Wednesday, May 14, 2014

My review of Joseph Atwill's book: "Caesar's Messiah."

In the book “Caesar’s Messiah,” Joseph Atwill contends that the canonical gospels are typologic fiction formulated by the Flavian Dynasty (i.e. Roman Imperial family) to invalidate the Torah. While the “Flavian thesis” proposed by Joseph Atwill is interesting, but certainly not convincing, I strongly believe that Mr. Atwill's claim is a clever attempt to validate the authenticity of the Torah and the pretended antiquity of the Hebrew sect.

Mr.Atwill is a "Josephus scholar" in that he premised his thesis on Josephus's historical accounts in the 1st Century CE. However, Josephus has been proven to be a pseudegraphical personage, invented to buttress the "Ancient Hebrew" thesis or the pretended antiquity of the Hebrew sect. In other words, Josephus never really existed as a historical figure, and Mr. Atwill's book and thesis must be taken with a grain of salt.

I do agree with Mr. Atwill that the Canonical gospels are typologic fiction, but so is the Torah. The Torah (i.e. Pentateuch) in its original form is called the Septuagint (LXX). However, the Septuagint is a crude translation of the confiscated-Ancient-Egyptian texts to Greek, not the translation of Hebrew texts to Greek an now implied by Mr.Atwill and the proponents of "Ancient Hebrew" thesis.

Moses as the purported writer of the Torah could not have written the Torah in Hebrew, even if he had lived, because there was no Hebrew script when Moses supposedly lived. I maintain that Moses or Ahmose is a pseudegraphical-Egyptian name that was created by the Greeks to hide the identity of Akhenaton or AmenHotep IV, an Egyptian king famously known to be the father of MONOTHEISM. I further maintain that the Septuagint/Torah/Pentateuch/Old Testament was formulated by the Greeks from the Ancient Egyptian texts, and the New Testament was formulated by the Romans. Before the two books (Old and New Testaments) were combined into one, the followers of the old testament (mostly monophysites) fought the followers of the New Testament (I.e. dyophysites) for nearly 1000 years (see the Crusade). The outcome of this fight led to the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the rise of Mohammedanism in Constantinople, and later Islam.

In other words, Islam in its original form was a form of orthodox Christianity, and remember that before the invention of Jesus by the Romans, there was Serapis in Hellenistic or Coptic Egypt, and before the invention of Separis by the Greeks, there was Ausar(Osiris) the father in Ancient Egypt. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the stories of the Hebrew as described in the scriptures are distorted and plagiarized stories of the Ancient Egyptians.

3 comments:

  1. Right, the Old Testament was no doubt created by the Maccabees supported by the Ptolemies, but why are you not convinced by the evidence Joe presents for the authorship of the New Testament? Josephus represented the Flavian court historians, and it can be proven that both the Synoptics and Wars of the Jews were written by the same team under Titus. John, Revelation and the rest of the NT was written under Domitian barring possibly some additional input from Trajan's reign (need to wait for Atwill's 3rd book): http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com and http://www.caesarsmessiahproven.com/sevenseals.htm (WIP)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I have no problem with the evidence that Joe presents for the authorship of the NT. However, I do disagree to some extent with Joe on the historical reliability of Josephus's historical accounts. Overall, I think the book is great, and I can't wait to read his future works.

      Thanks for leaving a comment.

      Delete
  2. OK, so you have no problem with the evidence for the authorship of the NT, yet at the top you said the Flavian thesis is not convincing? The Synoptics are like an extension of Josephus' Jewish War, since both books are mutually supportive in both directions and consistently interactive in terms of typology and satire. It's those connections that prove the Flavian authorship--not any particular historical accounts that Josephus records (providing you at least agree that the book was published near the time of the Vesuvius eruption and that a real Roman emperor named Titus existed at the time, for whom Josephus is describing)

    ReplyDelete