Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill - what do people think

[Anomalocaris]

There isn’t any history whatsoever in the story of Jesus, even if there was Some Guy™.

There are lumberjacks named Paul, too.

The stories we have were selected for their theological content, exclusively.  It’s not a biography of a man.

The difference is Christians think their theology is history.

More considered opinion might note that the universal foundation of religion is strong unchecked wishful thinking, and venture that the grains of truth that might be contained in religious stories of itself that can gain long circulation in communities such as those of any established religion are likely to be have been made few and far in between by the very nature of the people retelling them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There isn’t any history whatsoever in the story of Jesus, even if there was Some Guy™.

There are lumberjacks named Paul, too.

The stories we have were selected for their theological content, exclusively.  It’s not a biography of a man.

Exactly this.  The Synoptic Gospels are a hagiography in the truest sense of the word.  They are no more an account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth than the Ulster Cycle is a reliable history of the Uliad.

Boru

[Jehanne]

I think that the idea is absurd.  Jesus existed and was a first-century Jewish apocalyptic prophet who foretold the End of the World, the liberation of Palestine from Roman control via the Son of Man, an angelic being who would descend from Heaven (Jesus, as with all of his contemporaries, save the Hellenistic intelligentsia, believed in a flat Earth) and liberate the Jewish People.  When Jesus, who began life in northern Galilee, took his message to Jerusalem at the behest of his followers, he was noticed by the Roman authorities; prior to that, they ignored him, as just another crank, a religious loon, one of many from Galilee and the surrounding regions.

The rest is history -- shortly after Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he was arrested by the Romans after an altercation at the Temple.  He was examined, and after consulting with the local Jewish authorities, Pilate signed the order for Jesus' execution.

How much of that was history, as oppose to merely historically plausible, is not entirely settled, at least amongst those more inclined to call it for what it was as oppose to merely seeing how little one could avoid offending religious sensibility without outright lying.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person.

[ronedee]

Not to diminish the voluminous argument set forth by the op, and others... I watched a few of Mr. Atwill's interviews and presentations on "Caesar's Messiah", and was totally unconvinced. It just isn't a compelling story, or reason for it other than selling a few books! Not to mention all the intangibles to sort through about Roman & Hebrew culture at that time. Just doesn't add up! "Hey! We'll stop feeding enemies of Rome to the Lions, and sell them a story!" uh-huh, yup

But, IMO what decisively throws out [every argument] about Jesus & the Gospel as being "made-up", is the institution of the Eucharist. It was totally foreign to any concept, about any religion in the world then or now! And, that was I'm sure by divine design. For anyone wanting actual evidence; there are thousand's of miracles, and many on record involving unexplained events involving the Holy Eucharist!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle

[The Grand Nudger]

The Eucharist was in no way foreign to religion then or now. The prominence it took by 400 ad from its humble origin as a narrative device is explained precisely -by- its ubiquity as a pagan rite familiar and integral to proto-christians.

[Amarok]

A unique custom in a religion does not make it magical

[ronedee]

The Eucharist was in no way foreign to religion then or now.  The prominence it took by 400 ad from its humble origin as a narrative device is explained precisely -by- its ubiquity as a pagan rite familiar and integral to proto-christians.

Citations?

---

A unique custom in a religion does not make it magical

I didn't use the term magical.... 

It was repulsive, and defiling to most people at that time. Obviously no one understood it then. And most don't understand, or even care about it now.

No matter any understanding or not, it was unique and unprecedented. Not anything that would attract followers to Jesus. And a major stumbling block 
for any "made up story to control the masses" theorists.

And, no bias necessary to point out obvious shortcomings in a contrived narrative to woo followers! Any junior detective could see that blaring blunder
a mile away.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know you have the internet. Maybe you should research these absurd claims before you regurgitate them?

[ronedee]

I know you have the internet.  Maybe you should research these absurd claims before you regurgitate them?

I believe you were making the undocumented claims. Why should I do your legwork?