Did The Romans Invent Jesus?

I do not think so but do think they took advantage of an existing myth and applied it to what they wanted to see.

I guess if I stretch the language I could say that Rome did invent one of the Jesus’ that ended up in the bible.

I see at least two that are easily distinguished.

This following link is my Gnostic Christian view on this and the second is from a more archeological source. That being the book by Gary Wilson and the Naked archeologist.

youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D



Why do you fear new knowledge so much?


I’ll post some more conclusive evidence for the thesis presented here at a later time. I’m working almost 60 hours a week now where I haven’t had the free time to aquire it yet.

That’s easy to explain, because the west revolves around christian slave morality and psychology. Our christian sheep would feel lost without their Jewish shepherd or messiah.

Does this post fall into the category of “what would jesus do”?

This will lead you to authors and scholars that might help you.



Slave mentality is what I say of both Christianity and Islam but many do not see it.

To me it is obvious.


I like your thinking.


The Romans certainly invented the Jesus we know today, whether or not a man of that or similar name actually lived. By Romans I don’t mean the Flavian emperors though. Romans in general, who formed the Roman Catholic church.

Constantine certainly had a major impact when he basically forced the Trinity concept down Christianity’s throat.



What is Satans koolaid? How do you define Satans koolaid? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then Satans koolaid is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.




It’s an interesting theory. I hadn’t read of it before tonight . But, I checked it out plus some of the online arguments against it. Even the Jesus myth theorists have debunked it.

The first problem I encountered is that there is historical evidence that Christianity existed before Josephus allegedly invented it. Tacitus says that Nero was persecuted Christians in Rome in 64 AD. He says that “immense multitudes” of Christians were living in Rome at the time. That’s ten years before Christianity was supposed to have been invented by Josephus. Also, Paul, who was killed by Nero around 67 AD, wrote at least seven of the letters in the New Testament establishing the Christian church before Josephus mentioned the Christians in his histories in 73 AD.

Another argument that makes sense is that the Romans had no need to invent Christianity as alleged since they had already totally crushed the Jews in 70 AD, destroying Jerusalem and the temple before Josephus wrote his account and supposedly invented Christianity.

As far as Christianity plagiarizing Judaism, how can that be the case when initially the followers of Jesus were a Jewish sect? If the New Testament writers were Jews themselves, how is that plagiarism of Judaism?

No, Mary’s womb and her cousin’s husbands seed created Jesus.

Yes, I am already acquainted with the fairy tale.

The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger, the governor of the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor. His correspondence with Emperor Trajan advocating harsh treatment of Christians @ 112AD seems to fly in the face of the theory that the Romans invented Christianity.

Pliny’s Letter to Trajan:

Trajan’s Response to Pliny:

Yes it is an invention… all they did was used preexisting culture ideals/aspects, put a twist/different name on them and then sold it as something new.

Hmmm. ironically all the disciples were Jews and the seeds of Christianity were planted when the Roman empire was at the heights of power, in first century ACE. It was not until several centuries later that Christianity was adopted by Constantine and the Roman Empire collapsed shortly thereafter. I am not so sure that this was the strategy of the Romans used to subdue Judea, if so it definitely backfired.


Philosophically, the view that the Twilight of the Gods preceded that modern revisitation, accelerating by leaps and bounds, [Protestantism, Industrial Revolutoon, the political revolutions of the 18 th century all the product of the Enlightenment]- was due to the imminent collapse of the greatest Empire known until then, where the Gods had tremendous significance and social utility. That the collapse could not be held up by idols any longer, as supporting an imperium, socialism dressed up as an another evolved out of social consciousness.

That any political elite could have done this, is questionable, but what is not at all uncertain is, that the Christians supported an anti hero, one who transvalued society into a precursor of social values. This transformation only needed a mystical type of man, and it could have been anyone, feeling the pressures of social, political and economic change increasingly creating disturbance and hopelessness.

The dying gods had to resurrect in some other form, so a son was given to fit the role of redemption.

Sure , it seems cataclysmic, however hundreds of years of decay was plenty of time to develop it

Sounds familiar? This is not an opposite view of invention, only it reflects more of a.mold, into which some idea was borne into. It was thought up, but only through a very long and Extended time, where by authorship must have been more allusive socially, and molded around a single figure.

It could have been the primordial effort by a werary empire/emperor to disseminate and deconstruct responsibility and public discontent for a diminishing empire.

I the death of the Gods was never proclaimed textually, people connecting the glory of Rome with the agency of god, caused a social diminution of belief, in a society where religion and national grandeur were not mutually excluded.

Cool aesthetics.