Talk about a flash back...I wrote something on this once...

A while ago, before I was well versed and studied on the subject, I truely believed Christ to be an invention of the Roman Empire. What I will include here are several common themes for what I used to believe and several reasons why I now reject most of them, including what Atwill touched upon in his book: (Cases made for the Roman creation are in cyan, my replies are in blue)

1. With the political situation in Judea, I’m well aware of the language changes that also gripped its people.
   1. 1. Hebrew was the ancient language of the Jews but it had fallen out of use centuries before the time of Jesus. It was the language of the Torah and religious scholarship only.

I agree with this, in part, but it's the place I was going with this that I now hold problems with.

The dead sea scrolls were written mostly in Hebrew, out of the 800 documents in the caves of the Quamran, only a handful were written in ancient Greek. This tells me that the Hebrew language was still quite in use during the centuries preceding the first century CE. It may not have been widely used, as during the previous centuries, the Hellenistic influences on the Jewish culture had forced Hebrew into a smaller corner of the culture, however to claim here that it disappeacyan almost entirely is overstating a position.

1. 2. Aramaic was the vernacular of the time. It is closely related to Hebrew and Arabic. Everyone in Judea spoke Aramaic. (Many modern Jewish prayers are in Aramaic also, most notably the Kiddush which is the prayer for the dead.)
2. 3. Latin was the language of state functions and official records, however, the people of Judea did not see the Romans as their legitimate overseers and were in a state of resistance. Therefore, Latin had a kind of bitter stigma attached to it, and was not generally a spoken language in Judea at that time except by Roman officials.

This is a pseudo-truth. The fact is, the Greek language was seen as the upper-class language and if anybody was in the elite class of the Roman Empire, they were taught by Athenian teachers in Greek. As such, although the Vulgar Latin language was the official language of the empire and republic, to follow this line of logic, Greek would have held a higher negative stipulation. Especially since the Greeks (Seleucid Empire) were the ones who initially occupied Galilee and forced the Jews to speak their language, follow their beliefs, and live their lifestyles under penalty of death. The Romans at least were more lenient in this regard, up until the times of the persecutions which occurcyan long after the supposed death of Christ.

1. 4. Greek was a popular language in Judea, because it represented a kind of sophisticated secular scholarship. There were many native speakers of Greek living in Judea at that time as well, and it was spoken by liberal Jews who wanted to be part of the world rather than isolated from it. In fact, modern Jews still use the word "Hellenized" to describe Jews who are assimilated into the secular world.

This is another pseudo-truth. Most Jews hated the Greek influence on their society, and as such the three sects (Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees) had serious problems with Hellenizing Jews in their societies. Although they could not do a thing about it. The culture was Hellenized for centuries, and there was always a problem when determining where the Hellenizing began and where it ended in the culture of the 1st century.

Greek influence stems back as far as the 6th century BCE, but that was before the Greeks had enforced the strict rules and laws on the people of Galilee.

1. Second Point: My contention is that the New Testament is not a Jewish invention, but a Roman invention.
   1. 1. I believe it is a Roman invention, created by scholars who wished to see Rome's enemies, inside and outside the borders, crippled -- especially in Judea.

Right off the bat, this point is already destroyed. All the Romans had to do to bring unity was what they did best. Go to war. And they did, quite a few times. There were several uprisings, and each time they subdued it. Finally, they destroyed any possibility of uprising again in 70 CE. They didn't need to stretch resources and create a fantastical myth to elaborate the destruction of a society when in fact that society still exists, so they would have failed anyway.

1. 2. They said "the Jews seem to have a no respect for anything but religion, let's offer them something to throw that into question."

Considering my resent unearthing of evidence that points to the Jews being the creators of Gnostics before the first century CE, and the orphic traditions that Gnosticism and ultimately Orthodox Christianity are influenced on came from around the 6th century BCE, the Romans had nothing to do with the creation. In fact, this statement would have probably hindecyan the formation of Christianity rather then help it. As with the Romans, they would have enforced the new religion right away instead of persecuting the religion they created for generations after.

1. 3. Nobody but the Romans would have had so much access to the religious folklore of so many nations (hence the Roman Mithra cult, based upon a demigod who originated out of Persia). Rome's scholars knew far better than any others of Osiris, and Mithra, and Apollo, and even Oestre. They were more than qualified to synthesize a religion out of all of those.

This is just plain stupid. Heh. As stated earlier. The Greeks were the ones who influenced the Jewish world directly for several centuries before the Roman empire even stepped foot in Galilee. Hellenism is the direct word used to describe the Greek influence on the culture of the Mediterranean. It was a mixing of the cultures. There is no way the Romans could have influenced the Jews any more then the Greeks had earlier...and after all...those are Greek gods mentioned here anyway!

1. 4. There are countless suspicions of Paul. He admits to his position as a Roman official. His "conversion experience" is, by his own admission, absent of witnesses, and certainly false.

This is a false statement on my part, one I correct. Paul probably and most assucyanly believed in his experience. His conversion he admits was a personal one, and through esoteric teachings we know very little about it, though through exoteric teachings we can discern what he was trying to tell us. This is discussed in my essay and in the audio representations (Both parts) of my dissertation, and also in the Jesus Myth show which will air soon.

1. Third Point: Rome had sufficient motivation for crafting the religion.
   
   1. 1. It was a way not only to unite its various peoples under a code of conformity, but also a fantastic way to subvert the ideals of neighboring nations. It is patently ridiculous to believe that, in the span of only 300 years, Rome went from brutally subjugating Christians to being a completely Christian world.

This is a contradiction and a half here. So we're to agree it's more plausible that the Romans tried to stamp out a religion they created to subjugate the world only to adopt it later?! That's really pushing it. The fact is, the Romans would have only persecuted those Christians deemed of breaking the laws of the empire. Christians were known for inciting riots and were usually blamed for quite a lot.

Read below.

1. 2. Constantine was, by all accounts, a very shrewd and clever politician, and modern scholars note that his belief in Christianity was not entirely heartfelt -- he had members of his own family executed cruelly, and he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.

Constantine, one who murdecyan many Christians, eventually became one as a political tool, yes. And then transformed the whole of the Empire...but that was only because of the great economic collapse of the Empire! The Roman Empire went through a period of depression much like Germany right before the rise of Hitler. In fact, that was the only reason why Christianity was able to politically root itself in place. Had it not been for that incident in history, chances are Christianity would not be as big as it is today.

He found in Christianity the absence of what some sects of scientific philosophy had....the ability to allow questioning. Christianity incited fear in its followers and in grounding them with a distaste for science they were perfect subjects...and as such the religion was perfect...for use in regaining control of a population which was routed mentally and economically.

1. 3. Not to mention that Rome never fell, simply that it packed up and moved into the spirit world, leaving the Vatican behind to continue its rule.

This is simply a lie. Read above.

1. 4. Note how Christianity changed throughout the ages, adapting and localizing itself to different situations. When the Roman empire split, note how the Eastern empire's version of Christianity rejected the Trinity, as polytheism was still firmly rejected by Jews and other cults based on Judaism (Islam was to eventually become the chief of those).

Again, non-sequitor in terms of the Romans.

1. Fourth Point: There is absolutely NO ccyanible evidence for the existence of Jesus.

This is something I completely agree with, but has more to do with the euhemerizing of Jesus rather then a true invention of the days for political reasons. In fact, the first situation is far more reasonable, as euhemerizing was so very common in those days.

I hope this little essay sheds some light on why I reject Atwills ideas and those who follow them...

No that is pretty accurate. But that has nothing to do with Jesus. The myth of Christ had been around for generations by this point and to even suggest that Josephus created it and that the passage is correct is incredibly unscholarly and goes against everything we know.

Josephus was a pious jew, even when he was in the court of Titus, there is no way he would have helped to create a character claiming to be the messiah. He had metaphorically spat on people in the works he wrote for commiting lesser crimes of the Jewish law.

Keep in mind that Josephus was the son of a wealthy high priest, and the only reason he was elevated to position in Titus' army was because his prediction about Vespasian was accurate. Had he failed, Josephus would have been cut down.

At the time Josephus was writing, Vespasian and Titus had already conquered Judea and Galilee there was no reason to create a myth to subdue the jews...they were already subdued. There would be nothing gained from creating a new myth to basically redo the thing that Titus and Vespasian had already accomplished.

The Romans weren't people to create new mythology, and under the pax romana (27 BC-180 AD), where Roman rule and its legal system pacified regions, forcefully at times, which had suffered from the quarrels between rival leaders. There would be no need to create a new religion when all they would have to do is destroy two versions or more of one general mythology.