-37 votes

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ' Why governments create false histories and false gods.

I know, this is like the fart in church. I'm not posting this to be antagonistic. I happened to be one of those that don't believe in Christianity but accept that this is what most people in my community believe. I get along just the same....Since we like to question institutions around here then whats wrong with questioning this?

Anyway, check this out as point of conversation:

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'
Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

London (PRWEB UK) 8 October 2013

American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled "Covert Messiah" at Conway Hall in Holborn (full details can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com).

Although to many scholars his theory seems outlandish, and is sure to upset some believers, Atwill regards his evidence as conclusive and is confident its acceptance is only a matter of time. "I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm," he acknowledges, "but this is important for our culture. Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left."

Atwill's most intriguing discovery came to him while he was studying "Wars of the Jews" by Josephus [the only surviving first-person historical account of first-century Judea] alongside the New Testament. "I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts," he recounts. "Although it's been recognised by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar."

How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinised books of all time? "Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played." Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that "the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is 'We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it.'"

Is this the beginning of the end of Christianity? "Probably not," grants Atwill, "but what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from. Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history. To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East."

Atwill encourages skeptics to challenge him at Conway Hall, where after the presentations there is likely to be a lively Q&A session. Joining Mr.Atwill will be fellow scholar Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book "Jesus Never Existed."

Further information can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com.

About Joseph Atwill: Joseph Atwill is the author of the best-selling book "Caesar's Messiah" and its upcoming sequel "The Single Strand."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Glad to see this getting some traction.

The Romans absolutely did create the character known as "Jesus" to give the messianic-militaristic movement of Torah Jews a pacifistic tax paying messiah that believed it was okay to live under Roman rule; that taught them to turn the other cheek and give unto Caesar what is Caesars.

The character "Jesus" was Titus' Malachi (his messenger) in the Seven year War (the Roman-Jewish War); the seven year war is what's known as the tribulation in the Scriptures, the Romans actually starved the Jews out of Jerusalem from 66CE to 73CE.

The very word "Gospels" in its earliest Greek translation means "Good news of military victory".

Every single event in Jesus ministry campaign is 100% totally dependent on the military campaign of Titus Flavius in his War with the Jews-time for time and location for location.

The character Jesus said "Before this generation I am speaking to shall pass, a son of Man will come. He will encircle the city of Jerusalem with an Army; burn down the Galilean cities; Raze the Holy Temple, and leave no stone atop another".

Who fulfilled the prophecies Jesus spoke of?

Yep ........... Titus Flavius, the son of Man, the son of the living God-Vespasian-the Emperor of Rome (first none Caesar to seize the throne).

The Holy Trinity is:

The Father - The Son - The Holy Spirit = Vespasian - Titus - Domitian

Domitian was known as the 'awful or holy spirit'; he wanted to be recognized as a lord or God like his brother Titus (jealousy).

The Scriptures are the literary version of the Arch of Titus which still stands in Rome today (you should study it).

If this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will:


Yes, Joseph Atwill has cracked the Jesus code-it is official, and he has the documents to prove it.


This argument has been absolutely taken to the woodshed and beaten to death by myself and many others here already. Are you capable of reading the comments and understanding them? Josephus and the Romans could not have created Jesus. Jesus Church and Paul's letters about him and the Church historically PRECEDE JOSEPHUS AND THE ROMAN JEWISH WAR!!!!!!! DONE!!! OVER!!! Argument defeated!.



Pacifistic my @$$.

Yes, running into the temple and beating the everloving snot out of the merchants taking it over with a freaking bullwhip is totally pacifistic.

For the record, it's widely agreed amongst -theologians- that you are indeed correct that Jesus spoke of the Roman invasion. Congratulations, you just wrote for all the world to see that Jesus did in fact make a correct prophecy. I'd advise studying some Bible commentaries before you try to spew your "discoveries." Christianity's been around for two thousand years, odds are anything "new" you've figured out is a common topic amongst scholars.

Really, words can't even begin to describe how pretentious, arrogant, and outright absurd Atwill's entire premise is. See my - and many others' - below posts that absolutely tear this goofball's pathetic "theory" to shreds that somehow manage to be more worthless than the intact theory.

The entire thing is pure, simple wild extrapolation and cherry-picking. Water into wine? Yeah, military campaigns galore. Have you even READ the New Testament? How about the part where he was, you know, brutally beaten and then executed without cause by the Romans who supposedly invented him? Running the merchants out of the Temple? The constant healings? The bread? It must take some incredible mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that, not only are these somehow a reference to a Roman military campaign, but that having been supposedly written well after the fact somehow manage to win over die-hard religious zealots! Even better, the Romans also brutally hunt down and murder followers of this religion that they supposedly created!

The others who disagree I'll respect. You, "The South," however, I will not. You are as pretentious and arrogant as Atwill himself. You make sweeping, grand statements that fall apart at the slightest examination and demonstrate a THOROUGH lack of understanding of the events of the New Testament and the language used therein. You completely ignore the prophecies and types of the Old Testament that were so precisely fulfilled. The theory you advocate as though it were your own is so inherently illogical that it cannot be taken seriously by those who have done any studying of history and the Bible. Go, before you make a greater fool of yourself! Spare us all your drivel. At least the others have the decency to post with some intelligence and without the disgusting arrogance yours reeks of.

You're ate up with it, aren't you? .... LOL

You are a bantering fool. I've read his book; I've studied Atwill's blog, interviews, documentary for over two years now, and am absolutely 100% positive his discovery is going to turn Christianity upside down in its head. And to think, I was actually a Christian myself.

I love people like you who REFUSE to study the information, and stick to your biblical brainwashing to the death.

The man is trying to free the world of religion (not spirituality); free the world of gov't tyranny and expose a 2,000 year old con, and he's doing one hell of a fine job, if I must say so myself.

He is about to release his new book "The Silver Strand" which proves Domitian was the author of the Pauline material and Revelation in the NT.

Take your religion and shove it.

You seem to be

working hard at convincing yourself.

It was your time to waste.


Free includes debt-free!

Hey Dexterszyd

You may want to include the link to Atwill's book, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, in your OP too. This article doesn't do the thesis of the book justice. Atwill's book is well thought out and makes some really valid points and without having read it the article alone seems like a bunch of hogwash. The book is free and online for all to read.

I would recommend that people actually read it before writing off his theory. It makes a world of sense considering there is no contemporary historical writing that shows the existence of Jesus nor is there archeological evidence either. So, someone had to make it up. It's an enlightening book and a must read for anyone who wants to understand what was going on at that time.


Blessings )o(

All due respect,

but the theory simply makes no sense.

Let's pretend for a moment that the Romans invented Jesus.

That raises a lot of really interesting questions. For instance, why would the Romans portray themselves as pompous, oppressive douchebags? Most notable Roman characters are portrayed that way. The portrayal of regional governors is even *more* negative. Pontius Pilate, even, is portrayed as a spineless individual with no moral fiber, and it is the ROMAN GOVERNMENT that is described as brutally executing a man who is described *by his judge* as having done no wrong.

In addition, the fact that the later Caesars insisted on being worshipped as a god flies in the face of the idea that they would invent a religion so strict about worship that it would lead *directly* to outright non-compliance. Why on Earth would the Romans create a blatantly subversive belief system?

Why are tax collectors portrayed - accurately - as dishonest money-grubbing scoundrels little better than common thieves? Despite His forgiveness, Jesus repeatedly makes it clear that they are severe sinners in need of forgiveness.

The subtlety present in the New Testament brutally shoots down the idea of the Romans writing it. It uses extremely clever methods such as typology to get a point across; how, too, do you explain both the wildly different writing styles AND the distinctively Jewish methods of writing if this came from Rome?

Why would the Romans go to the trouble of inventing a ludicrously detailed religion on the off chance it might take off, while at the same time actively attempt to extinguish said religion? Why would they make up such a painstakingly precise belief system that literally goes against everything the Roman Empire stood for, from polytheism to sexual perversion to unending slaughter? No Caesar would invent a religion that brutally condemns himself!

Consider, also, that we still have more evidence for Jesus' existence, and evidence *far* more contemporary than that for, say, Alexander the Great. If I use your standard, that means that we can safely conclude that Alexander probably didn't actually exist.

Mind you, I have left out all the supernatural. We're simply debating Jesus the man's existence. Everything indicates yes; cherry-picking sections of His life and saying that it fits with some Roman's cherry-picked life is just that - cherry-picking. It deserves to be taken about as seriously as the "Bible Code."

Not only is absence of evidence NOT evidence of absence, there is an abundance of evidence! We have insanely old New Testament manuscripts and outside historians that testify to Jesus' existence. Logic tells us that the idea that the Romans made it up is, quite frankly, ridiculous, laughable, and not worth the paper it's printed on, simply by virtue of how insanely counterproductive such a stupid course of action would obviously be.

Well the truth is...

No one is yet ready for the real truth of where the "visions" in the good book came actually from. Until then the argument is rendered mute. There is no objectivity concerning the massive use of hallucinogenics during the writing of these so called "truths". Not just Judea but relating to the origins and writings of every faith.

Until this is acknowledged it will be a battle and argument of lies that will perpetually take the lives of others in the name of faith. So much true factual history has been distorted, hidden or taken out of context from the very beginning.

The "truth" is this can be proved.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.


I could prove Christianity is real, that visions are real, and hell, I've fought demons personally, and had my friends describe the exact thing I fought when it happened to them. But it would take me years to prove all the things I know and have lived through.

One aspect forgotten on "civilized" societies, is the very real spiritual aspect on this planet. I was told a story my friend went through, about a guy in Africa that got in a feud with his neighbor and told him we would possess an alligator and kill him, and the next night, it happened!(or it seemed that way)

A great description for SOMETHING spiritual existing is this song:
This type of attack is extremely common among Christians, especially ones that are in the high point of their life.



You can totally prove that because a bunch of people ate the mushrooms, by necessity anyone who claimed anything spiritual must have also eaten the mushrooms.

No, you can't prove that. It's literally impossible. This is, at best, a Sophisticated Wild-@$$ Guess (SWAG), which is decidedly *not* grounds for overturning an entire belief system.

Let's take Mormonism, a significantly more recent religion. I can't disprove it based on SWAG - I personally think that Joseph Smith was just making s*** up when he wrote his book, or POSSIBLY that there were mushrooms involved, but I can't prove it, ergo I can't actually argue that.

Relying on SWAG is what the Ancient Aliens goofballs do. Be better than the Ancient Aliens goofballs.

Getting late my friend

I will indeed prove this truth. I will prove that in Judea the mushrooms would upset their stomachs, so they fed the shrooms to snails first, then ate the snails to get off on them. There are recently uncovered "Frescos" proving this.

Buddha was born a Prince (A real human) that made a trip to India and was "Enlightened" under a tree, then became a wise "teacher" not a God. This was when "Soma" was a very big deal in India at the time. I have much more but you may want to do a bit of your own before I return in the morning with the facts.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Missed the point beautifully.

Sarcasm aside (sorry, couldn't resist), I really do think you missed the point of what I argued.

I have no issues accepting that hallucinogenic 'shrooms and other stuff was relatively commonly used back then; it's practically human nature to get high.

My point is that your argument seems to be the following:

Getting high was common in the old days.
Prophets claimed to have amazing visions.
Therefore, prophets were high during said visions. QED.

In short, you can make an argument that you think it's *likely* that they were using hallucinogenic plants and fungi to have their visions, but you can't argue that it's a verifiable fact that they did. See what I'm saying?

Also, on a side note, I gotta hear more about the snails. That's some seriously weird crap right there; would the hallucinogenic properties even remain after being eaten by the little mollusk?

No idea what the heck Buddha has to do with this, though.

Not just the Bible...

Not just the Bible but even ALL religions before it. Why would the one be any different than all the others? Very unlikely.

Amanita Muscaria
About the Soma and the Snails "Food of the Gods" (Some cultures even drank the urine of another who had ingested Soma to "filter" it)

Reverend Nicklas B. Failla

More about Soma






Professor Benny Shanon



Acacia Bark and Syrian Rue






About my refernce to Buddha

The founder of Buddhism in this world is Buddha Shakyamuni. He was born as a royal prince in 624 BC in a place called Lumbini, which was originally in northern India but is now part of Nepal. ‘Shakya’ is the name of the royal family into which he was born, and ‘Muni’ means ‘Able One’. His parents gave him the name Siddhartha and there were many wonderful predictions about his future. In his early years he lived as a prince in his royal palace but when he was 29 years old he retired to the forest where he followed a spiritual life of meditation. After six years he attained enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree in Bodh Gaya, India. (Soma again? the use was well known at the time in the hindu Rig Veda)

Another plant used by Buddhists

South America and Ayahuasca

This is just a start of what can be found to be the most likely origins of probably every religion all the way back to the very first called "Animism". Was the "breath" or "Soul" first envisioned because of the use of hallucinogenic plants?. This is absolutely the most realistic and best explanation by far for the origins of all religion. Much more probable than the fantasy of being directly spoken to by an immortal deity. Is it a coincidence that the Latin genus name is "Amanita" Muscaria ?

Here is the wildest theory of them all, and in reading the bible myself for many, many years, I have came to the conclusion this is very,very possible.

The Mushroom in Christian Art, The Identity of Jesus in the Development of Christianity by John A. Rush

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Quite possible. Doctor David Hawkins, MD PhD, one of...

the world's leading authorities on drug addiction, has said that drugs do not create hallucinations or a feeling of well being; they "lift the veil" to show you how things really are. However, in the process, they arrest your spiritual growth. Dr. Hawkins also rates music as to positive and negative effects on the spirit, and found that classical and symphony music were best, popular and country were good and rap and heavy metal were the worst.

These attempts at rewriting history

are becoming ever more desperate.

Denise B's picture


Sorry, but these articles truly make me laugh. Every couple of years, for at least the last 1,000 years, some new person comes out with some new "amazing", (and ridiculous and unfounded) assertion about who REALLY wrote the New Testament;, who Jesus REALLY was; or that Jesus didn't REALLY exist, or that Jesus REALLY didn't say what the Bible recorded that he did; or(insert here any other possible theory you can think of to discredit the validity of both Jesus and the bible) ad nauseum...Not only does this newest theory make absolutely no sense, on a dozen different levels, it also in no way addresses the fact that Jesus is foreshadowed and prophesized about in the Old Testament dozens and dozens of times, long, long before the Roman empire even existed; see Genesis, Isaiah, the Psalms and Daniel to name only a few. It's really getting tired, and really belongs in the weird stuff section.

Do you believe the verses in

Do you believe the verses in the Nag Hammadi are the first person words of Jesus?

I was researching the verse that one of my favorite movies was made around, Stigmata, and I read about a page of versus from the Nag Hamadi a document preserved in Egypt that have the unique claim of being the first person words as spoken by Jesus rather than those recounted by someone else written centuries later, i.e. an apostle. All I can say is they sounded like the words of a crazy man, and reminded me a lot of the psycho-babble gibberish that I've heard from Indian gurus in those ashrams that nobody normal would want to follow.

If that's the way Jesus really was, we've all been punked.

That's a true account of my experience.

Government is already god to

Government is already god to those people.

This post has really been kicked around.

Let me sum up my thoughts.

NWO would love to destroy what remains of the Old World Order... aka the Vatican. The whore that rides the beast.

The purpose is so they can create a new state run religion for their own nefarious purposes.

It goes back to the feud started with the execution of the Knights Templar, who started international banking.

I don't like Karl Marx... but he was right about one thing.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Georgia guidestones come to mind.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon


nerdery vs Christian nerdery at it best. Love the comments guys, keep them up.

Spelling Police --


How many times...

...is this Atwill goofball going to get brought up and then shot right back down by people who actually know history?

Okay, let's just IGNORE the supernatural for now.

Wait, that leads to the awkward situation where the vast majority of credible historians agree Jesus was a real person based on, you know, historical manuscripts. This dude claims that He was made up by the Romans (which makes no sense), his evidence being bizarre cherry-picked comparisons and ludicrous mental gymnastics.

Real life is not Assassin's Creed, sorry.

In addition, if Rome wanted Christianity to happen so badly, why were they so intent on killing them all? Why would they create a religion that mandates its followers refuse to worship anything - including Caesar - other than God, despite emperor-worship being an actual Roman policy? Why would they portray themselves as pompous @$$holes?

To top everything off, we have more manuscript evidence for Jesus' existence than ALEXANDER THE GREAT. Or Emperor Tiberius, for that matter. Or more than a few famous Greeks.

This theory is bad and its creator should feel bad.

"The FALL of Rome." Thanks,

"The FALL of Rome."

Thanks, Pontius Pilate. Rome fell because they executed Christ.



In the Gospel of John, Pilate states “I find no guilt in him [Jesus]” and he asks the Jews if Jesus should be released from custody....

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

SteveMT's picture

Why isn't this post in the religion section?

Isn't it better to hash-it-out over there?

It seems odd that the Roman Empire

would try to create a movement that has been a radical thorn in the side of tyrants everywhere.


And even more so that the same Empire attempted to eradicate the Christians in the Colosseum--Why would they do that to the very people who they allegedly created to be passive in the first place?

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Ye'shua is an actual Historical figure...

This story is tripe.

When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman