jesus was real

There's no credible proof stating if he was real, no matter how hard Christian scientist stretch it

I personally don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, but there is good reason to belive in a historical Jesus. I'll post a link to a fascinating debate on the topic between two atheists in a minute when I find it!

do you really think the christian world is the only source of Jesus? Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet. ( but in Islam he is know as Isa )

we have the church of the east,

the problem is that Christianity as in the west. is nothing more then a slave religion. nothing to do whit the original message

Yes, Abrahamic religions, like you stated, all have the story of Jesus in them. Same thing with most pagan religions.

you wanna know the true meaning of the Abrahamic religons?

they where rebellion against a system know as the Persian model- "best slaves are slaves that think they are free".. we are still living in this model today. all that stuff about god and what not was to give the people hope and strength to do the right thing.

Yeah totally that's why three magi found Jesus and anointed him with gifts...

they did more then just anoint him whit gifts, they where his teachers.

Yes thank you!!! that's precisely what the three gifts represent.

Same thing with most pagan religions.

I'm not aware of a single pagan religion where the dying God dies as an atoning sacrifice for human sin.

Further, the Bible teaches that people before Moses knew of the Most High God. Melchizedek, Job, Noah, Enoch, etc. The fact that some religions would mention the coming of a dying God doesn't prove Christianity is a ripoff, it actually corroborates it.

OK, I'll go. Esho tells the Pharisees they are are the spawn of, and worship, the father of lies. After Esho was put to death, who kept on running the show? The same ones we have now. Nothing changed...but the scriptures.

I'll go one further. The OT being paired with the NT is sacrilege. The OT god is the insane, psycho, half-caste dark one [yaldaboath] that thinks he's god. The uncorrupted NT clearly points this out. That's why the church exterminated thousands and thousands, perhaps millions, of Cathars, Bogomils, Albigensians, Valentinians, Manichean and other gnostic groups, as well as destroying any true scriptures they found.

We've been fed the lie our entire lives. This is the hardest pill for most to take. Most can't accept it. Too scary, I guess. Won't even look into it, which is baffling, since Christianity allegedly is about saving your eternal consciousness. It's said throughout the NT that the majority of the Church will be deceived. Welp, this is what that means.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_sbj.htm

Right on. Mainstream Christianity is a soul trap. Everything is inverted. The Nag Hammadi stuff resonates. Never was edited by the agenda. The Celestial Error [false reality] is where we are. That's THE Big Secret. Esho [Syriac Aramaic spelling] shows the way out of the holographic recycling system.

I don't think he was Roman, and I don't think he was what we know today as a Jew. There were ~10,000 sects in the ME back then. Like calling the Pope a Morman.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_sbj.htm

I don't think he was Roman, and I don't think he was what we know today as a Jew. There were ~10,000 sects in the ME back then. Like calling the Pope a Morman.

he was defenetly not a Roman, and i think the people of Egypt,Mesopotamia,Persia and Greece was more or less the same people/civilization from the beginning divided into multiple cults by the mystery schools

The teaching of Esho in Egypt after thet fled. Looking into the Hyksos becoming the Hebrews several k before is interesting. As well as the possibility of Ahkenaten being Abraham, or Moses. Of course, I do believe in advanced antediluvian worldwide civilization[s - several; various epochs]. The oldest mystery schools preserve some of this knowledge, I hear. Most were/are mushroom/various other entheogen cults. Esho's annointing oil was Canna Bah. ...then we get to Tibet, Agartha, Hyperborea/Asgaarde, various older and concurrent breakaway civs all fitting together. gee...

Not only is this false, but one of the few issues that scholars are in total consensus about is that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

Here is an atheist, Bart Ehrman, describing why these theories are not accepted by anyone with relevant credentials.

A real useful tool to subdue the Jews, and mentally enslave Western Civilization for thousands of years.

They may have based some of the story off of a real person, but New Testament Jesus is just a masked form of emperor worship.

Christianity was created by the Flavius family to subdue Jewish revolts occurring around the empire. He subverted their "prophesies" and claimed the role of Messiah, with the help of Josephus, a Jewish traitor who they literally adopted into the family.

The new testament was written to make Judaism more appealing and accessible to gentiles. Follow the same "god" authority, without all the pesky rules, like not eating bacon, trimming sideburns, or stoning adulterers. Over the next couple hundred years, they created the "Pope", their literal "god on Earth" figure, to rule over these brainwashed masses, taxing them through tithes, and ruling over them with "divine" authority. This contribuyed to the collapse of Rome, and developed into feudalism and the dark ages, one of the worst, most oppressive times in history, and was dominated by the authority of the Pope in Rome, and the emperor in Constantinople.

The same families involved in the rise of "Christianity" and the Roman/Byzantine empire still rule today. They're spread throughout almost all Western monarchies and governments, and rule through the manipulation of religion and currency.

There. I figured I'd blast out a quick summary for you. It's too sprawling of a topic to cover in one go :)

Why would the Jews choose to believe this?

Propaganda. If you think propaganda is bad now, imagine how effective it could be in a time when most people couldn't read, their heads were filled with all sorts of superstitious beliefs, and they only heard news from very limited sources.

And the emperors didn't toss out the Jewish beliefs. They cooped them, with the help of an educated insider, Josephus. They took their beliefs, and twisted them into something else, which empowered the emperor.

The fall of Rome has been discussed for centuries, and has too many causes to list. But some of the big ones relating to the church: Wealth disparity became a huge problem, late in Rome. Politicians and church leaders hoarded the wealth, via tax breaks given to them, while they siphoned off even more wealth from peasants through taxes and tithes. So, even though the peasants didn't "revolt", they were subdued, and not as enthusiastic about fighting for Rome. Also, when Constantine split the empire, he was trying to create a sort of Christian eutopia, to the east. This left Rome itself hanging, and vulnerable to outside Invaders. They still had the pope, but their central government was crippled, and was chipped away until it died around 400.

I don't have time to dive into it, unfortunately, but if you look into "black nobility", that's where this comes from. Current rulers, descended from Roman times, and even much earlier.

Good luck with the search. :)

How?

OP, here's a riddle for you, hidden in this comment:

"But the presenter isn't wrong for the most part - he just doesn't realize there were two real guys instead of one.

So if Rome was covering up for the second, who was covering up the first with the second and why?"

Jesus was real, exoteric Christianity is true, and the coverup didn't happen until after Nicea. :)

This doesn't answer the riddle.

There is no riddle. Have you examined the evidence?

link not working

Crap, I think that was the only PDF out there.

What was it about?

The actual manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament.

This? "Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?" by F.F. Bruce, published in 1943, 2 years before Nag Hammadi texts were discovered?

Yes. The Nag Hammadi documents are from the 3rd-4th century (and that's being generous), much newer than the earliest New Testament documents. The John Rylands fragment is dated within the 1st century by conservative scholars.

I don't think there is a concensus as to the dating of above mentioned documents.

The riddle remains unresolved.

Oh dear, not ready to do your homework?

See this what is meant by "the presenter isn't wrong for the most part".

Some kind of cover up is much more likely than your idea in OP that the character was created from scratch, the disinfo that he did not exist at all.

but New Testament Jesus is just a masked form of emperor worship.

Romans created a slave religion, they subverted the original message and teachings of Jesus ( they even renamed him )

what Jesus was talking about was rebellion to a system called "best slaves are slaves that think they are free" we are still slaves under this system today

but have you heard of the church of the east? not the orthodox church of eastern Europe but the real church of the east

I'm not familiar with their specific teachings, but yeah, I've heard a little.

I'm open to that possibility, or some form of it. I find the Gospel of Thomas to be very interesting, for example, and I'm not closed off to spiritual/esoteric ideas.

But any religion that portrays Jesus as a son of that Old Testament Devil-God is a pack of lies.

god of the old testament is the mystery schools. exactly what Jesus and Mohammed rebelled against.

Gospel of Thomas are to close to the truth. thats why you wont find it in the bible anymore and thats how you should see Christianity.

It's hard to even use the term "Christianity" any more, when it's so thoroughly corrupted. Similar problem with the word "god". It's almost always used to describe the abrahamic cancer gods.

But any religion that portrays Jesus as a son of that Old Testament Devil-God is a pack of lies.

A surface reading of the Old Testament doesn't make sense of it.

For example, why does God want the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites? Makes a lot more sense when you realize they were 7-8 feet tall (Goliath), had inbred with demons, and practiced ritual child rape and sacrifice (Molech, Baal, etc.)

Makes even more sense when you realize these giants had already totally enslaved humanity twice, forcing God to intervene (Genesis Flood and Tower of Babel). Look at old monuments or legends and you can see evidence of these evil giants posing as deities.

Those are post hoc rationalizations, and aren't supported by what the Bible literally says about them. There was one city where they supposedly ran into Giants. Goliath was a special case in his time, mentioned specifically as being a giant compared to all others. "Giant" being about 7 or 8 feet tall.

In the book of Joshua, none of their genocidal campaigns are "crusades" against paganism, or idolatry. They simply wanted their cities, so they would kill every man, woman, child, and animal in it, to steal it. Seriously, read through it. It's a very straightforward tale of genocidal maniacs invading a foreign country, killing everybody they could, and stealing their land.

There was one city where they supposedly ran into Giants.

The whole land was full of them: "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them" (Numbers 13:32-33)

It's a very straightforward tale of genocidal maniacs invading a foreign country, killing everybody they could, and stealing their land.

Except the repeatedly fail to defeat them, don't comply with the commands, and eventually end up worshiping the evil deities themselves.

Alright. I've got a few minutes for this one now.

The land wasn't full of them. You're quoting the part where the spies exaggerate their report, to discourage the Hebrews from going into Israel. There were some "sons of anak", but it doesn't say how many. Later, in Joshua 15, it says that Caleb killed three of them, specifically.

So it wasn't full of giants, no idolatry is mentioned in any meaningful way, and it's not about demon races, or anything like that. It was a simple, bloody, violent, genocidal land grab.

And yeah. When they don't genocide hard enough, god punishes them for it. What a loving, meciful, forgiving god. I can see why he would send Jesus to die for them, when he was so intent on killing every last one of them...

Romans created a slave religion, they subverted the original message and teachings of Jesus ( they even renamed him )

Why are the earliest manuscripts the Gospels that Christians believe are true, not the Gospel of Thomas, etc.

And why was Rome killing Christians AFTER the supposed co-opting went down?

but have you heard of the church of the east?

The split there was Nestorianism, whether Jesus had a separate divine and human will or not. The basic of Christianity, like Jesus dying for our sins, the Bible (although they included cool stuff like the Book of Enoch), were still included in the theology of the Church of the East.

I agree, super interesting topic, though.

The split there was Nestorianism, whether Jesus had a separate divine and human will or not. The basic of Christianity, like Jesus dying for our sins, the Bible (although they included cool stuff like the Book of Enoch), were still included in the theology of the Church of the East.

we dont really have the true picture of what happen back then. we have some sources but then again they are all coming from the west.

but what we have is abandon and looted churches scattered all out Russia that nobody can explain who and when they where built, specially the Siberia and the eastern part..

my personal belief is when the Romans was hunting down the disciples of Jesus and there disciples and so on, some managed to escape. and they tried to get as far away from Rome as possible. Siberia would be pretty far from the mystery schools.

and another theme we see is the people who wrote in runes attacking Rome over and over again. we start from German,Slav,Hungarian,Bulgar and Turk.

remember that history is written by the winners. the Easter church lost and we dont really know anything about it

we dont really have the true picture of what happen back then. we have some sources but then again they are all coming from the west.

We have plenty of sources, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. Read the actual sources, we have hundreds of Christian writings in the early centuries. The Church of the East came out of a split at these councils.

but what we have is abandon and looted churches scattered all out Russia that nobody can explain who and when they where built, specially the Siberia and the eastern part..

Any specific examples?

We have plenty of sources, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. Read the actual sources, we have hundreds of Christian writings in the early centuries. The Church of the East came out of a split at these councils.

does any of them sources say anything about Jesus not dying on the cross? that Maria Magdalena was his wife and she nursed him back to health after he was brought down from the cross alive? and after that Maria Magdalena went west whit there son ( look up black Madonna of France ) and that Jesus went east.

Any specific examples?

dont have any special example. google it and while your at it look up something called buried first floors

another thing that is out of "history" if you can say so. but i let u/CaptainApollyon post describe that part more detailed

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

does any of them sources say anything about Jesus not dying on the cross?

No, because that story didn't get written until about 2-300 years later.

that Maria Magdalena was his wife and she nursed him back to health after he was brought down from the cross alive? and after that Maria Magdalena went west whit there son ( look up black Madonna of France ) and that Jesus went east.

I'm familiar with the Priory of Sion, but I've never seen any early documents supporting their claims.

Priory of Sion

wasent really referring to them. but Islam tells the same story. ( there are some variants of this, one is Jesus did not die on the cross, the other is Jesus brother took his place )

there are at least two places in the east that says Jesus is buried there.

one in Kashmir and the other one is in japan.

and if i dont remember wrong, one of the towns that was nuked by the Americans was like the "Vatican" for the Christians in japan

there are at least two places in the east that says Jesus is buried there.

Has anyone produced a body that can be carbon dated to the 1st century?

i dont need a body that is proven to bee from the 1st century, there are just to much stuff pointing to the fact that most of the main stream history we have today is wrong in so many ways.

but you could be the one that breaks the case! maybe this is your calling in life. i will be your mental assistant from the synthetic 4 dimension ( internet )you can write to me at any moment and i will assist you

on a side note. im not even a christian but it feels like i understand the message better then most Christians.

i dont need a body that is proven to bee from the 1st century, there are just to much stuff pointing to the fact that most of the main stream history we have today is wrong in so many ways.

If they're claiming they have the body, just do a carbon dating test and blow up the whole narrative. The fact that they don't do this speaks volumes.

the other is Jesus brother took his place

Which one?

if we go by the japanes story it was his brother Isukiri

New Testament Jesus is just a masked form of emperor worship.

Jesus was killed by the Empire, and his earliest disciples were fed to the lions for refusing to worship the emperor.

I swear, the mental gymnastics people will go through instead of just fairly investigating the arguments for and against Christianity.

You don't need to swear :)

In the earliest years, there were lots of different forms of "Christianity". The earliest didn't even have anything to do with this specific "Jesus Christ". It was about Jews looking for or following a Messiah. A Christ. Others were gnostic, zoroastrian, on and on.

So not only were these persecution accounts dubious, and written several decades after they supposedly happened, but they also use a very generic word, which applied to a wide variety of "Christian" sects. The sect that gradually morphed into Catholic orthodoxy was merciless and brutal toward any other "Christian's" who didn't share their specific opinions on the nature of Jesus, god, etc. They spent the next couple hundred years murdering off all of their competitors, and destroying their works, even going as far as finishing off the Library of Alexandria.

And in the New testament, Jesus was killed by Jews, under the "reluctant" authority of Rome. It's very clear that they were portraying Jews as the "bad guys", and Romans as the disinterested supreme authority. But Rome is always the authority. Render unto Caesar the other cheek. Or something like that :)

In the earliest years, there were lots of different forms of "Christianity".

You can read early Christian writings and verify this really isn't true. The core teachings of Christianity were settled, very early on, as were the canonical writings.

The confusion came when later Gnostics showed up with pseudepigraphal books, claiming they were written by the Apostles.

So not only were these persecution accounts dubious

What? Are you saying Rome didn't persecute Christians? You are aware there's a mountain of primary source material on this from hostile sources, right?

The sect that gradually morphed into Catholic orthodoxy was merciless and brutal toward any other "Christian's" who didn't share their specific opinions on the nature of Jesus, god, etc.

You're smashing your timeline together. Early Christians were being killed, for centuries, before they got in bed with Rome after Constantine's "conversion" and Nicea.

It's very clear that they were portraying Jews as the "bad guys", and Romans as the disinterested supreme authority.

Read the book of Acts again. Paul is repeatedly persecuted by Rome. 11 of the 12 Apostles were killed by Rome.

Render unto Caesar

"Pay a small tax so you don't get killed."

This all has to be understood in terms of Revelation's commandment to fight the Mystery Babylon system. Christians are not supposed to go after regular government officials, but they are commanded to fight the ruling class behind the government.

The advice is tactical.

Meh. We're not going to agree on this issue, and that's alright with me. We could go back and forth for years, and never resolve it. I'm ok if you're ok :)

I've got some stuff to do around the house, so I'd better get to it. Take it easy.

We're not going to agree on this issue, and that's alright with me.

I don't care what you believe, but it should be based on the relevant facts and evidence.

Of course. I'm trying to say I'm out of time. I have too much to do around the house, and gotta get to it. I enjoy the debate, and don't see you as an enemy. I just gotta go :) I just dried of my hands from doing dishes, real quick, to type this out.

Gnostics we're around even before Christian's. Many gnostics adopted a Christ figure into their teachings, too.

And the letters from Paul, Peter and John, clearly speak about these different competing sects, and their differing beliefs. I don't even "buy" these books. They were written around 100-150ad, and a big theme in many of them is resolving doctrine disputes. The "Canon" wasn't truly set until the late 300's, when they'd already driven the other sects into extinction. They even pillaged the library of Alexandria, to wipe out all traces of them that they could. The nag hammadi library shows the tip of an iceburg, of "heretical" teachings, many that were referenced by early church figures, while they denounced and accused them.

If you're gonna rely on early Catholic, and Roman aristocrat writings for your history, it's the equivalent of believing all the American propaganda we hear, nowadays. It's a gross distortion of the truth, and in no way represents the whole picture.

Thank you. Jesus spoke out against the elite of the time!

I think it's very possible, and in fact very plausible, that Jesus never existed. At the very least, he was greatly exaggerated.

The story of Jesus aka the Sun God goes back LONG before he would have existed. Christians, to counter act this, said Satan came before Jesus and planted the story of Jesus everywhere. That's just plain silly.

The New Testament is without a doubt a propaganda tool used to control the people and keep power in Rome.

With the threat of Hell, mainly. How many poor people stay poor because they're constantly donating to church?

Christians, to counter act this, said Satan came before Jesus and planted the story of Jesus everywhere.

Who says this? Definetly nothing I've ever heard of and I used to be very involved in church, seems like an exaggeration, just like you claim jesus is.

Well just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's an exaggeration.

https://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0?t=24m47s

Definitely interesting but far from proof, sorry. I'm open to it but you're trying to say Christians push this idea that the Devil planted these stories. Yet the first and only time I hear it is from a conspiracy documentary, never once have I heard or seen an individual (not generalizing and grouping together an entire religion) say this, hint to it or anything.

Repeating lines from the bible out of context is exactly what people complain about with Christians and you do the same thing. Have you actually read any of these texts? Or just repeat rnadom lines you've heard from them?

Fair enough, but Justin Martyr, a Christian, did write that. I don't see how "I'm doing the same thing", but that's fine.

The story of Jesus aka the Sun God goes back LONG before he would have existed.

What if these are a corruption of the preaching of Noah and Enoch? I mean, there are ancient books that are almost exactly the same as Genesis, except they see God as evil (i.e. Epic of Gilgamesh).

Christians, to counter act this, said Satan came before Jesus and planted the story of Jesus everywhere.

What? I've literally never in my life seen a Christian source claim this. In fact, the Bible is clear that Satan didn't know exactly what Jesus was doing, or else he wouldn't have killed him.

I can definitely see corruption being the case. I myself am agnostic, and to me God sounds like the bad guy in the book.

Here's a piece regarding the Satan comment: https://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0?t=24m47s

So it is written, so shall it be done...

Its been theorized before and debunked well

There's that word again.

"Debunked"

Any time I see it, I know that I'm about to hear a steaming pile of rubbish.

Well that is just you making an excuse not to entertain the other side of the argument. Which is fine you can do whatever you want, but a word you don't like doesn't automatically make something wrong.

No. It means that somebody is going to claim something's disproven, when it almost never is.

The son of God is all over the place in the old testament, not by his name but by different titles.

I've read about this theory for years, and I have to say all of these "Jesus myth" theories are treated as utterly laughable and without any merit by all scholars, including skeptics and atheists. There just isn't ANY evidence for them.

Here is atheist scholar Bart Erhman describing why no one believes these theories.

Here is a debate between Ehrman and the leading proponent of Jesus myth theories.

Look into Joseph Atwill, he has put out some very interesting books o the topic and has a boat load of lectures o the subject.

Search for Cesar's Messiah, or The Flavian conspiracy.

Here is a fascinating interview he did on red ice à while back:

https://youtu.be/TY7YpzkiyXU

joseph atwill has proposed that the flavians--vespasian, titus, and domitian--invented christianity as a sick joke to convert messianic, zealot jews to a pro-roman, pacifist version of judaism that unwhitting worships titus as god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqG8w7ezUQ

i've read his book ceasar's messiah. his literary analysis approach is i think a very sound method of analysis for anyone who assumes the gospels are fiction. he makes a compelling case for jesus' path through the decapolis (the name of the area that the gospels take place) to judaism mirroring too closely to ve coincidence titus' path through the the decapolis to the sacking of jersulem in 70 bce, thirty years after jesus. however, some of his connections are more forced and some i didn't see at all.

his most valuable contribution to the jesus myth in my mind is that he moved beyond just reiterrating christianity is based on a a fictional character. by comparing the gospels to josephus' account of the sack he noticed parallels that provided an answer to the next step in jesus myth study--who wrote it, why, and how did they disseminate it so broadly, so quickly.

i agree with him that the flavians were key players, but i think that it was secular proaganda aimed always at rome for very immediate purposes that came back to bite them on the ass. my theory is pretty radical, much more so than his, but it wouldn't have ever occured to me without having first read his book.

like atwil, i do think the gospels and the character of jesus were created by them (at least mark, or "Q"), as propaganda shortly after the sack during vespasian's reign and into titus' (his was very short so i think it was likely just polishing at that point. i doubt domitian did very much about it, just based on how focused he was on the nero cult, nero redivivous, that almost caused a war over parthia's backing of one of false neros)..

before atwill i knew very little about imperial rome, so as i read his book i kept looking historical stuff up to see if it meshed or not. this brought me to nero, and i'm convinced that nero is who christ is based on.

vespasian had been in nero's inner circle. when the shit hit the fan in 68 bce, vespasian ran off to the decapolis ostensibly to put down a rebellion of people who had no financial or strategic value to rome. rome had inherited the decoplis from greece, unlike the myth, more people in the decapolis, jew and gentile, spoke greek than hebrew. jerusalem, just outside of the decapolis, however was very jewish and did not speak greek or latin.

vespasians' excuse for abandoning nero was that nero sent him to put down the jewish revolt. the only source for this is flavian. nothing from nero survives. unlike the myth, nero was beloved by rome, throughout the entire empire. it was shocking to learn the real history. the fiddling while rome burned is probably the worst character assination in history. nero was out of town when the fire started, rushed home, immediately began organizing fire crews and worki g on them. he sent his body guards to do the same so he was running around rome unprotected. he went house to house we crews picking through rubble looking for survivors, and then he housed and fed all of those made homeless by the fire in his palace, paid for from his private funds, not public funds. he was also very young, only 14 when he became emperor and 30 when he died.

the public mourning went on for years and people were still laying flowers on tomb in the 4th century. the nero redivivous myth started immediately: nero would rise from the dead and return to rome to save it. vespasian took the thrown in this environment, then vesuvius erupted during titus reign and rome blamed him for it for having pissed off the jewish god. then josephus writes about the sack, states that nero sent vespasian and titus. then a story about a very neronian jesus the jew, who had the most famous initials in the world, JC, julio-claudian, of which nero was the last, predicting the sack.

both of these tid bits, if accurate, would exonerate vespasian for both abandonning nero and for vesuvious, because jerusalem would have been nero's idea prophesied by the jewish messiah. i think they stayed nothing but exculpatory propaganda until domitian declared war on parthia for refusing to give up their false nero and to cease believing in nero redivivous. then i think that the redivivous believers tgroughout the empire adopted the flavian creation story as a public face. domitian couldn't really persecute people for subscribing to his family's propaganda, esp after he went through the effort to errect titus' triumphal arch.

i feel confident that trajan knew, but he admired nero and his father had been another of nero's inner circle with vespasian. in fact trajan has caused nero haters a headache for 2000 years because he said of nero that his quinquenium (reign) was the best roman had ever had and would ever have.

nero similarities with jesus:

age, both early 30s.

both gods and sons of gods. nero was declared apollo incarnate son of god the father, augustus, zeus incarnate, when he was 14. seneca stated he was destined to be the saviour of mankind.

(apollo was the patron god of shepards, and walked around unshod with flowing hair ministering to the poor with sun rays coming out of his head).

apollo and nero were both blond haired blue eyed. jesus was depicted as a blond haired and blue eyed in the earliest iconography.

nero spent a year walking around greece unshod ministering to poor.

nero was a pacifist. he outlawed killing in the games and his reign was only period during imperial rome when there were no wars. he negotiated a famous truce with parthia and was attempting to negotiate truces with the rebellions in rome's 2 most important provinces--spain and gaul--when he died (this is what made me go "huh?" initially, since the whole persona of nero in the gospels is as the brutal emporor who sent vespasian to crush the jews. it seemed incongruous).

nero's three greatest achievements were in fighting coruption and graft in the civil service, architecture, and his bravery during the fire and compassion afterward (fwiw, these would all be inverted and become his greatest crimes).

nero was condemned by the roman senate to die a slave's death--being whipped while crucificed. he officially died by having his throat slit like the passover lamb. however, another version has says he escaped to greece and was apprehended and put to death in accordance with his sentence--crucified and whipped.

it was widely believed for centuries that he would rise from the dead and return to save rome and rule forever.

nero redivivous did not disapear completely until constantine made christianity the state religion of rome.

the only mention of christians before the 3rd century is tacitus just after domitian is assisnated. this is where nero killing christians as scape goats for the fire originates. tacitus was 7 at the time of the fire. he does not say christians but chrestians, who he described as pernious and sordid.

christianity has never been a jewish religion, offshoot or otherwise. it was born heretical to judaism-- 2 gods, not one. god has a name and can be called by his name. god can be born and can die. these break the fundamental tenets of judaism. jesus could never have been a rabbi, and if they were jewish, his disciples were all heretics too for supporting his heresies. the only ties to judaism are the literary allusions to parts of the old testament, notably moses, daniel, and elijah/elisha, but nothing jesus says, does, or preaches has anything to do with judaism. easter and the passion have nothing whatsover to do with passover.

because nero redivivous wasn't really a religion, more like king arthur, it had no ritual but after domitian cracked down, it seems likely they would have used the mysterious religions as a forum, esp mithraism which originated in the eastern empire. and christianity currently is just mithraism with the gospels globbed on to it, plus paul was from taursus, the birth place of mithraism.

i'll editt to add some links.

Christianity was created by the Flavius family to subdue Jewish revolts occurring around the empire. He subverted their "prophesies" and claimed the role of Messiah, with the help of Josephus, a Jewish traitor who they literally adopted into the family.

The new testament was written to make Judaism more appealing and accessible to gentiles. Follow the same "god" authority, without all the pesky rules, like not eating bacon, trimming sideburns, or stoning adulterers. Over the next couple hundred years, they created the "Pope", their literal "god on Earth" figure, to rule over these brainwashed masses, taxing them through tithes, and ruling over them with "divine" authority. This contribuyed to the collapse of Rome, and developed into feudalism and the dark ages, one of the worst, most oppressive times in history, and was dominated by the authority of the Pope in Rome, and the emperor in Constantinople.

The same families involved in the rise of "Christianity" and the Roman/Byzantine empire still rule today. They're spread throughout almost all Western monarchies and governments, and rule through the manipulation of religion and currency.

There. I figured I'd blast out a quick summary for you. It's too sprawling of a topic to cover in one go :)

How?

OP, here's a riddle for you, hidden in this comment:

"But the presenter isn't wrong for the most part - he just doesn't realize there were two real guys instead of one.

So if Rome was covering up for the second, who was covering up the first with the second and why?"

You don't need to swear :)

In the earliest years, there were lots of different forms of "Christianity". The earliest didn't even have anything to do with this specific "Jesus Christ". It was about Jews looking for or following a Messiah. A Christ. Others were gnostic, zoroastrian, on and on.

So not only were these persecution accounts dubious, and written several decades after they supposedly happened, but they also use a very generic word, which applied to a wide variety of "Christian" sects. The sect that gradually morphed into Catholic orthodoxy was merciless and brutal toward any other "Christian's" who didn't share their specific opinions on the nature of Jesus, god, etc. They spent the next couple hundred years murdering off all of their competitors, and destroying their works, even going as far as finishing off the Library of Alexandria.

And in the New testament, Jesus was killed by Jews, under the "reluctant" authority of Rome. It's very clear that they were portraying Jews as the "bad guys", and Romans as the disinterested supreme authority. But Rome is always the authority. Render unto Caesar the other cheek. Or something like that :)

we dont really have the true picture of what happen back then. we have some sources but then again they are all coming from the west.

We have plenty of sources, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. Read the actual sources, we have hundreds of Christian writings in the early centuries. The Church of the East came out of a split at these councils.

but what we have is abandon and looted churches scattered all out Russia that nobody can explain who and when they where built, specially the Siberia and the eastern part..

Any specific examples?

Definitely interesting but far from proof, sorry. I'm open to it but you're trying to say Christians push this idea that the Devil planted these stories. Yet the first and only time I hear it is from a conspiracy documentary, never once have I heard or seen an individual (not generalizing and grouping together an entire religion) say this, hint to it or anything.

Repeating lines from the bible out of context is exactly what people complain about with Christians and you do the same thing. Have you actually read any of these texts? Or just repeat rnadom lines you've heard from them?

In the earliest years, there were lots of different forms of "Christianity".

You can read early Christian writings and verify this really isn't true. The core teachings of Christianity were settled, very early on, as were the canonical writings.

The confusion came when later Gnostics showed up with pseudepigraphal books, claiming they were written by the Apostles.

So not only were these persecution accounts dubious

What? Are you saying Rome didn't persecute Christians? You are aware there's a mountain of primary source material on this from hostile sources, right?

The sect that gradually morphed into Catholic orthodoxy was merciless and brutal toward any other "Christian's" who didn't share their specific opinions on the nature of Jesus, god, etc.

You're smashing your timeline together. Early Christians were being killed, for centuries, before they got in bed with Rome after Constantine's "conversion" and Nicea.

It's very clear that they were portraying Jews as the "bad guys", and Romans as the disinterested supreme authority.

Read the book of Acts again. Paul is repeatedly persecuted by Rome. 11 of the 12 Apostles were killed by Rome.

Render unto Caesar

"Pay a small tax so you don't get killed."

This all has to be understood in terms of Revelation's commandment to fight the Mystery Babylon system. Christians are not supposed to go after regular government officials, but they are commanded to fight the ruling class behind the government.

The advice is tactical.

Thank you. Jesus spoke out against the elite of the time!

It's hard to even use the term "Christianity" any more, when it's so thoroughly corrupted. Similar problem with the word "god". It's almost always used to describe the abrahamic cancer gods.