an angel to inform them of how special Samson is. Samson, of course, is an agent of Chaos preparing the way for a prior Saul, the first king who leads to David. The Danites are .... Egyptians via a stop in Mycenaean Greece, related to the legend of Egyptus vs. Danuus, a schism leading to several serial migrations.

We are really talking prior about the changes and machinations involved with the collapse of the Late Bronze Age and its aftermath ... in forming the new age of the day, and where the Egyptians were the only civilization to survive with its royalty intact.

As I've posted (the lecture videos) recently, the rational scholars of today understand the Exodus as being that of only a few higher level people, being imposed upon Canaan (itself in the power vacuum of the collapse of the LBA), as described by the distribution of the Levitical priesthood in the 48 largest cities of Canaan. These Levitical priests were likely the Yehud priests recorded belonging to Amenhotep III, the father of Akhenaten, as discussed by the Sabbah brothers in Secrets of the Exodus..

All roads leading to Rome seem to mostly have had their start in Egypt.

Regarding the Nazarenes, is there anything of relevance in the Ancient Spooks series (Covert ops)? The author suggests different types of Nazirs: Actors for life, who fake their own death… picked before birth or after birth…

Quite possibly, however, I think it much more likely that Semitic Phoenicia is used as part of the veiling. Just inland from Phoenicia (Greater Canaan) is this Syrian landscape including Edessa and the phantom land of Adiabene that Josephus describes. As Ellis goes on at length, the verbose Josephus goes to great efforts to veil the identities and history of the real royal house of Edessa, which appears to get its real start with the time claimed for the Biblical Jesus. Josephus starts his nonsense by claiming that Augustus would think it prudent to provide the king of Parthia with a mere courtesan, who immediately became the favorite wife. And this follows that such as Cicero claimed that Cleopatra VII fled Rome while pregnant with a second Caesarian child. With Josephus, instead of following the money, one follows both his silence and BS.

As Ellis eventually gets onto, and as I had mentioned, the Romans were completely aware and approving of all the (literally) new developments at Edessa and Palmyra, and thus we have good reason to believe that it was this royal family that had interests in establishing itself in Jerusalem. And that these same people were leaders of the Nazorean/Nazarenes and that Queen Helena was a related 'Nazarite' (but rather not from Adiabene). Just like Mecca was not in Mecca, but rather was Petra (Becca), hundreds of miles distant.

 

[Richard Stanley]

He thinks the Romans were confused. However, if Paul was killed by Romans it was because he had 'outlived his usefulness.' Valliant says that Paul was only making things worse by stiring up conflict with Jews. [Here: at 1:21]

No, I only got that they are talking about Paul in light of being a Roman agent provocateur, which is my prior understanding of what they said. As such, Paul is engaged in classic divide and conquer techniques. Here, the Flavian Romans, at least, and such as Paul (aka Josephus Flavius) are working towards a new religious synthesis for the imperium going forward into the new age, following the prior successful merger process that formed Serapis for the Ptolomaic Greeks, albeit that the new 'global' synthesis necessarily involved burning out the apocalyptic nationalists. The cynical process is now being repeated before our eyes today with today's nationalist religious zealots, sardonically mostly Christians, but Jews and Muslims as well.

If you can point something out different then please explain.

 

[Jerry Russell]

If you can point something out different then please explain.

How about this quote I found earlier, from Creating Christ, which states that Tacitus and Suetonius were "ignorant" and "confused" and that the two types of Christian were "conflated":

Whatever their exact dating, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm what Josephus relates, at least to some extent: the messianic Jews of this period were militant, xenophobic purists and strict adherents of the Mosaic Law. If the so-called “sectarian” documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls are any indication, they were not at all the peace-seeking, cheek-turning, enemy-loving, tax-paying, Roman-appeasing Christians of the sort who could possibly follow the New Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that they constituted a religio-political powder keg about to explode—and that they would certainly have opposed Christ’s central message in the Gospels. Today, these rebellious Jews are not normally called “Christians” even though they anticipated the arrival of a “christened” or “anointed” one (the Messiah or the Christ) to lead them in their holy war against Rome. To pagan Romans like Tacitus and Suetonius, who may have been ignorant of the finer distinctions between messianic Jewish groups, the term “Christian” may well have applied to messianic Jews as a whole. Suetonius’s confused mention of a Jewish “Chrestus” causing violence in Rome itself before 50 CE appears to confirm this conflation of terminology. ​

​

Valliant, James S.; Fahy, C. W.. Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity (Kindle Locations 589-597). Kindle Edition. ​

 

[Richard Stanley]

Uhmmm ....

Tacitus and Suetonius are reporters, aka Fake News. So, again, were they confused ... or confusing? In any case, Tacitus and Suetonius are not the puppetmasters in the imperial court, so even if those two were both confused and confusing this says nothing about the imperial court being the same.

 

[Jerry Russell]

In any case, Tacitus and Suetonius are not the puppetmasters in the imperial court, so even if those two were both confused and confusing this says nothing about the imperial court being the same.

Joe James was referring to "Romans" in general, and I found this quote from V & F about Tacitus and Suetonius, who fit the bill as Romans. So I'd say that Joe's statement is confirmed. Could there be any basis to know whether any of the relevant Emperors were confused and/or confusing? Just about everything we know about them comes via "Fake News" sources, right?

 

[Richard Stanley]

We'll need to let Joe interpret himself.

As for me, I only care about what the Imperial Romans were thinking, in these regards, so if someone says "the Romans were confused", without any qualifiers, I would assume we're talking about the Imperial Romans.

and I found this quote from V & F about Tacitus and Suetonius, who fit the bill as Romans.

To wit: "To pagan Romans like Tacitus and Suetonius, who may have been ignorant of the finer distinctions between messianic Jewish groups, the term “Christian” may well have applied to messianic Jews as a whole. "

Not very definitive is it? These two may have been ignorant, or they may have been wittingly spreading propaganda. I say the latter, but, what's the point either way?

Were the Imperial Romans mentally capable of conceiving of the notion of synthesizing a new religion, as had been done many times before, from older sources, or not? Were the Imperial Romans capable of deceitfully employing strategies of divide and conquer to achieve their goals, that included furthering their new religious ambitions, or not?

Valliant said (in the referenced video) that, after Price brings up Operation Messiah, that the NT says that Paul only made matters worse, which Valliant says was the Romans' plan. That is, in acting as an agent provocateur. So where am I going wrong here?

Who was serving in the Roman army in the 2nd century? Christians or Chrestians? Who was sitting in Vespasian's Amphitheater cheering on the lions, Christians or Chrestians?

 

[Jerry Russell]

So where am I going wrong here?

I don't think you're going wrong at all.

 

[Joe James]

"To pagan Romans like Tacitus and Suetonius, who may have been ignorant of the finer distinctions between messianic Jewish groups, the term “Christian” may well have applied to messianic Jews as a whole. Suetonius’s confused mention of a Jewish “Chrestus” causing violence in Rome itself before 50 CE appears to confirm this conflation of terminology. "

I guess what you could read this as saying is that the Romans persecuted "messianic Jews" but later historians interpreted this as persecution of Christians. So the Romans in fact didn't persecute Christians. I don't find this persuasive. "Chrestus" was not a Jewish name, so it's most likely that Suetonius was confused about when Jesus lived, but it makes sense to understand this passage as talking about Jewish/Christian controversy.

So at the end of the day there are sources that mention the Roman persecution of Christians and this is incompatible with the Flavian hypothesis.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

A couple of interesting links here:

• Did Marcus Aurelius Persecute the Christians?
• Marcus Aurelius, Stoicism, and Mithraism

 

[Joe James]

One thing I've wondered about the Flavian thesis is: (1) which emperor started it; and (2) when did knowledge of it die out.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Doesn't seem like Marcus Aurelius was in the know about it, but that's just guessing right now.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I guess what you could read this as saying is that the Romans persecuted "messianic Jews" but later historians interpreted this as persecution of Christians. So the Romans in fact didn't persecute Christians.

Joe, I think this is a misunderstanding of Valliant's argument. He's saying that we know there were (at least) two different kinds of "Christians" in the 1st century Roman world: one sect that was pro-Roman and one sect that was virulently anti-Roman. And, it's well known that the "Messianic Jewish Zealots" were crucified and massacred in vast, uncountable numbers. Whereas, it makes no sense that the Romans would have persecuted the pro-Roman Christian sect that was created under the Roman imperial umbrella. Those are facts.

And then we have the statements from Seutonius and Tacitus, saying that Christians were persecuted. So, why did the Roman imperial reporters say these things? Three possibilities come to mind:

(1) Seutonius and Tacitus were confused, and thought that the Jewish Zealots were "Christians".

(2) Seutonius and Tacitus were intentionally lying.

(3) In fact there were a few isolated incidents in which Roman Christians were killed. S & T reported accurately on those incidents, while failing to disclose the broader pattern of Roman promotion of Roman Catholic Christianity.

One thing I've wondered about the Flavian thesis is: (1) which emperor started it; and (2) when did knowledge of it die out.

According to what we're saying here, the Roman Catholic Christian church underwent substantial evolution during the 1st century. It started off as a local Herodian variant of the Divus Julius cult, under Octavian and Mark Antony. The 'Jesus' character of the Gospels was invented under Vespasian and Titus. Domitian completed the trinity.

We're not convinced that the knowledge of the conspiracy ever did die out. We have no idea what information might be preserved within the walls of the Vatican library. Shakespeare and Marlowe apparently knew. Joe Atwill sees some informed typology in the works of Ken Kesey and J.D. Salinger.

 

[Seeker]

So does Josephus fit into this as the person who "invented" Jesus of the Gospels under Vespasian and Titus, using Jesus son of Gamala/Jesus son of Sapphias/King Izates etc., per Ralph Ellis, as the prototype for this synchronization with Divus Julius and the Flavian cult?

 

[Seeker]

All roads leading to Rome seem to mostly have had their start in Egypt.

Eventually, unless someone with more experience than I brings these topics up first, I may start threads about the theories of Charles N. Pope via his "Domain of Man" site, and also "Roman Piso" with his Piso family hypothesis. Pope has Julius Caesar in the male line going back to Alexander the Great and the Egyptian Pharaohs (and even before them) as the Great King of the Uber-Elite Family, and Piso has his Roman Piso family (including Julius Caesar by marriage and possibly male line descent from) also with a descent from the Egyptian Pharaohs as part of this premiere Royal Family.

 

[Joe James]

We also have Pliny the Younger's exchange with Trajan.

At the end of the day doesn't Mr. Ockham provide us with a better explanation: the Romans persecuted the Christians and this is good reason to believe that Christianity was not a Roman creation?

 

[Jerry Russell]

We also have Pliny the Younger's exchange with Trajan.

Seems to me that Trajan is telling Pliny to look the other way, and avoid seeking out Christians for persecution.

The Pliny-Trajan letters and other works of Pliny the Younger contain a lot of interesting Christian typology. Joe Atwill was working on a book chapter about this, several years ago. I wonder if he'd be ready to move forward and get his observations published.

At the end of the day doesn't Mr. Ockham provide us with a better explanation: the Romans persecuted the Christians and this is good reason to believe that Christianity was not a Roman creation?

Ockham's Razor is just a heuristic expression of the Bayesian principle that if two hypotheses are equally good at explaining all the data, the simpler one will score the higher posterior probability. See:

https://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/a-bayesian-formulation-of-occams-razor/

So to apply the Razor in this case, there are several questions to address:

What is the competitive hypothesis? (That is. if the Romans didn't create Christianity, then who did?)

Is the competitive hypothesis any simpler?

Does the competitive hypothesis really explain all the data equally well?

The evidence in favor of the Roman Origins hypothesis includes: typological (literary) links between Josephus and the NT, as identified by Atwill; the fact that the earliest historically & archaeologically proven Christians were members of the Flavian royal court; Flavian coins with Christian symbols; Paul's name dropping his connections to the Imperial Roman court in his letters; the headquarters of the Christian religion established in Rome early in the 1st century AD; the pro-Roman political orientation of the New Testament; & etc.

How can all this evidence be explained, if the Romans didn't create Christianity?

Regarding the syllogism: "the Romans persecuted the Christians and this is good reason to believe that Christianity was not a Roman creation?", we've questioned every part of it. We don't agree there is any solid evidence the Romans persecuted the Christians. But even if they did, it only suggests that those particular Romans hadn't been clued in about the privileged status of the Roman Catholic religion.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I will admit that the Roman Origins theory is a sort of false-flag conspiracy theory. If the New Testament is accepted at face value, the reader would think that the religion was founded by the order of God, and by Jesus Christ and his disciples, all of whom were Jewish.

In any false flag attack, the Alleged Victim State is always first on the scene with its "evidence". In the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis were quick to blame the Communists, who were tried and (one) found guilty. But over time, evidence has emerged to the contrary, and by now most everyone agrees that the Nazis were the ones that set the fire.

And there's generally a strong cultural bias, to believe the evidence produced by the State, and reject the conspiracy hypothesis. But this has to do with beliefs about "prior probabilities" rather than Occam's Razor. Most of the more credible conspiracy theories (such as the ones we advocate at this website) are not really any more complicated than the "official story".

 

[Joe James]

"the fact that the earliest historically & archaeologically proven Christians were members of the Flavian royal court; Flavian coins with Christian symbols"

Jesus, John the Baptist, Mathew, Mark, Peter, Paul, James, Luke, etc. were members of the Flavian court?

Why is it that none of the Gospels, with perhaps the exception of Mark, had a Roman provenance?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Before using such a dull blade as Occam's, one might ask themselves why the earliest existing NT manuscripts originally were written with 'Chrestian' and not 'Christian', and then with the 'E's modified into "I's.

I will admit that the Roman Origins theory is a sort of false-flag conspiracy theory. If the New Testament is accepted at face value, the reader would think that the religion was founded by the order of God, and by Jesus Christ and his disciples, all of whom were Jewish.

And yet, I always wonder just how Christianity, a gift from the Jewish God and his son, actually changed societal behavior in the Christianized West in any significant way from that of the Romans? It seems to be no more than amalgamated paganism.

No, the early, extra-Biblical references to Christianity is pretty weak tea, now in very old wineskins.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Jesus, John the Baptist, Mathew, Mark, Peter, Paul, James, Luke, etc. were members of the Flavian court?

Respond to the claim. The individuals you mention have no archaeological basis. Jerry was referring to such as Flavia Domatilla, and other Flavians.

Why is it that none of the Gospels, with perhaps the exception of Mark, had a Roman provenance?

As opposed to what?