Know More News - Adam Green - Christianity: Roman or Jewish Conspiracy? | Know More News LIVE w/ Joe Atwill

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 19, 2022 - Know More News - Adam Green

01:45:06

Christianity: Roman or Jewish Conspiracy? | Know More News LIVE w/ Joe Atwill

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another installment of No More News Live.
	Thank you all for joining me once again today, January 18th, 2022, a Tuesday.
	And I have a very special show for you guys today.
	I have the author of the best-selling book and documentary, Caesar's Messiah, the Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus.
	Author is with me, Joseph Atwill.
	He is someone that I've been familiar with for several years now.
	And I've been wanting to talk to him for a long time.
	I've got a ton of questions for him.
	I've known him back since the Unspun podcast days and when the documentary came out.
	I'm familiar with his arguments about Christianity being a Roman conspiracy to pacify the Messianic Jews.
	And I, of course, believe that it's actually the other way around and it's a conspiracy by the Jews against the Roman and the Gentile world.
	So it's going to be going to have some tough questions.
	We're going to discuss, and it's going to be my job today to try to convince you, Joe, that it's actually the other way around, and it's a Jewish conspiracy against the Romans.
	You familiar with that angle?
	No, not really.
	I mean, it's sort of, to some extent, a logical idea, but I think it's incorrect.
	You get into very nuanced history because you have to define, well, who do you mean by Jews and who are the Roman patrician class that created the Christian religion?
	To some extent, the two groups were blurred.
	The Flavians, who I see wrote the Gospels, were completely entwined with very powerful Jewish families.
	Titus had basically a wife or mistress who was in the Hasmone family.
	She was a Herod.
	Supposedly knew Paul, right?
	What's her name?
	It's with a B, right?
	Bernicke.
	Yeah, in Acts, you have certain Flavian insiders are described, Bernicke, Alexander, Rufus, who is a general.
	Yeah, so anyway, so ask away.
	Well, I want to start.
	We both agree on a lot.
	I've been watching all your top videos on YouTube, some of your interviews, your documentary.
	I will admit, I haven't read your book, but I'm also familiar with James Valiant.
	I listened to his book on Audible, Creating Christ, which is very similar.
	Do you endorse that book?
	You think it's good?
	Complements your work?
	You know, he has, it's very distinct.
	In other words, I don't really understand exactly his thesis.
	He sees an existing Messianic movement that the Romans co-opted, that they took control of.
	And I believe he thinks Paul was part of this process.
	I don't want to denigrate his work.
	It's a completely distinct theory.
	It shares the idea that the Gospels, I think, came out of the Flavian imperial court, which is a logical idea, but we would have great differences as far as a pre-existing Messianic movement that somehow became Christianity.
	I think it was more a top-down organization.
	And I think that Christianity was pretty much as we know it.
	And again, this is, you know, it's very nuanced because Christianity just means basically a sect that has a Messiah.
	Roman Christianity, which is what I'm referring to, is, you know, in my opinion, it begins perhaps in between 80 and 90 CE, and it Would have begun with the writing of the Gospels.
	That would have been the beginning of it.
	The history of the Gospels describe and the pre-existing Messianic sects, which would have been militaristic and opposed to Rome, they are distinct from this project that began in the Flavian court in the 80s and 90s.
	Well, before we get to the questions, we do have a lot of common ground, I noticed.
	We're familiar with a lot of the same facts surrounding the issue and many of the same characters involved.
	But you see the motive being from the Romans, and I see it being from the Jews, the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy, which you would agree with that.
	But let's see here.
	First question I have for you.
	You said you like tough questions, and we'll take questions from the audience as well if you guys want to donate through Odyssey.
	So, first of all, I guess the question is, and this is a controversial topic.
	You've had a lot of kind of feuds and debates with people about this.
	So, this is nothing new.
	But the fact that Christianity with Paul, he was the apostle to the Gentiles, and then Mark the first gospel, you know, 20 or 15 or 20 years later, was also kind of Pauline in targeting the Gentiles.
	So, Christianity very clearly seems to be like Judaism for the Gentiles, and it seems to have targeted, and that's who became the Christians, is Gentiles.
	Yeah, eventually, no, and I would agree that the group that the Gospels were written for were basically been the slave class throughout the Roman Empire that the Romans were afraid that the Messianic rebellion would spread to.
	And this would have included diasporan Jews who were scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the first century.
	And I think Roman slaves would have been a group they would have been worried about.
	You thought Roman slaves would fall for the Jewish Messiah?
	Yeah.
	Even though the Jewish Messiah was meant to conquer Adam.
	You're saying slaves.
	So that makes sense.
	Well, I do know that a lot of Gentiles at the time were converting to Judaism, which I believe was a problem.
	They didn't want that to happen because they're the chosen people, don't want to mix the seed.
	So that's why they had to create a quasi-Judaism for the Gentiles.
	Well, what I would say is, yeah, and I don't completely disagree with that.
	What I would say is just read Josephus.
	Have you read the histories of Josephus?
	Because he actually describes this problem that you had the Messianic rebellion.
	And of course, the one in 66, 73 was just the first and probably the most benign of all the rebellions, even though it was a bloodbath for the Roman Empire, but there were three of them.
	And Josephus said that just flat out, we were very worried about the Messianic movement spreading throughout the Roman Empire.
	And so I think following the rebellion, it was logical to try to tone down the Messianic movement.
	And this is one of the reasons why the Gospels were written.
	But, you know, bear in mind, Rome had been trying to pacify the Jews intellectually since Julius Caesar.
	And even before this, I mean, during the Greek, you know, the Seleucid period, they had tried to basically give the Jews, you know, Grecian style religion and gymnasium.
	And this is what led to the Hasmone rebellion.
	The Hasmoneans were fundamental Jews.
	They, you know, got rid of this sensual and polytheistic religion that was very attractive to Jews, evidently, in the third century BCE.
	So following that, the Herods who replaced the Hasmoneans, they attempted to breed a Christ.
	In other words, They took, you know, the Herods were Edomites.
	They were essentially Arabs, though really no one knows for sure their genealogy, but they weren't Jews, at least ostensibly.
	But they bred themselves into the Hasmone line.
	They would take Hasmone brides and then have a child, raise a child in Rome and bring it back to Judea, where they'd present it to the Jewish people as a legitimate king of the Jews with the royal bloodline.
	But the people wouldn't buy it.
	They saw through this and were not interested in this.
	Julius Caesar tried to control the Sanhedrin.
	He would try to find a way to legally control the Jews.
	So the religion was always a problem.
	Rome at this point is a prison of nations, right?
	They have just a couple dozen ethnicities and nations they've conquered.
	So it's always a boiling pot of tension.
	And they were always looking for ways to create the kind of financial and political control that they wanted without resorting to violence because it was so expensive.
	And so they tried to control the religion of the Jews.
	They tried to control the Messianic movement.
	And even though this is really not recorded particularly well, I mean, Josephus does bring all these facts up, but you can really see the distinction when you read the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	And I'm sure you're familiar with them.
	The Dead Sea Scrolls were, I think, the religion, the Jewish religion of the people.
	It was, you know, it was very militaristic, xenophobic, rebellious, and it was genocidal.
	You know, think of Deuteronomy and the, you know, the genocide of the ethnicities that that book promotes.
	The war scrolls, the war of the sons of light versus sons of darkness.
	Where they actually have, they describe the final battle where, you know, according to the, there are certain different interpretations of it, but as I read it, it's just straightforward.
	The Gentiles are evaporated.
	So are you familiar with the Melchizedek scroll?
	Yeah, I think it's queued MQ 13.
	It connects suffering Messiah verses in Isaiah and in Daniel.
	And that's my next point.
	The idea that the Romans would, the Romans are behind it because it's a suffering Messiah that's that's pacifist, meek and mild, turn the other cheek.
	That is actually a Jewish archetype.
	And that has pre-Christian verses, this idea of a first Messiah and a second Messiah, the first one being like a high priest that suffers and is humiliated and then rises up after being killed.
	So this already is a Jewish archetype.
	So essentially, you believe the Romans created a Jewish archetype of the suffering servant.
	And I just see it fulfilling the Jewish prophecy far more than it destroyed Rome.
	They used the existing literature.
	In other words, they were trying to graft a religion onto the existing perspective.
	And I think particularly the stuff that was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that kind of full-blooded messianic militarism.
	And so when they wrote the Gospels, they were trying to show that all of these prophecies had come to pass, both typologic prophecies and direct prophecies, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of these prophecies.
	And thereby, they were hoping to basically absorb those people in the religion that were looking for these things to come to pass in order to see a legitimate religious future for Judaism.
	The Habakkuk Pesher, which you're probably familiar with, is a good example of this, where the Messianic movement is looking into the story of Habakkuk and then trying to overlay those Stories into the present time to see if they can figure out when the Messiah is going to show up.
	So that was the, there was this political, and of course, that means religious perspective, you know, that the Gospels are showing.
	But it's actually not the reason the Gospels were written.
	The real reason the Gospels were written was vanity.
	The Jewish war, the 66, 73 CE Jewish war, was really a struggle in some sense between different understanding of who would be the man God on the planet.
	The Flavians saw themselves, or at least it was a politically expedient concept for them, to be divine.
	And if you look at the Arch of Titus, it has the divine Vespasian and the son of God, Titus, who destroyed the Jews.
	It's written right in stone.
	And then, of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls are looking for an individual who would have the same kind of connection to God that their scriptures describe with David.
	So Rome, so that the Gospels are written, and this is the real thrust of Caesar's Messiah is: I show that the story of Jesus was constructed to mirror the events in the Jewish war.
	And this is a kind of, it's a way of identifying an individual as being divine.
	Are you familiar, Adam, with the Matthew, with Matthew's typology between Jesus and Moses at the beginning of the gospel?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	And this is something that we agree on: that the Gospels are essentially like a pesher.
	They quote-mined the Old Testament and wrote it to fulfill the Old Testament, and then they mixed in other pagan myths.
	There's stuff from Romulus, you know, Mithras, Dionysus, and as you argue, from Josephus and from the 70 AD, the destruction of the temple with Titus.
	And this is something that I've researched elsewhere that indeed Luke and Acts copy from Josephus.
	So this is basically people agree with this.
	Maybe people don't agree with every one of your and vice versa, because in the Testimonian Flevalion, you know, the famous description of Jesus that's written in Josephus, it uses Luke as, and if you ever read Gary Goldberg's analysis of this,
	and it's just completely spot on and in my opinion, irrefutable, that he, that, that this is, that that story, that small story describing Jesus is basically lifted almost word for word from a section in Luke.
	So I don't see how they could copy each other at the same time.
	Well, it's easy to do if it's all getting written in one room.
	I mean, think about when you make that statement, think about all of the different verbatim statements inside the Gnostics.
	Right?
	You've got, you know, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and they've got dozens of these absolutely down to the Greek particle verbatim quotes that go back and forth between the three gospels.
	And then this is called the synoptic problem, which can never be solved, but they have different ideas about could possibly be solutions.
	But in any case, you have verbatim material in the three gospels.
	Now, if these are three independent writers, then this couldn't happen just accidentally.
	However, if it's all one big editorial board in control of all the literature, then it's just first century work.
	If that was the case, we wouldn't see all the contradictions and we wouldn't see, it's almost like Marcus first, he kind of bases his upon Paul and then mixes in more fulfillment to elaborate the story after the temple is destroyed.
	I just disagree.
	And I would have, you know, the contradictions, I mean, they are certainly trying to create the impression that there's three distinct writers.
	And it makes the typology, you know, I would suggest that you would read Caesar's Messiah, just particularly just one chapter, read the Flavian signature.
	And when you see how precise and vast and in sequence, because you see, this is the real power, you know, of my theory is that, like, if you look at the Moses-Jesus typology at the beginning of matthew you know you have names locations and concepts but what what really makes it understandable comprehensible is
	all of them occur in the same sequence.
	The things that are being lifted from Exodus and put into Matthew are being put into Matthew in the same sequence as they appeared in the Old Testament.
	So when you look at the storyline of the Gospels, and I mean in the Synoptic Gospels, in all three of them, you say, well, there's contradictions.
	Well, read my analysis of this, and you'll see that, yeah, there are different stories, and they're seemingly different statements, but the critical ones are always the same, and they're always occurring in the same sequence in all of the Gospels, even though they break them up into different areas and they hide the typology in a different way.
	When you lay them all out against the storyline of the Jewish wars, all of the events in Jesus'adult ministry are occurring in the same sequence in all three Gospels.
	So this idea that there are contradictions, I think it's fine.
	It doesn't really, I dispute some of what is claimed to be contradictions.
	I think these are just different ways of, different stories are not necessarily in contradiction, they're just different.
	Well, there's Mark, and then Matthew builds upon Mark greatly, and then Luke copies from both, and then there's John.
	But, you know, your theory about, I mean...
	That's the classic New Testament scholarship.
	Let me just give you an example of why, because I think you would understand this, of why that is not necessarily true.
	So, in Matthew, you have the Moses typology, right?
	You've got, you know, seven, eight events from Exodus, and they're all listed in Matthew, right?
	Okay, now go to Mark, and what you'll do is you'll see that of all of those events, a couple of them are there, and they are presented in the same sequence that they occur in Matthew, but they are an abbreviation, and there is no possible way that that could occur without the author of Mark being aware of the typology in Matthew.
	I know this is kind of a hard concept to get your head around.
	I'm just, you know, we should probably have the discussion about this, and I could explain it in depth, you know, before we get on the air.
	I have another issue with the Josephus being involved with the writing of the Gospels, and that's because I believe the Josephus comments about Jesus are forgeries by Eusebius in the third century, or fourth century, I guess.
	I mean, there's two quotes about the Christ that Josephus makes.
	As far as them coming from Eusebius, it's possible.
	it wouldn't, you know, because they're, I mean, the one about James, the brother of the Christ, does seem to me to be an interpolation.
	As far as it being Eusebius, it's possible.
	Have you read my analysis of the testimonium, though?
	Because that would, I think, perhaps dissuade you of the idea that it's from Eusebius.
	I remember you talking about it in your interview and in your documentary, but if Josephus was involved, I feel like he would have, like, wrote a little more, at least, like, a chapter on Jesus happened and stuff.
	If he was conspiring with everybody, wouldn't have been silence from josephus well i mean i don't think you're this isn't a kind of a uh an understanding of my theory i mean josephus is probably just a nom de plume i don't think he's a real person i think this is profetched the idea that he was a historical character but in any event the the the wars the the the story of the campaign which of course is um so much of It ends up in the Gospels.
	I mean, in the Gospels, you have all of the events that Jesus predicts about the coming war.
	This is the war that Jesus is referring to.
	These are recorded by Josephus, and he has a straight face.
	It's like he's saying, you know, these are just the historical events.
	And then Jesus, he doesn't seem to be aware of Jesus.
	And this, of course, creates the impression that the prophecies were legitimate.
	If you read Eusebius, he talks about, you know, well, that we know Jesus was divine because the historian foresaw, I mean, if she recorded all of the prophecies that he foresaw.
	Eusebius makes the claim.
	It's right in, you know, his basic thing.
	Well, you know, prophecies are easy to be accurate about when you write about them after the fact.
	And so I think really what went on with the Gospels and Josephus is that it was, you know, an integrated literature wherein, you know, they simply just made sure that the Gospels are always interacting with it.
	And it's really, there's no distinction in the literature.
	And then, of course, the history of Josephus was actually at one point, you know, part of the Gospels.
	It was there in some of the Middle Aged texts as part of it.
	And that's because the prophecies showed that the historian recorded them.
	So therefore, Jesus was divine.
	So there's their, that's the.
	You know, on the Moses part, and I totally agree with you about prophecy being written after the fact.
	The Gospels came, that's how we know the Gospels came after 70 AD because they wrote about the destruction of the temple.
	And that's how we know Paul died before then, also because he's not aware of the Jewish-Roman war.
	And I wouldn't be surprised to see an allegory in the Gospels, considering they're written after it happened to make it look like it was fulfilled.
	But all of this is fulfillment of Daniel, really.
	The reason there was the messianic fervor in the 30 AD was because when they did the math, the decoding of the secrets, that's when the Messiah was supposed to come from Daniel.
	But what does it say in Daniel 9?
	That the Messiah will be cut off and then the sanctuary will be destroyed.
	So really, we have the, you believe the Romans are creating a new pesher that fulfills Jewish prophecy.
	And all the prophecies everywhere are about the nations will come to Yahweh.
	So it's like, do you think that the Romans did this and it just backfired horrendously?
	Because it led to the downfall of Rome and then Christianity took over, Judaized the world.
	Yeah, they weren't trying to, you're misstating what happened and certainly my theory.
	The Romans weren't trying to show that there was a massive fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.
	They were trying to actually just take enough of it so that they could prune on to the vast body of Messianic prophecy in Judaic literature, a strand of it that they could control very precisely.
	So when you go outside of the Gospels and outside of the specific prophecies that are being fulfilled and you kind of looked at the Torah in general, well, that isn't there.
	They're not interested in that.
	That was the religion they were leaving behind.
	They were trying to just take enough of them to create a coherent storyline.
	And bear in mind, I don't really think that the Gospels aren't really designed to convert intellectuals or sophisticated people.
	This would have been for the story of Jesus would have been, you know, particularly in the early, you know, in the first and second century, would have just been for those people, basically the lowest rung of the Roman social.
	But the earliest documents of Christianity we have are from Paul, and he was very clearly the whole gospel was about going to the nations.
	This is the fulfillment.
	Just like Jesus is a fulfillment, I should say they created the fictional character of Jesus to fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and fulfill, follow almost the template of other messianic figures.
	Like Moses, you said, Jesus is also, he's also Joseph.
	He's the Messiah, son of Joseph, the first suffering servant Messiah.
	And Joseph in the Old Testament in Genesis is rejected and sold by his brothers, sold by his brother Judas actually for 20 shekels of silver, and then goes and then goes to Egypt and is accepted there.
	And this mimics Jesus being rejected by his people.
	It's a stumbling block.
	It's not for the Jews until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
	It's very clearly meant targeting the Gentiles.
	It says, go and baptize the Gentile nations.
	This was targeted towards the Gentiles, written in Greek.
	That's who accepted it.
	It conquered the Gentile world.
	And now you look today with Christian Zionism.
	Literally, they think that the Jews are God's chosen people and you're cursed if you curse them, blessed if you bless them.
	This very clearly is fake fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and has benefited them far more than the Romans.
	That's the way I see it.
	The thing is, that wasn't the original intent, and that certainly wasn't how the religion rolled out in the Middle Ages.
	I mean, you'd have to give me citations of where Jews are benefiting from Christianity, like an 800 through 1200.
	Oh, they suffered.
	They suffered under Christianity, which is actually part of the prophecy fulfillment as well when they go into that.
	Yeah, but I think now you're into complicated, you know, I mean, it's like, I think that the Christian.
	Well, you want to say complicated.
	Go ahead, finish your thought.
	Yeah, but I would just say that Christianity became, I mean, particularly Christianity, Zionist Christianity, is, you know, I'm in agreement that this is of tremendous benefit and an irrational benefit for Gentiles to succumb to this perspective.
	But this certainly wasn't the intent or, you know, the thrust of the religion until the Jews had enough political and financial power that they could start creating the intellectual structure with which you could criticize and start taking the prophecy and bending it into the way that they wanted it to be.
	You don't have to bend prophecy all that much, though, to get that they're supposed to return to the land.
	Look at what Christians believe today.
	They believe that the Jews need to return to the land and they need to build up an empire, have an Antichrist, mark of the beast, build the temple, and then Jesus will rapture them away and they'll be saved from Jesus in the cloud.
	Like this clearly is duping Gentiles to fulfill their end times agenda.
	No, I mean, you're right, and it is profoundly irrational and destructive to the thinking of Gentiles.
	But it certainly wasn't, you know, in the Middle Ages, how the religion was operating and who was operating religion, who had the power over the meaning of what all this was.
	So it came about, you know, turned into that.
	But the idea, as I understand what you're saying, is that this was the intent of the literature way back when.
	I think this is just far-fetched to the extreme.
	I think that the prophecies inside the Gospels were, and the fulfillment of them was really just to try to create a religious veneer for the Jews and slaves, Gentile slaves that would have been susceptible to a messianic religion.
	So, you know, then when you get into the 18th, 19th century, then it starts to change, but it changes with kind of the intellectual and financial power change in the Jewish world, where they could then bring arguments and explanations of the prophecies and how it relates to Zionism, but if there were no Christians, there would be no Christian Zionists.
	And we see Maimonides back in the 1200s, he even says Christianity is the fulfillment of God's plan.
	It's a stepping stone to make the Gentiles be Noahides, it makes the whole world believe that the Torah is the word of God, that the one God of the universe is Yahweh, the God of Israel that chose them, the commandments, salvation as it comes from the Jews.
	All of these thoughts benefit the Jews.
	Adam, you're not talking about the origin and the thrust of the religion in its original form.
	I am.
	That's what that all comes from Paul.
	Well, and also, here's a question: this is what I wanted to ask earlier.
	You want to say it's complicated.
	Why was Christianity so anti-Semitic if they were targeting the Jews to adopt it and convert them?
	It hasn't worked.
	It failed horribly, really, because there were still rebellions.
	It's the Jewish religion, rabbinical Judaism, post-temple Judaism, is like anti-Christianity.
	Jesus is the villain in their religion now.
	He literally represents Satan to the Jews.
	He is the adversary.
	He is the accuser, the persecutor.
	He represents Rome, which is Edom and Esau, and fulfills their whole dualistic paradigm.
	I mean, I agree.
	And this is, I mean, you know, you're into the Talmud at this point.
	That was the, I would say, in general, the idea that, you know, Christianity was a failure because it didn't really have much success with Jewish converts is a legitimate idea.
	And I, you know, but it doesn't explain why they would write such a thing.
	What happens with Christianity is that it becomes a state religion.
	Until then, I think that the, you know, the Gospels and the religion itself was were primarily just tools and of interest to the patrician class and to how they would be able to control subjects and to and to like prevent the Messianic movement from spreading out.
	I feel here.
	Here's my analogy.
	They injected the Christian virus into the Gentile world and it incubated for 300 years until it spread around enough that Constantine and whoever was influencing him convinced him that, hey, this is what you need to unite everybody.
	And then that was after that, it was history.
	Christianity conquered the world.
	You know, what you're suggesting is that there was, well, I mean, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting.
	You're claiming that the Gospels themselves were written by like a crypto by Jews.
	Everybody, it's pretty well known that the Gospels, the New Testament was written by Jews.
	Half of the books in the New Testament are Paul written, and he was a Pharisee.
	Right.
	So these are people who, you know, are claimed that claim the identity of Jews.
	I would say that, you know, they could be, but they would have been very Romanized Jews.
	They would have been under the financial thrall of the Flavian family.
	The Flavian family brought Josephus to their court.
	We know that this was where the wars of the Jews were written.
	Okay, it's recorded as such.
	And since when you look at the typological links that I show in Caesar's Messiah, you can see that the Gospels and the Wars of the Jews were actually a piece of entwined literature.
	They're really not distinct.
	So this is the area that, you know, I would say, with, you know, my analysis, which I think is fairly concrete, shows that this was where the religion was organized.
	And I would also say the primary kind of misunderstanding you have, which sort of I think if you could just correct this, I think, I mean, no disrespect, but you'd be able to think very clearly about the Gospels, is the character that Jesus is envisioning, the Son of Man.
	He says the Son of Man is going to come and do this and that.
	Who do you think that character is?
	According to the New Testament, It definitely, since it was written after Titus already raised the temple, it definitely seems like it's alluding to Titus in that context.
	And this is exactly what my analysis shows.
	In other words, well, I conceded that.
	I agreed to that.
	And I said, and I conceded to the Josephus and Gospels copies.
	The point is, is that the thrust of the Gospels is a little hard to understand, but all of the prophecies, and the typology in the literature is all leading up to Jesus' prediction about what's going to occur with the war.
	Now, Josephus recorded that the Jewish messianic prophecies, the ones that are all entwined in the Gospels, were misunderstood by the Jews.
	The Jews didn't get them.
	They really predicted the Flavian Caesar.
	Okay, so this is recorded by Josephus, and it is perfectly consistent with the typology that links the wars of the Jews and the Gospel and identifies the character, the Son of Man, as Titus.
	So my point is, that's kind of where my analysis stops.
	I mean, I do explain Paul.
	Paul is a fictional character, just like Jesus and Josephus.
	I mean, these are just nom de plumes to create a literature which can be used to create the religion, because once you've asserted that Jesus is fictional, then you have to re-look at all of these characters closely.
	And I wrote in my book, Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, I go into Paul and explain how the character operates and how you can easily understand him as fictional.
	But in any case, my point here is that the thrust of the Gospels is not ultimately Jewish.
	I mean, this is incorrect.
	It is right.
	What do you mean by the thrust, though?
	Because the Gospels are very Jewish.
	They're quoting the Old Testament all over.
	The point is...
	He's the spirit of prophecy.
	No, no, but think clearly here, Adam.
	Think what it says.
	No, but it also says, but your analysis is fine as far as you're taking it, but I'm asking you to just go all the way to the end of the literature and to go to the point where Jesus says the Son of Man is going to come.
	He's the one in the future who's going to have the power.
	He's the one who's going to do these great things.
	So this individual is greater than Jesus.
	Jesus is referring to him with a messianic title.
	And this is the whole point of the Gospels.
	When I say the thrust of the Gospels, the thrust of the Gospels is to identify and to create typology to show that the Son of Man is the Roman Caesar.
	And so this is why we can be reasonably certain that the Gospels are being produced in the Flavian court because it's identifying the Flavian Caesar as the Christ, which is theologically perfectly aligned with what Josephus says, because he says that the Jewish Messianic prophecies foresee the Christ.
	Except, hold on.
	Titus is supposed, the Messiah of the Jews is supposed to redeem the Jews, liberate the Jews, conquer their occupying Roman Empire.
	Not according to Josephus.
	Well, he was corrupted.
	He was under the control of the Romans.
	Of course he was.
	And the Gospels are completely aligned with him.
	The point is, is that Josephus says, look, the covenant between the Jews and God is over.
	He's captured by the Flavians, supposedly.
	And this is just obviously a ludicrous story, but he's captured by the Flavians.
	He has a dream.
	God communicates to him.
	And he says, you know, the covenant between the Jews and God is over.
	There is a new covenant.
	It's between God and the Romans.
	Josephus goes to Vespasian to tell him this, and he says, you know what?
	You, Vespasian, are going to be Caesar.
	Now, Josephus is looking into the future in this fairytale story.
	He's looking Into the future, he's saying Vespasian will be Caesar.
	Vespasian goes, you've got to be kidding.
	I'm just a general.
	Nero is the Caesar.
	How can you see this?
	And Josephus says, No, I'm telling you, you will be the Caesar.
	And then, of course, later on, just like in the Gospels, you know, you look to the Son of Man as this divine character.
	Josephus then records the same thing.
	Now, that the Messianic prophecies actually foresee the Flavian Caesar.
	Now, this is ludicrous theology, as you point out.
	Josephus is, of course, no matter how you slice him, he is a controlled entity, right?
	This is he's inside the imperial court.
	But all of this makes the, you know, a very clear, logical position in terms of what the gospels are.
	Now, it's easy, very easy to come back to the gospels and go, you know, there's this prophecy and that prophecy, and Jesus could be this and that.
	Okay, all of that is intellectually permitted because the Romans are making a hash out of the Jewish prophecies.
	It isn't like this is some reality occurring in like 30 to 33.
	They're just mixing and matching anything that they feel like doing.
	But that is after the fact.
	And the really important thing, in my opinion, Adam, is that you have to look at the character of the Son of Man that Jesus predicts.
	And once you identify him as the Caesar, then you've identified where the religion comes from, what the real thrust of the literature is.
	It is to assuage the vanity of the Caesars who wanted to be the, they wanted to be the Messiah that the Jewish prophecies envisioned.
	So that's the gospel.
	Yeah, but the Jews didn't really fall for it, though.
	And they believe that it has to be, well, that's who they were targeting.
	So then it wasn't a good plan if it didn't, they didn't fall for it.
	They knew religious Jews would just find it ludicrous.
	No, they didn't.
	Tovia Singer says that Mark is so like so there's so many little pieces in Mark that I'm sorry, Matthew, that because that's the more Judaized one that Jews would not go for it.
	In fact, they weren't supposed to.
	They're supposed the prophecy was that they would be hardened and it would be a stumbling block and that they would be blinded.
	Yeah, yeah, but that's part of the Jewish, the deception.
	And the Gentiles go, oh, he's our Messiah now.
	And I would say that the Gospels, the purpose of the Gospels is to get obedience of the Gentile world to have fear and obedience toward the God of Israel.
	And to scare the Gentiles that you'll burn in hell if you don't believe in Jewish prophecy.
	Okay, but remember this.
	Remember how Christianity becomes the state religion, because this is something that is virtually never discussed and it is critical to understand its role in history.
	When Constantine began the process to make Christianity the state religion, he also, at the same time, with the same process of edicts, created the edicts against the Kelowni.
	So this is when the feudal system begins.
	So Constantine creates the feudal system and Christianity is a component of the feudal system.
	That's really what's going on.
	So in the 70 years it takes to become the state religion, that was when the republic simply ended and you started to have the actual, the magistrates could enforce things like taking children, moving, people couldn't move, there was no private ownership.
	This was really the beginning of the slave state that was the Middle Ages, the feudal system.
	So when you talk about Christianity in that way, and as it was designed, and I'm in complete agreement to subjugate the Gentiles, you're absolutely seeing what was one of the strongest reasons for the writing of the literature is that they were looking to have control over Gentiles as much as they were as control over Jews.
	In fact, but that targeting the Gentiles didn't start with Constantine.
	It started with Paul and Mark.
	And really with the Old Testament.
	The Old Testament lays out the blueprint for a suffering Messiah to be rejected by the Jews and go to the Gentiles.
	God in the Old Testament—hold on, let me finish.
	God in the Old Testament is a jealous God.
	The prophecy is that all the nations will worship him and come to him but not be Jews.
	So Christianity perfectly fulfills all of that.
	Rome was pagan, heathen idol worshipers, and Christianity replaced that with still idol worship, but idol worship worshiping the Jewish Messiah and Yahweh.
	So it fulfilled the prophecy of wiping out idol worship in the pagan religions.
	Christianity and Islam have wiped out a whole lot of religions, but Judaism preserved and is now stronger than ever.
	Well, yeah, I mean, this is a historical fact.
	The history of Europe is a tragic one, and the more you understand it, the more you can see this really malevolent interplay between Christianity and Judaism in relation to the history of the Europeans.
	I'll give you a little few bonbons you can chew on.
	The, you know, the Pontiff Maximus, that was the title of the Flavian Caesars, right?
	They were the head of the Roman College of Priests, and that was one of the titles they held.
	Their temple, excuse me, their palace was actually where the Vatican is.
	And if you've ever seen the Vatican, you have this huge kind of area pavilion with an obelisk in the middle of it, a big Freemason-looking obelisk in the middle of it.
	That was the circus, literally.
	That was physically the circus where the chariot races that the Flavians would hold for entertainment.
	So the religion basically never moved.
	It just stayed, it just changed the name from the Flavian imperial cult.
	Mithra, Mithraism as well.
	Well, I think it's not, it's like Philo.
	I see Philo as a prototype with his Neoplatonic logos and relating that to Zechariah and Joshua, the high priest, and all that stuff.
	And he was a Hellenized Jew.
	And if they're targeting the Romans and the Gentile world, it makes sense that they would implement some of their pagan beliefs so that they would more easily accept this new Judaized version.
	We're pretty close, I mean, in terms of our positions.
	I just don't think the group that was using the religion in this way at the beginning when they were creating literature were Jews.
	I think they were Romans, but I think they had exactly the motivation you're talking about.
	Okay, I know, I know.
	That's what I was saying.
	We do agree on a lot.
	Here's another point.
	And also, as I said before, remember, the Flavians are entwined with Jews.
	I mean, you talk about Philo.
	Now, you're familiar, of course, with how entwined the Alexanders were with the Flavians, right?
	Absolutely.
	Philo and Tiberius Alexander as well.
	The Albarc, Philo's brother, you know, it's kind of a, I won't go into this long history, but in general, the Alexander family, which Philo was a member of.
	So, Roman collaborating tax collector, wealthiest family in Alexandria, Egypt, which was many Jews there.
	And Philo's nephew was a member of the Temple, which was prophesied in Isaiah.
	And moreover, he was the very first one to stand for Vespasian as Caesar.
	And this is really critical because...
	Was he their puppet, though?
	I saw in Caesar's Messiah, you said that the Alexandrian family was funding Vespasian.
	Yeah, they're recorded as having given them a lot of money.
	But you see...
	Where is that?
	Where is the source for that, too?
	I'm curious of the source for that.
	Oh, gosh.
	I can...
	I'll send you the citation.
	It's in the book?
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	It's in the book.
	I'll send you the citation after the show.
	But the thing is, the Alexanders were entwined generationally.
	It wasn't just Tiberius, you know, who became the general for the Flavians.
	But before that, the Albarch was the financial steward of Nero's mother.
	nero's mother's his her her secretary was cassis who was the most intelligent woman in the roman empire supposedly and she was vespasian's mistress and so this these families the the uh the alexanders and and um uh tiberius's brother then married bernickee herod who then he died young and she then becomes titus's uh mistress.
	So you can see the families are just, you know, they're like the typical, it's almost like a European royalty comic romp.
	You know, everyone is shacking up, they're all entwined, and they're the wealthiest families imaginable.
	And so when Tiberius stood for the Vespasian to become Caesar, it was really quite daring because the Julio-Claudians had been Caesars for over 100 years and they weren't going to give up the throne just without a fight.
	But he did stand for them.
	The document that he created is a copy of it is still in existence.
	And in the document, he alludes to Vespasian as divine.
	So you can see that the Alexanders, now they claim to be Jewish, but again, you get into these definitional areas.
	What do they actually mean by that?
	Well, Philo was the most famous Hellenized Jew who really came up with the proto-Christianity.
	But was he a Jewish religious person or was he?
	He was a mystic.
	He interpreted Judaism completely allegorically.
	And Paul basically stole his Jesus character from Philo.
	And Philo never mentioned Jesus either.
	But I do agree.
	You know, I learned most of this information from author Christopher John Bjorkness.
	And he says that he doesn't believe it's a coincidence that Tiberius was there with Titus to destroy the temple and Philo was there influencing the early proto-Christian doctrines either.
	I just think it was the Alexanders possibly and whoever else collaborating with maybe Essenes, some Pharisee group or something to create it.
	And then maybe they tempted the Flavians to adopt it, but really they were the power behind the throne is kind of the way I see it going now.
	But it's pure fantasy, but I wouldn't have any way to falsify it.
	I wouldn't know how to, like, where would I start to say this isn't true?
	You can see who benefited in hindsight, who had the motive beforehand.
	Yeah, but you have to be careful, Adam.
	You have to look at the different tranches of history as you go forward, because at the very beginning, Christianity, as the gospels are written, I think it's just a vanity piece.
	It's just trying that the people who are benefiting are the people who created the Arch of Titus in Rome.
	It's the, you know, the Son of Man that Jesus is predicting.
	And then the religion, you know, it's between like, you know, the beginning of the second century and Constantine, it's sort of a black hole.
	There are a few episodes, you know, but it was aligned.
	There's no question that Christianity was aligned with the Roman government in some way.
	You can see this in Nicomedia where when they had...
	And don't you think it would have taken off a little better?
	It wouldn't have taken 300 years if the imperial court was behind it from its inception?
	No, I don't think so because, first of all, I don't believe they were prosecuted.
	They weren't persecuted.
	I would read.
	It's exaggerated, I believe.
	I agree.
	Well, there just isn't the examples of Christian persecution.
	In Acts is fictional.
	Yeah.
	Mythologic, you know.
	And anyway, so I think there was definitely a fraction of the Roman administration and patrician class that didn't want Christianity, that wanted to maintain the polytheistic religions.
	Pliny the Younger wasn't even aware of it in his letter to Trajan.
	Well, again, I think that letter needs very careful analysis to be able to kind of tease out the real meaning.
	There's kind of a subtext to it in the same way I see a subtext in the Gospels.
	But the fact is, is that you end up with Constantine having a war that is basically the way that, you know, I mean, there are different explanations as to what was going on.
	But I think the best one is just that Constantine wanted to use Christianity as the subjugating control device for his envisioned feudal system.
	Somehow he was convinced that was a good idea to unite the empire.
	It didn't really seem to work.
	I mean, it wasn't.
	Christianity taught the Roman world, the Roman Empire, to basically hate their heavenly pantheon and that they were idol worshipers and that they were evil.
	Constantine, I mean, Constantine wasn't trying to unite the empire.
	The empire didn't need uniting.
	The empire existed.
	Constantine was trying to ossify the what he wanted to do was to create the feudal system, which is what he did.
	And he wanted to get rid of all sorts of capacity to intellectually or physically rebel against the authorities that the Patricians had created.
	That's really what the feudal system is and was.
	So he wanted to do that.
	And Christianity was going to be exactly like you have described it.
	It was going to be this mind control device over the Gentiles, a bamboozlement that they were going to administer.
	But Christianity was always about targeting the Gentiles, though, even before him.
	Just to interrupt, yeah.
	Like you say, I mean, they were certainly, it wasn't just about targeting the Gentiles, but that was certainly anyone who, any Gentile slave who came in contact with the religion, to whatever extent the religion is being, you know, rolled out to the masses in the second century, because it's this, again, is a black hole.
	There really isn't good citations and history of this.
	I mean, just to digress, the very first Christians, the ones that are recorded, are all Flavian family members.
	I mean, you've got Flavia Domitella, Priscilla, Neros and Achilles, Clemens, Clement.
	I mean, these are all literally the Flavian family servants and members of the Flavian family.
	The Pope is essentially like Pontifex, right?
	Wasn't that the Maximus?
	Same word, even.
	They've just taken the Roman imperial religious power structure and named someone as the head of this new version of the imperial court, the imperial cult.
	Because remember, Adam, if my analysis is right and the Son of Man is Titus, then really what Christianity is is simply a version of the imperial cult because you're worshiping Caesar.
	But it started so long before Titus.
	As early as Paul in like, what, 50, 50 CE or something?
	I mean, we would.
	And before that, there was Philo and there were Gnostic Christian sects, which believed basically that Jesus was the serpent, like the Ophites and the Neocenes.
	Yeah, the Gnostics, you know, that literature is like fourth century.
	I think that's kind of not, to me, it's far-fetched.
	I think it's pre-Christian.
	It makes more sense to be pre-Christian than post-Christian.
	Yeah, we would disagree on that.
	I think that the Gnostic stuff was buried in pots because this was the beginning of the Rome becoming, I mean, Christianity becoming the state religion.
	When they wanted it to be the state religion, they were gonna get rid of any of like They were stashed away during the Roman War before the destruction of the temple.
	C14 dating on those.
	They were like early fourth century stuff.
	No, some of them, no, no, no.
	Some of them are definitely first century.
	Those are they say that they're first century and even earlier.
	Adam, send me the citation.
	I've studied this pretty carefully.
	I would be surprised and I'm always willing to learn new things.
	But if you've got a, if you've got a nah comedy gospel from the first century, please send me the citation.
	Okay, maybe I'm getting it mixed up with Qumran.
	You know, I'm kind of conflating the two.
	That's possible.
	C14.
	I mean, I don't know if you've read the paper I wrote with Eisman on dating the C14 stuff.
	We got almost 500 people watching us right now, which is larger audience than usual.
	They sure came out for you today, Joe.
	I've seen you on Myth Vision many times.
	I love that channel on YouTube.
	Well, thank you.
	Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, I mean, I'm happy that, and I really like this discussion we're having because it's just a great discussion.
	This is really what can make progress as far as understanding the function of Christianity historically.
	I mean, if we don't get into these topics, and of course, you know how often people avoid them, we won't realize that Christianity was part of a slave system that was directed against the Europeans.
	Always been the opiate of the masses.
	Well, yeah, I guess I do agree.
	It was always targeting Edom, really, which is the Gentile European world.
	Of course, that is who, again, think of the Roman imperial class.
	Rome is a prison of nations.
	You know, now we think of some kind of commonality between the Italians and French and the British.
	This didn't exist in the first century.
	These are ethnicities that Rome despises and they've conquered.
	They hate them.
	They are literally enslaving them.
	They want to reduce them to an animal state, which is what Constantine did when he took the feudal system throughout the European continent.
	And so there isn't any love between the Roman, you know, patrician class and the French, the Gauls, and the Germanic people.
	I mean, that's just the opposite.
	So this was the kind of mindset, in my opinion, of the authors of the Gospels.
	And as they saw the religion in the future, I think that as far as why they would create this thing, they probably were amazed at how the Torah had such a strong mental control over Jewish people.
	I mean, this occurs all the time in Josephus.
	I mean, he recorded that they tried to get the Jews to call Titus God, and they refused.
	They actually set them afire, according to Josephus, and they wouldn't do it.
	So that was the aspect of the Jewish literature that the patrician class were basically see as a very, very powerful tool for social control.
	And that's why they picked that literature in general to use to develop this character tool.
	Well, it sure worked to help subjugate the Gentile world into believing a fake Jewish God.
	There's a debate.
	There's a debate on myth vision between James Valiant and David Scurbina.
	He's the author of The Jesus hoax.
	Have you heard of that one?
	No, I haven't.
	Oh, yeah, it's a good one.
	I was curious if you'd seen that before.
	I watched that actually in preparation because it's essentially the same debate.
	And I think it's the only other debate that's ever debated if Christian conspiracy is the motive for the Jews or for the Romans.
	Yeah, I mean, it's the idea that it was pernicious and kind of subterfuge that the Jews came up with, you know, it's sort of logical.
	And it's certainly when you look at it through the lens of Christian Zionism, makes perfect sense logically.
	It's not an idea that could be falsified.
	But the problem is that that idea doesn't link into the history of Christianity.
	I believe, again, I believe it does.
	If you see my playlist about the Christian, the Hebrew hoax, as I like to call it, even the persecution has ultimately played into the fulfilled the prophecy while they're in exile.
	They believe in divine atonement and punishment and suffering and persecution, and that that's what they need to atone and be redeemed and return to the land.
	And they believe Christianity is Esau and Edom, which persecutes Jacob.
	You're post-hoc.
	Well, this is what rabbis say.
	This is what messianic Jews believe.
	This is the first century and what the literature is, how it actually would operate among.
	We'll look at it this way.
	There was already quote-unquote anti-Semitic.
	Let me ask this very simple question.
	When you look at the first Christians, when you look at Flavia Domitella, they've got her catacombs.
	Pedron Chilia, right?
	She's a patron saint of France.
	She's Vespasian's niece.
	Okay, so when you look at these are the first recorded Roman Christians, very first ones.
	They've got really good archaeologic kind of inscriptions and things identifying them.
	They're the first ones.
	What do you think their perspective was of the religion?
	What do you think when they read the literature and saw the son of man, they knew it was Titus, right?
	They couldn't fool them.
	They were his nephews.
	Well, even with my theory, you can have aspects in the gospel referring to Titus.
	That's completely plausible and fits in with what I'm saying.
	It's not as the hero that the whole work ends up envisioning, because it becomes at that point overwhelming to, well, what is, I mean, that wouldn't be something that someone who is Jewish and pernicious against Gentile in general would create.
	I mean, that would be what I would say if, you know, to compare our theories and try to, you know, what is strong, what is weak about them.
	That would be the question I would ask you is like, well, if this was written by Jews, then why would they make Titus the son of man that Jesus envisioned?
	I don't know.
	I haven't fully, I'd have to think about that a little bit deeper.
	I know that Robert Price kind of conceded that he first dismissed your theory, but then said, well, this does kind of explain the so-called false prophecy of Jesus that the end of time will come in this generation, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	You know, and that was really amazing because let me tell you something about New Testament scholars.
	They can never change their mind once they've written something.
	I mean, I was in a group once of like 70 different Christian writers, you know, and authors.
	And after a couple of years, this one guy, Rod Green, says, you know, he said, there's something about our exchange that's amusing.
	He goes, no one has ever convinced anyone else about anything.
	And I think that when Robert Price, who had been like one of the very strongest critics of Caesar's Messiah, when he publicly came out and said, hey, I was wrong, you know, the Atwill's parallel mania I was accusing him of, you know, I just made a mistake.
	And the analysis, you know, I'm not going to say it's true, but man, it looks pretty reasonable to me.
	That was the, I mean, I cannot imagine another time, Adam, when a published New Testament scholar has actually transitioned intellectually.
	And it never, it's never happened.
	So I was really, you know, I was really pleased about that.
	And, you know, it's, I would just say that, you know, there's all there's so many different ideas.
	And I mean, you know, you have like the mythology concept that it's like this, that Jesus is coming out of these congregations, you know, they're in the second century and that they worship like some Jesus in outer space or this or that.
	I mean, these congregations are pure fantasies.
	I mean, there's no archaeologic evidence.
	And then you get this, you know, at the end of it, they can somehow kind of cobble together how the gospel was then, you know, sort of misunderstanding what these prior groups had, or there was Roman influence, or there was interpolation.
	You know, they got these complicated stuff.
	But if you look at my theory, this is why it's different.
	It's archaeologic.
	I mean, all you do in the Flavian signature, it's only like 30 pages of analysis, is I just take one gospel.
	Because when I first brought the book out, I was criticized for jumping around and it was making people like confused, you know, because I was going to Mark and Matthew.
	I was showing there was like this long kind of temporal, you know, sequence of events.
	But because I was jumping around, people were like saying, I can't follow you.
	So I said, okay.
	And then in the current edition, I said, look, I'm just going to take Luke and I'm just going to take Josephus.
	And we're just going to roll them out side by side.
	And all I do is I just take the actual text.
	I mean, literally, I have only a few hundred words of analysis because some of the parallels are either the same thing, like encircling Jerusalem with the wall or destroying the temple or the abomination of desolation.
	Or the parallels are so absolutely clear-cut that no one could ever miss them, you know, like cutting down a fruit tree or something like that.
	And I just go, look, you got here, you got the story of Jesus.
	Here you got the Roman war.
	Now, this is just the text we have.
	I haven't monkeyed with it.
	It's just but just because they're allegorically referring to aspects of the Jewish-Roman war doesn't mean necessarily that it was done by the Romans.
	No.
	And for the benefit of the Romans.
	But what does suggest this?
	And again, Adam, I mean, it's like, I wasn't in the room.
	I have to just use the kind of the logic of what the literature means to me in order to create the history.
	Because remember, I was just a literary critic when I wrote Seja Messiah.
	It really was the history of the whole thing, what the Romans did it.
	That was really not what I was interested in.
	I was just interested in this relationship between Josephus and the, you know, in the Gospels.
	And I was fascinated by it.
	And I saw in it things that hadn't been understood before.
	So I brought out the book and saying, look, there is dependency.
	It's not a few prophecies.
	It is large-scale, constant dependency from the very beginning of the adult ministry all the way till Simon and John have their discussion with Jesus at the conclusion of the ministry.
	So the whole thing is related.
	It's all dependent.
	Now, the idea that this was created in a pernicious fashion by Jews is it doesn't really follow logically from what I see in the text, which is getting back to the question of if that was the case,
	then my interpretation shows that Jesus is the real, and I use the word thrust because I can't think of a better one, but is the premier purpose, the real reason for this literature is to get to the Son of Man character.
	And that character is identified by the typology as Titus Flavius.
	And so that to me is not a Jewish position.
	This would be something more from the patrician class, which had Jews in it, of course, but was primarily just this Roman collection of Jews.
	And like I said earlier, Jews have always been so strongly opposed to Christianity.
	It's almost the Jewish religion to keep the commandments and reject Christianity.
	Okay, well, let me ask you another question.
	Did it fail during the feudal era during that 11200 year period?
	I believe it ultimately failed.
	Ultimately, I'm talking about the feudal.
	Did it fail during that period?
	Well, I mean, in a sense, they preserved them and they were protected enough that they're still around today.
	they were somehow given control over the usury, over the money lending, which was, you know, only benefited them and benefits them today.
	In effect, I just see this as far-fetched.
	This is important.
	Christianity, it stopped Jews from assimilating and it kept them separate while they were in exile.
	And Christian persecution on Jews makes Gentiles the villains.
	Jews are the victims.
	They get the victim card, which they use and weaponize today.
	Adam, that isn't during, that certainly isn't during the period of the three Jewish rebellions.
	And it's certainly not the case during the feudal system.
	During that period, which is what I think the religion was actually written from and for, everything worked like a charm for the patrician families as far as Christianity.
	Now, when you get to the Reformation and to the, you know, the ascendancy, certainly you have like a Jewish financial and Jewish intellectual powers coming into play in Europe, and they start to change the way that Christianity is understood.
	From there on, I think you're absolutely right.
	I mean, as you describe it, this is exactly correct.
	But it was the Trojan horse all along.
	Those verses were always there all along to be hijacked at the right time.
	I will see your theory is coherent if you can answer the two questions.
	The one is, why would Jews make the son of man Caesar?
	And the other is, how did Christianity function during the feudal system that was not in a line, would not have been something that the patrician family would have seen as favorable.
	the persecution and subjugation of the European mind was the goal not of Jews during the feudal system but of the patrician families who then became the Holy Roman Empire so those are the Well, man, you know, the Masons are longstanding, and I think that's always, you know, I mean, like the tectons in the Gospels, I think are...
	Jesus was a craftsman also.
	Well, but you know, it's stonemason.
	Stonemason.
	And it's actually tecton is the word in modern Greek for Freemasonry.
	I saw that you've been doing interviews about the Theosophist.
	And I listened to a book called Kabbalah in Freemasonry by William Wescott.
	I think that's it, William Westcott.
	And he goes into detail how Kabbalah, I'm sorry, how Freemasonry is based upon Kabbalah, and it's essentially Judaism for the Gentiles, their obsession with rebuilding the temple.
	The whole thing is Judeo-based.
	So I see Freemasonry as just almost like a secret society that's Judeo in origins.
	100%, right?
	I think actually, I'll even go further.
	I think that the Tectons in the Gospels and Josephus probably were the original, were at that point a secret society.
	It is a secret society that's even not kind of in overt appearance to Jews.
	It's absolutely secret, but the Romans broke into it.
	The Romans, I think their torture techniques were good and they got all the way.
	That's why Jesus dies at 33.
	They have a lot of what becomes Masonic elements.
	So, of course, it's post-hoc.
	So the Masons could have changed their thing based on what the Gospel is.
	Who knows?
	Well, Kabbalah has a lot of associations with Gnosticism as well.
	So it does.
	It does indeed.
	Okay, we've got a few super chats here.
	I want to get to you before the supporters, before I have to let you go.
	I've got maybe 10 more minutes with you.
	Thank you.
	And I'm sorry if I've been kind of too chatty.
	I should have let you talk more.
	No, we'll have to do it again because we got more to talk about.
	I really enjoyed this.
	And I really like the tough kind of line of questioning.
	It's great.
	Wonderful.
	Well, these are just the questions I have and what I would want to ask you.
	And what I think.
	You per Grouper, appreciate all the support, buddy.
	He says, thanks for getting Joe on.
	Caesar's Messiah was a great listen.
	He also says, I think I remember Joe mentioning that he thought the second coming of Christ already happened.
	Can he elaborate?
	Well, he believes the second coming was Titus, right?
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	Almost like a preterist view in Christianity in a way.
	Yeah, it's fascinating, isn't it?
	The Preterist view, which has been the dominant theological Christian position on the Gospels scholarship anyway, is pretty much like Caesar's Messiah.
	It says, yeah, it says that it doesn't quite have an explanation as to how that comes about, but that Jesus is looking forward to the Roman war and that the Son of Man is probably the Roman Caesar.
	That's when he comes back.
	I'm just going to give one little bonbon.
	This wasn't in Caesar's Messiah, but I want to just throw this to you because I think you'll find it amusing.
	The war, Jesus's ministry is wired totally into the war.
	And this is easy, but when you realize he's the Passover lamb of the new covenant, because he dies at 33 Passover.
	And then, of course, because they're doing a typologic mirror of the old covenant, where you have the 40 years of wandering after the first Passover lamb was sacrificed, in the Gospels and Josephus, the Roman war ends at 73 Passover.
	So it's a perfect mirror of the old covenant.
	You have the 40 years.
	And what happens is that Rome now owns the promised land.
	This was the new covenant, whereas Rome took complete control over Israel.
	And they had the new covenant between.
	So it's, again, it's not a Jewish position in my mind.
	It's the patrician family using Jewish prophecies to give a divine veneer.
	Jesus is the Passover Lamb, and he's also the Yom Kippur scapegoat.
	And when you get into Christopher John Bjorkness's research about Kabbalah and Yom Kippur, you see that the Jews believe that they give a scapegoat which represents Esau and also represents Jesus in a way.
	And this is what they use to subjugate the Gentile world in essence.
	And you almost, the Jewish deception behind Christianity is kind of revealed in some aspects of the oral law like that.
	I'll send you a link to get deeper into that or something.
	This is far-fetched.
	I think that the Christian Zionist movement is perverse and basically it is destructive to Gentiles.
	And I think Zionism is just in general intolerable because it justifies the genocide of the Palestinian people.
	I see Zionism as just a manifestation of Judaism.
	And I see Judaism as those things as well.
	Supremacist, genocidal, anti-Gentile, all of those things.
	Yeah, I mean, certainly that's Deuteronomy.
	You know, I'll tell you that it's an interesting thing, though.
	I'll mention something that is kind of a good counterpoint.
	Zionism actually wasn't a Jewish project, though many people believe that it was.
	I disagree.
	Because even if it's a Christian project or a Freemason project, that still ultimately stems from the Torah in Judah.
	No, no, no, no doubt.
	But let me just hear me out.
	So what happens is in 1840, Lord Palmerston, who had been the prime minister of Britain and whose family was a political Freemason powerhouse, he and his father-in-law started making the statements that now is the time for the Jews to return to the Holy Land.
	And that from that moment on, from 1840, up to the time they hired Hersel, they hired him.
	It was always a Masonic project, tip to stern.
	And they were the ones who actually worked to create the understanding of where the Holy Land was.
	They had all these surveys.
	Well, that's in the Bible.
	It was all funded by the Freemasons to get this understanding of the Holy Land.
	They bought the Suez Canal.
	They put British troops in Syria.
	They were preparing to take control over this land.
	That's why they needed World War I was to break up the Ottoman Empire because the king wouldn't sell the Temple Mount to the Rothschilds.
	That was part of it.
	But anyway, there was a problem, though.
	And the problem was Reform Judaism.
	You have guys like Abraham Geiger, who was a rabbi.
	He was writing about how, well, Judaism should be a light to all humanity.
	And he was totally opposed to Zionism.
	And there was so much opposition that the Zionist movement was really stymied for about 34 years while the Freemasons hired, proselytized.
	They got people paid to go into these communities and start to break them up.
	And they destroyed Reform Judaism, which was a different perspective completely on the literature and on what Judaism could be.
	They were the evil assimilators that weren't following the Torah, according to the ultra-Zionists.
	That was how they eventually became characterized when there was this ascendancy of what I call Freemason Judaism, which then started to define Judaism as far as Zionism.
	But Zionism was inside of the Freemasonries.
	That was where Zionism was residing.
	There was always a nascent Zionism inside of Jews, but it wasn't a political force.
	Zionism would have never happened without Christianity.
	I'll give you that.
	Without the Masons, without the Masons funding it, financing it, and creating the theology for the Jews regarding it, I mean, when Herschel, Well, not all of them.
	Remember, they're not one faction group.
	I would just suggest study Reformed Judaism, particularly in the 19th century, to see how...
	I'm familiar.
	Even ultra-Orthodox were anti-Zionist at times.
	But they always wanted the ultimate redemption in return, though.
	They just believed their Moshiach had to come and then lead them back.
	They were still Zionist.
	And also, the Jews have wanted to go back to their holy land ever since they were exiled.
	They always do the prayer three times a day next year in Jerusalem and obsessed with rebuilding the temple.
	What I would say is study the Reform Judaism as anti-Zionist because they were, you know, the description you have is a kind of a folkloric individual, you know, with like, you know, very, I mean, I would just say intellectually primitive ideas concerning the world.
	But Reform Judaism had more broadly sort of open intellectuals.
	They were more coming from some of the best parts of the Reformation.
	And they really had, at least in their literature, an anti, not just anti-Zionism, but a vision of humanity that's kind of, you know, kind of overarching and that there wasn't the racism, you know, that is in Zionist Judaism.
	So they were, then they were, that religion was destroyed.
	It was absolutely wiped out.
	And in the replace, we have now the Judaism we have, which still has elements of Reform Judaism.
	I mean, you have this, you know, kind of, there's always this tension, you know, inside of Judaism between the liberals and the Orthodox.
	But it's, it obviously the Zionists have won and they're in a sense, they're in political and financial ascendancy, and they are the power in the world that.
	And I feel like they get the power from Christianity.
	That's what makes me think that they didn't just hijack it in modern days, but it was always set up as a Trojan horse and as a history, which is the first century is the son of man is Caesar.
	Well, again, like I said, I can concede that that's what they were alluding to because that's who destroyed the temple.
	That doesn't mean that it was their motive and their agenda.
	And they always use the restoration of the land of Israel and the redemption, the return of the Jews, making a league to the Holy Land.
	This was dependent upon Christian, philosophic Christians that wanted to fulfill prophecy and anti-Semitic Christians.
	The persecution pushed them back towards the Holy Land.
	I think that's kind of post-talk because they all called for it before World War II.
	Hear me out.
	They wanted an anti-Semitic movement to put them right back on the right track.
	I understand what you're saying, but just hear me out.
	When they were completely banned from being in Israel, this would have been the Roman patrician class making that decision.
	And so the idea of this Roman patrician literature with which Christianity comes from, the Gospels, was designed to bring the Jews back.
	I mean, this period, from the Roman, the first war in the first century up to Bar Kokhba, this was an absolute genocidal bloodbath, which ends up with the Jews being kicked out of Israel.
	So I think that's really the context that the creation of the Gospels and also the beginnings of Christianity as an organized religion.
	That's the context that I think is more coherent.
	And then, of course, when you get into the feudal system, well, Jews aren't in Europe at this point, or they're not any kind of political or religious power.
	The Christian world believing that the Jews were once chosen elevates them to a divine status in the world.
	And it makes Christian belief makes Jews believe that they are chosen and that their religion is real.
	It reinforces their beliefs.
	They're like two peas in a pod, like an antithesis paradigm of controlled opposition.
	That's how I see it.
	This wasn't why the literature is created.
	This is after the fact.
	This is post-hoc where the religion now has been turned against itself.
	And this wasn't what was going on in the Middle Ages.
	If you have like, you know, I mean, examples of that, like, you know, between up to like before the Reformation, I'd love to see them.
	Examples of what exactly?
	I read a book when a Jew Rules the World, written by a Christian Zionist, and he has quotes from as early as the 1500s, many in the 1800s of Christians and Messianic Jewish Christians talking about we need to fulfill the prophecy, return the Jews to the Holy Land, then Jesus will come.
	This is the promise.
	Return them to the Holy Land, help them take over the world, and Jesus will come.
	That sounds like a Jewish con to me right there.
	Absolutely.
	This is post-hoc, though.
	What you're looking at then is the is from Palmerston on.
	When Palmerston made his declaration of now is the time for the Jews to return to the Holy Land, man, that was news to the Jews.
	There really was no Jewish.
	How do you know it wasn't Jews in his ear telling him to say that or influencing him?
	Actually, what I would say, Adam, is what is Palmerston's background?
	Because they've always wanted revenge and they've always wanted their land back.
	Now, but bear in mind, this is Freemasonry.
	It's not Christianity.
	So Palmerston is a Mason.
	And the question is, what is Freemasonry?
	To me, it's not so much what is.
	It's Kabbalah Judaism.
	Yeah, Gentiles.
	Freemasonry and the 19th century, why did it decide to get rid of Reformed Judaism?
	Why has it always had this desire to create a third temple?
	these things, these are questions that have to be answered.
	And I think that, you know, the idea of like this kind of very buried plot, you know, and particularly in the first century I think it's hidden in place sight.
	I'm going to do a video soon going into all the verses from Paul.
	Like this is the whole agenda was to basically use fear of going to hell to subjugate the Gentiles.
	Yeah, I mean, and that's, but, but who's, but who benefited from this in the Middle Ages?
	Well, the Jews have always, but this has been a deception on the masses of Jews as well, I believe, and they've suffered greatly because of this.
	But even in their prophecy, even if some suffering, the overall Jewish, Jewishness now today is like more powerful than ever.
	So I see that I don't see that happening as a coincidence.
	Yeah, neither do I, but I don't think it falls out of the, you know, what was created as literature in the first century necessarily.
	I just think that this, it just seems far-fetched.
	I think that Freemasonry, though, as a hidden crypto-Jewish source of power and then a way to interpret the gospels as they want the literature to be understood, I think that that links up to your ideas very perfectly.
	But I don't think that the, you know, the original patrician class, it just seems that the history seems to contradict this idea.
	And it's really more, you know, once we get into the 18th and 19th century and Masonry starts to come to power at the same time, of course, where Judaism and Jews start having political and financial power.
	I mean, these are the, you know, this is what I think needs to be studied.
	And I don't think it ends up in a different place because I think ultimately you get to the point of realizing that Christianity is currently being used as a pawn by the Zionists.
	And that has to be exposed.
	I mean, it's.
	Do you see how anti-Semitic Christianity today benefits Judaism?
	Well, anti-Semitism always benefits the Jews because they're able to use this as the basis for their claims of being persecuted.
	And, you know, so therefore that it's all right for them to, you know, to Christianity in a way protects opinions and to have undemocratic powers inside of European countries.
	I think Christianity's controlled opposition to Judaism because you can't ever defeat craziness with more craziness.
	And really, Christianity, in essence, has been immoral and it makes us lose our moral high ground and cast them as the victims.
	And now we're not allowed to criticize anything that they do in any of their Zionist agenda.
	Yeah, that's correct.
	Yeah.
	Okay, a couple more super chats here and I'll let you go.
	Less than five minutes and I appreciate your time.
	Special thanks to Duvid and his friend Church of Entropy, I believe, who helped set this up finally.
	All right.
	Albert says, greetings, earthlings.
	This was a banging.
	Got to keep Joe in the rotation.
	AR Broadcasting says, read the Middle Ages Revisited and the worship of Augustus by Alexander Delmar.
	It helps Adam's argument in many ways, in my opinion.
	Albert again says, hey, guys, let's get Adam over 100 in tips.
	Didn't quite make it.
	Sun in Red.
	Mr. Atwell, are you and Ralph Ellis going to chat ever?
	I'd love to.
	I see people in the comments everywhere talking about this Ralph Ellis guy.
	Are you familiar with him?
	Yeah, I talked to Ralph.
	We have exchanges quite often or not quite.
	We've had a number of exchanges, sure.
	And what does he believe?
	Jesus is like the king of Odessa or some Egyptian or something.
	I mean, Ralph's theory is complicated.
	I really wouldn't be, I think, to be able to do it justice.
	But I think just as a broad stroke, he thinks the gospels sort of reveal a history in conjunction with Josephus about Jesus being a real person who existed in another area.
	And then the whole story got moved into Judea.
	That's plausible because, you know, the Talmud talks about Jesus' like 100 years before and after the supposed Jesus.
	Yeah, I mean, the problem is, it's like these things are so semantical.
	You know, it's like Jesus, you know, I mean, obviously there were Christs, there were messiahs during this period.
	And then people can say, well, the story comes from someplace else, and then it's trans-Morgified and embellished.
	And then you end up with the Gospels.
	Well, this reminds me of the question concerning Donald Duck.
	You know, I mean, the guy who created him had a person who lived next to him had a duck named Donald.
	So is Donald Duck historical character that was embellished or is it a fictional character that has historical elements?
	And as far as I'm concerned, these are, you know, is Jesus a historical character?
	It's really an irrelevant question.
	It can't be answered.
	And so why bother with it?
	I think it's whole cloth fictional, completely derived from Old Testament and blended with pagan myths.
	But this is right.
	And that's exactly the right thrust to use it.
	Is that we have the literature and the literature is a fictional genre.
	It is typology.
	It's all the stories of propaganda, really.
	Well, it becomes propaganda, but the story.
	Social engineering and propaganda.
	The stories of psychological operations.
	Sorry to interrupt again, but this is the term that you liked as well.
	Other places.
	They aren't historical stories.
	So this means that the literature is fictional literature.
	And hopefully that fact, which is, I think, with Caesar Messiah is now transparent, can be useful for Christians to break the spell, the mind control, so that they can move into a better understanding of history and a more kind of clear-mindedness as to how to get themselves out of the problems that we face right now.
	Okay, a couple more super chats.
	EA Abel says it is never a good measure to be well adjusted to a pill pull world.
	That's funny.
	I agree.
	Dan Bigfoot, what's up?
	He says, how would wartime propaganda backfire on Romans Who didn't believe in the Jewish Messiah in the first place?
	They came across other native religions and didn't believe them.
	So why Christianity?
	And I would add, they just conquered and smashed the Jews.
	Why would they go to this elaborate plot to help that would ultimately replace their gods with the worship of the Jewish God?
	I see that as a theological conquering of the Gentile world.
	Right.
	I mean, the reason that they created the literature was to create the character of the Son of Man.
	They wanted to absorb all of the Jewish prophecies for themselves, and then they would be the living God.
	I mean, remember, this is the era of the imperial cult.
	If you travel around Rome, all you see are these examples of...
	And the New Testament teaches that the only God to be worshipped is Yahweh.
	Well, the New Testament looks to an individual named the Son of Man, who is going to come and this is the character Jesus Christ, who has all of these prophecies that he has fulfilled and are flowing through him.
	And he is giving the imprimatur to this individual who's coming in the future.
	Now, he doesn't name him, but this can be understood through a little bit of deductive reasoning.
	And therefore, that is the primary individual that the literature is creating worship around.
	The thing about Christianity is that you're really worshiping Caesar without knowing it.
	Caesar just uses another name.
	That could be one of the characters, but I see it as worshiping the suffering servant.
	That's what all the Old Testament prophecies say.
	The Son of Man is not a suffering servant, Adam.
	He smashes everybody.
	But Jesus was the people aren't worshiping the Son of Man.
	They're not worshiping Titus.
	They're worshiping Jesus.
	And people have thought that Jesus is the primary character.
	But you need to read the analysis in Caesar Messiah, and you'll see that the Son of Man is in fact Titus.
	It doesn't seem like Jesus is referring to himself when he references the Son of Man.
	No, he does not.
	Obviously not because he's seeing someone who's coming in 40 years and it's not him.
	He's going to die currently, very presently.
	So I want to give you an example of how the Caesars saw themselves in relationship to the Gospels.
	Now, Constantine, who's really the most important political person in the history of Christianity, because he makes, he begins the process to make it the state religion.
	I doubt very much that Christianity would have gone anywhere if it didn't have the military power of the Roman state in back of it, if it hadn't been chosen to be the mind control device of the feudal system they were going to set up.
	So Constantine, he is really critical to it.
	In his crypt, he got the relics of all of the 12 apostles.
	They were available at this time.
	How he got them, who knows?
	I don't even believe there was a 12 apostles.
	Of course not.
	It's all just ludicrous, but it doesn't matter.
	It's the message he's making with them.
	He arranged them in a circle.
	He arranged these relics in the circle, and then he puts his coffin right in the middle.
	So this is his representation as to who is being worshipped.
	It's the Caesar, you see.
	So that was how they saw it then.
	Now, as you come through time, then you start to get, you know, the origin and the purpose of the religion is left behind.
	And eventually you get to the point where the Christians can become Zionists, which is completely illogical to the literature, which of course, as you point out, has an anti-Semitic tone to it.
	But nevertheless, it is what happens.
	And all of these, as you say, you can make arcane connections and logic out of the gospels to then, you know, create this force of Christian Zionism.
	There's like contradictory verses where you could be anti-Semitic or you can interpret everything to be phylo-Semitic.
	That's the problem.
	That's the thing with the eye of the beholder.
	It's almost always that you're almost always able to do that.
	So, you know, after the fact, after the usage of Christianity in the Middle Ages, then you have the Reformation.
	The Holy Roman Empire disintegrates.
	The Caesars, the power that the Caesar families had, starts to fade.
	And now you start having another force come in and it takes over the religion and it starts to interpret it in the way it wants.
	And you end up with Christian Zionism, which is ironic, but happened.
	And now we have this mess because of it.
	Now the prophecies and the divinity of Jesus are all being argue that all Christian Christianity is Zionist in nature because they believe in the prophecies of Zion.
	They're essentially Judaized, nonetheless.
	Yeah, but see, this position contradicts the text.
	The text has all of the destruction of the Jews that are going to occur in 40 years, total bloodbath, that these things are being foreseen by Jesus.
	And he actually sees that there's this holy person who's going to basically be the individual associated with all this stuff.
	I mean, after the fact and, you know, all of these prophecies can be twisted, the suffering servant and all of these things, yeah, you can see them in the ways that Christians Not all Jews believed that it would be a military, victorious, conquering Messiah.
	They also had the suffering Messiah archetype as well.
	Yeah, of course.
	But I would just say, you know, read the passages in the gospel that describe the events that are associated with the Son of Man, and you can see, you know, what the position of the authors was.
	I'm not even familiar with what the counter argument would be to the Son of Man stuff you're talking about.
	So I'll have to dig into that.
	Yeah, dig in.
	I also would say, you know, if you're, you know, particularly if you have trouble sleeping, you can read Caesar's Messiah.
	And, you know, you don't have to read all the analysis, but just the, if you want to just get the gist, the Flavian signature is the easiest chapter.
	You're on Audible, right?
	Yeah, it's on Audible, but on Audible.
	I'll get that as my next Audible.
	And I'll send you a few links too, so I can fill you in a little bit more on where I'm coming from.
	All right.
	Well, Joe, I really appreciated this talk, your time.
	This was a great discussion for me.
	I am looking forward to getting all your links and doing some research.
	Awesome.
	Yeah, we had we're up to 640 people now, which is one of my one of my best live counts in a while.
	So they definitely showed up for you in the talk.
	We're a thousand, yeah.
	Yeah, that's that's awesome.
	Uh, why don't you plug?
	You have a podcast, any new books, anything, websites where people can find you and learn more?
	You know, um, if people are interested, uh, they can go to CaesarMessiah.com.
	I have two books.
	One is on an interpretation of the gospels, basically the Gnostic Gospels.
	And the other book is called Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, where I go into Paul, a book of Revelation, and also I give a new sort of interpretation of the Shakespearean literature.
	And I think you might find that kind of interesting, Adam.
	If, again, you know, if you're having trouble sleeping, I would recommend these books.
	Anyway, and if you're troublesome speaking, I know I'm wrapping up.
	This would be great to come back and have a follow-up on this.
	You got to get to get Skype so I can share some video with you because I got video of Kabbalah Jews saying that Peter was a secret, a secret rabbi that basically is a double agent working for them.
	Messianic Jews say similar things about Jesus as well.
	I want to share all that with you next time.
	These kinds of rumors and positions exist.
	I mean, because the gospels are such poor history, they permit almost every kind of fantasy and conjecture that anyone wants to have about them.
	Oh, yeah.
	There's a million different interpretations and explanations for what Jesus is.
	And really, a lot of the academic, the Bart Ehrmans, they dismiss the idea that it's even a myth.
	They think it's a historical thing.
	So we got our work cut out for us.
	We got a lot of common ground.
	We both know that it's a contrived psyop.
	It's opiate for the masses.
	Thank you, Joe.
	All his links will be down below.
	All right.
	We'll do it again.
	This was fun.
	I really enjoyed it.
	I did as well.
	Thank you so much.
	Thanks for having me on.
	I appreciate it, Adam.
	Thanks for Coming on, I'll talk to you soon.
	Bye-bye.
	Okay, bye.
	Oops.
	What?
	Let's get rid of the intro.
	All right, that was a fun talk.
	Basically, I got to everything that I wanted to get into.
	I enjoyed the discussion.
	I'll have to look into a little bit more to see if I have a good rebuttal to his son of man thing, but quite frankly, I conceded it.
	You can't, I mean, we know that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple and that they're referring to these events and that Luke and Acts copied from Josephus.
	So all of it kind of goes together with exactly what I've been saying.
	Appreciate so much, everybody, coming out tonight.
	Over 600 people, over $100 in super chats.
	You guys are awesome.
	I really enjoyed the talk.
	Like, share, subscribe.
	This will be on BitChute and Odyssey.
	Subscribe on Odyssey so you can comment and watch an HD.
	Support the channel, no morenews.org.
	All the links are below.
	Subscribestar, a couple dollars a month helps keep me going to keep the lights on and keep these videos coming.
	I got a debate tomorrow on Killstream with Classical Theist talking about Christianity.
	He's a Catholic.
	And then on the 30th, which is a Sunday, I have Dr. Richard Carrier talking about the Jesus myth.
	Once again, will be another good conversation you guys won't want to miss.
	So thank you all so much for watching.
	You guys are the best.
	Help help me share this video.
	And I will see you guys all again very soon.

▲