Caesar's Messiah

[vanlose kid]

PS: there I go spoiling the party again.

Right, I'm out of here.
Can someone in power please be so kind as to delete this account. Thanks.

*

[Morty]

PS: there I go spoiling the party again.

Right, I'm out of here.
Can someone in power please be so kind as to delete this account. Thanks.

*

I imagine the goal of this thread is to find out if there's any baby, or if it's all bathwater. So have a conniption, by all means, but come back and help us sort through this stuff if you feel that strongly about it.

Or alternatively, if you feel so strongly about it, maybe don't come back and help us sort through it, but that's no reason to ditch RI altogether, for cryin' out loud, is it?

[Morty]

You fail to mention that Bassano was, by some accounts, the mistress of Christopher Marlow, so that this particular theory is just a variation on the "Marlow wrote it" theory. I should also point out that Marlow died in 1593, so that to even suggest that Marlow had anything to do with it requires an incredibly complex conspiratorial web of monstrous proportions. In some sense, the Bassano theory is an attempt to bring the Marlow theory back into the realm of believable reality.

Atwill thinks Bassano and Marlowe were lovers, and further, he thinks Marlowe had figured out the secret of the Flavian hand behind Christianity, and was killed after showing every intention of revealing the secret to the world. He thinks Bassano, knowing why Marlowe was killed, but being powerless to do anything about it, recorded the secret of the Flavian role in the creation of Christianity in Shakespeare's works, so that those who had some clue about it could see it. Just as the Caesars left enough clues in the Gospels and Josephus’ history for those coming later to figure out the truth, Bassano left a hidden code in Shakespeare’s works.

That's what Atwill thinks. I'd like to know what other people think, especially those who have read Atwill. I find a lot of the associations he makes to be tenuous at best, but I’m no bible or Shakespeare scholar. On the other hand, there are some big-picture, broad-brushstroke circumstances that Atwill brings to our attention that make his theories seem like the common sense explanation.

[justdrew]

PS: there I go spoiling the party again.

Right, I'm out of here.
Can someone in power please be so kind as to delete this account. Thanks.

*

oh come on, you're post is essential angle on this, thanks. It's looking to me more and more like the entire edifice of 'conspiracy culture' is a long running nazi psiop.

[82_28]

PS: there I go spoiling the party again.

Right, I'm out of here.
Can someone in power please be so kind as to delete this account. Thanks.

*

Good christ almighty. Even though I'm basically the last one here along with the usual suspects, Jesus fuck do I not understand this. What the fuck pissed you off so much? I've read it and really don't get it.

[82_28]

PS: there I go spoiling the party again.

Right, I'm out of here.
Can someone in power please be so kind as to delete this account. Thanks.

*

oh come on, you're post is essential angle on this, thanks. It's looking to me more and more like the entire edifice of 'conspiracy culture' is a long running nazi psiop.

OK. That's it. Bye.

[justdrew]

well, I'm 'pivoting' away from a LOT of shit I used to give the benefit of the doubt. the Red Ice people need to do a little soul searching about what they're doing I think.

[82_28]

I never trusted the "red ice people". Nothing about them makes sense. As soon as I saw red ice I didn't trust it as far as I could throw that shit -- it had all that janky graphic shit that was at one point impressive as far as taking your computer screen seriously. Certainly, they offer something interesting to think about. What they don't get is that, they are the interest. You reap what you sow. I reap nothing and prefer to sow in a confounding way in which confuses the fuck out of the confusers. We're having "go arounds" with people who take us way too seriously when in fact we're actually totally a serious joke. The joke is on "them". We try to be honest about the fact that we are here to confuse.

The winner wins nothing as being a winner is impossible. We're just playing the game. Game be clickbait.

[Occult Means Hidden]

[quote="Ben D » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:31 pm

Jews who practice Judaism naturally do not believe in the Christ, Jews who practice Christianity naturally believe in Christ....this was true in the 1st century AD and is true today. Also, it would be safe to say that there are many Christians in the world today who are not aware of their linage who would be descendents of the early Jewish Christians.

As an aside...there are many Palestinian Muslims today who are not aware of their linage who would be descendents of early Jewish Christians and Jewish adherents of Judaism.[/quote]


I get what you are saying but I feel that this is not likely. The reason why is because there is clearly zero continuous linkage of Christianity and Hebrew or even Aramaic. There is very very little continuation of many of the Hebrew rites and traditions in Christianity. There would have been a greater geographic embrace of what is current Israel, as their tradition would have had as high important to living in Israel as the Jews of today. There would have been a community of Christians of a much larger scale than that believed to have been the community at Qumram. There would have been recognition of this Judaic ideological split by Jewish scholars that the Christians were not only formally Jewish themselves but that the split would have been documented. Instead history (and Jewish scholarship) seems to introduce Christianity into the middle east as sort of an injection, not a natural documented progression splitting from existing beliefs (The Sunni and Shia split is well understood).

What you are saying is the Hebraic Christians would have lost the interest in return to Israel, largely preferring Europe, lost the connection to the language, lost a vast majority of the Jewish tradition, lost any record of the emerging and active ideological split and generally gained a more pale complexion just by converting to Christianity. Why don't we see one example of a community of Christians with holdover from a Jewish past in Europe like the Yiddish to the Jews? Can anyone identify such a group in Europe that I am overlooking?

And this isn't a case of being persecuted out of existence. If the Jews were able to survive, the Hebraic Christians would have as well in Europe.

[Sounder]

PS: there I go spoiling the party again.

Right, I'm out of here.
Can someone in power please be so kind as to delete this account. Thanks.

Are you one of those people that can't stand to have a lot of other people agree with you?

[Ben D]

[quote="Ben D » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:31 pm

Jews who practice Judaism naturally do not believe in the Christ, Jews who practice Christianity naturally believe in Christ....this was true in the 1st century AD and is true today. Also, it would be safe to say that there are many Christians in the world today who are not aware of their linage who would be descendents of the early Jewish Christians.

As an aside...there are many Palestinian Muslims today who are not aware of their linage who would be descendents of early Jewish Christians and Jewish adherents of Judaism.

I get what you are saying but I feel that this is not likely. The reason why is because there is clearly zero continuous linkage of Christianity and Hebrew or even Aramaic. There is very very little continuation of many of the Hebrew rites and traditions in Christianity. There would have been a greater geographic embrace of what is current Israel, as their tradition would have had as high important to living in Israel as the Jews of today. There would have been a community of Christians of a much larger scale than that believed to have been the community at Qumram. There would have been recognition of this Judaic ideological split by Jewish scholars that the Christians were not only formally Jewish themselves but that the split would have been documented. Instead history (and Jewish scholarship) seems to introduce Christianity into the middle east as sort of an injection, not a natural documented progression splitting from existing beliefs (The Sunni and Shia split is well understood).

What you are saying is the Hebraic Christians would have lost the interest in return to Israel, largely preferring Europe, lost the connection to the language, lost a vast majority of the Jewish tradition, lost any record of the emerging and active ideological split and generally gained a more pale complexion just by converting to Christianity. Why don't we see one example of a community of Christians with holdover from a Jewish past in Europe like the Yiddish to the Jews? Can anyone identify such a group in Europe that I am overlooking?

And this isn't a case of being persecuted out of existence. If the Jews were able to survive, the Hebraic Christians would have as well in Europe.

The Hebraic Christians did survive...as Christians, not as a race...Christianity is not a racial thing so intermarriage with Europeans, North Africans, Egyptians and the other ME Arab Semites over 2000 years would mean the descendents have no specific knowledge as to their Jewish ancestors....or not.

The same thing for the present day Palestinians whose Jewish ancestors adopted the Islamic religious and cultural tradition over the last 1400 years,......they have no recorded linage to prove their Jewishness racial wise, nor would it be relevant to them as Islam is not based on race.....but many would be more racially aligned to the Jewish bloodline than many European Jews who have returned after 2000 plus years.

Jewishness involves bloodline, and thus is adhered to by Jews, whereas Christianity and Islam does not deal in race. Judaism discriminates against non-jews so far as participation in Judaism goes, no other religion I know of does this. I'm not implying that Jewish exclusivity wrt their religion is wrong...just that it is different and one can't reasonably compare apples and oranges.

[Occult Means Hidden]

Ben, I think we are talking from different angles. I'm talking about the European experience which is overwhelmingly Caucasian and overwhelmingly Christian. I know you state that Judaism is unique in that it involves bloodlines while Christianity does not. Many think Judaism is unique for opposite reasons. I think for the timeframe that I'm identifying here between 30AD and 1500AD, Christianity can certainly be identified primarily with one race, Caucasians (with minor and small exceptions in Syria, Turkey and Egypt of course). It is possible for people to forget their lineage, but far less likely whole communities forgot their lineage - in Europe.

[Lord Balto]

Has anyone ever stopped and thought to themselves why an entire continent of the European Caucasian persuasion were so apt at Christian conversion when

A.) Their ancestors did not witness Jesus or his miracles
B.) Not only were they not contemporary witnesses, but they majorly were converts from purely second hand sources long after the fact.
C.) Those Palestine/Canaan/Israel spoke a different language
D.) The semitic historical perspective was completely incompatible and foreign to pre-Christian Europe in every way
E.) The Christian origin was from a different ethnic background.
F.) The Christian origin was from a geographic area fully removed from Europe.

Yet, places like Ireland were some of the earliest adopters of the Christian creed. Why? Could it be because those creeds were already existent locally? It is well documented the extent to which the Catholic church incorporated mythologies via saints.

There does seem to be some sense to speculate that Christ is a Roman invention to subdue Israelis. But I suspect it is more of an attempt to unify the Roman expanse while hiding sensitive pieces of historical information.

The unification portion may have sought to unify a resurrection cult, a goddess cult and a saturnian father cult. The minor myths themselves can be brought into the fold by making their prime figure as canonized saintly allegory. I'm sure much of the old strands were destroyed along with the Cathars. The goddess cult was widespread and repressed then transform into the mother of God. The resurrection cult was a Dionysian and Mithraic creed. Further unification brought together sun worship themes that were strongest, I suspect, in present-day UK (and other places). Furthermore I really suspect an Egyptian angle to this deception that has been kept hidden. It's interesting to know as well that there are parallels between old Gaelic and Hebrew. http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive ... 105nn.html

I mean, you can't have religion without Re.

It was easy to sell the idea of Christianity to Europeans because they had heard these stories before?

Additionally it is interesting that the Israelis/Hebrews who have the greatest in common with Jesus, spoke the same language, from the same geographic area and ethnicity and would have talked to and witnessed Jesus' miracles in the thousands as contemporaries. The same people for whom he died against their repressors and the people who would have witnessed the end and resurrection of his life - they all - all of them - deny the Christian creed when they self identify as Jewish.

Excellent post! And I have to agree with 95% of it. Just two points:

1) In my chronological studies, it appears that the avatar ("messiah") of the first A.D. century was John the Baptist, whoever he may have actually been. Not only was there a parallel John religion during the first two A.D. centuries that finally lost out to Christianity, but the Cathars/Templars worshipped, at least according to their detractors, a head on a post--clearly a reference to John.

2) The Re/Ra religion existed not only in Egypt but on Egyptian occupied Crete. This is clear from my recent decryption of the king list on the Phaistos Disc: http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterFourteen.htm. Many of the early kings on this list have names that end in --Qore, a variation of the Egyptian Kare, the physical sun. Crete is located between Europe, Africa, and Asia, with trading ties to all three. They manufactured honey candy that was consumed throughout the shores of the Mediterranean. The island was actually long called Candia. As Robert Graves wrote:

Q’re sounds Cretan. The Carians, Lydians and Mysians, who were of Cretan stock, had a common shrine of Zeus Carios at Mylassa in Caria, a god whom their cousins the Tyrrhenians took to Italy as Karu, and who is also Carys, the founder of Megara.

So Qore was already on the mainland of Europe long before the rise of Christianity.

I should also point out that the Christian biblical story is placed in Judea, as many fictional stories are placed in various places. This really says very little about where it was written.

[Lord Balto]

You fail to mention that Bassano was, by some accounts, the mistress of Christopher Marlow, so that this particular theory is just a variation on the "Marlow wrote it" theory. I should also point out that Marlow died in 1593, so that to even suggest that Marlow had anything to do with it requires an incredibly complex conspiratorial web of monstrous proportions. In some sense, the Bassano theory is an attempt to bring the Marlow theory back into the realm of believable reality.

Atwill thinks Bassano and Marlowe were lovers, and further, he thinks Marlowe had figured out the secret of the Flavian hand behind Christianity, and was killed after showing every intention of revealing the secret to the world. He thinks Bassano, knowing why Marlowe was killed, but being powerless to do anything about it, recorded the secret of the Flavian role in the creation of Christianity in Shakespeare's works, so that those who had some clue about it could see it. Just as the Caesars left enough clues in the Gospels and Josephus’ history for those coming later to figure out the truth, Bassano left a hidden code in Shakespeare’s works.

That's what Atwill thinks. I'd like to know what other people think, especially those who have read Atwill. I find a lot of the associations he makes to be tenuous at best, but I’m no bible or Shakespeare scholar. On the other hand, there are some big-picture, broad-brushstroke circumstances that Atwill brings to our attention that make his theories seem like the common sense explanation.

I too am no Shakespeare scholar, though I have become a bit of a biblical scholar in the process of developing my theory of cyclical cometary near collisions with the earth. Just surfing around a bit, I noticed that it has been suggested that Bassano was a lover, not of Marlow, but of Shakespeare himself, which could explain how a talented but uneducated genius could have produced the body of work that he did. No one is saying--certainly not I--that Shakespeare had no help. I am reminded of the great painters of a bygone era that had other painters in their workshops painting in the backgrounds of those compositions on which they placed their own signatures. What I personally am saying is that Shakespeare most likely wrote the plays, but may have had help with translations, quotations, history, and the like, from others.

[Lord Balto]

Worth noting that there were near-daily crucifixions in Roman-occupied territories of the Middle East during the first century. The crucifixion element to the story would not have been unique or out-of-place.

Except that crucifixion was fairly widespread across a huge swathe of territory and across many centuries. For example, one of the versions of the death of Cyrus the Great has him crucified round about 528 BC. Add to this what G. A. Wells points out, that there is an earlier layer of the story that appears in parts of the Christian bible where Jesus is hanged from a tree, and the existence of crucifixion in the story ceases to have much significance.